Westminster Hall

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 12 November 2025

[Sir Christopher Chope in the Chair]

Typhoon Fighter Sovereign Capability

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Westminster Hall

00:00

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Typhoon fighter sovereign capability.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I requested this debate as an opportunity to have the time and space for a more in-depth discussion about securing the future of our sovereign capability in air combat, with the most pressing element being the production of Typhoon fighters at the BAE Systems Warton site in my constituency.

The skilled workforce and cutting-edge technology that make Warton the world-leading facility that it is have taken decades and billions of pounds of investment to develop and maintain. As I go around my constituency, I meet families who now have three generations working at the site and dedicating their careers to it. When we combine the number of jobs provided to local people with all those who have moved to Fylde to work in the critical defence sector, it is easy to understand why it is such an emotive subject. Their service, ingenuity, skill and determination over generations of workers has built a truly impressive sovereign capability.

[Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)]

On the workforce, will the hon. Member commend and welcome the great contribution of others across the country, such as those at Rolls-Royce in Filton in my constituency? Similarly, generations of people work there together, and it is wonderful to see. They have played a big part in helping us to secure the recent deal and will also play a key role in engine production and maintenance.

[Mr Snowden]

Forgive me; the hon. Lady will gather from my accent that I will have a slight Lancashire bias in this debate. However, it is obvious from the stats that BAE Systems produces on economic impact and jobs that the supply chain—all those who contribute to the production of Typhoons—is spread across the country. It is a nationwide effort to maintain this sovereign capability. Very few countries in the world can boast the ability to fully assemble their own world-class fighter jets. In an ever-more unpredictable, hostile and dangerous world, we are reminded of why having such assets and abilities is so important.

Before I go any further, I would like to take this opportunity to place on the record again my thanks on behalf of Fylde, Lancashire and the whole country for all the work that has gone into securing the Turkey Typhoon order, which is one of a number of potential deals that has been in the making for several years. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) recalled to me the standing weekly meetings that were held in the Ministry of Defence during his time as the Minister for Defence Procurement, to keep the pressure on and the momentum going to secure export orders. His and others’ work was critical in overcoming our German partners’ objections to exporting Typhoon to certain countries, and the recent deal would not have been possible without that significant amount of work.

The new Government clearly picked up the mantle with vigour and determination to get the deal over the line. There is plenty of glory and praise to go around for everyone. It is a major boost that has been warmly welcomed in Fylde and Lancashire, but we all know from the history of the Eurofighter programme, and Tornado before it, that export orders alone cannot sustain it. While everyone involved in the deal should take time to pat themselves on the back, there is significantly more work to be done before anyone can rest easy that this sovereign capability is secured into the next generation.

To put this into sharp context, we are now the only partner in the Eurofighter programme that is not purchasing Eurofighter. Not only that, but the Government have made an active decision to purchase 25 American F-35s instead of British Typhoons. Along with many people right across Lancashire, local businesses and the unions, I am utterly perplexed and concerned by that decision.

[Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Member understand that there is a difference in capacity between an F-35 and a Typhoon? They have fundamentally different roles, and to have an armed forces that works, we need them both.

[Mr Snowden]

They do provide slightly different roles, but they have the same general one in air combat. Many people say that in aerial combat Typhoon will get the highest the quickest, and according to many pilots and those involved, that is one of the most important factors. I will address the difference in capabilities between the two aircraft later in my speech. I thank the hon. Member for his enthusiasm this early on a Wednesday morning.

As I was saying, the Government’s decision has brought me into an alliance that, as a Conservative MP, I never thought I would be in: campaigning hand in glove with and on the same side as trade unions. I must say that they have put their passion and their all into standing up for the workforce that they represent in Lancashire, and I know they are watching today.

Although an element of the F-35 is built by BAE in Lancashire, it is a drop in the ocean compared with what an order for 25 Typhoons would have meant for jobs and investment. The order book for F-35s is already extensive, so ironically the UK’s order will not have a noticeable impact on job security in Lancashire. In the meantime, the final Typhoons have already rolled through the assembly line at Warton. It is pretty much out of work, which is a terrifying prospect for the workforce, supply chain and community.

Even with the order from Turkey, there will still be a two to three-year period when the assembly line at Warton will be sat empty, waiting. The skills on the line—not just to assemble a modern fighter jet but to certify and test its readiness for combat in simulations and live flights—are such a crucial part of our sovereign capability. To maintain the whole-cycle workforce, from production to assembly and testing, there would need to be getting on for around 100 Typhoon orders between now and the Tempest going live. That puts the need for an RAF order into perspective.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a good speech. I recently paid a shadow ministerial visit to Warton and Samlesbury, and we saw the penultimate Qatari Typhoon painted and ready to fly out, I think within a couple of days. The last one may even have gone now as well. To emphasise his point, this is extremely pressing, is it not?

[Mr Snowden]

That is the nub of the argument about why this debate is about sovereign capability. While there will be balance—I will come on to the difference in capabilities between the aircraft, as raised by the hon. Member for Swindon North (Will Stone)—this is about maintaining a sovereign capability that, once gone, would take a generation to bring back.

This goes beyond jobs. To maintain and develop our sovereign capability, the RAF needs to be investing in, using and supporting the development of Typhoon. The RAF needs to be fully bought into its development: working with BAE systems on future orders, defining new requirements and capabilities, and enabling the development of future generations of the aircraft—a role only the RAF can truly play. The 6,000 jobs at the Warton site make up a workforce who, if lost, take our sovereign capability with them.

The only way to secure the site to allow the time to secure multiple export orders was to place the order for the RAF as part of the strategic defence review. This also made sense because it would have boosted the export campaign itself—it is a pretty hard sell to make when we are not even buying it ourselves. Someone I spoke to about the export campaign said that one of the first questions they always get asked is, “Are you buying it yourselves?” What kind of message does it send to say, “Please buy our fighters while we go to buy somebody else’s”?

To go back to the need to bridge the period between now and Tempest coming live, it is important to note that Tempest will not replace Typhoon. The point is simply that the site is secured by the order book for the new aircraft going live. We will still need the more agile fighter jet category that Typhoon occupies, as the different aircraft will perform differing air combat roles. As one person from the military described it to me:

“Tempest is the big, bad aircraft that has the tech and payload to blast into the battlefield and establish air superiority. The role of future generations of Typhoon is to then clear up, run smaller missions and maintain that air superiority.”

That makes it even more critical that the RAF and the Government remain bought into the continued development of Typhoon. They must place regular new orders, in addition to carrying out refurbishment, as we will need that sovereign capability for generations to come alongside Tempest.

If we continue to erode the skills base, with investment and innovation in favour of paying for America to develop and maintain its own sovereign capability instead, ours will wither as a result of the UK’s short sightedness. That is why I have been like a dog with a bone about this issue since getting elected.

It has been obvious over the past few years that the decision about the order of the 25 Typhoon jets would fall on whoever was in power when the next big defence review was conducted. To address the hon. Member for Swindon North’s intervention, I had hoped that the review would take a holistic look at what placing an order would mean, not just for the RAF’s specifications and requirements but for maintaining our sovereign capability—a phrase I am deliberately using over and over again. We should count ourselves incredibly lucky as a country that we are more secure for being able to produce our own fighter jets. We should do everything at every opportunity to invest in and continue to develop and improve that capability.

Instead, the order has been sent across the Atlantic, with a vote of confidence in and a significant investment cheque for another country’s sovereign capability over our own. Even if there were certain requirements, and the RAF had been led to believe that the F-35 had advantages, the investment could and should have been made in the Typhoon programme, through BAE Systems, as part of the continued development of that aircraft. That is how it is supposed to work when we make our own aircraft. But I suspect that there may have been more to it than just that.

Members may be surprised to know that this is by far and away not the first time I have discussed Typhoon and Tempest in Parliament. The ebb and flow of questions and answers on this subject between me and Ministers runs through Hansard over the last 18 months. Let us take a little trip down memory lane and look at some of the timeline. We start on 7 November 2024, with a written parliamentary question to the Ministry of Defence. I simply asked whether the Department had a budget for new Typhoons in 2025-26. The then Minister for Defence Procurement, the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle), replied:

“Budget allocations for 2025-26 will be set in the usual way and informed by the findings of the Strategic Defence Review.”

In a follow-up written question on 15 November 2024, I asked what steps the Department was therefore taking, given that the production line was already falling empty, to ensure that skilled workers in the defence sector were maintained. I received what can be described only as a public sector word salad of an answer, talking about partnership working and future procurement strategies, while the assembly line emptied.

On 28 November, starting to get frustrated, I asked a question in business questions. I gave the long timeline of written and oral questions I had asked, trying to get answers and certainty, only to be brushed off by Minister after Minister. I was promised a meeting with the Secretary of State for Defence to discuss the Typhoon order—it never happened.

On 6 January 2025, in defence questions, I asked:

“Christmas came early for the UK defence industry when Spain placed an order for 25 Eurofighters on 20 December, and Italy followed suit on the 24th. But there is still nothing from the UK Government on the 25 Typhoon jets that are needed for the RAF. Will the Minister spread some festive cheer into the new year, and give us an update on where the Government are with placing that order for 25 Typhoon fighter jets—a delayed Christmas present for the UK defence industry and the RAF?”

The Minister for Defence Procurement replied:

“I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point. It is certainly true that exports are important”—

critically—

“in addition to production for our own use.”

There was then a general comment about the strategic defence review, and the Minister finished by saying:

“The rest of our spend on such matters is part of the SDR. Once that is completed, there will be conclusions”—

slightly obvious. She went on:

“It might not be a Christmas present—I do not know when his birthday is—but a present some time later.”—[Official Report, 6 January 2025; Vol. 759, c. 586.]

“Yes,” I thought, “there it is: a hint on the Floor of the House that the order for Typhoon is coming.” It was said in the strongest possible terms without saying, “Yes, we are about to buy them. Please, just wait.”

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Possibly.

[Mr Snowden]

Possibly.

From January 2025 onwards, the sector press started reporting on the need for and the likelihood of a Typhoon order being placed. Then, on 2 June, the strategic defence review was published, and there was the shock announcement that the Government would not purchase Typhoon, as expected, and would purchase F-35. The question that I and so many others have is simple: what happened? I am sure the former Minister for Defence Procurement is a politician of such experience and integrity that she would not have given strong indications of a potential Typhoon order simply to get out of an awkward parliamentary question from a lowly Back Bencher such as myself, and neither would the Government would want to see expectations around a Typhoon order build in the media if they had no intention of placing one.

One big thing brewing throughout that period was that the US President made it clear that if NATO allies wanted to include defence infrastructure in their 5% target, they needed to buy US military kit. If countries wanted better trade deals in the tariff wars then—you guessed it—they had better buy more hardware from the US.

To conclude, I have the following concise, separate and clear questions that I and my constituents would like to be answered. First, given that the specification, lead time and price of both aircraft did not change between the Government hinting they were ordering Typhoon and their then going in the opposite direction with an order for F-35s, what changed? Secondly, have the Government ruled out placing any new Typhoon orders in this Parliament?

Thirdly, given that the Turkey order will not fill the order pipeline gap, and the urgency of the situation outlined by the shadow Minister, what financial support will the Government provide to maintain the Warton site this financial year and next? Fourthly, will the Government please clearly state that they accept the principle that the lighter sister fighter aircraft to Tempest should remain a sovereign capability and, therefore, will be Typhoon? I will be grateful if the Minister would answer those questions in turn when he responds; I shall count how many answers we get.

I want to finish by paying tribute to the workers at BAE Systems in Lancashire, in both Warton and Samlesbury. It is good to see cross-party representation here from MPs in Lancashire who also have dependent workforces and jobs. There is such pride in our community for the world-leading technology produced at Warton. I am so proud to see how the workforce have held it together, kept going and remained hopeful—even as the assembly line emptied—that the orders would come to keep the site going and their jobs secured. The workers I have spoken to celebrated the fact that Turkey has done its bit for Lancashire and Fylde by ordering new Typhoons; they are now waiting for their own Government to do their bit and place the order.

09:47

[Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I commend the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) for bringing forward the debate. I completely associate myself with his comments about the workforce up there; generations of my constituents have worked at the Samlesbury and Warton sites. I quite enjoyed his speech—most of it, anyway.

I was lucky enough to visit the Warton site recently with the Prime Minister, when he announced the Turkey order. It is fair to say that the workforce was absolutely buzzing; this is such an important order for them. We have 20 brand-new Typhoons guaranteed and fully assembled at the site up there, with an option for a further 20, guaranteeing up to £8 billion in investment and securing production facilities and critical jobs for at least a decade.

As was mentioned, BAE Systems is also spearheading sixth-generation fighter development, under the Tempest programme, which is expected to enter service around 2035. As the hon. Member for Fylde mentioned, BAE Systems at the Samlesbury and Warton sites is also heavily engaged with the delivery of the F-35, which is now in service with the RAF. I understand that—for reasons not known to me—the RAF prefers the F-35 to the Typhoon. That was shared with me by the unions and a number of individuals.

The last UK sovereign order for Typhoons was back in 2009. I note that the hon. Member did not say that the previous Government ordered no sovereign Typhoons between 2010 and 2024. Given that the production of these aircraft takes almost five years from ordering to completion, we now have a gap at the production facilities because they did not order any.

The previous Government’s combat air strategy was published in July 2018. It had the clear objective that the F-35 Lightning would replace the ageing Tornado GR4—which it has—and then partner the Typhoon until the latter leaves service around 2040, with the global combat air programme Tempest being the successor. Much work must be undertaken to ensure that critical upgrades to the current 111 operational UK sovereign Typhoons take place, particularly around the enhanced radar and the weapons the aircraft carries.

The Government must continue their efforts to ensure that more Typhoons are sold on the export market. As the hon. Member said, that needs to be done as a matter of urgency. There is an argument to be had that the Government could consider a sovereign order now that could potentially be exported in years to come. That has happened historically, although I am completely cognisant of the fact that there are constraints on the MOD budget and the UK Budget at the moment. However, that is a consideration that Ministers may have.

[Mr Snowden]

The hon. Member is giving a good speech in defence of jobs in his constituency. On the point about previous years—I touched on this in my speech—it became obvious that the next big defence review would have to be the point where the crunch decision was made on this. I echo the point—it was probably remiss of me to miss this out in my opening remarks—that placing that order and then potentially releasing it is a very good way of not only potentially boosting the export campaign, but covering the two to three-year critical gap that we have now that the assembly line will be empty. I thank the hon. Member for making that point.

[Mr Foster]

I agree, but Ministers have a difficult decision. The recent publication of the strategic defence review has committed us to the Tempest programme, but we must await the details of any updated combat air strategy, which is obviously clearly linked to the defence investment plan and acquisition pipeline.

To conclude, the securing of the Turkish Typhoon export order has been a real game changer for my community in South Ribble and the wider community of Lancashire, and for procurement across the entire country, as my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove) mentioned. It is a great start. It has secured a number of jobs at the Warton site for a decade. We must support the Government and BAE Systems as much as we can, and get as many of these aircraft exported as we can.

09:53

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) for presenting the debate so well, and his passion, knowledge and deep interest are obvious. I support his plea: he, I and other Members in the Chamber wish to see any work retained in our own businesses, wherever those may be in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I also support his determination to ensure we retain the reputation as the world’s top fighting force.

It is a pleasure, as always, to see the Minister in his place—he has certainly earned his money in the last couple of days, and I am sure he will earn his money tomorrow as well. It is also a pleasure to see the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), in his place. He has a deep interest in these matters, and I wish him well in his contribution. The spokesperson for the Lib Dems, the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas), also has a passion for this issue.

As a boy—that was not yesterday, by the way; I can just about remember when I was a boy—I imagined being a fighter pilot. Imagine Jim Shannon being a fighter pilot! People in the Ards peninsula would be scared stiff at the very thought. That came from listening to local men telling stories of the second world war; my grandchildren look up to their grandfather, and I suppose that when I heard the soldiers and Air Force people who came back from the second world war telling their stories, that sparked an energy and an interest in the subject right away. When I think of Typhoon fighters, that little boy in me from 60-odd years ago is excited once more—excited for what we can do, and excited by what the Labour party and the Government wish to do. It is the right thing, and it inspires us all.

This land-based, multi-role fighter, capable of both air-to-air and air-to-ground missions, forms the bulk of the RAF’s combat air fleet alongside the F-35. It also forms the RAF’s quick reaction alert force, providing air defence in the UK and across the wider NATO airspace when deployed overseas.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

On the quick reaction alert force, the NATO coverage and the contribution the Typhoon fighter would provide, does my hon. Friend agree that the proximity of the Irish Republic to the UK means that, in effect, we offer that nation some coverage and protection—which I presume we are quite happy to do—but at no cost to it whatever? Every NATO state has to pay considerably into NATO expenditure; the Republic pays nothing. Should our Government not approach the Government in the Republic to say, “We are covering for you. How about spending some of your money?”?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend, who always instils words of wisdom in these debates. He is right: the Republic of Ireland is our neighbour, and we want to have an economic friendship and relationship with it—by the way, we do not want to be annexed by it, and we are quite clear where we are on that. However, we do provide F-35 and Typhoon aircraft coverage, which the Republic gets the benefit of. I am not sure whether anybody from the Republic of Ireland listens to these debates or even knows about them, but maybe even as we speak someone is cluing in and saying, “You know something? There is an obligation for us. Let’s do our part alongside the UK.”

The envy of the world, the RAF had 129 Typhoon aircraft, of which 107 are still in service. When he introduced the debate, the hon. Member for Fylde said that almost 21,000 people are employed across the UK in support of the Typhoon programme. It is estimated that the programme contributed £1.6 billion to the UK’s gross domestic product in 2020. Its importance cannot be denied.

My constituency of Strangford and the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) have large numbers of manufacturing jobs, so we understand how the lumbering allocation of contracts can bring hope—and then sometimes despair—to the workforce. I understand the frustration of the hon. Member for Fylde at the Government’s refusal to back British and ensure that our countries supply and make all possible goods.

I have argued the same case with the Ministry of Defence in relation to using Harland and Wolff in shipbuilding for defence contracts. My right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East, myself and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) have had a meeting within the last month to help ensure that the company can get more contracts. When the Minister replies, perhaps he can give us some encouragement for Northern Ireland in relation to procurement and contracts. We do not get the maximum we should out of defence contracts in Northern Ireland. We have a very skilled and able workforce, with apprenticeship opportunities, so we should focus on that.

I completely support the hon. Member for Fylde in his quest to ensure that the Ministry of Defence fulfils promises in a timely manner. As always, I am encouraged by Thales and the extra two Government contracts that have been put in place. There are now 200 new jobs there and apprenticeship opportunities. I have spoken to the management, who are very keen to ensure apprenticeship opportunities. I know some of them young fellas—I have known them since they were born—and they are the new apprentices and the new workforce for Thales.

It is not simply the future of manufacturing in Fylde that is at risk; it is the defence of this nation. Whenever we speak for something, we do so collectively. This is about the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England —working together. Those who serve this country in uniform come from all over, and we want to make sure we all get the benefit.

If the war with Russia and the Israel conflict have shown me anything, it is that those with the best weaponry have the upper hand. People seem to forget that, were it not for the Iron Dome defence system, Israel would have been rubble because of the incessant onslaught. If the Ukrainians did not have access to Thales lightweight multi-role missiles—LMMs—the battle against the might of Russia would be very different. I remember, in the first stages of the Ukraine war, the way that Thales LMMs were used to halt Russia’s advances and basically destroy its advance forces. They could be fired over the tops of houses and bungalows, and into the roads in between, to destroy the Russian armour. Those are the things that we should be promoting. When I saw them working in Ukraine, I was encouraged to know that some of my Strangford constituents—as well as probably some of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry and my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East—manufactured them, and that they were able to destroy and halt the Russian advance.

The capacity and capability of our armed forces are, of course, world renowned, and the availability of top-of-the-range Typhoons are part of that. We must have Government backing for our defence strategy. I do not doubt that that is coming, by the way—this is not a question for the Minister—but sometimes we need encouragement and reassurance, which I think is what the hon. Member for Fylde is seeking. He is right to do so for his constituents and, indeed, for this great nation. We must also have backing for our manufacturing industry, which is the backbone of this great nation.

I support the hon. Gentleman and look to the Minister for firm action behind the words of affirmation that are undoubtedly coming. The time for fulfilment is now, and our manufacturing industry is more than ready to fulfil. We can deliver. This great nation has done it before; we can do it again, and we should do it now.

10:02

[Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)]

It is truly a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden), a fellow Lancashire MP, on the passion with which he spoke.

I associate myself with all the remarks that have been made, and will be made, in welcoming the Turkey deal. As has been said, it was a massive boost for workers at Samlesbury and Warton, and has been received with great enthusiasm. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr Foster), the hon. Member for Fylde and I have long been calling for it, and it comes on the back of huge amounts of hard work from Ministers and civil servants in the Department.

We must not underestimate the massive impact that the order will have, but it is not job done; we now need to look at how we can kick on. As has been highlighted, it is imperative that we secure the sovereign capability, production base and competitive position for the next decade and more. We need to finish the job. I have come to the conclusion that the only way of doing so is through a UK Typhoon order. That is what we need to maintain our world-leading position, the skills and the expertise that were so crucial in securing the Turkey deal. The decision was not taken by the previous Government and it now falls to this one.

A UK order would mean that maximum value is retained here. We will hear all the arguments about the sections being made at Samlesbury for assembly at Warton. I agree with the argument that a UK order would also build confidence in the quality and longevity of the aircraft, which would bolster our ability to secure future international orders. In any case, the fundamental point, as has been highlighted, is that we need more new fast jets. We had 137 Typhoons. Thirty tranche 1 aircraft will be retired by 2027, and that leaves 107 tranche 2 and tranche 3 fighters, which are ageing and will be retired by 2040. Despite upgrades, they do not have the full range of capabilities that could be delivered with the latest tranche 5.

For sure, we all get very excited by the potential of the Tempest global combat air programme, but it will be, at best, the late 2030s before it comes online. As has been said, it is not a direct replacement or comparator for the Typhoon, so we have a clear capability gap to fill somehow. Part of that is being addressed by the purchase of the F-35, which creates an opportunity. Although the F-35 is a brilliant aircraft, it is, as has been pointed out, a very different aircraft from the Typhoon, with different design philosophy and different capabilities.

That creates an opportunity for a blended Air Force. The F-35 is primarily a stealthy, ground-attack, precision strike aircraft able to penetrate heavily defended areas. The Typhoon is an air dominance fighter with a higher top speed, faster acceleration, better climb rate and superior sustained turn performance. The Typhoon is also compatible with a full range of British-made missiles such as the Meteor and Spear 3, whereas the F-35 currently is not. There is an opportunity for a blend there. We do not need to choose one or the other; we can bring the capabilities together to create an Air Force truly fit for the 2030s and onwards.

[Mr Snowden]

The hon. Member is making an excellent point. I have no objection to us having an element of F-35 within the RAF. It is important to have blended capability. The key point is that Typhoon as a platform could be developed and adapted to perform some of the roles that F-35s do. They are largely in the same frame of aircraft, in the sense that they both occupy the lighter fighter range, compared with what Tempest will be. If we are going to have Typhoon as a sister to Tempest in the future, using investment opportunities now to build, develop and change the Typhoon platform to have different variants of it would be a good way of maintaining sovereign capability.

[Andy MacNae]

The hon. Gentleman is reaching levels of technicality that I do not fully understand, but I think the fundamental point is that we should strike a balance and try to get the best of both. The Typhoon is a platform that can deliver capabilities that we very much need. As has been pointed out, other Eurofighter partner countries have taken exactly that decision. In December 2024, Spain ordered an additional 25 Typhoons. At the same time, Italy ordered 25 to replace its tranche 1s. Last month, Germany placed an order for another 20 Typhoons, taking its total order pipeline to 58. Those countries have protected their domestic fast jet manufacturing capability while ensuring that they have a mix of capabilities to address the full range of conflict scenarios that, sadly, we can look forward to.

[Mr Francois]

I completely accept the hon. Gentleman’s argument about a blended force of Typhoon and F-35, but does he accept that one of the drawbacks of the F-35 is that we are effectively at the mercy of the joint programme office in the United States? That has led to serious delays in the integration of the Meteor, a highly capable air-to-air missile, into the F-35 because American systems have been prioritised. That is a bit of a problem, is it not?

[Andy MacNae]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. I would not use the same sort of pejorative language, but a recent National Audit Office report highlighted exactly those integration issues and, as I have pointed out, the Meteor and Spear 3 are not currently compatible with the F-35. There is no doubt that sovereign capability means maintaining all the controls to deliver the independence and resilience that a tier 1 nation surely requires in its defence strategies.

I will briefly take a wider perspective. Lancashire is home to world-class defence industries, as we all know. Every single growth plan that talks about Lancashire’s future has those at its heart. The fact that we can go into schools in places like Bacup, Whitworth and Darwen and talk about some of the best engineering and technical jobs in the world being just down the road is invaluable to building aspiration in places that need it most. The apprenticeships and career opportunities at not just at BAE, but the many innovative companies in the supply chain, mean that Lancashire and the north-west is the best place for anyone who wants to work in the cutting-edge manufacturing industries of the future.

Surely we should not be happy with merely sustaining that jewel in the crown. Rather, we should seek to strengthen and continually build skills, scale and competitive advantage. Turkey chose to order the Typhoon because the experience, quality and skills of workers at Samlesbury and Warton cannot be matched. We have the opportunity to build on that and give the ultimate vote of confidence by ordering UK fighters that will maintain our balanced and multifunctional fast jet capability through the next decade and more. I hope that the defence procurement strategy delivers just that.

10:09

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I welcome Turkey’s order for 20 Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft. I appreciate that it is good news for the UK, good news for the workers at Warton and Samlesbury and good news for BAE and the future production of GCAP. The Government have confirmed that the Turkish jets are tranche 4 aircraft, with the first of the order due to be delivered to the Turkish air force in 2030. The Government refuse to disclose the number of aircraft that will be delivered each year, but have confirmed that it will not impact our ability to conduct the RAF Typhoon phase 4 enhancement programme or, at the back end of that process, the manufacturing of GCAP.

I recently asked the Government what estimate the MOD has made of the contribution of Typhoon jets to GDP. The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry told me:

“The biggest contribution of defence to GDP is peace and security.”

While in abstract I share that sentiment, it was not really the answer that I was looking for. Typhoon has been one of the UK’s most successful defence export programmes in recent years, with £1.4 billion in export contributions annually and over £30 billion of value to the UK economy, which is more than double the £12 billion initially invested. The programme contributes around £1.6 billion to the UK economy and helps to preserve our sovereign fighter jet manufacturing capability.

Under the NATO Eurofighter and Tornado Management Agency, the industrial subsystem production and workshare agreements across the partner nations arrangements dictate that the UK leads on manufacturing the front and rear fuselage, windscreen and canopy, fin and rudder, engine bay doors, foreplane and a range of major avionics systems, which make up 37% of each Typhoon aircraft. For both UK aircraft and UK-led export orders, final assembly takes place at Warton, where the major equipment components, which have been manufactured in Samlesbury by BAE Systems, are ultimately assembled. To that end, it would be good to know how much the order of 20 Turkish jets will create, given the satellite industries that orbit the final assembly and certification processes. Including the Turkish order, there are 154 Eurofighter Typhoons awaiting delivery across the partner nations of Germany, Italy, Spain and Kuwait. How many of those planes will receive final assembly at Warton?

What is the plan to ensure that there is no skill fade in the intervening years? While it would be nice to imagine a Kanban-style lean manufacturing process that sees Typhoons rolling off a production line every few days, these jets take several years to construct. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that those responsible for airworthiness testing and certification are kept current and competent between now and 2029, when the first Turkish jets will be approaching completion?

Beyond the order, it is worth addressing what assurances the Turkish have been given about the longevity of the jets. The Turkish air force will not receive the last of the jets until 2035, but the out-of-service date for the RAF is 2040. How will the jets be upgraded after we retire them? How will upgrades be delivered at the Warton and Samlesbury plants when they are focused solely on GCAP? The Typhoon is scheduled to remain in service with air forces across Europe and the middle east until the 2060s.

Our four remaining tranche 1 aircraft are based at the Mount Pleasant complex in the Falkland Islands, and I had the pleasure of visiting No. 1435 Flight earlier in the year to better understand their role in air defence and quick reaction alert for the south Atlantic islands. However, the handful of remaining tranche 1 Typhoons have an out-of-service date of 2027. Can the Minster confirm whether these will be replaced with tranche 2 or tranche 3 aircraft? If so, which other squadron will lose a flight?

As I mentioned, the current Typhoon fleet—our 67 tranche 2 and 40 tranche 3 planes—has an out-of-service date of 2040, but in a written answer to me on 24 September, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry stated:

“Typhoon will continue to serve as the backbone of the UK’s Combat Air Force until at least the 2040s.”

Can the Minister confirm whether the out-of-service date of Typhoon is 2040 or well beyond that?

I recently asked the Government about the scope of the planned upgrades for Typhoon, specifically with regard to the mark 2 European common radar system, defensive aid suites, avionics and weapons. The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry confirmed that those would be outlined in the forthcoming defence investment plan, which it is rumoured will not be published until December.

The upgrade programme is due to take place over the next 15 years—coincidentally, the same as the aircraft’s remaining lifespan. The Minister has previously informed me that the phase 4 enhancement—P4E—upgrade programme is in the system definition de-risking phase of activity, following the system definition contract last year. The full scope of the P4E capability package has not yet been agreed, and without that agreement the programme cannot progress on to the design, development and demonstration phase. With that in mind, it appears unlikely that the P4E programme can be accurately outlined in detail in the defence investment plan.

With the best will in the world, we know the Government are not about to pull the trigger on a domestic Typhoon order. We cannot afford them, and they clearly do not fit into the combat air succession plan. Having read the strategic defence review, it is clear to me that Typhoon is seen as an integral part—the backbone, in fact—of our combat air capability, but the MOD clearly wishes to pursue exquisite capability, irrespective of the opportunity cost.

The current plan sees a mixed fleet of Typhoon and F-35B. I stress the “B” because, frankly, the announcement on the F-35A is a red herring. We are yet to receive the remaining F-35Bs of the current tranche. The remainder are set to be delivered by March 2026, taking our total to 47, with one written off having fallen into the sea. The mooted 12 F-35As are a straight swap for 12 F-35Bs from the next tranche. Those F-35As were pitched as dual-capable aircraft, and would therefore form part of the NATO nuclear mission. If that is the case, why will the F-35As be assigned to 207 Squadron’s operational conversion unit? Using the planes as a training fleet workhorse does not scream nuclear readiness. How many of the jets will be held at readiness?

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the highest echelon of pilots—those who are best trained—will be the operational conversion unit instructors? Therefore, the 12 aircraft allotted to the nuclear mission will be the leading edge of the force’s capability, so it makes eminent sense for that part of the force to deliver it.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I bow to the hon. Gentleman’s expertise in this field, being the decorated RAF pilot that he is. However, I also take that as Government confirmation that the OCU instructors will potentially form the backbone of our NATO dual-capable nuclear readiness force. Can the Minister confirm that when he sums up?

I know this is a trick question, as the Minister probably does not know what the nuclear readiness plan is, and I do not think the RAF knows either, given there is currently no timeline for gaining nuclear certification. At this point, it is worth noting that, in February, the US Marine Corps—by far the biggest user of the F-35B—changed its programme of record to more than double its order of the carrier variant, F-35C, while reducing its F-35B order by the same amount. Our carriers are not equipped with cats and traps, so the F-35C variant is a non-starter, but we should note the direction of travel of the US Marine Corps, given the combined arms nature of its brand of expeditionary warfare.

The Government have stated that the introduction of the F-35A variant will support the stand-up of a third frontline F-35B squadron, but the F-35A variants will not enter service until the 2030s—we have not even ordered them yet—and that is quite aside from the certification of nuclear capability. When will we achieve initial, and then full, operating capability for the F-35A with nuclear certification?

Crucially, our F-35s are not capable of conducting missions alone. It is not often discussed, although we have already mentioned it here, but the F-35 cannot yet carry the Meteor missile, MBDA’s beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile. The Government have previously confirmed to me that the current estimated timeline for the Meteor’s in-service capability is the early 2030s. Our top-of-the-range jet fighter currently has no stand-off air-to-air missile capability. It is effectively unarmed in the face of a near-peer aerial adversary against which we cannot expect to have day one air superiority.

In July, the previous Minister for Defence Procurement, the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle), told me:

“Block 4 modernisation will include the integration of UK-unique weapons and upgrades to air-to-surface and air-to-air weaponry.”

That would appear to be an aspiration, not a guarantee. Options for future Meteor development are still under consideration by the Meteor partner nations of France, Germany, Spain, Italy and Sweden, and the aim is to have reached consensus by the end of the year. Can the Minister provide an update on the progress made at the recent working-level discussions in September and October?

This issue was also recently identified by the Public Accounts Committee in its excoriating report, “The UK’s F-35 stealth fighter capability”, which highlighted:

“The Joint Programme Office…has invited the UK…to include a UK weapon in its so-called digital accelerator which it hopes will speed up delivery. In the meantime, the Department told us that as part of its Defence Investment Plan it is considering buying other weapons that are already available and integrated.”

In his response, can the Minister outline what off-the-shelf weapons the Government are currently considering buying as an interim solution to this problem? How do they intend to integrate an interim stopgap weapon?

At present, the solution is actually Typhoon. Yes, in order to use our very expensive, top-of-the-range, invisible-to-radar, fifth-generation F-35s, we have to fly them alongside our not-very-invisible-to-radar, fourth-generation Typhoons, because only they can carry the payload to defend them in air-to-air combat. I am not sure this is exactly what was intended by the hybrid airwing outlined in the strategic defence review.

That is before we point out that an independent carrier strike group is irrelevant if we need a land-based plane to support our carrier-based capability, and that for the F-35B to be in range of a target, the carrier would have to be in range of hostile ballistic missiles that we cannot feasibly protect them against. The future air dominance system, which will be its primary air defence shield, comes in the form of the Type 83 destroyer, for which the final business case is not due to be submitted to the Treasury until 2028—the 2035 initial operating capability for Type 83 already looks ambitious. I digress, and discussions on the limitations of designing our military strategy around our capability, rather than the other way around, are for another day.

The F-35’s out-of-service date is 2069, by which point some of our 138 airframes will be over 50 years old—older than any combat jet the RAF has ever had in service. What will be the final fatigue index of those airframes by then? Given the rapid development of uncrewed platforms, are we really going to rely on an ageing crewed jet as the backbone of our combat air capability in 2069?

Having covered a fair amount of ground, I close by reiterating that the recent Typhoon deal with Turkey is a good thing, but I fear there are an awful lot of unanswered capability questions regarding our air power. While the answers to all these questions are for the next month, when they will be published in the defence investment plan, the Minister knows well that I will circle back on every single one of those points—he probably suspects I have a tracker monitoring their status.

With that in mind, we need a clear and concise air power strategy, because talk of autonomous collaborative platforms and hybrid air wings is premature. It should be noted that the Chief of Defence Staff, in his previous role as Chief of the Air Staff, stated this summer that the RAF has

“no major equipment programmes planned for the next 15 years. We have what we have for the near and medium term.”

The question is not when the defence investment plan will be published, but whether it will have anything in it when it is.

10:20

[Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) on securing this debate.

When we see the Typhoon take to the skies—its precision, power and unmistakable roar—it is easy to focus on what we can see: the aircraft, the pilot, the mission. Yet behind every Typhoon flight lies another story, one that begins not in the cockpit but on the ground in Farnborough, the birthplace of British military aviation.

For more than 25 years, QinetiQ, based in Farnborough, has been a quiet force behind the success of the UK’s Typhoon fleet. Its roots run deep in our national story. QinetiQ was born out of the Royal Aircraft Establishment —the cradle of so much British aviation and defence innovation. From the earliest flight experiments to the supersonic age, the Royal Aircraft Establishment defined our pioneering spirit, and today, through QinetiQ, that spirit lives on.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

Having visited my hon. Friend’s constituency and seen some of those capabilities, I can say that they are incredibly impressive. Does she agree that some of the Typhoon jobs are sometimes forgotten? There are 800 jobs in Scotland, where much of the radar equipment is manufactured and integrated. That is not to mention RAF Lossiemouth in the north of Scotland, where the quick reaction alert pilots fly all the time, training and intercepting Russian jets, to protect our country.

[Alex Baker]

My hon. Friend is entirely right, and I will talk about radar shortly.

Our heritage enables QinetiQ to work in deep and purposeful partnership with the MOD, the Royal Air Force and the Air and Space Warfare Centre to provide mission-critical engineering outcomes. Its engineers, scientists and analysts are not merely maintaining aircraft but redefining what is possible.

Through the engineering delivery partner programme, and using facilities provisioned under its long-term partnership agreement with the MOD, QinetiQ provides expertise that keeps the Typhoon at the forefront of modern air power. When operational demands intensify, it is QinetiQ’s engineers who ensure that every airframe remains structurally ready for the challenges ahead. When pilots require new systems or improved safety equipment, it is QinetiQ’s aircrew systems specialists who deliver the rapid and safe clearances that protect lives.

When the RAF sought to extend the life of the Paveway IV precision weapon, it was QinetiQ’s analytical judgment and engineering insight that made it possible, delivering greater capability and saving the taxpayer tens of millions of pounds.

Led by QinetiQ across the country—at Boscombe Down, Coningsby, Malvern, Bristol, Lincoln, Warton and, of course, Farnborough—more than 200 engineers are working to ensure that every Typhoon mission, from routine training to live operations, is safe, effective and one step ahead of the threat. Their work on mission data, conducted side by side with the RAF, turns complex streams of information into operational advantage, ensuring that our aircrews have the intelligence they need in the moments that matter most.

Looking to the future, QinetiQ is supporting the development of the European Common Radar System Mark 2, a next-generation capability that can be tested on its dedicated flying testbed. That will take the Typhoon’s radar performance to new levels and stands as a testament to the strength of British science and engineering.

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

On that point, what is critical in our present epoch is that we are able to iterate technology fast, and to adapt to make the things we have more lethal, rather than just bringing new wants and designs. One of the pet strengths—

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman arrived late. He has made an intervention already and is now making a very long intervention. He should have some regard for other Members who have been here throughout the debate.

[Alex Baker]

Thank you, Sir Christopher.

It is innovation with purpose—a partnership between Government, industry and the armed forces that strengthens both our national security and our national prosperity. And now, with the recent deal between the United Kingdom and Turkey for the sale of 20 Typhoon jets—the biggest fighter jet agreement in a generation, securing 20,000 jobs across our defence and aerospace sectors—we can see the global value of this work. This deal is not only a significant export success; it is a vote of confidence in the skills, technology and sovereign capability of our defence industries.

QinetiQ’s engineering services work to help the MOD certify aircraft being delivered to Turkey will demonstrate how British expertise, born in Farnborough, continues to deliver excellence on the world stage. I was so pleased on Monday to welcome the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry to QinetiQ’s Farnborough HQ. It was an opportunity to see at first hand the extraordinary breadth of its work, from digital engineering and AI-driven analysis to advanced test and evaluation. The Minister saw what I have long known: that QinetiQ is not just maintaining capability but building the future of defence innovation in the United Kingdom.

The Government have published their strategic defence review, and QinetiQ will play a vital role in delivering mission-critical technologies that strengthen the resilience, readiness and reach of our armed forces. From advanced radar systems to digital test environments and next-generation flight safety, its expertise will help to shape a stronger, safer and more technologically advanced Britain. The future is bright, and it is being built in Farnborough by people whose work may not always make the headlines but whose contribution is indispensable to our national security.

There is a story from the early Typhoon test programme that captures this spirit perfectly. One night, a QinetiQ team at Boscombe Down encountered a problem. They worked continuously for 36 hours to analyse data from flight XP13, a trial that had revealed a critical systems anomaly. By dawn, they had identified the fault, developed the fix and cleared the aircraft to return safely to the skies. That single story tells us everything we need to know about QinetiQ’s role. It speaks of persistence and the willingness to stay at the desk long after the world has gone home. It shows precision, because in defence engineering, detail saves lives. It demonstrates partnership —the seamless collaboration between engineers, pilots and scientists—and it reflects pride in knowing that their unseen work makes every mission possible.

As we look to the skies and see a Typhoon soar, let us remember that its power is visible but its brilliance is built in part by QinetiQ, quietly, expertly and proudly carrying forward the legacy of Farnborough’s Royal Aircraft Establishment into a new generation of innovation and national service.

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

I call Luke Akehurst, who I am afraid has been left with only a couple of minutes.

09:34

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I was going to make some points about the industrial case, but those have been made very well by Members with a direct constituency interest in this programme, so I will talk about the role of Typhoon in air and missile defence. I have a strong interest in that subject and spoke about it in a Westminster Hall debate last year.

I do not often lose sleep over politics—I am quite a robust character—but there is one issue that keeps me awake, which is whether we are moving fast enough to defend Britain from air and missile attack. Russia poses a direct threat to us. It is real, imminent and growing every day. Typhoon forms one important component of the UK’s integrated air and missile defence, as our quick reaction alert aircraft at Coningsby and Lossiemouth. While ground-based air defence engages late, Typhoon engages early, making it a key part of multilayered defence.

Typhoon pushes our defensive perimeter outward, stopping threats before they get close to British bases, troops or even civilian targets. When suspicious aircraft approach UK airspace, the first thing that goes up to see them and turn them around is Typhoon. It is our fastest and most flexible interceptor. It can also provide, albeit rather expensively, a last-ditch way of destroying cruise missiles or unmanned aerial vehicles before they hit their target. It performed that role during the Iranian attack on Israel last year.

I welcome the commitment in the SDR to upgraded Typhoons, which will form part of the next-generation RAF. Upgrades to our current Typhoon fleet could transform our air defence capability. For example, integrating conformal fuel tanks on to Typhoon could increase their combat range to allow them to reach Russian airspace from the British Isles. I welcome the MOD’s confirmation that the UK will spend £2.35 billion to deliver the new European Common Radar System Mark 2 for the Typhoon fleet. Given the potential for Typhoon upgrades to level up our air and missile defence capabilities, can the Minister elaborate on a timeline for when further upgrades will be set out, and any detail on what upgrades are being considered?

10:30

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

It is, as always, an honour to speak under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) for bringing forward this important debate. I hope the House will join me in recognising my friend Ryan, who is currently coming to the end of his training pipeline, flying solo on Typhoon. That training pipeline included three months sharing a room with me—it has been tough for him.

As a product, the Typhoon is the backbone of our ability to project air power, and the sharp end of the United Kingdom’s quick reaction alert. Beneath that product lie desperately stretched engineering forces at RAF Lossiemouth and RAF Coningsby. I owe it to those who, not long ago, confided in me to tell the Government clearly that they must prioritise those who sustain our platforms and aircrew, if they are rightly to expand the RAF as it faces the challenges of the coming decades.

Beyond the Royal Air Force, the Typhoon programme has, for decades, sustained UK aerospace engineering, supporting thousands of skilled jobs across the country, including many in Gloucestershire, continuing our rich aerospace heritage. The project, among others, has preserved UK expertise so that we can continue to design, build and upgrade world-leading systems here on our islands.

The Liberal Democrats commend the Government on this deal with our Turkish NATO allies. I extend recognition to the previous Government for initiating the deal. It will create jobs and stimulate much-needed economic growth in the UK, while enhancing NATO’s security and deterrence in this crucial region. Turkey plays a crucial role in our collective effort to defend against Putin’s imperial ambitions, serving NATO as a strategic ally on the Black sea. Eurofighter Typhoon is also, of course, a flagship for European co-operation. As my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have continually raised, it is vital for Britain to have a comprehensive security and defence agreement with our European allies.

We are pleased that the Labour Government have taken steps to secure this deal but, to the surprise of nobody, we call on them to go further. Do the Government consider that the Typhoon expansion will play a part in UK economic growth over the coming decade? Will the UK offer Typhoon to our eastern European partners as a means to access the €150 billion Security Action for Europe defence procurement programme? How are the Government working to broaden UK businesses’ access to skilled engineers, manufacturers and technicians? What are the Government doing to shorten the pilot training pipeline for fast jets?

Although we recognise our shared security interest with Turkey, we must be mindful of the challenges and complexities in our relationship with Ankara, as well as with other strategic allies. The continued detention of Istanbul’s mayor, Ekrem İmamoğlu, widely believed to be a politically motivated attack, remains egregious and speaks to an alarming trend of democratic backsliding in Turkey. Will the Government make it clear today whether they raised the issue in negotiations? If they did not, they must raise it with their Turkish counterparts at the earliest opportunity.

As I mentioned during the ministerial statement at the end of last month, I express gratitude to my many constituents who work in GE Aerospace in Bishops Cleeve. They have supported the Typhoon programme from its inception, with cockpit displays and fuel system equipment manufactured in my constituency. I also commend the defence industries across the nation whose innovation and endeavour safeguard our country. Large and small businesses have played an integral part in the process, and it is important that we recognise them all. The Liberal Democrats note that only 5% of the procurement budget is allocated to small and medium enterprises, despite a Government drive to integrate them into procurement: 42% of contracts go to the same 10 suppliers.

Small and medium enterprises are crucial to the UK defence industry, providing flexibility and innovation, and creating a vast network of high-quality jobs across the UK. However, they face unique challenges that limit their potential to contribute fully to defence capability and UK prosperity. The Liberal Democrats are fighting for a fair deal for small businesses, starting with more support for their energy costs and a complete overhaul of the unfair business rates system.

To conclude, the Liberal Democrats support the deal. We continue to press for further collaboration with our democratic European allies. We would strengthen co-operation through security and economic partnerships, and that should include a customs union with the European Union.

10:35

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher, as we debate the important role that the Typhoon programme plays in our nation’s defence and industrial strength.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) on securing this important debate. Since he entered the House almost a year and a half ago, he has proved a doughty champion for his constituents, for the defence industry in the north-west more generally and for his constituents at Warton for whom the Typhoon programme is crucial in particular. He made a very good speech to open the debate, and I know that he will continue to fight tenaciously for his constituents’ interests as this Parliament plays out.

I also take the opportunity to pay a personal thank you related to air defence. Recently, I turned 60 and, as a memorable birthday present, my local Conservative Association generously clubbed together to pay for a 30-minute, two-seater Spitfire flight in aircraft No. MT818 out of Biggin Hill, including overflying my constituency. I warmly thank the pilot, Barry, and all his colleagues at FlyASpitfire.com—who do what it says on the tin—for a wonderful day. At this time of remembrance, it brought home to me just how brave the few—some of whom had barely 10 hours on type—were in flying that iconic aircraft in mortal combat during the battle of Britain. I am deeply grateful for that truly unforgettable experience. It will literally live with me for the rest of my life.

Returning to the present, I also congratulate the Minister on the fact that the Government have now sealed the deal to export some 20 Typhoons to Turkey. For the record, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), when he was the Minister with responsibility for procurement, spent a considerable amount of time promoting that deal, as did Ben Wallace, the then Secretary of State. Nevertheless, it would be churlish not to say well done to the Government for capitalising on those previous efforts and bringing the arrangement to fruition.

That being so, I have some specific questions about the deal for the Minister which I hope that the House will welcome. First, can he confirm what tranche of Typhoon the new aircraft will be, including what variant of radar it will carry? That has implications not just for BAE Systems at Warton, but for our national radar manufacturer Leonardo, based in Edinburgh. As for MBDA, our missiles champion, is the Meteor missile also part of the sale to Turkey?

Secondly, a suggestion has been that Qatar will sell its older Typhoons to Turkey as part of the arrangement and that that might yet lead, in turn, to further Typhoon orders at Warton. Is that the case and, if so, what can the Minister tell us?

Thirdly, is the Minister able to say anything more about other potential Typhoon sales internationally, in particular to Poland or Saudi Arabia? A Typhoon order from Saudi would be a significant achievement and, indeed, negotiations to that effect have been under way for several years already. That, too, would be of great interest to the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde, so I wonder whether the Minister is in a position to say anything further about that this morning.

As the debate is entitled “Typhoon Fighter Sovereign Capability”, I also take this opportunity to press the Minister on the future of the Typhoon in Royal Air Force service. The RAF has recently retired some 30 of the older tranche 1 Typhoons, and has been in the process of effectively cannibalising them in order to keep the more modern tranche 2 and tranche 3 aircraft flying. In terms of combat mass, that represents a worrying reduction of about a fifth of the entire RAF Typhoon fleet. The few remaining tranche 1s in service are now the fleet of Typhoons based at RAF Mount Pleasant. Will the Minister confirm that when they retire some time in 2026-27, the RAF will provide replacements of either tranche 2 or tranche 3 aircraft to maintain the air defence of the Falkland Islands, not least for the peace of mind of the Falkland Islands Government?

That would leave about 107 tranche 2 and 3 aircraft in RAF service. The tranche 3 aircraft are optimised to accept the new future generation of electronically scanned radar, now generally referred to as Radar 2, which has been under development at Leonardo in Edinburgh, in association with other European allies, for more than a decade. Tranche 2 aircraft can also be modified to accept Radar 2, but both tranches of aircraft require an important electronics update, known as P4E, in order to fully utilise the important new capability of Radar 2, including its crucial electronic warfare suite. However, as I understand it, the MOD has still not placed an order for the final development and installation of P4E, crucial though it is to Typhoon’s future.

Although Radar 2 has now been fully developed—indeed, I was privileged to see a prototype of it on a shadow ministerial visit to Leonardo some months ago—the MOD has still not placed a production order even for an initial batch of Radar 2s. That too represents a very important part of the UK’s Typhoon sovereign capability. Without an effective radar, much of the other investment in Typhoon is nugatory. Can the Minister say anything positive today about the future orders for Radar 2 and the associated P4E upgrade to the UK Typhoon programme, given that both—and we need both—are due to be in operational service by 2030?

BAE trade union colleagues, whom I met recently at Samlesbury, have been pushing hard for a further domestic order of Typhoon aircraft, not least to maintain key skills at the Warton site. They have no greater champion than my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde—“Tory MP backs trade unions to the hilt”. I appreciate that that is not an easy decision for Ministers to take, and that it must be considered in the context of the wider mix of potential combat air system, as several hon. Members have said. In that regard, to date the UK has ordered some 48 F-35B short take-off and vertical landing variants for both the Fleet Air Arm and the Royal Air Force, almost 40 of which have now been delivered—minus one, which had an unfortunate accident leaving an aircraft carrier. However, both the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have been highly critical of the slow build-up of the Lightning force. Can the Minister say anything more encouraging about that?

The Government have intimated that they intend to buy another 26 F-35Bs, making 74 in total out of an originally planned order of 138. However, this summer they announced their intention to substitute 12 of those aircraft for the F-35A variant, which is capable of carrying the B61 tactical nuclear weapon, both in our defence of the United Kingdom and as part of our commitment to NATO. What more can the Minister tell us about how many F-35s the MOD still intends to buy, and what mix of variants that will comprise, in addition to Typhoon?

A crucial future part of our sovereign air capability is represented by the global combat air programme, which aims to develop a world-class, sixth-generation combat aircraft—a system of systems, potentially including autonomous adjuncts. It is being built with Italy and Japan, and is to be known in RAF service as the Tempest. As the Minister knows, the putative initial operational capability for GCAP is 2035, partly driven by a very hard in-service date for the Japanese air force. An industrial consortium called Edgewing, headquartered in Reading, has recently been formed to manufacture the aircraft, but there are already worrying rumours of delays. Will the Minister take the opportunity today to confirm that GCAP/Tempest remains on schedule, and that Tempest will still succeed our oldest remaining tranche 2 Typhoons from 2035?

The Typhoon is a fundamentally important part of the air defence of the United Kingdom and of our allies, and is likely to remain so for decades, even allowing for the gradual introduction of Tempest. As the Minister will appreciate, for those aircraft to be used most effectively, especially in the air defence role, they need to be closely integrated into the UK’s wider air defence network.

We now have a major gap in that capability, however, following the withdrawal of the Boeing E-3D AWACS aircraft in 2021, because of the frustratingly delayed introduction into service of its vital replacement the Boeing E-7 Wedgetail. The delays to Wedgetail are a disgrace; the aircraft is years late and has flown only a relatively small number of test flights. Rumours are circulating within the industry that this is due to a mixture of factors, including the integration of the MESA—multi-role electronically scanned array—radar and serious problems with the UK E-7’s bespoke command and battle management system.

A respected former procurement Minister, Sir Jeremy Quin, was recently appointed chairman of Boeing UK. I hope he can bring his experience to bear to sort out this debacle. What can the Minister say today about Wedgetail and when it is finally likely to enter operational service with the Royal Air Force? In short, when will the aircraft be ready to fight, rather than just conduct air displays as it did at the Royal International Air Tattoo this summer?

We await the Government’s long-promised defence investment plan, including details on the future of Typhoon. We were originally promised the DIP by the autumn. With the leaves already turning, I ask the Minister a straight question: is Christmas in the autumn? Can he guarantee that the DIP will be published in full by the time the House rises for the Christmas recess on 18 December, just over a month from now?

In addition, can the Minister assure us that the DIP will contain a similar level of granularity to the previous, well-established equipment plans that were published annually under Conservative Governments? They gave a considerable amount of detail so that the defence industry had a fighting chance of planning. The Minister will know that a bunch of major programmes are awaiting their fate with the publication of the DIP, including the phase 4 enhancement and mark 2 radar, the new medium helicopter and the wider combat air mix referred to earlier. After all this time, yet another Ministry of Defence policy document, with a bunch of glossy photos but not much detail, will not suffice. Perhaps the Minister can provide some reassurance this morning.

Finally, can the Minister guarantee to deliver the DIP, including for Typhoon, given that the MOD is now embroiled in a massive in-year cost-saving exercise, including efficiencies—spending cuts, in pub English—of £2.5 billion in 2025-26 alone? That is happening this financial year, right now; if that is not true, I will give way briefly to the Minister to deny it. Silence speaks volumes.

I will finish by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde on securing this important debate. I hope that we will get clear answers to the straightforward questions that he and I and others have put to the Minister this morning. Typhoon is vital to our future, and we all want to know what will happen to it.

10:48

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Al Carns)]

I thank you, Sir Christopher, for chairing this debate and the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) for securing it. It is an important subject, and it will continue to be important for a long time to come.

In this week of national remembrance, when the service and sacrifice of our armed forces are at the forefront of our minds, I begin by paying tribute to all those who have served in the Typhoon force. Since its introduction in 2003, they have taken the risks that come with service and been a backbone of the RAF’s combat air capability. Over those 22 years, across many operations and theatres, Typhoon has proven itself to be the UK’s premier multi-role combat aircraft, successfully supporting a wide range of missions with its state-of-the-art technology incorporated over a number of upgrades.

Today, Typhoon plays an important role at home and abroad. We rely on the Typhoon force to fulfil the RAF’s primary role of protecting the UK’s skies through its quick reaction alert capability, enabling a swift response to any emerging security threats. Since September, on NATO’s eastern flank, we have had two Typhoons from 3 (Fighter) Squadron—supported by a Voyager from 101 Squadron—flying as part of NATO’s Operation Eastern Sentry. That mission reinforces the UK’s unwavering commitment to NATO and our allies.

Earlier this year, Typhoons from 2 Squadron deployed to Poland as part of Operation Chessman—NATO’s enhanced air policing campaign. That deployment involved more than 20 scrambles to defend NATO airspace, alongside numerous joint training sorties with 13 NATO partners. In recent years, Typhoons have also conducted successful operations in Romania and Estonia as part of our enduring NATO air policing commitment, in Libya for Operation Ellamy and in Syria and Iraq as part of Operation Shader. Alongside those deployments, our Typhoon force has strengthened interoperability with our allies through training exercises around the world, including as part of the ongoing deployment of our carrier strike group to the Indo-Pacific, alongside the mix of F-35Bs.

Our Typhoon force is made up of six frontline squadrons, the operational conversion unit, the joint UK-Qatari 12 Squadron and 41 (Test and Evaluation) Squadron, which operates under the Air and Space Warfare Centre. Together, they form a formidable capability.

As demonstrated by the breadth of Members here today, underpinning the Typhoon force is a UK-wide, highly skilled sovereign defence industrial base. That has been a source of jobs, livelihoods and economic prosperity across many Members’ constituencies, as referenced in this debate. It is the case that 37% of each new Typhoon aircraft is manufactured in the UK—in the constituencies of many Members who made comments earlier—meaning that we continue to benefit from the investment made by our NATO and export partners.

The Typhoon programme supports more than 20,000 jobs across the UK, including engineering, manufacturing and supply chain roles. Nearly 6,000 of those jobs are at BAE Systems—in particular, at Warton and Samlesbury. More than 1,100 jobs are in the south-west, including at Rolls-Royce in Bristol, producing modules for the EJ200 jet engines that will power the new Typhoon jets. There are also more than 800 jobs in Scotland, including at Leonardo in Edinburgh, manufacturing cutting-edge radar systems. These are high-value, well-paid, good jobs—the kind that put money in working people’s pockets, that help to revitalise communities and that deliver on defence as an engine for growth up and down the country.

Of course, last month, my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister announced the fantastic news that Türkiye has placed an order to buy 20 Typhoon fighter jets—a deal worth up to £8 billion and a fantastic boost for the programme. It will support thousands of well-paid jobs and at least 330 British companies across the United Kingdom. As the Prime Minister made clear in his statement, that deal with a key NATO ally not only demonstrates that our defence industry and our defence industrial strategy are delivering, but strengthens our collective deterrence and, importantly, boosts our interoperability. It makes our country and every individual in it safer and far more prosperous.

That follows our record £10 billion shipbuilding deal with Norway, demonstrating that this Labour Government are backing our industry internationally. Bringing defence exports back into the MOD—a move that did not take place until this Government came in—and the creation of the new office of defence exports will ensure that we take a joined-up approach to exports to continue to go out and win big for the UK, making defence an engine for growth.

We set out in the SDR that the RAF’s future lies in accelerating its adoption of the latest technology and innovation, and setting the pace for warfighting as the leading European air force. The Typhoon is central to delivering control of the air for the RAF and is undergoing a comprehensive set of upgrades to deliver operational advantage to meet evolving threats.

The Typhoon will continue to underpin our combat air capability into the 2040s; it and the F-35 Lightning form an interoperable, complementary and extremely potent mix of UK combat aircraft. That means that the Government will continue to make significant investments in the Typhoon through-life programme, with the new electronically scanned radar programme alone underpinned by a £3 billion investment. This programme with our Eurofighter partner nations is on track for delivery in the next decade and will continue to sustain 600 jobs across the UK, including in Edinburgh.

This Government back our defence industry—some representatives of which are here today—all across the UK. It is a shame that the SNP Government in Scotland still do not do so with a full voice.

[Mr Francois]

Where are the SNP?

[Al Carns]

Great question.

As with any capability, it is important to plan for the long term. As right hon. and hon. Members will be aware, the Government are committed to continuing to work with our Japanese and Italian global combat air programme partners to co-develop a world-leading sixth generation combat aircraft for the RAF. What that looks like and what shape it takes will be down to technological and scientific input first of all; trying to pre-position and suggest something before any of that has taken place would be folly.

GCAP is a strategically important programme for UK military capability, our international relationships and, importantly, our defence industrial base. It is the centrepiece of the future combat air system programme—or FCAS, to add to the alphabet soup of acronyms—which also includes our next generation of crewed aircraft, uncrewed platforms, weapons, networks and data sharing, as well as support and training.

The combat air industry plays a central role in our industrial strategy and makes a vital contribution to the UK economy. Over the next 10 years, we plan to invest up to £30 billion in combat air through the Typhoon programme, F-35 programme and GCAP, a significant proportion of which we devote to UK companies, particularly in north-west England. Warton is also the home of Edgewing UK, which the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) mentioned, and the UK-based entity of the new industrial joint venture that will deliver GCAP. In total, there are already 3,500 skilled people working on GCAP across the UK, including in the new intergovernmental headquarters in Reading. Numbers will continue to increase as developments ramp up.

Let me answer some of the questions that were asked. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr Foster) rightly reiterated the benefit of the Typhoon deal— 20 new aircraft and £8 billion investment—but he also mentioned that there were no new UK orders for Typhoon between 2010 and 2024. That is why we have a gap now.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made, as always, a fantastic contribution. I personally believe that he would make a great fighter pilot, but I was trying to work out what call sign he would have—I thought “Merlin”, or something equivalent with a bit of gravitas, given the expansive knowledge that he has from his years in this place.

The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) made an interesting point about the co-dependence of our defence capabilities with the Republic of Ireland. I completely agree that there is a huge co-dependence, and we need consistently to remind our partners and allies of the centrality of UK defence not just for Ireland, but for Europe and NATO.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) supported the Türkiye deal, but he also mentioned the mixed fleet requirement. That is important, and I will come to it later. The Typhoon and F-35 do not do the same job; they are not the same capability. They are chalk and cheese—very different—and the mix gives the RAF a fantastic capability out to 2040. A lot of the detail, which Members will know is coming, will come in the defence investment plan.

The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) maintained his fantastic habit of asking almost 20 questions, alongside the 300 that he sent me over the past couple of weeks. I can confirm that the Typhoon is absolutely secured out to 2040. I say this relatively gently, but from a position of experience of having been a joint tactical air controller, and the chief of staff of the carrier strike group and the integrated network of our allies and partners on supporting expeditionary warfare, I would say that we have an immense fight tonight capability.

As the hon. Member will know, it is, as always with these things, about the balance of maintaining the skills, industrial base and jobs; predicting future capability requirements; involving new science, tech, data and quantum—the new way of war being fought in Ukraine—and mixing all that together to ensure that we can predict what capability our armed forces need. As Conservative Members will know from 14 years in government, that is an exceptionally difficult challenge, but we are absolutely taking it on.

I thank the hon. Member for Fylde for securing the debate. Spending announcements, including potential orders, will be made as part of the defence investment plan. He mentioned Christmas presents coming before Christmas, but Christmas presents come at Christmas. I will say that since taking office just over a year ago, the Government have signed more than 1,000 major deals in the MOD. We continue to procure not just traditional aspects, but cyber, drones and other capabilities for our armed forces to make sure that Typhoon—out to ’24—and the F-35 are part of an integrated and centralised force.

The F-35 Lightning and the Typhoon are advanced fighter jets that are regularly deployed in operations around the world. Both fighter programmes are central to UK defence and make a substantial contribution to not only our military capability, but our economy and defence industry. Talking about outlining and jumping ahead to future capabilities—I mentioned earlier the centrality of GCAP as we move forward to try to get the sixth generation fighter correct—our perception is that that looks like a plane and has a pilot in it; we just do not know what the capability will look like.

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

Order. Unfortunately, we have reached 11 o’clock, and although the next debate has been withdrawn, I do not have the discretion to extend this debate. That is something that we might consider on the Modernisation Committee, so that we have a bit more flexibility than we had today.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

11:01

Sitting suspended.

SEND Provision: Kent

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir John Hayes in the Chair]

11:09

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered SEND provision in Kent.

It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Sir John. Many dedicated people are working to support children with special educational needs and disabilities in my constituency—in schools, doctors’ surgeries and social services, alongside many other professionals—but I am afraid to say that children in Folkestone and Hythe are being failed every day by the broken SEND system in Kent, which is presided over by Reform UK-run Kent county council. This is not an entirely negative speech, but I do need to start by describing what we are seeing on the ground every day, before I move on to the way forwards.

The reality in Kent is that, under Reform’s stewardship, the situation for SEND support has deteriorated to crisis point. My inbox is full of emails from desperate parents. This is not a bureaucratic failure alone: it is a moral failure. In 2025, children in Kent with SEND are still denied the basic dignity, respect and support that any civilised society should provide. The stories from my constituency are not just troubling; they are harrowing indictments of a local authority that has lost its moral compass.

Let us take the case of one boy who was diagnosed with autism and pathological demand avoidance. He is now in year 6 at a specialist SEND school. His parents, supported by professionals, identified the secondary school that could best meet his complex needs, but instead, Reform UK’s Kent county council named a different school, which itself had admitted that it could not meet his needs. To compound this, the education, health and care plan, which is meant to be a living document, mostly referred to his infant years. He is 11 now. Disgracefully, his future is being locked to outdated paperwork. When his parents challenged the decision at tribunal, KCC brazenly admitted that its sole reason for choosing an inappropriate school was money. Let us call that what it is: institutional neglect, sanctioned from the very top of the council.

KCC is gaming the tribunal system as a delaying tactic, to push back the date when it must pay for SEND children’s needs. KCC spends far more on SEND tribunals than any other local authority in this country, amounting to millions of pounds every year, despite losing almost all of them. That is a failure of leadership of epic proportions.

My team is inundated with accounts of heartbreak, of children’s needs dismissed and of families abandoned. Another local child with complex SEND has been on a sharply reduced timetable since February 2025. The school was forced by a lack of resources to push forward a plan at pace and in a fashion entirely unsuited to him. He was failed not by his teachers but by the absent leadership of the council.

A child in my constituency was for an entire year denied any placement, simply due to the delays in drawing up an EHCP, which were a direct result of council paralysis. A further example, which is perhaps the most shocking and saddening, is a family whose child has been driven to despair by the failed system and has voiced the wish not to go on living. That should horrify all of us, and it is happening under the council’s watch.

[Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)]

I am grateful to serve under your chairship, Sir John. The stories that my hon. and learned Friend is recounting completely match those that I get in my inbox and hear in my surgeries—these stories are repeated across the county. My constituency has a higher than the national, regional and county average of people with learning disability needs, and we are just not getting the support we need.

I want to flag two things. The SEND team at the council is extremely unresponsive to parents and schools and, indeed, to me and my office—I am sure that is true for colleagues, too. There is also a pattern of schools saying they can care for a child but being turned down. That is happening over and over again, and people are being forced to travel many miles across the county in a way that is simply not possible for children with this level of need.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that interventions should be short—but I am a kind and generous Chairman.

[Tony Vaughan]

My hon. Friend’s experience is similar to mine. My postbag reflects a kind of ongoing unresponsiveness, which results in people feeling that they are just lost in the system. That is entirely unacceptable.

On a slightly different theme, for SEND children who wish to access a grammar school education in Kent, KCC seems to be refusing requests for extra time for the 11-plus test, in breach of the Equality Act 2010, and without giving any reasons. It is the law that extra time must be granted if a reasonable adjustment is required under that Act, yet Kent’s special access panel unfairly puts roadblocks in the way, stifling opportunities for our young people. The failures stretch beyond Folkestone and Hythe; they blight every corner of Kent, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) said. This is county-wide neglect, shrouded in excuses.

I am not blind to the scale of the challenges, but I will not excuse the years of inaction and mismanagement, first under the Tories and now under Reform UK.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. and learned Gentleman for securing this debate. He is quite right to outline the issue of the growing demand and the complexity of needs. Similar things are happening in all of the United Kingdom, as indicated by the 51% increase in the number of SEND cases in Northern Ireland in seven years. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it is perhaps now time for a completely different approach to SEND? Does he also agree that the educational needs of and opportunities for children must be prioritised and funded? Otherwise, we will consign a group of children to a life of feeling not good enough and not achieving enough.

[Tony Vaughan]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is precisely why we need wholesale change in the system, which is what the Government are preparing to consult on. We will of course listen carefully to the proposals when they come forward.

Let me talk briefly about the system in Kent. Nationally, the demand for SEND support has grown, and EHCP requests have surged by 140% since 2015, as per the National Audit Office. In 2022, Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission handed down an improvement notice for nine glaring SEND failings in Kent. KCC scrambled to implement an accelerated progress plan and, after Government scrutiny in 2024, the notice was lifted. But still: where are the real improvements? My postbag tells a starkly different story.

I must raise concerns about the safety valve programme. The 2021 deal between the Department for Education and KCC was supposed to plug deficits, but in practice it has often made it even harder for families to access vital support. In areas like Kent with safety valve deals, EHCPs have become harder to obtain and parents are forced to jump over ever-higher hurdles. The priorities of the safety valve programme mean that financial savings are trumping the needs of children in Kent.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I call Neil Duncan Jordan.

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

Oh, no—he is slightly older than me. [Laughter.] It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John.

My constituency borders Kent, and we also have a safety valve programme, as well as an Ofsted judgment of “systemic failings”, so children in my constituency, who cross that border, experience similar issues. Will my hon. and learned Friend join me in encouraging the Minister to look, as part of the reforms, at how these issues work on a cross-borough basis when children live in one borough but use schools in another?

[Tony Vaughan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When we are looking at how to change the system overall, we have to avoid a situation in which we have postcode lotteries and inconsistency, because a child who lives on one side of a border should not take any blame for the failures of the two local authorities.

The safety valve system has created financial targets that have led to perverse incentives to withhold help, suppress demand and punish aspiration. That is not reform: it is rationing. The result is that we see inappropriate placement, adversarial council relationships and broken trust. Kent’s families have had enough. The safety valve programme was policymaking for short-termism, not for real change. It was exactly the kind of sticking-plaster politics that we saw in recent years under the Tories, and Kent’s children are paying the price. I demand from Kent county council urgent, transparent and measurable actions to improve SEND support in our communities.

I will say a few words about those who have been running Kent county council since May. Reform UK recently accused SEND parents of “abusing the system”—a view that shames that party and this country. Reform UK was elected in Kent because it said it would cut waste and abuse, yet when its baseball cap-wearing smart young guys turned up, they found what everyone else already knew: after 14 years of Tory austerity, there is nothing left to cut. They promised millions in savings, but delivered only empty rhetoric and more hurt for those in need. According to Reform, the reason for our SEND crisis is waste and abuse, but that grotesquely misreads the reality faced by the children and parents who are battling for support.

Genuine, practical, long-term change is needed, and long overdue. As Folkestone and Hythe’s first Labour MP, and as part of a Labour Government determined to repair what has been broken, I am committed to forging solutions, not division. I therefore welcome the Government’s drive to build a fairer and truly inclusive SEND system, and agree with the Government’s position that inclusivity for SEND students must be embedded in mainstream schools and accountability moved to the heart of the Department for Education’s schools group, led by the Minister for School Standards. Reform has to have inclusivity at its core. I fully support the Government programme, which covers one in six primary schools, to train teachers in understanding neurodiversity.

I recently read an article in The Economist about how Portsmouth is providing an inclusive approach to supporting children with SEND. In Portsmouth, students with behavioural and learning difficulties are no longer automatically referred to the NHS for a medical diagnosis. Instead, each school’s SEND co-ordinator, or a designated teacher, sits down with parents to draw up the child’s neurodiversity profile, which allows teachers and parents to identify how best to accommodate the children’s needs and to identify stressors that make it harder to learn. This helps to identify specific things that could help the child. Only if that approach does not work are medical professionals brought in.

The adaptions that are needed are often quite simple. At one school, some students have a time-out pass to leave class for a few minutes when they need a quiet space, a reset, or a short break to run up and down the stairs. Tinted plastic overlays can help children with dyslexic symptoms. Teachers use an empathetic approach to things such as missing a uniform tie: a friendly greeting before asking nicely about the tie’s whereabouts prevents the build-up of tension, which causes problems.

The approach ensures that help for children with additional needs does not depend on a formal medical diagnosis or referral, and creates a culture where everybody can receive timely assistance through flexible, graduated support. Portsmouth’s commitment to shared best practice and ongoing collaboration makes SEND support a normal part of mainstream education, which benefits everybody. I am glad to say that Kent has started to pilot the same approach.

I support the Government’s work to ensure that Ofsted now grades down any school that excludes or off-rolls SEND students. The additional investment from the Labour Government, including the real-terms increase to the core schools budget, is crucial for SEND children, as well as for recruitment and retention. Frontline staff deserve security, reward and respect. Last year’s autumn Budget pledged an additional £11.2 billion in education spending by 2025-26, with £1 billion ringfenced for SEND. The new funding will enable more children with SEND to thrive, and not simply survive, in our schools. It is right that the Government are carefully considering how SEND should be reformed, and I support the Education Secretary’s commitment to real co-creation and to reform that is designed with—not for—children, families and practitioners.

I want to end on a positive note. I recently visited the Beacon school in my constituency, which supports children and young people with profound, severe and complex needs. I was blown away by the dedication of the staff, who were not just educating children but setting them up for life. I enjoyed meeting the children and young people, who were learning, creating, building and thriving. The school’s work to prepare children and young people for the world of work was cutting edge.

To every teacher, support worker and professional working with children with special educational needs across all Folkstone and Hythe schools, and in Kent, I say a huge thank you. They hold the system up. I will make sure that the system backs them and the children whose lives they change every day. We must ensure that every child gets the support they need to thrive and achieve their potential in life. That is the mission of this Labour Government. Despite the scale of the challenge, we will and must make this hope a reality.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members to bob if they wish to be called in the debate. I ask the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) to forgive me; I should have recognised that the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) is nowhere near as glamorous or youthful as him. The hon. Gentleman can put that on his leaflets if he likes.

14:45

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for securing this debate.

I was born in Kent and attended St Paul’s infant school in Maidstone in the 1960s. As the hon. and learned Gentleman said, SEND education is clearly an issue in Kent. Many families in Wokingham tell me about similar serious difficulties in getting appropriate SEND provision for their children, with mainstream schools declaring that they are unable to meet their needs.

One constituent wrote to me that increasing specialist school places is essential, but schools are reporting that they cannot offer SEND places because of workforce shortages, not just because of a lack of building space. The issue needs to be tackled in Kent, as it needs to be tackled in Wokingham. That is why my constituent is calling on the Government to build specialist workforce capacity, including educational psychologists, therapists and specialist teachers, alongside new places for children with SEND.

In areas where there are severe shortages, the Government need to introduce fast-tracked training pathways to tackle the backlog. They also need to implement guaranteed minimum SEND training for all teaching staff, as well as incentives to retain specialist staff, many of whom have high caseload pressures.

Surely the Minister agrees that the Government need to listen to families such as the residents of my constituency and Folkestone and Hythe, who have had such negative experiences of the SEND system and know what needs to be done to fix it.

14:47

[Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for securing this incredibly important debate. We have had a number of debates in this Chamber about the SEND crisis, particularly in Kent.

I speak as the former leader of the opposition at Kent county council and I served on the SEND scrutiny committee, which looked at the SEND measures. I have also been a teacher and have worked in schools with young people with special educational needs.

I want to go through the various aspects of the problem, because the system is incredibly complicated. Like everybody here, I have met parents in utter desperation, in tears—in a place of hopelessness—because there is nowhere else to go. When they pick up the phone or send an email, there is no answer. I have brought them together with We Are Beams, a fantastic charity supporting our constituents in north Kent, and they have unburdened themselves and shared their frustration about the lack of communication and incorrect information being provided. My hon. and learned Friend spoke about EHCPs not being updated, which means that they are not implemented rightly in the classroom, so the young person does not get the right support. Parents feel gaslit; they feel that they have no one on their side. It is absolutely heartbreaking.

Children and young people I have met feel that they are not getting the right information and that they are not being included. They are missing out on key aspects of socialisation—the key skills that will enable them to work in the future. We know that early intervention at a young age can help to get young people and children on track to thrive. It is well established now that we are not all neurotypical; some of us are neuroatypical or have additional needs. An education system should support, encourage and bring out those wonderful talents, but sadly I fear that that is not happening.

I was a teacher under the last Government, and saw some of the changes that the then Education Secretary Michael Gove brought in. I remember starting a year with five statemented children in my year 8 mixed-ability class. I had two teaching assistants who were brilliant at helping me navigate the wonders of science education—but by the end of that year, those teaching assistants were taken out because the funding was not there, and the Education Endowment Fund said that TAs were high cost but low value. It could not have been more wrong. Years later, we can see that specialist teaching assistants are often the bedrock supporting our teachers. The hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) said some fantastic things about teachers and their workloads; it is a team effort.

I have visited a number of schools. Ifield is of course a fantastic special educational needs school, but there are so many young people there that they need more space. I have visited mainstream schools and seen how they are catering for children with special educational needs, but they lack the specialist TAs and the resources to help. I have had parents tell me about schools that are off-rolling students because they cannot meet their needs. There is nothing in writing; they are merely saying, “Please do not enrol your child here” at parents’ evenings. That cannot be fair and right.

The challenge that some heads pose to me is league tables and percentages of students passing their exams. They can either keep their exam grades up and high, or they can be inclusive—I am not defending that argument; I am just saying it has been presented to me. I do not think it is fair, and I think we should all be there to help young people succeed no matter where they come from or what their needs are.

There are parents, young people and schools, but the other part of the picture is the council. When I sat on the SEND scrutiny committee, it was striking even back then—maybe four or five years ago—that the caseworkers for SEND had double the number of recommended cases from the Government that they should have had. One SEND caseworker should in theory, by the Government’s then standards, have had 125 children to monitor and update plans for. In Kent at that time, it was double that. Although those caseworkers are inundated with parents and needs, they have been positioned as the gatekeepers rather than the supporters. A large part of what I hear from parents is that they do not feel that anybody is on their side. If there are to be changes to the system, we need to position caseworkers so that people can trust that they have their back and that they have their children’s best interests at heart.

The other paramount thing that I saw was the changes to the free school and academy system, which meant that local authorities could no longer build schools based on needs. It meant there was a delay in schools—including specialist schools—coming forward. Thankfully, we have a few green lights in Kent, but they should have been here years ago. Because the ability of local authorities to plan, prepare for and build schools was taken away, Kent was reliant on private specialist schools.

However, I fear that the council’s improvement notice may have been lifted in error when the Government came in last summer. A target of reducing the number of children with EHCPs on the council’s books, set under the last Government, is incredibly perverse. How does that put the needs of young people first? How can the parents of Kent have faith in the system? The council is under an improvement plan to reduce the number of children with EHCPs, yet parents and schools believe that having an EHCP will entitle them to further support. It is a complete perversion.

I say to our wonderful Minister that the message I have heard from parents and schools is that we must not water down the legal protections. They are long fought for and hard won, and when they work, they work really well. The problem is with their implementation. If there are any announcements or communications, the Government must be really clear about how they will preserve the legal protections.

Many aspects of the curriculum review can be welcomed. I would reduce the exams, for instance—there is an awful lot of pressure on youngsters at the moment, so that would be a good thing—but I encourage the Minister to look at other ways to demonstrate the sheer talent we have in this country, such as coursework and practical tasks. I am sure she knows never to underestimate the scale of the challenge; it is vast, but we are ready to help and support.

14:56

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I am regularly contacted by parents or guardians of children to express their concerns about the provision of SEND education in our area, so I am grateful to my constituency neighbour, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan), for securing this important debate, and I congratulate him on his excellent speech.

At the end of the summer and the start of the autumn, I organised a series of meetings for constituents with direct experience of the SEND system in Kent. I am grateful to the primary and secondary school headteachers and staff, as well as the representatives of local charity Differences Not Disabilities, who gave up their time to meet me. I especially thank the parents and carers who spoke so powerfully about the difficulties they have faced and, in many cases, continue to face with Kent county council in securing a suitable education for their children. I also appreciate the constructive and thoughtful way in which all attendees approached our discussions.

As the Government look to bring forward their proposals for reform of the SEND system across England, my constituents urge Ministers to ensure that abrupt change is not made to those areas that are working well. Otherwise, there is a risk that the successful parts of the system could be lost. My constituents would also like reassurances regarding education, health and care plans. They do not want to see them scrapped and would like to see a personalised plan like EHCPs remain in the reformed system.

There was strong feeling among my constituents about the need to strengthen early support for children and families and ensure that early intervention is not a one-off, but consistent. The headteachers and parents at my meetings were firmly of the view that when it comes to early intervention, a “little and often” approach will bring far greater benefits than waiting until a child falls behind or ends up needing specialist provision later on.

My constituents want to see a national training programme introduced for EHCPs. If they were well written from the start, there would be no need for the constant reviews that currently take place. We also heard that in Kent, delays in the issuing of EHCPs are the norm, with too many being issued well beyond the statutory deadlines. My constituents were clear that when EHCPs are eventually issued, they are not well written, and key provisions are being left out—often those that involve money.

There was also strong feeling among my constituents that the Reform administration at Kent county council does not properly take into account the views of parents when writing or amending EHCPs, nor give them the full information they are entitled to. That is also reflected when I make representations to the council on behalf of my constituents about the education of their children. I have to wait too long for responses and, when they do come through, often they are inadequate and cannot help my constituents.

In one case, I wrote to the council in February and again in March on behalf of a constituent regarding their daughter. The family had moved to Kent in December, and the daughter, who has an EHCP, was not in school at that time. Although I received an acknowledgment from the council in March, I did not receive a full response until last month—some seven months after first writing to the council. My constituent’s daughter only secured a placement at a special school at the start of the new academic year in September.

In another example, I wrote to the council in mid-July on behalf of a constituent who had expressed concern to me that her child was not in school. The council acknowledged my letter in August, but four months later, I am still waiting for a full response. The final example also dates from July, when I wrote to the council on behalf of a constituent to ask whether it intended to comply with a court order against it. I have recently received a reply asking if I could provide assistance by arranging and facilitating an effective and meaningful method of alternative dispute resolution.

As with most issues, funding for SEND and how it is allocated is critical. I warmly welcome that, thanks to the Labour Government, Kent county council has received an increase of £15 million in funding for SEND provision. It is important that my constituents now start to see the difference from this increase in resources. In our discussions, my constituents expressed a strong belief that SEND funding for mainstream schools must be ringfenced. If money is allocated for a child’s support, it must be spent on that child’s needs, and not diverted elsewhere.

Parents and teachers were clear that, instead of relying on new independent schools being built, Kent county council should be assisting local state schools in our area to adapt their facilities. With the right investment, my constituents expressed the hope that we could see more specialist hubs created in existing schools across Ashford, Hawkinge and the villages. Too many children at the moment have to travel long distances to receive their education. More specialist hubs in existing schools would allow more children to be educated closer to where they live.

It was clear from my discussions that we also need to reform the tribunal system. I have evidence from casework of how adversarial it has become, with solicitors and representatives on both sides—that message came across loud and clear in my meetings about SEND provision. Parents told me how most cases now end up at tribunal, and the majority find in favour of the child. The high number of cases that end up in tribunal and the fact that so many are successful are a clear indication of parents’ dissatisfaction with how the system is operating in Kent and that it is not working properly. The headteachers I have met believe that effective reform of the way that tribunals work would mean that the money that is currently spent on unnecessarily taking some cases to tribunal could instead be allocated to state schools.

I have written to the Secretary of State in more detail on some of the wider points that might be helpful as the Government bring forward their proposals, but I look forward to the Minister’s response to what Members and I have said in this debate about the situation in Kent.

15:03

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for securing this debate. He outlined some horrific stories of neglect and appalling treatment of children with SEND. I am not from Kent—I am from Devon—but all I can say is that I relate. We hear exactly the same horror stories in Devon, and I am sure right across the country it is absolutely shocking.

Children with special educational needs and disabilities and their families are the most vulnerable in our society. When these children do not get the support that they need, they will be less likely to be able to work and participate fully in society in later life, not to mention the issues that they face in the moment. Not only is providing the right support for these children vital for them, their families and their education, but it creates long-term economic benefits. It is not just economically right, though; it is morally right that we act to ensure that children with SEND have the best life chances both in Kent and across the country.

More than 20,000 children in Kent have an EHCP. Alongside all other local authorities, Kent has statutory duties to meet EHCP deadlines and offer provision, but it is facing rising demand and declining resources. Under the previous Conservative administration, SEND in Kent was put into special measures after it was identified that urgent action was needed to improve services: just 13% of EHCPs were completed within the statutory 20-week deadline in the year to March 2024. When the county was in special measures, however, there were some improvements: the provision of EHCPs by the deadline went up to 65%. As a result of the improvements, Kent was taken out of special measures, but my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) is calling for Kent to remain in special measures to allow the improvements to continue.

Even during the period of improvement, quantity did not equal quality. As other Members have said, there has been a litany of mistakes on some of the EHCPs, including the incorrect names of schools, schools that do not exist, schools that are not approved, schools that do not have funding, incorrect needs and spelling mistakes—really basic errors. As a result, Kent county council received more than 500 complaints mentioning EHCPs in the year to July 2025.

When families complain, they are often told to go to a tribunal. Kent county council spent close to £2.2 million fighting parents in tribunals from 2021 to 2024—more than double any other county council. Families see this use of tribunals as a tactic to try to get them to give up seeking appropriate support for their children, and unsurprisingly, the tactic often works, because the tribunals are utterly gruelling, as we in Devon know as well. Families and children spend months preparing for them, the emotional toll is enormous and it sometimes costs as much as £8,000 to get the required legal advice. All the while, the child is not receiving the special education that their EHCP says they require, and delays sometimes stretch to more than a year. Most of these parents know that this is the education their children need. They know they are going to win, but they are forced to jump through hoops, on top of what they are already coping with, as parents of children with special needs and disabilities. It is truly appalling.

The last time my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells—who is on paternity leave, so unfortunately cannot be with us today—spoke about this issue in this place, he raised the case of his constituent Ella, who has cerebral palsy and is nine years old. Her father told my hon. Friend about how, when the family complained that her EHCP had not been updated to meet her needs when she moved from nursery to school, and that their application for a placement at a specialist school was rejected with no consultation, they were told on both occasions to go to tribunal. Faced with no other option, Ella’s family opted to go to tribunal. They have now been given a date in May 2026, leaving them stuck for more than a year without a sufficient EHCP to meet Ella’s needs.

Between 2021 and 2024, 98% of SEND tribunals in Kent were successful for the parents, so it is clear that if the parents have the money, time and emotional bandwidth, they can go to tribunal and will be successful, albeit after a wait. However, many parents decide that they are not able, either financially or emotionally, to put themselves through that arduous process, and the same is true nationally. The parents who win that process are often those who are more able to advocate for themselves and their children, rather than those who are less able to do so. Local authorities lose nearly all the cases, wasting more than £70 million annually—£70 million that could be spent on supporting children, rather than fighting unnecessary legal battles.

Since Reform took over Kent county council, the situation has only got worse. Colleagues at the council report that Reform councillors are acting like clowns in a circus. Just six months after being elected, eight of them have either been suspended or expelled from their posts. It seems that Reform cannot run a bath, let alone a county council on which more than 1 million people rely. The chaos is only making the situation worse for vulnerable children with SEND, who need a council that will give them support. The June meeting on children, young people and education was postponed indefinitely, pushing back any support that might be provided. That was just one of a plethora of committee meetings, cabinet meetings and sub-committees that the incompetent Reform administration in Kent has cancelled because it is unable to deliver government.

Reform is simply unable to grapple with a crisis of this magnitude and scale. Worse, Reform is actively proposing withdrawing support from families with children with SEND. The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) has suggested removing home-to-school transport funding from some families. He said:

“There are things called parents”

for taking children to school, although he admitted some exceptions could be made for special needs students. Kent faces the largest bill of any council in England for providing home-to-school transport for SEND students at £68 million last year—the hon. Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) raised that issue.

The plan by the hon. Member for Clacton to cut school transport would be a disaster for parents who do not have the time or money to drive their children on hours-long round trips to special schools miles away, or might be driving other children in the opposite direction or trying to get to work. He would know this if he ever took the time to speak to the families struggling with this problem.

One Reform councillor in Cambridgeshire showed the party’s true disregard for supporting vulnerable young people when he recently described some children in care as “downright evil”. When given the opportunity to condemn those comments in Prime Minister’s Question Time earlier today, the hon. Member for Clacton refused. Many children in care have special educational needs and disabilities. Reform’s blaming of young people who need our support shows that it is simply not fit to deliver for children with SEND in Kent and across the country.

It is welcome that the Government now recognise that the system needs fundamental change, but their decision to delay the overhaul of SEND provision in England until 2026 is a betrayal of every child with SEND and their families who are looking for better solutions. To kick the can down the road could be an admission that the Government do not have a sense of urgency or that they are not sure what the solution is, but we do need urgent action. Owing to the delay, the detail of the Government’s plan remains unclear. Many families are worried that EHCPs will be scrapped or scaled back, with no idea yet of what could replace them. The uncertainty is understandably causing anxiety among parents who see the documents as the only way to secure the support that their child needs. The hon. Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan) spoke of the importance of some kind of legal protection around this support for families.

The Lib Dems introduced EHCPs in coalition—we are very proud of that. Before that, we had statements. If EHCPs are to be scrapped, families will still need some kind of statement of need to access services. Ultimately, the Government have to focus on the best way to meet needs and outcomes and not just focus on cost saving. As the Government are reviewing special educational needs and disabilities, it is important that the voices of children and families are heard. They see the system from the inside and experience its shortcomings. I know the Minister has met many families and campaigners and is listening.

After hearing those voices, the Liberal Democrats are also calling on the Government to commit to genuine change of the SEND system. We call for the Government’s White Paper next year to meet our five principles for SEND reform. Alongside putting children and families first, we call on the Government to boost special capacity and improve mainstream provision by building more specialist schools and investing in proper support in mainstream settings. The hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe talked about some very successful interventions elsewhere in the country. Models that do not cost huge amounts of money but offer a creative way of looking at the issue should definitely be explored and rolled out widely.

Early intervention must be improved and delays reduced, and schools need to be resourced to accept children with SEND, with staff trained in integrated teaching and care. To achieve that, funding will be required. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling on the Government to cap the profits of private equity firms providing SEND provision at 8% to ensure that money is channelled back into the SEND system and not into the pockets of shareholders. We also call on the Government to provide support to any child whose needs exceed a specified cost threshold to ensure that no child is left behind.

The Liberal Democrats would welcome the Government working with us on a cross-party basis to ensure that reforms are delivered quickly. It is vital we get this right. Every child has the right, irrespective of postcode, background or need, to thrive.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Before I call the shadow Minister, I point out to the hon. Lady the courtesies and behaviour in the House. If you are going to name another Member, you should notify them in advance. Did you do that?

[Caroline Voaden]

As far as I am aware, we have done.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Right. I suggest you drop the hon. Member for Clacton a note to say that you raised him in the House and copy it to me. That would be wonderful.

[Caroline Voaden]

I think my office might already have done that. I will check.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Excellent. I call the shadow Minister, Saqib Bhatti.

15:14

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John, and to speak in this important debate. I thank the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for securing it and for his opening remarks, and I am grateful to all Members who have contributed constructively.

This is not the first time that the Minister and I have discussed SEND in the House, and I suspect it will not be the last. It is hugely important. Every Member who has spoken has set out their experience of similar SEND issues, and our inboxes are inundated with messages about them, especially from parents who need our support. Providing for children with special educational needs is one of the most complex issues facing the country today.

Before I talk about SEND in Kent in depth, I want to put on the record my concerns about the way that Kent county council is being run. It is now under Reform’s control, and it is clearly a blueprint for what will happen wherever Reform is in charge. We should not forget that senior members of Reform UK have claimed that SEND is being

“hijacked by…parents who are abusing the system”.

As I have said before in this Chamber, that is hugely disrespectful, and I believe apologies are necessary. Issues such as SEND are of profound concern to all our constituents, and such remarks are far from serious; they suggest that there is no real thinking going on in Reform about how to deal with one of modern Britain’s most important issues.

Kent county council is yet to set out a clear plan for meeting residents’ needs, and that has been the case since Reform took over earlier this year. Families are understandably anxious, given that the council is failing to provide certainty on vital services. We should focus on that seriously, because the pattern could be replicated right across the country if Reform takes charge of more councils.

The pattern is already being replicated in other Reform-run councils. Closest to my constituency, the Reform leader of Warwickshire county council recently declared an emergency over SEND funding. I worry about the council’s approach to education, because the council leader recently suggested that children as young as eight should have to walk more than 5 miles to school. Clearly, that is not a serious way to look at our approach to education, or to cut costs, if that is the intention.

In their campaigns last year, many Reform candidates said they wanted to cut council tax, but they have now discovered what we already knew: that a huge amount is spent on special educational needs. They have no credible plan for cutting council tax. In fact, many Reform-led councils are touting council tax rises of about 10%, so we should focus on that and hold them to account. The hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe said explicitly that residents will face higher taxes.

It is no secret that many local authorities, including Kent, face significant pressure in meeting rising SEND needs. To put it in perspective, Kent spends more on SEND than the England and south-east averages, and more than the 10 nearest comparable councils. In 2021-22, SEND pressure resulted in a £97 million overspend. In government, we recognised the seriousness of the challenge, not just for Kent but across the board, and introduced the safety valve programme to ensure that councils were not left to face the crisis alone. In Kent, that programme made great progress, which shows that the Department for Education and local authorities can work together.

The agreement with the then Conservative-led Kent county council was backed by £140 million from the Department for Education and £82 million from the council. It set out a longer-term plan to expand specialist provision, strengthen mainstream support, review EHCP processes and improve preparation for adulthood. Under the Conservatives, Kent submitted the required monitoring reports. The Department accepted them, and every scheduled payment was released. That shows that Kent county council was starting to deliver on its side of the agreement in challenging circumstances.

[Dr Lauren Sullivan]

When the previous Conservative Government introduced the safety valve scheme, which was essentially a blank cheque or a credit card, did they have a plan for how the money would be paid back?

[Saqib Bhatti]

I did not have the education portfolio at that time, so my remarks on that will be limited. We can agree that the system is and was under great strain; that is no secret. That is why I have said previously that it requires a cross-party solution. We will have to work together, because the challenges we faced will also be faced by the Reform council and the Labour Government. The hon. Lady will recognise that the circumstances were challenging and that Government money was put forward.

I want to ask the Minister, in the same vein that the hon. Lady put that point to me, whether she can provide clarity on what the Government will do to ensure that local authorities remain solvent and are not forced into section 114 notices as they look at SEND reform. Will the Government extend the statutory override, which is due to expire in 2026, to give councils certainty?

As progress is made in the SEND field, there is real concern about the delivery of special free schools. I will highlight those in Swanley and Whitstable, where families were promised places. It is clear from Kent county council’s response to the recent inquiry by the shadow Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), that the hold-up lies with the Department for Education. If we are to support children with SEND, and the Government say that is a priority, why are they not acting on that? We have a similar instance in Solihull borough that I am told is also being held up at the Department. Can the Minister give a cast-iron guarantee that the Swanley school will open by 2027? Is she in a position today to issue a clear timetable on that? If not, I am happy for her to write to me. She knows that I will certainly write to her to chase answers to those questions. Those promises were made to children and their families, and anything short of that would be a betrayal.

In Kent and local authority areas across the country, the issue of SEND continues to cause deep stress and anxiety. The demand for SEND provision in Kent has been rising, especially in the post-covid world. Many families are already facing long delays, so parents are understandably anxious about proposed changes that might affect their children. The Minister knows that because her first outing was at a well-attended SEND debate. According to official DFE data, there are 54,497 pupils with SEND in Kent—that includes EHCP and non-EHCP special educational needs—and more than 6,600 of them are pupils in the independent sector. That means that 10.8% of SEND pupils in Kent are in independent schools. The Minister knows that I have been very vocal on the Education Secretary’s vindictive decision to impose an education tax on our constituents. Has the Minister considered the consequences of that for SEND pupils who are forced to leave the independent sector if independent schools are forced to close? I hope she has some data on that.

The point was made by the hon. Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) that parents should not feel blindsided. As the Government come forward with plans, communication is really important. There is also concern about the scrapping of EHCPs. Those are not just legal documents; they are lifelines that provide tailored support and set out binding commitments from schools, health services and care providers. Sixty per cent of children with an EHCP in England are in mainstream schools, yet Ministers have failed to clarify whether they will receive full support under the reforms. This is really important and I encourage the Minister to answer that point.

Unfortunately, anxieties have been further exacerbated by the delay in the SEND White Paper, which has been pushed to the new year. We know that SEND is not a new problem; we are holding debates and tabling parliamentary questions on the matter. Can the Minister today confirm a specific date for publication of the schools White Paper, and does she have any update on the future of EHCPs and how SEND will be provided for in future? As I said, parents and students in Kent deserve answers. They are clearly not getting leadership from the Reform-led council. I ask the Minister to commit to changing course and giving parents the clarity they deserve.

15:24

[The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) on securing this important debate and bringing the voices of young people, parents and teachers in Kent into Parliament so powerfully.

I am grateful to all the Kent MPs who have engaged so widely with their constituents. I have received many letters and reports from those here and others who could not attend today, setting out some of the concerns we have heard. Some key themes, which I have heard time and again, include parents feeling that they have to battle through the system in order to get support; the lack of early intervention and help; and concerns about communication and parents not being listened to.

I was pleased to see Members from further afield—from Wokingham and even Northern Ireland—join the debate. It is telling that we saw more representation here today from Northern Ireland than we did from Reform, which is running Kent county council. I share some of the concerns that I think Members collectively have raised about the language being used by national Reform politicians—language about the system being “hijacked” and attacking parents and sometimes children. It is very difficult for families to have confidence when their legitimate fight for support for their children is being attacked.

I am deeply committed to working alongside families. I assure the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) that I wholeheartedly understand the urgency and the need for reform. As I have said before, I ran a council and I saw every day the huge pressures in the system. I have talked to parents, young people and teachers across the country and heard some of the same stories and concerns. We need to change things, but, as the hon. Member said, we need to work with them, because we saw what happened when the system did not really think about the consequences of decisions. The last Government left office talking about a “lose, lose, lose” system, but we want a system that allows young people to thrive, gives parents confidence in their children’s support and allows teachers and other professionals to give young people the support they need. We are working intensively with parents, teachers and other parts of the system to get this right.

We will bring forward our wider reforms as quickly as we can, but we are not waiting for those reforms in order to act. We have already begun making changes, including creating new places in special schools through a £740 million capital investment for 2025-26, of which £24 million has been allocated to Kent county council. We have heard about the need to have resource bases in communities so children do not have to travel for support, so that investment is incredibly important. I will write to the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) about the free schools that he mentioned, and I am sure that he will follow up if that is not speedy enough.

We are investing in multimillion-pound programmes such as the partnerships for inclusion of neurodiversity in schools and early language support for every child—new partnerships at a local level that bring together support—and reinvesting in early intervention, because we know how important early years support is for young people’s long-term outcomes. We are making sure, as we roll out the Best Start hubs, that there is specialist SEND support in them to intervene and support families as early as possible. We have worked with Ofsted to create changes in accountability and we are firmly focused on inclusion within the school system. It should not be possible for people to get a good mark from Ofsted if they are not delivering on inclusion.

As I have said, we are taking forward further work around co-creation, working with families and experts around the country, to make sure that we are getting reform right. However, we have already set out some clear principles: supporting early intervention and help; moving to greater inclusion so that more children can be educated locally, close to their families; ensuring fairness, because I have heard from many about a postcode lottery and different support in different parts of the country; and ensuring that the support that is in place is well evidenced and consistent. This is a shared endeavour that includes health, local government, schools and communities. We all need to work together to support young people to thrive.

We heard in some contributions about interventions that have already happened within Kent. Kent’s SEND services were inspected by Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission in January 2019. That inspection identified nine significant areas of weakness requiring the local area to produce a written statement of action. A visit in 2022 judged that the area had not made sufficient progress in addressing any of its weaknesses. The council was issued with an improvement notice in March 2023. The progress was closely monitored and in August 2024, following a robust review, the Department lifted the improvement notice on the basis that Kent county council had met the conditions set out within it.

I assure the Members who raised concerns about the improvement notice being lifted that it does not mean that scrutiny has been lifted. We are working very closely to maintain that oversight of services and drive further improvement to make sure that every young person with special educational needs has access to high-quality services. That includes regular review meetings, attendance at Kent’s SEND partnership boards, close working with NHS England and the continued support of a DFE-commissioned SEND adviser. We take seriously all the points that have been made today.

[Dr Lauren Sullivan]

I am grateful for the assurance that scrutiny is still in operation. How can constituents and parents find out about the improvement plan and the scrutiny so that they feel that the pressure is still on?

[Georgia Gould]

As an action from today, I commit to write to MPs setting out more detail about that continuing scrutiny so that they can share it with their constituents.

Wider questions were raised about the curriculum and assessment review and ensuring that the curriculum and the provision in school support inclusion. I hope that my hon. Friend has read the Government’s response, which talks about not only some of the pressures that she mentioned, but the importance of enrichment. In Camden, whose council I used to lead, there is a school that has a phrase: “School should be unmissable”. We want to ensure that young people have high standards and the academic basis that they need, but also experiences in the arts, the outdoors and civic education. Those wider reasons to come to school are so important for a broad range of young people.

I thank Members for this important debate. It is an ongoing conversation and I welcome all the contributions that have been made. I am very committed to working cross-party on this issue: I had a meeting with the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) this morning to talk about his advocacy and I will continue to hear from Members on both sides of the House. This is about the future of our young people and it is critical that we get it right, so I am keen to hear from everyone and to work in partnership with parents and young people. I look forward to continuing this conversation in Kent and beyond.

15:33

[Tony Vaughan]

I thank all Members for their contributions, which echoed the same problems that I identified in my constituency. Kent MPs highlighted similar experiences with Kent county council. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan), with her huge experience in this area, questioned the correctness of taking KCC out of the special measures regime, as did the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) through his colleague, the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden). I am grateful to the Minister for undertaking to write to us about the nature of the ongoing scrutiny of Kent county council. The testimonies that we have heard today and that come into our inbox put pressure on those of us who are in the field, so to speak, to ask whether we are moving forward or backwards.

We heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) and for Gravesham, and from the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones), about the importance of maintaining existing legal protections in the upcoming changes to the SEND system. They are absolutely right about that.

Several Members mentioned home-to-school transport. As the hon. Member for South Devon said, it is a huge source of expenditure for Kent county council. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford mentioned that specialist hubs could be a way of reducing travel time. I would add that creating and expanding specialist units within mainstream schools is another way of doing that. There are several examples of good practice in my constituency that avoid the need to travel long distances and that integrate children with special educational needs into mainstream schools, making it easier to go between the two units.

I thank the Government for their collaborative approach to formulating proposals for change in the upcoming White paper. We need to get to the point where mainstream schools can meet the needs of the vast majority of children with special educational needs, although I appreciate that they will not be suitable for all. Equally, where a child has a need, the currently available legal protections that enable that child to access the necessary support must be there. That is ultimately the route for children to achieve their potential.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered SEND provision in Kent.

15:36

Sitting suspended.

Public Bodies: Governance and Accountability

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Westminster Hall

15:59

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I will call Valerie Vaz to move the motion, and I will then call the Minister to respond. Other Members may intervene only with the permission of the Member in charge. As is the convention with these half-hour debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall and Bloxwich) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the governance and accountability of public bodies.

It is a pleasure to serve under you for this debate, Sir John.

I start by thanking the Minister in advance for attempting to respond to what sounds like a very esoteric topic. This debate is not about the BBC; it is about specific things happening in my constituency. In my view, this debate goes to the very heart of the democratic process. It is about strengthening our institutions and making sure they are accountable and working for our constituents.

How do we, as Members of Parliament, effect change for our constituents and raise their legitimate concerns when faced with public bodies that do not, prima facie—on the face of it—have any accountability to the electorate? I will raise the issues of a new school, Walsall Leather Museum and access to a railway station, as well as a simple issue of noise mitigation. All these issues relate to decisions made against the wishes of my constituents.

First, is it a new school or a white elephant? Under the previous Government, money was allocated for a new free school in my area. It was originally meant to serve the Blakenall area, but it was moved to Reedswood Park. A priority education investment area, an arm’s length body, was set up in 2022. It is not clear who chose the board or to whom the board was accountable. Nevertheless, three delivery partners were chosen by this unaccountable board.

An arm’s length body called LocatED then undertook a site analysis—I found out later that it was called a “pre-feasibility feasibility study”, and I think there is a special vocabulary for arm’s length bodies—on an old golf course in Reedswood Park. Friends of Reedswood Park is against this proposal. The park is a green lung for my constituents, because we are surrounded by motorways. However, the “best” bit about this project is that when the council was informed that the site had accessibility issues, a local councillor said, “But we can build a bridge.”

Through this arm’s length body, Department for Education officials appear to be driving this project. However, LocatED’s own analysis said that this site has its difficulties. The site options appraisal said that nine other sites were superior. However, what is even worse is that a member of the trust tasked with delivering the school was a member of the now-disbanded board. I am sure you will agree, Sir John, that this smacks of the covid VIP lane.

I do not know how or why this trust was asked to deliver the project, because many local trusts and schools have suggested that they are in a position to expand their places if needed. I have consistently asked in letters whether there is a case for a new school, and based on the numbers, there does not appear to be. The chief executive of Walsall council said on 11 November 2024, a year ago, that no decision has been made to build on the site and that the Department for Education will determine if the project will proceed. The cost of this school has been put at £50 million, even though there will be a surplus of school places by the time it is built. It will also be built in the wrong place.

The Secretary of State for Education said in a written ministerial statement on 24 October 2024 that

“since the cancellation of the Building Schools for the Future programme, some of this funding could have been put to better use”.—[Official Report, 24 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 8WS.]

That was the Secretary of State setting out her policy, so why is it not being applied in Walsall? Joseph Leckie academy has not received its full allocation of funding under Building Schools for the Future since 2010. Blue Coat academy needs a new heating system and to fix its roof. All Saints Church of England primary school has mould. All these schools have to bid for funding.

If other schools in the area say there is no need for a secondary school, and if the figures do not show a need for one—certainly not in the proposed area, which is wholly unsuitable—why is an arm’s length body not listening to headteachers, governors or me, as the area’s elected representative? Did the Windsor academy trust have an inside advantage? Is it right that officials and arm’s length bodies are driving this project against Government policy and then asking the Secretary of State to rubber-stamp it? We need reasons, which these organisations must give us when an eye-watering £50 million is being spent on one school while other schools are crying out for funding.

Something that is definitely not a white elephant is Walsall Leather Museum. It is well used and well known, nationally and internationally. This is about Walsall’s heritage. It is the only museum left, and it is housed in a red-brick former leather goods factory that was built in 1895. The council previously tried to close it, but it was stopped because of the outcry from constituents. In this case, an unelected institution, Walsall college, did a deal with the council that is far from transparent. The council commissioned a report in February 2024, completed on 19 May 2024, to ask where the future museum would best be located. The report cost £47,000, and it has not been published. We can probably guess that it says the museum should stay where it is.

On 8 October 2024, Walsall college’s finance and regeneration committee mentioned ongoing negotiations on the Leather Museum with Walsall council. A task and finish group was established between Walsall college and Walsall council to handle communications, with the aim of the council making a decision by December 2025 and work starting in June 2026. None of that was in the public domain; it took residents Linda and Andy Boyes putting in freedom of information requests to the council and the college just to find out when the acquisition was discussed, as well as other information.

My research on the accountability of institutions such as Walsall college has shown that if there is a “contentious transaction”, which clearly this is, the Secretary of State can step in. No one is clear on the full ownership of the site of the museum. The Land Registry is not clear, and the college is unable to say. Walsall college has a significant estate—11 acres, mostly undeveloped, on its Wisemore campus. It can house purpose-built special educational needs and disabilities provision, for which the college says it wants to use the museum, rather than using public money to convert the museum.

The museum is inspirational. One of its successes is Lauren Broxton, who is leading the campaign to save the museum, which inspired her when she visited as a child. She works with leather as a fashion designer. One of her exhibits is in the museum, and she is teaching the next generation. De Montfort University and Birmingham City University also use the Leather Museum as a learning tool, with students showing their wares there. It is quite nice to see.

When I wrote to the Minister in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport—who should be accountable, as I am sure you would agree, Sir John—I was told to write to the Arts Council, which then told me to write to Walsall council. The museum has been accredited by the Arts Council. This is about the culture and heritage of Walsall. No one appears to be accountable or able to intervene and listen to what my constituents have to say. I have had to write to the National Trust, Historic England and again to the Arts Council to save this heritage museum. A previous petition attracted 6,400 signatures, and a new petition has 1,500 after only 10 days

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Lady for securing the debate. Formidable lady that she is, I am surprised that she has not been able to crack the whip and get the desired result. The issue for us all—for you, Sir John, and everyone in this room—is that elected representatives are elected by the people to serve the people and be accountable for mistakes that happen. The right hon. Lady’s clear frustration is a frustration that I sometimes have back home. What I have done—the issue that she refers to is much larger—is bring all the interested bodies together, perhaps to bump heads or to get them to sit around the table and come up with something. Has she been able to bring together all those people, even those who do not want to speak to her? They should speak to her and, at the end of the day, they will.

[Valerie Vaz]

The hon. Gentleman pre-empts something I will come to at the end, as one of my asks is to do just that.

Visits to the museum are on an upward curve, with 14,000 over the past year. Now, the collection will be closed and put in storage until a new position is found, and nobody knows where. I am afraid that I have to use this phrase: it is the inclusion or collusion of Walsall college, an unaccountable body, that has resulted in the council deciding to close the museum, which will mean spending more money to refurbish it as a different entity and not as a purpose-built museum. This goes to the very heart of our community. I do not know whether you know, Sir John, but the leather industry and saddlers are the image of Walsall. I ask the Minister whether the Arts Council granting accredited museum status to the Walsall Leather Museum is not worth anything. If it is working as an arm’s length body, it should be accountable, and so should Walsall college.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I take a real interest in these matters, and my right hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech. I believe it is ultimately about unaccountable power, and we need to find ways to hold these institutions to account. I can give the example of Bootham Park hospital in my constituency. It closed 10 years ago and is in the hands of NHS Property Services, which has paid nearly £2 million to keep the building empty while waiting for a developer to come along, when we could really use it. Is that not another example of how these bodies are hoarding our national assets, as opposed to using them for the benefit of the community?

[Valerie Vaz]

I thank my hon. Friend for that example, and it is important that she put it on the record. In the end, we as politicians get blamed for things that do not happen. I know the Minister has been tasked with a huge job, but hopefully these buildings will be used for the benefit of the community and all our constituents.

Walsall football club is nicknamed the Saddlers because of the leather industry. Way back on 16 September 2022, supporters contacted me because a disabled fan could not access the stadium—he had to go all the way into the town centre and then come back to the stadium. It has taken me three years and 10 letters to a series of Ministers for them to say “not yet.” The station will be used more if it is accessible. We have a bizarre situation where footfall is used to work out if a station is being used, and only then can we get Access for All funding. I do not know who makes up the criteria, but they clearly exclude most disabled people, as well as parents who will not access the station because they have to take prams up the stairs. The station serves the football club and is an accessible route to Birmingham and Walsall.

We met Network Rail and Transport for West Midlands in November 2023, and my constituents were promised a solution that never materialised. I wrote again on 11 December 2023, 10 June 2024 and 4 October 2024, and then on 6 December 2024 we were told that Bescot Stadium station was not on the list for 2024 to 2029, but that the Government can make funds available outside of that time. In the meantime, we have Poppyfields estate nearby, and on matchday there is parking and congestion everywhere. Fans would use public transport if the station were accessible.

Network Rail said that Jacobs consultancy is now undertaking a feasibility study. All it requires is a lift on either side of the walkway—how difficult is that? I ask, to whom is Network Rail accountable? I am happy to write letters, but my constituents want action. An accessible station means increased productivity and more use of public transport as the bus links are excellent, allowing parents, carers and even those going on holiday to use it—there is a hotel nearby, and the thud of suitcases can be heard as they go up the stairs. I just want someone, anyone, to say, “Yes, it is in the scheme, and it will be done.”

National Highways is another agency from which a simple yes would be great; I have had a succession of noes. Murdoch Way is near the motorway; while we are blessed with good connectivity, living near a motorway is difficult. National Highways has refused to introduce soundproofing barriers for my constituents on that road, despite the council stating in a letter that current sound mapping remains high and night-time noise levels exceed World Health Organisation guidelines. The evidence is there, yet the unaccountable arm’s length bodies say no.

Like Samuel Pepys, I can write letter after letter, but there has to be some change, because this issue goes to the heart of democracy. If people do not see change, and when their views are not taken on board or listened to, they will despair of democracy. For the school, I ask the Secretary of State to intervene and convene a meeting of interested parties. I can draw up a list so that everyone can sit round the table and be consulted. It must be fair to all schools, not just the favoured one that happened to be in that VIP lane on the arm’s length board. Public money must be used in the best way.

For the Leather Museum, the arm’s length heritage bodies should be tasked to support and preserve heritage, which I think they are. I therefore ask them to intervene and for the Secretary of State for Education to say to Walsall college, “This is contentious. Enough. You do not need this cultural heritage building.” And I want Bescot Stadium station to be told, “Yes, you will have an accessible station, because that is morally the right thing to do.”

For the residents of Walsall, unaccountable, unelected bodies will be reformed so that we as elected representatives can act in the public interest for the common good and for a good society.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I probably ought not to say so, Valerie, but that is music to my ears.

16:15

[The Minister without Portfolio (Anna Turley)]

It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I want to take a moment to pay huge tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall and Bloxwich (Valerie Vaz). She is the epitome of a first-class MP and a doughty champion for her constituents, picking up local issues that people care passionately about and bringing them to the heart of Government. If anyone can knock heads together and make things happen, I believe it will be her. I look forward to seeing over the next few years all those problems solved.

I wish I could stand here with the power to wave a wand and give my right hon. Friend all the things she has asked for, but she has put them on the record, which is the purpose of this place. Ministers and Secretaries of State will hear what she has said, and I will do anything I can to support her in taking these matters forward. I have every confidence that the people of Walsall and Bloxwich could not ask for a better representative, and I completely agree with everything she has said.

Public bodies should be accountable and responsive, with democratic oversight. That is the foundation of our democracy. I understand my right hon. Friend’s frustration, because it is one that I share as an elected representative—even as a member of the Government. It can sometimes feel that decisions are taken too far away from the people we are meant to serve. People expect their Member of Parliament to have power and their Government to be responsive to them. When they vote for change, they expect those they voted for to be able to deliver.

Too often we see layers of bureaucracy building up over many years. We see power handed to unelected officials and arm’s length bodies that no one has ever heard of. All too often democratically elected Ministers—who are accountable to the public—pull the levers, but arm’s length bodies do not respond, and control sits in the wrong place. Far too often, such bodies have been an easy solution when there has been a problem in government and no policy solution; it is a case of saying, “Create another body, create another commission,” but all that does is to take decisions further away from the people they are there to serve.

I am delighted to say that in April this year, the Government ordered a fundamental review of arm’s length bodies. I am really excited to be the Minister playing a part in delivering that review. We no longer live in a world where we can simply spend our way to better public services. We have to rewire the state through system-wide reform, which is what we are undertaking to do.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall and Bloxwich for raising this issue. She is right to recognise that the existing landscape of public bodies is overly complex, needs streamlining, and needs to be accountable in order to deliver our plan for change. The Prime Minister himself said in his speech earlier this year:

“It is not about questioning the dedication or the effort of civil servants. It is about the system that we have in place. That system was created by politicians… But…over a number of years politicians chose to hide behind a vast array of quangos, arm’s length bodies and regulators”.

I am pleased to tell my right hon. Friend that we will hide no more. Through our programme of work to reform the state, of which arm’s length bodies are a part, we will ensure that Ministers have the right accountability where services are delivered, and that those public services are delivered in the simplest, most effective way, ensuring value for money for taxpayers.

We launched the review on 7 April. It is examining the Government’s more than 300 arm’s length bodies and asking Departments to assess them against four key principles. The first key principle is ministerial policy oversight. Nationally important policies must be steered and controlled by Ministers. The public expect that level of accountability. The second is duplication and efficiency. We have to root that out wherever possible, including overlaps between arm’s length bodies and Departments.

The third key principle is stakeholder management. The Government have to engage with partners and constituents—the people—at every stage, but that cannot in its own right justify an arm’s length body’s existence. The fourth is independent advice. The Government think that arm’s length decisions should be justified only where there is a clear case for it, such as the need for operationally independent regulatory decisions. There should not be any other reason for decisions to be taken at arm’s length. If those challenges are not met, arm’s length bodies should not exist—it is that simple.

Our aims are straightforward: we will drive out waste and inefficiency across Whitehall, save the taxpayer money and cut the cost of doing government. More importantly, we are bringing democratic scrutiny back to the major decisions that affect people’s lives through ministerial control.

The review is ongoing, but we have already announced a number of changes to arm’s length bodies, which my right hon. Friend may have heard about. For example, we are abolishing NHS England and the Education and Skills Funding Agency. Doing so has returned nearly £250 billion of Government funding to direct ministerial oversight, ensuring that decisions about the NHS and the school system—a crucial issue mentioned by both my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell)—are taken by the Health and Education Secretaries, as they should be.

[Rachael Maskell]

I want to draw another two bodies to the Minister’s attention. Integrated care boards are completely unaccountable as they make clinical decisions about our constituents. They need to be evidence-based, but they are simply not working. Multi-academy trusts, too, are certainly not accountable—I have felt as though I was in the matrix, unable to escape or to nail the behaviours of some of the chief executives of those organisations, which have huge resources but are not delivering in the interests of students. It is so important that we get democratic accountability into those systems.

[Anna Turley]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. She articulates the struggle that so many of us find in picking up bits of casework and trying to champion our constituents’ needs and wishes; we can get lost in the matrix, and it can be deeply frustrating. I know that Secretaries of State, including the Health and Education Secretaries, see that. They want to know that their decisions are having a real impact, and that there are not unaccountable people making decisions against the grain of what we are trying to achieve on behalf of our constituents. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point.

We are also repatriating the Valuation Office Agency into His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to speed up tax administration. We are abolishing Ofwat and creating a single regulator to cut water pollution. My right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall and Bloxwich will be delighted that we are folding LocatED into the Department for Education to accelerate school building, combining property knowledge with schools’ needs for better value—I urge her to focus her campaign about the free school she referred to on the Secretary of State. We are also repatriating the UK Space Agency into the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. We are taking action on a number of fronts, but that is just the start. We want the body of the state to be accountable to those elected to bring about change and deliver for their constituents.

I will briefly set out some of our existing processes that ensure effective arm’s length body accountability. Where possible, robust but fair departmental sponsorship is the key way to ensure clear lines of accountability between the arm’s length bodies and the Department. Those sponsorship arrangements promote regular interaction between bodies and sponsoring Departments to ensure that bodies are held to account for their use of public money and operate in line with the priorities of the Government of the day. I urge right hon. and hon. Friends with concerns about particular bodies to write to the sponsoring Secretary of State about those issues, because ultimately, those arm’s length bodies do have accountability arrangements in place.

[Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)]

My concern is about interim officers in local government, and CEOs who pop up in one place and then pop up somewhere else a couple of months after they have resigned. What safeguards are in place to ensure that negative behaviours or actions in one organisation do not appear in another where the same individual is involved?

[Anna Turley]

My hon. Friend raises an interesting and important issue. Far too often there have been departmental silos, and silos within other public bodies, and they are not talking to each other. As she says, people can bounce around, failing upwards, and far too often there have not been channels of accountability and scrutiny to enable us to look at and manage performance. As part of our broader approach to public service reform, we are keen to look not just at how we manage recruitment, retention, training, accountability and performance within the civil service, but at how we ensure that people in the broader public sector are not failing upwards and are accountable to those they should be accountable to. I thank her for raising that.

To further raise the bar on accountability, we are committed to the continuous improvement of day-to-day checks and balances. A sponsorship code has been available since 2022, but we will look at it in the light of the arm’s length body review. Arm’s length bodies are also consistently reviewed through long-established lines of accountability, and through their boards and sponsoring Departments. Those boards scrutinise the arm’s length body’s executive decision making and oversee compliance with statutory and non-statutory guidance issued by the Government. Again, though, we will look at all those levels of compliance and accountability to ensure that they are fit for purpose.

As my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, the public are impatient to see the change they voted for. They want it to become a reality. For them, it is not an abstract question of public service reform; it is about whether their local station has a lift to make it accessible, or where a school is built.

The Leather Museum that my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall and Bloxwich mentioned sounds fantastic—a significant local and national asset that deserves to be recognised and supported. I urge her to continue her doughty campaign, along with Linda, Adam and Lauren, who sound as though they are doing a fantastic job. That museum deserves to have a bright future and I know she will do all she can to make that happen. I hope the Government will support her in that.

At a time when people are impatient to see change, I want to assure everybody that the Government are committed to transforming accountability across our arm’s length bodies.

[Rachael Maskell]

Could the Minister quickly say how we can participate in the review the Government are undertaking?

[Anna Turley]

That is a great question. I will take it on myself, as an outcome of this discussion, to write to colleagues to invite them to submit the kind of examples and evidence that we have heard here to the relevant Departments, and to me, as the Minister responsible for arm’s length bodies, to identify areas where public scrutiny and accountability have fallen short. There may be some more formal mechanisms that we can also undertake in the review but, in the meantime, I ask all them to write to Secretaries of State and to me with those examples; we would be happy to incorporate them into the review.

I will take this opportunity to repeat my sincere thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall and Bloxwich for securing this debate, which is important for her constituents as well as all our constituents across the country. We put ourselves forward to serve because we want to bring about change and make things better for people in our communities, on our doorsteps and in our local areas. Only by reforming the way that accountability, transparency and power are delegated in this country can we have that effect.

It is right that the public expect public bodies to be accountable, to run effectively and to be aligned with our Government’s priorities. We only want them where they offer best value for the public, ensure that money is spent efficiently and effectively and, crucially, are democratically accountable. That is exactly what we are seeking to achieve through our programme of ALB reform. I thank my right hon. Friend and all hon. Members present for adding more grist to the mill on this issue.

Question put and agreed to.

Carbon Budget Delivery Plan

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered progress on the Carbon Budget Delivery Plan.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. This week marks the start of COP30 in Brazil, a moment when world leaders, scientists and campaigners come together, united in purpose, to confront the climate crisis head-on. Last week, the World Meteorological Organisation delivered another sobering warning that 2025 is likely to be the second or third warmest year on record. With every passing year, we see the growing cost of inaction—wildfires, floods, droughts and communities displaced across the world. The message is clear: we need bold action, and we need it now.

Since 2022, environmental charities and organisations have fought every step of the way to ensure that we have a competent and detailed carbon budget delivery plan. The last Government’s plan—if we can call it that—ignored expert warnings and was twice ruled unlawful by the High Court. The Climate Change Committee said last year that, under the previous Government, the UK net zero ambitions were “off track”. Thankfully, we are no longer in that chaotic place; this year at COP30, the UK delegation is carrying the message that climate action is not a burden but our route to a future, with stronger communities and a safer planet.

We know that without decisive action, bills will continue to rise, businesses will struggle, and the environment we all cherish, from the peaks to the coast, will be lost. We must be clear, credible and ambitious in our plans to decarbonise. It is how we will not only create high-paying clean energy jobs but cut households energy bills and invest to secure our future. The plan published by the Government at the end of October is a start, and it provides welcome clarity, but is it ambitious enough? In my constituency of Sheffield Central, people understand how urgent this is. They want action. They want the Government to commit to protecting our planet and making life more affordable.

It is disappointing that Sheffield will continue to be the only major UK city without electrified rail. Over the past year, when I have met Sheffield Friends of the Earth and our local Greenpeace group, they have shared my view that we must go much further, and we must work at a faster speed. I look to the Minister to provide answers to locals, who have now missed out on electrification, as well as newer, faster and cleaner trains in the region.

The cost of energy also remains one of the biggest worries for people in my constituency. Time and again, I hear from residents who are doing everything they can to make ends meet, yet their energy bills are still far too high, and they continue to rise. Too many families have been forced to make impossible choices between heating their homes and putting food on the table. That is why, alongside Power for People, I have pushed for a fundamental reset of how we generate and buy energy locally.

Clean, locally sourced and locally stored power relieves pressures on the grid, and granting local supply rights for community energy schemes is a common sense approach. It makes no sense for the cost of regulatory approval to remain so high that locally sourced energy must be sold back to the central grid, instead of being supplied locally. Can the Minister expand on how the Government will build domestic supply chains for clean energy? How will they create jobs and bring investment back into our communities?

It is also true that far too many of our homes, especially older homes, leak heat through poor insulation measures. That is why the warm homes plan is incredibly important. Investment is necessary for households to install solar panels, heat pumps, batteries and insulation. These measures will, in the long term, cut bills, reduce emissions and tackle fuel poverty for good. However, simply offering these retrofit programmes will not be enough; people must know about them and have confidence in them.

That is why it is so important to have places like the Sheffield Energy Hub, where fuel poverty charities regularly offer advice to people on energy efficiency, energy saving and the links between cold homes and unhealthy futures. Despite the expectation, the wider warm homes plan has not yet been published, and speculation that the upcoming Budget will remove green levies, which pay for home energy efficiency measures, is deeply worrying.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

The Climate Change Committee’s top recommendation was that the Government’s climate plan ought to remove policy costs from electricity bills. Does the hon. Lady think that the Government could seek to address that in the Budget?

[Abtisam Mohamed]

The Government should consider how consumers’ bills can be reduced. I want to see the warm homes plan feature, and I want it published so that we can have appropriate conversations about what is in it. If the cut to investment without guaranteed funding from elsewhere goes ahead, billions of pounds and over 100,000 jobs in the installation industry would be at risk. I urge the Minister to outline how the Government will end that uncertainty, bring the warm homes plan forward quickly and start the consultation so that experts and communities can help shape what is in it.

Improving energy efficiency is one of the quickest ways to lower bills, but it must go hand in hand with a bold push for renewable energy. We know that solar and onshore wind are now the cheapest and cleanest sources of power available. If we invest in them at scale, we can bring down energy costs for households and businesses alike, while strengthening our energy security and cutting carbon at the same time. That is why I have raised concerns about the extraction of the Rosebank oilfield. When I met Sheffield Rosebank campaigners, they knew, as I do, that extraction of the oilfield will not reduce gas prices, but it will have a significant effect on the climate. Today the developer’s impact assessment shows that extraction would release nearly 50 times more gas than originally cited.

At a time when the focus should be on clean, affordable and home-grown energy, approving one of the largest new oilfields in the North sea sends the wrong message. It risks locking us into decades of expensive, polluting fossil fuels, while doing little to reduce bills here at home. We should instead be putting that same investment and ambition into home-grown renewables, energy efficiency and a fair transition for workers and communities, building the kind of fair sustainable energy future that people in Sheffield and across the country want to see.

This is not just about homes; it is about jobs, growth and opportunity. Clean energy industries have the potential to provide high-skilled, well-paid jobs across the country, driving economic growth while tackling the climate crisis. The green economy has grown at three times the rate of the rest of the economy, yet in Sheffield, I have met businesses that have struggled with soaring energy costs, threatening their future and their workers’ livelihoods. A clear, fully consulted strategy is needed to ensure that support reaches the businesses that need it the most, as well as driving a greener and fairer economy. What are the plans to support small businesses struggling with their higher energy bills?

At the University of Sheffield, world-leading researchers are pioneering advances in sustainable aviation, developing cleaner fuels, lighter materials and cutting-edge technologies to help decarbonise. Through the university’s Energy Institute and Sustainable Aviation Fuels Innovation Centre, Sheffield is proving that climate action can go hand in hand with innovation, job creation and global leadership in the industries of the future. Although I welcome the current plan, I want to push the Government further, because it is vital that we lead by example on the global stage.

Many of my constituents worry about the overreliance on fossil fuels and the impact big polluters have on our environment. We know how disastrous it will be if large corporations continue to go unchecked in relation to their carbon emissions and pollution. That is why I have joined the Make Polluters Pay campaign, and why I am urging the Government to go further by introducing polluter pays measures such as a frequent flyer levy to curb the most polluting activities and fund green investment. COP30 has provided a unique opportunity for the UK to join France, Spain and others in the Premium Flyers Solidarity Coalition, which is committed to raising international climate finance by increasing levies on premium flyers including business class, first class and private jet users.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

It is estimated that we would have to plant a forest twice the size of Greater London to cancel out all the extra emissions created by the expansions of Heathrow, Luton and Gatwick, next to my constituency of Horsham. Does the hon. Member think that that suggests the Government are entirely serious about meeting our carbon budget?

[Abtisam Mohamed]

There is a recognition that we need to do more on our climate priorities and on addressing increased aviation. We definitely need to explore that, and I will press the Minister on it in the future.

The revenue raised could be used to support domestic priorities, including insulating homes and building clean energy, and provide international climate finance to help the most vulnerable communities around the world adapt to the devastating effects of climate change. By ensuring that those with the largest carbon footprints contribute the largest share, we can show that tackling the climate crisis can be done fairly without punishing those who are worse off.

As the world meets in Belém to chart a path for the planet’s future, the UK can once again lead by example. We must act with purpose, ambition and hope. We must protect our planet, cut bills and create jobs while restoring Britain’s leadership on the world stage. Tackling the climate crisis is not just about saving the planet; it is about building a better, fairer and more secure future for everyone.

Will the Minister address my questions to him today? Will he provide a timeline for when the warm homes plan will be published? Does he have an update on the midland main line upgrade, and on when Sheffield can expect that critical investment to resume? Will he expand on how his Department will build resilience into clean energy supply chains, create jobs and investment in Sheffield, and ensure that energy sourced locally can be bought locally? Will he confirm what support is being offered to small businesses struggling with higher energy bills? Will he outline the Government’s commitment to boost the green economy and fund research at Sheffield’s world-leading institutions? Finally, will he commit to ending Britain’s reliance on fossil fuel giants, and ensure that they pay their fair share in tackling the climate crisis?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Order. I see that quite a lot of people want to speak. I will not set a time limit, but if you can be disciplined in how long your contributions last, that would be very helpful.

16:42

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate, and I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for securing it. To be honest, I am a bit disappointed that the Secretary of State did not come to the House to make a statement about the carbon budget delivery plan, especially given that the previous one was in breach of the Climate Change Act 2008, and given the urgency of the UK’s meeting not just its statutory domestic climate targets but its international obligations under the Paris climate agreement.

It is obvious that UK climate action has important domestic and international ramifications. We are holding this debate while COP30 takes place. The UN has warned that the goal of a 1.5°C limit is fragile. According to the UN Secretary-General, the current plans put forward by nation states to cut emissions will put the world on a pathway to 2.3°C of global warming if they are fully implemented, and yet the UK’s new carbon budget delivery plan will fall short of our own commitments under the COP process, via our nationally determined contributions. The delivery plan is looking to achieve 96% of the cuts for the 2030 NDC and 99% for the 2035 NDC. That does not even reflect the fact that the UK’s NDC commitments themselves fail to take account of the scale of ambition needed to tackle the burning reality of the climate crisis, in line with what the climate science demands, and to reflect the UK’s historic responsibilities—and therefore moral obligation—to take a fairer share of the global need to cut emissions.

The Government’s carbon budget delivery plan is absolutely better than previous versions—let’s face it, it was a low baseline—but it is still wanting, both in global terms and in terms of facing the climate reality. That needs to change; even more ambition is required.

The hon. Member for Sheffield Central talked about the warm homes plan and the wider need for investment, particularly in the housing sector. We must ensure all our homes are fully fit for the future. As she said, it must be recognised across Government that climate action is absolutely central. It is not just about tackling our carbon emissions; it is also a really important way to tackle inequality and generate a resilient, jobs-rich economy that will secure long-term prosperity for us all.

There are of course things to welcome in the carbon budget delivery plan, including tougher energy standards for the private rented and social rented sectors, welcome signals on heat pumps and so on, but to make our homes really fit for the future we need to think even bigger. We need to minimise embodied carbon in the housing sector, and maximise on-site energy generation, biodiversity in the construction of new homes and resilience in things such as flooding and overheating, which is crucial in tackling the impacts of the climate crisis, which is hitting harder and harder. Every new home—especially every new social home—must be built to the highest standards.

We urgently need the warm homes plan. It is deeply concerning that there are rumours that the Government are seeking to rob Peter to pay Paul by taking money away from the warm homes plan—that crucial long-term investment in insulating our homes and making them fit for the future so that people have cheaper bills. We must not put a short-term sticking plaster on bills. We need both, not one or the other—[Interruption.]

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Order. There is a Division in the House. We will suspend for 15 minutes, and when we return Ellie will draw her speech to its conclusion reasonably speedily.

16:45

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

17:00

On resuming—

[Dr Chowns]

I will conclude with three brief points. First, reframing the carbon budget delivery plan as a growth plan takes things in the wrong direction. It is the myth of infinite growth on a finite planet that got us into this mess in the first place, and that is driving the climate and nature crisis. This moment demands climate action that is rooted in tackling inequality, not feeding the pockets of developers and big oil bosses.

That brings me to my next point. The science on fossil fuels is unequivocal. In addition to the positive measures in the carbon budget delivery plan, we have to keep fossil fuels in the ground. Rosebank and Jackdaw cannot—must not—go ahead.

My final point is to put on record my thanks to Friends of the Earth for challenging the last plan in court and for its ongoing commitment to holding Governments to account. All this is possible only because of the Climate Change Act 2008. We all have a responsibility to uphold that incredibly important piece of legislation, which is key to ensuring that together we build a sustainable future for our country.

The British public remain very supportive of ambitious climate action. They want to know that measures are being taken to transition the economy, build a sustainable future and tackle the huge risks of climate breakdown. We all have a responsibility to ensure that that future is liveable for ourselves and future generations. I look forward to continuing to work across parties to build that positive future.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

About six people want to contribute, so they each have about four minutes. I will not make it formal, but I know I can rely on you not to let me down.

17:00

[Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) on securing the debate and introducing it in the way she did.

To misquote Bill Clinton, “It’s a limit, not a target, stupid!” The carbon budgets we set represent a threshold we should not breach, not a target we should aim for or just dip under. We are having this debate now because our courts ruled that the original carbon budget delivery plan was unlawful; it lacked credible plans to meet our obligations.

Published just two days before the legal deadline, the Government’s new plan states that they have sufficient policies to achieve their sixth carbon budget, which required a 77% reduction in emissions from the 1990 baseline. So, do they? Remember that carbon budget 6 is the first to include international aviation and shipping. The plan highlights where decarbonisation will be the hardest, and shows us those sectors that need to be prioritised if we are to achieve a totally clean, secure and affordable energy system by 2050. Our homes and buildings’ operational and embodied carbon need to be addressed, and our heavy industries, such as steel, glass and ceramics, need to find high-energy, low-cost solutions. The aviation sector must show how it can meet the Government’s expansion expectations without an over-optimistic reliance on the production of sustainable aviation fuel or a dependence on greenhouse gas removal technologies that are still not proven at commercial scale.

First, let us examine the energy and emissions projections that undergird the plan. The emissions projections include all planned, adopted, implemented and expired climate change policies. They are expected to deliver more than 100% of the emissions reductions to meet carbon budgets 4 and 5, but are projected to contribute only 76% of the savings needed for carbon budget 6. Over the summer, the Climate Change Committee examined 163 of those plans for reducing emissions. Fewer than half were considered to be fully credible, and more than a third were considered to be insufficient or to have significant risk of failure. On its top recommendation—to make electricity cheaper—the committee said that it had “not…seen any progress” in the past year.

It is good that the plans are improving and becoming more credible year on year, but the delivery plan states only that the Government “expect” the energy and emissions projections to deliver the requisite emissions reductions. It does not say that they are confident or give a percentage of probability, as we find in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The excellent people at Carbon Brief note that by counting all the various policies—past, present and future—alongside other modelling adjustments, the baseline for carbon budget 6 is already reduced by 46.1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent.

The policies assume the success of the zero emission vehicle mandate and the SAF mandate—policies that are still very much in the pipeline. The SAF mandate Bill is still only on Second Reading in the House of Lords. The first warning I give, then, is that the first tranche of policies—at table 3 in the plan—cannot be taken as a given, even though they have been incorporated into the lowering of the baseline for how we measure CB6.

Warning No. 2 concerns what the plan terms “wider factors”. That principally means the adoption of technologies, such as artificial intelligence, that are likely to improve energy efficiency, help integrate renewable energy generation and support sustainable practices, according to the technical annexe. The Government’s analysis finds that those wider factors, which also include consumer behaviour, could reduce emissions by an average of 20 megatonnes of CO₂ equivalent a year over the period of CB6, from 2033 to 2037. The annexe admits that there is

“the potential for not all of these reductions to be realised”,

before saying that it “reflects a cautious approach”. I will await the CCC’s full assessment of whether these wider savings are realistic in its 2026 progress report.

The Environmental Audit Committee has recently published its report on warning No. 3, aviation. The final hearing of our inquiry was told that demand management would not be one of the measures to reduce emissions in the sector. Shockingly, that was despite the fact that in its advice on carbon budget 7, the Climate Change Committee said that demand management should account for 54% of emissions reductions in the sector by 2040. SAF only accounted for 33%, and efficiency improvements of technology were a paltry 13%.

The Department for Transport says that aviation can be fossil fuel-free by 2050 without demand management. Will the Minister ensure that the Government publish that unlikely analysis so that we can properly examine it? I am in no doubt that the Climate Change Committee will be keen to do so. I note that the committee clearly states that

“the aviation industry adopting the cost of aviation decarbonisation will help manage demand”.

Both the CCC and the recently published Whitehead review are very clear that the aviation sector must pay for the carbon that it pollutes in accordance with the polluter-pays principle.

The Whitehead review recommends that the sector should be required to pay for the greenhouse gas removals it needs to reach net zero, and that Government should ensure that they do so. A fossil-free sector will drive competition between SAF technologies and the new greenhouse gas removal technologies, which is a good thing and to be welcomed, but getting those technologies up and running with far greater urgency is an imperative, given the Government’s desire to go ahead with airport expansion. I remain sceptical at best about the Government’s approach to aviation, and it surely has to be seen as one of the biggest potential pitfalls in their net zero plans, relying so heavily as they do on technology that is not currently readily available.

The fourth warning is one voiced by many climate scientists, such as Kevin Anderson, professor of energy and climate change at the University of Manchester. It is that the Climate Change Committee appears to have changed its mandate from advising Government on what they must do to meet the scientific realities, to advising the Government only what they consider the Government will find politically acceptable and be willing to accept.

I have been a champion of the Climate Change Committee. I believe its independence and forthright advice have been why we managed to achieve such enormous bipartisan progress in tackling climate change. I commend the previous Conservative Government on all the progress they made on that, and I think we need to restore that bipartisanship. However, Professor Anderson rightly warns:

“Major societal transformations, such as moving from private car to public transport, are largely absent from the CCC’s recommendations.”

Instead, the CCC proposes that the UK should capture and store 36 megatonnes of CO₂ annually by 2050, triple the current rate of the entire planet—I will say that again: triple the current rate of the entire planet—to avoid making that recommendation to a modal shift from private vehicles to public transport. That smacks to me of the committee dodging the tough advice where it thinks the Government might find it politically unwelcome.

My advice to the committee is to grow a pair. Over-optimistic reliance on future technofixes is not a solid policy basis to achieve the carbon budgets and reductions that we have set. The projection for carbon budget 6 is that we will be just 2 megatonnes within the 965-megatonne limit for that period. That takes me right back to where I started: these budgets are not targets to scrape under as narrowly as possible while trying to change as little about our way of life as we can. We did not carry on as normal during the covid pandemic, just waiting for the vaccine to come and save us. Instead, we acted urgently to fundamentally change the way we operated to protect the most vulnerable.

If we carry on as normal, seeking to do just about enough, we risk overshooting our carbon budgets. In doing so, we fail future generations, and we fail those in the global majority for whom the planet has already warmed too much—whose crops are failing through drought, whose homes are already under floodwater, and whose forests are already burning. Let us all be clear; the costs of inaction on climate change are far greater than the costs of action. That is why the carbon budgets are so important. It is all our responsibility to ensure that we have adequate policies in place to deliver them.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Order. I said four minutes a speech. This is partly a debate about targets and figures, Barry, and the difference between four and nine is five.

17:10

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for securing this debate. I welcome the publication of this plan; on paper, it marks an important step in bringing our climate ambitions into alignment with our responsibilities to nature and to people. I particularly welcome the recognition that the climate and nature crises are inseparable. The introduction of an annual climate and nature statement to Parliament is a significant development, and I am proud that it grew from the Climate and Nature Bill, which I introduced earlier this year.

First, we must ensure that this plan truly treats climate and nature as partners, not as parallel workstreams. The commitments to restore peatland, create woodland, clean up air and water and reduce flood risk are essential, yet the scaling back of targets for tree planting and peat restoration is concerning. Ambition of language is not yet matched by ambition of action. We must move beyond a narrow focus on trees towards a whole-ecosystem approach, valuing soils, wetlands, hedgerows and biodiversity as carbon sinks and habitats. I am concerned by the heavy reliance on carbon capture and storage and sustainable aviation fuels. Speculation on technology that is still in development risks delaying real emissions reductions and offshoring ecological harm. We cannot afford to chase technical fixes at the expense of nature, when nature itself can be our greatest ally in the fight against climate change.

Secondly, the green transition must be fair and rooted in our local communities. The green economy can deliver cheaper bills, warmer homes and thousands of good jobs, but this will work only if we support the people who are already trying to drive change. Our farmers, local councils, schools and families want to be part of this transition, but they must be incentivised, not penalised. At the moment, farming emissions remain high, while clarity for farmers remains low. I know that my farmers in the South Cotswolds want to be part of a fair transition, but they need clarity on where the goalposts stand. There is no coherent strategy to boost domestic horticulture and arable production or to ensure that family farms are not squeezed out by intensification. A thriving green economy cannot come at the cost of hollowing out our countryside.

Community energy is another clear opportunity. Demand for community-run renewables far exceeds the support currently offered. Unlocking the right for community groups to sell energy directly to local people would be transformative and enable communities to truly participate in their own energy transition. I am troubled that huge ground-mounted solar projects, such as the one planned for my constituency, risk alienating the public, rather than including them. We need a just and fair energy transition that is as resilient to adverse conditions in the geophysical climate as potential future political climates. When this transition is deeply rooted in communities, it cannot be uprooted by a net zero-sceptic Government in the future. I welcome this plan, but we must ensure that it truly delivers from the ground up, not the top down. Let us empower farmers, communities, councils and schools to lead the way. Let us build a resilient, vibrant and nature-rich future that truly works for everyone. As Christiana Figueres has said:

“Doing our best is no longer enough. We must all now do what is necessary.”

17:14

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see another Hayes serving in the Chair, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for securing this debate. When we talk about the carbon budget delivery plan, we are talking about progress towards a cleaner, fairer and more secure Britain. With COP30 getting under way properly, we know the consequences of breaching the 1.5° limit: there will be more people exposed to extreme heat, higher sea levels, increased food security risks, the extinction of species, a loss of virtually all coral reefs, and the spread of climate-sensitive diseases on a greater scale. We cannot allow that to happen.

Although we are tackling this issue for global reasons, it is clear that there will be benefits at home. Clean energy is the route to faster and more resilient growth. Analysis by Oxford Economics for Energy UK shows that we can add up to £240 billion in value to our economy by 2050 if we increase our ambition. The faster we move now, the more our economy will work for working people and the more good, secure jobs we will create.

I am particularly pleased that the Government are setting up Great British Energy with £8.3 billion of funding going into large-scale solar, offshore wind and grid-scale battery projects. I am also pleased to see today’s announcement by SSE of £33 billion of investment to unlock secure and affordable clean energy, and to support our economic growth. That is proof that when we invest in the green economy, we see investors returning that.

Sprinting to net zero does not just boost growth; it also protects growth. We saw what happened when the last Government failed to plan for resilience. Volatile international fossil fuel markets sent our bills soaring and made our growth sputter. Typical household energy costs nearly doubled in a single year and all our constituents are still living with the cost of that. Millions of people were pushed into fuel poverty and energy bill debt remains at record levels. Indeed, when the last Government finally acted, they did so at huge cost, spending £94 billion of taxpayers’ money. That crisis could have been prevented with sustained investment in energy independence and efficiency.

We should be going as fast as we can on net zero because another such crisis could be prevented with clean home-grown energy. The Office for Budget Responsibility has warned that a fossil fuel price shock could cost us between 2% and 3% of GDP in the 2030s. We cannot afford such a shock to be inflicted on our constituents all over again.

The delivery plan faces several other challenges. We know that there are opponents who have chosen an anti-jobs, anti-science path that would spell disaster for our economy, our security and our planet. Too often, net zero has been treated as a political football. Deadlines have been delayed, targets have been softened and certain voices have claimed that our targets are “impossible” to meet. Indeed, there have even been threats to rip up green contracts, undermining investor confidence when our constituencies need investment in jobs in the green economy so that we can lead from the front. To all those who resist home-grown renewables or reject British-built nuclear, let me be clear: they are undermining our security, driving up our bills and holding back growth. That is bad for Britain and bad for our planet.

Our national security is our energy security, so I do have to speculate about some of the opposition to net zero. When I see that 92% of Reform UK’s post-2019 funding is linked to or comes directly from donors tied to fossil fuel interests, polluting industries or climate science denial groups, it makes me wonder. Similarly, we know that the leadership of Reform UK’s pick for First Minister of Wales was a paid Putin propagandist. Why is Reform UK so keen for Britain to be addicted to Russian-dominated fossil fuel markets? Our energy security comes in many forms.

We also know that despite all the political noise, the markets and the public remain firmly committed to clean energy. Among Fortune Global 500 companies, net zero commitments have risen from 8% in 2020 to 45% last year. Some 70% of the UK public support the net zero target, compared with just 18% who do not, and 65% of the UK public want more renewable generation, while only 7% disagree with increasing renewables. Polling by the UK Sustainable Investment and Finance Association found that 68% of people are uncomfortable with their pensions or savings being invested in companies that harm the environment.

Let me be clear: the Conservatives and Reform UK will lock Britain out of the race for green economic leadership. People up and down our country will lose out. However, Britain can no longer be held back, because the race for the jobs and industries of the future is speeding up, so we must go all-in on clean energy.

This is a critical moment. Global insecurity is driving insecurity at home, and many people feel ignored and left behind. While the world moves at speed, our politics remains stuck. People are hungry for change, but if this Government do not deliver it, others will—and that worries me.

Our task as a country is to lead in this era. It is not to defend the broken ways of doing things, but to create new methods to give people the stability and pride that they crave, and a country that is on the up once again as it leads the global race for green investment. We cannot afford to leave our country to those who will cosy up to Putin by indulging the fossil fuel markets and volatile prices that come with them. That means taking on vested interests, and restoring control of our energy and our economy. The dividing line in politics must be between the disruptors and those who defend a status quo that is working in nobody’s interest.

We know that net zero is the economic opportunity of a generation. Our net zero economy grew 10.1% in 2024. Net zero foreign direct investment was up 46% last year, reaching £20 billion, and 95% of major financial firms—representing over £1 trillion in turnover and £200 billion in green investments—say that they would increase UK investment with greater policy certainty, unlocking up to £100 billion. Is there policy certainty in scrapping the Climate Change Act or threatening to rip up the green contracts that the Government are delivering?

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Order. Can you bring your remarks to a close, otherwise no one else will be able to get in?

[Tom Hayes]

I apologise.

The capital is waiting, public support is strong and technology is ready. What is needed is yet more policy certainty, clarity and courage. We have seen so much already, but there is more to do. Net zero should not be a political football. It is a strategic national mission, the UK’s growth story and a foundation for jobs, competitiveness and resilience.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I call Susan Murray—you have a couple of minutes.

17:20

[Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

I will do my best. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for securing the debate and bringing attention to this matter.

Although some may deny its impact or severity, climate change represents the greatest modern threat to our planet. The data is clear. If we continue down our current path, millions of lives will be lost and our way of life will be changed forever. We have an opportunity to show the world that there is an alternative path to save lives and avoid catastrophe.

Steps have been taken to create a Britain at the forefront of climate action, but there are still gaping holes. Although we have enormous capacity for green energy production through wind, tidal and solar, we do not yet take full advantage of it. My constituents in Mid Dunbartonshire demand that we act faster. We must take the opportunity to produce wind turbines domestically; less than half of the wind turbines operating in the UK contain any British component. Instead, we ship turbines in from countries such as China, undermining their green credentials and costing British jobs.

We are not moving fast enough to upgrade our grid, meaning that we are restricting the energy output at some sites for as much as 71% of the time. At the same time, we seem to be ignoring the potential of community energy and local projects to take pressure off the wider grid and to provide cheaper bills to British people. It is clear that although we have incredible potential, we need to move faster to exploit it.

The Government must place decarbonisation at the heart of the UK’s industrial strategy. The net zero sector is growing three times faster than the overall UK economy and jobs in the sector pay almost 15% more than the national average. If we want good, long-term jobs for British people, we must look seriously at green energy. We can create manufacturing jobs producing the technology, jobs working on the grid, jobs working on offshore sites and many more, but only if we take climate change seriously. That means ensuring that workers and communities in sectors such as North sea oil and gas are not left behind as the industry declines, but supported to move into new, clean industries. Even if all our energy came from renewables we would need oil and gas for the foreseeable future, but it makes no sense to import gas, which is four times as polluting as local production.

The Liberal Democrats would introduce a carbon tariff to level the playing field and minimise carbon emissions. The skills already built up in Scotland’s energy sector are the skills that we need for offshore wind, grid upgrades and new green technologies, but there is an urgent need to invest in more skill training and housing if we want the sector to thrive, grow and build new sustainable jobs and communities.

The Government have listened to the Liberal Democrats before on green energy. I urge them to do so again to help create a cleaner, fairer future for our children, and across the world.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I call Sureena Brackenridge —you have two minutes.

17:24

[Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for securing this important debate. I will take this opportunity to link the national Government ambition of the carbon budget delivery plan with the local government ambition of Wolverhampton’s green innovation corridor.

The benefits of the clean energy economy are well reported and evidenced: creating energy security, lowering household bills, protecting our environment and building good local jobs. For too long, global price shocks driven by conflict and market volatility have hit my residents’ pockets. By investing in home-grown clean energy—from offshore wind to solar and local generation —we are keeping more of our energy and money right here in the UK. That means greater control over prices, and a fairer, more stable energy system for households across the country.

In the west midlands, Wolverhampton’s green innovation corridor has every potential to build our industrial past into a green industrial future. By connecting the University of Wolverhampton with a local manufacturing base and skills training for the industries of tomorrow, it can create local opportunities for great jobs of the future.

What does that mean for my constituents? First, it means jobs. The green innovation corridor is set to deliver over 1,000 skilled roles including apprenticeships for young people, retraining for experienced workers, and graduate opportunities. Secondly, it means investment and regeneration. The corridor will breathe new life into old brownfield sites, creating new workspaces and better connectivity, so that investment flows into local businesses, communities and shops. By linking our local ambition with the national carbon budget delivery plan and by backing the green innovation corridor, we are supporting jobs and households in Wolverhampton and Willenhall.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Well done for keeping to time. I am calling the Front Benchers at 5.28 pm. I call Jim Shannon—you have a minute and a half.

17:27

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for setting the scene. The Government are trying to meet their carbon budgets, and that is important, but I want to make a quick point in the time I have on behalf of those who will suffer as a result. Families in my constituency as struggling more than ever, as charitable giving lessens and the ability for charities to provide help lessens as well.

Yes, let us reach the target for carbon budget delivery, but let us make sure that that is financially viable. I know several families who were comfortable for a number of years, but who are struggling now. On behalf of those struggling families in Strangford—there are struggling families in everybody’s constituencies, not just mine—we must ensure that we can achieve the goals while ensuring that the impact on our constituents is defensible.

I have always been proud to be forward-looking, but I believe that we cannot leave struggling families on the trail behind. Meeting the targets and goals affects all of us—some can afford it, but some cannot, and they are the people we should be looking out for. I am more interested in people such as my constituents and the bread and butter issues that they focus on all the time. Let us meet the targets, but let us make sure that people are looked after on the way there.

17:28

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) on securing this important debate. I am delighted that after years of delays, legal challenges and missed opportunities, we finally have a new carbon delivery plan. As we all know, however, a plan is not enough—it is actions, not words, that count.

Before I get into the action that is needed, I want to first acknowledge the great progress that has been made. The UK has halved its emissions since 1990. That is an exceptional achievement and one we should rightly be proud of, but much of that progress has been made by phasing out coal. Much of the heavy lifting on hard-to-abate emissions still lies ahead: decarbonising manufacturing, transport and agriculture and improving energy efficiency, all while protecting nature.

The key to further progress is changing the narrative. The transition to a low-carbon economy is not a cost or a burden; it is one of the greatest opportunities of our time. It can bring cheaper bills, warmer homes and thousands of well-paid jobs in the green economy. It is deeply disappointing that, having once lead the UK through varying levels of success in green technology, the Conservative party has abandoned its values and veered into climate denialism. Its recent calls to scrap the Climate Change Act just show how far it has fallen from the environmental leadership that Britain once showed.

The new carbon budget delivery plan is a step back in the right direction. The Government’s plan includes bold targets: low-carbon power making up 98% of the grid by 2035, 9 million heat pumps in operation, 1.6 million homes upgraded every year, and 75% of farmers engaged in emissions reductions. The Liberal Democrats support those aims, but we also want action now. We have proposed a 10-year emergency home upgrade programme, starting with free insulation for low-income households, ensuring that all new homes are zero carbon, and extending rooftop solar through the sunshine Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson).

We would also provide a social tariff for vulnerable households and move older renewable projects on to cheaper, more stable contracts. The Government’s investor prospectus is a good start, but stability is what really attracts private investment. The green economy is already growing three times faster than the UK economy as a whole and employs nearly 1 million people in well-paid, secure jobs. With clear policy direction, we can accelerate that growth.

The Government must end the sporadic nature of the climate portfolio and end the stop-start conversations with the Treasury. The £8.3 billion for GB Energy is good news—having spent a decade in renewable energy finance, I can tell Members that I would have supported that if it were £8.30—but it needs to be front-loaded, not spread out over the course of a Parliament. If we want to crowd in private investment, we have to de-risk the first 10p on the pound, not the first 1p.

There also need to be long-term secure funding streams that are accessible to start-ups and innovators. The net zero innovation portfolio was a great scheme. It invested around £300 million in early-stage climate ventures, leveraging up to £3 in private investment for every £1 in public grant funding. Sadly, it was scrapped this year. Will the Government confirm whether they intend there to be a replacement to the net zero innovation portfolio? Will they also confirm that the clean tech innovation challenge will proceed in 2026, as previously announced? In addition, I urge Ministers to commit a portion of the next round of Government carbon purchases specifically to carbon removal projects, to help to establish and grow the greenhouse gas-removal market.

We must reform how the National Energy System Operator manages battery storage. By prioritising flexible storage rather than reverting to high-emission generators such as Drax, we would be able to utilise a far greater proportion of the renewable energy that we generate.

On agriculture, the plan to recognise farmers as central to climate action is great, but we need to fund them properly. The Government’s cuts to the sustainable farming initiative and delays to environmental land management schemes mean that many farmers are left uncertain about the future and unable to invest in carbon reduction and nature-friendly initiatives. The Liberal Democrats would commit an additional £1 billion a year to support sustainable farming and rural resilience.

We must also accelerate the upgrade of our national grid, and ensure that communities affected by new infrastructure share in the benefits. Clean power cannot flow if it cannot be connected. The Liberal Democrats are also calling for a UK-wide adaptation strategy to embed climate resilience into every decision and support local communities to prepare before disaster occurs.

COP30 is currently being held in Brazil, and while the world’s negotiators grapple with finding an agreement, the British public are clear that they overwhelmingly support strong climate action. They want leadership. The Liberal Democrats believe we can halve energy bills within a decade, end fuel poverty and create a cleaner, fairer and more secure Britain. In the delivery plan, the Government say that they will

“seek to improve delivery and, where appropriate, will explore further measures, to ensure that the UK will meet its international commitments.”

Well, the Liberal Democrats believe in facts. We believe in science, the opinions of experts, and the inalienable truth that climate change is an existential crisis. We are here to help to improve that delivery, explore those further measures and ensure that our generation meets our commitment to future generations.

17:33

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. Since the Labour Government took office, they have pursued an ideological net zero agenda that places meeting targets above supporting our constituents and cutting bills across the country. The carbon budget delivery plan is the latest example of that: a glossy plan that completely ignores affordability and reality.

The Secretary of State has spent much of his time in office promising that his policies will cut household energy bills by £300. That promise was made at the last election and was supported by the Prime Minister, yet that figure is not mentioned once in the flagship carbon budget delivery plan. There are sections on energy security and lower bills, but nowhere does it reference the £300 promise that the Secretary of State and others from the Labour party incessantly trumpeted across the media and from the Dispatch Box. If that pledge were real—if it were costed or credible—it would surely appear in the document that is supposedly designed to deliver it. Its absence tells us everything. The Government’s priority is not cutting bills, but chasing net zero goals regardless of the cost to hard-working taxpayers.

At a recent Energy Security and Net Zero Committee hearing, senior executives from the country’s biggest energy suppliers warned that even if gas were free in 2030, household energy bills would still rise because of the policy costs being loaded on to bills in the relentless pursuit of net zero. I repeat: even if gas were free—even if the wholesale market delivered us a miracle—bills would go up, not down. That is a failure not of the market, but of Labour Government policy.

Those energy companies are not hostile to decarbonisation; they are some of the loudest champions of net zero. Yet even they warn that the current approach—piling levies, subsidies and obligations on to consumers—is unsustainable and unrealistic. When those who believe in the Government’s energy objectives start doubting the approach, perhaps it is time for the Government to revisit their plans. Even Professor Sir Dieter Helm, one of the country’s most respected energy economists, has in effect described the Government’s clean power 2030 plan as economically incoherent. As he put it, we are

“baking in very high costs”

for the future. He is right.

It is not possible to legislate for lower bills while loading more costs on to every unit of power people use—a simple equation that the Government do not seem to have grasped, exemplified by what we have all seen in the carbon budget delivery plan. It is a classic Labour approach: a headline without a policy, a promise without a plan, a bill for everyone else to pay, and a vanity project that will simply not work. The truth is that Britain will not decarbonise by taxing, banning and bribing people into submission.

As the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), said at our party conference, the best way to cut emissions is to “make electricity cheap”. Cheap means clean power, because people and businesses naturally choose the most efficient technology available when it saves them money. This Government, however, have made electricity the most expensive form of energy that we produce. They have loaded every kilowatt with green levies, obligations and subsidies, and then tried to subsidise and redistribute when families cannot afford to heat their homes or to switch to electric vehicles.

We see the same erratic pattern in the operation of the Climate Change Act 2008, which forces Ministers to take decisions that make the British people less well off and our economy weaker, for the sake of meeting arbitrary climate targets. Take their boiler tax: it increases the cost of gas boilers to force people to adopt heat pumps, which may not work for them, to meet climate targets. We are chopping down trees in America, shipping them across the Atlantic and burning them in Yorkshire to generate electricity at three times the price of gas, because it is labelled as clean for the purpose of meeting the Government’s climate targets.

These are not the decisions of a Government guided by science or economics; they are the decisions of a Government trapped by targets, with a Secretary of State dogmatically following them. If the Government truly believed in innovation, they would focus on reforming the electricity market to bring prices down; they would remove the outdated levies that make our electricity the most expensive in the world; they would spend more on nuclear baseload; and they would back British energy security, from new nuclear to North sea gas, rather than making us more dependent on imported fuel by choosing to shut down the North sea.

The public understand that we must reduce emissions. They want a cleaner environment and a stable climate for their grandchildren. But they also expect honesty from the Government, and an approach that will actually work and actually decarbonise.

17:38

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)]

I can say with absolute sincerity that it is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I could not have wished for a more benevolent Chair for my first outing at the Dispatch Box here in Westminster Hall. I apologise to Members who may have been expecting the Minister for Climate, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Katie White), but she is attending the COP. I do hope that I am not too mean a substitute.

I have thoroughly enjoyed the debate. We all recognise how important the issue is. For me, it has been a real pleasure to sit and listen attentively to colleagues from throughout the House with such expertise. I shall endeavour to respond to many of the remarks that have been made, although I feel slightly sorry for the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith). Everyone else in the Chamber challenged the Government for being too fast or too slow, while ultimately working towards the same objective, but he occupied a slightly lonely position. That is the position his party has chosen to take.

An investment in fighting the climate crisis, and in net zero, is fundamentally an investment for our future generations. The economic opportunity before us can improve the lives of working people not only in the future but here and now, and our policies are intended to do precisely that. We want to tackle the climate crisis while ensuring that we crowd-in private sector investment. In Prime Minister’s questions earlier, my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister mentioned the £33 billon investment from SSE; the pursuit of net zero is clearly the pursuit of economic prosperity. Members have already mentioned the fact that the Confederation of British Industry says the green economy is growing three times faster than the rest of the economy, as are the good jobs provided by the green energy sector around the country.

Carbon budgets were a significant part of the debate. Ten years ago, the world was on course for 4° of warming, which would have posed a severe threat to human life. Today, through international action, we are on course for 2.6°, or below 2° if countries meet their full climate commitments. I was asked earlier about the Government’s focus at COP; fundamentally, our focus is multilateralism to get the world working together again. Of course, that is about ensuring that Britain retains its place as a climate leader, and that we do so in a way that supports communities and families through the UK’s transition.

I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is no longer in his place, bring home the importance of thinking about the poorest in our society. I want to reassure him, and the House, that they are very much in my mind, and the minds of all Ministers, as we take forward these issues. That is why we are so concerned about getting bills down.

The previous Government left us an energy system that was tied to the international price of gas, which has left households with gas prices 75% higher than they were the year before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. We have decided not to leave our future in the hands of international dictators and petrostates, but to return to energy security. That is what clean power provides us, and that is why we set up Great British Energy, which invests in the necessary kinds of projects. It also invests in community energy projects, which were mentioned by many Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central.

[Barry Gardiner]

Does the Minister recognise that the policy costs mentioned by the shadow Minister are a regressive tax, and that it may be better to put those on to general taxation? Of course, the energy company obligations and other policy costs were introduced by the Conservative Government. Will the Minister give consideration to where they may best lie to ensure that what he said in response to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is realised?

[Chris McDonald]

Matters of tax are left to the Chancellor, particularly this close to the Budget.

The Government’s approach to the transition is about incentives rather than punishments—it is about carrots rather than sticks. The economics are working in the direction of net zero, and net zero is no longer a political discussion, wherever the Opposition think they are. Net zero is an economic discussion, and one in which industry has been quite clear about where the benefits lie. As industry is decarbonising, it is also digitising, automating and becoming more productive. That is what will fundamentally drive down costs for consumers and provide good jobs.

Essentially, we have a choice ahead of us about the type of country that we become. We can either seize this opportunity and capture international investment, which is going two to one into green energy versus fossil fuel energy, or take the regressive approach of the Opposition, which leaves us at the mercy of petrostates.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Thank you, Minister; that leaves a moment or two for Abtisam Mohamed to complete our discussion.

17:44

[Abtisam Mohamed]

Thank you for your stewardship in the debate, Sir John; I will do my best to be as brief as possible. I thank all Members for their contributions and interventions. On the whole, they have been extremely positive, and they have wanted our Ministers to be as positive and ambitious as possible in tackling the climate crisis, not just for our constituents but for the Government as a whole.

A key point raised by the Minister was the Government’s focus on multilateralism; I welcome that approach, and our Government should take their rightful place as a strong leader on our climate obligations. It is disappointing, but not surprising, that the shadow Minister has decided to ignore the facts and expert opinions. Instead, the Opposition’s ideological position is just to pretend that the climate crisis is not something real that we are living through.

I thank you again, Sir John, and everyone else for their contributions.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered progress on the Carbon Budget Delivery Plan.

17:45

Sitting adjourned.