House of Commons
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
The Government and industry are working together to accelerate the shared rural network and deliver substantial improvements to outdoor 4G mobile coverage across the UK. In the past few months, the Government have activated 13 publicly funded masts across the UK, and there are now 27 Government-funded extended area service mast upgrades delivering 4G.
Greg Smith
In my constituency, only 40, 50 and 60 miles away from this House, villages such as Cuddington are still complete mobile notspots. Will the Minister explain how quickly the Government intend to move on activating the shared rural network, to ensure no rural community is left without a reliable mobile signal?
Chris Bryant
I know about Cuddington, because the hon. Gentleman told me about it yesterday. Cuddington is such a typical English village that it has featured in “Midsomer Murders”, which is fictional—a bit like the previous Government’s financial affairs. I know we have said that the desire to please is not part of what Ministers are meant to do, but I do have a desire to please him and his constituents. The Government will work as fast as we can with industry to try to develop 4G in his constituency. I am happy to arrange for a meeting between him and my officials to ensure he has street-by-street analysis of how we can do that.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
We welcome the recent update on the expansion of 4G to rural areas under the shared rural network project, particularly for businesses and farmers who are under such pressure at the moment, with the recent Treasury announcements. Which Secretary of State should we thank for the planning approval and funding of this vital infrastructure project?
Chris Bryant
We support developing all the plans set out under the shared rural network and Project Gigabit—those plans were regularly announced by the previous Government, but they never actually put any money into the budget. There was never a line in a Department for Science, Innovation and Technology budget that said, “This money is guaranteed for the future.” We are putting our money where our mouth is and we are determined to ensure everybody has proper connectivity. Frankly, that is essential for people’s businesses, whether they are farmers or running any other kind of business, up and down the land. We will deliver that.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
We are improving digital connectivity in rural areas by rolling out 30 Project Gigabit contracts, filling in gaps that are not being met commercially, predominantly in rural areas, and delivering better 4G mobile coverage and eliminating partial notspots through the shared rural network.
Connor Naismith
A number of my constituents in the village of Haslington have been in touch with me about poor mobile signal and digital connectivity in the village. One constituent was unable to contact emergency services in the event of a medical emergency. Does the Minister agree that the lack of progress on connectivity in our rural areas under 14 years of Conservative Government is unacceptable? Will he meet me to discuss how we can improve matters for my constituents?
Chris Bryant
I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend, not necessarily at the same time as I am meeting the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), but Haslington is a bit like Cuddington: they have exactly the same set of problems. I am sure many hon. Members from across the House have similar issues in their constituencies that they have a burning desire to raise with me. I am happy to make arrangements for hon. Members to meet officials and go through issues case by case. In relation to the 999 emergency my hon. Friend referred to, I would be grateful if he could provide me with specific details. All 999 calls from mobile phones should automatically roam on to another available network if there is no signal from their own provider, so I want to get to the bottom of the issue in that case.
Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
Can I add to the Minister’s list of beautiful villages to visit the wonderful villages of Cranleigh, Shamley Green, Peaslake, Gomshall and Bramley? They are all having big problems with 4G and 5G mobile phone reception, not least because apps need to be used to pay for parking there. Can he meet me to discuss what more can be done to help those beautiful, but also economically important, places?
Chris Bryant
I am very happy to meet the right hon. Gentleman as well. I am not the Pope, but it feels like I will be having a series of audiences over the next few weeks. The right hon. Gentleman has villages, I have villages. If only he knew someone who had been the Chancellor in recent years, who would have been able to deliver the financial support that we really needed to secure the investment.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
My constituents in the village of Crowthorne will welcome the Government’s action to tackle this massive issue and support connectivity for phones and 4G in rural and semi-rural constituencies. Will the Minister have a meeting with me to discuss the issues affecting Crowthorne?
Chris Bryant
I am getting more popular day by day, which is unusual in my life. I am, of course, very happy to discuss the issues in Crowthorne.
One thing that really concerns me is that quite often, the published version of what connectivity is available in everybody’s constituency will say that there is 92%, 93% or 95% of connectivity from all four operators, but actually, if we stand there with a mobile phone, there will not be any connectivity whatsoever. I have written to Ofcom and it has written back saying, for instance, that in that precise location the coverage may be above or below the predicted level, leading some consumers to not get the service they expected. There is a phrase for that.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Organisations such as TechResort in my constituency support people who are digitally excluded to become digitally included. The Minister has a long list of meetings to go to, so instead, can the Secretary of State come along the coast to the sunniest town in the UK to visit TechResort and hear more about the funding it needs to power its work?
Chris Bryant
I am pleased to say that the Secretary of State says he will indeed visit when he possibly can.
There is a really important point here: poor digital connectivity excludes so many communities up and down this country. We have no chance of creating the economic growth that we want in this country unless we take the whole of the country with us. That is why it is so disgraceful that we have not had a proper digital inclusion strategy for 10 years. That is something we will remedy.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
Chris Bryant
Project Gigabit has always been designed to deliver gigabit-capable broadband to premises that will not be met by the market, regardless of whether they are in urban or rural areas. Most premises deemed uncommercial by the market are in rural areas, but consistent evidence suggests that we will also need to intervene in some urban areas to achieve full national gigabit coverage. Funding will continue to be provided where it is needed.
Jerome Mayhew
There are 11,500 houses that will be connected to fibre as a result of the Conservative Project Gigabit policy. There is real concern that some of those will miss out if money is redirected from rural to urban communities. After the family farm tax, can we please give rural communities a break?
Chris Bryant
The vast majority—more than 90%—of the spending in Project Gigabit has gone to rural areas because those are the areas most in need. There is absolutely no change in our policy to that. However, some urban areas have significant problems as well and we need to rectify those. The hon. Gentleman points out some of the issues in his own constituency. I am happy to provide him too with a meeting, if he wants. I see he has nodded.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Feryal Clark)
We want to boost investment in innovation and enable people in all regions of the UK to benefit from an innovation-led economy. That is why the spending review supports the UK’s research and development ambition, with total Government investment in R&D rising to a record £20.4 billion in 2025-26. That allows us to extend innovation accelerators for another year, which will continue to bolster the west midlands’ high-potential innovation clusters, fund the Midlands Industrial Ceramics Group through the Strength in Places fund, and support the region’s investment zone.
Alex Ballinger
Last month, alongside Richard Parker, the Mayor of the West Midlands, I was lucky enough to join Halesowen college as it opened its new digital and media campus at Trinity Point. Does the Minister agree that excellent institutions such as this are fundamental to supporting innovation across our region, and would she be so kind as to visit us at some point in the near future?
Feryal Clark
I agree with my hon. Friend that educational institutes are crucial to innovation. Halesowen college is one of five colleges across the region using the further education and innovation fund to support innovation and technical excellence within the local community. Such facilities and expertise will help businesses to develop a workforce with skills and take advantage of that. I would be delighted to visit the Trinity Point college if the opportunity arises.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
Increasing levels of innovation across the UK are crucial to unlocking growth and solving some of our biggest problems. That is why I was worried to read about the Secretary of State saying that we have to apply “a sense of statecraft” to working with multinational tech companies. Does the Minister agree that what we should be doing is working with such companies as companies, not states, focusing on increasing healthy competition and supporting innovative UK businesses so that they are not left with the choice of being bought up or leaving the UK?
Feryal Clark
As I have said, increasing productivity right across the UK is fundamental to our mission to kick-start economic growth. Through our industrial strategy and the development of local growth plans, we will build on local strengths to ensure that public and private research and development businesses right across the UK help local places to reach their potential. We are strengthening the relationships with businesses to deliver for British people.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Peter Kyle)
The UK is a founding member of the AI Safety Institute international network. The network convenes for the first time today in San Francisco.
Tony Vaughan
The UK is a global leader in AI development, which brings many opportunities, but we know that the risks associated with AI can be managed only by global co-operation. What steps is the Department taking to ensure that the UK works with other main leaders in AI development, including the US and China, to ensure that the most advanced frontier AI models are safe for global consumers?
Peter Kyle
My hon. Friend is completely right to say that safety has to be there from the outset. We want our country to safely explore all the opportunities that AI offers, but it can do so only if people are reassured that safety is there from the outset. The UK safety institute is at the forefront of this. It is the first safety institute, and we are at the forefront of delivering international as well as domestic safety. We are currently working on an international review of the science of AI safety, which draws on the expertise of 30 countries.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
On question number 13, Mr Speaker, may I ask the Minister what steps he will take to ensure that people who are visually impaired are able to engage—
Mr Speaker
Order. Sorry—we have not reached that question. I call the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) rightly raises the need for research into frontier AI safety, and I welcome the Government’s commitment to protecting the public from future AI risks. But AI affects all of our lives already. Today, my Committee launches an inquiry into algorithms, AI and their role in spreading online harm, as we saw in the terrible riots over the summer. As we build our evidence, how is the Minister building the evidence base on AI online harms and their social impact right now?
Peter Kyle
I am extremely grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee for choosing this as her first inquiry. It is an incredibly important area. This Government are committed to the algorithmic transparency recording standard. The previous Government reneged on their commitment to having individual Departments releasing their standard statement each year. This Government are committing to doing so again and will remain committed to reinforcing the fact that algorithms are there to serve people and not the other way round.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
There are many firms in Northern Ireland that have the capability and the experience to offer some advice on getting scientific research on AI safety. I know that the Minister is very interested in Northern Ireland, so has he had an opportunity to speak to companies in Northern Ireland so that we can play our part in how we take this matter forward?
Peter Kyle
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging my interest in Northern Ireland, which I have already visited since being appointed in order to meet some of the pioneering tech companies there. I will stay committed to ensuring that the Government recognise the talent across Northern Ireland, harnessing it for not just the domestic good but the global good.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
Unfortunately, the UK’s roll-out of 5G has been far too slow. According to Opensignal, the UK ranks 22nd out of 25 European countries for 5G download speeds and availability after 14 years of Conservative rule. We are determined to change that, aiming to have higher-quality stand-alone 5G in all populated areas by 2030.
Alex Baker
Access to 5G data is a real issue in Aldershot. According to Ofcom, a third of our households cannot connect to 5G—nearly three times the national average. What are the Government doing to give residents in Aldershot and Farnborough the same data access as the rest of the country, and will the Minister make that work a priority?
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend is right: that work has to be a priority for businesses, families and everybody engaged in her constituency, and for the public sector. We want the Ministry of Defence in her constituency, for instance, to have the highest-quality data access possible, so that we can deliver more effective and productive government across the whole United Kingdom. The work will indeed be a priority for us.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
There have been great improvements in connectivity across Ceredigion Preseli, but there remain total mobile notspots such as Porthgain, and a growing body of evidence collected locally that the connectivity reported by Ofcom does not quite stack up against the lived experience of those on the ground. Will the Minister meet me so that I can present some of the evidence collected by local authorities in Ceredigion Preseli and he can address the problem?
Chris Bryant
The hon. Gentleman has just said what I said a few minutes ago. It is great that Plaid Cymru is signing up to the Labour party’s agenda these days, but it is upsetting that he forgot to mention the seven high-quality masts extending better coverage of 4G in Wales that have been installed in the last couple of months alone. Of course I will happily meet him, and place in the Library a copy of the letter that I received from Ofcom that makes the precise point that we need to do much better in recognising the real experience of people’s mobile connectivity rather than a theoretical, ethereal version of it.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
More than 30 Project Gigabit contracts are currently in place, with a total value of almost £2 billion, and more are in the pipeline. In the past few months, the first premises have been connected as part of Project Gigabit contracts in areas including Norfolk, West Yorkshire and south Wiltshire, and the build has now started in earnest in other parts of the country.
Shaun Davies
I welcome the progress that the Government are making on the roll-out of Project Gigabit to all corners of the country, but in Telford the inequality remains stark, with some wards having complete gigabit coverage and areas such as the world heritage site in Ironbridge having almost none. Will the Government confirm that their agenda to break down barriers to opportunity includes residents, businesses and world heritage sites that cannot get online?
Chris Bryant
The world heritage aspects relate to my Department for Culture, Media and Sport responsibilities, but my hon. Friend is right about Ironbridge. I hope that we will be able to announce something shortly in relation to extending gigabit coverage in his constituency through a procurement via Openreach.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
The Minister will be aware that there is a strong link between communications technology and the roll-out of smart meter technology in areas in the north of Scotland that are suffering from cold weather. Particularly at the moment, connectivity is really important for such alternative technologies to work. What discussions has he had with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero on that issue?
Chris Bryant
The hon. Gentleman is right: there is a series of issues about the security and safety of connectivity in areas that suffer from particular weather conditions. We had a successful summit on Monday morning to discuss the closing down of the public services network to ensure that everybody will be secure, but I assure him that we will work closely with the Scottish Government to ensure that the roll-out in all such areas works in the interests of businesses, whatever the weather conditions.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Peter Kyle)
To protect people online, today I became the first Secretary of State to exercise the power to set out my strategic online safety proposals for Ofcom to consider. From increasing transparency to baking safety into social media platforms from the outset, those priorities will support Government in monitoring progress on acting where our laws are coming up short. I have also launched a new research project to explore the impact of social media on young people’s wellbeing and mental health.
Dr Cooper
Each year millions of patients in England interact with two or more different hospital trusts. Most of the trusts that commonly see the same patients do not use the same record systems. What steps is the Minister taking with Cabinet colleagues to utilise the Centre for Improving Data Collaboration and other available technology to improve data sharing across NHS hospital trusts?
Peter Kyle
What a pleasure it is to speak from the Dispatch Box to another Labour MP from Sussex.
That issue is a Department of Health and Social Care responsibility but, on its behalf, the Data (Use and Access) Bill will include a requirement that IT providers in the NHS have to meet information standards. That will deliver the interoperability needed so that data can be shared across the NHS, often for the very first time.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
On the Opposition Benches we are proud that it was the last Conservative Government who created the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. I am glad that Labour is following our agenda, and I look forward to my exchanges with the Secretary of State.
Under the last Conservative Government, Britain was home to more billion dollar tech start-ups than France and Germany combined, but last month an industry survey found that nearly 90% of tech founders would consider leaving Britain if Labour raised taxes on tech businesses. Yesterday, Labour U-turned on policy in Scotland, so today will the Secretary of State commit to reversing Labour’s jobs tax, which damages tech businesses across the entire country?
Peter Kyle
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post. We worked together on the all-party parliamentary group on the fourth industrial revolution, which he chaired, and I look forward to having a constructive relationship going forward.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the last Government. Given the way the Conservatives are going, that will have been their last Government. To be honest, the circumstances that businesses, large and small, operating in the tech landscape have asked for are a smooth regulatory process—we have already delivered regulatory reform; reform to planning—we have delivered reform to the planning system; a stable financial settlement—we have delivered that with a Budget for—
Mr Speaker
Order. Please, this is topicals. We will see a very good example from the shadow Secretary of State.
Alan Mak
I thank the Secretary of State for his kind words, but he has punished labour: figures from his own Department show that workers will be losing out by nearly £800 each per year as a result of Labour’s Budget. Will he stand up to the Chancellor and oppose any further tax rises on Britain’s hard-working tech sector?
Peter Kyle
The Budget gave a pay rise to working people in this country and set the conditions for a stable economy, fixing the black hole left in our economy by the mismanagement of the last Government.
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
Peter Kyle
Outside the classroom, the CyberFirst programme has engaged 250,000 young people across the UK. Those are the first steps; this Government will be going further.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Peter Kyle
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s question, because the first job I ever had was at the Body Shop working for Anita Roddick, and I joined her campaign against animal testing for cosmetics. She would be proud to see me at the Dispatch Box engaging in this conversation. Labour made a manifesto commitment to phase out animal testing in the long term. That is something we are committed to and something we are taking steps towards.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
Peter Kyle
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for raising one of the most serious issues of our time. The Online Safety Act 2023 requires providers, as part of their risk assessment, to consider specifically how algorithms will impact a user’s exposure to illegal content and children’s exposure to harmful content. I have introduced new measures to ensure that children are kept safe, and today I issued a statement of strategic priority to Ofcom to insist that it continues to do so in future.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
Peter Kyle
The Government are working closely with individual universities, the university sector and our intelligence community to ensure that our research is not only world class but safe and secure.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister (Angela Rayner)
I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has attended the G20 summit, strengthening the UK’s ties with major economies to drive jobs and security at home.
This week marks 1,000 days of Putin’s barbaric war in Ukraine. We will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes. This week also marks Equal Pay Day. I am extremely proud that this Government have introduced the Employment Rights Bill, strengthening the rights of working women and making work pay.
This morning, I will have meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
I recently met members of the British Association for Biological Anthropology and Osteoarchaeology, who highlighted a loophole in the Human Tissue Act 2004 allowing human remains to be auctioned, frequently disguised as modified items or replicas. Such items have included a foetal skeleton posed under a glass dome, a human thigh bone turned into a cane, a human jawbone necklace and the varnished skull of a six year old, and are often from indigenous communities in Africa and Asia, having been stolen during colonial expeditions. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that it is abhorrent for human remains, regardless of their origin or age, to be sold by auction houses and on social media sites such as Instagram, Facebook, eBay, Etsy and Gumtree, and will the Government take action to end that depraved practice?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that sensitive issue. It is absolutely horrifying to hear her account of it, and I agree that it is abhorrent. Although the Human Tissue Authority strictly regulates the public display of human remains, with fines or imprisonment for breaches, it does not cover sales or purchases. However, I will ensure that a meeting is arranged with the appropriate Minister to discuss the troubling cases that my hon. Friend raises.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I am very happy to associate myself and the official Opposition with the right hon. Lady’s remarks about Ukraine. Democracies must stand together.
What are the Government doing to bring down inflation?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I think it is astonishing that—first, may I welcome the hon. Member to his place? Many people might not know that he was the Minister with responsibility for growth when, under Liz Truss, inflation was at 11.1% and growth flatlined, so we are doing much better than he did.
Alex Burghart
Well, I thank the right hon. Lady for her standard charm. The truth is that the Government are not doing anything to bring down inflation; this Government are stoking inflation. First, we had above-inflation pay rises for the unions. Then, we had a Budget that the Office for Budget Responsibility said would increase inflation—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. [Interruption.] I am going to hear the question. I suggest that we all hear it together—then our constituents can understand the answer as well as the question.
Alex Burghart
First, we had above-inflation pay rises for the unions. Then we had a Budget that the OBR said was going to push up inflation. This morning, we had City economists—real economists—saying that next year inflation will hit 3%. Does the right hon. Lady agree that this Government’s decisions mean higher inflation for working people?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I ask the hon. Gentleman: 11.1% or 3%?
Alex Burghart
We have already talked about Ukraine. It was Ukraine and covid that drove up inflation, but this Government are doing it to the British people. High tax, high inflation, low growth, low reform—there is a word for that: it is Starmerism.
Yesterday, like many Opposition Members, I spoke to farmers from across the United Kingdom. Some of them were families who have farmed their land for centuries—elderly men in tears, children worried about their parents and all of them worried that their way of life is about to be destroyed. What would the right hon. Lady like to say to them?
The Deputy Prime Minister
First of all, we are absolutely committed to our British farmers, and—[Interruption.] That is why we have committed £5 billion to the farming budget over the next two years. That is the largest ever amount for sustainable food production in the UK, and it is alongside £60 million to support those affected by extreme wet weather and over £200 million to tackle disease outbreaks. The hon. Gentleman’s party could not even get the money out the door for farmers, failing to spend over £300 million on farming budgets. The farmers know that they were in it for themselves, and that is why we are in government and they are not.
Alex Burghart
Perhaps the right hon. Lady thinks that everyone came to London yesterday to thank the Government. Let us look at the facts. A typical mid-size, 360-acre family farm in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) have spoken to their accountant. Their new liability because of this Government is half a million pounds. That is 12 years’ worth of profit. When this generation passes away, that farm will become totally unviable, and it is just one of thousands and thousands of similar farms.
It is clear the Government have not got their facts right. The Central Association for Agricultural Valuers—the real experts in this field—say so. The National Farmers Union says so; it is shortly to publish a report showing that 75% of all commercial farms will fall above the threshold. If the Government are not going to reverse this terrible policy, will the right hon. Lady at least commit to no further increases to inheritance tax and no further reductions in agricultural property relief or business property relief in this Parliament?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman talks about the facts, and I absolutely stand by the figures that the Government have set out. The vast majority of estate owners will be totally unaffected. The hon. Gentleman wants to talk about the figures. I will be crystal clear: the vast majority of estate owners will see no change and pay no tax on land passed on that is valued at £1 million. Couples can pass on £3 million tax-free, and those above the threshold will pay only half the normal rate and can pay it over 10 years interest-free.
Alex Burghart
This is just another part of the Budget that is unravelling. Everyone here and all the farmers at home will have heard that there was no guarantee there. We know what that means: they are coming back for more. Even if the right hon. Lady had made a promise today, it would not have been worth a fig. We know that the Environment Secretary, before the election, promised the farmers that this would not happen. Labour promises get broken.
Let us put all this into context. The Treasury says that the family farms tax will raise on average £441 million a year. The Treasury also says that the public sector pay rises the Government announced in July will cost £9.4 billion a year. That is over 21 times as much. Why do the Government think that above-inflation pay rises for the trade unions are worth so—
Mr Speaker
Order. I do not need any more from the second Government Bench. Please, less of it—we have had a bit of a run-in recently, and I do not need to have any more.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I think it is an audacity for the hon. Gentleman to stand at the Dispatch Box and suggest in some way that Labour broke promises or raised taxes. I will school the hon. Gentleman: it was his Government who raised taxes to their highest level for a generation. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Sorry? We will have less of that as well, unless you want to go and have a cup of tea. Will we hear any more? Is that it, now? Yes or no?
Mr Speaker
Well, I am sorry, but you must be able to do it like a ventriloquist’s dummy.
The Deputy Prime Minister
It was the hon. Gentleman’s Government who crashed the economy—who saw inflation rise to 11.1% and growth flatline. It was his Government who spent the reserves three times over. I will take no lessons from the hon. Gentleman.
Alex Burghart
I understand why the right hon. Lady does not want to answer questions about the terrible choices the Government have made. It is because the truth is ugly. The truth is that this is a punishment meted out to people who do not vote Labour. It is the same punishment meted out to parents who send their children to private schools. It is the same punishment meted out to the owners of small businesses who are terrified about national insurance contributions, and it is the same punishment meted out to pensioners who cannot afford to pay for their fuel this winter. Is it not the truth that if you do not vote Labour, they do not care about you? [Hon. Members: “More!”]
The Deputy Prime Minister
After that display, it is clear that the hon. Gentleman did not recognise the result of the general election and has learned nothing. While this Government have been fixing the mess that the Conservatives left, they have been desperately trying to rewrite history. They come here every week, jumping on a new bandwagon and taking a new pot-shot, but with absolutely no word on what they will do differently.
Last week, the Leader of the Opposition admitted that she supported Labour’s plans to invest in the NHS, schools and homes. The Conservatives want all the benefits of the Budget, but have no idea how they will pay for them. The faces may change, but it is the same old Tory party: straight back to putting everything on the credit card, spending the reserves three times over. We took the difficult decisions to fix the £22 billion black hole that they left behind, and while they are reinventing the past, we are investing in the future.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister
The situation in the middle east is catastrophic, and I know the whole House is horrified at the terrible loss of civilian life. We are calling at every opportunity for an immediate ceasefire, with the release of the hostages and more aid into Gaza, but we urge Israel to ensure that UNRWA can continue its lifesaving work, something the Foreign Secretary has discussed directly with the Israeli Foreign Minister. We have imposed sanctions in response to appalling incidents of settler violence and have suspended export licences for arms, following a review that found a clear risk that they may be used to commit or facilitate violations of international law. We will continue to seek a two-state solution, with a secure Israel alongside a viable and sovereign Palestine.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
May I associate myself and the Liberal Democrats with the Deputy Prime Minister’s remarks on Ukraine?
Ahead of the Budget, I warned the Deputy Prime Minister that increasing national insurance contributions on social care providers would make the crisis in social care worse. Now, OBR figures suggest that the increase in NICs will cost more to social care providers than the money the Government have announced for that sector in the Budget, with that measure alone withdrawing £200 million from the sector. Will the Deputy Prime Minister speak with the Chancellor to ensure that, at the very least, health and care providers are protected from taking the hit?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for that question. The Chancellor is sat near me, and I know that, through our discussions, we wanted to ensure that social care was protected. That is why we confirmed £600 million of new grant funding for social care next year, an uplift to local government spending and an £86 million increase to the disabled facilities grant. Our Employment Rights Bill will help deliver the first ever fair pay agreement for the social care sector as well, and we will also ensure that the NHS is funded to help with the social care situation.
Daisy Cooper
It is clear that social care providers will be worse off, so I urge the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chancellor to look again at that.
Somebody else who was worried about the Budget is Cathy, a farmer in my constituency, who told me yesterday that she thinks the Government changes simply do not make sense. They mean that her family may have to pay a bill that will force them to sell land, which makes food production unviable. At the same time, the Government have not closed the land-buying tax loophole that can be exploited by equity firms and the super-wealthy. Farmers told me yesterday that they feel as though they were betrayed by the Conservatives, and they now feel—[Interruption.]
Daisy Cooper
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Farmers told me yesterday that they feel as though they have been betrayed by the Conservatives, but they now feel that they have also been lied to by Labour. Will the Deputy Prime Minister think again on this measure, so that our farmers can feed Britain?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Again, I am sorry to hear that Cathy is distressed by the scaremongering around what the Labour party is doing. The Budget delivered £5 billion for farming over the next two years—a record amount. The last Government failed to spend £300 million on farmers. Our plan is sensible, fair and proportionate, and protects the smaller estates while fixing public services that they rely on.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister
Every child deserves the opportunity to succeed in school and beyond, and I am sorry to hear of the experience in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Last week, I visited Ravensfield primary school in my constituency, and its school council had a lot to say about the resources to our schools. We have increased the core schools budget by £2.3 billion next year, increasing per-pupil funding in real terms. As her constituency is the home of the British Army, I know she will also welcome the expansion of childcare support to service families deployed overseas, saving families around £3,400 a year. I am happy to ensure that she gets a meeting with the relevant Minister.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
A few weeks ago, from that Dispatch Box, the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs said he had been congratulated by a farmer on the introduction of the inheritance tax. I think that farmer must have been a cannabis farmer, because yesterday we had 10,000 farmers on Whitehall protesting against this madcap decision. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that the decision should be thrown in the trash can, along with Rachel from accounts’ CV?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The hon. Member talks about CVs, and it is good to see him doing well on his Bench: once a Labour councillor, then a Tory MP, now a Reform Chief Whip. Every time he switches party, he gets a promotion. I have already outlined what we have done to support our farmers. We will continue to support the farmers and we will continue to invest in our public services to get Britain back on track.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister
Free speech and our press are incredibly important—they are part of our democracy—but in direct response to my hon. Friend’s question, the police are independent and it is a live investigation, so it would not be appropriate for me to comment on that. I believe that we should have a free press. It is part of our democracy, and we should have free speech, but with that comes responsibility for those who do it.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister
I say to the hon. Gentleman and to Duncan and Nicola that this Government have not declared war on farmers. The vast majority of farms will not pay any inheritance tax. We have protected them. We have been as generous as we can. The farmers rely on our public services, like everybody else. We inherited a £22 billion black hole from the Conservatives, who spent reserves three times over. We are investing in our schools, our hospitals, our public services and housing. If the hon. Gentleman does not agree with that, then, like the Leader of the Opposition, he should say what he would do differently .
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister
I am sorry to hear about the situation in Stroud, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue for women in his constituency. The Darzi report clearly set out that under the previous Government, the NHS was broken, with patients waiting too long for care. We are committed to ensuring that all women and babies receive safe, compassionate and personalised care through pregnancy, birth and, critically, the following months. We will ensure that maternity services deliver the best outcomes for patients as we invest to build an NHS fit for the future.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The Deputy Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady is right to say that I value the work of care providers and carers across the whole of the United Kingdom. That is why we have put in additional funding through the Budget. We have been ensuring that for care providers and charities, including hospices, the tax regime is among the most generous in the world. That includes tax relief for charities and their donors worth more than £6 billion for the tax year ending April 2024. We have put record funding into our NHS, we have increased funding into adult and children’s social care and we will continue to support our public services, which were left on their knees by the last Government.
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for being such a champion for Plymouth. As he knows, we are providing £25 billion extra over the next two years for the Department of Health and Social Care, including the largest real-terms capital budget since 2010. We will ensure that every corner of the UK will see the generosity, and that services will improve for them. I will make sure that he gets a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss in detail how Plymouth can capitalise on that.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister
We have committed to 350 banking hubs through this Parliament. I am sure that the Minister will be happy to meet the hon. Member on that point. I hope he will thankful for the levelling-up fund round 2 money that we secured, with £14.3 million going to Waltham Cross renaissance project, to regenerate the town centre for his constituents.
Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his expertise and his work before he came to this place. Tory austerity has decimated neighbourhood policing. We will put thousands more neighbourhood police and police community support officers back on our streets, to ensure that every community has a named local officer. We will tackle illegal drugs, halve knife crime, crack down on antisocial behaviour and go after the gangs who lure young people into violence.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we always follow the strict rules on planning, ensuring that safety and other factors are always taken into consideration, and we will continue to do so.
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
Thousands of families in my constituency have moved into new-build developments in Shinfield, Loddon Park and beyond. But many have found their dreams of home ownership punctured by unfair and opaque property management charges. Can the Deputy Prime Minister reassure my constituents by setting out how the leasehold reform Bill will address those concerns, and will she meet me and affected constituents?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I welcome my hon. Friend to her place. Unjustified increases to service charges are completely unacceptable. The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 will provide homeowners with greater rights, powers and protections over their homes, including greater transparency over service charges. Leaseholders have been ripped off for too long. It is this Government who will sort it out.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. We are committed to championing human rights, including the right to freedom of religion and belief. I join him in marking Red Wednesday, an important moment to show support for all those persecuted around the world for their religion and belief. Today, we will light up Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office buildings in the UK in red in support of that. Envoy roles are under consideration and will be decided on in due course.
Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)
Harshita Brella was killed and found in the boot of her car as it was taken from her home in Corby on 14 November. This tragic murder left a community shocked and scared, and it is being investigated by the police. Harshita was protected by a domestic violence protection order that lasted 28 days. It was not renewed. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that all must be done to reassure the community and bring the perpetrator to justice? Further, does she agree that in some circumstances domestic violence protection orders should last longer than 28 days, when the victims are most vulnerable?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this case. My thoughts are with Harshita’s family in this horrifying set of circumstances, where Harshita should have been protected and felt protected. The Government are committed to halving violence against women and girls. We continue to do our work, hopefully across the House, to make sure that we can end the circumstances Harshita faced and we can stop this kind of barbaric action.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister
Mr Speaker, what can I say? I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman—may I say my hon. Friend?—about the Spelthorne Litter Pickers. Those who come together to volunteer and help, in particular young people who do a lot of this, play an important role in all our constituencies. I think across the whole House we congratulate the Spelthorne Litter Pickers on their award, and all those who do voluntary work to support our communities.
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)
I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a very proud trade union member. In 2019, the Conservative party promised to deliver an employment Bill that would protect and enhance workers’ rights in the UK. Like so many of its promises it never delivered, but my right hon. Friend has done it, cleaning up the mess that the party opposite left behind. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with me that her Employment Rights Bill is the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I too declare an interest: my hon. Friend and I used to be convenors for Unison North West, and I champion the work that she has done on behalf of her constituents and for working people. The Government are delivering on their plan to make work pay, and to ensure that employment rights are fit for a modern economy. The Employment Rights Bill will benefit people in some of the most deprived areas in the country, and will save them up to £600 a year in replacing lost income from the hidden costs of insecure work. I commend the work that many Members—some on the Opposition Benches, but in particular some on ours—have done to bring the Bill to fruition.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister
I know where the right hon. Gentleman is trying to go with this. While it is tempting—[Interruption.] What I will say to the right hon. Gentleman is that in the last four months our Chancellor has shown more competence than the last four Chancellors that were appointed by his Government.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Despite being its capital, my home city of Edinburgh is, per head, the lowest-funded local authority in Scotland owing to the austerity inflicted on us by the Scottish National party in Holyrood, which means that great projects such as The Ripple face closure. Now that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has secured the biggest block grant for Scotland in the history of the Scottish Parliament, will the Deputy Prime Minister work with me to ensure that the Scottish Government use it to end austerity for my constituents?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who is entirely right to raise the subject of the impact of the SNP’s irresponsible management of Scotland’s finances and the austerity that it is inflicting on his constituents. Our Budget rejected a return to austerity. We delivered the largest real-terms funding settlement for Scotland since devolution, and the result of the Budget is clear: the SNP has the powers, it has the money, and it has no more excuses.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The Deputy Prime Minister
I am sincerely sorry to hear about the hon. Lady’s constituent’s husband, the terrible diagnosis at stage 4, and the delays leading up to that. We have explained before how difficult the inheritance was in respect of the cancer diagnosis waiting lists. People are waiting far too long for treatment, which is why the Chancellor put a record amount of money into our NHS so that we could catch cancer in time. I know that the Health Secretary is determined, as a personal endeavour, to ensure that people do not have to wait and do not end up in the circumstances that are so tragic for the hon. Lady’s constituent.
Mr Speaker
Order. Just for the record, I should like to apologise to Mr Kruger. I got the wrong person. Mr Wild has now owned up to it. [Laughter.] What I would say to Mr Kruger is, “Don’t sit next to him again.”
Police Reform
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on police reform.
The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
I will respond on behalf of the Secretary of State, and I thank the hon. Lady for securing this important question on what is an important subject.
At its best, policing in England and Wales is truly world class. Every day, officers perform their duties with courage, skill and dedication, and we are all grateful to all of them. At the heart of our British policing tradition is the notion of policing by consent, which is dependent on maintaining mutual bonds of trust between officers and the local communities they serve. But over the last decade or more policing has faced a perfect storm as visible neighbourhood policing has been decimated, as law enforcement has struggled to keep up with fast-changing crimes, as outdated technology has held forces back, and as confidence has fallen in communities and among victims because far too often people feel that if something goes wrong no one will come and nothing will be done.
For too long, instead of Government showing leadership and helping the police to navigate these testing times, predecessors in our Department have just walked away. This Government will not stand on the sidelines while public confidence and public safety are put at risk, and that is why we are pursuing our unprecedented safer streets mission to reduce the most serious violence and to rebuild confidence in policing and the criminal justice system.
To successfully deliver that mission, we need forces that are fit for the challenge of today and tomorrow. That is why the Home Secretary yesterday announced a programme of police reform that will be pursued in partnership with policing. Under our neighbourhood policing guarantee, we will restore patrols to town centres and rebuild the vital link between forces and the people they serve. To drive up performance and standards, a new performance unit will be established in the Home Office which will use high-quality police data to spot trends and improve performance and consistency. And we will work with policing to create a national centre of policing to bring together crucial support services such as IT, aviation and forensics. We will present a White Paper on police reform to Parliament next year.
The 2025-26 police funding settlement for police forces, including full details on Government grant funding and precept, will be set out to Parliament in the normal way before Christmas, but the Home Secretary confirmed in her written statement yesterday that, as part of that settlement, direct central Government funding for policing next year will increase by £0.5 billion. That is core grant and additional funding for neighbourhood policing, counter-terrorism and the National Crime Agency.
We are at a critical juncture for policing and we cannot go on as we have been. So together with the police we will embark on this road map for reform, to get back to those precious Peel principles and to rebuild the confidence of our communities in the vital work the police do every day to keep us all safe.
Lisa Smart
I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question.
Yesterday the Home Secretary announced significant reforms to policing through a written statement. A comprehensive restructuring of policing in England and Wales that will affect thousands of personnel, create a new performance unit and establish a national centre for policing surely merits some parliamentary scrutiny and an opportunity for Members of this House to question what it means for their constituents.
For my Hazel Grove constituents, what does it mean for Mellor, the most rural part of my constituency? There was no specific mention of rural crime in the Home Secretary’s statement, so I ask the Minister what her plans mean for those tackling crime in our rural communities. What do the plans mean for places like Woodley, a district centre in Hazel Grove, which has seen far too much antisocial behaviour and shoplifting? And what do the plans mean for places like Offerton, where illegal off-road bikes are causing havoc on our roads? How will the plans better encourage the police to work with local partners to tackle this problem, which blights so many people’s lives? Any police reform must address the Conservatives’ cuts to the number of police community support officers, who are so often the face of proper neighbourhood policing. My police force, Greater Manchester, has seen more than 350 PCSO positions cut since 2015.
More than anything, we need to ensure that the reforms deliver the proper frontline policing that our communities deserve. Years of ineffective resourcing by the previous Conservative Government have left our police forces overstretched, under-resourced and unable to focus on the crimes that affect our communities the most. It is no wonder that the vast majority of burglaries still go unsolved, while for seven out of 10 car thefts last year, a police officer did not even attend the scene.
It is genuinely good to hear that more resources will be committed to neighbourhood policing, but as we saw with the Conservatives’ police uplift programme, more resources does not automatically mean that communities will see the difference. I would welcome assurances from the Minister that the Government will ensure that officers have the time and resources to focus on their communities, and will ensure more bobbies on the beat.
Dame Diana Johnson
I very much welcome the hon. Lady’s interest in this area. The written ministerial statement laid before Parliament yesterday set out the direction of travel for this Government on police reform. As I said in my response to the urgent question, a White Paper will be published in the spring. There will be full consultation with, I hope, parliamentary colleagues as well as those involved in policing, police and crime commissioners, and all the key stakeholders. This is the start of the process, so many of the hon. Lady’s questions will be part of the consultation and the conversations that we have next year, but I reassure her that the safer streets mission is about the neighbourhood policing guarantee. It is about delivering 13,000 additional police officers, PCSOs and specials in our neighbourhoods and reinvigorating the neighbourhood policing model.
The hon. Lady mentioned antisocial behaviour and shoplifting. Those are issues that we will deal with, and we will bring forward legislation, particularly around shop theft. That will include a stand-alone offence of assaulting a shopworker, and the removal of the £200 threshold that the previous Government introduced, which meant that there was almost a shoplifters’ charter—they could steal up to £200-worth of items and there would be no action. We are getting rid of that. We are taking action now, but we will have a conversation about broader police reform next year. The statement was about setting out the direction of travel.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
On Friday, I spent some time on patrol with Telford police, and Sergeant Alex Webb told me about her frustration at not being able to get repeat antisocial behaviour offenders out of our town centres and high streets. When will the Government give the police the tools that they need to deal with these issues and get the yobs out of our high streets and town centres?
Dame Diana Johnson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. This is Antisocial Behaviour Awareness Week, which aims to focus on the effect that antisocial behaviour can have on individuals and communities. He is absolutely right to say that we need to tackle antisocial behaviour. That is why the neighbourhood policing guarantee, which will get officers back on the streets, and the other measures that we will introduce to keep our town centres and high streets safe, are so important. We will bring those forward in due course.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Let me welcome the Policing Minister to her role; she is succeeding me in the job that I did in the last Government. I genuinely wish her well in the job, and I hope that she succeeds in it, because it is important for the whole country. I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in thanking the police up and down the country for the work that they do to keep us safe. When they put on their uniform to go to work each morning, they take risks that are required of those in few other professions.
In March this year, the police headcount hit 149,769—a record number of police, and 3,000 higher than the previous record. My first question is: will the Policing Minister commit to at least maintaining, if not growing, that record number of police officers? Secondly, will the Minister join me in welcoming the fact that in the past seven years, overall crime, as measured by the crime survey for England and Wales—the Office for National Statistics says that is the best measure of crime trends—has come down by 17%? The written statement yesterday, and the Home Secretary’s speech to the National Police Chiefs’ Council yesterday, mentioned the importance of technology, which I feel very strongly about, as the Minister knows. In the March Budget, the previous Chancellor committed to £230 million of spending on police technology over four years, of which this year is the first. About £80 million was due to be spent this year. Will the right hon. Lady confirm that the £80 million for this year is secure, and that she and her colleagues will honour the £230 million commitment over the coming four years?
Does the Minister agree that it is important that police spend their time actually investigating crime, not policing thought? Does she agree that the guidelines need to be changed, so that police spend time investigating only real crimes, and investigate non-crimes only when there is a real and imminent risk of criminality? That would mean a change to the guidelines. Will she make that change?
On the reform programme, we need to see the details of course, but will the Minister confirm that no money will be taken away from local police forces? Will she confirm that police and crime commissioners and chief constables will continue to be fully empowered? Finally, on police funding, she mentioned some numbers for next year’s funding settlement. She will be aware that when I was Policing Minister, we arranged a £922 million increase in funding for frontline policing for this financial year, compared with last year. The numbers she talked about in her statement are much lower than that, so will she give a commitment that any funding increase for frontline policing that she brings forward in the police funding settlement will be at least as big as the one that I announced last year?
Dame Diana Johnson
This is the first opportunity I have had to welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new role as shadow Home Secretary, but I think he might be forgetting a few facts. As I recall, over the previous 14 years, the Conservative Government slashed policing by over 20,000 police officers, and many support staff as well. I acknowledge that the uplift programme was brought in at the end of their period in government, but they got rid of a lot of very experienced, good police officers. Also, just to remind him, we stood for election on a manifesto commitment to providing 13,000 additional police officers, PCSOs and specials as part of our neighbourhood policing guarantee.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman is very keen on technology. That was absolutely one of the things that he focused on. I have certainly taken up some of the issues that he was concerned about to do with live facial recognition, and I want that investment to continue. I think he is again forgetting a few things when he refers to the guidelines for non-crime hate incidents. As I recall, he was the Policing Minister who introduced those guidelines. I have listened to what he said, but I think he needs to remember what he actually did when he was the Policing Minister. I take the approach that this should be about common sense and consistency. His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services talked about the need for consistency and training; I will listen to what it has to say, rather than to the right hon. Gentleman’s view on guidelines that he introduced. Many of the questions that he asks will form part of the consultative approach that we will adopt when our White Paper is laid before Parliament.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
My constituents tell me that they are particularly worried about antisocial behaviour, and that they want guaranteed police patrols. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is what this Government intend to deliver?
Dame Diana Johnson
I very much welcome that question from my hon. Friend and neighbour in Kingston upon Hull. He is absolutely right to say that the neighbourhood policing guarantee will include designated police officers, PCSOs and specials who will patrol neighbourhoods. There will be a named officer that people can go to if there are problems around antisocial behaviour. We will also bring forward respect orders, which will deal with the people who are engaging most persistently in antisocial behaviour; they can stop them being in particular neighbourhoods or even put conditions on them—for example, if they have an alcohol problem, they may have to get treatment and help for that problem. But he is absolutely right to say that antisocial behaviour is a big issue for many of our constituents.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s announcements on neighbourhood policing. We have already seen a real move in this direction in Staffordshire, under the leadership of the police, fire and crime commissioner, Ben Adams, and our chief constable Chris Noble, so I very much welcome what the Minister has said. She will know, however, that the National Audit Office has raised concerns about the experience of officers when it comes to neighbourhood policing. What work will she do to ensure that officers have the right degree of experience, so that their effectiveness at neighbourhood policing is maximised?
Dame Diana Johnson
Can I take this opportunity to welcome the new Chair of the Home Affairs Committee? Chairing it is one of the very best jobs in Parliament. On neighbourhood policing, I recognise that there is good practice around the country, with certain police forces doing it very well indeed, but she is absolutely right to say that we want to equip our neighbourhood police officers with the best training, to enable them to do a really good job for their communities. That is why we have already announced money for the College of Policing to engage with neighbourhood police officers and give them the training that they deserve, particularly in problem solving, because that is a really important part of the role that they will play in neighbourhoods.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
To deliver effective policing, we need reform, but police officers also need to feel that they have our support. Does the Minister agree that agreeing the recommendations of the pay review body is a key part of delivering that support? What view does she have about those, including Conservative Members, who would prefer not to agree those recommendations, and on the impact that would have on police morale?
Dame Diana Johnson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to support our police officers in the work that they do to keep us all safe, day in, day out. He will know that this year we accepted the recommendations of the pay review body, and that additional funding was provided to police forces to pay for an increase in salaries. It is important that we continue to ensure that our police are properly remunerated for the difficult job that they do. The Home Secretary has made that clear in her support for police officers.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
Farmers in my constituency tell me that they are often the victims of serious rural crime, including threats of physical violence, but do not usually bother to report it because they do not think our rural police forces are well enough resourced to give a full response. If that is happening across the country, presumably it means that rural crime is seriously under-reported. What more does the Minister plan to do to resource our rural crime teams, and to give farmers and others living in rural areas reassurance that they can and should report crime?
Dame Diana Johnson
The hon. Lady is exactly right. We need to make sure that when crime happens, it is reported. That is absolutely vital. As I said in my opening remarks, for too long people have felt that it is not worth reporting a crime because no one will come and nothing will be done. Our neighbourhood policing guarantee is not just about urban areas; it also covers rural areas, and we want rural communities to have the support that they need from police, PCSOs and specials. I am also responsible for rural crime, and I know that there is a range of issues that we need to look at again, including the theft of agricultural machinery; that is an area that I am particularly focused on.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Just last night, Guisborough Town FC in my constituency suffered a break-in and burglary. I am grateful to Cleveland police for responding, and for meeting me this morning to update me on the situation, but there simply are not enough of them on the streets. Can the Minister give me an assurance that this Government will prioritise frontline, visible, neighbourhood community policing once again?
Dame Diana Johnson
Yes, I can. I pay tribute to Cleveland police, which has made great progress in recent times.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Will the Minister include references to fraud in her White Paper? Action Fraud, which would be more accurately described as “Inaction Fraud,” is presiding over a complete failure to do anything, particularly about fraud against online retailers. Can we ensure that action is taken to help victims of fraud?
Dame Diana Johnson
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that my noble Friend Lord Hanson, the Lords Minister, is looking at this. I gently point out that, in relation to fraud, we are having to deal with our inheritance from the previous Administration. We will now look at some of the problems with Action Fraud that they did not deal with.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
The latest crime figures show that shoplifting has shot up to a 20-year high, knife crime has risen yet again and violence against women and girls remains shamefully and persistently high. Does the Minister agree that this shows the last Tory Government’s disgraceful dereliction on law and order?
Dame Diana Johnson
My hon. Friend puts it well. This is why our safer streets mission has the ambitious aim to halve violence against women and girls over the next decade, to halve knife crime over the next decade, to restore neighbourhood policing and to restore confidence in the criminal justice system.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for proper neighbourhood policing, so we welcome this announcement. Sadly, I have heard at first hand the concern and fear of one community in Dartmouth, following a police decision to redeploy a local sergeant who had spent a couple of years building positive relationships and trust with the local community, particularly on antisocial behaviour and drug dealing. Can the Minister clarify how the neighbourhood policing guarantee will be implemented and how the Home Office plans to ensure that communities have consistent and long-term access to a known, named officer who will remain in the community?
Dame Diana Johnson
I gently point out that the Liberal Democrats were part of the coalition Government, and that through those years of austerity, we saw major cuts to police officers, including neighbourhood police officers. However, I take her point. That is why we have the neighbourhood policing guarantee, and it is why we will have 13,000 additional police officers, PCSOs and specials. People will be able to go to a named police officer if they have problems in their area, as she requests. As I said earlier, we want to make sure that neighbourhood police officers are properly trained and that this is seen as a very important part of policing, so that officers want to stay in neighbourhood policing for longer.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
My constituents in Nantwich often report experiencing unacceptable antisocial behaviour at night, particularly linked to the night-time economy, so I welcome the Government’s plan to introduce zero-tolerance zones and respect orders to get a grip of the antisocial behaviour that the last Government allowed to run out of control. Will the Minister say a little more about how this will help my constituents?
Dame Diana Johnson
All Members will know that antisocial behaviour can blight communities and can cause real problems to individuals and families. This week is Antisocial Behaviour Awareness Week, and I was struck by Resolve’s statistic that one in seven householders is thinking about moving because of antisocial behaviour. That is really shocking, and our respect orders and neighbourhood policing reforms will start to address the antisocial behaviour that has blighted many of our communities for too long.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The Minister has outlined the lack of confidence in police services across the United Kingdom because of the failure to deal with real crimes such as burglary, shoplifting and antisocial behaviour. At the same time, we learn that three police forces have spent a year investigating a tweet by a columnist after a report from someone in Holland. Surely, if there is to be reform, one thing we should do is tell the police that they are no longer the thought police. They are meant to be dealing with crime. If that means changing the bad law introduced by the last Government, will the Minister make sure it is done so that we do not have any more of this nonsense?
Dame Diana Johnson
The right hon. Gentleman is right that this Government are prioritising the crimes that affect communities and individuals, such as the increasing antisocial behaviour, threats and knife-enabled robbery. Those are the things that people care about, and those are the things that our safer streets mission is designed to deal with.
In answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question, it is worth reflecting that the provisions on non-crime hate incidents came out of the Macpherson inquiry following the murder of Stephen Lawrence. That recommendation was about providing an intelligence picture for police officers. It may not be a crime, but the intelligence picture might benefit from knowing about it. It is worth reflecting on that. Of course, I want consistency and common sense in such investigations and, as I said earlier, the inspectorate has also highlighted the need for consistency and training because of the confusion about the guidelines issued by the previous Government. I am happy to look at that with the College of Policing to make sure we get it right, but there is a place for it in some circumstances.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
Residents living around Wilmot Park in west Dartford continue to be plagued by antisocial behaviour, including vandalism, the use of motorbikes in green spaces, noise and threatening behaviour. As part of their safer streets mission, will the Government use police reform to ensure that such crimes are prioritised in Dartford and across the country?
Dame Diana Johnson
I want the police to be getting on with this now, and they have powers they can use to deal with antisocial behaviour, but we want to make sure they have additional officers through the neighbourhood policing guarantee to ensure that they can deal with antisocial behaviour in communities. We have been very clear that the police will be given additional powers to make sure they can seize and destroy the motorbikes and vehicles that are causing nuisance to communities through antisocial behaviour.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Having worked with the right hon. Lady on Committees over a number of years, I am delighted to congratulate her on her appointment. In that spirit, I will make what I think is a helpful suggestion about non-crime hate incidents. Clearly, chief constables have huge discretion over how much effort they put into investigating local crime and non-crime incidents of the sort that she says have a place in the spectrum. Could she perhaps require chief constables to report back to her Department on how many hours their forces spend investigating crime incidents and non-crime incidents? It appears that tens of thousands of non-crime incidents are being investigated every year.
Dame Diana Johnson
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. It has been a great pleasure to work with him on various Committees over the years. He is correct that this is an operational matter. It is for chief constables to decide how they use the resources available to them. My understanding is that very little time is actually spent on non-crime hate incidents, but I will check that with His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary.
Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)
Coming from a policing family, and having served with the National Crime Agency, I am immensely proud of British policing. However, I am equally devastated at the decline overseen by the Conservatives. Can the Minister outline what we are doing to rebuild British policing and return it to being the best in the world?
Dame Diana Johnson
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for his service. We will all benefit from having him in the House, sharing his experience and knowledge. The police reform agenda, as set out in the Home Secretary’s speech and the written ministerial statement yesterday, is about resetting that relationship with the police. We want to work with the police. This is not about doing things to the police, but about working collectively to get the very best police service for this country, for today, tomorrow and the years ahead.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
My residents in Boston and Skegness want the police on the streets, preventing antisocial behaviour and crime. They do not want our valuable police resources wasted on monitoring tweets for non-crime hate incidents, threatening and bullying residents, and then that record remaining on a database, which can prevent people from getting a job in the future. It is a complete waste of time. Will the Minister and the Home Office scrap those guidelines as an unnecessary use of valuable time and resources?
Dame Diana Johnson
This Government have been very clear about their priorities on policing. In our safer streets mission, we have set out that we will halve violence against women and girls and knife crime over the next decade, we will restore public confidence in the criminal justice system, particularly in the police, and we will introduce neighbourhood policing, which we know to be the bedrock of policing in this country and the area in which most people want to see investment. Those are our priorities, as the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have said, and that is where the focus and attention of the police needs to be.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
For too long, far too many of my towns and villages have had to endure rising levels of antisocial behaviour, such as people riding unsafe bikes through village centres, and an epidemic of shoplifting, including at my local Morrisons, whose staff I met last month. I am working closely with our local police and crime commissioner, John Tizard, to push for a more robust police response. What reassurances can the Minister give my constituents that our new strategy will ensure that a far greater priority is given to such crimes, and that those crimes will not be tolerated, as they seem to have been far too often in the past?
Dame Diana Johnson
I thank my hon. Friend for his work in this important area. This Government are committed to dealing with shop thefts and attacks on retail workers, and we will bring forward legislation in due course. Our safer streets mission focuses on high streets, town centres and communities, so that people feel safe, there is a police presence and antisocial behaviour is not tolerated.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Week in, week out, police officers from my constituency are extracted to go and police protests and events in central London. My constituents and I are proud to live in our great capital city and in a democracy where the right to protest is cherished. However, under the Conservatives, since 2015, the capital city grant has been cut by 17% in real terms. That is the money that should be used to police such protests, not community policing resources, which is what the Metropolitan Police Commissioner is having to draw on. Will the Minister review the capital city grant, so that my constituents can see a bobby on the beat again?
Dame Diana Johnson
The hon. Lady will know that announcements about the provisional police settlement will be made in December in this House. Discussions are under way about exactly the points she raises. I note what she says about the levels of abstraction, which are a concern, but this Government are committed to the 13,000 additional police officers, PCSOs and specials in our neighbourhoods. The Metropolitan police area will benefit from that, as will every other police area.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
When I spend time canvassing in my constituency of Harlow, as I often do, residents tell me that they do not see community police officers any more. In 2010, we had over 30 PCSOs for the whole of Harlow, but we now have four. Will the Minister set out how the safer streets mission will make residents in Harlow feel safer?
Dame Diana Johnson
It is worth reflecting on the fact that the number of PCSOs has halved in the past 14 years, and the number of specials has reduced by two thirds. Those are shocking figures. We want to ensure that we use PCSOs, because they police neighbourhoods in such a valuable way. Also, I am personally committed to making sure that we see more specials on the beat. People who stand up for the local community and do such work on a voluntary basis are to be commended. I hope that across the House we would all support an extension to the work of specials.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Cambridgeshire constabulary is one of the most poorly funded in the country under the current police allocation formula, which is based on population data from 2012. Cambridgeshire has grown vastly since then and is projected to grow by nearly 20% in the next decade. In order to fulfil the Government’s pledges and ensure neighbourhood officers are not overstretched under her plans, will the Policing Minister commit to reviewing the formula before the forthcoming announcement of the 2025-26 police funding settlement, so that Cambridgeshire receives its fair share of the £0.5 billion increase? Will she explain how many officers, of the 13,000 she mentioned, each force will receive?
Dame Diana Johnson
The Home Secretary announced yesterday that there will be £0.5 billion of additional funding for policing next year, including money for the core grant and neighbourhood policing. The announcement about the 2025-26 police funding settlement will be made in December in this House, in the normal way.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Antisocial behaviour, fly-tipping, off-road bikes and e-scooters racing along pavements and streets, and an epidemic of shoplifting are all issues raised time and again by my constituents across all wards of Portsmouth North. Does the Minister agree that we need police officers back on the beat in local communities, equipped with tougher powers to crack down on these crimes, to not only make the people of Portsmouth feel safer, but to get pride back in our communities?
Dame Diana Johnson
My hon. Friend puts her point incredibly well. That is why we have the safer streets mission, and why we will have those police officers, PCSOs and special constables back in our communities, policing for the vast majority of law-abiding citizens and dealing with the antisocial behaviour that has blighted communities for too long.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
In 2012, I was run over by a car in the Netherlands. I woke up in hospital several days later, with some fairly severe injuries. I am thankful that the resulting police investigation was swift and efficient. Unfortunately, that is not the case for such incidents in the UK, because forensic collision units across the country are facing severe challenges in preparing cases, resulting in large delays to trials and ultimately to justice, prolonging the agony for impacted families. What is the Department doing to help the police tackle those resourcing challenges and ensure road traffic collision cases come to a swifter conclusion?
Dame Diana Johnson
I am sorry to hear about the accident that the hon. Gentleman suffered in 2012, and I hope he has made a full recovery. On his specific point, I will go away and ask my officials about that, and about what more we can do to ensure justice is done on road collisions and that cases go to court quickly.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
I am often contacted by businesses from across Gateshead Central and Whickham complaining about high street crime. A recent spate of crimes on Low Fell high street has left some businesses potentially having to close. With shop thefts up 40% in the past year alone, what will these very welcome measures do to lower crime on our high streets?
Dame Diana Johnson
My hon. Friend makes an important point. High streets are the lifeblood of our local communities. We want to ensure they are as safe as possible, and that businesses are not suffering losses through shop thefts and assaults on their workers. Our package of measures will deal with antisocial behaviour, put in place the neighbourhood policing guarantee, allow new prosecutions under the legislation we will introduce about assaults on retail workers, and get rid of the £200 threshold for shop theft cases to go forward. One approach will not solve the problems, so we will ensure we have a whole package of measures to make high streets, neighbourhoods and communities safer and to allow businesses to thrive. We need businesses to thrive so that they can pay their taxes, and we can invest that money back into public services.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Two years ago, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner said that 3,000 officers were not deployable for reasons of physical fitness, and 500 officers were not deployable for reasons of misconduct allegations: that is more than 10% of the Met’s headcount. Will the Minister tell us the latest numbers? Does she plan to make it easier for chief constables, as they have requested, to fire underperforming officers?
Dame Diana Johnson
I can write to the hon. Gentleman with the figures, but clearly, there have been issues with the Metropolitan police over the last 14 years and I know that the current commissioner has raised concerns about the procedures for getting rid of police officers.
Dame Diana Johnson
If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I have been the Policing Minister for five months, compared with the 14 years that those on his side of the House were responsible for policing. I did not see any action then on dealing with the issues that he raises with me.
I can guarantee that this Government will be looking at the workforce and making sure that we recruit the right people into policing and vet police officers throughout their careers. Because of the shocking cases that we have seen—David Carrick and others—we will take action, which we set out in our manifesto, to have a workforce that is fit for purpose. I know the hon. Gentleman is very new in this place, but he needs to remember the legacy that his Government and his party delivered to us when we arrived in July.
Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
Whenever I speak with residents, business leaders or their staff in my constituency, they all tell me the same thing. Whether it is the staff at Wortley ASDA who have to deal with persistent shoplifting, or the stallholders at Morley market who tell me that they have to deal with crime on the high street in Morley, they all tell me that the police do not turn up and that they never see police patrols in our communities any more. Can the Minister confirm that we will return to neighbourhood policing, that we will see police on our streets patrolling again and that we will have named police officers turn up when things go wrong?
Dame Diana Johnson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; that is the experience that many Members of Parliament will encounter when they talk to their constituents, who feel that there is no point in reporting things because nothing will happen and no one will come. That is why the neighbourhood policing guarantee is so important. We will have those police officers, PCSOs and specials back on our streets. That visible presence will be there, so I can absolutely say that that is part of our safer streets mission and that is what we will deliver.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
May I associate myself with the comments made by my hon. Friends the Members for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) and for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), particularly in relation to things like rural crime, car racing, bike racing, threatening behaviour, burglary and shoplifting, and the frustration that people feel with the delays and lack of response and with things such as camera footage, which is taken every day, not being used? That frustration is, none the less, absolutely dwarfed by the frustration of the fact that the previous Avon and Somerset police and crime commissioner had 28.5 full-time equivalent members of staff and a massive budget. My constituents have no idea how that is justified when what they want is police officers. Can the Minister please make sure that her review actually includes getting a grip on what is happening in PCC offices?
Dame Diana Johnson
The hon. Lady will have an opportunity, when the White Paper is published, to make her and her constituents’ views clear. Clearly, there will be questions around the different roles—the Home Secretary’s role, the PCC role and chief constables’ operationally independent role—and that will be part of the discussion and debate around how we take forward the White Paper and the recommendations that come out of it.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I thank Mr Speaker for granting this urgent question on a subject that is on the minds of so many of my constituents. Stalking is a form of psychological violence that remains severely underreported. I have met constituents who are victims of stalking, and they have shared with me the lack of support they feel they receive from the Metropolitan police. They live in constant terror and anxiety, even after taking the brave step of reporting the offences. Will the Minister outline what steps her Department is taking to work with the Metropolitan police to ensure that officers receive proper training to identify stalking, support and protect victims and take robust action against perpetrators?
Dame Diana Johnson
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s question; I am really concerned to hear what he is saying. The safeguarding Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), is dealing with the issue of stalking and I know she feels very strongly about that. It might be helpful if the hon. Gentleman wrote to her, and I will certainly raise the matter with her. We may need to feed in the experiences the hon. Gentleman mentions to make sure the Metropolitan police are doing everything they need to to support victims of stalking who bravely come forward.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is always a pleasure to see the right hon. Lady—she has moved from the Back Benches to the Front Bench and is doing equally good work.
I welcome the safer streets programme and the enhancement of community policing. Can the Minister outline how there can be a UK-wide drive in addressing the money lending and drug warfare that blights all our communities throughout the United Kingdom? I am thinking of paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland and criminal gangs in the UK mainland that work together and share their criminal activities. What opportunity will there be within police reform to discuss how we can work alongside the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland and the Police Service of Northern Ireland? We can do better together.
Dame Diana Johnson
It is always a pleasure to be questioned by the hon. Member. When I chaired the Home Affairs Committee, we produced a report on drugs and we went to look at drug problems in Belfast and in Northern Ireland. I was struck by the particular issues there around the involvement of paramilitaries. It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman and I could have a conversation about what more we can do on that issue when we look at the broader safer streets mission.
Asylum Seekers: Hotel Accommodation
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary if she will make a statement on the Government’s decision to recommence the use of hotels as accommodation for asylum seekers.
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Dame Angela Eagle)
This Government inherited an asylum system under unprecedented strain, with many thousands stuck in a backlog without their asylum claims processed. The Home Secretary has taken immediate action to restart asylum processing and scrap the unworkable Rwanda policy, which will save an estimated £4 billion for the taxpayer over the next two years. We remain absolutely committed to ending the use of hotels for asylum seekers and continue to identify a range of accommodation options to minimise the use of hotels and ensure better use of public money, while maintaining sufficient accommodation to meet demand.
In accordance with the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, the Home Office has a statutory obligation to provide destitute asylum seekers with accommodation and subsistence support while their application for asylum is being considered. We are committed to ensuring that destitute asylum seekers are housed in safe, secure and suitable accommodation and that they are treated with dignity while their asylum claim is considered. We continue to work closely with local authorities and key stakeholders, building on lessons learned in terms of asylum accommodation stand-up and management.
Hotels are not a permanent solution, but a necessary temporary step in keeping the system under control and ensuring it does not descend into chaos. We will restore order to the asylum system so it operates swiftly, firmly and fairly. As we progress with that, it is right that we deliver on our legal responsibilities and ensure people are not left destitute. Ultimately, we will be able to tackle irregular migration and bring the cost of the system down by billions of pounds. It remains our ambition to exit hotels; however, in the nearest future, they remain key to delivering on our legal responsibilities in ensuring people are not left destitute.
Sir Gavin Williamson
May I record my appreciation for securing this urgent question, Madam Deputy Speaker?
My constituents have had the devastating news that the Roman Way hotel is to be stood up to house asylum seekers. This was after it had been closed last year. Such a move has a significant impact not just on my constituents, but in Cannock more generally. We have seen 19,326 people cross the channel since Labour came to power, which is 19% up on the same period last year. This must be seen in the context of Labour’s manifesto pledge in July to end the use of hotels for asylum seekers.
Members can imagine the devastation that so many constituents across the country are feeling when they see these hotels being brought back into use, breaking one of Labour’s manifesto pledges. There is also a total lack of transparency. There is no consultation with local authorities. This is a diktat that those authorities receive, with no support and no help, and it is only news organisations such as GB News that are shining a light on it.
Will the Minister provide a list to the House of Commons, detailing all the hotels that have been stepped up to provide accommodation for asylum seekers since Labour came to power? And will she commit to continuing to update that list? What is the estimated cost of reopening these hotels? What has changed so drastically that has caused Labour to abandon a manifesto pledge so quickly? Considering that there is a correlation between the removal of a deterrent effect, which our party had put in place, and a rise in crossings, what will the Government do to provide a credible deterrent going forward? Finally, will the Minister commit to ceasing to use the Roman Way Hotel in my constituency, and will she also commit to not putting the Hatherton House hotel in Penkridge into use?
Dame Angela Eagle
As a senior member of the last few Administrations, the right hon. Gentleman will know that we inherited an asylum system that had been ground to a standstill by the previous Government’s pursuit of the Rwanda policy, which was doomed to failure. They spent £700 million over two years to send four volunteers to Rwanda. Conservative Members claim that the Rwanda scheme was somehow a deterrent, but from the day that it was announced to the day that it was scrapped 83,500 people crossed the channel in small boats. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that that is the definition of a deterrent, I think he needs to look it up in a dictionary. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member talks about a 19% increase in channel boat crossings since Labour came to power, but in the first six months of this year when the Rwanda scheme was up and running and apparently about to start at any minute, there was an 18% increase in channel crossings. Again, the Rwanda scheme was an expensive distraction, not a deterrent.
The right hon. Gentleman asks whether we will produce a list of hotels that are currently in use. He will know that, when he was in government, hotel use peaked at more than 400. I can tell him that, currently, there are 220 hotels in use. At the time of the election, there were 213 hotels in use, but since July seven hotels have shut and 14 have opened, which has created a net increase of seven.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) for securing this question. Under the previous Government, when the current shadow Home Secretary was in the Home Office, two hotels in my constituency were opened. There was no notification to the local authority and no consultation. This is another example of the Conservative party crying over the mess that they made and the attempt that this Government are making to clear it up. Does the Minister agree that we will smash the criminal gangs and stop those channel crossings, and that the carping from Conservative Members demonstrates that they have learned nothing since their election defeat?
Dame Angela Eagle
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend: we inherited a system that was at a standstill. There was a backlog of 90,000 cases involving 116,000 people, and the law would not allow them to be processed. We have restarted processing. We are gearing up the asylum system, so that we can get throughput in the system, and ultimately exit the hotels and start using a more cost-effective system. I agree with my hon. Friend that the carping by Conservative Members, who created the backlogs and the mess that we are having to deal with, is a bit rich.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) on securing this urgent question. He is right to raise this issue. As he said, Labour promised in its manifesto to end the use of hotels, yet the Minister has just admitted at the Dispatch Box that, far from ending the use of hotels, the Government are in fact opening up even more. She has just admitted to 14. Perhaps it should come as no surprise now that, once again, Labour is doing the precise opposite to what it promised in its manifesto.
When the Conservatives were in government, they were in fact closing down hotels. Luckily, I have the figures in front of me. Between September last year and 30 June this year, the number of people in contingency accommodation, which is Home Office speak for hotels, went down by 47%—it went down—yet under this new Government it is going up. The Minister has told us how many hotels have opened up, will she tell us how many extra people are now in contingency accommodation, compared with 4 July? Will she also commit to always notifying Members of Parliament in advance—at least two weeks in advance—that a hotel will be opening in their constituency?
We all know the cause of this problem. It is the illegal and dangerous channel crossings. I am afraid the position has got even worse since the figures my right hon. Friend quoted were drawn up. Since the election, 19,988 people have crossed the channel. That is a 23% increase on the same period last year, and it is a 66% increase on the same period immediately before the election. Why have these numbers of people illegally crossing the channel gone up? The National Crime Agency has told us that we need a deterrent—that we cannot police our way out of this. Even Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, has said that European member states should look at offshore processing. We saw a deterrent system work in Australia, yet Labour scrapped the Rwanda deterrent before it had even started. The first flight had not taken off and that is why the deterrent effect had not commenced. Will the Minister follow Ursula von der Leyen’s advice? Will she emulate the Australians and reinstate the scheme?
Dame Angela Eagle
That was quite a rant. It made certain assumptions that are completely untrue, including that the Rwanda scheme would have worked. We already know that it cost £700 million to send four volunteers to Rwanda. The Conservative party was planning to spend £175,000 per person sent to Rwanda, and it had not managed to send anyone to Rwanda. Had the Conservatives put aside the money, going into billions of pounds, to pay this £175,000 per person sent to Rwanda? No, they had not. No money was set aside. What we inherited was a system where no processing was going on—well, fewer than 1,000 asylum cases a month were being processed. We are now processing up to 10,000 asylum cases a month.
The right hon. Gentleman knows, because he was a Home Office Minister, that there are backlogs and lags between the first decision in processing and all the potential appeals. We cannot exit people from the asylum estate until they have a final decision. We inherited backlogs of more than two years in the tribunal system because the Conservatives did not fund it properly. In the last period, we have returned nearly 10,000 people, which is nearly a 20% increase on the numbers returned last year. We are working on making the asylum system fit for purpose. We inherited an unholy mess from the Conservatives.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
I know that the Government understand that using hotels to house asylum seekers is bad for communities, for the taxpayer, and ultimately for those seeking asylum themselves. Conservative Members broke our asylum system and now wash their hands of the consequences. Will the Minister outline the progress that the Government are making on clearing the backlog that the Conservatives created, so that we can stand down hotels, including by prioritising the processing of those housed in the Cresta Court hotel in my constituency?
Dame Angela Eagle
We are prioritising getting the system up and running again so that we can have throughput in our asylum accommodation estate. The fact that the system had ground to a complete halt when we came into government, with 90,000 unprocessed cases, has meant that there have been delays in getting it up and running. I explained to the House that we have gone from making 1,000 asylum decisions a month to 10,000. The system is beginning to get flow-through, and as that happens, we will exit from hotels. We have had to have a small increase. We have been in power four months. The manifesto did not say that we would end the use of hotels in four months. When the Conservatives were in power, more than 400 hotels were in use at its height, and they did not give any MP two weeks’ notice that those hotels were opening.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
While an asylum seeker waits months or even years in a hotel for a decision on their claim, they are trapped in limbo. They are unable to work and are forced to depend on Government funds. That benefits no one—not the asylum seekers, who want to get on and start rebuilding their lives, and not taxpayers, who foot the bill. That is before I mention our local councils, which are left to pick up the pieces.
To end the use of hotels, tackling the backlog that ballooned on the previous Government’s watch must be part of the solution, but we can also reduce the demand for Government accommodation by allowing asylum seekers to support themselves and contribute to the economy—something that the Home Office has recognised will not act as a pull factor for asylum seekers. Will the Minister finally scrap the ban on asylum seekers working and paying their fair share as doctors or dentists if they have been waiting three months or longer for a decision on their claim? Will she commit to providing local councils with the resources that they need—both funding and clear guidance—to provide proper support for asylum seekers and the local communities hosting these hotels?
Dame Angela Eagle
I do not agree that allowing asylum seekers to work while their claim is being considered will not be a pull factor. The way to deal with this issue is to have a fast, fair and efficient asylum system. We are looking at how we can redesign it, and at what we can do to deal with the huge backlogs that we inherited, not least in the tribunal system when there are appeals. We need a much better end-to-end system that is fair and efficient. That will mitigate any of the issues that the hon. Lady raises with respect to asylum seekers not being allowed to work. Were that restriction to be lifted, I believe that it would be a huge pull factor, which would have potentially serious consequences.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) on securing this urgent question on a matter that the Home Affairs Committee is looking at, but I am astonished that he wants to draw attention to the Conservatives’ legacy in this area. In 2019-20, the Home Office was spending £17,000 per asylum seeker per year on accommodation; by 2023-24, it was spending £47,000 per asylum seeker per year. At that point, it stopped taking decisions, so the number could only grow as the UK taxpayer paid for asylum seekers to stay in hotel accommodation. Does the Minister agree that the correct way to deal with the issue is to seriously address the systemic problems in the immigration system, such as the lack of any decisions being taken, and not ridiculous gimmicks such as wave machines and deterrents for four people?
Dame Angela Eagle
I agree that it is about doing the day job effectively and efficiently, and if it cannot be done effectively and efficiently, redesigning it so that it can be, rather than having huge rows with the international community, threatening to leave the European convention on human rights, and setting up a parallel scheme that was not agreed by anybody, which spent vast amounts of money and ground the system to a halt. That is not the way to achieve success in this area. Considering the use of a wave machine to somehow send boats back to France just about sums up the reality of the Conservatives’ attitude to what is a difficult situation.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
The Prime Minister has pledged to smash the gangs, and the Minister appears to be very confident in her position, so can she tell the House which metric we should use to judge whether the gangs have been smashed and the channel crossings ended, and by what date that will happen?
Dame Angela Eagle
I will answer in my own way. The Conservative party allowed channel crossings to be industrialised. We are now facing a very sophisticated set of international supply chains that need international co-operation to be taken down and disrupted. We have established the border security command, we have announced the investment of £150 million, and we are getting 100 additional investigators to look at this matter. We managed to achieve a very significant arrest of an offender just the other week, which will begin to degrade the capacity of international organised criminal gangs to smuggle people on to our shores. The hon. Gentleman will see when the numbers start to go down, as will the rest of us.
Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)
The Minister has inherited an incredible mess. Reportedly, £3.6 billion of overseas aid will be spent on refugees and asylum seekers in this country this year, but simply ending the use of hotels will not solve some of the problems that the system is causing in our communities. A lot of the private providers of asylum accommodation buy up properties in the most deprived parts of cities. I think that the Government’s biggest challenge is to rebuild trust with the public. I ask her to consider the difference between the Homes for Ukraine system of housing people and the system of allowing big corporates and profiteering companies to house asylum seekers, and to think about how we involve civil society and our communities in the way we respond to the needs of asylum seekers.
Dame Angela Eagle
My hon. Friend will be comforted to know that I am thinking of precisely those things.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I do not envy the hon. Lady in her job. Does she agree that no amount of hotel accommodation will ever suffice as long as there is no effective way of preventing large numbers of people from coming into this country without permission? As a form of interception near the French coast will probably be the only deterrent, will she at least keep open the possibility of negotiations with France as to how we could work together to do that?
Dame Angela Eagle
We have a relatively new Government in France just bedding in. I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that we are working closely with them to see how we can strengthen and deepen our co-operation and partnership.
Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)
The right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) who raised the urgent question appears to be suffering from some memory loss. Under the Conservative Government, we saw 130,000 small boat crossings and record backlogs at the Home Office. The Conservatives opened 400 hotels—that is, 21,000 places costing £8 million per day to the taxpayer. Does the Minister recall him raising that issue under the previous Government?
Dame Angela Eagle
No, I do not. I noticed the revelations at the weekend about why the Conservatives decided to call the election earlier than some of us had perhaps thought. One reason set out in Tim Shipman’s book “Out” was that illegal migration was a problem,
“with a new armada of small boats predicted and the issue of whether they would be able to get a repatriation flight to Rwanda in the air before polling day.”
They evidently decided that they could not. We are now hearing this complete fiction from Conservative Members that somehow the Rwanda scheme was just about to work before we scrapped it, when they had spent £700 million on an increasingly futile and ridiculous attempt to get the scheme off the ground.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Here we go again with this new Labour Government simply copying and aping the failed and disastrous policies of the Conservative Government on hotel accommodation, while engaging in this grotesque competition to see who can sound the hardest on asylum seekers. Why not be bold and imaginative? Many of these asylum seekers are highly educated, with skills that could be deployed in communities up and down the United Kingdom. The ridiculous answer that the Minister gave to the Liberal Democrats about the UK being a pull to asylum seekers is simply nonsense, and she knows that with the tens of thousands coming to our shores right now. Why not get them usefully employed instead of leaving them to rot in hotels across the UK?
Dame Angela Eagle
We certainly want those who gain status to be usefully employed, and my part of the system is ensuring that we get those asylum decisions up and running as fast as possible. Unfortunately, we have inherited a difficult situation, which we are working hard to resolve. Once someone has gained status in this country, of course they are able to work, so we have to get the system working faster.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
In my constituency, two hotels were opened under the previous Conservative Government, and they are still there, so I find the new concern from Conservative Members slightly disconcerting. Although I accept what the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) says about this now being the Labour Government’s problem, I am certain that Conservative Members do not want to publicly defend their appalling legacy, wo need a little less from them. The question I put to the Minister—[Interruption.] That is how it works here: we ask a question and wait for the answer. [Interruption.] The shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), can keep quiet.
Schools in my constituency say that accessing children in those hotels for educational welfare visits or safeguarding checks is proving more and more difficult because the providers do not understand their responsibilities. I encourage the Minister to speak to her counterparts in the Department for Education and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that those necessary checks to keep children safe can be done unimpeded.
Dame Angela Eagle
Since we came into government, we have done much more to co-operate across Departments, and I will certainly take that issue up with my opposite numbers in the Department for Education and MHCLG.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Two hotels in my constituency of East Londonderry are being used, and we have problems enough trying to provide good-quality hotels, with Royal Portrush coming up next year. We need to see a gradual, continuous reduction in hotel accommodation being used for this purpose. Will the Minister address that and try to show some sense of direction on when that will be achieved?
Dame Angela Eagle
We are processing asylum claims, which were at a standstill when we came into government, not least those that are extant in Northern Ireland. I hope that will lead to a process where we get throughput in the system and we begin to exit hotels.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s informing the House that return figures are now at nearly 10,000, which is up 1,000 from last week. May I ask on behalf of my constituents how we can make returns even faster?
Dame Angela Eagle
For the integrity of any asylum system, it is important that a person who is not granted asylum recognises that they do not have the right to stay in the country. Hopefully they will leave voluntarily; if not, they will be removed. Immigration enforcement, which operates out of the Home Office, is focused on increasing total returns. As I said, they are up 19% on the same period last year, and we intend to double down and carry on.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
In Boston and Skegness, we want the use of hotels by asylum seekers to stop, as is the case across the country. Under the previous Labour Government 20 years ago, processes and applications were dealt with within three to four weeks, including appeals, and only about 20% of applications were granted asylum. When will the Minister and the Home Office get back to the sensible workmanlike processes that worked 20 year ago?
Dame Angela Eagle
We are working on it, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we have inherited a huge mess with large backlogs that are not easy to clear.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I associate myself with the comments of the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), who has eloquently described how it used to work under the previous Labour Government. In fact, on the last day of 2010, the number of people on an asylum waiting list was around 14,000. In June this year, the asylum caseload was 224,000. That is 16 times higher. The brass neck, frankly, of Conservative Members to come here and criticise us is genuinely breathtaking. Given that we have gotten three of the largest deportation flights in British history off the ground in four months, does the Minister agree that although there is far more to do, the plan is working?
Dame Angela Eagle
Yes, but it is tough and difficult, and to be successful, it requires international co-operation across borders operationally, politically and diplomatically, and we are doing that.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
Yesterday the Minister finally replied to my letter after my Datchet constituents were given next to no notice about single adult males being housed at the Manor hotel. She said the numbers housed there could reach as high as 85 people, and she gave no indication about how long they would be there, in breach of her manifesto commitment. Will she now give my constituents a concrete timetable for when the misuse of the Manor hotel will end?
Dame Angela Eagle
Our manifesto commitment was not to close all asylum hotels within four months of being elected.
Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
It is truly astonishing to hear the Conservatives come here today to defend their Rwanda policy—£700 million spent on four deportees, or £175 million each. They could have purchased a five-star hotel for each of them. Surely the Minister agrees that the money is far better spent on intelligence, enforcement and, of course, processing, to get the backlog that we inherited down.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
I am sure that the vast majority of Members accept that the new Government have inherited a complete and utter shambles of an asylum system, and are having to clear up another area of Tory mess. Part of that clearing up will involve sorting out and processing asylum applications promptly, so will the Minister give us more insight on how she is doing that? My area had asylum hotels imposed upon it by the last Conservative Government. How will the Government avoid principal holiday accommodation areas taking further such hotels?
Dame Angela Eagle
We certainly are having to get the system back up and running from a virtual standing start, as the hon. Gentleman rightly points out. That means that we have been able, as I said, to go up from processing only 1,000 asylum claims a month to nearly 10,000 a month. Those who have gone through the whole system and have received a grant, for example, need then to exit our asylum accommodation. That allows us to backfill and, in the end, to exit hotels. However, that is not an instant solution; the system has ground to a halt and we must redeploy resource to get it up and running again.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
It is worth remembering that when this Government came into office, we were in the middle of the worst year ever for small boat crossings —the number of crossings was 6% higher than in 2022, the previous record year. That, I am afraid, was the legacy of chaos and failure that the Conservative party left behind. There is still a long way to go in tackling the crossings, but does the Minister welcome the fact that, so far, total arrivals this year are 20% down on 2022?
Dame Angela Eagle
I welcome any progress, but I also recognise the seasonality of arrivals. Unlike the last Government, I am not here to tell the House that there are any quick or easy solutions to this difficult problem. We are getting the system up and running, we have created the border security command to start disrupting and degrading the gangs that are smuggling people across the channel, and we will assert the right of the rule of law to exist, and get our asylum system working, so that we can stop those dangerous crossings.
However, I cannot stand here and say that a magic wand that can easily be waved. It will take hard cross-jurisdictional and cross-country work, and that is what the border security commander has been appointed to do. That is what the extra £150 million of resource given to that job is there to do. That is what our operational and National Crime Agency people are there to do and are doing.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
We have heard today that more than 19,000 illegals have come in on small boats since the Government came into office. Does the Minister have any figures on the influx in the United Kingdom of illegals and others from the Republic of Ireland, where there are no checks? On the question of hotels, how can my constituents judge her party’s manifesto pledge to reduce the number of hotels? To help them do that, will she undertake to publish, on a monthly or bi-monthly basis, the number of hotels in use in each constituency and the number of illegals accommodated in them?
Dame Angela Eagle
No. The previous Government did not do that either, for safeguarding and public safety reasons, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
It is rather galling for the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) to protest about a hotel in his constituency being used. That is clearly the result of a backlog created by the Conservatives when in government, as they wasted hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money on gimmicks that they knew would never work. Surely my hon. Friend agrees that the right answer is better and faster processing. That is fairer for those seeking asylum, fairer for those in communities where hotels are being used for asylum accommodation, and fairer for the taxpayer.
Dame Angela Eagle
I agree. Of course, the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) knows only too well that the same hotel was open from 21 November 2022 to 8 February 2024, and he did not complain about it in the House then.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Will the Minister outline the safety procedures in place to ensure that there is additional community policing in the areas around the hotels, as literally hundreds of single men are descending on small hotels and communities? That is a safety issue, and all our constituents across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland deserve to have that reassurance.
Dame Angela Eagle
There is a safeguarding and safety issue going in both directions. I see reports of asylum seeker service users being attacked and injured, as well as of attacks in the other direction in a small number of cases. We always liaise with the local police and local authorities. We take an intelligence-led approach to see whether there is outside agitation or difficulty, and we are in constant contact with local services and our service providers to ensure the safety of service users and local populations.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her statement, and I am responding to it in the context of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I can only agree with her on Rwanda. Not only was that scheme an inhumane shambles, but it has brought shame and ridicule to our country, and I am glad to see the back of it. I welcome her commitment to bringing dignity and respect to the immigration system, and her acceptance that the way in which the hotels have been operated is a big part of that.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s recent “Destitution by Design” report, which was authored by Professor Beth Watts-Cobbe, a researcher at the Institute for Social Policy, Housing, Equalities Research in my constituency, makes absolutely clear the human impact of the so-called hostile immigration policy operated by the previous Government on real people in our country. Is the Minister aware of that report, and if not, will she commit herself or one of her staff to speaking to Professor Watts-Cobbe about its findings?
Dame Angela Eagle
I am happy to check out the report, and I will write to my hon. Friend.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for coming to the House to set out the Government’s measures to deal with this issue. I share my colleagues’ amazement about the new-found concern of Conservative Members—[Interruption.] I am not sure why the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) is heckling. This time last year, under the Conservative Government, we had more than 400 hotels and more than 21,000 hotel rooms in use for asylum seekers, and we were spending £8 million a day on hotels. Does the Minister agree that although the Conservatives were apparently happy with that, this Labour Government are not, and we are taking steps to deal with their mess?
Dame Angela Eagle
I thank my hon. Friend for his observations. Clearly, we begin from the situation that we found when we came into office. In this case, the system was in chaos, with a Rwanda scheme that was an unworkable and massively expensive distraction, which meant that no processing of any of the asylum claims made from March 2023 was happening. We have a huge backlog. We have had to switch the system, and divert resources from a failed Rwanda scheme into processing and the border security command, so that we can deal with the causes of the problem, rather than pretending that it does not exist.
Defence Programmes Developments
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on defence programmes developments.
I have now been Secretary of State for four months, and it is an honour and a privilege to have this job. Every day I meet staff from the military, the civil service and industry who are totally inspiring and dedicated to keeping this country safe, often unseen and unheard by us and by the public. We are proud of their professionalism and thank them for everything that they do.
This is a new Government getting on with delivering for defence. We have stepped up support for Ukraine, signed the landmark Trinity House agreement with Germany, and given forces personnel the largest pay rise in more than 20 years. We have confirmed defence as a priority sector as part of the Government’s industrial strategy, and this week we secured the Second Reading of the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill to improve service life. Labour is the party of defence, and we will make Britain better defended.
We know that these are serious times. We have war in Europe, conflict in the middle east and increasing global threats. Technology is rapidly changing the nature of warfare, as we see right now in Ukraine. Before the election, we knew that there were serious problems with defence—one previous Conservative Defence Secretary told the House that our armed forces have been “hollowed out and underfunded” over the last 14 years.
However, as I have told the House since taking office, the problems were even worse than we thought. The inheritance was dire: the state of the finances and the forces was often hidden from Parliament, with billion-pound black holes in defence plans, taxpayers’ funds being wasted, and military morale down to record lows. That is why we are taking swift action to inject investment, get a grip on Ministry of Defence budgets and kick-start much-needed reforms to start fixing the foundations for UK defence. I will update the House on what we are doing.
First, I will mention investment. In July, the Chancellor exposed the £22 billion black hole at the heart of the Government’s plans. There were hundreds of unfunded pressures this year and into the future. The first duty of the Government is to keep this country safe, which is why the Chancellor announced in the Budget that defence will receive a boost next year of nearly £3 billion to start to fix the foundations for our forces. The Chancellor also told the House that we will set a clear path to 2.5% of GDP on defence, which will be fully funded, unlike the Conservatives’ unfunded pre-election gimmick, which was never built into Government finances. This is not just about how much we spend on defence; it is how we spend that counts. That is why we are conducting a strategic defence review at pace to assess the threats we face and the capabilities we will need in the future. That is also why I have introduced tight financial controls on the Department, including a £300 million reduction in planned consultancy spending. We are getting a grip on MOD budgets and investing in people and future technologies.
Secondly, I will mention kit and capabilities. For too long, our soldiers, sailors and aviators have been stuck with old, outdated equipment because Ministers would not make the difficult decommissioning decisions. As technology advances at pace, we must move faster towards the future, so, with full backing from our service chiefs, I can confirm that six outdated military capabilities will be taken out of service. These decisions are set to save the MOD £150 million over the next two years and up to £500 million over five years—savings that will be retained in full in defence.
Alongside this statement, I have made a written ministerial statement outlining the detail of my decommissioning decisions. They include decisions to decommission HMS Northumberland, a frigate with structural damage that makes her simply uneconomical to repair; 46 Watchkeeper mark 1s, which are 14-year-old Army drones that technology has overtaken; and HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, landing ships effectively retired by previous Ministers but superficially kept on the books, at a cost of £9 million a year. They also include decisions to decommission 14 Chinooks, some more than 35 years old, which will be accelerated out of service; two Wave-class tankers, neither of which has been to sea for years; and 17 Puma helicopters, some of which have more than 50 years of flying. Their service will not be extended. I recognise that they will mean a lot to many who have sailed and flown in them during their deployments around the world. They have provided valuable capability over the years, but their work is done, and we must now look to the future. All current personnel will be redeployed or retrained; no one will be made redundant. As the First Sea Lord said about the retirements,
“The threat is changing so we must have the self-confidence to make the changes required”.
Of course, we should be in no doubt that the future of our Royal Marines and its elite force will be reinforced in the SDR.
These are common-sense decisions that previous Governments failed to take. They will secure better value for money for the taxpayer and better outcomes for the military. They are all backed by the chiefs and taken in consultation with strategic defence reviewers. Allies have been informed, and we have constant dialogue with NATO. Those will not be the last difficult decisions that I will have to make, given the defence inheritance that we were left with, but they will help us to get a grip on the finances, and give us greater scope to renew our forces as we look towards the strategic defence review and spending 2.5% of GDP on defence. I thank the chiefs for their determination to work with me on this.
Thirdly, I will mention reform. Defence reform has been of little interest to recent Defence Secretaries—it does not make headlines or advance careers—but the way that defence works must change to deal with the increasing and diversifying threats. I recently launched the biggest reform programme in defence for 50 years to create a stronger UK defence centre, secure better value for money and better outcomes for our armed forces, and better implement the strategic defence review. Central to a reformed defence will be our new, fully fledged national armaments director, whose recruitment is under way. The Chief of the Defence Staff will oversee a new military strategic headquarters, operating from the end of 2024, where he will formally command the individual service chiefs for the first time. He will be central in prioritising investment and spending between the services. The permanent secretary will lead a leaner Department with more policy muscle and influence. These reforms will ensure faster delivery, better integration and clearer accountability across defence to make our forces fit to fight in the future.
Finally, I will mention our people. This Government are putting defence people at the heart of our defence plans. We inherited a Conservative crisis in military recruitment and retention; targets have been missed every year for 14 years and morale is at a record low. We cannot fix those deep-set problems overnight, but Ministers are on a mission to lift military morale. We have awarded the forces the largest pay increase in more than 20 years, and I can announce that from April, I am introducing a new £30,000 retention payment for a cohort of tri-service aircraft engineers who sign up for an additional three years of service. It will be open to around 5,000 personnel in total. From January, we have a new £8,000 retention payment for Army personnel who have served for four years. That will support 4,000 personnel a year for three years—12,000 troops in total.
I have set out where we were, and where we are going. We are in a new era of rising global tensions, and we need a new era for UK defence. To achieve that, the Government are investing £3 billion extra next year and setting a clear path to 2.5%. We are driving far-reaching reform and fixing the foundations for our armed forces to make Britain better defended, strong at home and secure abroad.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
We have heard it all today. The Secretary of State claims that Labour is the party of defence, when barely an hour and a half ago, Prime Minister’s questions was taken by a Deputy Prime Minister who, along with the Foreign Secretary, voted against the renewal of Trident.
The Secretary of State talks about inheriting a financial black hole. I remind the House that in 2010, when the Conservative party last took office, the deficit was 10.3% of GDP and we were on the verge of bankruptcy. When Labour took office in July, the deficit was 4.4% of GDP. Had the deficit Labour inherited been the same as in 2010, it would have been £160 billion bigger—the same as the NHS budget in England last year—so we take no lectures on black holes. The fact is that Labour has refused to set a pathway to 2.5%, and now we see the consequences: cuts instead of a pathway. The Secretary of State says that his path to 2.5% will be fully funded, while describing our path to 2.5% as a gimmick. Our plan was funded by reducing the size of the civil service. That is not a gimmick; it is just something that Labour’s union paymasters will not allow them to do.
The Secretary of State says that defence reform was of little interest to recent Defence Secretaries. If he is talking about Ben Wallace, he was the Defence Secretary who took the massive decision to provide battlefield weapons to Ukraine before Russia invaded it, and to provide it with Storm Shadow and Challenger 2. If he is talking about Grant Shapps, he gave me his 100% backing in delivering the integrated procurement model, a fundamental reform of defence procurement that was all about modernisation, and that accelerated our procurement of anti-drone lasers.
Having delivered a 9.7% pay rise for the most junior personnel in 2023, we welcome the retention payments. However, given the cuts relating to the Royal Navy and its staffing pressures, will retention payments be offered to non-aircraft engineers, and will the RAF and Navy also receive the £8,000 four-year retention bonus? If not, why not?
The Secretary of State says that we “superficially” kept Bulwark and Albion on the books. Yes, we placed them in extended readiness, but to be clear, I personally sought and received assurances from the Navy’s leadership that in the event of a full-scale warfighting scenario in which the priority for the Navy was littoral capability, those ships could have been regenerated to a condition that enabled them to fight, and the crews could have been found. That is what the Navy’s leadership confirmed. Permanently scrapping the landing ships means removing that capability entirely. What impact will that have on the operational effectiveness of the Royal Marines? The multi-role support ship is intended to fill the gap, but it is at least eight to nine years away. Is the Secretary of State still committed to MRSS, and if so, how many will he procure?
Turning to rotary, what will be the operational impact in the immediate term of the Puma and Chinook decisions, and what will be the cost of the commercial solution that the Secretary of State will use to fill the capability gap in Brunei and Cyprus? As for the Conservatives’ record on rotary, the Secretary of State knows that we secured £320 million of savings by renegotiating the Chinook extended range procurement, and that I personally commenced the new medium helicopter competition. On the new medium helicopter, I insisted that the procurement should have strong scoring for maintaining skilled rotary work in the UK, and for exportability, to sustain that work. Can the Secretary of State confirm that he will not change the competition, and that he is still committed to procuring the new medium helicopter without delay? Will the NMH come into service before those Pumas are retired?
On Watchkeeper, as the Minister who launched the MOD’s first ever drone strategy, I appreciate that this is an area where we need to move fast and to have the capability to deliver in the modern battle space. Will the Secretary of State be gifting any of these capabilities to Ukraine, such as the older Chinooks or the Pumas, especially given what happened yesterday? Finally and most importantly, what on earth does all this mean for the strategic defence review, from the MRSS to future drones for the British armed forces? The Secretary of State will no doubt say that I should wait for the SDR, so why did he not wait for the SDR before making today’s decisions?
To conclude, whatever the Chancellor’s true grasp of economics, she has certainly been able to force her priorities on to the country, getting the MOD to scrap major capabilities before it has undertaken the Department’s much-vaunted strategic defence review. The Labour Government have killed off North sea oil, undermining our energy security. This week, they are killing off the family farm and threatening our food security, and today, they are scrapping key defence capabilities and weakening our national security. The Government have made their choices, and they own the consequences.
John Healey
That was a rather wide-ranging response that spanned the fiscal position in 2010 and farming today. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the last time this country spent 2.5% on defence was in 2010 under Labour, and that the Tory plan to spend 2.5% on defence was a pre-election gimmick, announced four weeks before the election was called and never hardwired into any Government finances. That is why it was unfunded; that is why it was a pre-election gimmick; and that is why the Institute for Fiscal Studies called the plan “misleading”.
I readily pay tribute to Ben Wallace as one of my predecessors. The hon. Gentleman talked not about defence reform, but about the decision that Ben Wallace rightly made to step up with military aid to Ukraine, so that we led the field and made sure that other countries followed suit. We were proud to support those decisions in opposition, and we are proud to continue that UK leadership, and to help command the continued, united support for Ukraine.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s welcome for the retention incentives, which are for aircraft engineers, as well as the retention payments for the Army ranks. Those payments are for privates and lance-corporals; they stand as I have announced them, and will start from January. I am glad of his welcome for the decision I took on Watchkeeper. He did indeed launch a drone strategy as defence procurement Minister. He recognises that we are talking about a 14-year-old drone in the hands of the British Army, and that the innovation cycle for drones in Ukraine is two to three months. We can do better; the Army knows how it will do better, and it will replace Watchkeeper.
The hon. Gentleman also asked questions about helicopters, the future structure of our forces, and the capabilities we need. Those areas are being considered by the strategic defence review. As I said in my statement, I made today’s decisions in consultation with the reviewers, to make sure that they are aligned in their thinking, and in dialogue with NATO.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark. Those ships were mothballed; there were no plans for either of them to go back to sea for nearly 10 years—until they were due to be taken out of service. They were not ready to sail or to fight. There are capabilities there that can be covered elsewhere. That will save us money every year—money that we can redeploy in defence, and put towards upgrading our forces and technologies.
The hon. Gentleman saw the figures before the election that I saw afterwards. He knows the truth of the black hole that his Government left across the board, but he did nothing in defence to get a grip on the budgets, or to decommission out-of-date kit. I am taking action now to strengthen defence for the future. These decisions are overdue, and the service chiefs support these changes, which means that we can move more rapidly—as we must, learning the lessons from Ukraine and recognising the changing nature of warfare and the rising global threats. We have to evolve our equipment, and invest in and prepare our forces for the future.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Overall, I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement today, because some of the work to reform the operations of the Ministry of Defence is long overdue. It is right that old platforms be retired and that we transition to newer equipment. I am also glad to note that the plan has the full backing of our military chiefs.
However, this plan is being implemented without the full findings of the strategic defence review having been announced, and obviously it has cost implications as well as an impact on our people, so can the Secretary of State advise me on a couple of things? First, will the unrequired kit be either sold to allies or given to Ukraine? Secondly, how will our people be reskilled and retrained, so that there are no job losses?
John Healey
As I said in my statement, the decisions I have taken help us to get a grip of the MOD budget now and create greater scope to better implement the strategic defence review when it reports. These decisions, as I said, are overdue. They were ducked by Ministers in the previous Government. Further decisions about what to do with the decommissioned equipment have not yet been made, but when I make those decisions, I will ensure that I inform my hon. Friend’s Committee. I look forward to the grilling that he and his colleagues on the Committee are set to give me tomorrow morning, no doubt about this and a number of other things.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I declare an interest in that my nephew is an aircraft engineer with the Royal Air Force, so I shall not be commenting on the retention payment, much as it sounds very handsome.
I welcome the emphasis in the statement on defence people. A legacy of the last Conservative Government was that there was not enough emphasis on retaining brilliant people in the armed forces. With Grant Shapps, we saw a Defence Secretary who was fascinated by technology—he came to the House and made a statement about DragonFire—but missed the very important things that were slipping down the list, such as the platforms that we hear today are being decommissioned. So I welcome the pay rise for personnel, and I particularly welcome the retention payment for Army personnel who have served for more than four years, given that the legacy of Capita is an appalling one.
However, there are some alarming gaps. The new Chinook heavy-lift helicopters not coming in till 2027 leaves a very substantial gap of three years in relation to the 14 Chinooks. The new medium helicopter contract is not due to be awarded till next year. I question when the contract for the new medium helicopter will be introduced—perhaps not until the beginning of the next decade. The multi-role support ships are not due to come into service until 2033. I am alarmed at what that may do for the ability of the Royal Marines to operate in the littoral. I question that the statement said there was full backing from our service chiefs. Of course, there was: they have to salute, turn to the right and carry on. What was lacking was a statement about this being done in consultation with the strategic defence reviewers. Was this statement given their full backing?
John Healey
My statement was very clear. I made these decisions in consultation with the strategic defence reviewers. It is not for them to back them or not. But if the hon. Gentleman asked them, I am sure they would say that these are entirely the right decisions, that they go in the right direction and that they start to make our forces more fit for the future. These decisions are consistent with the direction of our thinking, which is why I can confidently take them now, because we need to create the scope to move faster towards the future once the defence review reports.
We also need to do more to deal with the dire state of the finances that we inherited in defence and across the Government. The hon. Gentleman asks about the Chinooks. This acceleration of their retirement will apply to the 14 oldest helicopters in a fleet of more than 50, some of which are more than 35 years old. This means that the oldest 14 will be retired at the point when they are due to enter a costly maintenance package. That will not happen, and it means we can speed up the transition to the new, much more capable Chinooks that will arrive. It also means that we can save money for defence that we can redeploy to other purposes.
Finally, I very much hope that we can sign up the hon. Gentleman’s nephew with the new aircraft engineers incentive payment.
Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)
Those needing to know in what state the last Government left the armed forces should look at the report on readiness for war by the Defence Committee, on which there was a Conservative majority. I really welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, particularly on waste and on the recruitment and retention of key people in the armed forces. However, on the issue of defence reform, can I ask him whether in the few months he has been in the job he feels that the MOD is fit for purpose? Is it agile and adaptable enough for the modern, oncoming threats we face?
John Healey
The short answer to my hon. Friend’s question is no, which is precisely the reason for the far-reaching reforms that I have begun. This process will continue, I expect, through my entire time in this post. It needs to be relentless, far-reaching and radical; otherwise, we simply will not be able as a country to fashion the forces we need in the future to be able to fight, deter and defend this country.
I say to my hon. Friend, who is one of the leading experts on defence, having served as a Defence Committee member during the previous Government, that I value his view, and I refer Opposition Front Benchers to the points he made. I congratulate him on being, and wish him well as, the leader of the new UK parliamentary delegation to NATO. I wish all the Members involved, from both Houses and from all sides, a successful delegation visit to Montreal later this week.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I have known the right hon. Gentleman for a long time, and he will know that I have a high regard for him, so I simply offer him these words from my knowledge of all the battles one undertakes within government—always with the Treasury.
Putting aside for one second any party difference on this, we all want a functional and ready defensive force able to take on whatever comes at us. We live in a very unstable and dangerous world—more dangerous than at any time I can recall. The Government rightly, and I welcome this, set up the strategic defence review to set out the key priorities and key threats, and it therefore seems reasonable to me that we should wait for this report, which I believe will strengthen the MOD’s arm in future discussions, negotiations and battles with the Treasury—always with the Treasury.
I pose this simple question to the right hon. Gentleman. When he feeds little bits and pieces to the Treasury ahead of the review, it will come back for more. Bulwark and Albion still had life in them and could have been resurrected; mothballing is what the Americans use all the time. Could I please suggest that he rethinks this process, and says to the Treasury, “Back off now, and when the review is there, we can have a proper discussion and a proper debate”?
John Healey
I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s tone and his advice. On the savings I have outlined that will flow from the six decommissioning decisions, that money will be retained in full in defence. It will not go to the Treasury. He links finances to the strategic defence review. The Prime Minister has always been clear since the NATO summit in Washington in July that it is the strategic defence review first and the pathway to 2.5% second, and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury recently confirmed that we should expect that in the spring.
Chris Evans (Caerphilly) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend, and it is good to hear a Secretary of State finally getting to grips with the root and branch reform that we need in the MOD. I want him to cast his mind back to the dossier on waste that we produced in opposition. It showed that, since 2010, £13 billion of taxpayers’ money had been wasted by the MOD. Will he commit, as he did in that report, to a root and branch National Audit Office report on MOD waste, and to the MOD being the first Department to be referred to the Office for Value for Money? Will he also commit to continuing to update this House on his ongoing battle against MOD waste?
John Healey
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s comments, and the reminder to this House of the dossier of defence waste that we did indeed work on together in opposition. I can confirm to him and the House that I have commissioned an internal audit of waste, but I have not waited for the results of that; I have already reduced the consultancy spend by £300 million this year. It was set to be a ballooned £1 billion over three years for consultancy and extra staff. I have also scrapped the Tories’ £40 million VIP helicopter contract, which was money spent on moving VIPs around the country, rather than investing in our servicemen and women, which we can now do.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
This is a black day for the Royal Marines. I advise the Defence Secretary that he would do well to have a look at the report, “Sunset for the Royal Marines?”, which was published by the Defence Committee in February 2018, when the issue of scrapping our amphibious assault ships was described by the cross-party Committee as “militarily illiterate” and totally at variance with strategic reality. Does he accept that the purpose of HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, which were due to remain in service for nine and 10 more years respectively, is to have the capability of making a landing across a foreshore when it is opposed by enemy forces, just as the Fearless and Intrepid did the job before Albion and Bulwark? Does he agree that we have no way of knowing whether the absence of that capability for the next decade will be an incentive for somebody to try something like the Falklands?
John Healey
I have a huge amount of respect for the right hon. Gentleman. He led the Committee that produced an important report, but it was six years ago. Far from it being “a black day”, as he says, this statement signals a bright future, which will be reinforced by the SDR for the Marines and their elite force. On HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, he is right that both ships were not due to go out of service for nine and 10 years respectively, but neither—given the state they are in and decisions taken by the last Government—were set to sail again. In other words, they had in practice been taken out of service, but Ministers had not been willing to admit that. Our three Bay-class landing ships and RFA Argus for now will continue to provide, as they do currently, the amphibious capability. That will allow us to save at least £9 million a year that would have been spent under the previous plans, and it will allow us to focus much more strongly on the multi-role support ships, which promise to have a greater capability and a broader range of ability for the future.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s focus on the future of our forces, which has been backed by the chiefs, and I particularly welcome the retention payments for our aircraft engineers and Army personnel. As others have alluded to, technology is changing the nature of the threats that we face. Can the Secretary of State confirm that this Government will work closely with the defence industry to harness new technologies to ensure that our forces have the kit they need to respond effectively to increasing threats?
John Healey
I can confirm that, and I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments. The best exemplification of the argument she makes is in the Army’s plans to rapidly replace the Watchkeeper mark 1 capability. It is a 14-year-old drone in an era where, as Ukraine tells us, drone technology has a lifecycle of two to three months. The Army knows what it can do better. It knows it can do it more quickly. It knows how it will focus its efforts for the future. Decommissioning the Watchkeeper mark 1s will allow it better to do that.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, and I recognise and appreciate that he is doing a difficult job in a dangerous world. Can I seek some clarification on the scrapping of HMS Bulwark and HMS Albion? We are told that there is a bright future for the Royal Marines, yet at the same time we hear from the Government that decisions about defence capabilities will be made in the strategic defence review. Can the Secretary of State tell the House precisely what conversations he has had about the future of the Royal Marines? Specifically, what does that mean for the UK’s commitment towards NATO to defend the high north?
John Healey
The statement means no change to the available amphibious capability, because, in practice, Albion and Bulwark had been mothballed. They are out of action, and there were no plans for them to sail again until they were to be taken out of service a decade into the future. This position allows us to focus more quickly on the more modern, more flexible capabilities we will need for the future. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on becoming a member of the Defence Committee. I am sure that if he is at the Committee sitting tomorrow morning, he will pursue this matter further.
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
A bit of this debate should be about honesty. If the Ministry of Defence were to step forward and say, “We want to modernise and be able to buy kit at scale and at pace, but we have a limited budget,” it would just be being honest and realistic to say that we have to let some things go.
With my Royal Marines background, I first went on Bulwark in 2017 on a training exercise, learning how to plan and execute raiding operations. I have fond memories of the ship, as do many in the Royal Marines, but that exercise was not conducted at sea; it was conducted with Bulwark alongside in Devonport, where it has remained for a number of years. Even then, we were told, “You will go not on this ship at sea. It will not happen.” People knew that at the time, so can we be honest?
On Plymouth and Devonport, where Albion and Bulwark are, and HMS Westminster, which the Secretary of State has also mentioned, may I ask him how the jobs and workers in Plymouth will be protected? With new submarines coming forward at huge scale, can we talk about the investment in Plymouth required—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I call the Secretary of State.
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right that too often decisions were ducked or Parliament was too often not fully informed when they were taken. The point he makes about the experience on Bulwark is telling. We do not have the capability, if it is incapable of sailing. We do not have the facility to train effectively on it, if all it can do is stay alongside. In practice, as I said earlier, Bulwark and Albion had been taken out of action; Ministers had just been unwilling to level with the public and with Parliament about that. I understand his interest in the case of Plymouth and Devonport. I have been a strong supporter in opposition and in government of the Team Barrow transformation approach. There is a case for looking at replicating a similar model in other parts of the country. For me, the first in frame would be Plymouth.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
What does this announcement tell us about how the strategic defence review is going? One lesson of the Ukraine war is that old kit can be very useful. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) said, America’s airfields and dockyards are stacked full of old kit for future contingencies. We are throwing away capabilities that are only out of commission because there was not enough money. Now the Secretary of State is telling us that there is probably even less money. Please will he not come to this House and pretend he is just clearing out an old cupboard of rubbish that everybody had forgotten about and that the defence chiefs are hopping up and down with delight at his clearing out.
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman has a long interest and great expertise in defence. Over the years, I have listened to him make the argument that the UK’s alacrity in disposing of any decommissioned kit and commitment was a strategy that should be reviewed and rethought and was different from that of some other countries. I have made it clear to the House today that the decommissioning decisions have been taken, but what we do with the kit as it comes out of service has not yet been settled.
On the strategic defence review, what my decisions and announcements tell the House and the hon. Gentleman are, first, that people will be at the heart of the plans for the future, and secondly, that the technology is changing at an accelerating pace. That imperative will be part of the strategic defence review. The lesson of Ukraine also tells us that we must have an increasingly integrated force—that is reflected in the decisions I have taken today. He should expect that to be reflected also in the confirmation and recommendations of the strategic defence review.
Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)
Another day, another Labour Minister at the Dispatch Box cleaning up the mess left by the Conservative party. Does the Secretary of State agree that the decisions outlined in today’s statement will fix the foundations of our nation’s defence, spend every penny he has wisely and keep our nation safer?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right. I would add that when, inevitably, we want to do more than we can afford, we must focus our resources on the areas of most importance. That is the underlying principle that applies to the retention payments for the tri-service aircraft engineers, lance corporals and other ranks in the Army after four years’ service, which I have been able to announce this afternoon. We need them for the future. We have trained them, they have great skills and we want them to have a longer and more productive career in our armed forces.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
Servicemen and women will have listened with despair to the Government and the Opposition argue about whether the strategic and catastrophic underfunding of the armed forces was over the last 14 or the last 30 years. Either way, it results in the situation of defence of the realm that we find ourselves in.
Given the Secretary of State’s announcement today, and with one more Type 23 to bite the dust, can he advise how many escorts and frigates will be available—subject to the power improvement project on Type 45 —before Type 31 and Type 26 are available? What about the AW149 new medium-lift helicopter? Why is this Government moving at a snail’s pace, as the last Government did, on new medium-lift helicopters? What message does the 31 rotary-linked platforms and five Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships coming out of service send to the outside world? What will the strategic defence review do to bolster that situation? Some £300 million less is being spent on consultants, but can the Secretary of State advise what the consultancy spend will be now in the MOD?
John Healey
It will be £300 million less than it would have been before. The decision on HMS Northumberland makes no difference to the availability of the Royal Navy ships at sea, because that ship was not capable. Refitting it in its current state, as planned, could have cost hundreds of millions of pounds—that is also behind my decision. The process for the medium-lift helicopters is under way and continues.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
On a recent visit to Commando Training Centre Royal Marines with the armed forces parliamentary scheme we saw the amazing Gordon Messenger facility, which serves Royal Marines, their families and veterans. It is a true community hub, and was valued by everyone in the service. Will the Secretary of State say more about the support that this Government are giving to service personnel, veterans and their families?
John Healey
One of the most important things that this House—never mind the Government who introduced the Bill—has done in the past week is to give its full backing to the Second Reading of the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill. This is an independent champion who will improve service life and will be there for those who serve and the families who support them. I look forward to my hon. Friend’s contribution to those debates, and I congratulate him on becoming a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, which is a great scheme. I know that he will have inspiring experiences and will make an even more informed contribution to debates in this House.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I appreciate the constraints on the Defence Secretary, but this statement makes a mockery of the SDR process. It also removes significant lines of contingent capability. He says that these will not be the last difficult decisions that he will have to make and that he is working in lockstep with the SDR, so is he, and is it, rolling the pitch for the removal or mothballing of the carriers, as has been rumoured? Does he understand what that means for the future of the Royal Navy as a globally deployable blue-water navy? Given his comments on Albion and Bulwark, is he also rolling the pitch for the future of the Royal Marines, since the two are intertwined and will be for the next 10 years before a replacement can be provided?
John Healey
Bulwark and Albion are not capabilities available to the Marines at present. On the Marines, I have said three times this afternoon that the future of its elite force, as part of the complex of what we need for the future, will be reinforced in the SDR. That is what I expect. The decisions that I have announced today are consistent with the SDR. He wrongly suggested that somehow these announcements make a mockery of it, but they are entirely consistent and are taken in consultation with the reviewers. On the future of carriers, in recent weeks my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces and I have paid particular attention to the plans for one of those carriers to undertake the carrier strike 2025 voyage into the Indo-Pacific, where it will have validation exercises with some important allies. It is a vital part of our ability to reinforce both our hard power and our soft power in future.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. It is clear both from the statement and from the follow-up questions that the previous Government have wasted millions of pounds in defence spending that could have been spent better, making it clear that Labour is the party of defence. That money could also have been spent better in our economy, to support the defence sector across the UK. What steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure that future programmes will be spent in the UK? What guarantees can he offer to support shipbuilding across this country?
John Healey
I am proud of our tradition of UK shipbuilding, including in Scotland. I want Britain’s warships to be built in Britain. My hon. Friend may be aware that we are committed to make the Government’s industrial strategy with the defence sector one of those priority sectors, so that we not only strengthen our forces for the future but use defence to strengthen our economy, create fresh jobs and back the innovative companies that will have a bigger part to play in both our security and our prosperity.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Secretary of State presented the savings as no-brainers—the ships were damaged and obsolete—but in his closing remarks he told us that these would not be the last difficult decisions. He simply cannot have it both ways. It is all about the messaging in the end. What message will be received from this statement in Buenos Aires, Moscow, Peking and Tehran?
John Healey
The message is clear: we now have a Government who are willing to take the decisions to deal with outdated equipment that should have been retired long ago, so that we can switch our focus and our finances, and develop the capabilities, technologies and weaponry that our forces need to fight more effectively in future.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
I very much welcome today’s statement from the Secretary of State. It is rather galling to hear from Opposition Members about cuts, when the previous Government’s biggest cut was to our armed forces—to the smallest size since the end of the Napoleonic wars. In that vein, I very much welcome the increase in the salaries of our armed forces, the highest in 20 years, and in particular the retention payments to aircraft engineers and serving armed personnel. What message can my right hon. Friend give to those who are in our armed forces, and those who are thinking about a career in our armed forces, that they will have a better future if they serve?
John Healey
The message is that our UK armed forces offer a fantastic career: a wide range of opportunity and skills for any young person who wants to sign up that will give them experiences and set them up for life. My hon. Friend is totally right when he talks about Conservative cuts. In the first year of a Labour Government, we are increasing defence spending by nearly £3 billion. In the first year of the Conservative Government in 2010, they cut defence by £2 billion.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
If I can echo the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith)—now that the Secretary of State’s Treasury minder has left the Chamber, he will be able to speak more openly about some of the challenges he faces in dealing with the Treasury—I appreciate that the Secretary of State faces really difficult decisions and that all these decisions will have been incredibly hard to make, but will he confirm to the House that the Chinooks and the Pumas will, as a first option, be at least offered to the Ukrainians to see if they can use them in any way at all?
John Healey
Given the right hon. Gentleman’s experience in this very job, I will take that as an early representation on the future decisions I will have to take on what to do with the kit once it is decommissioned.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
The Secretary of State rightly says that the MOD needs reform. One of the major failures has been the procurement of equipment, which has led to the wasting of hundreds of millions, if not billions, of pounds of taxpayers’ cash. Will he commit to also reform the recruitment of new personnel into the armed forces? Nobody has a good word to say about the outsourcing contract to Capita. Bring it in-house. Will he commit to that?
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman is right. Procurement is one of the first focuses and most important areas for further reform in defence, but defence reform is required across the board. On recruitment, I hope he will welcome the steps I have already taken to remove almost 100 bits of red tape that prevent young people from being recruited. I hope he will welcome the tough targets for the rapid turnaround in recruitment and an offer of a training place. I hope he will welcome also the direct recruitment route for those who want to join our cyber-forces, as part of reinforcing our national security.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
With close social and economic ties between communities on both sides of the Tamar, a Devonport deal is very important to people in South East Cornwall and in Plymouth. Will the Secretary of State commit to scoping a Devonport deal that looks to the future?
John Healey
If my hon. Friend, with her south-west posse, wants to come to see me to discuss this matter, I would be very happy to try to arrange that soon.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
The Minister of State for Defence in the other place earlier today talked about the world becoming darker and darker. Can the Secretary of State assure us, after the difficult decisions he has had to take today, that the SDR will be robust and that the defence equipment plan will reflect future threats and the future capabilities that our armed forces will require?
John Healey
My hon. Friend puts his finger exactly on the button. At the heart of the SDR is an assessment of the increasing and diversifying threats we face, the rapidly changing technology and nature of warfare, and therefore the capabilities we require for the future and the sort of forces we require for the future. Those are at the heart of the work the reviewers are doing at the moment. They are doing that in a thorough way and at pace. I expect them to conclude early in the new year.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
While it is deeply disappointing to hear the decisions around Devonport’s surface fleet today, in particular as the MP for a proud home to the Royal Marines and 42 Commando, it does provide, as has been alluded to by some colleagues on the Labour Benches, an opportunity to raise again the need for a Devonport deal, and in particular Plymouth and Devonport’s role in refitting the Royal Navy’s submarines going forward. As a member of that south-west posse, it is great that the Secretary of State has already offered a meeting. However, what we are specifically looking for is cross-ministerial commitment. We are getting plenty of meetings, but we want to know that the Ministers are joined up and having conversations cross-departmentally, and that the Devonport deal might be able to offer Plymouth and the wider south-west a future as we see these armed forces changes.
John Healey
I regard defence as largely beyond party politics, so I am happy to extend, on a cross-party basis, that invitation to a meeting to the hon. Lady. What I cannot undertake to do is to promise to deliver a cross-ministerial meeting, but if she is happy to start with me, then that is what we can do.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
As one of a number of Royal Marines on the Labour Benches, I really welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to the Royal Marines in the forthcoming SDR. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas), I served on HMS Albion, but that was 15 years ago. I think we all recognise that the battlefield has changed and that it is important we have the financing available to invest in the technology of the future. On reform, I notice that only two out of 49 major defence programmes are on time and on budget at the moment. What steps is the Secretary of State taking on defence reform to ensure the failures we saw under the previous Government can never be repeated?
John Healey
My hon. Friend refers to the regular reporting of the Major Projects Authority. The fact that only two out of 49 major defence projects can be said to be on time and on budget means that the Department is not delivering effectively for the taxpayer or for our forces. That is why defence reform, far reaching and deep, is required.
Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement today. It is really good to have a Secretary of State who is taking the long-term decisions to ensure our military is fit for the future. I particularly welcome the fact that all personnel affected by today’s decisions will be retrained or redeployed. In his first month in the job, the Prime Minister stated at the NATO summit that we were firmly committed to increasing defence spending to that 2.5% target. Given that this today’s final question, will he take this opportunity to restate not only that commitment, but also our commitment to take the long-term decisions so that our armed forces are equipped to ensure that our country is secure at home and strong abroad?
John Healey
My hon. Friend does not just ask about the detail of the statement, but cuts right to the chase of the purpose of the announcements I have made today. I will reinforce his point. The purpose is that we can make Britain better defended: we can make Britain more secure at home and strong abroad. That is exactly what this Government are determined to do.
Points of Order
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There are now widespread reports in the media of Storm Shadow missiles being used in Russian territory for the first time. To be clear, I entirely sympathise with the Secretary of State in his reluctance to provide an operational running commentary, but equally he will appreciate that once these matters are being reported in the media there may be an expectation among colleagues that we will hear more in the House. Madam Deputy Speaker, have you been given any representations about a possible statement on these matters by the Ministry of Defence?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I thank the hon. Member for giving me notice of his point of order. As he will, I believe, be aware, I have been given no indication that the Secretary of State will be making such a statement, but the Secretary of State is obviously here and taking note of what is being said, and if he wishes to comment either now or later, he has the opportunity to do so.
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have seen, over recent weeks, a significant change in the action and in the rhetoric on Ukraine, and Ukraine’s action on the battlefield speaks for itself. We, as a nation and as a Government, are doubling down on our support for Ukraine, and are determined to do more. When I discussed this with Minister Umerov in a call yesterday, he talked about Ukraine’s robust response to recent Russian escalations—the escalation in the attacks on Ukrainian cities and children, the escalation in the attacks on the energy system, and the escalation that involves deploying 10,000 North Korean troops in combat positions on the frontline. We also discussed our plans, as the UK, to support the Ukrainians throughout 2025.
I remain committed to keeping Parliament as fully informed as possible. The hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) and the House will, I think, understand the reasons why, at this point, I am not able to go into any further operational details.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I trust that that response has satisfied the hon. Member for South Suffolk.
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During Prime Minister's questions, the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), said that the Government had given a pay rise to trade unions. That is factually incorrect. The Government gave pay rises to workers, and gave them to all workers, regardless of whether or not they were members of trade unions. That is the power of a trade union.
I know that it is difficult to educate His Majesty’s official Opposition about the benefits of trade unions, Madam Deputy Speaker, but can you advise me on whether I can compel the shadow Minister to come back and correct the record?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I understand that the hon. Member informed the shadow Minister that she was due to make a point of order on this issue, and I thank her for notifying us of the point of order. She will know that the contents of Members’ speeches are not a matter for the Chair—if they were, I would keep them much shorter—but I am sure that if the shadow Minister inadvertently said anything that was inaccurate, he will find a way in which to correct the record.
Terminal Illness (Relief of Pain)
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to issue guidance about the application of the criminal law in respect of the administration of pain relief by healthcare professionals to people who are terminally ill; and for connected purposes.
As we know, a ten-minute rule Bill is a delicate flower; it is almost certainly doomed to oblivion because there is no time for a Second Reading debate, but it can serve a purpose in allowing us to demonstrate a truth or a problem, or even just ask a question. I am deliberately proposing this Bill 10 days before the debate on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill—the “assisted suicide” Bill—because I want to highlight a real problem. There is simply not enough time to consider the immense complexities of this issue before we will be required to make our decision. That point will be the subject of a joint letter from me and the Mother of the House, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), to be published in The Guardian tomorrow.
A private Member’s Bill may be an appropriate vehicle for an issue that is narrow in scope, or involves a decision that is relatively clearcut, but that is not the case for the assisted suicide Bill. Were it a Government Bill—which it should be—there would be an impact assessment, but there is none. The Bill is much longer than almost any other private Member’s Bill, but it was published only very recently. What will be the impact on the NHS? Do we not need to know? At least one retired judge has questioned the role of judges. Should we not know more?
My Bill seeks to gain, and give the public, extra knowledge on one key aspect of this debate. What is the state of palliative care in this country? What are the options available to assist people in their dying? I use that phrase advisedly. All hospices currently assist people in dying as peacefully and painlessly as possible, but they do not do that by administering lethal drugs. So much of the impetus in favour of assisted suicide comes from an understandable fear of dying in pain. Talking to palliative care nurses and doctors, I am told that in nearly every case experienced practitioners can make our passing bearable, but I would like to know more, and I think that the public would. We would like to know more about the passing of people with degenerative diseases.
Demand for palliative care is increasing, and will continue to do so. It is estimated that by 2050, one in every four people in England and Wales will be over 65. The charity Marie Curie estimates that by 2048, over 646,000 more people will need palliative care—and, of course, just as individuals and families are feeling the cost of living crisis, our hospices are facing higher expenses. Hospice UK estimates that hospices faced £100 million more in costs in 2023 than in the year before. Research from King’s College London suggests that more than 100,000 people in the UK die each year without receiving the palliative care that they need and deserve.
My Bill asks the Secretaries of State for Justice, and for Health and Social Care, to publish a detailed analysis and advice on the law and procedures. For instance, palliative care nurses tell me that if your only motive is to relieve pain, you can give as much morphine as you like to a patient, and you will not kill him or her. However, I also hear that sometimes the pain doubles but the nurse—probably not in a hospice, but in a hospital—is unwilling to double the dose for fear of legal consequences. I hope that if I am dying of terminal cancer, a nurse will not hesitate to give me as much as necessary. I was at the deathbed of a dear friend and former colleague in the House; we were together in a hospice. I could hear the morphine pass, gurgling, into his wrists. He was knocked out, and his death was peaceful. It was clearly good practice. We, the public, need to be told what the situation is, in respect of ensuring a peaceful death in all conditions. My Bill would be a small step forward in taking up the debate and informing it. The debate in 10 days’ time could be seen as a useful airing of the issues, and then, in a year or two, we could make a measured and well-informed decision.
This is an immeasurably complex issue. First, there are deeply held moral and religious concerns about the ethics of assisted suicide; but even if those are of no concern to some people, there are practical issues as well. The hospice movement is one of our most loving and admired services, but we all know that sometimes there is not sufficient experience in some NHS hospitals to match the care given in hospices, so we need to know more. Should we not start by building up our hospice movement before we are given a binary choice in 10 days’ time? All this is before we even start to consider other issues, such as extending the law to other countries, or pressure being put on old people who feel themselves to be a burden.
There is something else that we that must consider. We know that we must provide more funding for the hospice and care home sector, but how can we afford it from general taxation? We need a national debate on a new social contract for a ballooning frail and elderly population with multiple health needs, and I have long argued that we can only do so with social insurance. We have to pay more for our care in old age. What we do not want, however, is pressure for assisted suicide for old people because there are not the resources to pay for them. Again, we need much more information about this whole area. I hope that my intervention today, in which I am seeking more knowledge, not just loudly stating my own position, is helpful, and that my Bill is useful.
Today I received the following letter from a doctor:
“Only recently, I was giving my condolences to a grieving woman who had lost her husband in the early hours. He had been given a few small doses of pain relief and mild sedatives over the last few nights for symptom control and had passed away peacefully at her side. She asked me in all seriousness, ‘Doctor, did the nurses give him something to make him die quicker last night?’ This was an awful lingering doubt that she had. I was able to firmly reassure her that, no, the medication would not have sped up his passing.
For her, and the vast majority of other patients, doctors are there to prolong life and palliate symptoms. Were this to change, then we should not be doctors in the eyes of many but bringers of death, agents of a state which counts the weakest members as expendable and worthy of nothing but an early grave.”
In conclusion, I hope that my Bill and this very short debate will inform discussion on this unbelievably moving and delicate matter. I have a dream, as we all have, that in years to come, when our time comes, we will be given the care that we need, but there is so much doubt and uncertainty about that. Many people, quite understandably, take a position from a point of principle. They may believe fundamentally, from a religious point of view, in the right to life; or they may have a libertarian point of view that states that everybody has a right to control their destiny. But when making this decision, probably one of the most important in this Parliament, it is surely important that we do so from a state of knowledge, and that we have a hospice movement and an NHS that are fully funded to care for our old people, so that we can assure all people that in this country—this civilised nation—we will ensure that everyone’s passing is as painless and peaceful as possible. In that spirit, I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Sir Edward Leigh, Rachael Maskell, Sir John Hayes, Danny Kruger, Sir Christopher Chope, Sir Julian Lewis, Lincoln Jopp, Martin Vickers, Dame Meg Hillier, Saqib Bhatti, Helen Grant and Sir Roger Gale present the Bill.
Sir Edward Leigh accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 December, and to be printed (Bill 136).
Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am proud of the unity that this House has shown in its support for Ukraine. This support has been steadfast since the onset of Russia’s illegal full-scale invasion in February 2022, regardless of the party in office, and it remains so today. We in this House recognise that while Ukraine is on the frontline, it is fighting for democracy and security across Europe. I want to make it clear that this Government stand, and will continue to stand, in unwavering support of Ukraine with our G7 allies.
On 22 October, my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Defence Secretary announced that the UK would contribute £2.26 billion to the G7 extraordinary revenue acceleration loans to Ukraine scheme, the ERA. This landmark agreement will provide Ukraine with a total of $50 billion in vital additional funding, allowing it to continue to fight back against Putin’s war machine. Crucially, these funds will be repaid not by Ukraine, but from the extraordinary profits made on sanctioned Russian sovereign assets held in the European Union.
This Bill simply provides the spending authority for the UK to contribute to the ERA scheme, enabling us to begin disbursing funds to Ukraine. It is another important demonstration of the UK’s commitment to backing Ukraine for as long as it takes. It will unlock our £2.26 billion contribution to the ERA, funding which is additional to all previous commitments.
The UK has long been at the forefront of support for Ukraine. Our total military, humanitarian and economic support pledged since February 2022 already stands at £12.8 billion. We have often been the first mover on military support in particular, which ranges from training over 47,000 Ukrainian military personnel to providing a squadron of Challenger 2 main battle tanks. Earlier this year, the Government announced that the UK would continue to provide guaranteed military support of £3 billion per year to Ukraine for as long as it takes.
But while we can be proud of what the UK has already done for Ukraine, Members of the House need no reminding that Ukraine’s military, budgetary and humanitarian needs continue to be grave. Existing support is not enough; we must go further still to ensure that Ukraine wins this war. We must do this alongside our allies. The ERA is an ambitious scheme, and represents a united G7 pledge, with contributions from the United States, the European Union, Canada and Japan. Our £2.26 billion constitutes a fair and proportionate contribution to the scheme based on the UK’s GDP share in the G7 and EU.
Each lender will now negotiate a bilateral loan with Ukraine to govern how the funds are distributed and spent within a collective framework agreed by the G7. Repayments from the profits on immobilised Russian assets will be redistributed to the G7 lenders from the EU in proportion to our contributions. The EU regulation providing for this is already in place.
The Government have assessed that Ukraine’s most pressing need is for military support. The UK’s contribution to the ERA is therefore earmarked for military procurement to bolster Ukraine’s capacity for self-defence. This support will help ensure that Ukraine can continue to withstand Russian aggression and fight back against it. The UK is committed to ensuring value for money for both the UK and Ukraine, including through exploring the use of existing UK-enabled procurement channels for Ukraine to purchase the equipment that it needs. Our funding will be delivered in three tranches over three financial years, with the first tranche intended to be delivered in early 2025.
The Bill has one simple purpose: to unlock the UK’s contribution to the ERA. It consists of one substantive clause, which seeks the authority of Parliament to spend the money on the UK’s contribution and make good on our commitment. The Bill is not intended to be used for any purpose beyond that, and it will not be used to spend above the £2.26 billion figure that has been announced. Our figure has been agreed with the G7 and caps have been built into the scheme at a G7 level through the EU repayment mechanism.
Although slim, this Bill is essential. Royal Assent is required before we can begin disbursing funds to Ukraine, and before we can receive any repayments from the profits being held in the European Union. It is therefore vital that we pass this Bill as quickly as possible, so we can begin disbursement this winter, as Ukraine’s needs are immediate. I hope that I can count on the support of the House to achieve this, and help us get this vital money into Ukraine’s hands as quickly as possible.
The $50 billion collectively delivered through the ERA lays down a marker to show that we will continue to stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes. Collectively, we will pursue every available means of making Russia pay for the damage it has done in Ukraine. I am proud to present the UK’s contribution to the scheme today, which will make an immediate tangible difference to Ukraine’s capacity to defend itself. This Bill facilitates that contribution, and I commend it to the House.
Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)
Before I turn to the Bill, I just say that the Chief Secretary, in an earlier debate, kindly welcomed me to my new role, and I would like to reciprocate that welcome today. He and I have worked together as members of the Business and Trade Committee, which he chaired and of which I believe you were also a member, Madam Deputy Speaker. We had a shared desire to use Parliament to hold to account fearlessly, factually and, when needed, ferociously those who hold authority and power over our constituents. He now finds himself in such a position of authority and power, and I will hold him to account fearlessly, factually and, when needed, ferociously. However, today is not a day for ferocity.
We welcome this Bill. It is an important signal of the continuing commitment of the United Kingdom to the people of Ukraine, the defence of Europe and the achievement of peace through strength. We join the tributes to the people of Ukraine—the men and women who have had to leave behind their peaceful endeavours in order to stand shoulder to shoulder to defend their land and liberties. Today we are talking about financial contributions, but we should never forget that the greatest sacrifice is being made each and every day by members of the Ukraine military and civilians, upon whom Putin’s rockets rain down destruction each and every day.
Under the strong leadership of former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, the United Kingdom led the world in defending Ukraine, and since 2022 we have pledged more than £12 billion in overall support. We were often the first mover on vital lethal aid, from Storm Shadow missiles to Challenger and main battle tanks. We imposed the largest and most severe set of sanctions that Russia had ever seen, to cripple Putin’s war machine. We sanctioned around 2,000 individuals, companies and groups, and this economic pressure restricts Russia’s ability to prosecute its illegal invasion. More broadly, we built up a formidable sanctions regime during our time in office and brought in a major new sanctions strategy to deter and disrupt malign behaviour, and it is pleasing that the current Government are continuing those efforts.
On behalf of the United Kingdom, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) hosted the Ukraine recovery conference last year, raising over $60 billion for Ukraine’s recovery and reconstruction. This Bill takes a further step forward in our commitments to Ukraine, and does so alongside our allies. It fulfils the United Kingdom’s part of June’s G7 mandate—confirmed by G7 finance Ministers in Washington last month—to disburse for the benefit of Ukraine approximately $50 billion from the extraordinary revenue acceleration loan, or ERA, as the Chief Secretary termed it. The United Kingdom’s share is £2.26 billion, and this is earmarked as budgetary support for Ukraine’s military spending. I understand that it will be in addition to the UK’s existing annual commitment of £3 billion of military aid. Each loan will be in the form of a bilateral loan, but will be based on common principles to ensure consistency and co-ordination between each loan.
We support the Bill and will support the Government if any other party seeks to divide this House, but I would be grateful if the Chief Secretary or the Minister could provide further clarification on several questions. The first is about disbursements to Ukraine under the extraordinary revenue acceleration loan. Point 5 in the annexe to the G7 statement says:
“Loans will be fully disbursed to the benefit of Ukraine between 1 December 2024 and 31 December 2027.”
The whole House will be aware of the current heightened levels of military activity and the urgent demands from Ukraine for assistance, including UK Storm Shadow missiles. What discussions has the Minister had with the Secretary of State for Defence about the timings and scale of distributions?
Secondly, I want to ask about the asset base. Can the Minister update the House on the total value of Russian assets seized by the G7, and on the total assets seized by UK jurisdictions? The last estimates we had were in March 2023, when the total was £48 billion, of which £18 billion was seized by UK jurisdictions. As the extraordinary revenue acceleration loan refers only to sovereign assets, will the Minister tell us what consideration was given to the inclusion of income streams from other seized Russian assets, and why it was determined that they should not be included? Do the commitments made by each G7 country relate to the amount of Russian assets seized or held by a jurisdiction, or are they done on some other basis? If so, what is the basis for those allocations? Can the Minister give some indication of the allocation of seized sovereign assets by type? As they are sovereign assets, I assume that many will be in the form of cash holdings, but there may be properties and other assets. It would be helpful for the House to have some understanding of the allocation of these assets by type.
Thirdly, I want to ask about the use of anticipated income streams from Russian assets to repay the loans. The Bill’s explanatory notes claim:
“The extraordinary profits on the immobilised Russian sovereign assets will then be divided between the G7 lenders in proportion to their contributions. This will happen as the extraordinary profits accrue, on a 6-monthly basis…in three tranches”.
I have three similar questions on this issue. Has there been any modelling of the future flows of anticipated income from seized Russian assets that will be used to repay the loans? Has the Treasury made an assessment of the expected period for their repayment? Can the Minister provide the House with a forecast or estimate for the anticipated revenues available for repayment in each of the tranches?
Fourthly, I want to ask about contingencies. There are five participants in the loan agreement: the UK, the USA, Canada, Japan and the EU. Can the Minister advise whether the terms of the agreement will still stand if one or more of the participants do not ratify it? In the event of a peace settlement, subsequent to disbursements being made, point 12 of the annexe to the ERA loan initiative says that
“the outstanding balances that cannot be covered by extraordinary profits shall be repaid by Ukraine to each lender.”
Can the Minister advise whether that is the case? In such circumstances, what priority will the repayment of these loans have compared with other loans made to Ukraine?
Finally, I want to ask about the Government’s overall defence expenditure. The Government’s Budget committed to setting out a pathway to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP at a future fiscal event. Since then, however, Labour Ministers have been unable to confirm whether it remains Labour’s ambition to meet that target by 2030. Can the Minister confirm whether it is still Labour policy to increase defence expenditure to 2.5% of GDP, when that might be reached and whether the commitments contained in this Bill will be included in such estimates?
The principles underlying the Bill are sound. Our commitment to the defence of Ukraine is reinforced. Our prayers are with the people of Ukraine and the cause of peace and freedom. We support the Bill.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
We are now 1,000 days into the Russian invasion of Ukraine and we are entering a crucial period for Ukraine and its people, with the Kursk offensive and Administration change in the United States. I would first like to praise our Government for their evolving strong support for Ukraine, reflecting the needs on the ground. The United Kingdom was the first responder and supporter of Ukraine. The Government’s participation in implementing President Zelensky’s 10-point victory plan is very welcome. Ensuring that the war does not last indefinitely and ends on fair terms is crucial. MPs of all parties work closely on campaigns around aid, sanctions, seizure of assets and so much more.
There is the potential that Ukraine could lose 50% of its military aid support from its international allies. The UK and other supportive nations struggle to make up the shortfall from our own stores. If this remains the case, Ukraine will slowly lose the ability to defend itself. Russia will increase and intensify its atrocities across the country. Where will Russia stop? The increasing rhetoric from the Kremlin needs a robust response. It has been shown again and again to take advantage of perceived weakness. Now, 1,000 days into the Russian invasion of Ukraine, we can take the first step in unlocking frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine. I welcome today’s Bill, which will ensure that the loans made will be repaid with the Russian state’s assets currently frozen in the UK.
The G7 must act collectively on this. At the start of the war, approximately $300 billion of Russian central bank reserves were frozen in the west. We need a route to mobilise these reserves. We must understand how other states have been able to disclose the amount of Russian central bank reserves they hold. We need to know how many billions of pounds of Russian reserves reside in the City of London. Canada has passed the Special Economic Measures (Russia) Regulations, which collects data on Russian assets, freezes them and publishes the value, which currently stands at 135 billion Canadian dollars frozen in Canada. Can the Government move to disclose the level of Russian assets held here in a similar way?
I also wish to call for the seizure of Russian central bank reserves to pay for the defence of Ukraine. Many Governments are seizing the profit generated from the frozen money and using that to back Ukraine. The US has passed legislation giving the President the power to do that, and I welcome this legislation, which will move us in the same direction. In the UK, we also have £2.5 billion frozen from the sale of Chelsea football club. If unlocked, it could create the second wealthiest charity in Britain, but it remains frozen in a UK bank account. Can the Minister outline what steps he is taking to immediately release this funding, which would provide much-needed humanitarian aid to Ukraine? In Ukraine, winter is not coming; winter is here.
We must decide on a route to mobilise the UK’s seizure of Russian assets. The estimated cost of reconstruction in Ukraine is at least $486 billion over the next decade, and growing every day. We must begin the process of confiscating the Russian central bank reserves in the UK with this Bill. Defending Ukraine’s democracy is defending our democracy. I look forward to the potential of this Bill to be a route to mobilising billions of pounds of Russian central bank reserves. Can the Minister clarify the position on whether the loans in the Bill today will be in the form of a recourse or non-recourse loan?
The Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill allows the UK to fulfil our commitment made in the June 2024 G7 loan agreement to Ukraine. The UK’s expected contribution under this agreement is approximately £2.26 billion, which Ukraine can decide to utilise for its defence. We have Russian central bank deposits in the Bank of England, as well as Russian bonds that have matured and the funds deposited in UK commercial banks. Can the Minister outline when we will legislate to seize these assets for the defence and reconstruction of Ukraine, as they dwarf the sums we are debating today? I conclude by again thanking Ministers in the Treasury, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Ministry of Defence for their stalwart support of Ukraine. Slava Ukraini!
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, James MacCleary.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
Yesterday, Ukraine entered its 1,000th day since the start of Russia’s illegal and unprovoked invasion, and it is about to enter its toughest winter yet. This Bill represents a significant and welcome step in providing much-needed financial support to Ukraine as it continues its courageous resistance. It will deliver tangible assistance during this critical phase of the conflict, providing a vital lifeline to our Ukrainian allies.
Before the war, my partner and I had the good fortune to travel in Ukraine, visiting both Kyiv and Odesa. We visited modern cities similar to any other in Europe, so the sight of ordinary Ukrainian families being forced, at the start of the Russian attack, to shelter in the Kyiv underground stations that we had both so recently used for sightseeing in that beautiful city was both shocking and moving for us. It also brought home why the UK’s unwavering support for Ukraine is so essential, not just for the brave people of that nation but for all of us. If liberal democratic nations do not stand together against tyranny and aggression, the tyrants will feel no constraint and the citizens of other European nations, including potentially the UK, might find that they are the ones forced into underground stations looking for shelter.
The Liberal Democrats support this Bill and its intent, but we are disappointed that it has taken so long to come to the House. My noble Friend Lord Purvis of Tweed raised this issue back in January, some 10 months ago, but now the Bill is finally here, we are pleased to see that it demonstrates a commitment to ensuring that those responsible for Ukraine’s devastation—Russia and its oligarch elites—should, at the very least, contribute financially to Ukraine’s recovery. However, we believe the Bill does not go far enough.
The UK should consider seizing all frozen Russian assets, not just their profits, and redirect them to aid Ukraine. With around £22 billion-worth of such assets currently held in the UK alone, the Government are missing a significant opportunity to amplify their support. Distinguished international lawyers have made a strong case for this step.
Although some economists have expressed concern about repercussions in the financial markets, we believe that, given the very specific circumstances of this conflict, the justification and the benefits far outweigh those concerns. Such action would provide an immediate and substantial financial boost to President Zelensky’s forces and Ukraine’s reconstruction efforts, while sending a clear message to the Kremlin that aggression against sovereign nations will have severe and lasting consequences. We therefore also back the calls for a special tribunal to prosecute those responsible for Russia’s war of aggression and to ensure accountability for the heinous crimes committed.
The Liberal Democrats have consistently called for the UK to lead by example in supporting Ukraine, extending it beyond financial assistance to include military, diplomatic and humanitarian measures. The provision of advanced weaponry, including longer-range precision arms, is critical to Ukraine’s success. We must also bolster British arms and ammunition supplies, work closely with our allies to replenish stockpiles, and maintain Ukraine’s defensive capabilities. It is essential that we co-ordinate effectively with NATO and the European Union to maximize collective impact, which is why I urge the Government to be bolder in their efforts to rebuild our relationship with the EU, including by deepening our security and military co-operation.
We urge the Government to build an international consensus for the proscription of the Wagner Group, whose activities represent a grave threat to international security. The UK must also take a strong stance against Russia’s continuing human rights violations and support anti-war activists within Russia, many of whom face persecution for their bravery. Offering asylum to such individuals and raising their cases in international forums is not only a moral imperative but a strategic means of undermining the Kremlin’s control.
It is vital to recognise that supporting Ukraine financially and militarily should not come at the expense of other nations in need. Restoring the 0.7% gross national income target for international development spending is a crucial step towards ensuring that humanitarian aid to Ukraine does not result in the neglect of our wider global responsibilities. The Government’s failure to meet this target undermines Britain’s reputation as a global leader in development and humanitarian support.
The Liberal Democrats also urge the Government to take robust action to close the loopholes in economic crime legislation that have allowed Putin’s allies to funnel dirty money through the UK for far too long. A Financial Times investigation published yesterday revealed that companies in British overseas territories exported $134 million-worth of goods to Russia in 2024, potentially breaching UK sanctions aimed at restricting access to military and high-tech supplies. I call on the Minister to give an undertaking that the Government will look to address these violations and close these loopholes.
The National Crime Agency must be properly resourced to tackle economic crime effectively, and Magnitsky sanctions should be used to target relatives and associates who attempt to evade existing measures. This is about far more than financial probity; it is about standing up for the rule of law and ensuring that our financial system cannot be used to bankroll aggression.
This Bill comes at a moment of uncertainty. The possibility of diminished US support for Ukraine, following the recent election and the imminent return of Donald Trump to the presidency, is deeply concerning. Should the United States falter in its support, Europe must step up. This should serve as a wake-up call for the UK Government to lead in Europe by seizing frozen Russian assets, reversing damaging cuts to our armed forces and strengthening co-operation with both NATO and the European Union on security and foreign policy.
With a hard winter ahead, time is of the essence. The UK must not waver in its commitment to Ukraine. This is about more than financial assistance; it is about justice, accountability and the preservation of international law. This Bill is a vital step forward, but it must not be the final word.
We must demonstrate bold leadership by acting decisively to ensure that Ukraine not only survives but prevails, and that the principles of sovereignty, freedom and democracy endure. Let this Bill be the beginning of a renewed and united effort to support Ukraine. By seizing frozen Russian assets, providing advanced military support and working closely with our allies, we can help Ukraine to secure a lasting victory and ensure a future of peace, stability and justice for Europe and beyond. Let us rise to this challenge for Ukraine, for Europe and for the values we hold dear.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Linsey Farnsworth to make her maiden speech.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
It is a great privilege to be called to make my maiden speech in this most important debate, and it is an honour to represent the people of Amber Valley in this House.
I am proud to be part of a Government with five missions, but my sixth mission is to put Amber Valley firmly on the map. Any Members who have had the misfortune to sit with me in the Tea Room will know exactly where Amber Valley is, because it is my practice to suffix its name with “in Derbyshire”. In fact, Amber Valley is known as the heart of Derbyshire, and deservedly so, because not only is it right in the middle of our wonderful county, but its people have the biggest hearts. They are among the most friendly people in the world, but they are also unyielding. It is no surprise that they are descendants of those involved in the last revolution in England, the Pentrich revolution of 1817, during which a group of constituents plotted an armed uprising, angry about the state of the economy and demanding parliamentary reform. Hon. Members will understand my relief at being part of a Government who are committed to making people better off and reforming the House of Lords.
Originally a mining area, the local economy has since developed a diverse industrial base. I am delighted we are driving forward our industrial strategy, so that businesses such as those headquartered in Amber Valley can thrive. Firms such as Thorntons Chocolates, Denby Pottery, Bowmer and Kirkland, Berry Recycling, National Gas and David Nieper provide employment.
The last of those companies lends its name to a school in Alfreton, which it oversees. That is a fine example of business supporting the local community. The school’s ethos is to ensure children can raise their aspirations, breaking down the barriers to opportunity. That is so important for our young people in Amber Valley. Youth services have been cut back, and the gap that has been left is filled by the hard work and dedication of local people, such as James at Ayup in Alfreton, and Chrissie and Mikey at Old Farm Bus in Ripley Marehay.
I am the fourth MP for Amber Valley. The first, Phillip Oppenheim, is credited for having brought the mojito to the UK. I cannot promise to do anything so exciting when I leave this place, beyond perhaps sampling one or two of those in our new bar in Alfreton. It is aptly named the Moot Bar, by virtue of its overlooking the marketplace, where moot hearings, which are believed to have led to the modern day jury system, were held to settle disputes and try offenders. It is a fitting place for a former Crown prosecutor such as myself to frequent.
The second MP was Judy Mallaber, of my party, who still makes a huge contribution to our community. Judy worked hard for the introduction of the minimum wage. I am delighted this Government are building on that legacy, increasing the national living wage and introducing the biggest improvement of workers’ rights in a generation.
Most recently, Amber Valley was represented by Nigel Mills. Nigel is a thoroughly decent man, who served as a dedicated constituency MP for 14 years. He is rightly proud of being the longest serving MP for Amber Valley. I wish him well.
We have heard mention in many maiden speeches of firsts—the first female MP, the first MP for a new constituency and even the first MP with a beard. In that spirit, I found myself looking for mine. Could I be the first Crown prosecutor to enter Parliament? Rumour has it that someone has beaten me to that particular accolade. I am relieved that you are in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I also found myself googling whether I am the first MP named Linsey. I hope that does not affect my chances of Mr Speaker calling me in the future. I am, however, the first Amber Valley MP to have been born in the constituency—technically. I was born in Ilkeston, a town now in neighbouring Erewash, but at the time Ilkeston was a constituency with my three towns, so I was technically born in the constituency, but perhaps that is a lawyer’s argument.
The Labour party was formed to give ordinary people a voice and to improve lives. My dad is David Farnsworth and he would say that he is an ordinary man. He also has a catchphrase: “Let me tell you a little tale.” To coin his catchphrase, I would like to tell the House a little tale about the Labour party through the life of that so-called ordinary man.
There has been much debate about what a working person is, but I know it when I see it: it is my dad. Originally a coalminer, like so many others he went into the dark so that his children’s lights would shine. I am pleased the Government are returning the pension fund to miners such as my dad and the 772 former mineworkers in Amber Valley. Righting that wrong was a manifesto commitment—and we are keeping our promises.
Our lives changed when I was 12 and my mum Margaret was diagnosed with cancer. She was one of the most caring people, always putting others first. Her late diagnosis was a result of her not wanting to be a burden on our already overstretched NHS. She died less than two months later. I do not want any family in Amber Valley to go through that. This Government will get our NHS back on its feet—we must.
After my mum died and the pits closed, my dad was out of work. The Labour Government gave him the opportunity to retrain as a bricklayer. He attended what was then South East Derbyshire College in Heanor, in a beautiful Victorian building. Long since closed and left derelict, it is now being refurbished and will house small businesses and provide community space. Together with the newly renovated marketplace, the Labour-controlled borough council is ensuring that Heanor town centre will be a welcoming place for residents to visit, while boosting our local economy.
My dad went on to build hundreds of houses and, had he not retired, I am sure he would be building his fair share of the 1.5 million homes that we have promised to provide within this Parliament. My dad would say that he is an ordinary man. I say “would say” because he cannot any more. Dementia has taken his voice. My wonderful stepmum Kate cares for him. She is one of the 5.2 million unpaid carers in the UK. I am glad that this Government are improving carer’s allowance, but we must go further and create a national care service.
My dad would say that he is an ordinary man. I say that he is extraordinary, for it is his values and guidance that have led me to this place. My upbringing instilled in me a drive—a drive to make society fairer. That led me to serve as a Crown prosecutor for 21 years, working to secure justice for victims. It was, until my election to this place, the greatest honour of my life. I intend to continue to fight for justice, to fight for those suffering injustice and to use my voice for the people of Amber Valley.
My goal to combat injustice extends particularly to the people of Ukraine. I visited Ukraine in September with fellow Labour MPs. We saw the human suffering of war: the homes destroyed, the children’s cardiology hospital bombed while young children were on the operating table, the cellar of a school where civilians were held captive by Russian troops in the most appalling conditions. Ukraine is defending herself, but she is also defending us, our values and our freedoms. We must do everything we can to support Ukraine both now and for the rebuild after the conflict is over, and I fully support the Bill.
We must deliver on our promises to rebuild trust in politics and show that it can be a force for good. My children have given me the affectionate nickname, “the vicious dictator”. I am not sure whether I am best placed to lead on this, but I shall try. I promise, Madam Deputy Speaker, that my home is not a dictatorship, but it can be seen through a political lens. My eldest son once made a placard at bedtime with the slogan, “We want another story and we want it now”. He was a strong campaigner even at the tender age of 10—he is now 17. My youngest son is an effective lobbyist, as his collection of trainers will attest. My stepdaughter is chief whip, managing to bring together the boys even in the most challenging of debates. My brilliant husband Martin makes a wonderful Speaker of our House, keeping order and holding it all together. We all know that politics is all-consuming and hugely onerous on families. The love, understanding and support that Martin and our children have given me has been integral to my being in this place.
No maiden speech for Amber Valley would be complete without mentioning Butterley Engineering, around which the town of Ripley was founded. Sadly no longer open, it leaves behind a blast furnace wall and an underground wharf, both now scheduled monuments. Friends of Butterley Ironworks Trust are hoping to turn this heritage into good use with a visitors’ centre. I will happily support them with that. Butterley Ironworks may be gone, but there is a reminder for me twice weekly, as I walk under the iron arches in St Pancras train station and pass the sign that reads, “Manufactured by the Butterley Company, Derbyshire, 1867”. The majesty of those iron arches is a constant link between representing Amber Valley in this place and the people responsible for sending me here, who I thank greatly and promise to serve in the spirit of the Amber Valley motto, “Per laborem progredimur”—"We progress through hard work”.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) for her excellent maiden speech. She spoke movingly and touchingly about her father and about dementia, and it is a theme that we must come back to in this House. It is really profound. I also share her admiration for Nigel Mills, who was an excellent predecessor, and she was very magnanimous in her comments about him. I will be sure to see her in the Tea Room to hear more about Derbyshire. Hopefully, she will not be dictating that I drink a Mojito, because I cannot bear them.
I understand that the Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill is being steered through the House by the Treasury—quite right too—but I think it would be worth my saying at the outset why the Bill is a positive development in security, defence and foreign affairs.
In December 2021, amid the build-up of Russian troops on the border of Ukraine, Vladimir Putin wrote two letters. He wrote one to the United States and one to NATO. His demands included a Russian veto on NATO membership for Ukraine and the implied removal of US nuclear weapons from Europe and the withdrawal of multinational NATO battalions from Poland and from the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. That would have been completely and utterly unacceptable, and we can only surmise why he might have wanted NATO to act in this way. It is because once ground is taken it is that much harder to take back. Offence is so much more costly than defence.
It is to the issue of costs that we must now turn. The purpose of the Bill is to support the $50 billion G7 initiative launched in June, which represented a co-ordinated effort by the G7 and the EU to support Ukraine. However, with Hungary potentially blocking concerted EU action, I welcome the provision in the Bill that will ensure that future financial assistance extends to any changes in subsequent arrangements, in case we can reach broader consensus later. It is crucial that we collaborate with our EU partners to swiftly advance the agreement.
The Minister talked about the UK being a first mover in this space, which is very welcome, although states such as Estonia, Finland and Czechia worked on it prior to us, and Canada has been a driver of it too. The UK’s £2.26 billion contribution to the G7 arrangement reflects our GDP share, but as a leader in supporting Ukraine, I feel we need to go beyond simply a proportional share. After all, doing so could provide support for Ukraine in place of some taxpayers’ money. It is welcome that the UK is contributing £3 billion annually, and the Government have pledged to maintain that for as long as it takes, but as Zelensky said, why should western taxpayers foot the bill when frozen Russian assets could be confiscated and given for use by Ukraine? The Bill is a positive step, but we should talk about not just future profits generated from frozen Russian assets, but the principle—the assets themselves. The approach set out today uses only a fraction of the $300 billion available, much of which is held at Euroclear central securities depository. To support Ukraine effectively, we must go further. We should repurpose all these assets—not just the profits, but the principle.
Some critics argue that confiscating the funds would pose legal risks. They talk about sovereign immunity—an argument that is also used by some who oppose the prosecution of leaders for the crime of aggression—but sovereign immunity should also apply when thinking about the sovereignty of states. Legally, we have to think about how Russia violated international law. It violated the UN charter and blatantly breached the charter’s principle of state sovereignty. It is estimated that Russia has already caused £400 billion worth of damage—that is what will be required to rebuild Ukraine—and Russia will ultimately have to pay to make good that damage, but what use will the frozen assets be to Ukraine if Ukraine no longer exists? The goal cannot be only to rebuild Ukraine from the rubble, but to help Ukrainians prevent their country from turning to ash.
Some argue that confiscating the assets could destabilise global markets, or deter other nations from holding reserves in western financial institutions in the future, but those fears are overstated, and need to be weighed against the risk of doing nothing. The dominance of western financial systems remains robust. Alternatives such as China’s renminbi lack the stability and scale of the US dollar. Cryptocurrencies are too volatile to be a viable alternative, so the risk of inaction should be thought of in terms of what has happened in global markets since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. There was a very wobbly period, including here in the UK with the Liz Truss mini-Budget, which was partly about supporting people with their energy bills. At the time, the Government felt that they had to provide such support because of the rise in the price of gas caused by Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. Again, we cannot just suppose that doing nothing will have no consequences. There are concerns that confiscation could reduce our leverage in future peace negotiations, but this war first needs to be won. This is not the Gulf war in 1991 when frozen assets were used to compensate Kuwait; this war is still not determined.
Other states considering investing in western institutions have nothing to fear if they have no intention of invading their neighbours. As things stand, Russia has shown little interest in meaningful dialogue. To simply wait and keep the assets as a negotiating tool is naive and defeatist. By repurposing the assets now, we not only support Ukraine’s immediate needs, but reinforce the principle that aggression must not pay and that nuclear sabre-rattling is completely unacceptable.
As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (James MacCleary), said, the geopolitical context underscores the urgency of the moment. Trump commented in March that he sees US isolationism as attractive. When talking to the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) on GB News, he said,
“We have an ocean in between some problems… a nice big, beautiful ocean.”
With the United States facing questions about whether its support for Ukraine could be reduced or even diminish, we need to think further about what more we can do with our European allies. Acting now to unlock the full potential of Russian assets would provide Ukraine with a financial lifeline insulating it from shifts in political will elsewhere in the world.
The Bill highlights the importance of collaboration with our European partners. As the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), pointed out, UK taxpayers have already contributed over £12 billion in aid to Ukraine since February 2022, but our absence from EU defence frameworks limits our ability to co-ordinate effectively with those European allies. We could use some of the confiscated frozen assets to support joint procurement, perhaps associating with some of the frameworks, such as the European Defence Agency. Shared management of those confiscated funds would ensure transparency, accountability and maximum impact. The future profit funds, suggested as a base for the Bill, are scheduled to be disbursed between December 2024 and 2027. That timeline does not match the urgency of Ukraine’s need.
Just last weekend, we saw Russia’s largest attack on Ukrainian infrastructure in months. Russia launched 120 missiles and 90 drones. Three weeks ago, the Finnish Government took a bold step by confiscating $4.5 billion in Russian assets, making Finland one of the first countries to take decisive action. The Finnish confiscation must surely be hitting Russia where it hurts, and we should follow the examples set by Finland, Czechia and Estonia, working together to confiscate those Russian assets—including the principal, not just the interest.
The stakes could not be higher: Ukraine’s fight is a fight for eastern Europe and the west more broadly. It is a fight for the principles of democracy, sovereignty and international law that underpin global peace and security. I welcome the Bill, but it is vital that the provisions align with the goal of confiscating all Russian assets to support Ukraine financially. Let us rise to the challenge, demonstrate solidarity with Ukraine, and show leadership on the global stage and unwavering friendship to our European allies. By collaborating with those European allies to confiscate Russian assets, we can help pave the way for an outcome that makes it plain to any Government who are watching that aggression does not pay.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to have heard the beautiful maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth), whose father must be really proud.
It is excellent to hear the details of the Bill, but Russia’s continued assault on Ukraine is absolutely terrifying. We must not buy into a narrative of peace on Russia’s terms; that would be tantamount to appeasement. A sovereign, democratic country ceding territory to an aggressive imperial country basically takes us back to world war two—an idea that I find absolutely terrifying. It would completely embolden Putin, and eastern Europe and the Baltic would be next on his target list.
It is completely right to say that defence of the UK starts in Ukraine. We are doing everything we can to support Ukraine. It was great to hear about the 50,000 Ukrainian troops who have been trained by the UK through Operation Interflex, and I am glad that that policy is being extended. It is excellent to hear about the military support that we are providing to Ukraine, including the Storm Shadow missiles that we are hearing about in the media at the moment. I trained on those weapons, and I hope that they can help to take the fight to the Russians. It is also excellent to hear that we are providing financial support of £12.8 billion, as well as an additional £2.26 billion from interest on seized Russian assets.
Unfortunately, 1,000 days since the invasion of Ukraine, the Russian economy is, despite sanctions, doing better than many of us expected at the start of the conflict. However, the Russians do face challenges, including the highest casualty rate since the conflict began, higher interest rates, and now a labour shortage in the Russian economy. We must sustain our support for Ukraine and increase the pressure on Russia, which cannot be allowed to succeed.
The Bill is an important step in sustaining our support for Ukraine. The £2.26 billion will help Ukraine to invest in air defence, artillery and other military equipment. I fully support the Bill, but I have a couple of questions for the Minister. What more can be done to seize frozen Russian assets? I think in particular of the £2.25 billion from the sale of Chelsea football club, and other assets that must be held in the City of London. We must use everything in our arsenal, and I would like the UK Government to do more to seize and use such assets, rather than using just the interest, as we are committed to doing at the moment. Will she confirm whether this is a non-recourse or recourse loan? It is important that, if the interest from Russian assets is not what we expect it to be, there is no expectation on the Ukrainians, given all the difficulties that they are facing, to repay the bill.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) on her maiden speech. It was so lovely to hear about her family. I was encouraged to hear about her revolutionary constituents who were keen on parliamentary reform. They will certainly have plenty of support from Scottish National party Members in those ambitions.
I thank the Minister for bringing the Bill to the Chamber. We are now 1,000 days on from the full-scale invasion, but it has been well over 10 years since Russia’s initial invasion of Ukraine. I reassert First Minister John Swinney’s acknowledgment of that anniversary yesterday, and the continued commitment to Ukraine of my party and the Scottish Government. This issue cuts across the Chamber, and it is good to see so much unanimity on it.
Why is that important? Because the Ukrainians are fighting for each and every one of us who values democracy, liberty and independence across Europe. They are the frontline defending us and those we represent, as well as our friends and colleagues around Europe. Sometimes, it is easy to lose sight of that. The Bill is about aiding Ukraine, but it is also about investing in our own security. This is a national security issue, and it is a good investment for us.
Let us think for a moment about the consequences of not supplying, arming and providing finance to Ukraine. It would mean a collapse and one of the worst refugee crises that Europe has ever experienced. It would mean a hit to the rules-based system, which I suspect those of us who believe in that system would see as difficult to recover from. Bluntly, it would mean a broadening of the war. Vladimir Putin is not stopping in Ukraine in the same way that he did not stop in Georgia, Chechnya, Syria, Libya—you name it.
Although we are absolutely supportive of the Bill, which certainly has my party’s support, I will pick up on a couple of points that have been raised, on which clarification would be helpful. I agree with the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary), who said that this Bill does not go far enough. From an arms and security perspective, we often provide supplies to Ukraine that allow it to fight and not lose the war, but not to win it. That goes for the arms and the finances being supplied.
I will pick up on a point made quite rightly by the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord). There are $300 billion-worth of frozen assets. I know that the Minister will not be able to pick up on this today, and it is not part of the Bill, but I encourage her to come back to the Chamber at some point and provide us with an update. She will find that she has support across the Chamber. I know that this issue is not easy and is about building links with other partners, and there will be some resistance to that, but the amount of money in the Bill, which I acknowledge is an important contribution, is dwarfed in scale by the amount of finances that it could provide by unfreezing those assets.
The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth also made a point about sovereign immunity. Russia gave up its sovereign immunity when it launched the full-scale invasion and therefore forced this war on the sovereignty of Ukraine. We also have the principle of the universality of certain crimes, and we have seen allegations about universal crimes committed in Ukraine, with very substantial evidence. That is obviously a matter for the International Criminal Court, but I encourage lawyers to look into the principle of universality on some of the issues in that area. I know that the Minister is sympathetic and that this is not entirely as simple as many of us would like it to be, but from the comments we have heard from across the Chamber, there appears to be a great deal of support for the unfreezing of those assets. It would be fantastic to see the UK Government provide leadership in that area.
I also point to the fact that we have seen fantastic leadership from the Czechs, Estonians and Finns. What makes their leadership so compelling is that they know what happens if we give in to Russian aggression. They know at first hand and have generational knowledge within living memory of what happens when we give in to this kind of aggression. I encourage the Minister to look into that and endorse the points made about the sale of the proceeds from Chelsea football club, which is also very significant. That $300 billion would be transformative in helping Ukraine to fight this war for all of us.
I also ask the Minister about the broader finance issue of the effectiveness of sanctions. We know that Russia has been able to get around sanctions, but we must redouble our efforts. I make reference to a report that I was involved in writing when I sat on the Foreign Affairs Committee, which was on Moscow’s gold and dirty money. There were allegations about some of that money was going through London. I refer the Minister’s Treasury colleagues to have a look at that; it was a very good bit of work undertaken on a cross-party basis. This issue is crucial.
My final point is that our time is limited. We have a new Administration coming in in the United States in January, and we know that the signs are not entirely promising in terms of the support that we have seen from the United States in recent years. This war should actually have been a wake-up call to all of us in Europe 10 years ago. Given the fact that we have had this election in the United States, we are very late to the party on this issue, but we have a huge responsibility to pull together as Europeans. The Ukrainians are on the frontline and deserve our support. This is an investment in our own security. I absolutely support the Bill, but we need to go that little bit further.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) on her fantastic maiden speech. She is a really powerful advocate for her constituents. She talked movingly about her father losing his voice, but she has certainly found hers in this place. I was with her on that visit to Ukraine in September, and I still find it incredible that in this day and age, in 2024, it is possible to visit the capital city of a fellow democracy on the European continent and hear air raid sirens and see civilians—women and children—heading for air raid shelters. That is the dystopian future that Vladimir Putin has set out for Ukraine in this terrible war, but also potentially for the rest of the continent if we do not get our act together.
Several times this afternoon, hon. Members have made the powerful point that this is an existential war for the people of Ukraine. They are not fighting for some unforeseeable future, but to ensure their national independence and preserve their sovereignty. Some 3 million Ukrainians are living under occupation at the moment, and the people of Ukraine know what the full occupation of their country would entail: the destruction of their national life and of their liberty. We know this because, despite Vladimir Putin’s mendaciousness, he has set out time and again his historical worldview—his perverted sense of world history and Russian revanchism. There is the essay that he published just before the invasion and the strange speech he gave on the eve of the invasion itself, in which he basically posited the idea that Ukraine was not a real country. Well, it has very much proved to be a real country, and it has defeated him in his evil ambitions for the past two years.
Because this war is existential and because it is crucial for the defence of this country, we have a duty to be realistic. I do not expect Ministers to comment on this today, but we in this Chamber are all very much aware that there has been a sea change in American politics, and that the comments from people who will either be part of the future Administration, or are likely to be part of it, suggest that the United States’ support for Ukraine might not be what it has been. That brings me to the issue that the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) mentioned, which is that we are running up against the clock. We have limited time. We have to be realistic: there is a new Administration coming in, so Europe has to pick up the slack and provide greater leadership.
However, we are also seeing massive changes in Europe. On the day that President Trump was elected, the German Government began to fall apart, and in France, we are seeing a presidency stumble towards the end of its term. The United Kingdom is the country that has to provide the leadership in Europe on these matters, as it has done since the start of the war, but we need to go even further.
The support that Ukraine gets at the moment is already subject to so many restrictions. It has been drip-fed to them over the past two years, rather than giving them what they need right away, which has potentially made the war longer. We have not given the Ukrainians the tools they have needed when they have asked for them. Ukrainians talk about the “long yes”, where European partners say “Yes, of course” and promise delivery of arms, but those arms take months or even years to arrive and make a difference on the battlefield. I wonder whether we would be in a different place if all the systems that have eventually been given to Ukraine had been given at the start of the war.
This Bill is absolutely crucial, as various Members have said, and I support it. I think it is extremely important, but Members have also talked about going further with Russian assets. I can completely understand why, a year or 18 months ago, it might have been rational to think that those assets could be used during the peace negotiations—that they could potentially be the source of funding for rebuilding Ukraine. However, as Members have pointed out several times, there may not be a Ukraine if this war is not won. That is why we have to give serious consideration to unlocking those funds and using them now for the defence of Ukraine.
The last time this country was fighting for its life, in 1940, there was also a presidential election. We were much luckier back then, because both the Democratic and Republican candidates were stalwart allies of the UK in its fight against fascism. This election has changed things, but going back to that time, when President Roosevelt announced lend-lease, he said that when your neighbour’s house is on fire, you do not haggle over the cost of the hose. You give them the hose—you give them what they need to put out the fire—and then you go back to the details later. That is the attitude European partners should have towards the defence of Ukraine.
Earlier today, I mentioned that one of the Defence Ministers has said that the world is becoming darker every day. If this war is not won, the world will be plunged into darkness, because it will send an incredibly dangerous message to other autocracies around the world about the rules-based order and “might is right”, and the refugee crisis that we see here in Europe at the moment will pale into insignificance as millions of Ukrainians flee the prospect of living under Vladimir Putin’s tyranny. As such, I welcome this Bill, but like many colleagues, I hope to see Britain’s leadership continue to grow and for us to go further, seizing Russian assets and giving the Ukrainian people what they need.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
I, too, start by congratulating the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth). Every time I hear someone give a maiden speech in this Chamber, I am really heartened by the passion and expertise of the new intake. As I said in my maiden speech, it is clear that we are going to have not just a good Parliament, but a great Parliament. I look forward to it very much. I welcome the Minister’s speech and the Bill. As is usual on Ukraine, there is agreement across the House. I was not quite expecting this degree of agreement on going further—on not just seizing interest or making loans, but going after assets.
This Bill fulfils the UK’s part of an agreement that the G7 made in June, and we of course want to fulfil our commitments. However, the commitment in that agreement was made before the recent election in the US. As many Members across the House have said, including most recently the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca), the security calculus that Europe has applied for the last 80 years has now changed. We can no longer rely on an American security umbrella. NATO is the cornerstone of our defence—there is no disagreement about that in the House. The Government talks of NATO first, but NATO does not work without an American security guarantee, American logistics, or the American backbone that runs through it. It is the same with Ukraine. Since the outbreak of the war in February 2022, the United States has provided approximately 50% of the support for Ukraine. The UK led; that is something that the previous right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip got absolutely right. However, we now face a world in which that support may be withdrawn, and that is not just a supposition. President-elect Trump has said that the Russians can
“do whatever the hell they want”
in Europe. This is a huge problem. We should have woken up to this five or 10 years ago. The fact that we are dealing with it now—well, I hope we are—should arouse the interest of Members in the Chamber today.
I want to outline what the consequences may be of a withdrawal of US support from Ukraine. We may end up with a grubby little deal that would involve taking a marker pen and drawing through Ukraine on a map. The problem with that is that this war is not about territory; those who understand it to be about territory misunderstand it. It is about identity. Russia sees Ukraine as part of its imperial identity. If Ukraine exists as an independent country, then Russia does not exist as an imperial country. It is that simple. We are trying to define the conflict by way of territory, but that it is not how Vladimir Putin sees it.
We may end up with a grubby deal; in effect, the US will withdraw support, and Ukraine will be forced to come to the negotiating table. A line will be drawn on the map through Kharkiv, Donbas and Kherson. However, Vladimir Putin will not stop there. Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia are all allies of ours that the United Kingdom has pledged to defend through NATO, under article 5. If Putin took a bite from Lithuania, and Britain and France stepped forward to defend it, as we are pledged to do under article 5, we would have a huge problem if we then heard from Washington that the US would not follow us.
Even if we do not get a grubby deal that empowers Vladimir Putin, we could end up with the collapse of the Ukrainian frontlines, if the Americans withdraw their support and the Ukrainians decide to fight on. If I was Ukrainian, I would fight on, because of what the Russians did in Bucha and their kidnapping of Ukrainian children. The Ukrainians may fight on, but the frontlines may collapse.
The hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) spoke about a refugee crisis. The UN in Kyiv recently carried out a study of the crisis that could follow a collapse of the Ukrainian domestic power system. As we know, the Russians are targeting it at the moment. The UN estimated that between 5 million and 10 million Ukrainians would leave and move into western Europe—and that is just on the collapse of the power system. What would occur if the frontlines collapsed and the murderous, genocidal Russian army started to rampage through western Ukraine?
If we step outside Europe and look at possible consequences of a Ukrainian defeat, we can see that the idea of nuclear proliferation being kept under wraps, which we have cherished for the past 50, 60 or 70 years, would be under threat. The lesson we learn from the conflict is that if a state has nuclear weapons, it can bully its way into invading other states. Iran and other countries will see this and think, “That is something we need to get.” Colleagues have mentioned other autocratic states. China is watching what is happening in Ukraine carefully, as well as the western, European and American response. If we lose in Ukraine, we can kiss goodbye to Taiwan.
This is an existential conflict for Ukraine, in which it must succeed. The Bill goes some way to helping with that, but not far enough. The west collectively has $300 billion of Russian assets. Some $200 billion of those are in Belgium in Euroclear. To put that in context, the US has to date donated or pledged to donate approximately $180 billion to Ukraine, so the total amount of Russian assets we hold is 50% more than the total spend so far from the United States on the war. Given that we may well be losing US support for Ukraine, with all the second-order effects that has for our security, why are we not considering much more carefully sequestering and using those assets for the defence of Ukraine? If not now, when?
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
May I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) on her excellent maiden speech? I have heard that former Crown prosecutors can go far in this place, and I am sure that she will.
I rise to speak in strong support of the Bill, and I am grateful to colleagues for showing their support for it, because it is essential to the UK’s continued steadfast support for Ukraine as it defends itself against Russia’s illegal and brutal invasion. Through the Bill, the Labour Government will ensure that funds derived from sanctioned Russian sovereign assets—assets that were once used to fuel Putin’s war machine—will help Ukraine in its fight for freedom. That is not only morally right but in Britian’s national interest, as so many hon. Members have said. Supporting Ukraine means supporting the frontline of our democracy and our shared values of liberty and self-determination.
Most Members of the House recognise that it is critical to stand with Ukraine, but I am deeply disappointed that some question our unwavering support. Some have suggested that concessions should be made on both sides in this war, as if there is some kind of equivalence between Ukraine’s fight for its freedom and Russia’s criminal and illegal invasion. Let us be absolutely clear that calls for concessions send the wrong message to Ukraine, the world and future generations. These calls undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty, reward Putin’s recklessness and disregard the horrific suffering that has been inflicted on the Ukrainian people.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman is right to mention what the future holds. We all want peace, Ukrainians above all, but that peace must be based on justice, and we in this House must commit to that. The message from this House today should not be about the Ukrainians under pressure from Russian troops, but about our commitment in this House to them. We can influence the United States President to ensure that things look more positive for Ukraine. Does the hon. Member agree that that has to be the message that we send from this House?
Jacob Collier
I now have a parliamentary medal: I have taken an intervention from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I am grateful, and I agree with what he said.
Some of the views that we hear are a dangerous form of appeasement that only emboldens the aggressor and undermines the cause of peace, freedom and democracy. That weakens Ukraine, our position and the values that we in this House should defend. We must reject such defeatism and appeasement, and we must stand firm in the face of tyranny, for Ukraine and for the values that we hold dear in this democracy. To do anything less is to surrender our ideals, and that is not an option.
The Bill demonstrates that this Government are committed to doing the opposite. It builds on our already substantial support, including £3 billion in annual military aid and £2.3 billion in additional funding, drawn from immobilised Russian assets. It also enables the UK’s £2.26 billion contribution to the G7’s extraordinary loan scheme. This funding will directly support Ukraine’s defence by providing vital air defence systems, artillery and armoured vehicles. That support is vital, not only for Ukraine but for the security of the UK and the wider world. As the Chief Secretary to the Treasury rightly highlighted, a safe and secure Ukraine means a safe and secure United Kingdom.
It is testament to our country’s leadership on the global stage, and a point of pride, that the issue has had cross-party support in this Parliament. The Prime Minister’s commitment to continued military aid, and the UK’s role in driving the largest sanctions package ever imposed on a major economy, reflect our iron-clad determination to hold Russia to account. Putin is now 1,000 days into a war that he thought would last just a few. His miscalculation has drained Russia’s economy; 40% of its annual budget is now consumed by the war effort. His forces have suffered their highest rate of casualties since the conflict began. This is no time for us to falter.
I pay tribute to the bravery of the Ukrainian armed forces, and the crucial work of the UK armed forces in training their Ukrainian counterparts. Let me say how proud I am of our troops’ vital contributions to Ukraine’s defence efforts—a pride that was reinforced by my visit to the 29th Regiment Royal Logistic Corps and the Commando Training Centre Royal Marines. Seeing their dedication at first hand was a reminder of the professionalism and commitment of our armed forces, who are making a tangible difference in Ukraine’s fight for freedom. The unity of this House, our Government and our allies is essential to ensure that Ukraine has the resources that it needs to prevail. Let us send a clear message today: Britain will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) on her wonderful maiden speech—actually, I have actually shifted up to sit in her spot so that I can accept all the plaudits that are coming from others. Yesterday marked 1,000 days since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. One thousand days later, missiles and bombs continue to rain down on sleeping civilians, Ukraine’s critical energy infrastructure is targeted, and in the south and east of the country, approximately 3 million Ukrainians live in occupied territories, where their human rights are routinely violated. The Ukrainians living under occupation must be liberated. Ukrainians across the rest of the country must be able to move on with their lives in peace, without fear of being bombarded.
The Bill provides the Government with the spending authority to provide an additional £2.26 billion in financial assistance to Ukraine, paid for not by the British taxpayer, but through the extraordinary profits made on immobilised Russian sovereign assets. Many of my Rushcliffe constituents will welcome this very serious and sensible proposal, which gives Ukrainians more tools to defend themselves, and would join some of the calls today to look at ways in which we may be able to go still further.
I trust that the House will join me in paying tribute to the Ukrainian armed forces who are fighting so valiantly to defend their country and their democracy, and to the members of our UK armed forces who are involved in training Ukrainian armed forces in the UK through Operation Interflex, which has now trained more than 50,000 Ukrainian recruits. That includes Nottinghamshire armed forces personnel, such as Corporal James Noble of C Company 4 Mercian, who spoke publicly about the training. Describing its impact, he recalled:
“Completely out of the blue, a Ukrainian soldier came over to me with a picture on his phone and said: ‘This is my wife and this is my young child. Thanks to you and what you’ve done, I have a much greater chance of living to see them again.’”
In Rushcliffe, many of my constituents will welcome the Bill. Since the full-scale invasion started, over 300 Ukrainians fleeing the war have been sponsored by Rushcliffe residents as part of the Homes for Ukraine scheme. From a solidarity march in West Bridgford to a concert for Ukraine in Keyworth that raised £1,800, so many of my constituents have done what they can to support the Ukrainian people and they will welcome the Government using profits made on immobilised Russian sovereign assets to support Ukraine during its darkest hour.
We have the opportunity today to progress legislation that will unlock vital additional funding for Ukraine to invest in more of the equipment that it needs to defend itself from Russia’s illegal invasion. That additional funding comes on top of the UK’s existing £3 billion a year for military aid for Ukraine. Our support for Ukraine is iron-clad, as it should be. I therefore support the Government and commend the Bill to the House.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
I wish to associate myself with the comments of many other Members who congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) on her wonderful maiden speech. She spoke particularly movingly about the impact that being in this place has on our families. I am sure that all of us will be thinking of our friends and family as we think back on that speech.
I am proud to speak in support of the Bill. I am proud of the additional money that is being provided for the defence of Ukraine and its people. I am proud that the sum of £2.26 billion, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) said, is in addition to the £3 billion that has been committed each year. I am proud, too, that this House stands for Ukraine and democracy, and in opposition to Putin and tyranny. That position is shared almost universally across this House, and certainly universally in this debate.
In my early contributions in this place, I have spent much of my time decrying the legacy of the last Conservative Government. I dare say I will do that a few more times, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I certainly will not be doing that on Ukraine. One area in which the last Government deserve real praise is their support for the Ukrainian people. In their darkest hour, this House and this country stood as one—in defence of Ukraine, in defence of democracy, in defence of freedom.
At a time when the opinion of politics and politicians is low, I think it speaks well of the House that we can come together on issues of such great magnitude. The support for the people of Ukraine under the last Government and under this Government make me proud to be British, and proud to be a Member of this House, because defending Ukraine, its independence and its way of life, is also defending our way of life. It is drawing a line in the sand and saying to those who wish to tear up our democracy and subvert our society that we will not stand idly by. I am sure that I am not the only Member to have stood at his or her local cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday or Armistice Day and thought of those who are fighting right now for their freedom and for their loved ones in Ukraine.
At the same time, we must not think that those who are taking on Russian aggression are solely those on the frontline. This war is being fought with more than just bombs, bullets and missiles. It is fought by the families who keep on living despite the presence of a dictator who wishes to snuff out the existence of their nation. It is fought by those who are willing to say, in this House and anywhere else where speech is free, that Vladimir Putin is an illegitimate tyrant. It is fought by those inside Russia who stand—or seek to stand—in democratic elections, knowing that the elections in which they stand are neither free nor fair, but doing so anyway. It is fought through the dignity and defiance of those nations who also stand on the border of the Russian aggressor state, wishing only to remain free. We must stand with them too.
Across the UK, including in Gateshead and Whickham, people have taken Ukrainian refugees into their homes. They have made them welcome. They too are part of the fight for dignity and democracy. Today we take the next critical step in that fight, at a time when, as has been said, it is more urgent than ever. We do not know when this war will end, but we do know that it must end, and how it must end: with a peace that is just for the Ukrainian. Slava Ukraini: glory to Ukraine.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We now come to the final Back-Bench contribution.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I sincerely hope to be last but not least.
Let me begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) on her first speech in the Chamber. I too, like many Members who are present today, am relatively new to the House, and I do not think I will ever forget the first time I walked into the Chamber with that real sense of awe that we have when we walk in here. We are faced with the history of this place which stretches back for centuries—the ideas that have been debated, discussed and decided in this room—but we are on the next page. This debate, and the debates that we will have over the coming months and years, are the next step on that journey, the next page of that history, and as we move forward we must continue to remember our place in the story—a story of the importance of democracy and the importance of ordinary people standing up, having their say and ensuring that ideas such as democracy, justice and self-determination are never forgotten, and are always close to the forefront of what happens in this place, in this country and around the world.
We should be proud of the history of this place in defending those ideals, as I am proud of this country’s support for Ukraine. I am also proud of the support from people throughout my constituency, in Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages, who have thrown open their homes to welcome those who have been displaced from Ukraine. It is heartening to see how many people across the country have acted so quickly in saying, “These are our friends—these are people who are in need”, and making sure that there was a place for them to come and to be safe. Let us make no bones about it: the Ukrainians are defending our values. They are Europe’s eastern flank, and Europe’s bulwark against autocracy. The fight in which they are involved, the fierce fighting that is taking place, is not for some nebulous idea; it is not for drawing lines on a map; it is for something as fundamental as the values that we hold dear.
I think it is important for us to remember where we want to be when those next pages of the history of this place are written. What do we want it to say? I know that when I play my part in that, I want it to say that I was on the right side of history—on the side of our values, justice and democracy. That is why I support the Bill, so that we can provide support to Ukraine. More than that, I want to be part of sending a message—a G7 message, a NATO message, a European message—to Washington about the importance of supporting Ukraine, and part of sending a very strong message to Moscow, and its supporters in Tehran, Pyongyang and anywhere else that supports this illegal war in Ukraine, that it has to stop. But it can only stop with a Ukrainian victory. Slava Ukraini.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We now come to the Front Benchers, starting with the shadow Minister.
Richard Fuller
I will respond briefly to the debate for the Opposition. First, I commend all the speakers, and particularly the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth). It is rare for so many in this House to congratulate a Member on their maiden speech, but it was warranted because she spoke so nicely and kindly about her constituency, as well as with great generosity about her predecessor and very movingly about her father. She should take away the great support from all Members across the House, and we wish her the best of luck in her future here.
The Minister will be aware, having listened to the debate, of the comprehensive support for the Bill. She will have heard calls from some quarters to extend the provisions of the Bill to include seizing not only proceeds from the profits, but the assets. Such a move would be a very large step for the UK to take, and I do not think the official Opposition would support that without very strong convincing from the Government. But on all the other aspects, she will have seen the comprehensive support.
Stephen Gethins
On the seizure of assets and the $300 billion, we were trying to make the point that this needs to be explored very seriously. It would be transformative for the Ukrainian war effort and would therefore be transformative for our security. I take on board the hon. Gentleman’s point that this is not easy and about the impact that it might have. However, will he join me in encouraging the Treasury to look at this and come back to us with further details about the possible implications and how it might take this forward, so that we can all, as a House, examine it in greater detail?
Richard Fuller
I think I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Treasury looks at these options on a continuing basis, but, consistently, the point of view held by the previous Government—and I would assume by the current Government—is that that is not the right step to take. But perhaps the Minister will update the House on her views on that in a moment.
Given the support, there was the opportunity for the Government to move forward with all stages of the Bill, so that it could proceed and be completed in this House today. Will the Minister say why that decision was not made and perhaps provide some sense of the timetable for when the Bill will be brought to the House for its concluding stages? But the Opposition’s general message is that we fully support the intentions of the Bill, and we will support it on Second Reading.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Tulip Siddiq)
It is a pleasure to close this debate on what remains a very important and pressing issue. As Ukraine enters yet another difficult winter, I am proud of the consistent support that this Government have shown through not just our £2.26 billion ERA contribution, but the long-term commitments we have made to supporting Ukraine’s capacity for self-defence.
I join the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, along with my hon. Friends the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) and for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson) in saying how proud I am that there is unity across the House in standing shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine at this very difficult time. This is a complex issue, and I will try to answer the questions posed by the Opposition and my hon. Friends. If I have missed out anything, I am happy to write to Members.
Before I get into the nitty-gritty of the Bill, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) for making such a powerful maiden speech. I think I am right in saying that her late mother Margaret, David, Martin and all her children would be extremely proud of their extraordinary daughter, mother, stepmother and wife. I very much welcome this “vicious dictator” to the House. We need more of them in the women’s parliamentary Labour party, so I am pleased to have her here.
The hon. Member for North Bedfordshire asked about the timing of the release of the funds. We intend to begin spending the funds early next year to ensure that the funding supports our Ukrainian allies as soon as possible. We intend to do so in three equal tranches over three financial years, starting in 2024-25, and the G7 has agreed that all ERA funds will be given out by the end of 2027. He also asked about how the UK will be repaid. We are providing the funding as part of the wider G7’s extraordinary revenue acceleration loan initiative, which means that the UK will be repaid via the extraordinary profits generated from immobilised Russian sovereign assets in the EU. The EU has already enacted the necessary regulations to operationalise the Ukraine loan co-operation mechanism, which will distribute the profits. That came into effect on 29 October, as he is probably aware.
The hon. Member asked about what will happen to the UK if the loan is not repaid. The repayment will rely on profits continuing to flow from immobilised RSAs into the EU over multiple years. The UK and the wider G7 have committed to ensuring that Russian sovereign assets remain immobilised across our jurisdictions until Russia ceases its war of aggression and pays for the damage that it has caused to Ukraine, and G7 lenders have worked closely together to design the ERA in a way that allows for repayment in a scenario in which profits cease and Russia pays Ukraine. I hope that answers his question, but I can write to him if he wants more detail.
On NATO’s spending target, there is a clear commitment from the Government to spend 2.5% of our GDP on defence, which has categorically not changed. The hon. Member will have seen in our manifesto that we will set up a path towards spending 2.5% of GDP on defence, and this will be done at a future fiscal event.
The hon. Member asked about the total value of assets and private assets. Between February 2022 and October 2023, £22.7 billion-worth of Russian assets were frozen due to UK financial sanctions regulations—a marked increase on the figure of £18.39 billion that was provided in the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation’s annual report in 2021-22. OFSI is currently analysing data on immobilised assets, and on the type and value of the assets.
Like many Members, the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) asked about the involvement of the ERA in asset seizure. I have to make it clear that the G7’s ERA scheme does not represent the seizure of Russian sovereign assets in any way; it is about using the extraordinary profits that the EU has set aside to pay a series of loans to Ukraine. He and the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) asked about seizing Russian sovereign assets in the UK. Russia’s obligation under international law is clear: it must pay for the damage it has caused to Ukraine. The G7 agreement to use the profits from immobilised Russian sovereign assets for the loan is an important step towards ensuring that Russia pays. Although we continue to consider all lawful avenues by which Russia is made to meet its obligation to Ukraine under international law, it is important that the UK and the G7 remain focused on delivering the ERA and the benefit that it will give to Ukraine right now, because we are very conscious of the situation in which the country finds itself.
A few other Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), asked about the proceeds from the sale of Chelsea FC. The Government are working hard to ensure that the proceeds from the sale of Chelsea reach humanitarian causes in Ukraine as quickly as possible. My hon. Friend might know that the proceeds are currently frozen in a UK bank account while a new independent foundation is established to manage and distribute the money, but this is something that we are working on and we are trying to move it along as quickly as possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) asked whether this was an unlimited resource loan. The negotiations remain ongoing on the details of the loan terms, but I am focused on ensuring that there is limited impact on Ukraine’s balance sheet. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) talked about the implications of the Trump victory for Ukraine. I cannot speculate on any policy decisions that the incoming Administration of President-elect Trump may make, but we have welcomed bipartisan US support for Ukraine, which has been key in the international effort. I feel that Ukraine’s security is vital for global security. If there are any other questions that I have not answered, I will write to Members. I am conscious of the time and I want to finish by thanking hon. Members across the Chamber for their contributions to the debate.
Richard Foord
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I have heard her say that at this stage the Government intend to work on the profits rather than the seized assets themselves, but will she undertake to talk to ministerial colleagues in Finland, Czechia and Estonia to find out how they have gone about seizing and using confiscated assets?
Tulip Siddiq
I have listened closely to what the hon. Gentleman has said, especially with regard to other countries, and I am happy to have conversations with ministerial colleagues across different countries and find out what they are doing. This is our position for now, but this is an ongoing situation and things will move. I am happy to speak to Ministers from different countries who are using assets differently.
The ERA is an innovative scheme. It will ensure that Ukraine receives vital support throughout 2025 and beyond. It will take the money generated from Russian sovereign assets and use it to support Ukraine in the best possible way. This is further proof for us that the G7’s support for Ukraine will not falter, and that the UK will stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine for as long as it takes.
I echo the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) and for Rushcliffe (James Naish) in thanking the people of our country for all the support that they have shown Ukraine. Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope you will indulge me for one minute while I say that my own constituents of Hampstead and Highgate have opened their doors for Ukrainian refugees, giving them their homes, community spaces and education spaces, and I particularly pay tribute to my local synagogue, South Hampstead synagogue, which is providing free English lessons for Ukrainian refugees. I was very pleased to meet those people in Parliament last week.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
Proceedings in Committee, on Consideration and on Third Reading
(2) Proceedings in Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
(3) Any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.
(4) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(5) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Anna McMorrin.)
Question agreed to.
Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill (Money)
King’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required by the Treasury or Secretary of State for the purpose of providing loans or other financial assistance to, or for the benefit of, the government of Ukraine as a result of—
(a) the arrangements described as the Extraordinary Revenue Acceleration Loans for Ukraine announced on 14 June 2024 at the G7 summit in Apulia in Italy, or
(b) any subsequent arrangements that are supplemental to or modify or replace those arrangements.—(Anna McMorrin.)
Question agreed to.
Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority
Ordered,
That Marie Goldman, Leigh Ingham, Gordon McKee, Charlotte Nichols and Jesse Norman be appointed to the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority until the end of the present Parliament, in pursuance of paragraph 1(d) of Schedule 3 to the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, as amended.—(Lucy Powell.)
House of Commons Members’ Fund
Ordered,
That Holly Lynch, Sir Charles Walker and Peter Grant be removed as Trustees of the House of Commons Members’ Fund and Mark Tami, Chris Elmore and Dr Danny Chambers be appointed as Trustees in pursuance of section 2 of the House of Commons Members’ Fund Act 2016.—(Lucy Powell.)
Business without Debate
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Healthcare: Hampshire
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
Whether I am door-knocking at the general election or reading my inbox, the NHS and healthcare services are, by a long way, the single biggest worry that people talk about. After 14 years of Conservative mismanagement of both the economy and the NHS, I have heard from many people about how they are struggling to access NHS services not only for themselves but for their children, which causes huge stress for the family and friends of those involved.
In 2019, Boris Johnson announced that Hampshire would have one of 40 new hospitals. In 2024 the sitting Conservative MP I stood against repeated once again that there would be a new hospital in Hampshire. It was frustrating, although possibly not surprising, to find out after the general election that not only had there never been any money assigned to the new hospital in Hampshire but that there is a £22 billion deficit that we had not previously known about.
Hospital managers, along with the chief executives of hospital trusts and integrated care boards, are trying to plan the future of healthcare in Hampshire, which becomes difficult when the goalposts keep moving and when they do not know whether there will be a new hospital. It is also causing huge stress for the residents around Winchester, especially those south of Winchester, who have been told that they might lose their accident and emergency department and their consultant-led maternity services as part of the new hospital plan. I have heard from thousands of people, including up to 30,000 who signed a petition, about the importance of keeping our A&E and consultant-led maternity services in and around Winchester. I have heard from many people whose lives were saved at Winchester and who are worried that they might have to travel further.
There has been a public consultation on the location of a new hospital, and it is currently being reviewed. Winchester residents are very concerned that none of the suitable potential sites in Winchester was included as an option. People had to choose between north or south of Basingstoke. This is not only a concern for people in Winchester, who will have to travel further for emergency healthcare; it is also a concern for the management of Southampton hospital, who are concerned that the further north a new hospital is built, the more that people will go to Southampton because it is closer. At the moment, Southampton hospital is operating at capacity and would need significant new resources if the hospital were built too far north.
When we look at the future of healthcare in Hampshire, we should seriously consider why we would build a new hospital so close to Frimley Park, which is going to be rebuilt because it has reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete and is only 20 minutes away along the A3. Why would we have two new hospitals so close to each other? I would appreciate having a meeting with Minister to discuss the potential location of any new hospital, so that we can ensure everyone in Winchester can access healthcare in an appropriate place.
The location of any new hospital is key to the future of healthcare in Hampshire because it will provide healthcare for decades to come. However, we are aware that the proposed new hospital may not be included in the new hospital programme after the review, so we need to focus on our current hospital. The NHS staff at that hospital are fantastic, but we need to look at how we can support it now and in the decades to come.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I apologise for intervening on the hon. Gentleman without notice; I appreciate him giving way. He outlined the case for a new hospital at junction 7 of the M3, but he is slightly muddling the argument. Clinical professionals recommended a location for that hospital, with replacement services that were being taken from Winchester hospital, while maintaining a Winchester hospital with certain services. Blue light times showed that there would be no significant difference in accessing healthcare for someone living in the north half of my old constituency of Eastleigh and someone living the part of his constituency that he mentioned. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend, the new hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis), opposed the new hospital, so is it not a little bit awkward for him to say that the Government had no funding plans, when he opposed the location and that hospital being created? That meant there was a muddling of decision making because he and his colleague opposed that hospital being created in the first place.
Dr Chambers
We never opposed a new hospital—that was something the Conservatives were saying about us. We support a new hospital, we want a new hospital, and we want modern healthcare services in Hampshire. However, we were very concerned that the proposed location of the new hospital is not suitable when we look at how healthcare is delivered throughout Hampshire. Sites just north of Winchester were identified as suitable; when we look at a map of Hampshire, it is clear that those proposed locations would be much more suitable for people throughout Hampshire, including those in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, to reach emergency services.
Our current A&E department, like other A&E departments, is hugely busy, especially as we head into winter. We know that many people attend A&E because they cannot get the primary care they need. Up to 20% of people who turn up at A&E are there because they cannot get a doctor’s appointment. People who are in a mental health crisis—many are often already on a waiting list—are going to A&E. They take up a huge amount of time and staff resources, often needing 15 to 18 hours of constant monitoring before they can be taken to a place of safety. We also have people turning up with dental issues because they cannot access an NHS dentist.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. While there are other hon. Members in the Chamber know the issues well, does he agree that the ability to bring healthcare into communities is vital, particularly for people in isolated communities who cannot hop on a bus every 15 or 20 minutes, or even every hour, to get to their appointments? Some areas simply cannot have centralised care or a new hospital; they do need localised facilities. If the hon. Gentleman is asking for that, then he is asking for the right thing.
Dr Chambers
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. As a vet who has worked in public health programmes around the world, I know that it has been proven time and again that it is always more cost effective to treat people in their communities and keep them healthy, than to treat them in hospital when they get sick. We need to focus on that. I know the Government have said that they want to move treatment from hospitals into the community.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
I suspect the hon. Member understands that I probably will not agree with him on the thrust of his argument about Basingstoke hospital. However, on the point about local community services, in my seat, in Whitehill and Bordon, there is a debate about whether we should keep the old Chase community hospital or build a new health hub. There are arguments on both sides, but the one thing that unites the two is the lack of communication from the Hampshire and Isle of Wight integrated care board. Does the hon. Gentleman find it as frustrating as I do that that ICB seems to not want to communicate with residents across the county?
Dr Chambers
I agree with the hon. Gentleman; when there is a lack of communication with residents, decision makers and any other interested stakeholders, that is when there are difficulties, such as rumours and unnecessary anxiety. Improved communication, whether in healthcare or in any Government Department, solves a huge number of problems.
On the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about accessing healthcare when people live in rural areas, I have a story about Margaret, who lives just south of Winchester and who wrote to me saying that she had been given an appointment at Basingstoke for a particular type of X-ray. Her journey to Basingstoke hospital took well over an hour and involved multiple buses and a train, plus considerable walking time. Margaret has chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and gets exhausted walking long distances, and she cannot easily afford a taxi all the way from Basingstoke back to Winchester. She asked me whether people without cars were to become second-class citizens and be denied access to decent healthcare options. We have to look at individuals’ situations, and that can include needing really good public transport. The more community care we have in people’s towns and villages, the quicker they can get there from their homes.
The other side of emergency care and A&E departments is social care. We have said many times that we cannot fix the NHS without fixing social care. We know that in the Hampshire hospitals NHS foundation trust, there are between 160 and 200 people at any given point who are well enough to be discharged and more appropriately cared for in the community with social care packages, but who are currently stuck in a hospital bed and cannot be discharged. That means that patients cannot be moved out of A&E and people cannot be removed from ambulances as quickly as they could be, which means that ambulance waiting times are longer.
When I spoke to the CEO of Winchester hospital, he said that the single biggest help they could get from Government would be another 160 social care packages. Although people ask where the money will come from, we know it is more expensive to keep someone in a hospital bed than to give them a social care package. We have winter pressures coming up—indeed, winter has already started—and the CEO has told me on more than one occasion that, to help with those winter pressures, more social care packages would probably be the single biggest intervention that would make a huge difference. Local authorities struggle to afford social care packages and the NHS trusts have to fund some of those packages out of their NHS budget, which is primarily meant for treating people in hospital.
One of the biggest concerns raised by Winchester residents is the potential removal of consultant-led maternity services at Winchester hospital. That means that if a woman were to haemorrhage or require an emergency C-section during labour, she would need to be transferred. To put that into perspective, in April 2024, 22.7% of births were performed via emergency C-section at Winchester hospital. It is clear that surgical interventions are not an unusual eventuality, but something that will affect more than one in five mothers.
An emergency transfer in such a situation would inevitably put the lives of some women and babies at serious risk and, tragically, some could be lost. A constituent wrote to me about her daughter, who had recently haemorrhaged badly after giving birth to a baby who was in a breech position. The blood transfusion and lifesaving surgery to remove her placenta needed to happen within minutes, and it is unthinkable what would have happened had there been no consultants on hand. As someone who has performed many emergency caesareans—on animals rather than on humans—I know that time is of the essence, and anything that delays surgical intervention can make a huge difference, not just to whether the person and the baby survive but to whether the baby has potential brain damage and other life-changing complications.
As the Liberal Democrat mental health spokesperson, I see this debate as a chance to highlight how desperately we need more resources put into mental health, alongside a more holistic approach to treatment. When speaking to residents in Winchester, one of the most common concerns is the difficulty in accessing mental healthcare, and that is especially true for parents who are struggling to access mental healthcare for their children.
I spoke to a constituent near Swanmore who was struggling to access the mental healthcare and support they needed for their child who was anorexic and had an eating disorder. They had been informed that their child had to reach a lower BMI to qualify for the threshold to get treatment, because resources are so stretched. That would not be considered even remotely acceptable for any other disease. A person with cancer would never be told that they needed to reach stage 4 before they qualified for treatment. We know that outcomes with delayed treatment for mental and physical health disorders, of which eating disorders are a combination of both, will be much less successful and much less cost-effective, requiring longer and less successful treatment the longer that the condition is left. I urge the Minister to look with particular concern at the mental health of young people and children. Delays in mental health treatment for anyone can be catastrophic, but a three-year delay for someone who is only 13, 14, or 15 is a huge chunk of their life.
As part of that, we urgently need to invest in primary care. Failing to address this will only place greater pressure on our already overstretched hospitals. I have spoken to people who have spent extended amounts of time in hospital beds, because they cannot get the mental healthcare that they need.
Similarly, the lack of NHS dentists often forces patients to turn up to hospital, sometimes needing a general anaesthetic, to sort out tooth root abscesses, which costs more than providing NHS dental care. It seems as though all the dentists I speak to say that their current contract for performing NHS care is not fit for purpose. I urge the Minister to look at this as an urgent priority, because so many people are not receiving the dental care that they need. It seems as though this whole issue will not be resolved until the NHS contract is looked at.
The other issue that affects people getting healthcare in their communities, especially around Hampshire, Winchester and the Meon Valley, relates to struggling pharmacies. The situation for pharmacies seems to be very similar to that of the dentists in that their arrangement with the Government for providing prescription services does not seem to be fit for purpose. It seems to be costing pharmacies money to provide prescription drugs, and they are telling me that their businesses are no longer viable. The more pharmacies that we lose, the further people will have to travel to not only collect drugs, but get medical advice and vaccines.
In conclusion, I wish to pay tribute to NHS staff. I imagine that they dread the winter coming up. Every year, it is a stress for them. Every year, they are overworked. And every year, we know that both clinical and non-clinical staff will work longer hours than they are contracted to do. I know that they will be bracing themselves right now. They will be busier, and they will be putting themselves at risk from getting things such as flu, covid and the other respiratory diseases that we see in the winter. One thing that we can all do, both as the public and the Government, is to encourage everyone to get vaccinated ahead of these winter pressures. Anything we can do to prevent a trip to hospital will make their job easier and make it less likely that they will get sick.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman speaks eloquently on a wide range of healthcare challenges in Hampshire. Does he agree that our shared integrated care board for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight must do all that it can to make the best of the situation, particularly in relation to NHS dentistry and funding for hospices across Hampshire and the Isle of Wight?
Dr Chambers
The hon. Member makes a good point about hospices in particular. Only about a third of hospice funding is provided by the Government. It is a hugely emotive subject, which affects not only the people in the hospice but the whole family, who are trying to care for a loved one who often has only weeks or months left to go. We have two hospices in Winchester, one of which is a children’s hospice, Naomi House. Some of the most moving visits I have ever done have been to hospices, where the staff and patients are incredibly brave. We have a debate coming up on assisted dying. We will really have to look at palliative and hospice care and how it is funded, and how we make it sustainable and fit for purpose. I thank him for that important intervention.
Many constituents write to tell me about the excellent care that they receive in hospitals, and how much they appreciate the hard work of NHS staff. A Winchester resident called Owen wrote to tell me that he honestly does not believe that he would be alive today were it not for Winchester hospital. Owen sadly suffers from a brain tumour in the pituitary gland, and has needed many emergency treatments. Owen lives five minutes from the hospital and has managed to have lifesaving treatment there on multiple occasions.
We need to avoid the trap of cutting short-term costs, such as by not investing in social care, which has ended up costing the state so much more money in the long run. We need a comprehensive plan to give people adequate local healthcare throughout their lives, and escape the endless cycle of crisis after crisis. We know that winter is coming this year, and coming next year. What are we doing to ensure that we will not have an NHS crisis in Hampshire next winter as well?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) on securing the debate, and echo his thanks to all health and social care staff who do incredible work in very difficult circumstances. We know that our NHS is broken. Whenever MPs from across the House come to me with issues affecting their constituencies, I repeat the same mantra: this Government will be honest about the issues facing our NHS, and serious about tackling them. Lord Darzi has already completed his review of the current state of the NHS, and his report laid bare the true scale of the challenges facing our health service.
We will not sugarcoat the problems faced by the health service in each and every part of the country, because colleagues from across the House are right to raise issues with me, and we will fix them together. We have already launched our national conversation on the future of the NHS, and we want patients, families and staff to join that conversation and make their voices heard. If Members have not already been to the website, the address is change.nhs.uk. Please let us have some sensible suggestions—not firing the Secretary of State out of a cannon.
In her spring Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced an extra £22.6 billion to protect NHS day-to-day spending. Every penny of that investment will come alongside vital health reforms; they are two sides of the same coin.
As the Secretary of State outlined last week, this Government intend to publish a league table of providers, allocating the best talent to the most challenging areas and ensuring that there are no rewards for failure. Where necessary, we will remove failing managers, and we will reward senior leaders who successfully improve performance.
Paul Holmes
On failing organisations, just before the general election a cross-party group of MPs, including Labour MPs, had a meeting with the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), about the performance and management of Hampshire and Isle of Wight ICB. Members of Parliament from across the political divide have serious concerns about its leadership, communications and funding—not Government funding, and I welcome the increased funding, but the way that it is distributed to services in Hampshire. Frankly, I do not think the leadership is up to running that ICB. Will the Minister agree to meet me and other Members from across the House to discuss the urgency of the situation? Will he find out from his civil servants where the request for a two-week action plan went and come back to Hampshire MPs?
Andrew Gwynne
I am sure the officials in the Box will have noted the concerns the hon. Gentleman rightly raised about his ICB. I will ensure that that is communicated back to the Minister for Secondary Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), so she can look in more detail at those concerns and communicate with the Hampshire MPs. If a meeting is necessary at the end of that, I am sure she will be more than willing to meet him and his colleagues.
We want to ensure that every part of our NHS is working as well as it can and, as I say, good performance will be rewarded as part of our reforms. Alongside a college of executive and clinical leadership, that will ensure the NHS continues to develop and attract the best talent to top positions, bringing the best outcomes for patients and taxpayers alike.
Let me turn to some of the specific issues that the hon. Member for Winchester raised. On local hospital provision, patients deserve to have safe, compassionate and personalised care in a fit-for-purpose environment. That is why this Government have committed to building and refurbishing hospitals across the country. The new hospital programme includes a new hospital for north and mid Hampshire and a major refurbishment at Winchester to provide specialist and emergency care. As part of the proposal, I am aware that the local trust explored changes to the current obstetrician-led maternity services at the Winchester site. I know the hon. Member has been a strong champion of that, having raised it with the Prime Minister in October.
As announced in the Chancellor’s autumn Budget, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will set out further details of the review of the new hospital programme in the coming months, alongside a new and realistic schedule for delivery. The Hampshire hospitals scheme is in scope of the review, and I acknowledge the local concern over the proposal and the impact on the Winchester site and on maternity services.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
My constituents use both Winchester hospital and Basingstoke hospital, as well as others, such as Frimley Park, the Queen Alexandra and Guildford. I understand that a clinical assessment was made about urgent treatment and services at Winchester, but there is a need for a new hospital in or near Basingstoke. In what the Minister said about a review of the new hospital programme, I accept he says a statement is coming soon, but will he confirm that it is about timing and that he or a colleague will come forward to the House soon with the certainty that people in Hampshire need?
Andrew Gwynne
Absolutely. I will try to be as unpartisan as I can, but the hospital programme that we inherited from the right hon. Member’s Government did not have anything like the money it needed to back it up. Conservative Members can shake their heads, but it is true. It had nothing like the money needed to bring forward those hospitals. As I have said, we will review that. Our intention is to bring forward those schemes, but that has to be done in an achievable programme, with the finances to back it up. When we announce to the House how we will schedule the hospital programme, I expect that all the answers he wants will be there. We intend to introduce the hospital building programme, but it must be done with money—we cannot build them with fresh air.
Dr Chambers
any potential new hospital is decades away, while the hospital we have needs to be maintained and improved. The quickest way forward is to provide 160 new social care packages for Winchester hospital. Will the Minister meet me and the chief executive officer of Winchester hospital to work out how we can deliver those packages as quickly as possible, and provide good A&E, hospital and social care services for everyone in and around Winchester?
Andrew Gwynne
It is crucial that we have the best possible health and care services in place for today’s needs while we plan for the future. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, and I will ensure that they are communicated back to the Minister for Secondary Care, so that she can consider them. I will ask her to report back to him on that. Ultimately, all decisions are best made locally, so that they can cater to local interests, and are clinically led. This is no exception. I know that the hon. Gentleman’s trust will consider all feedback from the public consultation held earlier this year, including from those who will access the new facilities, as well as wider bodies of evidence. The result of the public consultation on location and services will be put to the local integrated care board, and we look forward to hearing the outcome of that.
Dr Chambers
I apologise for intervening again so soon. One of my main concerns about the public consultation is that the NHS had assessed sites in Winchester as suitable, but they were not then included in the consultation. The people of Winchester want to know why those suitable sites were not included in the consultation. Can the Minister assure me that that will be addressed by the ICB, and anyone else publishing the consultation?
Andrew Gwynne
As I said before the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, ultimately these are local decisions, and they must be clinically led. If the trust has decided that certain outcomes that he would like to see are out of scope of the consultation, we must take it as read that there are sound clinical reasons for that. If he thinks otherwise, I am sure that he can bring that up with my hon. Friend the Minister for Secondary Care, but ultimately we must be guided by the clinicians. They know, more than we Ministers in Whitehall will ever know, what the better outcomes for their areas are.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned primary and community care. We know that patients nationally and in Hampshire find it increasingly difficult to see a GP. We are committed as a Government to fixing the front door to the NHS, to ensure that patients receive the care that they deserve. If patients cannot get a GP appointment, they end up at accident and emergency, which is worse for them and more expensive for the taxpayer. That is why we will shift the focus of the NHS out of hospitals and into community. One of our three big shifts is from hospital to community; the others are from analogue to digital, and from sickness to prevention. Those three things, taken as a whole, could be quite transformative in how we deliver primary care.
Gregory Stafford
I agree entirely with the Minister on the shift from hospital to community. I do not want to labour the point that I made when I intervened on the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), but in the Hampshire part of my seat, we have a debate about whether we will still have Chase community hospital or a new health hub there. They are both essentially local services. The ICB is dragging its feet and will not make a decision on which it will be. Local people do not know what will happen, and decisions are being kicked down the road by the ICB. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) said, the leadership of the Hampshire and Isle of Wight ICB is not fit for purpose. Will the Minister meet us and them to ensure that we can get this moving?
Andrew Gwynne
I hear loud and clear what Conservative Members say about the leadership of their ICB. I hope that the ICB management will obtain a copy of today’s Hansard and read not only those comments, but the Minister’s reply. I expect them to make decisions in a timely fashion, so that there is some certainty for the local population about the new make-up of health and care services in that area—not just for the sake of patients and the local population, but staff. As we redesign services and change towards more preventive, community-focused care, some parts may become obsolete, and it is absolutely crucial that we take the workforce, as well as the population, on that journey of change in services. I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman’s ICB leadership will have heard the message from the Minister at the Dispatch Box, which is that they really need to crack on, make a decision, communicate it and work with Members of Parliament, the public and staff on whichever changes they propose.
I return to primary and community care. As I said, our manifesto commits to moving towards a neighbourhood health service, with more care delivered in local communities, so that problems are spotted earlier. We will bring back the family doctor by incentivising GPs to see the same patient, so that ongoing or complex conditions are dealt with effectively. In doing so, we will improve continuity of care, which is associated with better health outcomes for patients, and our plan will guarantee a face-to-face appointment for all those who want one; we will deliver a modern booking system that will end the 8 am scramble. That is crucial in improving access to general practice.
The hon. Member for Winchester rightly raised the huge problems with dentistry in his area, which are not that uncommon across the whole country. I do not believe that the previous Government’s dentistry recovery plan went far enough; too many people were still struggling to find an NHS appointment. We are working to ensure that patients can start to access additional urgent dental appointments as soon as possible, and we will target the areas that need the most—the so-called dental deserts. Integrated care boards have started to advertise posts through the golden hello scheme. This recruitment incentive will see up to 240 dentists receive payments of £20,000 to work in the areas that need them most for three years. The common reason why children aged five to nine are admitted to hospital—this is absolutely shocking in the year 2024—is tooth decay. We will work with local authorities to introduce supervised toothbrushing for three to five-year-olds in the most deprived communities. These programmes are proven to reduce tooth decay and boost good practice at home.
To rebuild dentistry in the long term, we will reform the dental contract with the sector, with a shift to focusing on prevention and the retention of NHS dentists. To be fair, this has been an issue for all Governments, going back to the Labour Government who introduced the dental contract. They did so for the right reasons, but in 2010, we recognised that the dental contract was not working in the way we envisaged, and that it had to change. It is shocking that 14 years have passed since then with no real action having been taken—we are determined to fix that. At the same time, we will not wait to make improvements to the system to increase access and incentivise the workforce to deliver more NHS care. We are continuing to meet the British Dental Association and other representatives of the dental sector to discuss how we can best deliver our shared ambition of improving access for NHS dental patients.
I have to say that the statistics for Hampshire and Isle of Wight integrated care board make sorry reading. Only 36% of adults were seen by an NHS dentist in the 24 months to June 2024, compared with 40.3% across England, and 54% of children were seen by an NHS dentist in the 12 months to June 2024, compared with 56% across England. In 2023-24, there were 46 dentists for every 100,000 people in the hon. Gentleman’s trust, whereas the national average across all ICBs in the same year was just under 50 dentists, and in 2024, the general practice patient survey success rate for getting an NHS dental appointment in the past two years in the Hampshire and Isle of Wight ICB area was 72%, compared with 76% nationally. They are not great statistics nationwide, but they are certainly not brilliant in the ICB of hon. Members present, and we look for real improvements there.
Turning to the pharmacy sector, we want to take pressure off GPs by increasing the services offered in community pharmacies. There is so much more that our pharmacists could and should be doing to deliver basic healthcare services on the high street and in the community, as part of the shift from hospital to community. That would free up thousands of GP appointments in cases where people do not really need to see a general practitioner for their condition. We are committed to looking at how we can further expand the role of pharmacies and better use the clinical skills of pharmacists as more become independent prescribers—that is where the potential gets really exciting. Now that the budget for Government has been set, we will resume our consultation with Community Pharmacy England shortly. I hope Members will understand that I am unable to say more until that consultation has concluded. Suffice it to say that Pharmacy First and community pharmacies have a huge role to play in improving health outcomes in the community.
Jim Shannon
In my former role as an Assembly Member back home, we had a very close relationship with pharmacies. The consultation process that the Minister is outlining for England would be very much welcomed in Northern Ireland, so can I ask the Minister a favour? When that consultation concludes, will he share his findings with the Northern Ireland Assembly, and particularly with the Minister in Northern Ireland? What the Minister is hoping to achieve is what we would also like to achieve.
Andrew Gwynne
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. No part of the United Kingdom holds a monopoly on wisdom, and if we are doing something good or if there is innovation in one part of the United Kingdom, it is incumbent on Health Ministers across the devolved Administrations and here in Whitehall to share best practice—to work together and, where possible, take a four-nation approach. I hope I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that since this new Labour Government came into power, we have really tried to reset our relationships with the devolved Administrations and with the various Ministers. I have had several meetings with Mike Nesbitt on a range of health issues that appertain to the whole United Kingdom on which we want to ensure there is consistency of approach. I am more than happy to communicate further with Mike Nesbitt and colleagues in the Northern Ireland Executive on how we reform our health and social care services in England to see whether things can be taken by them in Northern Ireland. Vice versa, if there are good ideas from Northern Ireland, I am more than happy to consider them in how we transform NHS services in England.
The hon. Member for Winchester mentioned social care, and he is right to raise winter resilience. I have spoken about fixing the front door to the NHS through primary care reforms. We also have a serious job to do to fix the back door and ensure that patient flows through the system are not held up because of a lack of social care. On winter resilience, I hope he will understand that we are working to ensure that there are no crises and that we tackle the issues of social care. Getting beds in appropriate places is a key part of our plan.
In the long term, there are no quick fixes. The Dilnot reforms were announced by the previous Government, but it is fair to say that, when we came into office, we found that the money apparently set aside for the Dilnot reforms had already been spent on other NHS pressures. Laudable though it may have been to spend that money to try to get waiting times and waiting lists down and to fix some of the problems that that Government had created, it left us with a bit of a social care issue, given that the reform money had gone, had disappeared and was no longer there to be spent.
Over the next decade, this Government are committed to building consensus on the long-term reform needed to create a national care service based on consistent national standards, including engaging across the parties. It is good to see the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar), in his place, and I am sure he will be very willing to work with us, as indeed will the Liberal Democrats. We genuinely want to make sure that we get cross-party consensus on the future of our adult social care, so that we can finally grasp this nettle once and for all, and to fix it without it becoming such a contentious issue, as it became, sadly, in 2010 and 2017. Neither of the two main parties has a good story to tell on this, because we have both shamefully used it as a political football from time to time. It is now appropriate that we set aside those politics and get on with fixing social care. I hope that, in due course, we will be able to move forward on that agenda.
I assure the hon. Member for Winchester that we are acutely aware of the problems with mental health services. We both agree that waiting lists are unacceptably high. Indeed, the people of Hampshire and most of England are not getting the mental health care they deserve. He has spoken previously about Lord Darzi’s report, which has shone a searing spotlight on the waiting lists that young people face, in particular. I am immensely proud that this Government are intent on tackling the issue head on, with specialist mental health professionals in every school in England. That is our aim. These NHS-funded mental health support teams in schools and colleges will work with young people and parents to manage mental health difficulties and to develop a whole-school approach to positive mental health and wellbeing.
Damian Hinds
Can I just check whether I heard the Minister correctly? Did he say there would be a mental health specialist in every school in England?
Andrew Gwynne
Yes, that is our manifesto commitment. There will be mental health specialists for every school in England. In Hampshire, there are mental health support teams assigned across the area, including schools in Winchester, Eastleigh, Andover and Havant. In addition, we will introduce young futures hubs in every community and recruit an additional 8,500 mental health workers across children and adult services. We have also set aside £26 million in capital investment for new mental health crisis centres, and we are expanding NHS talking therapies, alongside individual placement and support schemes.
This Government are committed to fixing the NHS so that patients, including those in Hampshire, can access excellent care when they need it. It is true to say that every Labour Government have inherited an NHS in a far poorer state than that which they bequeathed to their successors. It turns to this Labour Government to fix our NHS once more.
Question put and agreed to.