House of Commons
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Peter Kyle)
It is going to be a busy day for the Department for Business and Trade team. We are going to be spending a lot of time together today, Mr Speaker, and I very much look forward to it.
We are improving how businesses find, log into and use digital Government services. Better digital services—increasingly joined-up services—can reduce administrative burdens and save businesses time and money. That is why we have pledged to reduce the administrative burdens on business by 25%, and digital will play a key role in that.
Gurinder Singh Josan
Small businesses are the backbone of our economy, yet research shows that the average small business cannot start its real work until 2.36 pm on a Wednesday because of the time lost to administrative tasks. My own experience is that business owners need to engage regularly with various departments and agencies for all manner of reasons, and proving their identity can be a time-consuming task, so will the Secretary of State consider introducing a unique business passport—effectively, a unique digital ID for businesses—to cut administrative burdens and free up small businesses to deliver growth?
Peter Kyle
My hon. Friend and I share a zeal for using digital to transform the relationship between Government and those who use services. When I was the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, I was very proud to work with the Government Digital Service team and see how they are transforming the ability of individuals to interact with Government. We need to have the same zeal for transforming how businesses interact with Government, and I can assure him that a programme of work is going on with my Department to make sure that that is the case.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
I welcome the keen interest in this issue that my hon. Friend has shown. I and my officials have regular discussions with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, including on the publication of the draft secondary ticketing Bill in the second Session of this Parliament. Consumer enforcement is a key strand of that work, and the CMA is the UK’s main consumer enforcer. As such, we have naturally discussed its important role in the ticketing ecosystem and consumer protection more broadly. In addition, last week the Government introduced the Sporting Events Bill. This will make the unauthorised resale of tickets for major sporting events that meet the conditions in the Bill a criminal offence.
Dr Huq
Ending ticketing scandals was a manifesto pledge prompted by the Oasis surge-pricing scandal, but it appears only in draft form in the King’s Speech. Peak gig-going season is upon us—maybe even for you, Mr Speaker, with your Motown habit—as is a cost of living crisis. [Interruption.] We all know about it and love you for it, Mr Speaker.
Dr Huq
Indeed—reflections of you. Will Ministers meet me to discuss the solution? My meticulously researched, widely backed ballot Bill from 2024 is ready-made and ready to go. It deals with this issue by among other things banning the bots that hog tickets for resale, so that we can stop this rip-off without delay.
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for her work on this issue; I know that it has been close to her heart for many years. That is why we have committed to publishing a draft secondary ticketing Bill, as set out in the background to the King’s Speech. That shows our continued commitment on the issue and we are pressing ahead on work that will allow us to legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows. The benefit of the draft Bill is that it will allow scrutiny from parliamentarians and sector experts to ensure that we are getting the approach right. I thank her and hope that she can hear my commitment today.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
As artists and songwriters gather today for the Ivor Novello awards, fans across the country are still being ripped off by ticket touts, despite the Prime Minister’s promise to act “as soon as possible”. It is incredibly disappointing that the Government have proposed only a draft ticket tout ban Bill in the King’s Speech. Does the Minister accept that any further delay simply benefits those touts and secondary ticketing platforms, and will she give us a date for when proper legislation will be brought forward to protect fans?
Kate Dearden
The hon. Member will know that since the Government published our response to the consultation on the resale of live event tickets, we have been working tirelessly to prepare new measures—exactly to his point—to tackle those ticket touts who take advantage of real fans who want to see their favourite bands and artists. That is why the next step is to introduce a draft Bill in this Session. That will enable parliamentary scrutiny and allow us to draw on the expertise of key stakeholders to ensure that our legislation is truly effective and enforceable, because a well-functioning ticket resale market can play such an important role in enabling those who cannot attend an event to give someone else the opportunity to go in their place.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Peter Kyle)
The Minister responsible for small business and economic transformation, the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall), met Royal Mail’s chief executive on 12 May to discuss its service improvement plan. I know that my hon. Friend has been campaigning on these issues in her constituency vigorously and that has been heard loud and clear. Royal Mail has told my Department that Middleton delivery office in my hon. Friend’s constituency is fully staffed and delivers to most addresses six days a week. I know that she will be scrutinising that and might well have a bit more to say on that now.
Mrs Blundell
Last week, I held a meeting at the fantastic Burnside community centre in Langley with representatives from Royal Mail and constituents, including those who have had to deal with a substandard postal service resulting in crucial correspondence arriving weeks late, if at all. To many people in Heywood and Middleton North, that is a direct result of a national asset being sold off to a private company focused on profit rather than quality of service. If that level of service continues, what further options is the Secretary of State considering to hold Royal Mail to account, and where necessary will the Government step in and force the changes that my constituents need to see?
Peter Kyle
I said that my hon. Friend was a great advocate for her residents on this issue; she is proving so once again. I can reassure her that the Government have secured a commitment from Royal Mail’s owners to prevent the payment of dividends until service levels improve. That will be a tangible impact on the business unless service levels improve. I have also been involved in discussions with Royal Mail’s owners and the Communication Workers Union to get a deal that can start work on the universal service offering and modernisation reform package for the company, as well as one that tackles pay equalisation. They have reached a deal and it is now out to CWU members. I hope that that will be the foundation for real improvement into the long term. It shows this Government’s active industrial strategy that get things done.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
We have just heard from the Secretary of State about our active industrial strategy. This question is timely, because we are one year on from setting out our industrial strategy. We have announced our British industrial competitiveness scheme, expanding its scope to support 10,000 businesses with their energy costs, a £500 million sovereign AI fund, and the creation of 19 new technical excellence colleges, giving opportunities for young people across the country.
Chris Hinchliff
If climate breakdown accelerates, many of the international supply chains that we have relied upon for essential goods and resources for far too long will cease to exist. We are sleepwalking towards a situation in which this country can no longer guarantee the basic needs of its people. At that point, no amount of AI slop or casino capitalism will be an alternative to actually making things. Before ecological collapse makes it too late, will Ministers use their industrial strategy to pivot our economy back to producing more of the essentials that we use in our daily lives?
Chris McDonald
My hon. Friend knows that when he talks about reindustrialisation and improving the manufacturing base of this economy he finds a very sympathetic ear in me. Certainly, we have all seen over the course of the past few years, through multiple crises, how the resilience of global supply chains has been reduced. Increasing the share of our economy that is dedicated to manufacturing will serve the ecological aims that he has mentioned, improve our national resilience and provide good, well-paid and high-productivity manufacturing jobs in our industrial heartlands across the whole of the country.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The largest sector of the manufacturing base is food manufacturing, but it was deliberately left out of the industrial strategy. As a consequence, food manufacturing is now facing rising input costs, especially from energy, and is unable to get the assistance that the Minister just referred to. The Food and Drink Federation thinks that food price inflation could get to 9% or 10% this year. With the benefit of hindsight, do the Government think that it was possibly a mistake to exclude food manufacturing from the industrial strategy?
Chris McDonald
At the time that the industrial strategy was established, the Government carefully selected those sectors that had the greatest growth potential for the economy, but we were also extremely clear in communicating that that does not mean that sectors that were not identified as having high growth potential were not important—quite the contrary. Our food manufacturing sector is incredibly important, and the Government are acutely aware of the issues around food prices. I believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may well have more to say on that subject in a statement later today.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
The future of the car industry is in electric and automated vehicles, and the west midlands and the UK have always been leaders in car manufacturing across the world. Can the Minister say more about what we are doing to protect the industry and ensure that its future lies in the UK?
Chris McDonald
My hon. Friend is right that automotive manufacturing is a key part of our advanced manufacturing sector, and she has done a huge amount here in the House to champion the sector in her area nationally. One area we are focusing on is supporting the sector with the development of new technology, such as autonomous vehicles; last week, the Secretary of State signed a memorandum of understanding with Wayve. We are determined that the UK will become Europe’s first market for digital driving services, driving the market and driving our automotive industry.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
In my constituency, I have one of the last remaining chlorine production sites, Vynova. On a recent visit, I was told that its future is uncertain because of production costs—it is a highly energy-intensive industry. Does the Minister agree that it is strategically critical that the UK has its own chlorine production, and will he meet me to discuss the future of the site?
Chris McDonald
I commend the hon. Lady for championing the chemicals sector in the House. I am extremely concerned about the sector, including chlorine, because it is vital to the UK economy, as she says. This Government are taking action through our industrial strategy to focus on heavy industry and energy-intensive industries. I might have an opportunity to speak with her later today, if that would be of interest.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
The Government’s industrial strategy rightly states that improving skills in the construction sector is essential to keeping our country building. In fact, on page 44, there is a commitment to invest
“£625 million to train…60,000 more skilled workers”.
It has been one year since publication, so how many more skilled workers have entered the construction workforce as a result of that commitment?
Chris McDonald
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out the importance of construction skills. In fact, on a recent visit to a construction skills academy in east London, I had the opportunity to do a bit of tiling myself—that has come in quite handy at home, actually—and to talk to some of the young people, who realise that they are developing skills for life. The Government are incredibly committed to that. The hon. Gentleman may have missed it, but he will be pleased to know that the Government have announced five new technical excellence colleges to help young people to get those skills for life in the construction sector.
Gareth Davies
I am grateful for the update on the Minister’s tiling skills, but I did not hear a number showing how he is making progress on the £625 million commitment. Perhaps he can write to me on how they are making progress. One of the existing schemes that supports training is the Construction Industry Training Board, but many industry leaders believe that it is no longer working or delivering. Construction firms are facing significant bills as a direct result of the levy, all while the CITB is reducing training provision. What is the Minister’s view of the CITB, and has he engaged with the construction industry to discuss it?
Chris McDonald
Yes, indeed. I engage with the construction industry extremely regularly as the co-chair of the Construction Leadership Council, and skills, along with health and safety, are absolutely at the top of our agenda. The views of the construction industry on the Construction Industry Training Board are discussed there and decided there by the industry.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Government announced their intention in the industrial strategy to use their procurement power to shape markets for innovation in the longer term. Tech start-ups in my constituency complain that the process of getting Government contracts is slow, risk-averse and structurally biased in its financial viability tests and paperwork requirements towards incumbents and US suppliers. As one of them put it to me, no one gets sacked for buying IBM. That surely prevents the Government from achieving their goal of greater innovation. What conversations is the Minister having with his Cabinet Office counterparts to ensure that our ambitious home-grown small and medium-sized enterprises are not being squeezed out of the competition for public contracts that could provide these firms with valuable growth opportunities and the innovation that our economy and public services so badly need?
Chris McDonald
The hon. Member raises an extremely important point: Government procurement can, of course, be an important lever for growing our economy. Whereas previous Governments used the fig leaf of being in the EU as an excuse to buy things from overseas simply because they were a penny cheaper, this Government are committed to ensuring that as much as possible of UK taxpayers’ money is spent in the UK.
The hon. Member asks what discussions I am having with Cabinet Office colleagues. I am having discussions with colleagues in the Cabinet Office, the Home Department, the Ministry of Defence and across Government, because there is a commitment among Ministers to ensure that Government procurement is targeted at British companies. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made a strong commitment to reduce regulation and bureaucracy, so we can ensure that these contracts are awarded more efficiently and more easily to small businesses in the UK.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
Pubs such as The Crown and the Running Horse in the hon. Member’s constituency are a real asset, bringing people together and supporting community life. They are now benefiting from a 15% reduction in their business rates bill, with bills frozen in real terms for a further two years. Around three quarters of pubs will see their bills stay the same or fall, saving the average pub around £1,650 this year. Going even further, the Government are launching a review of how pubs are valued for business rates. The hospitality support fund has been increased to £10 million, to support businesses, including pubs, to invest, grow and remain resilient.
Jerome Mayhew
Pubs in my constituency will respond to that answer with disbelief. There were 74 pubs in my constituency at the last count—that may be an inaccurate figure now; it could have dropped—employing roughly 2,000 people, and on top of that there are cafés such as the Heydon Village Tea Room. They tell me that they are being crucified by the Government’s policy of the jobs tax, the removal of business rates relief and the business rates revaluation, and to top it off there is now talk of an overnight levy for pubs with rooms. Why do the Government not want pubs and hospitality to thrive in Broadland and Fakenham?
Kate Dearden
We absolutely want pubs and our hospitality sector to thrive. They are the backbone of our communities and often provide people’s first job. That is why they are so vital to our high streets, to the hon. Member’s constituency and to our local communities. As he will know, pubs in particular have been under huge pressure in recent years. Their numbers have fallen by nearly 7,000 since 2010—a roughly 15% reduction and among the highest across hospitality overall. That is why, since April, every pub and live music venue will have 15% off their new business rates bill, on top of the support announced at the Budget. We know that we continuously need to support our pubs and the wider industry. That is why I work really closely with the Hospitality Sector Council and with publicans and pubs all across the country, to understand how we can better support them, and I will continue to do so.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
My hon. Friend was an advocate for such legislation long before it was introduced in the House last year. I know how passionate he is about our wider Make Work Pay agenda, as I am too. The Employment Rights Act 2025 is bringing employment rights legislation into the 21st century. We have already repealed burdensome trade union legislation, strengthened statutory sick pay, introduced day one rights to paternity leave and launched the Fair Work Agency. We are implementing the Act over a two-year period and consulting widely with business organisations, trade unions and civil society, to ensure we get the details right and provide the support people need.
Laurence Turner
I draw attention to my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions, and I welcome and acknowledge the Minister’s firm commitment to this area. The Department recently published its response to the trade union right of access consultation. Capping fines at £500,000 equates to a potential liability of 0.02% of operating profits for Amazon’s warehousing operations, but up to 20% of the surplus of a medium- sized trade union. We must get this right. How does disproportionate liability achieve the Government’s aim of creating a workable right in the minority of cases involving very well-resourced and hostile employers?
Kate Dearden
The legal framework for the right of access in the Employment Rights Act 2025 provides an enforcement mechanism that applies to all parties involved in an access agreement. The Government are clear that the enforcement mechanism must be fair, proportionate and adaptable, and we have set out the factors that the Central Arbitration Committee must consider when setting the value of penalties, acknowledging that some breaches will have a greater impact than others. Those factors will include the gravity of the breach, the number of workers affected by it, and the size and resources of the liable party. The Government believe that the level of penalty fines that the CAC may impose must reflect the seriousness of the breach.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Unemployment is rising, with youth unemployment now at 16%, and the jobs tax and the Employment Rights Act are destroying opportunities. Should Ministers not listen to the chief executive of M&S, who said that instead of “trying to run business,” the Government “should…understand business better”? Will they reduce the burden of regulation and tax, rather than continuing to increase it?
Kate Dearden
The hon. Member will know the stats and the results that we have seen in the economy this year, particularly on growth. I am glad that he references youth unemployment, which is a long-term problem in the UK. The number of young people not in education, employment or training went up by a quarter of a million in the last three years of the previous Government. It is a long-term problem, and that is why we are taking it very seriously. He will know about our announcements on the youth guarantee to provide hiring incentives to foundational apprenticeships, especially in retail and hospitality. We all know the importance of that. Overall employment levels are healthy, but we are not complacent. We know that there is more work we need to do with employers to support them. That is why, for example, the £2.5 billion that we are making available through grants to businesses to help to create over 500,000 opportunities for young people to earn or learn is so important.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The Employment Rights Act is one of the reasons given by one in eight business leaders for considering leaving Britain. Indeed, 30% of the Sunday Times rich list have already fled this high-tax socialist Government. The family business tax is another. Will the Minister please lobby the Chancellor for another U-turn, this time to adopt our policy of scrapping the family business tax?
Kate Dearden
This Government are absolutely clear that economic growth is a top priority. We are also absolutely clear that we cannot build the foundation for a strong economy with people in insecure work. That is why this legislation is so important, and we were proud to bring it forward. We are also proud to work with businesses across the country on it, and with our trade union and other partners across the country, working together so that we can build an economy that works for working people, reverse the damage that the hon. Lady’s party did in government and make sure that the economy works in the interests of everybody.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Peter Kyle)
Ensuring that business support takes account of rural needs is incredibly important for this Government. Around one in six people live in rural areas in England, with over 520,000 businesses contributing £259 billion to the English economy.
Tessa Munt
My constituent Jason runs The Cider Barn in the village of Draycott just outside Cheddar, a fantastic local venue that hosts live music and serves, unsurprisingly, really good local cider and ales. Jason was rocked by this year’s massive increase in business rates, which have jumped from £100 a month to £600 a month. I should not have to explain that that meant a significant rise in his operating costs. This kind of shock makes it so hard for micro and small businesses to survive, let alone to thrive. Given how important The Cider Barn is to the local community, what can the Minister say—and, importantly, do—to assure small businesses like Jason’s that they will be supported by this Government?
Peter Kyle
The fact that the hon. Lady’s constituent works in the hospitality sector and is located in a rural area means that he requires multiple types of support from this Government, which he is getting. We have permanently lowered the business rates multiplier for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties. That is worth nearly £1 billion and benefits over 750,000 businesses. I imagine that his business will fall within the definition of a small business. Just this week, we have introduced legislation to tackle late payments for small businesses, which will inject another £11 billion into the economy. This Government are on the side of businesses, whether they are in urban or rural areas and whether they are large or small.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Meur ras ha myttin da, Mr Speaker. Over 95% of Cornish businesses are small or microbusinesses. We are a hotbed of innovation and agility, but these Cornish businesses have been supported over the last 10 years with European Union objective 1 funding and shared prosperity funding, both of which have ended, and there is zero chance of Cornwall joining an English mayoral combined authority, so can the Minister outline how we can protect our innovative and agile micro and small businesses?
Peter Kyle
My hon. Friend is describing businesses that are the lifeblood of the British economy, and the innovation that flows from them is vital. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ rural taskforce is taking a strategic view of the challenges faced by businesses in rural areas, and I imagine that the one that he mentions will be in scope. The business growth service also includes growth hubs across the UK, which are supporting businesses in rural areas so that they can get the growth they need into their businesses.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
The Government call for evidence on the opt-out collective actions regime closed in October last year, with almost 100 responses received. I welcome the input stakeholders have provided. We are committed to economic growth and robust competition enforcement, including private enforcement, which is good for businesses, consumers and the economy. A consultation will be published as soon as possible. My officials would be happy to work with the right hon. Gentleman to discuss this work further.
Sir Julian Smith
As the Minister says, it is really important that the collective regime continues—we have a great reputation globally for our opt-out regime. The litigation finance industry is vital to supporting claims from consumers. The Government said last year that they would proceed with a Bill to restore a legal issue following the PACCAR judgment, so does she have an update on when that Bill will come forward? It was not in the King’s Speech.
Kate Dearden
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the PACCAR review involves complex issues, and it is important that we take the time needed to get it right. Great care is being taken to ensure that proposals for the opt-out collective actions balance the need to preserve a route to redress for consumers with ensuring a proportionate regime for business. As I said in my previous answer, officials would be happy to discuss this issue further with the right hon. Gentleman.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
We are helping SMEs do more trade with European countries by taking down tariff and other trade barriers in our EU-UK summit, reducing red tape in individual countries, enabling easier business travel and allowing the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, both across the EU and bilaterally. I look forward to the hon. Gentleman welcoming that.
Ben Maguire
I always welcome the cutting of red tape and I await the details excitedly. My North Cornwall constituent, Hannah Willow, runs two art businesses. Prior to Brexit, around 30% of her sales were to customers in Europe, but this has now fallen to 10%. As a result of recent tariffs on trade, her exports to the US have also declined by 20%. Now, adding insult to injury, the de minimis threshold will be removed from 1 July this year. That means that items valued at under €150 entering the EU will no longer be exempt from customs duty and will incur a flat €3 fee per item. Will the Government take up the Liberal Democrats’ call to negotiate a bespoke customs union and finally put our small businesses back at the heart of economy, where they belong?
Chris Bryant
I am afraid that I am not going to take any ideas from the Lib Dems on this matter—I think I can pretty much unite the House on that. One of the things I am very keen on is that we maintain our position as the second-largest art market in the world. That means that we have to negotiate better agreements, including with the European Union. That is one of the things we are doing at the moment.
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about the de minimis rule, but I notice that other businesses in his constituency are doing well. Tarquin’s Cornish Gin is doing well; it has been winning awards in the United States of America and elsewhere—I understand that it is the best gin in the world.
Of course, the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) is doing on critical minerals is bound to benefit Cornish lithium. We are very keen to ensure that we have that capacity in the UK, rather than the lithium just being processed in other parts of the world.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
Since publishing our steel strategy on 19 March, we have published provisional product scope and quota volumes for the new steel trade measures; further reduced electricity prices for steel companies from 1 April through our network charging compensation scheme uplift; confirmed that some steel companies will be part of the British industrial competitiveness scheme; announced new transparency requirements on the origin of steel in public procurement; set up a cross-Government working group on scrap; and introduced—today—the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill.
Mr Barros-Curtis
Last week, Sev.en Global Investments announced a £100 million investment into 7 Steel UK in Cardiff, a site that I have recently visited. Do the Government agree that that investment shows our plan to prioritise a modern steel strategy is paying off for jobs and growth while putting working people in Wales and the rest of the UK first?
Chris McDonald
I do indeed agree. The £100 million investment in 7 Steel UK is welcome news, but I met the owners of the business, and they told me that they were able to release that investment only because of the confidence they had in the Government’s approach following the publication of our steel strategy. That is a direct correlation between Government action and £100 million-worth of investment in Cardiff.
I know that my hon. Friend has been a strong advocate of the steel industry. There is an opportunity later today for Members of the House to decide whether they are on the side of the steel industry or not. I encourage the Opposition to put their ideology aside just for a moment and get behind the steel industry this afternoon— I know that is difficult when a Bill has the word “nationalisation” in its title.
Cat Eccles
May I put on record my thanks to Ministers and the Department for their ongoing excellent engagement with me and my local businesses on the steel strategy? Many of the downstream businesses in my Stourbridge constituency currently import products—including zero-carbon steel—that are not produced in the UK. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that businesses like those in my constituency are not unfairly disadvantaged by the quotas and tariffs being introduced under the steel strategy in a few weeks’ time?
Chris McDonald
I thank my hon. Friend for raising issues with businesses in Stourbridge when we met earlier this week; I am happy to continue to work with her. The measures we have introduced, which are primarily to protect the UK steel industry, are targeted at steels that are made or can be made in the UK. There are sometimes difficulties where a product code covers multiple steel grades, but that is what the quota system is intended to deal with, and of course there will be a review in 12 months’ time.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
Further to the question from the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) and my question to the Prime Minister yesterday, I am sure the Minister is aware that lots of manufacturing businesses are, frankly, screaming about the damage that the tariffs are going to do in five weeks’ time. Will he please consider an extension of the transition period to two years to allow three things to happen? First, it would allow UK steel capacity to grow in order to cover the gap. Secondly, it would allow quotas to be set correctly, so that UK businesses are not disadvantaged in the absence of UK production capacity. Thirdly, it would allow us to work out how it can be fair that somebody importing steel into the UK to produce a product pays tariffs, but somebody importing a finished product from overseas that is made from the self-same steel does not face tariffs.
Chris McDonald
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. I believe we have had representation from Stannah, the stairlift company based in his constituency. It is important to say that the Government take action like this reluctantly, but ultimately there are distortions in the market around steel. The EU taking action itself would lead to the UK becoming a dumping ground for cheap steel flooding in from overseas. We have taken a very carefully balanced approach and consulted carefully with the industry. I continue to receive representations, and, as I said, there is an opportunity for a review of the measures in 12 months’ time.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
May I gently but urgently reiterate the previous two questions? Sam, one of my constituents, has raised Dynamic Metals, an independent British supplier working on specialised steel and metals for aerospace and motorsports. We have to champion those industries in this country. From 1 July, his business will see import tariffs go from zero to more than £3 million. That is pretty much insurmountable, and this policy could have an awful impact on industries that we must champion. Will the Minister consider the points raised in the previous two questions, as well as extending the deadline and meeting my constituents and those of many others in order to understand the full impact? That way, we can stand up for our industries and support our steel partners.
Chris McDonald
I am not familiar with the situation with Dynamic Metals. I was just having a discussion on the Front Bench with the Minister for Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), and if the hon. Lady writes to him, he will look carefully at the matter she has raised.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I will carry on with the same theme, because it is clear from all sides that there are real issues with the element of the steel strategy that imposes a 50% tariff on 1 July. It is affecting manufacturing businesses up and down this country, and it is being done in a way that not only threatens manufacturing jobs, but increases inflationary pressures. Can the Minister tell the House what impact assessment he has done on the effect of these measures on inflation and on jobs?
Chris McDonald
I reiterate the point that the action that the Government have taken has been to correct an issue in the market. We have taken wide representation. In fact, we amended the list as a result of some of that representation. The shadow Minister’s point about inflation goes exactly back to the point that I made earlier. This country cannot be in a position where we say that we are prepared to buy the cheapest thing, wherever it is made in the world, to the sacrifice of our own industry. We cannot allow foreign Governments’ industrial policies to drive our own industrial policy. That is why we have taken this action—similar action to that taken by the EU. It comes down to a question of whose side are you on. Are you on the side of British industry, like the Government, or are you on the side of overseas industry? That seems to be the case being prosecuted by the Opposition.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
Pubs in Bromsgrove are vital to the local economy, supporting jobs and bringing communities together. I welcome success stories such as the Gate at Bournheath being named Bromsgrove and the villages’ pub of the year 2026, highlighting the strength of the sector. The Government are committed to backing pubs with permanently lower business rates for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties, and an additional 15% relief for pubs. We have also significantly increased the hospitality support fund to £10 million to help businesses invest, grow and remain resilient. That fund will help more than 1,000 pubs to diversify their business models, improve efficiency and productivity in the sector, and support people who are furthest from the labour market to move into jobs in hospitality.
Bradley Thomas
I thank the Minister for her response, but I am afraid that the picture she paints is not one that pubs across my constituency will recognise. A typical pub in my constituency is paying around £2,500 in additional costs a month compared with two years ago, because of a rise in energy costs, employment costs and business rates. If the Minister is serious about supporting the hospitality sector, will the Government look at a permanent cut to business rates for pubs and exempt pubs with accommodation from the overnight levy?
Kate Dearden
I understand that rising energy prices and the wider supply chain effects can place particular strain on sectors such as pubs and the wider hospitality sector, which often rely on that discretionary spending, and operate on tight margins. I have met lots of such businesses up and down the country over recent weeks, and I know that the current situation with energy prices, especially given what is happening in Iran, is causing a lot of concern. Across Government, we are considering carefully this area as part of our ongoing assessment of economic conditions and support mechanisms. We absolutely want to support our pubs and the hospitality sector, as they are vital to our local communities and high streets. It is vital that we provide the economic stability that we have shown this year, ensuring that the economy can keep growing, wages can rise, and people can have money to spend to support our pubs and our hospitality sector.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
The Government recognise the vital role that hospitality plays in keeping high streets vibrant, driving footfall, supporting local jobs and sustaining town centre services. We know that many businesses, including the Swan Hotel, Bar and Grill in Maldon, are still facing real pressures, which is why we have delivered permanently lower business rates for over 750,000 retail, hospitality and leisure properties, alongside a £4.3 billion support package, including transitional relief, to help firms to remain on the high street, invest and grow. Later this year, we will bring forward a new high streets strategy, developed with businesses, to support regeneration and help town centres to thrive.
Sir John Whittingdale
Despite what the Minister says, hospitality businesses in my constituency, and the constituencies of my hon. Friends, are reeling from the impact of higher energy costs, and increased national insurance contributions and business rates. These businesses are making it clear that if there are any further increases, they will simply not survive. Why are the Government pressing ahead with another tax in the form of the overnight visitor levy, and will she talk to businesses before proceeding with that?
Kate Dearden
The right hon. Gentleman will know that the decision on the overnight visitor levy is down to mayoral authorities. They will work really closely with businesses and stakeholders in making that decision, but he raises an important point. I recognise the significant pressures facing pubs, hospitality businesses and breweries, which are facing sustained cost increases. We are closely monitoring the potential impact of disruption to trade and the wider economy, because our priority is to keep prices down for households and businesses. Going forward, we will build on our work to cut energy bills and crack down on unfair profiteering. The new framework that we have announced will help regulators spot trouble early and protect consumers, and we will work with businesses on that. We understand and recognise the pressures, and we will work really closely with businesses to support them.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
This week, I hosted the British Beer and Pub Association in Parliament. It has more than 20,000 members across the country, including Camerons Brewery in Hartlepool. Among the many issues that it raised was this summer’s football world cup. In other parts of the UK, late licences are being permitted for all games, but in England and Wales, they are only for England and Scotland games. Will my hon. Friend make representations to her ministerial colleagues about allowing late licences for all games, so that we back our pubs and celebrate this festival of football?
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for raising such an important point. I am looking forward to getting out to the pub and supporting England in the world cup. His point about licensing is really important, and we will work closely with colleagues across Government on that.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Peter Kyle)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for not ruining my moment to shine.
I told the House that I would be an activist, interventionist champion for business. I am very pleased to say that later today, the Chancellor will announce funding for two of our foundational sectors: ceramics and chemicals. She will set out more detail to the House shortly, but I can say that we are working with industry and experts to provide the targeted intervention that those sectors need. Today’s business tells the story: this Government stand with British business when it comes to creating the resilient and growing economy that this country deserves.
Jerome Mayhew
Our economy needs access to oil. Last October, the Government announced that they were going to sanction Russian oil and jet fuel. Yesterday, they decided not to do so, on the same day that they banned new drilling in the North sea. Why do the Government support Putin’s Russian oil, but not our UK oil?
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
The thing about a Labrador is that when it has got hold of the wrong end of the stick, it is very difficult to get that stick back. A lot of hon. Members have got the wrong end of the stick about what we are doing. We are increasing the sanctions on Russian oil. Up until now, it has been perfectly possible to bring Russian oil products into the UK if they are processed elsewhere, without any impediment whatsoever. It is absolutely right that we are bringing that to an end.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
Mr Speaker
Order. We are on topicals, and I have to get other Members in. I am sure the Minister will have got it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
We recognise the vital contribution of hospitality businesses in the UK, including pubs in Carlisle, to supporting local employment and sustaining high streets and communities. They play a really important role in the cultural and social fabric of communities. I am always delighted to meet my hon. Friend.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
First, I congratulate the Government on securing the Gulf Co-operation Council deal. Success has many authors, and Members on both sides of the House have been part of these negotiations as Ministers, but a win is a win. These are—[Interruption.] These are our historical friends and allies, and this is part of a growth agenda.
Summer is approaching and young people are graduating. The Office for National Statistics reported this week that, as a direct result of this Government’s choices, one in six young people is looking for a job, but cannot find one. Sectors like retail and hospitality are shedding jobs by the thousands. Will the Secretary of State finally accept that, well-intentioned or otherwise, the Government have got it wrong?
Peter Kyle
It speaks for itself when the Opposition try to take credit for the Government’s achievements. It shows just how good this Government actually are. However, I am grateful for the hon. Member’s warm words about the GCC deal. A lot of work went into it, but of course when we came into office, we were practically on the starting line; we were so close to it at that moment.
I will be really up front about youth unemployment. This issue faces most communities in our country, and we should have much more cross-party support on it. In the interests of offering an olive branch, let me say that as someone who had a challenging pathway through education into employment, I recognise the issue. However, the Opposition must admit that, in the three years before they left office, youth unemployment went up by 250,000. Yes, we will work together, but it does—
Mr Speaker
Order. Secretary of State, my words apply to you as well as to Back Benchers, because I am trying to help your Back Benchers get their questions in. We will now hear a very quick question from the shadow Secretary of State.
Andrew Griffith
I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. I hope he would agree, cross-party, with the Tony Blair Institute, which has said that the UK must restore “dynamism” to its labour market, rather than imposing restrictions such as the Employment Rights Act 2025. Could the Secretary of State, who is a good man, at least promise me that, if he gets to serve as Chancellor in a Government led by his friend, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), he will use that chance to change the Government’s approach?
Peter Kyle
Dynamism is increasing in our economy, and that is why we have so much growth—growth that the Conservatives failed to deliver in their 14 years. As for young people, we have the youth guarantee, which includes a six-month funded programme placement that provides a rich environment for kids who were put out of work—a lot of the time, by the Conservatives when they were in government. It gets kids back into work, and does so sustainably.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Peter Kyle
Just last year, I was in my hon. Friend’s neck of the woods for the investment summit, unleashing further billions into his part of the country. I know that the automotive sector is incredibly important to him, and we are pledged to getting back to the level of automotive output we had before the Tories halved it. When we get back to that point, he will see a flourishing, booming industry, with the jobs that follow.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
According to reports in both the Financial Times and The Times, the Government have asked supermarket retailers to reduce the price of essential food items, such as milk, bread and eggs. The chief executive officer of Marks & Spencer has described the proposals as “completely preposterous”. Can the Secretary of State confirm that instead of trying to impose price controls on private businesses, his Department will look to reduce the cost of Government-imposed burdens on retailers, such as business rates, national insurance contributions and energy costs?
Peter Kyle
There will be no price cap and there will be no price controls, but I am not going to apologise for throwing everything and the kitchen sink at the cost of living challenges that we inherited, along with an economy that was broken.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Peter Kyle
I am very grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. Yes, I can say that Little Layton in his constituency is one of the 379 communities across the UK that will receive Pride in Place funding, just one of the cross-departmental packages of support that his constituency will benefit from. We will not forget. We will keep on supporting him all the way.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
Chris Bryant
I am very happy to meet the company, and the right hon. Gentleman if he want to come and see me, to talk through all those issues. It is really important, if we are to have a steel production sector in this country, to ensure that it has an opportunity to compete with unfair competition around the rest of the world. That is why we are taking the action that we are. The Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), made the point earlier that if we do not take this action on quotas and tariffs, we will be dumped on, because every other equivalent major economy to ours is taking that action, but I am very happy to look at the precise details with the company, and with him.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
Mr Speaker
Order. Please, come on! Tell me who you don’t want me to get in, because that is what happens when we do this.
Peter Kyle
My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point. The UK Government have a support package for England, with £4.3 billion to protect ratepayers. The Barnett consequentials provide support for Scotland, but where the UK Government are supporting businesses, the SNP is choking off investment and risking jobs.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Chris Bryant
Of course I am happy to meet. Maybe we should organise a meeting for several companies and several hon. Members. I am very happy to do that as soon as possible. I do not want to extend the transition period, for the simple reason that the EU, the United States and other countries are introducing very similar measures, and the danger is that we would just be dumped on. There will be a review mechanism after a year. I am very keen to meet colleagues to explain the trade-offs we are having to make.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
The Committee is meeting steel makers later today and will supply the Government with its advice from that, but I want to raise the automotive sector. We are not going to double automotive production in the way the Secretary of State wants unless we fundamentally reform the zero emission vehicle mandate. Auto makers are subsidising sales by £5 billion a year. They are transferring money to state-subsidised players, such as BYD, and battery costs have not fallen. Will the Secretary of State bring forward a whole-market review and reform the ZEV mandate for good?
Peter Kyle
My right hon. Friend, as always, gives great voice to the automotive sector. I have listened closely to the voices of the sector in relation to the ZEV mandate—it is important that we do that. It is also important that, when setting such targets, we take into account consumer demand. That is something I am very aware of and having conversations about with colleagues across Government.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Kate Dearden
Boosting opportunity and tackling youth unemployment in every area remains a priority, and helping young people into work is crucial for that. We know that some people value that flexibility, which is why I will be considering that as part of the regulations.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Cornwall has so much to offer the UK—critical minerals, floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea, defence, geothermal energy—but infrastructure, particularly ports and rail, will be critical to enable growth. Cornwall is a perfect place to designate as an industrial strategy zone. Will the Minister agree to meet me and Cornish colleagues to discuss this?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the potential in Cornwall, which is a unique and distinctive part of the country. It powered our industrial past and it will power our industrial future. I am happy to meet her and colleagues to talk more about the opportunities in Cornwall.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
The pubs in Spelthorne are under the cosh. The Minister, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), said that a review of pubs and how they are valued for business rates purposes is ongoing. She will know that the review will not be relevant until 2029. Pubs are closing today. Young people are losing their jobs today. Will those on the Government Front Bench please do more to lobby the Treasury for our pubs?
Kate Dearden
Pubs in the hon. Member’s constituency and nationwide are so important to day-to-day community life, and we are mindful of the challenges that they have faced in recent years. The number of pubs has fallen by nearly 7,000 since 2010. We know how significant that is, and I will work closely with colleagues to support pubs.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I am delighted that the Government have listened to my calls, and those of my neighbours in Stoke-on-Trent, to finally act to support the ceramics industry—calls so loud that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) has lost his voice. While we await the detail, will the Secretary of State come to North Staffordshire to meet the ceramics businesses that he and this Government are helping today?
Peter Kyle
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. The package that we are announcing today will be significant. I will not say any more, because the Chancellor will be making that announcement later. I can say, however, that the boldness of the package is a direct consequence of the voices that we have heard from MPs, including from my hon. Friend and others in Stoke—whether losing their voice or not. Those voices have been profoundly important to the scope, scale and boldness of what will be announced today.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Hospitality businesses in North East Fife support the Lib Dem call for a VAT cut for hospitality, but the Government do not seem to be moving on it. Will the Minister consult with businesses on a lower national insurance contribution band for part-time workers? Part-time opportunities are so important to hospitality and for getting younger people into work.
Kate Dearden
It was a pleasure to meet the hon. Member and the hospitality sector in her constituency recently. There are a wide range of factors when introducing new tax reliefs, and they need to happen in the usual way. The alleviation that we have already introduced on NIC is making a real difference to young people getting into employment. We will review it in the usual way in due course.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
In October, Nestlé announced 16,000 job losses, including 450 in the UK. In the light of the significant impact that this will have in York, will the Secretary of State ensure that meaningful consultation happens with the trade unions, and will he meet them to save those jobs?
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
Small businesses in Didcot’s Broadway are struggling with energy and staff costs, business rates and a rising tax burden, and the older town centre would benefit from investment and rejuvenation. For areas, such as Didcot, that did not receive Pride in Place funding, what suggestions does the Secretary of State have for funding or other forms of support?
Peter Kyle
What businesses in Didcot and right across the country need is a fast-growing economy, and that is what we are delivering.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
In my constituency we are seeing good growth in our large employers and a great skills pipeline coming through from our advanced technical college, but we need a little support for our SMEs. Will the Minister say what targeted support is available for SMEs in towns like Stafford?
Chris McDonald
My hon. Friend raises an important point about support for small businesses. It is important that their cash flow is protected and that they are paid on time—hopefully my hon. Friend will have noticed the announcement of the Commercial Payments Bill in the King’s Speech, which will give us the strongest legal framework in the G7.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Fifteen months on from the £200 million pledged for Grangemouth, and five months on from the Minister’s confirmation that prospective projects were being examined and shortlisted, what progress is being made to deliver new industry and jobs for Grangemouth?
Chris McDonald
My hon. Friend is right: £200 million is available for such projects. The initial £14.5 million of funding that was announced will help businesses to test the feasibility of their project ideas in order to secure long-term funding from the National Wealth Fund.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Back to the 1 July tariffs: the quotas are too small and the commodity codes are too broad. The steel required for aerospace can come only from, I think, SSUK, which is currently in liquidation. That grade of steel cannot be produced elsewhere—that is for commercial steel. Businesses will be bankrupted within six months—12 months is far too long. Will those on the Front Bench please listen to industry on this?
Chris Bryant
We are listening to both sides of industry, because there are the downstream users and there is the production. The truth of the matter is that UK steel production under the previous Government fell from— I think this is correct—27 million tonnes a year to 4 million tonnes a year. If we are to meet our armaments needs in future years, we need a sovereign steel capacity in this country. We have to be able to produce British steel. We have been very careful to ensure that the quotas are cutting areas only where the UK can produce that steel.
Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that expanding the use of home-grown timber in construction and manufacturing would not only support UK forestry and small businesses, but strengthen supply chain resilience and reduce our reliance on imports, which currently make up 80% of the timber we use? What specific measures will the Government introduce to support this sector as a strategic national asset?
Chris McDonald
My hon. Friend knows that I am a strong advocate of steel in construction, but she is right: there has been a missed opportunity on timber, particularly as many of our hardwood forests are coming to maturity, which means we will have a real surplus of hardwood in the UK. Something we will suffer from, though, is downstream processing of timber, so we need to look at how we can encourage more investment in the sawmills and downstream processing industry.
Mr Speaker
Order. I want to let Members know that Harriet Cross had the first topical question on the Order Paper, but she had withdrawn it. I want to reassure the House that that was a mistake, and we were following the agenda. Hopefully that will not be repeated by the Table Office.
Costs for Motorists
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
Before we come to the urgent question, let me repeat what I said to the House at the start of this parliamentary Session. The Government’s own ministerial code makes it clear that important policy announcements should be made in the first instance to this House when it is sitting. Some people seem to have very short memories. This announcement has been drip-fed to the media over the past three days. That is not in line with the Government’s own rules, and it is unacceptable. Back Benchers on either side have been elected to this House to hear such announcements first, instead of outside a Morrisons petrol station, on a bus, or on TikTok. Members should be respected. I uphold this House and I respect them, even when the Government do not. The Government have to get their act together and recognise the value of their own Back Benchers.
Sir Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if she will make a statement on the Government’s plan for costs for motorists.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
Mr Speaker, your comments have been fully noted, and I will ensure that they are fed back to the entire ministerial team.
The Government are taking steps to support households and businesses with fuel costs in response to the conflict in the middle east. A rapid de-escalation in the middle east remains the best way to bring down fuel prices. The most impactful step, of course, would be to reopen the strait of Hormuz. That is exactly why the UK Government are playing a leading role in the international effort to get shipping flowing freely. Indeed, I contrast that with the position of the Leader of the Opposition, who would have rushed us to war. [Interruption.]
Alongside this key step—[Interruption.] Mr Speaker, the boys’ club—
Mr Speaker
Order. I cannot hear what the Minister is saying. We have agreed to an urgent question in order to hear from the Minister. I am proud of this Parliament and of this country, so I want to hear what the Minister has to say.
Lucy Rigby
Alongside this key step, the Government’s priority will continue to be helping families with the cost of living, including through protecting the public finances. The Government are taking action to bear down on prices at the pump, and in November we extended the 5p per litre cut in fuel duty for a further five months. Right now, petrol and diesel are 11p per litre cheaper than they would have been under the plans we inherited from the previous Government.
Some fuels have been more impacted than others by the conflict, and we recognise that. The Government also recognise the pressures being faced by drivers and other fuel users. That is why we are introducing a package worth over £400 million that combines broad support for motorists with targeted support for the sectors most exposed to and affected by higher fuel prices.
Yesterday the Prime Minister made it clear that we will not increase fuel duty this year. The temporary 5p cut will be extended until the end of the year. Taken together, the Government’s decisions will save the average motorist over £120 this year, compared with the plans we inherited from the previous Government.
We also recognise that farmers face substantially increased costs for fertiliser and fuel. That is why we are going further and cutting the duty rate on red diesel by over a third per litre, to the lowest rate in over 20 years. That will help other users of red diesel too.
The road haulage sector is vital for transporting goods across the country. Recognising the sector’s key role and the increased costs that it is facing, we are introducing a 12-month holiday from vehicle excise duty for the majority of heavy goods vehicles. This will save a typical HGV over £600—up to £912 for some vehicles—on top of the savings that I have just described for fuel duty.
To conclude, this change is one part of our support for households and businesses. It combines universal support for motorists with targeted support for those most affected by higher fuel prices. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will update the House later today on further support measures for households and businesses.
Sir Mel Stride
May I begin by agreeing with you, Mr Speaker, and saying how disrespectful it is that this U-turn on fuel duty has already been released to the media earlier this week? The news was plastered across national newspapers on Monday, and yesterday the Chancellor conducted a visit to a petrol station with journalists, but it has taken until today for this House to be updated. This is a pattern, Mr Speaker—including, of course, the relentless briefings before the Budget last year about tax measures and fiscal forecasts. You would think that a Government with so little support among their own Back Benchers would have more respect for this place.
This change to fuel duty is yet another humiliating U-turn from a Chancellor and Prime Minister whose authority is shot. The Chancellor fought us tooth and nail on this issue. The Conservative party has been campaigning for a fuel duty freeze for months. The Chancellor repeatedly rejected those calls, creating unnecessary uncertainty for motorists and businesses. Why did it take her so long to realise that putting up fuel duty during an energy crisis is a bad idea? Does she really expect us to believe that this is all only happening, as she has suggested, because of better growth?
Let us be clear: the Chancellor has been pointing to the slight upward revision in the International Monetary Fund’s growth forecast earlier this week. That forecast was for growth of 1%, but until April the IMF was forecasting growth this year of 1.3%, so where is the supposed growth dividend? Perhaps the Minister can address that momentarily. Is the Chancellor seriously suggesting that the outlook is better now compared with how it looked at the last fiscal event? On wider measures, will the Minister confirm what has also been briefed to the press and not told to the House: that HM Revenue and Customs’ mileage rates are to be changed?
Let us be clear that this is a Government lurching from one U-turn to the next. Their mismanagement has left our economy weak. The reality is that they are in no position to support people through these cost of living pressures because they have mismanaged the economy. They have no credibility left, and clearly they have no respect for the House.
Lucy Rigby
Put simply, as I said, the shadow Chancellor’s party would have had motorists hurtling full speed towards higher fuel costs. It is only because of the action that this Government have taken that we have applied the brake to the hikes that his party would have introduced. The Conservatives would have introduced higher costs; we are keeping the freeze on fuel duty and protecting millions of motorists right across the country. Exactly as I said, we are taking further measures on red diesel and for HGV drivers.
That is on top of additional action that we are taking on the cost of living. The shadow Chancellor and I saw each other in the studios earlier this morning when I was out there talking about the free, unlimited bus travel for children that the Chancellor will update us on—
Mr Speaker
Order. I just say to the Minister that if that was being said in the studios, rather than to the House, it is not a good example—it confirms that you somehow think that Sky or BBC are more important than Back Benchers, elected by constituents across this country, who must hear it second-hand. It is not acceptable. Do not think that it is a bonus to tell the House that now.
Lucy Rigby
Mr Speaker, the Chancellor will come to the House later on today, and she—
Mr Speaker
Order. The point I was making was that you said you were doing the studios. You are here now, and I think it should have been announced here first. Do we both agree?
Lucy Rigby
My apologies, Mr Speaker. I had intended to say just then that the Chancellor will come to the House and give a full statement on everything, including the matters that we are discussing.
I am sorry that the shadow Chancellor is so upset and appalled by the recent growth figures. I am in the business of talking this country up rather than down. Indeed, I am grateful to him for highlighting that growth has been revised up, interest rates are coming down, inflation is coming down and real wages are going up. As I said, that is because of the prudent decisions that the Government have taken, all of which are allowing us to take further action on the cost of living.
The action that we are taking on fuel duty is very important. It will save millions of motorists across this country a lot of money. I will address the point on HMRC mileage rates: as I said, the Chancellor will come to the House later and talk about the full package.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
Thank you for facilitating the urgent question, Mr Speaker. I welcome the announcements on fuel duty, but I did not hear the Chief Secretary say anything about remedies for the new costs on drivers of electric vehicles. Those new costs, imposed at the last Budget, are suppressing demand for electric vehicles to such an extent that UK automakers are having to subsidise demand by £5 billion a year. That is imperilling their future and imperilling the target of doubling automotive production by 2035. Can we have a statement about what the Government will do to reform the zero emission vehicle mandate and get in place a plan that leads to a thriving auto industry, not a dying one?
Lucy Rigby
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I know how passionate he is about these issues. He refers to changes made at the Budget, which were made with the best of intentions and from the point of view of encouraging the use of electric vehicles. I believe that the Chancellor may say something on that later on.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
Like so many Labour Government announcements, the announcement to extend fuel duty relief later this year is too little, too late. When we look around the world, we see other countries acting now. Other countries are cutting fuel duty now. Other countries are cutting public transport costs now. That is why we Liberal Democrats continue to call on the Government to cut fuel duty and public transport costs now. What message does the Minister think it sends to people that the Government will take action later in the year when people are feeling the pain in their pockets right now?
On farmers, the Government will be aware that the cost of fertiliser is going through the roof; world prices are up 44%. The Minister says that there will be a further cut in duty on red diesel, but what assessment have the Government made of the cumulative impact of the war in Iran on farmers? It is clear to me that the cut in red diesel duty will not touch the sides when the cost of fertiliser is rocketing through the roof.
Lucy Rigby
The hon. Member makes a really important point about the cost that farmers are facing, but that is exactly why we are taking steps to cut the duty on red diesel by more than a third to its lowest rate in over 20 years. As I said, that will help not just farmers, but other sectors, too, including in relation to freight. I am afraid that, as so often, we hear suggestions from the Liberal Democrats, “Cut this”, “Cut that”, “Try to bring things down”—[Interruption.]—but they are never funded. We manage the public finances—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) has asked her question and I want respect given to the Minister when she is answering it, please.
Lucy Rigby
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The point is that we have to manage the public finances responsibly. We cannot put in place measures that are not fully funded, and I wish that some of the proposals being put forward were adequately backed up and fully funded.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
These are welcome announcements, and I welcome the Chief Secretary to her place. The Government have a very important convening power, and one thing that residents in Oldham raise all the time is how much they pay for car insurance compared with those in other areas. For low-paid workers, particularly those who need their car for business, that additional premium represents a lot of money going out every year above and beyond what those in neighbouring areas pay. Will the Chief Secretary convene the insurance industry and see what can be done to finally address the postcode lottery?
Lucy Rigby
My hon. Friend raises a really important issue, and I thank him for all the work that he has done in this space to try to bring down the cost for people across the country. In my old role as Economic Secretary to the Treasury, I was closer to the work of the insurance sector and the work that the current Economic Secretary is now taking forward to try to ensure that prices are brought down, but I am more than happy to convene with the new Economic Secretary and take forward the work that my hon. Friend suggests.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Obviously, the Minister is not aware that the previous Conservative Government froze fuel duty for 14 years. Some of us lobbied for the Government of the day to abolish the escalator, but we did not do it. However, may I ask her one key question? How much extra money has the Treasury obtained as a result of the rise in the wholesale price of fuel at the pumps?
Lucy Rigby
I am afraid that the hon. Member has entirely missed the fact that the plans that his Government left in place would have seen fuel duty go up. It is only because of the action that this Government are taking that millions of motorists across the country will save money.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
I welcome the efforts to support drivers at the petrol pumps, but this situation has not led to an increase in demand for electric vehicles. As the Chair of the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) has said, the automotive sector is facing a real crisis because of the ZEV mandate. I was at the Vauxhall plant in my constituency last week; there is not, and there will not be, the consumer demand to meet the escalating demands of the ZEV mandate. Will the Treasury please use its convening power across Government to bring forward the review of the mandate?
Lucy Rigby
As I said in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), I appreciate that this is a really important issue, and I know what an important issue it is to my hon. Friend and his constituency too. As I said, I am more than happy to take up the matter, and I will discuss it with the Exchequer Secretary.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
Increased fuel costs are a real pain point in a constituency like mine. Rural households that depend on their cars spend nearly £800 a year more on fuel than people who live in urban areas. Will the Government listen again to the Liberal Democrats’ demands for an immediate 10p cut in fuel duty, which would bring down pump prices by 12p per litre?
Lucy Rigby
I think that these suggestions are being made with the best of intentions, but with the deepest respect to the hon. Member, this is all motherhood and apple pie. If we want to do these nice things, we have to be able to say where the money will come from.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for recognising the important role that hauliers and freight play in our national and local economies. The steps announced yesterday will hugely support the 3,500 people in my constituency who work in transport and logistics. These are the people who keep our shelves stocked and our economies moving. Will the Minister liaise with her colleagues in other Government Departments on what other support could be made available for the logistics sector, including improved welfare facilities?
Lucy Rigby
My hon. Friend raises the important issue of hauliers and the road haulage sector. What we are discussing today is so critical to the costs that hauliers are paying, including vehicle excise duty, which of course is on top of the changes we are making to fuel duty to save hauliers money. This is one of the ways in which we are recognising the critical role that hauliers play in setting costs, including of consumer goods. All these things fit together, and I recognise how important the sector is to my hon. Friend’s constituency.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Rural drivers in West Worcestershire will be delighted that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has seen the political reality that it would have been mad to put another 5p on petrol on 1 September, but can she explain to my constituents why we are not allowing oil and gas extraction from our own basin yet we are allowing an increase in Putin-produced oil and gas?
Lucy Rigby
I am grateful to the hon. Member for her question, but if it would have been so mad to deal with fuel duty in that way, why was it her party’s intention to do exactly that? On oil and gas, we have been very clear that they will play a part in our fuel mix for years and years to come.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
The Tories oversaw the only Parliament in history where living standards were lower at the end than they were at the start. This Government, by contrast, got wages up more in a year than the Tories did in a decade, with growth and inflation rates better than forecast. Does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury agree that ours is the best possible economic plan when it comes to delivering for my constituents, including their interests as motorists?
Lucy Rigby
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. It is because of the fiscally responsible choices that the Chancellor has made that growth and real wages have gone up, and inflation and interest rates have come down. [Interruption.] These things do not happen by accident; they are because of the fiscally responsible way that the Chancellor is managing our economy. That is fiscal responsibility for a purpose, that purpose being to support working people across this country.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
I welcome the hon. and learned Lady to her new role in the Cabinet. She was an excellent colleague when she was on the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, and it does not surprise me that she is the first of her intake to make it.
It is in that spirit that I hope to be able to help the hon. and learned Lady in marking out her career. Some 90% of my constituency is rural, and increases in the price of fuel worry people. They do not put money into the economy because they do not know where that price will go. Will the hon. and learned Lady take the opportunity to do something that should have been done by the last Conservative Government? Rather than put out false figures for raising fuel duty that never happen, it would be a much better boost to the economy if people had certainty about their fuel costs.
Lucy Rigby
I am very grateful to the right hon. Member for his kind comments. I appreciate where he is trying to go with his remarks, but what we are doing with this announcement is saving the average motorist over £120 this year, compared with the plans that we inherited. By saying—as the Prime Minister has—that we are going to extend the cut until 31 December, we are trying to give people a bit of certainty and reassurance. We recognise that family budgets are really stretched at the moment, which is why we are introducing this measure, and plenty of others, to try to help people with the cost of living.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
Does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury agree that it is right that we did not rush into the Iran war and that our Government’s plans and actions to support households are responsive to changing events, rather than being knee-jerk reactions that end up causing more damage to our economy in the longer term?
Lucy Rigby
My hon. Friend’s comments again highlight that the Conservative party would have raced to war. When I said that earlier—Conservative Members are doing it again; they are shaking their heads at me. The reality is—
Lucy Rigby
Okay. One of two things is true: either the Leader of the Opposition said that she would have taken us into the conflict and she did not mean it, in which case she is really confused, frankly; or she said it and she meant it, which is demonstrative of catastrophic judgment. Neither of those things—catastrophically bad judgment or deep confusion—is an ideal quality for someone who wants to run the country.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The Government have repeatedly pointed to the fuel finder website as the best way to keep prices low through competition. Yet in my constituency costs have gone up so much that there is basically no variation between the pumps. Those high prices are crippling for everyone, but particularly for local businesses such as the fish merchants from the East Neuk, who go far and beyond North East Fife to deliver to customers directly. Driving is not avoidable for a constituency such as mine. Obviously, the Government are not looking at the Lib Dem proposals, but why do they not offer meaningful support beyond red diesel in rural constituencies? What about EV charging, for example? Often, in constituencies such as mine, people have to charge away from home because they need their car to get about the constituency.
Lucy Rigby
We are supporting motorists in a meaningful way and it is really important. The hon. Member mentioned the Competition and Markets Authority’s fuel finder scheme. The intention of that is to save households that own a car up to £40 a year. She is right that the key principle behind that is competition. We know that competition is the way that we get to greater choice and lower prices for consumers.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury reassure me that the Treasury really understands that in rural areas the cost of fuel not only relates to what motorists pay for driving but affects everything—all the goods and services provided—on sale in the shops? Therefore, rather than trying to put caps on the things that are on sale in shops, the best way to help keep costs down in rural areas is to keep fuel costs down.
Lucy Rigby
I have to tell the right hon. Member that we are not attempting to cap the prices in supermarkets and nor were we intending to do so. The Chancellor is having discussions with supermarkets, as she is with other sectors, with a view to putting downwards pressure on prices and helping people with the cost of living. As I have said repeatedly, we on the Government Benches recognise that there is a cost of living crisis out there, not least because of the inheritance we received from the Conservatives, and we are seeking to help people with those costs.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
May I thank my hon. Friend for recognising and supporting hauliers and logistics companies, such as the Malcolm Group, the UK’s leading independent provider of third-party logistics services, which is based in my constituency and supports many hundreds of jobs across Paisley and Renfrewshire South? Those companies play such an important role in keeping our shelves stocked and our economies running. I echo the calls made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan) for us to go further in supporting greater welfare facilities for drivers. Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury make some comment on the safety of logistics staff who, too often, man vehicles that are targeted by criminals?
Lucy Rigby
I am glad to hear that the measures will help the Malcolm Group in my hon. Friend’s constituency, as indeed they will hauliers right across the country. She raises, as other hon. Members have, an important point around welfare. She also alludes to freight crime, which has been discussed at length in this House and is something in which I am particularly interested, given the nature of my constituency. The Government are taking forward action to seek to deal with freight crime, as well as taking action on welfare, but I would be more than happy to convene a meeting with other Ministers and my hon. Friend on the issue.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Does the Minister agree that one of the Government’s main responsibilities is to provide energy security for its citizens? As a nation resplendent with our own resources, why will this Government not issue more licences to drill in the North sea for oil and gas, which would make us energy-sufficient and have a knock-on effect at the pumps?
Lucy Rigby
The best way to get to energy security is by doing exactly what the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero is doing at the moment with the push towards renewables. New licences in the North sea would not bring new oil and gas on stream for another 10 years, so they really are the wrong solution.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
The freeze in fuel duty will be a relief to drivers in North East Hertfordshire, but part of the reason there is such a problem is that the Conservative party’s last stint in government left public transport virtually non-existent in rural communities such as mine. We discussed earlier this week the enormous cost of HS2—more than £100 billion. If we were investing at that scale in bus services, we could provide a vastly improved network across the whole country for decades to come. Will the Government learn the lessons of the current crisis and redirect our public transport spending towards the journeys we need to make in our day-to-day lives?
Lucy Rigby
My hon. Friend raises an important point about the critical nature of bus services to the entire country. That is exactly why we are providing more than £3 billion for buses over the next three years, to cap fares at £3 and maintain and improve services. That includes funding for local authorities to put in place local fare initiatives if they wish to do so, as I believe the North East combined authority has done. We are also making reforms to bus franchising, which will allow for new and better services.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I want to come back to what the Minister said earlier about the war in Iran. She knows full well that the Leader of the Opposition did not say that she would take us into the conflict, and she knows full well that it was a NOFORN—no foreign nationals—operation and that there was never an opportunity for the UK to be involved. If she does not know that, she should go and speak to the Defence team and get up to date with the details. She has some cheek, considering that the Government have just decided that they are going to row back on the pressure they put on Russia. Given that the Minister did not explain it in her media round this morning, will she now explain exactly why the Government decided to exempt oil and oil products that originate from Russia under commodity codes 2709 and 2710?
Lucy Rigby
I wholeheartedly reject any accusation or idea whatsoever that we are somehow going soft on Russia and Putin. That is completely wrong. The new package of sanctions that we have introduced is stronger today—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I told the Front Benchers, and I am telling the Back Benchers: they have had the courtesy of being able to ask a question; I want them to hear the answer, and I need to hear it as well.
Lucy Rigby
The package of sanctions in place today is stronger than the package of sanctions that was in place last week. We have a world-leading sanctions regime in this country: at the moment, we have more than 3,300 sanctions on Russian entities, businesses, individuals and ships—the list goes on and on. Why does it go on and on? It is because of our steadfast support for Ukraine.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
Scotland is an energy superpower, so it is particularly galling for constituents and businesses in my constituency, which is a two and a half hour drive end to end, and where road vehicles are an absolute necessity to conduct daily life, to face the prices they currently face. Will the Government commit to using the hundreds of millions of pounds of extra tax revenue from VAT for a VAT freeze for the duration of the current crisis?
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
While it is good news that the Chancellor has been forced into another humiliating U-turn over her increase to fuel duty, it just delays the increase until the end of the year. The cost of living is surging, and families are feeling the pinch in every aspect of their lives. Why will the Government not give people and businesses the certainty they need and cancel the fuel duty increase altogether?
Lucy Rigby
There is absolutely nothing humiliating about the action being taken by the Chancellor and the Prime Minister to protect millions of motorists across this country. Again, I have to remind the hon. Member that the plans we inherited from the previous Government would have seen motorists paying more.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
I welcome this latest U-turn by the Chancellor to freeze fuel duty, which will help my constituents, and I also welcome the cut in duty on red diesel to help our farmers. The Government’s carbon border adjustment mechanism comes into effect on 1 January. That will increase further the cost of fertiliser, which in turn will push up the price of food. Will the Chief Secretary undertake a review of that carbon border adjustment mechanism, to protect all our constituents from further food price increases?
Lucy Rigby
I am grateful for the hon. Member highlighting the measures we are taking when it comes to red diesel. He mentions fertiliser costs. We know that substantially increased fertiliser costs, as well as fuel costs, are hurting farmers. That is exactly why we are taking these measures on red diesel, cutting the duty rate by over a third per litre from just over 10p to 6.5p, which, as I said, is the lowest rate for more than 20 years.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
I warmly welcome the Chief Secretary to her new role. My rural constituency does not have a regular or reliable bus service. It does not even have a single mainline train station, so my constituents are forced to rely on their cars to get to school or work and to care for relatives, not to mention the transport of goods. I welcome this modest freeze, but please will the Minister meet me to discuss North Cornwall being part of the Government’s rural fuel duty relief scheme? While we are there, perhaps I can explain how our excellent Lib Dem proposals are all fully costed.
Lucy Rigby
I am grateful to the hon. Member. I might ask that our meeting—when indeed we do meet, as I am happy to do so—is fully focused on the matters at hand.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Having worked in the oil industry, I understand the flow of oil products around the world quite well, and it is unquestionable that the Government have eased the prospect of Putin’s oil flowing into the UK’s oil market—that is beyond doubt. I have three questions for the Chief Secretary. Can she explain the Treasury’s calculation of the extent to which this move may benefit UK motorists? Can she explain why the Government have decided to do this, and can she tell us what she thinks the cost will be to the Government’s integrity and whether it is worth it?
Lucy Rigby
I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the decision on licences in the sanctions regime. These licences are specific, targeted and will be reviewed on a very regular basis. Given that he understands the flows of oil so well, he will know that licences are a very common part of the sanctions regime. The reason these licences are being put in place is to stage the impact on the economy. Indeed, the European Union is going to achieve a full ban by the end of 2026—it, too, is staging the impact. This is a sensible measure when it comes to our economy. What is totally beyond doubt is our steadfast support for Ukraine and the pressure that we continue to put, with our international allies, on Vladimir Putin.
Business of the House
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)
The business for the week commencing 1 June will include:
Monday 1 June—Second Reading of the Health Bill.
Tuesday 2 June—Committee of the whole House on the Armed Forces Bill.
Wednesday 3 June—Remaining stages of the Railways Bill.
Thursday 4 June—General debate on Pride Month.
Friday 5 June—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 8 June will include:
Monday 8 June—Committee of the whole House on the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill (day one).
Tuesday 9 June—Conclusion of Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill.
Wednesday 10 June—Remaining stages of the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network And Information Systems) Bill.
Thursday 11 June—General debate on the legacy of Jo Cox.
Friday 12 June—The House will not be sitting.
Jesse Norman
It is famously true that our present Prime Minister gets 100 times more animated and passionate about the performance of his football club every weekend than he does about trivial details of social, economic or foreign policy, and still more so when it comes to defeating the enemy from Manchester. So one would have to have a heart of stone not to congratulate the Prime Minister on the success of Arsenal football club in winning the premier league—I notice the astonishing lack of reaction from the Labour Benches. As we United fans say, only 11 more premiership wins to go, and Mikel Arteta will still be one short of Alex Ferguson.
In this world cup year, we remember with deep warmth and affection the heroes of 1966. I refer, of course, to the band of brothers who were so inspired by England’s world cup victory that they set up Westfields football club in Hereford. I pay special tribute to the legend that is Andy Morris—not ignoring his brilliant wife Sandra—who has been synonymous with Westfields ever since.
Whatever happens in Makerfield, it seems inevitable that there will soon be a leadership contest in the Labour party. The markets are spooked, the pundits are pontificating, the pollsters are rampant, but amid all the media speculation, there is one candidate—one extraordinary dark horse—who has not yet even been mentioned. That is why I am delighted, in relation to the leadership of the Labour party, to announce my strong support, in his bid for the top job, for the Leader of the House. Colleagues will have noticed a certain coyness from the Leader of the House about his own position last week in business questions. Make no mistake, Mr Speaker, that is the clear sign of a man preparing to throw his hat into the ring.
For months now, I have lived with a secret fear that the Government will have a reshuffle and the Leader of the House will be relegated from the light of the Chamber back into the stygian depths of the Labour Whips Office. Luckily, the Prime Minister has remained far too weak even to contemplate a reshuffle, but I ask colleagues across the House, and especially on the Labour Benches, to contemplate that hideous prospect—that drastic loss of warmth, and wit and wisdom from these proceedings. As Ben Jonson said of Francis Bacon, when he spoke, the fear of everyone was that he would make an end.
Some foolish and ill-advised people will say that this leadership bid is an improbable one, and possibly even, in this age of botox, TikTok and Justin Trudeau, that a Prime Minister should be constructed on more youthful, foolish, inexperienced and, dare I say it, sleeker lines. To which I cry shame! Fie upon these unimaginative gloomsters and naysayers. What fools they are. It is precisely that apparently diffident Clark Kent exterior that makes my candidate—our candidate—such a politically electrifying prospect. In a world in which a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer can seriously advance the total economic shambles of supermarket food price caps, any move is on the table. The Leader of the House can therefore immediately become leader of the Labour party. It is simple common sense; we barely even need to change the name.
Mr Speaker, you will be relieved to know that under my steady hand, the Leader of the House’s Labour leadership campaign is ready to roll. The website is in hand, the baseball caps and T-shirts have been ordered. As Hilaire Belloc said of Lord Lundy:
“The stocks were sold; the Press was squared;
The Middle Class was quite prepared.”
Donors are falling over themselves to associate themselves with this extraordinary political intervention.
The one crucial remaining question is what campaign slogan we should use. We thought about “Common sense with Campbell”, “Campbell for the country” or “All in for Alan”, but there are two slogans with which we really cannot fail. When he responds, I know the Leader of the House will want to take the opportunity to formally launch the campaign himself from the Dispatch Box, but perhaps he can also indicate which of these two slogans he prefers: is it to be “Yes, we Cam-bell”, channelling the spirit of Barack Obama, or more inclusively still, “Make Britain Campbell again”? A nation awaits, so may we have a debate in Government time on this vital question?
Mr Speaker
I remind the House that the most important game is being played on Sunday, between Bolton Wanderers and Stockport County. Good luck to Bolton!
Sir Alan Campbell
I see the shadow Leader of the House has had his Weetabix again this morning.
I extend my sympathies to the family of Lance Bombardier Ciara Sullivan, who lost her life in a tragic incident last week. It reminds us of the price sometimes paid by the brave men and women who serve our country so well.
Tomorrow is the ninth anniversary of the horrific Manchester Arena attack, which claimed the lives of 22 people and left many more injured. I am sure all those affected remain in the thoughts of the whole House. Last year, Martyn’s law received Royal Assent, delivering on our commitment to strengthen security at public events and venues to help to prevent another tragedy from happening. I thank all the campaigners who were pivotal in delivering that legislation.
At the end of last week, the Treasury announced an independent review on access to banking to assess how changes to in-person banking services are affecting customers. The review will be chaired by Richard Lloyd, whom many Members will know. This issue is regularly raised with me by Members, and the Government are committed to ensuring that everyone has access to the services that they need.
Fly-tipping is also an issue that Members have raised with me frequently. The Government are listening. Laws laid this week will require waste handlers to prove that they are qualified to transport waste. We are tightening the net on waste criminals, with tougher sentences for those illegally dumping waste and advanced background checks to put rogue operators out of business.
Members will also be pleased that we are cracking down on high street crime, rogue barber shops, vape stores, mini-marts and sweet shops linked to organised crime. They will face raids, closures and cash seizures under a new £30 million crackdown targeting money laundering, tax evasion and illegal working. Again, those issues have been raised in these sessions, which underlines the importance of the role that Members play in influencing future policy and decision making.
I hope that Members will be able to spend time in their constituencies over the recess and enjoy the hopefully warmer weather over the bank holiday. As an MP for a coastal constituency, I know how dangerous the sea can be and I want to highlight the Royal National Lifeboat Institution’s annual “Float to Live” campaign. This year’s campaign is being fronted by Euan Gray from Gateshead, who with his brother, Andrew, got caught in a notorious riptide off my constituency at Longsands beach in May last year. I pay tribute to the volunteers of Cullercoats lifeboat and Tynemouth lifeboat, and all the RNLI volunteers who tirelessly provide a critical service in coastal towns and villages across the UK.
Let me turn to the remarks made by the shadow Leader of the House. I am sure that his gratitude for Arsenal beating Manchester City is genuine coming from a dedicated Manchester United supporter—I am sure that it is genuine. He also reminded us about the heroes of 1966, the last time England won the world cup. I remind the House that England has only ever won the world cup under a Labour Government, and therefore I look forward to the world cup, which starts shortly.
On the other matter that the right hon. Gentleman seems preoccupied with—my candidature to be the Prime Minister—let me say that there is no vacancy for a Prime Minister. I thank him for his endorsement, which I am sure is well intentioned, but I should warn the House that there is a double edge here. Every candidate that the right hon. Gentleman has endorsed for the Tory leadership has either failed at the first hurdle or is failing in their leadership now.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
A number of constituents continue to really struggle as a result of Capita’s delays in processing their civil service pensions. Many of them have been retired for months without income. I know the Paymaster General has been holding Capita to account in various ways, but with it continuing to miss its own deadlines, can we have an update from the Paymaster General?
Sir Alan Campbell
As we have said before, these delays are unacceptable. That is not the service that people deserve, and resolving this issue is a matter of urgency. We have mandated a deadline of 30 June 2026 for Capita to restore all civil service pension scheme service levels to standard contractual agreements. The Government will continue to monitor this issue closely and press for swift action.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean), who is usually here for business questions, is probably very glad not to be here, given Arsenal’s success. It has been very good to see teams succeed in English football who have not succeeded for some time, but it was a different case in Scotland at the weekend. I congratulate Celtic on winning the league again, but as the wife and mother of Heart of Midlothian supporters, it has been a very difficult week. I congratulate the club on its amazing season.
I thank the Leader of the House for providing us with the certainty of the business for the next sitting week—it seems to be the only certainty that we have. Who knows where we will be after that? The Prime Minister may well still be in post, but there is no doubt that his fading authority is doing the country no favours. We have seen how the bond markets have reacted to the uncertainty and chaos. I fear that this Government are becoming a little like HS2: they are moving more slowly and making things more expensive for people in this country.
While the Government lay out their vision, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches believe that a crucial piece of the economic puzzle is still missing. We will continue to make the case for closer ties with our closest allies and trading partners in the European Union, but the Labour party cannot quite make up its mind about that policy. I note that the former Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), has made his pro-EU stall abundantly clear, whereas Labour’s candidate in Makerfield seems a little more unsure, despite his previous representations.
The Prime Minister’s trade deal with North Korea is impressive—I trust that he misspoke yesterday. We Liberal Democrats think that a UK-EU customs union is the single best way to start fixing the profound damage done to the British economy since Brexit, so I was disappointed that Labour MPs joined forces with Reform and the Conservatives yesterday to vote down our plans for a customs union. Those red lines are deeply damaging to our economy. Will the Leader of the House impress on the Prime Minister that, whatever his potential leadership rivals think, the Government’s EU reset Bill must include steps to negotiate such a customs union? We on the Liberal Democrat Benches will keep coming back to that issue whenever we have the opportunity to do so.
Sir Alan Campbell
As the Prime Minister acknowledged in real time yesterday, he misspoke about the trade deal, but he was absolutely clear about our relationship with Europe. There will not be a return to the customs union, the single market or freedom of movement, and the Government came into office on that basis. However, we are clear that it is in the national interest to be closer to Europe. That is good for us and good for Europe, and it is good for our security and economy.
As the hon. Lady said, an EU reset Bill will be coming through. I am sure that she will be able to put the points that she raises not just to debate, but to the test of a vote.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Sunflowers Children’s Action Group, a children’s charity in Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, on winning by popular poll on my Facebook page a £2,000 donation from Bacta, the amusement and arcades representative body? Sunflowers provides activities, respite and trips for children with life-limiting illnesses and does amazing work to support families in my local area, and this donation will help it to continue to do just that.
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Sunflowers Children’s Action Group on its brilliant work supporting children and their families and on winning vital funding. We are taking action in this area with our best start in life strategy by pledging to invest £1.5 billion over the next three years to support early years.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, who was re-elected unopposed.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
As we approach the end of the domestic football season, it is only right that we congratulate Aston Villa on winning the Europa league last night. Indeed, it was only a year ago that I was celebrating Tottenham winning the Europa league. If I may say so, however, the most vital game on Sunday is Tottenham versus Everton.
I thank the House for re-electing me as Chair of the Backbench Business Committee. I am glad that there will be a motion on the Order Paper to reappoint five Members to the Committee. On that basis, we will try to meet on Tuesday 2 June to consider applications. I understand that there are 11 new applications already, adding to the 42 we had left when Prorogation took place. I note that the Chairman of Ways and Means has granted two of those debates in Westminster Hall to reduce our burden. Will the Leader of the House grant time in the Chamber as soon as possible for the Backbench Business Committee? For those colleagues who are on the existing waiting list, the Committee will decide whether we continue with it or clean it out. I ask colleagues not to reapply until the Committee has made that decision.
Mr Speaker, you will know that I have been a champion of homeless people throughout my parliamentary career, and I was delighted that the Government eventually got through the abolition of the Vagrancy Act 1824 in the last Session. However, a statutory instrument is required to abolish the Vagrancy Act for good. Will the Leader of the House therefore arrange for the relevant Minister to make sure that the statutory instrument is brought forward forthwith, so we can get away from a position where people who are homeless can be prosecuted for being homeless? That is unacceptable and needs to be consigned to the history books.
Sir Alan Campbell
I join the rest of the House in congratulating the hon. Gentleman on his unopposed re-election as Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, not just for the next year but for the rest of this Parliament. I sincerely look forward to continuing to work with him. I will endeavour to give him and the Committee as much forward notice as I can of upcoming Backbench Business days, but I advise Members to listen to his wise words about applications. I will certainly give consideration, as he requests, to using Government time for some of the debates in the queue.
The hon. Gentleman is a staunch advocate for tackling homelessness and I remind the House that he successfully led a private Member’s Bill, which is no mean achievement. I agree that no one should be criminalised for sleeping rough and that the Vagrancy Act has no place in a just society. We have committed to repealing it in full. I will draw the statutory instrument to the attention of the relevant Minister, and I will get him the update that he seeks.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
According to recent media reports, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) has taken a £5 million gift from a billionaire living halfway across the world. Without the Guardian investigation, however, we would be none the wiser, and there are no controls on gifts for those campaigning before a general election is called. I remain deeply concerned, as do my constituents, that substantial funds may be making their way into British politics through the back door. Will the Leader of the House ask Ministers to consider how the Representation of the People Bill could tackle undeclared cash gifts and donations?
Sir Alan Campbell
As my hon. Friend says, the Representation of the People Bill will give greater transparency and security around political donations, but I will draw his concerns about the need, perhaps, to go further to the attention of the very able Minister taking that Bill through. The matters that my hon. Friend alludes to are serious allegations, and I welcome the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards looking into this matter.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
I recently visited the North Cotes shooting club in my neighbouring constituency, where hundreds of my constituents gather every week to participate in their chosen sport. They tell me that there are proposals to merge section 1 and section 2 certificates for the licensing of shotguns and rifles, but they are very different. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Minister responsible to have a look at this issue and perhaps report back to the House?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly will arrange for Ministers to look at this issue and report back to the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, to the House. Having previously had some responsibility in Government for the issues that he raises, my view is that one does not have to be a shooter to value shooting as a sport, and to value the clubs in our local communities.
Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)
Nobody should go to work, never to return home. On Tuesday 13 January 2026, Kenny Campbell Smart went to work at Corby steelworks and never returned home. Now that I have said his name, it will be written down and recorded in Hansard, and his name will live on forever. Today we are joined in the Gallery by Kenny’s wife Sally and his son Kian, who are determined that no other family should go through what they have been through. In the light of this, does the Leader of the House agree with them that we should do all we can to keep people safe at work, and that health and safety is not red tape, bureaucracy or a barrier to growth, but what keeps people safe at work? In the name of Kenny, his community, his workplace and his family, we should strengthen our laws so that this never happens again.
Sir Alan Campbell
I am sure the whole House will join me in extending our heartfelt condolences to Sally, Kian and all Kenny’s friends and family. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that health and safety in the workplace is not an inconvenience. Good health and safety practices save lives, and I will ensure that the relevant Minister writes to him to set out what further action the Government intend to take.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Nurses are at the heart of our wonderful NHS. I am delighted that two nurses from NHS Borders recently gained national recognition from the Royal College of Nursing Scotland: intensive therapy unit clinical nurse educator Karen Bacon was highly commended in the “learning in practice” award category, and Michelle Brownlee, a healthcare support worker in the ITU, was a runner-up in the nursing support worker of the year award. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Karen and Michelle, and pass on all our thanks to our hard-working nursing staff in the NHS?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will indeed join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating Karen and Michelle on their exceptional achievements. He is absolutely right to celebrate the work of all our wonderful NHS nurses, and I am sure the whole House will join me in giving thanks for all the hard work that they do.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
I am sorry to say that I have not been able to feel the same enthusiasm as the Prime Minister in recent days, and we are at odds over a big issue—Arsenal’s premier league victory. However, I join the majority of people in this country in wanting the champions league final, which Arsenal are participating in, to be a success for English football, so it is very upsetting to see that the game will not be free to air on TV. It is a moment for the nation to come together, get behind a great English football team and have a victory in Europe. Will the Leader of the House do what he can to ensure that the game is free to air for the nation to enjoy?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: such matches should be available for people to watch for free. I will raise his concerns with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to see if anything can be done.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Along with the stealthy silence of knives and the deadly danger of guns, crossbows, in the wrong hands, cost lives. As the Leader of the House will know, they cost the lives of Louise Hunt and her sister Hannah, who were murdered by such a weapon. I am delighted that the Government announced in March that they are going to ban the sale of new crossbows and license existing ones. That responded to calls that I and Members from across the House made following that awful event, but we have heard little more. All we have heard is that the Government will consult on the detailed arrangements. However, there is no detail on the timetable and nothing about means or method. Will the Leader of the House update the House, or will the appropriate Minister do so by means of a statement, so that we can be sure that there will be no hesitation, no obfuscation and no prevarication? Any of those things would cost still more lives.
Sir Alan Campbell
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there will be no hesitation or prevarication, because the Government are committed to this. However, I gently say to him—again, having had some experience myself—that we can discuss these matters and all get to pretty much the same conclusion, but implementing that conclusion is often more difficult than many people think. We should not offer something that ultimately does not work. We need to make sure that such a measure has the effect that right hon. and hon. Members desire, so there is often a delay. However, I will draw his remarks to the attention of the relevant Minister, and see if we can get the update he seeks.
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
I recently had the pleasure of visiting the Denbigh youth shed, led by the inspirational Scott Jenkinson. Youth Shedz is youth-led, with young people in leadership roles shaping their own activities, ranging from upcycling old guitars to creating comfort packs for children going into care. The Government have recently published the youth justice White Paper, in which early intervention and improving consistency are clear priorities. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time on support for community-led youth organisations that are engaging with our young people, so that Ministers can outline how initiatives such as Youth Shedz can access sustainable funding and can be expanded across the country?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to champion the great work of Youth Shedz and similar community organisations. Their work is vital to support young people in our communities. As she rightly points out, the youth justice White Paper sets out how we can make the justice system fairer and more consistent. I will draw her remarks to the attention of the relevant Minister, and see if we can find time for such a debate.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Before the next question, Members should be aware that I am aiming to finish business questions at about 12.15 pm, so it is unlikely that I will get everybody in, even if the questions are very short.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
Would the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Jenny Rayner MBE? She has managed to raise an amazing £2 million for a new wellbeing centre locally to support young people with mental health issues and get them the support they need before a crisis is reached. We in Reigate, Redhill, Banstead and our villages are so proud of what she has achieved in raising this money and supporting our young people, so would he join me in congratulating her?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely join the hon. Member in congratulating her constituent. Last week was Mental Health Awareness Week, and it is vital that we continue to raise awareness of the signs and symptoms of depression and other mental health issues in young adults. The exemplary work of people in our local communities underlines how important that is to keeping young people well.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
Angela and Terry, a couple from my constituency, were the proud owners of Otis, a little three-legged shih tzu dog. Angela, who is in her 80s, was walking Otis a few weeks ago when two rottweilers got loose and savaged Otis terribly. Angela took him to the vets and paid thousands of pounds, but, sadly, Otis died. It is very brave of Angela and Terry to speak out, and the community are up in arms. Please can we have a debate to talk about the owners of dangerous dogs, as it is the owners who are often the problem here, and about who pays when one dog attacks another?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for her important question. This is an upsetting case, and I know other responsible pet owners will be concerned about attacks in their communities. There are powers under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to protect the public, and we have reconvened the responsible dog ownership taskforce to explore further measures. When those measures become clearer, I am sure the House will want to debate them.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
Would the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Walton and Hersham football club in my constituency? They have secured promotion to the national league south for the first time in their history—an extraordinary fourth promotion in just six seasons. At a time of concern about young people’s mental health and online harms, which I know the House will debate in future, can he provide time for a debate about supporting grassroots football clubs and sports clubs? They are a diversion away from online harms and for better mental health, as Walton and Hersham show so well.
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly congratulate Walton and Hersham football club because, like other clubs across our communities, they do such important work. Such clubs are at the heart of local communities and I think they should be commended, particularly where they offer diversion activities for young people. What the hon. Member says about the importance of sport in local communities is exactly what the Government are trying to do.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Last weekend’s march saw vile racist thugs, national figures, openly fanning the flames of hatred against British Muslim communities, saying things like, “It’s time for many Muslims to leave this country” and “This is a war—we need to get ready to fight.” There were many more vulgar and dangerous statements that I am unable to repeat in this House. The incitement of hatred and violence against British Muslims in the heart of our capital should worry us all. Will the Leader of the House allow sufficient time for a proper debate to address the dangerously rising levels of Islamophobia, protections for British Muslim communities, and the consequences for those responsible?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely condemn any disorder and inappropriate language, whoever it comes from and whoever it is directed against. We do not want to see last weekend’s scenes repeated. The Government are absolutely determined to bear down on this. We are providing additional resources to protect places of worship, including mosques. New legislation in the Crime and Policing Act 2026 will address large repeated protests, as well as protests outside places of worship. My hon. Friend has been around long enough to know that if he seeks an Adjournment debate on these matters, he will be among many others who will also want to raise these concerns.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
In his business statement, the Leader of the House rightly referred to fly-tipping waste criminals. Will he allow for a debate in Government time to consider a different sort of waste perpetrated on our constituents, which is that arising from so-called energy-from-waste plants, otherwise known waste incinerators, which are more polluting than burning coal and for which the UK is already overprovisioned. We have too many of these things, they are not wanted and it is time for a moratorium. Can we have a debate on that?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will give the right hon. Gentleman a commitment that I will raise the issue with the relevant Ministers and see if we can find some time to debate these matters, should time allow.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
My constituents continue to face delays in accessing driving tests post covid. The Government’s important consultation covers tackling bot activity, bulk and speculative bookings, and improving access to genuine test slots. A driving instructor in Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney has expressed his concerns about potential booking restrictions for driving instructors and issues around examiner recruitment. Will a Transport Minister please update the House and confirm that those issues will be considered in the round?
Sir Alan Campbell
We have doubled the number of trainers for examiners, and provided 120,000 additional tests between June last year and January this year. We have also tightened up the rules on who can book and reschedule tests to avoid exploitation by online bots and re-selling, but I will draw my hon. Friend’s remarks to the attention of a Transport Minister. He can either seek a meeting with the Minister or we will get an update for the House.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
May I take this opportunity to congratulate both the SNP in Scotland on an historic fifth landslide election and Plaid Cymru on its historic win in the Welsh Senedd elections? That brings together the north of Ireland, Wales and Scotland as being represented by Governments who believe not only believe in the people, but in unlocking the nations’ potential by being independent nations in the future. The north of Ireland has a legal mandate to hold a referendum on its future. However, Scotland does not share that legal mandate. That is a glaring omission from the Scotland Act 1998, so can we have a debate on the constitutional crisis the UK now finds itself in, where Scotland has spoken with the highest ever majority for independence parties but is denied the democratic route—[Interruption] I’m sorry, but I think we are in a democratic Chamber here—to express the will of the people of Scotland?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government have no plans to change the current position. If the hon. Gentleman is seeking a constitutional crisis, it will not be of our causing —it will be of the SNP’s.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
On 26 February I raised with the Leader of the House my fears that the unreliability of the postal service might affect constituents in Glasgow West who wish to vote by post in the Scottish Parliament elections. Since then, I have been advised of a situation where a proxy vote application was received some days after the deadline, although the envelope was very clearly postmarked several days before the deadline. Will my right hon. Friend assist me in arranging a meeting with the appropriate Minister to discuss a simple amendment to the Representation of the People Bill that would grant returning officers limited discretion in such cases?
Sir Alan Campbell
As my hon. Friend will have heard, the Representation of the People Bill contains measures to increase the resilience of the proxy and postal voting systems. That is also a constant theme of the defending democracy taskforce. If my hon. Friend seeks a meeting with the relevant Minster, I am happy to arrange one.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
May I begin by sending my commiserations to the family and friends of Scottish rugby legend Scott Hastings, who died recently aged only 61? Scott was an inspirational figure, both on and off the pitch.
I am sure the Leader of the House shares my concern about the outbreak of Ebola that is affecting both the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda. Hundreds of people have already died. Can we have an oral statement when the House returns to hear what the UK is doing to prevent the spread of the outbreak? The UK played a pivotal role in stopping the previous serious outbreak, in Sierra Leone, and must have much to offer by way of expertise in relation to this one.
Sir Alan Campbell
I join the right hon. Gentleman in his remarks about Scott Hastings. Rugby is not my sport, but I recognise very much the contribution that Scott Hastings made. We send our condolences to his friends and family.
The right hon. Gentleman raises an important matter on the outbreak of Ebola, which the UK Government take very seriously indeed. Through the NHS, we have safe procedures in place in any such case of it coming to the UK, and specialist centres where people can be looked after. He asks what we are doing to help other countries. The Government are reacting quickly; the Foreign Secretary has announced a further £20 million to help contain the Ebola outbreak.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The levels of congestion on Wigginton Road are unacceptable. Residents’ air quality is affected, people are late for their hospital appointments and our whole city is snarled up because the hospital does not have a sufficient transport plan. Will the Leader of the House impress on the Secretaries of State for Health and Transport the need for hospital transport plans, and can we have a debate in Government time on hospital-induced congestion?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to be concerned about traffic and congestion in her constituency. Responsibility for managing traffic on local roads, including those near hospitals, rests with local authorities. However, she is right that it is about not just local authorities but ensuring that everyone who has a role to play actually plays that role. I will raise the matter with the relevant Secretaries of State, as she asks.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
The national cancer plan has many ambitious and urgently needed targets, but they will only be delivered when the Government properly invest in the NHS workforce. Healthcare professionals and charities want clarity on when the Government will commit to this. Can the Leader of the House urge his colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to update the House on when the workforce plan will be launched?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Member raises an important point. The Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that we have the workforce in place to deliver the changes in the NHS that are necessary in cancer and other areas. We are delivering record investment, and waiting lists are down by over 400,000—I think that is the biggest drop for some time. I will raise his specific concerns about when the plan will be launched with Ministers, and get a response for him.
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
For years now, I have been trying to help a constituent who has been the subject of repeated identity fraud via their NHS records. Meetings with Ministers have been cancelled or refused, and questions and letters to the Home Office, Ministry of Justice and Department of Health and Social Care always result in the same response: it is not their responsibility and there is nothing they can do. This is impacting on my constituent’s daily life in so many ways. Will my right hon. Friend please use his good offices to help?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am sorry to hear of the experience of my hon. Friend’s constituent; if she lets me have the details, I will raise it with the relevant Departments and see if we can get the answers that she seeks.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I want to raise a case of gift card fraud. My constituent Nigel Bannister was recently given a gift card as a birthday present, but, by the time he came to redeem it, the money had gone. This is a rising trend, where people are taking a photograph of the cards and stealing the PIN details, and claiming them before someone else can. The cards are obviously publicly available in supermarkets. I ask for a debate in Government time on this rising trend, which caused £18.5 million of losses in 2023-34.
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise this concerning matter. I will take it up with the relevant Departments to see what level of awareness there is and what they intend to do about it. Should she seek an Adjournment debate, she could also hear directly from a Minister.
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
A recently elected Reform councillor in my constituency believes that the best way to regenerate Eccles, which he described as a problem area, is to turn it into the UK’s Dubai. It might surprise him to learn that the council has already brought the town centre into public hands and, during the consultation, not one single resident raised the prospect of “Dubeccles”. Our communities need regeneration led by genuine involvement of local people, like that being in delivered in Brookhouse and Peel Green through Pride in Place. Will the Leader of the House consider a debate in Government time to ensure that local people lead in the regeneration of their towns?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is a great champion for regeneration in his area. His commitment stands in stark contrast to the approach of the Reform councillor he refers to. As my hon. Friend and the whole House will know, the Government are already taking action to regenerate our high streets, with £5.8 billion of Pride in Place funding to deliver for places like Eccles. I will think about whether we can find some time to debate the success of that programme.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
In February, I asked the Minister for Care about access to dentists in rural areas. He said from the Dispatch Box that he would write to me with the numbers of how many more dental treatments have been provided in my constituency and integrated care board area. I was concerned when the Minister replied that Somerset ICB delivered 5,559 fewer NHS dental treatments in the seven months to October 2025 compared with the same period before the election—that is 4% fewer dental treatments in Somerset under Labour. Will the Minister give a statement to explain why dental services in Somerset are getting worse under this Government?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am not sure the hon. Gentleman should necessarily draw that conclusion; as he will be aware, the Government are committed to improving access, but, as he will also know, it takes time to turn around the system that we inherited. He is right that if he gets information from Ministers, he should also get an update on the progress that we are making. I will ensure that he gets that from the relevant Minister.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
I pay tribute to Councillor Angela Loughran, who has sadly passed away. She first represented the Manor ward in ’97, and worked tirelessly for her residents for nearly 30 years. A previous teacher, she was a true public servant, and she will be greatly missed by her friends, family and the wider Stafford community.
In a recent survey of more than 500 residents, 61% cited the return of an indoor market in Stafford as their top priority. I am campaigning with residents for that: a lively, all-day destination that draws in people from across the town and beyond, and will create local jobs. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate on the contribution of indoor markets to local economies in towns like Stafford?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Councillor Angela Loughran. Local figures like her truly embody the spirit of the community they serve. I also recognise the importance of the issue that my hon. Friend raises for the people of Stafford. I encourage her to apply for a Westminster Hall debate on the impact that indoor markets can have on local economies, as I am sure there will be others who share her enthusiasm and support for such markets.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
A student on a night out is stabbed multiple times with a 21 cm knife. He is lying in a pool of his own blood, literally drowning in his blood. The police come to the scene, but instead of doing everything they can to save his life, they handcuff and arrest the lad because there is an accusation of racial abuse. This is a scandal. Will the Home Secretary come to House and say what she is doing to investigate the way that the police conducted this matter, and can we have a debate on two-tier policing, which is doing so much to undermine respect for the police and the rule of law in this country?
Sir Alan Campbell
The right hon. Gentleman raises an important and distressing matter. I assume that the police investigation is ongoing. There are ways in which the actions of the police, if they were as he describes, can be investigated. I am not going to comment on that and interfere, but I can tell him that the Home Secretary takes absolutely seriously not just the issue of knife crime but the protection of citizens, whoever they happen to be.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
Last weekend, West Lothian Danceworld, founded and led by Hazel Saunders Dunn, celebrated its 40th birthday with shows at the prestigious Usher Hall in Edinburgh. Over the years, Danceworld has given thousands of young people the chance to showcase their talent, refine their dance skills, build confidence and forge lifelong friendships. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating West Lothian Danceworld, and in wishing all the students and teachers every success for the next 40 years?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in congratulating West Lothian Danceworld on its remarkable 40th anniversary. As she points out, dance is a brilliant way to support young people and build their confidence. I praise not just the students but the teachers for their commitment, and I wish them every success in the future.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
While there has been talk of the shenanigans of some minor football teams, it would be remiss of me not to mention the mighty Bromley FC, the only English football league club that is blessed with a Conservative MP and that has been crowned the champion of league two—probably as a direct result.
At one of my surgeries recently, I met Lorraine and Satvir, who are both Vodafone franchise holders and employ a lot of people in the area. They signed a contract in good faith relating to fluctuation of commission rates, so when Vodafone cut that commission rate by 50%, they were left out of pocket, and they feel that they were treated badly. Can we have a debate to discuss franchising regulations?
Sir Alan Campbell
I suggest that the hon. Gentleman seeks an Adjournment debate on the subject, because if that is happening in his constituency, it might be happening elsewhere. If so, I am sure that there will be other colleagues who want to hear directly from a Minister on what the Government intend to do about it.
Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House join me in recognising the remarkable work of the Susan Vickers Foundation? Its care-experienced team is changing the lives of care-experienced families, including by providing free rail travel and cinema access, thanks to partnership with London Northwestern Railway, West Midlands Railway and Cineworld. Will he also commend Rethink Mental Illness and all the community groups involved at the Hub at Wolverhampton station, as they mark their first year helping thousands across our city?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly join my hon. Friend in recognising the work of the Susan Vickers Foundation, Rethink Mental Illness and everyone involved in the Hub at Wolverhampton station. Last week was Mental Health Awareness Week, and this year’s theme was action. Charities and community organisations play a huge role in supporting those struggling with mental illness, and I thank everyone involved for their commitment and service.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Earlier this month, I was delighted to at last receive a response from the Department for Work and Pensions to a letter I wrote on 25 November last year, raising a constituent’s case. That is more than a five-month delay; the original acknowledgment said that it aimed to respond within 15 days. Such a delay is unacceptable, and this is by no means an isolated case; I have had multi-month delays in several other cases. What are the Government doing to improve departmental complaint processing times, so that constituents and MPs get a response within a reasonable timeframe?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Lady will know that I am keen for Departments to respond in time and fully to MPs, because that is part of their job. Of course, some Departments will find it more difficult to respond, not just because of the complexity of the issues involved, but because of the number of letters and parliamentary questions that they get. However, I will draw her remarks to the attention of not just that Department but other Departments. We constantly remind them of the need to maintain a standard.
Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
According to a CBI report published in 2025, the contribution of the wood panel industry to the UK economy was £1.1 billion gross value added. Given that significant contribution, will my right hon. Friend make time for a debate on how the Government’s industrial strategy will support the UK timber and wood sector, including through measures to strengthen domestic supply chains, increase the use of sustainable British timber in construction, and support rural jobs and net zero ambitions?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise those matters on behalf of her constituents, and others in rural areas. I will raise them with the relevant Minister and get an update on how the Government intend to make progress on this matter.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
Yesterday, the Climate Change Committee laid out in stark terms the risks that we face as a country if we do not tackle the impact of climate change; one of those was drought. That is especially pertinent in Mid Sussex and across the south-east, which is extremely water scarce. South East Water is already warning about its ability to meet the demands of a growing population. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on how the Government intend to reconcile their housing targets with the region’s finite water resources?
Sir Alan Campbell
As the hon. Lady will know, the Government intend to bring forward a water Bill in this Session. She will be able to raise her concerns directly as that legislation makes progress.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
Kent Fire and Rescue Service will shortly launch a consultation on its modernisation as a result of a shortfall in funding. As a former public sector worker, I recognise the importance of reforming our emergency services to ensure that they remain effective and efficient. It is equally vital that services respond to the evolving risks faced by local communities, particularly in rural areas. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the importance of fire and rescue services, their funding, and the steps needed to protect provision in rural communities?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises an important matter. I place on record our thanks to firefighters and fire service staff for all the work they do. He will know that the Government are committed to working with the fire sector to ensure that the funding system remains fair and responsive, but I will ensure that the relevant Minister hears his concerns.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Woking’s only brewery, Thurstons, is sadly closing down. The owner, John Mintram, said:
“It’s all getting too expensive…People are feeling the squeeze—you can’t sell £8 or £9 pints.”
Will the Government please apologise to the owners and customers of Thurstons for what they have done to the hospitality sector, and agree to a debate on ensuring that they properly support the brewing and pub sector in the future?
Sir Alan Campbell
I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question. The Government have done, and continue to do, a great deal to support the sector, but the hospitality sector knows, and he will know, that the best way to help the sector is to get the economy growing, so that people have money in their pockets, and can spend it in the sector. The first priority of the Government is to tackle the cost of living crisis and get the economy growing.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Hoarding disorder is a distinct mental health condition, although it is often confused with obsessive compulsive disorder. Hoarding disorder causes individuals to fill their home with items that they feel unable to discard, even when it causes danger and a risk of physical injury. It is believed that up to 3 million adults in the UK suffer from this chronic and progressive condition. Does the Leader of the House agree that it is time to have a national hoarding strategy offering a consistent, comprehensive approach to care, and prioritising early intervention and clear pathways for specialist mental health support?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is right to raise this matter; the impact of hoarding can be severe. There are no plans for a specific hoarding strategy, but the Government have announced plans for a new mental health strategy, which will seek to provide the right support to people with a mental health condition. The call for evidence is live now, and I encourage him and others across the House to contribute.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
My young constituent Alex is paralysed after a dreadful road accident a couple of months ago. He wants to return to Loughborough University for his third-year studies as soon as possible. He has been told by the wheelchair services team that he has to have a 27 kg wheelchair to start with, before he can get a different one, as “that’s what everyone gets”, even though he will never have the strength to operate it, as it is too heavy. The staff know this, Alex knows this and his parents know it, but there seems to be no way to stop the madness and waste, and to get a wheelchair that meets his needs. Will the Leader of the House please ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to review the NHS wheelchair policy, so that patients have appropriate equipment from the outset, rather than time and money being wasted and patients and their families being caused such unnecessary distress?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am sorry to hear of Alex’s experience, because the Government want individuals to get the support that they need, not just generalised support. I hope that the people who make these decisions listen to what the hon. Lady has said, but I will also draw the matter to the attention of the relevant Minister and get the hon. Lady an update on what the Government are prepared to do on this.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Recently, I attended an incredibly informative special educational needs and disability roundtable organised by PEGiS—the Parent Engagement Group in Stoke-on-Trent. As we know in this place, we make our best policy when we listen to people with real, lived experienced, so will the Leader of the House please join me in recognising the incredible work of Michelle and the PEGiS team, who have worked tirelessly for many years to ensure that the voices of families are heard?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly join my hon. Friend in recognising the incredible work of Michelle and the Parent Engagement Group in Stoke for their work to make sure that the voices of families are heard. The Government are absolutely committed to making sure that the SEND system works for every child, and our education for all Bill, announced in the King’s Speech, will make sure that every child is able to thrive.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Hon. Members will remember the harrowing images of three-year-old Alan Kurdi, who was found lying dead on a beach in Turkey after drowning when the boat that he and his family were on sunk. A Reform candidate at the 7 May elections, in describing that situation, blamed it on his parents’ “greed”. That candidate was very close to winning. Today, East Sussex Conservatives have done a deal that has allowed Reform to take control of East Sussex county council, despite Eastbourne voting against that. Will the Leader of the House grant an urgent debate on how we can ensure that towns like Eastbourne are governed by those they actually voted for?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am appalled to hear of the comments of the Reform candidate. As for Reform coming together with the local Conservative group to run the council, I just advise both of them: be careful who you get into bed with.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
There has been some talk about football. I think we should all be celebrating the glorious victory of Raith Rovers in the Challenge cup.
Results from a survey of Burntisland residents that I conducted suggest that 87% of people experience difficulties using Burntisland station, due to the lack of step-free access. For railway users across my constituency, including those in Cowdenbeath and Kinghorn, who face similar barriers, that is unacceptable. It makes life harder for those with mobility issues, luggage, buggies and bikes. Does the Leader of the House agree that Network Rail should prioritise accessibility upgrades at those stations, and will he make time for a debate on railway accessibility?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government are absolutely committed to improving the accessibility of the railway, including through the Access for All programme, and I am sure that Network Rail will have heard my hon. Friend’s comments. The Railways Bill makes it a legal requirement that the interests of passengers, including those with accessibility needs, are at the heart of decision making on the railway. I am sure that my hon. Friend will want to make her voice heard during proceedings on that Bill.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
During a recent visit to DHL in my constituency, I heard yet again about the growing financial burden of the Merseyflow bridge tolls on those travelling to work. DHL wants to expand its operation in Runcorn and double its workforce, but it is struggling to attract people. The bridge tolls have become a costly barrier to employment and economic growth. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate on the economic impact of the bridge tolls in communities such as Runcorn and Helsby?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government are absolutely clear that we want to see the economy grow and companies grow, and nothing should get in the way of that. I will draw the hon. Member’s remarks to the attention of the relevant Transport Minister, but she might also want to seek an Adjournment debate, in which she can hear directly from the Minister.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
For the final question, I call Laurence Turner.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In Birmingham Northfield and across the country, there are many reports of inappropriate houses in multiple occupation that prove actually to be poor-quality supported exempt accommodation. At its best, SEA can provide a valuable service, but at its worst it can be a byword for neglect, antisocial behaviour, exploitation and serious organised crime. Please can parliamentary time be found to discuss the need to bring forward proper regulation and end the unacceptable blight on the lives of many of our constituents?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising again a matter that has been raised with me on a number of occasions. Local authorities have planning powers to limit the proliferation of HMOs, but we keep regulations under review. I will consider his request for time for a debate, but I will also ensure that the relevant Minister hears his comments and gives him an update urgently.
Madam Deputy Speaker
That concludes business questions. I have a list of Members who were unsuccessful in catching my eye today, but may I ask Members to reflect on the length of their questions? With such long questions, it is really difficult to get everybody in.
Middle East: Economic Response
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Before I call the Chancellor to make her statement, I have to say to her that Mr Speaker has checked the ministerial code, which makes it clear that important policy announcements should be made in the first instance in this House when it is sitting. This House and its Members should be the first to know what the Government are doing—not TikTok. Posting videos on social media to announce new policies before informing this House is not in line with the Government’s own rules. This is a new parliamentary Session and Ministers must do better. I call the Chancellor.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. With permission, I will make a statement on the Government’s economic response to the war in Iran and the action that we are taking to support families and businesses with rising costs.
The Government have the right economic plan. I said I would grow the economy, and last week the Office for National Statistics confirmed that Britain’s economy was the fastest-growing in the G7 for the first quarter of this year. We beat the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecast in the spring, with economic growth at 0.6% in the three months to March. And because of the resilience of our economy, this week the International Monetary Fund upgraded Britain’s forecast for this year.
I said I would cut borrowing. Borrowing last year was £20 billion lower than the previous year, and the latest forecasts show it falling in every year of this Parliament. The IMF has backed our economic plan, saying that the Government’s fiscal framework strikes
“a good balance between deficit reduction and growth-friendly spending”.
I said I would cut the cost of living. Since the election, interest rates have been cut six times; real wages have continued to rise in every single month since I became Chancellor; and yesterday the ONS confirmed that inflation fell faster than expected in April, making the UK the only G7 economy where inflation fell last month.
We have the right economic plan, but the conflict in the middle east poses a significant challenge to the world’s economy, including our own. I have not shied away from my criticism of the war; I believe it to have been a mistake. Nor have I ignored the costs that it will bring to bear on the British people. I have been clear-eyed about my duty to do what I can to support families and businesses; to be responsive to a changing world, and responsible in the national interest.
Next week, Ofgem will confirm the level of the energy price cap that will apply from July. I know that any increase will be felt by families. Because of the decision I made in last year’s Budget to cut £150 from energy bills, we have lessened the impact of rising prices, and current external forecasts suggest that the cap from July will be at a similar level to the cap in April last year. We stand ready to act if market conditions worsen significantly later this year, and I have been leading cross-Government contingency work on the design of potential future targeted and temporary support.
For businesses, any support will also need to be carefully targeted at the firms most exposed to the crisis, but although many firms have been insulated from recent price rises through fixed-price contracts, there are sectors that face particular structural issues related to energy costs. That is why we have already increased support for our most energy-intensive industries through the British industry competitiveness scheme, which we have brought forward. It is also why we have built resilience in our critical infrastructure and industrial strategy sectors, where supply chains are critical for growth and security.
Following representations from my right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) and my hon. Friends the Members for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) and for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan), and building on the good work of the Minister for Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), I am today establishing a £350 million critical chemicals resilience fund to support strategically important producers. Having listened to hon. Friends, including my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams), for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) and for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth), as well as workers represented by the GMB union, I am today announcing a new £120 million fund to help our historic ceramics sector, helping it to increase efficiency and drive down energy costs. We will always stand up for British industry and British jobs.
This week, the Government have also set out additional, targeted support for those businesses most exposed to rising fuel costs. We are granting hauliers a 12-month road tax holiday for heavy goods vehicles, saving the typical heavy lorry up to £912. To support farmers and the rail freight industry, I have decided to cut duty on red diesel by over a third until the end of this year, and having heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) and the trade union Unison, I can today announce a 10p per mile increase in tax-free mileage rates, backdated to April 2026. This will benefit those who need to drive for work, from care workers to plumbers.
When a country faces challenges because of higher oil and gas prices, we must ensure that those who benefit from increased prices and volatility pay their fair share. In my first Budget, I extended and increased the energy profits levy. Last year, I announced a new permanent windfall tax regime on oil and gas prices. Last month, I increased the electricity generator levy, alongside further action to weaken the link between high gas prices and electricity prices. Today, I am bringing forward specific changes to the taxation of foreign branch profits, changing how companies are taxed in relation to their overseas activities. Currently, some oil and gas groups that operate overseas through foreign branches have structured their tax affairs in a way that ensures they pay little or no corporation tax on their UK energy trading profits. Today, we are putting an end to that practice. We expect these reforms to raise hundreds of millions of pounds a year and fund the package of measures set out today, with costings certified by the OBR forecast in the usual way.
I know the pressure that family finances are under, which is why I have already taken action to provide help. I have increased the national living wage and the national minimum wage to their highest rates ever, frozen prescription charges for two years in a row, and frozen rail fares for the first time in 30 years. I have also taken £150 off energy bills, which contributed to last month’s fall in inflation. However, I want to go further, and today I am taking further action to ease the burden on family finances.
First, on fuel duty, I have already extended the 5p cut twice since the election. I can confirm today that there will be no rise in fuel duty this year, recognising the pressure that the war has put on fuel prices.
Secondly, I know that the cost of the weekly shop is often one of the biggest worries for families, so last month I met supermarkets to urge them to do all they can to keep prices low. Today I am taking action by suspending tariffs on over 100 different foods sold in supermarkets. I am clear that I expect supermarkets to pass those savings on in full to their customers.
Thirdly, I will not tolerate any company exploiting the current situation to make excess profits at consumers’ expense. As such, I am bringing forward tough new powers so that the Competition and Markets Authority and other regulators can take action when firms break the rules.
Fourthly, for many families, driving is not always an option. Buses are the most popular form of public transport in Britain, with over 4 billion journeys made last year. I have already extended the £3 bus fare cap to March 2027, and today I can confirm that bus travel across England will be free for children aged between five and 15 throughout August.
Finally, I recognise that what matters for families is not just getting by, but being able to enjoy time together without worrying about the next bill. That is why I am launching the great British summer savings scheme, to help families and to support our hospitality sector. I can today announce a temporary cut in the rate of VAT on summer attractions from 20% to 5% over the summer holidays. This will apply to ticket prices for both adults and children, covering attractions such as fairs, theme parks, zoos and museums. It will include children’s tickets for cinemas, concerts, soft play and the theatre, and it will also cut the cost of children’s meals in restaurants and cafés from 20% VAT to 5%. These changes will apply across the UK from the start of the Scottish school holidays on 25 June and will run until the end of the school holidays in England, Wales and Northern Ireland on 1 September.
This Government have the right economic plan. We promised to grow the economy, and we have. We promised to cut inflation, and we have. We promised to cut the cost of living, and we are—promises made by a Labour Government, promises delivered by a Labour Government. I commend this statement to the House.
Sir Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
I thank the Chancellor for advance sight of her statement—although the press, of course, got even more advanced sight of it.
The decision taken to cancel the increase in fuel duty is welcome—it has been a long time coming. The Conservative party has been campaigning against the fuel duty rise for months, but the Chancellor has defended that policy repeatedly, leaving motorists and businesses worried about even higher fuel prices in September. It was always obvious that the fuel duty increase would need to be cancelled—obvious to everyone except the Chancellor. Why did she fight us on fuel duty for so long? Why has she been so hellbent on raising fuel duty during an energy crisis?
Well, the inevitable U-turn has finally come, but it is astonishing to hear the Chancellor claiming that the Government can afford to help households because the forecasts have improved. Is she seriously suggesting that the economic outlook is now better than at the time of the last fiscal forecasts when we have had the Iran conflict, to which our economy is highly exposed thanks to this Government’s ruinous choices? The Chancellor has just pointed to the IMF forecast being upgraded this week. Let us be very clear about what is going on here: the IMF adjusted its growth forecast for this year up slightly to 1%, but until April it was forecasting 1.3%. Where exactly is the supposed growth dividend? Will the Chancellor directly address that point?
This is exactly the same game that the Government played last year when they U-turned on cuts to the winter fuel payment. They claimed then that they were U-turning because the economy was improving when, of course, they were doing it due to political pressure. Nobody bought it then and nobody is buying it now. Once again, we have a weak Government caving in to the inevitable after spending months defending a truly terrible decision.
The Chancellor claims that the measures announced today will be funded by a number of different tax measures, but most of the ones she mentions are already in place and baked into the OBR’s forecasts. Given that the Chancellor has not announced any measures to control Government spending, will she confirm that, in fact, the measures that she is announcing today will be funded, at least in part, by yet more Government borrowing? Will she also confirm whether fuel duty rates will still rise to the same level as previously planned after December, or will today’s announcement mean a permanent reduction in fuel duty?
Although we in the Opposition welcome some of the measures that the Chancellor has taken today, such as the increase in mileage allowances, it is all very minor compared with the inflation this Government have fuelled since coming into office and the tax rises that the Chancellor has imposed. Today’s announcements will bring little comfort to the hundreds of thousands of people who have lost their jobs, the countless businesses that have folded and the high streets that are now hollowed out. The reality is that we are in a terrible position to deal with the consequences of the latest energy crisis, thanks to the actions that this Government have taken.
The Chancellor claimed that growth is up; it is actually down. She claimed that borrowing is down; it is 75% up compared with the plans that she inherited. She claimed that she is fighting inflation; we have the highest inflation in the G7. She claimed that she is cutting energy bills; energy bills have gone up under this Labour Government. And of course, she did not mention unemployment.
On energy, this Government have made a conscious decision not to exploit our own natural resources in the North sea, weakening our economy and our energy security while importing oil from Putin’s Russia at the cost of Ukrainian lives. Families and businesses are facing rising costs and rising taxes. People are losing their jobs. The country is hurting. If the Chancellor were serious about the challenges we face, she would commit to getting spending down, tackling the benefits bill and getting taxes down to strengthen our economy. Yet thanks to the Chancellor’s mistakes and the weakness of this dying Government, today’s statement is all we get. Does the Chancellor really think that that is enough?
Rachel Reeves
Let me take the issues that the shadow Chancellor has raised. On fuel duty, when I became Chancellor of the Exchequer, the freeze in fuel duty was due to expire, under the plan set out in the Conservatives’ final Budget, within a matter of months. I have frozen fuel duty twice already and I have frozen it again today; indeed, I have frozen it with more than three months to go before the increase was due to happen, giving people plenty of time.
I have always said, since the middle east conflict began, that I would keep an eye on what was happening to oil and gas prices and set out plans ahead of the change due to come into effect in September. That is exactly what I have done. I have also gone further in three specific areas, with additional support for hauliers, additional support for red diesel—particularly helping the rail freight industry and farmers—and the higher mileage rates. The shadow chancellor says he welcomes the changes on mileage rates. It is the first time they have been increased since 2011, so if he welcomes them so much, why did the Conservatives not increase them when they had 14 years in government?
On the Iran conflict, let us remember that this is a war that the UK did not start and this Government chose not to join, whereas the Conservatives and Reform were cheering on the conflict every step of the way. The impact on the UK and global economies would be much more severe if we had heeded the pleas of Reform and the Conservatives to join that conflict.
The shadow Chancellor talks about inflation and growth. Yesterday, the numbers showed that inflation had fallen; we are the only country in the G7 where inflation fell last month. The IMF has revised up our growth forecast and we had the fastest growth of the G7 in the first quarter of this year. The shadow Chancellor asks whether that will be paid for with new borrowing. No, it will not. If he had been listening, he would have heard the changes we are making around the foreign branch exemption. That will raise hundreds of millions of pounds a year, which is why we are able to afford the package that we have announced today.
The shadow Chancellor mentioned high streets. Because of the Pride in Place money that I announced at the Budget, the banking hubs and the changes that we made to business rates, which have seen those rates for retail and hospitality come down significantly compared with the plans we inherited from the Conservative Government, we can reinvigorate our high streets.
The shadow Chancellor mentioned borrowing. Borrowing has fallen below 5% for the first time since 2019 because of the actions that I have taken as Chancellor. Borrowing is expected to fall in every year of this Parliament—very different from what happened under the Conservatives. Employment and activity remain in the top half of the OECD and the G7. The biggest benefits boom came under the last Conservative Government, when the shadow Chancellor was the Work and Pensions Secretary.
Oil and gas will play an important role in our economy for many years to come, but we also need to invest in renewable energy, which is why we announced yesterday restrictions in the number of judicial reviews, which are holding up investment in clean energy. It is a shame that the Conservatives voted against our Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 and it is a shame that the Liberal Democrats abstained on it. We are determined to get Britain building, including building the energy infrastructure we need to get bills down.
Just a couple of weeks ago, I announced changes around tie-backs to make it easier for oil and gas companies to exploit their reserves of oil and gas in the North sea. Jackdaw and Rosebank would have gone ahead if it had not been for the last Government messing up the way they legislated. We will shortly announce the decisions, which the Secretary of State for Energy and Net Zero will make. I am very clear that oil and gas will play an important role in the UK for many years to come, adding to our energy security alongside investment in nuclear, small modular reactors, floating offshore wind and onshore wind and solar, opposed by the Conservative party.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
It never fails to amaze me that the shadow Chancellor tries to lecture this Government on inflation when many of us were here in September 2022 when the Conservative party crashed the economy. I welcome my right hon. Friend’s interventions. I am particularly interested in the cut in VAT in the leisure sector, and I hope that she will commission a full study from the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury about the impact, because it could be a great way to fuel, promote and keep our stretched leisure and hospitality sector going. Will she commit to that?
Rachel Reeves
I agree with my hon. Friend that we will take no lessons from the Conservatives on inflation, when it reached more than 11% when they were last in office. On VAT in the leisure sector, we are making the changes from 25 June right until 1 September to help boost the hospitality sector but also, crucially, to help families during the summer. Our expectation is that this will cost taxpayers money, but it is funded through the changes that we are making around the foreign branch exemption, so companies cannot book losses overseas to avoid paying their fair share of corporation tax here in Britain.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
I feel as though we are slightly through the looking glass. For six months, we Liberal Democrats have been calling for an emergency temporary VAT cut for hospitality, leisure and attractions, and our pledge was fully funded. For weeks, we have been calling for an emergency transport package, fully funded using the additional revenue from higher VAT rates and the EPL. All that time, we were told repeatedly that it was impossible to do those things and there was no additional money. Somehow, with the prospect of a by-election in Makerfield and the Prime Minister’s political life being on the line, the money has been found.
Let me ask the Chancellor two questions. First, I genuinely welcome the Government’s focus on the cost of food, which is of huge concern to the constituents of Members of all political parties. However, is there any risk that short-term gain might result in long-term pain? In looking at the tariffs, has the Chancellor had any conversations with the food manufacturing industry about whether it can remain competitive? Does removing the tariffs inadvertently risk undermining our food manufacturing sector? If there is a risk, will she look at our plans for a good food Bill and for promoting nature-friendly farming? I ask that question in the spirit of constructive opposition.
Secondly, the Chancellor and her Ministers will know that we are due to have a very hot summer. That means huge demand for outdoor attractions, because children will want to be outside in the hot weather. Indoor attractions, such as soft play centres, will not benefit so much, because there will not be much demand for them in the summer months, but there will be in the winter months. Will the Chancellor look carefully at the differences within the sector? Children are priced out of play when they need to go indoors in the winter months, but not so much in the summer months.
Rachel Reeves
I thank the hon. Lady for those questions. I am not sure whether she welcomes the changes around the foreign branch exemption, which is what will pay for the policies announced today by ensuring that companies pay their fair share of tax in the UK. Unless we can say where the money will come from, all that results is higher inflation and interest rates in the future. That is why I have always been clear that everything I will announce will be fully costed and fully funded.
On food, the hon. Lady cannot both say that she welcomes help with the cost of living, and then be a bit uncertain about tariff reductions. We have focused the tariff reductions on food products and agrifoods that we do not produce in significant quantities in the UK. We work very closely with the Department for Business and Trade in identifying those sectors.
On indoor and outdoor summer activities, I have had enough family holidays in the UK to know that there are plenty of days when it rains. I am sure that the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), will be visiting a soft play centre soon.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I declare an interest as chair of the all-party group on ceramics. I thank the Chancellor for today’s announcement, and the Secretary of State for Business and Trade and the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) for their support. This is a big step towards support for a sector that offers so much to this country. I thank Sharon Yates and Finbar Bowie from the GMB, as well as Rob Flello and Hannah Ault from Ceramics UK, for their leadership in this matter.
May I extract from the Chancellor a commitment that this is the next stage of a new partnership between the UK Government and UK ceramics? Today’s announcement will absolutely help us survive, but with more working together, we can thrive as a sector and do our bit to boost exports, boost growth and create well-paid, unionised jobs in this country.
Rachel Reeves
I pay genuine tribute to my hon. Friend for his work on behalf of businesses and working people in his constituency, to the other Stoke MPs, and to my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) and for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth). They have made the case powerfully and convincingly. I absolutely commit to working with Ceramics UK, the GMB, the MPs and the wider sector to ensure that the ceramics industry thrives in the UK.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
On tariffs, I want to explore what the Chancellor said about “significant quantities”, because a significant quantity for a supermarket can be of a completely different scale from a significant quantity for a small South Shropshire farmer. Will the Chancellor guarantee that no South Shropshire farmers will be undercut by the measures on tariffs, and that none of the supermarkets will pass on the cost cuts to British farmers?
Rachel Reeves
It is important that we help our constituents with the cost of living. The tariff reductions that I have announced today will save the British shopper £700 million. That is a significant reduction in the cost of the weekly shop for families across our country. We have chosen the tariff lines carefully. The full details will be published, and we will consult over the next week or two to ensure that we get them exactly right, but we have worked hard to make sure that the reductions do not affect British farmers. That is why we are also helping British farmers with the changes we have made on red diesel.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, which is great news for the cafés and restaurants in my constituency, of which there are many, and for the very many showmen and women who run Scotland’s and Britain’s great fairs. I note that the Conservative party objects to all this, but it is the Conservative party that left us with debt to GDP of almost 100%. There is nothing progressive in running debt levels like that, and the Chancellor is right to focus on paying that debt off.
Many of my Glasgow East constituents rely on cars and vans to get to work and do their work. They face extortionate charging for parking in town from the SNP council, which is utterly anti-car, and regular bills for repairing their cars and vans from all the potholes. Will my right hon. Friend set out how she is helping hard-pressed car and van drivers in Glasgow?
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that there is nothing progressive about piling up the debt that future generations will have to pay; that is why our fiscal rules are getting the debt and deficit down while enabling us to invest in our country’s infrastructure and public services. On helping people with the cost of driving, we have frozen fuel duty until the end of this year, but recognising that some people rely on their cars and vans more than others, we have also taken off the HGV tax for this year, saving HGV drivers up to just over £900 a year, and cut the duty on red diesel by more than a third. We have also increased the tax-free mileage rates to help the employed and the self-employed with the cost of fuel.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The announcement on red diesel will be welcomed by my farming constituents, who will await the details on the tariffs the Chancellor has cited with a great deal of interest and a certain amount of trepidation. Does she acknowledge that a third of the world’s fertilisers pass through the strait of Hormuz, and that the increase in the price of fertiliser is bound to have an impact on British agriculture and therefore on prices in the shops? What will she do to relieve some of that—in some cases existential—pressure on farms in the United Kingdom?
Rachel Reeves
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question. I urge him and businesses and farmers in his constituency to look at the list of products and feed into the consultation over the next week or so. We are keen to bring the tariff reductions into effect to reduce prices in shops for all our constituents, but we want to do so in a way that is respectful of British farming. That is why we have chosen the tariff lines that we have. As he recognises, we are doing more to support farmers with the reduction in duty on red diesel.
The best way, though, that we can help all our constituents, the farming sector and others is to bring the conflict to an end and reopen the strait of Hormuz. That is why the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary are working intensively with international partners to do just that, while at the same time we are working to diversify our supply of oil and gas so that fertiliser, to which the right hon. Gentleman rightly refers, is still available for our farmers.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
I thank the Chancellor honestly for her statement. As she has mentioned, and as many Members of this House will be aware, I have been campaigning hard for the ceramics sector with a view to saving Denby Pottery. I thank the Ministers in the Treasury and the Department for Business and Trade for their ongoing engagement through the many meetings we have had on this. I am delighted to hear about the £120 million support package. It is a clear indication that the Government are supporting and backing UK ceramics, and it will make Denby Pottery a more attractive prospect for any potential investors. Given the circumstances currently facing Denby Pottery, can the Chancellor commit to ensuring that the funding is available as soon as possible, in the hope that Denby can be saved?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for the work she does on behalf of all her constituents, particularly those impacted by what is happening at Denby. It was my privilege to come to Amber Valley with her last year to meet businesses across her constituency. We are backing UK ceramics. We want to find a future for Denby, and we will continue to work with my hon. Friend to achieve just that.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I remind the House of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Last year, suckler beef farmers in my constituency were getting paid £7.30 per kilo for their finished product on the hook. Yesterday that was down to £5.75, and it is still falling. The price paid to dairy farmers for their milk is through the floor. Arable farmers are struggling after two catastrophically bad harvests. The red diesel duty cut is welcome, but it will not help farmers who are struggling with rocketing fertiliser prices or, indeed, those who are required to heat glasshouses. Opening the door ever wider to food imports risks undermining domestic food production. If food security genuinely is national security, surely our food producers and manufacturers should have access to the same support as other critical sectors. Will the Chancellor look again at adding food and drink to the Government’s industrial strategy, so that they can access the same support as other sectors?
Rachel Reeves
I know that, as Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the right hon. Gentleman will play a key role in scrutinising what the Government are doing. The reduction of more than a third in the rate of duty on red diesel will have an immediate and important impact on the costs for farmers. I also appreciate the fact that his party, like the Government, did not support the conflict in the middle east and recognised that it was a mistake that would have an impact on businesses here at home. That is why we are doing everything within our power to reopen the strait of Hormuz, to ease these pressures on consumers and businesses, including farmers, but also in the meantime to diversify supply and open up new refining facilities in the UK, to help businesses, including farmers, during these challenging times.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
The Potteries welcome this statement. I have been working with local companies, the TUC, GMB and research organisations to develop proposals to support the ceramics industry to innovate, improve energy efficiency and decarbonise. I have previously called on the Government to release an industrial energy innovation fund for energy-intensive industries, with Government grants to explore process efficiency and new technologies, as well as vouchers to access shared pilot facilities. Could the Chancellor clarify whether part of the £120 million of funding announced today could be used by ceramics companies to access and invest in innovations such as AI-enabled process optimisation and energy technologies, to help reduce energy bills?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend and all the MPs involved in helping to put together this scheme of support for ceramics. Like her, I welcome the work of the TUC and GMB in this. Innovation and ensuring that the industry is sustainable and competitive for the future is absolutely essential. This is not just a sticking-plaster policy; it is about setting up the industry for the future, including investment in innovation and R&D and also the diversification of energy supplies.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
The UK is losing 1,000 oil and gas jobs a month. The Chancellor is aware of that, and we have made it very clear to her that we are keen to move to the oil and gas price mechanism as soon as possible—we urge her to do that. On the foreign branch profits announcement today, have the Government modelled the job losses that may occur as a result of this change in the oil and gas taxation regime? Can she tell the House how many jobs might be lost as a result?
Rachel Reeves
As I have said in previous answers, I recognise the role of oil and gas in the UK and its importance to the UK for many years to come, which is why we have changed the rules around tiebacks and put in place a permanent mechanism for taxing windfall profits. But the hon. Lady has to answer the question: are she and her party in favour of the foreign branch profits exemption or not? If not, they cannot back the support we are giving today to help people with the cost of living and the support we are giving for ceramics. This exemption means that we are moving in line with how other countries treat foreign profits. At the moment, we have the absurd situation where losses overseas can mean that businesses avoid paying their fair share of corporation tax in the UK. This moves us in line with what other countries do. It is closing a tax loophole, and the hon. Lady and the Conservatives should welcome that.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
What a day to be a Stokie! As the Chancellor knows, my mum proudly worked in the pot banks of Tunstall and Burslem, and 10 weeks ago I asked the Prime Minister in this place what support the Government could offer our ceramic sector. The good news is that my mum is watching again right now at home, and she is clearly happy, because I have had a three-word text from her: “Nice one, duck.” How will we make sure the £120 million support package benefits ceramics companies of every size—from our Moorcrofts to our Moorlands, from our Steelites to our Churchills—so that we protect jobs, skills and the future of our economy?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and I say to Mrs Williams and all those who work in the ceramics sector: I am proud to be the Chancellor who is backing British industry and British jobs.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Back in March, the Chancellor announced the £50 million crisis and resilience fund to help families with the price of heating oil, which is a big issue in rural constituencies such as mine. Does she have any plans to extend or repeat that scheme come the autumn, given that we are likely to have a similar crisis with the strait of Hormuz still shut? To what extent will the Russian oil that will come via a third country under commodity code 2710 form part of the fuel mix?
Rachel Reeves
Yesterday, we introduced the toughest set of sanctions on Russia that this country has ever had, but like the previous Government, we are phasing those in so that they do not have a disproportionate impact on industry here in the UK. That is what the previous Government did, and that is what we are doing as well.
The hon. Gentleman mentions support for people with the cost of heating oil. We were pleased to be able to introduce targeted support in areas that are particularly dependent on heating oil. We are doing a piece of work at the moment to see how much money has been used by local authorities—some have been more proactive than others in ensuring that local residents get support—and once we have completed that, we will look at whether and what further support is needed.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I welcome the statement and the action that those of us in ceramic communities have been calling for, and I thank the Chancellor for announcing it. This is a good day for all of us in north Staffordshire. As it happens, staff from a ceramics business based in Newcastle-under-Lyme are sitting in the Gallery watching this statement; I welcome them. Can the Chancellor assure us of two things: first, that the eligibility for the support in this scheme will be as wide as possible, and secondly, that it will be as easy as possible to apply for?
Rachel Reeves
I am pleased to know that staff from a business in the ceramics sector in Newcastle-under-Lyme are here today, and I say to them directly: this Government have got your back and want to work with you and the trade unions that represent people in the sector to ensure that the ceramics industry plays an important part in British life—particularly in the pottery communities —for many years to come. Of course, we will set out the details of the scheme, but like my hon. Friends who represent these communities in Stoke, Newcastle and Amber Valley, this Government are very keen to crack on with the scheme and make sure that businesses can get the support they deserve.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Will the Chancellor expand on her discussions with the supermarkets and their role in keeping prices down? When the supermarkets make special offers or reduce prices, there is always a concern that rather than absorbing the costs themselves, they pass them on directly to farmers and their suppliers, who are not in a position to absorb them because of their fixed production costs.
Rachel Reeves
The right hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. Today I have set out a number of measures that will directly help the supermarkets to reduce their costs, and it is really important that those cost reductions are passed on directly to consumers. Reducing the cost of running an HGV will have a direct impact on our supermarkets, and reducing tariffs will have a direct impact on costs for our supermarkets. The trade deal that we are looking to do with the EU to reduce the costs of importing exporting food from the EU will also have a direct impact on costs for supermarkets. I say to the supermarkets: those cost reductions must be passed on directly to consumers, who are struggling with the cost of living, given the conflict in the middle east.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
I thank the Chancellor for her statement, and particularly her VAT cut on theme park tickets. I invite her and all hon. Members to join me on my annual trip to Alton Towers this summer. Erewash has many great summer events for families to enjoy, such as Long Eaton carnival, the classic car show and the Glow festival in Ilkeston, but entertaining kids during the summer months can be daunting and expensive for parents. Can the Chancellor please elaborate on how the measures that she is announcing today will support Erewash families and boost great community events?
Rachel Reeves
My only worry with this package is that it will mean children badgering their parents even more for days out over the summer—I slightly worry about what I have unleashed in my own household. I am pleased to announce today that trips to Alton Towers and other activities, whether it be soft play, funfairs, zoos or museums—if many kids want to go to them; not mine probably, sadly—will be cheaper this summer because of the action that this Government are taking.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
The Chancellor’s approach to the cost of living crisis is to find small ways to subsidise people’s costs, but is not the best solution to build a strong, abundant economy by doing the hard yards of supply side reform? In that economy, there would be better jobs and higher wages, people would be richer and the state would have less bearing on their lives, yet under the Chancellor, the benefits bill is ballooning, unemployment is rising, particularly among the young, and taxes are at their highest ever level. In the spirit of giving people some relief today, will the Chancellor confirm—assuming that she intends to stay in office for the rest of this Parliament—that she will not be increasing taxes on working people at all for the rest of this Parliament?
Rachel Reeves
I will take absolutely no lessons from the man who was part of a party that took our economy to its knees—inflation at 11%, working people worse off at the end of the last Parliament than they were at the beginning, and the worst Parliament ever for living standards—or from a party that has opposed all our reforms to make it easier to get things built in Britain, to increase the wages of working people with the national living wage and the national minimum wage, and to increase the rights of working people, including through statutory sick pay from day one and by ending abusive zero-hours contracts. If we want a lesson on economics, I certainly will not be taking it from the Reform party.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
The Chancellor’s announcement of a £120 million support package for ceramics will of course be welcomed in Stoke-on-Trent, but also in Rugeley in my constituency, which is home to many workers at the Armitage Shanks factory in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson), who is a staunch advocate for them. Does the Chancellor agree that it is only this Labour Government who are putting in the investment that firms such as Armitage Shanks need? Does she also agree that iconic British brands like this should play a central role in new homes, to boost them even further?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I am pleased that people in Rugeley and people working for Armitage Shanks will also benefit from this investment. The £120 million to support our ceramics sector is a clear indication of this Government’s intention to back British jobs and British industry.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
Although I welcome some of the measures announced today, the reality is that instability in the middle east is having a direct impact on the UK economy and on the price paid by British households. Can the Chancellor therefore outline what steps her Department is taking to work across Government to ensure a stable region, including by boosting our defence spending? Will she finally commit to spending 3% of GDP in this Parliament and to working collaboratively towards reopening the strait of Hormuz?
Rachel Reeves
I do think it is a little rich for Conservative Members to talk about the instability from the middle east conflict—a conflict that they wanted Britain to join in from day one, but which our Prime Minister made the decision to keep Britain out of, because that war was a mistake and it is having an impact on British businesses and British families. I am proud to be the Chancellor who has overseen the biggest uplift in defence spending since the end of the cold war. We are spending £270 billion during this Parliament, taking spending to 2.6% by April next year. The Conservatives said they would get to 2.5% by the end of this Parliament. They had no paid-for plans to do so; we are achieving it three years early.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
May I congratulate the Chancellor on the very welcome announcement that she has made? For people in Bradford West, the Great British summer savings scheme will go down an absolute treat. Does she agree that it will also benefit the hospitality industry, which has been struggling for years in my constituency and across the country?
Rachel Reeves
We all listened to my hon. Friend’s response to the King’s Speech last week, when we heard about the great restaurants in Bradford. I am pleased to say that VAT on children’s meals in those restaurants will fall from 20% to 5%, so all hon. Members who are looking forward to a curry in Bradford can enjoy one at Mumtaz, Aagrah and all the other great restaurants in her city.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I would like to start with the positive. I know that care workers in my constituency of North Herefordshire will really welcome the increase in mileage rates, and I welcome the measures that the Chancellor has announced that seem to be starting to tackle profit shifting, which is a key problem related to tax avoidance.
Does the Chancellor not recognise, however, that struggling families need help year round, not just short-term sticking plasters in the summer holidays? The Green party is calling for free bus travel for everybody under 22, year round. We are calling for free school meals for all children, to help all families year round. The cost of living crisis requires year-round action. This could be funded easily by taxing wealth fairly. Will she take that year-round bold action to tackle the cost of living crisis properly?
Rachel Reeves
I thank the hon. Lady for that question and for her welcome of the changes to mileage rates and the measures on profit shifting. Obviously not all parties in the House welcome them, so I appreciate the fact that hers does, but we are helping working people. The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 is the biggest upgrade in the rights of renters in a generation; the Employment Rights Act 2025 is the biggest upgrade in the rights of working people for a generation. We have taken the national living wage and the national minimum wage to their highest ever levels. For working families, the 30 hours of childcare, free breakfast clubs, the extension of free school meals and getting rid of the two-child limit are all putting money in the pockets of working people. The measures that I have set out in my statement today on bus fares, fuel duties, VAT and hospitality, and more, will give further help, both in Herefordshire and around the country.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
The announcement today of the £120 million fund to support the UK ceramics industry will be so welcome in my part of Staffordshire. Armitage Shanks is often not spoken of in the same breath as ceramics—partly because of the excellent advocacy of the Stokies and my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) and for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth)—but ceramics goes much further than flatware. The sanitary ware that comes out of Armitage Shanks is world class, but it is much, much more than that. It is the identity of that village, and it is an iconic British brand. The Chancellor’s support for Armitage Shanks and the rest of the ceramics industry will go down so well, not just with those workers and the GMB workers who are part of that factory, but with my community, so may I thank the Chancellor for her intervention?
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend is right that ceramics have a life in many parts of our economy, not just in great heritage businesses like Denby, which produces plates and other ceramics, but in sectors like defence and aerospace, where ceramics are crucial. That is why I am pleased to back them further with the £120 million package announced today.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The conflict in the middle east is not the Chancellor’s fault, but she has chosen this time to make it more expensive for my constituents to take a car from Fishbourne on the Isle of Wight to Portsmouth. Will she do the right thing and scrap the emissions trading scheme levy that she intends to introduce in July this year? It should not only be Scottish islands that are exempt.
Rachel Reeves
The measures that I have announced today will help people on the Isle of Wight. We have frozen fuel duty for the third time—in comparison, the plans that we inherited from the previous Government would have seen fuel duty go up—we are helping farmers with the cost of red diesel, we are helping the rail freight sector and we are supporting HGV drivers. Many people go to the Isle of Wight on their summer holidays and enjoy wonderful days out, and the cost of that will also be reduced, helping that sector in the Isle of Wight this summer.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Chancellor for her important statement, not least because the previous Government failed to act on HMRC mileage rates for the 14 years that they were in power, watching as motoring costs went up year after year but doing absolutely nothing for the self-employed and frontline workers, like home care workers. It shows the power of a union like Unison, and it shows that we have a Chancellor who is willing to take the action needed to support working people. Ahead of the Fuller review, will the backdating of these measures support both the self-employed and employed workers alike?
Rachel Reeves
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who raised this issue in Treasury questions just a few weeks ago. I committed then to looking at this ahead of the next Budget, but given the ongoing conflict in the middle east, I thought it was right to bring those changes forward and increase the mileage rate for the first time since 2011. I assure him, home care workers, plumbers and all those who use their car for work that we will increase the mileage rate by 10p, backdated to April 2026, for employed and self-employed workers alike.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Dirprwy Lefarydd. People are very aware that President Trump’s war with Iran is worsening the cost of living, but there are long-term measures within the gift of the Government that could improve heating costs for households. In north Wales and Merseyside, we pay the equivalent of £255 a year on standing charges, compared with £160 in London. When will the Chancellor address the structural inequality in heating costs?
Rachel Reeves
In the Budget last year, I reduced energy bills by £150, and just a few weeks ago, I put in additional money to help people with the cost of heating oil. The issue around standing charges and those allocations is for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, but I will pass on the right hon. Lady’s concerns to the relevant Ministers.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
I thank the Chancellor for her statement, which is welcome for those of us who are serious about buying British, building British and backing British. Will she say a little more about how she believes the measures will help the British brickmaking sector, a subject that I know Madam Deputy Speaker will also be interested to hear about?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for always standing up for the people of Stafford, whether by supporting bringing a market back to the town or supporting the brickmaking sector. This Government are investing £120 billion more in capital spending during this Parliament, compared with the plans that I inherited from the previous Government. I am determined that that money is spent here in Britain—whether on defence, energy, transport or building schools and hospitals—creating good jobs, paying decent wages, supporting British industry and supporting British workers.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Food inflation is forecast by the Food and Drink Federation to reach at least 9% by the end of this year. Energy costs are driving up food inflation, as are a lot of the other anti-business policies put forward by this Government, including not incorporating food manufacturing in the industrial strategy. When will the Chancellor realise that announcing things like capping supermarket food prices is just like flower arranging while the roots of the flower are dying?
Rachel Reeves
The hon. Lady says that we should extend the industrial strategy, but the previous Government did not even have an industrial strategy. I would say that a £700 million tariff reduction is not exactly fiddling at the margins; supermarkets should pass on those cost savings directly to consumers to help all our constituents with the cost of living.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I congratulate the Chancellor on her summer package of savings for families—it will give relief to those families who have booked domestic holidays, and a welcome boost to our domestic leisure and entertainment industries—but will she say a little bit more about how we intend to pass on the savings made by her tariff cuts through supermarkets? Too often, they have taken a cut and a slice off the reduced cost to them, so how do we ensure that all the savings get passed on to our constituents?
Rachel Reeves
I remember that, when I was young, I used to enjoy visits to Chislehurst Caves and Eltham Palace, and I hope they will be able to benefit from the changes I have announced today. It is important that we ensure that supermarkets pass on these cost reductions to their customers. We are also making changes to HGV duty, which will reduce costs for supermarkets. It is important that Supermarkets recognise the pressure that their customers are under at the moment. We have provided additional powers to the Competition and Markets Authority to ensure that no business, whatever its size or nature, takes advantage of the conflict in the middle east to hike prices for their customers.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Youth unemployment is now at 5%. On current form, it will rise to 5.8% by next year, which will mean a very large number of young people without work. What actions can the Chancellor take to ensure that young people get access to jobs and careers, and do not have the deeply depressing experience of being unemployed when they leave school, college or university? A disproportionate number of young people rent in the private rental sector, so will she also do something about bringing in much needed rent regulation in the private rental sector?
Rachel Reeves
We have already increased the number of apprenticeships, and changes to the growth and skills levy mean that young people do not always have to have maths and English at grades A to C to get on to an apprenticeship programme. We have also introduced shorter apprenticeships to help young people to get the skills they need. On private rent, the right hon. Gentleman might have seen the changes that we made through the Renters’ Rights Act 2026, which gives renters the greatest rights they have had in a generation, including the right to challenge a rent increase and to have only one rent increase a year. If someone challenges their rent increase and takes their case to a tribunal, they will not have the rent increase during the course of the tribunal, helping to limit rent rises for hard-working families.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Chancellor for this wonderful set of measures. I will go one further than my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson), who is no longer in his place, and invite her across the bridge to some of the greatest attractions in the UK, ranging from the London Eye to the Southbank Centre, the London Aquarium and even the Paddington Bear Experience, which will all benefit from this wonderful VAT cut. We have been raising this issue for many months, so it is good to see action.
This morning, I visited John Ruskin primary school in Camberwell in my constituency. We might think that the impact of what is happening is not affecting young children, but it is. The children there were so articulate, raising questions on oil and gas prices and prices in the supermarket, so I thank the Chancellor for addressing the issues. How will the CMA monitor supermarkets? It is a non-ministerial organisation, but will it be providing regular updates to the Treasury, so that we can ensure that price cuts are being passed on to hard-working families?
Rachel Reeves
I can confirm to my hon. Friend that the London Eye will be included. Apparently it is called an “observation attraction”—the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury and I made sure that such attractions are part of the package of measures. I totally agree with what she says about young children of primary school age having a deep understanding of the cost of living pressures faced by their families and carers at the moment. That is why it is so important that today’s measures particularly address the cost of the summer holidays for parents. I know that parents, whether in Vauxhall or in my own constituency of Leeds West and Pudsey, are not always as excited about the summer holidays as their children are because they are worried about the costs. I hope that the measures that I have announced today on the cost of children’s meals in restaurants and cafés, and to reduce the cost of days out, will go some way towards helping families to have a better summer.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement, but I ask her to look further at introducing a package of emergency measures to keep down energy bills in a number of ways, including through an essential energy guarantee for all households, a nationwide social tariff and extending the windfall tax on the energy sector’s excessive profits.
Rachel Reeves
When I became Chancellor, I extended the energy profits levy on gas and oil to 78%. We will be able to bring in money as a result of that. We have also increased the electricity generator levy by 10 percentage points to help to decouple gas and electricity prices. Because of the measures I took in my Budget last year, I was able to take £150 off people’s energy bills. I recognise the impact of the cost of living on families, pensioners and businesses, which is why I have introduced a further range of measures today, particularly targeting and helping families, energy-intensive industries, and those who drive a lot for work.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I thank the Chancellor for her statement and welcome the measures she has announced, which will have a huge impact and support many of my constituents and businesses in Battersea. She is very welcome to visit Battersea; we have wonderful hospitality there.
As we live in an increasingly unpredictable global landscape, it is vital that we work with some of our closest allies. That is why I welcome the European partnership Bill announced in the King’s Speech last week. Will the Chancellor continue to explore ways to strengthen our economic relationship with the EU as a means of promoting stability and security, particularly in the light of the current financial pressures as a result of the Iran war?
Rachel Reeves
The measures I have set out in my statement will absolutely help the hospitality and entertainment sectors in Battersea, whether zoos, cinemas or restaurants. My hon. Friend is right to point to the economic benefits—reducing inflation, and boosting jobs and growth—of a closer relationship with our nearest neighbours and trading partners in the EU. That is why we are currently negotiating an ambitious agreement to reduce the costs of bringing in agricultural, food and farming products from the EU, and increasing markets for British farmers in the EU. That is alongside a youth mobility scheme, Erasmus, and energy trading and electricity trading across the European Union.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I welcome the measures that the Chancellor has set out, particularly those that will help small businesses such as Noted Eel & Pie House in Leyton, Homies On Donkeys in the ’Stone, Bare Brew and City Place in Wanstead, and Fresh as a Daisy in South Woodford. I look forward to seeing their children’s menus, so that families can benefit from the measures she has set out. What more is she doing to support hard-pressed families in Leyton and Wanstead, particularly those who rent in the current cost of living crisis?
Rachel Reeves
I very much hope that families and businesses in Leyton and Wanstead can benefit from the changes that I have set out today. I know that the cost of renting is very high, especially in London, and the Renters’ Rights Act should give greater certainty and stability to renters and limit rent increases. In addition, families in Leyton and Wanstead will benefit from the offer of 30 hours of free childcare, the abolition of the two-child limit on universal credit and the roll-out of free breakfast clubs to primary schools. From September, straight after the summer holidays, all children whose parents or carers are on universal credit will benefit from free school meals.
Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
I am proud that this Government are backing British industry, from ceramics to British steel, in today’s announcement. Will my right hon. Friend look at possible measures to support the UK wood and timber sector? It is facing challenges such as price volatility, rising costs, supply chain pressures and missed targets for productive tree planting.
Rachel Reeves
The measures announced today will help ceramics and the chemicals sector, but other schemes, such as the supercharger scheme and the British industrial competitiveness scheme, will benefit other sectors across the economy. I am sure that the relevant Minister would be happy to meet my hon. Friend specifically to discuss wood and timber issues.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I declare an interest, as someone who worked for Unison immediately before coming to this place; its contribution to my campaign is included in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I worked as a trade union official for more than 20 years, representing public sector workers. One issue that came up in pay negotiations year after year was mileage rates, particularly for frontline social care workers. As the cost of living and fuel prices rose, frozen mileage rates effectively imposed a stealth cut on workers who were already delivering vital public services. On behalf of those workers and the thousands of frontline workers across Scotland, may I warmly welcome the Chancellor’s decision and announcement today? Will she confirm that she has spoken with her counterparts in the new Scottish Government to ensure that the levers of power over which they have control are similarly focused on cutting the cost of living for my constituents?
Rachel Reeves
The increase in mileage rates for employed and self-employed workers will have a material effect on those who need to use their car for work every day; it is, of course, the first increase since 2011. Alongside the Employment Rights Act, this is giving greater rights, greater certainty and greater incomes to ordinary working people. I pay tribute to the trade union Unison for its lobbying and work on this issue over many, many years.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Families in Bracknell Forest often tell me that the schools holidays can be bittersweet; the opportunity to make treasured memories and spend time with their children must be balanced against having to juggle childcare and work, as well as the cost of living pressures that come from keeping their children entertained. The measures VAT cuts for summer attractions that the Chancellor has announced today will therefore make a real difference. May I ask her to encourage people across the country to make use of the fantastic leisure facilities in Bracknell Forest, including the Look Out Discovery Centre, South Hill Park and Play World soft play, as they take advantage of this new scheme?
Rachel Reeves
I hope that families in Bracknell, whether they are enjoying a day out in Bracknell Forest or going on a summer holiday to one of the great seaside towns across our United Kingdom, will benefit from these changes. They will make lunch or dinner out as a family, and entertainment, a little bit cheaper. If parents or carers are on universal credit, when their kids go back to school in September—whether they are in nursery, primary, secondary or further education—they will benefit from free school meals.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement, especially the measures to support farmers and hauliers. Banbury has a thriving logistics sector, with brilliant businesses like TWE Haulage; I visited that company last month, and I know it will really welcome the measures that she has announced. Will she and her colleagues continue to keep under review the particular pressures on the logistics sector and be open to any further measures that may be needed?
Rachel Reeves
The best way to reduce cost pressures on families and businesses is to get the strait of Hormuz reopened and those vessels carrying oil and gas flowing again, but of course in the meantime I will keep under review the support necessary to support businesses and families in Banbury and across the country.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)
I welcome the tone of yesterday’s announcement at the petrol pump and today’s announcement in the House. The Government are fighting for working people every day. Is ice skating included in the measures? Alexandra Palace has the most fantastic ice skating rink. I hope that ice skating is included, so that children visiting London, as well as London children, can enjoy slightly cheaper ice skating this summer, with a lovely meal to boot.
Rachel Reeves
I will have to check about ice skating. I like to pride myself on being on top of my brief, but I do not know whether ice skating is included. I did, however, know about the London Eye.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Following a successful sale to the LB Group, chemicals firm Tioxide is planning to reopen its Greatham plant in Hartlepool. The £350 million critical chemicals resilience fund is a real boost, at exactly the right time, for that Hartlepool employer. Can the Chancellor say a little more about how the fund will promote jobs and growth in Hartlepool?
Rachel Reeves
Businesses in Hartlepool and across Teesside will be among the biggest beneficiaries of these changes around chemicals. The Minister for industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), is now in his place, and I pay tribute to him again for his help in setting out this package of measures. The Department for Business and Trade will shortly set out the details of the chemicals scheme, but I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) that it includes help with capital and day-to-day costs, with the aim of making the sector more sustainable and less energy intensive in the future. That will make it increasingly competitive. We recognise the chemical sector’s important role in the UK, and we are determined to ensure a bright future for it.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I, too, thank the Chancellor for her statement, and in particular the announcement of the £350 million chemicals resilience fund. As a consequence of the Iran war, energy price rises of 16% and food price rises of up to 7% are predicted by the Bank of England. I very much welcome the Chancellor’s addressing the cost of living crisis, and the steps to help families this summer, including with bus fares for children; that will be welcomed in Middlesbrough and Thornaby East. We will no doubt monitor and evaluate the dividends of that travel offer. Will the Chancellor consider whether the long-term free travel initiatives elsewhere in Europe have translated positively into economic engagement and growth, and whether they could be replicated here? Given the cries from the retail sector this week, can she advise on what a voluntary pricing arrangement on core items in a basket of supermarket goods, as introduced in France in 2023, might do for living standards?
Rachel Reeves
Businesses in the chemicals sector in Middlesbrough will benefit from these changes. In today’s package, a lot of the focus was on food costs, be it the cost of kids’ meals in restaurants and cafés or the reduction in tariffs, and on support for transport, whether people are travelling by car or by bus. We recognise that increases in essential costs are the ones that families fear most. We will of course monitor the impact of these measures. We expect the range of measures that I have set out today to have a cost to the Exchequer, and that is why I have also set out the foreign branch exemption changes, to ensure that all businesses pay their fair share of tax.
On supermarkets, which my hon. Friend mentioned, the Co-op announced last November, on the back of my Budget, that it was cutting the cost of 1,000 products because of the beneficial impact of the changes to business rates. Last week, the Co-op froze the price of more than 40 essential products, and it has committed to working to keep them down. I welcome those measures by the Co-op. I hope that other supermarkets heed the calls of their customers to keep prices down; and I hope that they take advantage of what I have set out today to reduce their costs, and pass those savings directly on to consumers.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I will try to get all Members in, but I encourage them to ask very short questions. There are two more statements and the main business to come this afternoon, and we are getting a little tight on time.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
I welcome this announcement and the Chancellor’s statement. It means that, thanks to this Labour Government, it will be cheaper for families across my community to go to theme parks, farms and soft plays this summer. I will see them there, because my children have a long list of places they want to visit. On days out, our families get to choose between eating out or taking a good old picnic. Can the Chancellor bring to life the decision that she has made today? How will it ensure that families have full tummies, as well as lots of fun and excitement, this summer?
Rachel Reeves
We are helping to keep prices down in the supermarkets, and to reduce the cost of lunch at a café or restaurant when families have a day out. Having met my hon. Friend’s kids out on the campaign trail in Aldershot, I think that a couple of days out not delivering leaflets would be very much in order.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
I congratulate the Chancellor on this ambitious and comprehensive package of measures, supporting families across Bolton West. As a long-standing proponent of a fairer taxation system, I thank her for the measures she has put forward to close the tax loopholes that have been used by oil and gas firms to structure their affairs and avoid paying hundreds of millions of pounds into the Exchequer. That money will finance this package of proposals to support families. She mentioned the Competition and Markets Authority. Can she say a little more about what engagement she envisages having over the coming months to make sure that we do not see profiteering, going forwards?
Rachel Reeves
Closing tax loopholes has been a feature of the first two Budgets I have delivered as Chancellor—for example, the loophole whereby private schools did not pay VAT or business rates. I increased the energy profits levy and the tax on private jets, and there has been a range of other measures to ensure that those with the broadest shoulders pay their fair share of tax. The Competition and Markets Authority is already, at my behest, carrying out a review of heating oil to make sure that customers using heating oil are treated fairly. We are introducing the fuel finder to ensure that customers can always get the best deal when filling up their car with petrol.
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the package of support she has announced today. She knows at first hand that hospitality is what my little town does best. My hospitality industry, fairground and constituents will be very happy today. Can she clarify, as I am not sure, whether the 15% VAT cut applies to all restaurants, café, pubs, bars and hotels serving children’s meals? Will she please keep under review the possibility of extending this welcome VAT cut to the hospitality industry as a whole?
Rachel Reeves
I have happy memories of having fish and chips with my hon. Friend in her constituency several years ago. I can confirm that the VAT for children’s meals, be they in a pub, hotel, restaurant or café, will be cut from 20% to 5% between 25 June and 1 September. We will monitor the impact of that on tax revenues, and the number of people going out for dinner. We envisage that this measure will have a cost to the taxpayer, which is why we are funding it by ending the tax loophole whereby some companies were using losses overseas to offset their corporation tax here in Britain.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
Families across my constituency will be relieved to hear the measures set out by my right hon. Friend, whether that is the freezing of fuel duty, free bus travel for young people this summer or the suspension of tariffs on essential food items. All those actions will be greatly welcomed by families worried about the impact of the Iran war on household finances. Can the Chancellor set out how much she envisages these measures combined will save families in the north-east? Will she keep measures, including on energy bills, under review, ahead of the winter?
Rachel Reeves
People in more rural areas, such as some of my hon. Friend’s constituents, will particularly benefit from the freeze in fuel duty and the free bus fares for kids. We think that the changes in fuel duty have already saved people around £100 a year, and we expect the same sort of benefit thereafter. Drivers of heavy goods vehicles will benefit by up to £912 through those changes. The bus fare changes are unlimited free bus travel for five to 15-year-olds, and we can add in the savings on days out and meals out. All these things are unlimited; people can go on a bus as many times as they like, and they can take their kids out for a meal and benefit from that reduction in VAT as much as they like. We want people to have an enjoyable summer, worrying less about the costs and thinking more about making happy memories.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
The plans outlined today by the Chancellor will be a massive boost for families in my constituency, but also for the hospitality and tourism sector. I am sure she will agree that Blackpool has some of the best attractions in the world, including the best theme park in the United Kingdom, Blackpool Pleasure Beach, which is today launching its record-breaking £8.7 million new ride, Aviktas. Since the Chancellor made her statement, my phone has not stopped ringing; businesses, theme parks and organisations from across the town are welcoming this news. On their behalf, as well as for my own part, may I invite the Chancellor to Blackpool this summer to see at first hand the positive difference that her policies will make in our town, and the potential that we have?
Rachel Reeves
I am really excited about what is happening in Blackpool in the lead up to the 100th anniversary of the Blackpool illuminations in three years’ time. I very much look forward to my next trip to Blackpool. I do not eat only fish and chips, but I remember a very happy meal of fish and chips in my hon. Friend’s constituency during his by-election campaign.
Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Parents, grandparents and carers will know that keeping children busy during the summer can feel like an expensive endurance event. Will the Chancellor assess the economic and social value of the great British summer package of savings, particularly its impact on opening up access to museums, cinemas, libraries, sports facilities, theatres, theme parks and attractions? It will build children’s cultural capital and life experiences, while also supporting local economies in Wolverhampton and Willenhall, and across the country.
Rachel Reeves
Spoken like a proper former teacher! Expanding their cultural capital is what my children want to do every weekend. Whether it is expanding cultural capital, or having fun at a theme park in Blackpool or at Alton Towers, I want children and families to be able to enjoy this summer. As a former teacher, my hon. Friend will know that although the summer holidays are a welcome relief for teachers and children, it can often be a time of worry for parents. I hope that today’s changes will make the summer holidays a bit easier for all families.
Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)
People across the Filton and Bradley Stoke constituency work hard, and being able to enjoy time together as a family this summer is important for everyone. I know that the Chancellor’s announcements on summer savings for families—including on popular attractions—and on free bus travel for children will be warmly welcomed at home. Could she please set out how the decisions that she has taken to stabilise the economy have made it possible for the Government to fund this?
Rachel Reeves
It is important that all the policies that we have set out are fully costed and fully funded, and the change that we have made to the foreign branch exemption will fund today’s package of measures. The reduction in inflation due to the measures I set out in my Budget last year, and the strong growth that we have seen—the fastest in the G7 in the first quarter of this year—make the package affordable and sustainable. That is why we are able to set out this support today.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
I wholeheartedly welcome the Chancellor’s intervention at a time when the cost of living is increasingly putting pressure on working families in Darlington. This is a proper Labour intervention from a proper Labour Chancellor, and representation matters in this House. As I look around the Chamber, I can see Stoke and the ceramics industry supported. I can see Redcar, Middlesbrough and Stockton represented, and their industries supported. Not only has this Labour Chancellor intervened to make sure that families in my constituency can have a much better summer, but their jobs will be secure for much longer, so I thank her.
Rachel Reeves
This package was not just designed by me; it was designed by hon. and right hon. Members of this House who have made representations to me about the cost of living, but also about the specific business needs and business challenges in their constituencies. Although I am proud to be the Chancellor who has delivered today’s package, I pay tribute to all Members who have contributed to it.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
I congratulate the Chancellor on her skilful management of our economy in what are extremely difficult international circumstances. Growth is up, inflation is down and borrowing is down. I particularly welcome the great British summer savings scheme, which will make a huge difference to families and business in my constituency, but families will continue to worry about their day-to-day bills. Can she reassure my constituents that the fuel duty freeze, and the reduction in tariffs on foodstuffs, will be felt directly in their pockets?
Rachel Reeves
Absolutely. The freeze in fuel duty will continue until the end of this year and we will keep it under review, depending on what happens in the middle east. It is very important that the tariff reductions and the HGV duty changes are passed on to customers. I am slightly worried that my statement has unleashed a competition between hon. Members about whose constituency has the best summer attractions, whether it is soft play, theme parks, zoos or ice skating. I am being lobbied by my right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) about lemon tops in her constituency. I look forward to this continuing ahead of the introduction of VAT reductions on 25 June.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
I welcome the announcement from my right hon. Friend, particularly the suspension of import tariffs on more than 100 food and drink staples. I know that my constituents across Stourbridge, Brierley Hill and Netherton have been struggling with the cost of a weekly shop. Although we all enjoy a treat, including me, it was disappointing to see the headlines leading with biscuits and chocolate, given that we have a public health crisis with obesity and diabetes. Could the Chancellor assure the House that the Government remain committed to the healthy food standard, which encourages supermarkets to promote healthy choices, and will she work with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to ensure that efforts to tackle poor diet and obesity remain a priority, alongside the cost of living?
Rachel Reeves
A whole range of products are included in the tariff reductions, including imports of tropical fruits, bananas, olive oil and much more, but I expect that hon. and right hon. Members would be forgiven for wanting to have a chocolate biscuit after a day of work in this place.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
I welcome the measures that my right hon. Friend has announced today, which will help ease the cost of living pressures on families in my constituency, and on its very many businesses and attractions—and in time for the Scottish school summer holidays. She is always welcome for award-winning fish and chips in my constituency.
Earlier this year, the Government set out welcome plans to break the link between the wholesale price of gas and the cost of electricity. Can my right hon. Friend provide an update on those plans and tell us how that will help reduce bills over the long term?
Rachel Reeves
I am sure that my hon. Friend’s constituents in Edinburgh North and Leith will benefit from being able to enjoy attractions in the Scottish school holidays. People from the other nations and regions of the UK, or from further afield, will also be able to enjoy the attractions of Edinburgh this summer.
On the specific issue of delinking gas and electricity prices, this is both a short-term and long-term measure. In the short term, we have increased the electricity generator levy by 10 percentage points to bring in more money this year. We are renegotiating contracts to move electricity prices on to contracts for difference in order to have greater certainty about electricity prices, so that the gas price does not set the electricity price so frequently, giving greater stability of energy prices to businesses and families.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Inflation is down, wages are up, interest rates are down, and growth is up. These are the reasons why the Chancellor can make today’s announcements. Those on the Opposition Benches will not say it, but I will: thank you, Chancellor.
As the Chancellor said in her statement, the British industrial competitiveness scheme offers important support for economic growth, but at the moment it excludes the vital critical minerals sector, which, as she knows, is directly relevant to my Camborne, Redruth and Hayle constituency. Will she meet me to discuss energy support measures for the critical minerals sector?
Rachel Reeves
As my hon. Friend knows, I am absolutely committed to the critical minerals sector. We have already introduced the Kernow growth fund for Cornwall, and we have instructed the National Wealth Fund to invest more in critical minerals, including the huge opportunities in tin and lithium in Cornwall. We need more diversified supply chains for critical minerals and rare earths, and Cornwall gives us a great opportunity to achieve exactly that. I look forward to continuing to work with my hon. Friend and the other Cornwall MPs to ensure that we bring good jobs, paying decent wages, to the region.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
The news that bus travel will be free for children this summer is extremely welcome. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a golden opportunity for East Yorkshire Buses and Transdev to boost summer capacity, ensuring that children from deprived communities in Scarborough are not squeezed off the buses by tourists travelling to the coast for a great British summer?
Rachel Reeves
I would encourage bus companies to use this as an opportunity to increase the services they offer this summer as they cater for more young people on their buses. I am sure that many hon. and right hon. Members will have enjoyed days out at the aquarium in Scarborough and dinner at the Magpie in Whitby, which serves very good fish and chips.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
Madam Deputy Speaker, you will of course be aware that the best summer attraction is the Northwich piña colada festival, which is enjoyed by boys and girls of all ages.
I thank the Chancellor for her statement. The relief she is providing to the chemicals industry will be welcomed by sector businesses in Mid Cheshire. Their expertise and innovation contribute significantly to both local employment and national resilience. I have previously spoken about the rising input costs and regulatory challenges that these businesses face, and I look forward to hearing more about how she will consult with the industry on eligibility for the funds. Does she agree that the forthcoming summit with the EU presents an opportunity to bear down on regulation further by seeking alignment and mutual recognition on the UK and EU REACH—registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals—regulations?
Rachel Reeves
I am slightly worried that someone will make a point of order about the age at which people are allowed to enjoy the Northwich piña colada festival.
Yes, we will be consulting on chemicals and ceramics to ensure that we give businesses the right support, but we do not want a long consultation to get in the way of actually getting the support to those businesses. My hon. Friend made an important point about our trading relationship with our nearest neighbours and trading partners. We are proud to be a Government who have done trade deals with the Republic of Korea, the United States, India and, yesterday, the Gulf countries. However, the biggest prize is a trade deal and improved trading relations with our nearest neighbours and trading partners in the EU, and I hope that we will make progress on that in the next few months.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the Chancellor for her statement, but I am obliged to point out that, in fact, Peppa Pig World, on the edge of my constituency, is the finest attraction in the country.
Middle East
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement to update the House on the situation in Iran, the strait of Hormuz and across the wider middle east.
I would first like to use this opportunity to welcome the conclusion of negotiations on the UK-Gulf Co-operation Council free trade agreement yesterday. This is the first trade agreement that the GCC has reached with any G7 country. It is a major milestone for UK partnerships with the six countries of the GCC—Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. As well as the clear economic benefits for all sides, the agreement is a strong signal of our solidarity with our Gulf partners and our long-term commitment to working together for regional security and prosperity. Beyond the FTA, we are working closely with our Gulf partners, and the Foreign Secretary and I were delighted to welcome Foreign Ministers from the United Arab Emirates, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and the GCC secretary-general, in recent days to discuss the situation in the region.
I would also like to take this opportunity to address the shocking footage that many members will have seen yesterday of the treatment of those detained from the flotilla by Israeli Minister Mr Ben-Gvir. As the Foreign Secretary has said, we are appalled and have demanded an explanation from the Israeli Government. The Israeli chargé d’affaires was therefore summoned this morning to the Foreign Office. Our foremost responsibility is the safety and security of British nationals. Our consular staff are in contact with the families who have asked for consular support, and with a number of Members of this House. Our staff in the region are now working to help British nationals get home.
Let me also say that, while yesterday it was Europeans and others who were subjected to humiliating treatment, which has rightly caused international condemnation, we should be clear that Mr Ben-Gvir has been behaving outrageously towards Palestinians day in, day out ever since he became a Minister. That is a disgrace, and it is why the UK led an international group of our partners to impose sanctions on both Mr Ben-Gvir and Mr Smotrich in their personal capacities, as I announced from this Dispatch Box late last year.
Turning to the situation in Palestine, children in Gaza are living amid sewage, parasites and disease. The UN has reported that infestations are now affecting almost 1.5 million people. This suffering is man-made and preventable. As the Foreign Secretary said yesterday, the continued humanitarian restrictions by Israeli authorities are indefensible and they must end. We support the 20-point plan and the hugely welcome release of hostages that it delivered, but the full promise of the 20-point plan has yet to be fully realised. For Gazans, conditions are still dire. The parties must do much more to end the suffering and allow families to rebuild. That also means that Hamas must agree to disarm and decommission their weapons, and the Israel Defence Forces must withdraw from Gaza.
In Brussels, at the ad hoc liaison committee ministerial meeting, which intended to get more aid into Gaza, I spoke with Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mustafa and Dr Ali Shaath, the head of the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza. I was clear on British support for both of them in their urgent work. We continue to work with partners to meet immediate humanitarian needs and advance long-term peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians through a two-state solution. That is why this Government took the step that we did to recognise the state of Palestine.
In the west bank, as the House will know, settler violence and settlement expansion continue to drive Palestinians from their homes, including over the recess period. The Netanyahu Government are imposing a stranglehold on the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian economy. Yesterday I made a virtual visit to a school in Hebron. My conversations with teachers and pupils there brought into sharp focus the daily challenges facing children, teachers and families across Palestine. Movement restrictions, violence and disruption are barriers to education that no child should have to face. We have introduced sanctions and taken measures in response to the Israeli Government’s actions. I have been clear that we are prepared to take further action and will not hesitate to do so.
Turning to Lebanon, we welcome the cessation of hostilities agreed by the Governments of Lebanon and Israel. We call on all parties to comply with it fully. We have a unique opportunity, through direct dialogue between Israel and Lebanon, to bring lasting peace to both countries, including the withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon in line with UN Security Council resolution 1701. I condemn the strikes by Lebanese Hezbollah on communities in northern Israel, which must stop. I saw for myself in Lebanon the impact that UK aid is having in supporting those displaced and those experiencing the consequences of violence. I made a further announcement of £20.5 million during that visit, which makes us one of Lebanon’s largest humanitarian donors. Our Prime Minister has himself set out to President Aoun of Lebanon our support for his Government, and I remain in regular touch with my counterparts.
I turn now to Iran and the strait of Hormuz. On 17 April, the Prime Minister, alongside President Macron, convened 51 countries for an international summit on reopening the strait. We came together as an international community to support freedom of navigation and to protect global economic stability and energy security. But since then, the strait has remained closed and Iran has introduced new structures to exert control that deny vessels the right of transit passage—a breach of international law. The disruption that has caused to global energy security, supply chains, and economic and financial stability must end. As the Foreign Secretary said this week, we face a global food crisis. We cannot risk tens of millions of people going hungry because Iran has hijacked a vital international shipping lane. It is crucial that international law is respected and the strait reopened without the imposition of tolls or permissions by Iran, so that transit can return to pre-war levels.
To do that, we need a lasting and workable settlement to the conflict. The Foreign Secretary and I, along with the rest of the ministerial team, have been working tirelessly to help that happen. We are in close contact with partners from across the globe to support negotiations, including Gulf partners, key regional players such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Türkiye and Egypt, as well as G7 allies. We have been engaging closely with the US. President Trump’s recent remarks that serious negotiations are taking place, are welcome. We share in the President’s absolute conviction that Iran must not have a nuclear weapon.
We are engaging closely with Oman, given its longstanding role supporting shipping through the strait. We are also supporting the vital work of the International Maritime Organisation, and its plan to ensure the safety of seafarers and vessels. We want to see the ceasefire hold, talks continue and a negotiated solution reached for a durable end to this conflict, one that protects the future of the strait and the principles of the law of the sea. We are working urgently to secure the unconditional, unrestricted and immediate reopening of the strait of Hormuz; not a partial reopening, but a full reopening without restrictions or tolls.
On the military side, the multinational mission announced by the Prime Minister and President Macron is gathering momentum. On 12 May, we brought together 38 nations to announce their political support to an independent and strictly defensive mission, and we are now working with military planners from those nations to turn that commitment into reality. In consultation with relevant states and the maritime industry, the mission will support civilian shipping and provide reassurance to commercial shipping operators. We have been clear that operations will only commence in a permissive environment, and in full accordance with international law and national constitutions.
The UK is leading the way on this mission and the Defence Secretary has already announced the UK’s contribution. Together with our partners, the mission will complement ongoing diplomatic engagement and de-escalation efforts, which remain the primary focus, while demonstrating a tangible commitment to the security of international trade. The Government will do all we can to support regional stability in the middle east and an enduring end to the current crisis, including through further concerted international effort in the coming days and weeks. I commend this statement to the House.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
The conflict and crisis in the middle east continues to be felt in Britain and overseas. The Government must use all their diplomatic leverage and economic might to pursue a path of peace and stability in the region that protects the interests of Britain, our allies and our partners.
In response to the Minister’s remarks about the situation in Israel, we expect full diplomatic and consular access to be made available to British nationals. The Minister knows that progressing the peace plan in Gaza requires productive engagement from the British Government, not just talk. The Government have no role in the board of peace, so what are the Government doing to bring to the table support for the reconstruction for civilians, the removal of Hamas’s terrorist infrastructure that we know about, and the removal of Hamas from power? Can the Minister tell the House when he or the Foreign Secretary last engaged with the leadership team of the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories and the Civil-Military Coordination Centre on aid entering Gaza for those innocent civilians? Can he confirm to the House the quantum of aid that is going to Gaza through these routes? He himself has said that the situation is desperate and we all need to see more aid going through. He must recognise that having a functioning relationship with the Government of Israel is key to advancing those important humanitarian and peace priorities.
Will the Minister tell the House what action he is taking to support the disarmament of Hezbollah, the terrorist proxy of the Iranian regime? He touched on the situation between Israel and Lebanon. That can only be sustained with the right outcomes when the threats posed by Hezbollah are dealt with. What is his assessment of the situation between Israel and Lebanon?
On Iran, we all want the ceasefire to lead to the right outcome when it comes to ending the conflict and the regional issue we are all faced with. It is vital that the war ends in such a way that works for the British national interest, but also for the western interest and that of our security allies and friends in the middle east who are on the frontline day in, day out, including the UAE which has come under fire again in recent weeks and days. What involvement have the Government had in any discussions and negotiations? Does the Minister agree that the despotic, murderous Iranian regime must de-escalate and act in a constructive way going forward?
On the Conservative Benches, we do not have intelligence on Iran’s exact nuclear programme, its capabilities or what it is doing internally in its own country, but clearly whatever remains of the existing programme must be dismantled. The enriched uranium it currently has must be removed and lessons must be learnt from where Iran exploited the 2015 agreement. Can the Minister confirm that that is the Government’s position? Clarity from the Government on that totemic issue is really important. What is the Government’s position on Iran’s ballistic and military capability?
The Government have talked a great deal about their position on the strait of Hormuz, yet we have not seen any change in the situation, or, to this day, practical measures from the United Kingdom. The strait of Hormuz cannot be treated as a bargaining tool and no country or company should be forced to line the coffers of the despicable regime in Tehran. No country should have the power to shut down a global artery of international commerce and trade. Are the British Government actually putting any pressure at all on Iran to restore freedom of navigation? At the very least, surely, there should be new sanctions to tighten the screws on this appalling regime and a total ban on regime officials who might want to flee to the UK, as well as a concerted effort to go after the regime elites who might attempt to park their wealth in London? We know about their assets and I have raised these points previously with the Minister. Given the sickening recruitment call from the Iranian embassy in recent weeks, why have the Government only summoned the ambassador for a slap on the wrist? Surely the Home Office must now intervene on the proscription of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps?
On the long overdue UK-Gulf Cooperation Council free trade agreement, which we welcome, the Minister will know that those negotiations had been under way for many, many years and that it is an important Brexit opportunity. That could be at risk with his ministerial colleagues and the Labour leadership candidates planning to take us back into the EU all over again.
Finally, the Conservatives stand firmly in support of British interests across the middle east, which must be safeguarded. We must use our important influence in the region to effectively protect Britain, but also our allies, from those who want to continue to cause harm to the United Kingdom and to our friends and allies in the middle east.
Mr Falconer
I am grateful to the shadow Foreign Secretary for the constructive tone of her questions. Let me turn to the important question of consular access, which she raised at the outset. To be clear to the House, and to all right hon. and hon. Members who have constituents involved, we are seeking from the Israeli authorities both consular access to our nationals, as they would expect, and assurances about their good treatment. We understand that British nationals are expected to be deported back to the UK imminently. We are obviously following that up rapidly. If colleagues across the House have concerns, they are very welcome to raise them with me. We are, of course, as I said in the statement, in direct contact with those families who have approached the Foreign Office directly.
I can reassure the shadow Foreign Secretary that we are heavily engaged in the efforts she describes in relation to Gaza, both on reconstruction and on ensuring that adequate aid gets into Gaza. As I was clear in the statement, the amount of aid getting in remains inadequate and the restrictions remain contrary to the 20-point plan. We are pushing those points with Israeli authorities, as she would expect, and with all those with an interest in Gaza. That includes COGAT and CMCC, which she mentioned, and some of the new institutions formed under the Board of Peace—I saw High Representative Mladenov in Brussels and am in regular contact with him. It also includes the important discussions about the disarmament of Hamas. Similarly, we remain in regular discussions about the importance of demonstrating real progress in Lebanon on the disarmament of Lebanese Hezbollah. I discussed that with the Lebanese Foreign Minister just this week.
I am happy to say more about the sanctions that we have put in place already. I came to this House to announce some sanctions in October 2025. Those were precisely targeted on senior regime assets in the UK, which included significant restrictions on property ownership, which the right hon. Lady is aware of, up to a total value of £140 million. Given the serious nature of the topic, I will resist entering into discussion about Brexit. Whether or not the GCC FTA is long overdue, it was a negotiation started by Members now on the Opposition Benches, and it is a great pleasure for us to conclude it from the Government Benches.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I welcome the statement by the Minister, his reiteration of the Government’s commitment to international law, and that they are prepared to take further action—and will not hesitate to do so—when it comes to Palestine.
It has been almost two years since the International Court of Justice issued its advisory opinion on Israel and the occupied territories, calling on the Government to take action. Since then, settler violence has exploded; just this week, the UN released a report stating in no uncertain terms that the far-right Israeli Government are weaponising settler violence to carry out their stated intention of annexing the west bank.
In February, we were told that the Government wanted to respond to the advisory opinion with
“the rigour and seriousness that it deserves.”—[Official Report, 5 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 524.]
In March, the Minister again told us that the Government would update the House on their reaction to the ICJ’s advisory opinion. My question is: when will we stop hesitating and take action to ensure that international law is respected?
Mr Falconer
I am grateful to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee for her question, which, as she says, she has put to me before. First, it is important to emphasise that we continue to take steps to ensure that international law is adhered to, and that those principles underline our response both to events in Isael-Palestine and across the wider middle east. I know the House is impatient for a fuller answer in relation to the advisory opinion, even though most of the substantive elements of policy I have addressed from the Dispatch Box.
My right hon. Friend is a learned lawyer herself, so will know that there are some horizontal implications from the advisory opinion that go beyond simply the context in the middle east, which is one reason that we have been taking our time. I will endeavour to return to the House with the speed that she demands, which I understand.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. I know that many colleagues, like me, are frustrated by the Government’s lack of action to secure progress of a two-state solution. The UK is rightly committed to the disarmament of Hamas and Hezbollah. Those terror groups cannot be allowed to continue destabilising the region, but it is not clear that concrete action is being taken to deliver that. Can the Minister tell me how the Government are co-ordinating international efforts to disarm and disband both groups?
Our influence over proscribed groups is less than over a state we call an ally. That is why Liberal Democrats have been so critical of the Minister’s failure to hold the Israeli Security Cabinet to account for its extremist actions. I was disgusted by the footage of the far-right Minister, Ben-Gvir, degrading detainees from the Global Samud Flotilla. This was after celebrating his birthday with a cake emblazoned with a noose, following the passage of a death penalty law targeting Palestinians. It was right that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office called in the Israeli chargé d'affaires to register our condemnation, but it is far from sufficient.
In the west bank, settler violence and expansion accelerates. At the start of June, tenders will be delivered for the construction in the E1 area, a move that could kill the chance of a contiguous Palestinian state. In Gaza, Israeli forces push forward their yellow line, inch by inch. The entry of aid continues to be impeded by restrictive measures, while the humanitarian catastrophe only worsens and journalists are still blocked from entering. In southern Lebanon, the Israeli Defence Force demolishes Lebanese houses and entire villages—an abhorrent and illegal operation.
Across those issues, the Government’s muted response and dysfunction can be summarised in a single example: the decision to cut the FCDO’s unit for the monitoring of international law breaches across Israel and Palestine. Can the Minister set out what steps the Government will take if the E1 project continues? Will the Minister ban all UK trade with illegal settlements, reverse cuts to the FCDO’s monitoring unit and press the Israeli Government to allow journalists access to Gaza so that they can collect what evidence may remain of war crimes committed there?
Mr Falconer
I want to be clear about British leadership on those questions. As I said in the statement, before all of the events that the hon. Member describes with Mr Ben-Gvir, I had already sanctioned him from the Dispatch Box. We did so in advance of most of our key friends and allies. As I was walking to the Chamber today, I saw that some of our European friends are now considering doing what we did in August of last year. We have taken action both in company and alone, given the significance of events in the region, and we will continue to do so.
Turning to the hon. Member’s important points about some of the Foreign Office structures, I am particularly sensitive to those questions, as a proud former member of the diplomatic service myself. It is important to set out that the world is changing very rapidly, and Foreign Office structures need to change too. Whether it is some of the reports today about the Iran unit, or reports in recent weeks about the international humanitarian law assessment cell, responsibility lies with Ministers to ensure that we are properly served on advice about both Iran and international humanitarian law. I still get that advice.
It is true that there need to be some changes in the structure of the Foreign Office. Since I was in the Foreign Office in 2015, the headcount in the UK—counting both Departments—has increased by 40% over a decade. That is something that we need to address. I spent a great deal of my career overseas, and that is where I would like to see the majority of the diplomatic if possible.
We need to make changes, but to be clear, no unit—not the Iran unit and not the IHL cell—is being targeted. It is my responsibility to ensure that I am properly advised on both of those questions, and I am. What has been referred to is an offer to all staff that they can take part redundancy or voluntary redundancy if they would like to. It was not specific to the Iran unit, which does incredibly important work. I was with it this morning, and I assure the House that the Foreign Secretary and I, and the rest of Government, continue to be excellently served by the officials of the Foreign Office.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
This week we have seen two Israeli Ministers, already sanctioned by this Government, act with impunity—Ben-Gvir assaulting and mocking humanitarian aid activists, and Smotrich saying the Palestinian Authority will “get a war”. Smotrich then ordered the ethnic cleansing, an apartheid act, of the village of Khan al-Ahmar, as part of the illegal development of the E1 corridor. Khan al-Ahmar is a village that many colleagues and I visited, including my right hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband) and for Ilford North (Wes Streeting).
As co-chair of the Britain-Palestine all-party parliamentary group, I ask the Minister, does he agree that our diplomacy and limited-sanctions approach is not working to arrest the ongoing genocide? Will he set out what steps he will take with Government colleagues to escalate pressure, through resourcing the enforcement of criminal law, including the application of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, updating the overseas business risk guidance, and ensuring regulatory bodies are advising their members in relation to the continued illegal trade in settlement goods and services?
Mr Falconer
I know that my hon. Friend is deeply committed to these issues. He raises a number of important points about further steps that the British Government might take. I am not in a position to go beyond what I have said in my statement at the moment, other than to reassure him—particularly in relation to the village that he mentions, which has been visited by a large number of Members, not just on the Government Benches but right across the House—that he is absolutely right to say that further development of the E1 settlement would be hugely damaging to a two-state solution. We will treat any further moves in that direction with the seriousness that they deserve.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
While the trade agreement with the GCC is obviously welcome, why does the Minister think it is possible to reach a trade agreement with the GCC but not to influence its members to play a more positive role in resolving the issues in Yemen, Sudan and elsewhere? They have a key role to play in these disputes. I know that he takes a very specific issue on Yemen. What more can he do to make the United Arab Emirates, for example, play a more positive role there and elsewhere?
Mr Falconer
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me an opportunity to touch briefly on Yemen. Events there remain dire, and we continue to see famine right across the country. The behaviour of the Houthis is not in the interests of the Yemeni people. We have regular and fruitful discussions with all our partners on the GCC about Yemen, Sudan and a whole range of international crises facing us, and will continue to do so.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement. I am proud to be part of the Labour Government who took the historic decision to recognise the state of Palestine. However, the prospect of a single, unified Palestinian state is now under enormous pressure from the expansion of illegal settlements. Does the Minister agree that anyone who wishes to have a just and lasting peace in the middle east must oppose settlement expansion?
Mr Falconer
It is a great pleasure to answer a question from my hon. Friend, not least because he himself was a distinguished member of the diplomatic service. He is absolutely right.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
My constituent Antonis Vradis is a much-valued and loved professor at the University of St Andrews. He is one of a number of British citizens who have been detained by the Israeli authorities in international waters and taken to Israel for processing. I have been in touch with his family, friends, colleagues and students in recent days, who are all deeply concerned about how he will be treated and when he will be released. The video that Members have already referred to seems to confirm their worst fears. Although I am pleased to see reports of those from the Israeli embassy being summoned to meet the FCDO, and I am grateful for confirmation from the Minister on the expected processing and release, were the actual calls of the Sumud flotilla raised in the meeting with the Israeli chargé d’affaires? We need those aid routes reopened and we need aid to come into Gaza under UN oversight.
Mr Falconer
They were, as they have been in every engagement with the Israeli Government since the signature of the 20-point plan. It is vital that aid gets in at the scale and in the manner envisaged under the 20-point plan.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
I commend the Government’s action on Iran; they are doing the right thing where others in this Chamber would have led us down a different and dangerous path.
I agree with the Minister’s words on Palestine and Lebanon, but we are long past the point of words being anything like enough. I served in Hebron as a human rights observer 13 years ago, and what the Minister describes as happening there today was happening then. I have also visited Khan al-Ahmar, which the Israeli Government now wish to wipe off the map. Experts say that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza and working to ethnically cleanse the west bank. The Israeli Government have passed a law to hang Palestinians. The Minister is my good and hon. Friend, and he says that the Government are not hesitating to act on this issue, but that is not true. Unfortunately, for far too long, we have been hesitant to take further meaningful action. Where are the comprehensive sanctions on the people committing these human rights violations and holding up aid from entering Gaza? Why do we not yet have a ban on settlement trade? Why have we not yet banned British charities that are funnelling money to settlements?
Mr Falconer
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has long been committed to these issues, both during her time in this House and before, and is, I think, the only Member of this House who has been to Gaza since the conflict began. We have taken wave after wave of sanctions action. I want to reassure her that we treat these issues with the seriousness that they deserve, and I am sure I will be returning to the House in due course to update her.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
As I am sure the Minister is realising, we are all a bit fed up with yet another gaslighting statement on Israel and Palestine. There is no ceasefire in Lebanon; we all see the killings—the double and triple-tap killings—on a daily basis. As he himself said, the situation in the west bank is worse than it has ever been, with rampaging gangs kettling Palestinians into the cities where who knows what will happen to him, yet we continue to trade with these people and support them. In Gaza, whether by accident or design, there is no progress whatsoever, and the situation continues to worsen. As the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), says, can the Minister not see that when he stands up and says that the Government will not hesitate, we are all thinking that every statement is yet another hesitation in the face of an unfolding picture of savagery across the whole region?
I have one specific question for the Minister on the detainees from the flotilla in particular: if that is what Ben-Gvir and his henchmen are willing to do to British and European citizens on camera, what does he think they are doing to Palestinians off camera?
Mr Falconer
I made that very point in my statement. Of course, we can expect that what Mr Ben-Gvir is willing to do on camera to Europeans and others is just a fraction of what is being done behind closed doors. That is why I made that exact comparison in my statement, and it is why we sanctioned him well before many of our friends and partners.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)
I have written to my hon. Friend to inform him that I have a constituency interest in this urgent statement. I welcome what has already been done in bringing the Israelis in this morning to discuss the concerns of both the Government and this House. Will the Minister reassure me that the Government will consider all consular and diplomatic means and access to legal advice to highlight the cruel and dehumanising impact on our constituents, who are there with other Europeans, and ensure justice for not just our constituents, but the Palestinians?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend and former colleague in the Foreign Office for her question. We are pressing for full consular rights—we made that point this morning. We understand from the Israelis that all participants on the flotilla will be deported back to their place of origin. We are urgently following up with the Israeli Government on the detail and manner of that.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Yesterday I raised a point of order on the attack on Khan al-Ahmar and the brutality of the settler forces who are destroying lives there. That is now continuing all across the west bank, where settler violence is destroying Palestinian villages. The genocide in Gaza is continuing; the occupation of the west bank in its totality is continuing. The Minister talks about sanctions against Israel, but where are the sanctions that mean anything? Why are we still supplying arms and weapons? Why are we still supplying security information to Israel? Why are we still occasioning its military attacks against the Palestinian people? If sanctions are to mean anything, they have to do something to prevent Israel’s brutality against the entirety of the Palestinian people, be they in Gaza, in the west bank, or in refugee camps in Lebanon.
Mr Falconer
It is important to be clear that we are providing no bombs and no bullets to the Israeli Government that could be used against Palestinians. That is the decision that this Government took shortly after entry into government, and we continue to stand by it. We have put in place a range of sanctions—we have talked about Mr Ben-Gvir already this afternoon, but there is also Mr Smotrich. I think any reasonable observer would think that sanctions on both a Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Finance as quite far ranging.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The challenge for the Minister is that we have come in for a statement on the middle east, but in the last few weeks alone, we have seen the treatment of detainees being flaunted on television by an Israeli Minister, who clearly has no regard for international human law, and that clearly demands a stronger response. We have seen an ongoing restriction on aid to Gaza, which the Minister himself describes as resulting in children being bitten by rats, and we have seen an ongoing escalation in violence on the west bank. How will we make the current Israeli Government understand—as we also wish the current Iranian regime to understand—that we mean business if the Minister keeps coming to the House to tell us that he will not hesitate, but hesitates to set out what he is actually going to do in response to these incidents?
Mr Falconer
I have sought to set out the action we are taking in relation to Israel and Palestine, both our publicly announced steps and the diplomatic work going on behind the scenes, and I have tried to do the same in relation to Iran. We are in no doubt about the seriousness of the situation, and we will continue to use our full diplomatic weight to try to improve it.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I have a constituent—I am not going to name him today—who has been illegally arrested in international waters, and I agree with the Minister that there should be early, indeed immediate, consular access.
Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to Egypt’s role in peacemaking in the region, particularly in seeking to bring peace and to rebuild Gaza? He mentioned the Israeli chargé d’affaires. May I counsel the Minister gently that, as the agrément progresses, whatever the choice of Israel, it should be a choice that also fits well within the United Kingdom?
I have said this before and I would like to say it again: the life of a Palestinian child is as precious as the life of an Israeli child. That is my undergirding—my starting point—in any discussions about the region. Israel’s national security Minister Ben-Gvir’s behaviour in taunting Gaza peace activists is “despicable”—that is the word of the current US ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee. It is very rare that I agree with Governor Huckabee, but on this occasion he is absolutely right.
Finally, criticism of the current Israeli Government over their actions in Gaza and the west bank is not anti-Israel or antisemitic. It is not bigoted or pro-Hamas or pro-Hezbollah. It is about being a robust and candid friend to an important friend and ally. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
Mr Falconer
The right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful contribution, and I am sure he could hear the welcome that his comments received from many on the Labour Back Benches. It is a sign when those who have Israel’s long-term interests closest to their hearts make exactly some of those points. I was glad to see that he also saw the Egyptian Foreign Minister this week and was able to present to him directly the views that he just described, and which I share.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
I welcome this week’s trade agreement with the gulf countries, and I give particular thanks to the Ministers and diplomats who worked hard to deliver it. Given Iran’s belligerence towards its neighbours, however, can the Minister outline what measures we are taking to support gulf states under threat from Iran, and to help de-escalate the situation there?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words, and I am glad for the opportunity to thank the excellent officials in the Foreign Office and the Department for Business and Trade. I am glad to see that the Minister for Trade has just come back into the Chamber; he played an essential role in ensuring that the free trade agreement was concluded, and we are very grateful to him.
To my hon. Friend’s question about the gulf, we work incredibly closely with our gulf partners, and we were very glad to host the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Minister and the United Arab Emirates’ Foreign Minister this week. We have been working closely with them, as we will continue to do, to ensure that their countries can fully defend themselves against Iran’s reckless attacks.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for his statement, having applied for an urgent question alongside the leader of Plaid Cymru in Westminster, the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), and other hon. Members.
One of my constituents, Katy Davidson, was on board the Global Sumud Flotilla and has been illegally arrested and likely subjected to the disgusting and degrading treatment that we have all seen. The Israeli Government flout international law after international law against British citizens. Does the Minister agree that it is time to ban all imports from the illegal settlements in the west bank, finally close the shameful arms export loopholes, and enforce a total arms embargo? What more do war criminals like Netanyahu, Ben-Gvir and others need to do before this Government act? More inaction will leave this Government firmly on the wrong side of history.
Mr Falconer
I think the loophole the hon. Member is referring to is the global supply chain of the F-35. I would welcome a bit more clarity from the Liberal Democrats on how they think that loophole can be closed and the F-35 supply chain maintained. We have discussed these issues in the Chamber a number of times, and they have been pressed in the courts. We continue to stand by our position, and I am sure the Liberal Democrats have thought it through.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Israel has been stepping up illegal land grabs in the occupied west bank, so this week’s threats by Minister Smotrich to forcibly evict the Palestinian community of Khan al-Ahmar is part of a wider pattern of illegal settlement expansion. There is a growing chorus calling for a ban on all settlement goods and on trade with Israel’s illegal settlements. That is what international law demands. What are the Government and the Minister waiting for?
Mr Falconer
I think I addressed those questions earlier, but let me reassure my hon. Friend that we continue to treat the situation with the seriousness that it deserves. I am not going to trail further announcements from the Dispatch Box, but we obviously keep all these matters under close review.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The behaviour of Smotrich and Ben-Gvir brings shame on all of us who consider ourselves to be friends of Israel. Given that the joint comprehensive plan of action was not working and Iran continued to advance its plans for a nuclear weapon, how would the Minister have de-fanged the regime? While he is right to claim some credit for the FTA with the gulf states, will he give credit, too, to his predecessors, who did a lot of the heavy lifting, and will he at least concede that the whole thing would not have been possible if we were still in the European Union?
Mr Falconer
It is very difficult to have one’s predecessor ask in Parliament for credit to be given to his predecessors. In the spirit of the bipartisanship we have shown this afternoon, I acknowledge that talks on the GCC FTA were indeed started under the previous Government—
Mr Falconer
But not finished, indeed. I am sure the Minister for Trade would be keen to emphasise how much heavy lifting has been required over recent months and years to get it over the line.
I will not enter into a hypothetical discussion about the approach that has been taken since 2015 to try to ensure that Iran did not have the degree of highly enriched uranium that it now has, and how that could have been avoided, because that is the situation we now face. We must have a serious diplomatic process that involves a reduction of HEU, which is such a danger not just to the region but to the world, including the UK. We take that with the seriousness that the right hon. Gentleman would expect.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Even as we debate today, Israel continues to commit genocide in Gaza and war crimes across Palestine. It is engaging in illegal land grabs, expanding illegal settlements at unprecedented levels, and illegally abducting and torturing activists simply for trying to deliver aid to starving children. Our duty under international law is not unclear; what is unclear is this Government’s courage to act. All we have heard again today from the Minister—it is becoming somewhat repetitive—is some light condemnation and a vague promise to act at some point in the future. I say this to the Minister very sincerely: even as we debate today, hundreds of Palestinian children are dying and starving. He has a moral and a legal duty to act today. Why will he not?
Mr Falconer
Yesterday, I heard from Palestinian children about the struggles that they face. I have taken steps at every stage to try to ensure that they get help and assistance, and that they can exercise their rights in relation to both their education and the dreadful situation that I described in my statement.
I reject my hon. Friend’s characterisation of my action and that of the Government; we take this with the seriousness that it requires. The condemnation that I have heard from across the House is for a man I have already sanctioned. For the first time in British history, a British Minister has sanctioned Israeli Ministers—and not just junior Ministers but very senior Ministers. We did it deliberately and we did it in advance of our partners. Others are considering repeating our actions. I accept his strength of feeling about the suffering. I do not accept his condemnation that we have done nothing.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The Minister recognises that the Netanyahu Government are imposing a stranglehold on any possibility of Palestinian self-determination. The expansion of settlements and the ongoing horror in Gaza are all completely unacceptable. He said:
“I have been clear that we are prepared to take further action and will not hesitate to do so”,
but he comes to the Chamber again and again to hesitate. It is nearly two years since the ICJ judgment. We should have banned settlement trade years ago. It is nearly one year since the sanctions—that he repeatedly referred to today—came in, and what have we seen in that year? Ongoing horror in Gaza, in the west bank and in Lebanon. The time for hesitation is over. When will the Government stop repeatedly hesitating and take action?
Mr Falconer
I would take the point with more force if we were not today seeing our European partners looking to imitate things that we did some considerable time ago. I recognise the depth of feeling, which I share, about the suffering in Palestine and across the region, but it is simply not correct to suggest that the Government have done nothing. We have set out the action we have taken in relation to sanctions, arms exports and a range of other issues.
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)
Yet again, we have seen a flotilla taking essential aid to Gaza intercepted by Israel. Subsequently, the people who were trying to ensure that aid was delivered were subjected to violence, humiliation and abuse by Ben-Gvir. We should not be surprised, because last month the Israeli military approved the return of reservists involved in the rape of a Palestinian man in July 2024; the detention centre where he was held has become notorious for torture. That follows the dismissal of all charges against the Israeli reservists in March this year when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hailed the soldiers as “heroic warriors”.
What conversations has the Minister had with Israeli officials about this pattern of glorifying rapists and allowing them to serve in the Israeli military? In his statement, he said that he has been clear that he is
“prepared to take further action”.
What is that action, and when will it come?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for the question. I can hear the frustration from colleagues, which I often hear when I indicate that further action may be possible but will not trail it before the Government take it. That is for long—
Mr Falconer
Well, I have laid out the steps that we have taken so far. Let me turn to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker). She focused in particular on sexual violence, which is about the most appalling of crimes, but if she will permit me, I want to talk a bit about the wider situation in relation to justice and accountability.
British aid workers have been killed in Israeli strikes in Gaza. There is a reasonable expectation from the House, and indeed from across the world, that the Israeli Government and the Israeli justice system will ensure accountability for everyone, but particularly when foreign nationals are involved. We continue to press for further progress in relation to accountability. If the Israeli Government and the Israeli justice system cannot demonstrate that progress, international partners—including the UK—will draw adverse judgments about what that means about Israeli systems.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
I almost sympathise with the Minister, because really everybody in the House is exasperated by the lack of action. I represent Dundee, which has been twinned with Nablus on the west bank for the last 45 years. The members of the Dundee-Nablus Twinning Association write to me regularly about positive things that could be done; I will give one example. Given that entirely illegal expansion of the occupied west bank is continuing—there were 34 settlements planned in April alone—the International Court of Justice has directed states not to trade with Israel in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and other European countries such as Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands and Ireland are taking unilateral steps to ban trade with illegal settlements. The Minister said that he does not want to put things out early, but I think these steps are already under way—why are we not doing this? There is a precedent in UK law and policy for not trading with those who have illegally occupied lands such as Crimea and other illegally occupied parts of Ukraine. Will he please stop making excuses, and outline when the Government will finally uphold their international legal obligations and ban that trade?
Mr Falconer
I am reluctant to pass comment on the deliberations of other legislatures. The hon. Member referred to a number of European Union countries; as I am sure he knows, they have not taken steps on trade, as that is a European Union competence. They are discussing whether they might review their association agreement with Israel, but they have not yet done so. I am not in a competition, but I think any reasonable observer would say that the UK has gone further than the EU on these matters.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for engaging with me and a group of my constituents, young people and cross-party faith leaders on this issue, which continues to come up with my constituents. This week, one of my constituents wrote to me about the flotilla, outlining that peaceful volunteers were seized in international waters, which is an act explicitly prohibited under international law. I therefore welcome the Minister’s condemnation of the Israeli Government’s horrific and disgraceful actions, which we have all seen. We know that staff are working really hard to get the British nationals concerned home. He is correct in saying that we would not have needed the flotilla if Israel was allowing vital humanitarian aid to get through to the Palestinians who are in so much need.
The Minister can see the frustration of hon. Members from across the House, including the right hon. Members for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), and for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), and my hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), and for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy). We want to help the Minister, but we are concerned that although we come back here time and again, we do not see meaningful action that says to the people perpetrating these acts, “Enough is enough.” Every life is valuable, and every life matters; we cannot sit back and watch what is happening with impunity. What more can the Minister do, through his good offices, to say: enough is enough?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for the question, and for welcoming me to her constituency recently to discuss this. We will continue to take every step we can in recognition of the seriousness of the situation.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The Minister talked earlier about accountability. My constituent Chris Hill was kidnapped and held in captivity by Israeli forces this week. I raised concerns about his wellbeing in a point of order on Monday. It has taken three days for the Government to come to the House with an update, during which time people legitimately engaged in supplying humanitarian aid and bearing witness to the Israeli Government’s aid blockade in Gaza have been subjected to public humiliation and physical harm. As the Minister said, we know what happens when the doors are not closed; we can only surmise what happens when the doors are closed. Why is the Government’s reaction characterised by hesitancy?
Mr Falconer
I do not accept the characterisation, but I reassure the right hon. Member that it does not take my being stood at the Dispatch Box for us to be taking action on behalf of British nationals in distress overseas. We have been engaged in the cases of all British nationals on the flotilla since we were first alerted.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement, and his condemnation of Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, in particular for their horrific and appalling treatment of both Europeans and Palestinians, but does he agree that condemnation alone is not sufficient, and that Netanyahu, Ben-Gvir and Smotrich should be handed over to the International Criminal Court for their ongoing genocide in Gaza, and the illegal behaviour that they have demonstrated in many aspects of the war in the middle east? I welcome the Minister’s announcing that Iran should not have nuclear powers, but what gives us the right to be judge and jury on that, if we are not demanding the same from Israel? Does he agree that if no one in the middle east is to hold nuclear power, Israel needs to disarm as well?
Mr Falconer
The UK is a committed member of both the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the Rome statute, and we encourage all states to fully abide by their commitments under both, including in relation to the International Criminal Court.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement. According to the United Nations, the number of violent incidents in the west bank caused by illegal settlers increased to a record level last August. It is no coincidence that that is the time of maximum harvests in the area. Will the Government continue to enact sanctions against violent settler movements, and will they also start to ban the import of settlement goods? Will the Minister sanction the politicians who are inciting the violence, and who are responsible for the insidious—disgraceful, in fact—legislation enacted against Palestinians? That includes the introduction of the death penalty, and the petty and short-sighted removal of recognition of academic degrees gained in Palestine, so that people with those degrees cannot work as teachers in Israel, or anywhere else where Israel holds sway.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I remind Members that questions need to be much shorter if we are going to get business done today.
Mr Falconer
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the question. I will not go further on sanctions, for the reasons I have set out, but I am sure she is aware that I and the Foreign Secretary condemned the death penalty measures that she referred to, and we continue to do so.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I am sure my hon. Friend acknowledges the frustration that he can hear from Members from across the whole House. Let me make some suggestions on what he could do to make a difference: take action against companies bidding to build the E1 settlement of 3,400 homes on Palestinian soil; introduce a trade ban on settlement products and services; and suspend trade concessions with Israel. It is clear that criticism alone does not deter the Israeli Government. Those are not just my suggestions; they are the suggestions of 32 leading former ambassadors, who say that the UK can do this. Surely we should be able to act.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call the Minister to give an example of a really nice, short answer.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s coming to the House this afternoon to provide an update. I believe that he is genuinely concerned about what is happening in Gaza, but the breaches of international law by the Israeli Government continue, and the suffering in Gaza is worsening. I have just one question: will he please give some assurance that we are not still sending arms to Israel, either directly or indirectly, that are then used against the Palestinians?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I remind Members that they can cut straight to the question.
Mr Falconer
I can reassure my hon. Friend that we are selling no bombs and no bullets that could be used against the Palestinians.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—I will truncate my question. Israel is demonstrating a disinterest in peace and a disregard for international norms. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to put more pressure on our regional partners, with whom we have recently created a trade arrangement, so that we can achieve the outcomes that our unilateral measures are failing to deliver?
Mr Falconer
I absolutely agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that we need to work with our partners across the region to have the best effect.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
In Lebanon, the Government’s contribution to the humanitarian response is welcome, but the response does not work when aid workers are being killed; 116 healthcare and rescue personnel have already died. The House is united in condemning these violations of international law, but does the Minister accept that the killing will not stop until there is accountability?
Mr Falconer
There must be accountability. I met members of the Lebanese Red Cross during my recent visit, and was appalled to see further killings of those in their brave number subsequently.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for schools, learning and assessment. I thank the Minister for his virtual visit to a school in Hebron yesterday. What did he hear directly from pupils at that school about their hopes for peace, and what more can we do to ensure that everyone in Palestine and across the world has the right to an education?
Mr Falconer
I heard from girls wanting to be doctors and teachers that they could not get to school in the morning because of restrictions. I heard that their dads could not walk them to school or pick them up at night, and that their education was regularly very significantly disrupted. We need to see progress on all those points.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
The Finance Minister of Israel, Smotrich, has alleged that an arrest warrant has been issued for him. He has said that this alleged arrest warrant is “a declaration of war”, and that his first move will be to demolish the village of Khan al-Ahmar. Does my hon. Friend condemn any attempt to put pressure on the International Criminal Court, and does he condemn any attempt to punish the Palestinian people in this way? Does he agree that people should face justice for war crimes?
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Although I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement, given all we have heard today, my constituents and I are concerned about the reported closure of the Conflict and Security Monitoring Project. I have seen at first hand how important its work is, and how important the projects are that it undertakes, in order to monitor human rights violations in the region. Can my hon. Friend assure the House that the Foreign Office is still able to track the number of potential breaches of international law in Israel, Palestine and Lebanon, and compare that to the number this time last year?
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement. I declare an interest as a member of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, but I speak for myself. The actions of Minister Gvir, seen on the news last night, are an utter disgrace. As a Jewish MP, I was ashamed, for sometimes it is not easy to be a Jewish MP in this House. Does the Minister agree that the actions of certain Israeli Ministers are not the responsibility of the Anglo-Jewish population, and that there can be no excuse for the terrible epidemic of antisemitism we have seen on British streets? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
Mr Falconer
I could not agree more with my hon. Friends. The actions of the Israeli Government are nothing to do with British Jewry. I was so pleased and honoured to be with members of the community on Monday, and made that very point to them. There is no excuse of any kind for antisemitism; Israel has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
That concludes the statement. I thank Members for shortening their questions, so that we could get everybody in.
Humble Address: Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the Government’s return to the Humble Address on Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. I will speak briefly, because I am conscious of the time.
I have today laid before the House documents that the Government have identified that the House requested in its 24 February 2026 Humble Address, covering the creation of the role of special representative for trade and investment in 2001, the appointment of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, and the advice of officials and Ministers.s This has not been straightforward. Departments have changed in the intervening years and most documentation was then paper-based. In addition, we have had to be careful about not compromising the police investigation. I am glad to say that we have published 11 documents today, including: the formal appointment proposal, evidence that Ministers were content with the proposal, internal communications, and media and press briefings. The documents speak for themselves, and all hon. Members can read them as they are available in the Vote Office.
I want to assure the House that we have proceeded on the basis of maximum transparency and have only redacted material that bears no relevance to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, such as travel proposals for other members of the royal family or content that would otherwise prejudice international relations. I reiterate that the Government are fully co-operating with Thames Valley police in their investigation into potential misconduct in public office. I commend this statement to the House.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of both the long and short versions of his statement. We support the Humble Address and continue to support full transparency in this matter. I have just a few questions.
I think the Minister said that this is just the start of a full disclosure. Will he share with the House whether there will be further disclosure, or is this the final amount? If there are to be further tranches, will he give the House a clear and final timetable for when the process will be complete? Is the absence of a formal record of due diligence or any vetting process evidence that the Government raised no questions at the time about the appointment? Where, if anywhere, are the documented concerns or challenge from officials or Ministers at the time?
When will the full set of files that this House requested relating to Lord Mandelson’s role, and particularly any advice, correspondence or due diligence connected to his appointment, be released to the House? Finally, the Minister has a large trade envoy programme under his responsibility. What due diligence are the Government doing on appointees to that trade envoy programme, and do those appointees follow a code of conduct that governs their behaviour?
Chris Bryant
Yes, there was a long version but, to be honest, I would basically have been reading out the written ministerial statement that we laid at 10.30 am. Much as I love the sound of my own voice, I am not sure that the House does—I think I have united the House on that—so I thought I would go for the shorter version. The papers speak for themselves.
The hon. Lady asked whether there will be more. I suspect that there will not. I think that this is nearly everything—certainly, this is everything that we have come across so far. Of course, we will keep on looking, notwithstanding the complexity around searching in paper-based systems in multiple Departments. I give the House a guarantee that if there is more to publish, I will come back with more, but I suspect that this may be our last tranche.
The hon. Lady asked whether Ministers raised questions at the time. I have published everything that relates to that period. There is nothing else, I think, to be found. The statements that say Ministers were content is the sum total of the response. I suppose, to some degree, that is understandable, bearing in mind that the palace had made it very clear that Her late Majesty was very keen that Andrew be given a job, that Andrew was keen to take on the job, and that the job had previously been done by another member of the royal family in broadly the same terms.
I am afraid that I cannot answer the question about the Lord Mandelson papers for the simple reason that I have been trying very much to keep this Humble Address separate from the other one. We had a different set of procedures to go through. I briefed Members on the Conservative Front Bench, as I did Members on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, earlier this week, when they indicated that they would be perfectly happy if we did not make a statement or respond to an urgent question of any kind, because the papers speak for themselves.
On trade envoys, the hon. Lady makes a perfectly legitimate point. I made the point the last time around that although I understand the connection people make between the role that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor played and that of modern trade envoys, they are actually very different, partly because of the royal nature of Andrew’s role in the past, but also because all trade envoys whom we appoint at the moment are Members of either this House or the House of Lords. They are not only bound by the code of conduct of this House or the other, but bound in exactly the same way as any Minister would be in terms of the code that is expected of them. We make all that extremely clear to trade envoys. Since I have been appointed, I have gathered the trade envoys together on two or three occasions, and whenever a new one is appointed, I sit with them and go through the details.
Chris Bryant
I hear the right hon. Member’s chuntering, in his regular application process to be made a trade envoy. I am still considering his proposal.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The Minister has so far given us two reasons why the statement he has just given at the Dispatch Box is different from the one that was sent, embargoed, an hour ago. If it is the same as the written statement, why was it sent out as embargoed? I should also say, dare I say it, that transparency should not be trumped by time limits in relation to the business of this House.
It has been three months since the House passed the Liberal Democrat Humble Address to release the files showing how and why Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was appointed as a UK special representative for trade and investment, and until today the Government have published only one written statement, which told us very little. The Minister has not previously come to the Dispatch Box at all; I note the difference from the response to the Humble Address, in the name of the official Opposition, relating to Peter Mandelson.
The files that we have seen show that there was no vetting by the Government and that, even then, no questions appear to have been asked. The lack of documentation provided is itself concerning, as is the time taken to get this far. The Minister has said that he is not sure whether there are more documents. When will he be sure, and when will he release any remaining documents? The documents we do have clearly show concerns about the potential for conflicts of interest. It started with golf, but we all know what came next. Why did that not lead to any scrutiny or vetting, not just at the start but at any stage during Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s tenure as an envoy? The guardrails were not in place. The appointment came into effect more than a year after Ministers said that they were happy for it to happen, and the files also show that the then Prime Minister had been aware from the start and did nothing. There was time for the warning signs to be taken seriously. Why were no questions asked at all in that period?
In his written statement to the House today, the Minister excused the lack of vetting and oversight because Andrew was a royal replacing a royal. Does he agree that safeguards must be put in place for any future such appointments? Can he tell the House whether officials or Ministers were aware at the time of Andrew’s connection to Jeffrey Epstein, which had already been established when the appointment was made? Was this connection monitored? Finally, can the Minister confirm, given their absence from this release, that there are no documents pertaining to communications with Peter Mandelson about the appointment?
Chris Bryant
If I am honest, I am bit miffed by the attitude of Liberal Democrat Front Benchers, because I have regularly updated them ever since the Humble Address was passed. I have been as open as possible with them, and they have privately indicated to me, regularly, that they were perfectly happy with the progress we were making.
I thought there would be some difficulties for us to overcome, in particular the connection between the Humble Address and the police investigation—obviously, we do not want to do anything that might imperil the investigation. I think all hon. Members would agree that, if the police were to find evidence and felt that the Crown Prosecution Service should take forward charges of misconduct in public office, we would all support the prosecuting authorities in doing their duty. I explained all that to the hon. Lady’s hon. Friends, who indicated that they were perfectly happy with that process. I had thought that the police might ask us not to publish some of the material; in fact, they have been very co-operative and have allowed us to publish everything.
We have made some minor redactions, as I have said. Some of those relate to material that has absolutely nothing to do with Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. For instance, where there is talk about the Royal Visits Committee or visits by other members of the royal family, we have redacted that material, as we have material where there are possibilities that we might upset our international allies.
The hon. Lady asked whether any more papers will be coming along. At this point, I am not aware of any. As I said earlier, I suspect that this is the sum total of what we have. She quite rightly makes the point— I think a lot of people are surprised—that, as I think we have known for some time, no vetting was done. It has been standard not to vet members of the royal family. She asked me whether we would vet anybody else who was appointed to such a role. We have no intention of appointing anybody to such a role in the future, but of course we are grateful for the support that the royal family regularly provides with international visits around the world. I think everybody, including those who disagreed with it, has accepted that His Majesty’s visit to the United States of America was a great success. I do not think we should be vetting His Majesty the King, and I do not think the hon. Lady is suggesting that either; I think she was just trying to get grumpy with me.
I have tried to answer all the hon. Lady’s questions. I reassure her that, honestly, we have moved at pace, as fast as we can. It is difficult to find some of the paperwork because it is literally paperwork, and the Government Departments have changed multiple times in the intervening years, but we have moved as fast as we can.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
May I just say for the record that I have not made any formal application to be a trade and investment envoy? I previously was a trade and investment envoy under Prime Minister Theresa May, who is now in another place. What I am concerned about is the fact that this particular programme is not cross-party. It was set up by David Cameron, now Lord Cameron, and its strength, I felt, was in the fact that it was cross-party rather than full of mostly Labour Members and Labour peers. I just wanted to put that on the record.
The Minister references the amount of paper-based documentation, but of course, we have not all gone to the cloud overnight. If he goes down to the National Archives at Kew, he will find a lot of paper records going back quite a long time, not just from the last 20 or so years.
On a more substantive point, I want to ask the Minister about the role of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. He will know, as a former Foreign Office Minister, that diplomatic telegrams are sent by embassies—often by ambassadors—back to London, and possibly even to the royal household. I wonder whether any of those have been disclosed in the papers, which I have not had time to read today because they have only just been laid.
Finally, have any of those diptels, or responses to them, made their way to the office of senior officials in the royal household? Did they know anything about the activities of the former Prince Andrew? Who did they speak to about it, and what action, if any, was taken?
Chris Bryant
The right hon. Gentleman says he has not applied for a post as a trade envoy. I do not want to show the House the text messages he sent me, but anyway, he makes a fair point. I want to make sure that the trade envoy programme is really effective and delivers around the world. I was with Lord Alderdice the other day, who is not a member of the Labour party, at the London stock exchange when the Uzbek national investment fund was being listed in the UK. His intervention in Uzbekistan has been enormously important in taking forward some of these investments into the UK and listings at the LSE. Indeed, we could see a further investment at the LSE, which would be the biggest ever listing here. The hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), who is a Conservative Member, is also a trade envoy and does a good job.
I did not understand the right hon. Gentleman’s question about diptels. As I said earlier, we are trawling through everything we can to see whether there is anything else that is of relevance under the Humble Address terms. So far, we have published everything we have that is relevant. I can guarantee the House that if there is anything more, we will of course come forward.
I was also asked by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) whether there was any monitoring of the relationship between Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein. I did not answer that question; I apologise. I have seen absolutely nothing to that effect. If I had, I would have published it.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
May I first make it clear that I have no desire to be a trade envoy? Aberdeen is the best place on earth and I do not want to be anywhere else if I can help it.
The Minister of State said in his statement that people are still looking. Will he advise us if they stop looking? I appreciate that they might currently be actively looking because there may be boxes that they have not gone through, but will he advise us when there is definitely an end to this, unless somebody accidentally comes across something?
My second question relates to future trade envoys. I am not sure how much the process for appointing them has changed, but can he give us a reassurance that the process is much better than it used to be? If it is not, can he give us a reassurance that he will look at that, so that we can all feel comfortable that our trade envoys are the right people, or certainly not the wrong people, to be doing that job?
Chris Bryant
I am grateful to the hon. Lady that she does not want to be a trade envoy. I often feel as if I am a trade envoy for Scotland, because we are often securing good deals, as we just have with the Gulf Co-operation Council, and in India. We have just done remarkably well—
Chris Bryant
I see the right hon. Lady representing Plaid Cymru shaking her head; we have just done really well for Welsh lamb farmers in the GCC deal in the Gulf.
Will I come back to the House when we stop looking? I do not think there will be any more material. Obviously, I will come back if there is more material. I will probably make a written ministerial statement rather than an oral statement just to say that we have ceased the process.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) asked about due diligence. It is a significant point; of course we do due diligence before anybody is appointed as a trade envoy under the present scheme, which, as I say, is very different from what happened in relation to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. I should also say that the Business and Trade Committee is currently doing an inquiry into some of these issues. I am very happy to talk about the present trade envoy programme with the Committee, but there are delicacies about what we can say about the past in case the police investigation could be compromised. I am very keen not to do that, and I am glad that the police have been so helpful in enabling us to publish everything that we can today.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
A Downing Street spokesperson is currently saying that a further tranche of files relating to the appointment are to be published at a future date, which is different from what the Minister is saying at the Dispatch Box. Perhaps he could clarify.
Chris Bryant
To be absolutely clear, I think this is probably the last tranche of material that we have. If I had more to publish, I would have published it today; I have not got anything more to publish. I reserve the right to publish more if there is more stuff, but to some degree we are entering into speculation. As I say, if there is more, we will publish it. All along I have instructed officials to work as fast and to be as transparent as we can. That is precisely what we will do, but as I say, at the moment, there is no more to publish. By the way, Madam Deputy Speaker, we got a great GCC deal with the Gulf yesterday.
Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 68 / Noes: 242 - Question accordingly negatived.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
The reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition has been selected.
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Peter Kyle)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
For generations, the steel industry has stood at the very heart of our national story. From the furnaces of Sheffield to the docks of Port Talbot, from Scunthorpe to Redcar, steel forged not only the railways, ships, bridges and factories that powered the industrial revolution, it built communities, livelihoods and a sense of pride in Britain. Steel made in Britain built our Navy, helped to defend our freedoms in times of war and laid the foundations for modern infrastructure right around the world. When people speak of the United Kingdom becoming a great industrial nation, they speak of the skill, resilience and determination of the steelworkers who helped to shape that destiny by the fruits of their labour.
The decline of the steel industry destroyed jobs, diminished skills and damaged communities, but it never, ever diluted the pride, resilience and determination of those working people. Today, this Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill repays, in part, the debt that we owe Britain’s steel communities. Steel is integral to the key growth-driving sectors of our industrial strategy: to advanced manufacturing and the car industry; to clean energy, in our wind turbines and our grid infrastructure; and to security and defence, in fighter jets, battleships and submarines. It is essential to this Government’s growth mission to create a strong, resilient economy delivering for working people. That is why Britain’s steel sector accounts for thousands of jobs, right across the country.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
For the reasons that the Secretary of State has mentioned, the nationalisation of the steel industry is a noble endeavour, with which many of us from across the House will agree, but there are people in Wales pointing to the fact that, despite there being legislation, Port Talbot has lost thousands of jobs. Does he recognise the feelings that remain in Wales because the option of nationalisation by this Government was not on the table at the time?
Peter Kyle
As the right hon. Lady knows, I have been to Port Talbot and I have launched a steel strategy since this Government came into office. The vast majority of the decline that she describes happened under the previous Administration. We are cleaning up the mess on a whole bunch of fronts and in different areas of our public life. This Government have invested £500 million into that plant, and we have launched a steel strategy that I believe will give it a fruitful and prosperous future. We are doing what it takes to be the partner needed in these times.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
The nationalisation of the steel industry explicitly links our domestic and international policies. It demonstrates the need for us to go out and champion our steel sector by filling its order books, as we have been able to do because of the wonderful trade deal created with Nigeria, which is expanding its ports and railways, that has been achieved by this Government. That is the type of work that I am doing in southern Africa, and it is the type of work that we should all be going out to do on behalf of our country and our growth agenda.
Peter Kyle
The work that my hon. Friend is doing is incredibly important to fulfilling the mission, and the possibility that the British steel sector has in the 2020s and going forward. That is the purpose of having a strategy where we invest and modernise, and then at times we need to protect as well. These are the things that we are doing to deliver a long-term, sustainable and global future for Britain’s steel industry.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I have two quick questions for the Secretary of State. First, if the Bill passes, how are the global competitors to British forged steel likely to react? Secondly, if our steel becomes more expensive than the global market norm, what choice will manufacturers in the UK be faced with about where to base their manufacturing?
Peter Kyle
I am not sure why the right hon. Gentleman would think that British steel would be more expensive as a result, but let us take one step back: if we did not protect, there would be no steel sector to export in the first place. That is why I took the decision to invest, to modernise and to protect where needed. If this Government had continued on the same trajectory that we inherited from the previous Government, I would fear for any steelworks at all being capable to export, let alone producing domestic supply as well. This is the future that we are now creating.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
On that point, will the Secretary of State give way?
Peter Kyle
I am going to make some progress because the debate has been cut short. I have taken a few interventions and I am sure I will find time for the right hon. Gentleman to intervene later in my opening remarks, but first let me make a bit of progress.
I have pledged to ensure that Britain retains its capacity and capability to manufacture steel. It is a commitment that I have made to hon. Members in this House and it is my commitment to the steel communities of this country. This House acted last year to support British Steel, which is one of the country’s most vital steel firms. We recalled Parliament to pass the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025 so that the company’s blast furnaces could remain lit and its workforce could remain protected. I am grateful to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), for his leadership during that time, and I am grateful to the House for supporting that vital piece of legislation.
When we intervened then, we were certain that there was a future for British Steel. Our determination now is that the future may best be served by full public ownership in the national interest, not because of ideology, but because of practical pragmatism. Public ownership would allow us to explore future opportunities for the company and to retain its vital resource as a critical piece of our national infrastructure—one that is essential to our economic resilience. I want British Steel to play its part in driving up our domestic steel production to ensure that 50% of the steel used in this country is made in this country.
Dr Murrison
In keeping open the options that the Secretary of State hints at, has he had any discussions with his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence? At least for the foreseeable future, there will always be a need for virgin steel for certain defence applications.
Peter Kyle
The right hon. Gentleman raises a really important point. This Government are determined to make, produce and use more steel from the British sector in lots of different areas of the economy, and we want to ensure that we are using Government spending and procurement in driving up steel production in the UK.
I had the privilege to visit the Agratas gigafactory in Somerset. It is in a different sector, but it is using 231 tonnes of British steel in its production. That is using an amount of Government investment as well, so it has Government investment and private sector investment and is using British steel. That shows that when we align our priorities, we can drive up demand for British steel.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
I want to ask the Secretary of State about the breadth of the Bill. Clause 1 makes it clear that a “steel undertaking” includes those businesses that have the “manufacture or processing” of iron or steel as part of their operations. Is there any lower threshold to that? Is a business that has only 1% of its operations in iron or steel liable to nationalisation under the Bill?
Under clause 2, the Secretary of State is entitled to determine the public interest and can nationalise if it would support
“the economy of the United Kingdom or any part of the United Kingdom.”
I have the same question: is there any lower threshold? Would the interests of one town where a steel facility is located be sufficient to justify the nationalisation of an entire company?
Peter Kyle
The public value test is a high test, and I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that that is the case on seeing and reading the legislation, as he has done.
I have set the bar high enough that this power would be triggered only in extraordinary circumstances. These are things that we can test in Committee in the coming days—I believe that will be next week. [Interruption.] It will be in the next sitting week, when we return from recess. Do not worry; we are not recalling Parliament again. I will address this matter a bit more in my speech. This power will not be used routinely; it is a specific power, and the test for it will be high.
Peter Kyle
I will make some progress.
To that end, we began negotiations in good faith with Jingye, the owner of British Steel, to see if a commercial sale was viable, but that did not prove to be possible. We could not agree terms that would have safeguarded simultaneously the integrity of the business and the interests of the taxpayer. That is why the Prime Minister announced the Government’s intention to bring British Steel into public ownership, subject to the public interest test being met at the time of that decision. That is why we need to pass the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill now, to give us the power to make that possible.
Let me be clear to the House. In answer to the question from the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), the powers given to the Government by the legislation cannot be exercised without due caution and proper care. These powers are bold, but they are not boundless. They can be used only where there is a clear public interest and where they will be needed to safeguard British steelmaking capability. The Bill does not nationalise British Steel in and of itself, but it grants the Government powers to do so if considered necessary. That is the scope of the legislation we are debating today.
Sir Jeremy Wright
The Secretary of State is being generous. I take him at his word as I do not think that he intends to use this legislation otherwise than appropriately. However, there is an important point to be made about the language in the Bill as it stands. As he knows, the public interest test is defined in certain ways in clause 2, which states that the test “is not limited to” the grounds listed, so there could be other grounds on which the public interest might be met. I have already pointed out one aspect in which the public interest test is relatively broad. I invite the Secretary of State to look again at the public interest test to make sure that we do not just rely on his word, which I do, but that we are confident that succeeding Secretaries of State cannot misuse this power to nationalise too broadly.
Peter Kyle
I am grateful for the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s intervention. I knew when I was bringing these powers in and working through the legislation that they would be an important part of the Bill and rightly the subject of scrutiny. There will be significant time in Committee of the whole House for Members to scrutinise the legislation. We are modelling this Bill on the Banking Act 2009, which has worked effectively. In that circumstance, the powers were used during the financial crisis in extremis, and those powers, on which we are modelling this Bill, have not been used irresponsibly since. I have been clear about my expected use of these powers, and the bar set in the legislation meets my expectations, including limiting my ability to use these powers in ways that would cause concern for Members.
For too long, the steel sector in this country has been left to fend for itself, abandoned by Government, demoralised, starved of resources and the victim of international market distortions. Crude steel production has declined by more than 50% in the past decade. Capabilities have been reduced, and communities have been let down. Previous Governments have been too reactive and not proactive. This Government will not repeat the errors of the past. We are building the future for British Steel. While the industry faces challenges today, we will do everything we can to help it modernise and grow. This legislation allows us to apply that policy to this industry. We recognise that securing the long-term future of the UK steel sector relies on public and private investment for modernisation, so that the UK can become a global leader in clean green steel, electric arc furnaces and decarbonised steel production.
We recognise that blast furnace production will need to continue in the immediate future and that a managed transition is vital to maintaining supply. We need this legislation to raise resilience, to protect businesses up and down the country that depend on Britain’s steel, to defend the workforce at British Steel and to safeguard the communities built on British steel. The significance of steel is not simply a matter of history; it is a matter of our national future. In an uncertain world, the ability to make steel remains a strategic national asset. Steel is essential for our transport networks, our energy security, our housing and our transition to a greener economy. That is why supporting the British steel industry is about more than protecting jobs, important though they are. Supporting British Steel—
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Peter Kyle
I will give way in just a moment. Supporting British Steel is about more than national pride, although we are proud of the steelworkers who help build it. Nationalising British Steel is about hope and faith in the future.
Warinder Juss
I did not mean to interrupt my right hon. Friend, but I thought this was an appropriate time to intervene. As a member of the GMB trade union executive council, I was pleased to see my union welcome the Government’s move to nationalise British Steel, which it described as a
“decisive and timely intervention by the Government which will protect one of the UK’s most important industries.”
That sentiment has been echoed throughout the trade union movement. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must engage with the trade unions throughout this process and utilise their expertise in this area to secure the long-term future of British Steel?
Peter Kyle
My hon. Friend raises a really important point. Workers in steel production facilities have played a really important role in shaping our policies, helping us constructively to find a way through. Members on both sides of the House were prodding me to release the steel strategy more swiftly, but there were so many moving parts at the time of developing it. There were global forces at work, different ownership models and different production facilities, with different challenges, in different parts of the steel community. I will say this again: the unions played a highly constructive role. I pay tribute to GMB, Community and others for helping us to design our policies and find a way through some really challenging strategic issues.
Together with our measures on automotives, digital technology, the life sciences, the defence industry, clean energy, ceramics and chemicals—on which we made announcements today—and advanced manufacturing, taking the power to make possible the nationalisation of British Steel heralds the new dawn of an age of British industrialisation.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Given that no UK steel producers produce the specialist grades of steel used by precision engineers such as Gibbs Gears in Stoke Mandeville, in my constituency, which supplies components for the aerospace and defence sectors, what is in this Bill for them? All they can see are incoming tariffs on the steel that they necessarily have to import because nobody makes it here.
Peter Kyle
The hon. Gentleman will know that when I took the difficult decision to introduce measures, I did so for products that compete directly with the products that we are capable of making domestically. Speciality Steel UK is going through an administration process at the moment, but when that is complete and the company is up and running properly, I need to make sure that its products and services are protected and viable domestically. Given the world in which we are living, where national resilience is so important to our nation and the economy in a way that it simply has not been for decades, the decisions that I am making to ensure that British steel production is viable and sustainable are of paramount importance.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State give way on that point?
Peter Kyle
I am going to make a bit more progress.
While the Government are working alongside businesses to invest in, modernise and protect Britain’s manufacturing base, the amendment would deny the Bill its Second Reading. The very people who did so much to damage the steel industry in government are now trying to do so again in opposition—then as tragedy, and now as farce. As such, the House should reject the amendment. Britain’s steel industry needs an activist, interventionist Government, and it needs determination, decisiveness and delivery. It does not need a Government who have their hands tied, their room for manoeuvre blocked and their ability to act denied. Britain must have a strong domestic steel industry—now and into the future.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. A lot of Members with a direct constituency interest rightly want to put their remarks on the record. There will be an immediate six-minute time limit for Back-Bench speeches, but we will very swiftly move to three minutes to enable as many Members as possible to speak on this important topic. I call the shadow Minister.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill because it believes that politicians should not be running businesses; because expropriating businesses sets a precedent that will deter inward investment into other UK businesses; because the Bill exposes taxpayers to unlimited liabilities; because the powers that the Bill confers on Ministers are far wider in scope than would be required for its stated purpose; and because it fails to contain any measures that would address the issues which are currently making domestic production of steel unprofitable such as higher employment costs and policies in pursuit of net zero, such as carbon taxes and associated regulations and levies.”
Conservatives will never be neutral about the deindustrialisation of our country, but we do not believe that politicians or Whitehall bureaucrats should run businesses. Instead, we need a Government who do fewer things better, such as defending our nation, securing energy supplies and restoring the nation’s finances. We believe in British steelmaking and the importance of sovereign capabilities—not just steelworks, but the steel supply chain, critical minerals and many defence- related technologies—but that is not what this Bill does. This Bill is the Government’s attempt to break out of a mess we warned one year ago they were getting themselves into, and it fails even in the Government’s own terms. It does not keep the blast furnaces open and it does not guarantee that military needs can be met domestically.
Let us be clear what we are doing today. We are being asked to nationalise British Steel, and put the British taxpayer permanently on the hook for a business that this Government had every chance to keep in private hands, but chose not to. They ignored plans to open electric arc furnaces on Teesside, and chose to let the situation deteriorate until the only option left was the one that suited their ideology. The Prime Minister went kowtowing to China, gave it an embassy spy base and, instead of a deal on Jingye, came back with a box of fortune cookies with only a bill for the taxpayer to be found inside.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I just wish to seek some clarity from the hon. Gentleman. Is the Conservatives’ position that they would prefer British Steel in the hands of the Chinese than the British?
Andrew Griffith
That was a waste of an intervention. If the hon. Member lets me continue, I will explain exactly what the Conservative plan is for British Steel, and it is a better plan and a more sustainable plan than we have heard from the Secretary of State today. This Government did not inherit—
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
As the shadow Minister was unable to respond to the previous intervention, would he like to explain why the Conservative Government sold British Steel to the Chinese in 2019 against my specific advice?
Andrew Griffith
When it suits the hon. Gentleman, he claims to be a fan of the late Margaret Thatcher, but he seems to have forgotten that most of her time in office was spent untangling the mess of Labour’s past nationalisations. Unlike him, she did not bend with the wind or find herself in the same Lobby as a Government who have hiked taxes to record highs, driven wealth offshore and drowned business in red tape.
Members would like to know what our plan is, and our plan is to address the cause, not the symptoms. [Interruption.] Labour Members would do well to listen to this, and we might have more of a steel industry left if they do. We cannot have an industrial policy for steel without an energy policy for industry. Britain has the highest industrial electricity prices in the world, and every choice the Government are making has pushed those prices further up. This week, they voted against new licences in the North sea, choosing to import from Norway gas that could be drilled here, at a cost of 200,000 jobs and £12 billion in tax revenue.
The Secretary of State knows this and his Back Benchers know this, but the Prime Minister is too weak to stand up to his windmill-fetishist Energy Secretary. We have offered an alternative. Our cheap plan would slash energy prices and improve energy security. Why would the Government not want that? If they were genuinely interested in securing the future of steelmaking, as well as those of many other industries, they could have come here today and adopted that plan. Instead, this Bill is an indictment—
Andrew Griffith
I will happily give way, as long as the hon. Member is going to talk about our cheap energy plan.
Andrew Griffith
The only way we are going to have a sustainable steelmaking industry in this country, and the same applies to the manufacturing sector and our defence supply chain, is lower energy costs. That is the only sustainable way.
Andrew Griffith
We have a plan for sustainable steelmaking. The Government do not have a plan for sustainable steelmaking. Ministers themselves have admitted that the blast furnaces in Scunthorpe will close. They are reverting to a plan that already exists.
The Bill is an indictment of this Government’s modus operandi—a spray and pray Government who write blank cheques from the taxpayer and call that a strategy. We are doomed to relearn the hard lessons of the 1970s: if it moves, tax the hell out of it; when it stops moving, subsidise it. It was socialist idol Tony Benn who wanted to nationalise everything that moved, and one result that the Government may care to look at was the state-owned Kirkby Manufacturing and Engineering company, which simultaneously made car radiators and orange juice. When the Government last ran British Steel in the late 1970s, the company’s losses hit £1.3 billion a year. Since Labour’s botched nationalisation of just a year ago, it has already spent £500 million of taxpayers’ money—£1.3 million a day.
Where is the Government’s published, costed and scrutinised plan for what nationalised British Steel will look like in five years’ time, or even in one year’s time? I have read the Bill and there is not one. There is no provision for a proper impact assessment before the sweeping powers are used. There is no acknowledgment of the monumental decommissioning liabilities—in the billions—that will sit on the Treasury’s balance sheet. There is a sunset clause, but it can be extended indefinitely by Ministers—a sunset where the sun never sets.
The House deserves better than this. We deserve a Bill with a proper thought-through plan. The Government have turned a negotiation into a crisis, a crisis into an emergency and an emergency into this nationalisation. We know that Ministers, however well-meaning, will be unable to resist using their power to tilt the playing field in favour of steel businesses that they themselves own: no longer the referee, they will be on the pitch wearing one of the teams’ shirts. There is no better example of that than their plans on steel tariffs.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
What does the shadow Minister make of tilting the balance in favour of communities in Redcar and across Teesside, when his Government sat on their hands and saw the blast furnace go to the wall? Is that his definition of sustainability—to let those businesses and communities collapse?
Andrew Griffith
The hon. Member would be better addressing that question to his own Ministers, who, notwithstanding the nationalisation, acknowledged that the blast furnaces will cease—they will go dark and close on this Government’s watch. The Bill does not protect blast furnaces and he should invite the Minister, when he winds up, to talk about the future there. There was a plan to invest in British Steel in Redcar to secure those jobs, but the Government pulled the chain—
Andrew Griffith
There was absolutely a plan before the election to open arc furnaces in Redcar—that was absolutely case—and to move Scunthorpe operations to Redcar.
I asked the Secretary of State to address the issue of tariffs. There is no better example of the folly of these plans—
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Will the shadow Minister give way?
Andrew Griffith
No, I am going to make some progress on tariffs. A number of hon. Members have raised this very important issue, shedding light on the way that the Government are tilting the playing field on tariffs. Under this Government, we have already seen a flurry of Trump-style tariffs—doubling steel tariffs and halving quotas—that elevate the interests of one firm over the automotive, aerospace, advanced manufacturing and defence sectors. Firms involved in the supply chains of AUKUS and Tempest are now looking at shifting tooling and jobs to other countries, instead of manufacturing components here.
Saqib Bhatti
I thank the shadow Minister for giving way; he is making an excellent speech. Specifically on tariffs, does he agree that the approach is illogical? Reducing quotas will decrease the supply, and increasing the tariffs will increase the cost. I listened to the Secretary of State very closely. He talked about getting domestic production here, but by the time that happens, most of the businesses will have gone to the wall. Does my hon. Friend agree that the approach is illogical?
Andrew Griffith
My hon. Friend makes exactly the right point, and that point has been made by other hon. Members and across the manufacturing industry. We are at risk of losing critical parts of our defence, aerospace and automotive supply chains.
Kit Malthouse
Does my hon. Friend agree that although the Bill appears to be an attempt at providing a simple solution for one industry, we need to be careful what we wish for? A huge amount of steel is used in the car industry—I do not know if Members have seen the number of Chinese cars appearing on our streets. If we have elevated and protected steel markets in the UK, at a time when we have a massive global oversupply of steel, we will not stand a chance of competing with the finished goods that use all that cheap oversupply. We will end up subsidising the car industry like we did back in the 1970s. That would have a particular impact in my constituency, where firms such as Stannah Stairlifts use steel in advanced manufacturing, and face having no choice but to consider offshoring their production.
Andrew Griffith
My right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) have made exactly the right point: we need a more thoughtful approach.
I have written to the Secretary of State, as have many of my colleagues, asking that the tariffs are delayed for six months while the Department does more work; that the Government investigate more specialist grades of steel; that within the broader tariff buckets, they look again at the steel alloys used in the defence, aerospace and automotive sectors that are simply not made here today, because there are perhaps unintended consequences of the tariffs; that they be more forensic in their approach; and that they bring forward the measures the Conservatives have talked about on industrial energy costs, which are damaging not just the steel industry but many other industries’ and our basis on which to compete.
There is no point securing what the Secretary of State thinks is in the national interest for one steel manufacturer in a particular location if the foreseeable consequence, unintended or otherwise, is to ship offshore large parts of our high-end automotive manufacturing, engineering and defence industries, so that they are lost forever and conducted in other countries. I have raised that serious point with the Minister, and I ask him to address it.
Luke Myer
I am afraid that I want to give the hon. Member another chance to answer the question from my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), which was not about the prospect of a future EAF on Teesside—a prospect that I support but that the Leader of the Opposition confirmed from the Dispatch Box was not as advanced as the hon. Member claims. My hon. Friend’s question was about the crash closure of the blast furnace at Redcar in 2015, which ripped 3,000 jobs out of our region. What message does the hon. Member have for the people of Redcar, whose Government he was in when that happened?
Andrew Griffith
I am afraid that the hon. Member ought to look again at the calendar, because I was not only not in Government but not in this House—I was getting on in business trying to help grow the British economy. When the same issue arose in Port Talbot, it was the previous Government—indeed, my right hon. Friend who is now the Leader of the Opposition—who took action and were willing to back the private sector owner to secure the future of steelmaking in Wales. That was what we did in Government.
We are talking about the issue of tariffs because it is intrinsically related to the Government and the taxpayer taking ownership of one participant in a complex industry supply chain. I know that on the Government Benches, some of the truths that we share today may not be immediately popular, but past Governments failed because they were happy to do what was popular in the moment, without looking at the long-term consequences. The truth is that we should not be nationalising British Steel, and certainly not with the Bill in this form—my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East made the point about the sweeping nature of the clauses, whatever we think about the Secretary of State’s intentions.
We have demonstrated in the past, and we will again, that there are other options, such as partnering with the private sector and negotiating a better deal. The Conservatives would fix the cause, not the symptoms; we would save steelmaking in this country not through state quick fixes, but by fixing the state itself. We would not pit industries against each other, as Labour is now doing, and we would not sit idly by for a rerun of the 1970s horror show that Labour made Britain sit through the last time around.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With a six-minute time limit, I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
I will be very quick, because I know that colleagues are keen to get in. I am going to speak against the amendment and in support of the Bill for the simple reason that a speech such as the one we have just heard from the shadow Minister may have just about cut the mustard five or six years ago, but it certainly does not work today in a world of weaponised interdependence. It does not work in a world where President Trump is back in the White House or where President Xi is prosecuting the sixth five-year plan, as he is. The critical point in this debate, which the Secretary of State made very well, is that we must have a sovereign capability to make steel. In today’s world, we cannot afford to have a critical steelmaker like British Steel in the hands of a Chinese firm; we cannot, as Ronald Reagan once said, be innocents abroad in a world that is frankly no longer innocent.
Regardless of those remarks, there are a couple of areas where I think the shadow Minister made some important points. I want to stress that although the Secretary of State is proposing some perhaps welcome statism, he must not forget the statecraft that is needed to make a success of this Bill. There are six areas I would like him to respond to very briefly, and I hope we will be able to strike a cross-party consensus around them.
First, it is important that the Secretary of State wills the means and not simply the ends. We have, as the shadow Minister said, already spent a lot of money on this. The transition to electric arc furnaces that the Secretary of State is proposing is not cheap—it is extremely expensive. I think we are hoping that a lot of that money will come from the National Wealth Fund, but he does not control the National Wealth Fund or the allocations that it makes. The National Wealth Fund has not said anything about guaranteeing money for the kinds of ends that the Secretary of State has in mind, and the Government have declined to explain what will happen if steel projects are not funded by the National Wealth Fund. We therefore need a bit more clarity about where the investment resources for the Secretary of State’s plans are going to come from.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is unlikely that the National Wealth Fund, or indeed anyone else, would wish to invest in British steelmaking while our electricity prices are so very high? Does he agree that there is no point in this Bill until we fix the electricity market in this country?
Liam Byrne
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point that I am about to come on to. My point, I suppose, is that there is a case for this Bill. I think it is actually quite important, and the powers that it confers are also important, but if we are to get value for money from it, there have to be five other components, which I will come on to now.
The second area is lower energy costs. The British industrial competitiveness scheme is welcome, but it does not come online until 2027. Steelmakers, like much of our manufacturing industry, are saying very clearly to the Business and Trade Committee that there is a widening gap between UK wholesale electricity prices and the prices of our peers in the wake of the Iran crisis. My question to the Minister is: what further targeted support will be available to energy-intensive industries before 2027? As the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) rightly points out, that is an essential component of the package.
The third area that the shadow Minister was right to highlight is the issue of tariffs. This is now an urgent issue. The Committee heard evidence this afternoon at our own roundtable about the need to refine the tariff structures that have been put in place. The key thing is that we get a better deal with the European Union, to which we export 80% of our steel. It is about to cut tariff-free quotas by 47%, double tariffs from 25% to 50%, and impose melt and pour requirements. Unless we can get a deal in place with the European Union before the end of July, I am afraid that many of the good intentions behind this Bill will be confounded.
The fourth area is procurement. We must ensure that there is a proper demand curve from the UK state for the things that British Steel makes. In the British economy, British state procurement makes up £1 in every £6. Right now, despite the excellent changes in the Procurement Act 2023, we do not have a sufficiently clear forward pipeline. That has to change, not least because when we talk to defence companies—which are, of course, patiently awaiting the defence investment plan—and defence contractors, they still tell us that the kind of steel that they need to make the things that keep this country safe are not made in this country. Ensuring that there are advanced market commitments alongside the defence equipment plan, along with the range of other big, long-term ambitions that I know the Secretary of State has, is very important.
The penultimate area I want to touch on is scrap supply. The Secretary of State has ultimately come to the conclusion—wisely, I suspect—that we should shift to electric arc furnaces, but that kind of industry model will work only if there is a healthy supply of scrap. I think that Ministers are being just a tiny bit too complacent about whether we have the plans in place to source all that scrap. I know that there is a roundtable proposed for later this month, but as part and parcel of ensuring that the steel strategy actually works, can we have, at the very least, a read-out for Parliament about what scrap supplies will be kept in our country, rather than exported?
The final point I wanted to flag is about consolidation. One of the virtues of this Bill is that it bestows on the Secretary of State the power to ensure that there is consolidation in the UK steel industry for the future needs of the economy. In particular, it should allow us to take assets that have gone to firms that are currently out of business, and to rationalise the industry in a way that makes sense. I would like to hear more about what the Secretary of State is proposing when it comes to consolidating the industry.
Ultimately, in the world that we are in, when there are so many visible hands in the global economy interfering with the free market in steel, we will have to have a stronger visible hand. That is what the Secretary of State is proposing through this Bill. There will be a lot more work to do in the Bill’s subsequent stages to satisfy the House that he has got right the statecraft package behind this measure of statism. I look forward to hearing some reassuring noises on that point when the Minister winds up.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Steelmaking is of vital strategic importance to the UK. We rely on steel for essential parts of our national infrastructure, including in defence, transport, clean energy generation, and advanced manufacturing. Steelmaking creates tens of thousands of highly skilled jobs across the country, helping to power our economy and boost our local communities.
However, for too long, our steel industry has been neglected. The last Conservative Government oversaw a string of near collapses and last-minute rescues. They scrapped the industrial strategy, which is so vital to our manufacturers, and erected new trade barriers, making it harder for our steel producers to do business with their biggest export market across the channel.
We have a duty to stand by this vital sector, especially as it navigates unprecedented challenges, including President Trump’s unfair steel tariffs, China’s anti-competitive state aid practices, and the transition to environmentally sustainable production methods. If we are going to foster a thriving steel industry, we cannot allow more producers to collapse and more jobs to be lost, and we cannot risk our last blast furnaces going cold.
The Liberal Democrats broadly welcome this legislation as a temporary, emergency and targeted step, aimed specifically at turning around British steel, before returning it to the private sector. It is in that spirit that British steel producers also support this measure. The Liberal Democrats are clear that our country needs a vibrant, privately run steel industry. In the long term, only private enterprise—not Government Ministers—can ensure that the sector powers forward. We will be closely scrutinising these measures, and indeed the Government’s broader steel strategy, to ensure that they move us in that direction. We need to move on from a patchwork of last-minute rescues to a long-term plan that will set the industry on a truly sustainable footing. Right from the get-go, we would have liked to see plans to find private co-investors who can help modernise the sites and create more jobs.
Putin’s barbaric war in Europe threatens our national security; Donald Trump’s reckless tariffs are undermining our economy; and the continuing conflict in the middle east threatens business supply chains. All those factors make the future of reliable domestic steel production more important than ever for whole swathes of our economy. That is why the Government should ensure that industries that rely on steel, such as defence, are represented and involved in decision making relating to this legislation. We need stronger action from the Government on improving trade with the EU, so that our steel exporters can benefit from easier access to their biggest market, and so that our manufacturers get easier and cheaper access to the materials they need. A new UK-EU customs union would be hugely beneficial in that respect.
Last but not least, we need more ambition on the use of UK-made steel in our domestic market. We welcome the Government’s target of boosting domestic production from 30% to 50% of UK steel demand, although there is no clear timeline for that, and we cannot help but note that the equivalent target in the EU is 75%. While we understand the difference between the two markets, we hope that the Government will keep the target under review in the light of uncertain supply chains, and will consider further incentives for the use of UK-made steel in private sector projects.
The Liberal Democrats know that nationalising steel producers is not the answer in the long term; I ask the Minister to confirm that the Government also view this as an interim rescue measure. What specific steps do Ministers plan to take to ensure that British Steel becomes investable for the private sector, should the legislation be triggered? As the Bill progresses through the House, the Liberal Democrats will be carefully scrutinising the use of secondary legislation, with the aim of maximising accountability. Many of the Bill’s measures will be implemented through secondary legislation subject to negative resolution procedures. I hope the Minister agrees that the affirmative procedure would offer more meaningful parliamentary engagement.
I urge the Government to ensure that there is proper transparency for Parliament about costs associated with the legislation. Clauses 53 and 54 set out the process for the valuation of relevant businesses and the calculation of any compensation that might be paid to previous owners. While we understand that valuations will depend on factors specific to each business, the Government should publish detailed information about the criteria taken into account, and must ensure that Parliament is given the opportunity to scrutinise proposed valuations and compensation amounts. Have the Government considered granting powers to the Business and Trade Committee to scrutinise spending on these measures? Lastly, will the Minister update the House on whether and to what extent the Bill will affect employee pension schemes? What conversations have been had with the Pensions Regulator to that effect?
Looking at the broader state of the steel sector, from 1 July the Government’s new UK steel and trade measure will impose tariffs on imported steel. While we understand the need to bring in such protections temporarily, due to the disruption caused by US steel tariffs and cheap, subsidised Chinese exports, the measure will have a significant impact on manufacturers who depend on steel as a key business input. In Business and Trade questions this morning, my hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) mentioned Dynamic Metals, a firm in her constituency that is facing about a £3 million bill to import the specialist steel grades it requires for its services. While I welcome the Government’s aim of encouraging domestic production and the purchase of steel from UK steel companies, some specific grades of steel are not domestically produced, so the Government are harming the purchasing power of UK businesses. Will the Government commit to re-examining the application of tariffs on certain grades of steel to ensure that they do not inadvertently damage domestic buyers?
The Bill’s measures are subject to a public interest test, but there are limited details about what that test will involve. Will the Government allow Parliament to scrutinise the criteria for the test, and publish a detailed report setting out why they believe they have been met? How will the Minister ensure that the aim of protecting the vital infrastructure and manufacturing sectors is balanced with sustainable energy commitments? Will he confirm that when compensation is calculated, Jingye will be financially responsible for any environmental damage caused? What consideration will be given to the affected workforce, and to ensuring that jobs and skills are protected?
The Government are right to take action to protect British steel, but nationalisation must be a temporary step, taken in order to rescue businesses before they are returned to the private sector. We are supportive of the Government’s pace and urgency of action to assist the steel industry, but we need more details on the longer-term vision. I would be grateful if the Minister gave, in his response, the reassurances that I have asked for. How will the Government ensure that the steel industry becomes investable for the private sector, following nationalisation? How will Parliament have oversight, once the powers in the Bill are triggered? How will Parliament be provided with transparency regarding the costs associated with nationalisation?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
With a five-minute time limit, I call Jessica Morden.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
I very much welcome the Bill, which gives the Government new powers to intervene in the steel industry when doing so is in the public interest. I do so because I, alongside many other steel MPs over many years, have relentlessly made the point that the steel industry is of the utmost strategic importance to the country’s economy and security, and that we must do all that we can to protect and cherish it. While the focus of the legislation is the future of British Steel—I very much pay tribute to the efforts and fantastic advocacy of my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin)—the Bill also sends a clear signal about the Government’s commitment to the industry and workers more widely.
As Ministers know, steel is important to my constituency, both at Tata’s Llanwern works and at 7 Steel. I know that the steel Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald)—met representatives from Llanwern this week. I also pay tribute to the steel unions —in particular, Community and GMB, which I am a member of—and Reg Gutteridge, the newly elected national chair of Community union, who I know will be an excellent advocate.
I completely understand that significant funding was necessary to help keep British Steel in Scunthorpe open, but it is really important that producers and steelworkers in Wales, at sites such as Llanwern, get their share of the Government’s billions of pounds of investment through the National Wealth Fund. It is also important that Ministers urge Tata to follow through on the future investments that it has talked about previously, including in Llanwern.
I really welcome the steel strategy; it is the first time we have had one. The Conservative party had 14 years to set one up and did not. We had a revolving door of steel Ministers, and I am afraid that the Conservatives’ woeful approach continues with their reasoned amendment today. Our approach is a real road map for the future. I welcome the new import quota and tariff levels to cut the amount of foreign-made steel that comes in, and to protect us from global oversupply. However, as others have mentioned, there are concerns at downstream plants that the import quotas for galvanised steel and hollow sections allow too much leniency for highly subsidised products from non-EU countries to come into the UK market and undercut manufacturers at sites such as Llanwern. Will the Minister look at that?
Ministers will be aware of the industry’s concern about the timing and design of the UK carbon border adjustment mechanism. I am keen to hear more about that. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) said, we are doing great work on procurement, and it is a big part of the steel strategy, but I am aware from 7 Steel, which has proved over and over again that it can supply high-quality products for High Speed 2, that some contracts are still being made for foreign-made steel. Will the Minister please check that and raise it with HS2? Energy is always an issue, and our underlying costs are still far greater than those of our European rivals, so I join others in asking the Minister to look further at more targeted support.
Those are a few of my asks, but I very much welcome the Bill and the Government’s clear direction of travel on steel. I will end by acknowledging the deep industry expertise and knowledge that the steel Minister brings to the job. It is recognised in our plants, and it is hugely refreshing after the last Government.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
I do not support this Bill, and I believe that the reasoned amendment is the right way forward. I will set out clearly the devastating impact that the Bill is about to have, in real time, in my constituency.
We have a great local business called Amodil. It is a British family-run business that started with a couple of people in 1976 in Cleobury Mortimer, South Shropshire. I recently went to Cleobury to meet Paul, Chris, Ben and the team, as well as Rob Cooper from the British Stainless Steel Association. The business was founded by Paul Slingsby, who at 75 still works in it today. It is the UK’s largest privately owned supplier and stockholder of stainless steel long products, with more than 1,200 customers—about 20% of the UK market.
The people who run Amodil know what they are on about, and they were completely blindsided by the announcement on tariffs. They had not been told, and none of their customers or suppliers, or the people they were involved with, knew anything about it, so they came straight to me. I have written to the Minister multiple times and had one response. He needs to sit down with the largest British business in this industry and have a serious conversation.
The big issue that Amodil faces is the tariffs on the stainless steel products it brings in that cannot be made in the UK in the required quantity or type. The Government want to protect the steel industry as an industry of vital strategic importance—I get that—and they want to protect jobs, but for the almost 1,000 jobs they will save, many thousands more will be lost, and I will say exactly where.
The UK cannot meet domestic market demand, and a huge gap will be created. Businesses such as Amodil will be forced to import, and tariffs will drive up costs by 50%. There is not the cash across the industry to absorb those extra costs without mass redundancies. The costs will be passed on, meaning that manufacturers’ costs will go up. What will happen then? The customer will buy the finished product from manufacturers overseas at a lower price, and those products are not subject to tariffs. That does not level the playing field for us.
The UK does not produce enough stainless steel of the right type or quality to meet demand. Amodil currently has 5,000 tonnes of stainless steel in stock, 2,000 tonnes of which cannot be, and is not, made in the UK. It could take up to 15 years to get some of the skills right. Large-diameter bars of a certain grade are not made in the UK and those bars are vital to key industries, such as aerospace, defence, pharmaceuticals, oil, automative, general engineering and many more. If the tariffs are put on these businesses—Amodil is the largest British business in the field in the UK and there are many others—they will be priced out of the industry. I really hope the Secretary of State can see the importance of this matter.
Peter Kyle
I will save the hon. Gentleman from driving home the point even more, because I understand the passion with which he speaks. With regard to Amodil, I will look into that company personally. The intention with the measures that I have brought in is to protect domestic production and the possibility of domestic production. It is not to prevent goods that we do not make here, and do not intend to have the capacity to make here, from suffering. If there is a specific issue, I will look into that, because I do not want negative impacts downstream when we do not have the capacity to produce here. The Trade Minister said earlier today that he would look into that as well. We, as a team, will look into these issues.
Stuart Anderson
I thank the Secretary of State for saying that. I will follow up personally with him and with Amodil to see if we can talk about a way forward. I said to Amodil, “I believe that this is an unintended consequence of what the Government are trying to do, and once I point this out clearly, there will be a way forward to look at it.” The long and the short of it— I will put my speech to one side—is that there is a certain size of rod that only the UK can make. I watched it at Amodil’s facility a few weeks ago. When it gets past that size, it is not made in this country, but it is needed by so many of those critical industries.
Looking at steel as a whole, this matter is just one part of the stainless steel industry. If the Secretary of State, or one of the Ministers, will sit with me and the team at Amodil, they will be able to see, within a matter of minutes, where the gap is and how to plug it. It is along the blanket grading for all the bars. I request a pause for, say, just six months—or if we can talk with Amodil in a matter of days—so we can sit down and look at this, because there is a massive knock-on impact that will seriously hurt the stainless steel industry, and one of the largest employers in my constituency will be massively hurt too.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I am setting a three-minute time limit, which will allow most Members to get in, but not all.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the Bill and the action that the Government are taking to protect Britain’s steel industry. I congratulate the Minister for Industry on his sterling work to bring this legislation before the House. Steel manufacturing is a strategic national asset; it underpins our infrastructure, transport system, energy, security, defence capability and industrial future. It is too important to be left entirely to the private sector.
For many of us who represent industrial communities, this debate is deeply personal. On Teesside, iron and steel built towns, livelihoods and identities from the early 19th century onwards. Generations of skilled workers helped forge modern Britain with Teesside steel, and as Chris Rea said:
“The ships and bridges they were all delivered
From Sydney harbour to the Cisco bay”.
Over the decades, however, those industries were systematically weakened. The deindustrialisation of the 1980s and 1990s hollowed out communities across the north and across Britain. Then, in 2015, the Conservative Government allowed the Redcar steelworks to close, with devastating consequences for 3,000 workers, families and a further 6,000 in the wider Teesside economy. Whereas with ILVA’s Taranto plant the Italians intervened to save that, and the French did the same for Florange, the previous UK Government sat on their hands. The truth is that a different choice could have been made in Redcar, just as a different choice is being made now. The Government could have intervened back then to preserve strategy industrial capability.
The Bill signals something important: a Government once again willing to play an active role in shaping industry and growing the economy, and doing so pragmatically. It will create a framework for the state to step in when markets fail to protect industries of strategic national importance. It will allow intervention, including public ownership where necessary, when the loss of industrial capacity would damage the national interest. It is common sense: people understand that there are sectors in which the public interest must come before narrow private gain. We have already seen this Government adopt new models of public intervention elsewhere.
We need a serious strategy for reindustrialisation and growth. That means backing British business through a strong public procurement strategy and delivering a long-term pipeline of orders. If public money is funding railways, schools, hospitals and so on, then wherever possible the steel for those projects should be made here, in Britain, by British workers.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
I start this contribution on a positive note for the steel industry. Last week I visited Kiernan Steel’s fabrication workshop in Llandrindod, Wales. Kiernan Steel is a tremendously successful Irish company that has brought much-needed jobs to Radnorshire, and its success shows how the rural economy can prosper if our businesses are encouraged and enabled to locate there. One thing there is no shortage of in mid-Wales is land, and if we make that land available to businesses that need it, they will create the jobs that our region and economy need.
The steel industry is critical to our wider economy—it is virtually impossible to build anything without steel. However, the steel industry requires a skilled workforce. I was encouraged by some of the Secretary of State’s comments about the skills shortages, because we have serious skills shortages. There are thousands of vacancies for welders alone, and their pay is shooting up as a result. Skills shortages throughout the steel industry are pushing up the price of building anything, particularly infrastructure. That is why the health of our steel industry matters. If we do not look after it, the costs for projects such as HS2 and the cost of delivering all the housing we need will continue to mount.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
I was interested in the hon. Gentleman’s comment about the shortage of welders. Does he agree that the Government’s plan for construction colleges of excellence, including the one in Bury St Edmunds, will be crucial for the provision of welders?
David Chadwick
There are at least 6,000 vacancies for welders, so we absolutely need a lot more of them.
The skills shortages present opportunities to get future generations into well-paid and secure trades. Artificial intelligence cannot do welding yet, because it does not have any arms—yet. Our education system is not producing the skills that our economy needs, and our economy is suffering from that failure. Steel is strategic. It is part of our sovereign capability and part of British power. That is why steel matters.
As has been mentioned, the steel industry is affected by the geopolitical tensions that are so rampant across the world. Our steel industry has been hammered by the Chinese, who have flooded the international market with cheap Chinese steel and have run one of our biggest companies into the ground. China has wiped out our steel industry intentionally, yet today the Conservatives seem to be saying that they do not think the Government should do anything about it. Just yesterday they were complaining about our lack of defence readiness. Well, what do they think tanks and ships are made from?
Today, this Government ask Parliament to move heaven and earth to save steel in Scunthorpe. It is right to act—of course the Government should have the proposed powers—but people in Wales are asking one simple question today: where was this Bill in July 2024, when the blast furnaces at Port Talbot were switched off for the last time? When Welsh communities were crying out for help, Westminster shrugged its shoulders. That was despite Welsh Labour MPs and candidates, in the months prior to the general election, lining up in front of giant election posters that read, “Save our steel.” They said they had a £2.5 billion fund to spend on steel. Given that the Government have admitted to spending £1.3 million a day to keep the Scunthorpe plant going, how much of that fund is left to spend in Wales?
If protecting primary steel production is so important, why did they allow the biggest steelworks in Britain to be turned off? Welsh workers were told that nothing could be done. People in my constituency have lost their jobs because of this. When 2,800 jobs were wiped out in Port Talbot, there was no emergency Saturday sitting, no recall of Parliament, no emergency legislation and no sudden declaration that steel was a vital national—
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my northern Lincolnshire neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin), who is a long-time champion and campaigner for protecting and securing the future of Scunthorpe steelworks, which is essential to the fabric of the town and a critical part of its identity.
The Government are right to take the steps needed to bring British Steel back into public ownership. Having our own sovereign steelmaking capacity is crucial to ensuring the UK’s defence and infrastructure security. Jingye has failed as custodians of British Steel in Scunthorpe. It has the opportunity to do the decent thing and come to an agreement before the Government are forced to use the powers in this Bill, and we will wait to see whether it does that.
I know that the Minister for Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), has a deep understanding of iron and steelmaking. I am sure he will agree that resolving the ownership issue for British Steel will allow an ambitious future for the business to be realised and a plan to be brought forward that will attract investment.
The UK management and workforce at British Steel have been working in an impossible situation while the Government have been negotiating with the current owners. I hope the current leadership will be empowered by the Government to make the necessary decisions to deliver the positive future for the business that the town deserves.
The trade unions Community, Unite and GMB have worked consistently hard to keep steelmaking in the UK. Could the Minister confirm that the action the Government are taking will enable both management and trade unions to deliver the positive future that everybody wants to see for steelmaking in the UK?
Scunthorpe is home to one of the last very large pieces of industrial land in the UK. The proper development of that land could benefit not just Scunthorpe and my constituency, but the whole of the UK. Can the Minister set out what plans he has to work with North Lincolnshire local authority and other partners to make the most of these opportunities? We do not want to see a first come, first served situation where the best users and custodians of that land are not given the opportunity to take it on. It has to be the right company, which will ensure that the proud history of manufacturing in northern Lincolnshire continues long into the future. Will the Minister confirm that that will be his approach?
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
It is exactly seven years since I started calling for British Steel at Scunthorpe to be taken into public ownership. The Conservatives rejected my splendid advice, and the chaos we have seen is a result of that. In opposing this Bill, they show that they do not care about the sovereign nature and importance of steelmaking, they do not care about the thousands of highly-skilled jobs, and they do not care about the communities and families around them—they have no understanding of its importance.
I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Minister for Industry on bringing forward this Bill—the first from the King’s Speech to be debated on Second Reading. I told the Secretary of State’s predecessor that he should show some cojones and get on with it, and I think that is what we are now seeing. Alongside this support from the Secretary of State, we now need to see the vision and the plan for the long term. I am concerned that there is an attitude of, “We’ll quietly let the blast furnaces go cold and disappear, and then replace them with electric arc furnaces.” We need a big, bold vision to renew, reline and rebuild at least one blast furnace.
Around the world, 50% of all new steelmaking capacity in the last five years has come from blast furnaces. It is the strongest, most robust primary steel. I know that the Minister of State is a great fan of direct reduced iron, and he has a point there; nevertheless, we should not expose ourselves by putting all our bets on electric arc furnaces, when we know that the price of electricity is at a crisis high. We need diversity in this, rather like when my late grandmother would look at the desserts available for Sunday lunch and say, “Grandson, have a little bit of each.” When it comes to steelmaking, let us have a little bit of each. Let us have a bit of primary steel and a little bit of electric arc furnace steel, to ensure that we always retain those skills and recognise the importance of our sovereign steelmaking capability.
I hope that the Minister and the Secretary of State will produce that vision and plan over the coming weeks, so that we can have confidence in those jobs and so that the communities can have confidence that steelmaking will be retained and invested in for the long term.
Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
I represent a constituency built around steel and manufacturing that is now home to Tata Steel’s processing and distribution centre, the largest in the UK. In Wolverhampton and Willenhall, steel is our history and our identity. With the actions taken by this Government, I sincerely believe it will continue to be our future, too.
The Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill marks a serious and necessary step towards safeguarding the long-term future of the UK steel industry. It gives the Government the power to bring steel companies, including British Steel, into public ownership where it is in the public interest to do so. This is safeguarding Britain’s steel capability and capacity, which is firmly in the national interest, protecting jobs and our communities. That matters profoundly to places like mine. I am calling for British procurement as well, so that British-made steel is used to build our railways, infrastructure and wind turbines, so that national renewal runs through communities such as Wolverhampton North East, through the skills of our workers, the strength of our industries and a future based on good, secure jobs and apprenticeships.
I also sincerely believe that this decisive action would not have been taken under the previous Conservative Government. Since 2010, we have seen a litany of missed chances and, in my opinion, moral failures. That is why it is welcome that the Bill reflects the seriousness with which we should treat domestic steel production and the communities that depend on it. That certainty is being recognised by the industry. As UK Steel has said, it provides a vital reassurance for workers, customers and supply chains at a critical moment, recognising steel as a strategic national asset that is essential to economic growth, national security and resilience.
I also support the Government’s ambition to boost domestic production from 30% to 50%. However, I would ask the Minister to look at tariffs on imported steel, using evidence based on specific codes, and to engage with downstream firms that are concerned about the measures. In Wolverhampton and Willenhall, and across the Black Country, we understand what steel represents. We understand the value of secure, well-paid, skilled work. For our workers, our apprentices and our supply chains, and for the long-term strength of the United Kingdom, I support the Bill and commend it to the House.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
In March, the Government released their steel strategy, which talked about taking bold steps to help to grow the industry. The bold steps that we have before us include granting powers to nationalise the industry and introducing a 50% tariff in six weeks’ time on the import of steel products that can also be made in the UK—I come back to this because it is a really important point. Protecting British Steel does sound admirable, and I completely understand it, but the decision has been made without consultation with the industry.
If the Government had consulted with the industry, I would not have had to meet with my constituent Alex Bailey last week, who felt absolute desperation about the future prospects of his business, which employs 70 people and has a £35 million turnover. He owns Dynamic Metals, one of the UK’s largest independent stockists of aerospace high-grade metals, which are specialist steels tested to high standards to be suitable for use in aircraft. The issue that he faces deals with three product types—12A, 14 and 27—but I will spare hon. Members with further details.
The Vice-Chamberlain of His Majesty's Household (Sir Nicholas Dakin)
I would like to know more.
Sarah Bool
I will be sure to write to the Minister with more details.
First, none of this steel can realistically be made in the UK. The Government have provided a list of potential suppliers, but the majority, including British Steel, only make commercial not aerospace-grade steel, and the only company that might, Speciality Steel UK, is currently in liquidation.
Secondly, as Alex explained to me, the drafting of the legislation is such that there is no way customs will be able to differentiate between a generic steel and a specialist steel as they use the same harmonised system codes upon import. That needs to be revisited.
Thirdly, the quota has been set far too low. Product 12A is subject to a 31% reduction in the quota allowance and now a tiny quota will be introduced for products 14 and 27, where there was no quota before. All in all, to be able to meet his order book requirements, Alex has no option but to incur the tariffs. The additional burden that he will have to pick up on 1 July amounts to £3.2 million. He will be bankrupt within six months if this measure goes ahead. As we have heard, he is not alone, because hundreds of businesses are in the same position. As Alex said:
“This is a classic example of legislation that has been written with noble intentions—to save the UK steel industry—but due to a lack of consultation with industry, lack of industry knowledge by the authors and a total misunderstanding of the knock-on effects, this single piece of legislation will kill stockholding and manufacturing in the UK.”
When the Secretary of State is looking into the case raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson), will he also meet with Dynamic Metals? Without prompt action now, the Government will run into much more significant issues down the line come 1 July.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the Government’s decision to move towards the nationalisation of British Steel. It is the right decision for our economy, our industrial communities and Britain’s national security. I say that as somebody who believes in the value of enterprise, competition and a strong private sector, but there are clear cases where privatisation has failed the national interest and where Government have not only the right to intervene but the duty to do so, particularly where foundational industries are now foreign-owned. I was stunned that when the shadow Minister was asked a straight question about whether the Conservatives would prefer British steel to be in the hands of the Chinese or the British, he could not simply answer “the British”. He avoided the question. That shows a staggering disregard for our country’s national security.
Steel is not just another commodity—it is fundamental to our national sovereignty. It underpins our defence industry, infrastructure, energy sector and manufacturing base. A nation that cannot produce its own steel leaves itself vulnerable, dependent on the decisions, priorities and interests of others. We have moved into a different era, although if we listened to some of the contributions from Opposition Members, we could believe that we are still in the 1990s. Globalisation is dead and, to be honest, I welcome its death, because all it ever did was leave working-class communities such as mine behind, ripping out the heart of industrial communities like Hartlepool.
The tragedy is that in this country we still import 68% of our steel needs. We must fix that tragedy. If British taxpayer money is to be spent, then British industry must benefit. If we are building British warships, British steel should be used. If Britain is building offshore wind farms, then British steel should be used. If we are building new nuclear reactors, as we are in Hartlepool thanks to the deal that we struck last September, then British steel should be used. My biggest plea to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench is that we radically reform procurement policy in this country.
I welcome the steel tariffs being put in place and the assurances given by the Secretary of State that he will look carefully at the individual cases that have been mentioned, but we must put our country first. This Bill is critical to doing that and to protecting the working-class communities I represent.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
It probably will not come as a surprise to Labour Members, but I fundamentally disagree with the last speaker, although I appreciated his passion. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State is getting a bit excited; I will come to him in a minute on the issue of tariffs. I am proud that we are the only party in this House objecting to the Bill, and for the right reasons.
The Secretary of State repeatedly talks about making this country stronger, but I do not think this Bill does that by nationalising. I just do not think that Governments can run businesses. I certainly mean no disrespect to Ministers on the Front Bench, but they will create inefficiencies and push up prices, and the taxpayer will end up stomaching the cost. That does not make us stronger; it makes us weaker.
The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash), who spoke before me, said that we are still in the 1990s, but I think this Government are taking us back to the 1970s by pushing up costs and lumbering the taxpayer. A future Conservative Government will have to unwind some of the real harm that will come to fruition. No Labour Members can tell us where the nationalisation will stop. Will it be ceramics tomorrow? What will happen? Which industries will the Government pick and choose?
In the limited time that I have, let me come on to the issue of tariffs. Like my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) and all my hon. Friends who have raised this point, I have been visited by a constituent. His name was Peter Watson, of Davicon. I have written to the Secretary of State about this issue, although that was only last week; I respect the fact that he may not have had time to come back to me, but I hope he does.
Davicon is the UK’s leading mezzanine manufacturer. The briefing that Peter put in front of me was a result of the tariffs and the quota reduction. There is a reduction of almost 97% on merchant bars and an increase in quotas of 50%. For all the Secretary of State’s best intentions and whatever he wants to achieve, the reality is that industry and markets do not work to the whims of Government. They will not move quickly enough to do that, which will push up prices. In the briefing I saw, that would mean a doubling of the quota for per-tonnage steel by 1 July. That cost will have to be borne by industry and taxpayers. If we are talking about nuclear power plant creation or HS2, we know that those taxpayer-funded projects will have to bear those costs.
I was listening to the Prime Minister yesterday during Prime Minister’s questions, and it is clear the Government recognise that an issue is coming down the tracks. I argue that that should have been anticipated before the tariffs came into place, but we are where we are. I have written to the Secretary of State, and I would really welcome some serious action on this issue. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) made a really eloquent argument about a delay in the introduction. If that is not going to happen—
Saqib Bhatti
The Secretary of State is shaking his head. If that is not going to happen, let us look at the HS codes. He needs to recognise that there will be a serious impact on the steel industry and the peripheral industries that rely on steel manufacturing in this country.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
Steel is to the UK what Yorkshire tea and Yorkshire puds are to God’s own county, what the hotpot is to Lancashire and what black cabs are to London. It is to the UK what the St Leger is to Doncaster and what the hood is to Haxey. It is about us. It is about what makes us and drives us. It is about pride.
British Steel is at the heart of the UK’s industrial heritage. It was the backbone of the industrial revolution, driving global infrastructure and enabling military pre-eminence. It was key to our rail, maritime, defence and major capital infrastructure. Someone said to me this week, “There is history that has been made, but, more importantly, there is history that we can still make.” We need to make it right here, right now, with British Steel.
The future of British Steel matters not only to my neighbouring area of Scunthorpe, but to communities across north Lincolnshire, South Yorkshire and beyond, including people in my own constituency, some of whom work at Scunthorpe and all of whom are deeply affected by the fortunes of a major local industry. The steelworkers at Scunthorpe are doing work that is essential to this country. It is highly skilled, technical and sometimes dangerous work. They deserve respect for what they do, and they deserve certainty about the future of the industry that they have helped to sustain. That is why the Bill before the House is so important.
While my interest is local, the issue is absolutely national. By nationalising steel, we can ensure that the UK does not become the only G7 country incapable of producing its own primary steel, and stop reliance on foreign imports. This is not about nostalgia for the past or keeping an industry going just for sentimental reasons; it is about recognising that steel is a strategic national asset.
If Britain is to build the homes, railways, energy infrastructure and defence capability that we need, Britain needs steel. If we are serious about industrial resilience, national security and economic growth, we cannot be indifferent about whether we retain the capacity to make steel here at home. The steelworks at Scunthorpe are not just another private asset on a balance sheet; they are a vital part of our industrial base. Once that capacity is lost, it is not easily rebuilt. Once those skills are gone, they are not easily recovered.
The Government are right to bring forward legislation that gives the Secretary of State the powers needed to act where the public interest requires it.
Public ownership should never be treated lightly, but nor should it be ruled out when a vital national industry is at risk. The test here is straightforward: does Britain need steel? Yes. Does Britain need the skills and capacity represented at Scunthorpe? Yes. Would it be in the national interest to allow that capacity to disappear? No. That is why intervention is justified. For the workers at Scunthorpe, for the communities in my constituency that depend on those jobs and for the future strength and resilience of our country, the Bill deserves the support of this House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
That brings us to the Front-Bench contributions. I call the shadow Minister.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
This has been an interesting debate, because it has brought out the strategic love of nationalisation for the sake of nationalisation among Government Members. With our reasoned amendment we have tried to put out a different approach. We also heard clearly from Reform that it is in favour of nationalisation for the sake of nationalisation. This Bill will satisfy neither our camp nor their camp. With this Bill, we have a chaotic, unplanned, non-strategic journey that will end up burning through taxpayers’ money at every stage. We can see that the decisions that the Government have taken since they came to power have delivered the worst of all possible worlds for this crucial industry.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I promised Madam Deputy Speaker that, in the interests of time, I would not take any interventions. This Bill is an emergency intervention with mounting public costs that have no clear limits for the taxpayer. This legislation will certainly not put things on a secure footing.
We were told this time last year, when we were brought in on a Saturday for the first time since the Falklands war, that nationalisation was not the plan. The Prime Minister went to China with the Secretary of State and failed to secure a deal for British Steel, so we have this Bill. It does not resolve any underlying issues. Instead, it just opens the door to an indefinite and infinite bill for the taxpayer, and that is not all. It has a sunset clause that, would the House believe it, can be extended indefinitely.
There are far too many unchecked powers in this Bill. It does not address, as the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee mentioned, that Britain has the highest energy prices in the developed world. We cannot have an industrial policy for steel unless there is an energy policy for industry. In addition to the Chair of the Select Committee, we had an interesting speech from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). She spoke about how we could turn this Bill into temporary, emergency legislation and about the path to returning British Steel to the private sector.
We also had powerful interventions from Opposition Members, including from my hon. Friends the Members for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson), for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) and for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti). They spoke up for the businesses in their constituencies that will be so badly affected by the inflationary 50% tariff on imported steel as of 1 June.
This afternoon is a chance for the Minister to answer some questions. Why were the Government unable to strike a deal with the Chinese owners? When exactly did the Government decide that nationalisation was the right path? Did they decide that before the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025 was introduced? If so, why was the House not told that at the time? Why should the taxpayer be the one who foots this bill? How is this value for money for the taxpayer? Do we even know what the total cost to the taxpayer will be from these ongoing losses, the capital investment and the enormous liabilities? This Bill commits the taxpayer to ownership of an asset that loses hundreds of millions of pounds each year. What assessment has the Minister made of the chilling impact that the measures in this Bill will have on other inward investors into the United Kingdom, and what is his exit strategy, if he has one?
If the Government propose to nationalise a steel company on the basis that it meets the public interest test, can the Minister explain how the same asset could ever be returned to private ownership without contradicting their own public interest assessment that it is in the national interest? Or is the reality that once the threshold is crossed, the British taxpayer is locked into permanently underwriting a loss-making asset, with no timetable for it to return?
Why is there no requirement in this Bill for a proper impact or value-for-money assessment before the Secretary of State exercises the powers? Why have the Government not taken us up on our cheap power plan, which addresses one of the root causes of this sector’s difficulties? Can the Minister—I think I heard him say it from a sedentary position, but I would like to hear him say it again—urgently commit to look at the impact of the 50% steel tariffs on our steel manufacturing sector?
This House should not be required to sign a blank cheque. We cannot and will not support legislation that appears to be nationalisation in search of a rationale. I urge all colleagues to support our reasoned amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
As I was preparing for today’s debate, it struck me that 60 years ago this summer, this House was debating steel nationalisation and the England team went on to win the world cup. We are back here discussing steel nationalisation again, so I have high hopes for the summer.
Sometimes it is informative to learn from the past. Going back to the steel nationalisation of 1966, the Minister of Power opened the debate and said that
“there is no manufacturing industry of such basic importance to the British economy.”—[Official Report, 25 July 1966; Vol. 732, c. 1224.]
Of course, he was right then, and it is true now. However, the steel industry is so good that we have not nationalised it twice; we have nationalised it thrice, because the steel industry was also partly nationalised in 1948. The Minister of Supply said:
“Without steel the life of Britain would collapse.”—[Official Report, 15 November 1948; Vol. 458, c. 53.]
That is absolutely true, as we have heard from Members of the House today.
As the Minister for Industry, part of my mission is to increase the productive capacity of our industry. What we have seen in the steel industry, particularly during 14 years of the Tories, is productive decline. They presided over the loss of great steel plants and a reduction in the productive capacity of those steel plants. The thing is, the decline in market share—from 80% to 30%—was not inevitable. It was a choice born out of inaction and out of a lack of industrial policy.
The reason that this Bill is so important is exactly the same as the reason it was important in 1966: there has been a great technological shift in the industry. Back then, it was continuous casting; now, it is electric arc furnaces. The industry has been de-capitalised by years of under-investment, and it needs to be re-capitalised. Productivity fell off a cliff under the previous Government. It fell repeatedly following the closure of the Redcar blast furnace, and productivity must be improved. These are not the words of someone who is wedded to a socialist principle of nationalisation. They are the words of someone who has spent his life in the steel industry, who ran a business in the steel industry, and who is dedicated to improving productivity in our industry.
I heard the words of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), when he opened the debate, and I was quite disappointed. He and I met earlier this week, and my colleagues sitting behind me might be surprised to learn that he was thoughtful and probing in the questions that he asked me. He made some really interesting points, and we had a good discussion. I thought about his points afterwards, and I found it really interesting that he had thought about the things that we will have to bear in mind when we pass this legislation. But what has he done? He has fallen into the Conservatives’ usual trap of presenting this as an ideological debate, instead of a debate about the function of an industry that is vital to this country. That is how they have prosecuted this debate.
I learned something when I was working in the industry. Two years ago, I was running a business in the steel industry. Twenty years ago, I was working at the Scunthorpe steelworks. More than 30 years ago—the House will not believe it—I left school and got a job in the steel industry. There were a lot of changes over that time. Sometimes I stayed in the same job, but the company and the badge on my hard hat changed. When it changed from British Steel to Corus, that was a big blow to how people felt about it, but I will tell the House one thing that I recognised: ownership matters, and it makes a difference. Strategy matters, and it matters where the head office of a business is. People care about the area where they work, and those things are important. The workers care, communities care and we care, but the Conservatives do not care—that is quite clear to me.
Andrew Griffith
I will be very brief. I thank the Minister for his remarks. One ideological difference he has not mentioned once is the huge gulf between those on our side and his party on energy, and the Government are not going to have a sustainable steel industry due to energy.
Chris McDonald
Yes, the hon. Member is right. There is a gulf there: the Conservatives were in favour of some of the highest industrial energy prices in the world. We have delivered an increase in the supercharger benefit from 60% to 90% and introduced the British industrial competitiveness scheme. Through our investments in chemicals, ceramics and, of course, steel, we are supporting British industry with its operating costs on energy and its capital costs to improve its productivity as well.
In steel communities, they are proud people. They are people who can stand on their own two feet, and they want to; they do not want subsidies. They have pride and they have dignity in their work, and when I went to the Corby steelworks recently, I saw the sacrifice of individuals and communities with their hard and dangerous labour.
Pamela Nash (Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke) (Lab)
The Minister knows the sacrifices that have been made by my constituents at Dalzell plate mill in Motherwell. Will he confirm that this plate mill remains at the heart of the UK steel strategy, and that the Bill we have debated today provides a potential safety net for the future of Dalzell?
Chris McDonald
While the Government are minded to nationalise British Steel, we do not have any other nationalisations in mind. However, we do recognise the importance of the Dalzell plate mill, and I am concerned to ensure that it gets back up and running, and delivers its steel ship plate orders. I thank my hon. Friend for the work that she has been doing in championing that.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball)—she is sitting behind me—who has supported me throughout the preparation of this Bill, but cannot speak because of her position in the House. Likewise, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin), who is also supporting the passage of this Bill, but again cannot speak because of his position. I also thank the Chief Whip, who of course did so much work in advance of this Bill coming forward.
Let me give at least one or two minutes to the amendment. Fundamentally, there is a contradiction in the Opposition’s position in that, if we do not pass this Bill, British Steel is trapped in the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act. The Conservatives supported that legislation, so they do not want to allow British Steel to break out of that. However, I would point out to Conservative Members—and certainly those who feel that the Bill gives too many powers to the Secretary of State—that this Bill has been modelled on the Banking Act. At the time the Banking Act was being passed, a fellow sitting on the Opposition Front Bench called George Osborne—I understand he is popular in Tory circles—said, “I will do everything I can to help this Bill on to the statute book.” I think what we are hearing is that that is good enough for the bankers, but it is not good enough for the steelworkers.
To move on, I am as concerned as the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), and the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), to get in private sector investment. We have carried out a very careful balance with this Bill to ensure that the steel industry is fully informed, understands our intentions and is supportive—and it is supportive. Just in the last couple of weeks, 7 Steel has announced a £100 million private sector investment in the steel industry in the UK, so there is no chilling effect from this. In fact, this will be a spur to, or a boost for, private sector investment.
Let me mention some of the speeches. The Chair of the Business and Trade Committee mentioned a number of things, but I think he was the only person to raise scrap. We have launched a scrap working group, which will be dealing with that issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) rightly raised the importance of the Llanwern steel plant, and she mentioned import penetration in relation to rebar. My near constituency neighbours, my hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) and for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer), could not have been clearer about how the Tories abandoned the steel communities in Teesside and the difference that this Labour Government are making.
A number of Opposition Members mentioned tariffs. There are no tariffs in this Bill. However, as we heard from the Trade Minister at the Dispatch Box this morning and from the Secretary of State this afternoon, there is an open door for companies to come in and discuss those issues.
Finally, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) and I have had many exchanges about steel. Sometimes we agree and sometimes we do not agree, but we always have a good discussion. He raised the importance of DRI blast furnaces as well as electric arc furnaces, and he and I will certainly have the opportunity to discuss that much further.
I think it is quite clear that the British Government are not and should not be neutral when it comes to British business, and we are on the side of business. We are unashamedly on the side of British business, and we are unashamedly on the side of the steel industry and steel communities. That is the difference between us and the Opposition, and I commend this Bill to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Proceedings | Time for conclusion of proceedings |
|---|---|
First day | |
Clauses 1 to 51; new Clauses relating to Part 1; new Schedules relating to Part 1. | The moment of interruption on the first day. |
Second day | |
Clauses 52 to 57; new Clauses relating to Part 2; new Schedules relating to Part 2; Clauses 58 to 60; new Clauses relating to Part 3; new Schedules relating to Part 3; Clauses 61 to 64; new Clauses relating to Part 4; new Schedules relating to Part 4; remaining proceedings in Committee on the Bill. | One hour before the moment of interruption on the second day. |
Business without Debate
Imprisonment of Craig and Lindsay Foreman in Iran
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
Just over 500 days ago, Lindsay and Craig Foreman, the mother and stepfather of one of my constituents, were on the trip of a lifetime: a motorcycle journey across the world. During their travels, Lindsay, who is a positive psychologist and life coach, planned to research along the way the elements of what makes a good life. She wanted to ask people in all the different countries they travelled through what happiness, fulfilment and purpose meant to them.
In January 2025, they entered Iran with visas and with an approved tour company. The Iranian authorities claimed that, simply by speaking to people about what makes a good life, the Foremans were conducting espionage and attempting to overthrow the Iranian regime—a totally baseless and utterly absurd allegation. The obvious truth was that they were innocent tourists.
The Foremans were arrested in Iran in January 2025 and later convicted of espionage in a trial that fell well short of international standards. In February this year they were sentenced to 10 years in prison. Their case was heard by the notorious revolutionary court, and by an Iranian judge who has himself been sanctioned by the UK, the US and the EU. That judge relied on so-called confessions of Lindsay and Craig that resulted from Lindsay being forced to sign documents in Farsi without interpretation and to fingerprint blank pieces of paper. Those documents were obtained after the Foremans being subjected to severe psychological pressure and inhuman treatment.
That treatment has included solitary confinement for 56 days without justification, and while in solitary confinement Lindsay was interrogated for 30 consecutive days and Craig for 14 days. They were blindfolded to, from and during those interrogations. Craig was walked into walls deliberately. Aggressive questioning was used, with language designed to cause maximum psychological distress.
For all of the interrogations, Craig and Lindsay had no legal representation at all, despite repeatedly requesting a lawyer. There were countless other due process violations —not seeing evidence, false evidence, not having the opportunity to challenge evidence, and being taken into court without any warning—and UK officials were not even permitted to attend this so-called trial.
Since August and October last year respectively, Craig and Lindsay have been held in extremely harsh conditions in Evin prison, which is widely regarded as one of the most notorious prisons in Iran.
I would like to put on record my sincere thanks, on behalf of my constituent Joe Bennett, who sits bravely in the Public Gallery, and the whole Foreman family, for the welfare support given by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Minister and the Foreign Secretary to Lindsay and Craig and their family. I thank them for everything that they are doing in very difficult diplomatic circumstances. I also welcome the Government’s acceptance that the Foremans are simply innocent tourists whose convictions and sentences are unjustifiable and appalling.
However, Craig and Lindsay’s family would like the British Government to go further and to act with more urgency.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
My hon. and learned Friend is making a powerful speech on behalf of his constituents. On the point of monitoring the welfare and health of the Foremans, with diplomatic relations as they are at the moment, does he agree that we must implore the Minister to use all channels and actions possible to check on their welfare?
Tony Vaughan
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. Craig and Lindsay are currently undertaking a hunger strike, which is essentially the only way they feel that they can protest against their treatment, after their phone cards were taken away and they were denied contact with their family. I will discuss their welfare later in my speech, but I agree that the Government need to explain what measures they are taking to monitor their health in these very difficult circumstances, including, if necessary, by using third-party allies.
Ultimately, I want to set out four things that the family are calling for, on which I would be grateful for the Minister’s views. First, the British Government should say loudly and clearly that Lindsay and Craig are not spies, and that their detention is politically motivated and arbitrary in international law. I say that because this case follows a well-documented line of cases where Iran has taken innocent British citizens and those of other nations as bargaining chips for their own purposes. If the Government accept that Lindsay and Craig are innocent and are not spies, and that the trial that they were subjected to in Iran was grossly unfair and provides no basis at all for their detentions, they must have a view about why the Iranians are doing this.
My constituent Joe does not believe that it is in Craig and Lindsay’s interest to shy away from calling a spade a spade here. These are obviously trumped-up false charges from a kangaroo court that Iran is pursuing for its own ends. In other words, Craig and Lindsay Foreman are hostages, they are being held for political purposes, and we should be prepared to say so openly and to calibrate our response accordingly.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
The hon. and learned Gentleman is making absolutely the right points. So far the Government have limited themselves to saying that Craig and Lindsay were innocent tourists, but they have not said categorically that they are not spies, despite promising to do so. They have also refused to say that they are being arbitrarily detained. We are dealing with a terrorist state. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there is no reason for the Government to hold back in their rhetoric? Iran is a terrorist state with a record of holding people hostage for political leverage. If we are not willing to do so in this situation, when would we ever do so when it comes to allies, or those who purport to be our friends, holding British citizens hostage?
Tony Vaughan
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. She is right that we need to call a spade a spade here. There is no basis for these convictions and no basis for this detention—that is the hallmark of an arbitrary detention in international law. If we can accept that, we can move to the next stage to take the appropriate measures to deal with this very serious abuse of British citizens in Iran.
A number of our international partners have not shied away from such clear language. For example, France and Australia have explicitly rejected the espionage convictions of their nationals in Iran in similar situations as baseless and politically motivated. They have described those detentions of their nationals as arbitrary detention, and have used such language not to close down diplomacy, but to strengthen it. My constituent Joe and his family ask: why should the British Government be more cautious about the truth than others have been in similar situations?
Secondly, what consideration has been given to providing diplomatic protection to Lindsay and Craig Foreman? That is an established way of converting an individual grievance into an interstate dispute. Craig and Lindsay are our citizens, so the Government must do all they can to protect them. That should include, at the very least, a serious and transparent assessment of whether conferring diplomatic protection on them would enhance our ability to bring them home. If not, why not?
Thirdly, what consideration has been given to how the International Court of Justice mechanism and other international legal forums could be used by the UK to exert pressure on Iran? The ICJ is where the UK could argue that politically motivated arbitrary detentions of our nationals do breach international legal obligations; France has done exactly that with its nationals. What is the Government’s view about that mechanism in the Foremans’ case? Does the Ministers accept in principle that the pattern of conduct is not just unjustifiable, but arbitrary and unlawful under international law?
Fourthly—this is the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan)—given that Craig is in the 13th day of his hunger strike and Lindsay is on her fourth, will the Minister assure the family that appropriate steps are being taken to monitor their health in prison, including, if necessary, with the assistance of an ally?
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman on securing the debate and thank him for the cross-party nature of his approach. I also thank the all-party parliamentary group on arbitrary detention and hostage affairs for its work on the concerning case of Craig and Lindsay Foreman.
This is a crucial moment for the UK Government and hon. Members in the Chamber to ascertain whether the support given to Craig and Lindsay is satisfactory. The tourists Craig and Lindsay were formerly my constituents. Joe and the family are living in deeply challenging times, and they want to know that that welfare and protection is roundly being given.
Tony Vaughan
The hon. Member is absolutely right. Contributions in this Chamber and the response to the early-day motion that I tabled some months ago— I think around 70 parliamentarians signed it, which is a good number, given that many people do not sign such motions—show that there is cross-party support for more robust action in the case of the Foremans, and I will continue with colleagues, in this Chamber and outside it, to press for that.
Over 500 days into this terrible nightmare, Lindsay and Craig, my constituent Joe Bennett and their family are desperately in need of hope. They see the French bring home their nationals from Iran, as Australia did—and as the UK eventually did in the cases of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and Anoosheh Ashoori. I thank Richard Ratcliffe, who is in the Gallery and has been a source of great support to the family at this very difficult time, in spite of his own and Nazanin’s terrible ordeal. France and Australia have explicitly rejected espionage convictions as baseless and politically motivated, and Joe wants to understand why the UK cannot take a similar approach in relation to his parents.
The family are not asking for miracles; they are asking for clarity of language, for maximum use of the legal and diplomatic tools available to our country, and for an approach that treats Craig and Lindsay appropriately: as innocent British citizens who have been taken from their usual lives and their families, and must urgently be brought home.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan), both for securing the debate and for his support for Craig, Lindsay and their family. I acknowledge the family’s presence, and join my hon. and learned Friend in recognising their remarkable determination; they have shown great courage in truly difficult circumstances.
This is a truly terrible case, and my thoughts are with the couple and their family at this incredibly difficult time. The Foreign Secretary and I are doing all we can to support them, and to press for Craig and Lindsay’s release. I am grateful for the thoughtful contributions of Members on both sides of the House, and will do my best to respond to the points that have been raised.
The couple have been detained in Iran since January last year, and are being held in Evin Prison in Tehran. Recent developments have only added to the family’s distress. I spoke with Joe, who is with us today, and with Warren, Craig’s brother, on Monday. They told me that telephone contact between the couple and their family ceased almost two weeks ago, and that there are serious concerns for their health, now that they have both begun a hunger strike. My hon. and learned Friend asked whether I can provide an assurance that they are having adequate health monitoring. I cannot provide that assurance. The consular officials have not had access to the couple in some time, but we continue to press for that assurance and for access, very regularly, and I was discussing this matter with our ambassador to Iran just earlier today.
Alicia Kearns
I thank the Minister for saying that he is pressing on the matter, and that he has been talking to our ambassador, but can he tell the House when he last spoke to his Iranian counterpart, and how many times in the past three months he has raised the case with his Iranian counterpart? With all due respect, getting the couple home requires Government-to-Government negotiation.
Mr Falconer
I raised the case with the Iranian ambassador very recently—whenever I last saw him—and I have raised it in every single interaction I have had with him, but I reassure the hon. Lady that, as she knows, our ambassador to Tehran is a fully empowered representative of the British Government, and talks to the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the consular issues very regularly, to ensure that they are raised. This case has been raised at every single level, not just by me but by the Foreign Secretary with the Iranian Foreign Minister within the past fortnight, so there is no doubt in the Iranian Government’s mind about how seriously we take it.
Supporting British nationals overseas is of course a fundamental part of what we do, and we have been seeking to support Craig, Lindsay and their family throughout. I think my meeting on Monday was my seventh with the Foreman family, and the Foreign Secretary has met them twice. We will continue to provide consular assistance, and officials remain in close and very regular contact with Warren and Joe, to ensure that the family are kept informed and supported. We want to ensure that their concerns are understood and reflected in our approach. As I said to Joe and Warren earlier this week, I remain available to speak with them at any time. As I just said, we have repeatedly and consistently raised Craig and Lindsay’s case with the Iranian authorities at every appropriate level.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall and Bloxwich) (Lab)
This House has heard, sadly, the comments that the Minister has made about the Government pressing this case. He will know that it was pressure from this House, and from the families, that caused the release of the other hostages in Iran. Will he undertake, as the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) suggested, to contact his counterpart at the end of this debate and ensure that the family get proper access to Craig and Lindsay Foreman? We will repeat their names in this House until they are released.
Mr Falconer
As I just said, we have and we will continue to raise this as regularly as possible with the Iranian authorities, both on some of the consular grounds that have been discussed, and in respect of the wider elements of the case. As the House knows, I cover many very difficult consular cases, and we have discussed others in this Chamber. It is not always public pressure that is most effective in securing releases. We have seen a range of releases across my wider area of responsibility during my time as Minister. Those releases are effected in a wide variety of ways, so I will always give families, and their constituency MPs when they are authorised to speak on their behalf, my best advice. It will not always be the case that public pressure is the best way to secure releases. I regret to say that the Iranian authorities appear to use detentions as a way to try to secure public, as well as private, leverage, and it is not always my advice that people should go public in response.
Mims Davies
The Minister is being very generous in giving way. Will he confirm on the Floor of the House that Craig and Lindsay Foreman are not spies?
Mr Falconer
I have said before that they are innocent tourists, and we stand by that position.
To respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), I see from my notes that the last time the Foreign Secretary raised this case was with the Iranian Foreign Minister on 8 May. I reassure her that Ministers are raising it very regularly at the highest level, despite the press of other business. As well as the ministerial level, there is the official level; officials will continue to work intensively on this, and raise the case at every opportunity with their Iranian counterparts. Although it is true that our embassy in Tehran remains temporarily closed because of the situation there, it continues to operate remotely. I reassure the House that we continue to raise this matter, despite that temporary closure. As I said earlier, our ambassador has pressed the Iranian authorities to restore telephone contact with the family, to allow Craig and Lindsay to see one another, and to ensure access to appropriate medical care and essential welfare items.
As I know my hon. Friends will recognise, and as we have discussed privately, cases of this nature are complex and highly sensitive. When British nationals are detained overseas, they are, of course, subject to the legal system of the country in which they are held. However, we consistently advocate for fair treatment, due process and respect for the international obligations set out in the UN minimum standards, often known as the Mandela rules. As I have said, in Iran, engagement must be handled with particular care. We are balancing private engagement and public channels to ensure that we do not inadvertently make the situation more difficult for Craig and Lindsay.
Mr Falconer
I will, once I have made a little more progress. These cases rarely move quickly or predictably. Progress is often incremental, and requires sustained and patient engagement, and I assure the House that we are persistent and determined in our efforts.
Mr Falconer
I think I probably have to take turns, so I will give way to the hon. Lady and then to my hon. and learned Friend.
Alicia Kearns
The Minister has made the point about public versus private, and what works. The French approach of declaring their person arbitrarily detained worked; they are home. On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies), given that the Minister has just recognised that Iranian law does not provide for a fair trial, and that we cannot recognise due process to have been followed, will the Minister at least declare on the Floor of the House that Craig and Lindsay are being arbitrarily detained?
Mr Falconer
I will try to make a little progress before I take the intervention from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe. I am always reluctant, when at the Dispatch Box, to compare our diplomacy with that of our friends, partners and allies, but I say gently to the hon. Lady that the French case to which I think she is referring involved four years of detention in conditions that no one would want to see Craig and Lindsay in. I understand the point that she is making, but comparisons between cases are not easily made, and we have to use our best judgment and give our best advice to the families.
I recognise that the family have called for stronger public action, including a range of steps, some of which were outlined very clearly by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe. As I have tried to make clear throughout my speech, we will give the family our best advice. It also falls to us to give our best judgment about what is in Craig and Lindsay’s interest. That is at the heart of our approach.
Tony Vaughan
Does the Minister agree that it is precisely because of the complexity of these cases, which potentially involve numerous different Government Departments, that we need an envoy for complex consular cases, who has not just the resources, but the authority to bring the Government together, and to act proactively to get such cases moving? Can he update the House on where that proposal is at, and whether there will be the framework and the powers to bring these sorts of cases forward? The Minister will be aware of matters that potentially concern other Government Departments in this case, and it may help if an individual has the authority, resources and powers to bring these sorts of cases forward. What are his thoughts on that?
Mr Falconer
I can confirm to my hon. and learned Friend and to the House that we are progressing the appointment of an envoy. One of the issues we have sought to navigate in the appointment of an envoy is that the Government and I recognise the responsibilities that the Foreign Secretary and I have to this House and to other Members, who will wish to represent their constituents appropriately in public, just as we are doing as we speak. There is therefore a balance to be struck in appointing an envoy with the ability to do all the things that my hon. Friend describes while not taking away from parliamentary accountability, which is a central pillar of our system. We are bringing forward that appointment, and I look forward to returning to the House with further details about it, and about the individual who I hope will take up that post.
I recognise that even during this short exchange, there have been differing views about the most effective ways to secure progress. That is entirely understandable in the circumstances. However, I wish to reassure my hon. and learned Friend and the family in the Gallery that every decision we take is guided by what we judge to be in Craig and Lindsay’s best interests. Our objective is clear: to work towards their return to their loved ones, and, until then, to ensure improvements in their welfare.
I remain deeply concerned for Craig and Lindsay Foreman, particularly in the light of recent developments affecting their health. We are working, and will continue to work, intensively through all appropriate channels to support Craig and Lindsay, improve their conditions and pursue their swift release.
Question put and agreed to.
Baldies Field
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Women’s Health and Wellbeing: Online Censorship
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of the censorship of women’s health and wellbeing content online.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I want to flag at the beginning of this debate that I will be using a selection of words that big tech deems too sexual for its platforms. I hope everyone in this room can hold their composure and not get too flustered when I mention “sexual” terms such as vaginal atrophy and pelvic prolapse. To reassure the Chair, the precedent has already been set in the House for most of these terms. “Vagina” was first used in the House in 1961; “labia minora” in 1983; “orgasm” in 1974; “clitoris” in 1971; and “vulva” goes all the way back to the 1880s.
I must make a point about the historical use of the word “orgasm”. My team had a really interesting time searching Hansard for this debate. As they trawled through it, they found really interesting examples of “orgasm” being used, which I find quite entertaining. In 1978 the former Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch spoke passionately in favour of the creation of the Defence Select Committee, saying:
“I am firmly convinced that to discuss defence in the House in the traditional way is merely to give everyone the chance of an emotional orgasm.”—[Official Report, 3 April 1978; Vol. 947, c. 144.]
In 1982 the former Member for Grimsby spoke against the horrors of what would happen if cable television became the norm, warning that
“We shall finish up with wall-to-wall orgasm”
and
“constant pornography”.—[Official Report, 2 December 1982; Vol. 33, c. 471.]
With the country totally fed up with politics, I find it refreshing to remember that we in this House have the ability to discuss with passion what most of the country would find very dull. For millions of women and girls today, social media is where they learn about things like menopause, endometriosis, polycystic ovary syndrome, premenstrual dysphoric disorder, fibroids, vaginismus, dysmenorrhoea, bacterial vaginosis—are we all managing to control ourselves hearing these terms?—and countless other aspects of women’s health. If social media had been prevalent when I was desperately trying to figure out why my periods hurt more than giving birth, I am sure I would have been able to advocate for myself with my GP and receive my adenomyosis diagnosis far earlier than I did.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech on an important topic. She is very kind to give way. Does she agree with me that social media and the internet are great tools for people who suffer from unusual conditions or are a part of small communities? It is important that tech platforms do not penalise those communities by letting their algorithms stop those topics being discussed.
Emily Darlington
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. He makes a really important point. It is so ingrained in us to go first to the internet to search for information. We have agreed ways to make sure health information is proper health information and that we are not getting bad science, but even when using the ticks that are supplied by various platforms, advice is still being shadow-banned. The online world is where women ask questions when they are often too embarrassed to ask elsewhere about period pain, discharge, lactation, or how to use a tampon safely.
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
I speak as a recently departed member of the ministerial team that delivered the women’s health strategy and a former Minister responsible for digital health. Of course we must protect people from harmful content, but does my hon. Friend agree with me that at a time when medical misogyny is alive and thriving and women’s health outcomes are worse than men’s, we should think about how we can more responsibly leverage the algorithms to generate discussion, not silence it, about reproductive rights, cancer awareness, menstruation, menopause and everything else that she has mentioned?
Emily Darlington
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I met some survivors of vulval cancer this morning. Even though they included a former midwife, a health advocate and other people who were well-informed, they told me about their struggle they experienced when advocating for themselves and to be taken seriously by their GP. They knew something was wrong with their vulvas, but they could not get through to their GP. Luckily, they all did; they are all doing well and have responded to their cancer treatment, but they might have been able to advocate effectively sooner had they been able to access more information than they found online. There are more women out there in exactly the same situation.
Words such as “tampon” are being suppressed by big tech platforms. “Shadow-banning” is the term for when users can still technically post but their visibility is secretly throttled. Their posts stop appearing in feeds, their reach collapses, their engagement disappears and their followers cannot find them. In the examples I have seen, the user is never clearly informed about it. That is censorship without accountability, which is harming education, charities and businesses, reinforcing stigma and, in some cases, putting women’s lives at risk. We need to call that what it is: algorithmic sexism.
Meta, the company that owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, has removed or restricted dozens of accounts belonging to abortion providers, women’s health campaigners and reproductive health organisations across the world. These takedowns began last October and have affected more than 50 organisations globally, some of which support tens of thousands of women. Repro Uncensored, a non-governmental organisation that tracks digital censorship focused on gender, health and justice, documented 210 instances of account removal and severe restriction this year, compared with 81 last year. That is not random moderation, it is escalation.
The Sex Talk Arabic, a UK-based Arabic-language sexual health platform, says it receives warnings from Meta almost weekly. The organisation’s former director, Fatma Ibrahim, said that Meta repeatedly informed it that posts about sexuality, reproductive health and sex education would not be recommended to others because they supposedly violated the platform’s rules. Then the warnings escalated, and Meta began to simply remove its posts.
Examining Meta’s community guidelines allows us to understand why these organisations are so alarmed. Meta says that it allows nudity for “educational”, “medical” and “awareness-raising content”, but that is clearly not what is happening in practice. Under its policies relating to “adult sexual activity”, which it supposedly bans outright, Meta includes “menstruation” alongside “dismemberment”, “cannibalism” and “bestiality”. Something that every woman does monthly—an involuntary biological process connected to the menstrual cycle that is experienced by billions of women—is grouped alongside acts of violence and abuse. What does that tell women about their bodies and how they are being understood by these systems?
This morning, I met representatives of the Eve Appeal, the UK’s leading gynaecological cancer charity, who handed me a letter that they wrote to Meta after attempts to reach it by other avenues failed. They told me that they are extremely concerned about the suppression of some of their content. Last month, The Eve Appeal shared a medically accurate illustration of vulval anatomy on Instagram. It was not pornography or explicit material, but a labelled, educational diagram intended to help people understand their vulva, recognise changes in their cervix and identify symptoms of vulval cancer. The post had a Patient Information Forum tick, the gold standard for health information content. The Eve Appeal has posted the same content three or four times over the last five years, but last month, Instagram removed the post for alleged “nudity or sexual activity”. The Eve Appeal’s account received a warning and its appeal was rejected. Eventually, the post was reinstated, but it was hidden under a “sensitive content” screen, warning users that the image “may be upsetting”. I have seen the image, and it is literally a line drawing. The Eve Appeal received no explanation, and the sensitive content warning has stifled engagement on its post.
One of the Eve Appeal advocates, Zoe, told me,
“When I was diagnosed with vulva cancer, I was clueless. Why? Because I was taught the whole thing was a vagina. The use of pictures with labels of anatomy and names would have been a great help. Penis, prostate, balls, breasts, ovaries, cervix and womb are not taboo, however vulva and vagina, the two rarest of the gynaecological cancers, are being censored and dismissed.”
The Eve Appeal’s educational posts are designed to save lives. Hiding women’s anatomy behind “sensitive content” warnings does not protect women; it silences them.
Such policies can even put lives at risk. My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), who could not make it here today, has been raising awareness of another extraordinary case involving Thames Valley Air Ambulance. The charity launched a campaign highlighting that one in three women suffering cardiac arrest do not receive CPR before emergency crews arrive. Why? Because bystanders are often hesitant to touch women’s chests, remove bras, expose nipples or remove clothing in an emergency. Thames Valley Air Ambulance created an educational content video using a female CPR mannequin to demonstrate how to apply defibrillator pads correctly. Facebook removed the post and Instagram temporarily deleted it. The reason? The female mannequin breached community standards. Again, after appeal the content was restored with a blurred sensitivity warning. The charity responded:
“If we can’t even share an image of an educational use manikin online without it being deemed ‘inappropriate’, how are we expected to normalise removing a real person’s bra to…save their life?”
As you can imagine, similar content with a male mannequin is never removed or shadow-banned.
Education campaigns like those save lives, yet the algorithms of big tech treat them as indecent. While charities are struggling to share lifesaving information, women’s health businesses are also being throttled. The global femtech market is projected to exceed $97 billion by 2030. It should be one of the great growth sectors of the future; instead, female-led health businesses are facing relentless moderation barriers.
Bodyform’s Vagina Uncensored campaign was censored 22 times in one month across Meta, TikTok, Instagram and X. One advert containing the words “menstrual cycle” and showing a sanitary towel with blood was rejected by Meta unless it carried an 18-plus warning. To remind people, periods start much younger than 18 years old and the questions start even earlier than that. Apparently, period products are considered inappropriate for under-18s despite the fact that the vast majority of girls begin menstruating well before that age.
Sixty-four per cent. of women’s health businesses have lost revenue because of those restrictions. Some businesses report losses of half a million pounds a year. One company said their app downloads collapsed from 250 per week to just 50. Another said years of content creation vanished overnight. Smaller femtech start-ups are the hardest hit. Hanx, a women’s sexual wellness company, said nine out of 10 of its adverts were rejected in the early days, and even now 34% of all its adverts are rejected. Meanwhile, treatments for erectile dysfunction are explicitly permitted under Meta’s advertising rules; women’s libido products are not.
Tommy’s, the pregnancy and baby charity, had a video flagged as inappropriate because it included the word vagina. The video featured a researcher studying the vaginal microbiome to better understand infections linked to premature birth and miscarriage. Again, educational, evidence-based medical information was treated as inappropriate content.
Ordinary women are seeing this happen every day. Influencer Charlotte Emily has more than 90,000 Instagram followers—something I think every politician in this room would like. She said that posts about periods, body image, menopause and women’s health perform dramatically worse than her fashion or lifestyle content. She said that simply using the word “period” instead of euphemisms like “Aunt Flo” reduces visibility. Think about the message that sends to young girls online: that medically accurate language about their own body is unacceptable and that they should hide behind euphemisms and embarrassment.
This is not accidental. Words connected to women’s healthcare are treated as suspect content when they should be treated as healthcare education. That is the same prejudice that women have faced for centuries, simply translated into code. Victorian doctors dismissed women’s suffering as hysteria; today’s algorithms suppress the words that women search when they need to find out whether what is happening to their body is normal. The technology has changed, but the sexism has not.
This censorship has consequences far beyond embarrassment or inconvenience. When trusted information is hidden, misinformation flourishes. The Government have now acknowledged that poor-quality online health information harms women’s outcomes—I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed) for his work on that—particularly around reproductive health, contraception, miscarriage, menstruation, menopause and infertility. I am glad to see us acknowledging that, but tackling misinformation means nothing if accurate information is suppressed in the first place. If charities are hidden, educators are shadow-banned, doctors are down-ranked and medically approved content about the uterus, cervix, vulva and vagina is blurred, conspiracy theorists and grifters fill the vacuum and women suffer.
I am coming to the end of my speech, but I want to mention that Essity surveyed about 4,000 adults and found that two thirds look online for health advice, while half rely on social media for health and wellbeing information. Among young people, that number is even higher. Overwhelmingly, the public reject this censorship. Nearly eight out of 10 adults said that words such as “vagina”, “period”, “boobs” and “menopause” should not be restricted when used educationally. The public understand what platforms apparently do not: women’s anatomy is not obscene, women’s health is not inappropriate and education is not pornography.
So what must happen now? First, big tech companies must stop hiding behind opaque moderation systems. They must explain how their algorithms operate, why women’s health content is disproportionately targeted and how appeals are reviewed. Secondly, the Government must stop allowing this issue to fall between policy silos. This is simultaneously a health issue, a women’s equality issue, an online safety issue and a digital regulation issue. It requires co-ordinated action between departments, regulators and the affected organisations. Thirdly, platforms should work directly with clinicians, educators and trusted charities to establish verified pathways for evidence-based health content. Finally, we need a cultural shift. Women and girls deserve to talk openly about periods, menopause, infertility, miscarriage, sex, orgasms, puberty and breastfeeding and every other aspect of their health without shame. They deserve medically accurate information without censorship.
Ultimately, this debate is not only about algorithms. It is about power: who gets heard, who gets visibility, whose bodies are treated as acceptable and whose health is considered legitimate. Right now, the message that many women receive online is this: “Your body is inappropriate. Your anatomy is shameful. Your health is controversial.” It is also about autonomy. If we can make informed choices, we have autonomy, but until big tech changes course, women will continue to pay the price in lost education, lost opportunity, lost trust and, in some cases, lost lives. The technology companies have the money and they have the ability; what they lack is the will. It is about time they found it.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I strongly back this Government’s commitment to tackling online gender-based harms. I am pleased by the progress that has been made, which includes making intimate image abuse, cyber-flashing and choking priority offences under the Online Safety Act and fast-tracking legislation to ban the creation of non-consensual intimate deepfakes.
Recognising the growing threat of technology-enabled abuse is vital for the Government’s targets to halve violence against women and girls during the next decade, but we must ensure that these efforts do not lead to unintended consequences that could undermine the safety and wellbeing of women and girls in other ways. The shadow-banning of medically accurate, evidence-based women’s health content can seriously restrict women’s ability to speak out and find information about their bodies online.
I recently led a Westminster Hall debate considering the e-petition on statutory menstrual leave for people with endometriosis and adenomyosis, which affects 1.5 million women in Britain. In the lead-up to the debate, I spoke to campaigners including Michelle Dewar, who organised the petition. For her and many others, social media is a tool to spread awareness, educate and campaign. Indeed, it was on social media that Michelle was able to encourage signatures for the e-petition, which eventually led to the debate in Parliament.
Like many other women’s health conditions, endometriosis and adenomyosis face serious social stigma. Social media can offer the space to help overcome that, establishing support networks where women can connect and feel understood. However, the unrefined and blanket approaches that many social media platforms take to address broader online harms often lead to the suppression of women’s health content. That can include restrictions on certain words associated with women’s health, as my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) referred to, and the banning of paid-for ads, including for women’s health and sexual wellbeing products.
This has real implications for women. It can seriously impact the reach of content online, reducing access to potentially lifesaving information or vital support networks. It also has economic implications; research by CensHERship indicates that 64% of women’s health businesses have experienced lost revenue as a result of these types of barrier. Once there is a shadow ban, it can be very difficult to resolve and can lead to loss of revenue and other long-term issues.
Social media platforms such as Instagram and Facebook have failed to properly engage with the issue. There remains a lack of transparency about how shadow-banning operates. That is particularly concerning because although content around women’s menstrual and sexual health often faces removal, the same cannot be said for men’s health content and the language used to describe male bodies. We must join the calls by Essity and other campaign groups for meaningful action to change this. Cross-Government working groups to examine how platform moderation practices affect women’s access to health information, and alignment between the women’s health strategy and wider digital and online safety frameworks, can ensure that women’s access to health information is treated as a priority.
Women must be allowed to own the narrative around their own bodies. It is therefore time to ban the ban.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) for securing this important debate.
Getting accurate health information is essential, and it is a fact that most people go online to get it. Some 48% of UK adults have used online health information, including from social media, to self-diagnose at least once in a year, according to a 2024 study by AXA. The same study found that 30% of young adults have turned to social media platforms such as TikTok and Instagram to access health information.
Machine-learning tools such as ChatGPT are now, according to a 2026 study by AXA, the first source for symptom-checking for 36% of people—twice the number who would first go to the NHS website. That is worrying in and of itself, given how entirely inaccurate machine-learning tools such as ChatGPT can be. They do not necessarily give accurate information; what they do is build plausible sentences, but that is a debate for another day.
We have already heard how medically accurate women’s health information is being systematically removed or downgraded by the algorithm. This is also known as shadow-banning. Content creators quite often do not know that it is even happening. We have also seen products removed from sales platforms, including Amazon, with adverts or posts being blocked for using words such as “vagina”, “period”, “menopause”, “pregnancy” or “fertility”. At the same time, adverts for erectile dysfunction or testosterone products remain visible. That is just one example. Advertisements for at-home fertility testing kits were automatically rejected by Amazon because they contained the word “vagina”, although the word “semen” was allowed. For context, the word “vagina” was contained in safety advice that said, “It’s not safe for you to use this product if you’ve had vaginal or cervical surgery within the last three months.” That is a safety implication, never mind anything else.
A recurring pattern in reports and research is that algorithms and moderation systems appear to interpret women’s anatomy and women’s reproductive language as adult or sexual in nature, in a way that comparable men’s health content simply is not. A vacuum of information is being created by medically accurate language being removed or downgraded. What happens in this vacuum? What fills this vacuum? Misinformation.
Unfortunately, the health and wellbeing advice online is quite often entirely without scientific basis. It often appeals to language like “natural”, “gentle” or “traditional”, or uses the accurate chemical names of everyday products or food to make them sound scary or unhealthy. That is easy to do. Take the chemical dihydrogen monoxide. That sounds like a very scary chemical, doesn’t it? That is water. It is easy to make things sound unhealthy and unsafe.
We see this pattern again and again: good, anatomically and medically accurate information is buried while nonsense is peddled by grifters—sorry, “influencers”—who usually have their own supplements to sell, funnily enough, or are being paid to promote things that they simply do not understand. The shadow-banning of certain words—the removal of anatomically accurate terms—means that content providers who do know what they are talking about, such as medics and scientists, are drowned out. As a result, women are left with a sea of misinformation, bad advice and often poor health.
What should we do about it? I recognise that some of these problems can come as an inadvertent and unintended consequence of important action to make online spaces safer, particularly for children. But children are not harmed by hearing medically accurate words or understanding how adult bodies work. As a parent, I make a point of using the correct anatomical terms. I am not going to lie: occasionally that has led to a bit of public embarrassment, especially when you have toddlers, but it means that my kids can now understand and find information about their own bodies.
I ask that social media and online sales platforms work with campaigners and Government to figure out how to keep people safe online while not restricting vital, medically accurate content. That work needs to be done across different Departments, and it needs to include regulators. We need to align the very welcome women’s health strategy with wider digital online safety frameworks so that women’s access to accurate health information is treated as a shared priority.
We need to find successful ways to disseminate valid, scientifically based women’s health information. That would involve the active testing of possible solutions, such as trusted expert accreditation, co-designed with clinicians, women’s health organisations and the platforms themselves. There is wider work to do on general health and scientific literacy in the population and the content creator space. I am sure that many of the people peddling nonsense do not know what they are doing because they do not have the critical thinking skills or the simple baseline knowledge to know what it is that they are selling.
In conclusion, women must be able to get medically and scientifically accurate information about their health—and we must work together to deliver it.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
I apologise for running late, Mr Stringer; I had an emergency constituent issue.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) not only for securing this vital debate on the censorship of women’s health and wellbeing content online, but for her ongoing campaigning on this issue. I was delighted to join her roundtable on the subject with Essity. We need strong voices in this place and, my word, I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s strong voice on this issue.
We are here to talk about women’s health, so I will focus on that, but I want to make it clear that we are all fierce advocates for men’s health as well. It is clear that women’s health is being pushed to the edges of the internet by systems that fail to distinguish between pornography and public health. Posts about periods, endometriosis, fertility, pregnancy loss, pelvic pain and menopause—ordinary facts about ordinary bodies—are down-ranked, age-gated or quietly buried, while explicit content remains only a tap away. This is not a harmless quirk: it reflects design choices made by tech companies, often heavily influenced by men, the male lens and the male view of the world.
As founder of Labour: Women in Tech, I have been campaigning for years to get more women into the industry and creating tech that is made to serve more people. More recently, I have launched a campaign for age-appropriate, inclusive and lifelong sex education with Cindy Gallop of MakeLoveNotPorn and the MakeLoveNotPorn Academy, a platform for creating the Google of sex education. Talking of tech, I know she is watching this debate live online—so hello, Cindy Gallop.
We want to take the shame, guilt and embarrassment—all of which are perpetuated by shadow banning—out of talking about sex. My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) mentioned some embarrassing things that can happen in public, and she is a fierce advocate for giving parts of the body their proper anatomical names.
I will focus on the huge role that sexual wellbeing plays in our health and happiness. We cannot rest on our laurels and assume that everyone had relationships and sex education in school. In fact, completing formal education at 16—RSE is not mandatory to 18—does not mean that the relationships and sex education provided to a student was adequate. A recent Youth Select Committee report found that relationships and sex education in UK schools is woefully lacking, particularly for LGBTQ young people. Like many adults, young people therefore turn to the internet and social media to fill the gaps.
When the online classroom censors the syllabus, we fail people twice: first by not teaching them enough, and then by hiding the very information they seek. These failures play out across a lifetime. After cancer treatment, for example, a woman may experience significant changes, such as early menopause, pain, vaginal dryness and changes in desire. She may look for practical, compassionate advice, but find it flagged as “sexual content”. That delivers not support but silence.
When it comes to pregnancy and the months after birth, evidence-based guidance on pelvic floor recovery or painful sex is frequently hidden behind warnings, while myths about “bouncing back” flow freely, leaving new mothers to stitch together care in the dark. Content on perimenopause and the menopause, an experience that will touch half the population, explaining brain fog, joint pain, dyspareunia—genital pain before, during or after sex—and the role of hormone replacement therapy is throttled by filters that bury the very help that women need.
Censorship compounds existing inequalities. Disabled people receive very little support around having a healthy sex life. Even straightforward, evidence-based facts about masturbation helping some people to relieve menstrual cramps are too often treated as indecent rather than educational. On top of that, creators and clinicians feel compelled to contort language to avoid suppression, writing “seggs” instead of “sex”, or “b00bs” instead of “breasts”. This is not merely absurd; for some neurodivergent people, misspelled language is confusing and exclusionary, making essential health information harder to understand and access.
We should also acknowledge the pressures on the very people trying to provide education. Some sex educators on mainstream platforms, especially TikTok and Instagram, feel forced to use coded or alternative language to get any reach at all.
Milly Evans, who has nearly half a million followers on TikTok, told me she never knows what rules might be imposed from one day to the next. She has had her account suspended; had stretches where algorithms would allow her to reach only existing followers, therefore not expanding her reach; and had periods of outright shadow banning, meaning that no one saw what she posted. When educators must choose between clarity and visibility, the public loses. This is especially true for those who rely on free, accessible information.
There is a gendered double standard that we must confront: women are penalised for posting clinically accurate information that men can share with far fewer consequences. Cindy Gallop’s “Fairness in the Feed” campaign on LinkedIn highlighted this starkly, with women who changed their profile gender to male seeing their posts reach further. When the same message travels differently depending on who says it, bias is no longer incidental: it is embedded in the system. Of course, LinkedIn denies it, but I say look at the actions, not the words.
The knock-on effects are not only personal but are economic. Women’s health companies, start-ups, clinics, apps and retailers struggle to reach the very people they exist to serve because their content and advertising are throttled. Lucy Litwack is the owner and CEO of Coco de Mer, a company that helps women with desire and sexual pleasure, which are central to health and wellbeing. She said that she cannot even run promotions for her lingerie on Facebook because her company also happens to sell sex toys. That is not just a ban on the promotion of sex toys, which is questionable in itself—I do not see why that should be banned—but a blanket block on lingerie because of association.
If responsible brands cannot speak to consenting adults about lawful products, innovation is chilled and growth is starved. The founders then walk into investor rooms and are told, “Sorry, your reach is too small and your traction is too thin.” The system is creating problems and then punishing those who try to solve them.
Shadow banning is especially corrosive because it is deniable. There is no clear refusal, only diminishing visibility, fewer views and a creeping signal that plain speech about women’s bodies is unwelcome. The predictable result is self-censorship: creators soften terms, clinicians dilute clarity, charities tiptoe, and the space left in respect of accuracy is quickly filled by misinformation and predatory products.
All that is why, alongside Cindy, I have launched a public consultation alongside our campaign for lifelong sex education. It is not a fixed blueprint but a genuine invitation for contributors to share their evidence and lived experience. We are asking people to tell us what is working well, what needs to change and where they would like the agenda to land.
In the spirit of listening, I will outline some ideas that people might suggest we explore together. People might call for greater transparency from and due process for platforms, including through clear rules for sexual and reproductive health content. That would mean having explanations when posts are limited and timely, and human-reviewed appeals so that educational material is not swept up by blunt filters and biased enforcement.
People might propose a mechanism to recognise verified educational and clinical content, thereby allowing NHS bodies, registered charities and qualified clinicians to label health education so that it is not misclassified as adult content, while still meeting robust safety standards.
People might ask for independent scrutiny and measurement so that we can track the visibility of sexual health content for women and men, LGBTQ communities, neurodivergent people and disabled people. That would allow us to compare enforcement patterns across genders and communities, audit algorithms and training data for bias, test whether changes actually help people to find the information that they need, and help responsible women’s health companies and educators to reach them.
People might also recommend partnerships that place trusted resources where people already are, such as GP surgeries, workplaces, community centres, schools and the large public platforms. That would make accurate guidance available at key life stages such as puberty, when making decisions about consent and contraception, pregnancy and postpartum recovery, illness and treatment, and the menopause transition.
What I have outlined are not conclusions; they are suggestions. They are invitations to shape a programme that is built with the public, rather than being handed down to them. Yet whatever solutions emerge will succeed only if the channels that carry our information stop choking on the words that we need to use.
Censorship by algorithm is still censorship, and when it hides women’s health, it harms half the country—quietly, cumulatively and needlessly. We should not accept an internet where it is easier to encounter pornography than to find clinically sound advice about pelvic pain, menopause, cancer recovery or accessible sexual wellbeing for disabled or neurodivergent people. We should not accept rules that police women’s language while allowing men to say the same things more frequently, nor a market that punishes health founders and educators for trying to solve the very problems that the system creates.
The consultation is open and we want people to share what already works, identify the gaps and point us to changes that would make the greatest difference. Together, we can bring women’s health out of the algorithmic shadows and into the light.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) on securing this timely and important debate, and I thank the hon. Members for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee), for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), for Colne Valley (Paul Davies), for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) and for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) for their contributions.
Women’s health has been under-represented, under- discussed and under-researched throughout human history. As a result, women in my constituency, across the country and around the world are suffering needlessly. We are here today to discuss and highlight the fact that the online world has not changed that for the better, and that there is evidence that social media and tech giants are censoring women’s health issues, while men’s issues seem to be posted, shared and discussed with relative ease. That doubles down on centuries of health inequality, and it needs to stop.
There is, of course, a balance to be struck in identifying what is and is not appropriate to be shared with an increasingly wide audience online and on social media platforms—indeed, there is an active and growing discussion of that issue—but the censoring of accurate and lifesaving health information or of the promotion of effective products cannot be allowed. Social media companies are systematically censoring content relating to menstruation, fertility, menopause and postpartum recovery by classifying it as adult content.
At the same time, algorithms continue to push extreme material every single day. Violence, misogyny and racism proliferate online with alarming ease, yet educational and medical content about women’s bodies is apparently where tech companies choose to draw the line.
Meta introduced new health advertising categories earlier this year and rolled out additional restrictions designed to prevent advertisers from sharing what it classifies as sensitive health data. In practice, that has led many femtech and women’s health companies to claim that they are being disproportionately censored. We have seen reports of adverts for egg testing being removed, while sperm testing adverts remain. Educational posts are taken down for using medically accurate language. Charities such as Tommy’s have reportedly had research content flagged as inappropriate simply for containing the word “vagina”.
A 2023 campaign by Bodyform highlighted more than 40 banned or restricted words, including “cervix”, “PCOS”, “infertility” and “menopause”. That is shocking and idiotic. Words associated with normal biological functions and serious medical conditions are being treated as taboo.
The campaign group CensHERship found that 95% of women’s health creators experienced censorship in the past year, and more than half said that they now self-censor their own language to avoid having content removed. That should concern us all. The Removing or restricting medical and educational information does not protect people from dangerous content; it limits discussion and learning on subjects that are already not talked about enough, and the consequences are serious.
Medical misogyny, systematic under-research and poor education around women’s health are already deeply embedded in society. Only about 2% of UK public research funding is spent on female reproductive health. Against that backdrop, unnecessary restrictions risk further exacerbating inequalities and leaving women and girls without access to information that could genuinely improve and, in some cases, save their lives.
It is frankly ridiculous that women are increasingly forced to use euphemisms online to discuss medically accurate terms such as “vagina”, to avoid censorship. What message does that send to young women and girls? What message does that send to our children? I grew up in the ’90s—in an age when talking about women’s heath was too often shameful and euphemisms were normal. I remember TV adverts extoling the possibilities of rollerblading along a California beach in hot pants, and mystery blue liquids were used to demonstrate the absorbent qualities of the latest sanitary towel.
Things have changed. I have noticed that my local supermarket no longer has the obscurely named “feminine hygiene” aisle, and that the blue liquid on TV adverts is now red. Things have got better in the last 30 years, but the internet is the not-so-new frontier where we must continue to make the case that these subjects are not shameful and that women should not feel embarrassed about their own bodies and health. Shame and stigma stop women from coming forward with their problems, which delays diagnoses and worsens outcomes, as when patients present later the consequences can be devastating.
Of course, there are legitimate concerns about medical misinformation online, and the Government must absolutely continue to tackle harmful information, but the systematic restriction of women’s health content is not the answer. Social media and the internet are now central conduits of knowledge and learning, particularly for younger generations. They have enormous untapped potential as tools for public health education and awareness.
I am afraid the Government’s recent women’s health strategy was a missed opportunity to begin to address the issue, but at the very least the Government should bring tech companies, campaigners, clinicians and women’s health organisations around the table to establish a workable and transparent solution. Women should not have to fight algorithms simply to access accurate health information, and in 2026 medically accurate discussions about women’s bodies should not be treated as inappropriate, shameful or obscene. It is time for us to stop allowing technology to reinforce existing inequality, and instead use it as a force for good.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. As we are discussing health, I should declare that I am a former NHS doctor and my wife is an NHS doctor.
I thank the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) for her detailed and highly researched speech, as well as all other Members who have spoken. This has been a most concerning debate in relation to the systemic impact of health promotion, and it has thrown up bigger, more fundamental challenges that we, as a society, must start to grapple with. I will come to that later in my remarks.
My first job in the psychiatric training scheme—and my first consultant job—was on a women’s ward in south-east London. That was one of the most amazing jobs I have ever done: looking after very poorly women and doing my bit to deal with complex physical health issues and to promote women’s health. I totally appreciate and agree about the importance of reducing what is—let us face it—ridiculous stigma and social taboo around women’s health issues, but I come at this as a doctor, so I have a particular perspective.
Equally, I am mindful that my perspective—how I look at society—has changed during my 44 years. If someone had asked the Ben of 20 years ago, “Do you think we live in a society that is equal for men and women?” he would have said, “Yes, of course we do.” In the past 15 years, I have come to know that that is completely wrong, things are nowhere near where they should be and we still have a huge amount of work to do. Sadly, what we have heard in this debate, and the list of de-promoted words that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central handed to me, are further evidence of the challenges that we must tackle. She is 100% right to raise this topic, among others, and to call out what has been happening.
But—and there is a “but”—this issue is not simply about access to information. This is not just a question of whether the information should or should not be accessible—in my view, it absolutely should be—or of how to determine the threshold between adult content and factual material. The debate also relates to decisions made by private companies to impose limits on what they permit or promote on their sites. That is the nub of the issue: should companies be allowed to make those decisions, or should it be the role of Government to regulate those choices or actions?
To be clear, I do not believe that this debate is about the scope of the Online Safety Act, which does not restrict companies in the publication of factual health information. At no point does that Act says that information on breasts, vaginas, fertility, menstruation or menopause, or on any other body part, condition or medical term, should be restricted or classified as adult material. The way that that information or imagery is presented may indeed come within the scope of the Act, but its existence does not. Inappropriate adult content should not be accessible to children—that is right—but factual and educational material should not meet that criterion. It is also worth bearing in mind that, in some ways, this is not a new issue. I am sure that, just as people looked at information in anatomy textbooks for educational purposes before the internet, plenty of people looked at it for other purposes—but, again, that is not a matter for Parliament or the Online Safety Act.
Under our current legal framework, private companies have the right to choose what information they permit on their websites. That is a commercial decision, and if we are not happy with such a decision—my very strong view is that we should not support the restriction of information relating to women’s health—we should call them out and persuade them to change their position. Algorithmic transparency is important, but it is also critical, given the evidence that we have heard in this debate, that companies are not able to hide behind the Online Safety Act.
A bigger problem that we will have to tackle or process at some point is the status of social media in our society. Is it private or is it something bigger? Should it be regulated, like news outlets? That would be a huge change in our position, creating such regulatory burdens as to make the UK wholly uncompetitive in the market and having an extreme impact on people’s access to information. It would also be counterproductive, because it is nigh-on impossible to do.
I look forward to hearing from the Minister, whom I welcome to his place. This is the first time I have had the pleasure of being opposite him at the Dispatch Box. I reiterate the Opposition’s strong support for what Members from both sides of the House have said about the importance of destigmatising these matters. I hate even using the word “destigmatise” because I worry that that is stigmatising in itself—it is ridiculous, in some ways, that we have to have this debate in the modern age, but we are where we are. We must ensure that everyone has access to sensible and appropriate information, without the biases that have been mentioned in the debate.
Finally, as a former NHS mental health doctor, I point out that social media is not the only online source of health information. I signpost people who have questions to the NHS website, where there is plenty of stuff on all health areas—I looked it up on my phone during the debate. We do not have to rely on big-tech social media; we have plenty of services in which other information is available.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr James Frith)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) for securing this debate, and all Members who have spoken.
As ever, my hon. Friend made a powerful and compelling argument. She is a compelling advocate for the people she argues for and the case she makes. That is met with deep appreciation and understanding. I think I understand most of the very helpful list that she provided, which I have handed to my officials, but I do not know whether I can pronounce every word on it. She made her point brilliantly, as did so many Members in their own speeches. My hon. Friend is right to challenge platforms that arbitrarily remove legal health content or engage in the practice of shadow-banning people, particularly where people struggle to appeal those unfair decisions.
I will set out the Government’s position clearly. First, we believe it is crucial that every woman and girl can access trusted health information online. Secondly, the Online Safety Act does not prevent adults or children from accessing legal content about women’s health. Thirdly, the Online Safety Act will require the largest user-to-user platforms—designated by Ofcom as category 1 services—to have clear, accessible terms of service. Those must explain what legal content for adults they do and do not allow, and when a user may be banned or suspended. Category 1 services will also need effective routes for users to challenge content being wrongly taken down. Their complaints processes must be clearly set out in their terms of service, and platforms will be expected to act appropriately when complaints are made.
Ofcom is due to publish the register of categorised services in July of this year, alongside a consultation on these additional duties, including strengthened terms of service requirements. Ofcom will consult over the summer and aims to publish final policy statements and guidance in 2027. Once those duties are in force, the largest platforms will have much clearer and stronger appeal mechanisms, and expectations on them, for users whose content has been removed inappropriately. Ofcom will be required to send out annual notices to categorised services, which may require them to disclose information about the design and operation of their algorithms.
As the online safety regulator, Ofcom published guidance in November 2025 setting out practical steps that technology firms can take to make their platforms a safer and more inclusive place for women and girls online. The guidance is clear that safeguards for freedom of expression must remain in place, including routes for users to challenge wrongly moderated content. The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology is working closely with Ofcom to support the effective implementation of those measures.
In March 2026, the Secretary of State held a roundtable with social media firms and set clear expectations that firms should implement Ofcom’s guidance by the end of this year. I hear the call from the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) for a repeat roundtable with all parties, and I absolutely agree that that is a way forward. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), is absolutely right to say that this is about dialogue first—we agree on that. Where required, we must call out, but calling in is a good start.
The Online Safety Act also requires Ofcom to raise awareness and understanding of misinformation and harmful content, especially when vulnerable groups are affected. As part of that requirement, Ofcom must publish a media literacy strategy every three years. The first focuses on research, evidence and evaluation, and on engaging with platforms, people and partnerships, which includes the delivery of targeted media literacy interventions for priority groups.
DSIT is ensuring a more joined-up approach to media literacy across Government, aligning policy, education and communications. We are working to ensure that every person can access trusted health information online. That is why our media literacy action plan, published in March this year, highlights the central role that online sources play in helping people to learn about important topics such as health. It is also aimed at supporting parents in building their children’s resilience to the creeping-in of misleading content.
The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology continues to work with the Department of Health and Social Care on ensuring that people have access to safe and trusted health information online. Social media companies must realise the role that they play in women and girls accessing accurate information about their health. The Government agree that social media companies must do more to enable women and girls to access accurate health information.
Ofcom has set out clear guidance on what companies must do to make the online world a safer and more inclusive place for women, and the Government have been clear that platforms need to implement this guidance by year-end. The Online Safety Act does not prevent adults or children from accessing legal content about women’s health. Safeguards for freedom of expression are built into the framework of the Act, which places duties on platforms to protect users’ right to freedom of expression when introducing safety measures.
The largest services regulated by the Act will have additional duties: they cannot arbitrarily remove content; they must be clear what content is acceptable for their adult users; and they must enforce the rules consistently. Users will have access to effective complaints procedures to appeal when content is unduly taken down.
On the specific points that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central raised about the Eve Appeal’s letter, the Government acknowledge that censorship of terms and diagrams relating to women’s anatomy is a problem, especially when such material can help to increase awareness about the spread and risk of cancer. In April 2026, the Department of Health and Social Care published a renewed health strategy. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed) is no longer in his place, but I commend him for the work he did on that strategy and for the powerful statement of intent that it is a Government priority, alongside the strategy to halve violence against women and girls in this Parliament.
The strategy represents a decisive shift towards addressing long-standing failings in women’s health outcomes, experiences and access to care. It applies the Government’s 10-year health plan to women’s health, aiming for faster and more equitable improvements through fundamental reform rather than incremental changes. It aims to tackle medical misogyny and rebalance power within the healthcare system, to ensure that women’s voices and choices are prioritised.
Central to the strategy is improving women’s and girls’ awareness of and access to services, and driving research that will benefit women’s health. Alongside this, the strategy recognises the need to tackle misinformation about women’s healthcare. That is why it focuses on making credible health information easy to find.
I will now address a few specific issues mentioned in today’s debate. The renewed women’s health strategy has committed to invest £1.5 million in femtech, via the femtech healthcare challenge. Health information is critical. The sophisticated algorithms that we all experience as they target us with adverts should—indeed, must—be used to identify health-based information to ensure that women and children do not miss out on crucial health information.
The role of the NHS social media team is to make credible health information easy to find, understand and trust, in the places where people already spend their time. It is using channels such as YouTube, Instagram and Facebook to explain topics including menstrual health, contraception and conditions such as endometriosis. The team also uses audience insight and social listening to understand how people talk about these topics, what they are worried about and where they have gaps in their understanding. That helps us to make content that is clearer, more empathetic and genuinely useful.
Finally, the Government agree that platforms need to do more to address how they moderate content. We will continue to engage closely with platforms and with Ofcom to understand better how enforcement is being conducted. We all agree that we want to see women and girls being able to access trusted health information, and we must remain vigilant on this issue.
I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central for securing this critical debate.
Emily Darlington
I thank everyone who joined us for the debate. As the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) said, it is one that we needed to have because so many people do not know about this issue. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed) for reaffirming that this Government recognise medical misogyny.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for reminding us about health advice. We both participated in a debate about endometriosis and adenomyosis not too long ago. In that debate, I said that periods can be uncomfortable but should not be painful, and Members from across the House came up to me afterwards to ask, “Is that true?” Yes, it is true. Periods should not be painful. That shows how we all lack advice on women’s health.
My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) talked about her children creating embarrassing situations, which I recognise, too. My daughter had a conversation with her friend at the school gates, alongside many other mums and school- children, about her favourite word. She declared, very proudly, that “vulva” was her favourite word. She had learned it at school as appropriate. She knew the difference and told me proudly that I must not misuse “vagina” for “vulva”.
That raises an important point about child abuse, which is a little outside the scope of this debate, but not entirely, because we have to use the correct terms. Police find it extremely frustrating, and it does not meet legal thresholds, when children say, “He touched my cookie,” or, “He touched my ginny.” They need the child to say the right word in order to proceed, and it is another angle in this debate that we must not forget. Using the correct medical terminology allows us to crack down on paedophiles and groomers.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett), whose embarrassment threshold is even lower than mine, which is hard, talked about important post-birth advice and how shadow-banning is particularly problematic because it is deniable. What it says to women, doctors, gynaecologists and femtech entrepreneurs is, “You are just creating content that is not interesting. That is why it does not do well.” Actually, they are creating content that is being deliberately suppressed.
I appreciate what the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett), said about the difference between this and adult content, violent misogyny and racist language. All of that is allowed, yet these terms are not. It shows the power that these platforms have: they say that they cannot suppress these words, but they can. Terms like “rape” or horrible terms that are racist, antisemitic or anti-Islam could be in the same position as women’s health terms, yet they choose for them not to be. I loved her mention of blue liquid. We all remember the blue liquid, and we all remember being surprised, if we were told beforehand, when it was not blue liquid. I imagine that many men were quite surprised, when they got married or entered a relationship, to find that it was not blue. And we certainly were not all out rollerblading.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, asked an important question: should Government dictate what platforms publish? He is right, and the OSA does not say that women’s health information cannot be published. Where I have a bit of an issue with his argument is that, although he is right that it is a commercial decision, it is also a commercial decision that allows the platforms to continue to push pornography, violent material and misogynistic material. If they want to make money off people in this country, we need to make sure they are not doing damage to this country.
Dr Ben Spencer
I appreciate where the hon. Lady is coming from, but unless I am wrong, those examples are all within the auspices of the OSA.
Emily Darlington
Yes, they would be. I am trying to say that the OSA does not limit this, but it does limit some of the other material. It is important that there is a place for the Government to say what platforms should or should not be able to publish, but they should not micromanage. I agree on that. It should not be like the Lord Chamberlain saying, “Here are the words that you are allowed to use”, or, “The Queen does not approve of those phrases”, but we should be clear that we limit free speech where it has a real, negative impact on individuals or on society, and that we are protecting people because of their age, gender or other protected characteristics.
The shadow Minister raised an important discussion about publishers, plurality and biases that are already in the system. The systems are designed by men and the content, for the most part, focuses on men—not completely, but the algorithms are traditionally designed by men and therefore feed what they think men want, or not even what they want, but what will keep them on the platform the longest. That is their business model.
I appreciate the Minister reiterating the Government’s position that we believe that women should have access to accurate medical information. There are two sides to that: making sure that we suppress inaccurate medical information; and making sure that we have the mechanisms to show what is medically accurate with a tick. We should then make sure that that is the material that people see.
I appreciate what you said about appeal mechanisms, but it is difficult to appeal against shadow-banning, so we need to talk further about that. Again, that is about transparency on algorithms, which you were talking about, and about our dialogue with social media platforms. We need to ask them, what is more damaging? Is it the sexualised content, the misogynistic content or the health advice? We need to have that serious discussion with them.
We also need to think much wider than the four big social media companies. That is not always where people go for such advice. We have heard of experiences on LinkedIn and many other platforms that show that this is a widespread issue. Finally, you are absolutely right about media literacy, so that we know what is good health content and what is based on rubbish science. That is part of how we get through this. [Interruption.] I thank everyone for attending.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
I did not want to interrupt the hon. Lady in what has been an interesting debate, but I remind hon. Members that if you say “you”, that is me—
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
I did not want to interrupt the debate, but it is worth remembering for future debates.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of the censorship of women’s health and wellbeing content online.
Family Justice System: Domestic Abuse and Safeguarding
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered domestic abuse and safeguarding within the family justice system.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. The family courts make some of the most important decisions that any institution can make. They determine where children will live, how they will maintain relationships with their parents, and how families rebuild their lives after separation. At their best, they provide protection, stability and justice, but far too many survivors of domestic abuse do not experience the family court as a place of safety. Instead, many describe it as a continuation of abuse through legal processes, repeated trauma and unsafe decision making.
Today’s debate is vital because there is now substantial evidence from survivors, frontline organisations, legal professionals and independent reviews that domestic abuse is too often minimised, misunderstood or inadequately recognised in family court proceedings. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s report “Everyday business”, published in 2025, found evidence of domestic abuse in around 87% of the family court cases that it examined. Yet the report concluded that abuse was frequently not treated as an active safeguarding issue. How can that be right? That finding should concern everyone in this House. If abuse is present in the overwhelming majority of cases but is not consistently recognised in decisions about children and contact arrangements, there is clearly a systemic problem that requires urgent attention.
It is important to understand the nature of domestic abuse in this context. Abuse is not always physical violence; it can involve coercive control, intimidation, economic abuse, emotional manipulation, stalking, harassment, and patterns of behaviour designed to dominate and undermine another person. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 rightly recognised coercive and controlling behaviour in law, yet many survivors continue to report that coercive control and post-separation abuse remain poorly understood in family court proceedings. For many perpetrators, separation does not end abuse. Instead, the family court can become another avenue of control through unnecessary litigation, manipulation of child contact arrangements and prolonged interaction with an abusive former partner.
Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member agree that perpetrators should not be rewarded through the court process with reduced sentences when they change their plea to guilty at the last minute? It is just a continuation of the coercive and controlling behaviour that they have already displayed.
Clive Jones
The hon. Member is absolutely right: somebody should not be rewarded when they have been difficult for months and months—probably years—and then at the last minute change their mind to get a reduced sentence. The judge probably sees them as being helpful, but they have not been helpful for a long time. The hon. Member makes a really good point.
Some have described the family courts process as very traumatising. We must recognise sophisticated tactics like DARVO—deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender—where perpetrators deny the abuse, attack the credibility of the survivor and then present themselves as the true victim. A survivor may therefore find themselves portrayed as hostile, manipulative or obstructive, and genuine attempts to protect children can be reframed by perpetrators as attempts to alienate a child from the other parent. That is one reason why specialist expertise in the courts is so important.
In a child custody case, a constituent of mine was told by a judge to stop making reports of domestic abuse against the ex-partner as it had no relevance to the case, despite their being presented with police reports. The ex-partner also used manipulative DARVO tactics and eventually gained custody of the child. Intimidated by the process, my constituent’s experience highlights the urgent need for stronger protection and specialist expertise in court.
I also want to address concerns surrounding the recent removal of the presumption of parental involvement in cases involving abuse. While many survivors and safeguarding organisations welcomed the reform, there is concern that some perpetrators may increasingly attempt to weaponise allegations against survivors by claiming that they themselves are the victims of abuse, or by claiming parental alienation in response to genuine safeguarding concerns. Domestic abuse specialists like Kaleidoscopic UK have long warned that allegations of so-called parental alienation can be used to discredit survivors and shift attention away from abuse allegations.
The charity Right to Equality undertook a survey on child removals and found that 81% of mothers who had their child removed were accused of parental alienation. It is a strategy routinely weaponised by abusers and often backed by unregulated experts who have no place in the courtroom. These bogus allegations can often lead to a child being removed from a safe parent and transferred to an abusive one. That is precisely why independent domestic violence advisers and the newly created children’s domestic abuse advocates are needed as experts. They can help courts to distinguish genuine safeguarding concerns from manipulative litigation tactics and identify patterns of coercive and post-separation abuse that might otherwise be missed.
At the centre of all of this is children. Children are not passive witnesses to domestic abuse. We know from extensive evidence that exposure to abuse and an environment of fear and instability can have profound, lifelong effects on emotional wellbeing, mental health, educational attainment and future relationships. The consequences of unsafe decisions in the family courts can be devastating. Women’s Aid has documented 67 child deaths over the last 30 years linked to abusive contact arrangements. We are not talking about abstract statistics, but children whose safety should have been paramount and families left with unimaginable grief.
Every one of those cases demands that we ask difficult questions about whether the system is adequately equipped to identify risk and respond appropriately. We must also acknowledge the wider human cost of domestic abuse. Home Office data recorded 98 suspected suicides following domestic abuse in the year to March 2024. Behind each figure is a life lost and a family devastated. The statistics remind us that domestic abuse is not a private matter; it is a serious public protection issue.
I pay tribute to the work of survivor-led organisations such as Kaleidoscopic UK, whose representatives are in the Gallery. Its members have campaigned tirelessly for reform in this area, and support adults and children affected by domestic abuse. Many of those involved with Kaleidoscopic are themselves survivors of abuse and have first-hand experience of navigating the family court system. Policymakers and justice institutions should listen carefully to those experiences when considering how the family court system can better protect vulnerable families.
I want to be clear that there are many dedicated professionals within the family justice system who are committed to safeguarding children and supporting families under immense pressure. This debate is not about criticising individuals; it is about asking whether the system as a whole is sufficiently equipped to deal with the complex realities of domestic abuse. I believe there is a strong case for the mandatory involvement of independent domestic violence advisers as specialist domestic abuse experts within the family court process. IDVAs understand patterns of coercive control, risk escalation, post-separation abuse, and the barriers that victims and children face in disclosing abuse. They possess specialist expertise that can help to identify risks that might otherwise be overlooked.
At present, however, access to specialist domestic abuse expertise within the family courts is very inconsistent. That inconsistency can lead to inconsistent outcomes and an unacceptable postcode lottery for survivors and children. Independent domestic abuse experts could help courts to identify patterns of abuse that are not immediately visible; strengthen safeguarding assessments by ensuring that risk assessments fully account for the realities of post-separation abuse; and improve consistency across the system and survivors’ confidence in the family justice process.
Importantly, this is not about undermining judicial independence. Judges must of course remain the ultimate decision makers, but they should have access to the best expertise available when dealing with complex safeguarding matters involving domestic abuse and child welfare. Sadly, several of my constituents have experienced being undermined and ignored in court by a judge who has had complaints made against them for overlooking their allegations of abuse and refusing to recognise abusive tactics in court. Having an expert present in this setting would provide my constituents, and all victims, with much more protection and understanding.
This House has already recognised the seriousness of domestic abuse through landmark legislation and policy reforms. The Domestic Abuse Act was a significant step forward. The recent removal of the presumption of parental involvement in cases involving abuse was also welcome and necessary, but legislation alone is not enough if implementation within systems and institutions does not reflect the realities that survivors face. In most cases, relationships between children and parents are important and beneficial, but where abuse is present, safety must always come first. The welfare of a child must remain the court’s paramount consideration, not simply the continuation of contact in principle.
There is also the broader issue of the culture in the family justice system. Survivors and advocacy organisations have raised concerns about myths and misconceptions surrounding domestic abuse, including assumptions about why victims remain in abusive relationships, expectations around perfect victim behaviour, and misunderstandings about post-separation abuse. Specialist domestic abuse expertise can help challenge those misconceptions and ensure that decisions are grounded in evidence and understanding.
I acknowledge the important work carried out by organisations supporting survivors every day: Women’s Aid, Refuge, Rights of Women, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Kaleidoscopic UK and many others have consistently highlighted these issues and advocated for reform. Their work has brought forward evidence that this House cannot ignore. Members across the House will know from their constituency casework that these concerns are not isolated incidents, and will have heard from constituents who feel failed by a system that was supposed to protect them and their children. Those experiences deserve to be heard.
This debate is about recognising the complexities of domestic abuse and that improving safeguarding within the family courts is both necessary and achievable. Family court decisions shape lives for years—sometimes generations—so I urge the Government to embed domestic abuse experts more effectively within the family justice system, to ensure that survivors and children are truly protected throughout court proceedings and beyond. Above all, we must build a family justice system that survivors can trust, that properly understands domestic abuse and that places the safety and welfare of children at the heart of every decision.
Several hon. Members rose—
Gill Furniss (in the Chair)
Order. I remind hon. Members to bob if they wish to be called.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) on bringing this topic to the Chamber, where it belongs. We need to keep the pressure on to ensure that survivors have an improved sense of trust in the system.
I have experience of this issue as an MP. I would not say that I have been inundated, but many amazing women have shared their stories with me in my constituency surgeries. I pay tribute to and thank them for being brave enough to come forward. Without wanting to disclose characteristics or anything identifiable, I will share a flavour of what I have been told, which I am sure will not be unheard of for either the Minister or other Members.
For example, one mother and her children lived under coercive control, financial abuse and violence for many years. After separation, the abuse did not stop but simply changed form—the hon. Member for Wokingham described a similar case. The perpetrator continued to exert control through child contact arrangements, intimidation and financial manipulation, the children required to attend overnight contact despite repeatedly expressing fear and distress to professionals, including to their school. Critically, the abuse has never been tested in court. The survivor was discouraged from seeking a fact-finding hearing and had no access to legal services advice at that stage. As a result, her experience was minimised as “conflict” rather than recognised as abuse.
Coercive control and abuse are still not fully tested in court. Abuse is often reframed as conflict rather than what it actually it is, which leads to significant delays in therapy and support for children and a continuation of harm. The Home Office harm panel’s 2025 research on family courts found systematic failures, including the minimisation of domestic abuse. Having IDVAs or those that specialise in domestic abuse within the court system is a good suggestion, and one that I also call for. The court process is incredibly traumatic for families, and children’s voices are not listened to within it. Many survivors have reported to me unsafe contact orders that often allow public and unsupervised contact. In north Kent, there is a lack of supervised contact centres.
Children’s voices are being silenced—the voices of children with special educational needs are missing in this space. Within the court system, a lack of education and expertise means that people do not always understand why children’s behaviour changes when they are distressed, especially when they are unable to communicate verbally in the traditional way. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister about the special educational needs aspect of this issue.
We have a new supervised contact centre in Gravesham, which is welcome news for many families, whether they have gone through court or not. It will be housed at the Maltings Child Contact Centre at the City Praise Centre and will provide a safe, structured environment for well-behaved parents who should have contact with their children. The contact centre is one of only 340 centres nationally to be accredited by the National Association of Child Contact Centres. Given that there are 650 MPs, that is not even one per constituency. That needs to change.
We need people to speak up and come forward when they are experiencing harm and abuse, and we need to make sure that the system, including the court system, backs them and protects our children and survivors.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for securing this vital debate. I know that, since his election almost two years ago, he has spent much of his parliamentary time raising the issue of cancer and getting investment into cancer services. Now he is speaking about domestic abuse; no one can accuse him of not having his heart in the right place. I thank him for leading the debate.
As the MP for Woking, I have spent much of my time protecting vulnerable children, and I know that the Government do great work in tackling domestic violence and protecting families, women and children. Last week, I visited Surrey’s Steps to Change hub, which is based in my constituency of Woking and was established back in 2023, thanks to a £1 million grant from the Home Office. It brings together services, such as the local authority, the police and domestic abuse charities, such as Woking’s amazing Your Sanctuary women’s refuge, to ensure that they work together holistically.
Tragically, the hub is one of only two in the country. It supports those who have experienced, or are experiencing, domestic abuse, and separately it supports children impacted by what their family has gone through. Vitally, the hub also works with those who have committed domestic abuse, or those likely to do so, to encourage them to change their behaviour to prevent future abuse. It was really eye-opening to spend time with the volunteers and, above all, with some of those who have received the support that this amazing organisation provides.
I am pleased to welcome the new Safeguarding Minister to her place. Surrey and only one other county have one of these hubs; I ask the Minister to draw attention to us as an example of best practice, but we should not be the only ones. Will she ensure that such support is rolled out across the country? It is saving and improving lives in my constituency and my county of Surrey. That is fortunate for me and my constituents, but it is far too rare and it should be rolled out nationwide.
I am concerned about the local government reorganisation in my area next year and that Surrey’s police and crime commissioner will be abolished in 2029 but not replaced by a directly elected Mayor, in which case the funding and convening power for the hub could go. I am pleased that the commissioner is going and that we will have new local authorities, but the risk of the transformation is that it could reduce the protection for families and children in my constituency. That would be unacceptable. Will the Minister meet me to ensure that the funding is maintained over this uncertain period?
As I said, the Government centrally and the whole public sector have done so much good to help survivors of domestic abuse recover and to protect them, and to ensure that such abuse does not happen in the first place. But all too often that fails catastrophically, with unthinkable consequences for some of the most vulnerable people. My 10-year-old constituent, Sara Sharif, was abused, tortured and murdered by her father and stepmother. She was failed from the day she was born, including on the day before she was murdered. She was failed by Surrey county council children’s services and by the family court system. That is why I echo the calls of my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham for reform.
When Sara was born and before she was even one year old, Surrey county council children’s services wanted to take her away from what they knew to be an abusive father. Tragically, they changed their mind and the family court did not say, “Surrey, are you sure? Surely you want to do that.” The day before Sara was murdered, Surrey county council children’s services tried to visit her home, because they were concerned, but they went to the wrong house and they did not try to go back.
Previously, I have urged the Government to put Surrey county council children’s services into special measures, but thankfully they are being abolished next year. I would urge the Safeguarding Minister to ensure that that appalling culture at Surrey county council is not transferred to the new East Surrey and West Surrey councils. Sadly, other children’s services are failing in this country, and I know that other areas across the country are going to have local government reorganisation. Will she ensure that this Government see local government reorganisation as an opportunity to change such a culture and to put vulnerable people first, to change child protection?
Sadly, Sara’s is not the only child protection case I have had in my constituency. Judith is another constituent. She and her children suffered years of domestic abuse from her former partner and she feared for her children’s safety. The family court eventually gave her full custody and no visitation rights for the dad. Surrey county council recently insisted that the father be reintroduced to the children, to see if it is safe for the family to court to give access. I hope that the Minister agrees that that is an appalling use of child protection rules and family court processes. I wholeheartedly welcome the ending of the presumption of parental contact, but that is a whole-system failure, and I hope that the Minister makes it a priority to tackle it in her new role.
I echo the calls of my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham for domestic abuse experts to be embedded in the family court system. I am incredibly disappointed that reform of the family court system and investment in, and changes to, the child protection process were not in the King’s Speech. Does the Minister not find that shameful? Will she ensure that it becomes a priority in other legislation and that the Government look favourably on amendments proposed to the legislation that was in the King’s Speech?
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) on securing this important debate and on his excellent opening speech.
There are countless amazing organisations across the country that support victims of domestic abuse. I pay tribute to Independent Domestic Abuse Services, the largest specialist charity in Yorkshire, which does sterling work to support my constituents in Scarborough and Whitby.
It is clear that our family justice system needs urgent reform to ensure that children are at the heart of proceedings. That was made incredibly clear to me earlier this week when I chaired a roundtable with charities, legal professionals and women with lived experience about improving outcomes for children in domestic abuse cases. Everyone on the panel agreed that children’s voices are lost in the system.
One of the many inspirational speakers was Julia Margo, co-founder of the charity Fair Hearing. After experiencing the unimaginable—discovering that her partner, the father of her two children, was a convicted child sex offender—her ordeal was continued by the family court system, as her ex-partner claimed legal aid and took her to court 37 times over the next eight years to demand access to their children. About the process, she said:
“The lawyers, magistrates and judges seemed to look on me as a hysteric, whose claims of trauma were exaggerated…The courts were more worried about ‘parental alienation’—that I should turn our sons against their father—than about two little boys being left alone with a paedophile.”
Since being elected to Parliament, I have been motivated by a brave constituent to work on reforming the family courts so that abusive partners cannot claim parental alienation to undermine and silence survivors and influence child contact arrangements. In recent years, there has been a rise in the use of experts to “prove” alienation—a pseudoscientific concept with no basis in law or medicine. A perpetrator of abuse will allege that a child’s refusal of contact or reluctance towards it is due to the survivor parent alienating the child from them. That has led to survivors having their children removed from them, which is against the interests of the child and the mother.
The non-profit Right to Equality conducted a large-scale survey of mothers whose children were removed from their care in private law proceedings. The survey reveals concerning patterns around child removal, including the role of parental alienation allegations, limited fact finding on abuse and the influence of expert recommendations. In total, the 217 mothers had 342 children removed from their care. That is clearly not in the best interests of those children and is deeply traumatic for the mothers.
I welcome the fact that the Government are rolling out child-focused courts nationally, which will put children at the centre of proceedings and will resolve cases more quickly, saving children months of trauma. Repealing the presumption of parental involvement—a long-overdue correction to a pro-contact culture that has failed to put children first—is a brilliant step forward. However, there is still a gap in legislation that risks the wellbeing of children in private family law proceedings. It simply does not address the question of what happens when a child resists or refuses contact with a party against whom abuse is alleged. What evidential weight does the court give to the child’s response?
I am currently drafting an amendment to the Courts and Tribunals Bill that aims to stop counter-allegations of alienation being used to undermine or distract from reports of domestic abuse. It would ensure that the child’s evidence has the weight that it deserves. It would ensure that a child’s resistance towards an abusive parent is treated not as evidence of manipulation, but as evidence of harm. When a child is reluctant or refuses to spend time with a person against whom allegations of domestic abuse have been made, it should be regarded as reasonable and justified. As the Government move forward with putting children at the heart of the family justice system, will the Minister commit to working with Parliament on changes to ensure that a child’s resistance to contact with an abusive parent is treated as credible evidence of harm and not of manipulation?
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) on securing this important debate. May I also congratulate the Minister? This is my first opportunity to speak in a debate to which she is replying. Perhaps I should be congratulating the Government on her appointment, since I know she will do an excellent job.
Victims and survivors of domestic abuse who are separating from their abuser will often be involved in proceedings in the family court, for example to obtain a non-molestation or occupation order, divide assets following divorce or determine arrangements for children where these are in dispute. Sadly, perpetrators of domestic abuse often use proceedings in the family court as a means of coercive control and abuse post separation.
In the case of private law children proceedings, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s office, which gathered and analysed data from three court sites in England and Wales throughout 2024, found overwhelming evidence of domestic abuse, identifying it in 73% of the hearings observed. As I think the hon. Member for Wokingham said earlier, 87% in the sample of cases reviewed had reference to domestic abuse, which has led the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Dame Nicole Jacobs, to describe domestic abuse as
“the everyday business of the family courts”.
There are very significant numbers of these cases. In 2025 alone, more than 55,000 private law children cases started. Clearly a great number of people, including children, are affected.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
Like all Members of this House, I have had people coming to my constituency surgeries having suffered from domestic abuse. If my hon. Friend will allow me, I want to place on the record the fantastic work that Glasgow Women’s Aid has done to support my constituents and people across the city in this most difficult of circumstances.
Andy Slaughter
I am grateful for that intervention. Many Members here will have local organisations that they help to signpost, champion and try to obtain funding for. What I am arguing for is something that is comprehensive and reliable, in terms of funding and support. In addition to the excellent work that Members may do, we need a better structure to support the family court system and victims in it.
Just to review where we have got to so far, the June 2020 publication of the harm panel report, which has been mentioned, began a series of significant policy and legislative developments relating to domestic abuse and the family courts. Following extensive evidence gathering, the panel found that domestic abuse allegations and related risks were not taken sufficiently into account by the family court, due to “deep-seated and systemic” failings.
Many of the report’s recommendations were brought in by the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. For example, section 1 gives legal recognition to different forms of domestic abuse, including economic abuse and coercive control, and section 3 gives recognition to children who see, hear or experience domestic abuse as victims. The Act also requires that victims and survivors be provided with special measures to reduce the traumatising nature of proceedings and enable them to give their best evidence, such as the use of screens and the provision of separate entrances, exits and waiting rooms. Furthermore, it prevents unrepresented perpetrators or alleged perpetrators of abuse from cross-examining their victims or alleged victims during proceedings.
In response to the harm panel’s recommendation that the voice of the child should be enhanced during proceedings, the previous Government piloted child-focused courts, then referred to as private law pathfinder courts. The pilot, which began in north Wales and Dorset in 2022, was designed to test a less adversarial problem-solving approach. At the outset of a case, the risks posed to children from domestic abuse allegations are identified and specialist support is provided where needed. The results of the pilot indicated faster resolution of cases, children’s voices being placed at the foreground in proceedings and a transformed experience for domestic abuse victims.
Last year, the Justice Committee, which I chair, examined the effectiveness of these recent reforms. We heard from the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, the chief executive of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service and the then president of the family division, Sir Andrew McFarlane. We were keen to understand, five years on from the publication of the harm panel report, what progress the family court had made on reforming its approach to domestic abuse in the cases before it.
One of our key findings was that there is wide approval and enthusiasm for the work and outcomes of child-focused courts, which our witnesses said should be rolled out across England and Wales with urgency. We are extremely pleased that that is now under way, with a substantial investment promised by the Government in this financial year.
However, a note of caution was sounded that I wish to highlight to the Minister. The model places much greater pressure on CAFCASS and other specialist support providers, particularly at the outset of a case, so they need to be resourced accordingly. In the words of one witness to our inquiry:
“If you are going to have specialist domestic abuse provision supporting the courts, then it needs to be baked into the budget and resource that are coming down the line. It is not the model of the court that will sort the experience of children and victims out; it is the quality of the risk assessment that goes on to present advice to the court.”
Our witnesses also reported on the success of the family, drug and alcohol court, which takes a problem-solving approach to care proceedings for parents with complex needs, including experiences of domestic abuse and substance misuse. I highlight to the Minister the great potential of that approach.
The former president of the family division was a great proponent of FDAC in domestic abuse cases. In his evidence to the then Committee in April 2024, he said that
“there is a domestic abuse component”
in every case dealt with by FDAC, and that FDAC had
“found a way of supporting that victim to deal with the fact that they may have a series of abusive relationships that they have gone through and to break the cycle.”
Despite this, FDAC provision is patchy, to say the least. There are currently FDAC teams supporting families in about 39 local authorities and 24 family courts. They are in an uncertain position, though, with Newcastle having lost its FDAC in the last year and with provision in the midlands looking precarious. Our witnesses pointed out that despite the strong evidence base demonstrating its success, the FDAC
“depends on small pots of funding year to year”,
usually from local authorities and dedicated individuals who understand its potential and cobble money together.
I therefore urge the Minister to consider the expansion of FDAC, which would enable courts hearing public law proceedings to respond more effectively to domestic abuse, in the same way that child-focused courts are doing in private law proceedings. FDAC must be looked at across Government, and I hope that the Government’s forthcoming family justice strategy will consider it. The Ministry of Justice is involved in providing the courtroom and the judge, but the Home Office, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education also have an interest in its beneficial outcomes.
Finally, in line with the recommendations of the harm panel, the Courts and Tribunals Bill will repeal the presumption of parental involvement in the Children Act 1989, ensuring a child-centred approach when deciding what contact a child should have with their parents. I hope that we will see the Bill returning to the House soon—I would be grateful if the Minister indicated today when that might happen, as there is a lot in the Bill that we would like to see more of—so that this important safeguard can be implemented without further delay.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Ms Furniss. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for securing this really important debate. I congratulate him on his excellent speech. I also welcome the new Safeguarding Minister to her place.
I thank the hon. Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan), who reiterated calls for domestic abuse specialists to be embedded in our family courts. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster) spoke movingly about the case of his constituent Sara Sharif, and about how the family court in that case did not question children’s services and the appalling culture that was described. I thank the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume), who described the case of a paedophile and an abuser accessing legal aid to use the court system against his ex-partner and effectively continue that abuse. I also thank the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), who highlighted the value of the FDAC’s role in domestic abuse cases and the way it proactively supports victims to break cycles of abuse, but also the fact that it needs expansion and long-term and more secure funding.
As many Members have pointed out, the family courts are in serious need of reform. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Dame Nicole Jacobs, has worked tirelessly to ensure that children are recognised and understood as victims in their own right. The statistics alone are staggering. The crime survey for England and Wales for the year ending March 2025 estimated that in the past year alone around 3.8 million people in England and Wales experienced domestic abuse. At the same time, one in five children in the UK experienced domestic abuse, with only one in 10 child victims receiving any support, according to Women’s Aid.
That reinforces wider findings that despite the introduction of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, children are too often overlooked as victims of domestic abuse by police, social care and health services. As other hon. Members have set out, perpetrators continue to manipulate loopholes in the Child Maintenance Service system to further coerce and control victims emotionally, economically and physically.
I entirely support colleagues calling for urgent reshaping of the CMS system and for the Ministry of Justice to fully implement the findings of its own 2020 harm panel report. That report identified harmful practices including a pro-contact culture, adversarial court processes, resource constraints and siloed working between agencies, all of which allowed abuse to go unnoticed or even continue through the system itself, as we heard earlier.
I wish to focus on economic abuse, which my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham highlighted so well. Research by Surviving Economic Abuse has found that a third of UK women with a child under 18 have had child maintenance payments deliberately blocked or manipulated by an ex-partner, despite that ex-partner being able to afford those payments. Meanwhile, the National Audit Office estimates that CMS arrears could reach £1 billion within five years. That is only one example of where change is urgently needed. The Government’s child poverty strategy promised an overhaul of the system, yet there is still no clear timeline for implementation, and our children are the ones suffering.
We Liberal Democrats welcome the continued roll-out of child-focused courts, which have shown reductions in case length and therefore in the re-traumatisation of victims who are forced through drawn-out proceedings. I sincerely hope that the Government fulfil their promise to expand those courts nationally.
I also recognise the important steps that have been taken in recent months, on which I will take this opportunity to congratulate the Government. The removal of the long-criticised presumption of contact established under the Children Act 1989 finally places children’s voices and experiences back at the centre of decisions that affect them. However, survivors now need clarity on its implementation. When will the repeal come into force?
Before the Minister claims that some of these matters fall outside her direct remit, I would like to make it clear that I and organisations including Surviving Economic Abuse, Rights of Women, Women’s Aid and Refuge have jointly written to her to underline the urgent need for a practical, cross-departmental action plan to protect and support victims of domestic abuse. The violence against women and girls strategy must be matched by that cross-Government delivery.
Economic abuse frequently involves perpetrators controlling finances, restricting access to income and withholding key documents. As a result, many victims are unable to provide the evidence required under the legal aid system, and are therefore excluded from support precisely when they need it the most. That heavily ties into the safeguarding aspect of today’s debate. Victims feel completely at a loss and deserted by the justice system.
There is also a significant cliff edge for working victims of domestic abuse. Many individuals earning slightly above the eligibility threshold are deemed to be ineligible for legal aid, yet cannot realistically afford legal representation without sacrificing substantial portions of their income. That gap risks deterring victims from pursuing protection, or even from resolving cases safely through the courts.
Even when the grant of legal aid is technically possible and victims make the means test cut, access to justice is again undermined by the severe shortage of family law legal aid solicitors. In rural communities such as mine, the legal aid deserts are among the worst in the country. I would welcome further discussions with the Minister and the Justice Minister responsible for legal aid, the hon. and learned Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman), on increasing legal aid fee rates in line with inflation, similar to the increases that we have already welcomed for immigration and housing law. Only then will we attract more legal aid solicitors to where they are most needed. That is particularly important given that legal aid was mentioned only fleetingly in the Government’s 2025 violence against women and girls strategy, despite legal representation often being one of the most important protections that victims have when facing their abusers in court. The Law Society and the Legal Aid Practitioners Group have long called for urgent improvement in this area.
From my constituency casework, I know that many victims face severe bias once they enter the family court system, even when they are represented. I therefore echo Women’s Aid in calling for all family court professionals, including judges and court staff, to receive high-quality, mandatory and regularly updated domestic abuse training.
This issue cuts across every aspect of domestic abuse within the justice system. Around 75% of child arrangement cases in the family courts involve allegations of domestic abuse. Although much of the issue falls within the remit of the Ministry of Justice, I must take the opportunity to reinforce Refuge’s demand that the VAWG strategy should explicitly reflect plans to improve the response of the family justice system to domestic abuse. As we have heard, too many victims still feel that the courts minimise their experiences and fail to understand the realities of coercive and controlling behaviour. We cannot continue with a system where victims are forced to act as litigants in person because they cannot access or afford legal representation. I therefore share the disappointment expressed by many VAWG charities and organisations regarding the lack of substantive focus in the recent King’s Speech on protecting women and girls in practice.
Warm words are not enough. Victims deserve a justice system that protects them, listens to them and enables them to access safety without traumatisation and without financial ruin. I urge the Minister to ensure that this year’s violence against women and girls strategy is accompanied by meaningful cross-departmental implementation, including vital action on legal aid, family court reform, judicial training and economic abuse.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for securing this debate on domestic abuse and safeguarding within the family justice system. Members in the Chamber will not be alone in having regularly encountered this issue in constituency casework. I expect all MPs across the House have constituents who are struggling with these issues, and perhaps even they are in their private lives.
This subject demands seriousness, sensitivity and honesty from all of us. Behind every statistic in this debate are children living in fear, survivors trying to rebuild their lives and families navigating court processes at moments of enormous stress and vulnerability. For too many people, the family justice system is not an abstract institution; it is the place they have to go to where decisions are made that will shape their safety, their relationships with their children and often the trajectory of their lives for years to come. That is why getting the system right matters so much.
As we have heard, domestic abuse is present in 73% of active family court proceedings and 87% of closed cases. One in five children in the UK experience some form of domestic abuse, and 78% of those children are directly harmed by the perpetrator. Those are sobering figures, and they remind us that domestic abuse is not something that exists separately from family justice proceedings.
We also know that children are too often affected directly by failures of the system. According to Women’s Aid, over the last 30 years 67 child deaths have been linked to unsafe contact arrangements, with 19 having occurred since 2016. When we discuss safeguarding in family courts, we are discussing not peripheral procedural matters, but the core responsibility of the state to protect vulnerable people—women, children and also men.
I want to acknowledge the work of survivors, campaigners and charities who have driven progress in this area through their extraordinary courage and persistence. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wokingham for bringing representatives from Kaleidoscopic UK, who I understand are attending the debate. I would be grateful to catch up with them afterwards, if that is possible. Many other groups and individuals work in this area. For example, I recently worked with Paula and Tony Hudgell and their MP, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant), to secure the establishment of the child cruelty register, so that parents and other individuals who commit child cruelty offences are monitored and tracked in the same way that child sex offenders are.
The Opposition also supported the Government’s measures to restrict the parental responsibility of serious child sex offenders. During the passage of that legislation, we successfully argued, alongside others, that the provisions should go further than was originally proposed. They would only have applied to parents who perpetrated offences against their own children, but with Members across the House, we persuaded the Government to change that to those who commit offences against all children. We agreed that, on balance, a threshold of “serious offences” was the suitable way to go, but that if that worked well and was effective, we should consider lowering that threshold. Why should anyone who commits any sort of offence against a child not automatically have to argue for their own parental responsibility?
It is important to recognise the work that was undertaken by the previous Government, which others have mentioned. In particular, the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 recognised as victims in their own right children who see, hear or experience the effects of domestic abuse. Dame Nicole Jabobs and others long advocated for those changes, and the Act made victims automatically eligible for special measures in court. Those changes and others reflect society’s growing understanding in recent decades of the importance of confronting and tackling domestic abuse and abuse of children.
The previous Government also commissioned the harm panel review in 2020, which was an expert-led review into how family courts handle domestic abuse and serious offences. We launched a review into the presumption of parental contact, and we piloted the pathfinder model, now the child-focused model, to improve information sharing, increase judicial continuity and ensure that children’s voices are heard more effectively throughout proceedings. Alongside that, we invested £3.3 million in the mediation voucher scheme, helping thousands of families to resolve disputes outside the courtroom where it is appropriate and safe to do so. There is still room for mediation and other measures to reduce the burden on our courts and save them for the most complicated and difficult cases.
Last year, the independent “Everyday Business” review painted a deeply worrying picture of how survivors often experience family court proceedings. Survivors described feeling that their abuse was minimised or treated as secondary to maintaining contact arrangements. Judges and magistrates identified serious pressures on them arising from limited court time, delays and lack of continuity. Only 21% of cases reportedly had judicial continuity—a striking figure that shows that even when cases as complex as these go through the court process, we cannot rely on a single judge seeing them through from start to finish.
The report also highlighted siloed working between different parts of the system. In many cases, there are overlapping criminal and family proceedings, yet delays and backlogs can mean that family courts proceed before criminal matters are resolved. That can have a huge impact. If an individual subsequently receives a criminal conviction, that may well unpick and call into question the original rulings.
These are not easy issues to solve. I recognise all of the work done and the arguments made by campaigners, but legislating in this area is incredibly challenging because the dynamics of families, particularly those experiencing breakdown, are very complex. There are also strongly held views in different organisations on, for example, the presumption of parental involvement and how family courts should approach contact arrangements.
Many campaigners argue that abuse has historically been minimised in decision making. In too many cases that is true, but whatever view people take, there should be broad agreement on one central principle: safeguarding and child welfare must come first. That includes ensuring that professionals throughout the system are properly trained to understand the dynamics of domestic abuse. Women’s Aid has argued that we need not just legislative reform but a wider cultural shift across the family justice system. There is real substance to that argument, because even the best legislation will fall short if victims feel that they are not listened to, believed, or welcomed and facilitated to participate. I will be grateful if the Minister says more about how the Government intend to deliver cultural change in practice.
I also want to talk about accountability. We have heard discussion of the Sara Sharif case. I have mentioned in the House before that I first encountered these issues as an MP through an amazing lady, a constituent of mine, who was fostering a young girl who had been removed from her family on a temporary basis. The wider family did not want that young girl to be given back contact with her immediate family, the foster carer did not think it was a good idea, and social services did not think it was a good idea—but the judge awarded custody back to her parents.
That young girl is now in a wheelchair. She is highly dependent and severely disabled. The exceptional individual I mentioned went on to adopt her in those circumstances, which is one of the most noble things I have ever seen anybody do. She approached me because she was aware of all the mechanisms of accountability that everybody else in the system has to go through, particularly teachers and social services. She simply wanted to know what accountability was available for the judge. I wrote to the Lady Chief Justice and said, “Obviously, you can’t comment on this case, but what are the systems, for a case like this where things have gone badly wrong, for a judge to have to account for the decisions they have taken?” There are none, outside of complaints about extreme behaviour, which none of us would consider to really test the issues, or if the judge makes a legal error, for which the threshold is, again, really high.
I think we have a lot to do. Certainly, in the Conservative party we are working on how we can introduce much more accountability in the judiciary—not to make them accountable to the Government, because the separation of the judiciary and the Government is very important. I draw on my experience as a doctor; we have done loads to improve the accountability of highly trained, highly specialist medical professionals who we would not want the state interfering with. It is simply about ensuring they are not a law unto themselves when it comes to making poor decisions. Previously, the test was pretty much whether a doctor had made a decision that any other doctor thought was reasonable. Now, the test is much more about whether that decision was objectively reasonable.
I also want to touch on the pathfinder courts. As we have heard, 10 of 43 courts have now been implemented. I would like to understand the Government’s timetable for the very welcome decision to roll them out more widely. The Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), talked about the interdependencies around access to specialist services to make that a reality. I think requesting a timetable is not asking too much of the Minister.
Those are important things that we are all in agreement on, but at the same time this Government are taking what I think are catastrophic decisions in relation to the justice system. The Government have legislated for perpetrators of domestic abuse as serious as rape, child abuse, stalking and harassment—very many offences—to get out of prison earlier. Right now, there are people in prison for the rape of their partner, or sexual offences against their own children, who will get out of prison earlier because of the steps that this Government have taken. I will continue to press that matter with them, whatever else they are doing that is positive. People go to the court system because they want justice, and seeing rapists being let out early is not justice. That is something the Government should continue to reflect on.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Catherine Atkinson)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I am honoured to speak in my first Westminster Hall debate as the Minister for Victims and Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls, particularly given how important this topic is. I thank the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for securing the debate. He and many Members, including the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire), clearly set out the concerns around family courts enabling the continuity of abuse. The hon. Member for North Cornwall also set out concerns in relation to economic abuse; I would welcome further work with him on that.
The Government have a clear commitment to halving violence against women and girls within a decade, and I want to begin by making it clear that ensuring that victims of domestic abuse are protected in the family court is a core part of the work that we are undertaking to achieve that aim. The courts must deliver safe outcomes for the children and families involved in proceedings, many of whom are among the most vulnerable in our society.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan) set out the additional concerns that can be raised when there are further vulnerabilities or special educational needs. There is mandatory training for His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service staff, and the judiciary is supported by the “Equal Treatment Bench Book” to enable that effective participation in proceedings. Importantly, the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service must always consider the impact of protected characteristics, including additional needs or neurodiversity, in relation to a child’s ability to engage. However, there is always more that needs to be done to ensure that the most vulnerable have their voices heard.
I reassure Members that the family courts have a range of measures available to them to protect victims and stop perpetrators. The Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), who has incredible experience, set out some of the special measures that already exist, which include allowing someone to give evidence via video link or from behind a screen. Members also raised the importance of independent domestic violence advisers and independent sexual violence advisers, who are permitted to accompany parties in proceedings in order to provide them with support.
I am also aware that, in some instances, abusers seek to use repeated and vexatious applications to the family courts as a method of furthering their abuse. That is clearly unacceptable. There are means to stop perpetrators when they attempt to make vexatious applications, including making orders under section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989 to prohibit further applications. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick set out, the courts can prohibit in-person cross examination by alleged abusers and appoint a qualified legal representative to undertake cross-examination instead.
While those measures represent important protections, we are committed to going much further, both in relation to safeguarding victims and reforming the family courts. It cannot be warm words; there needs to be action. A core part of our work to reform the family courts is the child-focused model, which is a new approach to certain private law cases relating to children that is designed to improve the experience and participation of children and families in proceedings. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham and others mentioned the harm panel, which has hugely informed the work of child-focused courts.
Under the child-focused model, families benefit from a streamlined problem-solving approach, which brings forward a holistic assessment of needs and risks, and enables the court to make safe decisions without delay. The model ensures that victims of domestic abuse and other harms receive specialist support from independent domestic violence advisers, who also undertake a risk assessment to provide the court with expert insight into the risk of domestic abuse within the case.
Critically, under the child-focused model, the voice of the child is made central to the case, with the percentage of children seen by social workers more than doubling. Evidence from areas where the model is in place shows that it is working. Cases are being resolved up to seven and a half months faster, and the backlog has fallen by over 50%. That is why, in March, the Deputy Prime Minister committed to rolling out child-focused courts nationally over the next three years, along with an investment of £17 million in 2026-27 to support the next expansion to a further eight court areas across the north-west, the north-east and the midlands.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick also talked about the effectiveness and impact of FDAC courts. I am conscious of how important they have been in many areas and would welcome further engagement on that.
Beyond the new model of child-focused courts, we are committed to a significant legislative package to ensure that victims of domestic abuse can have confidence in the family courts. Through the Courts and Tribunals Bill, we have introduced to Parliament the repeal of the presumption of parental involvement. Alongside our wider changes, that sends a clear signal that the welfare of children must remain paramount. Courts will adopt an open-minded inquiry into what is in the child’s best interests, rather than starting from the assumption that the involvement of parents will be appropriate.
I pay tribute to the Family Justice Young People’s Board and a number of organisations, including Women’s Aid, as well as the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and the Victims’ Commissioner. I also pay tribute to Claire Throssell, whose sons were killed. She has been campaigning for years on this issue. The repeal of the presumption of parental involvement must be dedicated to her and her sons, Jack and Paul.
Through the Victims and Courts Act 2026, we have legislated to automatically restrict the exercise of an offender’s parental responsibility where they have been sentenced to four years or more for a serious child sex abuse offence committed against any child, or where rape has led to the birth of a child. That is in addition to Jade’s law, passed in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, which will provide for the automatic restriction of the exercise of parental responsibility where one parent kills the other. Baroness Levitt has made it clear that the Government will implement it by the end of this year.
We are also working with the Family Procedure Rule Committee to limit the instruction of unregulated experts, including unregulated “parental alienation” experts, because we know that allegations of parental alienation can be made in response to allegations of domestic abuse, often when a perpetrator is seeking to deflect attention from their own behaviour. The hon. Member for Wokingham and my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) both raised the issue really powerfully, and I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has undertaken in this area.
The Family Procedure Rule Committee approved changes to the family procedure rules in April, and the intention is that those changes will be introduced through a statutory instrument in the summer. Once implemented, the rule changes will require any expert instructed in children’s proceedings, subject to limited exceptions, to be regulated by a UK statutory body or by an approved regulator under the Legal Services Act 2007, or be on a register accredited by the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care.
Taken together, these measures will protect thousands of children every year. I understand the point that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), raised in relation to accountability. The training that the Judicial College provides is essential to ensuring we have the consistency and expertise that we need.
Dr Mullan
It is all very well to send people on training. As a doctor, I have sat in on training sessions. People can be in a training seminar together, and some will pay attention and some will not. Some will take it seriously, and some will not. If there is not a system of accountability at the other end, training can become a tick-box exercise if we are not careful.
Catherine Atkinson
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Of course, as he set out, we always need to be mindful of long-established principles of judicial independence in these matters. However, ensuring that we have the right training in place will go a long way towards ensuring that we have the family courts that we need, and towards ensuring that we have effective systems in place.
Collectively, these reforms represent a large body of work. We want to make sure there is clarity on what we are doing, which is why the Ministry of Justice is working with the Department for Education and partners across the family justice system to draft the family justice strategy. The strategy will be published later this year, and it will set out the Government’s plans to improve the family justice system, reduce court delays and ensure that all families get the support and the outcomes they need.
Alongside that, we must ensure that we support all victims of abuse to recover and rebuild their lives. Over £1 billion is being invested over the next three years to support victims of violence against women and girls, including domestic abuse survivors. That includes funding for safe accommodation, advocacy, counselling and specialist services. In particular, my Department is increasing funding for victim support services, year on year, from 2026 to 2029, recognising the need to meet the rising cost pressures of delivery.
Dr Mullan
I have asked the Minister about this before, and she did not answer. Maybe I will get an answer this time. One thing she might set those additional support services to do is let people know when perpetrators will get out of prison earlier because of the Government’s decisions. Can she at least commit to writing to victims to let them know in advance that their perpetrator is going to be let out of prison earlier?
Catherine Atkinson
Communication is absolutely essential, and a huge amount of work is being done to ensure it is in place. I am proud to be building on the work of my predecessor in that space. In relation to victim support services, it is important that, in total, the Ministry of Justice will invest £550 million in support services over the next three years of the spending review.
Many hon. Members raised the incredible and essential work that so many support services do. I thank Kaleidoscopic UK for being here, and for its work. Many other services were mentioned, including Your Sanctuary, IDAS, Glasgow Women’s Aid and Women’s Aid more broadly, Rights of Women and Refuge. I pay tribute to the work they do and the difference they make to people’s lives.
I hope my remarks have reassured the hon. Member for Wokingham and all hon. Members who spoke in this vital debate. I thank him for securing a debate on such an important subject. We all share a deep commitment to safeguarding victims of domestic abuse, to ensuring that they are fully protected and supported, and to making sure that the family courts cannot be used as an arena for perpetrators to continue their horrific acts.
The Government will continue to press forward with our reforms to the family courts. We will continue to work with operational partners, the courts and all the many groups that do vital work to support victims and protect children and families, and to make those important changes. The hon. Member said that children are at the centre of this, and I agree. They must be our focus, and they always will be.
Clive Jones
I start by apologising to the Minister for not welcoming her to her new position. I am pleased that she reiterated the Government’s commitment to halving domestic abuse in 10 years, which I am sure we all want to see.
I have a couple of questions that came up in the debate. The hon. Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan) spoke about the lack of expertise in working with children with special needs. Will the Minister write to all of us who have contributed to the debate on what the Government might be able to do about that specifically? The hon. Member for Wokingham—
Clive Jones
It is so easy to make that mistake. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster) spoke about the good work of lots of local organisations, but he has real concerns that council changes over the next few years will put the funding for the work of those organisations in jeopardy. Could the Minister tell us what she may be able to do about that? My hon. Friend also spoke about the need for IDVAs, as I and several others did. Is that something the Minister could support over the next year or so?
The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) said that children’s voices are not heard in the family court system. How can we, as MPs, and the Minister make sure they are heard over the next few years? My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) spoke about domestic abuse training for everybody in the family courts. Is that something the Minister will champion over the next few years? The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) talked about how important it is to get it right and about the need for a cultural shift. I am sure the Minister has lots of ideas, and I know her predecessor did. It would be nice to hear about them.
Finally, I thank the Minister for coming, and for confirming that the welfare of children must always be paramount.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered domestic abuse and safeguarding within the family justice system.
Written Correction
Other Correction
David Smith
Getting Britain Working Again
The following extract is from the debate entitled “Getting Britain Working Again” on 14 May 2026.
David Smith
The Labour mission was never simply to get on in life, but for all of us to share in prosperity and common endeavour. Nye Bevan once said:
“We have to build a party that is capable of expressing the desires of the people who sent us here—not just their immediate desires, but their deeper longings for a just and generous society.”
The task is to build on this King’s Speech and create both a story and programme that speaks to these longings in work, welfare and energy.
[Official Report, 14 May 2026; Vol. 786, c. 192.]
Written correction submitted by the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith):
David Smith
The Labour mission was never simply to get on in life, but for all of us to share in prosperity and common endeavour. The task is to build on this King’s Speech and create both a story and programme that speaks to these longings in work, welfare and energy.
Written Statements
Ceramics and Chemicals Industries
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Peter Kyle)
This statement provides an update on the Government’s support to ceramics and critical chemical producers, two of the foundational sectors underpinning our industrial strategy.
The Government are today announcing the launch of the ceramics industry support scheme of £120 million to support the transition of the ceramics sector to a more cost effective and less carbon intensive means of production. Supporting this transition continues to deliver on our mission to decarbonise the economy, helping businesses to invest and grow across the country.
The ceramics industry has a rich cultural heritage, notably in the Potteries in the Stoke-on-Trent area, and it remains a large source of employment in Staffordshire and neighbouring Derbyshire, as well as in areas across the UK from Devon to Dumfries.
However, in recent years the sector has faced a number of difficulties, including a challenging global trading environment, and the cost of reliance on volatile fossil fuels, which have seen costs increase significantly since the Russian invasion of Ukraine. These challenges have led to a pattern of decline and resulted in the closure of historic sites such as Johnson Tiles, Moorcroft Pottery, the liquidation of Royal Stafford, loss of jobs at Armitage Shanks, and the recent administration at Denby pottery.
This Government are clear that industrial decarbonisation must not be achieved by deindustrialisation, and reducing operating costs for businesses will support a successful transition to more efficient and cost-effective forms of production. However, we recognise the challenges faced by ceramics producers, and that Government support will be necessary to help the sector.
That is why the ceramics industry support scheme is being introduced: £60 million of this funding will support capital investment from ceramics firms into more efficient and decarbonised means of production, including electrification of relevant processes. This will both attract business investment in efficient new technologies, and enhance our energy security by reducing our reliance on volatile fossil fuels. This fund will be delivered on a competitive basis, with successful companies demonstrating corresponding co-investment of their own. The expectation is that the package will support a small number of high capital projects, likely from larger companies, as well as smaller projects from established trading SMEs.
To ensure that all eligible companies are able to effectively take advantage of this support in practice and invest in the future of this industry, the ceramics industry support scheme will include an additional £60 million to support operational costs for firms that make successful capital bids but demonstrably need additional support to manage the transition.
We will continue to engage with the sector and explore both fiscal and non-fiscal policy options that can continue to support and sustain a modern, thriving ceramics sector. This includes ensuring that our trade remedies regime works appropriately to protect the sector from injury as a result of unfair foreign trading practices. I strongly encourage industry to engage the Trade Remedies Authority and share new evidence to make sure we have the right trade protections in place.
Secondly, the Government are also announcing today the development of a £350 million critical chemical resilience fund to support our chemicals industry. This fund will be available to the UK’s most strategically important chemical producers who underpin our most critical sectors and essential services.
The UK chemicals sector is crucial for UK manufacturing, with chemicals products embedded in the vast majority of manufactured goods. However, like the ceramics sector, the chemicals sector has also faced significant headwinds in recent years with reduced output and recent plant closures raising concerns about its long-term resilience. This Government recognise the scale and depth of those challenges, and we are standing firm, alongside industry, to provide robust support to ensure the sector has a prosperous future in this country.
We have already acted urgently to support and safeguard vital chemical production and jobs at INEOS in Grangemouth, and are restarting production at Ensus in order to protect supply of CO2.
Today we are taking further action. The fund will seek to address the most acute pressures by offering support to critical chemical companies in key clusters that need help to put themselves on a sustainable footing. This will ensure these companies can continue to supply our essential services, boost the resilience of our supply chains, and protect critical UK sectors like food production, water and healthcare.
This is just a first step, and we will work together with industry to ensure we continue to make the critical inputs our economy requires in the UK. The fund will be developed in collaboration with independent experts and industry representatives, and further details will be communicated in due course.
The Government will continue to work hand-in- hand with industry to ensure broader policy delivers decarbonisation and not deindustrialisation. We are committed to tackling unfair foreign trade practices, and Ministers will urgently convene the chemicals industry to explore potential trade defence action.
The Government are also committed to driving down regulatory costs faced by the industry. We have already cut back the need for UK businesses to buy expensive and unnecessary data, cutting transition costs while maintaining health and environmental protections. We will work with the industry to identify where the UK can go further to reduce regulatory costs and remove duplicative procedures for businesses.
This Government recognise the importance of the chemicals sector, its contribution to society and our economy, and the jobs and communities it supports. The fund supports the delivery of our industrial strategy, which identifies chemicals as a vital foundational sector that underpins the UK’s high-growth industries like defence and advanced manufacturing by producing the materials they all depend on and are essential to many supply chains. Chemicals are also essential to delivering our ambitions in our clean energy mission. Action today will ensure the sector can play its part in strengthening our industrial capability and boosting resilience for the UK’s future.
The Government will continue to work with the sector and experts as the ceramics industry support scheme and critical chemicals resilience fund are being developed, including on eligibility criteria and delivery mechanisms as they are progressed. Further detail will be published in due course, and we are aiming to open both funds to applications later this summer.
The support being announced today is in addition to our support for the chemicals sector through the industrial strategy. In particular, the targeted support to bring down energy costs, through the British industrial competitiveness scheme, will benefit over 10,000 businesses, including many chemical companies, reducing electricity costs by up to £40 per megawatt hour.
This is a long-term industrial intervention designed to address persistent competitiveness challenges facing the chemicals sector. This will help chemical companies remain competitive and resilient through periods of volatility, supporting supply chain security through global supply shocks.
Time and again we have stepped in to support our resilience: from keeping the blast furnaces running at Scunthorpe and restarting production at Ensus to safeguard the UK’s supply of CO2, to this intervention today. This is the difference an active and strategic state makes.
Together, these measures demonstrate our continued commitment to heavy industry, which underpins our economy, industrial strategy growth sectors, and our national resilience.
[HCWS61]
Humble Address: Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
I have today laid before the House documents the Government have identified that the House required in the 24 February 2026 Humble Address seeking all papers relating to the creation of the role of special representative for trade and investment in 2001, the appointment of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, and the advice of officials and Ministers on his suitability and due diligence and vetting conducted.
This statement explains the Government’s approach to finding these historic documents, provides an overview of what has been found, explains the approach taken in releasing information and answers the House’s specific questions on due diligence and national security vetting.
It has not been a straightforward task to identify the historic documents requested by the House. Twenty-five years ago, Government Departments were largely operating paper-based record keeping systems. We have had to track down files that might potentially contain relevant information, recall these from storage and search files manually.
An added complication lies in changes to the machinery of Government. In the period under consideration, the Government’s work to support trade and investment was led by British Trade International, headed by chief executive Sir David Wright. BTI reported to a board chaired by the Minister of State for International Trade and Investment, Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean, and was accountable both to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
A committee of senior officials, the Royal Visits Committee, provided advice to Ministers and the sovereign on inward and outward official overseas visits by members of the royal family. At the time this was chaired by the Cabinet Secretary.
The search focused on files from 1999 to 2001 held by the most relevant Departments—the Department for Business and Trade, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Ministry of Defence, and Cabinet Office.
Today, The Government have published 11 documents that show how the role was created and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was appointed. These include:
the formal appointment proposal to Ministers;
evidence that Ministers were content with the proposal;
internal communications to all trade staff about the role;
media and press briefing and question and answer materials.
From 1976 to 2001, the Duke of Kent served as vice-chairman of the British Overseas Trade Board and then British Trade International, undertaking more than 60 overseas visits in support of British exports. As he approached retirement from that role in 2001, consideration was given to how best to continue the engagement of the royal family in trade and investment promotion work.
In February 2000, Sir David Wright put a formal appointment proposal to Ministers, explaining that the Duke of Kent intended to withdraw from his role supporting trade promotion overseas and it was Her late Majesty’s wish that the Duke of York should succeed him. He set out a proposed role encompassing two or three trade promotion visits overseas per year, visits to UK regions and receiving prominent overseas trade visitors in the UK.
The documents show that officials and Ministers had been considering expanding the role of the Duke of York for some time prior to the formal proposal. In January 2000, the then Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, agreed that greater use should be made of the then Duke of York.
Media reporting indicates that the Palace announced in December 2000 that the Duke of Kent was stepping down and that the Duke of York would assume his role.
Internal BTI papers illustrate how the proposed role was developed and communicated to staff and to the media, and record that an initial familiarisation programme ran from April 2001, with the role formally announced in October 2001. Documents confirm the role was unpaid, with costs associated with official duties met through standard departmental arrangements and that systems were put in place to oversee the role. Officials established formal processes to assess and approve engagements, taking account of strategic trade and investment priorities, cost, and other Government priorities.
It is a long-standing practice across successive Administrations that when the Government respond to a Humble Address motion they have a responsibility to consider whether it is in the public interest to place information into the public domain. This is done using the principles of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and in line with the ministerial code and the resolutions on ministerial accountability, passed by both Houses in 1997.
In line with this, we have redacted documents to remove the bare minimum of personal information and information whose release would prejudice international relations. We have consulted the police to ensure that the release of information does not prejudice their investigation. We have also considered carefully the redaction of information relating to royal communications, mindful of the long-standing convention of confidentiality, which is codified under the Freedom of Information Act, in relation to communications with and on behalf of the sovereign. In this exceptional circumstance, the Government are releasing royal communications about the former Duke of York’s appointment as special representative. Communications with the royal household on unrelated topics have been redacted.
I can assure the House that we have proceeded on the basis of the maximum transparency, in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Humble Address.
We have found no evidence that a formal due diligence or vetting process was undertaken. There is also no evidence that this was considered. This is understandable since this new appointment was a continuation of the royal family’s involvement in trade and investment promotion work following the Duke of Kent’s decision to relinquish his duties as vice-chairman of the Overseas Trade Board.
The Government are co-operating fully with Thames Valley Police on their investigation into Andrew Mountbatten- Windsor and possible misconduct in public office.
[HCWS57]
Senior Civil Service
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Darren Jones)
I am today announcing the Government’s decision to accept, in part, the recommendations of the Senior Salaries Review Body on pay for the senior civil service for 2026-27. This is being laid in Parliament today and published on gov.uk.
This Government greatly value the independent expertise and insight of the SSRB and broadly accept its recommendations for the SCS for the 2026-27 pay round.
In January this year, I set out the need to reward the doers, not the talkers, in the civil service and my intention to award higher, but fewer, bonuses to those exceptional senior civil servants who go above and beyond, in order to incentivise faster delivery and innovation.
Following this, the Government received the SSRB’s 2026 report on 6 March. The SSRB recommended:
That all members of the senior civil service should receive a 3.5% consolidated increase to base pay from 1 April 2026, setting the following changes to the SCS pay ranges from 1 April 2026:
SCS pay band 1: £86,000 to £117,800.
SCS pay band 2: £105,000 to £162,500.
SCS pay band 3: £135,000 to £208,100;
and a central pot, comprising 1.0% of the total SCS pay bill, is allocated for the introduction of pay progression for the SCS from 1 April 2026, supporting our commitment to incentivise and reward the highest levels of performance.
The Government have very carefully considered the advice provided by the independent SSRB and fully understand the justifications by the SSRB for reaching its recommendations. Improving the pay system for the SCS is an important and long-standing objective and the Government are grateful for the SSRB’s work and recommendations.
This is just the start of improving our pay system. It represents an important milestone in modernising a framework to foster a dynamic and innovative civil service. Alongside the changes I announced to the bonus scheme in January, I am proud to announce that for the first time ever, we are introducing performance-based pay progression for the senior civil service—with those who deliver for the public being rewarded with salary increases. This is one of the many steps I am taking to power up the system to make sure words are turned into action and what happens in Westminster is followed through to the streets, schools and livelihoods of people in every part of the country.
In the light of the overall constraints posed by the current affordability context, as well as fairness across the wider public sector, the first recommendation on consolidated increases to pay is only partially accepted. The Government have decided that the total increase in SCS pay should be 3.5%. This means that base pay increases for all members of the SCS will be limited to a 2.5% increase in base pay, as well as the 1% of the SCS pay bill designated to the introduction of pay progression. The Government accept all other recommendations in full.
In addition, as outlined in the former Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster’s letter to the SSRB Chair of 22 July 2025, recommendations made by the SSRB in relation to the Permanent Secretary group will be additionally considered by the Permanent Secretary Remuneration Committee.
The Government are also publishing their civil service pay remit guidance, which includes the introduction of a voluntary pay compression framework to allow Departments to address pay compression affecting the lowest paid.
This Government value the leadership role that senior civil servants play in driving their ambitions on public sector modernisation and delivery. After years of cuts to public investment, and lack of support for innovation, the public sector has become disjointed, overworked and often resourced in the wrong places.
The implementation of these recommendations will support the ambition for a modernised and simplified pay structure that is driven by increased performance and delivery. Through shorter pay ranges and the introduction of performance-based pay progression, these recommendations enable the Government to drive a more productive, and incentivised senior workforce to lead the country through increasingly complex challenges—so that together, we can build a Britain that is richer, fairer and stronger.
I am grateful to the chair and members for their report.
[HCWS64]
Transport Taxation
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
In March, the Government announced a review of mileage rates for employees using their own vehicle for work and the self-employed who use the simplified expenses rates.
In recognition of the pressures facing drivers as a result of the effects of the Iran war, the Government are today announcing the first uprating of mileage rates in 15 years, backdated to April, to provide immediate support to both groups.
Mileage rates will increase for 2026-27 from 45p to 55p for the first 10,000 miles, and 25p thereafter, with effect from 6 April 2026.
This will represent the largest ever increase to these mileage rates, benefiting around 2 million employees and 1 million self-employed individuals, saving over £120 a year for a worker doing 6,000 business miles.
The Government will legislate retrospectively for this change at the earliest opportunity. In the interim, HMRC will exercise its discretion and will not seek to collect any income tax or national insurance contributions that may otherwise arise on payments made before the legislation takes effect.
Looking ahead beyond 2026-27, the Government have already committed to a review of these rates and will set this out at the Budget.
This announcement is one part of a package of support for households and businesses announced today.
[HCWS62]
Children’s Social Care Reform
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
Transforming children’s social care is central to this Government’s mission to break down barriers to opportunity for all children. It is fundamental to ensuring that every child grows up safe, supported and able to thrive, and is key to putting our public services and our public finances on a sustainable long-term footing.
In November 2024, this Government published “Keeping Children Safe, Helping Families Thrive”, which set out a clear and ambitious vision for reform to support more children to remain safely with their families, to strengthen wider family networks where children cannot live at home, and to ensure that those who need care receive stable, enduring relationships.
We have laid strong foundations for whole-system reform through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026, which is the most significant overhaul of children’s social care legislation in a generation. This Act strengthens multi-agency safeguarding, oversight and accountability across the system. The Crime and Policing Act 2026 has further strengthened our response to child sexual abuse and criminal exploitation, with tougher offences, modernised enforcement powers and a clearer focus on protecting victims. Our reforms to children’s social care are also backed by sustained investment, including £2.4 billion for the families first partnership programme.
Today we are publishing an implementation plan to support local partners to deliver reform. This plan builds on activity to reset the system, through prioritising intensive, earlier family help, renewing the focus on family-based care, strengthening child protection, and reforming the care market and workforce. It also follows recent work to update the children’s social care national framework, Working Together To Safeguard Children, and the families first partnership programme guide. As we drive forward delivery of reform, we will focus on three areas.
First, by 2026-27, every local authority will be embedding a single, seamless family help offer, ending the divide between early help and child-in-need services. Safeguarding partnerships will establish multi-agency child protection teams, bringing together social workers, health professionals, police and education, while new statutory duties on family group decision making will ensure that families are involved earlier and in decisions about their children. Alongside this, we will strengthen kinship care, recognising that children do best when cared for by people who know and love them. From 2026, every local authority will publish a clear local kinship offer underpinned by national standards, alongside targeted investment through kinship zones and pilot programmes to address practical and financial barriers for carers. We are also improving the evidence base through new data, robust evaluation, and the first Government-led study of kinship care.
Secondly, we are placing a renewed emphasis on the importance of stable, lifelong relationships for children in care and care leavers. We will expand foster care capacity from 2026 by strengthening support and financial stability for foster carers and simplifying fostering standards by autumn 2026 to ensure a greater supply of high-quality placements. In parallel, we will scale regional care co-operatives from spring 2026 onwards to deliver more homes, improve commissioning and enhance forecasting. This will be underpinned by enhanced financial oversight of the children’s homes market, including the introduction of the first provider oversight scheme for groups of children’s homes, targeted capital investment to build provision in the right locations, and tighter regulation of unregistered homes. Care leavers will continue to benefit from support through Staying Put, while Staying Close will become a national offer in spring 2029. In addition, new corporate parenting responsibilities for Government Departments and relevant public bodies will be introduced from autumn 2027, ensuring a more consistent and joined-up approach to supporting young people as they move into adulthood.
Thirdly, adoption support is a key element of reform. We will continue to provide vital therapeutic support through the adoption and special guardianship support fund, to consult on the fund’s longer-term future, and to introduce a new universal parenting offer from autumn 2026 to support families and children as they transition to secondary school. Adoption England will also work with local authorities and regional adoption agencies to improve adoption practice, Ofsted will undertake a thematic review of regional adoption agencies, and we will strengthen adoption record retention by establishing a consistent 100-year standard.
Finally, supporting the whole workforce is a central aim of this programme. Our plan sets out a comprehensive package of actions to strengthen capability, stability and professional standards. This includes enhancing training and standards for children’s homes staff from spring 2026, streamlining Ofsted registration processes for children’s home managers, and investing in the early career development of social workers. Alongside this, we will work in partnership with local authorities to embed a strengthened professional development offer for social workers, underpinned by clear and consistent standards. We will also take steps to improve workforce stability by strengthening the regulatory framework for agency workers from spring 2028, supporting more expert practice for children and families.
I am also pleased to inform Parliament that Foundations—What Works Centre for Children & Families, is today publishing an implementation framework for designing and delivering services for children and families. The framework supports the implementation plan published by the Government today, and sets out a clear, consistent and evidence-based framework to support local authorities and their partners to map local systems, identify strengths, convene key stakeholders, and follow defined steps to design and deliver evidence-informed children’s services.
By reforming children’s social care, we are investing in children’s futures. I would like to thank all those across children’s social care, policing, health, education and wider public services who are working tirelessly alongside the Government to bring the change that our children need and deserve.
I will deposit copies of the implementation plan in the Library of each House.
[HCWS54]
Ebola: Democratic Republic of the Congo
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Chris Elmore)
My noble Friend the Minister of State for International Development and Africa (the right hon. Baroness Chapman of Darlington) has today made the following statement:
I would like to update the House on the Ebola outbreak in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the United Kingdom’s response.
On 15 May, the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo declared an Ebola outbreak following confirmation of the Bundibugyo strain. Uganda also confirmed a case on the same day. On 17 May, the World Health Organization subsequently designated this a Public Health Emergency of international concern, reflecting the seriousness of the situation and the risk of wider regional spread. The outbreak is centred in Ituri province in eastern DRC, with 51 confirmed cases and 4 deaths reported as of 19 May, alongside over 500 suspected cases. This remains a fast-moving situation.
The outbreak is taking place in a highly complex humanitarian and security environment. Eastern DRC already faces significant humanitarian and health challenges, with high levels of displacement, fragile health systems and limited access to care. These conditions increase the risk of further transmission and complicate response efforts.
The United Kingdom is working closely with international partners and the Government of DRC to support a coordinated and effective response. Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary and Secretary of State for Health and Social Care co-chaired a cross-Government ministerial meeting to coordinate the UK’s response. The UK is already a leading donor in the response, and has now allocated up to £21 million to help contain the outbreak. This funding will support a DRC-led response and help the World Health Organization, UN, international and NGO partners to strengthen surveillance, support frontline health workers, improve infection prevention and control, and support access to essential care.
The UK is also playing a leading role in coordinating the international response in DRC. Through our embassy in Kinshasa, we are continuing to convene partners to mobilise resources, align support behind the Government of DRC’s response plan, and ensure delivery is effective and coordinated on the ground.
Alongside this, UK humanitarian programmes in eastern DRC are being adapted to respond to the outbreak, including through support for water, sanitation and hygiene, provision of personal protective equipment, and strengthened Ebola containment measures. The UK is also working to protect vulnerable groups, including maintaining access to maternal health services and mitigating risks of increased gender-based violence during the outbreak.
Next week, I will visit the region for the African Development Bank annual meetings in Brazzaville in the Republic of Congo. I will meet partner organisations and ministerial counterparts from the DRC and the wider region to discuss the evolving situation and explore further areas of UK support to the response.
While this is a serious outbreak, the risk to the UK public remains low. The UK Health Security Agency is closely monitoring the situation and working across Government to assess any potential risks. UKHSA and the NHS have robust procedures and specialist facilities in place to assess and manage any potential cases safely. The UKHSA returning workers scheme has also been activated to monitor and support individuals travelling to or from affected areas for their work. The UK public health rapid support team is in contact with affected countries and international partners and stands ready to provide technical support if requested.
The Government keep travel advice under constant review. We have updated advice for the DRC and Uganda to reflect the outbreak. Existing advice already advises against all travel to eastern DRC, including Ituri, Goma and Bunia, due to insecurity and instability. British nationals in affected countries are advised to follow FCDO travel advice and local public health guidance. We are providing consular support where required.
The Government will continue to monitor the situation closely and work with international partners to limit the outbreak. Rapid containment remains the most effective way to protect regional and global health security.
[HCWS60]
Dental Quality and Payment Reform
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
I wish to update the House on the implementation of the quality and payment reforms to the NHS dentistry contract. This follows the Government’s 2025 public consultation on proposals to address some of the pressing issues that dental teams face and support them to spend more time on patients with the greatest need. The first set of regulatory amendments to accompany these reforms came into force on the 1 April 2026. Today, we have laid the second set of regulatory amendments to the National Health Service (General Dental Services Contracts) Regulations 2005, the National Health Service (Personal Dental Services Agreements) Regulations 2005, and the National Health Service (Dental Charges) Regulations 2005, to support these reforms. These amendments will come into force on 23 June 2026 and will
create new long-term care pathways for patients with significant dental decay and/or significant gum disease, with improved payments to cover the costs and labour involved for dentists, and more effective, joined up care for patients, with a single patient charge;
introduce a new add-on payment for denture modifications, relining and repairs, to more fairly remunerate dentists delivering these treatments to patients;
remove existing regulatory barriers to enable an electronic prescription service in dentistry.
These reforms build on the April regulatory changes to improve access to urgent NHS dental care and support greater use of cost-effective, evidence-based prevention for children.
In addition to these regulatory changes, we have introduced a new funded quality improvement programme and are providing funding towards annual appraisals for associate dentists, dental therapists and dental hygienists delivering NHS care.
These reforms are an important step towards fundamental reform, but not the end point, and we will continue to go further before the end of this Parliament.
[HCWS63]
NHS Pension Scheme: McCloud Implementation
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
On 11 December 2025, I issued a written statement on the implementation of the McCloud remedy for affected NHS pension scheme members. I updated on progress in planning for the delivery of the remedy and reaffirmed my commitment to deliver the remedy to the coalition Government’s discrimination. I also committed to keeping the House informed of progress.
The NHS Business Services Authority has now developed and aligned its plans for the delivery of the McCloud remedy. An independent review, led by Lisa Tennant, has considered those plans and the NHSBSA’s capacity, capability and functions to deliver the remedy. Lisa Tennant is now preparing a final report, which I intend to publish in due course.
The independent review has found that significant progress has been made in the NHSBSA’s planning for the remedy, including the comprehensive analysis of steps that will need to be taken to provide each individual member with their remedy choice and to enact it. Given the level of complexities in the membership of the NHS pension scheme, this has been a substantial undertaking. The review also highlights a number of dependencies that are critical to delivering the remedy. These include:
Procuring external suppliers to bolster NHSBSA’s capacity to manually calculate remediable service statements for some members;
The release of software to automate statements as far as possible, enabling future retirees to make their remedy choice at the point of retirement, and to further automate calculations for members who are already retired.
I remain committed to setting deadlines that prioritise the delivery of the remedy to members who are likely to be facing financial detriment as a consequence of the discrimination identified by the McCloud judgment. The deadlines must be realistic and achievable. They must also ensure that the scheme’s ongoing performance is maintained and protected alongside the delivery of the remedy. I expect these dependencies will have advanced sufficiently, or been appropriately mitigated, to enable me to issue new statutory deadlines with confidence before summer recess.
Subject to the dependencies outlined above, the NHSBSA’s plans currently forecast that:
Retired members whose remedy period 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2022 benefits are still affected by the discrimination identified by the McCloud judgment—in that some or all of the accrual for that period is 2015 scheme accrual—should receive their remedy choice by the end of December 2027;
Retired members whose remedy period benefits are no longer affected by this discrimination—in that all of their accrual for the period is 1995 to 2008 scheme accrual—should receive their remedy choice by the end of June 2030;
All active and deferred members who are due a remedial pension saving statement should have received this by the end of March 2027.
I have asked the NHSBSA to take steps to communicate to members when they can expect to receive their remedy choice, and which deadlines, when issued, will apply to them.
The NHSBSA continues to issue remediable service statements and remedial pension saving statements in line with its delivery plans. To date, 10,462 remediable service statements have been issued to retired members who are most likely to be facing financial detriment. Of those, 5,804 have been returned and 5,368 decisions have been enacted. A further 11,457 have been calculated and are scheduled to be issued in alignment with the NHSBSA’s delivery plan. In addition, a remediable pension savings statement has been issued to 121,824 members, and 19,952 are outstanding.
[HCWS55]
Senior NHS Workforce Pay
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
I am pleased to announce that we are publishing our response to the recommendations made by the independent Senior Salaries Review Body for the 2026-27 financial year.
I hugely appreciate the incredible work of talented staff across our NHS, and that is why I am formally accepting the headline pay recommendation of 3.0% for senior leaders across the NHS in England, to give them a well-deserved pay rise. This award relates to:
Over 3,200 very senior managers (VSMs)
Over 400 executive senior managers (ESMs)
These awards mean that the Government are delivering a well-deserved pay rise, on top of those in preceding years, underlining the extent to which we value our senior leaders. Eligibility for pay awards for VSMs is linked to their organisation’s performance as determined by the NHS oversight framework segment to which they are assigned: https://www.england.nhs.uk/publication/nhs-oversight-framework/
I am grateful to the Chair and members of the SSRB for their thoughtful consideration of the evidence presented to them. Their report recognises the vital contribution that NHS leaders make to our country. The SSRB has examined the economic picture and evidence on recruitment, retention, motivation and morale to reach their recommendations.
The SSRB made a further two recommendations, which are not directly related to headline pay. I recognise the challenge of recruiting those at the top of the Agenda for Change pay scale into VSM roles. To help address this, I am therefore pleased to accept the recommendation to deliver training and support knowledge-sharing for remuneration committees and chief people officers. However, we will do this over a longer timeframe than envisaged by the SSRB, to allow sufficient engagement with relevant stakeholders in the design and delivery of the training. Following engagement with stakeholders, we will deliver this training within this financial year.
I can also confirm that I am accepting, in principle, the recommendation to withdraw the very out-of-date executive senior managers pay framework. It is not feasible to withdraw and replace the framework ahead of April 2027. Any changes to ESM pay setting and reward will need to be carefully sequenced and considered alongside the ongoing DHSC/NHSE transformation.
We will continue to implement commitments to improve the support NHS staff receive and their experience at work. Ensuring the NHS is a great place to work is fundamental to improving patient experience: from reducing the backlog in elective care to ensuring timely access to GP appointments.
Next steps
We have listened to the workforce and understand the difficulties they face when pay awards are not delivered on time. I am pleased to be announcing the pay awards earlier than the previous year. We will continue work across Government to keep bringing forward the pay round for all public sector staff.
The SSRB report will be presented to Parliament and published on gov.uk.
[HCWS66]
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002: Appointed Person Report
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 appointed person report covering England and Wales for the period 2024 to 2025 has today been laid before Parliament. The appointed person is independent of Government and scrutinises the circumstances and manner in which search and seizure powers conferred by the Act are exercised without prior judicial approval and where no property is seized or property is seized for less than 48 hours.
I am pleased that we are now able to publish the appointed person’s latest report. The report details that POCA search and seizure powers were used on seven occasions in a way that required notification of the appointed person.
The appointed person has confirmed in the report that he is satisfied that the criteria required for justifying the searches without prior judicial approval were met and that the powers of search were exercised appropriately. This would indicate that the powers are being used reasonably and appropriately, in accordance with the Act. We will continue to monitor the way that the powers are used closely. The appointed person recommended that the standard template be used in all reports sent to them and that the sections of POCA used for search and seizure should be clearly indicated in those reports. Guidance will be updated to reflect these recommendations.
Copies of the report will be available in the Vote Office. It will also be published on gov.uk.
[HCWS58]
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026: Commencement
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
When elected mayors were first established by the Local Government Act 2000, they were elected using the supplementary vote system. This system, which is suitable for the election of single executive office holders, such as mayors ensures a broader level of support for the person elected.
This voting system for mayoral elections was changed following the Elections Act 2022, which removed the supplementary vote system and replaced this with a simple majority—first past the post—system. This Government have always been clear that supplementary vote is the more appropriate system for electing mayors.
The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026, which received Royal Assent on 29 April 2026, reintroduces the supplementary vote system for mayoral and police and crime commissioner elections. It was the clear intention of the Government, as stated during parliamentary passage of the Act, that this return to supplementary vote would be implemented ahead of any future relevant elections after May 2026. The Government are conscious that there is now a possible scenario in which a mayoral election may need to be held in Greater Manchester in the coming months, subject to the outcome of the parliamentary by-election in the Makerfield constituency.
We are therefore taking action to seek parliamentary approval to deliver that change in all scenarios. I have today laid the legislation necessary to support the implementation of these measures for combined authority mayors and combined county authority mayors. The Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (Amendment) Order 2026, which makes the required changes to conduct rules, ballot papers, postal voting statements, and guidance and instructions to voters, will now be considered by Parliament under the affirmative procedure. Relevant changes to the secondary legislation governing conduct of elections for local authority mayors, the Mayor of London and police and crime commissioners will be brought forward as soon as possible later this year.
The Government’s intention, subject to the approval of Parliament, is for the secondary legislation to be in force by 19 June 2026.
We will work with the Electoral Commission and local authorities to support implementation of this change, to ensure all rules are clear and understood, and to support clear communications with electors.
[HCWS65]
Neighbourhoods and Public Services
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
Since the election, this Government have taken steps to support local renewal, including investment through the Pride in Place programme, fairer local government funding, publication of the northern growth strategy, and further progress on fiscal devolution and community empowerment. Today I’m announcing a new programme of reform to further restore people’s pride in their areas and communities, and help deliver effective local public services centred on communities and users.
We will take further action to address excessive profiteering in children’s social care, where the market is failing users and taxpayers. We are already reforming the placements market to put children first, and we have legislated for powers to enforce a cap on profits in children’s social care. We will monitor the market carefully, including learning early lessons from our expansion of regional care cooperatives, but—based on our assessment and subject to consultation—we will not flinch from capping the profits of private providers placing vulnerable children in care.
We are giving local councils stronger tools to shape and improve their high streets. We have already brought forward gambling impact assessments to allow councils to limit the number of gambling premises in their areas. And now we are giving councils new powers to restrict certain shops on the high street, take over empty shops, and use the spaces to run services or activities or businesses. We are also setting up a new high street organised crime unit in the Home Office to take out organised crime on our high streets, and we will give the police new powers to close down those that do nothing about antisocial behaviour. We also recognise that councils need funding to build the high streets of the future, which is why we are committing £300 million for high streets innovation.
We will set out a neighbourhood guarantee to set clear expectations of local, regional and national Government, to bring real change that can be seen and felt in every town, city and village. This will include basic public service provision, cleaner streets, better-maintained public spaces and a stronger sense of local safety and pride. We will publish an easily accessible digital tool showing progress, so that residents can see how their neighbourhood is performing and hold the relevant bodies to account for delivery.
We will put more power in the hands of the nations’ mayors. Our new English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 means that mayors can request the new powers and funding they need. As part of the first round of that new right-to-request process, we are now signing off on a series of new power transfers. As previously announced by the Transport Secretary, we will devolve decisions on Transport and Works Act orders to mayors, with a consultation to be launched in the autumn to consider the scope of powers to be devolved. This will provide mayors more tools to get on with building public transport, like tram networks. We will also go further on the devolution of public services. We have already announced plans for Greater Manchester and South Yorkshire to pilot a deputy mayor for health. We will now work in partnership with the Mayor of the Liverpool City Region to drive up attainment and standards in local schools. In the run up to autumn Budget, we will also work with mayors to explore further devolution, as we know it means better local services for our communities.
We will soon be launching a new programme of community power pilots which will support councils, community groups and local residents to co-design solutions to local problems, explore longer term models of community involvement in service delivery, and help build neighbourhood and community capacity for the future.
Finally, we want to give social housing tenants greater control of their homes and communities. Our Renters’ Rights Act 2025 has already given tenants greater control and our leasehold reforms will do the same for homeowners. We are committed to social tenants’ right to manage, and we are reviewing how the existing process works, so we can make it as easy as possible for more tenants to take on management duties, with effective support and oversight.
[HCWS59]
Judicial Workforce
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
I am today announcing my decision on pay for the judiciary.
I value the Senior Salaries Review Body’s expertise and independent advice in recommending a judicial pay award which reflects the important role that the judiciary play across the justice system. When making my decision, I have carefully considered the SSRB’s advice alongside the financial implications for my Department.
The SSRB recommended a pay award of 3.8% for all judicial office holders within the remit group for 2026-27. I have decided to reject this recommendation, and instead a 3.5% judicial pay award will be applied equally to all judicial office holders for whom I have responsibility, from April 2026. I highly value the important work carried out by the judiciary in upholding the rule of law. I have therefore prioritised funding to provide an award 1.5% higher than the 2% affordability set out in published evidence, but this has required tough choices within the Department’s spending plans. This approach carefully weighs the SSRB’s recommendations against the affordability constraints of my Department, as well as the wider pressures on public finances.
The SSRB highlighted their concern over the persistent recruitment and retention issues affecting parts of the judiciary when making this recommendation. I share these concerns. The major review of the judicial salary structure is the right place to address these issues through targeted reform, and presents better value than the flat rate pay uplift of the annual pay review. I look forward to continuing to work with the SSRB on the major review and receiving its report later this year.
I am committed to strengthening our world-class judiciary. I have already announced in December a record investment in sitting days, court buildings, technology and legal professionals. I hope this increase reflects the high value I place on their independence and commitment to the delivery of justice and the rule of law.
The SSRB’s report will be presented to Parliament and published on gov.uk.
[HCWS53]
Equality Act 2010: Draft Code of Practice for Services, Public Functions and Associations
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
The Equality and Human Rights Commission is the independent equality regulator and ensures compliance with the Equality Act 2010. Its code of practice on services, public functions and associations covers all nine protected characteristics and the steps the EHRC considers service providers should take into account when ascertaining how to comply with the law. We share the EHRC’s commitment to ensuring duty bearers and service users have accurate and up-to-date guidance on the Equality Act 2010 including in the light of recent court rulings.
We are grateful to the EHRC for its work on the draft code. The EHRC has rightly focused on ensuring the draft code is accessible and provides a wide range of examples for duty bearers.
The Equality Act 2006 states that before issuing a code of practice, the EHRC shall submit a draft to the Secretary of State to make a decision whether to approve it; and then if it is approved, the Secretary of State lays the draft before Parliament. Earlier in this process, as required, I consulted the Scottish and Welsh Governments.
I have approved the draft code submitted on 4 September 2025 and as updated by the EHRC in April 2026 following engagement with Government and their consideration of consultation responses and further legal analysis.
The current code was produced in 2011, and there have been significant developments since then, including the Supreme Court ruling in For Women Scotland, resulting in the EHRC wanting to update the code.
Following last year’s Supreme Court ruling, the draft code’s content on sex and gender reassignment has changed substantially from the 2011 version. The ruling made it clear that sex means biological sex for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 and that trans people are still protected by the Act under the protected characteristic of “gender reassignment”.
A number of other changes were made as part of updating the 2011 code across all protected characteristics, including highlighting protections for disabled people, and advice on pregnancy and maternity discrimination as well as age discrimination. The draft code now before Parliament more accurately reflects the position on all protected characteristics. This includes protections for women whose menopause has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their everyday life, as well as updates to reflect legislative changes on same-sex marriage.
This Government are proud of the Equality Act 2010 and will protect and uphold it. This code is an important step in ensuring that organisations across Great Britain have clear guidance regarding its implementation, protecting people’s rights across our country.
The draft code will be laid before Parliament in both Houses for a 40-day period, in line with the Equality Act 2006. If neither House disapproves the draft within this time period, the code currently in force will be revoked by means of a negative procedure statutory instrument and the new code will be commenced by a separate statutory instrument.
I have therefore laid the “Equality Act 2010: draft code of practice for services, public functions and associations” in Parliament today, with an explanatory memorandum, in line with the Equality Act 2006.
[HCWS67]
Fit Note Reform Pilot Schemes
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
Together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, I am today announcing a series of pilots to test a new approach to managing sickness absence in England.
We have known for some time that the fit note is not working as intended. Over 11 million fit notes were issued last year, with around 93% being issued as “not fit for work”. Far too often, employees are not receiving the advice that might help them return to work earlier, and employers are not being offered advice on how to support their employees in the workplace.
https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/fit-notes-issued-by-gp-practices
In April 2024, the previous Government launched a call for evidence seeking views from a wide range of stakeholders on the fit note process. Today I have published its findings, which reveal several challenges with the fit note process. Many healthcare professionals do not feel sufficiently equipped to bridge the barriers between a patient’s work and health. Employers, meanwhile, expressed concerns that “may be fit for work” fit notes lack sufficient detail and also report the need for a greater understanding of workplace contexts. Although patients appreciated the simplicity, accessibility and legitimacy of the current system, they also supported the need for more detailed work and health discussions.
That is why, from July 2026, we will begin pilots in four areas across England to test reforms to the traditional fit note. The pilots will offer up to 100,000 appointments and move away from a system focused primarily on sickness certification and instead offer personalised work and health support.
In participating areas, new community work and health teams will work with patients and their employers to develop workability plans that support them to remain in work or return sustainably. These plans are focused on what people can do, the support they may need, and when time away from work is right. Crucially, this model is designed to keep people connected to their workplace from day one of absence. This shift will enable earlier, more tailored support for individuals, while freeing GPs from administrative processes so that they can focus more on care.
The pilots will be backed by £3 million of funding in their first year and will be delivered in partnership with the NHS and employers. They will operate initially in four integrated care board areas: Birmingham and Solihull; Cornwall and Isles of Scilly; Coventry and Warwickshire; and Lancashire and South Cumbria.
These pilots are the first step in the Government’s ambition for radical fit note reform, moving towards a more holistic and partnership-based approach to supporting sickness absence. Designed in collaboration with patients, employers and GPs, we will take a “test and learn” approach, with findings shaping future legislation and implementation as we scale what works.
This sits alongside wider action that we are taking to drive change across the work and health system, such as clearing the Access to Work backlog, to ensure people receive timely and effective support to stay in work. In parallel, Sir Charlie Mayfield’s “Keep Britain Working” programme is convening Vanguard employers to test new employer-led approaches and develop a healthy workplace standard.
[HCWS56]
House of Lords
Retirement of a Member: Lord Haskel
The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)
My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirement with effect from today of the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his much-valued service to the House.
Higher Earners: Emigration
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Leigh of Hurley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the number of individuals earning more than £100,000 per annum who left the country in 2025.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, not all taxpayers are required to notify HMRC when they leave the country. As such, the Government do not hold comprehensive data on the number of individuals leaving the UK by income level. The Government are committed to ensuring that the UK remains a competitive and attractive location for internationally mobile talent and investment. We continue to support growth through a competitive tax framework and a world-leading business environment.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
The Minister is right: HMRC has no idea of the number of people who have left the country with a high income. The Chartered Institute of Taxation and I have tried to find the information, but it does not exist. However, most helpfully, the Sunday Times last Sunday looked at people on the Companies House database who have told Companies House that they are leaving the country. It estimates that as few as one in six and as many as one in three of the people on the Sunday Times wealth list have left the country. Can the Minister explain why he thinks that is and how this helps the growth agenda?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
As the noble Lord says, the data is not available, so I am not sure that he can make the conclusions that he seeks to make. The data will not be available until we have the January 2027 self-assessment data, which is the most reliable data. The costings that were certified by the OBR for the previous Government’s and this Government’s reforms account for a potential behavioural response. They factor in an assumed level of migration from non-doms, just as they did for the previous government reforms. The OBR has said that there is no evidence to change the estimated impact of the reforms on migration. This has always been a highly mobile population. For example, in 2023-24, there were 9,100 arrivals and 9,500 leavers, so the noble Lord knows that this is nothing new. The reforms to the tax treatment of non-doms have been designed specifically to make the UK competitive, with a modern, simple tax regime that is also fair.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I have a personal interest in this. Do the Government recognise that outdated tax treaties are driving away talent that the UK wants, especially in life sciences and AI? Many overseas nationals, especially Americans, end up paying significantly more tax than any equivalent UK-only citizen. It is not a non-dom issue but a failure to modernise relief to deal with tax savings such as ISAs, investments in mutual funds and the complexity of death duties. Will the Government get to grips with this?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The new residents-based regime is more competitive for new arrivals than the previous rules. It is more attractive than the previous approach. They can bring their foreign income and gains into the UK without attracting an additional tax charge. These changes will encourage individuals to spend and invest these funds in the UK.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case that if you are a patriot you are obliged to pay your fair share of tax and that people who do not want to do that are not patriots?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
We must ensure that the wealthiest pay their fair share of tax towards the public finances. Equally, successful businesses and entrepreneurs who create jobs and wealth are the engine of economic growth in this country and we must do all that we can to support them.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, it is the turn of the Cross Benches.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the tax avoidance industry in this country appears to continue to thrive? If so, how does he explain that?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
This Government have been very clear that we will close down any tax loopholes that we can while ensuring that the tax regime remains highly competitive. That is exactly what we are doing.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
The Minister talked about celebrating entrepreneurs and business creation. According to City A.M., nearly 6,000 British business owners have quit the UK over the past two years. Why is this?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
As I have already said, there is no reliable data to back up the noble Lord’s claims. The reliable data will be available in January 2027, when the self-assessment returns are made. The data does not exist to make the noble Lord’s claims. The UK is a great place to start a business, but our companies are not scaling at the same rate as their US peers. We are taking action to ensure that they do, that the business environment in this country remains competitive and that we have a competitive tax regime.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware of the hard data provided by Patriotic Millionaires, which shows that the strong majority are proud to live in this country, believe that it is patriotic to pay their fair share of tax and, in fact, are prepared to pay a little more, particularly to help young people?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am aware of the points that my noble friend makes and agree with much of what she says. As I say, successful businesses and entrepreneurs who create jobs here and wealth in the UK are the engine of economic growth and we need to support them to succeed. As my noble friend says, we must also ensure that the wealthiest pay their fair share towards the public finances.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, we should encourage rich people to reside and stay in the UK, as, for example, the top 1% of those paying income tax contribute 29% of receipts. Unfortunately, government policies not only on non-doms but on inheritance tax and other taxes have encouraged them to leave in large numbers—young as well as old people. Since this is against the national interest, will the Government adjust their policies to reverse this unfortunate trend and study the detail further?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
No, and I do not think the noble Baroness can make those claims based on the data that is available, as I have already said. The previous Government’s reforms assumed that there would be migration of non-doms. This Government’s reforms assume that there will be migration of non-doms, and the OBR has said that there is no evidence to change the estimated impact of the reforms on migration. Reforms to the tax treatment of non-doms have been designed specifically to make the UK competitive, with a modern, simple tax regime that is also fair. The noble Baroness mentioned other tax reforms; in the round, the Government’s reforms to the non-dom regime and to capital gains tax keep the UK an attractive place in which to live and invest, while ensuring that everyone who is a long-term resident pays their taxes here, helping to fairly fund our public services.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister remember the argument, at the time of the Brexit referendum, that the divide in Britain was between the intellectual elite, who were people from anywhere, and the real people of Britain, who were people from somewhere? Are we not hearing an argument that it is the rich who are the people from anywhere, who do not have any particular loyalty to Britain and who might move, and that the rest of us are much more patriotic? Could we not hope to hear an argument from the Conservative Party and Reform that the rich should also be patriotic and committed to this country?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I absolutely understand the points that the noble Lord is making but am not sure that it is for me to speak on behalf of any other party. I just point to my noble friend’s remarks about Patriotic Millionaires: the vast majority of people in this country feel patriotic about their country and want to pay their taxes here.
Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Con)
My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt—as the lawyers are fond of saying—it would be interesting to know from the Minister whether someone earning more than £100,000 a year and paying their taxes can still be classified as a working person.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, will the legislation in relation to Members of this House envisaged in the King’s Speech deal with those who are refusing to pay their fair share of tax?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am happy to say that that is probably not a matter for me.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, is not the problem that the people who are fairly paying their tax feel that they unfairly have to support a vast number—maybe just as many—who are living on welfare and benefits, and that the people who work hard have to support those who do not? I sense a growing feeling of unfairness.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I would just point out to the noble Baroness that the vast majority of people on benefits, as she puts it, are also in work—working hard every day to provide for their families. It is quite right that the state should help them to do so.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, the point is that £100,000 is not a huge amount of money. I am glad that the Labour Peers want to pay, but it is very important to encourage people to stay here to keep their money in the country. If they are taxed beyond belief, they will leave. That is not just any old Conservative Peer but people throughout the streets. The Minister must know that, but does he agree?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Lord says that £100,000 is not very much money. He may like to know that average earnings are around £33,000, which is well below the higher-rate threshold, and around 80% of taxpayers pay only the basic rate.
Offshore Oil and Gas: Venting and Flaring
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Russell
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in reducing emissions and wasted gas via venting and flaring on offshore oil and gas infrastructure.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)
UK oil and gas has one of the lowest upstream methane emission intensities globally. Industry and the Government have committed to the World Bank’s zero routine flaring by 2030 initiative and have gone beyond it with venting. The UK industry achieved the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative’s 2025 target for 0.2% methane intensity five years early, reaching 0.18% intensity by 2020. The NSTA projects that this will have decreased to 0.12% in the 2024 results, due to be published in autumn 2026.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, the Green Alliance has found that North Sea operators are still wasting gas worth £300 million a year—enough to heat around 570,000 homes. That lost gas is nearly a third of Jackdaw’s projected peak output. Why are the Government tolerating such inefficiencies? Will the Minister commit to banning routine flaring and venting in law, through the energy independence Bill, bringing the deadline forward to 2028 and directing regulators to accelerating enforcement before new drilling is approved?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
The Government are not tolerating the wastage of gas in the way the noble Earl suggested. The target that we have set, which the industry is adhering to, is for zero upstream flaring and zero upstream venting by 2030. As I have set out, the intensities that go with that are reducing ahead of the target and will certainly be met by 2030.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister explain whether, when calculating emissions from the UK, we estimate the emissions associated with imported oil and gas? If not, why not? The initial suggestions are that increasing our production would, in global terms, reduce the amount of emissions associated with our own use of energy.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I believe that that is a fairly complicated question in terms of national emissions versus overall global emissions. Obviously, as far as the UK generally is concerned, the calculations for emission purposes are based on national emissions. But, as the noble Baroness will know, there is a parallel consideration on what the case is for imported emissions and how that factors into the national figures. I will certainly write to her to clarify that position in total.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, I am sure the Minister is very aware that rapidly reducing methane emissions can help us to rapidly cool the planet, effectively buying time for longer-term carbon reduction efforts. Will the Government mandate independent third-party verification of all offshore methane emissions by 2027 so that our exporters can meet the EU’s methane import standards, which will hit us in 2027?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
The ability to independently monitor those emissions has been very much enhanced by satellite technology and various aerial observances, which can accurately depict where those emissions are coming from offshore and who is emitting them, so there is an effective independent verification position in place at present, which will aid greatly towards the achievement of that target by 2030.
Lord Gove (Con)
My Lords, whatever improvements might be made in dealing with the consequences of extraction of oil and gas from the North Sea in environmental terms, it is undoubtedly the case that the environmental and economic benefits are greater if we extract from our own native resources than if the resources are extracted from Russia and refined in a third country. Yet this Government have decided to relax sanctions on Putin’s Russia, to accept Russian oil refined in third countries and to acquiesce in the loss of jobs and investment in Aberdeen and the North Sea. How can it possibly make sense to strengthen Putin during a war against Ukraine and to leave people in Scotland jobless as a result?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
No, the Government have not relaxed sanctions against Putin and Russia. I believe the noble Lord is referring to recent decisions about how to phase in new sanctions as far as Russia is concerned, particularly concerning third-party products which arise not from crude oil itself but from the refining of it, particularly in circumstances where the UK does not have that refining capacity at home. The decisions that have been taken very recently relate only to that and not to the ongoing and increased sanctions as far as Putin is concerned.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
Why does my noble friend think most of the media, a good many Members of this House and informed opinion outside actually think exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Gove, asked—that we have relaxed the view on Russia? Why has that impression got around?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
Well, I imagine the impression has got around because people are not listening to what is actually being said about the position of sanctions as far as Putin and Russia are concerned and how that relates to third-party products, particularly jet fuel, which is a current urgent situation. As far as the overall picture is concerned, it is clearly the case that sanctions are not being relaxed against Putin’s Russia and, indeed, on the contrary, are being increased.
Lord Newby (LD)
Could the noble Lord follow up that answer and explain to the House in what respects sanctions are being increased?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
There is a package of new sanctions which are being imposed against Russia as far as their general supplies of oil and gas and various other things on the global market are concerned. The issue I was mentioning a moment ago is one part of that, and that is the phasing in of the sanctions relating to third-party products which arise from refining, which may or may not come from Russian crude oil products.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
But has the Minister not heard the comments of Ukraine’s sanctions commissioner, Vladyslav Vlasiuk, who said—and this is a direct quote—that
“temporary exemptions … may still generate additional revenues for Russia’s war machine”?
What is his answer to the commissioner? While I am on my feet, can I just say that I think it is appalling the way our own petrol refineries are warning that they are at risk of closure due to high carbon taxes? Does the Minister not agree that meeting demand through domestically refined oil products is preferable to financing Putin’s war in Ukraine, and will he commit to reviewing the tax burden which is currently risking our own refineries?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I think the noble Lord will know that the UK refineries are not able at present to refine exactly what is required as far as a profile of a country’s energy needs are concerned because of the nature of the set-up of those particular refineries and the nature of the crude oil that is coming into those refineries for refining. Therefore, it makes complete sense to ensure that we have a proper profile of imports of various refined products in not just a climate emergency but the present emergency relating to Hormuz, which may not involve UK refineries only. The quote that the noble Lord mentioned is about imports of crude oil from Russia being relaxed to countries across the world—not by the UK but relating to relaxation by other states. The UK is firmly behind the notion that there will not be crude oil coming into the UK from Russia, but the question of refined products is another matter.
Youth Offending
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Oates
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the progress in reducing youth offending in England and Wales over the past 25 years.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, the last two decades have seen significant reductions of children in the formal youth justice system and in youth custody, and this is good news. We now have a much smaller but, perhaps unsurprisingly, more complex group of children in the justice system, and we need to adapt to deal with this. The youth justice White Paper, published on 18 May this year, sets out a comprehensive programme of reform through which we will modernise the youth justice system.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her Answer. In her reply to questions on the Statement yesterday, she stated that
“there is no intention to abolish the Youth Justice Board”.—[Official Report, 20/5/26; col. 427.]
We are grateful for that. However, she will be aware that the powers of the Youth Justice Board set out in Section 41 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 are being steadily stripped away, starting with Liz Truss as Justice Secretary removing the custodial powers and now with the Government following suit by removing the monitoring powers and the core funding powers. Does she not think it would be better to follow the example of the 1997 Labour Government in establishing the board, rather than the example of Liz Truss in stripping it of its power?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to be debating the issue of the Youth Justice Board two days running with the noble Lord. The YJB has made valuable contributions to improving outcomes for children, but it has become clear that the youth justice system is now facing a different set of challenges from those that the board was originally designed to address. We are reforming the board so that it can focus on where it can add the greatest value, which is in driving the continuous improvement of youth justice services, and we are bringing the oversight and funding responsibilities into the Ministry of Justice in order to ensure clearer democratic accountability. I state again, and reassure the noble Lord, that the Youth Justice Board will remain a valued, independent public body with a clear purpose.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
I know my noble friend will want to do the right thing, but is it not a fact that the only part of the criminal justice system that has worked really effectively over the last quarter of a century is youth justice, and that the ability to retain and promote staff who gain experience—rather than the musical chairs of the Civil Service, where nobody has long-term experience—should lead us to believe that keeping the Youth Justice Board and its functions makes sense, both for the delivery of the programme she has just mentioned and to ensure that we do not have a situation where the turnover within the MoJ results in people simply not knowing what they are doing?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend and I pay tribute to the work he has done in relation to youth justice over the years. While proven offending has reduced significantly, that itself has placed pressures on our partners in youth justice services. For that reason, we need to reassess where our focus is best placed in order to ensure that we can add the most value. It is for that reason that the Youth Justice Board is going to be reformed, so that we know that it is using its independence and skills to ensure that we get the best outcomes for children.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, the team leader for children and young people at His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons said recently that what is needed is not further diagnosis but action, in the form of immediate investment in a functional youth custody estate. Why are the Government ignoring his advice and instead indulging in further diagnosis of a well-established problem?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, we are tough on crime but we are smart on prevention. We are focusing on what works: protecting the public and preventing reoffending. It is well known that locking children up, particularly on short sentences, does not work. Some 60% of children who receive short sentences of custody go on to reoffend, whereas those who are diverted at an early stage do not re-enter the justice system and have better lives, which also prevents increasing cohorts of victims in future.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, does the Minister have any plans to amend the minimum age of criminal responsibility?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
We have no plans. The Bar Council is conducting a review of this and we will, like any responsible Government, consider that review once it is reported and take matters from there.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, the prevalence of learning difficulties in the youth justice system is incredibly high. I understand figures show that about 80% of young people who are cautioned or sentenced have some kind of special educational need or neurodivergent condition. Does the Minister agree that this seems to suggest that a stronger focus in the education system on early diagnosis and intervention, particularly for specific learning difficulties, would have an impact on youth offending rates?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I think the noble Baroness may be referring to the excellent report by the Michael Sieff Foundation, which, as she said, said that up to 80% of children in the custodial estate either have special educational needs or are neurodivergent. This is why the Government want to put resources into early diagnosis and diversion, ensuring that there is in place wraparound care for families whose children are showing signs of perhaps entering the criminal justice system, before it is too late. That is why we have invested heavily in the Turnaround scheme—I pay tribute to the previous Government for doing so—which looks to get children upstream, as it were, before they have become involved in the justice system, and to work with the whole family. The success rate is great. Only 7% of children who have been involved in Turnaround go on to commit offences.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, on a similar subject, what assessment has the department made of the involvement of organisations, particularly arts organisations, that are not specifically involved with the criminal justice system but can help young people at risk of involvement with the criminal justice system? They have, in certain cases, been very successful. Is my noble friend aware of this and will she encourage more organisations to become involved?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I am aware of it. We are intending to make sure that everything possible can be done to ensure that children have as many opportunities as possible and therefore do not get drawn into crime.
Baroness Sater (Con)
My Lords, as a former youth magistrate and a former board member of the Youth Justice Board, I have seen at first hand the strong leadership at the YJB, particularly through its valuable community-based youth justice services. In the light of the youth justice White Paper, can the Minister please assure the House that the YJB’s role will not be diminished in any way that will undermine these services and that it will retain its capacity and authority so that we do not risk reversing the extremely positive outcomes in youth offending that it has helped deliver over so many years?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, for her work as a magistrate in the adult and youth systems. We have to be grateful to people like her for helping to keep the system going. I hope I have given sufficient assurance—it is certainly my intention to do so—that we really value the work done by the board. We want to use its skills and to ensure that it remains independent and keeps doing the great job that it does.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, I do not think that anybody doubts the Minister’s sincerity, but she should have a little tingle between the shoulder blades when somebody such as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and Members of all Benches express concerns about how the Government are going about fulfilling the White Paper. I think she would find much wider support if, as part of this package, there was not a complete emasculation of the Youth Justice Board and a shunting of it to the sidelines. It is not going to play a key part in this study, and it should. There are lots of people who have had experience of the YJB who would like to help the Government in fulfilling this White Paper. The Minister should get out of the cul-de-sac that she is leading us into.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I respond to the noble Lord with a great deal of sadness because he played a noble role in the Youth Justice Board and in the transformation of youth justice generally. However, the context in which the system operates has changed profoundly since it was set up. The drivers of harm are different and the landscape of public accountability is different as well. That is why we are moving the oversight and funding elements into the Ministry of Justice, but the board will remain independent, doing what it does best.
Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda: Ebola Outbreak
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the World Health Organization’s designation of the Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda as a public health emergency of international concern.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
The Government are closely monitoring the Ebola outbreak in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo. We are working with international partners, including the WHO and Africa CDC, to support a co-ordinated response and to strengthen surveillance, containment and preparedness. We have committed up to £21 million to this effort. I will travel to the region next week to engage Ministers and demonstrate the UK’s support. Although it is a serious outbreak, the risk to the UK public remains low.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for her response. Ebola cases and deaths are increasing on a daily basis, hence the designation by the World Health Organization. Given the severity of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda, compounded by ongoing warfare, will she ensure, in discussions with ministerial colleagues in the Foreign Office, that the financial allocation to the overseas aid budget is increased to enable humanitarian organisations to help scale up a treatment and prevention resource? This should include addressing the shortage in medics, PPE and infection control measures, including the speedy development, testing and approval of a vaccine to assist in the eradication of this disease.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We have already allocated £1 million, plus we have up to another £20 million through the team in Kinshasa. We are working closely with colleagues in Kampala. There have been two cases. Reassuringly, the other suspected cases have tested negative. We are working closely with the Government in Uganda to support them. They are also offering to support the Government in Kinshasa in addressing this outbreak. We are working closely with CDC and the WHO. We are the lead partner co-ordinating donors. As my noble friend said, it is an extremely difficult part of the world in which to operate and respond to these kinds of deadly outbreaks, but we are working with partners and those on the ground to do that.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, what progress has been made towards the negotiation of a pandemic convention by the World Health Organization? Does the Minister not agree that some of the characteristics of the draft pandemic convention, on early warning and working together to develop vaccines, are extremely relevant to the Ebola outbreak in the DRC and Uganda?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I agree with that, and we are working closely with the WHO. On vaccine development, no vaccine is currently able to be deployed against this particular strain, but work is going on at speed to examine the utilisation of vaccines that have already been developed and tested, and whether they may be effective against this strain. The noble Lord will also understand the complexity and difficulty of distributing and administering vaccine in this context.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, will the Government play a central role as they did in 2014-15 in Sierra Leone, which helped to ensure that a disease already spreading internationally was checked in its tracks, saving many lives in west Africa and worldwide?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Yes, that is what we are doing. I will be in the region next week and we speak regularly with our ministerial counterparts in the DRC and Uganda. I think some of the system-strengthening work that has taken place since the 2014 outbreak will help, but I am sure the noble Baroness understands the rather unique situation in the DRC and that this outbreak has happened in the east. We see a lack of territorial control over parts of that region by the Government in Kinshasa and the proliferation of armed groups in that part of the world.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness’s statement and particularly her proactive engagement on the ground. One of the experiences from the Covid pandemic was the link-up between the private sector and our international partners to scale up with India. Based on the response she gave earlier, that there is still development needed, what representations and engagement are being made, particularly with the private sector and those countries, such as India, that can scale up vaccine production?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is in an early phase and we are looking at trying to get a vaccine developed. I do not know whether that is specifically with India or with private sector partners, but it may be that a vaccine that has already been tested is effective against this strain. We hope that is the case, though there is an immediate need to get equipment into the region and distributed. We need to make sure that it is used correctly and to plan for how we will be able to distribute vaccine, as and when it is available, because the major barrier here is the complexity and the conflict going on. As the noble Lord will know, many different non-state armed groups are present in the area.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, given what the Minister has rightly said about the systemic challenges facing aid workers and others in the east of the DRC, will she look carefully during her visit to the region at the effect of the large numbers of displaced people now in refugee camps? Those are the perfect breeding ground for diseases of any kind, but especially of Ebola. What is being done to assess the role that ISIS affiliates are now playing? I suspect that she has seen some of the material I sent her recently about attacks on minorities, including the burning down of churches, and on people living in remote villages. What more can we do about that?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
What we can do about that is a very big question, but I visited Beni in the east of the DRC earlier this year and I know exactly the context that the noble Lord describes. We have the ADF, FDLR and M23 there; we may be able to engage with some of these groups, or maybe others can, but with others it will be far more difficult. Where those actors have control, in the end they will be responsible for responding to this outbreak. That injects a whole other level of complexity and difficulty into this, but we cannot let that put us off doing what needs to be done to save lives from this outbreak.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, the outbreak of Ebola in this region is extremely concerning, and we welcome the funding that the Minister has referenced. Can she perhaps say what support is available to any UK citizens who are in the region, notwithstanding the difficulties of access to the eastern region of the DRC, which we all know about? What other consular support is available in these areas to any of our people?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Our team in Kinshasa is in crisis mode, as noble Lords would expect, and ready to provide any support. There are very few UK nationals in that part of the world because of the danger from the conflict, but there are some UK medics—I have met them—and well-tested protocols are in place should they wish to return to the UK. We know how to do this; we are experienced in doing it and, obviously, our priority is to keep the UK and our citizens safe.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, the vaccine that exists is effective only against Ebola Zaire. The strain now operating has had two previous minor breakouts; Bundibugyo is the name of the strain. I hope the Minister will agree that our hope lies in developing a vaccine as quickly as we can, which might take up to six or nine months. But we have the knowledge of the vaccine against the Zaire strain, which is an advantage. The outbreak has now reached Kampala, which is worrying, but the Ugandans are apt, as they demonstrated previously, at isolating the cases and stopping the outbreak going any further. I hope it will not spread any further.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
There is nothing that the noble Lord just said for me to disagree with. I can assure him, though, that two cases were identified in Kampala and the others tested have been negative. He is absolutely right about the development of a vaccine.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, further to my noble friend’s question, we know what positive impact UK official development assistance has in crises such as these. Will the Minister rule out any further cuts to UK ODA in this Parliament?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
If it were for me to rule it out, I would do so right now, but the noble Lord is right about the impact of UK official development assistance. That is what it is for, which is why we have responded quite so quickly. We were the first donors to get in there and make these very fast decisions, as soon as the outbreak was identified. We are good at working with these agencies. Health is a priority for us and this is exactly what our development assistance ought to be used for.
Processed Russian Oil Products: Sanctions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, the Minister may not have been in the Chamber earlier, but I hope she has been made aware of the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and my noble friend Lord Gove about the fact that the Government are now permitting the importation of Russian-derived oil products into the United Kingdom. I quoted the Ukraine sanctions commissioner directly. He said that, in his view, the Government’s action
“may still generate additional revenues for Russia’s war machine”.
It would be helpful to know what the Minister’s response is to that commissioner. Simultaneously, the Government are also blocking new North Sea oil and gas licences on our own doorstep. With thousands of skilled jobs, billions in tax revenues and our national security all hanging in the balance, will the Minister explain to this House why the Government’s energy policy is rendering this country more exposed, not less, to hostile foreign actors and volatile global markets?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
My Lords, I want to make it clear that our sanctions regime against Russia is tougher today than it was last week. It is categorically not the case that we are waiving or easing sanctions. On 19 May the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office laid the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations to legislate for several key measures to continue to tighten our pressure on Putin’s regime. These regulations include a new maritime services ban on Russian liquefied natural gas, which will restrict Russia’s access to the UK’s world-leading shipping and insurance services, disrupting its ability to transport Russian LNG. It further includes export prohibitions against Russia, as well as new import prohibitions to restrict the transfer of any refined oil products derived from Russian crude oil and of the import of Russian uranium. As has regularly been the case for sanctions on Russia for several years, targeted short-term licences have been introduced for our LNG maritime services ban and the refined oil import ban in order to support flexibility in UK supply in global markets.
We have made it clear here, and the Minister for Trade made it clear in the House yesterday, that these licences are temporary, will be reviewed regularly and are not intended to protect Russian interests. The sanctions regime today is tougher than it was last week. In respect of the lessons of this crisis for energy security and for the UK’s reliance on foreign fossil fuels, the lesson that we are taking is that we need more homegrown renewable and nuclear energy. We need to continue the decarbonisation so that, for example, with the transition to electric vehicles, we are less reliant on overseas imports of energy.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, there is no plan because it is not in force as a result of the extremely broad and open-ended exemption that has been announced. I have debated, and this House has scrutinised, every single Russian sanction since the start of this war. I have called repeatedly for stronger efforts to prevent circumvention and loopholes, but there is now no point in calling for those if the Government put in such an exemption as they have this week. Will the Minister now bring forward urgent legislation to ensure that we scrutinise what the Government’s intent is, rather than a behind-the-scenes and sleekit licence that is open ended, avoids any parliamentary scrutiny and is up to an official rather than Parliament to decide?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The Minister for Trade and the department are responsible for these licences. The Russian sanctions came into force yesterday. We have made it clear that these licences are temporary and time limited.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
Sorry, the noble Lord is absolutely right, the licences are not time limited, but they are temporary and they will be reviewed regularly. It is our intention that these are temporary licences. This phased implementation of sanctions is common and standard practice. It is the approach that other allies—for example, Canada and Australia—have taken. The SI will go through the usual parliamentary process as it is implemented.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, signals matter, to friends as well as to enemies. No matter how the Government now seek to parse this decision, they have created the perception that their appetite for sanctions will be limited by the degree of pain the measures cause us. Does the Minister think that sending such a very bad signal is worth the strictly limited benefits that will accrue from it?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
This is a package of strengthened sanctions. The Minister for Trade has acknowledged, as I do today, that the communication of this could absolutely have been better, because these are strengthening sanctions. That is the message that we are very keen to communicate today to this House, to the other place and to the public. The Prime Minister spoke to President Zelensky last night. The President confirmed that he appreciates the support that the UK provides to Ukraine. We are very clear that we stand with Ukraine. We are supporting it with finance, military support and training for military personnel. We are clear that we will continue to put pressure on Russia.
In respect of the licences specifically and the considerations that we are taking into account, including market instability, the beneficiaries of such instability and potential price hikes could include Russia. That is one of our considerations with regard to these temporary licences.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we will hear from the Labour Benches next, then the Conservative Benches.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, the support from this country for Ukraine has been steadfast and bipartisan, and I regret very much what we are seeing. I think Mr Putin will be delighted to see the attacks on what is going on now. We have been steadfast in our support for Ukraine, and I think we have had a bipartisan approach to minimising the impact of events in the Middle East on people and businesses in this country. Can my noble friend the Minister confirm what she has said: that the sanctions package overall is stronger, while providing businesses facing complex supply chain issues with temporary flexibility? Can she commit to keeping this under review, with the aim of fully implementing the new, stronger sanctions regime as quickly as can possibly happen?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for reminding us all of the cross-party commitment to supporting Ukraine, which I know is felt strongly across this place. I absolutely confirm that the package of sanctions against Russia is stronger than it was two days ago. It has introduced new restrictions on oil products refined from Russian crude in third countries. It includes a maritime service ban on Russian LNG to restrict Russia’s access to the UK’s world-leading shipping and insurance services. I can also confirm, in answer to her question, that these are going to be targeted short-term licences and exemptions that will be reviewed regularly. We absolutely intend that they are only temporary.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I speak as the Minister responsible for taking through the SAMLA regulations. First, can the Minister respond as to why Section 55 has not been applied in this case? Secondly, it is customary, as I used to do with the noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord Purvis, to give headlines to all people across this House about impending sanctions. I disagree with the premise: it is not about politicising the issue but about standing united behind Ukraine. Today, when we grant a general licence as an exemption—which is indefinite, and the Minister should confirm that from the Dispatch Box—we are, in the eyes not just of Mr Putin but of Ukraine—weaker in our support.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I really emphasise that this package of sanctions is stronger than it was. We have put in place stronger sanctions. The general licence in respect of oil products applies to two products only: jet fuel and diesel. We have made it clear, and I repeat, that these are intended to be temporary licences. They will be reviewed regularly. It is very common practice, as it was under the previous Administration, to introduce licences in these cases, so there is no unusual practice or anything out of line in the approach that we have taken. I will have to write to the noble Lord on his question on Section 55.
King’s Speech
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Crawley
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty as follows:
“Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty addressed to both Houses of Parliament”.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, on behalf of your Lordships’ House, I thank His Majesty the King for delivering the gracious Speech. I am grateful for the privilege of opening today’s debate on the Motion for an humble Address. As this is a King’s Speech debate, I begin by uniting us all in praise of Their Majesties’ incredibly successful state visit to the United States just a few weeks ago. The visit saw the words of His Majesty the King bring members of the House of Representatives to their feet again and again, where his wise words, sharp humour and powerful messages resonated across political divides.
I will use this occasion to set out how the Government will continue to drive forward the UK’s national interests, tackling pressing global challenges to make Britain safer and more prosperous. The only way to do that is by bringing all the tools at our disposal to bear. We have to be truly integrated: from diplomacy, development and defence to soft power and economic strength. The crisis in the Middle East is just the latest example of why the Government are taking this approach. Families and businesses across the UK, and countries across the world, are grappling with the fallout from the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz. We are working tirelessly across all fronts, leading efforts for a lasting diplomatic breakthrough to restore freedom of navigation without tolls and to get the global economy moving again.
We have urged Iran to allow shipping to flow freely through the strait and to progress a diplomatic pathway. As my friend the Foreign Secretary did in a call with Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi on 8 May, we have used our convening power to bring together more than 40 countries to channel collective pressure to reopen the strait, engaging intensively with the US, our partners in the Gulf and European capitals. We have bolstered our defensive capabilities in the region as part of co-ordinated regional defensive operations in line with international law, and we are working internationally to respond to the impacts of the crisis on the world’s poorest. That includes at the Global Partnerships Conference that we co-hosted this week, where we gathered developing countries around a new approach to international partnerships and discussed how to alleviate the impacts of the crisis on food, fertiliser and fuel. That is because our efforts must be integrated and the effects of these crises around the world are connected to what we are doing at home.
Sadly, this approach is essential, given that we face a world more riven by conflicts than at any time since the Second World War, where tools of economic integration are being used as weapons of geopolitical conflict and where competition between the US and China shapes our world. We see this with the threat posed by Russia to the UK and wider European security: an aggressive, expansionist Russia that deploys hybrid threats and information warfare against us and our allies, and exports interference and instability. Just as in the previous Parliament, this Government have taken every opportunity to stand with Ukraine and apply pressure on the Kremlin’s war machine. The UK’s total military, economic and humanitarian support for Ukraine amounts to £21.8 billion, and the UK has sanctioned over 3,000 individuals and entities since Russia’s full-scale invasion.
In this Parliament, we will remain stronger than ever in our support to Ukraine, confident in the cross-party commitment that Ukraine’s fight is our fight, and steadfast in putting pressure on Russia. That involves sustaining our international leadership that has brought together partners and unlocked practical commitments through the coalition of the willing, including for the future deployment of the multinational force in Ukraine. Faced with Russia’s aggression and growing global security threats, last year the Government committed to the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War. To do that, we took the decision to reduce the development budget to 0.3% of GNI by 2027, but we remain just as committed to tackling global challenges in a new and modernised way, which I will return to shortly.
Turning to other pressing conflicts, Palestinians and Israelis desperately need peace. We need to deliver phase 2 of the 20-point plan, prevent Gaza getting stuck between peace and war, and stop Israeli settlement expansion and settler violence, which is at an all-time high and in flagrant breach of international law. Last year, this Government took the historic step of recognising the State of Palestine, to help keep the two-state solution alive, and we will continue to ensure that our international work is consistent with Israel’s lasting security, with Palestinian self-determination and with achieving peace in Lebanon.
These are messages we delivered through the UK’s presidency of the UN Security Council in February, a presidency we also used to put the spotlight on Sudan, as the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, including the women and girls who have endured unimaginable ordeals of sexual violence. We will sustain our focus on Sudan, building on the Berlin communiqué that followed the international conference we co-hosted in April, which brought together 55 states, secured £1.3 billion of funding to save lives, and renewed the diplomatic push for a ceasefire and political resolution of the conflict.
Sadly, Sudan is not the only example of a conflict overlooked. In March, I visited the Democratic Republic of the Congo and saw the consequences of years of conflict, including on survivors of sexual violence, the desperate need for clean water, emergency healthcare, and food and nutrition assistance. But I also saw the courage of those delivering front-line services, the expertise of local health professionals and the ingenuity of Congolese entrepreneurs. To break the cycle of conflict, the world must get behind those people. That means providing humanitarian and peacebuilding support. The UK is delivering life-saving care: from trauma surgery and support for survivors of sexual and gender-based violence, to clean water and emergency food. This means calling for those responsible for the violence to stop and supporting multilateral efforts towards sustainable peace.
Crucially, it means supporting long-term opportunity for people in the DRC through strengthening business links and supporting investments, whether that is setting up a new UK-DRC Chamber of Commerce, which I launched in March, or expanding access to finance for SMEs through British International Investment’s $55 million commitments to the DRC’s banking sector. As we discussed in a Question earlier, Ebola in the eastern DRC is a major threat, and we are working with the World Health Organization and Africa CDC. So far, we have allocated up to £21 million to the region, and I will be going to the Congo next week.
This Government are putting into practice a new, modernised approach to international development, one that reflects the scale of the global challenges that we face today and the very different geopolitics compared to two or three decades ago. International systems are threatened and humanitarian responses, already strained, are being stretched to their limit. While some are turning away, the UK with our partners is doing things differently. The countries that we work with want modern, respectful partnerships rooted in shared interests.
As my noble friend Lord Collins’s consultation on Africa last year set out so clearly, all of this means that we need to forge new alliances and work with developing countries in a different way. We have a new approach, one that channels aid to a more focused set of priorities over the next three years and moves us beyond being a donor to focus on spurring new investment, providing the expertise that enables countries to build up their own capacities and that helps countries and communities thrive without aid. It is essential that we streamline an inefficient, insufficiently co-ordinated system that places an unnecessary burden on partner countries.
This was at the heart of this week’s global partnerships conference, which brought together Governments, international organisations, civil society, businesses, technology and philanthropy. We must draw on the strengths that everyone has to offer: the richness of innovation that diverse coalitions bring to even the toughest problems. Working together collectively, respectfully and through mutually reinforcing partnerships is the only way that we will tackle the global challenges of today. Together, we agreed a new compact: not a typical negotiated text, but a synthesis of what partners have told us across its themes of finance, technology, and shifting the power: a shared commitment to working faster, more openly and in true partnership in the decades ahead. That will provide the framework for us to deliver a new way of working, a more responsive international system and improved financing. This will better meet the priorities and aspirations of partner countries and tackle the shared challenges of a new era, to forge new ties with growing economies and trading partners of the future.
Irregular migration is one such challenge, exacerbated by conflict, poverty and climate change. We have secured the return to France of over 600 migrants under the UK-France returns treaty; we have reached agreement with six African partners on improved processes to return those with no right to be in the UK; and we have deployed our new sanctions regime to target 55 individuals and entities to help break the business model of criminal gangs. But we need to go further, together with others, to raise our collective ambition on migration, supporting the security of our borders, the fabric of our democracies and the protection of those who need it.
Across all the priorities I have set out, there is one constant: we cannot meet any of these challenges alone. Our partnerships and alliances remain crucial to global growth and security and to our own growth and security. We will work through groups such as the G7 and the G20 to build and strengthen these alliances, collaborating to address issues of global importance that impact every household in the UK—whether that is working through the G7 to support Ukraine, keep the pressure on Russia and respond to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, or promoting policies to support growth, jobs and productivity through the G20. As His Majesty the King outlined in his Speech to Parliament, our G20 presidency in 2027 will place the UK at the forefront of driving global growth and stability, which is essential for the prosperity of working people across this country.
The world today is more fragile, contested and interconnected than ever. The breadth and complexity of the challenges we face underline why we must bring to bear all the tools at our disposal, integrating our diplomacy work with our efforts on development, defence, soft power and economic resilience. Only through this approach will we make progress. So, over our new parliamentary Session, the Government will seize every opportunity to advance our interests and uphold our values, using all the levers we have across government to strengthen our alliances, build new coalitions and shape solutions to the shared challenges we face. There is much for us to discuss, so I look forward to hearing your Lordships’ contributions and working with noble Lords to make the UK a stronger, safer and more prosperous place.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I start by expressing total agreement with the Minister on the fantastic success of His Majesty’s visit to the United States. We saw an increasingly rare moment of bipartisan support for his remarks in Congress; it was a tremendous visit that did the country great credit.
We have had four long days of debate on the shortcomings of the Government’s legislative agenda, so I would like to begin with one point of support for the King’s Speech. There was no Chagos Bill. The Chagos deal should be dead. That would be the right decision, and I know I speak for many noble Lords when I say that the decision should stand for the rest of this Parliament. The concerted efforts of noble Lords across the House showed just how effective our scrutiny role can be. Sadly, while that deal should be dead, we know that the Government’s policy is still to transfer sovereign British territory to Mauritius. That should change. That is the policy of the current Government, but we eagerly await the views of the “King of the North” on Chagos. Perhaps electors in Makerfield should ask him in some of the increasingly rare debates that might happen in that by-election. We wonder what the “King of the North” will have to say about Chagos in the south—although Makerfield was not part of Chagos last time I looked.
Could the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, in winding, reassure the House that the Government will go back to the drawing board and consider all their options afresh on this matter? Can he confirm that the proposal to resettle the Chagos Islands, previously considered by both Conservative and Labour Governments in the past, would cost a great deal less than the £35 billion current Chagos surrender deal? When we debated this before Prorogation, I asked the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, to update the House on the status of the Chagossians who had returned to their homeland on Peros Banhos. I wonder whether he could give us further updates.
We were grateful to receive his letter of clarification correcting the record on the right of settlement for Chagossians in the current treaty. However, when we asked him about the provision of humanitarian supplies, he used a very peculiar form of wording. He kept saying that he had been “assured by officials”. I wonder whether, since that debate, he has had the chance to check for himself the statements about whether the commissioner is withholding vital humanitarian supplies from those people. When we have asked questions about this, we keep getting an answer from the Foreign Office that it is a decision for the commissioner—yet, when we write to the commissioner, we do not get much clarification either. It is unusual that Ministers seem to be a bit reticent in clarifying this matter, so I wonder whether he could clear things up at the end of this debate.
I should also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Weir of Ballyholme, who is sadly not in his place, on his success in the Private Member’s Bill ballot. We have not yet seen the final text of his Bill, but the British sovereignty protection (Chagos Islands) Bill will be interesting to read and will enable us to show the Government once again just how strongly we feel about protecting our interests in that region.
The Chagos Islands are just one part of the world where British sovereignty needs defending. We are also facing pressure in Gibraltar and in the Falkland Islands. The British people expect their Government to stand up for their interests both at home and abroad. Gibraltarians and Falkland Islanders expect the British Government to stand up for them too. Could the noble Lord, when he winds up, reassure the House that His Majesty’s Government will continue to defend British sovereign territory and support our overseas territories whenever they are threatened?
Indeed, the Government made a manifesto commitment to this principle. I do not know whether it still applies to Mr Burnham, but they said in their manifesto:
“Defending our security also means protecting the British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies, including the Falklands and Gibraltar”.
The manifesto went on to say:
“Labour will always defend their sovereignty and right to self-determination”—
a point sadly lacking on Chagos. Nevertheless, that was the commitment that they made to the British people, and that is a promise that we expect them to keep.
On Gibraltar specifically, we are grateful to Ministers for making the draft EU-UK agreement in respect of Gibraltar available. It is right that Parliament has the time to scrutinise a treaty as complex as this in full detail. At the end of the debate, could the noble Lord confirm whether the final approved treaty will be laid before the House in June or July of this year? If it is laid in late July, there is a risk that we will not be able to satisfy the requirements of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 before the Summer Recess. What is the Government’s timetable for ratification of the treaty? Can the Minister also confirm whether the Government believe that additional enabling legislation will be required in this case, or is CRaG approval sufficient?
Turning to the Falkland Islands, I think we were all concerned by Argentina’s calls for talks on the future of the Falkland Islands some weeks ago, and the very concerning corresponding reports about the United States reviewing its position on the islands. I am pleased that the US Secretary of State has since downplayed these reports. I know that the Foreign Secretary has recently met the US Secretary of State, so could the noble Lord say what discussions Ministers have had with our American partners and what reassurances they have been given? The Falkland Islands are British. The Falkland Islanders overwhelmingly wish to remain British. Our allies and our Government should respect that. I hope that the Government and the Official Opposition are united on that matter. If that is the case, we will of course support the Government in its work to defend British sovereignty, both overseas and at home.
On international threats to our security, the conflict in Ukraine, which we have just discussed, remains fundamental. An expansionist Russia is a threat to our European security. I am proud of our record of support for Ukraine, and, notwithstanding their latest decisions, we have thus far been pleased to support the Government in their policy of support for Ukraine. Britain has, rightly, backed Ukraine throughout Putin’s war, and we must continue that support until Russia’s illegal invasion has been turned back—there have been some encouraging signs recently. Britain also has an important role to play in helping Ukraine’s recovery and the response to atrocities committed in that conflict.
I do not wish to return to the previous debate, but I was saddened that our excellent record on tough sanctions was blemished this week by the decision, which we discussed, to weaken restrictions on oil products originating in Russia. On the radio this morning, I heard the Chief Secretary to the Treasury saying, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Lloyd, that these temporary licences will be short lived. The noble Baroness used the expression that it could be only “a number of months”. I wonder if, at the end, the Minister could confirm whether the Government have a timescale for those licences to be revoked. It flies in the face of the Minister’s Statement on support.
On Iran, of course we cannot discuss the energy crisis without addressing that terrible conflict, which has had a major destabilising effect on economies all over the world. I suspect that we have not yet seen the full effects of that in the UK, and that we will see them in the months to come. As a result of our failure to secure domestic oil and gas supplies, we know that we are particularly exposed, but the impacts of this conflict go far beyond energy. It is essential that the Foreign Office works at pace, and in concert with other departments, to secure our supply of essential goods and particularly fertilisers—something that has not been remarked on nearly as much as energy but could be even more important.
We have also had questions all week about the risks of a super El Niño. Such a significant climatic event coinciding with oil and fertiliser supply issues, the Ebola outbreak and the conflict in Sudan is extremely concerning. I am sure that Ministers will want to take all necessary steps to put mitigations in place to protect British citizens from any potential impacts. The House would also benefit from a broader update on the Government’s approach to these issues.
On what is currently the world’s greatest humanitarian crisis, in Sudan, which the noble Baroness, the Minister, referenced, could we please have a further update from the noble Lord the Minister on what steps Ministers are taking to engage with our regional partners to help bring that terrible conflict to an end?
In the Middle East, the Israel-Gaza ceasefire, uneasy though it is, represents a significant step towards peace. While we have not been central to those negotiations, Britain still has an important role to play. His Majesty’s Government must be unequivocal on Israel’s right to self-defence while seeking a peaceful settlement in the region.
To that end, when the Minister winds up, will he take the opportunity to set out what difference the UK’s recognition of Palestine has made? It was seen by many as an inappropriate step that only continued to give legitimacy to Hamas, so what view do Ministers now have, a few months after that sad decision? It excluded us from the negotiations; Israel reacted very negatively, and any influence that we had with it was lost. I therefore do not see what difference it has made on the ground. Perhaps the Minister could update us at the end?
That conflict has, of course, had a profound impact on relationships between different groups in the UK, and we have seen a quite appalling rise in antisemitism in recent months. I am sure that the whole House will stand united against antisemitism. However, words are not enough. The rise in the hatred of Jews, which led to the violent and bloody assault of our neighbours in Golders Green and the murder of our fellow countrymen in Manchester, is appalling. It is targeted, it is driven and, sadly, it is on the rise in our country. With one voice and one accord, we must all act to eradicate this vile hatred in our land and reassert our true national values of tolerance and respect that have for so many years—indeed centuries now—made Britain a place where Jews feel safe and can prosper and thrive. I fully accept that domestic affairs are not the responsibility of the Foreign Office or the MoD, but we must never shy away from the relationship between that conflict and rising hatred in our own country.
I will end on China. The Chinese state has engaged in espionage in the UK—we have seen a number of cases recently, even here in Parliament—and Chinese state actors have been responsible for numerous cases of intellectual property theft and serious cyber attacks. Indeed, China has even sanctioned Members of your Lordships’ House, all the while it continues to persecute the Uyghur people in Xinjiang. I particularly want to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for his tireless campaigning for justice and an end to the repression of the Uyghur people. I am sure that he will refer to it in his remarks later.
We have constantly raised concerns about the establishment of a new Chinese mega-embassy on the Royal Mint site in the heart of the City of London. We continue to oppose that decision, and we will continue to call for the release of Jimmy Lai, who has been so appallingly treated by China. Could the Minister provide us with an update on Jimmy Lai’s case when he responds to the debate? While China poses such a significant threat to the UK, represses its own people and wrongfully imprisons Jimmy Lai, the Prime Minister continues to call for a thawing in our relationship. I completely accept that Britain must engage with China; that is clear. However, in our view, the Government’s approach is the wrong one; we need to treat China as the threat that it is.
We are facing many global threats, and the world feels less stable than it has been for a very long time. We must give clear moral leadership, and we must help to mitigate those threats. I have spoken about the approach that Britain must take towards the global challenges that we are facing, but, at its core, we know that British foreign policy cannot succeed unless we have the tools to defend our interests. That is why defence spending is an essential priority for the Government. I know that, towards the end of the debate, my noble friend Lady Goldie will focus on defence in her remarks. We are at a time of great uncertainty, and Britain has a role to play in securing a more stable future. We need the right strategy and the right tools if we are to achieve that. Therefore, we on this side of the House will remain critical friends to His Majesty’s Government, willing Ministers on to increase our defence spending, to mitigate threats posed by foreign states and, ultimately, to stand up for Britain’s interests on the world stage.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, one week ago, the day after the King’s Speech, a Russian drone destroyed a nine-storey apartment block in south-east Kyiv. Some 24 people were killed, including three teenage girls aged between 12 and 15. Some 18 apartments were destroyed, and yet more lives were shattered. Last Friday, the Ukrainian flag was removed from outside Essex County Council’s offices by the newly elected Reform UK administration in Chelmsford. I was pleased to see this roundly condemned by all other parties locally, including the Conservatives. I believe it is vital to maintain the cross-party support, including in your Lordships’ House, against the war in Ukraine. We need to maintain maximum pressure on the Putin war regime through all means possible, including an effective and punitive sanctions regime. In that regard, as my noble friend Lord Purvis made so very clear, yesterday’s announcement on sanctions is to be greatly regretted.
Last week, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights reported that, in the first four months of this year, 80% of civilian deaths in Sudan were caused by drone attacks, which killed at least 880 people. Some 26 civilians were reportedly killed in the Kordofan region on 8 May alone. On Monday this week, Lebanon’s health ministry reported that the number of people killed in Lebanon has passed 3,020—400 of whom have been killed since the ceasefire came into effect last month. I had the privilege of working in both Kyiv in Ukraine and Khartoum in Sudan, and I have many friends and former colleagues in both countries. It is always important to remember that, behind every statistic, there is a human face.
As the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, said, we are having this debate against a backdrop of tremendous uncertainty and instability, with ongoing wars in Iran, Ukraine, Sudan and the Middle East. All of these are amplified by the profound challenges caused by climate change and rapid technological change. This week, we saw a greatly emboldened President Xi of China meeting President Putin in Beijing, declaring a strengthened alliance between the two countries. In Russia, President Putin continues to clamp down on any credible opposition and free media. He is perhaps at his most dangerous when feeling under threat, as he faces Ukrainian long-distance drone attacks and a very gradual reversal of his advances in Ukraine, at a horrendous and growing human cost. It is hard to know the exact figures for the number of young Russian men killed, but the Economist this week has estimated that it might be as many as half a million lives lost.
Meanwhile, we are nearly 18 months into the second presidency of President Trump, which means that there are another two and a half years of his volatility and unpredictability to go. I add at this point congratulations from these Benches on the very successful visit of His Majesty the King. In the light of continued uncertainty about America’s commitment to NATO’s collective defence, our military needs urgent investment and renewal. The current Government inherited an Army at its smallest since the Napoleonic Wars and a Navy at its smallest since the English Civil War, yet the Government have moved far too slowly and timidly to rectify this.
I was struck by the speech last Thursday by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen. He made an incredibly powerful case for an all-society approach to rapidly rearming and reminded us that the UK is already “under attack”. As the current Prime Minister said at the Munich Security Conference earlier this year:
“Time and again, leaders have looked the other way, only re-arming when disaster is upon them”.
The Government must act now to commit to reaching 3% of GDP spending on defence by 2030. Liberal Democrats have called for cross-party talks to agree a consensus on how to reach that level of spending within that timeframe. I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to this suggestion in his closing remarks. Those of us who were privileged to hear the remarkable speech by President Zelensky to both Houses a couple of months ago could not help but be humbled by just how much we now have to learn from Ukraine about drone and robotics technology. In that regard, does the Minister agree that borrowing to invest in defence could support innovation and economic growth?
In my remaining time, I will touch on two other key areas: international development and our relations with the European Union. A couple of weeks ago, I was on a train from Calais to Boulogne-sur-Mer in France. As I was getting on the train, I realised that everyone around me was carrying a polythene bag with a large orange object in it. I eventually realised that these were in fact life jackets, and that my 50 or so fellow passengers were people who had failed to get on a small boat that day and so were returning to their camp near Boulogne-sur-Mer to try the dangerous crossing on another day.
I understand that this is an incredibly emotive and complicated issue. I live in Broadstairs on the Kent coast, and the reception camp for the migrants is incredibly near to where I live. I believe the Government are right to concentrate much of their efforts on stopping the appalling people smugglers and attempting to destroy their economic model. However, two things struck me looking at these dejected passengers on that train to Boulogne-sur-Mer.
The first was that they were desperate fellow human beings prepared to risk their lives. Sitting opposite me was a young man from Syria, with his baby strapped to his front. A boat ran aground and sank off the coast of Boulogne-sur-Mer that very morning, killing two women, I later learned on the BBC website. The second thing that struck me is that we rightly talk a lot about the pull factors to the UK and the people smugglers who benefit at the cost of human lives, but we talk rather less about the push factors that cause many to want to leave their countries in the first place: the drought, the famine, the desperation and the wars—wars that are sometimes proxy wars started by far-off countries.
Not long ago, we were proud global leaders in the world on development assistance, with all mainstream parties jostling to claim the credit for reaching the 0.7% target of GNI, including the Conservative Government at that time. Our global assistance is currently 0.3%, as the Minister said in her opening remarks, but there are rumours that it could fall much further. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm in his closing remarks the projected percentage by the end of this year and into next year.
The removal of USAID is having a dramatic and awful impact on the prevention of diseases such as HIV, TB and, as has been said, currently Ebola, in sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere. The policies of President Trump have acted as a green light to other countries to follow in his slipstream. It is, I fear, short-term populism that will have long-term and disastrous consequences—consequences that will be felt by this country too. We can hope that a future US Government will change and that we will see a return to a revised world order based on a rules-based approach and a generous approach to international development. However, to refer to the much-quoted speech by Mark Carney at Davos this year,
“hope is not a plan and nostalgia is not a strategy”.
The UK needs to think again about our place in the world and our alliances. We need to prepare now for tomorrow’s uncertainties. Our economy, security and defence are inextricably linked to our European partners. As Mark Carney and others have said, we should also reach out to those middle powers that share our values, such as Canada and Ukraine.
That brings me to my final point, about the EU. It is my hope that, one day, we can reunite properly with our EU partners. Where I live, in Thanet in Kent, 68% voted to leave the EU in 2016. But that was then and this is now, and it is increasingly hard to find anybody who can find anything positive to say about the decision of 10 years ago. Some 10 years on since the Brexit referendum, I believe it should be less a question of whether we were wrong in 2016 and more a question of what is in the national self-interest 10 years from now, in 2036.
Today, I hope to become a great aunt for the first time—my niece is about to give birth as I speak. What will make this a better country for that little boy being born today? The European Union 10 years from now will be a very different place. Nobody wants to repeat the stale, old and tired arguments of the referendum 10 years ago, but I sincerely hope that a future EU, with Ukraine at its eastern edge, will include our country to its west.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, in his speech at the Munich Security Conference in February, the Prime Minister warned of the dangerous time in which we live. He went on to say:
“In the 1930s, leaders were too slow to level with the public about the fundamental shift in mindset that was required. So we must work harder today to build consent for the decisions we must take to keep us safe”.
Wise words—which makes the deafening silence that has followed all the more astonishing. Where is the national conversation that we were promised and that is crucial to convincing people, most particularly the younger generation—not to mention the Treasury—of the need to face squarely the perils ahead? At the moment, it is nowhere, and certainly not in the gracious Speech. So perhaps I can help the Minister who will wind up by suggesting some key elements that should underpin such a conversation.
The first is to remind people of what the Athenians taught the Melians during the Peloponnesian war: the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. If we allow ourselves to become weak, our good intentions will count for nothing. The only intentions that will have any meaning will be those of the powerful, and, if those intentions are malign, we will just have to suffer them. The second point is that our strength is directed towards and essential to the deterrence of major conflict. Weakness makes war more, not less, likely—either that or abject surrender to the demands of an aggressor. Effective deterrence is expensive, but a failure of deterrence far more so, and the horrendous costs are then paid in blood as well as in treasure.
Effective deterrence occurs in the mind of a potential adversary: they must be convinced that malign action on their part will result in consequences that will be unacceptable to them and that conflict will result in their defeat, no matter what measures they pursue. They must therefore be clear that we have the full range of capabilities and the political will to ensure such an outcome.
Strength is of course enhanced by acting in concert with others, which is why NATO remains crucial to our security, but membership of an alliance does not absolve us of the need to pull our weight. To our shame, we are slipping well down the weight scales within NATO. Moreover, it makes no sense for NATO to rely upon a single-source supplier for crucial strategic capabilities, as we do upon the United States. This is not just a matter of one unpredictable Administration: come the day they are needed, those capabilities may be unavailable or diminished for all sorts of reasons. NATO needs to be much more resilient to such uncertainties, and this means that European members must develop alternative sources of such strategic capability, most of which will be beyond the reach of any individual nation. European partnerships to fund, develop and operate those capabilities are urgently required, but the capabilities that are necessary for victory will not all be present at the start of any conflict, either in nature or in quantity.
It is notable that many of the systems and methods that the Ukrainians are now employing so successfully against the Russians did not exist four years ago. The lesson here is that we need in Europe an agile, innovative and rapidly scalable industrial base—not, I should note, just traditional defence companies—that can rapidly adapt to the circumstances of a conflict and produce at large scale the technologies crucial to success.
The final point is that properly resourced military forces of appropriate size are essential but not by themselves sufficient for effective deterrence. Our political system, social structure and domestic infrastructure need to be resilient to the attacks they are already suffering, which would increase manifold in the lead-up to and during any conflict. Weakness in this area undermines our deterrent posture. As the Government’s own defence review made clear, we currently have shortfalls in many of the requirements for effective deterrence. We must make good those deficiencies as a matter of urgency, not just articulate vague aspirations for the future. That means fiscal choices that may be hard politically but are obvious in logic. It is a choice between pain now and a likelihood of catastrophe in the future. This is the message our political leaders must take to the country. These are the measures on which they must deliver. Yes, it will be a challenge, but it is one to which they must rise. It is time, indeed beyond time, for them to lead.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, said about the vile harm of increasing antisemitism in our nation. I am glad that widespread condemnation is being matched by solidarity and community action. I also welcome what the Minister said about working for and recognising a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine, but ask that urgent attention be given to the threat posed by the E1 developments in the West Bank, which would imperil such a solution.
We on these Benches have lamented the retreat from the commitment to 0.7% equivalent of GDP on development aid to 0.5% and then further to 0.3% under successive Governments, and the very real impact this has had around the world in the serious deterioration in health, education and nutrition, not to mention the significant diminution of our global reach. I welcome the Minister’s clarification of the Government’s intentions in what was said in the gracious Speech about taking action to reduce humanitarian need and conflict around the world.
Many in this House will have read the report in the Times on Monday of 51 military veterans, including Field-Marshal Lord Richards—the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Richards—a former Chief of the Defence Staff, Major-General James Cowan, who commanded the British Army’s primary fighting division, and General Sir Nick Parker, former commander-in-chief of land forces, protesting this latest cut. They argue, with the considerable expertise and wisdom at their disposal, that to force a choice between development aid and defence spending, the increased need for which I do not doubt, is a false economy.
To live in a world where state and non-state actors are more aggressive, where one of our principal allies is ever more unpredictable, where water resources are contested, where climate change drives food insecurity and where other states begin to fail is to live in a world that is increasingly more threatened with incipient and real conflict. To cut aid contributes to instability and insecurity. It means a vast erosion of this country’s soft power in a new era when, having exited a foundational political partnership, we increasingly find ourselves acting alone. The inescapable logic of Brexit is that we need to compensate by spending more on defence, more on aid, more on diplomatic representation and more on the BBC to maintain our influence in the world. What we are doing is planning to increase the first while cutting all the rest. Surely the lesson of history is that there is a complex interplay between power and influence. Neither should be neglected. I hope that His Majesty’s Government will think again.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to speak in this debate. This week, as the right reverend Prelate has just referenced, some of our most experienced former military chiefs wrote:
“When crises are left unaddressed, they do not stay distant for long”.
One of the most important lessons in foreign and security policy that I learned in my years as the EU foreign policy chief was the connection between what we call the three Ds: development, diplomacy and defence. When the leadership of Operation Atalanta to combat piracy off the coast of Somalia rested at NATO in Northwood under British command, I would hear time and again that solutions to piracy “lie not at sea but on the land”. Military leaders pushed for greater efforts to rebuild Somalia, to provide alternatives to teenage boys persuaded into piracy on the promise of $10,000 if they succeeded in capturing a vessel, and to engage in more effective diplomacy to get others to support our military and civilian missions. Their determined, highly effective military operations could ultimately succeed only if the range of foreign, security, development and defence capabilities worked together. I hope that my noble friends share the assessment, in their new modernised approach, that the three Ds are not interchangeable but part of the same comprehensive approach.
We cannot spend what we do not have, and streamlining, reviewing and modernising what we do is a vital part of good government. Massive effort is now needed to bring our defence capabilities to where they should be but, necessary as that is, it is insufficient in tackling the crisis we face. When crises are left unaddressed, they do not stay distant for long. If we seek an example, we need look no further than the Strait of Hormuz, a 104-mile stretch of water full of small coves, narrow in many places, and now the subject of one of the worst standoffs in my experience of foreign policy.
My experience of negotiating with Iran over four years to reach the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, as chair and lead negotiator, gave me useful lessons not just for Iran. The Iranians now engaged in negotiations are quite familiar figures, not least Abbas Araghchi, the Foreign Minister, though they are probably now more constrained by hardliners who stand beside them or behind them. They have some experience, but so do we. I often describe the Iran deal as a jigsaw puzzle. Put together, it creates a picture. In 2015 the picture showed that we could be confident that Iran was not building a bomb. It was not. The picture was made up of pieces covering different parts of the deal, including levels of enrichment, types of centrifuges, stockpiles and heavy water reactor capabilities, inspection and monitoring regimes and more. The deal began from knowing what our objectives were.
The challenge now is that the reasons for the war, and therefore the problems to be addressed, seem to fluctuate—getting rid of an oppressive leadership, freeing the people, continuing to degrade and dispose of any nuclear weapons capability, preventing support to proxies, or some version of all of these. The vital first jigsaw puzzle piece, the opening of the Strait of Hormuz, which requires detailed, hard negotiation, does not of itself settle any of these underlying issues.
I ask my noble friend to lay out what proposals we are making to the countries most concerned with the negotiations, from the United States and of course Israel to Pakistan, the Gulf countries, Turkey, India, China and others. I worked with six nations on behalf of the United Nations, but I engaged with 20 more in pursuit of the agreement. There is much we could offer, so perhaps he can tell your Lordships’ House what exactly we are doing.
Finally, as my noble friend the Minister said, there is nothing that we can deal with alone. Foreign policy is domestic, not remote. We cannot keep people safe, offer opportunities or grow our economy without collaboration. The closer the collaboration with the like-minded the better, and that means Europe. Going back to the past is not an option—the world has moved on—but having a plan to get to a much better place is a must.
I am not arguing here for rejoining the EU, but perhaps the Government could be a little more careful in talking about our red lines as though they somehow will prevent what I see as a tidal wave of anger and resentment at being let down in so many communities. People want to see better living standards; that is impossible without better economic growth. They want to see a better life. I hope that my noble friends will take these comments in the spirit of willing them on in the tough decisions that lie ahead. The Government need to be as clear as they can be why foreign policy is about domestic issues and why engaging and showing leadership in taking tough decisions is more vital than ever.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, who speaks on these matters with great authority, and I agree with what she said about Iran.
I am not an expert on defence, and I have rarely troubled your Lordships with my views on defence. Indeed, I had hoped that all I needed to do today would be to get up to say how much I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, said in the debate on the gracious Speech on Thursday, and promptly sit down again. I very much agree with what the noble Lord said, and indeed with what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, told us just a few moments ago.
Last Thursday the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, said that
“we are underprepared, we are underinsured, we are under attack and we are not safe”.—[Official Report, 14/5/26; col. 86.]
I agree. Of course we must spend more money on defence, but the noble Lord, in his contribution on Thursday, concentrated his fire on the Treasury. I have some sympathy with the Chancellor, whose room for manoeuvre is very limited, so where is the extra money to come from? We are spending far too much on welfare, but the Government have demonstrated that they are incapable of reducing our welfare bill.
Here is something that can be done: the Prime Minister—and only the Prime Minister can do it—today could ask every department to reduce its spending by 1%, and in future years within the plan period by 1% off the current plans. That would not be easy; it would involve painful decisions. But I have been a departmental Minister, and I know it could be done. It would raise a substantial amount of money. If that reduction were to be applied to the relevant departmental expenditure limits, it would raise £6.7 billion in the current year, rising to £7.5 billion in 2030-31, a total of £35.6 billion over the plan period. It would give some meaning to the oft-repeated declarations by the Prime Minister and other Ministers that defence must be an overriding national priority. It would give meaning to the Prime Minister’s statement in his introduction to the strategic defence review that it was his
“first duty … to keep the British people safe”.
But that is only half the answer. What is the money to be spent on? Three months ago, I was in Ukraine with a number of colleagues from the other place. We learned of the extraordinary way in which Ukraine has transformed modern warfare. We were told about the robots that can travel 20 kilometres and blow up Russian command posts, we were told of the occasions when Russian troops have surrendered to these robots, and of course we were told about drones.
A few weeks ago, I was at a gathering when I had the temerity to suggest that I did not see a great deal of evidence that the British Army was learning the lessons of the war in Ukraine. A very senior officer was present, and he berated me for my ignorance and told me that I did not know what I was talking about. I am quite used to being berated for my ignorance, so I did not take offence. A few days later, I was in the company of a less senior officer but someone who was nevertheless in a position to answer two specific questions that I put to him. Does the British Army have any robots of this kind? His answer was no. Do you know when the British Army will have robots of this kind? His answer was no.
In my ignorance, it seems to me that these different reactions are not entirely consistent with each other. I hope the Minister will put me out of my ignorance when he comes to reply to the debate and will explain how these different reactions can be reconciled with each other. I look forward to his response with great interest.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow a fellow Petrean, the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lympne, who I felt was in an almost emollient mood.
Nick Thomas-Symonds, the Minister for the Constitution and a fine academic historian—as it happens, he is an expert on Owain Glyndŵr, the last native Prince of Wales—told us last month that although the Government want to develop closer ties with the EU, any sort of deal that would lead to the UK and the EU entering even into the customs union was ruled out. Even a bespoke version, he said, such as the agreements the EU has with Turkey and Norway, would be “off the cards”. We might call that the Starmer line—a ticket for a day trip to Calais. Streeting wants to take us off on the grand tour on the Brussels express. Burnham, on the other hand, is seriously Augustinian in his approach: Lord, make me a pure European, but not just yet.
Where is the Labour Party going? In the other place the Foreign Affairs Committee, in an excoriating letter sent yesterday to Mr Thomas-Symonds, severely criticised the Government for their
“secretive, piecemeal and disjointed approach to negotiations with the EU”.
The letter said:
“The lack of a clear and comprehensive vision for the EU relationship will continue to hamstring the Government”.
That was a letter signed by Emily Thornberry.
In the notes to the European partnership Bill published last Wednesday, the Government say:
“Businesses across the UK tell us they are being held back by red tape when trading with Europe”.
It is not red tape that is holding back businesses; it is the Government’s red lines inscribed in that medieval manuscript that would appeal to the historical interests of Mr Thomas-Symonds, the cobwebbed Labour 2024 election manifesto.
Say it out loud: the Brexit experiment has failed. True, the Pied Piper has led us the way to gold, but it is gold bitcoins for the man playing the alluring pipes—it is Nigel’s gold. The Government tell us, in the notes to the Bill, that the loss to our gross domestic product could be as much as 8%. The trumpets last week sounded out fanfares for just a 0.6% increase in growth in the last quarter—the highest rate, they boasted, in the G7. That is only 2.4% in a year. It does not begin to make up the 8% we have lost already.
Next month, as my noble friend Lady Suttie reminded us, it will be 10 years since David Cameron’s referendum. At that time, we were safe behind the bulwark of NATO. International trade was based on the rule of law. Putin’s ambitions in Ukraine still seemed limited to its Russian-speaking borders and the Middle East was quietening down. Those who promoted Brexit relied on our special relationship with the USA for security and prosperous markets. We would, they promised, be free to cut unique special deals around the whole world. It has not happened. These assumptions have proved false.
The world today is a very different place. Trump has torn up the rules with his stupid tariffs. He is pursuing military glory for his own vanity. He has weakened the American commitment to NATO and destroyed the capacity of the USA to give moral leadership to the world. The Liberty Bell is well and truly cracked and rings with a jangled sound. Meanwhile, Putin and Xi have discovered eternal friendship in each other’s arms. I say to whoever sits in No. 10 in a month’s time: be bold. Go for the single market and the customs union and follow the road once again to full partnership with Europe, with full participation in decision-making and administration. Take the lead as we in Britain used to do. Owain Glyndŵr could have made a better case for it. It is back to the future time.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. As the gracious Address rightly notes, antisemitism, political fragmentation and alienation are challenges that demand we work far harder to renew our institutions and put the national interest first. Two issues that I want the Government to address are resilience and dependency.
The most pressing challenge is the deadly quartet—as the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, referred to them—of Russia, China, North Korea and Iran. I have some skin in the game as I have collected sanctions from each of them. Their lethal challenge to the liberal democratic order represents one of the most severe threats since World War II. Consider how that axis works. It utilises Hong Kong, for instance, for the shadow fleet of tankers selling oil to China and for companies producing tech parts found in Iran’s drones and ballistic missiles. The BBC reports that at least 11,000 North Korean soldiers have been sent to fight for Putin in Ukraine—some have been used as human minesweepers. Iran has provided Putin with weapons, ammunition and technology. In facing this axis, our national resilience undoubtedly needs to be bolstered by increased defence spending now, before it is too late, and by a coherent strategy to defend our citizens and values.
In travelling through many dictatorships, including the former Soviet Union, Burma, North Korea and China, I have seen at first hand an inspiring desire for the liberties we often take for granted. That desire is exhibited courageously in Ukraine and vibrantly in Taiwan. On Monday, I co-chaired a meeting in Parliament addressed by Thae Yong-ho. He was the deputy North Korean ambassador in the UK and defected in 2016, choosing democracy over dictatorship. We discussed a United Nations commission of inquiry report documenting North Korea as a state that
“does not have any parallel in the contemporary world”.
The report called for its crimes against humanity to be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court. It never has been. In its political prison camps, hundreds of thousands continue to perish. This is a country where a 22 year-old boy was publicly executed for listening to South Korean music.
In China, I visited persecuted Christians, witnessed the suppression of Buddhists in Tibet and met Uyghur Muslims enduring genocide, as referred to earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan. In Hong Kong in 2019 as an international election monitor, I saw an unprecedented turnout, with pro-democracy candidates gaining a landslide victory in the city’s last fair and free elections. The CCP communist regime responded by destroying “one country, two systems”, disqualifying elected legislators, enacting the national security law and imprisoning up to 1,900 political prisoners in Hong Kong. They include people such as the young man Joshua Wong and the remarkable British citizen Jimmy Lai, who, unless released, will undoubtedly die in solitary confinement.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I have the privilege to chair, identified China, in its report on transnational repression, as the greatest internal threat and called for it to be placed in the advanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. In our report on supply chains and slave labour, we called for radical change to the Modern Slavery Act to prevent slavery in global supply chains. Will those recommendations feature in forthcoming legislation?
For British industry to be able to provide jobs and to compete, there must be an end to unfair competition based on slave labour. Resilience demands that we address a trade deficit of £43.5 billion with China rather than adding to it. We must urgently wean ourselves away and trade instead with partners such as Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, India and other emerging democracies. Our ability to rebuild a resilient manufacturing base, to compete fairly and to protect jobs against rising unemployment will always be compromised by states such as China that use slave labour. As the JCHR report on supply chain transparency and my amendment to the Energy Act made clear, national energy resilience cannot be dependent on solar panels made by Uyghur slave labour.
The dangers of the moment, including prohibitive energy bills, also require us to open new gas and oil fields and responsibly utilise natural resources. As with the challenge from AI, currently being examined by the JCHR, we risk making the same mistake of the 1980s of too rapid deindustrialisation and using state handouts, which are no substitute for the dignity of work. No one should be better off on benefits than in doing a day’s work.
A resilient democracy must bolster its citizens and its international alliances, acting confidently in promoting the rule of law and democratic values. To that end, the Government should accept, for instance, the JCHR recommendation to extend universal jurisdiction against perpetrators of mass atrocity crimes, an issue to which I will return in the balloted debate which I have secured for 4 June and through my Private Member’s Bill on genocide determination. I hope that, when those measures come forward, the Government will demonstrate that they mean what they say when, in the words of the gracious Address, they will take measures which contribute to the UK’s
“strength on the world stage”.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, it is an honour to speak in this debate on the gracious Speech and to follow the noble Lord. I must congratulate him on his collection of sanctions.
We live in a fragile world in which democracies and rights are being threatened. Currently, there are 116 million displaced people in the world. That number will grow as a consequence of crises and climate change. It is a difficult, dangerous world in which the NATO summit in Ankara will be crucial. It comes at a time when America’s commitment is uncertain and their troops on our continent are decreasing. The other key conference is on the EU reset. I associate myself wholeheartedly with everything that my noble friend Lady Ashton of Upholland said on that.
Bilateral relationships are of the utmost importance. I am delighted to serve as co-chair of the British-Spanish Tertulias, which was established in the 1980s when Spain joined the European Union. This strengthens ties between our countries, bringing together people from the worlds of politics, business, academia and civil society. We share many challenges with Spain and often we find common solutions. Both our political systems are increasingly afflicted by populism.
There are also notable policy differences—for example, on immigration, on which there is a pressing need in this country for more coherent, joined-up thinking across government departments. I struggle to believe that the FCDO was fully aligned with the Home Office’s recent decision to ban visas for students from Afghanistan, Cameroon, Myanmar and Sudan, including those awarded Chevening scholarships. Will my noble friend the Minister say how this visa brake, which denies opportunity to individuals amid humanitarian crises, is consistent with the Government’s stated commitment to support fragile and conflict-affected states, and particularly their focus on women and girls? Scholarships are not only transformative for brilliant students but are a powerful instrument of British soft power.
The FCDO has embarked upon a major restructuring programme. I fully recognise the need for decisions to be grounded in robust evidence, for greater use of technologies and for efficiency to deliver value for money, but I am concerned that huge cuts risk inflicting long-term damage on our diplomatic service, which commands global respect. In an increasingly complex and unstable world, the skills of diplomacy are more important than ever; they must not be eroded. I would be grateful for reassurance from my noble friend that diplomacy remains a core priority.
Some of the reductions stem from concerning cuts to development aid. I too recognise the need for a new approach, but the figures are stark. The reduction to 0.3% of GNI by next year in reality means that only 0.24% will be spent internationally. It is imperative to increase defence spending to safeguard our national security, but international development and security are intrinsically linked. Aid is an essential tool of security and prevention, helping to stabilise fragile regions and to address the root causes of conflict and irregular migration before they impact directly on the United Kingdom. I thank my noble friend for her work in this area, including her efforts to secure increased UK funding for OCHA.
I am proud of the Prime Minister’s global leadership on Ukraine, including the initiative to establish the coalition of the willing, which is vital for not only Ukraine but the security of our country and our continent. I commend his leadership on Iran in resisting calls for engagement advanced by the Opposition, President Trump and his henchman in this country, Nigel Farage. Until recently, it would have been unthinkable for the United Kingdom to diverge so markedly from the United States, which is now at best an unreliable partner and at worst increasingly hostile to the international order it once helped to uphold—an order which, in Mark Carney’s words, is not coming back.
The special relationship is perhaps no longer so special and our most important strategic relationship must increasingly be with the EU. NATO remains at the cornerstone of our defence, but I would be grateful for an update from the Minister on progress on negotiations for the United Kingdom to participate in the EU’s €90 billion loan facility for Ukraine. Like everybody else, I support an increase in defence expenditure. I am rather dismayed that the national conversation proposed in the strategic defence review, which is essential, has not yet been forthcoming. It is urgent and it is one of the few defence initiatives that can be delivered at little or no cost. I am sure we would all want to contribute.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
My Lords, I want to talk about the war in the Gulf. I do not often agree with Rachel Reeves but I had some sympathy with her when she told her opposite number in America that the war in Iran had made the world more dangerous. The Iranian regime is murderous, duplicitous and criminal. Regime change is something profoundly to be wished for, but this is not the way. It has to come from within.
The economic effects of the war could be far-reaching. It is not just fuel but, as my noble friend Lord Callanan pointed out, food. The Gulf is at the heart of the global fertiliser market, where many producers depend on gas. As we approach the planting season, if that is delayed then we could see something more serious than just shortages.
President Trump has started a war he does not know how to end. The war is justified on two dubious claims. First, there was no imminent threat to the US. Joe Kent, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, made that crystal clear in his resignation speech. Equally, Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, in her evidence to Congress made clear that Iran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, said, this war had no clear objectives when it started, and now the objective is to get back to where we were before it started.
The President seems to see two options: escalation or economic attrition. It remains unclear whether the US blockade of Iran will force Iran to capitulate more quickly than Iran’s blockade of the rest of the Gulf will hurt its neighbours. For the American blockade to succeed, it has not just to cause hurt but to bring the regime in Iran to its knees—a higher threshold. On escalation, the US can reduce Iran to a pile of rubble, but the consequences could be as dangerous as they were in Iraq. The last thing that the Middle East needs is another failed state. The CIA apparently has warned that bombing again would probably lead to a wider conflict and, even worse, damage further the infrastructure of the neighbouring Gulf countries. It is a grim situation and it could all have been avoided.
The tragedy is that we had, in 2015, a nuclear agreement—for which I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton—which Iran observed, submitting to rigorous international inspection and confining enrichment to low levels. President Trump chose to tear up the deal. Why? For no reason, apparently, other than that it was President Obama’s deal. Unsurprisingly, the Iranians then reacted by enriching to much higher levels while emphasising that this policy was reversible if the West came back to the negotiating table.
Is a deal possible today? The JCPOA ought to provide the template. Both sides, according to reports, have dropped some red lines. According to some, America is now pressing not for a ban on enrichment but for a number of years without enrichment. The Iranians have sent proposals through Pakistan to negotiate in phases. A phased agreement is indeed a possibility, as it would give the opportunity to build some trust. Reports say that US intelligence agencies have been asked to analyse the effects of the President simply declaring victory and withdrawing from the conflict. No one wants to see America humiliated or Iran strengthened, but the alternative of restarting the war and the bombing is not the answer. It would be futile. In the end, after more fighting and more deaths, there would be negotiation—better to start now and let diplomacy have its day. Better jaw-jaw than war-war.
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, now a fellow traveller on the International Relations and Defence Committee. I draw the attention of the House to my relevant defence-related commercial interests, particularly my role as chairman of Defence Holdings PLC and as European defence adviser to Blackstone.
Unsurprisingly, I want to confine my comments on the gracious Speech to defence-related issues, and with due humility, because whenever I stand to speak and look around this Chamber I still feel young. I thought I might start by offering some thoughts on leadership. Among the many famous dictums on leadership sits Napoleon Bonaparte’s view that a leader when faced with a difficult or indeed potentially catastrophic situation had a duty to his army and his country to do two things. The first was to establish the truth and the second, in the context of that truth, was to offer hope. To explain this a little more fully, the truth I am talking about is not some sort of confected delusion or some exercise in self and public deception; rather, it is the ugly reality that only brutal honesty can lay bare.
Only in the context of unvarnished truth is it possible to offer practical hope. To explain, the hope that I am talking about is not some passive form of wishful thinking akin to optimism, nor some alchemy dreamed up by the authors of the defence strategy publications. Rather, the military idea of hope is a combination of desire, positive expectation and some action. Hope is a motivating force that provides both strength and resilience in uncertain times.
In the context of defence, the gracious Speech undoubtedly nodded in the direction of some truth. It talked of dangers and threats, but the narrative of peril was completely neutered, because it so obviously sat in the wider context of government inaction on funding the latest strategic defence review. We need to do much better.
I offer some selective views on both truth and hope. The first truth is that the dangers we face are more complex, active and potentially existential than we realise. I say this because the threats are not only military ones that can be identified and physically defeated; rather, they are also threats to the resilience of our critical infrastructure, the integrity of our society and the values we hold dear and want to live by.
The second truth is that our defence capability is in a mess. Not only are our Armed Forces woefully underresourced, but they have been procured for a different world, age and mindset. We remain the prisoners of our remarkable national story. We cling to the totemic symbols of global authority: our nuclear deterrent, aircraft carriers, fifth generation jet fighters and exotic platforms—the global projection of hard power. I am not saying that many of these things are not needed, but by the time such things are paid for, there is little left over for the conventional combat readiness which is the baseline requirement of credible deterrence on a localised basis.
This leads to the third hard truth: our pretensions to NATO leadership, a core aspiration of the last defence review, are frankly laughable. The same is true of some of our other pretensions; for example, to the status of a technological superpower. In short, the British public have been subject to 25 years of delusion and to quote my friend—he has been oft quoted today—the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, we now find ourselves
“underprepared, underinsured and under attack”,
and we are not safe—that is the truth.
In respect of hope, however, I can offer some more positive thoughts. In respect of the threat, I do not personally worry that Russian paratroopers are imminently going to land in Kent or roll tanks up to the gates of Paris. The wars in Ukraine and now Iran have demonstrated the inherent advantages of defence over attack. We can triage the threats of the moment and should prioritise our support to Ukraine and the desperate need to build national resilience and ameliorate the more critical risks to our societal integrity.
We need to spend more on warfighting readiness to contribute to more credible deterrence, to help build back some international respect and to better justify our leadership credentials. I do not accept this as being unaffordable. Affordability is a political choice. Moreover, if the future promises on defence funding are realised, our challenge is more one of timing than money. I am intimately aware that private equity recognises the need for, and mutual benefit of, investing in defence and the stability it helps ensure, and it is keen to make that investment quickly.
Finally, we should all continue to recognise that, in human terms, and despite the neglect we have subjected them to, we continue to have in our Armed Forces a most remarkable national asset. We owe it to them to tell the truth and to offer them some hope—the hope that their service deserves. So I am not downhearted and without hope, although I am mightily frustrated that the political elite of my nation seems to spend the majority of its time convulsed in wholly meaningless distractions. There is an urgent need to be honest with the nation about our predicament and to offer it hope through practical action. This should now be the Government’s cohering purpose.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, “know thyself” was the message of the oracle at Delphi, and it was good that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, enabled us to puncture some of our national delusions, and I follow him in that. It was unusual and significant that the gracious Speech began with a sentence on the “dangerous and volatile world” in which we live. Indeed, the forward perspective is very bleak. Our hope for a peace dividend has gone and has been replaced by wars, rumours of wars and dangers to the global South, including the danger of famine.
It is no longer possible for international affairs to be considered self-contained. We saw, for example, in the local elections on May 7, the extent to which Gaza was a significant factor. The old attempts to isolate national and international affairs are no longer. It is also so sad to see the rise of antisemitism in this country. We should bless the contribution of our Jewish community to the position of this country over very many years.
The old certainties have gone, and the post-war settlement is being undermined massively. Fundamental to the post-war settlement is the warmth of our transatlantic relations. Yes, there will remain co-operation, intelligence and massive cultural exchanges, but the old warmth has indeed gone. The US has questioned our role in the Falklands—which is a neuralgic issue for us in the UK—has threatened armed force against a NATO ally, Denmark, in respect of Greenland, and has erected tariff wars against its allies.
Is it just President Trump? No—the likely successor, Vice-President JD Vance, campaigned for the strongman Orbán in Hungary, a country I know well, having served there for two years. Equally, JD Vance is quoted as saying of Ukraine:
“I don’t really care what happens to Ukraine one way or another”.
The US, alas, is no longer a beacon on the hill. If NATO is indeed, as President Trump has said, a paper tiger, we must question whether we can rely on the US in the way we did in the past.
It must be extremely difficult for US ambassadors to follow the volatility of US foreign policy. US policy in Iran underlines this problem. It is a war of choice. There was no consultation. Was there any consultation when the US, on Tuesday this week, was about to renew its war on Iran or was blind support needed in spite of the lack of consultation?
Against this background, what way forward is there for us? Surely, the pivot should not now be to the Indo-Pacific. In my judgment, it should be to Europe—perhaps to broader Europe rather than just the European Union. That is the challenge that faces us. We must find means of defending ourselves.
On defence, I will say only that, like a number of colleagues, I endorse and adopt what my noble friend Lord Robertson said about our lack of preparation. In my judgment, a safer haven beckons. We need a closer relationship with Europe—it is a much safer haven for us—and we need to reduce our dependence on the US, but that will have to be done incrementally and over time. However, we need to build our relationship with Europe so that we can face the world together. In terms of that relationship we should be bolder and put the Ming vase back in the cupboard where it belongs.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, in our increasingly dangerous and volatile world, there is one conflict which does not get much attention from the media. The brutal conflict in Sudan is moving relentlessly into its fourth year, with little prospect of resolution for the world’s worst humanitarian crisis this century.
In April, the UNHCR representative in Sudan stated that 14 million people are now displaced and at severe risk of violence and food shortages every day. The Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces, along with their respective coalitions, remain focused on a military victory. Control of Sudan remains divided between the SAF, holding the north and east of the country, and the RSF, which is largely in command of the west. The key battlefronts continue to shift, with fighting now concentrated in the country’s centre and south-east. There is no sign that either side can fully defeat the other.
Until the rains come in June to September, there is likely to be intensified fighting to make territorial advances. But when the rains come and fighters are bogged down, there will not be any respite for civilians, who will suffer indiscriminate attacks on civilian infrastructure from the air, by drones sourced from outside Sudan. The UN fact-finding mission into El Fasher recently described the events as having “the hallmarks of genocide”, including mass killings, ethnic targeting and systematic sexual violence against women, girls and children.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, who opened the debate, has been generous with her time in briefing Peers, humanitarian organisations and members of the diaspora on the policies and actions of the UK Government in their efforts to ameliorate the humanitarian crisis. Her work is appreciated—but there is a “but”. So much more needs to be done to bring a period of recovery to the peoples of Sudan and security in that region; security there is crucial to us all.
When the Foreign Secretary attended the third International Sudan Conference in Berlin in April, she pledged to preserve £146 million of UK aid to support front-line aid workers providing life-saving support to Sudanese civilians. But it is telling that the conference was criticised by the Sudan’s SAF-aligned de facto Government and faced objections from the RSF’s Tasis coalition. The ministerial session at the conference failed to agree a joint communique and had to settle for a co-chair’s statement instead.
Regional interests in the Middle East, the Horn of Africa and the Red Sea continue to exert influence on Sudan’s fighting groups. What diplomatic progress have the Government been able to make in discussions with countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the UAE? The latter is often accused of providing military materiel to the RSF. Sudan has a troika, a quad and a quintet—groupings which lack co-ordination. What is the Government’s view about how to bring coherence to the discussions of those groupings?
When the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, replied to one of the Questions for Written Answer from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in April this year, she supported the quintet’s launch of an intra-Sudanese political dialogue on the basis that it could pave the way to a civilian-led transition in Sudan once a permanent ceasefire had been secured. Will the UK play any role in providing financial or diplomatic support for that process?
The UK has a very influential position as penholder on Sudan at the UN in New York and Geneva. So, can the Minister update the House today about the steps being taken diplomatically by the UK to support brave front-line responders such as the Emergency Response Rooms, prevent further casualties and secure a ceasefire and, ultimately, what appears at the moment to be an impossible-to-secure peace?
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, next year, the UK will host the G20 as its president, and the gracious Speech refers to the Government’s aim to use it to “reinforce global stability”. Today, I will focus on the Middle East and the need to rein in the Israeli Government if we are to create that stability.
Along with the US, the Israeli Government have embarked on one of the most reckless, ill-thought-out wars in recent history, with dire consequences for the global economy, the environment and the security of the region, as the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, set out. The Prime Minister was right in refusing to allow the use of British bases in mounting the attack on Iran. The Netanyahu Government concomitantly started a war in Lebanon that has killed many civilians and has occupied the south of the country. The ceasefire there, which the US eventually demanded, has been broken almost daily as the Israeli Government act with impunity. The ceasefire in Gaza is also in name only. Since its announcement, more than 600 Palestinians, many women and children, have been killed.
As 90% of the infrastructure has been destroyed, most Gazans live in tents, denied sanitation, adequate food and water and medical supplies because there is still insufficient access for the convoys. Again, the Israeli Government act with impunity. It is horrifying that they have moved to deregister international NGOs from operating in Gaza so that Gazans are denied the humanitarian services they desperately need. While Gaza remains an uninhabitable wasteland, no progress is being made in its reconstruction. What action are the UK Government taking to try to get this started?
Turning to the 60-year occupation of the West Bank, the UK Government rightly accept that it is illegal, as was confirmed by the ICJ in 2024. Meanwhile, the Israeli Government are pursuing a policy of annexation there, having encouraged over 100 new settlements, with some 750,000 settlers, on land which was owned by or is designated for Palestinians. House demolitions and ethnic cleansing, the theft of water and other resources, and vicious and unpunished settler violence are all commonplace. Again, the Israeli Government act with impunity.
Last year, the UK recognised the State of Palestine as a first step towards its implementation. The Israeli Government have announced their opposition and take steps to prevent it, despite widespread international support for a two-state solution in which the rights of Palestinians to self-determination are recognised. It is surely hypocritical to back two states yet to stand by while this progress is blocked. Can the Minister say what actions the UK is taking? Condemnation alone is not enough while the Israeli security Cabinet registers Palestinian land as Israeli state property. Annexation is a flagrant breach of international law.
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark touched on, the Israeli aim to bury the two-state solution by building the E1 settlement is unacceptable. Taking land designated for a future Palestinian state and making it unviable must be challenged. So will the Government warn that companies which bid for construction contracts there will put at risk their commercial interests in the UK? Will the Government also introduce a comprehensive ban on trade with illegal settlements, including services and investment as well as goods? Such trade prolongs unlawful occupation.
Finally, will the Government work with our EU partners in reconsidering the trade agreements with Israel? The EU and UK agreements have both been breached by the Israeli Government’s failure to respect human rights and democratic principles. It would also be helpful to hear the Government’s response to a letter in the Financial Times that was signed by 60 former UK ambassadors, which covered many of the issues that I have raised. Please will the Government demonstrate leadership on these issues in the run-up to the G20—in the interests of justice and peace in the Middle East?
Lord Razzall (LD)
My Lords, it will come as no surprise to people who have listened to me over the last few years that I, like my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, would like to talk in this context about our relationship with the European Union.
I could have spoken last week on the economic affairs debate, but I am speaking today on foreign affairs because I believe that our relationship with the European Union is the biggest long-term issue facing the United Kingdom. It is not just an economic issue. Can we really believe, as the Brexiteers wanted, that we can cut ourselves off from Europe and rely on our special relationship with the United States? We have a President there who has threatened to invade Greenland, who has started a war in Iran without consulting his NATO allies, who threatened to kick Spain out of NATO when it objected to the Iran war, and who has said that the US should think again about UK sovereignty in the Falklands. Can we really rely on the special relationship any more?
It is now 10 years since the referendum and, as various speakers on these Benches have indicated, Brexit has clearly failed. The limited economic advantages arising from our recent trade deals are more than offset, as my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford indicated, by the recent calculation, admitted by the Government, of an 8% cost of Brexit to UK GDP. Even the trade deals that have been done outside the framework of our membership of the European Union, including the one announced yesterday with the Gulf states, are merely a pinprick in relation to the overall 8% cost of Brexit. In this context, the Government’s approach to Europe is too restrictive, as shown in the European legislation in the King’s Speech. A reset of our relationship, bound by the rigid red lines on free movement and the customs union, is inadequate when Brexit is failing and the US is unreliable as a strategic partner.
My noble friend Lady Suttie, in her opening remarks, echoed the call by the former leader of our party, Nick Clegg, for a 10-year programme ending in rejoining the European Union. His thesis is that first we should negotiate to join a bespoke customs union. Then we should move on to join the single market. Ultimately, in 10 years’ time, we should apply for full membership. The public, as we have seen recently, are on the side of this approach. A recent poll showed that 55% of the electorate now want to rejoin the European Union. To the surprise of many, 63% want to return to free movement. This is supported, as we know, by the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, who unfortunately is not in his place.
The argument that the European Union will not want us needs to be taken with a pinch of salt, as indicated by my noble friend Lady Suttie. Over the next 10 years, the European Union will see fundamental changes, particularly with the admission of Ukraine, one of the world’s largest farming communities, which it is pressing for. We cannot yet foresee the impact that this will have on French and German farmers. However, following the admission of Ukraine, the EU will be a completely different entity from the one that we left. We will be not negotiating with the same institution.
Now is the time for the Government to be bold and not worry about the results of the Makerfield by-election.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
My Lords, as a response to the humble Address, I remind noble Lords of 8 May 1945. My sister and I were around at the time. There was a massive noise outside our house. We lived in London. My sister and I had been given the opportunity of going away but wanted to stay with our parents. My parents came in with a glass of sherry and said, “The war is over. We’re safe”. I remember that so clearly. What I had not realised is that when my parents talked about being safe, we had thought that the Germans were going to take over the whole of Britain at a particular time. We then were told that we were particularly safe because, being Jewish, quite a number of our family finished up in Auschwitz.
What I really want to say is that everybody here realises that today’s discussion is possibly one of the most important we have ever had. It is worth going back a wee bit to the words that we all say every year, and when I went away to military service we all said it then. On 11 November, we all stand to attention and somebody always says, “We will remember them”. To my mind, it is important for us all to remember.
Of course, many people have been slaughtered in many wars. We use the words “just war”, but what is a just war? My personal view is that the war at the moment in Iran is a just war. There is a moment in life when you have to make a decision because, when you go to war, large numbers of people will get hurt, wounded for life or killed. What is happening in trying to get Trump out of this war is, to my mind, totally justified. Ukraine should be supported totally.
On the attack on Iran—some of your Lordships may have seen the news that came through just a few minutes ago—the Iranian regime has totally refused to accept that it cannot have control of their nuclear capability. I know that there is a lot of feeling against President Trump—sadly—and what he is doing, but he is a great believer in trying to save lives. He has said many times that nearly 2,000 young people—Russians and Ukrainians from 17 years of age—are being killed every day that goes by. Somehow or other, that has to stop. In practice, once again, our support on that front is totally important.
I finish by saying that our noble Ministers—the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker—have heard many speeches today. It is not for me to talk about how they feel, but I would like to hope that they agree with the view that I have expressed: to save life in the ultimate is what we all try to achieve, but sometimes war is justified.
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
My Lords, when I read in the Times last week that the Prime Minister was going to announce an £18 billion increase in defence expenditure, I thought, “At last, the Government are going to put their money where their mouth is”. But, of course, I was disappointed. Once again, we are going to have to rely on words, which basically means that Britain’s reputation as a military power continues to go down the plughole. Not even the powerful and patriotic rhetoric of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, can do anything about that.
The figures speak for themselves. NATO data shows that, on a proportional basis, the United Kingdom was the 12th biggest spender last year, having been the third biggest in 2021. At present, we are spending 2.4% of GDP on defence, which is way below the target that we have set ourselves. Given how much the nuclear element takes up, the proportion going on conventional forces is little over 1%.
This not only means—as the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, so forcefully put it—being unprepared for war and finding it difficult to deal with the cyber and other espionage threats that already assail us, but makes a mockery of the Government’s ambition to play a leading role in foreign policy and security deliberations with our European allies. It explains, too, our pitiful lack of resources in the Middle East when the US and Israel attacked Iran. Of course, it also explains President Trump’s contempt for what we have to offer.
I do not blame this Government alone for the predicament we are in. It is the culmination of a long retreat. In 1998, the former United States ambassador to London, Ray Seitz, whom I hope others as well as I remember with affection and admiration, warned that “the British miniaturisation of its own Armed Forces” would lead to a reduction in British influence in Washington. Not only in Washington: the same applies in Europe, the Middle East, Asia and all over the world. By miniaturising our military, we are throwing away an invaluable diplomatic card. This Government are not the only ones to blame for us being where we are, but they are to blame for not doing anything to reverse the process.
The Government’s failure to rebuild our defence preparedness is not the only way that they are failing to provide for this country’s security; the failure fully to exploit our North Sea oil and gas reserves is another. Many noble Lords have spoken about this during the course of the week-long debate on the gracious Speech, so I will not labour the point. However, I will say that, whatever the security benefits of green energy and renewables in the long run, we shall need fossil fuels for a long time to come and it is in the interests of our own security that as much as possible of those fuels should come from our own resources in the North Sea.
Wood Mackenzie has estimated that, by 2035, we will be importing 60% of our LNG needs from the United States, versus 10% in 2026. I hate to say it but, when one sees how casually President Trump interrupts or impedes trade flows or takes other actions when an ally displeases him for some reason, how can we regard that as secure, quite apart from all the other dangers that threaten the international trade in oil and gas?
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I wish to raise three issues: Israel, Ukraine and defence expenditure.
Since 2022, I have been challenging in this House the billions being spent on the war with Russia, which I have repeatedly opposed in over 30 interventions in debate. Contributing to this crisis are our failures to hold in check American policy on NATO expansion, thereby breaching the neutrality of east European barrier states’ status, which is so important to Russia; our support for Ukraine membership of NATO, only later qualified; our failure to press for early withdrawal of the other battalions following the Maidan revolution; and, in my view, a complete misreading of events in Donetsk and Luhansk. The consequences of these policies have been not only economic but have enabled a powerful UK defence lobby to mobilise and use the crisis to demand increases in defence expenditure. I view Russia’s brutal, aggressive, war-mongering response and regrettable turn to the East and China to be a direct consequence of western miscalculation—all avoidable. Unfortunately, my Government have found themselves locked into this strategy.
I move on to Israel, the war and the Palestinian question. The debate has, unfortunately, become submerged in discussion over antisemitism, thereby diverting us from the real debate. It is hard to know where to draw the line, thus the dispute over the London marches. As a great admirer of Israel, which I first visited as a schoolboy in 1959, like many of my friends I am torn. Trump’s position, as set out in Jared Kushner’s paper on the vision for peace, is at the heart of the problem. The plan proposes a Palestine without borders, landlocked inside a greater Israel, with Palestinian enclaves under Israeli control. The plan, which is opposed throughout the Middle East, is further deepening and aggravating the existing conflict. In my view, the Government are right to keep out, and the Prime Minister has stood firm.
I move on to defence expenditure. I understand that my noble friend Lord Robertson of Port Ellen has proposed a 5% target. My 10 years on the Public Accounts Committee in the Commons, followed by my reading of the brilliant exposé on waste in defence procurement by Lord Levene of Portsoken, leave me wary of any demands for substantially increased resources. Yes, some increase is needed, and we are delivering, but I say that we should cut the overcharging, waste, gold-plating and contract revisions, and find another Peter Levene—and then we can talk.
Before we accept the notion of an increased worldwide threat, which I reject, we need to reflect on whether we would be credibly arguing for substantial increases if we were to settle the conflict in Ukraine as per Trump and then sought to influence Trump over Israel, seeking a more considered approach without our being accused of undermining Israel’s need for security. I strongly believe that, with careful diplomacy, we can reduce world tension. The question is whether the brilliance in diplomacy that characterised Foreign Office thinking over generations is still there. In my view, our mistake has been to fail to support Trump over Ukraine. That failure by the western democracies, in particular in Europe, has cost us dearly.
Trump is now questioning and challenging not only our wider European policy agendas but the relationship between America and Europe. The little Englanders who keep us outside of Europe should keep that in mind. Their case is dying on the cross of American isolationism. We should have supported Trump’s Ukraine initiative. If we had done so, we could have influenced the events in his war with Iran and probably the future of trading relations with the United States. Furthermore, perhaps as a consequence, we could have curtailed the opportunist relationship Russia is now developing with China, for which we bear some responsibility. When Russia finally implodes, the truth will no doubt come out. I know my views are minority views, but I thank the House for its tolerance.
Baroness Neville-Jones (Con)
My Lords, I disagree with a great deal of what the previous speaker has just said, but I am extraordinarily glad to live in a country where he has the right to say it and I have the duty to listen.
I will talk a bit about defence, like most Members taking part our debate on the King’s Speech, starting with the powerful contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen. He started by endorsing the Prime Minister’s comment in his introduction to the King’s Speech that the Iran conflict demonstrates the need for the UK to be stronger and to move with greater urgency. However, he also pointed out that the bit of the speech that should have told us how much the Government intend to spend on hard power appeared to be missing. I hope the Government will say something shortly. I wish that, among the 37 pieces of legislation on other subjects, they had been able to give us more news than we have had so far. Nevertheless, I am going to continue to assume that the Government are serious about defence, even if they are dangerously slow in getting active.
There is, and I worry about this, a growing strand of opinion in the country that asserts that NATO is now a busted flush, that the US is no longer a reliable ally and that we should look for our security somewhere else. I think that is a line of argument that we should be extraordinarily wary of and should be countering strongly—it does not make sense. With an overbearing Russia on our doorstep, underpowered Europeans cannot afford a divorce. Actually, if truth be told, the Americans need the facilities and the rights of passage they have with their European allies. They do not have an interest in the end of NATO, and divorce would be quite painful for them. I do not think that, as things stand, NATO will collapse, but that relatively reassuring state of affairs is not unconditional. It depends on what we do next, and particularly on what Europeans do next.
The international landscape in which NATO was originally built has shifted materially since the start of the change that was visible with Obama. Mr Trump’s behaviour has undoubtedly made adjustments to the new situation harder on both sides of the Atlantic than it need be, but we cannot complain about his exposure of the inadequacy of our defence efforts and our lack of political pulling power that results from that, which other Lords have also remarked on. While NATO is not a busted flush, there is a mounting crisis of credibility, so, with some exasperation, I ask the Government how long they will go on without doing much, if anything. The situation, as the Prime Minister said, is urgent.
The Government tell us that national security is their primary duty. They have accepted the wide-ranging and very insightful defence review conducted by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, but over a year later we still do not have the defence investment plan and the Government have not joined the EU’s defence, security and resilience bank. Serious spending on defence by the UK is backed up to the end of the cycle.
The important point is that our European neighbours are not waiting about; they are moving faster than we are. Each day news comes of agreements on kit that they will build and of the creation of bilateral corporate partnerships between them that will fulfil contracts. Many could turn out to be long term. The corporate structures could be set and the defence market opportunities could be cleaned out before the UK is ready to get going. Frankly, we risk being shut out.
This not only deprives us of the economic growth that the Government advertise that defence will bring to traditional defence-building regions of this country, which badly need the business; it is adversely affecting our claims to political influence and leadership inside the alliance. Our reputation took an embarrassing dent the other day with our pathetic performance in the Mediterranean. My plea to the Government is: we have the words; can we now have the deeds?
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, the gracious Speech said that His Majesty’s Government
“will continue to pursue foreign policy based on a calm assessment of the national interest”.
I hope that the Minister, when he calmly sums up this debate, will confirm that our national interest includes giving support to the State of Israel, however strong our criticisms may be of some—perhaps many—of the policies of the Netanyahu Government, and that it is in our national interest to oppose all those who seek to destroy the State of Israel.
On Tuesday evening, I attended the opening of an exhibition in London which bears witness to the massacre of young people enjoying the Nova music festival in southern Israel on 7 October 2023. On that occasion, 6,000 young people came to dance but, at 6.19 am, the festival was overrun by pure hatred. Hamas supporters raped, tortured, murdered and mutilated hundreds of people. One of those murdered was a British citizen, 26 year-old Jake Marlowe from north London.
Anyone who thinks that it is progressive for so-called freedom fighters to rape and murder partygoers, and anyone who doubts the atrocities committed that day, should attend that exhibition in Shoreditch—I hope all Members of the House will do so—if only for five minutes. Almost as painful as the reminder of the appalling events which occurred that day is the fact that in London—I emphasise: in London—in 2026, a massive police presence is required to protect the exhibition and those attending from attack by antisemites.
I focus on the Nova festival because it is a symbol of the true values which Israel shares with this country, and of the fragile nature of those values. In Israel, people of all ages and backgrounds, and of any sexual orientation, attend and enjoy cultural events without discrimination. People in Israel read uncensored newspapers; they can freely discuss whatever they like, without state interference. They can vote for the politicians who govern them. Their disputes are determined by independent judges under the rule of law. They benefit, as do people around the world, from astonishing scientific and technological developments in cancer treatment, telecommunications, defence industries and so many other disciplines. These are values of liberty, diversity and scholarship which we find in very few other countries in this world, and in no other country in the neighbourhood where Israel exists.
Sadly, we have to acknowledge that Israel currently has leaders and policies with which we strongly disagree—I strongly disagree—such as the Netanyahu Government’s toleration, indeed encouragement, of violent conduct by settlers in the West Bank in their treatment of Palestinians, which is shameful; the reprehensible statements by some Ministers in the Netanyahu Government; and the failure of that Government to accept that, as the gracious Speech said, we must all work harder towards securing a two-state solution. But when we criticise those aspects of Israeli government policy, and we are right to do so, we should bear in mind that many Israelis share and express the same concerns.
Debate is necessary, but what is unacceptable is that there is a state, Iran, whose primary objective is to destroy Israel, which seeks to develop nuclear weapons to implement that objective and which funds organisations, including Hamas and Hezbollah, whose raison d’être is the pursuit of that goal. There are many misguided individuals who are prepared to carry out attacks in this and other countries against anyone they perceive to be a supporter of Israel, by which they mean Jews, and there are all too many others who shrug their shoulders or look the other way. So I ask this Government to recognise the values that we share with the State of Israel—whatever our criticisms, and rightly so, of some of its policies—and not to forget Jake Marlowe and all the other victims of the Nova festival massacre.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, the King’s Speech was right to emphasise that we face an increasingly dangerous and volatile world, but is what is laid out a match for what is required? We are a divided country. We can trace that back, at the very least, to the financial crisis of 2008, when billions were pumped into the banking system to stabilise it, with the City of London particularly exposed. When people see their living standards suffer, they can be beguiled by simple solutions. Into that played the Brexiteers and our economy was seriously further damaged, with a reduction in GDP of 8% to 11%. The UK became even less of a desired destination for investment. London as a leading financial centre was eroded. Now we see people reaching even further to the right and the left, and we know from history the risks of that.
We are in a divided world where the use of force is undermining any notion of the mutual benefit of a rules-based order, with Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and Trump attacking Iran, theoretically to secure something better than the JCPOA—which took the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, and others four years—without any line of sight on achieving that and seemingly without any assessment of what the consequences might be. That makes crystal-clear that we cannot simply sail on alone.
We are indeed part of the European continent and best defend our interests by being part of the EU grouping, as my noble friends Lady Suttie, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Razzall have said. The Government’s plan to move closer to Europe is therefore welcome but far too limited. Like my noble friend Lord Thomas, I note that the Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee has described as “woefully inadequate” the Government’s response to their own paper on seeking such a closer relationship, hiding behind, as the committee put it, “generalities”, with a
“lack of a clear and comprehensive vision”.
I welcome the Government’s recognition of Palestine, to which the Minister referred; I had a Private Member’s Bill on this in the last Session. I hope we have not reached a point of no return in terms of a contiguous Palestinian state alongside Israel. Stability, security and prosperity in the region are desperately needed.
The economic challenges that the Government face pose problems for us all. I come here to the cuts in development assistance, theoretically to help fund defence. That is of course a false choice, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark have said. As we read in Monday’s Times, our military leaders have written to the Prime Minister emphasising that cutting foreign aid will compromise national security. They rightly argue that foreign aid helps to prevent the instability, extremism and displacement that military force otherwise later has to confront at greater cost. I ask the Minister: what is the Government’s response to that letter to the Prime Minister?
A reminder of how we can be directly affected by what happens elsewhere is encapsulated in the current Ebola outbreak. Back in 2014-15, we recognised the risks of the west African Ebola epidemic. The far-sighted Chris Whitty harnessed anthropologists to assist in finding acceptable ways to mourn the dead that did not then endanger the living. He set up field diagnostic clinics and hospitals in Sierra Leone, with the US working in Liberia and France in Guinea. An appalling disease—which could have had a terrible impact globally, including in the UK—was checked in its tracks. ODA money went into vaccine research in the Jenner Institute in Oxford and elsewhere. That paved the way for our stellar performance in vaccine development in the pandemic.
All that has gone by the wayside. The Americans now criticise the WHO for moving slowly when they themselves cut its budget, which affected the WHO’s disease surveillance abilities. We have slashed our aid budget. The Minister noted that we are committing £21 million to the Ebola outbreak. In 2014-15, we put in £420 million. Our contribution now is a mere 5% of that earlier effort. The Government need to be far more aware of when the left hand undermines the right. Cutting aid is one area, and now we have immigration restrictions that are throttling our universities. We are in danger of losing our leading edge here. The Government are right to aim for the UK’s economic security and growth, but the measures we see here leave unanswered many of the areas that must be tackled if such growth is to be achieved.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. I believe long ago we were in the same Government, but I cannot quite recall which Government it was. We have had some very fine speeches both today and throughout the six days we have been debating the King’s Speech. A couple stick in my mind. The noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, reminded us that we are all under attack by Russia, on all sides and in every way, at all times—and she should know. Then there was the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, who in his last Lords speech—sadly—warned against us sinking into a vortex of pessimism and despair. How right he was.
At the end of the last century, many of us used to visit Japan a lot on delegations and so on, and they always arranged for us to see the Prime Minister of the day. We used to smile a bit, quite politely and privately, that it was always a different person—a constant rotation of Prime Ministers. I suspect the Japanese are laughing at us a bit now, because we too are caught in this whirligig of instability, and instability at the political centre affects everything else: the confidence and attitudes of investment and business and future prosperity. Why are we caught in it? There are all sorts of explanations, but I will add three in my five minutes.
First, any Government now face a far more informed electorate—maybe for better, maybe for worse. I suspect mainly for worse, but in vastly greater quantities than ever before in history. Every grievance becomes turbocharged. Every minor, unfiltered and unedited view is promoted through a massive world system of electronic information. There are 37 million devices in the UK alone—not counting wired telephones—that can be tuned in to any ministerial statement. Everything can be and is challenged, and it becomes a permanent maelstrom of debate.
We have created an entirely new information network, and I am not sure that some in the media or those in political circles have quite adjusted to this huge revolution and its effect on everybody. That, incidentally, is why some of us fought 10 years ago to set up an International Affairs Committee. It did not exist and we had to fight very hard.
Secondly, in this digital, hyperconnected world, most of the root causes lie outside our national government reach. That is not a very popular view, but it is so. Whether it is security and safety, cost of living, funding shortages all round, trade, local government and those potholes of course, interest rates and the bond market, or energy independence, which is largely a chimera—these are all matters that are only partially under our home Government’s control. They are certainly not in control of the root causes of them.
Thirdly, in 1945, liberally minded visionaries built a new world order out of the rubble of the Second World War. All the institutions they created then served us well, but they are all in trouble. They are supposed to be the rule-makers and the fora where there are referees, without which chaos and a world without rules develops. We need a new Bretton Woods, new trade rules, a new International Maritime Organization, a new health organisation and, of course, a new, unblocked United Nations. Where are these visionaries today? They are certainly not in Washington. Where are the Trumans, the Marshalls, the Keyneses, the Dexter Whites and the other figures who built this world order almost 100 years ago?
Mentioning Keynes allows me just a few seconds to share sadness that we no longer have Robert Skidelsky with us, who was a great biographer of Keynes. Of course, not everyone agreed with him—certainly not on Ukraine, where the robots are winning and not losing.
All this is ignored or barely reported in the press. We need the spirit of 1945 all over again, but many times over and many times more ambitiously. Without that, we can all attack the nearest targets and have a bit of an inter-party battle and so on, but we will remain the plaything of past economic fantasy theories, being swept along in a rudderless craft—a world without rules—which is absolutely fatal to a country such as ours. I refuse to be a pessimist. We must listen to the warning of the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy. We ignore these facts of our totally altered world at our peril.
Baroness Rafferty (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak as a nurse on the health aspects of the strategic defence review and some of the implications it holds for the National Health Service. I shall be brief, as the review is admirably concise in its analysis. As I was unable to speak in the health debate, I hope the Minister will indulge me and kindly pass on some key points to my noble friend Lady Merron.
The focus of my remarks is the need for close collaboration between the Defence Medical Services and the NHS. The gracious Speech sets out the ambition that the Government
“will support our gallant Armed Forces and their families who make considerable personal sacrifices for the collective security and freedom of everyone in the United Kingdom”.
Defence Medical Services play a crucial role in retaining service personnel and boosting morale, so it is vital that they are fit for the future. But they do not act alone. Renowned for the excellence of their rehabilitation services, they are nevertheless dependent on the NHS for secondary and tertiary care.
The Covid pandemic taught us all the crucial role that defence services played in logistics, setting up the Nightingale hospitals and rollout of the vaccination programme. The review, however, fires a warning shot in pointing to the fragmentation of services and the historic neglect and underfunding, arguing that the relationship with the NHS has been deprioritised in recent years. It is imperative that this relationship is repaired and boosted by securing close collaboration between the MoD and the DHSC to ensure that the Defence Medical Services and the NHS have the capacity to meet defence medical needs, including in the most extreme circumstances.
To achieve this, a sprint review was recommended to assess system-wide capacity and capability. This was scheduled for completion in March of this year. Can the Minister confirm that such a sprint is planned or under way, and whether its findings will be accessible in the public domain? The adoption of a “whole force” plan identifying workforce requirements as part of an enduring approach agreed with the NHS also presents an opportunity for articulation with the much-anticipated NHS workforce plan. In closing, can the Minister assure us that he will work closely with his noble friend the Minister for Health to ensure that these vital services are given the priority and attention they deserve?
Baroness Helic (Con)
My Lords, I am honoured to speak in this debate, and I welcome the Government’s strong commitment to defence and improving relations with European partners as a vital step towards strengthening European security and upholding our unbreakable commitment to NATO and our allies. I pay tribute to our diplomats, members of the Armed Forces and the intelligence agencies that keep us safe.
Healthy defence spending, partnerships and alliances are cornerstones of our security and ability to keep our citizens safe and our country secure. However, our defence and resilience cannot be measured solely in military or economic preparedness; there is also the question of moral clarity. While nations must have the capability to defend themselves, they must also seek to have the courage and consistency to defend fundamental values and the rule of law internationally. I fear that, across much of democratic world, what we might call our “moral resilience” is weakening, with serious consequences for our long-term security.
The scale of human suffering is immense. In Sudan, Gaza, Myanmar, Lebanon, the DRC and Ukraine, wars are being waged against the civilian population with impunity. In any of these conflicts, with perhaps the sole exception of Ukraine, it is difficult to claim that we uphold international law consistently or that we value all human rights equally. At the same time, global military spending has reached historic levels. There is logic in preparing for a more dangerous world, but arms alone will not make us or the world safer. Countries shape the world not only through the power they possess but through the example they set. When democracies apply their values selectively, they weaken themselves strategically and make it easier for authoritarian states to argue that our principles are merely instruments of convenience.
In modern conflict, there are very few clean hands, even among democracies. Some democracies commit atrocities and then deny what the world has seen them do. Some provide diplomatic cover, and often intelligence, for actions that they should condemn. Some remain silent because moral clarity has become politically inconvenient. After the Second World War, leaders built international institutions—from the United Nations and NATO to the International Criminal Court, to mention just a few—designed to prevent civilisation sliding back to barbarism. They had seen how quickly peace could turn to war; how economic fear, extremism, propaganda and scapegoating could poison public life from within.
While history does not repeat itself exactly, there are echoes today that should concern us: political fragmentation, distrust of institutions, antisemitism, ethnic nationalism, economic anxiety, contempt for democratic processes, and the normalisation of dehumanising language and acts. Old ideas are returning because too many people have forgotten that they were once rejected and disregarded.
I am not nostalgic for the post-Cold War era or for the post-World War II settlement. I know war. I think of Srebrenica. I think of the promises made by the international community and then disregarded, and of the price paid by innocent civilians who were told they were safe. My concern is not that we have fallen from the imagined perfection but that we are losing even the aspiration to uphold our own standards. This is why I believe that moral authority and moral consistency must remain central to British foreign policy. This means being as clear about our views of human rights with our friends as we are with our enemies.
Sir John Major recently warned of the “fortress” generation—a society made fearful, more divided and less hopeful about the future. He was reminding us that public life carries an obligation to hand on something worth inheriting. Many young people today are no longer certain that that will happen. They see wars streamed live. They hear politicians speak of law and humanity in one context, while avoiding those same principles in another. They are losing faith, not only in Governments but in the sincerity of politics itself. This is not a sentimental concern; democratic legitimacy depends upon it.
Of course, Britain must be ready to defend her citizens and her territory. When the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, called out the Prime Minister and the Chancellor over their failure to rearm the United Kingdom at speed in the face of growing threats, he spoke for many. But military strength without moral authority is ultimately a hollow form of power. Our influence rests not only on what we can do or how well we are armed but on what we stand for.
Baroness Antrobus (Lab)
My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, mentioned his due humility to those more senior than him in this House. I am but an infant in comparison, so I address your Lordships with that in mind. In the brief time I have, I will reflect on national resilience, on government progress—or lack thereof—following the recommendations in the SDR, and on the contribution that your Lordships’ House is making and can make in the immediate future.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, spoke of deterrence, and resilience is part of deterrence—specifically, in doctrine, deterrence by denial. Colleagues who have visited Ukraine this spring have commented on the impact that the last horrific winter had on the Ukrainian will to defy Russia’s illegal invasion. They spoke of lives lived underground, under nets and under concrete. They talked of the worst winter ever, because of both the huge increase in Russian drone and missile strikes and the impact of attacks on energy infrastructure, combined with bitterly cold weather. Yet it seems that, if anything, that has hardened resolve and resilience—a sense that, “If we can survive that, we can survive anything”.
However, in the UK, I worry about what the public could survive. Already, we know that Russia is attacking us. I live in Salisbury and know well the impact that Russian murderous aggression has had on our soil. My fellow citizen, Dawn Sturgess, lost her life due to that attack, and the city of Salisbury suffered severe physical and economic consequences over not just months but years. The issue is not whether people have courage—of course they have. It is whether government and institutions have given them the information, tools, trust and support to be resilient.
We need a clear path to improve national resilience, to have that national conversation that we know we need to have. Resilience does feature in the King’s Speech, and prominently in the cyber security and resilience Bill, but as expected there was no defence readiness Bill, which was recommended in the SDR. That leaves us without a clear path to improving national resilience, and I hope my noble friend the Minister can explain to the House later how that national conversation will be stimulated by the Government in the coming months. The need is urgent—in fact, critical.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, chair of the House of Lords National Resilience Committee, wrote in the House magazine this month of the Nordic countries’ approach to preparing their citizens for emergencies. As she put it, those Governments
“communicate candidly about risks. The result is not alarmism but assurance”.
The Nordic example shows us that honesty about risk can be reassuring, empowering and mature. Assurance and information are what people need and I know that this House cares about this topic: we recently debated civil preparedness for war in Grand Committee and the overwhelming conclusion was that we need to make more time for this subject in this House.
In conversation, I have become increasingly vocal in my opinion that this challenge cannot be answered by defence policy or strategy alone, just as the SDR said. A couple of weeks ago, I and some of my fellow Labour newbies, or new joiners, met to discuss defence issues, because it is a subject we all care about. It became very apparent to us that my fellow Peers, with expertise from local and national government to insurance, from the emergency services to law, and from housing to education—that is just a small sample of the experience of my intake—have deep understanding across hugely important, diverse areas in the national resilience conversation. The answer does not lie just with those who live and breathe defence and security, although the experience of noble and gallant Lords and other specialists in these areas is always needed.
Your Lordships’ House contains exactly the range of experience a serious resilience conversation requires. I look forward to the report from the National Resilience Committee in November and I hope my noble friend the Minister agrees that we all have our part to play now—today and tomorrow; not just in this House, but outside it; and not just talking but acting. To reiterate, resilience is not about frightening people, it is about trusting them with honest information and giving them the confidence and means to play their part.
Lord Bates (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness in this: I believe very much that it is a question of actions, not just talking. The gracious Speech promises:
“The United Kingdom will also take action to reduce humanitarian need and conflict around the world”.
The promise would carry immeasurably more weight were the Government not simultaneously imposing the deepest cuts ever seen in the UK aid budget—this from a Government who were elected on a manifesto to keep aid at 0.5%. We are now reducing it to 0.3%, with devastating effects. We all know why this policy changed: it is because the Government—and their loyal Opposition, I have to say—saw focus group polling that showed that cutting overseas aid budgets to fund defence at home might prove electorally popular. Well, that does not seem to have gone down too well, does it? But it is worse than that because, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Ashton and Lady Northover, pointed out, some of Britain’s most senior former military chiefs have now warned that cutting foreign aid to fund defence will compromise our national security. The Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, began this debate by reminding us that we live in a more fragile, contested and interconnected world. But the policy of aid cuts leaves us less safe at home and less effective abroad.
These cuts have real-world effects, nowhere more so than in Sudan. As my noble friend Lady Anelay set out very eloquently, 19.5 million people in Sudan today are in urgent need of humanitarian assistance. The World Food Programme can reach only 5 million, but because of aid cuts and the conflict in Iran, which is driving up costs of delivery, that has had to be reduced to 3 million, and individual rations are being cut by 50% in some areas. Despite the pledges made at last month’s Berlin conference, as of today, the UN’s Sudan humanitarian needs and response plan of $2.87 billion remains only 20% funded. What does it say, in a world of unprecedented wealth, where we are able to find $3 trillion for arms sales, that we cannot find $3 billion to save the lives of 20 million people?
The prime responsibility for the human suffering in Sudan lies squarely on the warring parties, which are perpetrating extraordinary acts of cruelty and sexual violence against their own people. The use of drones means that there is no safe space for civilians. Hospitals, markets and waterholes and wells are targeted. Civilians are overwhelmingly the victims of this war, and as such their voice needs to be heard too.
The peace negotiations are supposed to be led by a quad of nations—the United States, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates—but they have stalled, with three of the four who are supposed to be in charge of peace negotiations actually supplying arms to one side or the other. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, we need to invest diplomatic capital in calling that out and reminding our friends of their responsibility to get their sides to the negotiating table, to stop feeding the conflict and to start feeding the people. We need a humanitarian ceasefire now. If they are not prepared to step up to the responsibility, they should step aside and let others try.
The United Kingdom is still a diplomatic superpower that is widely respected around the world. We have some of the finest and most skilled diplomats on the planet. The UK and London have enormous convening power, as we have seen this week at the excellent Global Partnerships Conference in Woolwich. There is no military solution to this problem; the need of the hour is for a diplomatic surge. I believe that the UK is uniquely placed to do that. We are the penholder on Sudan at the UN. We need no further authority to act and to get involved.
The need of the hour is not just for words; it is for actions too. I began by quoting the gracious Speech, which said we should
“reduce humanitarian need and conflict around the world”.
That Speech goes on to say:
“Ministers will champion the rights of women and girls to live in a world free from violence”.
Fine words. But for the women and girls living alone in fear and hunger in Sudan today, they may respond in the immortal words of Eliza Doolittle:
“Words! Words! Words! I’m so sick of words! …
Sing me no song!
Read me no rhyme!
Don’t waste my time,
Show me!”
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
To say that we live in a volatile and disrupted world is to state a truism. Truisms can get tedious, especially if too often repeated, but one ignores them at one’s peril. For no country is that truer than for Britain, a middle power in the Canadian Prime Minister’s perceptive characterisation, which has sacrificed influence by deciding to leave the EU in 2016, and which, while still having worldwide interests, cannot hope to further them effectively on its own. Add to that the fact that our closest ally for the past 80-plus years, the United States, can no longer be regarded as dependable in all circumstances.
It is frequently said that we can no longer rely on the rules-based international order, to the development of which Britain contributed so much in the aftermath of two disastrous world wars, and that we must come to terms with the new systems which have succeeded that order. However, the hard fact is that there are no such systems emerging, merely the modern equivalent of the law of the jungle, where might is right. That certainly does not suit our interests or our values.
The capacity of the rules-based order has not lost its value to us, whether we are talking about the UN charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Geneva Convention on the Law of the Sea, the European Convention on Human Rights, the international trade rules of the World Trade Organization to secure freer and fairer world trade, or one of the many others. They are not outdated, nor would it be in our interest to allow them to wither on the bough.
Take nuclear weapons as an example. The nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which has recently held its periodic review conference, remains a cornerstone of international security. Without it, there would be many more nuclear weapon states than there are now, vying with each other in regional arms races. That treaty has ensured that only one of its signatories, North Korea, has flouted its obligations. In recent decades, Iran has come quite close to doing so too, but that point was not imminent when Israel and the US attacked it at the end of February. It is surely in our collective interest that Iran should never have a nuclear weapons capability.
That can be achieved only at the negotiating table and sustained only by a rigorous system of safeguards operated, without interference, by the International Atomic Energy Agency. That should surely be the aim, but little is being done to secure it since President Trump destroyed the best attempt to do so. Take too the dialogue on strategic stability between the recognised nuclear weapon states, which has been suspended since Russia launched its aggression against Ukraine. That too will need to be resumed at some future moment, together with agreements to limit the unlimited accumulation of those weapons.
The world needs a rules-based trading system, too, if we are not to slip back into the protectionist, tit-for-tat retaliation of the 1930s. Tariffs, unilaterally applied, are simply a synonym for taxes, which in the end negatively affect one’s own consumers and producers. There needs to be some international procedure for handling trade disputes, which is why the Government’s recent decision to join the interim procedure in Geneva was so welcome.
Later this year, an important decision will be taken in New York on the appointment of the next Secretary-General of the United Nations. The UN has taken some hard knocks in recent years, as it did in the 1970s and early 1980s, but Britain as a permanent member of its Security Council should surely be doing all it can to secure the appointment of an effective, reforming leader to take over its leadership. We should be working to consolidate and strengthen the procedures introduced when Secretary-General Guterres was first appointed to open up the choice to more transparency and to ensure that no trace of gender discrimination is allowed to interfere with that choice.
The disruption we have seen in recent years to our international relations has already wrought some real damage to our ability to shape our destiny. That destiny is as a European middle state, with most in common geographically, politically and economically with other European countries.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I was born in 1936, so I had the privilege of entering national service at 18. I did two years, as we all had to do, because the Act passed by the Labour Attlee Government in April 1947, supported by the other political parties, decided that that was the ideal length, after considerable discussion about whether it should be one year, which the RAF said was hopeless, or 18 months, which I think the Navy said was hopeless. We ended up at two years.
Those two years were for me the experience of a lifetime. I had a place to go to at Cambridge, but that was put off. I joined a whole bunch of other young men from all walks of life. My goodness, what a joy it turned out to be. You learned to mix—I had been a boarder at school, but most of them had lived at home and never lived with anybody else. You had to learn to live with others.
Initially, we were at RAF Kirton in Lindsey. The first thing you got shown was how to make a bed. I still remember that, because the sergeant came around and ripped off most of the sheets because we had not done it properly. We had three months there, then I was privileged to be chosen to train in Canada with people from 10 different countries right the way through NATO that Canada was supporting—from the obvious ones such as us and Canada to the far less obvious ones such as Turkey. I got my wings. After that, I had hoped to carry on for the remaining six months, but that was not possible.
I believe we should seriously look at a modern national service for all our young people. Among the number of young people who are at the moment unemployed, either those who are unable to work altogether or those who choose not to work, there is a core sitting there doing nothing. That is not good for them or for the economy, so there is a huge opportunity.
I took the trouble to find out what the rest of NATO is doing. It is too complicated to cover in a five-minute speech today, but the UK and Belgium are the only two countries in NATO that have nothing. That is not good enough, in my judgment. The enemy, to put it that way, is ever increasing, which is hugely worrying. Against that background, we cannot just sit back and not do something.
I pay tribute to His Majesty’s Government on what they have done, or tried to do, to begin to build up the CCF and one or two of the youth movements et cetera. I respect and welcome what they have done. But there is now the need to be more positive.
Then, there is the issue of how we are going to pay for it. I remember, when I was a small boy in Pinner, Middlesex, outside the library was the Spitfire Fund. Every week, they would adjust by how much it had gone up. Maybe a spitfire is not the right aircraft to choose now, but why can we not have an ISA geared to defence matters? People would respond much more to that than many other issues. I say to your Lordships and to the Government in particular: can we please look hard at this opportunity? I am pleased to see the Minister in his place, and I know he will look hard at it. I have written a book about national service; it will save him a lot of work, because I have been through all the National Service Acts.
Finally, I have two other points which have nothing to do with national service. First, I hope we put real money behind the ELSA project, because the Tomahawk situation does not seem to be as good as it should be. Lastly, there was also an opening speech earlier on from somebody I know pretty well, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and there was a lot of wisdom in his speech.
Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)
My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register.
Who is to blame for the parlous state of our Armed Forces: politicians, the media or the public? I would suggest all three, but the prime responsibility surely lies with our political leaders—successive Prime Ministers and Chancellors of the Exchequer—for underfunding our forces to the benefit of welfare. Welfare now represents five times defence spend. If only the money we wasted on HS2 had been spent on defence, just imagine the difference.
Some in your Lordships’ House have argued and battled away for years for greater defence spend, such as former military chiefs and, on these Benches, the late lamented Lord Ming Campbell, and my noble friend on the Front Bench. When I was on the Front Bench in 2008, I argued for an increase in the Army from 103,000 to 120,000. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord West, was laughed at over the years for continuously pressing for an increase in the Navy. Well, no one is laughing today.
Defence spending is an insurance, not an indulgence. Our allies have woken up—Germany and Poland in particular, and others—but we are laggards. We live in an ever-dangerous world. Can we ignore the threat from Russia, with a leader willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of his people in a lunatic invasion of Ukraine? As General Sir Gwyn Jenkins, the first Royal Marine to head the Navy, said recently:
“The need to rearm and improve this country’s readiness for war has become an absolute necessity. Just maintaining the ‘capable status quo’ is simply not good enough. We are at an inflection point”.
So how are we responding to the dire situation? The Prime Minister talks the good talk when overseas or with NATO allies, but little happens. Where is the defence investment plan that has been promised for months?
Of course, the Treasury is being difficult—it always is—but the Prime Minister is First Lord of the Treasury. Where is his leadership? We do not need Trump to tell us that he is no Winston Churchill, but in his remaining weeks could he not do right by this country and increase defence spend and thus leave some legacy to be proud of? We now have Gordon Brown back as an adviser so—who knows?—we might be lucky and get a third aircraft carrier, provided that it is built in Scotland.
The MoD never admits to any problems or blackholes. There is always the optimistic line, “We can fulfil all our operational obligations”. The reality is that there is a huge blackhole, with near paralysis in procurement.
Where is the new money for defence to come from? I reject more borrowing. We must tackle the bloated welfare budget. No party has the guts to scrap the triple lock, which is viewed by virtually every commentator as totally unsustainable. I suggest that we raise funds through what I might term shock-and-awe tactics to shake the nation and wake it up to the threat and the need to rebuild our deterrent capability. Perhaps there should be an increase in the standard rate of income tax, an increase in value added tax or a consideration of some form of capital gains tax or sales tax on the sacred cow in this country of principal residences. Moneys so generated must be entirely hypothecated to defence. We must avoid the understandable temptation to spend new moneys solely within the United Kingdom. We must work with our allies to avoid duplication of spend. We will waste so much if everyone focuses on their sovereign capability.
I will say something about the United States-NATO relationship. Trump was right to insist on Europe raising its game on defence spend, but in the final analysis I do not believe that the United States will leave NATO. Trump likes real estate; no way will he just walk away from valuable, heavily invested bases such as Mildenhall and Lakenheath in the United Kingdom, Ramstein in Germany or Aviano in Italy. His military knows the benefits of these bases and our joint intelligence capabilities.
I conclude by asking the Minister four questions, and he may need to write to me. First, is any inroad being made into the bloated number of civilians employed by the MoD? There are around 60,000; our Army is only 70,000 people. Secondly, on recruitment, where are we with Regular and Reserve recruiting? Thirdly, how justifiable is the rumoured Japanese alarm over the United Kingdom dragging its feet over the Global Combat Air Programme, our JV with Japan and Italy? Lastly, what plans are there, if any, to provide a cost-effective deterrent to defend our vital infrastructure in this country from unmanned aerial vehicles—that is to say drones?
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con)
It is a very great pleasure to have a few moments to speak and comment on the gracious Speech. I have a matter of concern, which I put to the Ministers on the Front Bench, that quite rightly both His Majesty and our Government have declared that we are in an extremely volatile world, with an enormous number of challenges globally. My question to the Ministers is: why was there no mention of our closest and infinitely most powerful ally, the USA? Nowhere is this commented on at all. It is a very odd thing indeed. We are told that it is a pivotal moment, with the world more volatile and dangerous than ever before. Where is there mention of the USA? There is a comment on NATO, but it does not comment that NATO is largely financed by the United States of America, our closest, deepest and most important partner. Where are His Majesty’s Government standing on this?
I am not quite convinced that using His Majesty the King’s visit to cover the Government’s nakedness in this matter will quite suffice. As His Majesty pointed out in his speech to Congress, our real relationship with the USA goes back 400 years; the 1777 back to 1600 research that I and others have been carrying out shows that the bedrock of the special relationship is an enduring relationship that has been going on for over 400 years.
Of course, you may say that we disagree, and that, while the USA is indeed the most powerful nation on the globe today, we are bound to disagree, and maybe the Government disagree with some aspects of US policy. Yet noble Lords may recall the letter of George Washington to his son in, I think, about 1770, in which he says that true friendship cannot qualify as such if there has not been at least one very significant disagreement. So friendship incorporates disagreement. I do not ask that the Government necessarily agree with the USA Government, but that is excuse at all for apparently discarding and dismantling our most important relationship of all.
I do not believe that we can fulfil our defence of the nation, which we are demanded to do, unless, when we celebrate the 250th anniversary as perhaps the most important thing this year following the King’s visit, we recognise the USA and see that our enduring relationship goes back at least 400 years. I believe that the key to the enduring relationship is the trade and industry that we in the United Kingdom carried out for so many hundreds of years. Indeed, if you look at the 1776 Declaration of Independence, you will find that five Middle Temple Benchers actually signed it. So we are integral to this relationship. I leave it with the Government to tell me, and other colleagues in this Chamber, why they have somehow apparently forgotten that and discarded it.
Yesterday, I had the great honour of entertaining one of the tribal leaders of what is now a nation, the Chickasaw, and the week before the chief of the Muscogee tribe. Their relationship with us goes right back, and it is based on the enduring relationship of trade and business. That is really what it is all about.
I ask the Government to confirm that the US-UK relationship is the most important one for us.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to join your Lordships today to speak in this debate on the gracious Speech as we focus our attention on foreign affairs, international relations and defence. In particular, I welcome the attention given to the United Kingdom’s role on the world stage as secure, engaged, and collaborative with our allies in a period of global uncertainty and great disruption.
Today I will touch on six key issues: sexual violence in conflict, women in peacekeeping, our relationship with Europe, Northern Ireland, hostile state threats, and the immigration and asylum systems.
First, on sexual violence in conflict, this country has a proud record of leadership, and the Labour Party, through the work of the right honourable William Hague, helped to place this issue firmly on the international agenda and keep it there. We have consistently argued that this scourge should not be treated as an unfortunate yet inevitable by-product of war but instead taken seriously as a preventable, grave violation of human rights and a serious barrier to the creation of any lasting peace. I hope that the Government will continue to put prevention, survivor support and accountability at the heart of their work abroad. I would therefore welcome continued UK commitment to international co-ordination to prevent sexual violence in conflict, working with allies, multilateral institutions and local women-led organisations to stop this atrocious violation of human rights.
Secondly, and complementary to that, we must continue to push for greater inclusion of women in peacekeeping negotiations. Women at the peace table, actively engaged, must mean more than a token woman; it also means training, capacity building and proper safeguarding mechanisms. While it is not mentioned in the gracious Speech, I hope that the Government will nevertheless use their defence, diplomacy and international standing to be firm advocates of supporting women into peacekeeping roles for the sake of global stability.
Thirdly, I welcome the Government’s commitment to deeper partnership with Europe. In a more dangerous world, practical co-operation with our European neighbours is not a luxury; it is a necessity. Whether on defence, energy resilience, sanctions, trade, migration or diplomatic co-ordination, the United Kingdom is stronger when it works closely and respectfully with those who share our security and values.
I particularly welcome the direction of travel towards a more constructive UK-EU relationship. This is a progressive step forward in our relationship with our closest neighbour and allies. It is a practical arrangement that favours our nation’s interests. I hope that, when fiscal conditions allow, we can return to a model of greater foreign aid and development partnership, in the knowledge that development is the foundation of security. When people are educated and economically empowered and health systems and fragile states are supported, the world is a far safer place for everyone.
Fourthly, I will touch on Northern Ireland. I very much welcome the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. It is essential in confronting the ongoing legacy of the Troubles. It performs a vital role of addressing unfinished business from the Good Friday Agreement. It corrects the flaws of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. It reconstitutes and reforms the legacy commission. It ensures fair disclosure of information, including, jointly, the Irish Government and accountability. It provides delivery of a bilateral victim centre and a human rights-compliant approach to addressing the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland, with the aim of delivering truth and justice to victims and survivors of the Troubles, while introducing safeguards to protect Armed Forces veterans when it is reasonable to do so. We owe the Bill to the citizens of Northern Ireland and the UK service personnel who were killed, injured and bereaved during those dark days of the Troubles.
Fifthly, I turn to the hostile state activity in the world, where the boundary between war and peace is no longer neatly defined. The Government are right to take the changing nature of the threat seriously. Our response to cyber attacks, espionage and proxy groups’ pressure on disparate communities and other forms of hostile action must be firm and lawful. A country’s resilience is not just about security powers; it lies in the democratic confidence of the people and the state. People need to feel that they have a meaningful voice when they feel excluded or unheard. Hostile actors can come in and exploit grievances and divisions. So I hope that, alongside robust national security measures, the Government will continue to invest in trust, participation and civic education and protect our open democracy.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, for some variety of topic I will start by warmly welcoming the wider acceptance across government departments of the covenant duty of care in the forthcoming Armed Forces Bill. This was much pressed for by me and others in debates on the 2021 Bill.
Will the Government now tackle the dark scourge of lawfare? I have repeatedly raised concerns about growing legal pressures placed upon our Armed Forces which risk undermining operational effectiveness and fairness for those who serve. I first raised this when the Human Rights Bill was being debated in 1998. I argued that there were incompatibilities between that Bill and the then three single service disciplinary Acts. The sitting Lord Chancellor assured the House that it would always be possible in a combat situation to resile or derogate from the Human Rights legislation, as necessary. Practical experience since has shown that withdrawing from the Human Rights Act for combat reasons has never been considered possible, let alone attempted. However, numerous operational cases based on human rights legislation have made their way through the courts—even to the UK Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights.
A decade ago, in a debate on alleged war crimes and the interplay between international law and domestic legislation, I and others pressed the Government to reintroduce formal Crown immunity for overseas operations. The complex and expanding legal landscape risked burdening commanders and front-line troops with uncertainties at moments when clarity is essential. Later, during a debate on vexatious legal claims against British service personnel, I and others pressed for combat immunity or other legal protection to be arranged for those engaged in active operations. In the Queen’s Speech debate the following year, I urged Ministers to consider both combat immunity and a statute of limitations for historic allegations, arguing that our service men and women deserve clarity and protection when involved in testing combat operations.
Our Armed Forces must of course operate within the law, but they must also be protected from legal encroachment that threatens their ability to act decisively in combat. The highly respected US army general, General Petraeus, said that the UK must decide how its legal architecture supports rather than inadvertently constrains the effectiveness of those it asks to serve.
Recently, we have seen examples of apparent piracy on the high seas, when special operations forces boarded a vessel. Fortunately, no individual member of the crew was hurt or died as a result of the boarding. If they had been, and a claim was made, would the special operations member or the Minister who authorised the seizure be in the dock? Should it ever be a Minister? The position is unclear, and would be even more so were a Prime Minister to order the destruction of a terrorist civil airline, akin to the 9/11 attacks. These problems, sometimes summarised as lawfare, must be grasped.
With no sign of a new Bill of Rights, the quinquennial Armed Forces Bill would be an opportune legislative moment. Much detailed work has already been done, and I urge the Government to use the Armed Forces Bill to act on this subject.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, we meet today at a moment of profound consequence, as we have already heard, for the Middle East and, as events have shown subsequently, for our shared future. I draw attention to my registered interests and to my work with organisations focused on conflict resolution and with the Council of Arab Ambassadors.
I begin, as did the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, from a place of hope, optimism and principle. History shows, as did my tenure as a Foreign Minister, that when courage meets conviction even the most intractable conflicts can bend towards justice and lasting peace. I will set out three truths that must guide us on this pathway to peace.
The first truth is that every life has equal worth. The death of a child in Gaza, Israel, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen or Iran diminishes us all. Our politics and actions must never become so hardened that we forget the humanity at the heart of these conflicts and crises.
Secondly, security and dignity are two sides of the same coin. Israelis and Palestinians must be able to live in peace and security, but any framework that asks for one people to mortgage their dignity so that another may feel secure will fail. A durable peace will emerge only when both peoples can see their rights, safety and aspirations reflected in equal measure. I ask the Minister to detail what is being done to stop the shocking attacks by Israeli settlers and the expansion of illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank of Palestine. What are we doing through our long-standing support for Lebanon in helping its Government to disarm Hezbollah? The Government’s response must be more than references to past sanctions or statements of condemnation. When was the last Foreign Secretary or Defence Secretary visit to Israel and Palestine? When did we last meet President Aoun of Lebanon?
The third truth is that principles matter most when they are hardest to uphold. International humanitarian law is not a menu of optional extras; it is the baseline of our common morality. The protection of civilians standing with and for survivors of sexual violence, unfettered humanitarian access and accountability for abuses are human obligations.
From these truths flows a practical path: a ceasefire respected in deed as well as word, humanitarian aid moving at scale and infrastructure being rebuilt. These are not political concessions; they are lifesaving imperatives.
I met this week with the Egyptian Foreign Minister during his visit to the UK. What is the action planned and agreed with Egypt, and indeed other partners that the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, alluded to through the partnerships conference, in making progress in this respect?
On the security architecture, a ceasefire must be underpinned by credible security arrangements. This means co-ordinated efforts to ensure the disarmament of militant groups. It means robust border and maritime monitoring. It means the accountability of security institutions—to the law, not to the gun. What is the United Kingdom doing to deploy to the region training and defence assets?
On the political horizon, we must restore the pathway to a viable, sovereign Palestine, living in peace and security alongside Israel. It must be time-bound, with clear milestones of governance reform, economic stabilisation, security and, yes, steps that reopen Jerusalem as a shared city of faith, hope and heritage.
As we heard from the Minister, Iran has changed the dynamics. Neighbours have a stake, but we do as well. Normalisation anchored in de-escalation, reconstruction and investment can change the calculus of despair. I am sure all in this House will join me in commending the efforts of our Gulf partners—particularly Pakistan, which, as we speak today, is in Iran again through its Interior Minister to avert the restart of a war. Can the Minister share what assessments have been made on the new security and defence architecture in the Gulf, which includes Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Türkiye and Pakistan, and is supported by Qatar? What support have we extended to the UAE and Bahrain in the C-SIPA partnership? What is the current status of the Abraham accords?
To our international partners, we must align our efforts, not just our statements. The Government have hollowed out aid and development budgets to their bare bones, and we have lost leverage. I feel for and genuinely appreciate the efforts of the Development Minister in this regard, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, reminded us, development, diplomacy and defence come together; it requires leadership in all three areas.
I close with a simple conviction. Leadership is the art of narrowing the gap between the world as it is and the world as it should be. The hardest day to make peace is always today; tomorrow offers the illusion of easier choices that never arrive. If the Middle East is, as we argue, the cradle of faiths that teach the sanctity of life, the dignity of the stranger, and indeed the possibility of redemption, and if those truths can take root again in policy and action, through ongoing action and investment, and through prayer, then peace becomes a reality.
Lord Hussain (LD)
My Lords, His Majesty’s gracious Speech was watched by millions of people at home and abroad with interest. His Majesty spoke at a time of turbulence, wars and uncertainty facing millions of people around the world.
In Gaza and Israel, the conduct of hostilities since October 2023 has generated credible allegations of serious violations of international human rights law, including crimes against humanity and genocide. The Security Council resolutions have called for ceasefires and humanitarian access. The problem remains compliance.
In Ukraine, Russia’s invasion violated the charter as affirmed by UNGA Resolution ES-11/1. The Security Council is blocked by Russian veto, but the legal position has not changed: borders cannot be redrawn by force.
In Sudan, the war between the SAF and the RSF has produced famine, mass displacement and documented atrocities against civilians. Resolution 2715 renewed the UN mission, but, without political pressure and accountability, the situation deteriorates. Resolutions without enforcement become empty gestures.
In recent months, the US and Israel have waged war on Iran without any reference to international law. Thanks to the efforts of the Government of Pakistan, a ceasefire has been agreed while the details of a peace agreement between the US and Iran are worked out. The United Nations has proved to be irrelevant once again.
That brings me to another international dispute that is almost forgotten by the international community: the Kashmir issue that has been on the Security Council’s agenda since 1948. Resolutions 47, 51 and 80 called for a free and impartial plebiscite under UN supervision once hostilities ceased. That plebiscite has never taken place. While waiting for the UN-promised plebiscite, the human rights situation has deteriorated in Kashmir. Over the years, international human rights organisations, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the UN Commission on Human Rights and others, have reported the Indian Army operating with complete impunity under the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act. It is alleged to be involved in the excessive use of force, arbitrary detentions, torture, murder, mass graves and rape, while journalists, political leaders, human rights defenders and activists are detained and held under preventive laws, such as the public safety Act, for months and years, often without charge or trial. This situation should not be allowed to continue. The international community, including Britain, must do everything it can to bring an end to these human rights abuses and hold those responsible to account.
India and Pakistan have fought three full-scale wars and many border clashes over Kashmir, and Kashmir remains one of the most militarised zones in the world. In May 2025, we saw another dangerous escalation, with cross-border strikes and civilian casualties. The ceasefire holds, but the dispute is unresolved. What makes this issue different is the nuclear dimension. A single miscalculation on the line of control could escalate beyond regional control, with consequences for global health, climate and the economy. I mentioned earlier four other areas of conflict, but let me tell noble Lords that the consequences of a war between two nuclear countries, India and Pakistan, could be far worse than those conflicts.
We can either invest in diplomacy now or wait for the next crisis to invest in damage control. I believe that Britain, with its historical relationship with both India and Pakistan as the head of Commonwealth and a permanent member of the UN Security Council, is best placed to use its unique position to bring these two friendly countries back to dialogue to help to find a peaceful solution to the long-standing issue of Kashmir, according to the will of the Kashmiri people, and to bring peace, stability and prosperity to the 1.7 billion people of the Indian subcontinent.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, following the most welcome reference in the gracious Speech to
“drive global growth and reinforce global stability”,
I want to raise the subject of international action against corruption. I should first declare an interest in that my daughter has been active in drafting the core crimes of an embryonic international treaty on the subject, but my acquaintance with it dates from far before that, from when I was a member of the council of Transparency International UK, sat on two Bribery Bill committees and observed at first hand the effects of corruption in sub-Saharan Africa.
Corruption is the foundation from which widespread and deep-rooted instability comes: the erosion of democracy and the rule of law; the exploitation of the many by the few; the simple misery of those without the means to obtain education, healthcare and the provision of utilities; the perversion of action against climate change; the destruction of level playing fields for ethical businesses; the deterrence of constructive investment; and, not least, the demoralisation of public support for international aid.
Corruption does not endure from lack of laws. One hundred and ninety-two states are party to the United Nations Convention Against Corruption. It criminalises corrupt conduct. Kleptocrats, however, continue to arrange impunity by controlling the administration of justice.
The United Kingdom now has a promising anti-corruption strategy, but this is not a problem that any country can address on its own. We can lead the development of multilateral solutions. The Government’s plans to host a summit on illicit finance next month are an encouraging part.
An international anti-corruption court is vital among the innovations that are needed. It would fill the enforcement gap in the international framework. It would go far to disrupt transnational grand corruption networks; it would prosecute the bribe payers, corrupt officials and money launderers who commit the universally agreed crimes of the UN convention when national Governments fail to do so. As well as its credible threat of criminal prosecution, which would deter corruption, most significantly, the court would have an assets division dedicated to returning illicit assets to serve the public good, even when the arrest and extradition of criminals is difficult, which has been a serious obstacle to proper redress so far.
An eminent global expert group, led by Justice Richard Goldstone of South Africa and Allan Rock, a former Canadian Minister of Justice, has shared a first draft of the international anti-corruption court treaty with interested officials in more than 35 Governments, as well as civil society organisations, for informal comments. I understand that we are committed to participate actively in this dialogue, along with Canada, Moldova, the Netherlands, Nigeria and Norway. Ukraine’s High Anti-Corruption Court judges have said that this would help their domestic effort. Widespread support comes from Africa and Latin America. The voice of the global South is crucial and demonstrates its pressing need for better governance.
Finally, the expert group has done the bulk of the laborious drafting work so that Governments such as ours can now provide input. Through 2026, the expert group will use the feedback from important stakeholders to finalise the draft for publication in early 2027. Will my noble friend the Minister renew the United Kingdom’s commitment to this viable solution to a deep-rooted and intractable barrier to justice and democracy, and keep your Lordships’ House in touch with developments? Can he say how His Majesty’s Government will contribute to the treaty discussions, at this formative stage of its development, and how they will play a leadership role in raising awareness about the proposal?
Baroness Mobarik (Con)
My Lords, we were once unquestionably a leading military and economic power. Today, our role is less clearly defined. We still have significant soft power through our institutions, global networks and cultural reach, and His Majesty the King embodies that soft power in a way that no one else can, but soft power cannot rest on individuals alone. It has to be reinforced by national confidence and a clear foreign and defence policy.
Britain has often been defined by its pragmatism, yet at times we have alienated and ostracised certain nations and peoples, to such an extent that meaningful dialogue and peaceful negotiation have become almost impossible. Trust can be earned only through openness, honest endeavour and a willingness to engage without prejudice. I fully endorse the Prime Minister’s decision not to join the United States in what most regard as an unlawful war in Iran. That restraint was right and showed judgment, for escalation is not the same as leadership. However, that in itself is not enough. We do not want to be drawn into conflict, but where is our diplomatic leadership? Where is the active effort to convene, influence and lead from the front in the pursuit of peace?
Britain’s soft power should be at its most effective in that gap between stepping back from military action and stepping forward with diplomatic influence. To remain a country of consequence, we must shape the conditions for peace, not merely react to them. But as someone who believes that every effort must be made in the pursuit of peace and in preventing the troubling proliferation of arms and ever-more destructive technologies across the globe, I also believe that soft power alone is not enough.
There must stand an unquestioned degree of hard power too, so that our words carry credibility and weight, as laid out in the strategic defence review. However, that strength must be grounded not in aggression but in defence and the protection of stability. Our laws should not just be ink on some document. I remind noble Lords that we are a signatory to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, recognising that attacks on heritage are often attacks on people, history and humanity itself. That is why damage to historic sites and cultural assets in Isfahan in Iran is so deeply concerning. A city of immense historical and architectural significance, Isfahan represents centuries of artistic, cultural and intellectual achievement. Whatever the wider politics or military circumstances, the protection of civilians and of cultural heritage must remain a principle upheld by all sides because, once heritage is lost, it cannot truly be replaced.
We must use our diplomatic influence, including with our allies and partners, to help safeguard cultural heritage wherever it is under threat and to uphold the principles that we have committed ourselves to under international law. These treasures do not belong to one nation alone. They form part of the shared inheritance of humanity and reflect the very values of civilisation, respect and continuity that we seek to defend.
Lord Forbes of Newcastle (Lab)
My Lords, the gracious Speech puts national security where it belongs, at the centre of government. I welcome that, but the question before us is not only what we spend—it is how we think and act; how we organise a whole-society defence; how we turn resilience from a slogan into collective preparedness; and how we convert defence investment into regional growth.
The strategic defence review is clear: the UK faces a more complex set of threats than at any time in recent decades. Cyber attacks on critical infrastructure and major employers, hostile activity against subsea cables and satellites, biological risks and pressure on food and energy security are not hypothetical scenarios; they are real and happening now. My noble friend Lord Robertson of Port Ellen warned recently that we are underinvesting and deciding too slowly in our defence expenditure. I fully share his analysis and concerns, but the answer is not only more and better Armed Forces—it is a more resilient country.
Whole-society resilience means three things. The first is services that function when systems fail, in particular public services that know what to do when the screens go blank and the phones go down. The second is infrastructure, particularly power, water and transport, that is designed to withstand disruption and keep on working. The third is citizens who know the basics of preparedness.
On the last point, we need to be frank and practical with the public. As my noble friend Lady Antrobus has said, our Nordic neighbours show how. Sweden’s If Crisis or War Comes booklet tells every household how to cope if the power fails or networks go down. The advice is simple: be able to look after your household for at least a week, plan to have enough water and food that does not need refrigeration, medicines, cash, a battery radio, warm clothing and a family contact plan. Finland goes further, teaching civil preparedness in schools. This is not alarmism—it is adult citizenship in a modern age. I am not suggesting for a moment that we face imminent invasion, but we must also recognise that we have grown used to systems—food, banking, power, fuel, water—that never fail. That confidence is in many ways a measure of our progress as a nation, but we have allowed our collective capacity for self-reliance to atrophy, and that has left us brittle.
Complacency is a weakness, and it diminishes our collective strength and resolve in the eyes of those who seek to do us harm. This, in turn, increases our vulnerability and the likelihood of such continued attacks. We must address this calmly and with clear public guidance, in a way that treats people as partners, not passive observers. Reform of local resilience forums is an opportunity to wire this in: local government, blue light services, businesses, universities and civic groups planning together, exercising together, communicating together. Resilience done well is not about fear but about confidence: the confidence that comes from preparation and practice.
Members of your Lordships’ House will know that I have spoken previously about the economic dividend of defence. Done smartly, defence spending can be a powerful engine of regional growth. Advanced manufacturing in the north-east, cyber and AI in the Midlands, and green maritime on our coasts are not add-ons to our defence strategy; they are its drivers of innovation. But the system must be fit for purpose. Today SMEs face procurement designed for primes. Universities sit on world-class research without clear routes to its practical adoption. Skills providers need the ability to plan and engage effectively for the long term. Economic growth and national security are not competing priorities; they are the same priority.
I recognise that in parts of my party there is some scepticism about this agenda, shaped by history, but the threats described in the SDR are not those of the 1980s or the early 1990s—they are the real and present threats of now. The threats are real and growing, and the price of inaction will far exceed the cost of preparedness. The gracious Speech sets a direction; now we must match it with pace by building resilience locally, unlocking defence investment for growth regionally, and acting nationally at the speed the world now demands.
Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Con)
I commend the noble Lord, Lord Forbes of Newcastle, on that amazing and practical analysis of where we are and what needs doing. I am somewhat nervous about following him. For the record, I declare that I have now rejoined the Conservative Party after four years as a non-aligned Peer coinciding with my tenure as chair of Ofcom, which I have now finished. I am therefore free to express some opinions again, which is a great relief, today on the Middle East specifically.
The UK has formally proscribed both Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organisations. Both organisations are Iranian-backed proxy actors responsible for attacks on Israeli civilians, regional destabilisation and the deaths of British citizens. Does this not create a strategic inconsistency for British foreign policy? If the UK legally recognises Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist entities, should not British policy more clearly reflect support for democratic allies confronting those organisations directly?
The Middle East conflict is not solely a regional dispute: it intersects with core UK national security priorities identified in the SDR, including drone warfare, missile defence, cyber conflict, autonomous systems and hybrid warfare. Israel is already confronting these threats operationally and thereby represents a key strategic and defence partner for the United Kingdom and its allies. The humanitarian crisis from the war in Gaza cannot be separated from Hamas governance, militarisation of civilian infrastructure, aid exploitation and refusal to disarm. Palestinians themselves continue to suffer under extremism, corruption and institutional failure. Long-term Palestinian stability requires demilitarisation, anti-corruption reform, educational reform and the marginalisation of extreme actors.
Should the UK not therefore pursue a strategically coherent policy that: strengthens UK-Israel defence, intelligence and cyber co-operation; expands sanctions and international co-ordination against Iran and its proxy networks; supports post-Hamas technocratic governance and reconstruction in Gaza; promotes Palestinian education reform, anti-incitement measures and institutional transparency; and advances long-term regional stability, grounded in security, coexistence and, of course, democratic government?
Supporting Israel’s security and supporting a viable future for Palestinians are mutually dependent objectives, not contradictory ones. It is worth remembering that the Palestinians rejected coexistence in a state of their own on at least four occasions post-war. They do not want a two-state solution; they want a one-state solution which excludes Israel entirely from the Middle East map.
Following the UK’s recognition of a Palestinian state and the expansion of UK-Palestinian bilateral engagement, Britain now carries a greater responsibility to ensure that its political engagement and taxpayer funding support coexistence, transparency, educational reform and anti-extremism measures rather than incitement or radicalisation.
Recognition of a future Palestinian state should therefore be accompanied by clear expectations that Palestinian education systems promote coexistence, mutual recognition, tolerance and peace, while demonstrating meaningful reform, transparency and accountability consistent with international educational standards. Continued UK engagement should encourage bilateral Palestinian partners to implement measurable reforms in governance, education and anti-incitement frameworks.
Long-term Palestinian stability is impossible while extremism continues to dominate its political and educational structures. Following the 7 October attacks, Hezbollah’s deliberate escalation on Israel’s northern border forced approximately 60,000 Israeli citizens to evacuate their homes. Despite ceasefire arrangements and sustained international pressure, Hezbollah continues rebuilding military infrastructure and resisting disarmament.
The window for a structured disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration process, supported by regional actors including Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, modelled in part on the framework the UK helped to shape in Northern Ireland, may be narrowing. I hope the whole House would welcome some enlightenment from the Government on how they intend to capitalise on Iran’s and its proxies’ current state of weakness.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the commitment in the King’s speech that the Government
“will champion the rights of women and girls to live in a world free from violence”.
I recently read a 2001 UNFPA report. The introduction said:
“The nature of armed conflicts changed dramatically during the latter half of the twentieth century, with casualties among civilians increasingly outnumbering those of military personnel”.
We know that women and girls are now the most vulnerable in all modern conflicts. I want to focus on the impact of conflict on women and girls, especially as preventing conflict seems to have taken a back seat in the intervening years.
This week, the Independent Commission for Aid Impact published the latest assessment of the global context for development co-operation. This watchdog warns that the UK’s “modernised approach” to development must address significant global pressures through clear, measurable commitments if it is to deliver lasting impact.
This is at a time when sexual violence as a weapon of war remains widespread. Conflict-related sexual violence surged by 25% in 2024, with millions of women still needing and reliant on humanitarian assistance. One-quarter of countries report a backlash against women’s rights. One in five children worldwide is growing up in a conflict-related area, being killed and injured. The bleak reality is that, at the current pace of progress, ending gender-based violence and achieving equality for women and girls will take another 100 years.
The need has never been greater. According to the UNFPA, the impact of recent cuts to its programmes has been that more than 11 million people lost access to essential sexual and reproductive health and protection services. The maternal health clinic may still be there, but the midwife has gone. There is no emergency obstetric equipment, no post-rape kits, and no contraceptives or menstrual supplies on the shelves.
In Afghanistan—which has already been mentioned very eloquently by others—according to Plan International, women and girls now face the severe crisis of malnutrition, alongside systematic human rights abuses. While this is happening, relations with the Taliban have become increasingly normalised globally. In Sudan, which was raised very eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Bates, the humanitarian situation is worsening as the conflict continues, with 25 million now at risk of starvation.
According to the recent Amnesty International report:
“Women in Gaza are being denied the conditions needed to live and to give life safely. This … erosion of their rights to health, safety, dignity … is a deliberate act … targeting women and girls. It is also the … consequence of Israel’s calculated … practices of multiple mass displacement, deliberate restrictions on … essential items, as well as humanitarian relief, and … years of relentless bombardment that have devastated Gaza’s health system and decimated entire families”.
I would welcome an update on what the Government are doing about that.
According to Human Rights Watch, women’s agency and participation in peacebuilding, accountability and political leadership is the most important step countries can take to protect women’s rights during conflict and to uphold a right enshrined 25 years ago at the UN Security Council. Upholding women’s rights requires having women at every table, all the time. The United Kingdom is in the unique position of being the UN penholder for women, peace and security. With that comes an opportunity that the UK can use for global political clout and leverage, especially at a time when opportunities and the hard-won rights of women and girls are slipping back, with deepening inequality.
Will fulfilling the ambition in the King’s Speech to protect and prioritise the rights of women and girls globally include using the UK’s diplomacy, redoubling its soft powers to counter the global rollback of the rights of women and girls, providing flexible, long-term funding to women and girls-led organisations, and working across government to tackle violence against women and girls in the UK and globally, aligned with the commitment to halve violence against women by 2030? Will the UK Government ensure that life-saving sexual and reproductive health and gender-based violence services are central to humanitarian action? In 2026—25 years on from the report I mentioned in my introduction—millions of women and girls have none of the rights that we would wish them to have: safety, choice, opportunities and, most of all, a voice.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, while major defence programmes dominate the headlines, we risk overlooking more cost-effective ways to strengthen Britain’s resilience and warfighting readiness: investing in our Reserve Forces and logistics support services. Tanks, ships, aircraft and drones may capture the attention, but none of them can operate without trained people to sustain and support them. Credible deterrence depends not only on equipment but depth, readiness and resilience.
Ukraine’s ability to draw rapidly on trained reservists at the outset of the Russian invasion illustrates the need for the UK to rebuild military depth and widen participation across society. While the Armed Forces Bill seeks to expand the reserves pool, it focuses largely on the strategic reserves and fails to address deeper structural problems. Reservists remain only partially integrated into wider defence planning. I declare an interest that my daughter is a serving reservist officer.
Training opportunities are inconsistent, access to MoD facilities is limited and poor budget management leaves times of the year when reservists are unsure whether they will even be paid for their duties. Communication failures make it difficult to balance civilian careers with military commitments, forcing many eventually to choose one or the other.
This is particularly concerning given that, despite the SDR’s commitment to increase the active reserve by 20%, both numbers and service days continue to fall. Reviews have repeatedly identified the same shortcomings—including the work by my noble friend Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton—yet little meaningful action has followed. The Government still lack a clear delivery plan, dedicated funding and even a proper understanding of the skills currently available within the Reserve Forces.
If the Government are serious about strengthening the reserves, they must go beyond simply extending recall ages or service length. We should look to allies that integrate reservists far more effectively: KLM pilots who also fly Dutch F35s and the US Air National Guard, which operates front-line aircraft, as well as Scandinavian and Baltic nations, where reserves often outnumber regular forces. Many of us believe that the UK should aim to double the size of the reserves, but that requires clear cross-government understanding of the role that reservists are expected to play.
The same lack of attention affects the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. Like the reserves alongside the regulars, the RFA often plays second fiddle to the Royal Navy, despite being indispensable to it. Royal Navy operations rely on the RFA for fuel, ammunition, aviation support, medical assistance, supplies and amphibious capability. Without the RFA, the Royal Navy’s global reach would be severely restrained. The Minister himself has described the RFA as essential, yet the service continues to face mounting pressures. Its fleet is ageing, procurement delays persist, and several vessels require extensive modernisation and repair. At the same time, personnel shortages are worsening. For the second time in two years, RFA crews are staging strike action over pay and conditions. Temporary settlements have failed to resolve concerns about below-average pay awards, poor transparency and declining morale.
RFA personnel occupy an especially difficult position. Technically MoD civil servants, they are nevertheless expected to spend increasing amounts of time at sea, undergoing demanding operational tasks. They are, in effect, the Royal Navy’s blue light emergency service—but operating with ageing equipment and insufficient recognition. It even remains unclear whether the Armed Forces covenant extends to the RFA. This matters because the RFA is central to the future of naval operations. It is the RFA “Lyme Bay” that is being sent to the Middle East. Currently being readied in Gibraltar, the ship, once upgraded, will be able to deploy and recover autonomous systems, underwater drones and mine-hunting vessels, acting as a mother ship for uncrewed technology. As the First Sea Lord observed, this is a perfect example of the “hybrid” Royal Navy the UK hopes to build.
However, advanced technology alone cannot compensate for workforce instability and underinvestment. Settling industrial disputes, improving retention policies and creating clearer career progression incentives are all essential, and so too is properly aligning the RFA with the UK’s wider defence strategy. The Reserve Forces and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary are two indispensable pillars of Britain’s defence capability, yet both are undervalued and unloved. If we are serious about delivering the ambitions of the SDR and restoring genuine warfighting readiness, we must invest not only in platforms and hardware but in the people and support structures that make military power possible. It is time to give the reserves and the RFA the love they deserve.
Baroness Kingsmill (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to contribute to this debate on a subject that I believe sits at the very heart of everything else that we discuss in this Chamber: the security and safety of the UK and all of us. I declare an interest as a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly—PA—and as a chair of the sub-committee on defence and transatlantic economics.
I welcome the Government’s stated commitment to defence. In a dangerous and volatile world, these words of resolve matter. However, I have to say, with respect, that words alone are not enough, and on this occasion the words were not accompanied by the legislative framework that the scale of the threat requires. There had been real anticipation, widely reported, that the King’s Speech would include a defence readiness Bill. It did not. That absence should trouble every Member of this House who has read the strategic defence review, particularly those who have read and absorbed the extraordinary speech given last week by my noble friend Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, who led the review.
The strategic defence review called for warfighting readiness, new munitions factories, enhanced cyber and missile defence, and a revitalised industrial base. Ministers accepted all 62 of those recommendations, yet the promised 10-year defence investment plan remains undelivered. Accepting recommendations is one thing; funding them, legislating for them, and giving them the permanence and priority they deserve is quite another.
It is in this context that I draw the attention of the House to a report published earlier this month by the Center for European Policy Analysis—CEPA—entitled “Unleashing Defense Innovation”. It is a serious and timely piece of work, and its central argument deserves to be heard in this Chamber. The report makes clear:
“Europe’s surge in defense spending”—
and there is such a surge—
“represents a once-in-a-generation strategic opportunity … but without a modernized investment strategy, new funding risks entrenching outdated force structures rather than delivering real deterrence”.
Spending more on the wrong things is not a solution; it is just a more expensive version of the same thing. The CEPA report is particularly instructive on the question of financing. It argues compellingly that private capital, venture investment, private equity and sovereign wealth funds must be mobilised alongside public expenditure, if we are to transform our defence industrial base at the speed that the threat demands. Procurement cycles that outlast entire technology generations are, as the report rightly observes, both strategically reckless and economically wasteful.
The Government should read these words carefully. Legislation that removes the regulatory and other barriers currently preventing institutional capital flowing into defence would be a significant step forward, and that is precisely the kind of bold structural reform that a defence readiness Bill could provide. Our NATO alliance remains the bedrock of our collective security, and I am glad that the Government have reaffirmed it, but NATO is not a comfort blanket but a commitment—and commitment requires capability. As my noble friend Lord Robertson has himself warned, our reliance on the United States, predicated on the assumption that it will always be there, has led to a diminution in our capability. We cannot outsource our security and then be surprised when the terms change. The alliance is only as strong as its members and Britain must be a strong member, not in aspiration but in armour, munitions and readiness.
I want to say something that bears repeating in this Chamber. We talk a great deal about the conditions necessary for democracy to flourish: free and fair elections; the rule of law; an independent judiciary; and a free press. All these things matter enormously, but none can be sustained without the hard infrastructure of national security. A democracy that cannot defend itself is a democracy that will not long endure. Strong defence is not the enemy of liberal values; it is the guarantor.
The Government have the diagnosis: my noble friend Lord Robertson and his distinguished colleagues gave it to them. The Center for European Policy Analysis has shown the way forward on innovation and finance. What is missing is the courage to act on it with the urgency and legitimate seriousness it demands. I hope that Ministers will hear this message not as a political challenge but as a patriotic one, offered, as I believe it is by all sides of the House today, in the national interest.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I was interested to note that in the first paragraph of the gracious Speech the King mentioned the Middle East conflict, and in the second paragraph he made the statement:
“My Government will take urgent action to tackle antisemitism”.
Clearly, the two are not unrelated. Like the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I went to the Nova festival exhibition in east London on Monday with some other Members of this House, and it brought back the utter revulsion and shock of the events of October 7. I very much hope that the Minister, along with many if not most of the Members of this House, will also make a point of going to the Nova exhibition. The barbarity of October 7 was beyond description. Shortly afterwards, the Government seemed to be sympathetic to the horrific threat faced by Israel of repeat attacks, but, unfortunately, since then they have significantly diluted their conviction to ensure that this never happens again.
I very much welcome His Majesty’s Government’s previous statement that there has not been any genocide in Gaza. To suggest so is an insult to the true victims of genocides around the world and to ignore the extraordinary steps taken by the IDF to try to protect civilian life wherever possible, despite facing an enemy who uses its own compatriots as shields and pawns in hospitals and schools. Fair criticism of Israel is fine—I have made that, in particular of Mr Ben-Gvir and his like. Can the Minister today confirm the Government’s position that there was no genocide in Gaza?
We have seen unparalleled levels of antisemitism and hate in the UK. As recently as last Saturday, the Palestinian demonstration had to be redirected by the police to avoid it going past my synagogue. As I said on Times Radio later in the day, members of my congregation felt unable to attend because of the danger they felt simply being on the streets of London, going to and leaving the service. I was there; I saw it.
The Government have offered welcome money and warm words to the Jewish community, but they miss the very simple point that their constant demonisation of Israel opens the door to those who wish to indiscriminately attack both Israel and the Jewish community around the world. We have heard for ourselves in the marches the chant “Death to the IDF” and “From the river to the sea”. I am sure noble Lords realise what “from the river to the sea” means. It means that every Jewish person should be thrown out from the State of Israel.
I ask the Minister, who I know is unhappy with the level of antisemitism he sees in the UK, to urgently address the following issues which relate to the scale of institutional focus against Israel, which is without parallel. For example, agenda item 7 of the Human Rights Council exists solely to target Israel. The UK has changed its position on agenda item 7, which is completely unacceptable. For years, under previous Administrations and this one, the UK opposed it along with the E3 partners and now it has shamefully moved to abstention.
Likewise, we see that UNRWA is in a state of institutional dysfunction. It applies an inherited definition of refugee status exclusively to the Palestinians. Unlike any other refugee in any part of the world, it perpetuates the Palestinian refugee question rather than trying to resolve it. This Government are guilty of compliance. There has been proven Hamas infiltration of UNRWA, so why have HMG continued funding it? Why have this Government not made more protests over the appointment of Francesca Albanese as a special rapporteur, given her appalling statements? Some European allies have, so why cannot we?
I am pleased that the King’s Speech announced the tackling state threats Bill, which will, I hope, allow the Islamic—not the Iranian—Revolutionary Guards to be proscribed. I think I probably detect the Minister’s hand in making this happen, for which we are grateful. The threat to this country from Islamic radicalism is not just cyber attacks; it is not just violence on our streets, killing Jews randomly; it is also the institutionalised singling out of the world’s only Jewish state. We see more attacks on Israel in the House of Commons than support for the National Health Service.
These and other inherently discriminatory measures have created such a negative perception of Israel that some very misguided people believe they have an open door and support to take it out on Jewish people in this country. In Heaton Park in Manchester on Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the Jewish calendar, the attacker shouted, “This is what you get for killing children”, pledged allegiance to the Islamic State and then killed two British Jews.
We need to understand the direct connection between demonising Israel unjustly and death threats to British Jews. This Government should have the backbone to be much more forthright in their support for Israel’s fight for the right to exist and take steps to calm the febrile, poisonous atmosphere which has arisen against Israel and our own Jewish community.
Lord McDonald of Salford (CB)
My Lords, my speech will be rather different.
Giovanni Spadolini was Italy’s Prime Minister in September 1982, when I joined the Foreign Office. In the following 10 years, Italy had seven different Prime Ministers. Italy was less effective on the international stage as a consequence. In the UK, 10 years ago our Prime Minister was the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton. It looks increasingly likely that, in the next few weeks, the UK will have its seventh Prime Minister in a decade. The UK is seen as less serious on the international stage when we are not serious at home. Across the board, our reputation is taking a knock in some areas that have traditionally defined the United Kingdom: political stability, policy consistency, strategic clarity and fair play. I will give one example on the last of those.
Late on 15 April, the Guardian splashed the story that Lord Mandelson had failed his security vetting before going as ambassador to Washington. Within 24 hours, in time for the evening news, the Prime Minister dismissed Sir Olly Robbins, Permanent Secretary at the Foreign Office. In the UK, Prime Ministers do not dismiss Permanent Secretaries without process and without cause. This being without process is demonstrated by the very compressed timeline; it being without cause is becoming obvious through the continuing investigation of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, to which Sir Olly gave compelling evidence. Sir Olly was the victim of an injustice, which can and should be corrected.
It is not all bleak on the international stage for the United Kingdom. In some areas, the UK continues to be world leading or world beating. Our soft power is intact. Right now, exemplary work is being done in British courts, theatres, film studios, football clubs—I congratulate Aston Villa—and universities. I am the master of Christ’s College, Cambridge, which last year won its fifth Nobel prize. Right now at Christ’s, a post-doc is developing, with his brilliant professor, a blood test for the very early detection of multiple cancers. Their work is hampered by restrictions on foreign medical samples coming into British laboratories. They understand the need for regulation, but their contention is that it is unnecessarily restrictive. I appreciate that this is the first time this has been mentioned today and that this is a rather technical subject, but I will write to the Minister and urge His Majesty’s Government to help, please.
Lord Hintze (Con)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow—and more to the point, to listen to—the noble Lord, Lord McDonald of Salford. Here, I must declare an interest: Salford City, his namesake, is this Monday fighting for promotion from League Two to League One against the wonderful Notts County. Let us hope we win—and I declare an interest in that result.
Let me go back to something more to the point. I welcome the renewed commitments to defence spending and NATO, but we absolutely cannot ignore the recent observations of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, of “corrosive complacency” in government on defence, and his warning that
“we cannot defend Britain with an ever-expanding welfare budget”.
Politics is about choice and government is about priorities.
The first duty of government is defence of the realm. Before every other programme stands the obligation to keep the nation safe. We are living in a very dangerous world; many Peers have already spoken to that point. The peace dividend that we saw in 1989 has been spent—it is gone. We face a belligerent Russia, an expanding China, instability in the Middle East, a contested Indo-Pacific, cyber attacks, economic coercion and hybrid threats that respect no borders—and we have not even talked about international criminality. In a world such as this, defence is not one departmental claim among many but the foundation on which every other claim rests.
Unfortunately, for too long, successive Governments have treated defence as a residual claimant on the public purse. I am sick and tired of hearing politicians from the other place, and potentially from here, blaming the Treasury. This is nonsense. “Blame yourselves. You are in charge, you have been elected. I am sick of this. You cannot blame the Treasury; that is enough.”
Britain is not a poor country. We are the fifth-largest economy in the world. We have science, innovation, the City, universities, the legal system, Lloyd’s of London, our leading AI practitioners, alliances and the history to be the great power that we are. We are a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, a founder of NATO, Five Eyes, AUKUS, the G7, the G20 and the Commonwealth, and we lead the Joint Expeditionary Force. We are a nuclear power. Please, let us just get a grip here.
Britain is in fact a great power, and we have obligations. But greatness is not an inheritance; it must be nurtured. We comfort ourselves with talk of soft power. Enough of this. Soft power without hard power is no power at all. We are not the Vatican, in case anybody has missed the point. We cannot simply will stability, deterrence, freedom of navigation and support for our allies while failing to train people and to provide the ships, aircraft, munitions, and the industrial capacity and resilience to fight and win.
This is a question of priorities. The state has the obligation to protect the vulnerable, undoubtedly, but we cannot become a transfer economy in which welfare drifts from a safety net—an important safety net—into a very unpleasant way of life. It is unfair to working people, it is corrosive to society and it is divisive. Everyone wants to blame every other party around here—“Look at these guys, look at those guys”—but the corrosion starts from within.
Let me give one illustration: the Motability scheme. For many, it is a vital and good scheme, but its scale and scope have ballooned beyond being a true safety net for the vulnerable. The latest figures show there are 875,000 vehicles on the road. At roughly £25,000 per vehicle, this is £21.9 billion of national resource deployed. Using Babcock numbers of £250 million to build a core Type 31 frigate, that sum is equivalent to over 87 frigates. So, when we ask, “Where are our frigates?”, we can see where they are—they are travelling around our roads.
This is a choice that we have made to expand entitlements at the expense of the safety of the nation. We need a new settlement and we need some backbone. The question is not whether Britain can afford to remain a great power—we can and we are; the question is whether we choose to be. With that, I end with my previous question: where are our frigates? They are in the priorities that we and prior Governments have chosen, and, frankly, it is time to choose again.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hintze. His patriotism and clear-headedness are an inspiration.
“An increasingly dangerous and volatile world threatens the United Kingdom”.
Those were His Majesty’s first words—well, not quite his first words; I think his first words were:
“My Lords, pray be seated”.
He is a very polite monarch who always puts the immediate before the important, but his first important words were:
“An increasingly dangerous and volatile world threatens the United Kingdom”.
You would think, listening to this debate, that no one disagrees with that. On every side, we have heard listed, sometimes in abstract terms and sometimes in specific terms, the various forms of danger that threaten us: cyber attacks, energy shortages and direct kinetic threats.
I put it to your Lordships that we do not really believe that: if we did, we would be behaving very differently. To develop the theme of the noble Lord, Lord Hintze, we would be putting minesweepers before Motability. To adapt the old First World War catchphrase, we would be putting guns before butter. We would, in short, be prioritising actual security over social security, rather than spending more than five times as much on the latter as on the former. That is not the behaviour of a country that truly believes it is threatened by an increasingly dangerous and volatile world.
What is the single biggest threat to our security? We have heard all the abstract nouns listed on all sides in this debate. They have sometimes been more specifically identified as Russia, China, Islamic terrorism or whatever. But above and linking all those threats is the really serious threat, which is that we are not growing economically. As long as our GDP is flatlining, it does not matter whether we spend 2%, 4%, 5% or 10% of GDP on defence, because the number is not increasing.
We are bloated as an economy, morbidly obese and adipose. Like anyone in that situation, getting fit again will require some short-term pain. There was an opportunity for some of that short-term pain in the King’s Speech. We had been promised a Bill on welfare reform, and it was very ostentatiously dropped. What did we get instead? A whole series of Bills increasing the power of state regulators and growing the state at the expense of what is left of the private sector. There are Bills on regulating water, Bills on regulating ticket sales, Bills on regulating oil, Bills on regulating energy prices and Bills on regulating housebuilding. This, again, is not the behaviour of a country that thinks that it faces an immediate threat.
Behavioural psychologists tell us to infer motive from behaviour, rather than the other way around. If we infer motive from behaviour, the Government have decided to prioritise short-term popularity, particularly with certain groups of the electorate, over the long-term security of the nation.
The noble Lord, Lord Grade, said that he had rejoined the Conservative Party and therefore could regain his opinions. I recently moved in the opposite direction. My partisan glands were cauterised in a painful operation.
This problem has grown up under successive Governments, including that of my former party. There has been a repeated unwillingness to face short-term, bad headlines in pursuit of long-term security considerations. But the strength of this country was always its relative economic success. From the Nine Years’ War until the end of the Cold War, we were successful in war and victorious and powerful in the councils of the world, not because of some magical property in our soil, seas or skies and not even because of the fighting spirit of our people—excepting the present company of noble and gallant Lords—but because we had a technological edge over our adversaries based on greater economic advancement. We are making a choice, instead of pursuing that advantage, to spend it on short-term popularity and on making ourselves more comfortable.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, quoted the Athenian ambassadors as quoted by Thucydides in his history: the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. We are making a decision to be relatively weak because we do not want to face any of the short-term pain, and that is how powerful countries become weak countries. They become bloated and overweight, and in the end they lose the capacity to defend themselves and collapse, as all powers collapse.
“Altogether elsewhere, vast
Herds of reindeer move across
Miles and miles of golden moss,
Silently and very fast”.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to take part in this debate, and I have learned a great deal from many of the contributions that have been made—I hope I am a wiser person as a result. I want to talk about two topics: the movement of people throughout the world and the effect it will have on this country and on western Europe; and something about the Middle East, Palestine and Israel.
I cannot claim to speak about defence. I will just say in passing that about 20 or more years ago, I was invited as part of a delegation of Members of this House and of the Commons to visit Afghanistan, and we went to Camp Bastion and Kandahar. It was a very informative and interesting experience to see the British Army in action in very dangerous circumstances.
We must expect more movements of people, whether driven by climate change, poverty, or war and persecution, and we ought to be ready for that. The movements will increase; they are not going to be stopped, or not easily. We have to look at the tragedy in Lebanon. I grieve for that country and what it is going through—I have been there a few times, although not very recently. It is suffering enormously, and I have to say that there will come a time when many Lebanese will have to flee as their country is being bombed and attacked by the Israelis.
I am pleased that we did not succumb to Trump’s blandishments to join him in attacking Iran. It is America’s war, not our war. We have supported the Americans in Afghanistan and in other countries, but this was not an occasion for us to get involved. I think it will be a long time before the world recovers from the tragedy of what the Americans are doing there.
Then we have the tragedy in the Horn of Africa, not just in Sudan but in the DRC. Again, people are suffering there and many are on the move. There is the almost forgotten situation of a million Rohingyas who fled from Myanmar into Bangladesh. I visited Cox’s Bazar some years ago and there were about 100,000 people there, but now there are a million and Bangladesh is getting very little help. Some of the Rohingyas are fleeing to neighbouring countries, but nobody is giving them much help.
On Israel, I am as opposed to antisemitism as anybody, partly from my own personal history, but to suggest that criticism of Israel is somehow antisemitic is a departure from the truth. The noble Lord who said that is not here now, but I find it very upsetting when people suggest that. Some years ago I had a conversation with a previous Israeli ambassador to London, who said to me, “Of course you can criticise Israel—they do it in the Knesset all the time”. It is unhealthy to think that we are antisemitic because we say that what the Israeli Government are doing is unacceptable, which I believe it is.
Yes, there was a dreadful tragedy in Israel on 7 October. The Hamas attack was appalling, and we all send our sympathies to the Israelis, the people who were held hostage and the families of those who suffered. But that is not the only tragedy in the region, and it has been made much worse by the response of the Israelis. We recently saw on our television screens the people who came on the flotilla. That was a fairly peaceful exercise to bring aid to Gaza. But after an Israeli Minister delighted in seeing people handcuffed on their knees and humiliated, without having committed any criminal offence, and said, “This is to teach them”, even Prime Minister Netanyahu had to say that was not in the best traditions of Israel, and that Minister was rightly condemned by our Foreign Secretary.
I was delighted when this country recognised the State of Palestine—not because that recognition in itself solves anything but because it is a necessary stage on the way to having a two-state solution. I was very happy to be outside what became the Palestinian embassy when it celebrated becoming a Palestinian state. It is absolutely necessary for there to be a two-state solution.
The growth of settlements is damaging the chance of a two-state solution. There are 102 illegal settlements on the West Bank and the threat of more settlements through E1, which will divide Palestine into two separate parts and make a Palestinian state even more difficult to achieve. We have to take action against any British companies that want to have contracts to build E1 and to make sure they know that there will be sanctions against them if they go ahead. The Prime Minister has said that the 1967 occupation is unlawful, as advised by the ICJ. That should be fundamental to our approach. There should be consequences. There should be no UK trade in goods and services with settlements. We should suspend the bilateral trade partnership. This is all based on there being international co-operation.
I shudder at the thought that the Israeli Government are introducing a death penalty only for Palestinians. They have denied access to Palestinian prisons in Israel as NGOs have denied access to Gaza. What is happening is a tragedy. We have to say to the Israeli Government, “You’ve got to stop. The tragedy of 7 October does not justify what you are doing now”.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register. It is a great honour to be present for this debate.
I will ask the Minister three questions. First, when will we start supporting British companies that are developing innovative defence systems but find themselves having to go abroad to countries such as the USA to manufacture their British products, because they do not get the funding or support from the UK Government? We then end up buying those products back for the defence of our great nation. Given the importance of being self-reliant and resilient, perhaps it is time we start to look at bringing back manufacturing and backing those fantastic entrepreneurs who, if backed properly, would create thousands of jobs and put us back at the forefront of leading the world with world-class systems. It would also help the Government’s economic growth agenda. Will the Minister therefore commit to putting the interests of British entrepreneurs at the heart of their support by funding and helping them to invest in this country? This would include the manufacturing of PPE and other necessary uniforms. I was horrified to find that only 6% of all uniforms for the military are produced in this country. We need to put the economic growth of our country first. That does not stop us engaging in closer co-operation with our allies old and new.
Secondly, when will we work more closely with our friends and allies across the African continent? Like all nations, we have an economy that needs to grow into a more knowledge-rich, new technology-based and clean power-based country. We need critical minerals. While the Chinese, the Americans and many of our European allies have been engaging actively for many years, we seem to lack a coherent, joined-up strategy with the African continent—especially with countries with which we have long-standing relationships. This is important not just for British businesses but for our presence in the wider debate through soft diplomacy. We can do so much more that benefits not just us but our partners and allies across the continent. Will the Minister urge the Government to strengthen our embassies and high commissions, particularly in countries where it will generate opportunities for British businesses and our excellent, talented and skilled workforces that support us to export goods globally? Cutting the strength of embassies and high commissions is shooting ourselves in the foot. We need a strong presence across the world, and our embassies and high commissions are the first outward-facing connections that those countries have with our country.
In these uncertain times, will the Minister tell us what the Government’s strategy is to have strong access to virgin steel, because without it we will not be able to manufacture SMRs, defence capabilities and infrastructure? No discussions are taking place with UK businesses that are willing to work with the Government to help support the steel industry. Will the Minister therefore meet and speak to those businesses that wish to come in and support the infrastructure in this country to help build our defence mechanisms?
The security of this country is very unpredictable and we are living in a very unpredictable world. Although the noble Lord, Lord Forbes of Newcastle, is not in his place, I agreed with everything he was saying. It is time that we put the growth and security of our country first, working with old and new allies. We cannot dither; we need to make decisions. That is what is needed in this time of turmoil.
My last piece of advice to the Minister, who I know will listen carefully to his colleagues the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, and the noble Lord, Lord Robertson—who have huge experience of the terrors and turmoil that goes on—is that it is perhaps time to bring them into the tent and take their advice on how to work and negotiate. Their experience is huge and they would greatly benefit the Government and the wider nation.
Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD) [V]
My Lords, before I start, I pay tribute to the RAF regiment with which I have strong connections, as is noted in my register of interests. Its role is not well known but it is essential, and it deserves public recognition from this House; so too does the RFA, spoken to so well by the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie.
I would like to have heard rather more about national security in the gracious Speech to help advance the short debate I initiated in Grand Committee on 20 April. Nevertheless, I am determined to continue that debate, which focused on our civil preparedness for war or major critical infrastructure disruption. I was delighted to hear the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Forbes of Newcastle, who reiterated my remarks from that debate. Despite many assurances from the Minister, whom I greatly respect, when he responded to my short debate, my concerns remain.
The omission of the defence readiness Bill from the King’s Speech, kicking the can down the road until at least mid-2027, shows remarkable, even criminal, complacency by the Government, when we have kinetic war raging on the European continent, as well as hybrid warfare by Russia and China waged directly against the UK and its allies. This was wisely and vehemently expressed by the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Stirrup and Lord Houghton of Richmond, and others throughout this interesting and important debate.
In my town of Richmond, the community emergency plan appears to be driven by a community interest company—a CIC. It is a volunteer body, undoubtedly committed and well meaning, but our central and local government need to take the lead to give legal weight, authority and direction to what has to be done by our Civil Service, industry and citizens. No less than a whole-of-government approach is needed, putting in place the means to mobilise the whole nation if an existential crisis arises. Part 2 of our county emergency plan in North Yorkshire warns of the consequences of inaction:
“It can be chaotic if people do not know where reliable advice can be found; what is needed (and not needed) and to whom they should turn”.
In his critique of Understanding the UK’s Transition to Warfighting Readiness, former deputy police commissioner, David Gilbertson, relates how public order can quickly break down in crisis and the need to prepare for it. Chaos can easily be sown by our enemies. Hybrid warfare is destabilising Europe. Look at Russia’s shadow fleet activity, misinformation and disinformation and malign influence, cyber attacks, aggressive probing by drones in the sea and air, economic warfare and explicit threats—recall the Salisbury poisonings—and that is not to mention the existential threats we have of climate change and the looming energy crisis, now made incredibly more difficult since we seem to be letting Russia off the hook by reducing sanctions against buying its oil.
The Prime Minister’s national conversation on defence and security has yet to start, as noble Lords have already mentioned, and there has been little, if any, public engagement, and certainly no clear central direction on what that national conversation should look like. In his newspaper article of 16 March, the noble Lord, Lord Hague of Richmond, wrote:
“An act of national leadership is now required: to be frank with the country about the dangers and be clear that the funds for more tanks, ships, planes, drones, ammunition and recruits are vital”—
and, I would add, to be clear about how we, as civilians, should be preparing ourselves to ensure our survival in extremis.
As we presently lack a plan for homeland defence, notwithstanding the setting up of our own National Resilience Committee, chaired by the excellent noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, what action is being taken to strengthen our civil defence immediately? I do not believe we have the luxury of waiting until that report is produced at the end of November. What is being produced in the interim?
Being complacent about our country’s security is no longer tenable. Ukraine shows us that graphically. We do not have the luxury to implement plans in the casual way we have done in the past. It is time to get our act together to ensure our collective security and build the resilience of our nation.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, before turning to the main substance of today’s debate, I briefly say that I warmly welcome the inclusion in the gracious Speech of a promise to tackle so-called conversion practices. These have severely damaged and traumatised many LGBT people over decades, not least when performed in the name of religion. I welcome that promise just as warmly today as I welcomed it from this same Bench on the three or four occasions when it has previously been made. I hope that, this time round, we will actually get to the point of legislating. Indeed, the General Synod of the Church of England overwhelmingly voted to press the Government to do just that several years ago.
Turning to today’s main topics, I want to speak briefly about Britain’s soft power, covert foreign influence and defending liberal democracy. As international threats grow more complex and less overt, Britain’s foreign policy and influence abroad depends less on traditional hard power alone and increasingly on proactive British diplomacy. Noble Lords have already alluded to this but, alongside our formal diplomatic missions, key institutions such the British Council and the World Service extend our cultural influence. Many of our universities, along with our public schools, play a key role in shaping future global leaders. They must be sufficiently supported and resourced to do the job we need them to do.
Equally, bodies such as the Commonwealth, and, indeed, my own Church of England, contribute to an extensive international network: we connect local communities, education institutions and development organisations, all of which promote British values such as human dignity and justice on a global scale. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, speaking in the House earlier this week, highlighted that the Church builds bridges and fosters relationships across lines of race, faith and class. This role in fostering unity is absolutely essential in the face of an increasingly divided world. More broadly, these institutions develop long-term diplomatic relationships, and grass-roots engagement with them embeds liberal democratic principles in cultures abroad and promotes best practice in other nations.
We cannot ignore the growing prevalence of covert operations by foreign powers on British soil. In recent years, there has been a marked increase in incidents of transnational repression in the UK, such as the targeting of Iran International in 2023 and the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury in 2018, as well as in foreign actors who seek to radicalise British citizens. In the light of these threats, I welcome the Government’s commitment to tackle foreign interference, especially the proposed national security Bill’s focus on criminalising those involved in instigating, or indeed planning, the most violent and egregious attacks.
While previous legislation has already placed some caps on foreign political donations, I am also concerned about how technology-enabled routes of access to the British public may enable undue ideological influence over our political system, including seeking to weaponise differences of religion or heritage within the UK. Strengthening the transparency of donations to political campaigns, to individuals either directly involved in or prominently seen as being engaged in politics and to parties more broadly is essential if we are to defend the democratic integrity of our electoral processes.
I welcome the Government’s renewed interest in defending against these threats, but at the same time I remain concerned about the impact of some proposals on our civil liberties. Recent years have seen a steady tightening of regulations around protests. This has major implications for the freedom of expression that underpins our liberal society. It is crucial that any new government powers are firmly rooted in a commitment to maintain personal liberty and freedom of expression. I believe we can do this at the same time as ensuring that our freedoms are not abused as a means of promoting hostility. Others have already alluded to the dramatic rise in antisemitism that killed two of my Jewish neighbours on Yom Kippur last year and frightened so many others of us who live in the city of Salford.
Liberal democracy stands under threat, not only from non-democratic standards, but from what Viktor Orbán, lately of Hungary, proudly referred to as “illiberal democracy”. From Hungary to the USA, we see jurisdictions where votes may still be largely free and fair, but the use of executive patronage and commercial pressure to force the judiciary, the civil service, the press, religious institutions and businesses to collude with the leaders’ whims and wishes make democracy a very thin defence. That must never happen here. This United Kingdom, which I am so proud to serve in your Lordships’ House, is far more than a blot of pink on an increasingly multicoloured map. Britain is a way of life, a way of life inevitably far from perfect, but which can yet be a beacon of hope across the globe. That is what is worth defending. That is what our foreign and defence policies must provide.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, it is always a challenge to follow a bishop, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester is no exception. The Prime Minister says that a central aim of the new legislative programme is to strengthen security, the economy, energy and defence. The country is to be put at the heart of Europe to remove the barriers to growth under a European partnership Bill. European alliances are to be rebuilt, the Armed Forces strengthened and the UK is, he says, to stand strong with NATO.
Noble Lords have referred today to the link between a strong economy and strong defence, to which I add a strong, tough diplomacy. The UK is a sovereign state, a member of the G7, historically a global trader and a staunch upholder of competitive markets and free trade, for which trade treaties remain, as the Minister reminded us this morning, a vital tool in the armoury of international relations. Sadly, this does not seem to have been followed up by this Government.
In rebuilding alliances, the very costly one in, one out deal with France last August has resulted in the removal, by the end of April, of 605 people who arrived illegally on small boats, with France sending 581 people. It seems there is a lot of money for the current deal: £500 million, plus the £162 million top-up for the deport and detain scheme. Can the Minister let us know how this deal will make more value and whether it can be toughened up for this country?
In respect of the wider EU, for this Government it seems there is no EU demand that is too much, no cost too high and no deal too punitive. Even Sir Keir Starmer’s three modest reset proposals—on mutual recognition of professional qualifications, an end to restrictions on UK touring artists, and a modest veterinary agreement—have all failed. The first two have got nowhere, so far, and instead of an agreement on the third we have a fully blown SPS deal, which is what the EU demanded, including long-term access to UK fisheries. There is also a negotiation in progress to open the borders of this country to tens of millions of the EU’s young people under 30. The EU has not shown the slightest flicker of willingness to consider the suggestion, proposed by David Lammy, of a financial services agreement based on mutual recognition of equivalent standards.
Worse, trade with Britain’s global partners will suffer, as they signed up to trade with the UK under its own laws. Each party, as in the CPTPP deal, is to trade on the basis of mutual recognition of standards, scientifically assessed and with conformity assessment bodies, and without the uncertainties produced by dynamic alignment with EU law. As Professor David Collins has explained, this could leave the UK open to legal challenge internationally from trade partners.
This week, the International Agreements Committee heard from a former chief trade negotiation adviser at the DBT. He said that the UK should look to the growing economies of Asia and the Middle East, including the GCC countries, and continue to work with the US on whatever opportunities presented themselves. Agreements are possible; the US remains our biggest single trade partner and, as the official added, the current Administration want to go where we want to go, for we share many similar aims in trade, but that cannot be expected from a future Democrat regime. Why should a country be held up by the slowest ship in the convoy rather than embrace its role as a global leader of free markets, competitive global trade and the rule of the common law, itself the most significant export?
Lord John of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, I thought long and hard about which debate on the humble Address I should participate in. My background in local government, regeneration and housing initially pushed me towards the debate yesterday; but since joining your Lordships’ House in January, the questions raised here, conversations with colleagues and the challenges of world events have brought me to a realisation that our nation’s defence is a topic that I cannot ignore. While I have no historic experience or expertise in defence, the challenges our nation faces means that defence should be everyone’s business.
For more than 30 years since the peace dividend of the 1990s, we have perhaps left defence as a subject largely for those with knowledge and experience of the military sector. However, I know they must now feel that it is imperative that more, if not all, of us should play a part in the debate about the fundamental duty of government—the security of our nation. Without a new debate and the building of a truly national consensus, we risk allowing our nation’s security to be sidelined again at a time when it should be top of every agenda. So I hope that my contribution today will be welcomed and my lack of experience forgiven—perhaps seen as a pre-emptive strike of the national conversation.
President Theodore Roosevelt popularised the proverb, “Speak softly and carry a big stick”, as an approach to the United States’ national defence policy in 1900. As one military expert observed to me recently, there is a risk that our approach to defence today becomes characterised as, “Shout loudly and carry a matchstick”. In fact, the British military remains a formidable force, with recent and relevant experience of supporting significant military engagements. Britain has military knowledge that continues to be envied and used around the globe.
We have a plan in the strategic defence review, but I can only add my voice to those calling for it to be implemented through the defence investment plan, for the reality is that, even if we meet our current and significantly increased target of 3.5% of GDP on defence spending by 2035, in nine years’ time, that will still be only half of what the then Government were spending on rearmament in 1938, having risen from similar levels of spending to today in 1932. I do not believe that we have the luxury of being able to wait another nine years to significantly increase our defence spending and capacity when the world today feels far more threatening and our alliances uncertain—and I know that many here would argue that the world today is more akin to 1938 than to 1932. We know that, in life, prevention is better than cure, and 3.5%, or even 6.9%, of GDP spent on defence now would still be dwarfed by the massive sums that it would actually cost to fight a war, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, pointed out, recalling that more than 50% of GDP was ultimately spent annually on defence during World War Two.
We need to show those who would challenge our way of life that we are serious about protecting our freedoms and begin to make the investment necessary to defend ourselves with the systems, weapons and people needed in 2026. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kingsmill, outlined, there are innovative and affordable ways in which we can fund that defence investment. Let us embrace that innovation and explore all options to build the systems we need now.
I welcome the Government’s moves to strengthen our relationship with our EU neighbours. That is an essential ingredient in building our defence capability. War and conflict are never an inevitability, but we make them more likely if we fail to demonstrate by words and deeds that we will act now to have the military capacity to defend ourselves.
Lord Magan of Castletown (Con)
My Lords, as the Chief of the General Staff has recently made starkly clear, Great Britain and NATO are very much in Putin’s crosshairs. We are on an inescapable collision course with a Russia that is on a determined war footing. Many aspects of this conflict have already been under way for quite some time. Deliberate, enhanced Russian escalation in a wider sphere is evidenced by its increasingly subversive and deliberately antagonistic activities in eastern Europe, yet the Labour Administration have been consistently weak in their responses to these ever-increasing dangers and shown a lacklustre regard to substantially beefing up defence of the realm.
Our European partners are not indulging in such dangerous and inescapable complacency. Some are already taking the gloves off in a way that should be a real spur to our own commitment and endeavours but could also, if not balanced, raise very significant concerns.
We need to talk about Germany again. Germany is launching an enormous rearmament programme and its officially declared, stated aim is now to build, in its words,
“the strongest conventional army in Europe”.
Chancellor Merz has secured a constitutional amendment to exempt defence spending from the stringent legal limits on government debt. Merz’s recent proclamation is that the scale of defence spending now has to be “whatever it takes”. It is now clear that, by the end of this decade, Germany’s conventional defence spend will significantly exceed that of the combined total of the UK and of France. Rheinmetall, Germany’s defence giant, is already responding at full bore to Chancellor Merz’s exhortations, with typical German efficiency, huge productivity and a focus on maximum quality. For understandable historical reasons, this is now ringing alarm bells in Paris and in Warsaw.
There are clearly much more disturbing forces also at work. But for us in Great Britain, that should be the spur to emulating Germany’s determined commitment to protect Europe’s freedoms and culture. Why are this present Labour Administration so timid and so indecisive? Why do this Labour Government not listen and respond with immediacy to the wise, experienced and much-respected counsel of their own distinguished noble friends in this House, such as the noble Lord, Lord Reid of Cardowan, and the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen?
“Action this day” surely has to be seized as the galvanising mantra. For a long time, we have been the USA’s major and most respected partner in NATO. We should welcome Germany’s even more heavyweight presence alongside us. Restoring President Trump’s confidence in NATO is of permanent importance. A NATO regalvanised under leadership determinedly funded by Great Britain—alongside a fully funded and committed Germany—will be very close to President Trump’s heart. He clearly values hugely his own British, Scottish and German familial ties; we must determinedly embrace Germany in this way. The depiction of Field Marshal Blücher in the Royal Gallery reminds us of an absolutely pivotal partnership of yesteryear. His Majesty the King’s hugely successful state visit to Germany demonstrated how warm this two-way relationship can be. We must not let Germany drift eastwards.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, I speak from a Sikh perspective on common concerns for peace and justice in our strife-torn world of today. The poet reminds us that rivers and mountains interpose to make one people implacable foes. It is not only geography that divides our one human family but human greed, prejudice and bigotry, including religious bigotry.
Seeing ourselves as superior and others as lesser beings has been a source of conflict throughout history. In 1937, in a speech justifying the proposed uprooting of Palestinians to create a Jewish state, Winston Churchill said:
“I do not admit … that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race … has come in and taken their place”.
Rivalry between the “higher-grade” races resulted in the horror of the First and Second World Wars, atrocities against the Jews and the incineration of hundreds of thousands in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The suffering and devastation of war shocked world leaders into a new realism and a common desire to work for a more peaceful world. Victor nations agreed that the only way forward to lasting peace would be a recognition of the equal rights of all members of our one human family—imperatives for peace and justice first put forward by the Sikh Gurus more than two centuries earlier.
Jesus Christ wisely warned that the sword should not be used automatically to resolve difference, but today politicians and retired generals constantly call on the need for bigger and better weapons to defend ourselves against those we call our enemies. We show righteous indignation when those who are not our friends abuse human rights, but we show less concern when a friendly country fires on innocent children and aid workers in Gaza, and at the threats by an eccentric friend and ally to obliterate all life in Iran. Powerful nations exploit smaller nations’ conflicts by selling arms to impoverished people in places such as the Middle East, or by direct involvement in conflict in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. India buys oil from Russia to help fund Russian aggression against Ukraine. Unbelievably, Russia sells arms to Pakistan for use against India.
In a speech in this House a year or so ago, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, a former Defence Minister, made clear what politicians mean by defence. He spoke about countries such as China and Russia threatening the existing world order. He was right: they too are also trying to acquire crude political and economic power. However, the briefest glimpse at world history shows that the existing world order is built on racism, slavery and gross economic exploitation. Conflict is inevitable in a world built on such insecure foundations.
What do we need to do to make it a fairer world? Religious teachings were meant to provide the answer, but today rivalry between different religions and absurd claims of exclusive and favoured relationships with the one God of us all has made the distortion of true religion a major cause of conflict and suffering. Guru Nanak was a witness to such bigotry in India some 500 years ago. The Guru, like Jesus Christ in the parable of the good Samaritan, openly challenged this irreligious view of religion. He taught that the one God of us all is not the least bit interested in our different religious labels, but in what we do to create a fairer and more peaceful world.
At the same time, Guru Nanak recognised and highlighted the ethical commonalities between our different faiths. Our holy book contains writings of not only the Sikh gurus but parallel ethical perspectives from Hindu and Muslim saints. I believe that this approach of looking to the good in others and building on common values and interests is the only way to lasting peace and justice.
Today, we are in a smaller, interdependent world. Our destinies are inextricably entwined, and we face common environmental and other challenges. We have to realise now that there is no “us” and “them”; there is only “us”. We all have a common responsibility to change old-fashioned mindsets about exclusive and superior religions, and the belief that force is the only way to resolution.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the hereditary Peers, who gave time and expertise to this House with a true sense of public service and duty passed down over generations. They will be missed.
I begin by declaring my interests. I co-chair and run the APPG on Women, Peace and Security. I am on the steering board of the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative. I set up and run the Afghan Women’s Support Forum, and I am the honorary colonel of Outreach Group.
The King’s Speech highlighted that an increasingly dangerous and volatile world threatens the UK. As well as the war in Ukraine and the terrible situation in the Middle East, the Red Cross reports that there are over 130 active conflicts in the world today—as the Minister said, that is more than at any other time since World War Two—with civilians bearing the brunt of attacks and sexual violence often being used as a weapon of war. There seems an inability to bring these conflicts to peace. The wars of the last 20 years flex from acute to chronic, and often back again. Wars are easy to start and, as we see, are so hard to finish. Today, there are over 120 million displaced people, many as a result of conflict. There will never be global peace while this situation continues. In our interconnected world, what happens in one place affects people all over the world.
I am concerned about aspects of the UK’s response to all this. We should be investing more into conflict resolution and prevention. For resolution, we must work with other countries to maintain international bodies, including the UN, and to reform them to be more effective. Conflict prevention, by averting war, not only saves lives but billions of pounds. Studies show that for every £1 invested, as much as £100 is saved. However, last year’s report by Mercy Corps and Saferworld revealed a sharp decline in the UK’s investment in peacebuilding, violence prevention and conflict resolution over recent years.
Empirical evidence shows that including women in peace processes makes peace more durable, legitimate and effective, and 35% more likely to last 15 years. In 2000, the UN Security Council Resolution 1325 recognised the disproportionate effect of conflict on women and girls. While the Foreign Secretary’s words of commitment to the women, peace and security agenda are most welcome, the International Development Select Committee’s report found that the UK Government failed to deliver on commitments relating to the inclusion of women and girls in meaningful participation and conflict prevention, that funding has been reduced, and that the Government’s commitment appears to be waning.
I welcome the statement in the King’s Speech about putting the rights of women and girls first, but there needs to be action, not just words. There remains enormous gender inequality in many countries, mostly because male leaders turn a blind eye to issues such as child marriage and FGM. Why has funding for sexual health and reproductive rights been cut? The Government argue that the reason for slashing aid is because we need money for defence, but this does not have to be financed at the cost of international development. It is a political choice that the Government are making. We need security for the UK, and this will not be achieved by defence alone. As we have heard from many noble Lords today, we need the combination of diplomacy, development and defence.
International development aid is not charity; it is an investment in a safer, healthier and more stable world. I have a number of concerns in this regard that I would be grateful if the Minister could address. The reduction of people at the FCDO is not only damaging morale but will destroy institutional memory and experience. The reduced aid needs to be used in the most cost-effective way: financing at grass roots, not mainly financing multilaterals. What percentage of aid will actually go to the purpose it is meant for, after hotels for migrants are paid for—16% of the budget last year—and top-slicing to fund the multilaterals? Why is funding to demining organisations such as HALO and MAG, where the UK is a world leader, being cut by about 66%? How can countries prosper where there is the danger of mines? It was accepted that education was the way out of poverty, yet the UK now seems to have abandoned this. What are we doing to tackle corruption? Many African countries are rich in resources, but the benefits end up in the pockets of a few.
The MoD tells us we should be war ready. At the moment, I understand that we import about 40% of our food, so why are this Government allowing solar panels to be put on good agricultural land, which we need to grow food? I understand if the Minister cannot answer all this today, but I hope that they will write to me.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as sometime chair and vice-chair of the APPG for the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. I have raised the division of Cyprus many times in your Lordships’ House, and I put on record my gratitude for the immense effort made by the FCDO in trying to facilitate a long-term solution to the problem. Our colonial past on the island and our status as a guarantor power have meant real involvement, particularly in the run-up to the Crans-Montana negotiations, now nine years ago. It is a matter of huge regret that these negotiations failed at the very last moment, when the Greek Cypriot negotiators abandoned the process.
Cyprus has been divided for over 50 years, and in this half century there have been repeated attempts to reunite. All these attempts have failed, and in each case the Greek Cypriot south was the proximate cause of these failures. The current position is that the north of the island, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, is a de facto state, recognised only by Turkey and supported by Turkey both economically and militarily. Northern Cyprus is isolated and under embargo.
In 2017, after the last-minute failure of the Crans-Montana negotiations, the then-incoming TRNC President took the quite understandable view that more negotiation would be a waste of time unless there were to be formal recognition of the TRNC as a separate state. Unsurprisingly, this has resulted—or had resulted until recently—in no significant progress. But there has been no shortage of warnings that the situation was delicate and the tensions were increasing. This was before war broke out in the Middle East, and war has made these tensions on the island very much more intense. But despite, or possibly because of, these heightened tensions, there now appear to be faint signs of a restored appetite for negotiations to resume.
The Republic of Cyprus President has indicated that discussions between the UN Secretary-General and the Turkish President could lead to a new peace plan and has urged the resumption of negotiations. The UN Secretary-General has also indicated a desire for an effort to restart reunification talks. Clearly, the record of 50 years of failure to reach an agreed settlement carries some harsh lessons about good faith and the inevitability of serious and probably unpalatable compromises. The Minister will know that the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus has newly elected a leader, Tufan Erhürman. On 28 April last, Mr Erhürman said:
“The question that needs to be asked is this: is there anyone who truly believes that a solution on this island can be reached by ignoring the existence of the Turkish Cypriot people? … As to our position? Guided by the will of our people for a solution, we are here — resolute and determined — with patience, composure, and a serious sense of purpose”.
For many decades, the people of Northern Cyprus have lived unrecognised, disadvantaged and embargoed, deprived of access to international capital and now facing wars in the region and the likely consequences of those wars. The division of the island was not the fault of the people on the island; they are not to blame, but they have been isolated, as a consequence, for 50 years with the inevitable economic consequences. It may be that changes to the geopolitics of the region, the shifting of alliances and the arrival of newly elected politicians present an opportunity for progress.
This is what Ursula von der Leyen had to say about the situation, speaking on 7 January this year:
“For the European Union, a comprehensive, fair and lasting settlement for Cyprus remains an absolute priority”.
I ask the Minister if he will make the same commitment. As I am sure he knows, there is significant sympathy and relevant expertise in this House on the subject of Cyprus, and I ask him to meet me and other colleagues to discuss how we may contribute.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this adjourned debate on the gracious Speech. I would like to cover the area of dual-use technologies and, in doing so, I declare my technology interests as set out in the register as adviser variously to the Crown Estate, to Endava plc and to Simmons and Simmons LLP.
Dual-use technologies have become increasingly important and of interest, but it is AI that has put this on a completely different path, not least because of its omnipresence, if not as yet omnipotence, and certainly its omniapplicability. The sheer velocity and availability of AI means that dual-use technologies now need to be considered in a wholly different manner. Consider, in the past, nuclear: fortunately, still, a largely niche activity, highly technical, difficult and complex. AI, by contrast, is a very retail pursuit, available to all, bad actors as well as good. What should we consider when we look at the UK’s approach to dual-use technologies? First, we should consider the tech stack itself. How much of this should the UK develop? How much should it control? How much should it directly own? How much should it have a complete 100% grip upon?
Similarly, we should consider data. AI is nothing without data. Where is the sensitive data when it comes to dual-use technologies? Is it on-prem, in the cloud, in this country or somewhere else? Where are the people involved based? Where does their expertise come from? What are they doing, and how, when it comes to dual-use technologies? Turning to the capital, the sources of funding and indeed the whole question of investability around dual-use technologies, what is happening in terms of institutional investment and pension funds, both in terms of the possibilities for investment and the barriers and blockers to said investment?
When it comes to exports, it is easy to think that we should just reach for export bans around some of these technologies, but perhaps we should look at both sides of this and see the potential to export some of these technologies to like-minded nations, to build coalition and collectivity around such similar approaches. As for the energy used, where is it coming from? Who controls it? What level of risk is involved there?
Finally, it is well worth considering open source and the possibilities therein. I ask the Minister specifically: what have the Government learned from the Pentagon’s Project Maven? What are the lessons for the UK? Similarly, when it comes to reviewing the UK’s tech stack in AI and across all dual-use technologies, what process of decoupling, if any, are the Government currently considering? Allied to that, what premium are the Government prepared to pay when it comes to having true sovereign AI? Would it not be beneficial, around all these technologies, to have some legislation, some right-sized regulation, as set out in my AI regulation Private Member’s Bill?
To conclude, in many ways dual-use technologies shine the sharpest of spotlights on an uncomfortable truth wilfully ignored by Governments over decades, which is this: if you want peace, prepare for war—politically problematic, economically inconvenient, yet timelessly true, from Plato to NATO. Certainly, prepare for war on the battlefields, but much more than that, prepare in the boardrooms, in the data centres, in the servers and in the chips. Prepare in the cloud, prepare in the rare earth minerals and prepare under our oceans. Prepare, prepare, prepare to fight for the “we” in a sadly increasing world of “me”. Prepare if we want peace.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, the gracious Speech was notable for many things, not just the welcome list of Bills. I rather suspect that your Lordships’ House is going to be even busier in the next Session than it was in the last. There are many Bills that we can look forward to debating and considering in detail over the Session ahead. I also welcome it because—and here I disagree, but only slightly, with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup—there was a narrative thread running through it, albeit a slightly thin narrative thread, about building better resilience for the country. Before I go any further, I refer to my registered interest as chair of the National Preparedness Commission.
For example, there are to be Bills to strengthen the resilience of critical infrastructure and to safeguard sovereign supplies, with Bills on energy independence, the steel industry, clean water and highways. Others will reinforce national security, looking at cyber and state threats. The Armed Forces Bill will take steps to expand the pool of reservists. All that is welcome, but the two decades of external shocks that have left our nation in a weakened state merit rather more. We cannot continue to apply, as is suggested, sticking plasters. What is needed is a bold strategy to deliver a stronger, more resilient society for everyone.
Alas, there is one striking omission in the gracious Speech—there is no defence readiness Bill. This was recommended last summer in the strategic defence review led by my noble friend Lord Robertson of Port Ellen. That recommendation was accepted by His Majesty’s Government, but apparently it is not ready. I know that work is progressing on this, and draft legislation to provide the powers needed to prioritise the supplies and support required in the event of a national defence emergency inevitably calls for substantial consultation across government. I understand that, but in an ideal world we would have had it before us this Session, particularly as the international situation has become even more threatening in the short period since the SDR reported.
Indeed, such legislation is a necessary part of the UK’s commitment to Article 3. NATO expects each member country to maintain its own resilience as part of collective defence, and that involves preparedness against all types of shock, including natural disasters, cyber attacks and military threats. That is needed because it is there to ensure the continuity of government and critical services at times of crisis.
I urge my noble friends on the Front Bench to use this unfortunate delay as an opportunity for the Bill to have a broader focus than perhaps is suggested in the strategic defence review. Let us be clear that the nation’s resources may need to be mobilised not just in the event of hostilities but in other civil emergencies, not necessarily arising from nation state action. We will need those mechanisms, and we would need those powers, in another pandemic or to deal with extreme weather events precipitated by climate change and, indeed, many of the other acute risks listed in the National Risk Register.
Something much broader is needed: a national resilience and defence readiness Bill to provide a framework to make the best use of the nation’s resources in the event of any emergency or in response to hostile action. Such a Bill could place a duty on government departments, public bodies, local authorities, large businesses and organisations to build their resilience and bolster their preparedness to respond to different sorts of threats and emergencies. It could set structures to facilitate this and underpin it as part of a concerted national effort to address the dangerous and volatile world that we now face as a nation. This must now be prioritised and brought forward as soon as it is ready—perhaps even before the next gracious Speech. It would be gross negligence for us not to do so.
Baroness Shields (Con)
My Lords, His Majesty’s gracious Speech addressed Britain’s security, prosperity and position within an increasingly fractured international order. Yet it made no mention of artificial intelligence, the technological force now profoundly reshaping it.
AI is not just a sectoral or domestic policy issue. It has become foundational to how nations project power, defend their citizens, secure critical infrastructure and maintain sovereignty. AI is not arriving in a stable world. A decade of algorithmic conditioning on social media has already separated people into parallel realities, eroding the shared reference points of international order and co-operation. Today, AI systems capable of matching human cognition are beginning to participate directly in human judgment itself.
The frontier AI systems on which much of the world will depend are being shaped by an extraordinarily narrow concentration of people, power and data. Most nations are not participating meaningfully in this process. They are inheriting it. I believe AI has the potential to usher in the greatest civilisational uplift in human history, but that outcome is not guaranteed. It depends on whether international communities can establish credible frameworks for stewardship before competitive pressures harden into permanent norms.
At present, the opposite is happening. Across the world, the centre of gravity has shifted away from shared safety frameworks towards acceleration, sectoral advantage and national competition. While principles have been written and summits convened, the trajectory of artificial intelligence is increasingly being decided by a handful of individuals—unelected, unaccountable and operating at a scale that democratic institutions were never designed to oversee.
I know from personal experience that many of those building AI systems care deeply about their responsibilities. But private capability, however well intentioned, is not the same as democratic legitimacy. The majority of the world’s nations, representing the majority of the world’s people, are not part of the equation. In the absence of governance, restraint becomes a competitive disadvantage. This is no longer a theoretical question of future risk. It is a present contest over power, incentives and control. A few weeks ago, one major frontier AI company refused to allow its systems to be used in autonomous weapons or mass surveillance of citizens. Its competitors agreed to the conditions of unrestricted use and secured the contract.
We are facing a new magnitude of technological power, and the window to shape what comes next is rapidly closing. Sir Demis Hassabis, Nobel laureate and founder of DeepMind, has described this moment as 10 times the Industrial Revolution at 10 times the speed. Other institutions are recognising the scale of this moment. On 25 May, the Holy See will publish Magnifica Humanitas, the first encyclical on artificial intelligence. It was signed on the 135th anniversary of Rerum Novarum, the Church’s landmark response to the human and social consequences of the Industrial Revolution. The Holy See recognises that this technological transition will profoundly shape the moral conditions of human society—and that the time to act is now.
The United Kingdom has historically been the country that convened coalitions capable of shaping international order at moments of profound transition. This is such a moment. The question is no longer whether artificial intelligence will shape the future international order—it already is. The question is whether democratic nations will help shape that order together or whether they will gradually surrender agency to systems, norms and concentrations of power designed elsewhere. Britain has the credibility and alliances to convene that coalition. I urge His Majesty’s Government to place this transformation at the top of the agenda for the United Kingdom’s G20 presidency in 2027.
Lord Dannatt (CB)
My Lords, yesterday, I had the privilege to visit an exercise being conducted this week deep underground, less than half a mile from your Lordships’ House. It was being conducted by the headquarters of the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps, a British-led NATO strategic reserve corps. This is the United Kingdom’s principal land fighting component dedicated to NATO. We have committed to make that corps available, with two fully rounded-out war-fighting divisions—that is a force of about 30,000—and the necessary combat support brigades. In the exercise, units of the corps were deployed forward in Estonia and connected to the exercise headquarters here in London. In the exercise scenario, the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps was facing two Russian combined arms armies in Estonia and was integrating military capabilities drawn from the land, air, space and cyber domains, all enabled by AI. It was an impressive demonstration of the best of the modern capabilities to which we aspire, drawing significantly on the Ukrainian experiences gained over five years on the battlefield.
I was very pleased to note the ambition, forward-thinking battlefield concepts and levels of innovation shared between the Army and industry, and especially that many are small and medium-sized enterprises and some using hedge fund money. The Army’s aim is to have this level of capability fully developed and deployed by 2030, the date by which it has assessed that Russia could mount a land attack in eastern Europe or the Baltic. If there was to be a ceasefire in Ukraine, this date could of course come forward, as Russia could reconstitute its forces more quickly. There was no doubting the commitment, enthusiasm and professional dedication demonstrated by all involved in that exercise, but the level of capability required to deter or defeat a Russian attack will not be met by 2030 at the current level of investment into our Armed Forces, and certainly not into our land forces.
There is talk of an additional £18 billion being spent on defence in the next four years, but that is not the £28 billion that the service chiefs have identified as necessary in the short term, nor will that take us to 3% of GDP by 2029, and certainly not to 3.5% by 2034. There may be a temptation, in trying to find this additional money, that His Majesty’s Government consider raiding the international development budget again. Already, we know that that has been reduced from 0.7% to 0.5% of GDP, and more recently to 0.3%. This dramatically weakens our soft power potential, which, when combined with our hard power capability, is what brings the UK influence on the international stage. More immediately, one has to wonder when, or if, the defence investment plan will ever be published. Without it, defence programmers cannot allocate money, contracts cannot be let to industry, production capabilities cannot be boosted and the security of our nation cannot be assured.
Yesterday morning, as I walked to the exercise location, the Household Division was rehearsing for the King’s birthday parade next month. We can all be very proud of the immaculate standards of the bands and the soldiers of the Household Division, and I am confident they will deliver a spectacular parade. But I would be even more proud if we were able to deliver a full war-fighting division into the field, let alone the two we have committed to NATO. Our enemies smile at our weakness and our friends shake their heads in disbelief at our lack of commitment to the security of Europe. I have said it before: we are drinking in the last chance saloon. The leadership of this country needs to wake up and take action before the dead hand of history calls time.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate today. Before I start, I congratulate the Government on the announcements today on the Gulf free trade agreement. This agreement has been a long time coming and it has been an extremely difficult negotiation. It is absolutely fantastic that it has now been agreed with the six separate nations of the GCC. I declare my personal interests in this as set out in the register, in particular as co-chairman of the UAE-UK Business Council, which has among its members many billions of pounds of investments both ways. This agreement, if it has the clauses that we all hope it does on investor confidence and investor protection, will enable even bigger investments to flow, which will be exciting, particularly at these times. It will also make an enormous difference to the £25 billion of bilateral trade between the UK and the UAE.
I hope that this is just the beginning and that what will follow will be a bilateral agreement to pick up the other areas that are not covered in the free trade agreement that will be negotiated by some of the Gulf states with other nations. Those agreements will give us a lot more in the two key areas of professional qualifications and data.
I move on to talk about defence, the issue I particularly want to talk about. I fear that we are not moving at the pace and with the urgency required—this has been said by so many people today. I therefore welcome the Government’s stated ambition to increase defence spending, but I am afraid that the proposals are simply not enough. The strategic global challenges and real threats faced by the United Kingdom today require increasing our national defence and security spending, as has already been said, to somewhere in the region of 5% to 7% of GDP. Once upon a time, those figures would have sounded excessive, but not today. NATO, for example, has already moved towards a 5% framework.
I applaud the fact that, across Europe, we are now starting to see European nations take far greater responsibility for their own security. The American view that Europe must increase defence spending and become less reliant on America underpinning security will not disappear. This is now a structural fact of the American political psyche, which far transcends the current presidency. Yet we are far behind where we need to be. It is regrettable that our Armed Forces lack the equipment, industrial backing and procurement speed required for the changing nature and character of war today. We cannot meet the peacetime demands with our current innovation-blocking systems of defence procurement and regulations that are simply not fit for the industrial requirements of the 21st century.
That brings me to the situation in Ukraine, from which we must learn. Last Thursday’s missile attack on Kyiv, which killed 24 and injured many more, is a painful reminder of why our resolve towards Ukraine must not falter. We should be clear that, despite Russian disinformation, the economic pressure of sanctions placed on Russia by the United Kingdom and our allies is being felt. These sanctions, have constrained Russia’s access to capital, weakened its supply chains and supressed its ability to innovate. At the same time, Ukraine’s extraordinary innovation on the battlefield has shown the world how a determined nation, with the right support, can inflict damning blows on the war machine of a much larger aggressor.
Back home, with our stubbornly stagnant economic growth, does the Minister agree that there is a key opportunity to—
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
I remind the noble Lord that speakers in the gap should take a maximum of four minutes.
Lord Katz (Lab)
The noble Lord is on the speakers’ list—huge apologies there.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
Does the Minister agree that there is a key opportunity to reposition increased defence spending as an engine for domestic renewal and regional growth? If we anchor our sovereign defence supply chains in the towns and cities that have been too often left behind, I put it to the Government that we will soon find that we can strengthen our national security while transforming local economies. Through targeted increased defence spending, we have a real opportunity to upskill a generation, generate high-tech civilian spillovers and turn the urgent necessity of national security into a powerful instrument against domestic deprivation.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, it is often suggested that a week is a long time in politics, and I suspect that for the Prime Minister, it has been a very long week. It is now eight days since His Majesty the King came and gave the gracious Speech last Wednesday. We heard the Motion for an humble Address from the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, which was one of the most exciting, lively and dynamic Motions for an humble Address I have heard. I am delighted that she is in her place today.
We are now moving to the very end of speeches on this year’s gracious Speech, at the end of a day that has been wide-ranging, well-informed and interesting. I hope the Minister responding will feel that he has been blessed, in that from his own Benches in particular there have been myriad calls for resilience and increased defence expenditure—surely things that any Minister in the MoD will want to hear—which will enable him to talk to the Secretary of State for Defence and urge him to press in Cabinet, to the Prime Minister, whoever he may be, and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the importance of defence expenditure. One thing that has virtually united the House today has been the importance of defence expenditure. There are nuances in what noble Lords have said but, broadly speaking, there has been an acceptance that defence expenditure is crucial.
However, before I get into the details of defence, as I am winding from these Benches for the whole international and defence day, I want just to touch on some of the wider issues of foreign policy, the challenges, and particularly Europe, because noble Lords will have realised that from these Benches there is a very clear voice on Europe.
Among the very powerful speeches today, one that I thought was noteworthy was from the noble Lord, Lord Sterling of Plaistow. He told noble Lords that he remembers 8 May 1945 and his parents celebrating, as other people’s parents would have been doing, but in particular saying, “We are safe”, and described the importance, if you were Jewish, of being safe in this country and in Europe. We have heard many contributions today about concerns of antisemitism. If you are Jewish in this country today, you may no longer feel safe. But there is a wider concern. It is not only that if you are Jewish you may not feel safe; the message of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, who has been mentioned more times than anybody else in the Chamber today, is that we are underprepared, underinsured, under attack, and not safe.
If the first duty of the state is to protect our citizens, do His Majesty’s Government believe that they are doing enough to ensure that our country is safe and that we will be able to meet our international obligations to our NATO colleagues and to defend ourselves, and to work with our NATO partners and allies to keep Europe safe? This Government, like their predecessor, put a lot of effort into supporting Ukraine, and that is absolutely right. But are we ensuring that we are doing enough to remain safe at home?
The Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, and the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, all talked about the three Ds—the interplay of diplomacy, defence and development. As the defence spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, of course I am committed to increasing defence expenditure. However, like other noble Lords I would like to believe that the Government can come forward with a plan actually to increase defence expenditure rather than simply say that it is going to happen at some future point. A commitment is vital, but that commitment to increase defence expenditure must not be at the expense of development or of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.
In cutting development aid as we have been doing, we lose influence and the ability to support communities abroad—precisely the sorts of communities that most need our aid, as so many noble Lords have pointed out. My noble friend Lady Northover raised the issue of development aid. The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, reminded us that the amount spent internationally on aid will be 0.24% in 2027. If we aspire to global influence, we need to be committed to aid and not simply to talking about what we might do and how we might have networks. Networks matter but the ability to deliver also matters.
As the noble Baronesses, Lady Verma and Lady Hodgson, said, there are real concerns about cuts to FCDO expenditure. Diplomacy is vital. If we are not committed to diplomacy, we will find that the pressure on defence is even greater. We need to focus on embassies and high commissions and ensure that we are not reducing morale within the FCDO. Diplomacy matters but not just the very high-level diplomacy which this country has been so good at. The Minister started off with what some people have referred to as “tiara diplomacy”—His Majesty the King’s visit to the United States, and his speech to Congress, which was so well received. His first state visit to Germany was well received, as was the return match last year.
The role of the Royal Family in diplomacy is important, but we need to go beyond wheeling out our royals on high-level occasions and ensure that our diplomatic links are thorough. We need them even more since we left the European Union because we have lost many of those behind-the-scenes informal conversations. For that reason, I very much support the call made by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, for stronger bilateral relations. She talked about UK-Spanish relations. If I was giving a single speech, it would perhaps be on UK-German relations, but we need to be strengthening those bilateral relations and our relations with Europe. If one message came out most loudly and clearly from these Benches, it was the importance of strengthening our relations with our European partners. The partnership Bill is important, but it does not go far enough. My noble friend Lady Suttie talked about the future, particularly for her great-nephew—who is almost born but not yet with us. My noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford called on the Government to be bold, to take a lead, to take back the future. There was a suggestion that it is not red tape that is holding the Government back but red lines.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, also talked about the great importance of Europe. Why does that matter so much? It is precisely because we have an unreliable closest partner in the United States. The Falkland Islands are perhaps held in some disdain by Donald Trump —it is not quite clear—but there are suddenly question marks over their future, which His Majesty’s Government should not tolerate. There are questions over what we should do with the Chagos Islands. That should be our decision and not subject to the vagaries of a President of the United States. There are questions around support for Ukraine: again, our closest ally is also an unreliable partner. So it is vital that we strengthen our links with our European partners, particularly over foreign and defence policy.
Finally on defence, this is one area where there is a small amount of legislation in the gracious Speech. The Armed Forces Bill is a carry-over Bill that will be coming to your Lordships’ House, where it will be most welcome, particularly as it enshrines the Armed Forces covenant, as was pointed out by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley. The commitment to forces accommodation is very welcome, but, as so many noble Lords have pointed out, what is missing is the defence readiness Bill. What is missing is any sense of how His Majesty’s Government propose to have the national conversation that the SDR said was needed. It is the sort of conversation that we need to offset or ensure resilience against the hybrid threats that were mentioned by Fiona Hill, one of the authors of the SDR, and in my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond’s contribution today. If we are at war with Russia, it is not a hot war, but we are vulnerable.
Many noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Antrobus, Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie and Lady Hodgson, the noble Lords, Lord Forbes of Newcastle and Lord Naseby, and my noble friend Lady Harris all talked about the need for resilience. Only one talked about national service; I am not going to suggest from these Benches that we should have national service, but we certainly need a national conversation. We need to look for ways of finding resilience and we need to look at the models of our Scandinavian friends in NATO.
But we also need to be bold, to have leadership and to ensure that our defence expenditure rises not randomly but in a targeted way, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Forbes of Newcastle. Increasing defence expenditure is not just about making us safer or improving our alliances; it has positive consequences at home.
We heard a rumour of another £18 billion for defence. What I would really like to hear from the Minister today is whether that is merely a rumour or whether His Majesty’s Government are actually going to forward with a plan to increase expenditure. Are we going to see the defence investment plan? It is a Thursday afternoon just before a recess; that is very often a time when a Government slip things out. Might it appear in the next few days or do we have to keep waiting?
We welcome the prospect of the Armed Forces Bill, but we would much prefer also to have legislation on a resilience Bill. We hope that the Government will keep preparing, be bold and show some leadership.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, this has been a predictably good debate, with some excellent points punching through strongly. As my noble friend Lord Callanan indicated, I will focus on defence, but, before I do, I will stray very briefly into foreign affairs.
I listened with humility—I looked around the Chamber and I was not alone—to the lucidity, expertise and wisdom of the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, and to my noble friend Lord Lamont of Lerwick. I suggest to the Minister—with no disrespect to his colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, who introduced the debate so well—that this talented duo be brought into the FCDO to help inform policy and advise on how we disseminate UK influence in relation to Iran. I have not heard two people with more brains and knowledge than that pair to whom I listened today.
Since we last debated a most gracious Speech, the world has become demonstrably less safe. Not only has that been an unmistakable theme emerging in the course of the debate today, but it was acknowledged by His Majesty in the first line of the gracious Speech. To give me a comparison point, I looked back to see what I said in 2024:
“My starting point is the Government’s recognition in their manifesto that the first duty of any Government is to keep the country safe”.—[Official Report, 25/7/24; col. 633.]
So we have two immediate points of clarity and consensus: the Government must keep the country safe, and our safety is more at risk than two years ago.
The noble Lord the Minister knows that I hold him in high regard, as I do the noble Baroness the Minister, and I know that neither will question these two premises. But our situation is grave, and the Government have completely failed to grasp the gravity of the situation. Indeed, we are less protected, less war-ready, than we were two years ago. Who do I call in aid to support that view? I call the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, frequently referred to during the course of the debate.
If the noble Lord were remarkable only for having been His Majesty’s Keeper of the Swans in the upper reaches of the Thames, I do not suppose anyone would pay much attention to his opinion. But this man is a former Labour Defence Secretary, a former Director-General of NATO and the Prime Minister’s appointed author of the strategic defence review. When he accuses the Government of “corrosive complacency”, do you know what? I would start to tremble.
The Prime Minister’s own National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell, is reported to have warned that Britain will struggle to maintain our position on the world stage without a significant increase in defence spending. Just today, there were contributions from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, who said that weakness makes war more, not less, likely, and deterrence means capability plus political will. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton of Richmond, expressed his regret that the narrative on defence, in his opinion, was neutered. He was blunter when he said that defence capability is in a mess. The noble Baroness, Lady Kingsmill, in a cogent and, I would say, very plucky contribution, echoed the noble and gallant Lords’ concerns about the lack of a defence readiness Bill. I also noticed that the normally dependably loyal noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, also referred to that omission. So there are serious commentators here who are expressing concern.
The chilling reality is that, despite the Government’s repeated claims—echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, earlier this week in this very Chamber—that they have instituted the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War, the Government have nothing to show for it. Any Government can give the MoD more money; what matters is what it does with it. What things does that money buy which better protect the country, make us more war-ready, and effectively deter?
The defence investment plan is still nowhere to be seen, despite being promised last autumn. Intentions to spend mean absolutely diddly squat if they do not translate into actual spend of actual extra money, and the Government have not spent any extra because they have not published their investment plan. We are in Alice in Wonderland territory here. Every time Ministers are quizzed, they simply respond by saying that it will be published in due course and that the MoD is working flat out to get it finalised. Well, if a nine-month delay is a result of the Government working flat out, we are in some state.
The reason I keep pressing the Government on the defence investment plan is because the delay and inertia have a real-time effect. Defence is in limbo. Military planners cannot plan. Orders have dried up. Defence companies cannot plan, do not know how to seek investment and do not know what to invest in. Procurement has been frozen. While the Government prevaricate, our adversaries become more brazen, and our allies become more frustrated.
I hate to remind the Minister of this, but when his party came to power, the previous Government left them a fully funded plan immediately to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP. The Government scrapped that plan—it was their privilege to do that—and it took them seven months to announce that they would reach the same figure, but not until 2027, and they still cannot guarantee that they will reach 3% within this Parliament. The previous Government left Labour a fully funded £10 billion munitions plan to replenish our national munitions stock. What did the Government do? They scrapped it.
Governments have the right to determine their own priorities—nobody disputes that—but what is completely unacceptable is laying waste all before them and putting nothing in place of the devastation. I say to the Minister that I think we are past the point of words—we urgently need action. The country is crying out for political leadership—I am not going to make cheap jokes about the Prime Minister, who is going through a most turbulent time—and we must have somebody who substitutes deeds for talk and a Government who show courage, face up to the hard decisions and have the grit to take them.
I remind the House where starvation of defence funding has got us. Recently, Britain was unable rapidly to move resources to the eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East to protect our interests. British sovereign territory in Cyprus was left undefended. Our regional allies were left tearing their hair out at the glacial pace of our response.
On shipbuilding, we have all seen reports that the next Type 26 construction slot on the Clyde may be awarded to the Norwegians. That will further delay our frigate-building programme, which, given that the Royal Navy is now down to just five Type 23s, is not sustainable.
On aircraft build, the details remain sparse around one of the few procurement decisions that the Government have announced, the nuclear-capable F35A. In fact, I hesitate even to call it a procurement decision because, as far as I can tell, no aircraft has actually been procured, but we have a vague announcement that we will purchase 12 F35A fighters. In October, the Public Accounts Committee said:
“In June 2025, the Department announced that it intends to procure 12 F35As to be both training aircraft and capable of carrying nuclear weapons. But only now is the F-35 programme’s Senior Responsible Owner talking to other partner nations about what is required to deliver the new capabilities, and the Department has not produced any estimates of what these might cost”.
Can the Minister clarify what stage this procurement is at and how much these planes will cost?
I will fling in a few more questions for his attention. When will we start construction of the Type 49 destroyers to replace the current Type 45s, and how many of them will the Government commit to? What is the status of Challenger 3? When will the Government set out the procurement timeline for the remaining 90 F35Bs? When we should be moving heaven and earth to support British industry, why have the Government not purchased UAVs, such as Octopus-100 and Herne XLAUV, which are made by British firms?
This dithering and delay are having significant ramifications on our defence industry. Last week, sadly, Aeralis announced that it had been forced into administration. Announcing the news, the company said:
“The appointment follows a sustained period of pressure on the Company’s cashflow as a result of continued delays to the UK Defence Investment Plan”.
Aeralis is a marvellous British company. It has produced a modular, technologically advanced jet that could act as a future fast jet trainer and an aerobatic aircraft for the RAF. It could be a British designed and produced replacement for the Hawk trainers and the Red Arrows, yet Aeralis was forced into administration by the uncertainty created solely by the Government’s inaction.
The Minister will be quick to say that there have been announcements, for example, on the new medium helicopter and the RCH 155. These are welcome but the Minister knows that this is all too little, too late. If the Government are struggling to conjure up a plan to increase defence spending while maintaining fiscal discipline, perhaps I can help. My honourable friend the shadow Defence Secretary, James Cartlidge, has a fully costed plan to establish a sovereign defence fund that would be utilised to increase spending to 3% of GDP by the end of this Parliament. It would be funded by repurposing £17 billion from the National Wealth Fund, reallocating R&D funds and cutting the welfare and net-zero budgets. Now, that is a clear proposal. People may disagree with it, but that is leadership. There would be tough decisions involved in delivering it, but that is leadership. That plan could be implemented tomorrow.
I just hope that the Government are listening and that some food for thought is being provided to the Minister, as in, perhaps, my noble friend Lord Howard’s suggestion that if every government department were to accept a 1% self-imposed cut, money could be produced. Of course, there would be a huge rammy about who was doing what and what the consequences were, but that is what political leadership is about: you have to determine political priorities.
Funding and equipment are of course one aspect of our defence readiness and resilience. Another, and arguably the most important, is our people—the brave men and women of our Armed Forces who sacrifice so much to keep us secure. I know that everyone in the House joins in paying tribute to them. We would not have a military were it not for their sense of duty to King and country, so it is all the more painful for me to see the way in which they are being treated. Personally, I think it is quite wrong that those who have served, and those who continue to serve, should have to constantly look over their shoulders, awaiting the service of a legal writ. There are veterans from the Troubles who have faced decades of lawfare, dragged before investigations and hauled into courtrooms for the simple act of doing their duty for their country.
We now have the Government’s Troubles Bill, which, after the Supreme Court’s recent judgment, can only be considered as wholly unnecessary. The court has explicitly found that the commission established by the previous Government’s legacy Act can carry out investigations that are compliant with Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR, so what purpose will the Government’s Bill serve? I fear the only outcome of repealing the legislation that we passed in 2023 is that the fear, the gnawing anxiety and the uncertainty that our brave veterans have had to contend with will be opened once again as their lives are raked over, with them asked to account for split-second decisions they made 50 years ago when serving their country. How do the Government justify going on with the Troubles Bill?
On the Royal Artillery monument at Hyde Park Corner there are inscribed the words:
“They will return never more but their glory will abide forever”.
We all owe it to those who have served King and country so gallantly to ensure that their glory does indeed abide for ever—and if we are to do that, we have to reject the temptation of historical revisionism. We have to support our veterans by having their backs, funding defence properly and robustly defending our nation’s interests wherever they are challenged. I thank the Minister for his unstinting commitment and his passion for defence, but this Government are failing these fundamental tests.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for those last remarks that she made.
I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate today. I thank particularly the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Goldie and Lady Smith, for their Front-Bench contributions, and my noble friend Lady Chapman for her opening remarks. This is a huge discussion. I will not answer every question that has been posed to me. However, given the importance of the debate, and given the times in which we live, it would be remiss of me not to ask my officials, with Foreign Office officials, to go through the debate and write to everyone who has contributed, to make sure that we respond to everything in full. We will place a copy of that in the Library. I make that commitment to everyone because it is an important thing for us to do.
I join the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, in something I know we all share in: paying tribute to our Armed Forces, their personnel and their families, including those who have served in the past—our veterans. It is important to do that and to continue to do so, and I am very pleased to do it. We should also reflect on the recent tragic accident resulting in the death of Lance Bombardier Ciara Sullivan of The King’s Troop Royal Horse Artillery in Windsor. We remember her and her family and friends.
We come together at a really difficult time. I say that because, as I often say, there are differences between us and there will be debates both within and across the Chamber about some of the issues that we are confronting today, but the important thing that should come out of this—this is the important point that I make time and again, because our deliberations are read and looked at by our adversaries—is that there is nothing disunited about this Parliament, whether in this place or the other place, in our determination to stand up for our country and the values that we uphold and to work with our friends, partners and allies across Europe, and indeed the world, to fulfil those. That is an important point that we need to continue to make, because, as I say, and as others across this Chamber will know from their own experiences, what happens in this Parliament is repeated back to us. We appreciate the democracy in which we live, and it is important that free and frank debate should not in any way be construed as weakness on our part in the pursuit of that.
I turn to answering particular points, which the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, will be delighted about. It took 40 seconds for the noble Lord to get to the subject of Chagos—I should have had a sweepstake on it. He is quite right to ask those questions. I said I would find out a couple of things for him, and I will read him those answers because I thought he might ask them. On why the Government denied humanitarian aid to the Chagossians on the island, I repeat what I said to him in answer to the questions he asked on that: the reporting of the incident that we have read is inaccurate. The British Indian Ocean Territory Administration has not refused humanitarian resupply. BIOTA engaged in good faith and expedited discussions over the Easter period to facilitate a resupply mission, approving a permit covering approximately 140 categories of items, including several items not essential for humanitarian purposes. Upon the resupply vessel’s arrival in the territory, BIOT customs and immigration officers discovered aboard a number of items that were not on the manifest. Had those been prepared for the manifest, they would almost certainly have been permitted, so what was on the manifest was allowed.
On the question of resettlement, as the noble Lord pointed out, I have written to clarify those remarks. The proposed UK-Mauritius agreement provides the only viable path to resettlement on the archipelago. Mauritius will be able to resettle the islands other than Diego Garcia, and it will be for Mauritius to set the terms of and manage any future resettlement. That may not satisfy the noble Lord, but it is the answer.
With regard to the landings on Peros Banhos, the individuals who landed on that atoll did so illegally without a permit. There is no legal right for anyone, regardless of their citizenship or heritage, to enter the islands without a valid permit, and there is a temporary court order in place preventing vessels from transporting further people on to the Chagos Islands. I hope I have reassured the noble Lord by answering the questions that I promised him I would the next time I had the opportunity at the Dispatch Box.
Moving from the specifics to more general points, I will start by speaking about the national conversation. Let us be clear about this, so that noble Lords know whom to hold to account. In terms of the Ministry of Defence—not the whole of government—I have now been given responsibility for the national conversation. I am all for accountability; I will not shy away from it, but that is where we are with it. It is quite right that the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Stirrup and Lord Houghton, and others, raised the point, as did the noble Baronesses, Lady Harris, Lady Royall, Lady Antrobus, Lady Rafferty, and the noble Lords, Lord Naseby and Lord Hannan, my noble friends Lord Forbes, Lord John and Lord Harris, and others. The national conversation is crucial. I will come to defence spending and to the defence investment plan in a moment. But the national conversation is absolutely crucial, which is why so many noble Lords have raised the issue.
A discussion that we are having now in government is about how that starts—it will start soon—and what that national conversation should be about and what script we should take to the British people to discuss with them. The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and others, are right: we will ask other people about their views, and we will take advice so that we have an agreed way of speaking to the British public that is inclusive, which lays out the threat without being alarmist, and takes us forward. That is what we will do with respect to the national conversation, and it is absolutely crucial that we do that.
I cannot remember who, but somebody said that they were not necessarily frightened of Russian paratroopers arriving in their particular vicinity. The nature of the conflicts that we face, however, exist in the era of cyber, of grey warfare, of threats to underwater cables. These are all things that noble Lords in here will know. In that sense, we are already threatened; we are already being attacked. We need to do this for all of us and, of course, that requires resilience. What does this mean for us in terms of protecting our own infrastructure and protecting our own cyber space? What should we ask our population to be able to provide for themselves on an individual or family basis? My noble friend Lady Rafferty mentioned Defence Medical Services; again, we need to have a whole-of-society approach, not just in defence but in terms of medical provision and local authorities and all those things that each and every noble Lord would say are important.
On spending, I cannot and will not satisfy people in here about spending or about the defence investment plan, but, as has been pointed out a number of times, I think that if we are saying to our population that we require more money to be spent on defence, rather than on other things, then we require a conversation with them to address the fact that the prioritisation of spending—for this Government or for any Government —will have to change to a certain extent with respect to defence, and that will perhaps mean that less will be spent on this or that. We need to have that conversation and bring people with us to do that. No Government can shy away from that, and there will be differences of view. Your families may be different to mine, but we have good discussions sometimes in my own family about this, and that is a perfectly proper thing to do. Something that we will have to take forward is how we build that resilience. I understand the points that have been made about the defence readiness Bill that is being prepared at the moment.
Another general topic was soft power. The noble Lords, Lord Lamont and Lord Howard, and many others, made the point about the importance of diplomacy. Of course it matters how many tanks, ships, aircraft and submarines you have, but one thing this country has that sometimes we do not give ourselves enough credit for is our enormous ability to influence across Europe, and across the globe, through our relationships.
When I go to other countries—people here travel all over the world—they want the UK stood beside them. This is a Foreign Office/MoD debate. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, will know that having a British ambassador in a foreign embassy stood with British military personnel, going to discuss a particular problem, conflict or crisis —something that needs to be done—with the military-to-military and ambassador-to-ambassador co-operation and network, is fundamental to the architecture we have across the world. Nation after nation asks for that. I will tell noble Lords why I think they ask for it. The involvement of the British military, with the ambassador, gives a confidence, legitimacy and status to a particular Government who are seeking to do something to resolve a conflict in their area. The integrated global defence network that we run from the MoD, in partnership with our Foreign Office colleagues, is fundamental. We need to build and develop that.
On overseas development assistance, difficult decisions have been made. The only point I will make, which I think our population needs to hear, is that at current prices in 2026-27 we are still spending £10 billion on overseas development assistance. I will give noble Lords the figures; they will go down next year and I appreciate that. I am not saying it will not go down, but it will still be £8.9 billion. The year after, in 2028-29, it goes back up again to £9.4 billion. We can say that it should never have been reduced, but significant sums of money are still being spent by our Government—our country—to deliver certain things. I have lifted out particular things. The BBC World Service is receiving additional grants and the British Council grant in aid is also increasing. I appreciate the difficulties and points noble Lords have made. All I am saying is that, alongside that, we are still doing things.
On the defence investment plan, I cannot add much to the points I have made in the past. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, the noble Lords, Lord Tugendhat, Lord Magan, Lord Hintze, Lord Leigh and Lord Dannatt, and the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Houghton and Lord Stirrup, made the points—
Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)
Could the Minister tell us whether the defence investment plan is likely to be published during the premiership of the present Prime Minister?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
No. I just cannot add anything further to what I have said. The defence investment plan will come forward and lay out some things, and that will be related to the spending we decide on.
On the UK-EU relationship, the Government’s position is quite clear. We have laid it out. There is a debate about rejoining the EU; I know the Liberal Democrat Benches want to lay out that we should rejoin. Our position is that it would be futile and silly not to say that we should have a close relationship. As my noble friend Lady Ashton pointed out, of course we should have a close relationship with Europe. It does not mean we are going to rejoin the EU. But we should have a relationship with Europe to defend Europe and work with Europe in terms of economic prosperity and military assistance to each other, given the fact that NATO is the fundamental defensive alliance for us. Of course we should do that.
The point was made by my noble friend Lady Royall about bilateral relationships. That is why we have signed agreements with France and Germany. The noble Lord, Lord Magan, was talking about Germany. It is why we have established and agreed a bilateral treaty with Germany, recognising the importance of that relationship. We have also done it with Poland and other countries. It is why we lead JEF. We have those relationships with Europe and we will develop and strengthen them. However, we will do it in a way that does not reopen arguments and get us into a sterile argument about whether we join the EU or not and whether we are respecting the referendum, when actually what we are doing and saying is that we need a close and proper relationship.
On the Middle East, the noble Lords, Lord Ahmad and Lord Howard, asked me specifically about diplomacy. We carry on with negotiation and diplomacy, of course. That is why my noble friend Lady Chapman went to Israel—and I think Gaza—last year, and it is why she met the Egyptian Foreign Minister yesterday, which the noble Lord asked about. Every single week, I have met defence attachés and ambassadors from the Middle East to talk about the supply of defence equipment and what we are doing to support them in a defensive posture with respect to the Iranian war. We have done all that. In answer to many of the points that noble Lords made, we retain that influence.
Antisemitism is an absolute national disgrace. To have what we have had happen is not just something awful; it is a national stain on this country. We must do all we can to ensure that that view, which the vast majority of people share, is heard loud and clear by the community. In answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, of course Israel remains important to us. But as my noble friend Lord Dubs and many others in this Chamber have said, we will criticise that Government where we think they are wrong. There is nothing contradictory in that. The US criticises us, and we criticise the US. We value Israel, but we are not going to stand aside if we think it has done something wrong. Indeed, another noble Lord made the point that people hold Israel to account in the Knesset.
The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, made a point about Palestine. Recognising Palestine was an important step. It was a way of saying that we want to move the negotiations and discussions forward. It does not in any way undermine the Government’s commitment to the two-state solution. Of course there should be a viable and strong Israel, but alongside that there needs to be a strong and viable Palestine. The only way of achieving that, however frustrating and demanding, and however many times we think it will not work and never happen, is through discussions and negotiations. Somebody mentioned how near we were to an agreement a few years ago. It fell at one of the last hurdles, but we need to recapture that optimism and hope for the future. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, made the point that sometimes we have to have hope to take these things forward.
On the point that the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, made about genocide, the Government’s position is exactly the same as it has been for years. The UK’s long-standing policy is that any formal determination as to whether genocide has occurred is a matter for a competent national or international court, after consideration of all the evidence available in the context of a credible judicial process, rather than for Governments or non-judicial bodies. I could not agree more with the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, on his point about what a disgrace antisemitism is. I will think about the invite to the event—if that is the appropriate word—that the noble Lord mentioned.
On Pakistan and the role it has played with respect to Iran, without saying too much, if you look at the military-to-military co-operation there, it helps enormously. On Sudan, what is happening is an absolute disgrace. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that we are going to conference after conference to try to ensure that we move forward and deal with the crisis taking place. On Cyprus, I am very happy to meet the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, if he wants to. We have been delighted with the co-operation and support that we have had in Cyprus with respect to what has been going on.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned the need to respond to not only China but Russia. He is quite right. It is important for us to consider the axis of Iran, North Korea, Russia and China and how we respond to that. His contributions in this Chamber are enormously helpful in holding the Government to account and reminding us of our responsibility on that.
As someone else said, it is an absolute delight that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, can say what he says to all of us, although most of us disagree with him. I say again that much of what we are doing is to defend the right of people such as him to say what they think without fear of the police. That not a smart or a sarcastic argument but an important one. I think, from my university days, it was John Stuart Mill who said that you must always remember that the opinion of one is as important as the opinion of a majority in being respected and listened to. When you look back over the years, you sometimes find that a minority opinion at a particular time becomes a majority opinion when you roll it forward 50 years. We should reflect on that.
I will abuse my privilege for another minute or two. I turn to the noble Baronesses, Lady Royall and Lady Neville-Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Magan. Let us be clear about this: the US-UK relationship is a fundamental strategic alliance that remains hugely important to this country and our global alliances. It is hugely important to NATO and to ensuring that we continue with our efforts. We will continue to work hard on that, however difficult and challenging it may be at times. The biggest strategic point is ensuring that NATO retains its credibility and importance, and we will continue with that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kingsmill, mentioned the defence readiness Bill and the noble Lord, Lord McDonald, said that meeting strategic threats required political stability. All those sorts of things are important, and we continue to implement the strategic defence review.
If I have forgotten or missed out certain points that people have made, I apologise. We will go through the debate and return to them. I finish where I started and say once again that the influence of our country is enormous across Europe and the world. Europe wants us to stand with it, as do many other parts of the world. We have to have confidence and belief, whatever the challenges. We will in due course publish the defence investment plan and we will come to spending decisions that may or may not please different people, but, at the end of the day, it is significantly important that all of us are united in the determination to ensure that we play our proper part in the world and achieve what we all want: the defence of democracy, human rights and freedom in our own country, our own continent and across the world. All of us are united in that.