Commons Chamber

Tuesday 24th March 2026

(began 3 weeks ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:34
11:35
None Portrait Q1. Whether he has had discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on global taxes on oil and gas companies in the context of the proposed UN Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation. (908481)
-

Question number one. Although we remain closely engaged, the UN Framework Convention is focussed on improving effective and inclusive international tax cooperation, not on creating cooperation, not on creating specific global taxes on oil and gas companies.
11:35
11:35
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:38
11:38
11:39
11:39
11:40
11:40
11:41
11:41
11:42
11:42
11:42
11:43
11:43
11:44
11:44
11:44
11:45
11:45
11:46
11:47
11:47
11:47
11:48
11:48
Claire Coutinho Portrait Rt Hon Claire Coutinho MP (East Surrey, Conservative)
-
-
Shadow Secretary of State Claire Coutinho you. >> Thank you. >> Mr. Speaker. This government is taxing people up the wazoo and piling cost after cost onto their energy bills. People on 30 or £40,000 a year who are not well off are being hammered to pay for welfare when they are already working all hours to support their own families. Now we hear the Labour Party are about to go back to the taxpayer again to subsidise

**** Possible New Speaker ****

those on welfare, but their first port of call should be to adopt our cheap power plan. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. It would cut electricity electricity bills by 20% for electricity bills by 20% for everybody by cutting green taxes and levies, and it wouldn't cost the taxpayer a penny. Why won't

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they? Their their plan is totally incredible, Mr. Speaker, and she incredible, Mr. Speaker, and she knows it. Their their plan, their plan on renew their plan on renewables is just to tear up the contracts. And they had 14 years to do it and they didn't do it. Why? Because they know they can't. But I have to say to her, if she is talking about tax, it is quite extraordinary that her position is now to abolish the windfall tax, now to abolish the windfall tax, which has raised £12 billion since it was introduced in 2022.

The difference between us and them is difference between us and them is that we're willing to tax the oil and gas companies to help ordinary families.
11:49
11:49
11:50
11:50
11:51
11:51
11:52
11:52
11:53
11:53
11:54
11:54
11:54
11:55
11:55
11:56
11:56
None Portrait Q7. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of trends in the level of methane harvested from landfill sites on energy security. (908487)
-

Sarah Hall Mr. Speaker.
11:56
11:57
11:57
11:58
11:58
11:59
11:59
11:59
12:00
12:00
12:01
12:01
12:02
12:02
12:03
12:03
12:03
12:04
12:04
12:05
12:05
12:06
12:07
12:07
12:08
12:09
12:09
12:10
12:10
12:11
12:11
12:12
12:12
12:13
12:13
12:14
12:14
12:15
12:15
12:16
12:17
12:18
12:18
12:18
12:19
12:19
12:20
12:20
12:21
12:21
12:22
12:22
12:22
12:23
12:23
12:24
12:24
12:25
12:25
12:25
12:26
12:26
12:27
12:27
12:27
12:28
12:28
12:29
12:29
12:29
12:30
12:30
12:30
12:30
12:31
12:31
12:32
12:32
12:32
12:32
12:33
12:34
12:34
12:34
Rachel Reeves Portrait Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
-
-
to the House today about the government's continued response to government's continued response to the war in the Middle East. Let me start by paying tribute to our armed forces. And my thoughts and armed forces. And my thoughts and those of the whole House remain with them, and those whose lives have been disrupted by this have been disrupted by this conflict since I last addressed this House, the costs of oil and this House, the costs of oil and gas have remained high, and last week the Bank of England estimated that inflation could be between 3 and 3.5% in the next few quarters.

The full economic impact of the war remains uncertain, but it makes our economic plan even more important to build prosperity that is secure and resilient, and to bear down on the cost of living and protect the public finances delivered through our ironclad fiscal rules. And today, I will set out further action that I am taking first on global collaboration. Last week, the Prime Minister authorised the US to use UK military bases to defend the Strait of Hormuz. It remains the case that the best way to protect families and businesses is rapid de-escalation of this conflict, and to strengthen our collective security, I have announced that we will explore new defence financing and procurement mechanism with the Netherlands, Finland and other EU and NATO partners.

I welcome the IEA decision to authorise a coordinated release of our collective reserves to alleviate the immediate pressure on supply, and the UK has now begun the release of our share of 13.5 million barrels of oil. Second, on our energy security, the last government's failure to invest in energy was a failure to protect our country. But through determined action, this government is taking control of our own energy supply. Investing in renewables, lifting the ban on onshore wind and streamlining grid connections, running the biggest offshore wind auction in European history last year, and bringing the next renewable auction forward to this July, and driving forward negotiations on the UK's participation in the EU internal energy electricity market.

We must guarantee our domestic oil and gas industry can also play a role in our energy system for decades to come, and so I can confirm that we are encouraging investment in Tiebacks to make the most of our existing production facilities. We are rewriting the story on nuclear to construction, on Sizewell C, agreeing an extension to Sizewell B, and we are due to sign the contracts on the UK's first small modular reactors in Anglesey, in partnership with Rolls-Royce.

I will not tolerate red tape and vested interests holding back our energy security, so our new planning rules will unblock the pipeline of critical infrastructure projects. I can announce today that we will legislate to implement the Finkel review in the next parliamentary session. And I recently wrote to industry and regulators to get them to set out their plans to fast track that implementation in full to the parties opposite who like to talk big about energy security, but then vote against the very infrastructure to build it.

Let me say this it is time to put our country first, and I can confirm today that we are developing options to back critical energy projects with indemnities if their planning consent is challenged, so that we don't waste a single moment in protecting our energy security. Because energy security is national security. Third, on households and businesses, I know that when prices rise and incomes are squeezed, people look to the government and ask, what are you doing to help? That is why, since the election, we have delivered and funded 30 hours of free childcare for working parents.

Wages are rising faster than prices for every month that I have been Chancellor, and free breakfast clubs being rolled out at our primary schools from next week. The two child limit gone. They've day one sick pay in and another rise in the National Living wage. Prescription charges, frozen train fares frozen, the fuel duty frozen and the State Pension increasing next week by £575. And for businesses, £4.3 billion in business rate support. The Regulation Action Plan, cutting admin costs for businesses and the supercharger discount, followed next year by the British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme to take money off business energy bills.

But I know that there is more to do on trade. I can confirm to the House that we are aiming to conclude negotiations with the EU this year on the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement, which will directly impact food prices in our shops, and I have asked officials to look at where there are targeted reductions to agri food tariffs, which can help bring down food prices too. Balancing this with implications on domestic producers and food security. And later this week, I am holding meetings with supermarkets and with banks to discuss how they can further support their customers.

We have a world class competition and consumer protection regime, and since my last statement, the Competition and Markets Authority have stepped up their statutory monitoring of fuel prices and I will update on fuel pricing within the next month. They are working with government to monitor the cost of household essentials for both price rises and disruption, and they've launched a market study into heating oil. Today I can announce that we are going further to make sure that the Competition and Markets Authority have the powers that they need that were denied to them by the previous government to detect and to crack down on price gouging, bringing in a new Anti-profiteering framework and considering time limited targeted powers for the CMA and other regulators.

This week, the Business Secretary and I will convene the Regulators Council to discuss their work to protect consumers. Because let me say again, this government will not tolerate any company exploiting this crisis at consumers expense. Finally, I want to update the House on how I am preparing for this conflict as it goes on. I know that families and businesses are worried about the impact of rising prices. I have said that we will be responsive to a changing world and responsible in the national interest.

And today I want to set out in more detail what that means. First, responsive. We do not yet know what the full impact of this conflict will be, so we must be agile in responding appropriately. At each moment. We extended the £0.05 fuel duty cut and we have pushed out the cheaper fuel finder, empowering people to avoid rip off prices and chasing down the last few filling stations to reach 100% compliance when hosting kerosene prices. Wholesale kerosene prices more than doubled overnight.

We stepped in with £53 million of support to those who needed it most within a matter of days, and from next week, households will benefit from £150 off of their energy bills. Thanks to the action that I took in my Budget, with the price cap giving households certainty on their bills until July ahead of the winter months, when people use 78% of their gas. Second, we will be responsible. The spring forecast showed that the government has the right economic plan, restoring stability to our country's finances and family finances.

I will not put that stability at risk as we respond to this crisis. We must learn the mistakes of the past. The previous government, the previous government pushed up borrowing, interest rates, inflation and mortgage costs with an unfunded untargeted package of support under Liz Truss that gave the support to the most wealthiest of households between 2022 and 2024. Under the last government, households in the top income decile received an average of £1,350 of Direct Energy bill support.

That left us with high levels of national debt. A check written then for a bill that is still being paid today, I can confirm to the House that contingency planning is taking place for every eventuality, so that we can keep costs down for everyone and provide support for those who need it most. Acting within our ironclad fiscal rules to keep inflation and interest rates as low as possible. Mr. speaker, this is not a war that we started, nor is it a war that we joined.

Unlike the advice of the parties opposite. But it is a war that will have an impact on our country. The challenges may be significant, but I promise to do what is right and fair. Being responsive in a changing world and responsible in the national interest. And I commend this statement to the House.
12:45
Mel Stride Portrait Rt Hon Sir Mel Stride MP (Central Devon, Conservative)
-
-
Shadow Chancellor, Mel Stride. >> Mr. Speaker, and can I thank the of. >> Her statement.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Her statement. Mr. speaker, the right hon. Lady comes to this House with an economy comes to this House with an economy in tatters. She would have us believe that she has delivered the stability and resilience that can weather the storm ahead. But she has done nothing of the kind. When she came into office, she ramped up borrowing and spending and hiked taxes to record levels. She was warned at the time by the OBR and others that her policies would mean higher inflation, higher borrowing costs, higher interest rates and that she would destroy jobs.

Yes, all of that, Mr. Speaker, has come to pass. Yes, her mismanagement and foolish choices have given us the highest inflation in the G7, the highest borrowing costs of any major advanced economy, with gilt yields higher than Greece and Morocco, fragile fiscal headroom, the highest unemployment since the pandemic, and rising, and GDP per capita falling under this government. Mr. speaker, we are getting poorer and our economy is increasingly fragile and far from secure and resilient.

And despite what the right hon. Lady has just said about tie backs, nothing exemplifies this government's economic folly more than its approach to oil and gas. The utterly misguided net zero obsessions of the Energy Secretary have led to the absurdity of reduced extraction. Whilst we see jobs destroyed, tax revenues forgone and energy security smashed and the greatest tragedy of all, Mr. Speaker, that in Jackdaw and Rosebank we have fields ready to go. In just months they could be pumping vital relief to millions.

Jackdaw alone has enough gas to supply over 1.5 million homes, yet the right hon. Lady has nothing to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

say on that matter. You've done that today. And less oil and gas extraction

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And less oil and gas extraction means greater dependency and less security. This road leads to ruin.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

security. This road leads to ruin. Yes. On energy, on the cost of living, on jobs, on growth, on public on jobs, on growth, on public finances, on every measure that matters. This Chancellor has left matters. This Chancellor has left us weak, weak, weak. And in the face of this energy shock, there are millions who are about to suffer as a result. So, with respect to her statement today, could I ask her how many fuel retailers have yet to engage with the new Fuel Finder service? And can she comment on the widespread reports of technical glitches and out of date price information? She mentions a small modular reactor planned for Will Forster, but given the need, can she explain why she has chosen not to go ahead with the large scale nuclear site that was signed off by the last conservative government, and specifically on energy costs support? Can I ask her what fiscal capacity does the right hon.

Lady believe she has to support those in need? What is her plan to ensure that any targeted approach truly reaches all those who are in need? And on the matter of targeting? In her statement, Mr. Speaker, the Chancellor criticised the last conservative government support package for not being targeted. But what she failed to mention is that the now Prime Minister was then urging for support to be universal. Indeed, he said at that time that Labour's approach would ensure, and I quote, that no household would pay a penny more on their bills, no consistency from the right hon.

Lady. How is she going to ensure that support for those depending on heating oil reaches those who need it most? This support, Mr. Speaker, will, of course, under this government, be funded through the taxes of hard working people. Indeed, the reduction to energy bills this April is simply being taken from bills and being dumped onto the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

shoulders of hard pressed taxpayers. Yes. But it does not need to be this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But it does not need to be this way, for it is not the critical question. This where is the control question. This where is the control of public spending? Where is the renewed resolve to grasp the welfare bill, to get people off welfare bill, to get people off benefits and into work? I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is nowhere because the right hon. Lady is a captive of her own Back benchers, and she has brought our economy one step from its knees.

She knows it, the country knows it. And now we must all brace ourselves for what is to come, not from a position of strength, as the right hon. Lady is so desperate to have us believe, but from a position of weakness of her own making.
12:51
Rachel Reeves Portrait Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
-
-
Of the Exchequer. revealed that the Shadow Chancellor is utterly out of his depth. Mr. speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, in the last 20 months, we've had six cuts in interest rates. We have more than doubled the fiscal headroom compared with the headroom that I inherited from the party opposite. For the first time in six years, our deficit is less than 5% of GDP, and wages have increased by more than inflation. For every single month that I have been Chancellor of the Exchequer, compared to the record of the previous conservative government, which is the only Parliament on record where people were poorer at the end of it than they were at the beginning.

So I prefer my record to their record any day of the week now. Mr. Mr. speaker, the Shadow Chancellor says that we should act. Well, we have acted, but what the Shadow Chancellor fails to mention is that his party supported us being involved in this conflict. Whilst we have called for de-escalation, the Leader of the Opposition said that we should be a participant in this conflict. The damage that that would have done to our economy would have been immense.

And yet they make no apology for that. The Leader of the Opposition said yesterday about the Prime Minister that if he is creating a support package that is going to be done with taxpayers money, then he thinks that she thinks that we should be doing things that aren't going to cost the taxpayers money. So on the one hand, you've got the shadow Chancellor saying that we should do more and put in more money, and then you've got the Leader of the Opposition saying we shouldn't do anything.

So where do the party opposite now sit on the £53 million support that we gave on heating oil, because that was using taxpayers money to support those who needed it most. It was the right thing to do. But now the Leader of the Opposition seems to suggest that that was the wrong thing to do. Now, the shadow Chancellor asked a few specific questions on the cheaper fuel finder that we have introduced. More than 90% of retailers have now signed up to it, and of that 90%, all of them are updating their prices regularly.

And we, along with the Competition and Markets Authority, are chasing down the final few that have not submitted their prices on small modular reactors. The party opposite say they supported it. They had 14 years and they put not a single penny of money into it. And the same is true of Sizewell C. You can't, on the one hand, say that you think that we should spend less money and then at the same time say that we should be supporting Sizewell C and small modular reactors because everything has to be paid for in terms of fiscal capacity.

We have more than doubled the headroom compared to what I inherited from the Conservatives. It was less than £10 billion when I became Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is now nearly £24 billion because of the actions that I have taken. The Shadow Chancellor says that we haven't built contingency where the exact opposite is the case. Now the Shadow Chancellor says, what about Rosebank and Jackdaw? Well, it was because of the failure to do the work properly that it was challenged in the courts and one month after the previous government left office because they were kicked out, the courts came back and said that we had to re consider scope three emissions.

The regulator, the energy companies, Shell and Equinor, resubmitted their plans at the end of last year. The regulators.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sorry, between both of you, you can both go and have that discussion outside. If you can't be quiet in here.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

quiet in here. Chancellor of the Exchequer this is important because the energy companies came back. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Came back at the end of Speaker. Came back at the end of last year with their revised plans. The regulators are now considering those. And my right hon. Friend, those. And my right hon. Friend, the Energy Secretary will make a decision ahead of the autumn to decision ahead of the autumn to decide whether it is legal to go ahead with those. But we made a commitment in our manifesto to honour existing licences.

It's only because of the failure of the previous government to consult that we are in this position in the first place, and the the hon. Gentleman, the right hon. Gentleman says that if we cut the welfare bill we will be able to help people. Well, I'm afraid they had 14 years, and he was the Welfare Secretary when the bills ballooned. So, frankly, we'll take no lessons from the party opposite. It is only Labour that can be responsive to the immediate challenges, because we have been responsible with the public finances, committed to our long term energy security and committed to making the right decisions in the national interest.

Finance.
12:56
12:56
12:57
Daisy Cooper Portrait Daisy Cooper MP (St Albans, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Chancellor for advance sight of the Chancellor for advance sight of her statement and our thoughts are also with our brave armed forces at this time. I agree that the last government's failure to invest in energy was a failure to protect our country. Today, we face the stark reality where we cannot guarantee our national security, our energy security, or our food security. When Liberal Democrats were in government, we launched the auction for onshore wind and we established the Green Investment Bank, helping drive down costs and quadruple renewable energy.

The Conservatives decision to scrap the green Investment Bank has left our energy system more exposed, and should be worn as a badge of shame to shore up our energy security and to tackle the energy crisis. We Liberal Democrats have consistently argued for a three pronged approach first, to reduce energy demand by incentivising households and businesses to invest in energy efficiency without the tax penalties built into the business rate system or prohibitive upfront costs. Second, to fix the broken energy market that is unfairly inflating prices, especially for small businesses on our high streets.

And third, to provide targeted support for the most vulnerable and for those with the highest energy needs. So I urge the Chancellor to consider our proposals to create an energy security bank to offer low interest loans for energy saving improvements for households and small businesses, to reverse the cuts to home insulation programs, and to exempt business investment in energy efficiency from business rates calculations. Whilst action from the Competition and Markets Authority is welcome, it is not enough. Small businesses have been blocked from the best energy deals for years.

Well before Donald Trump started bombing Iran. Yet there has still been no CMA investigation into suppliers blocking access to these fair deals. So I ask the Chancellor again, will she please instruct the CMA to do this investigation without delay on targeted support? Families are fearful. Will the Chancellor consider zero rating VAT on heating oil and LPG? Will she consider introducing a price cap mechanism for off grid fuels? Will she commit to halving energy bills over the next decade by reforming pricing structures? And if bills rise to more than £400 a year, as some are warning, will the Chancellor commit to coming back to this House and outlining a broader support package so that all struggling households, or many struggling households, do not face a crippling hit of that scale?
13:00
Rachel Reeves Portrait Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
-
-
I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. Nick Clegg once said it will take ten years to get nuclear power up and running, so there wasn't any point in doing it. It would only come in in the 2020s. Well, imagine if that deputy Prime Minister hadn't blocked investment in nuclear energy then, and we would be able to get the benefits of it today. Well, you had a chance when you were in government and you did absolutely nothing. And the party opposite oppose onshore wind, which is also helping to bring down bills in terms of supporting investment in renewables and energy security.

We have created the National Wealth Fund, which is prioritising investment in defence and also in energy security, including in things like critical minerals in Cornwall, carbon capture and storage, and the rollout of chargers for electric vehicles. And we have also put £14 billion into the Warm Homes Plan to help subsidise and support people to make energy improvements in their home to reduce their energy consumption and therefore reduce their bills alongside the Warm Homes discount and where we have doubled the number of people who are eligible for it on businesses, we are through the business rates consultation looking at improvement relief to ensure that if people do make improvements, including on energy efficiency, that they won't then be whacked with higher business rates and on heating oil.

The hon. Lady said we should cut VAT on it. When they were in government, they increased VAT on everything. So it's a bit rich to say that they want to cut it now. But we have asked the Competition and Markets Authority to do a review on inter heating oil, which I set out today, as well as the £53 million of support that we've put in. But there seems to be a sort of slight contradiction in what the hon. Lady is saying between whether she wants targeted support or blanket support.

And I would argue that the progressive, universal approach that we're taking is the right one £150 off everyone's energy bills, but then targeted support for those who need it most, because we cannot repeat what happened when Liz Truss was Prime Minister, because a check was written then and we are now paying the price with higher interest rates, inflation and taxes than we would otherwise have to have.
13:02
13:03
13:04
13:05
13:05
13:06
13:06
13:07
13:08
13:09
13:10
13:10
13:11
13:11
13:12
13:13
13:13
13:14
13:14
13:15
13:15
13:16
13:16
13:17
13:18
13:19
13:19
13:20
13:20
13:21
13:22
13:22
13:23
13:23
13:24
13:25
13:26
13:26
13:27
13:28
13:29
13:29
13:30
13:31
13:32
13:32
13:33
13:33
13:34
13:34
13:35
13:35
13:36
13:36
13:37
13:38
None Portrait Ten Minute Rule Motion: Personal protective equipment (inclusive standards)
-

Thank you, Madam.
13:38
Kirsteen Sullivan Portrait Kirsteen Sullivan MP (Bathgate and Linlithgow, Labour )
-
-
that leave be given to bring in a bill to require that personal protective equipment procured and protective equipment procured and provided by public sector and associated bodies must comply with associated bodies must comply with standard BSL four, one seven, 2025 or an equivalent specified standard. or an equivalent specified standard. And for connected purposes, I bring this bill to the House today. As a proud member of the GMB union, we all know the importance of personal protective equipment. It is the final defence against unavoidable risks in the workplace.

But what is not always appreciated is that employees across the UK are routinely working without fit to form PPE, compromising safety and hindering productivity. Bf 30417. Developed by the British Standards Institution, it is guidance that puts fit to form PPE as a consideration at every stage of purchasing supply and just. Madam Deputy Speaker, Our workforce is not homogenous. Employees are not all male, five foot nine and 85 kilos, and even then, PPE is often designed for a taller man, whether preparing food, handling chemicals, building houses, healing patients or fighting fires, too many are given inadequate PPE.

Books too big they become trip hazards, gloves too large, they can't grip properly, or high vis jackets so cumbersome they restrict movement. While some employers offer inclusive PPE, it's time for us to put our money where our mouth is. Enshrining the BBC's new PPE standard, or the industry equivalent in public procurement, sends a very clear message to employers and manufacturers that the future of work and PPE is inclusive. Over the past year and a half, I have met with women across industries, health services, firefighters, police, armed services, engineering.

They are exasperated at perfect PPE and often the ridicule that comes with it. Take something as simple as sizing. The smallest size available on the market is still too large for 86% of female hands. That is not just inconvenient and cumbersome, it's unsafe. Many women during training drills on ladders, handling hoses and ropes find them impossible, as the gloves are simply too big to allow for a secure grip. Running into a burning building is something few of us would ever want to face, but our firefighters do this daily amidst an attack.

Running towards danger is something few of us would do, but our police officers do this daily, handling soiled linen and cleaning up bodily waste is something most of us avoid for possible. But our carers, nurses and medical professionals do this daily. Madam Deputy Speaker One Scottish firefighter came to me with her experience of running into burning buildings, but the service didn't have any female fire boots. This is intolerable. A dangerous trip hazard in a perilous situation. In basic front line protection, we are failing women who are putting their lives on the line and the horror stories go on.

Stab fests predominantly designed to fit men. They are simply inadequate to fit the body shape of female police officers. Ordinarily, they are too big and too loose when running, the stab vest slides up and down, hitting against our neck and chin and encumbrance slowing them down in moments of danger. In one case, a knife slipped under a police officer's garment and she was hospitalised with severe stab wounds. Alternatively, officers are forced to tie them so tight it impairs their breathing, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Others spoke of needing to alter their PPE just to make it fit. This completely compromises their safety and makes the worker legally liable for accidents on site due to wearing PPE incorrectly. And that's before we even talk about the lack of well-fitting protective clothing for people with disabilities, religious and cultural requirements, and men who do not fit the average size. Women in war zones have reported their oversized body armour cutting their thighs when Saturn vehicles traversing rocky terrain or helmets falling over their eyes, we should not expect our service personnel to enter combat zones if we cannot deliver the body armour and fitted head protection that can save lives.

Madam Deputy Speaker, Whilst these examples are not limited to public services, the purchasing power of the state represents a sizeable portion of the market. The purchase of PPE for our council care workers, firefighters, armed services and police. This bill will put people at the forefront of PPE procurement, ensuring true fit to form protection from sparks and burns, waste and disease, machinery and chemicals. Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to give special thanks to the people who put so much work into the new BSI standard and help me learn all things PPE, a subject that was not my forte but has soon become a passion project.

Firstly, the BSI drafting panel, superbly led by Sarah Gibson Natalie Wilson and I am grateful for the inspiration of Roshi Hussain for challenging PPE straight from graduation into various construction sites. Robbie McGregor for all his help, and the GMP team Mel and Lindsay for bringing their campaign for inclusive PPE to employers and to the workplace. I must also place on record my thanks to my parliamentary assistant, Angus Walker Stewart, who very diligently followed me down this rabbit hole.

I will also take this opportunity to wish the British Standards Institution a very happy birthday. And it's a big one. 125 years of standardising our rail gauges, plug sockets and now PPE. Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to conclude my proposal for this bill by bringing it back to where I live and where I come from politically. International Workers Memorial Day falls on the 28th of April every year in Bathgate, where I live. We gather in Balbardie Park. It is most beautiful in the springtime with the cherry blossoms welcoming visitors to the park now designated a Park of Peace, the sole colliery site saw at least 23 fatalities during its operation.

International Workers Memorial Day motto is remembered the dead fight for the living and this new, inclusive, inclusive PPE standard allows us to do just that and help ensure that those who go to work return home once again. With an ambitious plan to upgrade infrastructure and build 1.5 million new homes, this Labour government can lead by example and enshrine the all for one, seven or equivalent at the heart of public

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sector procurement. Here.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the hon. Member have leave to bring in the Bill. As many as of that opinion, say I of the contrary, no, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Who will prepare and bring in the bill?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Patricia Ferguson Mike Reader. Susan Murray Chris Kane Douglas McAllister Johanna Baxter Tracy Gilbert. Elaine Stewart. Lillian Jones and myself. Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Personal Personal protective.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Personal protective. Equipment Inclusive. Standards Bill. Second Reading. What day.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

By day 17 people.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

By day 17 people. Friday the 17th of April. We now come to the opposition day motion come to the opposition day motion on oil and Gas. I inform the House that the speaker has selected the amendment tabled in the name of the Prime Minister. I call the opposition spokesperson to move the motion.
13:47
13:47
Claire Coutinho Portrait Rt Hon Claire Coutinho MP (East Surrey, Conservative)
-
-
Tony Blair Institute all have in common. They all think the Labour common. They all think the Labour Party has got this wrong. All of them. They all think that we should make the most of our oil and gas in make the most of our oil and gas in the North Sea. These are some of the most powerful advocates for the most powerful advocates for clean energy in this country. These are the great and the good of the labour left. They all get that. labour left.

They all get that. Shutting down the North Sea is an act of economic self-harm and unforgivable own goal when it comes to Britain's energy security. The question is why doesn't the Labour Party let us go through their arguments one by one? First, the Secretary of State has argued that the North Sea does not help our energy security because all of the oil and gas gets sold abroad. This is rubbish. We use all of the gas that we drill in the North Sea.

It makes up about half of our supply. If we do not use our own North Sea gas by 2035, will be three times more reliant on foreign imports of LNG. That's much dirtier foreign gas. Why would we use that when we could use our own? The idea that it does not affect our energy security is pure misinformation. From the Secretary of State and MPs in the House today would be unwise to repeat it. Even the Climate Change Committee acknowledges that we will still need oil and gas for decades to come.

If we are going to need it, then we should get as much as possible from Britain. That's just common sense. Second, they say maximising our own resources in the North Sea makes us more reliant on fossil fuels. This is total rubbish. Producing our own oil and gas has no connection with our consumption of oil and gas. The biggest barrier to electrification is not our oil and gas industry. It's the party opposite, making electricity more and more expensive by piling levies and taxes onto people's bills, using electricity to heat our homes or drive our cars can help us make make us resilient during a price spike.

But the problem is our electricity is too expensive, and what the Secretary of State is doing piling cost after cost under people's electricity bills is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

making the problem worse. I will. Honourable. Lady for giving way. Would she

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lady for giving way. Would she agree with me that the simple thing to do in order to bring down the bills is to scrap net stupid zero, bills is to scrap net stupid zero, so you can scrap all the carbon taxes, scrap all the green levies, and all our consumers and households are better off.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

households are better off. And please your donors. Well, I thank the gentleman for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I thank the gentleman for his gentleman, for his question. I do think we need to take some of the green taxes and levies off electricity bills, because the problem that you've got is if the party opposite keep making electricity more expensive, no one will want to use it. That's why our policy is the opposite of theirs. We believe we should make electricity cheap by taking off green taxes and levies, and that has nothing to do with the North Sea.

Drilling in the North Sea doesn't stop anyone buying an electric car. It doesn't stop us building nuclear, of which I am a strong advocate. All wind or solar for that matter. They say that drilling in the North Sea leaves us tied to fossil fuels. But why? They only need to look at Norway to see this isn't true. A country which makes the most of its own oil and gas resources, but where lots of people drive EVs. So let's hear none of that argument today.

Third, they say it won't help reduce costs for ordinary people. This is economically illiterate rubbish. We are paying tens of billions of pounds to import oil and gas from Norway from the exact same basin we could be drilling ourselves. What does destroying our oil and gas industry mean for public finances? Over the next decade? £25 billion in lost tax revenue. They say they are taxing the wealthy. Are they in the real world? They are taxing anybody with a pulse.

Pensioners, middle earners, small businesses, farmers, drivers. If they breathe, they are taxing them, they are taxing them and people are suffering. But they could instead be getting that tax revenue from thriving industry instead. I'll happily give way on that point.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For the North Sea oil industry halved in the last decade when her party was in government.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

party was in government. The hon. Lady might like to know that oil and gas jobs have been stable for the last six years, but stable for the last six years, but we are losing 1000 jobs a month because of their policies. The reason I know that is because I reason I know that is because I have been to Aberdeen. Maybe she would like to see do the same. We would like to see do the same. We also saw yesterday that the markets are charging us 5% for our borrowing.

That's because they think we borrow too much and earn too little. But there's an easy way for the country to earn some more money. We can make the most of our own resources and back the North Sea, and this would drive down costs for everyone. It's unfashionable at the moment to talk about balance of payments, but if you keep sending billions of pounds abroad and rack up your credit card bill, that causes costs for everybody. Fourth, climate Labour will say drilling our own oil and gas in the North Sea is climate vandalism.

I'm quoting the Secretary of State. This is patent rubbish. Every drop of gas we don't drill ourselves. We import from abroad. Instead, the LNG that we import has four times the emission of gas that we could get from the North Sea LNG. For those who don't know, is gas that has to be frozen to -150 degrees shipped in diesel chugging tankers, then heated up here. That's why it has much higher emissions overall. Now, the Labour Party who say they care about this and that climate change is the biggest threat to our national security.

Their words, not mine. They have a choice. Today. We could be three times more reliant on that. Dirtier LNG shipped across the Atlantic, shipped in from the Middle East. Or we could use our own gas with four times fewer emissions. Which would they prefer? Virtue signalling higher emissions under the Secretary of State or more jobs, and lower emissions under our plans to back the North Sea? I'll happily give way at.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That point. I'm grateful to my right hon. Friend. Does she not like me, feel not only sorry for like me, feel not only sorry for all the consumers up and down the country who see billions of taxes that could be paid if we just produce more oil and gas here, could be used to lower the taxes when they fill up their cars and travel to work. But does she also travel to work. But does she also not feel sorry for the two members opposite because they are captured by an ideological Secretary of by an ideological Secretary of State? Neither of these, neither of the two Ministers on the front bench are idiots, neither of them, and yet they are captured by an ideological Secretary of State who is literally having to make them

**** Possible New Speaker ****

swear that black is white. I thank my right hon. Friend and these are two Scottish MPs. They these are two Scottish MPs. They have been to industry. They know what people in those areas are saying. They know the jobs that are saying. They know the jobs that are being lost. And the question is when. The answer is so blindingly obvious, when we could use things obvious, when we could use things that we make in this country rather than using dirtier imports from abroad, the question they need to abroad, the question they need to ask themselves is, why can't their Secretary of State see the truth? Fifth, they say new fields will take too long to get up and running.

This is dangerous. Short termist rubbish. Jackdaw and Rosebank could be up and running by Christmas. They have been sat on the Secretary of State's desk gathering dust. This hiding behind the process. I was part of the process in the Secretary of State's gift. It is up to him to make the assessment. We are in an energy crisis. He could speed this up if he chose to do so. Jackdaw alone could produce enough gas to heat over 1.5 million homes as their own Chancellor.

Their own Chancellor commends Norway and Canada for drilling more. That's what she said last week. She commended them for drilling more. She said every country must do its part by generating more oil and gas. They should ask themselves why their party position seems to be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

support the oil and gas industry anywhere but Britain. Here, here.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Here, here. I'd just like to clarify whether the hon. Lady agrees with herself the hon. Lady agrees with herself when she was shadow energy Minister, that nobody is saying that net zero was a mistake. Net zero in the round was an eminently sensible round was an eminently sensible thing to do. We need to decarbonise and we need to have an ambitious

**** Possible New Speaker ****

target to aim for. I would thank the hon. Lady, but I don't think it takes much effort to read out a whips question. The question she needs to answer is why is she supporting a policy which is going to increase British emissions? She's supporting a policy, which means that we're importing goods

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with higher emissions. That is what she is supporting today. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Five bad arguments which have been thoroughly disproved by people been thoroughly disproved by people outside of this chamber, by people that they supposedly respect. Five that they supposedly respect. Five bad arguments spun by the Secretary of State, which should be consigned to history. What the North Sea can actually give us is what it's been actually give us is what it's been doing all along stronger energy security, a stronger environment, a stronger economy. Are these not things that we want the next generation to have? And the question they need to answer is this what reason does renewable UK or their very own chair of Great British Energy have to back the North Sea? If it doesn't give us these very things, maybe, just maybe, it's time for them to admit that their Secretary of State has approached his role with a dangerous, blinkered ideology, rather than being interested in the national interest.

Maybe even they realise that they are once more being marched up the hill on the wrong side of history, on the wrong side of public opinion, when we all know there will be an inevitable U-turn from the Prime Minister and the Chancellor in a few weeks time, it is mad at the best of times to not want to make the most of our own resources. This idea that you would ban industry if you think they can't change prices in this country, let's be clear.

That is an argument to shut down all business in this country. There is a benefit to making things. In Britain, it's called jobs and tax revenue and self-reliance. The Labour Party used to understand that, and I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

happily give way on that point. I'm grateful to my right hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to my right hon. Friend giving way. And on that point about security and growing it at home, I'm sure my right hon. at home, I'm sure my right hon. Friend shares my concern that in the push for renewables, we are entirely reliant on the processing entirely reliant on the processing being done in China on the other side of the world. So when the party opposite talk about not being party opposite talk about not being reliant on petrochemical dictators, they seem perfectly happy to be reliant on renewable dictators.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point in the trade wars excellent point in the trade wars that we saw last year. China limited the export of several rare minerals, which would be critical minerals, which would be critical components in the renewable supply chain. Having an energy system which is dominated by renewables, which is dominated by renewables, is having a system which is completely reliant on China, and that is why we think that is the that is why we think that is the wrong approach.

It is mad at the best of times to not want to make the most of our own resources in the middle of a supply crisis. It is completely unforgiveable. And yet that's exactly what Labour MPs will vote for today. They are on the wrong side of history on this one. They should put their disastrous Secretary of State zealotry to one side. Fast track Rosebank and Jackdaw reversed their disastrous bans and taxes, and put our energy resilience over their narrow political interests by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

backing the North Sea. And I will give way on that final. Point. For a giveaway. Can I, first of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For a giveaway. Can I, first of all, thank the the Shadow Minister and the Conservative Party again for bringing this forward. My constituents tell me very clearly, constituents tell me very clearly, if we have oil, let's dig it and let's drill it and let's make sure that we get the opportunity of it. Now what what is it not ludicrous Now what what is it not ludicrous for the Labour Party to let Norway get all the assets from the drilling and also get nothing when drilling and also get nothing when it's the same bed that we have really for, for the Labour Party to to have any other sort of policy as ludicrous as against the will of the people, it's against the will of this Parliament on this side.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I think the Minister should decision. OK.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

OK. Well, I, I thank the hon. Member. I think these are the strongest words that I've heard from him in words that I've heard from him in my entire time in Parliament, and the party opposite would be wise to heed them. At the moment, we are in heed them. At the moment, we are in a situation where we share the same basin with Norway, and last year they drilled 46 new wells and they they drilled 46 new wells and they made 21 new discoveries, and we drilled zero wells for the first time since 1964.

This is exactly the same basin. There is not a geology difference. It is a political line drawn down the middle. It is quite clear that it's the it's the Labour Party's approach and the Secretary of State's approach, which is driving this industry into the ground. I will happily give way on that point.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, and one of the reasons why Norway, of course, is so successful Norway, of course, is so successful is because of the certainty that is applied to the tax regime in applied to the tax regime in respect of oil and gas drilling. Now within the Conservative Party motion, as I read it, they seek to remove the energy profits levy. As a point of clarity. Can she be a point of clarity. Can she be clear with the House as to whether she would want that to be replaced by the oil and gas petroleum mechanism, as suggested by so many in the industry in Aberdeen?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Gentleman. I know his party has a checkered past in backing the North Sea, but what I will say is that I'd be happy to I will say is that I'd be happy to work with anyone to look how we can support the industry. My position is clear at the moment. We are is clear at the moment. We are taxing companies at a marginal rate of 100%. We are banning new licences, the only country in the licences, the only country in the world to do so.

We are making ourselves more reliant on dirtier gas from abroad, when we could be gas from abroad, when we could be using our own resources and taking in £25 billion of tax receipts. And that is why I urge the party opposite the party who used to be the party of workers. They used to be the party of industry. They used to be the party that understood aspiration in this country, to put themselves on the right side of history and vote for the motion today here.
14:02
Martin McCluskey Portrait Martin McCluskey MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West, Labour)
-
-
The question is, as on the Order Paper, I call the Minister to move Paper, I call the Minister to move the amendment. Martin McCluskey. >> Yes. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I beg to move the amendment standing in my name, in the name of the Prime Minister and other hon. Members. Madam Deputy Speaker, as I Members. Madam Deputy Speaker, as I have said before, many times in this House, the North Sea oil and gas sector is one of our great industrial success stories. We are proud of the role that the North Seas workers and communities have played in helping to power our country and the world for decades, and we recognise the role that oil.

Let me make some progress, and we recognise the role that oil and gas will play in our energy mix for decades to come, as well as the vast skills and experience of our offshore workforce. But as a government we have. We also have a duty to be honest about the challenges that we face. And the reality is that more domestic oil and gas production will not make us more energy secure and will not take a penny off bills. There is a lot of debate on this issue, so it is important to focus on the facts

**** Possible New Speaker ****

facts. Are for giving way, because earlier today, the Secretary of earlier today, the Secretary of State refused to answer my question about why it is that the price of gas in the United States is between gas in the United States is between a third and a quarter of the price of gas here in the UK. Perhaps the Minister could help us all and help the British people, because this goes to the heart of it, about the price of gas and the size and cost

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of our bills. As the as the hon. Member will know and will have heard me say earlier in this speech, the price of gas and oil is set on an international market and extracting more from the North Sea would not make a difference in terms of price in this country. The North Sea is a super mature basin that accounts for around 0.7% of global oil and gas production. Production has been naturally falling for more than 20 years, which means our North Sea no longer has the reserves available to support domestic energy demand.

And crucially, any new licences now would not make any difference to people's energy bills. Because regardless, regardless of where it comes from, oil and gas is sold in international markets where we are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

price takers, not price makers. I will give way. If we were to accept that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If we were to accept that argument, notwithstanding the the fact that there are global markets and supply and demand leads to much lower prices in some places than lower prices in some places than elsewhere. But let's accept for the purposes of this, let's accept that it makes no difference to the it makes no difference to the international price. It's billions of pounds in forgone taxes, which could be used to reduce prices, to reduce VAT, to reduce all sorts of impositions on the British people, saving not pennies but many pounds from ordinary people's bills.

That's true, isn't it?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister Madam Deputy Speaker. What the party opposite wants to do What the party opposite wants to do is they want to remove a tax that is contributing £12 billion to the Exchequer, that is funding our public services, that is allowing us to invest in our schools, in our us to invest in our schools, in our hospitals and other public services. And if they oppose that, they need to come forward with their own to come forward with their own proposals.

Allow me to make some progress. The only route to energy security and lower bills is to get off our dependence on fossil fuel markets, which we have no control over, no control over, and on to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clean home-grown power that we do. I will give way. Minister. For giving way. There seems to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For giving way. There seems to. Be some. Sort of complete failure to understand how the gas market works. Because the gas market works on piped gas, it works on local markets and it works on an integrated supply and consumption system. And yet he's addressing it as though it's shipped oil. It's not the same market, and yet he's not the same market, and yet he's dealing with it as though it is. Could he please begin to address the fact that this is a very different market?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. We have been importers since

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We have been importers since 2004 of gas, and the party opposite will know because they presided, they presided over the period of they presided over the period of this decline. They will know that it has been declining for some time. Allow me to make some progress. Allow me to make some progress. Recent events in the Middle East are yet another reminder of the need to speed up that transition need to speed up that transition and protect British people from these price shocks.

Thanks to our mission to make the UK a clean energy superpower, we have already seen £90 billion of investment announced for clean British energy, but now we are determined to go even further and faster in pursuit of national energy security. And I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will give. Way. Minister, for giving way and I accept his point about having more home-grown. Renewables can be good home-grown. Renewables can be good for insulating ourselves from the world, but he will know there are great swathes of our industrial great swathes of our industrial base that are gas dependent, not least the ceramics industry. So what message did he send to them? Because currently the price per Because currently the price per therm is twice what it was three weeks ago. They're renewing their contracts.

This is going to kill industry in certain parts of our industry in certain parts of our foundational sector that we need to meet our mission. So what's the government's message to those industries?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. My I know my hon. Friend is a real advocate for the industries in his constituency, and the Minister for industry is looking in detail at industry is looking in detail at this and is coming forward with proposals for industry to take us through this moment where we are through this moment where we are dealing with this situation in the Middle East. We are bringing forward the next renewables auction, forward the next renewables auction, months after our most successful auction ever, secured enough power for the equivalent of 16 million homes.

And just today, we set out plans to make plug in solar available in supermarkets so more people can put a panel on their balcony or outdoor space and begin saving energy. And we are ensuring heat pumps and solar panels will be standard in new build homes. Madam Deputy Speaker One moment, Madam Deputy Speaker, I also want to talk about the energy profits levy, which has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members across the House since its introduction in 2022. The Energy Profits Levy has raised around £12 billion this revenue supports, as I said earlier, vital public services.

And as the Chancellor noted at the recent spring forecast, the energy profits levy will be replaced by the new oil and gas price mechanism in 2030 or sooner if average oil and gas prices over six months fall below the thresholds of the energy security investment mechanism. The Chancellor recognises industry's calls for the EPL to be replaced by the mechanism, and wants to work with industry to provide certainty on the future fiscal regime, whilst taxing windfall profits of energy companies. And I will give.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Way for giving way on the energy profits levy. The OBR forecast last year downgraded the income that they're expecting from oil and gas they're expecting from oil and gas by 40% between March and November, and then another 20% between November and March this year. By 20 November and March this year. By 20 2030, we're now only expecting £100 million from a sector that used to bring home billions. That's because of the EPL and that's because of the ban on licences, and that's the impact that Labour are having on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

impact that Labour are having on the oil and gas sector. Yes. The hon. Lady will know that this is a windfall tax on windfall profits. If there are not windfall profits, there will not be a windfall tax. The motion will allow me to make progress. The motion also calls for an end to the ban on oil and gas licensing. The government has been clear that it will support the management of existing fields for their lifespan. That is why we have committed to introducing Transitional Energy Certificates that will enable some offshore oil and gas production in areas adjacent to already licensed fields, linked via a tieback, or in areas that are already part of an existing field.

But new licences to explore new fields would make no material difference to overall production, and would run contrary to the science on tackling the climate crisis.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So. Why does he think the. Strategy of this government is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Strategy of this government is so different to that of Norway? Nobody's doubting the commitment that Norway has to the environment that Norway has to the environment and to net zero, and yet they're pumping more oil and gas than they pumping more oil and gas than they have done for a very long time standing. And the commitment in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

longer term to net zero. Norway has managed their fuels in a very different way to this country, has over a course of 40 or 50 years, and every country will take its own decisions on how best to secure its own energy supply. And many other countries are taking a similar approach to the United Kingdom. Let me turn now to Jackdaw and Rosebank, which is addressed in the motion from the opposition. At the outset, I should say that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the merits of individual cases, because doing so could prejudice the decision making process.

As with planning decisions, as with planning decisions which are comparable in nature, offshore oil and gas projects are subject to a robust and legally grounded regulatory framework under which information submitted by developers must be carefully assessed. In both the Jackdaw and Rosebank cases, the Secretary of State will make a decision on whether to agree to those being consented in due course. It is imperative that all relevant material is properly considered so that decisions are sound, defensible and robust. When reaching a view, the Secretary of State will assess the overall balance between any potential significant environmental effects and the wider benefits to the interests of the country.

As members would expect, that assessment will involve considering a range of factors which may include energy security alongside environmental considerations. Some have asked why these decisions are taking time. The answer is straightforward. These are planning decisions that must be taken in full knowledge of the facts. The guidance on the assessment of scope three emissions, published last year in response to the Supreme Court's judgement, is the first of its kind, and it is therefore crucial that we take the time to apply it properly.

It serves no one's interest for decisions to be rushed, and certainly does not serve the benefits of industry or the hon. Gentleman who is chuntering from a sedentary position. Constituents only to be overturned by the courts, which was the mess that the previous

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government got into. Of course. I thank. You for giving way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You for giving way. He mentioned their energy security and of course, this is fundamentally the most important issue facing us as a country at the issue facing us as a country at the moment, not only because of the conflict in the Middle East, but wider conflicts, including that in wider conflicts, including that in Ukraine. Is it not the case that we must stop taking short term decisions and instead look for the decisions and instead look for the long term future of our energy so that we can get nationally controlled energy security, which

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is good for our national security too. Yes. My hon. Friend makes a really important point, I think gets to the heart of this debate. We aren't going to learn the wrong lessons from the situation that we're from the situation that we're currently facing in the Middle East. We will not make ourselves more reliant on fossil fuels at a time reliant on fossil fuels at a time when we can see playing out day after day after day, in all of our constituents rising prices, the effect of being overly reliant and overly exposed to gas and fossil fuels.

Madam Deputy Speaker, we are incredibly fortunate to have the North Sea on our doorstep. For almost half a century, the oil and gas buried there has fuelled development and charged our economy. But for too long now, governments have ignored the transition that is happening before their eyes. We owe it to the North Sea workers and the communities who have done so much for our country to set out a proper plan for their future and seize the immense potential in clean energy. And I will give way.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

To thank him for giving way. The workers who he's referring to have a very different take on his a very different take on his government's approach to the North Sea than he does. Indeed, I think they would be incredulous at the arguments that he is making today and his government have made over many months because it is costing many months because it is costing them their jobs. He knows that moving from the energy profits levy moving from the energy profits levy to the OG PMQ as quickly as possible will give those workers some hope and will help assist with energy security as he or his department currently in discussions with the Treasury about making that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

happen. The Chancellor has had discussions with industry and will continue to have those discussions with industry, and that's right, an appropriate way to conduct these decisions. And, you know, I was pleased to be myself in Aberdeen a couple of weeks ago, talking to the couple of weeks ago, talking to the same workers that he mentioned. And of course, we need to do as much as possible to ensure that oil and gas possible to ensure that oil and gas workers are properly protected through this transition, but that we also don't lose sight of the great potential, for example, in floating offshore wind, which will also provide a significant future for his constituents and for people across Scotland.

As I was saying, the the transition that is underway is the only way to get off the roller coaster of fossil fuels and build a more secure energy system. Following a consultation with businesses and communities last autumn, we set out the steps we are taking to unleash the North Seas clean energy future. That plan recognises that our world class energy workers and supply chains,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and the importance of supporting them through that transition. I will give way. The Minister has been most

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Minister has been most generous. He. He'll know that Harbour Energy was the largest single producer in the North Sea. single producer in the North Sea. They're leaving. He. He will know that it's been devastating for so many workers in the industry. And he also know that by all projections in 2050, this country projections in 2050, this country will still be dependent on oil and gas, dependent on oil and gas in 2050, in all scenarios dependent. And yet by not doing new licences, we will by definition be more dependent on foreign supply, much of it having to come through the Straits of Hormuz.

How can that make any sense? I don't think the Minister thinks it does, but I suppose he's forced to stand on his feet and repeat the nonsense that comes out of the mouth of his Secretary of State, I ask him.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm more than capable of forming my own conclusions. And what's in that own conclusions. And what's in that speech are my own my own conclusions, and I would I would encourage the hon. Gentleman to listen to what I've had to say throughout this Harbour energy is continuing to operate. He talks continuing to operate. He talks about. He talks about dependence. The dependence that we are seeing at the moment is dependence on at the moment is dependence on fossil fuels, is dependence on oil and gas, which has left every single one of our constituents across this House exposed to volatile oil and gas prices, exposed to higher prices as as in my response to my hon.

Friend earlier, the only way off of this is off the roller coaster of fossil fuels, on to home grown, home grown energy that we control, where we can control the price. That is a responsible action from a government that is focussed on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

long term and not the short term. Of course. Offshore Energies UK doesn't agree with him because it said that at the current rate, with the government crashing the North Sea industry, we're going to be three industry, we're going to be three times more reliant by 2035 for gas as we are at the moment. Is he

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as we are at the moment. Is he right or is Offshore Energies UK right? Minister I'll. Say to the hon. Gentleman what I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Say to the hon. Gentleman what I said to his frontbench last week, which is we need to stop, or that the party opposite needs to stop talking down the North Sea, 1.1 million barrels a day being extracted. That is not an industry that is being shut down. That is an industry that is continuing to to produce. Let me conclude. Just last week, the Minister for energy met with our North Sea Futures Board in Aberdeen, with representatives from industry, unions and local groups to discuss how we can drive a fair, orderly and prosperous transition.

Madam Deputy Speaker To conclude net zero is the economic opportunity of the century, despite what. Hon. Gentlemen, gentlemen on the backbench might say, this government will make sure that our oil and gas workers can take advantage of that opportunity while driving for energy sovereignty and abundance with clean home-grown power.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The original question was, as on the Order Paper, since when amendment A has been proposed as on amendment A has been proposed as on the Order Paper, the question is that the original words stand. Part that the original words stand. Part of the question before I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson just to alert members. There will be an to alert members. There will be an immediate four minute time limit, which of course does not apply to the Frontbenches Pippa Heylings.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Frontbenches Pippa Heylings. Thank you, Madam Deputy. Speaker, and I think. We do need to be clear that this energy crisis is, in effect, an oil and gas crisis and shows us yet
14:18
Pippa Heylings Portrait Pippa Heylings MP (South Cambridgeshire, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
again, just how dangerous our overdependence on fossil fuels really is. Just as with Russia's really is. Just as with Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the Middle East conflict shows how a single geopolitical escalation can send geopolitical escalation can send energy prices soaring, leaving households and businesses here in households and businesses here in the UK exposed to shocks beyond their control. And history is now their control. And history is now in danger of repeating itself. Families struggling with higher gas, petrol and food prices while energy companies profits surge.

If the conflict continues. Forecasts from Cornwall Insight suggest that energy bills could rise by £332 this July. A £332 Trump war tax on our energy bills. And yet what do we see? Is the Conservative Party's response. More drilling, more dependence, more of the roller coaster of volatile fossil fuel prices? And along with reform, those here today misleading the public on the need to drill baby drill are the same ones that were gung ho, urging the Prime Minister to join Trump in this illegal war

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that caused this very crisis. And I will give way. I thank the hon. Lady for giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. Can she explain why the production of oil and gas makes us more reliant on the consumption of more reliant on the consumption of oil and gas? Would she look at the example of somewhere like Norway, which exports oil and gas and gets tax revenue from it, but actually

**** Possible New Speaker ****

tax revenue from it, but actually has a high penetration of EV? Because she explained why she's conflating the issue. Pippa Heylings.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Pippa Heylings. Thank you very much. And I do believe that the Minister answered her question, which is that Norway has a very, very different system and made different decisions about consumption. Consumption based on a higher level and a faster level of adoption of techniques and heat pumps, which dither and delay under the previous conservative government, which we didn't move forward on, to take us off that consumption. The truth is, the truth is, Madam Deputy Speaker, that expanding oil and gas production in the North Sea, a mature basin from which we've already extracted 93%, will do nothing, nothing to cut people's energy bills.

Any oil and gas extracted is sold on international markets to the highest bidder. Nor will it influence global prices, given that the UK can only contribute a tiny fraction of the global supply, even if new licences were given. So it won't cut bills, nor will they increase security of supply. Research by uplift shows that fields licensed by the previous conservative government over 14 years have produced just over a month's worth of gas to date, and energy security is national security.

As long as we rely on fossil fuels, we rely on foreign dictators and Petro states. Trump's national security report was clear he will use his gas to project power, turning it on and off at his will, and the Conservatives report reform have shown that when Trump says jump, they ask how high that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is. Not energy security. That is energy surrender. Hon. Lady, for giving way. Just to confirm, is the Liberal Democrats position that they do not want new licences in the North Sea.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

want new licences in the North Sea. And Pippa Heylings. I can confirm that the Liberal

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I can confirm that the Liberal Democrat position is not to support new fields for exploration in the North Sea, rather, we should accelerate our own home-grown clean energy whose prices we control. Otherwise, our constituents will forever be at the mercy of a deteriorating world order. And let me turn to jobs, because this matters deeply. Those working in the North Sea are skilled workers. They've kept our lights on and must be at the heart of any transition, a just transition.

The recognises that whilst we will need oil and gas for decades to come, the North Sea is a mature basin and oil and gas workers and supply chains need support to transition. And under the Conservatives, despite supporting new North Sea drilling jobs in the oil and gas industry, did fall by 70,000 70,000 jobs. Without this outcry, without support. Madam Deputy Speaker, I grew up in Hull, a city that knew the devastation of unmanaged transition. I saw through my father's work as a GP the human cost of industries collapsing without a plan.

Dockers Trawlermen entire communities left behind lost pride. And we can't repeat those mistakes yet. In Hull today, we also see what success can look like. Investment in offshore wind companies like Siemens creating skilled, well-paid jobs for the future, building wind turbine blades, jobs and pride. And now I'll turn to climate change because whilst fossil fuels are driving skyrocketing costs, they also drive the costs of unabated climate change already hitting our farmers and our communities with crippling flooding and droughts.

Approving the Rosebank alone would add nearly 250 million tonnes of emissions, pushing us beyond our climate targets, further out of line with the Paris Agreement, which aims to protect us all. Opening new fields will worsen the climate crisis without cutting bills or improving energy security. It will exaggerate, exacerbate climate breakdown, and climate breakdown is a national security threat driving instability,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

displacement and economic shocks. I'm most grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. So in criticising us for trying to extract oil and gas, is she extract oil and gas, is she criticising Norway and its successful, excellent program last successful, excellent program last year of drilling 49 new wells? When we drilled none Pippa Heylings.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we drilled none Pippa Heylings. So we have been taking out more gas for decades, less gas now for decades. And those were decisions that have been taken by successive governments. We know that now in Norway, we've seen the security of gas supply assessment. Norway's geological situation shows that they have more left. There are basin is less and dwindling. So expanding North Sea drilling is not pragmatic. It's reckless and incompatible with the UK's climate commitments.

However, there is another path and the Liberal Democrats have been clear we must break our overdependence on fossil fuels, decouple gas and electricity prices so households benefit from cheap, clean power. The more we expand renewable clean energy through contracts for difference introduced by the Liberal Democrats, the less gas sets the price and families and businesses have fixed renewable energy prices. We would go further in taking off the policy costs from energy bills so that households feel in their pockets that the wind and the sun are cheaper than gas.

We also need to make homes cheaper to heat in the winter, cool in the summer with a more ambitious Warm Homes Plan, a ten year emergency home upgrade programme, and also building on the Liberal Democrats success in getting the government to commit today to putting rooftop solar on all new builds. Rejoining the EU's internal energy market would also reduce wholesale costs, trade energy more efficiently and also avoid these higher costs. More drilling means more volatility, more insecurity and higher bills.

The Liberal Democrats offer a different path. Decoupled gas and electricity prices, and lower the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bills that families and businesses deserve. Thank you. Mike Reader thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mike Reader thank you. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. I found this debate quite fascinating. The nonsense that has position benches today, watching a party rip themselves up as they worry about more defections to worry about more defections to reform, parroting their lines from the opposition frontbench and with
14:27
Mike Reader Portrait Mike Reader MP (Northampton South, Labour)
-
-
with, we know coverage from the media now that they're promoting people to the front bench based on their social media clout. So I'm looking forward to many more one liners and AI generated speeches as they all try and get down, down to the front. But look, we we have seen arguments today that sound less like a plan for Britain and much more like they're straight from the playbook, talking down our country and creating more uncertainty and worry for families across the UK.

So Madam Deputy Speaker to be very clear, I fiercely oppose further oil and gas exploration in the North Sea. Expanding new drilling does not address the pressures that families are facing right now, and it does not give our country long term energy security and energy energy sovereignty. In fact, it exacerbates the problem. There is a claim that we can just simply turn this drilling on, that there is billions of pounds available right now without any government subsidy, and all of a sudden we'll get more oil.

The fact is, it is a fairy tale. It is nonsense. Drilling and expansion is is expensive. The best supplies are already tapped out. Profiteering drillers and exploiters are very honest about this. They know there are other places around the world they would much prefer to drill for much bigger profits for their stakeholders. This is not a magical solution that will benefit you British families, even if. Even if. North Sea Foyle North Sea fields are opened today, as is proposed by the motion by 2050, the UK is still expected to be dependent around 94% on imported gas, compared to 97%.

Without it, it makes almost zero impact to our long term energy security. And looking at those two individual individual projects that are in the motion today, Jackdaw would reduce import dependence by roughly 2%. With UK continuing to be heavily reliant on international supplies and Rosebank would reduce by around 1% for oil. With all that oil destined for exports, not for the pumps, of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The hon. Member, is he aware that there is about a decade's that there is about a decade's worth ten years worth of wonderful shale gas in the great county of Lincolnshire? The power this great

**** Possible New Speaker ****

nation. Mike Reader. Slough. Discussion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mike Reader. Slough. Discussion on fracking is a discussion for another day. But perhaps not. Not for today. So, Madam Mr Speaker, we have heard claims that there are billions of pounds invested, but we know in reality, when we come to development that it's the public that pays the price. In some cases, taxpayers put around 80% of the bill of that development cost. And if we look at modelling for Rosebank, Rosebank would end up and ending energy profit levies could mean a net loss to the Treasury for about £250 million, while operators receive around £1.5 billion in profits.

So that should give us pause for thought. Who are we here to represent? Our neighbours, who are facing high prices at the pumps and high prices for their fuel bills or multi-millionaire shareholders? But, Madam Deputy Speaker, there is also a fundamental question about whether this government keeps its promise to future generations on the climate crisis. International bodies, including the IEA, have set out that new exploration licences are not compatible with limiting warming to 1.5 degrees the last year.

Last year was the first time in history that global temperatures exceeded 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels. We do have a legal obligation, but more importantly, we have a duty to act in the best interests of our country and our people in the long term. If we expand fossil fuel extraction in full knowledge of the consequences, we are choosing to delay that responsibility and we will feel the effects. We're feeling the effects in food prices. The number one issue our farmers are facing is climate change.

We'll feed it on on health impact from extreme heat and air quality, and we'll see it in global instability, where global instability feeds straight back into the costs here at home. So Madam Deputy Speaker, there is a task ahead of us to make sure we stick with the plan. We focus on doubling down on renewables, saying no to oil and gas, and ultimately make sure we deliver a clean future for our country.
14:31
Harriet Cross Portrait Harriet Cross MP (Gordon and Buchan, Conservative)
-
-
The Harriet Cross. >> Madam Deputy. >> Speaker, and I'm almost a little shocked to have to follow that. But I will do my best, and I think it actually explains exactly why I do not understand Labour's oil and gas policy. The unions don't understand their policy. The Tony Blair Institute don't understand their policy. The industry doesn't understand their policy. The renewables industry doesn't understand their policy. That's not because we can't understand something. It's because their policy is absolutely crazy.

We've just heard. But we'll be using oil and gas for decades. We've just heard that those that oil and gas has to come from overseas, but much less of it can come from overseas. If we open up drilling in the North Sea, if we get rid of the EPL, if we make the North Sea a basin that companies want to invest in, can invest in, which they can drill from Jackdaw and Rosebank. Prime examples can be producing by the end of the year.

Jackdaw can be powering 1.6 million homes, but the government don't want it to. They prefer to import from abroad because then they can say but they are a country progressing towards net zero. They can say that their renewables ambition is kicking ahead. Doesn't matter the jobs it's kicking in the meantime doesn't matter the tax that's being lost in the meantime, it doesn't matter the £50 billion of investment that will be lost, or the £165 billion of economic activity that will be lost. But the government and the Secretary of State will have his headline.

He will go down as the Secretary of State, who managed to shut down the North Sea, who got us off oil and gas. But it's a fantasy. It's never going to happen. It cannot happen. 70% of the UK's energy, not electricity. Energy, comes from oil and gas, and it will for many, many years. So no matter how much the government wish, we were not reliant on oil and gas, no matter how much the member wishes. We don't need our own oil and gas. We do.

We need our own oil and gas. We need oil and gas from abroad and we will for a long time yet. And I care about the workers in the oil and gas sector because those workers are my constituents. They're my friends, they're my neighbours. They're the people who hold our communities together. But it's not just in northeast Scotland. Every single member in this House has constituents working in the oil and gas sector. Every single member in this House has constituents listening to the debate today, worrying about their jobs, wondering why this government is so determined to sacrifice their livelihoods in order to import more from abroad.

And when we meet workers in North Sea, Scotland Madam Deputy Speaker, they don't talk about their jobs, their future. They talk about their job. Now they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

worry about how their job now is going to be. Protected. And they worry why this government do not want to protect their jobs. The apparent Labour government, the government that's meant to protect jobs, does not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

meant to protect jobs, does not value oil and gas jobs. And I will. Give way. I'm most grateful to the hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm most grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. This is a critical question. Who is more dangerous to the British economy? Is it the Secretary of State for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it the Secretary of State for energy or the Chancellor of the Exchequer? I don't want to take between two, but it's a double act. They are dreadful for the UK economy. But what we will see from now into the years ahead is Aberdeen becoming less and less of an area where the transition which the government are so dedicated to moving away because the supply chain, the supply chain, which they know is so important to the transition, is at the moment sustained by the oil and gas sector.

Production from the North Sea decreased 40% last year. That's not because of the geology. That's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

because of the Energy Profits Levy. That's because of the ban on licences. Yes. Thank you to the hon. Member for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you to the hon. Member for giving way. Does she agree with me that the UK and the production in that the UK and the production in the North Sea can never support a position like Norway, because

**** Possible New Speaker ****

position like Norway, because Margaret Thatcher gave away oil. Industry to the private country and we have no sovereign fund. We shouldn't have a win

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We shouldn't have a win developing Rotherham. We need more imports than we produce, so why would we not produce to the full extent that we can from the North Sea? And as a Scottish Member of Parliament, I'm sure that she appreciates just how important the industry is to our constituents and the Scottish Labour Member of Parliament as well. I do wonder if they're sitting there wondering just what this government are doing to their constituents. I would love to hear him justify it.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Scott Arthur I do thank her for giving me and as ever, she speaks with great passion this issue. But she must recognise she started off by talking about Jackdaw that her party made a complete mess of that. party made a complete mess of that. And that is why. That is why it is completely shrouded in uncertainty. Just now. She blames the government and suggests that we are to blame. and suggests that we are to blame. But it was her party, was it not? And is this not a quasi judicial decision rather than a decision for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Minister. Remained there. They moved their support for Jackdaw and Rosebank, and that's why it is now held up. And if the government wanted Jackdaw and Rosebank can go down the line. Tornado. There are many, many others in the pipeline as well. If they wanted these, they could approve these. It's in their gift. They are the government, the government who wanted apparently to be in power for that long because they wanted people to make these decisions. But the only decisions they're making at the moment for North east Scotland is the decision to close down the North Sea, no matter what they say.

Otherwise, to see redundancies going up, to see investment going abroad, to see tax intake, reducing the skilled workforce of north east Scotland should be something that the whole of the UK treasures. It is a vital asset, as is the North Sea. It's a vital asset. Any other country in the world would give anything to have the workers, the skills and the geology that we have off our East coast. But this government are not interested. They would much prefer to hit their renewables targets, their clean power targets, then support one of our most crucial industries.

And that Madam Deputy Speaker is why I'm delighted the opposition have brought this debate today, delighted that we'll be voting to support our oil and gas sector, its workers, our industry, and I really hope that members across the House will support us today.
14:38
Anneliese Dodds Portrait Rt Hon Anneliese Dodds MP (Oxford East, Labour )
-
-
Anneliese Dodds thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to start my Deputy Speaker. I want to start my speech by thanking the North Sea oil workers now and in the past. I oil workers now and in the past. I recently read the book Black Eden by Richard T Kelly. Maybe some others have read that book on just about every single page. I was reminded of people that I know or people who I knew in my childhood in Aberdeenshire, the incredible innovators, the divers who risked their lives every single time that they entered the water.

The workers on the rigs with weeks away from their families. They do deserve our thanks. They deserve recognition. And what they do not deserve is histrionics, is slogans rather than a plan, and is to not be taken seriously because, Madam Deputy Speaker, they have not been taken seriously by the opposition motion today. I believe that the opposition motion misrepresents the industry. The North Sea oil workers are in. It fails to set out a path towards sustainable employment for them and for their kids and grandkids.

And by the way, they do care about their children's employment and Aberdeen. It also ignores the need, of course, to get energy bills down, let alone to tackle the climate emergency. First, the claims that are made in this motion that it will somehow boost employment and reduce bills are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

farcical. Yes, very happy to. I'd like to ask the right hon. Lady, since I went to Aberdeen Lady, since I went to Aberdeen recently to talk to workers, to talk to grandparents and their children, when was the last time that she spoke to workers in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Aberdeen? Anneliese Dodds well, I can answer that very quickly because I've got many of them actually in I've got many of them actually in my family, amongst my friends, personal friends, she said. Before, she said before that she'd visited she said before that she'd visited Aberdeen. And what I find extraordinary was when she was informed about the fact that jobs and oil and gas extraction had fallen by a third between 2014 and 2023. She wouldn't even acknowledge it when the Liberal Democrat spokesperson mentioned those job losses, she looked stunned.

But I can tell her that for workers in that area, those job losses were painful. Every bust has been painful, and she should acknowledge that rather than somehow pretending it didn't even happen. People who are working in that industry deserve a proper strategy for their future. Not magical thinking and empty sloganeering. I'll make some progress and I'd be happy to take his intervention. The long term trend very clearly is for the growth of low carbon offshore industries. That is not been the case for North Sea oil and gas research at Robert Gordon University.

Just to let her know, that's based in Aberdeen, the city that she visited. It's shown that 9 in 10 of the UK workforce in oil and gas have medium to high skills transferability, and are well positioned to work in the adjacent energy sector. Hydrogen, carbon capture, wind and other renewables are critical to sustaining high skilled jobs in both engineering and manufacturing. We urgently need to be boosting those technologies with an active labour market strategy, and that is what is going to secure the future of those high technology, safety critical jobs.

Happy to take his intervention.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Grateful to the right hon. Lady who's been very generous. But she she's kind of nearly making the she's kind of nearly making the right point, which is that these the people who work in oil and gas need the transition. This need the transition. This government is pulling the rug from under them. And hydrogen, carbon capture are floating offshore wind. capture are floating offshore wind. Other developing technologies, even tidal. They aren't growing quickly enough and fast enough to to give enough and fast enough to to give those people jobs.

That's the point. You're destroying the very engineering capability we need for the transition and putting up emissions while you're doing it by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

having imports instead of domestic production. It's mad. Anneliese Dodds. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I couldn't disagree more with him. I have a lot of respect for the right hon. Gentleman. Surely he will have seen the figures that will have seen the figures that look at the relative growth of the renewables industry in the UK compared to other industries. They compared to other industries. They see that there is now a long term plan for that industry. Coming from the government that has been the government that has been elected.

That was not the case before. There wasn't that certainty there before. Now I want to see renewed, deepened engagement, particularly with the workforce, with trade unions representing them towards that active labour market strategy that we need, but to suggest that we are not on the right trajectory now after so many years of neglect, Madam Deputy Speaker, is frankly absolutely laughable. And I want to end on this point that even setting aside the lengthy lead in time for new drilling, expanding, it wouldn't shield our country from oil and gas price shocks because the price is set internationally.

And the Secretary of State didn't even acknowledge this. She spoke about imports. She didn't talk. Madam Deputy Speaker about prices because she knows the reality. We need to stop distant conflicts from impacting household bills in the UK. We need to get bills down, not keep them artificially high. We need cheap green tech and scaled up clean power. We do not need the kind of cheap political posturing represented by the opposition.
14:43
Bradley Thomas Portrait Bradley Thomas MP (Bromsgrove, Conservative)
-
-
Motion here, here, here. Well, this is a socialist dream, isn't it? Net zero, because it epitomises centralised control, government interference in daily life and redistribution as well. And when an idea becomes immune to scrutiny, it is precisely then that more scrutiny is needed. And this definitely applies in the case of Britain's rush to net zero, because in our haste, we risk undermining our economy, our energy security and ultimately the resilience that we all need to face the future. Caring for the environment is necessary.

Reducing pollution is noble. Innovation in energy is essential, but pursuing an inflexible target at any cost without regard for consequences is madness. So firstly, take the economic reality the UK is attempting. One of the most rapid energy transitions ever undertaken by an advanced economy. Entire industries are being reshaped or phased out, and energy systems built over decades are being dismantled in a matter of years. And who bears the cost? It's not an abstract. It's households that face rising energy bills, businesses struggling with higher operating costs, manufacturers deciding whether to stay in Britain or to relocate to countries with cheaper,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

more reliable energy. I will give way. Thank my friend for giving way. The GMB Scotland secretary recently described Labour's policies as industrial calamity. Does he? Does

**** Possible New Speaker ****

industrial calamity. Does he? Does he agree with that? Thomas? I think any of us have to only go out across our constituencies go out across our constituencies and speak to businesses and they will tell us the reality, the economic calamity of decisions economic calamity of decisions taken by this government and the cost bearing down on them. The reality is that choices made by this government are continuing to hollow out our industrial base, not because we lack skill or ambition, Madam Deputy Speaker, but because energy, which is the lifeblood of industry, has become prohibitively costly.

Energy security is not a theoretical concept. It is the difference between stability and vulnerability. It's the ability to heat our homes, power hospitals keep the economy running no matter what is happening anywhere else in the world. Yet at this moment when we should be strengthening our domestic energy supply, we are choosing to restrict it. Which brings us perfectly to the North Sea, because the North Sea is one of the UK's greatest strategic assets. Beneath the waters lie opportunity reserves of natural gas that could provide reliable domestic energy for years to come.

Yet the government is choosing to turn away from it, and the argument often given is that extracting more gas, more gas, contradicts our climate commitments and that it locks us into the past. But it overlooks a crucial fact that the UK will continue to be dependent on fossil fuels for decades to come. And that's where the comparison with Norway becomes so instructive, because Norway is often held up as a leader in environmental responsibility, and they've chosen not to turn their back on North Sea resources.

They've done the opposite. They've increased gas extraction, recognised both economic value and the strategic importance of domestic supply. And Norway understand something that we would do well to remember that energy independence is not at odds with environmental ambition. It underpins it. So the UK risks increasing dependence on imports even as domestic resources remain available. We can produce gas. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will give way, Lord. I'm grateful. I do. Agree with the honourable. Member about the need for energy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Member about the need for energy security, and certainly we don't want to have a supply chain that depends on the People's Republic of depends on the People's Republic of China, because that could lead in the future to economic coercion. Does he not share my view that the Does he not share my view that the deduction is that we need home grown manufacturing for renewable energy infrastructure?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, we are increasingly dependent on China because of decisions, again, taken by this government. You know, this pursuit of a renewables based future energy infrastructure is increasingly dependent on countries that are adversarial to us and which pose a risk to our long term energy security. So he's right on that point. Madam Deputy Speaker. It's not just about energy, it's also about jobs. It's about public finances, something that the government knows only too well following their economic choices. The North Sea has long been a vital source of revenue for the Treasury.

Billions of pounds that supports public services, infrastructure and analysis by Offshore Energy UK says that there is £165 billion of estimated economic value in the North Sea. Should the government muster the political will to seize it, to to to. I won't give away any further to accelerate the decline of that sector without a fully viable replacement is not just economically risky, it is fiscally shortsighted. And at the same time, we must consider the livelihoods tied to the industry. This point has been stressed by our colleagues.

Across the House. Tens of thousands of skilled workers depend directly or indirectly on oil and gas. They're not abstract numbers. They're engineers. They're technicians, supply chain workers, families, and more importantly, whole communities. And if we move too quickly without a realistic transition plan, we don't simply phase out an industry. We create unemployment, we lose expertise, we weaken entire regions. And that is happening right now. This is not just a theoretical concern. It is raised by those who are closest to the issue.

Trade union leaders have been clear. The general secretary of the GMB has described the government's stance on oil and gas as madness. Unite. The union has warned plainly that policies will put jobs at risk. Even Jurgen Maier said that extracting more gas and oil from the North Sea would boost jobs and tax revenues. So these are not voices that the government usually say are opposed to progress. These are voices that represent working people. So why on earth are the government choosing to ignore them? We just got to consider, Madam Deputy Speaker, the global context.

The UK accounts for a relatively small share of global emissions, even if we were to reach net zero tomorrow, the impact on global temperatures would be limited. And meanwhile, major economies that compete with us continue to rely heavily on fossil fuels as they balance growth, development and transition. That's why we have to get the balance right. True leadership from the government lies not in symbolic gestures, but in practical solutions that can be adopted globally. This Madam Speaker Madam Deputy Speaker is why the pursuit of net zero, as is currently framed, risks becoming an exercise in self-imposed constraint, one that weakens our economy, compromises our energy security.

It threatens jobs, it will reduce vital tax revenues, and it will lower living standards for all while delivering limited benefit.
14:49
Grahame Morris Portrait Grahame Morris MP (Easington, Labour)
-
-
Yeah, yeah. >> Yeah, yeah. >> Grahame Morris thank you very. >> Much, Madam. >> Deputy Speaker. >> And I do welcome.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I do welcome. To today's debate that, as we've heard, oil and gas are likely to remain part of our energy mix for remain part of our energy mix for years to come. However, recent global instability underscores a fundamental point. True energy security comes from reliable domestic and renewable sources, not from continued exposure to volatile international fossil fuel markets. Even if production were to increase, it would not shield the UK from global price fluctuations. Oil and gas extracted from the North Sea are sold on international markets at global prices.

While this may increase profits for fossil fuel companies, no doubt welcomed by the opposition, it does little to reduce bills for our constituents. Moreover, new licences do not translate into immediate supply. It can take many years, often well over a decade, from licensing to production. The reality is that UK oil and gas production represents only a small share of the global market. Even a significant increase in output would not meaningfully influence global prices or reduce domestic energy bills.

It's also worth noting that private companies operating in the North Sea are under no obligation to prioritise UK customers. It's interesting the Norwegian example, so I do return to the central question how will additional North Sea production reduce bills today? The only way that could plausibly happen would be through significant market interventions, such as restricting exports or imposing below market price caps on domestically produced energy. Now, some of us on this side of the House may agree with that.

I'm not sure if the opposition would. Such measures would represent a profound shift in policy. If that is what the opposition is proposing, they should be clear about it. If not, they should be honest with the public. Expanding North Sea oil extraction is unlikely to have a meaningful impact on energy bills in the short, medium or even the long term. There is, however, an alternative one that is not tied to global fossil fuel markets, renewable energy. And I want to take a moment or two to talk about solar power as an example.

Geothermal is another great potential. I recognise the criticism raised, including in the debate earlier by the opposition front bench spokesman, about the use of critical minerals and concerns about reliance on the supply chain based in China and about labour standards in these global supply chains. These are legitimate issues, but there is also a significant opportunity. Domestic innovation and manufacturing in my constituency. Madam Deputy Speaker, Power rule is pioneering the next generation of solar technology.

It's lightweight, flexible solar films use microgroove structures. It does not rely on rare earth minerals, with the potential for low cost, scalable production. Here in the United Kingdom, the government has already engaged with this technology, but now it's time to go further to support commercialisation, scale up production and invest in the infrastructure needed to bring British, British made solar to the market at scale. By diversifying our energy mix and reducing the reliance on volatile international fossil fuel markets, we can strengthen energy security and reduce exposure to external shocks.

So I say to the government, this is the time to back British business, back innovation, back domestic manufacturing, because that is how we can deliver energy security, economic growth, jobs,
14:54
Graham Leadbitter Portrait Graham Leadbitter MP (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey, Scottish National Party)
-
-
Graham Leadbitter. I'd like to start my contribution with some facts. Energy security is national security, global instability is rife, and our closest ally is now at best, hugely unpredictable. And it is questionable about whether they are reliable when the UK government should be protecting energy supply, it is instead sacrificing North Sea jobs and communities on the altar of ideology. Job losses continue month on month and skills loss is rife. Just transition are mere words for the communities that are affected by this.

This is to me, this is a repeat of what Thatcher did to Scotland's mining communities and to the steel industry in Motherwell in the 80s, destroying an industry without proper future planning and transition arrangements. Scottish Labour MPs and indeed all Labour MPs should be ashamed of their government's actions in this regard.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is utterly shameful. Absolutely. Thank you very much, Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and my thanks go to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Very generous of him. I have been very critical of my own government in relation to the Grangemouth in relation to the Grangemouth refinery closure. I am going to give you the opportunity of being critical of your government's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

inaction on the issue. Graham Leadbitter. I think I'm here to scrutinise what your government is doing. That's that's the job of MPs in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House of Commons. So. Wonderful for you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Wonderful for you. So hey, so yeah, a, on the conservative benches are no better conservative benches are no better than this. The the government benches, the government benches benches, the government benches have an ideology of driving towards driving towards net zero and clean power, but with no regard for the power, but with no regard for the North Sea, it appears. And the conservative side here have an ideology of protecting the oil and gas in the North Sea, but without.

But whilst getting to the climate change targets. The industry doesn't like either of these positions. Not the. Not the oil and gas sector and not the renewables sector. Everybody in this room knows that they need each other to survive. They need the skills to transition from one to the other. If we lose the skills in the oil and gas sector, we will not develop the renewables sector as quickly as we need to. That is the. That is the fact of the situation.

If those skills, if those jobs are lost or if they disappear off into other places around the world like the Caspian or the the Gulf of Mexico,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

then they're not going to be they're not going to be brought back easily. Thank the hon. Gentleman for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He talks about the North Sea industry and ideology. What were his views when his government was in coalition with the Green Party, who was wilfully, wilfully wanting to destroy those jobs immediately, overnight because

**** Possible New Speaker ****

jobs immediately, overnight because of ideology? Did he support that government coalition? Graham Leadbitter? I supported that coalition at

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I supported that coalition at the time because there was there was plenty of other benefits that we were gaining from it. I wasn't I wasn't 100%. I will concede that I was 100% supportive of their position in oil and gas, but that but I, I would I would suggest that under the current leadership of the SNP that there is a there is a very balanced view about the North Sea, a very pragmatic approach to protecting jobs in the. In the North Sea oil and gas sector, while still driving towards the renewable jobs and the re-industrialisation of Scotland by diversification into renewables that we need.

But whilst recognising that oil and gas will be needed for decades to come.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With the hon. Gentleman. Yes. I thank the hon. Gentleman. Thank you. I thank the hon. Thank you. I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Could you clarify for the House because there is some confusion about current SNP policy when it comes to gas. Is it policy when it comes to gas. Is it still or is it not current Scottish National Party policy to be against

**** Possible New Speaker ****

National Party policy to be against new oil and gas in the North Sea? Graham Leadbitter the current

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Graham Leadbitter the current SNP policy on oil and gas is that there should be a proper assessment of each individual application. That's that's normal licensing process. I would think that most members in this House would recognise that if you put a process in place that you should have a process. Apply it rigorously and consistently and do that through the. No, I'm not going to give any away any further. I'm. The time is going down now, so a. There are many reasons why we need to support oil and gas, not least of which is protecting the workforce and not losing the skills, but I want to turn to other areas that the government are not making decisions quick enough on, and there are numerous of them.

So to charges, there is a government policy coming through, but it is taken now, what, 18, 20 months now? It will be several more months before we get that in place. It will be after the start of R eight. And because they're accelerating R eight, and there are many, many companies in the North Sea who are basically saying that they're going to hold on and wait for R nine before they make an investment decision because they want certainty, the lack of certainty, that lack of pace, that lack of pragmatism is what is preventing those jobs from being created and preventing a just transition.

I can apply the same point to Ardaseer, which is on one constituency, and the the proposal by a Chinese company, Ming Yang, who want to invest there. Now, I understand that the government has reasons and things that they really need to consider in this. But again, it's been on their desk for 18 months. A decision is needed to either allow things to move on to other investors or to decide that there is a risk, and you can mitigate the risk and let them get on with it and create the jobs, create the supply chain jobs, and actually have serious, high skill, high paid jobs that will provide a just transition and serious opportunity for North Sea workers.

That decision needs to be made sooner rather than later, and the excessive delay that we experienced in the run up to Q s decisions that took forever to get there. And that is that is time that has been lost in jobs that have been lost because of that lost time. I'm going to turn very quickly to consumer pricing. The government has been waxing lyrical about price gouging by energy companies at the moment. The government and the previous governments have been responsible for state sponsored price gouging in the energy market, with the highest prices for electricity in Scotland.

And with that, I would urge members to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Whilst I'm on my feet. There was a particularly unedifying exchange between members where the use of between members where the use of you and your was very liberal indeed addressed directly to me, I assume. Can we please all try to do a little better, and whilst I'm on my feet after the next speaker, the time limit is going to have to be reduced to three minutes in order to get you all in Lizzi Collinge. to get you all in Lizzi Collinge.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Now we know we will be using North Sea oil and gas for some time to come, and I really welcome the Chancellor's announcements today about short and medium term measures that she's taking to address the current crisis in the Middle East and the inevitable impacts on our energy costs. And, of course, her quick action on heating oil. But the opposition motion today is not just about the immediate crisis in front of us.
15:01
Lizzi Collinge Portrait Lizzi Collinge MP (Morecambe and Lunesdale, Labour)
-
-
It's about a long term strategic approach to energy security, the motion and the conservative and the reformed position on increasing our reliance on oil and gas is based on reliance on oil and gas is based on false assumptions and not on the facts of the situation that we find ourselves in. Now. This could be an ourselves in. Now. This could be an ideological discussion. They are clearly trying to turn it into one nonsense culture war discussion again, but it doesn't need to be, because it's very easy to overturn what the opposition is saying based on evidence on a number of different facts.

Number one, gas and oil prices are inherently volatile and are often under the control of malign international actors. Gas and oil and gas prices are set internationally, and gas and oil from the North Sea is traded internationally. So unless they are suggesting we are nationalising the North Sea and seizing its products, they're suggesting that somehow help pricing is absolute nonsense. The more we rely on gas and oil, the longer gas gas sets. The price of electricity and oil, of course, sets the price of all sorts of things, from transport to food and energy gas.

Setting the price of electricity is bad because it makes electricity cost more, and conversely, the higher the levels of wind, solar, nuclear and storage we have, the less amount of time gas sets the price of electricity, and therefore the cheaper electricity can become, the more we move away from gas and oil reliant technology, whether that's at home, in transport or in industry, the less we are subject to the geopolitical storms, such as the invasion of Ukraine or the current

**** Possible New Speaker ****

crisis in the Middle East, now the opposite. I'll happily give way. Manuela Perteghella thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Manuela Perteghella thank you. Thank the hon. Member for giving way. Does she agree that the way. Does she agree that the central claim of this motion simply does not withstand the scrutiny? Because even if new fields are Because even if new fields are approved, the oil and gas will still be sold? International price. And we do nothing to shield the British consumers from future shocks. While the economic case is already clear that renewables are cheaper to generate. Well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I find Paul Kohler intervention and she is absolutely correct. The central premise of today's motion simply doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. Next, they want to talk about levies to pay, about the cost for new clean energy infrastructure. for new clean energy infrastructure. But they conveniently forget that all energy infrastructure needs to be renewed and needs to be replaced. be renewed and needs to be replaced. And actually, wind, solar, nuclear is cheaper than new gas and oil is cheaper than new gas and oil infrastructure.

And and we also need to improve our grid. That has to be paid for somehow. So whichever way you cut it, you need to build that more that infrastructure and you need to pay for it. And yet the Conservatives in reform simply just don't have an answer for how they would do it. And also, just to be really clear to to build on the point, my hon. Friend made, the skills of North Sea gas and oil workers are absolutely vital to building that new infrastructure and operating that new infrastructure.

They have fantastic skills that they need to be part of the clean energy transition. Madam Deputy Speaker Last week I met a Ukrainian delegation as part of the Energy Security and Net Zero Select Committee, and they described in very brutal and frank terms how Putin's used energy as a weapon of war and the severe impact it has had on the people of Ukraine and their previous reliance on gas had left them exposed to Putin. Using this in this way.

And their message was clear the only way to get energy security, the only way to keep the lights on domestically is with home-grown, clean energy, with distributed generation and distributed storage, providing protection against Putin's attacks. And, of course, the wider geo political instability that we have seen now, the economic case for clean energy has been very clearly made. And the arguments made by the opposition in favour of continuing our reliance on oil and gas are just absolute nonsense. But let's not forget, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to finish.

Finally, climate change in and of itself is a huge threat to our economic security, our physical health, the entirety of our well-being, the ability to feed ourselves. And they say, oh, well, if we do, if we transition to clean energy, it won't make much of an impact. Well, actually it will, because we are being global leaders and every half a degree we prevent in heating will save hundreds of thousands of lives every year. We must do something. We cannot sit on our hands as they would like us to do and do nothing.

And this government is meeting the challenge of climate change. Not with hair shortness, not with trying to do without, but by building a better world. We are improving our quality of life. Cleaner air, not killing tens of thousands of people with dirty air every year, warmer homes and good clean energy jobs. Thank you, Madam President.
15:06
Graham Stuart Portrait Rt Hon Graham Stuart MP (Beverley and Holderness, Conservative)
-
-
Graham Stuart thank you. this debate, and it's a pleasure to follow the hon. Lady who follows in a tradition of Back Benchers opposite, standing up and trying to make the case for the utterly insane, the truly the truly crazy and the utterly, the utterly groundless and. And I feel sorry for the hon. Lady. More sorry for her than I do, even for the Ministers on the front bench, because we know that this impossible position cannot be maintained. There is going to be another.

I don't know whether you're. They. Madam Deputy Speaker. I don't know whether they're at. U-turn 13, 14, 15, 16. Who can count? But what I can guarantee you,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker, it is impossible To maintain this current

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To maintain this current position. It rests on a number of fallacies. Not. The hon. Lady did it as passionately as any of them, it as passionately as any of them, didn't she? Oh it's outrageous. The Conservatives suggesting that our producing more oil and gas in the producing more oil and gas in the North Sea is going to change the global price. Well, I, I went back to the motion put forward by the to the motion put forward by the Conservatives today, Madam Deputy Speaker, and nowhere does it say that.

So, so the whole the whole case, the whole case, the whole case of the. And I inverted commas crazy's opposite. And I include the hon. Lady for the Liberal Democrats in this. I don't know whether that's parliamentary or not, but it's this is this is lunacy made flesh. And I don't know whether that's possible too. I'll give way

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to my hon. Friend. To Alec Shelbrooke. Right honourable, very honourable, to my right, hon. honourable, to my right, hon. Friend giving way. And just on that subject of the Liberal Democrat frontbench speaking, it's a shame she didn't take my intervention she didn't take my intervention because she might have been able to answer this question, but she was very keen to talk about what happened on the conservative happened on the conservative government and how we need to have renewables, but this might find it incredulous that at any moment did incredulous that at any moment did she mention that it was Nick Clegg who cancelled all the nuclear power stations, saying he wasn't going to invest in something which doesn't come along till 2022?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Might Elaine Stewart. My right hon. Friend is right, and I was incredulous, listening to and I was incredulous, listening to her at the incredible things that she said. Because it was part of this. I'd say go back this big, passionate attack. It's not going to change the global oil price. to change the global oil price. What it is going to do is help employ 200,000 people in this employ 200,000 people in this country with all the engineering expertise, the supply chain, the deep supply chain we have in this country in oil and gas, it is going to provide gas, nearly all of which practically 100% of the gas produced in the North Sea comes into the UK grid.

Nearly all of it is consumed here. Some goes through interconnectors in either direction the other way. But the idea that it doesn't directly contribute to our energy security is for the birds. But going back to the price point, because colleagues opposite put so much effort into this thing, how dare they suggest that it's going to change the price? We do know there are localised prices, so it's also not true to say that oil and gas have a global price, and that's the price you have to take regardless, because as the hon.

Member from the Reform Party interjected earlier, it's between a third and a quarter of the price in the United States. If you get supply and demand in the right balance, it does make a difference if you have to. If you have to rely on LNG, you have to liquefy it, gasify it, ship it with specialist ships, bring it over to specialist infrastructure in order to bring it into the UK gas grid. That all costs money. And not only does it cost money, but even more ironic given the attitudes given by the party opposite.

It comes with four times, according to the North Sea Transition Authority, four times the embedded emissions in that gas. So it's environmentally insane as well as economically insane. I give

**** Possible New Speaker ****

way to my honourable. Thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. Does he acknowledge the comments made by acknowledge the comments made by Greg Jackson, the founder of Octopus Energy, who himself said Octopus Energy, who himself said that importing LNG has a greater carbon footprint than extraction from the North Sea? And does he from the North Sea? And does he also acknowledge that the parties opposite themselves are not acknowledging that the renewable renewables market is not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

competitive itself? Yeah. Well. For the purposes of today, I will leave aside the renewables market, but I notice that renewables UK, alongside the chief executive of Octopus Energy, all agree that it is crazy, along with the head of the unions responsible. All agree that this is crazy. There's going to be a U-turn and the poor Minister on the front bench. We're going to have the comic site, we're going to have the comic site of that very likeable and very competent Minister on the front bench, coming to this house, explaining why the exact opposite of what he's arguing today is now the truth that is going to happen.

And it has to happen because if we don't do it, we lose jobs, we lose revenue, tax revenue, and we lose energy security, which I notice are the three qualities which are in the conservative motion today, because they are the vital things which we're missing by not drilling for oil and gas in the North Sea while we nonetheless import it. So we're importing more, Madam Deputy Speaker, with higher emissions than if we did it here. And the net result of not producing here, we don't consume or burn a single drop of oil and gas less.

As a result,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

untenable. Hey, Gareth Snell. Thank you very much.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much. I'm not sure that might be a bit pre-emptive. What I need to say on the matter. Can I can I just start Madam Deputy Speaker with the things that we all agree on? I think across the House we'd all acknowledge that the international energy prices that we face in this country are too high, that there are. There is a roller coaster are. There is a roller coaster effect, as the Minister is on record as saying, when it comes to to the price of gas, only today it is at 140 £0.09 per therm.

It was 120 pence per therm in February 2025, and it was 100. It was £0.38 per therm in February 2021. I think we have to acknowledge the fact that oil and gas prices around the world are going up and the impact can be felt not just in the the jobs that the hon. Lady from Gordon and Buchan rightly points out, but also the jobs of those industries that are gas dependent. And the thing that I find slightly difficult to sit here and and stomach is we talk about energy in the round as if there is only one type of energy, and everything will eventually run off, one type of energy.

But energy is a diverse group of ways of powering things. It can be electrical, it can be nuclear. In most of our foundational industries, it is gas. And we acknowledge that gas is going to be here for a very long time. We are going to have to use gas to power the kilns that make the bricks, to build the houses that we want to make. We are going to need to have gas to power the furnaces, to make the metal and the steel in the foundries that we want to make for our own defence development, but also our own
15:13
Gareth Snell Portrait Gareth Snell MP (Stoke-on-Trent Central, Labour )
-
-
manufacturing. If we want to make paper in this country, you need gas. If you want to make glass in this country, you need gas. If you want country, you need gas. If you want to make if you want to make cement in this country, you need gas. If you want to make lime in this you want to make lime in this country, you need gas. There are so many parts of our economic powerhouse that is the United Kingdom that are dependent on gas. Kingdom that are dependent on gas.

And we should. Absolutely. And I agree with my colleagues, we should move at pace to transition to move at pace to transition to electricity where it is possible. There are simply sectors in this country where that transition is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not possible. It doesn't. I will give way. Laurence Turner. I thank him for giving way and he's making an outstanding case. Does he agree as well that gas is an important feedstock in a number of critical industries, such as for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of critical industries, such as for the production of ammonia, which is essential in the agricultural sector? Gareth Snell. Absolutely. If we want to make

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Absolutely. If we want to make fertiliser, we want to make other industrial gases in this country. We need natural gas to power those processes. There is no other way. The chemistry simply does not exist to create the gases that we need without using natural gas. So whilst I absolutely support the they absolutely support the the the argument that if we can move towards net zero and transition towards electricity, that's fine. But we also have to recognise that great swathes of what we are trying to do simply won't do that.

And if they can do that, they don't have the capital to make the R&D investments necessary. You cannot fire a kiln with hydrogen, yet in this country you cannot get a stable supply of electricity to kilns in this country, not least because in the places like Stoke on Trent, where these factories are, the grid capacity simply does not exist and will not exist for generations to come to do the Hook-up. So whilst we're talking about the move towards transition towards net zero and more electrical generation, what are we going to say to those places that can't do it? What is the message to the workers in Stoke on Trent today and in Denby in Derbyshire today, who are looking at a sector that simply cannot transition away from gas? When we say it's going to be all done through renewable energies, I want there to be more renewable energies.

I want the technology to exist, but it's not there yet. And every time we forget that we talk about jobs and we talk about livelihoods in places that need them most, being written off very briefly, the hon. Gentleman, would you agree with me that we need to see the hydrogen storage and transport model issued by the government as quickly as possible, as well? Gareth Snell hydrogen has to be part of the future mix. There are some very interesting tests being done in Germany, where hydrogen is being mixed in with gas to power.

Some of the the kilns that we need and some of the high energy intensive processes. Technology is very expensive, though most of the companies in the UK outside of harmful can't afford that. So yes, we do need that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

investment strategy. But very, very briefly. Thank you. I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and he's making some really good points. making some really good points. Does he not agree? Because there are certain industries that do need that gas, that we need to shepherd that gas, that we need to shepherd that limited resource carefully, and actually, the transition in other areas of energy will support

**** Possible New Speaker ****

other areas of energy will support keeping that gas and oil where we cannot replace it. Gareth Snell shepherding, that is. But one of the things the government has got to get to grips with is how much we pay for the imports of the gas, and we are. That is where we are dependent upon and on international markets. We do it in the country for electricity generation. The government enters into very lucrative for suppliers, contracts for differences. Now why are we not looking at those for gas productions? Why are we not saying that at a point where we expect there to be a transition away from gas? Therefore demand will fall away, therefore, the price will fall away for the production.

There's not some sort of government backed contract for difference for those suppliers, so that those energy intensive industries that require gas can get a stable price point for generations to come. So we can protect the jobs. And they are and I'm sure when the Minister responds, he will pull to the tab in his file where he'll talk about the British Industrial Commission scheme and he'll talk about the supercharger. I just want to reiterate, because it seems that no one in government is listening. Those do not apply to gas intensive industries.

Those are for electro intensive industries. The Chancellor said it today. The Ministers have said it before from the Dispatch Box. If we're going to look at how we support energy intensive industry in this country,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it can't just be through those schemes. Carla Denyer thank. You, Madam. Deputy Speaker. There is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There is. Simply no case for opening new oil and gas wells in the North Sea. There is no case for approving Rosebank and Jackdaw, and there is Rosebank and Jackdaw, and there is no case for removing the windfall tax on oil and gas companies. And it is inaccurate, irresponsible and it is inaccurate, irresponsible and immoral for the Shadow Secretary of State to suggest otherwise. In her motion today, expanding North Sea drilling will do nothing to support UK energy security nor jobs.

As the Lib Dem spokesperson and the right hon. Member for Oxford East laid out very clearly in their speeches
15:18
Carla Denyer Portrait Carla Denyer MP (Bristol Central, Green Party)
-
-
earlier today and answered the challenges from the shadow front bench. So I will move on. Given bench. So I will move on. Given that the limit on time, given that that the limit on time, given that given, given that these measures will not secure our energy supply, protect jobs or bring down bills, what will drilling more oil and gas from the North Sea do? Well, it from the North Sea do? Well, it will undo so much of the progress we've made in cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

We are proud indeed, the shadow frontbench was proud, I thought, to end polluting coal power in the UK. However, allowing Rosebank would be the equivalent to running 56 coal fired power stations for a year, undoing all that good work. And it will make some people a lot of money, including those on the Reform and Conservative benches, who take dirty money from fossil fuel donors. No, I will not. Thank you. I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

carry on. When I give away. I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. Could she explain why the way. Could she explain why the biggest advocates for climate transition in this country, renewables UK. Greg Jackson from

**** Possible New Speaker ****

octopus, the chair of Great British Energy, say that she is wrong. Are they taking money to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Are they taking money to. Say that she is wrong? About what? Pardon? Well. That her position on the North

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That her position on the North Sea is wrong and that we should keep drilling in the North Sea. UK.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My reliance is on the evidence, which shows that 93% of recoverable oil and gas in the British parts of oil and gas in the British parts of the North Sea has already been extracted. Whatever does remain extracted. Whatever does remain will be sold on the international market to the highest bidder. As many hon. Members have already made many hon. Members have already made out, this, the proposals in the Shadow Secretary of State's motion would do nothing on energy security, would do nothing on energy security, nothing on jobs.

No, I will not. I will continue for now.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. What the Shadow Secretary of State's motion would achieve is to State's motion would achieve is to raise a lot of money when war inflates oil and gas prices, fossil inflates oil and gas prices, fossil fuel bosses cash in. Just five companies made nearly half $1 companies made nearly half $1 trillion in the years after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Of course, those obscene profits should be taxed through the energy profits levy, because nobody should be cashing in on conflict.

And again, I draw Madam Deputy Speaker attention. And those who may be watching from home to the proportion of donations that go to certain politicians in this chamber from fossil fuel donors. The Chancellor said earlier today that she will crack down on price gouging and profiteering. So I hope this work will maintain the principles of the windfall tax in whatever shape it comes. Now, the government has done good work in driving forward clean energy and banning new oil and gas licences.

I desperately urge them not to backtrack on this by approving Rosebank. I understand they won't be able to comment on that today, and I am deeply concerned that despite officially banning new oil and gas licences, the government is creating a whopping loophole by introducing the Transitional Energy Certificates aka tie backs. This is allowing new drilling at a new site on a technicality because you're drilling a new well, but because you're not installing a new rig over the top of it, you're attaching it with a very long hose.

Effectively, it's technically not new, opening up new oil and gas wells now is indefensible when we know that every drop of oil and gas burned puts our future further at risk. So I cannot support the government amendment that welcomes these tie backs. And I ask the Ministers to assure me that, at the very least, scope three emissions will be considered when deciding whether to grant these Transitional Energy Certificates. Committing to renewable energy means change and change can be unsettling, but if done right, the government can make sure it pays off for everyone.

I've been campaigning for an energy Jobs Guarantee to support workers who are currently employed in the oil and gas sector to move into jobs in the green sectors, and this could be done by ending the £2.7 billion a year in subsidies. The Chancellor has the fossil fuel industry in tax breaks, and using that valuable public money to back workers, rather than propping up an industry in terminal decline. Our dependence on oil and gas is making us poorer. That much is clear, and it's making oil companies richer.

There is no future in fossil fuels, and so I hope the Ministers will give no

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ground to the reckless statements put forward here today. Thank you. Mr. Strathern. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Speaker. I think some of the broad themes of the topics under discussion today are really important ones. How do we drive important ones. How do we drive down bills at a time when all of our constituents will be worried about the cost of living? How do we provide energy security for our provide energy security for our country at a time when volatile oil and gas around the world is driving up real concerns, not just for our up real concerns, not just for our communities, but also for some of the big businesses in our industrial bases that we've relied on for generations.

And crucially, two, how do we make sure that when we go back to our constituencies and we look not just at current generations, but future ones in the eye, we make sure we've done everything we can to finally take the existential threat of climate change seriously. And we've done far too little over the last decade to ensure that we're on the right track when it comes to living up to
15:23
Alistair Strathern Portrait Alistair Strathern MP (Hitchin, Labour)
-
-
our environmental commitments. It's against that backdrop that I think the fact that we've focussed on such a distracting topic today is such a distracting topic today is really disappointing. There are big, big questions about how we drive forward the energy transition, the best and just most just way best and just most just way possible, but I'm afraid to say focusing on immaterial, frankly, discussions about very, very small discussions about very, very small fractional differences in the amount of oil and gas we end up extracting from the North Sea is really quite a wrong headed, and at best, a distracting way to lead this debate.

It's a distraction that I can understand why it's of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

attraction to the opposition, of course. Hon. Member.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Think that this is a minuscule, distracting issue for the tens of thousands of workers who've lost

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their jobs because of the policies of this government on this very subject. Not at all, not at all. And I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not at all, not at all. And I think that's why the last government's shameful failure to invest in the transition, to do much, in fact, to create a better much, in fact, to create a better offer for the 50% of oil and gas workers who lost their jobs over the last decade is so shocking. It's why we've got to do better. It's why investing in reshoring of manufacturing around green energy supply chains is so, so important. It's about thinking creatively about how we can have a more activist state in shaping the job opportunities of the future.

And yes, it's about ensuring support packages are in place at the right times. But if we're talking about a just transition for North Sea oil and gas, I don't think his government's record is anything we should be looking to learn from. I can see I'm going to make some progress. I can see why distractions are so attractive to the party opposite, because fronting up to reality would mean living up to the failure to deliver more on renewables, which we know reduce prices by about a third.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Last year, it would mean failing up, of course. Anyway, does he realise?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Anyway, does he realise? It may not, because I know some of the stuff he's fed by the front bench may not help him. There are bench may not help him. There are only 6.5% of electricity, 6.5% of electricity came from renewables in 2010, and it was over 50% when we 2010, and it was over 50% when we left power. So you can criticise the conservative government all you like, but suggesting that one of the greatest transformations and the greatest transformations and moves to renewables of any country in the history of the world was some kind of non-event, is to mislead the House, and I know the hon.

Gentleman is an honourable man would never seek to do that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Here. Is very experienced. If inadvertently. Mislead the House. We don't

**** Possible New Speaker ****

accuse colleagues of misleading the House. Would you like to correct the record? I apologise, Madam Deputy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. And if I said anything, I withdraw it. I thank him for that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for that intervention, his confirmation that his party used to believe in the future once. But when it comes to clean energy, I think the fact that clean energy, I think the fact that we've been able to make so much further progress so quickly shows that there clearly were things that last party could have done that didn't. Whether it was a failure to crack down on new nuclear at speed and remove those regulatory barriers, whether it's a failure to consider levy reforms that we've already introduced to deliver tangible reductions in people's bills this April, or whether it's a failure to think about creative ways we can drive down demand for households across the UK through a proper Warm Homes Plan, rather than exploitive rip offs delivered by common merchants under their eco schemes.

I think we've got far better answers that we can be proud of, and it's a disappointment, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we haven't had a more sincere debate on this issue today, because I do think there are really important questions that could determine a worthy of challenge how we deliver this transition in a way that truly delivers both for our climate commitments, our energy commitments, and all of those who are paying bills at the moment. The Fingleton review points to some really important principles about how we can do far better when it comes to big energy projects, and I'd welcome further scrutiny if the opposition on that and how we can deliver that at pace to make really impactful changes in the nuclear landscape that was left unrestored and status in action under their policies.

As we look to drive forward the green transition, it's right that we remove the role of gas in setting power over time. And there's regulatory reforms we could be making now to try and improve that. There's some really interesting analysis from Stonehaven about how bringing gas power plants into the regulated asset base could do a far better job at stabilising prices, and that would be better for consumers and, crucially, businesses and industrial users as a result. And there's more work to be done, too, to continue.

The Secretary of State's leadership on auction innovation and the last auction innovations that we brought forward after years of lack of reform of auction, meant that we were able to lean in at a time of opportune moment to expand the amount of power we were able to purchase when prices were lower than market expectations. Now, I know that the shadow Secretary of State thinks that that insurance policy wasn't a valid one, which I think is a particularly challenging position to take at a time when we're seeing the very cost of inaction shooting up under oil and gas.

But I looked at the. I would welcome further challenge from her about how we could innovate further. I know that their last government's record didn't do a very good job at bringing out the best value when it came to auction design, but this is exactly the type of area where cross-party challenge should be welcomed to ensure we can continue to do better. Instead, we're focusing on distractions that will do nothing for our constituents and sadly don't prompt the very important questions like those offered up by my right hon.

Friend the Member for Stoke on Trent, about how we can better ensure that where we do need to continue to rely on gas power into the future, we can direct that towards the energies that the sectors that this country has long relied upon as a sad truth. Madam Deputy Speaker that this debate has not lived up to the importance of the topic that we are discussing today. The party opposite used to believe in the future. It's now that they don't. And it's sad that they're chasing the so called self Robbie Moore.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Time and time again we hear this Labour government's rhetoric about Labour government's rhetoric about being pro-growth pro-jobs pro economy. Yet despite these claims, they've continued to do the very they've continued to do the very opposite, as has been reiterated by members on this side of the House, which is why I absolutely support which is why I absolutely support the motion before us in the name of the official opposition. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, it would be remiss Deputy Speaker, it would be remiss of me to not come to this debate on oil and gas and not speak about the
15:29
Robbie Moore Portrait Robbie Moore MP (Keighley and Ilkley, Conservative)
-
-
impact the war in the Middle East is having on our business community, our manufacturers, our engineers, who are all experiencing the rise who are all experiencing the rise in energy costs, which are soaring, including our farmers and those within our rural communities. The within our rural communities. The price of red diesel is going up exponentially, and there is a huge amount of nervousness right now around supply and even further costs increasing. Just to put this in context, the cost of red diesel last month in February was £0.67 a litre and has risen this month to about 130 £0.05 a litre, impacting many of our farming community.

And I spoke to many of those farmers just yesterday who made the point to me that we simply cannot talk about food security without talking about energy security. The two rely on each other and go hand in hand

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and need to be treated together, not as separate entities. I will give way. I thank the hon. Member for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Member for giving way. Yesterday, my son and I. On Sunday, my son and I watched as On Sunday, my son and I watched as the fertiliser for fertiliser of the season started to spread on the fields, and it just reminded me of fields, and it just reminded me of the importance of the orders that are being placed now in the farming industry, the uncertainty that is being created from fertiliser to diesel, etc. and the impact that that could have on the profitability of those businesses going forward.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Absolutely right. Madam Deputy Speaker My hon. Friend makes an excellent point because it is an additional cash flow pressure on additional cash flow pressure on many of those that are producing food, which is why it is absolutely crucial that we have an energy strategy alongside a food security strategy under this government. Now, I want to pick up on the point around the green transition that around the green transition that has been made by members opposite and specifically referencing a live example, which is happening in my constituency, the Calderdale Wind Farm, which is going to be Madam Deputy Speaker, the largest wind farm development in England, and what was initially proposed was 65 wind turbines to be built on Warshaw.

More on my neighbouring my constituency. I will give way to congratulate him on having the largest wind farm in Europe in his constituency. Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, this is something that hasn't been built yet and will come before the Secretary of State because the Energy Secretary remove the onshore wind farm moratorium that we put in place as the conservative government. And, Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a development which I am staunchly opposed to. And why? Because this is going to be built on precious peatland, precious peatland, that if in a good year takes a millimetre of growth a year.

And yet, despite this, we see a wind farm development application coming before us with deep foundations going in into protected peatland, a road infrastructure that is going to be built, wiring infrastructure that is going to be built, and flooding being impacted in neighbouring constituencies, something which I'm staunchly against and which is why I can't, for the life of me, understand why this Labour government is determined to roll out these renewable energy schemes, alongside the Green Party being supported when it is having a hugely detrimental impact on our environment.

And, Madam Deputy Speaker, this will not only have a hugely negative impact on our environment, our biodiversity, our precious peatland, but the historic landscape in which this wind farm is proposed to be built. Put this in context, Madam Deputy Speaker. I don't know if you've watched Wuthering Heights yet, but this is going to be built on the Bronte country, where Wuthering Heights has been proposed to be built. So I say to the Labour government, when they churn out this narrative of the green transition, it is a.

Communities, environments like those neighbouring my constituency that are going to be negatively impacted. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I understand that the wind farm he's talking about that would generate about a quarter of a generate about a quarter of a million houses worth of energy every year. Given that his party is currently saying a failure to approve an oil site that would approve an oil site that would deliver power for 1.5 million homes in the entirety of its lifespan, is an existential risk for this an existential risk for this country's energy security. Can he not see the slight inconsistency in the argument he's advancing?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the argument he's advancing? The narrative that continues to come out from the benches opposite the government benches, is that we must have a roll out of more renewable energy without necessarily looking at the negative consequences actually on the environment, and that a development even of the size that is being proposed on the outskirts of my constituency will not be carbon neutral, given the amount of energy that is needed to build the wind turbines and the negative impact on the carbon sequestration of the peatland that is going to be built, which is why, Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm firmly opposed to it and 100% backed the motion that is before this House today.
15:34
Brian Leishman Portrait Brian Leishman MP (Alloa and Grangemouth, Labour)
-
-
Brian Leishman good afternoon, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to bring attention to my membership of Unite the Union. Now, I agree of Unite the Union. Now, I agree with my right hon. Friend from Oxford East. The framing of this debate is somewhat misleading debate is somewhat misleading because the Conservatives and reform have no desire, no real desire to lower people's bills, nor desire to lower people's bills, nor are they interested in saving jobs and the prosperity of working class communities. Because when we look at history, let's look at the coal mines.

Honourable and right hon. Members from across the chamber would have been on the side of Thatcher, McGregor, Riddley, Walker and Heseltine. The debate is really about the Tories and reform revelling in the free market, the only extraction that they really care about is that of corporate profit and shareholder dividend. Now I'm ideologically opposed to the Conservatives and reform, but the thing that really pains me is when I'm at odds with my own party, I've been clear that there should be no ban without a plan.

There really must be a plan, because the danger is that oil and gas workers are to become the modern day coal miners. There are thousands of workers nervous about what the future holds, and they are right to me. They've seen billionaire Jim Ratcliffe's Ineos and the Chinese state company PetroChina closed the Grangemouth oil refinery, ending 100 years of Scottish industrial history. The conservative government did not want to know about the issue. The SNP government refused to engage with Ratcliffe, the Chinese and the trade unions that represent the workers, even though they knew about the planned closure.

For three years, the SNP abandoned the workers in the Grangemouth community. Now there has been £434.5 million committed for Grangemouth industrial future from this Labour government and I have had to fight tooth and nail for it. And the excellent news is that there has been 500 jobs saved in the chemical industry. Project Willow is starting to deliver new jobs, but through the Mialgae and Celtic Renewables announcements. But I say to the Minister, the government must match its ambitions with much more action.

That means providing thousands of good, well-paid jobs. It means getting the new industries we need into Grangemouth and other industrial towns like it. There is still more than £190 million available in the National Wealth Fund for my constituency. Get using it. And I also say to the government that it is common sense to take at least some form of ownership in these new clean, green industries, break the cycle of reliance on private capital, on foreign ownership and on volatile fossil fuel markets.

Do more of what a Labour government should.
15:37
Gregory Stafford Portrait Gregory Stafford MP (Farnham and Bordon, Conservative)
-
-
Redditch contribution Gregory Stafford. Gentleman. It's like greatest hits of the 1970s. Madam Deputy Speaker, At a time when war in Ukraine continues and instability spreads across the Middle East, energy is not simply an economic question. It is a matter of national security. And yet Britain, under this Labour government, is making itself more, not less dependent. The irony is even Labour backbenchers know this. They are in the papers every day now telling us that offshoring offshoring emissions while importing energy from abroad does nothing for climate change and weakens our resilience.

Because the reality is stark. Britain is not reducing demand for oil and gas. We are simply choosing to import it. In 2024 alone, we imported over $11 billion worth of crude from Norway. At the same time, liquefied natural gas shipped from abroad can carry up to four times the emissions of gas produced here at home. So this is not environmental leadership, it's carbon outsourcing with a higher bill attached. And that bill is being paid by British families and businesses who face some of the highest energy costs in Europe.

Now, Labour's central argument this afternoon simply does not stand up. They claim that producing more gas in the North Sea will reduce prices because there is a so-called world price. But this misses the fundamental point that our own home-grown gas and oil produces thousands, hundreds of thousands of jobs, and if we don't use it well, we will miss out on billions in tax revenues that could be used to reduce energy prices for the consumer. Yes, I will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He'll be aware. But he's also proposing a big tax cut in the EPL for oil and gas companies today. for oil and gas companies today. But he'll also have seen research from Oxford University that suggests that even if every new licence was to be taxed and invested straight into energy subsidies, it could reduce bills by as little as £16 a year for households. Is that really the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Tories ambition? At the moment. The figures are £25 billion, so

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The figures are £25 billion, so that's a significant. Significant injection to the Treasury, however you put it, because the simple truth is this increased domestic supply and ease pressure on prices, reduce reliance on expensive imported, imported LNG and you can cut costs. And that's not ideology. It's basic economics. And the idea that it takes too long to act doesn't survive scrutiny either. Much of the North Seas infrastructure already exists. Pipelines and platforms have spare capacity. New fields can be tied into existing systems, accelerating production and reducing cost.

So what Labour presents as inevitable inevitability is in fact a political choice. And in the statement the Chancellor made earlier today, she talked about cutting red tape. Perhaps she should think about cutting red aid, first of all, because this is a choice that has consequences. The ban on new licences leaves risks, leaving 2.9 billion barrels of oil and gas in the ground and puts at risk 200,000 jobs. I will in a second. These are not abstract numbers. They are skilled, well-paid jobs that have powered communities for generations.

This

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is not transition. It's industrial retreat. The case that Britain's economy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The case that Britain's economy is growing three times faster than the rest of the economy. And if we were to retract on our commitments were to retract on our commitments to renewable energy and to net zero, that the confidence of investors would reduce, and that would be really bad for our UK economy and the brilliant jobs that have been created in this industry. And that's exactly what the Conservatives are proposing today.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Conservatives are proposing today. I think if I'm if I'm generous, I think the hon. Member hasn't been listening to either my speech or read the motion in front of us. I have not mentioned anywhere that we will be cutting back on renewable energy. And if Labour's position is misguided, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Liberal Democrats position is outright reckless. They would pile further taxes on the North Sea through an expanded energy profits levy, despite clear evidence that such measures deter investment and ultimately reduce tax revenues, some analysis suggests scrapping it could deliver an additional £25 billion to the Treasury over the next decade.

At the same time, the Liberal Democrats would smother the sector in layers of ESG reporting and regulation, slowing down investment, increasing costs and driving production overseas. And for what? To meet accelerated net zero targets divorced from the reality of how Britain actually uses its energy? Because here is the fundamental point, Madam Deputy Speaker. Electricity accounts for only around a fifth of our total energy use. The rest still comes from oil and gas for heating, transport and industry. We are not about to replace that overnight, nor are there credible plans to do so from this government.

So the choice is not between oil and gas or renewables. We need both. The real choice is whether we produce that energy here under our own environmental standards, supporting British jobs and British revenues, or whether we import it from abroad at a higher cost and with higher carbon. The British public understand this. Around three quarters say we should produce our own oil and gas rather than rely on imports. And they are right. Our plan recognises that it backs domestic production, cuts, unnecessary net zero taxes and delivers cheaper energy while maintaining our environmental commitments.

So I say to Ministers, stop outsourcing our energy, stop exporting our jobs and stop pretending that dependence is a virtue.
15:42
Andrew Bowie Portrait Andrew Bowie MP (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, Conservative)
-
-
Yes. chair. >> Madam Deputy Speaker Can I start by paying tribute and agreeing with the words of fellow Aberdonian and the words of fellow Aberdonian and the right hon. Member for East Oxford in paying tribute to all of those energy workers who over decades have worked in incredibly dangerous conditions and some of whom have given their lives to ensure that the lights stayed on and industry continued to function in this country. Many of them from my constituency of West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, and indeed pay tribute to the outstanding contribution from the Member for Stoke on Trent, who brought to the House's attention the dependence of so many industries in those countries to gas and the de-industrialisation that we are seeing across so many aspects of our industry right now.

Madam Deputy Speaker There we go. And now we know with war raging in the Middle East and in Europe, Labour is a party being held captive by extremists who refuse to act in our national interest, are content to see jobs lost in their thousands, and will not take advantage of our greatest asset, lying untapped and unexplored under our own waters. I would be delighted to give way. Thank him for giving way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He talks of. National interest. Does he agree that it was disgraceful that Gazprom was allowed to acquire an Gazprom was allowed to acquire an interest in the North Sea in the years after 2011, without a word of protest from his party when they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

protest from his party when they were in government. We welcomed investment from around the world, but obviously we divest ourselves of any Russian divest ourselves of any Russian investment in the North Sea as soon as we could after Putin's actions in Ukraine, as I'm sure he would have expected us to as a responsible government. But on days like this, unlike the acting in the national interest, as we did as a government, you do have to wonder on whose side the party opposite are on, because it is not on Britain's side and it isn't on the side of the British people we have witnessed for four years now how Putin's armies have weaponized energy to not only starve the people of Ukraine, but to weaken our continent.

The Secretary of State, if he was here, would tell us that this proves why he wants to double down on his plans to ditch oil and gas, except under his even his ridiculously ambitious and unrealistic plans, Great Britain would still need gas for around 50% of its energy demand, so have highlighted that gas will be the UK's energy of last resort for the next 10 to 20 years, and that we will require a diverse and resilient supply. But they Labour MPs, the enablers of this absurdity, would rather see us reliant on others for this gas on Qatar or Norway, rather than our own British industry at a higher cost and with higher emissions 15 times the emissions of our own supply, and we would be more exposed to price spikes.

Let us be absolutely clear 100% of all British North Sea gas goes directly into the British Gas grid. You do wonder if members opposite understand it. So let me explain. By choosing to use less from British waters, the more we have to import, the more insecure as a country we become. And Madam Deputy Speaker, the real the human tragedy at the centre of this blatant disregard for our national interests is playing out on rigs, in offices and in homes across the north east of Scotland right now.

Because, Mr. Speaker, the Labour Party enabled by the Liberal Democrats and whilst we are talking about the Liberal Democrats, we heard from their spokeswoman today that they do not support any new oil and gas licences. I think she might want to explain that to their candidate in Shetland in the upcoming Scottish parliamentary election, who warned of the impact of the Clair oilfield was not expanded, or their candidates in the north east of Scotland, who said we are going to need oil and gas for the foreseeable future and it is better to support production here than to rely on imports of LNG from abroad, which are more polluting.

So which is it? What is the Liberal Democrat plan? Why is the Liberal Democrats always say one thing in this place and another thing everywhere else? Once again, you cannot trust a word the Liberal Democrats say, but they are enabling the Labour Party and they are choosing, Madam Deputy Speaker, to see 1000 jobs lost in our North

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sea every single month, of course. For giving way. I'm a fan of his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For giving way. I'm a fan of his work, but I do have to ask this question. The Conservatives and Reform would have joined the Reform would have joined the American led war of choice without any sort of questioning of the reasons the Conservatives and reasons the Conservatives and reform want to leave the UK reliant on fossil fuels and overly exposed to energy price shocks. Can he to energy price shocks. Can he please tell me what is the difference between the Conservatives and reform? Yeah.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I can, I corroborate I am equally a fan of the hon. Members at work, but I would like to make very clear it is not that we would have joined the war on going in the Middle East. It is that we would Middle East. It is that we would not have left British bases and British assets undefended in the way that this government did, in the way that this government the way that this government shamefully did by removing assets from the region, when we knew very well what was coming round the corner.

But 1000 jobs are being lost every single month. Madam Deputy Speaker, High skilled, high paid jobs and Madam Deputy Speaker, this this is personal. I have the immense privilege of living in and representing the north east of Scotland. These jobs are not figures on a spreadsheet as they are to Labour MPs offices. They are my constituents, my neighbours, my friends and my family and the callousness and disregard that the Labour Party are treating these people that region with at the minute will not be forgotten.

The Labour Party refused to acknowledge it, but it is real. It is happening and it is happening at frightening speed. These people are right now having to make a terrible choice to hang around in the north east of Scotland, awaiting the long promised and yet never delivered renewable jobs boom, which always seems to be just around the corner and which pays far less. Or leave their homes, their communities, their families and move overseas. Many, indeed, most, are choosing. I will not because of time.

I'm afraid they are leaving the country all together. They are taking their families and crucially, their skills out of the United Kingdom to countries that have governments awake to the reality that actually support their domestic oil and gas industries, to Houston, to Riyadh, to Calgary or Stavanger in Stavanger, where they are drilling right now in the very same sea that we could be, only to sell it back to us. It is utterly perverse. Workers in Aberdeen are going to any country with an oil and gas industry in which the eco extremism that Secretary of State is so enthralled by is not found in government, which, by the way, is every other country in the world where there is a domestic oil and gas industry.

It used to be said that in every country in the world where there is oil and gas, you would find an aberdonian accent. Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, it turns out that soon the only place you will not find an aberdonian oil worker is in fact, Aberdeen. There has been a steady beat of job losses ever since Labour entered government. Every single month. BP hunting, Harbour Energy, Chevron Well safe Petro Petrofac, Ithaca the party opposite talks about what we need in government during the 20 1415 energy price shock, when jobs were sadly lost in the North East.

What did we do? We commissioned Ian Ian Wood to produce a review into the future of the North Sea. We implement. We implemented a policy of maximum economic recovery from the North Sea. We reduced taxes on our domestic oil and gas industry, and we stabilised the workforce. Over the last six years, we made the North Sea the most investable basin in the world during our time in government. What are the Labour government doing? They are doing the exact opposite. They are seeing job losses.

Madam Deputy Speaker. They are seeing investment turn away and they're they're surrendering this country to the whims of dictators over seas. I could go on when it comes to when it comes to the job losses, when they aren't cutting the jobs, companies are consolidating their operations. All of these companies have had operations in this country for many, many years. So I welcome the recent intervention from the Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire in calling for an end to this government's war on the North Sea.

We can add his name, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the ever growing list of people and organisations calling for this government to change course. The GMB unite, Tony Blair, octopus, Greg Jackson, Great British Energy Zone and Ed Miliband and Secretary of State appointed Juergen Maier renewable UK. Why are all these people wrong? But only I mean only the Secretary of State is right. I won't because of time. Notably I will not because of time. Notably, however, this list does not include one Scottish Labour MP.

Indeed, some Scottish Labour MPs are actively campaigning to stop any production at all, with two of their numbers signing a letter asking the Secretary of State to block the Rosebank oil field. Why don't we just for a moment entertain the idea that clean power 2030 is not utterly ridiculous and utterly undeliverable? Who does the Minister think will deliver this? The people with the skills that are needed for floating offshore wind are leaving in their thousands the assets to deploy these new technologies are moving overseas.

Who does the Minister think is going to invest in this transition? The Port of Aberdeen has only recently invested, recently invested in a new harbour to accommodate the long promised boom in floating offshore wind. But there are no new turbines going out to sea today. The quay side has no blades waiting and the port is laying off staff because 60% of that port's revenue still comes from oil and gas, with only 1% from renewables, we could change course. I do hope members opposite that represent Scottish constituencies paid close attention, and I hope they thought about whose side they are on because Labour MPs have an opportunity today.

Join us in the voting lobby and demonstrate clearly whose side they are on. Are they on the side of British workers, our industry, our security, our economic success or on the side of an increasingly isolated Secretary of State? The government could take a decision today, vote to end the ban on new licences and unlock 2.9 billions of barrels of opportunity that lie below the sea. Vote to scrap the Energy Profits Levy vote to approve Rosebank and Jackdaw fields immediately, but it is very clear they will not, because it is absolutely clear that, as ever, there is only one party that has a plan to get Britain drilling again, to make Britain secure, to cut bills, to deliver a stronger economy and a stronger country.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

That is and always will be, the Conservative and Unionist Party. Minister Michael Shanks.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister Michael Shanks. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And can I say, at times this has been an interesting debate, that been an interesting debate, that other times it perhaps has not been, but it is a timely debate and an important one. As many of people sitting at home will be watching the situation in the Middle East, concerned about the cost of living, concerned about the cost of living, concerned about our energy security and the impact that our energy policies have on their lives.

Let me start, as the Shadow Minister rightly did, with what I thought was an outstanding contribution by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East, who rightly centred
15:52
Michael Shanks Portrait Michael Shanks MP, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Rutherglen, Labour)
-
-
this debate in the way that I think others should have as well in the workers who have powered this workers who have powered this country for decades, many of whom I have had the great pleasure of meeting in the 20 months I have had this job, not on one visit to Aberdeen, but on many who have done the job that we have asked of them in extraordinarily difficult in extraordinarily difficult circumstances, who have risked their lives, and indeed many who have lost their lives in the pursuit of the energy that we have used for six decades.

I will never diminish the role that the North Sea has played for six decades in powering the country. It has been a source of energy, a source of revenue, a source of good jobs in the north east of Scotland, but actually beyond as well, in the east and north east of England and right across the country, workers who are sought after around the world for their skills and experiences. But my right hon. Friend for Oxford East rightly made the challenge back to the debate that we have heard from the opposite side today.

Slogans do not protect those jobs. Standing up here today with nothing but rhetoric and pretending that the 70,000 jobs that were lost on their watch were somehow irrelevant will not help, and it diminishes the scale of the challenge that we face. Slogans will not build the jobs for the future. The shadow Minister stands here and talks about a lack of turbines in Aberdeen harbour, and yet his own party would rip up the auction that delivers the contracts that would create the jobs there.

And he has the absolute brass neck to say that that is a problem with our government policy. It is his policy that has caused this problem. He talks about numbers on a spreadsheet as if we do not care about the workers that are caught up in this. That is why we are building the transition and investing in the future. When they ignored it decades ago, when we started becoming a net importer in this country, not in July 2024, as some hon. Members on the opposite side would like to pretend.

But in 2003, when we became a net importer, we should have been looking at the transition. I am willing to accept that my government previously should have done more on this. They should accept that for 14 years, as they saw thousands of jobs disappear from this industry, they should have been doing everything in their power to build up what came next, and they failed to do that. We have heard a number of strawman arguments put forward today about closing the North Sea. The North Sea right now continues to send gas into our gas network, and it will continue to do for decades to come.

But the transition is hugely important. It is a transition that has been under way for decades, and we have to now acknowledge how important it is to invest in what comes next, and events of recent weeks should concentrate minds. We should have learned the right lessons coming out of the invasion of Ukraine, and we did not. And we must now learn the right lessons coming out of this present crisis. Doubling down on fossil fuels does not give us energy security. It makes us depend even more on the very volatility that has driven us into economic problems.

Time after time after time. Again, more than half the economic shocks that have faced this country have been caused by fossil fuels. And the party Opposite's answer is to double down on it and have even more of it. Well, that is not a plan for the future of this country. Now, there

**** Possible New Speaker ****

were a number of I'll give way. The only. Doubling down being done is by the Minister, who insists that we import more from abroad. This makes no difference to how much we consume, where we where it's consume, where we where it's produced. It can either be produced abroad or it can be produced here with jobs, tax and lower emissions.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with jobs, tax and lower emissions. Why on earth would he choose it to be abroad? I'm grateful to the hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I was going to come to his contribution later. He's also very likeable, he kindly said of me, and I appreciated that he talked about lunacy, made flesh, and I think actually in his own contributions, he has remarked that his own party's policy has been lunacy in the past. On cancelling auctions for renewables. The truth is we need both. We need oil and gas for many, many years to come. But we also need to build what comes next.

And his frontbench, I'm afraid, are entirely lost on that point. He referenced the US point earlier in terms of the UK being a price taker, not a price maker. The difference is that the US is responsible for a quarter of the world's gas. We are not by by all standards, we have a minuscule amount of gas in the international markets. Not not an amount that we should not be hugely grateful for having in the seas around our country, but a minuscule amount compared to the global a gas take and therefore we will always be a price taker, not a price maker.

Madam Deputy Speaker, There were a number of contributions that I will not have time to come to, but I do want to just pick up on the point from the hon. Gentleman from Bromsgrove. In fact, in the back row who who I think quoted me, to me, that energy policy is not a theoretical exercise. I agree with him. And the motion that we have got today here is that we need to look at the reality of where we are as a country, how we deliver our energy security.

In an uncertain world, that means a mix of energy, and it means moving faster to deliver the clean home-grown power, the very thing that can protect households right now, and also that can take responsibility for the environmental impact that we have. Members opposite used to be great champions, and there was great consensus in this place and across our politics for the need to tackle what is an existential challenge to this planet, the climate crisis. They have rowed back from that in a desperate attempt to chase reform down the cul de sac of being anti net zero.

But in doing so, they are turning their backs on the tens of thousands of jobs that will be created in the future. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker I referenced earlier the importance of us learning the right lessons from this crisis. As long as we are dependent on volatile global fossil fuels, we will always be vulnerable to the kind of price shocks that we are seeing today. And when faced with events like this, the public would rightly expect us to work out what is the pathway that reduces that exposure, that protects their household bills long into the future? What we have heard from the party opposite today is no plan for doing that whatsoever.

Indeed, just a plan to double down on the very exposure that households are paying the price for. The alternative path, of course, is to invest in the clean energy transition. To recognise oil and gas will play an important part, but to invest as quickly as we can in renewables, in carbon capture and hydrogen, and decommissioning of our offshore assets, which will produce many, many jobs for a long time to come. That is why we have attracted £90 billion of investment since we began this challenge.

It is why we are tackling the gridlock in the national grid that is held back projects for so long. It is why we are creating thousands of jobs across the country, in every wind turbine that we switch on, every solar panel that we install, every bit of grid that we build that was neglected by the party opposite for far too long, helps us reduce our dependency on fossil fuels and helps us protect bills. Madam Deputy Speaker, there is an important debate at the heart of this.

I regret that the motion brought forward today by the opposition does not help us do this, because this ultimately comes down to a choice do we want to continue on the roller coaster of fossil fuels, or do we want to take control of our energy future with secure, home grown energy, creating jobs, cutting bills, and strengthening our national resilience? And at a moment like this, this government is very clear what path we are on is the right choice for the British public, and I commend the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister today.
16:00
16:14
16:15
James Cartlidge Portrait James Cartlidge MP (South Suffolk, Conservative)
-
-
government one simple question when on earth are they going to publish the Defence Investment Plan? >> Yeah, exactly. >> Yesterday, the Prime Minister was unable to answer that simple question. It means that at a time of war and conflict on multiple fronts, amidst the most dangerous time for our country since the Cold War, instead of delivering rapid rearmament, Labour are presiding over a procurement freeze. But perhaps it should come as no surprise, given the Prime Minister's constant habit for dither and delay.

Since the 28th of February, when the US and Israel started their campaign against Iran, our position has been that had we been in government and the US had asked to use our bases, we would have granted that permission. In contrast, the Prime Minister has not only dithered and delayed over sending the Royal Navy to the Middle East, he has constantly U-turned over whether to allow the US to use our bases. Weak leadership when we need to stand strong in this dangerous world, and now we are seeing the consequences of the Prime Minister's weakness on the home front as war rages around us.

Not even able to confirm if the defence investment plan will be delivered this week. So I urge the Minister to tell us that in the opening of his speech, when will it be published? But before he does so, let's remind ourselves what Labour Ministers said previously. On coming to office, the Defence Secretary made a choice. He chose not to implement the munitions plan that I had produced, which detailed comprehensively how we could rapidly replenish the vast amount of shells and missiles that we had given to Ukraine.

Instead, he decided to launch a strategic defence review that would boil the ocean. In multiple written questions, we asked what Labour would do on specific capability, and the answer was always the same wait for the SDR. So we waited and waited. It was promised for the spring of 2025 and delivered in the summer, but the SDR didn't have any of the specific procurement choices that our entire defence industry is waiting on. After all the hype about the SDR, those decisions were punted into yet another review the defence investment plan.

Just give me one second. The Secretary of State promised from that Dispatch Box in June last year, and I quote, the work on the defence investment plan will be completed and published in the autumn. But summer turned to autumn, autumn to winter and still no dip. Maybe the hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lady knows when we're going to get it. Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I have to say, is it a little bit of hutzpah from the hon. Gentleman? There was a defence review in his There was a defence review in his government of of one of many that had more pictures than it had pages. And so but I agree with him. I And so but I agree with him. I think we should be serious minded on this matter, that we need to be prepared for defence.

But it was under his government that we saw under his government that we saw projects delayed aircraft carriers without aircraft and the ongoing saga of Ajax, which still is to be resolved. So he needs to take his responsibility too, as we all across the House want to make sure that we're ready to defend our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

nation. It's not happening, is it? Well, there was no question in that in that intervention, Madam that in that intervention, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I'm glad that the hon. Lady agrees that the government need to get on and deliver the defence investment. And deliver the defence investment. And to be fair, we've seen MPs across the House saying that, including the chair of the Defence Committee, we all know in the national interest we need to see the dip published because, after all, the defence investment plan being defence investment plan being delayed has consequences.

The most serious consequences are for our military personnel, whom we all want to have the best equipment to do their job. In taking the decision to pause urgent procurement and instead boil the ocean, the Defence Secretary walked into a Treasury trap. Procurement has been on hold ever since, and the MoD forced to focus on in year savings £2.6 billion this year alone. It is this penny pinching which explains why, until HMS Dragon finally arrived on scene, we had no warships in the Middle East for the first time in decades.

Now, one of the most critical examples of the consequences of delayed dip is the Sea Viper Evolution procurement, with a US destroyer intercepting at least one of the missiles Iran fired at our sovereign territory on Diego Garcia. This underlines underlines how important it is for our own type 45 to be able to defend against the most advanced threats for the UK. This requires the Sea Viper Viper Evolution upgrade for our type 45 destroyers. Now in my own SDR submission as Shadow Defence Secretary through numerous speeches in the House and many written questions, I have repeatedly urged the government to accelerate sea Viper evolution, a priority for our munitions plan, and I'm sure members of the public watching this debate worried about Iran's attack on Diego Garcia, would expect such a capability to have been ordered as rapidly as possible.

But in a written answer this January, what I was once again chasing this critical upgrade, I received the inevitable response that continued progress on Sea Viper. Viper evolution remains, and I quote, subject to the Defence Investment Plan. That is the problem in a nutshell. The impact of Labour's procurement freeze in real time. Now, the reality is that Sea Viper evolution isn't due to reach full operating capability until late 2032. Did the hon. Gentleman want to give way?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank the hon. Member for giving way at questions for the MoD. Last week, the Secretary of State said that the delay to the Defence that the delay to the Defence Investment Plan was not holding up important investment plans, which came as a surprise to me given that came as a surprise to me given that right now there are UK personnel on NATO's border with Russia, which, without specific equipment which without specific equipment which would otherwise have been procured in my own constituency.

Does the hon. Member agree with me? Does he share my concern that this delay is, share my concern that this delay is, in fact, having significant impacts on defence procurement?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The hon. Gentleman who I, who I believe is hon. Gentleman who served, I think, in the Royal Air Force, knows exactly what he's Force, knows exactly what he's talking about. I agree with him wholeheartedly. It is having a real impact and Madam Deputy Speaker, impact and Madam Deputy Speaker, it's not me just saying that it's a serious. The serious consequence of this paralysis is on our brilliant this paralysis is on our brilliant defence industry hanging on by its fingertips. This morning I addressed a round table attended by addressed a round table attended by many defence primes and SMEs in Westminster.

These are the experts at the coalface and this is what they spoke of. British defence companies going abroad or even having to close because of delays to the defence investment plan, a defence industry under strain when it should be firing on all cylinders. But when it comes to consequences, Madam Deputy Speaker, On a personal basis, that which I find most disheartening of all is the impact on our ability to learn lessons from the war in Ukraine. Now, I am incredibly proud of how in government we stood by Ukraine

**** Possible New Speaker ****

even before Putin invaded, and by April. OK, I'll give away. Gentlemen. I thank.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank. The right hon. Gentleman. For giving way. And. And I only

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For giving way. And. And I only came into this place in 2017. And I have to say that I was deeply disappointed by what happened in 2014 and our failure to stand by 2014 and our failure to stand by Ukraine on the invasion of Crimea. I think Michael Fallon was one of the few who said we should actually take action. What was his view and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

what would he have done? Strong consensus in this House on support for Ukraine. Obviously, there were limitations on what we could do. We have done everything could do. We have done everything possible, and we're the first country in Europe to stand by Ukraine. We sent weapons before the Ukraine. We sent weapons before the invasion started. We didn't wait for Putin to invade so that we could comply perfectly with international law. Boris Johnson international law. Boris Johnson and Ben Wallace had the guts to ignore the Foreign Office and send those weapons, despite that premeditated.

And if and if Kyiv had fallen and they hadn't intercepted that column of tanks heading to Kyiv, we'd have been in an extremely serious situation. But I'm making the point in terms of procurement. And by April 2024. Madam Deputy Speaker, This is important. By April 2024, we were providing Ukraine with drone and counter-drone capabilities that were proving decisive on a real battlefield against the peer military threat in Europe, but they were not being produced through the old system, full of delays and overspend, but by British SMEs, produced cheaply, swiftly and with constant feedback from the front line.

We were therefore incredibly well placed to deliver the vision of the MoD's defence drone strategy, which I published in February 2024 and is meant to be current government policy, whereby we would be a leading nation in uncrewed warfare. Most importantly, that we would achieve that by providing in parallel for our armed forces the drone trick, the drone technology that we were giving to Ukraine. So by now, our army should have been training across the board in drone warfare. The Navy should already have been fielding the beginnings of an autonomous drone fleet, learning the lessons from Ukraine's extraordinary victory in the Black Sea.

And the RAF should be maximising investment in loyal wingman drones that would fly alongside and enhance the lethality of our current typhoons. But for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

one big problem. Well, I'll come to it after the hon. Lady. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he not agree that the problem with their drone strategy was they didn't invest in the satellite, making us reliant on the satellite, making us reliant on foreign satellites in order for a full capability to happen and full capability to happen and didn't invest in actually, some of the radar at invest in the the analysis of the radar, which we have that covers all of Europe and North Africa and made us fully

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reliant on the US. James Cartlidge and talk about reliance on the US. Madam Speaker. reliance on the US. Madam Speaker. I just remind hon. Lady, it was the United States that intercepted the ballistic missile heading for our ballistic missile heading for our base, our sovereign territory on Diego Garcia. But I say to the point I am making, and it's incredibly important for the House incredibly important for the House to reflect on this because it has not been talked about enough, partly for sensitivity reasons.

We partly for sensitivity reasons. We did tremendous things in Ukraine. As I say, she talks about the impact we supplied drones made by British companies, which had an extraordinary impact. I'm not going to say any more than that, but that is a statement of fact. My strategy, fairly simple, was that we should, in parallel, do the same for the British armed forces. But we got to the summer of 2024 and we ran into a problem. It is the big problem as to why we have no Defence Investment Plan money, because, as was the case when we were in government, the Treasury under this Prime Minister has agreed a funding line for Ukraine.

Absolutely correct. We strongly agree, but there has been no agreement to fund parallel procurement for our own armed forces. This was a golden opportunity to transform our military lost, because the Secretary of State failed to stand up to the Treasury and demand the cash from the Chancellor. So often have I met British SMEs producing amazing battle tested kit for Ukraine with nothing ordered by our own armed forces. It's extraordinary. And the Minister, who I know shares my passion for the uncrewed revolution, I think knows that as ever, it boils down to hard cash.

I give way to my friend. Grateful to my hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friend for giving way. And would he agree with me that another example would be Coventry based NP aerospace, which I met again this aerospace, which I met again this morning, which is producing body armour for Ukrainians. But because armour for Ukrainians. But because of the delay in the dip, has no confidence that it will be able to do the same for the British Army. do the same for the British Army. It's a bit reminiscent in my mind, to 2003, when many in this House, to 2003, when many in this House, several in this House, went to Iraq with the most shoddy, appalling personal kit that took months to rectify.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend who speaks with not just his experience as a former Defence Minister. He served, of Defence Minister. He served, of course, in the Royal Navy, still does as a reservist, but he makes the point that what I worry about I ran an SME, not a defence SME, but I ran an SME. I know the stress of running a company in tough times, running a company in tough times, and my heart goes out to companies like the one he talks about who will be struggling.

Right now they're selling abroad, but getting nothing from the British military. At a time when we face intense threats that isn't good enough. I'll give I'll give way to my hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friend. Can I just draw his attention and the attention of the House to and the attention of the House to the other fundamental structural flaw in the method the government has adopted for planning defence, has adopted for planning defence, which is that the aspiration after 2029 is only an aspiration. The 2029 is only an aspiration. The Treasury has agreed to no spending line in the. In their own forecasts line in the. In their own forecasts and figures beyond 2029.

And yet the Defence Investment Plan is a ten year plan. So how can the Treasury agree to a ten year plan when they haven't agreed to any

**** Possible New Speaker ****

funding for defence after 2029? It's just an aspiration. Well, I am extremely grateful to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend, my constituency neighbour who ran rings around the Prime Minister yesterday so expertly and he's absolutely right. expertly and he's absolutely right. If you look in the Red book Madam Deputy Speaker, it details to the penny how much this government will spend on their U-turn to abolish the two child benefit cap by 2031. the two child benefit cap by 2031. There is no line on what will be spent on defence in those years. So how on earth is the MoD meant to change the key? Is there not going to go to 3% this Parliament? But Madam Speaker, I'm going to conclude by setting out five steps that, in fact, before I do that, Friend.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very kind of my hon. Friend, to give way. And on the point of give way. And on the point of making his peroration, he mentioned the tension between the MoD and its Ministers and the Treasury, and we could sympathise with the MoD could sympathise with the MoD Ministers if they did not keep adopting a line which is self-defeating. They keep coming self-defeating. They keep coming out with this propaganda line that they have increased defence spending by a greater amount than at any time since the end of the Cold War, and each time I boringly try and point out to them, and I'm going to do it again today, that they should not be comparing what we're spending now in a much deteriorated situation with the peace dividend years that followed the Cold War.

They should compare it with what we used to spend on defence during the Cold War, which was regularly between four and a half and 5% on defence. And if that seems a lot, just remember that when a country is involved in a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

full scale war, you're talking not about 4%, but about 40%. Right? Well, I'm very grateful to my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I'm very grateful to my right hon. Friend never boring in his interventions. On the contrary, one of the most knowledgeable one of the most knowledgeable people on defence in this House. So I'm going to conclude with five steps that could be taken right now steps that could be taken right now to galvanise our war readiness suggestions, positive suggestions from this side. Madam Speaker, from this side. Madam Speaker, first rearm immediately. As I wrote in my letter to Defence Secretary last week, instead of waiting on the Defence Investment plan, the Secretary of State should use the reserve funding agreed for the Middle East operations to place urgent operational requirements, in particular Asraam missiles for our fighter planes, Aster Air defence missiles for our type 45 seconds.

Secondly, deliver drone tech at scale and pace right across the armed forces. As we set out in our Sovereign defence fund last December. Thirdly, to fund all this, we'd set apart to 3% this parliament, not the next, including turning the National Wealth Fund into a defence and resilience bank. Ring fencing £11 billion for defence, repurposing, 6 billion of R&D for drone tech and restoring the two child benefit cap to fund a bigger army. Fourthly, to save more money for defence and following Iran's missile strike on Diego Garcia, we should stand up for that critical sovereign territory by scrapping Labour's crazy Chagos plan.

Yes. Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, to immediately boost the morale of our veterans and all who serve our country, we would defend those who defended us by scrapping Labour's plans to put our former

**** Possible New Speaker ****

soldiers back in the dock simply for the crime of serving their country. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker, to conclude, it isn't enough for Ministers simply to say, month after month, that they are working after month, that they are working flat out to deliver the Defence Investment Plan in the national interest. This country needs to rapidly rearm, and that means the Prime Minister ditching the dither Prime Minister ditching the dither and delay, summoning the courage to reverse the spiralling welfare bill and finally committing to 3% on defence this Parliament.
16:32
Al Carns Portrait Al Carns MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Defence) (Minister for Veterans) (Birmingham Selly Oak, Labour)
-
-
The question is, as on the Order >> The question is, as on the Order Paper and I call the Minister Minister Al Carns. >> Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have to say I read this motion I have to say I read this motion with a sense of disappointment and I mean that not anger, but disappointment, because at a moment like this, when British armed forces are actively protecting our people and our interests in the Middle East, intercepting drones, defending our bases, and preparing for further and potential escalation, I had hoped for a more well thought through and balanced motion to contribute to this debate.

Let me start by paying tribute to those who are serving today, at home and overseas. In the air, on land, at sea and 24 over seven beneath the waves, often in conditions of real danger, doing exactly what the country asks of them. This debate should have been about them. Instead, what we have is a motion that reads less likely, less like a serious contribution to defence policy, and more like an attempt to rewrite the record to whitewash what happened over the past 14 years.

But I'm going to reiterate, the House knows the record and the public knows it too. Importantly, the implications of 14 years do have an impact on our armed forces. They are bearing the brunt of it. You cannot rewrite it and they cannot run from it. Madam Deputy Speaker, let us be clear about the world. We are now operating in. A major land war continues in Europe. 55,000 drones and missiles have been fired by Russia into Ukraine, over 100,000 casualties on the Russian side alone.

That is more casualties than America took in the entire Second World War. Conflict is spreading across the Middle East. Ten countries struck by hundreds of ballistic missiles and thousands of drones. Authoritarian states are becoming more aggressive, and the way wars are fought is changing at pace. This is the most volatile security environment for a generation. This is not a moment for gestures or political point scoring. It's a moment for serious

**** Possible New Speaker ****

decision. I will give way. James Cartlidge when is he going

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to publish the Defence Investment Plan. Minister we will publish the Defence Investment Plan as soon as reasonably possible. You will not reasonably possible. You will not find anyone who doesn't want more defence spending at a faster rate than I. It is a moment, however, than I. It is a moment, however, for serious decisions taken in the national interest. We need to get ourselves back on track. There have ourselves back on track. There have been a whole plethora of funding decisions over the last 14 years, which I lived through, and I'm sure some of your honourable and gallant members lived through as well, which in the current environment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are no longer fit for purpose. I will Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I'm sure he will remember when he was serving our country that at one point the last government put in an extra £4.5 government put in an extra £4.5 billion into defence spending. But then every witness that came in front of the Public Accounts Committee time after time told us how it was solving their funding problem and it was overspent many times. Does he not agree that we times.

Does he not agree that we need rigour in spending that actually delivers the kit to our men and women on the ground and in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the air and at sea, who are serving our country? Minister Al Carns. I'd like to thank the hon. Friend for her contribution. We Friend for her contribution. We have a large defence fund Budget and in the past it has not been and in the past it has not been spent effectively. I think we can both collectively agree on both sides of the House that there are huge procurement mistakes being made in the past that has resulted in either the wrong equipment or in either the wrong equipment or the wrong way in which the money has gone, and therefore we need to take our time to get it right.

The other reason we need to take our time to get it right is the hon. Members will know from the other side of the House is that conflict is changing, which in some cases replicates or indeed overtakes some of the capability that was ordered

**** Possible New Speaker ****

years ago. I will give way, and. I thoroughly. Enjoyed his interview in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Enjoyed his interview in the Times Radio talking about his role in defence, his previous history. He was asked about his leadership, He was asked about his leadership, and I won't ask him about his leadership ambition, but I would like to know when it comes to the like to know when it comes to the dip, where is it stuck? Which Minister is it stuck with? Is it stuck with the Chancellor? Or is it stuck with the Chancellor? Or is it the fact that defence themselves have a problem? I'd be grateful for him to elucidate a little bit on that.

Defence is very clear on what it requires. We're working collectively across government to come to a joint decision on where that spending portfolio will fall. Now, there are points of this motion that are obvious. The world is more dangerous. We are investing more in defence, but recognising that is the easy part. The real question is whether you are prepared to make the decisions required to deal with it, because defence is not a shopping list and it mustn't be treated as such. It's not about picking a number of troops as mentioned in the motion.

It's not about shifting money around on paper. It's about building a force that works, one that is properly equipped with the correct equipment, properly supported and able to operate alongside our allies. Madam Deputy Speaker In my time in uniform and since coming into this role, I spent time in multiple different operational theatres. And it is not about the number, it's not about the size of the armed forces. It's about the plan. It's about the purpose. It's about the equipment. It's about how they're going to be integrated.

Simply stating 2000 extra members into the Army with no clear, concise understanding of how they're going to be used, is not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the way to go about business. And he's making a obviously a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And he's making a obviously a powerful case as a man with his record in history. And also coming to this place is to be congratulated for that. And I'm even enthused to see him in his seat that he is today, as we all seat that he is today, as we all are, I think. But he talks we've talked about the defence investment plans, non-appearance. But there is plans, non-appearance. But there is another plan. There is another review that is also not appeared which has even more impact.

And that is the review on China and its threat that it poses to us. Now, this was promised again by the government. And the reason why I raise this, because through Conservative and Labour governments, I have constantly gone on about the growing threat and we have not faced up to it. And China is critical to that. You just watch their tankers going in the Straits of Hormuz and out again without any problems, and you begin to realise the incredible links with Iran and with Russia and with North Korea.

So I simply say to him, is the Defence Department demanding that that view is handed to them and then published, or have they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

forgotten about it? Minister Al Carns. I'd like to thank the honourable right hon. Member for, as always, a right hon. Member for, as always, a very balanced contribution on this specific issue. I will come back to you. I'll write to you with where you. I'll write to you with where we are and how it's moving forward.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. I don't require any correspondence from the other. Always, always welcome. Always

**** Possible New Speaker ****

welcome. Minister. Getting back to the point of 2000 troops, the motion calls for more troops, but it says nothing about how they'd be recruited, trained, housed, or indeed equipped. It does not even begin to answer the most basic questions of what those troops would actually be used for. It proposes funding defence through unrelated policy changes, as if national security can be managed like a spreadsheet, and it pulls together issues that do not form a coherent strategy. That is not a defence plan, it is a list.

Madam Deputy Speaker. And what is most revealing is the position of the party opposite. And I want to be clear, one week the Leader of the Opposition is saying we should send jets to the source. One week the Leader of the Opposition says we should send jets to the source in Iran and that we are in this war whether we like it or not. The following week, she says, I never said we should join. And then the shadow defence Secretary is asked for a clear position, says there are no easy answers.

Those are their words and they tell you everything. I give way in two seconds and then the armchair generals rushing to judgement one week, retreating from it, the next rushing towards escalation, then stepping back from it the next. That's not leadership, that's not judgement. And it's certainly not how you make decisions about putting British service personnel in harm's way. Those decisions demand seriousness, not commentary or hyperbole from the sidelines.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'll give way, gentlemen. I share my right hon. Friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I share my right hon. Friend for respect for him and his experience. But the two statements he read out But the two statements he read out from the Leader of the Opposition are not incompatible. The fact is, we would not have joined in the we would not have joined in the military action that the that the Americans and the Israelis Americans and the Israelis initiated. But it is undeniable that the war has now come to us. What does he think is happening in London? Did he not hear the deputy chief of the Metropolitan Police on the radio this morning talking about the rising Iranian threat that is now domestic in our own capital? This war has come to us.

You may not be interested in war, Madam Deputy Speaker, but war is interested in you. As said Leon Trotsky.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister Kent. Madam Deputy Speaker Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope, I hope war Deputy Speaker, I hope, I hope war is not interested in you personally. I it is not lost on me. The Iranian I it is not lost on me. The Iranian threat, Hezbollah, Hamas, lethal aid in Iraq, Afghanistan, supporting terrorist organisations around the world. It's not lost on me at all. But I'll be really, really clear now. I've served in really clear now. I've served in every staff college, in the career structure, in the British military, and I've always been taught three key things.

One is a legal mandate. The second is you got to have a plan. And a third one is you got to think to the end. So if the opposition thinks that we should be involved in the conflict, then by all means say so. But if you don't, then be balanced. What I would say I will give way in two seconds. What I would say is that a vision with a plan, without a plan is a dream. And I am concerned that if we followed your direction, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opposition's direction, we would have ended up in a nightmare. James Cartlidge Minister giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

James Cartlidge Minister giving way to me. I'm very, very grateful. Just to be clear, the Prime Minister and we now have the same position. He would grant the US use of our bases. They've been taking of our bases. They've been taking off their bombers, US bombers from our bases. That was our position. The difference is we've maintained The difference is we've maintained that position 100% consistently from the beginning. Whereas the Prime Minister has U-turned repeatedly. We're the ones who've been consistent.

They've been blowing all over the place.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Now the American. The opposition, the opposition would have dragged us quicker into would have dragged us quicker into this conflict and we could all possibly imagine are we have made the difficult decision, the correct the difficult decision, the correct decision to remain the defensive posture, and it is the right decision. Madam Deputy Speaker Let decision. Madam Deputy Speaker Let me deal directly with the record that we inherited. The hon. Member himself admitted that defence himself admitted that defence spending reduced every year because, in his words, people thought we had peace.

That assumption has left this country exposed. Ground based air defence investment now protecting our forces in the Middle East with our allies and partners, was cut by around 70% in their final year. Frigates and destroyers were reduced by a quarter. Minehunters. Minehunters were cut by more than a half. Now, it's interesting because I was the chief of staff of our carrier strike force that validates our mine hunting capability that goes to the Middle East. Interestingly, in the Integrated Review in 2021, the out-of-service date of minehunters were brought forward.

What date was it brought forward to? 25th of January 2026. Good decision and troop numbers were left at their lowest level in modern history. Now that's the reality. That's the legacy, and that's what we're trying to fix and we are fixing it. I will continue and I will give way in a minute. We have taken more action in the last 20 months than you managed in the last four years. More than 1200 major defence contracts, 86% of those awarded to British based businesses.

And they argue for 2.5% by 2030. We are delivering it by 2027. I will give

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will give way. Before Iain Duncan Smith comes to his feet, I will ask I will ask the Minister no more use. No more

**** Possible New Speaker ****

use. Sir Duncan Smith. I'm grateful for him giving way. I just do this little Redcar is a bit sort of like a tautological tap dance going on here. We are at war, and I don't think Iran cares whether we made the strike on them or not, because they still see us as targets. We accept that that's the danger our troops are in, but it's not on that that I asked. The question I asked yesterday to Defence Secretary I asked again, is it not a reality that we are at war? Iran is an enemy.

They've been an enemy of ours for some considerable time, and they have been carrying out operations here. They've been stirring up Islamic extremism. The targeting anti-Semitism is all part of their plan and their hate marches. Isn't it now time that this government finally said, enough is enough and we prescribe the IRGC and arrest the hell out of these people who are causing mayhem on our streets? Isn't it now time

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for the government to do that? Yes. I'd like to thank the the hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'd like to thank the the hon. Member for for the comment. I will raise that with the Security Minister and push exceptionally Minister and push exceptionally hard. Mr. speaker. Madam Deputy Speaker on Ukraine, because the motion suggests we are failing to motion suggests we are failing to learn lessons. Let me be absolutely clear. The two are two separate issues this government is leading. issues this government is leading. We are committed to 4.5 billion in military support last year, building on 3 billion annually.

We've co-led the Ukraine Defence Contact Group, which has helped secure over 45 billion worth of investment. And in February alone, a further 35 billion was raised. We have not just provided funding, we've also adapted. Now I want to recall my own history. I left the military in 2020 for. The reason I left the military was because the government was. The military collectively was not learning the lessons from Ukraine. It's the very reason why I left to come into this place.

Now, this side of the House was not in government at the time, and we were already years into the conflict. And the opposite side of the House will recognise this as one of my key hobby horses, while being in defence, a ten fold increase in drone delivery with a target of 100,000 this year, a new cyber and electromagnetic force built on lessons from the battlefield in Ukraine, and 4 billion committed to autonomous systems over time. Project Asgard, a hybrid navy, a defence uncrewed centre of excellence coming within the SDR, a cultural change within the Army, Navy and Air Force around uncrewed systems, an increase in uncrewed system training and cultural development in phase one and phase two training.

So I'm really confused as to how there are no lessons to be learned. We must go faster and we're pushing as hard as we can. But I want to be really clear, and I'll bring you back to the first point. The reason I left the military was because your government was not was the opposite side of the House's government not learning the lessons effectively from Ukraine. Mr Speaker Madam Deputy Speaker Let me turn to Northern Ireland. Let me turn to Northern Ireland and morale.

I do not recognise the argument made in this motion. I will give way one more time. Give way. He gave a very extensive list of some of the spending commitments, but could he set out what the exact spending commitments are and the 1.5% that's required by NATO that isn't in the defence spending? He had a great big list for the defence spending. I haven't heard the other side would be grateful if he has those categories. It's not.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

About Al Carns. There are clear. NATO defence spending targets. It's written down and it will be produced in due course. My honourable thank you. I will give honourable thank you. I will give way. I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. He's making an excellent speech. The point about the 1.5%, of course, is about the 1.5%, of course, is about security related initiatives, and it's important that we get to those it's important that we get to those soon.

But on the wider the defence investment plan, I would just say a word of caution that we must get it absolutely right. I've been trying to work with colleagues from both sides of the House since the Ajax project was started in 2016, to try and find a resolution to some of these problems, we must take absolute care and be very clear eyed about the strategy we follow

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in terms of procurement. Hence.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I completely agree with the hon. Friend. We've got to get this Defence Investment Plan correct, and we've got to ensure that it and we've got to ensure that it balances all of the different problems that we're facing, whether that be air defence in the Middle East and the lessons identified, or East and the lessons identified, or indeed the lessons identified

**** Possible New Speaker ****

within Ukraine. I will give Witney. I'm very grateful to the Minister for giving way. I think one thing that we need to get right and we got wrong in the past, is this when I was first elected in 2017, there were not Russian spy ships off the coast of my constituency. Now there are the submarine before Christmas. I raised this with the Leader of the House last week and have been granted ministerial meeting. Does he agree with me that this is a Russian threat on our doorstep to vital strategic resources, pipelines? Interconnectors are offshore wind and our oil and gas.

And look what happened in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baltic. Minister Al Carns. So I'd like to thank the hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So I'd like to thank the hon. Member for the. We often talk about not having a front line Madam Deputy Speaker with Russia. The reality is we do. It's in the North Atlantic and in the maritime, where we're facing off against Russian capability on a daily basis. We've capability on a daily basis. We've seen a 30% increase in surface and subsurface capability, which again, talks to the complexity of the talks to the complexity of the Defence Investment Plan and the requirement to balance our assets, both in crisis in the Middle East and, of course, a continued and persistent threat from the Russians in the North.

I would like to return. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'd like to take the Minister back to his comments around when and why Britain should around when and why Britain should go to war. It's clear that the the opposition have forgotten that when the Leader of the Opposition made the Leader of the Opposition made her comments, it was during the offensive action, not the defensive action, and therefore is she is. Is the Minister not concerned that we have a leader in opposition and a leader of a Reform Party who when Donald Trump says jump, they say, how high.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

OK. I'd like to thank my hon. Friend

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'd like to thank my hon. Friend for her contribution. Three capabilities, three levels of understanding before ever putting understanding before ever putting someone in harm's way, a legal mandate, a plan, and think through mandate, a plan, and think through to the finish. I'm going to make a bit of ground and then we'll come bit of ground and then we'll come back in due course. I would like to return to morale. Morale is built on leadership, clarity and trust, and the facts matter.

Recruitment is up 13%, outflow is down by 8%. Madam Deputy Speaker, For the first time in over a decade, more people are joining than leaving. That is the reality. And let us be clear about our responsibility to our veterans. There is no equivalence between those who serve to protect life and those who sought to destroy it. This government is putting in place proper protections for veterans after the legal uncertainty that was left behind, and we are backing that with action action talks.

Valour's 5050 million going into our veterans program more than ever before, Up ascend is helping veterans into meaningful employment, funding to tackle veterans homelessness improvements into housing and pay. We have delivered. We bought back 36,000 military homes and investing 9 billion to improve them. We funded 30 hours of free childcare for under threes across Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, saving families up to £6,000 a year. That is the difference practical support makes and that is why we are seeing a change in morale.

And if the opposition wants a debate about who is delivering for our service personnel, I am more than happy to stand on the record and I am happy to compare theirs with ours. I'm going to make a little bit of ground and I will. I will come back. Then we come. Perhaps the most revealing, revealing part of this motion, the suggestion that defence should be funded by changes to the two child benefit cap. Let me say this plainly. You do not strengthen national security by setting against support for working families.

You do not ask the country to choose between security abroad and stability at home, and you do not build credible defence policy on that basis. It is the job of this government to make life easier for families, not harder. But I will say something else. I grew up in a family where some of that mattered, where decisions about money took place, and I see the same pressures in the communities I represent now, because security is not just what happens overseas, it's whether families feel they can cope, whether they feel stable, whether they feel that the system is working for them.

That is why this is not a serious way to approach defence funding, because the strength of our country rests on both, not one or the other, on armed forces that can deter and defend, and on a society at home that is stable, resilient and confident. Pitting one against the other does not strengthen either. It weakens both. Madam Deputy Speaker, this government is taking a different approach. We are making decisions in the national interest and we are not going to be pushing those decisions by noise or pressure.

We will take them careful, carefully and will take them responsibly. We are increasing defence spending. We are strengthening our forces, whether it be recruitment or outflow or the moral component as a whole, and we are making sure that they are ready to face the threats, both now and indeed in the future. We will publish a defence investment plan, but we will not rush it for the sake of a headline, because a plan that is not properly funded or deliverable, that has been demonstrated for the last 14 years,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

does not strengthen our security. It weakens it. I will give way. I have listened very carefully

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have listened very carefully to this debate and it's been very interesting knockabout. But can I refer him back in terms of what refer him back in terms of what we're achieving to the comments of the chair of the Public Accounts Committee? I mean, the truth is Committee? I mean, the truth is that she was the chair of the Public Accounts Committee during our period in office. Numerous our period in office. Numerous wastage in scandals and defence procurement. I was chairman during the of the Public Accounts Committee during the Blair years.

I go back so far, remember Lord Levine, appointed by Michael Heseltine to get this right. We're never going to get anywhere until we stop the scandal of defence procurement, the sixth biggest defence Budget in the world. But we don't get bang for buck, so I don't have any instant solutions. But this is not something we can all unite around and can't. We just insist that we stop these huge projects which are not fitted for the modern warfare we go back to,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to actually fighting a war. Before the Minister responds. Many, many colleagues are wishing to contribute. So no doubt it's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to contribute. So no doubt it's coming close to his conclusion. I'd like to thank the right hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'd like to thank the right hon. Member for his contribution. We are moving in that direction. The National Armaments Director is providing real professional providing real professional oversight now and looking at reviewing the system, but I think we can we can all collectively we can we can all collectively agree over the last 14 to 20 years, do we get value for money? And we need to make sure we get value for money in the future, because if we do, we would have a properly equipped armed forces at the present moment.

Madam Deputy Speaker, in closing, this motion, asks the House to express regret about a government that is delivering the largest increase in defence spending leading on Ukraine, investing in our veterans and reversing the decline in recruitment and morale that we inherited. At a time when our armed forces are deployed in protecting British lives, the opposition offers a motion built on a record that would rather forget, and a set of arguments that do not meet the test of seriousness. This is not a moment for point scoring.

It is a moment for leadership, and this government is providing it. I urge the House to reject this motion.
16:57
James MacCleary Portrait James MacCleary MP (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I call the Liberal Democrat >> I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson James MacCleary. >> Thank you, Madam. >> Deputy Speaker. Earlier this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deputy Speaker. Earlier this year, the head of the armed forces, Sir Richard Knighton, issued a stark warning describing the current state of our military. Sir current state of our military. Sir Richard said that the UK is not as ready as we need to be for the kind of full scale conflict we might face. We should remind ourselves of the context in which Sir Richard made those remarks. Four years. The Conservatives oversaw the hollowing out of our military troop numbers cut by 10,000 under their watch.

And now this motion proposes 20,000 more troops. Let's let's be clear what that actually means. Madam Deputy Speaker, after cutting 10,000 in government, they're really only proposing a net increase of 10,000. Now, when Liberal Democrats called for a reversal of Tory troop cuts, they scoffed. And how would they pay for even that? By reinstating by reinstating the two child benefit cap and punishing struggling families. Our surface fleet, reduced to its smallest size since the English Civil War. So I just heard shouting.

I didn't realise there were intervention.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Will he give away, give away. Order, Mr. Martin? Mr. Martin,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, Mr. Martin? Mr. Martin, it was clear. Sir Julian Lewis. I've never seen you behave so badly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I've never seen you behave so badly. Sir. Julian Lewis Mike Martin. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. He's making a very powerful speech, He's making a very powerful speech, isn't he? And the egg is now on the other face, and they're very other face, and they're very excited. Now, I'd like to ask my hon. Friend, which does he think is the most damaging of the Tory cuts? Was it the frigates? Was it the destroyers, the minesweepers or the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

troops frigates? I thank my hon. Friend for his valuable contribution and support valuable contribution and support the points that he's made. All of them were damaging. Probably the most damaging thing of all was how they failed our serving troops, and they failed our serving troops, and in particular with their accommodation and the deal that they gave those veterans over some

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they gave those veterans over some time. Of course, I think. I detect intervention. Can I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I detect intervention. Can I share a little secret with the house? For slightly longer than the duration of the Second World War, I was a shadow defence Minister, but in 2010 I found myself back on the backbenches because the Liberal defence spokesman was appointed Minister for the Armed Forces. And I was told that the reason for this was that the powers that be knew that I would never have gone along with the cuts that were made in October.

In October 2010 by the conservative Liberal Democrat coalition. So I think his amnesia

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is somewhat selective. McCleary. I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. That was very informative, very moving. Our surface fleet reduced to its smallest size since the English smallest size since the English Civil War while they were at the helm in a crisis of recruitment, retention and morale across the armed forces, ushered in by their incompetence. We shouldn't be incompetence. We shouldn't be surprised by the disastrous impact which years of conservative

**** Possible New Speaker ****

management have had on our military. now? Yes. What is it? After hollowing out

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What is it? After hollowing out our armed forces in government, their motion today shows they've learned nothing. They want learned nothing. They want struggling families to foot the bill. It's the same old Tory formula. Break the country first,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

formula. Break the country first, then ask the most vulnerable to pay for the repairs. Will he give way? What is needed now is a serious

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What is needed now is a serious plan to reverse their damage. Perhaps the shadow Minister has one in his pocket. Very grateful. I'm very grateful because he does always give.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Way on this precise point. Madam, there is one capability which keeps us safe more than any other, which us safe more than any other, which is our continuous at sea nuclear deterrent 24 over seven. Will he deterrent 24 over seven. Will he remind us in the coalition? Was it or was it not a condition of the Lib Dems to join the coalition, that the programme was delayed, putting massive pressure on the boats and meaning they are now boats and meaning they are now doing tours of over 200 days which they should be ashamed of.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, I thank the hon. Member and it is astonishing. Madam Deputy Speaker. You would think they hadn't been in majority government hadn't been in majority government for ten years since the coalition. All of the crimes that have been committed in history were committed committed in history were committed by a minority partner in a coalition over a decade ago. I go coalition over a decade ago. I go to universities and do speeches where some of the students were not even born when these things happen.

even born when these things happen. Extraordinary, you know, after the same old said, we need a serious

**** Possible New Speaker ****

plan to reverse the damage we welcomed. Of course. I Mike Martin. I thank him for giving way. I'd

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for giving way. I'd just like to draw. I mean, we do. They want to hear this. No, no. Well, well, they're going to hear it anyway, aren't they? All of them it anyway, aren't they? All of them are going to hear it anyway. Just.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are going to hear it anyway. Just. We need less noise in the chamber.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Will you? Do not. So one would expect on an opposition day, Madam Deputy Speaker, that His Majesty's loyal opposition would put together a opposition would put together a cohesive critique of government defence policy. Instead, what we have is a shopping list, a Christmas tree that is effectively Christmas tree that is effectively a list that is effectively a list of the pet projects of various members of the Conservative Party.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Like the nuclear deterrent. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We welcome the government's efforts to try to begin that work last year with its commitment to increasing defence spending to 2.6% of GDP. But the government's persistent But the government's persistent failure to publish the defence investment plan is inexcusable. Oh promised last summer the plan was promised last summer the plan was meant to turn the strategic defence review into warmth and warm words into hard action. We've been into hard action.

We've been waiting for almost a year. All the time Ministers have been working flat out, we're told, which must be exhausting, and that delay matters because at the very moment Europe is re-arming, Britain is hesitating and hesitation sends signals, signals to our armed forces, signals to industry, signals to our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

allies and to our adversaries. That hesitation. Certainly. Thank you. For giving way. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that one immediate action the government could take to reverse some of the damage the Conservatives did to our damage the Conservatives did to our armed forces, is reversing the conservative decision to shut down Winchester's Army Training Regiment, Winchester's Army Training Regiment, which trains 20% of our troops, and there's no replacement for that facility open in the next few years.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

facility open in the next few years. That decision needs to be reversed. Thank my hon. Friend, and I hope that Ministers have heard his comment and will perhaps review that decision in future. Reducing certainty for British defence companies is not what we need to be doing right now, and that's why we need a defence investment plan. We're eroding our sovereign capability, weakening supply chains, putting skilled jobs at risk and ultimately undermining our national security. There must be no more hesitation and no more delay.

So will the Minister commit to publishing the defence investment plan before the end of this parliamentary session? The Minister should need no reminding of the need for urgency, given the collection of threats we face. Trump has cast doubt on NATO's Article five and trampled on international law with illegal attacks in Venezuela and Iran attacks, the Conservatives and reform have backed uncritically. President Trump certainly thank my hon. Friend for giving way. President Trump recently derided the UK as cowards for not joining his directionless operation in Iraq.

Pretty hollow statement for a draft Dodger who understands neither courage nor calculation. Regardless, does the hon. Member agree with me that based on comments from the leader of the Conservative Party just a month ago, under a conservative government, we would now be engaged in offensive operations in a war for which there seems to be no plan. And without the preparedness that this motion calls for.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. I thank my hon. And gallant friend for his intervention. And yes, it's extremely hard to derive what exactly the Conservative Party would be doing. God forbid they were in government right now. But I were in government right now. But I think inconsistency is definitely the name of the game. Meanwhile, Putin prosecutes his barbaric war Putin prosecutes his barbaric war in Ukraine, harbours wider ambitions beyond it and expands his campaign of sabotage across Europe. And here's what makes Britain's position even more precarious.

At this very moment. We're committed to acquiring F-35 jets capable of carrying nuclear weapons. However, they are only equipped to carry American gravity bombs that would require sign off from the US president to use at a time when we cannot trust the White House with deepening our dependence on it. Britain should be strengthening sovereign capability, not locking ourselves into systems which could be denied to us by presidential whim. Trump and Putin want to turn

**** Possible New Speaker ****

world politics into a system where might is right. It's a world. Certainly. I'm grateful to the Liberal

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the Liberal Democrat spokesman for giving way. I think he's warming up to his leader's new Doctor Strange love plot to have his own independent nuclear weapon. Could you just tell us how much could you just tell us how much that's going to cost the UK? Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

UK? Yeah. I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I wasn't actually I was about to talk about something different, but the question is a good one. I find it very disappointing that the Conservative Party has so little, so little faith in the ingenuity and industry of this country to produce its own independent deterrent. This is a multi-decade project. We understand that the Conservatives do not grasp fiscal responsibility, as we saw by the state, that they left our economy in.

But a multi-decade project requires a serious commitment. In the short term, we should be looking to bring servicing and maintenance of the missiles into the UK to reduce our reliance on UK. Furthermore, we developed the capability. I know, I understand, I understand the Conservatives don't like investing in Britain's skills, but we can develop the skills and I have complete confidence we could do so. The defining challenge for our nation then, is how to meet the unprecedented threat posed by an imperial Kremlin and an unreliable White House.

It requires thinking about defence in a new way, because to stand up for our values we cherish, we must be strong enough to defend them. And that means, at its core, re-arming Britain. But meeting this challenge requires more than military hardware. It means a whole of society approach to national resilience. That means energy security, investing in renewables so that we're not dependent on fossil fuels from the very dictators we are standing up to. The Conservatives plan to raid investment in renewable energy investment undermines one element of UK security.

For another, it's robbing Peter to pay Paul. It means food security to biodiversity underpins our ability to feed ourselves. Declining ecosystems mean declining food production, and that is national security risk we ignore at our peril. And it means the Defence Readiness Bill, currently held up by the government's own delays on the defence investment plan. We cannot afford this drift. There can be no delay in beginning that work. That is why Liberal Democrats have argued that the defence investment plan must be accompanied by an immediate cash injection to support vital capital investment in our forces.

We have detailed what this program could look like, raising 20 billion in defence bonds over two years. This would be a fixed term issuance. I'm pleased that they're so excited about it. Perhaps they've come around to it at last. It would be a fixed term issuance legally hypothecated to capital defence spending. The program would be secure way for people to invest in their savings, while helping to strengthen Britain's national

**** Possible New Speaker ****

defence. My apologies. Al Carns. Thank you very much for allowing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much for allowing the intervention. The. I cannot describe the laughing and bickering going on when we have troops in going on when we have troops in harm's way, there's a level of seriousness, whether it be the nuclear deterrent, whether it be nuclear deterrent, whether it be through all the way through to investment opportunities, mistakes made. But we have troops in the in made. But we have troops in the in harm's way, I think, and I ask to provide an element of seriousness to the debate.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The. I thank the Minister for his intervention, a chance to back our armed forces, a chance to back our security and a chance to back Britain. We know that properly funding our nation's security is critical to meet the threats of critical to meet the threats of this new and unprecedented era, and we also need to ensure that defence funding can generate wider growth funding can generate wider growth in our economy. That is exactly what these bonds would deliver, supporting jobs and an expansion of supporting jobs and an expansion of our defence industrial base across Britain.

Don't just take my word for it. We need to listen to the voice of British industry, academics and financial institutions. In its September 2025 green Budget, the Institute for growth was clear. Borrowing for defence can lead to higher growth, particularly when the additional defence spending is investment heavy. We need to recognise two that long term regeneration of our armed forces will require even higher and sustained increases to defence spending up to 3%. We have called on the government to commit to cross-party talks, to agree a shared approach to achieve that, and I hope the Minister will be open minded about those talks.

We must look to secure and expand the UK's involvement with financial institutes that are offering cheap and new access to defence finance. That is why the government must re-examine the negotiations to enter the safe fund, and I hope the Prime Minister will take a direct role in getting British access to that. So can the Minister update us on negotiations for access to the safe fund? safe.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Fund just one more time, then I'll wrap up. Thank you very much for giving way. Given the virulence of threats and chastisement from of threats and chastisement from Washington towards European allies, including the UK, and further, given the UK's lack of access to the EU Safe Fund which would the EU Safe Fund which would otherwise support our rearmament, does the honourable. Does my hon. Friend recognise that leaving the Friend recognise that leaving the European Union was a historic mistake which has gravely undermined UK sovereignty?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very. I do agree with that, and the Safe Fund is a good illustration of what it means to be outside the club. Madam Deputy Speaker, the Conservatives hollowed out our armed forces for a decade. Now they want struggling families to pay for the repairs. What we need is a serious plan. Publisher Defence Investment Plan back it with defence bonds and commit to 3% of GDP by 2030. Our armed forces have been let down for too long by conservative cuts, by government delays, and by a failure of political will.

They deserve better. much.
17:11
Brian Leishman Portrait Brian Leishman MP (Alloa and Grangemouth, Labour)
-
-
Madam Deputy Speaker. In January, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists moved to doomed. >> Forgive me. I was slightly distracted. We are now on speaking

**** Possible New Speaker ****

distracted. We are now on speaking Leishman. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. It will be a tough enough lesson for many in this enough lesson for many in this chamber to hear it just at once. I don't need to do it three times. As I said, in January, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists moved the Doomsday Clock forward. We are currently sitting at 85 seconds to midnight. That is the closest the world has ever been to ending. We live in a time of great political turmoil that we are all certain.

But this debate has been going on for decades. Ramp up defence spending, make cuts to public services to do it. And the suggestion today of reinstating the two child benefit cap so that we can have more bombs and weapons is against everything that I believe in because we have seen austerity that has created immiseration and poverty up and down the United Kingdom. Then we had a pandemic with an explosion in wealth inequality and now a cost of living crisis that has taken hold to the extent that most of the public think it will never end.

All of this means deteriorating living standards. The social fabric of our country has been ripped apart. This is life in the world's sixth largest economy. Now, of course, pursuing economic growth and improving people's living standards are the right thing to do. But thinking that militarism is the way to achieve it is at best misguided, and at worst it will further jeopardise global security. And it makes little economic sense because military spending has one of the lowest employment multipliers of all economic categories, 70th out of 100.

In terms of the employment, it generates energy, agriculture and food, chemicals, iron and steel construction all have far greater employment multipliers than military spending. For example, health is two and a half times more efficient than military spending for job creation, and British military spending supports less than 1% of the UK workforce. So let's not kid each other on. It won't be working class communities that benefit. It will be weapons manufacturers. Defence is neither a UK wide industry, nor does it massively help small or medium sized businesses, as they only secure approximately 5% of all orders.

Ministry of defence figures highlight that defence employment is densely concentrated in specific geographical pockets of the country, instead of bombs and weapons. And talking about a defence dividend, what about what Tony Benn called a peace dividend? But that's all about making political choices.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Over breakfast. The hon. Gentleman, does he believe there's any military threat

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to this country from abroad? Thank you very much, hon. Gentleman, for his intervention. Gentleman, for his intervention. Yes, I do, but when I look at the threats that we face in this country, I have got an inbox full of constituents that are saying that they have to make the incredible decision whether to feed their family or put their heating their family or put their heating on. That is actually killing people. I appreciate what you say about I appreciate what the right hon.

Gentleman said about perceived threats, but that the actual threats that I'm dealing with in my inbox, as I say, there is a choice to either build hospitals to save lives, schools to educate our children, upgrade infrastructure. And we all know that local authorities most definitely need that, as they also need investment in public services. These are the things that really will improve people's living standards up and down the United Kingdom. I go.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker powerful speech. Whatever side one takes, the argument is side one takes, the argument is presenting to us. Would you agree with me that in the unlikely event with me that in the unlikely event of Scottish independence being achieved, two things would happen. achieved, two things would happen. Firstly, that Scotland, forming its own navy would have the greatest difficulty defending those strategic assets to which I strategic assets to which I referred to in an earlier intervention, and secondly, that an independent Scottish Government would have the most hideous choices to make, exactly along the lines of the hon.

Gentleman presenting between armaments or between badly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

needed hospitals and other social investments. Thank you. Very much to the hon. Gentleman

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very much to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He focuses on the constitutional question that is such a huge part of Scottish and UK such a huge part of Scottish and UK politics now. I honestly have no issue with people that voted yes. I have no people issue with people that voted no. The politics that I try to bring to this place is not based on nationalism versus unionism. It's about class, which I think is the overriding political force in this country.

And it has been for centuries, regardless of whether that's north of the border or south. As I said, the other choice, as I mentioned, what I would want, the other choice is to spend tens of billions of pounds on military hardware. With that money inevitably flowing to private capital and corporate shareholders. And for me, that will just only serve to create even more inequality. For me, it's very much a either or do we build or do we destroy? And I feel that workers and communities, certainly in my constituency and Alloa and Grangemouth, they need the former, not the latter.

It is my opinion that militarism will not make the UK a more equal country, or indeed the world, a safer place, because I fear that the way that we are going and when we look at geopolitical forces in January next year that the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists will move the second hand closer to midnight once again.
17:18
Bernard Jenkin Portrait Sir Bernard Jenkin MP (Harwich and North Essex, Conservative)
-
-
Sir Bernard Jenkin. >> Sir Bernard Jenkin. >> Thank you very much. >> Madam Deputy Speaker. I listened

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker. I listened to the right hon. Gentleman, the Minister's opening remarks with Minister's opening remarks with great care and many of the things he says, he says with great sincerity, but some of the things he's saying, I don't believe he quite so fervently believes. And I would just ask him to reflect, being the honourable and gallant gentleman that he is to to criticise those who are criticising government policy on the basis of how dare you? And I quote this inverted commas Madam Deputy Speaker.

How dare you criticise the government at such a serious time? Kind of reflects the same kind of attack which was made by supporters of Neville Chamberlain against Winston Churchill and his supporters. Even as late as 1939 1940, when, as they went through the division lobbies in May 1940, they taunted those coming through, voting against the adjournment of the House Quislings they said Quislings and to implicitly brand my right hon. Friend, the Leader of the Opposition, as some kind of warmonger who's out of control, which is what they're basically saying, reflects exactly the gibe thrown at Winston Churchill, that he loved war so much.

He wasn't objective and. But yet he was the one who appreciated the dire emergency of the situation being faced, even as the British Expeditionary Force was losing in France and the Norway campaign was proving such a disaster. And the other thing about the two child benefit cap, I appreciate that it's perhaps obligatory to say these things for the satisfaction of many of his backbenchers, but we are now spending so much on welfare and so little on defence. Maybe these two problems have something to do with each other and the fact that, for example, if we could just spend the same on in-work benefits for people of working age who are out of work or in work, as we were spending before Covid, we could save £50 billion a year.

Yeah, but that doesn't seem to matter to the government at all. He talked about, I'm sure, with great sincerity, how important it is to have a system that works for them. I think I'm quoting his work, his very words, that we need a social system in this country that works for the poorest people in our society. Well, the system over which the government is presiding is failing. We have we now have a rising and terrifying number of young people who are not in education, employment, training or training.

The so-called NEETs, and even those operating on the front line of food banks. And I visited a food bank very recently. Understand that if you keep indexing the benefits with inflation, but you don't index the tax allowances that so that people pay more tax at lower rates of pay, and that you also increase benefits like removing the two child benefit cap. And you don't uprate the tapers to protect the better off who are receiving Universal Credit, you create a disincentive to work.

And when I first visited food banks, which I think was under Tony Blair's government, they weren't an origin of the Conservatives. There used to be a tiny number of people who were sort of permanent beneficiaries of food banks. The vast majority were in a state of transition, and that persisted really, until quite recently. The food bank I visited at the at the weekend, 80% are now permanent clients because they say there is no point in them trying to take work.

It doesn't pay. So the system is not working for them because we're spending too much on welfare and we haven't cut taxes enough. And so the next question really is, are we at peace or at war? And much of the discussion in the liaison committee was about that. And I can't find a Minister who denies that we aren't at war, and I'm afraid it makes it rather redundant, this question as to whether we choose to get involved. We We can't involved.

Our sovereign territory is being attacked, and indeed we've been involved in a war against the. In defence of Western. The Western NATO and Ukraine since, well, probably since going back as far as the original invasion of Georgia and Abkhazia, because the regime, the Putin regime's nature had become apparent by then. And they are conducting they are quite explicit, Lavrov said he's at war with NATO, that Russia is at war with NATO. So that war is already here. And what kind of war is it? Well, it reflects all kinds of conflict, hybrid conflict, which has often been discussed but is of such varied nature and what one might call cognitive conflict, the capacity of and and determination of Russia and China and probably Iran to interfere in our not just interfere in our democratic processes, but to corrupt the truth and their.

This. This is aimed at reshaping the societal and economic and informational environment and to undermine people's faith in democracy and democratic values and to destroy the faith of of our voters in our democratic system. And the question is now, what are we doing to fight back? Well, what are we doing to fight back? I know that in bits of government, many parts of government, small parts of government are at war. There are some wonderful people in the Ministry of Defence who are sweating the night hours to do things which are of crucial importance, but I will give way

**** Possible New Speaker ****

very briefly. Yes, I'm grateful to my hon. Friend. I am concerned about one problem

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am concerned about one problem that may arise. We've now got to a stage where the government has given permission for the Americans given permission for the Americans to strike back against, for example, missile batteries launching at missile batteries launching at targets which might include our own bases. I'm not clear what would bases. I'm not clear what would happen, and I hope it never has to come to this, that if our bases are successfully attacked and damaged, whether the government is still saying only the Americans should retaliate against those batteries, or whether the RAF should have a role as well.

I'm not anxious to escalate, but I don't see where the logic lies in America being able to retaliate when our own armed forces can't, for an attack that successfully damages one of our own bases.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, the fact is that the whole of the deterrent stance of all the NATO nations, I won't say NATO nations, I won't say hopelessly dependent, but is very substantially dependent upon the goodwill that the United States goodwill that the United States shows towards us. And that was the basis on which the SDR was written. basis on which the SDR was written. George Robertson has said in public that Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, the noble Lord, has said in public that one of the constraints of writing the defence review was to assume that the United States is our closest ally and can be relied upon.

Whether that's true or not, in the future, we don't know. And some of the things that have happened has very much shaken our faith in that. But the idea that the government should take this moment, this very moment when we're begging for American support in Ukraine to hold back the tide of possible Russian aggression across the whole European front, that we should choose this moment to further alienate President Trump from the from NATO seems to me like a bit of a tactical error, because it would have been better.

And again, go back to the Second World War. Anthony Eden, the Foreign Secretary, complained to Winston Churchill that the United Kingdom didn't seem to have an independent foreign policy. And Churchill said, no, we don't. We've got to do what the Americans will want us to do in order to get them to come back into get them to come into the war. I'm afraid we're not in a great position of strength to dictate to the Americans what we should do. And pontificating about their moral judgements or their interpretation of international law seems to me totally counterproductive of the security of the United Kingdom and our European allies.

So I take my point. My we need a deterrent stance to pick up my. Right hon. My hon. Friend's point but what is the government's response? Well, we're waiting for a plan. We're waiting for a plan. And that plan is taking a long time coming that drones that's transformed in the last few months. But the government hasn't kept up with the change. We're

**** Possible New Speaker ****

still waiting for a plan. It's not enough. Doctor Jeevun Sandher.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Doctor Jeevun Sandher. Madam Deputy Speaker I'm going to start with something unusual in these kind of debates. Just by these kind of debates. Just by agreeing with the opposition. I agree that we need to spend more on agree that we need to spend more on defence. I agree that we are in a once in a century moment where the safety and security of our nation safety and security of our nation is fundamentally at risk. And I agree that the only way to prevent war is to prepare for one.

And now, before my whip has a heart attack, I'll start out where I disagree with the opposition to take their point seriously about how to pay
17:29
Jeevun Sandher Portrait Dr Jeevun Sandher MP (Loughborough, Labour)
-
-
for this and make this nation weaker and more divided. And on top of that, it's so narrow, as if the of that, it's so narrow, as if the only thing we have to do to prepare for war is to spend more money, and not how we're spending or scaling not how we're spending or scaling up. Let's start with the weakness to end the two child limit, to put to end the two child limit, to put it back into place. To have children go hungry makes our nation children go hungry makes our nation weaker.

How could we possibly say to the people whose sons and daughters would go out to fight that today will let them go hungry? That would take money from them? And I would say to the members opposite as well who spoke about needs, we should remember that 60% of those children who are affected are those who are in working families. But beyond that, and more than that, no ifs, no buts, no exceptions, no charge should be going hungry in this country.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. How can we expect them to have a stake in our nation if we do not have a stake in them? And when? Where record numbers cannot afford a decent life, what does it lead to? Fear, frustration, fury. But more than that, division and a divided than that, division and a divided nation cannot take and cannot meet this moment. And then on energy, the party opposite wants to make us more dependent upon fossil fuels supplied by dictators like Putin and more dependent on the Middle East.

That would make us weaker. And in the 14 years and in the 14 years they had all the licenses, they granted how many days of gas, 36 days. The North Sea is a declining basis. It will not give

**** Possible New Speaker ****

us security. I'll give way here. First. I'm grateful to the hon. Member for giving way on the two child for giving way on the two child benefit cap. Does he remember the points he was making there? Seems points he was making there? Seems like he's forgotten that a year ago, his own party suspended seven of his own party suspended seven of its own backbenchers for voting, with an SNP proposal to lift the with an SNP proposal to lift the two child benefit caps.

So could he explain if he's going to be quite so forthright in his criticism of us, how his own government has done such a volte face in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

intervening 12 months? Very good. Well done. I'm proud of this government for ending the two child limit, and I'm ending the two child limit, and I'm proud of the previous Labour government that halved child poverty in this country. And I'll poverty in this country. And I'll say this to members opposite too. If members opposite truly believed that we're putting back the two that we're putting back the two child limit or ending expenditure on net zero would fund the military, why didn't they do it for 14 years? why didn't they do it for 14 years? 14 years? You had to prepare, and in 2022 it was clearer we would get

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to and there was nothing on that side. Members opposite. Rather, I do apologise. On that point.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On that point. Yes, of course. I'm following him. With. A great deal of interest. Is he. Able to name.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Able to name. A single major. Western economy that after 1989. Did not.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Did not. Take a peace dividend. To the hon. Member, I will say

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To the hon. Member, I will say this it perfectly makes sense that you reduce expenditure after the Cold War. I know I do take the point, but let's be clear the world also changed in 2022. The things that we depended upon for our safety, sacrosanct borders, and in course our force of NATO was not funded enough. And if we truly were to prepare for war, that was the moment to start. And I agree that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we have to do more. I'll give way here. First. I thank the Member for giving way. Could you just explain where way. Could you just explain where we sat in the standings for NATO defence spending in 2022 and where

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we stand today? My point is not what we stand in the defence standings. My point the defence standings. My point today is about what we need to do to prepare for war in order to prevent it, but going on to the prevent it, but going on to the things that we do agree upon, and I think it is worth saying what we do agree upon, because we shouldn't disagree across this House about this fundamental thing, that the first and fundamental duty of this government, of any government, is to keep us safe at this moment in time.

I want to talk a little about what that actually means, because we focus a lot about the percentage of GDP. But defence economic strategy means far, far more than that. It is the fundamental question of how you produce more fighting forces, more munitions, more drones, more soldiers. And clearly at this time it is changing at this moment, at a pre-war situation. We have to decide what that means. It does mean having production lines available, but crucially, a supply chain of especially drones.

As the innovation cycle is moving so quickly, it means being able to secure crucial input like steel. And it means training the kind of welders and engineers that we need if we need it at that moment. But most crucially, it means the ability to scale up, because if we are going to prevent war, we have to show that we are prepared for it. So it's not just about spending 3% or 4% or 5% of GDP. Although I do take the point, it's about showing Putin and any other adversary that we could get up to 10 to 20% and use that effectively.

And what I would say about our defence economic strategy is that it is a fundamentally different economic problem. It is not just about maximising production as we do now. It is about ensuring we produce the most fighting forces possible. It is a type of economics that we are unused to in this nation. It means firstly, capital control to ensure investments going in the right place. It means rationing. So you have the investment that you need, and it means ensuring that you can actually prepare to fight the war that you're facing.

A defence economic strategy goes far beyond the amount that you're spending on defence, and I would expect that the Treasury and this government and this number ten, who take the defence country seriously to be preparing for that right now. Of course they do, because this is the first and fundamental duty of any single government. We do stand here today, a century on, from people who did fail on these benches. In fact, we stand in a chamber that stands as a testament to their failure because they didn't prepare for war, because we did end up in war in Europe, because we saw this chamber get bombed and had to be rebuilt.

That failure should live with us, should shock us, and we should look at it in the morning, look at it in the mirror every single morning. I want to share a story. I have a friend who who serves in the army, and I saw him for dinner not too long ago. And he said to me, Jeevan, here's the thing, because I've got a Land Rover that's 30 years old. That was in the Gulf War, in Bosnia, in the Baltics. And all I want is a Range Rover that can drive.

Now, this government will absolutely ensure that we overcome all the past investment failures to ensure our forces have what they need. And this country has what we need to defend ourselves. That's what matters to us now. And I know too as well. And I'll say this to members opposite, we do have to have the courage to face this moment, to look forward. I could criticise them all day and I've done it before. I'll do it again, probably, but we do have to have the courage to face this moment, to look in the mirror and know where we sit.

At a moment. We must prepare for war in order to prevent it. History will judge us for this moment, and we should always bear

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that in mind. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I call Stuart Anderson on.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I call Stuart Anderson on. Immediate six minute time limit. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It's a pleasure to. Follow the hon. Member, and I don't think I've heard anybody call for 20% of heard anybody call for 20% of spending on defence, but I do like that. I'm not sure how we'll keep that. I'm not sure how we'll keep the two child cap on 20% of spending, but it was a very good speech, and I want to sort of set out a few key points that what we're looking at of where the world
17:37
Stuart Anderson Portrait Stuart Anderson MP (South Shropshire, Conservative)
-
-
is today, where we've been and what we need to do to deal with that threat. And I believe, and I've mentioned many times and probably colleagues are getting sick of me saying it, there is a challenge to the world order, the life or the the world order, the life or the world as we've seen it. I don't believe there's anybody alive that has experienced such a significant change in a place where we're at the ultimate volatility. And if we look at things like the Berlin Wall look at things like the Berlin Wall fall of the Berlin Wall, 911, the current position of the US government, of what they've done with Venezuela, the discussions around what was said about Greenland, the attack on Iran, where we are at the moment, everything is completely thrown in the air.

Many people are expecting this to fall back and life to continue where it is. But there is a there is a challenge for the world order between China and the US, and there is a commodities race over oil, rare earth, metals. How do we get global supply chains working and moving forward? And things like rare earth metals are not actually rare. It can take 15 to 17 years to get them out of the ground when you find them in there. And most of the things wearables, electronics that we have on us require these rare earth metals.

So at the moment when around about 90% is processed or controlled by China, there is a huge push for this. And I know the US are moving to change that, as is our policy to look to shift around that. But when the with the AI race, whoever wins this. When AI and quantum come together, some of the defence technologies that we're looking from drone warfare, autonomous, it will take such a huge leap forward. If we don't get this stage right, we will be so far behind.

And if you look at the Second World War is who could produce the most tanks, who could produce the most US planes at a time on scale and have the troops out? Obviously, with the right strategy now, technology can shift the dial exceptionally fast. And I know the the Minister has spoke about the drone passion, autonomy and things like that, and that is the right direction of where we need to look. It's not either or. There is a whole plethora of what we need to do.

The Defence Investment Plan unlocks that next phase of where we go. And in in government, I'll put this clear. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

call, I will do. I don't think it's fully appreciated by many people in the appreciated by many people in the House. How absolutely, utterly profound the drones revolution is profound the drones revolution is for for Ukraine, it means that they don't have to mass troops to defend in that way that they did. They mass drones. And if we want to defend NATO and we want to defend defend NATO and we want to defend London, we want to defend our criteria, we need to be able to mass very cheap drones to provide that mass in order that we get that protection and deterrent capability, so that the option of pushing large numbers of troops over a NATO frontier at some stage is not available to Russia.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the right hon. Member for his point, and it's very for his point, and it's very important warfare and how this is fought. We're seeing as it's played out in the Middle East at the out in the Middle East at the moment, it is catching people by surprise and we've got to be prepared. We've stood with our head prepared. We've stood with our head and shoulders high on the world stage, and I want to see that we can continue to do that, and I want to throw some numbers out of where we've been.

We always talk about the great British Army, the best army of its size. It has always been. And if you take in 1981, we had 333,000 troops, 97 went down to 2000 210,000. 2010 is 174,000. We're currently around about 138,000. So that just puts the size with the use of technology. It's not just about mass, although I would always be happy to have a larger military, but we need to make sure that we're able to work in the changing environment and have the operations to do that.

The world is changing as we know it, and we must pick that up very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

quickly. Thank you for giving way. Does he agree with. Me that one of the ways of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Me that one of the ways of responding to a crisis and delivering mass quickly would be to scale up the reserves this Parliament, and does he find it surprising that I, I do that the surprising that I, I do that the relatively small cost in a £60 billion Budget of scaling up the reserves, much more would help

**** Possible New Speaker ****

deliver some of that response? Yeah. I definitely do. And I've had the reserves deployed with me when I've been in operations. They were a great asset, and I think scaling up the reserves is vital. We have the article three NATO commitment, and we need to ensure that we can fulfil that. And it's not just about the reserve staying here, the regulars going to fight overseas. The integration is is key and I'll be keen to see that. But when we look about how the rearming of the world has changed, if we take the illegal invasion of Russia into Ukraine, the world sat up.

We were currently at that stage on 2.1% of defence spending. Now, I'll be clear, as soon as I was elected with hon. Members in this House crossbench, I called for 3% all the way through. When we're in government, we. I felt that 3% in the last government was not even enough, and I said that in government all the way through the Defence Committee were united. We even did procurement reports right the way through of 20, 30 years of procurement failing. So these are not I'm not just saying this for a point now.

I still believe if we are not at least on 3% of GDP defence spending today, we do not have the ability to put the plan in place on the scale we need. So as that move forward, we went in 2021 two. Now we've gone from 2.1 to 2.4%. But the problem is the NATO average is currently 2.76%. And we've gone from roughly third round, about third highest defence spender of percent of GDP to ninth or 12th, depending on which table you look at in that short space of time.

So it's it's good that the government says we have made the biggest increase since the Cold War. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, we need to look at what it was like post-war. We are not moving as fast as all the other peer nations. We've had a great start before and that has now started to to deplete over decades of a peace dividend. We need to seriously take this at the urgent priority and invest on the scale that we need to.

So I believe the current impact, the delay on the dip is actually having an impact. And I know if Ministers on the other side, if they had a choice, they would have the dip here today. We have to get this right. And it has gone past timelines, all expectation where it was expected to be produced. I have spoken to so many industry that are screaming out for it. I have spoken to so many serving personnel that are screaming out for it.

I struggled to find anybody that thinks we have this time. So if the Minister will seriously take away the importance of the dip being produced to allow, and I'm positive that you want that there. Sorry, the Minister wants that there today to unlock this next phase. And there are many things where we'd have a consensus in this House of how we move forward and prepare this country for war. We are losing standing on the world stage with our current capability that has gone on 30 years of underinvestment.

We do not have the ability today to project power on the scale that we saw ten, 20, 30 years ago. Yeah, I do.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank the honourable and. Gallant gentleman for giving way. And can I thank him for what I And can I thank him for what I perceive as a very constructive speech, and one that he's genuinely trying to support the Minister with. And I promise I won't mention And I promise I won't mention Cheltenham markets to him. I wondered if he could touch. He talks about our power. I've recently visited Estonia as part of recently visited Estonia as part of the Education Select Committee.

Would you recognise that? Part of our power is how we work with our our power is how we work with our allies like Estonia and also that soft power? I'm looking at the Member for New Forest and his his passion for the World Service and the World Service. We agree that that's an important part of the overall defence strategy, which is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

defence. Yeah, the hon. Member is right on that, how we work with our partners. But we have to invest and have a clear plan to keep our head held high on the world stage, and I'll finish on this point. The dip has been told that is working at has been told that is working at pace. Now I'm somebody that knows about pace better than probably anybody in this House. I was proud anybody in this House. I was proud to be a member of the Royal Green Jackets that had the fastest pace in the British Army, 140 paces per minute, and the double off was 180 unmatched by any regiment in the scruffy and unmatched by any regiment of the British Army.

We need this pace to be delivered. We need the Defence Investment Plan to come forward now and unlock this next phase of what is best for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

British people here. Michelle Scrogham thank you. Madam Deputy. Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaker. And I think. I should. Note, first of all that for all of the the chatter outside of this of the the chatter outside of this chamber on defence, there isn't a on.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on. These benches utterly incapable of having a serious conversation of having a serious conversation when it comes to defence, I'd like to start by congratulating the shadow Defence team. I didn't believe it was actually possible to reduce their credibility on defence any further, but they've managed to lower the bar once again and slither under it when we're talking about how we would pay for all of
17:47
Michelle Scrogham Portrait Michelle Scrogham MP (Barrow and Furness, Labour)
-
-
all of the defence to suggest that we should scrap the two child benefit limit and pay for it that benefit limit and pay for it that way shows such a lack of understanding of what is happening understanding of what is happening in society under their government for 14 years, that the people living at the poorest edges, they living at the poorest edges, they are working, those people on benefits are working and still couldn't pay the bills to feed their families and put the heating on.

What does that tell you about the opposite benches when they don't actually understand working people, they assume that anybody receiving a benefit is a scrounger or that they're not wanting to work. I won't, I I'm, I'm sorry, I won't give way because I've heard so much from the opposition on this. It's absolutely outrageous. The shadow Defence Minister was defence procurement Minister. That left 47 out of 49 programs not on time and not on Budget. The Tory legacy on procurement program that was overcommitted, underfunded and unsuited to the threats that we now face.

They cut the frigates and destroyers by 25%. They cut mine hunters by more than 50%. And the pearl clutching that they talk about when they were discussing where HMS Dragon was. Well, we know why HMS Dragon was in in dock. It was there because it was actually under maintenance. And the reason we couldn't send any was because that was the only one that we'd built under the Labour government, and they hadn't bothered to build any more under their terms. No, we've heard we've heard quite enough.

Not quite enough. I'm astonished at the brass neck from shadow Ministers. No, honestly, I won't be I won't be taking interventions because there's lots more people who would like to contribute to this debate that haven't had a chance to speak and get their full time, because it's been taken up. So, so feel feel free to mutter from the other side, perhaps use the ears that are painted on instead of flapping the lips. I'm astonished at the brass neck from the shadow Ministers criticising our readiness when it was their government that slashed 12 billion from defence in their first term, and continued that trend throughout their sorry record of 14 years, slashing spending on counter-drone systems by 70% in their last year in office.

Few MPs on these benches will feel the cost to their communities as keenly as I do in Barrow and Furness. Because of the chaos and the choices made by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrat coalition, the opposition benches are filled with those that are responsible for wreaking carnage on the communities I grew up in, the price of the coalition was to delay the nuclear deterrent. The cost to my community was economic devastation. 10,000 families with the main breadwinner out of work, 10,000 skilled workers losing their livelihood, and an industry that is struggling to recover.

To this day, nuclear welders take 15 years to train and achieve the level of experience. We need to build those boats. But they threw them away like a spoilt child with a toy who expects it to be there when they want to come back to it. Yeah. Critics at the time said that delaying the replacement for Trident would cost the taxpayer more in the long run, as it risks losing skills and would increase the cost of repairing existing Vanguard submarines, which would have to last for longer.

MPs at the time said that they didn't think the delay would happen, because that would be the maddest decision to take. And yet they did. Those critics forgot to mention the impact on our incredible submariners, who are spending over 200 days at sea on Vanguard as we stretch that capability beyond its limit. Had it not been for their recklessness, dreadnought would be in service now, after 14 years of hollowing out our defence capabilities, they have the nerve to come here today and attempt to blame this government, this government that has increased defence spending to its highest sustainable level since the Cold War, this government that's investing in our armed forces to give them the largest pay rise in two decades.

And the Hormuz, they deserve to turn around the recruitment crisis we inherited from the Tories. This Labour government is once again cleaning up the mess left behind by those on the opposite benches. We don't get to decide when other countries attack. We can never predict instability around the world, but what we can predict is that history always repeats itself. We can never take peace for granted. But this Labour government is delivering on the defence. Where the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Conservatives failed. Sir Alec Shelbrooke. Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker. And it's a bit of a pity, isn't it, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we seem to be not recognising what is actually going on today. It would probably help if it was recognised probably help if it was recognised that defence spending was cut from the end of the Cold War to 2022, the end of the Cold War to 2022, when the whole of the NATO alliance suddenly woke up to what the threat had become. One of the best speeches I've heard today, sorry to some of my colleagues, is from the hon.

Member for Alloa and Grangemouth, because he's had the honesty to stand up and point out
17:52
Alec Shelbrooke Portrait Rt Hon Sir Alec Shelbrooke MP (Wetherby and Easingwold, Conservative)
-
-
what the choices are. Now. I disagree with him in what he said, but he has made an honest speech in but he has made an honest speech in that if there has to be an increase in defence spending, it has to be funded. Now, I believe that if you funded. Now, I believe that if you want if you want peace, you've got to be ready for war. And I'm afraid we are now in war and things have we are now in war and things have to change.

I was in the United States last week. My role in the States last week. My role in the NATO parliamentary Assembly, and there are several concerns that we should bring back from that, not least that the American commitment to NATO is then always predicated on, which is why we need you to spend 5%. And so there's that little bit of wiggle room, which is going to say, well, if you're not going to spend that, then we can't defend you anymore. And perhaps even more worrying than that.

And this is where some of the dots need to be connected. Is that one of the think tanks we were at made it clear that the Democrats, who probably will take the House in the midterm elections, will use the lever that they have to control the amount of money that can go to the White House, to the commander in chief. He can direct troops, but Congress has to fund it, and they're going to say no. And the consequence of that is, is that the president will say, well, I've already got assets, I've already got money, so I'll use those, which is in Europe.

So this should bring into sharp focus the threat that the defence of Europe faces, because what you are now picking up in many of these debates is what my hon. Friend for South Shropshire said is article three. And a lot of people overlooked article three for a very, very long time. Article five was never about the United States guaranteeing European security. It was about making sure we all acted as one. But article three obviously comes from article five and said, you must be able to defend your borders for three weeks.

There's very few European nations can do that, and I wanted to touch on safe security action for Europe, which is, I'm afraid to say, becoming a single market issue and protecting the borders of the single market rather than protecting the borders of Europe. And I'm afraid we really have to stand back and say, do we think the single market would exist if the borders of Europe don't exist? We need to wake up and realise what's going on. In the Czech Republic, we were given this example.

There is a company that makes drones. 25% of the materials used to build those drones comes from Canada. The AI to run those drones makes up 20% of the spend and comes from the USA under safe. Both would be shut out because they're not willing to pay into the Budget just to have access, and that will set it back. But we should be more concerned about the fact that the NATO industrial base does not have the ability to deliver on what it needs.

The Americans themselves said they $135 billion of exported arms last year, $160 billion of domestic arms manufactured last year didn't even scratch the surface. But what the Americans are good at and what we have not been able to deliver in this country ever, quite frankly, is the diversification into small and medium enterprises. And it was recognised that in terms of the speed at which we need to develop in a rapidly changing world, that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the big Companies don't really have the flexibility to be able to do that. And we visited a company in Nevada who are making energy focussed weapons, or as we may call it, lasers, which are being used to lasers, which are being used to knock out of the sky the ballistic missiles coming. And I've got very little time and I could expand on so many more areas, but we cannot fight the last war. We are pretty much used up all of our munitions and weaponry in Ukraine.

And the Russians know exactly how that weaponry and munitions works. They know exactly how to defeat that. We cannot just restock in what we've used before. We have to be able to develop, and that means we need to be light on our feet. Now, to be fair, in Germany, in Bavaria, they're making drone factories, which aren't just producing drones but can react quickly to the changing drones. But there is a whole aspect, you know, to be fair to the Minister, he outlined some of the things that need to be developed in the Royal Navy, a service passionate to my heart.

And but there is there is no doubt that decisions which have been made over a very long period of time, and I would just gently prod and say, when we're talking about Royal Navy procurement, the story of the aircraft carriers, which was probably not the greatest moment of the Labour government in the way they spent tens of billions extra by changing their mind. But we have to be able to adapt quickly. There's plenty more I could say, but let me say this the war exists today.

Talking about what happened ever since the end of the Cold War, trying to blame the last 14 years, or trying to blame the last ten years, or trying to blame what happened in 1987 onwards? All of those things are irrelevant. Madam Deputy Speaker we are at war. We have got to develop it. And I'm afraid in the current political climate, Europe is going to have to look after itself.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And with an immediate five thank. You, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You, Madam Deputy Speaker. And I too, am going to start by agreeing with a member of the opposition, specifically the former defence Secretary, Ben Wallace, who defence Secretary, Ben Wallace, who was quoted as saying that under his own party, our armed forces have own party, our armed forces have been hollowed out. Successive governments, including his own, for 14 years. And it's not often that I agree with Ministers from the last government, but he's absolutely right. The smallest army since the Napoleonic era, a record 13,000 complaints on defence housing in a single year, investment grievously cut under austerity.

That is the legacy we're looking at here. No matter how much they want us to forget it. And as has been already recognised by my hon. Friend from Barrow and Furness that the shadow Defence Secretary in front of us today is criticising delays. But was the procurement Minister when 47 out of 49 major programmes weren't on time or Budget? So I think we need to take it with a little bit of salt there. And although it's been sure, I'll give my.
17:59
Sam Carling Portrait Sam Carling MP (North West Cambridgeshire, Labour)
-
-
The hon. Gentleman, if he's quoting some figures, so does he have the figure on percentage of defence spending 1991 to what it defence spending 1991 to what it was in 2010 and how many troops there were in 1991 to what they were in 2010. >> Well, I'm very happy to say, in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I'm very happy to say, in terms of defence spending, is that when we hit 2.5% last, it was under a Labour government and his party a Labour government and his party failed to do so through their time in office. And although it's been quite entertaining in some respects, watching old marital woes play out on the opposite benches today, it sounds like everyone agrees bad things happened, but the two former partners of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats evidently are more interested in taking chunks out of each other than owning up to leaving the mess.

The motion in front of us today also calls for some of our legislation not to proceed on the basis that it is a threat to morale, and I think the reference to morale is quite interesting, given that satisfaction of life in the service has fell from 60% in 2010 to 40% in 2024. And speaking of in terms of satisfaction, one of the key issues is, of course, housing. And so I particularly welcomed when the government, this Labour government, took the decision to in-source a huge number of houses back into our own ownership that were privatised very wrongly, by a previous conservative government, 431 of them in my own constituency, and we will be able to radically improve the condition of them, I hope, particularly through the work we've done to make defence housing subject to the decent homes standard at long last, which I welcome, but unfortunately we have a Leader of the Opposition who appears to be able to shoot from the hip without thinking too much about the consequences and having changed to this very unclear position that none of us seem to be able to grasp now.

Whereas this is a government that has taken the right decisions at the right time

**** Possible New Speaker ****

again. Was he here? Was grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. Was he hon. Member for giving way. Was he here to hear the Prime Minister make his statement on the war in the Middle East, when he said that the Middle East, when he said that British sovereign bases have been attacked, that British troops had been attacked and that British people had been attacked. He also said it was therefore right that we said it was therefore right that we defend ourselves, but that you can't shoot all the drones out of the air and they have to be attacked on the ground.

Does he remember the Prime Minister coming to this House and saying that? And would he like to repeat the point that the Prime Minister has been absolutely crystal clear on his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

position throughout this conflict? I'm not 100% sure of the point the hon. Gentleman is trying to the hon. Gentleman is trying to make there. Not sure he's put his point on the record. There's a huge point on the record. There's a huge amount of drone activity going on. There's a lot of ways that that needs to be dealt with. I'm really heartened to what this government heartened to what this government has done so far. The largest pay rise in two decades for armed forces personnel.

Many of them my own constituents. The first veterans strategy in seven years, the largest sustained defence spending increase since the Cold War, including a pledge to reach 3% of spending on defence by the end of the parliament and a £9 billion plan to renew those 36,000 military homes, to name just a few achievements. And again, that last one has just been so critical for my constituents working at RAF Wittering. Life in the services has to be made rewarding and rewarding, career rewarding life.

And I'm afraid to say that for too long that has not been the case. And it's no wonder the number of troops, therefore plummeted under the watch of the previous government. Some comments were made around trying to boost up the reserves, which I very much agreed with, and we do need to do some work on that area. We also need to sort out the ongoing issues with recruitment, which have become significantly worse again under the previous government, which I hope we will make some progress on tackling at some point soon.

I've spoken to a number of people who have tried to join the military, and found that the bureaucratic process is incredibly difficult. We've heard indeed about that on the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme on several occasions, which I hope we will make some progress on. Because we have a government that is willing to invest in our forces and improve the quality of life for those serving. My constituency neighbour is in the room. The hon. Member for Huntingdon, who I noticed his name is on the motion as well.

And so I found it a little bit surprising some of his criticisms about this government's record on defence, when there is so much work going on in our own area in Huntingdonshire, around defence, we have had the local council and the Ministry of Defence with the two Ministers in the room right now, with us visiting RAF Wyton, signing a statement of intent in December, committing to work together to support the growth of Project Fairfax and establish. Written as a nationally significant area for defence, intelligence and innovation.

With that coming, the redevelopment of the Northampton North cluster delivering new homes, jobs and investment that will be brilliant for the local area. And I might also just make the point very briefly in response to my hon. Friend behind me made earlier around investment in defence and it being on weapons and bombs. They're not the only things that defence investment goes on. Military intelligence is a huge part of the local economy and ideally more of the local economy in my own area. So I think it's just useful to recognise that there's a whole broad spectrum of things that we do spend funding on.

I, of course, respect the points that he made, so I'll finish by saying that I'm very glad the party opposite have called this debate today, as it's a great opportunity to highlight the good work that we're doing and remind us all of the many ways in which they let our armed forces down for over a decade and a half. It's a good thing that they can now only comment on policy, rather than make it a factor, which I am sighing in religion. Yeah, good.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker. Whatever's gone well in defence and whatever's gone wrong in defence within the United Kingdom over the last 50 United Kingdom over the last 50 years, it's the responsibility of the two main parties, one in opposition currently and one in government currently, and the ping pong back and forward today. It's pong back and forward today. It's been a bit difficult to listen to. I heard the Minister's plea earlier on to inject some seriousness into on to inject some seriousness into the debate, and he directed it over here, but he could have equally directed it behind him.

But I agree with him. This is a serious issue, not just because we've got troops deployed, but because it is the first duty of government, as others have pointed out, is to defend the state and the people. I further agree with the Minister that the motion today, in the name of His Majesty's Opposition is, from being
18:05
Dave Doogan Portrait Dave Doogan MP (Angus and Perthshire Glens, Scottish National Party)
-
-
honest, a little bit of a catch all, you know, spleen venting motion, you know, spleen venting motion, and that I probably wouldn't. There's absolutely no way we can agree with it, despite how much we agree with it, despite how much we might agree with some of the priorities that they wish to see advanced or purely on the defence advanced or purely on the defence side. But I do think the Minister raised one thing in his response, raised one thing in his response, which was the importance of society.

He was saying this in response to the opposition's ambition to fund their ambitions through reinstating the two child limit. You do not invest the importance and priority of defence by marginalising people in society. It is essential that people that our communities feel that they have a sense of belonging and defence, and that defence has a sense of belonging in them. I speak from experience in Scotland, where defence has become an increasingly remote activity and it has in large parts of England as well.

I am not making a constitutional point as defence is contracted into the south east of England. It has become increasingly relevant, irrelevant rather on the rest of these islands. It is something that happens somewhere else and there is a price to be paid for that. As people choose other careers and see other political and fiscal priorities as more important than

**** Possible New Speaker ****

defence. I will give you. He just made a point around defence investment being

**** Possible New Speaker ****

defence investment being concentrated in the South East. Can you remind us where Trident is best? I think the hon. Gentleman

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the hon. Gentleman thinks he's being smart. Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not need reminded and neither do the people of Scotland. No need. Reminded of where Trident is based. Where the centre of the bullseye of the target on these islands is based. I do not need reminder of how many Scots were asked. Would they like the UK supposedly independent nuclear deterrent based in our waters? I do not need. Reminded of that for one second. And in case he is under any illusions, which he apparently is, the United Kingdom spends more money on defence in the south west of England than it spends in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

He might like to reflect on that, Madam Deputy Speaker. A key problem. I'll make some progress. A key problem that the current government has is that when they took over in 2024, they put great store in their strategic defence review. They said they were going to fix defence from the ground up, and it was all going to be in the strategic defence review. But when the Strategic Defence review was published, it had more questions in it than answered. Principal among which was the defence investment plan, and that was going to come in the summer and then it was the autumn and then it was a winter and now it's the spring and we don't even know if we're going to get it in the following summer.

It's absolutely critical for business to plan for that. And I know that. Hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth takes a dim view of business and its role in defence, and he takes a dim view of defence manufacturers. I respect his position, but I deeply disagree with him. You cannot honour our service personnel in uniform and then besmirch the manufacturers that equip them to do the job defending us that we require them to do. And similarly, the government, the government must come clean on the defence investment plan.

It is simply not tenable because the problem in the Minister was clear with us. He said. That defence is very clear on what we require from the defence investment plan. Well, that alarmingly tells us what the problem with the defence investment plan is and it's the Treasury. Now some of us have the privilege of speaking on defence and on the economy and the fact that the current Chancellor of the Exchequer is the arbiter of how our nation or this state rather, will be defended going forward, is deeply concerning.

Given her competence over generic fiscal matters, much less issues to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

do with defence, our give way. Given there's many things in his speech that I agree with, but as someone who grew up on the Clyde, I just wonder if he would agree with me that you would welcome the naval shipbuilding on the Clyde that has been recently committed to. And the sales to Norway, and also that sales to Norway, and also that those that live in Scotland and I grew up 15 miles as the crow flies from from Faslane are also

**** Possible New Speaker ****

protected by the nuclear deterrent. We will disagree on that very last point, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I'm very happy to agree with him on the benefit of a complex warship manufacturing in Scotland. It would be nice if occasionally it was framed as something other than some sort of benevolent gesture from Westminster towards Scotland, as opposed to what it actually is, which is the United Kingdom benefiting from the skills and engineering expertise that have been present in Scotland for an awful long time.

And so it's a well, I wouldn't go that far, but nevertheless. And that draws me to a comment on an intervention that was made on the on the to the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, where he declared that an independent Scotland would be completely defenceless and penniless. Classic unionism totally ignoring the fact that as we stand today, hard working taxpayers in Scotland contribute 5 billion every single year at current rates to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

defence of the United Kingdom, just airbrushed from reality. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman taking an intervention. I've been very, very clear. I have said it before outside this chamber and before outside this chamber and I'll say it inside. I don't want Scotland. I don't want United Kingdom to have any nuclear weapons. What's the hon. Gentleman's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

personal opinion? The independent nuclear deterrent that the United Kingdom deterrent that the United Kingdom invests so much in over 100 billion over a ten year period? Government can't even tell us what the ten year rolling price of the independent nuclear deterrent was. It's not independent. I don't believe it makes us any safer. And we would be far safer investing that money in conventional defence and being a leading role in Europe in the conventional defence. I further disagree with the unilateral decision of the UK government, certainly going by F-35a for gravity drop nuclear weapons, like so much of that debate in this House.

So I think that clarifies to the hon. Member what my position is on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

non-independent nuclear deterrent. Madam Deputy Speaker, I implore the government to get the finger out and get that published. Peter Fortune thank.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Peter Fortune thank. You very much, Madam. Deputy Speaker, and I won't repeat many of the excellent points that have been made by honourable that have been made by honourable and right hon. Members in the chamber. What I do want to focus on is one specific point, and that's the technological capacity of the country that is being delayed because of the delay in the Defence Investment Plan 8% of UK GDP. That's 454 billion is reliant on satellite services and the importance of space to our defence.

Our intelligence and security is ever increasing. The previous government understood this and set out a clear strategy to make the UK a meaningful actor in space. When, in 2022 we published the defence space strategy. But the situation
18:12
Peter Fortune Portrait Peter Fortune MP (Bromley and Biggin Hill, Conservative)
-
-
has now changed and this government is completely failing to grasp the urgency of leveraging our existing urgency of leveraging our existing commercial capability so that we can operationalise the space domain. can operationalise the space domain. And at pace. Earlier this month, along with my hon. Friend, the Shadow Secretary of State for DSIT, Shadow Secretary of State for DSIT, I attended Spacecom and it could not be clearer from the conversations I had that Britain is conversations I had that Britain is at serious risk of lagging behind our neighbours when it comes to the new space race.

Countries like Germany have recognised the opportunities, with a commitment to invest 35 billion, and we must be matching that ambition. Another point that came up time and time again was that this missing defence investment plan is impacting on the on our ability to encourage new people into the sector. The government promised it would be published in autumn of last year and yet we are still waiting. Yeah. Although given that their strategic defence review was late and kicked big procurement decisions down the road, it's no real surprise that the dip is late to.

The government simply has no evidenced plan to hit 3% of GDP on defence, and this is leaving our domestic defence and space industry in the lurch. Many companies I've spoken to, so they have plans that are ready to go, but they can't action them without the publication of the defence investment Plan, and this kind of paralysis will only serve to see us fall even further behind our neighbours. Now I know that the Minister who's who's currently not in this place, cares about the investment in our armed services.

And I know that he takes this deeply personally, as do you, as does the other Minister, Madam Deputy Speaker and I put on record my personal respect for him, and I. I would hope, therefore, that he would agree with our side of the House, which is the urgency with which we need to raise defence spending to 3% of GDP by the end of this Parliament. I hope that the government will make that same commitment, or we will lose the opportunity to lead and develop those technologies, which will take us into the new scientific and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

defence frontier. Lincoln Jopp. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. When I was new to this place, I When I was new to this place, I clearly did something very wrong because the accommodation whip allocated me the office, which is geographically nearer Trafalgar Square than it is this chamber. And Square than it is this chamber. And there is one compensating benefit is that when I look out of the window I can see the statue of window I can see the statue of General Bernard Montgomery of El Alamein.

And if the hon. Member for Huntingdon moves his head a bit, I can see Field Marshal Alanbrooke and written on that statue is Allanbrooke master of strategy, and the Minister will be aware that the. The art of strategy is the matching of ends, ways and means, and I want to use that framework to reflect in these few short minutes that I have on the approach that the government has been taking recently. I also wish to use the model which the Minister will be fully aware of, that there are three components to fighting power the moral, the physical, and the conceptual components.

We know this is a very good model, because Napoleon made the observation that the morelist
18:16
Lincoln Jopp Portrait Lincoln Jopp MP (Spelthorne, Conservative)
-
-
of the physical as three is to one. So if we just quickly run down the So if we just quickly run down the physical component and some developments that we've had, the base at Diego Garcia, despite base at Diego Garcia, despite asking a thousand times from these benches for the reason why the benches for the reason why the government asserts that the British government's position was untenable in the long term, and that they had in the long term, and that they had to do this lease back agreement with Mauritius.

We have never, ever been given a definitive view on which court, which jurisdiction made our position untenable. It's never been delivered in this place or anywhere else, and so that is undermined the government's position a little on the Defence Committee, we had representation made to us from the Ukrainians that we were training that actually, whilst they loved the training and really grateful for it, we were starting to lag behind. And this was actually in November 2020 for the absence of drones in the British military armoury.

And environmental constraints on Salisbury Plain meant that whilst the training was good, it was really lagging behind reality. The type 45. It's a shame the Minister is no longer here, but he's given us a decent amount of time because he said you cannot rewrite history and you cannot run away from it. Absolutely right. And I just wanted to remind him that the reason why we only had one type 45 at six weeks readiness to go to sea was because in the 1998 Strategic Defence Review, and I appreciate that was before the minister's time.

It was widely lauded, and they came to the conclusion that they needed 12 type 45 in order to fulfil the strategic defence review, and subsequently the Labour government cut that number down. I think the first cut was to eight and then it was down to the six that we have got. And they also chose a home grown propulsion system, which was subsequently proved not to work, and has meant that we are having cut the original fleet in half. They're now having to cut what remains in half, quite literally, in order to take the propulsion system out of the side.

We then had the strategic defence review and having sat on the Defence Select Committee and heard the reviewers say that the answer was 2.5%, to come back and say actually, it's 2.7%. Actually, we've now been told it's 3% sometime in the future, and now it's 3.5. And then on the eve of the NATO summit, it went up to five. I'm not surprised that the defence investment plan has been a long time in coming. We haven't got time here to rehearse the arguments about the moral component of fighting power and the huge undermining that the government's actions over the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill and the (Remedial) Order, and indeed the revelation that our own Prime Minister actually volunteered to work for free from Phil Shiner in attacking British service personnel such as myself, and I do have to declare an interest in one of the veterans who spent three and a half years there.

Last point to make when I was in the Ministry of Defence, I spent five years there. We used to have a saying that plans without resources are hallucinations and without the Defence Investment Plan the SDR is meaningless. And so I would like the Minister, when she stands up to acknowledge the fact that on the 10th of March, the Defence Select Committee were privy to a secret briefing in the Ministry of Defence and to a man and woman across party. They came out of that briefing and took the unprecedented step of issuing a statement that, in the view of the Defence Select Committee, the all party Defence Select Committee, that the government should adopt conservative government policy and go to 3% of GDP within this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Parliament. That is unprecedented and it needs to be listened to. Very good. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Rebecca Smith thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. South West Devon is not only the home to 42 Commando not only the home to 42 Commando Royal Marines, but it's also home to Plymouth and South Devon Freeport, with Language and Sherford offering significant Sherford offering significant development from the previous conservative government with plenty of space for defence. We've got Turnchapel Wharf, the home of the Plymouth Centre for Marine Autonomy, Devonport naval bases in the neighbouring constituency. With the upgrading of our nuclear deterrent and other SMEs in defence such as GMD, Eurotunnel, Blues, Bluestone
18:20
18:20
18:20
Rebecca Smith Portrait Rebecca Smith MP (South West Devon, Conservative)
-
-
anticipation for this strategic defence review. And in fact, at Oceanology International, it was clear that there are businesses clear that there are businesses queuing up to come to South West Devon. The Strategic Defence Review brought forward welcome promises regional clusters in areas like Plymouth Hybrid Navy, with the introduction of new autonomy, a boost for UK export potential and the use of uncrewed vessels and autonomy in our own military system, and indeed, the promise of improved regulations to enable the autonomous experimentation required.

Indeed, recommendation 39 says more flexible regulation is needed to enable experimentation in areas such as autonomy. By April 2026, defence should establish options to enhance the mandate of the Defence Maritime Regulator to allow the Royal Navy and industry to use dedicated regulatory sandbox to test and deploy new technologies. Where a couple of weeks away. Madam Deputy Speaker I wonder where that is. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For giving way. Like her, my constituency also has a number of really important defence SMEs, and really important defence SMEs, and I make sure I meet them. And the delay behind the defence investment plan, but also the lack of action on the strategic defence review is failing them with utter dread. Where a lot of the technology, technological advances that they're technological advances that they're making, particularly in autonomous vehicles, they're now selling abroad because they cannot get into abroad because they cannot get into the MoD.

And there's paralysis in procurement where there's not the money to have that so-called sovereign capability. The government's talking about sovereign capability a lot, but they're not actually delivering on it. And a lot of businesses in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

United Kingdom are going without, aren't they? I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution, and he makes a really contribution, and he makes a really good point. And that's exactly what I'm beginning to hear. In my constituency. I referred to a. Q my concern is that that Q is going to get shorter if we don't get this investment under the Dipp coming forward. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, Following the strategic defence Following the strategic defence review came the Defence Industrial Strategy. Again, another lauded document with further references to document with further references to industrial clusters critical for the competitive of the IS8 and national economic resilience from maritime autonomy in Plymouth and so on.

It kept promising. Now, there was a fantastic paragraph about the existing ecosystem in Plymouth, which I've already alluded to. It was an exciting prospect. It's been positive the city has got going. We've got Team Plymouth looking at how we can deliver this. But, Madam Deputy Speaker, there should be the defence investment plan that is required to fulfil this growth, that is being lauded, that is being aimed at and which will enable contracts like the ones my hon. Friend has just mentioned, to be brought forward with the jobs that have always been promised.

So if you are a business, the SDR and the Defence Invest, the strategic investment plan were exciting, but they're still missing out on this funding and indeed, the threat is there to our national sovereign capability and also the economic growth that this government seems convinced it's going to deliver. Now. Furthermore, there's delay to the vital trial areas for autonomy that we were also promised, and they are also hampering growth. I've got businesses in my constituency who want the green light to be going forward on their testing, but without those trial areas coming forward, it is just more and more dither and delay.

Now, in a recent Prime Minister's question, I raised this directly with the Prime Minister. I asked for changes that we need to see. Canada is able to clear these vessels for practice, testing off their shores within as little as six weeks, yet our businesses are expected to fill out hundreds and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hundreds of pages of applications I will give away. I thank the hon. Member for giving way. She celebrates the Labour government's decision to create Team Plymouth. She celebrates the Labour government's celebrates the Labour government's decision to designate Plymouth as the National Centre for Marine Autonomy, and she celebrates the countless defence technology companies crowding into our wonderful, vibrant city. Can she wonderful, vibrant city. Can she acknowledge, in the spirit of balance, that this Labour government have delivered some good

**** Possible New Speaker ****

things for defence? My constituency neighbour for his comments and I think if he'd been listening to what I'd said, he been listening to what I'd said, he said I welcome all of those things. But without the Defence Investment Plan it's all just going to Plan it's all just going to disappear in a puff of smoke. So I'm sure he, like me, wants to see Plymouth and the surrounding area capitalise on this. See the things capitalise on this. See the things that Team Plymouth will bring.

But without this defence investment plan, we're just going to see plan, we're just going to see people walking literally out of the door. Now. Madam Deputy Speaker, we've got the King's Speech in May, I believe. So we're led to believe the worst kept secret of when it's going to be. Now, I would like to wager that that is the perfect opportunity for the government to deliver the changes that are required to the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. Now, at the moment, they're saying that there needs some legislative opportunity, that they're looking for other bills.

Well, if the government is serious about delivering for defence and growth in this country, why not bring forward its own unique bill? It doesn't need to take very long, but it could be in that King's speech and actually show that they have the ambition to make the changes that are needed. We need to get the deals across the line. Madam Deputy Speaker We need to give the businesses investing in our community the funding to enable those deals to happen, and I would be interested to hear what the Minister can say to reassure my constituents.

And just to close, Madam Deputy Speaker, I had an incredibly constructive letter from the Minister for transport about the Marine autonomy test sites and about those regulations, but I'm just going to quote back what he said, because I think this is the hook. Marine autonomy is a cross-departmental priority of the government, as detailed in the Maritime Decarbonisation Strategy, the Modern Industrial Strategy and the Strategic Defence Review. The draft legislation for marine maritime autonomy exists, and the Department for transport will continue to seek parliamentary time for these important clauses.

I make my point again. What are they waiting for here?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And with an immediate four minute time limit. Ben Obese-Jecty. Thank you, speaker, and I'll

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, speaker, and I'll start with the quotes. Your path leads to war, you know that. So war is coming. What will you do when you feel its breath upon your neck? And the answer is not enough. The Defence Investment Plan due last autumn, then by Christmas, then to autumn, then by Christmas, then to be delivered as soon as the MoD finishes working flat out. If they spend as much time on the dip as spend as much time on the dip as they have telling everyone they were working at pace, maybe it would have been delivered by now.

So let's look at the impact that
18:27
Ben Obese-Jecty Portrait Ben Obese-Jecty MP (Huntingdon, Conservative)
-
-
that will have in the air. We're yet to see investment in the capability that's been committed to the chief of the Defence Staff and the chief of the Defence Staff and his prior role as the chief of the Air Staff last year confirmed that the RAF has no major equipment the RAF has no major equipment programmes planned for the next 15 years. We have what we have for the near and medium term, given the evolution development cycle of evolution development cycle of current capability, is that really a tenable position? The F-35b is due to graduate as a government major projects portfolio program by major projects portfolio program by the end of this month.

But will it. Will we see the delivery of the remaining seven F-35bs by the end of next month, as they're scheduled to be? The Royal Air Force has yet to even place an order for the 12 F-35as that are due to qualify us to join NATO's dual capable aircraft nuclear mission that was announced nine months ago. With no orders placed and no progress made, it might as well just be posted on the defence Secretary's bedroom wall. Likewise, the next tranche of F-35bs, also not yet ordered from Lockheed Martin.

And this goes back to my point regarding overstretch. Operation Firecrest will see the carrier strike group deploy with 24 f-35bs. There are six deployed forward in Akrotiri, seven are awaiting delivery. One fell in the sea. That leaves us with just ten planes for training and to cover any other tasks. We're maxed out later this year. We may potentially be in a position where we have no realistic spare capacity of our only fifth gen platform, with no current plans to purchase any more. And if when we do, they're years away from delivery.

But are we are we actually going to buy any more given our limited resources, putting all our chips on the global Combat Air programme and inevitably shortcutting our way to never truly fleshing out the accompanying system of systems does not augur well. We're already struggling to find the funding for the next phase of that project, delaying the signing of the trilateral contract for the next phase from last September because of delay to the dip, creating tensions with Japan and Italy and threatening the 2035 timeline that is crucial for Japan.

When I challenge the Prime Minister on the delay, he wouldn't commit to when the contract would actually be signed on the high seas. Britannia most certainly does not rule the waves. As HMS Dragon finally arrives in the Eastern Mediterranean. It was one of only three type 45 S available and I used the term available loosely. It's had to be withdrawn from its NATO maritime Group one commitment, a commitment that starts in a few weeks and for which we currently have no replacement ship available.

The government has no plan to facilitate that commitment and is presumably hoping that Dragon can be recalled. The Royal Navy has to deliver type 26 and type 31, with all ships coming into service optimistically within the next nine years, type 83 will see its outline business case submitted by June. But my understanding is that that program may not make the cut, which raises serious questions about the future air dominance system. I'd be surprised if type 91 made the cut either, given it's currently being assessed for feasibility and affordability.

There are decisions pending on the future Cruise Anti-Ship Weapon System batch one Opvs. The Global Decision Support System, the Maritime Aviation Transformation Program, Project Beehive Project Vantage charting a course to a much vaunted hybrid navy looks perilous at best, and I hope the Minister has his sextant to hand and on land. Despite all that, the Army arguably has the most work to do. The Army has a huge transformation program that will make it almost unrecognisable by the next, next Parliament. But if there is one capability we should be throwing the kitchen sink at, it is Project Asgard.

The chief of the General Staff spoke effusively about it in his RUSI Land Warfare Conference speech last year. It's a project that, though AI fuelled, software defined and network enabled capabilities, we are confident has made four light brigade capable of acting ten times faster and ten times further than

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it could last year. I will. Thank my honourable and. there.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

there. It's an old coat. And I'm sure he will recognise it given his service. But veterans it given his service. But veterans talk logistics, amateurs talk tactics and he is outlining a situation which is dire because we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are not gripping this logistic problem. I would absolutely concur, and I think there is a huge need to make think there is a huge need to make sure that we have the correct amount of logistics, and that includes supply of troops, particularly munitions and energetics. The government has pledged to build factories. We're still not entirely clear where they're going to be, but ammunition supply is going to be key to anything that we do going forwards. Project Asgard is the program and defence that could arguably deliver, delivered quickest and to most immediate effect, trading space for time, allowing us to develop our most exquisite capabilities with longer lead times in slow time.

Alongside its RAF equivalent on Project Boyd, it presents the vanguard of future capability and outlines where the armed forces is going. Within these domains, there is a painful conversation about the use of AI and the kill chain to be had. In the not too distant future, the government must commit to 3%, must commit to delivering the right capability, and must commit to an armed forces fit to fight the next war, not the current war or the last war. Your path leads to war. You know that.

So war is coming. What will you do when you feel its breath upon your neck? Yeah, sir.
18:31
Ashley Fox Portrait Sir Ashley Fox MP (Bridgwater, Conservative)
-
-
Ashley Fox. >> Governments of all colours reduce defence spending after the Cold War, spending more on health, education and welfare. But the education and welfare. But the world of today is not the world of 1991. This government must deal with President Putin rather than President Yeltsin. Since Russia attacked Ukraine in 2022, it has become increasingly clear that we need to spend more on our armed forces, and the government has admitted as much. Last year, they said they would raise defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, a good start, albeit not enough.

But thus far they have failed to set out a program of how that money will be spent. Where is the defence investment plan? 12 months have passed and no extra money has gone into advancing our military capabilities. Meanwhile, this government has found billions of pounds to spend on welfare so as to placate its backbenchers and try and save the Prime Minister's skin. It's a pity the Prime Minister doesn't regard defending our country as important as defending his own job.

Three weeks ago, the government finally announced a 1 billion contract for the new medium helicopters. This contract will keep Leonardo's in Yeovil operational. This is vital for Somerset's economy as well as for the UK's defence infrastructure, and I welcome that announcement. But this deal was only announced at the very last minute to stop the factory from closing. It demonstrates how unserious the government is about setting their plans for defence. If they were serious, they would have published their defence investment plan as promised in the autumn.

Instead, we've had a delay and excuses ever since. This is a government happy to set out its plans for welfare, spending years ahead, but cannot tell us its plans for defending the country. An additional problem is this government is run by human rights lawyers. It sees all matters on the global stage through the prism of international law, rather than what is in Britain's national interest. I imagine Lord Hermann lives in the hope that Russia and China will one day adopt such an approach, but I fear he will be disappointed, and the government applies this myopic approach to how it treats our military personnel and our veterans as well.

Madam Deputy Speaker, There are about 4400 veterans living in my constituency. I have met many of them at the Bridgwater and Burnham on sea branches of the Royal British Legion. I pay tribute to every one of them for their service and the sacrifices they have made for our country. They have told me how worried they are by the legal persecution of veterans who served in Northern Ireland during Operation Banner. These men faced down terrorists who threatened our country.

Now, decades later, they're not being honoured for their service. Rather, this government treats them as suspects. Terrorists who murdered British soldiers have now effectively been granted an amnesty. We know that no future action will be taken against them. But veterans who serve the British state are being are to be hounded like criminals for doing what they were ordered to do. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will give way. The hon. Member for giving way. He mentions, quite rightly the He mentions, quite rightly the brave men who served on Operation Banner. Does he agree that women

**** Possible New Speaker ****

also served on Operation Banner. Would agree with that? So I'm grateful for the additional time grateful for the additional time he's given me. The legacy legislation introduced by the previous conservative government previous conservative government was intended to halt this injustice, and it is now being repealed by Labour, and that is disgraceful. Not only is Labour's campaign against our veterans deeply unfair, it also endangers us in future conflicts in a more dangerous world. With the looming threat of conflict, we need to increase the size of our armed forces.

What signal is the government sending to young recruits? By prosecuting our veterans that serving their country may lead to decades of lawfare? With the full support of the Prime Minister and his Attorney General. The Minister knows Republicans in Northern Ireland will exploit Labour's naivety to undermine the morale of our armed forces. The time has come to stop relitigating these events, and I call on the government to stop this disgraceful prosecution of our veterans.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Francois. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. When I spoke from this despatch box When I spoke from this despatch box barely a month ago, I had literally just returned hotfoot from Ukraine. just returned hotfoot from Ukraine. Those who were here that evening might recall. I conveyed to the House the personal warning from the speaker of the Rada, the Ukrainian Parliament. No one knows the Russians better than us. If we fall, you and your friends are next. Not only is that war in Ukraine sadly ongoing and indeed has been for 12 years, not for.

We now face a very challenging situation because of the two concurrent conflicts in both the Middle East and Ukraine.
18:37
Mark Francois Portrait Rt Hon Mark Francois MP (Rayleigh and Wickford, Conservative)
-
-
And yet again, when we debate defence in this House, the plastic patriots of reform are absolutely patriots of reform are absolutely nowhere to be seen. Tonight's debate is all the more pressing, debate is all the more pressing, given a fundamental failure of the government to display the requisite sense of urgency that is now sense of urgency that is now clearly required. As an example, the government's much vaunted strategic Defence review, published last July, states on page 43 that this review charts a new era for defence, restoring the UK's ability to deter, fight and win with allies against states with advanced military forces by 2035.

That's nine years from now. And yet our chief of the General Staff is on record as saying he believes we might have to fight Russia by 2027. And the first sea Lord estimates only a couple of years after that. Yet it is the official policy of His Majesty's Government that we will be prepared to fight a peer enemy almost a decade from now that has terrible echoes of the so-called ten year rule of the 1920s. And we all know what happened after that.

Indeed, the all party, Labour led House of Commons Defence Committee, chaired by the excellent member for Slough, recently accused the government of proceeding at, in their words, a glacial pace in terms of improving Britain's war preparedness. And as the Member for Spelthorne reminded us on March the 10th, after a classified briefing, they issued a joint statement and urged hitting 3% of defence spending in this parliament, which is already Conservative Party policy. And this cropped up yet again at the Liaison Committee just yesterday when the Prime Minister was clearly floundering about the ability of his government to respond to emerging threats and about why the Defence Investment Plan the dip has still not been published.

Nowhere is this complete lack of strategic thinking from this government more abundantly clear than in its barmy proposal to spend £35 billion of British taxpayers money in order to lease back the vital strategic outpost of Diego Garcia, which already belongs to us in the first place. There is no credible legal threat to the sovereignty of Diego Garcia, and certainly none that would justify the expenditure of that much taxpayers money which should be spent instead directly on our own defence.

Why do I say that? Firstly, when we signed up to the International Court of Justice, we specifically included an opt out for any cases involving current or former Commonwealth countries. So any judgement by the ICJ, even the mandatory one. And remember this one is only advisory would still not be legally binding on the UK because of this crystal clear opt out. Secondly, the government then attempted to argue that via the International Telecommunications Union, again, a UN agency like the ICJ, we could somehow lose control of our military spectrum.

Again, this is absolute nonsense because article 48 of the ITU treaty, to which we are a signatory, states, very clearly member states retain their entire freedom with regard to military radio installations. So again, that legal threat simply doesn't exist. Even the government's then telecommunications Minister absolutely confirmed that in a written answer to me on the 12th of February 2025, a year ago. Thirdly, the government's last trench, as cited during the Second Reading of their Diego Garcia bill, was the desperate argument that we could somehow lose a case under the UN convention on the law of the sea at the.

It lost tribunal. And yet article 298B of the UN treaty, to which we are a Co-signatory states very clearly that we have an opt out in the event of any disputes concerning military activities, including military activities by government vessels and aircraft engaged in non-commercial service. Quad et demonstration when you throw in the Treaty on Nuclear Non-Proliferation, which Mauritius has signed and which will prevent basing of nuclear weapons on the islands anyway, and then, crucially, the 1966 Anglo-American treaty, which means the United States has a formal written veto over Labour's deal with Mauritius, which they're now almost certain to exercise after we denied them the initial use of the runway, which our own Ministers allegedly sought to protect in the first place.

Ministers must surely know the whole benighted deal is as dead as a dodo, and still they cannot bring themselves to admit it. They are totally and utterly in denial over Chagos. And it's the same obsession with human rights from a Prime Minister who once described himself as a human rights lawyer first and a politician second. And he wasn't kidding. There was he. That has also led to the utterly despicable position where the government, via its Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, is seeking to pursue our veterans through the courts via a process of lawfare and two tier justice, while alleged terrorists who they were sent to the province to fight effectively, walk free with letters of comfort in their pocket.

Not only is this morally wrong on a whole range of levels, but it also has a debilitating effect on both recruitment and retention, especially within our own special forces community, an area where, even to this day, as I'm sure this Minister would agree, our nation remains world class. And then we come to the delay to the Defence Investment Plan itself, which is now simply unconscionable with not one war underway, but two. When the government published the Strategic Defence Review last year, they delayed most of the decisions on equipment capabilities to a subsequent defence investment plan, which we were promised would be published in the autumn.

We were then faithfully promised it would be published by Christmas and here we are, all promises broken in late March and still no dip. Ministers constantly claiming they have been for months, that they've been working flat out on this plan. Well, what would have happened if they hadn't been trying? The reality is that we still don't have this document, because the Ministry of Defence is totally and utterly at war with His Majesty's Treasury. This vital intergovernmental relationship has effectively broken down, and the Prime Minister is simply too weak to bang heads together and force the plan to be published.

If I could just make one more point, then yes. Moreover, Labour claim repeatedly they are introducing the largest increase in defence spending since the Cold War. But that is simply not true. In the current financial year they've actually done precisely the opposite. They've introduced a 2.6 billion efficiency savings program, the viciously cut operational spending across the British armed forces at Treasury behest. That means fewer ships at sea and longer time to regenerate them. As with HMS Dragon, fewer training hours for our pilots and fewer exercises on Salisbury Plain.

So here we are, with two wars underway and still nine months later, this completely dysfunctional Cabinet is unable to publish a forward equipment programme for the British armed forces. Do members opposite not realise they can also see this in Moscow and in Beijing, and indeed in Tehran? If you believe, as I always have, that the role of armed forces is to save life by preventing war, by persuading any potential aggressor, they could not succeed were they to attack us or our allies.

How in God's name are we supposed to deter the likes of Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping by not being able to publish a forward equipment plan for our own armed forces, which is now nearly a year overdue? On what planet do Labour MPs think this is an act of credible and effective deterrence? To be fair to the Madam Deputy Speaker, they have published something today. Just a few hours ago, they published the defence diplomacy strategy. They've been working flat out on it for months, absolutely knocking themselves out to get that one away.

I apologise to the House because I haven't had the opportunity to read it yet, but I hope it contains one very firm recommendation, which would be if you're going to maintain effective diplomatic relations with your strongest ally, the United States, then whatever you do, don't send to Washington an ambassador who had to resign from the Cabinet not once, but twice for effectively being a crook and who's now had to be fired third time around. Very quickly, I can't.

I do apologise. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, we face a situation where the international skies are rapidly darkening and the response of the Labour Party is firstly to cut operational spending in our armed forces by £2.5 billion. Secondly, to be completely unable to say when they would reach spending 3% of GDP on defence, which is all three authors of the SDR have said repeatedly, is absolutely fundamental to delivering it. And until they do not do that, they cannot deliver it. And thirdly, because they're utterly dysfunctional relations within government with a Prime Minister whose authority is shot to pieces, they're totally unable to produce the Defence Investment Plan, even though the House rises and we go into purdah for the Scottish and Welsh elections 48 hours from today, this has become a farce.

But it's a very dangerous one. We are now, quite literally a laughing stock in Washington, and there's no way we can possibly deter our adversaries if we carry on like this. It's just not a credible defence posture to maintain. So I conclude by saying to Ministers, you've had long enough to produce it. If you can't do the job, get out of the way. Yeah.
18:47
18:48
18:48
Louise Sandher-Jones Portrait Louise Sandher-Jones MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (North East Derbyshire, Labour)
-
-
our service personnel are working so hard, our sacrificing so much and facing risk on our behalf. We have lived through and I served through a government that refused through a government that refused to acknowledge the changing world, refused to take it seriously, and refused to take it seriously, and refused to take the steps necessary to raise funding and invest. The architects of that neglect are sat in front of me. Sleeping on stag is a serious offence in the British military.

In the Conservative Party it was defence policy now going to turn to contributions made by the hon. Members. I would like to remind those who have touched on their concerns about British bases that it was very clear in 2014. You argue the signs were there in 2008 about the threat and the growing situation in Eastern Europe, and yet the conservative government, in coalition with the Liberal Democrats, chose to close down our bases in Germany and withdraw our armoured infantry brigade.

I think now we can look at that decision and see what a mistake it was. Turning to my hon. Friend from Alloa and Grangemouth, and he did speak incredibly passionately. A passionate defence of the importance of fighting inequality. And I would say to him, I face the same inbox as him. I know the challenges that people are facing in my constituency and his constituency and constituencies all across this House globally. We have seen what happens when instability around the world does not stay in Eastern Europe, does not stay in the med, but affects us right here.

It affects the bills that we are paying, whether it is in energy, whether it is the cost of goods. Well aware of the challenges and what the duty is on us to face those challenges. But I say to him, sometimes war comes to you, and our armed forces are those who stand between us and those threats, and it is vital that we give them the kit and equipment they need to face that and defend us. Turning to the hon.

Member for Harwich and North Essex first time, I've heard the Leader of the Opposition and Winston Churchill compared. We will see over the coming weeks, months and years who's going to be correct. But I suspect that comparison is going to age like fine milk. We did have, though, a obviously fantastic speech from the hon. Member for Loughborough, and how it is very important that we look at defence economy in the round. I will declare an interest, although I don't comment on operational matters that.

That it is not armies that win wars, it is nations that win wars. And I do agree with his point that it is young people that we send to fight in wars, and we need to make sure that as a state, we have invested in those young people, in the very children that will grow up to face the world that we are creating for them, to the member hon. Member South Shropshire, who very importantly, raised the need of growing our reserves, we are taking measures to do that and indeed reinvigorating the strategic reserve of which I am a member, to make sure that it is ready to meet the challenges that we have ahead.

My hon. Friend for Barrow and Furness spoke about the importance of getting the dip right, and I think that is a really crucial fact. We must all bear in mind we must get the dip right, because jobs and capabilities depend on it. The hon. Member for Weather Wetherby and Easingwold spoke about SMEs support and he's absolutely right. We must for those in his constituency who serve in our armed forces, and he quite rightly raised the importance of ensuring that we are able to recruit young people into our armed forces as quickly as possible.

We are treating this as a priority and are doing various things, such as improving the medical process and bringing in novel ways to enter the armed forces, such as through cyber direct entry. The hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens spoke very movingly about the child benefit cap, and I will return to that point in a while, but quite rightly notes the important role that Scotland plays in the defence of the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill spoke about the importance of space, and I think it's important to say here the wonderful work being done by UK Space Command.

As someone who used to work in a company that used a lot of satellite data, I really understand the importance of it and I really welcome the extra £1.5 billion that we are spending on defence space technologies here. The hon. Member for Spelthorne spoke very eloquently, and I know this matter is very passionate for him, and he is absolutely right when he talks about the moral being to the physical as three, two, one, the hon. Member and member for Huntingdon spoke again very passionately, and I take his points.

I've listened to every one of his points, but for me it just iterates the importance of getting the dip right. There is a lot here that is at stake and we must get it out, must get it right. The hon. Member for Bridgwater, I would just say to him that it's his law that has given terrorists immunity. That's why it's unlawful, and I'm glad that we are changing it. As the House knows very well, the government is fixing the mess that we inherited.

With an equipment plan that was overcommitted, underfunded, and unsuited to the threats and the conflicts that we now face. His party slashed defence spending by 12 billion in the first five years, and the shadow defence secretary was the very first, was the very defence procurement Minister that left 47 out of 49 major programs not on time and not on Budget. I'm reading these stats here, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I lived through this deeply personal to me. I served during the previous government.

I could see the damage that they were doing all around me as I was serving, seeing the threats to this country growing and growing, and their government refuse to acknowledge that the world had changed. So it's Labour that is now fixing their mess, delivering for defence and delivering for Britain. We have awarded more than 1200 major contracts since the election, 86% to British based businesses. That includes £650 million upgrade to our typhoon fleet that secures 1500 jobs. No, I need to make time our 1 billion contract for new medium helicopters.

There's help secure the future of Leonardo's plant in Yeovil, sustaining more than 3000 jobs. And we've spent millions more on drone procurement and development, including earlier this month, an order for 20 uncrewed surface vessels that will be built by Kraken in Hampshire and takes a step closer to our vision of a hybrid navy that is not a frozen procurement pipeline, that is a government delivering simultaneously for British security and the British economy. And it's only possible because we are investing £270 billion in defence over this Parliament.

We are delivering the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the Cold War, and we are growing our defence industrial base by backing UK based business and UK workers, delivering a vote of confidence that is matched by record foreign direct investment totalling £3.2 billion since the election and the most successful British defence exports year on record, bringing a defence dividend to every part of the country. Madam Deputy Speaker There is one thing the opposition have got right today.

We do live in an increasingly dangerous world and every day we are seeing the skill, the professionalism and the expertise of our personnel, defending our people, our allies and our interests in the Middle East. But Madam Deputy Speaker, it just makes all the more staggering that the party opposite cut frigates and destroyers by 25%. They cut minehunters. No, I've got time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They left our armed forces, in the words of their former defence underfunded. Hollowed out.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hollowed out. That is their record. And today we have heard no acknowledgement of we have heard no acknowledgement of that. And so it falls to this Labour government to take action, Labour government to take action, to put that right. Last June, as part of the SDR, we announced up to £1 billion extra for air and £1 billion extra for air and missile defence above conservative plans. We've been leading NATO's Diamond Air and Missile Defence Initiative, and this year alone, we've boosted spending on Counter-drone systems by five times.

And spending ground spending ground based has increased by 50%. In an era of growing threat. We are delivering for defence and we will not repeat their mistakes. I was surprised to hear the opposition speak about morale well under their under their record, morale plunged to record lows when they slashed real time pay when they left record housing complaints. Whereas it is this government that has delivered the largest pay increase in two decades, we are investing record levels in statutory services, £9 billion in force, housing, renewing and repairing 9 in 10 forces homes after the party opposite left serving personnel in damp and mould infested homes.

And I'm so pleased we have funded 30 hours of free childcare for the under threes in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. More action in 20 months than they managed in 14 years. Just like to, if I may address two points. When we talk as soldiers about how we fight, it's also incredibly important to talk about why we fight. For me, one of the things what I stood for, politics that I was most looking forward to, and I knew it wasn't going to be possible right away, but I hoped it would be possible.

During this Parliament is to scrap the two child benefit cap, and that vote has been one of my proudest moments. Being able to walk through the lobbies to scrap that cap, because we cannot balance the books on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

poorest children in this country. Madam Deputy Speaker with the highest. Order points of order. Mike Wood.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order points of order. Mike Wood. I beg to move that the question be now put. The question is that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the
18:59
19:14
19:14
None Portrait PETITIONS
-

opinion say I. I of the contrary, ayes have it. Petition Danny Beales.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ayes have it. Petition Danny Beales. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to present a petition about the imminent closure of the Post Office on Uxbridge High Street, Office on Uxbridge High Street, with no plans for an alternative provision. This has left many of my constituents devastated, especially those vulnerable members of my constituency who rely on this service over various community petitions led by Tunbridge Wells, Masood Dildar and Trust One, a thousand residents have called for action to be taken by the council and the Post Office to secure a site, which shows how much this means to people in Uxbridge.

The petitioners, therefore, request that the House of Commons urge the government to put pressure on the Post Office to provide an alternative Post Office site in Uxbridge before closing its existing branch and a petition

**** Possible New Speaker ****

remain, etc. Petition post Office on.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Uxbridge High Street. Petition Victoria Collins. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The people of Redbourn have spoken loud and clear. This petition, joined by 1427 residents, rejects joined by 1427 residents, rejects the top down, developer led planning approach that from this government, which could see the village of Redbourn increased by 70%. Residents are not opposed to housing, but they are rightly alarmed by the burden placed on their community, including on infrastructure and deeply frustrated by the lack of meaningful voice in shaping the proposals that will define their village for generations to come.

From top down targets to grey belt policy, community voices have been diminished. The petitioners, therefore, request that the House of Commons urges the government to schedule a debate in the House of Commons on the government review of the National Planning Policy Framework and how villages like Redbourn can be protected from overdevelopment and local communities. Given real power over planning decisions and infrastructure provision that affect the lives of village

**** Possible New Speaker ****

residents. Petition government review of national planning policy framework.
19:17
19:17
Caroline Voaden Portrait Caroline Voaden MP (South Devon, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
isolated shoreline communities, and the threat of what might happen to others in the future should not be underestimated. To set the scene, Start Bay is one of South Devon's most stunning stretches of most stunning stretches of coastline 15 miles of cliffs and shingle beaches running from Warren Point near Dartmouth in the north Point near Dartmouth in the north to Start Point in the south, taking in the villages of Stoke Fleming Street, Torcross B Sands and Hallsands. The Slapton Line, the narrow shingle bar that carries the A379 and separates the freshwater Slapton Ley from the open sea, is one of the most remarkable and fragile landforms in this country.

The A379 itself is a vital link road between the towns of Dartmouth and Kingsbridge. Alongside it lies Slapton Ley, the largest natural freshwater lake in south west England, a site of scientific special scientific interest and a national nature reserve of enormous ecological importance. Home to rare wildlife and a place of outstanding natural beauty that draws visitors from across the world. The area carries another layer of history that many across the world hold dear. In the autumn of 1943, the area was requisitioned by the British government and residents evacuated so that American forces could use the land to train for the D-Day landings.

Exercise Tiger cost the lives of nearly 800 American servicemen, a tragedy long kept secret. But the bond still runs deep and many Americans come regularly to visit. Alongside that, history is a long and ongoing battle with the sea. In 1917, the thriving fishing village of Hallsands nearby was almost entirely lost to the sea in a storm not long after, hundreds of thousands of tonnes of shingle were dredged from the bay to help build the dockyards in Plymouth. And in recent years the storms have come harder and more frequently.

This winter brought a succession of severe weather events that battered the Start Bay coastline with extraordinary force. Properties in Torcross suffered significant damage. Businesses that depend on the summer season found themselves counting the cost of repairs before the year had even begun. And then on the night of the 2nd of February, came the collapse of the a379 and a battering to homes behind the sea wall. Windows smashed roofs lifted water and shingle pouring into homes. Huge slabs of tarmac fell into the sea and one section of the road collapsed entirely.

A once picturesque stretch of coastline looked like a bomb site. It was not a surprise to people who know this coast. The road has long been acknowledged as vulnerable, but the speed and the scale of what happened shocked even those who had been warning about it for years. The alternative inland route is completely inadequate and needs an urgent upgrade. I have been contacted by hundreds of residents and businesses over the past seven weeks, and 40,000 people signed a petition, such is the concern locally, the impact on daily life has been severe.

Travel times to work and school have increased substantially. Journeys that once took just minutes now take far longer via inland diversion routes that were never designed to carry this volume of traffic. Bus routes have been cut or diverted. Older residents and young people trying to get to school and college have found themselves effectively cut off, and everybody dreads the arrival of the caravans. Access for emergency services is a significant concern. Mr. Starr, of Tollcross, told me his wife required urgent medical attention twice last year.

He said on both occasions, the ambulance came across the a379 and therefore responded to the call within 30 minutes before taking her to hospital. We are now living in fear that an ambulance will not be able to respond quickly enough for others. The partial closure of the A379 is a barrier to education due to increased journey times and altered bus services, and this is true for pupils as well as staff at local schools. For local businesses, the consequences have been equally serious reduced footfall, cancelled bookings and the sheer visual impact of a collapsed coastline on what should be a thriving tourism destination has cost businesses dearly.

At a time when many were already operating on very thin margins. The Torcross Boathouse Cafe has suffered substantial damage and remains closed. Owners Katie and Rob told me we won't reopen for several months while the insurance is sorted out. It's been a huge blow and our business has been devastated. In the weeks after the a379 was breached, one local pub reported trade being down by 80%. Other businesses highlighted the impact on their staff of a longer commute and issues with receiving deliveries.

Matt Darke, who farms land on either side of Slapton, tells me that travelling between sites is now taking an hour longer every day than it used to, and even the viability of a local health centre is now at risk, as patients are choosing to move their prescriptions elsewhere. Besides the damage to the A379, there's also been a serious impact to properties in the village of Torcross. The sea wall that protects the village has been left exposed by the recent loss of shingle along the beach, resulting in severe wave damage to homes and businesses, and ongoing concerns about the stability of the buildings.

Residents are scared and struggling to sleep due to the constant vibrations caused by the loss of shingle around the footings of the sea defences, which is an Environment Agency asset. The local team have been fantastic, working at pace to progress the case for an urgent project to install remedial rock armour in front of the sea seawall. And while approval for the project is not guaranteed, the local team hope the EA will find the funding to support Torcross and I look forward to receiving an update on this soon.

However, there will still be the question of what could and should be done to prevent outflanking where the Environment Agency's assets end. There is a huge cost to works like this, and there is always a cost benefit argument to be won, which is what we will all try to do for Torcross. But what is never easy to factor into such an equation is the cost of doing nothing. What does it really cost to leave a village to fall into the sea? What is the cost to people's health and health services? The cost to the wider community, to the social fabric of a very place like this? When defences are not maintained, places like Torcross and Beesands are more than just houses.

They are destinations, lifelines for people looking for an escape from the demands of daily life, a magnetic draw with their beaches, pubs and cafes. For anyone looking to slow down, breathe the air and watch the birds swim in the sea, or just simply walk along the beach. And who should pay? When homeowners lose everything that they have worked and saved for? These are not easy questions, which is why there is no clear answer. But the cost of prevention versus evacuation and loss has to be part of this.

And it's one the government must grapple seriously with. Time is not on our side. And in the village of business just down the coast, this is abundantly clear. The erosion has accelerated rapidly in recent years, where around 80m of village green previously separated houses from the sea. Only nine metres now remain in some areas, with the access road to the village also potentially at risk. Amidst all the trauma of the residents of this special place, I must place on record my sincere gratitude to officers and councillors from South Hams District Council and Devon County Council, who have been outstanding throughout this crisis.

But gratitude for them is not enough. These councils are absorbing the cost of emergency repairs, facing potential loss of council tax, business rates and car parking revenue, and doing all of this whilst operating under significant financial pressure with limited central government support mechanisms to draw on what they need and what local authorities and coastal communities across England need, is a genuine financial partnership with central government. When coastal emergencies strike, the Bellwin scheme is simply not fit for purpose when it comes to coastal flooding.

As the Coastal Protection Authority South Hams District Council has incurred huge costs since the 2nd of February, including £100,000 for boulders to provide protection in the area that was worst affected. However, they've been informed that only expenditure within 30 days of the event is eligible for reimbursement under the scheme. While I understand that the Bellwin scheme is intended to support local authorities in their emergency response, in the case of coastal emergencies, it can easily take 30 days just to formulate and implement a plan.

The current system asks councils to carry risks and costs that are simply beyond their means to to absorb, and that must change. I must also mention the flood recovery framework. The current situation is frankly illogical. The framework provides central government support in cases of severe flooding affecting large areas of England. But whether incidents with localised impacts, however devastating, do not qualify. In Start Bay, the community is in crisis and the answer for the system is sorry, not enough people were affected.

That cannot be right and I urge the government to reform the framework so that it can respond to severe but localised coastal incidents of exactly this kind. And I want to turn now to the question of insurance, a common theme with my constituents. There is currently no specific insurance product for coastal erosion. Flood re provides government backed cover for flood risk, but there is a clear and urgent gap when it comes to erosion. I therefore call on the government to look seriously at implementing a flood restyle product for coastal erosion.

And I note that a sobering report published by the EFRA Committee last week has made exactly this recommendation. While homeowners in Tollcross may be successful in securing insurance payouts to support repairs to their properties on this occasion, it's unclear whether they will be able to obtain new insurance in the future. So I ask the government to provide assurance that those who are affected by coastal erosion and coastal flooding, particularly those whose properties are in areas with coastal protection measures in place that are supposed to work, that they will be supported to access affordable insurance in the future.

And it's also crucial that people buying homes near the coast are given the full picture of the coastal erosion risk they face during the conveyancing process, not just to the property itself, but to the surrounding access routes, utilities and insurance availability. Given the climate induced threats that we now face, these risks must be included as material information in conveyancing. I also want to raise a problem with the way government responds to crises like this. The community impacts of coastal erosion fall primarily to MCHLG, while the physical erosion challenges are overseen by DEFRA.

That fragmentation has real human consequences, and it places an additional burden on local authorities who find themselves navigating a confusing and fragmented central government landscape at precisely the moment when they need clarity and support. I want to see DEFRA set out clearly how it recognises and incorporates the full range of the human impact of coastal erosion into policy development and funding decisions, with clear actions and a defined approach to community engagement. The EFRA Committee report called for exactly this, and I endorse that call.

And finally, one of the most troubling gaps of all, the complete absence of any national strategy for those who lose their homes to the sea. No one should face the loss of their home to the water and find that the state has nothing to offer them but a place on a housing waiting list for social homes that simply don't exist. The EFRA committee has recommended that a long term national strategy providing financial assistance and relocation support should be in place no later than March 2027.

I fully support that recommendation and I urge the government to commit to it. So what am I asks. First, funding for the repair of the A379 Slapton line and the improvement of our inland road network. Devon County Council are currently working on a full business case for the Department for transport, and I urge the government to respond to their application swiftly. Second, funding for sea defences along the Start Bay coastline. I asked the government to commit that the Environment Agency will have what it needs to respond in an agile and timely manner to coastal emergencies like this one.

The process for accessing such funding is incredibly complicated, but speed is of the essence in a situation like this. Third, meaningful, dedicated financial support for local authorities dealing with coastal emergencies for the cost of emergency repairs for potential loss of business rates, revenue, car parking income and council tax. Councils are doing extraordinary work in extraordinarily difficult circumstances. They should not be left to carry the financial consequences of a national challenge on their own. For urgent action on the flood recovery framework to ensure localised weather incidents are treated just as seriously as national events.

This is a big problem in a small place and it needs a big solution. Fifth, a national strategy for households displaced by coastal erosion in place by March 2027. And lastly, a commitment to provide government backed insurance for coastal erosion and for insurance policy premiums to be capped for those whose properties have been damaged by coastal flooding, such as those in Tollcross. I'm very aware that not all these asks are the responsibility of Mhclg, but I hope the Minister will relay these to colleagues in other departments.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to close with a broader point because while this debate is about Start Bay, it is also about something much larger. There are communities the length of England's coastline facing versions of what Start Bay is facing right now from the Holderness coast in Yorkshire, where land is disappearing into the North Sea faster than almost anywhere else in Europe, to the eroding cliffs of Norfolk and Suffolk, coastal communities are watching the ground literally shift beneath their feet. Many of them are already among the most socially and economically vulnerable in the country, and many feel forgotten, according to the EFRA committee's report, over 10,000 properties are at risk from coastal erosion in the next 80 years, as well as 183km of roads and six kilometres of railway.

If local authorities are to be able to manage the impacts of coastal erosion, they must be supported by the government to carry out long term strategic planning. What this government does in response to the crisis in Start Bay will be noticed far beyond South Devon. It will send a signal about whether coastal communities can expect a national government to treat their situation with the seriousness it deserves, or whether they will continue to be managed at the margins left to local authorities and agencies that are doing their very best with nowhere near enough support.

The sea does not respect administrative boundaries or departmental silos or funding formula designed for a different kind of emergency. It requires a response that is strategic, sustained and genuinely cross-governmental. The EFRA committee has provided a roadmap. The communities of Start Bay have provided the urgent human case. What is needed now is the political will to act. The people of Torcross B Sands, Hall Sands and the wider Start Bay are not asking for the sea to be stopped. They're asking for a government that sees them, that invests in them, and that works with them to find a way forward.

They are proud and resilient communities that deserve a response equal to the challenge they face. And so do coastal communities the length and breadth of this country. Thank you.
19:34
Miatta Fahnbulleh Portrait Miatta Fahnbulleh MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Peckham, Labour )
-
-
Minister. Thank you. >> Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to my to the hon. Member for South Devon for securing this for South Devon for securing this important debate. May I start by saying that the government absolutely understands and absolutely understands and sympathises with those impacted by coastal erosion in Start Bay. I was hugely saddened to see the impact that the recent storms have had on the hon. Member's constituents and communities, and the government is committed to supporting both her communities and all coastal communities, because we understand and appreciate the urgency of the issue and the huge impact it is having.

Let me start by reiterating that coastal communities are a vital part of our national identity, serving as a reminder of our national pride and shared maritime story. We know we must do more to both protect and preserve these communities against the vulnerabilities that they face with coastal erosion. That's why between 2000 and 24 and March 2026, around 609 million has been invested in the protection from sea flooding, tidal flooding and coastal erosion. And it is also why in October last year, the government announced a major changes to its flood and coastal erosion funding policy.

This reform, which will take place this April, will make it quicker and easier to deliver the right flood and coastal defences in the right places by simplifying our rules. And most recently, in January, we announced the 30 million coastal adaptation pilots, 12 million of which will be made available across England to deliver adaptation action in areas affected by coastal erosion. These pilots will help communities take practical steps to prepare for coastal change. For relocating vulnerable community buildings to strengthening local infrastructure such as beach access and coastal tourism facilities, and the insights from these pilots will be applied across all coastal communities as they adapt to coastal change.

I know that the hon. Member is rightly concerned about the communities in her constituency. We know that residents are concerned in Tollcross by the recent flooding, the wave overtopping and the structural vibrations affecting some properties. As the hon. Member has pointed out, the Environment Agency has done a huge amount of work in the area and early investigations are clear that the defences remain structurally sound, but we will continue keeping this under review and the feasibility of further defence.

Work at Torcross is currently being assessed by the Environment Agency and we expect the initial benefit cost analysis findings to emerge shortly. And future schemes will, of course, depend on developing a full and detailed business case and securing the necessary funding, which the Department is committed to doing. I want to reassure residents that this. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Would she accept that in such a cost benefit analysis that also has. cost benefit analysis that also has. Maybe she could advise me if this is already the case, that the cost of doing nothing is also a cost of doing nothing is also a cost because the cost of moving an entire community and all the impact that has socially and economically is, is possibly much more than the cost of improving defences so that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

cost of improving defences so that they can stay put. Thank you to the hon. Lady and look, we are very alive to the cost of inaction, not just in the context of coastal erosion, but in the context of climate change more broadly. And we are very clear that we need to take robust action to both prevent, but also to adapt and build our resilience to the change that is coming. And my colleagues in DEFRA are very clear and working very closely with both the Environment Agency, but with communities as well, to ensure that we are responding in the right way.

It is worth saying and reassuring residents that this process of looking at how we bolster our defences is underway, and it is one that we are taking seriously. It is in addition to the work the DEFRA doing, and I will take away the asks that the hon. Member has set out. She will know that many of them sit with my colleagues over at DEFRA, not us at MCHLG. But we are working closely because, as she says, the boundaries don't stop at DEFRA.

We absolutely need to work in lockstep, but I will make sure that we relay all of those asks and that we ask the relevant Minister to both respond to her, but potentially put in a meeting as well to discuss the particular issues in her area. I wanted also mentioned that alongside the critical issue of coastal erosion, which we recognise, and which I hope she takes reassurance that we are taking seriously and we understand that we need to act. We are also very clear that we need to continue investing in supporting our coastal communities, and that is both to ensure that that we are investing in the areas that are under pressure, but making sure that we are putting vital assets into retaining both the heritage, but also life and opportunities in our coastal communities.

And this is why we have put in place, put in place funding across many of our coastal communities. At least 56 coastal communities across the UK will receive over 1 billion through Pride in Place program over the next decade, and this will be targeted at both regeneration, but fundamental will be targeted at investing in the priorities of the local community, and many of them will be thinking about the infrastructure that they have and that what the investment in that infrastructure in order to preserve their communities.

We are also clear that it will champion local leadership, foster community engagement and strengthen cohesion. And for me, this is important because we must absolutely do the job of protecting and insulating against the change that is coming. But we must also make sure that we are investing and bolstering our communities so they continue being thriving, thriving, vibrant places. I, in conclusion, would like to thank the hon. Member once again for raising this important debate. I would like to reassure her that we will raise the points that she has made with our colleagues across in DEFRA, but also to reassure her that we will absolutely do our part to make sure that we are working so that we are both building communities that are resilient and supporting those communities as they go through a very difficult transition, as they adapt to the changes that are coming, we will continue doing our bit to support coastal communities.

It is important that hon. Members like

**** Possible New Speaker ****

herself continue raising the case for coastal communities at. Just briefly, before the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just briefly, before the Minister winds up, one of the things that came out in conversations I was having today is the complication of. In a. In a coastal environment like this at torcross of having assets that are torcross of having assets that are owned by the Environment Agency and then assets that are owned, such as the road by the Council, and then the road by the Council, and then third party assets might be there as well, you know, quay side walls or other infrastructure.

And the complication of managing that and all the different agencies that are involved, alongside the complication of MCHLG and DEFRA and transport all having to work together, would suggest that perhaps we're reaching the point where the government might need to think about a an office for climate change events or something. I don't know what you would call it, but someone who can who can bring all those things together and have an oversight because it is incredibly complicated to navigate this, this patchwork landscape of, of responsibility.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The hon. Member is very right. We are acutely aware that the landscape is incredibly complex and landscape is incredibly complex and has evolved over time. What we are trying to do is both local authority level, but increasingly as we're trying to build up the structure at regional level, is allow far greater coordination so allow far greater coordination so that ultimately the priorities of the local area can come together, can be coordinated. And critically, can be coordinated. And critically, we as departments, rather than working in silos, are working with one voice in lockstep with the community.

I will come back to the point I've sort of made consistently. This is an urgent issue. We are hugely aware of the impacts on our coastal communities. We are very aware of the need for us to work across departmental silos and with the Environment Agency and with the local authorities in order to respond, and there is an absolute commitment on all of our parts in order to do that, for the very reasons that the hon. Member has set out. This is having a huge, profound impact on communities.

If we do not get it right, if we do not adapt, if we do not build resilience, if we do not build the infrastructure, there will be communities that will fall into the sea and that is an unconscionable outcome. So I hope she is reassured that we are trying to work across boundaries. I hope she'll take that. I will make sure that I'm passing this onto my colleagues in DEFRA who hold some of the levers, but there is a commitment for us to work along alongside them, to make sure that we are supporting our coastal communities so that they are not just protected, but critically, can thrive.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House do now adjourn. As many as are of that opinion say aye.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that opinion say aye. Aye. The ayes have it. The ayes have
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page