Commons Chamber
Tuesday 23rd June 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 1 month ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
13:46
Lincoln Jopp MP (Spelthorne, Conservative)
-
-
Lincoln Jopp MP (Spelthorne, Conservative)
that my pension is making a huge contribution to our ability to face down a resurgent Russia. She couldn't afford the. So everyone was taking risk and passing on that risk to one another, and it is now, I'm afraid that risk has now crystallised in the fact that we do face real enemies, and the enemies are very, very close, and we do have to rearm. And I should declare an interest as a founder of the rearmament all party parliamentary group.
And unfortunately, our record on rearmament is not great. I think the numbers will run the other day, and out of the 32 NATO members that were recorded, we come 31st for rearmament. Out of those 32, the only trouble is that the person who's 32nd is Iceland, and they don't have any armed force. So it's not a great record. In order to go over to Europe and try and convince our European and NATO allies that we're pulling our weight, 1 or 2 other things happened in that period of time.
Firstly, I think that the MoD got pretty bloated and in particular its procurement. I think it's deeply unhelpful that we are now on our third procurement Minister in less than 22 months, and that is bad because it makes it look like we're not taking it seriously. And equally, it shows no consistency to the building of approach. And when the government came in, they appointed the national armaments director. It's going to be the second highest paid civil servant in the country.
And I, I hope that they are a massive success. I hope that they are a massive success, and I try to set the National Armaments director up for success pre pre him being appointed because I asked two procurement Ministers whether they were going to be given carte blanche to tear up the book when it comes to procurement and two procurement Ministers, one of them said, not only is he is he going to be given the ability to tear up the book, we will hold him to account for doing so.
And I said, the last thing anyone on the defence committee wants is for the national armaments director to come in front of us after being imposed a year, and them to say, well, we did want to change things, but I wasn't really. Allowed to. So the way is set fair. The National Armaments director can rip up that book and. And when the defence committee went to Ukraine last year, we were briefed on their procurement structure. It's absolutely extraordinary. The front line they've put together sort of Amazon like marketplace 1700 sovereign Ukrainian defence companies are the suppliers and their customers are the fighting brigades.
And the fighting brigades. Simply write a requirement for a new bit of kit. Let's say, for example, that the the Russians have got a new screen in. So it's you know, you can't fly your fibre optically guided munition right into their command post and have it blow up on the General's desk. So let's say they put some new sort of screen, the brigade simply write up that requirement saying, well, I need a pre charge of some sort in order to burst through that screen so I can fly my fog in and get the baddies.
That then gets put out to industry. Industry churns the problem and their their record is from flash to bang, from requirement to kit delivery is five days, five days. And that's what can be achieved. And if you look at. If hon. Members look at what is being bypassed in order to achieve that sort of level of agility. Firstly, the whole of the military chain of command above brigade level bypass, the Ministry of Defence, bypassed the Treasury, bypassed, and equally all the regulators bypassed.
And so that is should give the national armaments director a sense of where we have to go in order to generate the relevance, because I think I heard the I think I heard the Armed Forces Minister, I can't remember which one who resigned or not, say the other day is rather tricky buying drones, because as soon as you've got them, you know, they go out of date, so we won't buy any. And I just thought, well, that's pretty defeatist actually. Redo the way in which we're thinking about things so that our forward land forces in Estonia have got drones.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
You know, I did I forgive me. I think. The comments. Around drones in particular, there is a requirement to bring there is a requirement to bring drones into the system. So training tactics, procedures, doctrine and concepts can be taught. The point was about drones going out of date was about drones going out of date within six weeks. The innovation the gentleman just talked about is changing so fast that if you were changing so fast that if you were to buy en masse that they would be out of date over time.
But there is a requirement to teach and train
**** Possible New Speaker ****
a requirement to teach and train our armed forces to interoperate context. I thank the former Minister for his intervention. I think that there is a huge challenge to us that we have to turn our ploughshares into swords rather than the other way round, and we need industry which is sufficiently flexible in order to flick the switch and turn the lawnmower factory into the drone factory in double quick time, because I'd be delighted. I've made absolutely brilliant speech. And this, you know, I must say, I think for many people this would have been an obscure argument some years ago, but on how you procure drones, I genuinely think it's one of the most critical questions for the country.
Does he reflect that? What we need to think about is SMEs as mission partners, rather than thinking of the hardware where you buy effectively as a service, and that service is where you buy that learning so that the thing you buy really is not the capability, but the cultural change towards constant iteration, which is how you survive in a war like we see in Ukraine. I think by the other group I didn't mention that have been bypassed. Are the 18 prime contractors.
It's direct to the SMEs. And I'm afraid that I think that the model that we have developed since the end of the Cold War has seen the 18 primes, you know, getting rich off of defence pounds and SMEs getting legged over. And I think that the National Armaments director should seriously look at the way in which we do that in order to capture the innovative nature of SMEs who are doing some wonderful stuff, ironically not selling it to the MoD. It's all going overseas.
I'd like to come back to the point that the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar talked about when he talked about honesty, about the threat, because I do agree with him that unless we are very clear about the threat and we express it outside this play at every opportunity, I think the we had a I think the Prime Minister of Norway talked about defence about once a week on on all his radio and television interviews, the. We met their joint forces commander.
He even. He goes on once a week and talks about the threat. Now they're nearer Russia, OK. They've got a border with Russia, a small land border and a very large sea border. But I do think that I think the SDR mentioned having a starting a national conversation or something. It seems to be a sort of a conversation of one line. And I would I really do think that if we are going to get the investment that defence needs, we do need to talk much more openly.
And I'm afraid one of the other things that's happened over the the period of the Cold War is that the MoD has become much more secretive. And so major project review, the equipment plan, stuff that the Defence committee always used to get in order to be able to see how these pounds were being spent. We don't get that anymore. And equally, we had James Heappey come and give evidence of actually over the Afghan data breach, but he he got sort of quite lyrical and started talking about the fact that he felt uneasy that as many as he was getting lots of documents in saying, and you can't tell Parliament that, and you can't tell Parliament that it's all highly classified.
Whereas actually they went back and he he claims that he wanted to be able to tell Parliament more, but was constrained by the classification system from, say, doing so I would they used to be the defence Committee used to do its own redaction. It used to get the full threat picture, and then they were grown up enough to be able to redact and not release secrets out into the public. And I think that would be a much healthier way of would be a much healthier way of doing as we go forward.
Last point, the the moral component of fighting power. We've talked a lot about the physical component, and the moral is to the physical as three is to one. And we know that's true because Napoleon said it and and he was predicted. And the trouble is, and I've had at both former Ministers and current Ministers about the undermining of the moral component of fighting power with the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which is why, when I came 10th in the ballot for private Members Bill, I took the opportunity to.
Attempt to put in law that there should be no further investigations, inquests, inquiries or prosecutions of Northern Ireland veterans unless in the view of a Supreme Court judge, that there is new compelling evidence and that comes to the House of Commons on the 4th of September. I very much hope that I can get cross-party support for that bill when it does come here, because I fear deeply that the stain on the moral component, the constant hounding of our veterans and declaring an interest.
I spent three and a half years of my life in uniform trying to bring peace to that place. Yeah, I, I wasn't shocked and blown up there. I was shocked and blown up somewhere else. When the when, when the children of my schools hear that I've been shot, they all say they'll look at me and go where? And I always say, on the roof of the Mammy Yoko Hotel in Freetown. The. Anyway, the moral component must be reinforced. It's not something that, you know, doesn't need resourcing.
And I personally hope that the only way in which the new Secretary of State for defence was prepared to accept the job was because he had got some deal over Northern Ireland veterans. And so I look forward to finding out whether that is indeed the case, because our veterans need protecting from these prosecutions.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And with that Madam Deputy Speaker, I will sit down. Yes.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yes. Brian Leishman thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker and I would like to add my thanks and would like to add my thanks and gratitude alongside honourable and right hon. Members to those that right hon. Members to those that serve and have served the right hon. Gentleman from South Suffolk, in opening this debate, said about in opening this debate, said about putting politics to one side. But of course, everything is a political choice. Decisions based on ideology, priorities and on one's belief as to what they think is the right course of action.
And I accept that my contribution today to this debate will be an isolated one. But it is my personal ideology,
And unfortunately, our record on rearmament is not great. I think the numbers will run the other day, and out of the 32 NATO members that were recorded, we come 31st for rearmament. Out of those 32, the only trouble is that the person who's 32nd is Iceland, and they don't have any armed force. So it's not a great record. In order to go over to Europe and try and convince our European and NATO allies that we're pulling our weight, 1 or 2 other things happened in that period of time.
Firstly, I think that the MoD got pretty bloated and in particular its procurement. I think it's deeply unhelpful that we are now on our third procurement Minister in less than 22 months, and that is bad because it makes it look like we're not taking it seriously. And equally, it shows no consistency to the building of approach. And when the government came in, they appointed the national armaments director. It's going to be the second highest paid civil servant in the country.
And I, I hope that they are a massive success. I hope that they are a massive success, and I try to set the National Armaments director up for success pre pre him being appointed because I asked two procurement Ministers whether they were going to be given carte blanche to tear up the book when it comes to procurement and two procurement Ministers, one of them said, not only is he is he going to be given the ability to tear up the book, we will hold him to account for doing so.
And I said, the last thing anyone on the defence committee wants is for the national armaments director to come in front of us after being imposed a year, and them to say, well, we did want to change things, but I wasn't really. Allowed to. So the way is set fair. The National Armaments director can rip up that book and. And when the defence committee went to Ukraine last year, we were briefed on their procurement structure. It's absolutely extraordinary. The front line they've put together sort of Amazon like marketplace 1700 sovereign Ukrainian defence companies are the suppliers and their customers are the fighting brigades.
And the fighting brigades. Simply write a requirement for a new bit of kit. Let's say, for example, that the the Russians have got a new screen in. So it's you know, you can't fly your fibre optically guided munition right into their command post and have it blow up on the General's desk. So let's say they put some new sort of screen, the brigade simply write up that requirement saying, well, I need a pre charge of some sort in order to burst through that screen so I can fly my fog in and get the baddies.
That then gets put out to industry. Industry churns the problem and their their record is from flash to bang, from requirement to kit delivery is five days, five days. And that's what can be achieved. And if you look at. If hon. Members look at what is being bypassed in order to achieve that sort of level of agility. Firstly, the whole of the military chain of command above brigade level bypass, the Ministry of Defence, bypassed the Treasury, bypassed, and equally all the regulators bypassed.
And so that is should give the national armaments director a sense of where we have to go in order to generate the relevance, because I think I heard the I think I heard the Armed Forces Minister, I can't remember which one who resigned or not, say the other day is rather tricky buying drones, because as soon as you've got them, you know, they go out of date, so we won't buy any. And I just thought, well, that's pretty defeatist actually. Redo the way in which we're thinking about things so that our forward land forces in Estonia have got drones.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
You know, I did I forgive me. I think. The comments. Around drones in particular, there is a requirement to bring there is a requirement to bring drones into the system. So training tactics, procedures, doctrine and concepts can be taught. The point was about drones going out of date was about drones going out of date within six weeks. The innovation the gentleman just talked about is changing so fast that if you were changing so fast that if you were to buy en masse that they would be out of date over time.
But there is a requirement to teach and train
**** Possible New Speaker ****
a requirement to teach and train our armed forces to interoperate context. I thank the former Minister for his intervention. I think that there is a huge challenge to us that we have to turn our ploughshares into swords rather than the other way round, and we need industry which is sufficiently flexible in order to flick the switch and turn the lawnmower factory into the drone factory in double quick time, because I'd be delighted. I've made absolutely brilliant speech. And this, you know, I must say, I think for many people this would have been an obscure argument some years ago, but on how you procure drones, I genuinely think it's one of the most critical questions for the country.
Does he reflect that? What we need to think about is SMEs as mission partners, rather than thinking of the hardware where you buy effectively as a service, and that service is where you buy that learning so that the thing you buy really is not the capability, but the cultural change towards constant iteration, which is how you survive in a war like we see in Ukraine. I think by the other group I didn't mention that have been bypassed. Are the 18 prime contractors.
It's direct to the SMEs. And I'm afraid that I think that the model that we have developed since the end of the Cold War has seen the 18 primes, you know, getting rich off of defence pounds and SMEs getting legged over. And I think that the National Armaments director should seriously look at the way in which we do that in order to capture the innovative nature of SMEs who are doing some wonderful stuff, ironically not selling it to the MoD. It's all going overseas.
I'd like to come back to the point that the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar talked about when he talked about honesty, about the threat, because I do agree with him that unless we are very clear about the threat and we express it outside this play at every opportunity, I think the we had a I think the Prime Minister of Norway talked about defence about once a week on on all his radio and television interviews, the. We met their joint forces commander.
He even. He goes on once a week and talks about the threat. Now they're nearer Russia, OK. They've got a border with Russia, a small land border and a very large sea border. But I do think that I think the SDR mentioned having a starting a national conversation or something. It seems to be a sort of a conversation of one line. And I would I really do think that if we are going to get the investment that defence needs, we do need to talk much more openly.
And I'm afraid one of the other things that's happened over the the period of the Cold War is that the MoD has become much more secretive. And so major project review, the equipment plan, stuff that the Defence committee always used to get in order to be able to see how these pounds were being spent. We don't get that anymore. And equally, we had James Heappey come and give evidence of actually over the Afghan data breach, but he he got sort of quite lyrical and started talking about the fact that he felt uneasy that as many as he was getting lots of documents in saying, and you can't tell Parliament that, and you can't tell Parliament that it's all highly classified.
Whereas actually they went back and he he claims that he wanted to be able to tell Parliament more, but was constrained by the classification system from, say, doing so I would they used to be the defence Committee used to do its own redaction. It used to get the full threat picture, and then they were grown up enough to be able to redact and not release secrets out into the public. And I think that would be a much healthier way of would be a much healthier way of doing as we go forward.
Last point, the the moral component of fighting power. We've talked a lot about the physical component, and the moral is to the physical as three is to one. And we know that's true because Napoleon said it and and he was predicted. And the trouble is, and I've had at both former Ministers and current Ministers about the undermining of the moral component of fighting power with the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which is why, when I came 10th in the ballot for private Members Bill, I took the opportunity to.
Attempt to put in law that there should be no further investigations, inquests, inquiries or prosecutions of Northern Ireland veterans unless in the view of a Supreme Court judge, that there is new compelling evidence and that comes to the House of Commons on the 4th of September. I very much hope that I can get cross-party support for that bill when it does come here, because I fear deeply that the stain on the moral component, the constant hounding of our veterans and declaring an interest.
I spent three and a half years of my life in uniform trying to bring peace to that place. Yeah, I, I wasn't shocked and blown up there. I was shocked and blown up somewhere else. When the when, when the children of my schools hear that I've been shot, they all say they'll look at me and go where? And I always say, on the roof of the Mammy Yoko Hotel in Freetown. The. Anyway, the moral component must be reinforced. It's not something that, you know, doesn't need resourcing.
And I personally hope that the only way in which the new Secretary of State for defence was prepared to accept the job was because he had got some deal over Northern Ireland veterans. And so I look forward to finding out whether that is indeed the case, because our veterans need protecting from these prosecutions.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And with that Madam Deputy Speaker, I will sit down. Yes.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yes. Brian Leishman thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker and I would like to add my thanks and would like to add my thanks and gratitude alongside honourable and right hon. Members to those that right hon. Members to those that serve and have served the right hon. Gentleman from South Suffolk, in opening this debate, said about in opening this debate, said about putting politics to one side. But of course, everything is a political choice. Decisions based on ideology, priorities and on one's belief as to what they think is the right course of action.
And I accept that my contribution today to this debate will be an isolated one. But it is my personal ideology,
13:58
Brian Leishman MP (Alloa and Grangemouth, Labour)
-
-
Brian Leishman MP (Alloa and Grangemouth, Labour)
priorities and beliefs. Now, the bare minimum in any debate should be honesty, and it's important that we address this as an honesty we address this as an honesty straight away, that any movement from the self-imposed straitjacket, from the self-imposed straitjacket, that is the fiscal rules will mean an increase in defence spending. an increase in defence spending. That will therefore have to mean a cut to other areas. Now, the framing of this debate from the opposition, specifically on welfare, as being the target.
Madam Deputy Speaker with that in mind, I would like to talk a little bit about welfare, because just under a fortnight ago, along with my hon. Friend from Liverpool, West Derby, I organised an evidence gathering session in Grangemouth for the Right to Food Commission that has toured around the country investigating the state of food insecurity and poverty. Now in Grangemouth, we heard from fantastic local organisations who provide food to individuals and families who are living in such a dire, precarious position that they are reliant on the generosity of others.
These organisations laid out the stark reality that the reasons why people are in that situation is because of low wages, wages that haven't kept pace with inflation all the way through the conservative government's from the 2010 onwards. Let us not forget that the Liberal Democrats part in the early days of the austerity coalition that created a new strata of society, that of the in-work poor, 3000 people used food banks. In 2010, more than 3 million today. And it wasn't as if that conservative government of the day were investing in defence.
Quite the opposite. And during those austerity years, the state also gradually withdrew itself every year, cut by cut until we have been left with a social security system that is no longer a genuine safety net. People are falling through it. They will never escape poverty. There is no one here in this chamber question why we have a national minimum wage, a living wage in the real living wage? Is it not absolutely absurd that we have three different figures that are deemed acceptable? But all in all honesty, far too low that they are nowhere near enough for people to live on? For heaven's sake.
We are one of the biggest economies in the world, yet we have 14% of children going hungry, workers needing food banks to survive, low wages, decimated public services, poverty, inequality and communities that have been asset stripped for decades. If we want to talk about national security, then let's acknowledge that all of those things are actually killing our people right now. What kind of country do we live in when we allow that kind of poverty? What are we actually supposed to be defending here? National security is about more than defence spending.
It is about creating a healthy, well educated nation. People having good, well-paid, secure jobs and adequate housing. As I say, it's always about political choices and about priorities. And I make no apology for those being my.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I call Iain Duncan Smith. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Madam Deputy Speaker, it's
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Madam Deputy Speaker, it's Amanda's privilege to take part in this particular debate. It has to be very clear to us on both sides be very clear to us on both sides of the House that this is the most critical debate that we will be critical debate that we will be involved with, because the most critical thing that we face and is often escaped, and I credit my hon. Friends intervention earlier because he sent it on the very
Madam Deputy Speaker with that in mind, I would like to talk a little bit about welfare, because just under a fortnight ago, along with my hon. Friend from Liverpool, West Derby, I organised an evidence gathering session in Grangemouth for the Right to Food Commission that has toured around the country investigating the state of food insecurity and poverty. Now in Grangemouth, we heard from fantastic local organisations who provide food to individuals and families who are living in such a dire, precarious position that they are reliant on the generosity of others.
These organisations laid out the stark reality that the reasons why people are in that situation is because of low wages, wages that haven't kept pace with inflation all the way through the conservative government's from the 2010 onwards. Let us not forget that the Liberal Democrats part in the early days of the austerity coalition that created a new strata of society, that of the in-work poor, 3000 people used food banks. In 2010, more than 3 million today. And it wasn't as if that conservative government of the day were investing in defence.
Quite the opposite. And during those austerity years, the state also gradually withdrew itself every year, cut by cut until we have been left with a social security system that is no longer a genuine safety net. People are falling through it. They will never escape poverty. There is no one here in this chamber question why we have a national minimum wage, a living wage in the real living wage? Is it not absolutely absurd that we have three different figures that are deemed acceptable? But all in all honesty, far too low that they are nowhere near enough for people to live on? For heaven's sake.
We are one of the biggest economies in the world, yet we have 14% of children going hungry, workers needing food banks to survive, low wages, decimated public services, poverty, inequality and communities that have been asset stripped for decades. If we want to talk about national security, then let's acknowledge that all of those things are actually killing our people right now. What kind of country do we live in when we allow that kind of poverty? What are we actually supposed to be defending here? National security is about more than defence spending.
It is about creating a healthy, well educated nation. People having good, well-paid, secure jobs and adequate housing. As I say, it's always about political choices and about priorities. And I make no apology for those being my.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I call Iain Duncan Smith. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Madam Deputy Speaker, it's
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Madam Deputy Speaker, it's Amanda's privilege to take part in this particular debate. It has to be very clear to us on both sides be very clear to us on both sides of the House that this is the most critical debate that we will be critical debate that we will be involved with, because the most critical thing that we face and is often escaped, and I credit my hon. Friends intervention earlier because he sent it on the very
14:02
Rt Hon Sir Iain Duncan Smith MP (Chingford and Woodford Green, Conservative)
-
-
Rt Hon Sir Iain Duncan Smith MP (Chingford and Woodford Green, Conservative)
thing that I think is important. It's all very well for us, and I It's all very well for us, and I say with gentle comment to the government benches, it's very it's very easy to go round the whole very easy to go round the whole time saying, well, of course, you know, you did this and we didn't. The truth is, you can go right back The truth is, you can go right back on how much previous governments failed with regards to defence. I failed with regards to defence.
I was serving in the late 1970s when the Labour government was in terrible difficulty, and they were slashing the budgets and military personnel at the captain and senior sergeant rank were leaving the army in those days in droves. And I can remember one conversation, depressed conversation after another that we held, you know, helped by a certain amount of Scottish water, that we decided quite clearly that there was no future. I don't know what the hell you're talking about. The there is no future in the Army for us now.
I stayed on a bit longer. I've got a certain degree, but many left who I knew were very competent and very good people, and it's very difficult to fill those posts. That's the bit in the armed forces that is critical to everything else that happens. If you don't have a cadre of the sort of middle ranking officers and senior non-commissioned officers, you don't have an army. You have just a lot of orders from the top down and unable to do them. And I think, therefore, what we speak about today is critical because we have to send a message to our armed forces that we believe in them fully, strongly and will support them in every way at all.
Which is why it's a pleasure to see the right hon. Gentleman sitting in his place after his resignation. He has the respect of many of my colleagues on this bench, without question, not only for his past but for his presence. And I know what it's like to resign when you disagree with the government. I've done it a few times myself, but the that the reality is, I say to him that he will never he will never regret that. Because the thing that matters most of all when we come to this place is not us.
It's not the debates that we have here. In a way, it's the people out there that put us here. If we do not plan to speak up even when our own side doesn't want us to, then we are not worthy of being in this place. And therefore I congratulate him. Not because I'm in a party political game, but because I respect him for having called out a problem that the government faces and all of the Ministers on that bench know it as he knows that.
And the reality is, it's what will we do about it? And so I have to say that the here today, the one bit that I want to start with is, is about Northern Ireland. And I have to say, I, I shall be there, by the way, on the 4th of September, cheering him on. But the reality is that we cannot for one moment forget that we have reduced the morale of British soldiers who had served veterans who were now often in their late 70s, and 80s who find themselves persecuted.
And I say to the Ministry of Defence, to the defence Ministers right now, is that this has really started in the Northern Ireland Office, which is overly, overly persuaded by Sinn Fein and that they can somehow change what happened and come out as victors as the right hon. Gentleman said in his resignation speech. They lost. They lost because of the efforts of the armed forces, of all those who didn't see another day, who died in the service of their country. But more importantly, we forget walking down streets in your country, armed, trying to protect civilians against aggression is something quite different from anything else that the armed forces were ever trained really to do.
And in doing it, they had to figure out all sorts of complications. And I think the trouble with the Northern Ireland Bill is that it doesn't deal with that. It doesn't deal with the sense of what we asked our soldiers to do and to risk their lives to protect the British public in the streets, in Britain, in the United Kingdom. And I think, therefore, we have to understand that the legislation that the government brought forward is wrong. It is wrong. It doesn't mean to say that what we have was fantastic.
It wasn't. There were many flaws in IT and failings, but many of us felt that we would support it because it did one major thing. It stopped the constant attacks on those poor veterans whose lives are now coming to the end, and they see themselves being dragged through the courts
**** Possible New Speaker ****
all over again. I will indeed. One of. The. Arguments put forward for
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Arguments put forward for legislation is that it will help families to find out the truth of what happened to their loved ones. And yet, by repealing the And yet, by repealing the conservative legislation, it makes that less likely rather than more likely, because who is going to come forward and incriminate themselves by saying, what happened to people who were unlawfully killed? If they know that, they
**** Possible New Speaker ****
will not then have immunity from prosecution? Yeah. That's exactly the point. And as I say, I hope on the 4th of September, we're able to drag this point out again and make it very clear if we in this House do not clear if we in this House do not stand by those that we ordered to go to war or to protect, to bear arms for the sake of the country, then who is going to do that? We have the power to sweep things away have the power to sweep things away or to make them.
And what I say to the government very gently, because there are many times I say I've disagreed, my own government, I say to this government very gently, think again. Do not allow the Northern Ireland Office to drive this thing through, when Ministers know fully that this is wrong and they need to defend those soldiers, even to the extent of the rows that may take place in Cabinet or amongst Ministers. But I want to. Indeed.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Does he recall, he and I and others having multiple meetings in others having multiple meetings in the Northern Ireland Office when we were backbenchers, going through the detail of this Bill almost line by line, on occasions, trying to defend the interests of veterans and bit by bit, overcoming the resistance of Northern Ireland resistance of Northern Ireland Office civil servants. Does he recall how difficult that was? But does he still believe, like me,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that it was worth it? I do. It was difficult and we
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I do. It was difficult and we stuck to the task. We weren't very popular at the time, but that's been a constant in my life. But the been a constant in my life. But the reality is that I think you only know you're successful when you're know you're successful when you're not popular, I have to tell you. But we were on that. And as I say there, it wasn't perfect what we there, it wasn't perfect what we were trying to get, but it was better than what we've now got.
And that is the key bit, because it held at the heart of it, protecting those who have been sent bearing arms to defend the British people. We need to defend them and respect the sacrifice that they made.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And one more time, another spurious argument, which I'm afraid we've heard earlier in this debate, we've heard earlier in this debate, is that the legislation put our is that the legislation put our armed forces on the same level as terrorists. The truth of the matter is everybody is on the same level is everybody is on the same level before the law. And in any case, the Northern Ireland Sentences Act of 1998 sold the part on that anyway, because nobody, even if convicted of a first degree murder, as the Americans might say, goes to jail for more than two years.
And that put everybody on the same level before the law as any such
**** Possible New Speaker ****
legislation has to do. Yes, your point is quite correct, of course, and he is exactly right to make the point now. But I want to finish on this particular element of the debate today by element of the debate today by simply saying that we really, really, really must understand if the first priority of government is the first priority of government is defence of the realm, then the second priority is defence of those that they send to fight to protect that they send to fight to protect the realm.
If we cannot do that, then we are not worthy of being here. And I say gently to the government, the House would support you, the Ministers, if they go back to government and say about the Northern Ireland position, this is quite wrong. It's unbalanced and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
it's deeply unfair, and I hope they will do just that. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But can I say, Madam Deputy
**** Possible New Speaker ****
But can I say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the real reason why I decided to speak today is because I decided to speak today is because I am really, really worried. I have been talking about this for some considerable time. And the reality considerable time. And the reality is that we are now in a more dangerous situation than we have been in, I believe not since the been in, I believe not since the Cold War, because at least during the Cold War we arrived at the Cold War knowing what we had to do.
You know, governments cooperated together. We had we had NATO fairly newly formed, full of the attitude that we would defend each other no matter what. And we were armed and we were ready. I think this is more dangerous because we are much more like the 1930s now. And I'm not in the business, by the way, of saying that the government, you know, this government is responsible. No, all governments bear responsibility. An hon. Friend said that, and I agree that there has been too much in a minute.
If I could just finish this point. The point I want to make, though, is that we are seeing the rise of a threat very similar to what we saw in the 1930s, and we our behaviour towards that threat is exactly the same as we were in the 1930s. And my father wrote a book many years ago about his time. He was a highly decorated five gallantry medal fighter pilot during the war, commanded in the war, fought all the way through, and he said he could never forgive politicians for having placed the country in the parlour situation of being close to losing the war, because they did not see what the danger was and didn't want to be involved in spending more on defence.
That was the point he made and it's resonated with me forever and I and I happen to believe that right now we are seeing in front of us the growth of totalitarian states. China is at the centre of this, but North Korea, Iran, Russia and others like Myanmar developing. We are seeing more totalitarian states coming to fruition around the world and now outnumbering democratic states in the United Nations, the axis has shifted, and now what we have failed to do over the last 15 or 20 years, not only have we not made ourselves ready, and even today we are not.
But the reality is that we simply fail to recognise that they are. If I just say that in China today, one naval shipyard now builds more naval ships than the whole of the United States. In one year, one naval shipyard, they have 130 times. Now, I'm told, the capacity to build naval vessels than America does. And it's no good really looking at Europe, because we hardly build naval vessels anymore either. And that was the reality and the difference between what happened in 37, 38 and 39 is that actually we had a major industry sitting here that could build tanks, could build aircraft.
It had brilliant aircraft designers, it could build ships. We had probably the most powerful fleet in the world ready to go to war if we had to. We are not in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that situation today. I'll give you. Thank you. And I. Thank the right hon. Gentleman
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. And actually I agree. My own father said that the agree. My own father said that the biggest mistake was in the late 30s that we had our head in the sand. So I don't I don't disagree with So I don't I don't disagree with him, but what I was thinking, I know the right hon. Gentleman's been here for a long time. In 2010, the sorry the Labour government was spending, I think, when they left office, 2.5% of GDP.
And my own thoughts here are. If only we had kept spending that we would have £90 billion more. That would have been invested in defence at this point. Now. And does he accept that that that would have been the case
**** Possible New Speaker ****
and that that is a great shame that that has happened. All these things are a great
**** Possible New Speaker ****
All these things are a great shame when you look back in the past. What we can't do, I always say to myself is that no matter how much we fight the issues of the past, we always exactly lose them because we can't alter them. What we have to do is learn the lessons we have to do is learn the lessons from the past. And I believe that the previous government had learnt the lessons by the end, and was the lessons by the end, and was committed to spending more, and was spending more and doing more.
The sad part about it is that the new governments come in and there are differences here, and I'm not going to be focussed on that. All I want to say is we learn from our past and we learn from our past mistakes. If we don't do that, then we are certainly determined to repeat all of those mistakes again. Only this time it may be too late for us to have corrected that. And the reality for us in this debate today should be not a debate at each other, but a coming together of this House to require from this government that they must finance defence to the level that is necessary.
Again, I am a number here that are old enough to remember that when we finally faced the threat of the Soviet Union, with its increase in terms of its placement of its medium term missiles, medium range missiles threatening targets in Europe, we stepped up. Spending went to 5%, and it was tough. But they did it. All of NATO did it. There was no one lagging in that sense. Germany stepped up, even though they were massive crowds on the street saying no.
They stepped up and we saw off that threat because the Soviet Union realised that we were ready. And all. I simply say, therefore, in conclusion to this evening, is that the government should appeal over and across the benches for the support for a higher level of spending. 3% in this Parliament should be the de minimis of what we have to do, and that is not enough. We should be at 3% before the end of this Parliament, with a commitment to rise at least to 4 to 5%, and all of those other countries in Europe, that would have been the past.
Look to us for leadership in a crisis like this are finding that they cannot do that because we are behind them in the spending patterns and in the determination to defend NATO and our own home countries. If we want to lead, we have to show the way by what we commit to in financial terms. And I urge the government, therefore, this evening and beyond to to hear what their Ministers, who have sadly resigned from the government, have said to them to hear what the House, in real general terms wants, which is we are ready to commit that spending.
We will work to find the savings. We will give support for those that are dedicated to defence. But what we must never do is forget the lessons of the past and be unready for what I consider to be the greatest threat that we will have faced this generation since those brave men and women who died for us to have freedom did back in the 1930s and the 1940s. It would be a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
shame if we forgot why they died. Yeah. I call Andrew Lewin.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I call Andrew Lewin. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And can I say it's a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green for his incredibly authoritative speech. And also I want to commend the Member for Spelthorne, who spoke I thought very powerfully earlier on in this debate. I am not somebody in this debate. I am not somebody who has served, but I say whenever I have the opportunity to speak on this subject, that this House is richer because of the service of people on all sides, including my hon.
Friend the former Minister, and, of course, our exceptional Armed Forces Minister. It's Armed Forces Week, so I also want to put on record my thanks for everybody in this country who has served and continues to serve and pay. Particular thank you to a man called Stuart Mendelson, who in
I was serving in the late 1970s when the Labour government was in terrible difficulty, and they were slashing the budgets and military personnel at the captain and senior sergeant rank were leaving the army in those days in droves. And I can remember one conversation, depressed conversation after another that we held, you know, helped by a certain amount of Scottish water, that we decided quite clearly that there was no future. I don't know what the hell you're talking about. The there is no future in the Army for us now.
I stayed on a bit longer. I've got a certain degree, but many left who I knew were very competent and very good people, and it's very difficult to fill those posts. That's the bit in the armed forces that is critical to everything else that happens. If you don't have a cadre of the sort of middle ranking officers and senior non-commissioned officers, you don't have an army. You have just a lot of orders from the top down and unable to do them. And I think, therefore, what we speak about today is critical because we have to send a message to our armed forces that we believe in them fully, strongly and will support them in every way at all.
Which is why it's a pleasure to see the right hon. Gentleman sitting in his place after his resignation. He has the respect of many of my colleagues on this bench, without question, not only for his past but for his presence. And I know what it's like to resign when you disagree with the government. I've done it a few times myself, but the that the reality is, I say to him that he will never he will never regret that. Because the thing that matters most of all when we come to this place is not us.
It's not the debates that we have here. In a way, it's the people out there that put us here. If we do not plan to speak up even when our own side doesn't want us to, then we are not worthy of being in this place. And therefore I congratulate him. Not because I'm in a party political game, but because I respect him for having called out a problem that the government faces and all of the Ministers on that bench know it as he knows that.
And the reality is, it's what will we do about it? And so I have to say that the here today, the one bit that I want to start with is, is about Northern Ireland. And I have to say, I, I shall be there, by the way, on the 4th of September, cheering him on. But the reality is that we cannot for one moment forget that we have reduced the morale of British soldiers who had served veterans who were now often in their late 70s, and 80s who find themselves persecuted.
And I say to the Ministry of Defence, to the defence Ministers right now, is that this has really started in the Northern Ireland Office, which is overly, overly persuaded by Sinn Fein and that they can somehow change what happened and come out as victors as the right hon. Gentleman said in his resignation speech. They lost. They lost because of the efforts of the armed forces, of all those who didn't see another day, who died in the service of their country. But more importantly, we forget walking down streets in your country, armed, trying to protect civilians against aggression is something quite different from anything else that the armed forces were ever trained really to do.
And in doing it, they had to figure out all sorts of complications. And I think the trouble with the Northern Ireland Bill is that it doesn't deal with that. It doesn't deal with the sense of what we asked our soldiers to do and to risk their lives to protect the British public in the streets, in Britain, in the United Kingdom. And I think, therefore, we have to understand that the legislation that the government brought forward is wrong. It is wrong. It doesn't mean to say that what we have was fantastic.
It wasn't. There were many flaws in IT and failings, but many of us felt that we would support it because it did one major thing. It stopped the constant attacks on those poor veterans whose lives are now coming to the end, and they see themselves being dragged through the courts
**** Possible New Speaker ****
all over again. I will indeed. One of. The. Arguments put forward for
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Arguments put forward for legislation is that it will help families to find out the truth of what happened to their loved ones. And yet, by repealing the And yet, by repealing the conservative legislation, it makes that less likely rather than more likely, because who is going to come forward and incriminate themselves by saying, what happened to people who were unlawfully killed? If they know that, they
**** Possible New Speaker ****
will not then have immunity from prosecution? Yeah. That's exactly the point. And as I say, I hope on the 4th of September, we're able to drag this point out again and make it very clear if we in this House do not clear if we in this House do not stand by those that we ordered to go to war or to protect, to bear arms for the sake of the country, then who is going to do that? We have the power to sweep things away have the power to sweep things away or to make them.
And what I say to the government very gently, because there are many times I say I've disagreed, my own government, I say to this government very gently, think again. Do not allow the Northern Ireland Office to drive this thing through, when Ministers know fully that this is wrong and they need to defend those soldiers, even to the extent of the rows that may take place in Cabinet or amongst Ministers. But I want to. Indeed.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Does he recall, he and I and others having multiple meetings in others having multiple meetings in the Northern Ireland Office when we were backbenchers, going through the detail of this Bill almost line by line, on occasions, trying to defend the interests of veterans and bit by bit, overcoming the resistance of Northern Ireland resistance of Northern Ireland Office civil servants. Does he recall how difficult that was? But does he still believe, like me,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that it was worth it? I do. It was difficult and we
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I do. It was difficult and we stuck to the task. We weren't very popular at the time, but that's been a constant in my life. But the been a constant in my life. But the reality is that I think you only know you're successful when you're know you're successful when you're not popular, I have to tell you. But we were on that. And as I say there, it wasn't perfect what we there, it wasn't perfect what we were trying to get, but it was better than what we've now got.
And that is the key bit, because it held at the heart of it, protecting those who have been sent bearing arms to defend the British people. We need to defend them and respect the sacrifice that they made.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And one more time, another spurious argument, which I'm afraid we've heard earlier in this debate, we've heard earlier in this debate, is that the legislation put our is that the legislation put our armed forces on the same level as terrorists. The truth of the matter is everybody is on the same level is everybody is on the same level before the law. And in any case, the Northern Ireland Sentences Act of 1998 sold the part on that anyway, because nobody, even if convicted of a first degree murder, as the Americans might say, goes to jail for more than two years.
And that put everybody on the same level before the law as any such
**** Possible New Speaker ****
legislation has to do. Yes, your point is quite correct, of course, and he is exactly right to make the point now. But I want to finish on this particular element of the debate today by element of the debate today by simply saying that we really, really, really must understand if the first priority of government is the first priority of government is defence of the realm, then the second priority is defence of those that they send to fight to protect that they send to fight to protect the realm.
If we cannot do that, then we are not worthy of being here. And I say gently to the government, the House would support you, the Ministers, if they go back to government and say about the Northern Ireland position, this is quite wrong. It's unbalanced and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
it's deeply unfair, and I hope they will do just that. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But can I say, Madam Deputy
**** Possible New Speaker ****
But can I say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the real reason why I decided to speak today is because I decided to speak today is because I am really, really worried. I have been talking about this for some considerable time. And the reality considerable time. And the reality is that we are now in a more dangerous situation than we have been in, I believe not since the been in, I believe not since the Cold War, because at least during the Cold War we arrived at the Cold War knowing what we had to do.
You know, governments cooperated together. We had we had NATO fairly newly formed, full of the attitude that we would defend each other no matter what. And we were armed and we were ready. I think this is more dangerous because we are much more like the 1930s now. And I'm not in the business, by the way, of saying that the government, you know, this government is responsible. No, all governments bear responsibility. An hon. Friend said that, and I agree that there has been too much in a minute.
If I could just finish this point. The point I want to make, though, is that we are seeing the rise of a threat very similar to what we saw in the 1930s, and we our behaviour towards that threat is exactly the same as we were in the 1930s. And my father wrote a book many years ago about his time. He was a highly decorated five gallantry medal fighter pilot during the war, commanded in the war, fought all the way through, and he said he could never forgive politicians for having placed the country in the parlour situation of being close to losing the war, because they did not see what the danger was and didn't want to be involved in spending more on defence.
That was the point he made and it's resonated with me forever and I and I happen to believe that right now we are seeing in front of us the growth of totalitarian states. China is at the centre of this, but North Korea, Iran, Russia and others like Myanmar developing. We are seeing more totalitarian states coming to fruition around the world and now outnumbering democratic states in the United Nations, the axis has shifted, and now what we have failed to do over the last 15 or 20 years, not only have we not made ourselves ready, and even today we are not.
But the reality is that we simply fail to recognise that they are. If I just say that in China today, one naval shipyard now builds more naval ships than the whole of the United States. In one year, one naval shipyard, they have 130 times. Now, I'm told, the capacity to build naval vessels than America does. And it's no good really looking at Europe, because we hardly build naval vessels anymore either. And that was the reality and the difference between what happened in 37, 38 and 39 is that actually we had a major industry sitting here that could build tanks, could build aircraft.
It had brilliant aircraft designers, it could build ships. We had probably the most powerful fleet in the world ready to go to war if we had to. We are not in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that situation today. I'll give you. Thank you. And I. Thank the right hon. Gentleman
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. And actually I agree. My own father said that the agree. My own father said that the biggest mistake was in the late 30s that we had our head in the sand. So I don't I don't disagree with So I don't I don't disagree with him, but what I was thinking, I know the right hon. Gentleman's been here for a long time. In 2010, the sorry the Labour government was spending, I think, when they left office, 2.5% of GDP.
And my own thoughts here are. If only we had kept spending that we would have £90 billion more. That would have been invested in defence at this point. Now. And does he accept that that that would have been the case
**** Possible New Speaker ****
and that that is a great shame that that has happened. All these things are a great
**** Possible New Speaker ****
All these things are a great shame when you look back in the past. What we can't do, I always say to myself is that no matter how much we fight the issues of the past, we always exactly lose them because we can't alter them. What we have to do is learn the lessons we have to do is learn the lessons from the past. And I believe that the previous government had learnt the lessons by the end, and was the lessons by the end, and was committed to spending more, and was spending more and doing more.
The sad part about it is that the new governments come in and there are differences here, and I'm not going to be focussed on that. All I want to say is we learn from our past and we learn from our past mistakes. If we don't do that, then we are certainly determined to repeat all of those mistakes again. Only this time it may be too late for us to have corrected that. And the reality for us in this debate today should be not a debate at each other, but a coming together of this House to require from this government that they must finance defence to the level that is necessary.
Again, I am a number here that are old enough to remember that when we finally faced the threat of the Soviet Union, with its increase in terms of its placement of its medium term missiles, medium range missiles threatening targets in Europe, we stepped up. Spending went to 5%, and it was tough. But they did it. All of NATO did it. There was no one lagging in that sense. Germany stepped up, even though they were massive crowds on the street saying no.
They stepped up and we saw off that threat because the Soviet Union realised that we were ready. And all. I simply say, therefore, in conclusion to this evening, is that the government should appeal over and across the benches for the support for a higher level of spending. 3% in this Parliament should be the de minimis of what we have to do, and that is not enough. We should be at 3% before the end of this Parliament, with a commitment to rise at least to 4 to 5%, and all of those other countries in Europe, that would have been the past.
Look to us for leadership in a crisis like this are finding that they cannot do that because we are behind them in the spending patterns and in the determination to defend NATO and our own home countries. If we want to lead, we have to show the way by what we commit to in financial terms. And I urge the government, therefore, this evening and beyond to to hear what their Ministers, who have sadly resigned from the government, have said to them to hear what the House, in real general terms wants, which is we are ready to commit that spending.
We will work to find the savings. We will give support for those that are dedicated to defence. But what we must never do is forget the lessons of the past and be unready for what I consider to be the greatest threat that we will have faced this generation since those brave men and women who died for us to have freedom did back in the 1930s and the 1940s. It would be a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
shame if we forgot why they died. Yeah. I call Andrew Lewin.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I call Andrew Lewin. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And can I say it's a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green for his incredibly authoritative speech. And also I want to commend the Member for Spelthorne, who spoke I thought very powerfully earlier on in this debate. I am not somebody in this debate. I am not somebody who has served, but I say whenever I have the opportunity to speak on this subject, that this House is richer because of the service of people on all sides, including my hon.
Friend the former Minister, and, of course, our exceptional Armed Forces Minister. It's Armed Forces Week, so I also want to put on record my thanks for everybody in this country who has served and continues to serve and pay. Particular thank you to a man called Stuart Mendelson, who in
14:19
Andrew Lewin MP (Welwyn Hatfield, Labour)
-
-
Andrew Lewin MP (Welwyn Hatfield, Labour)
Hertfordshire is involved in bringing veterans together in an initiative that he has set up, which is called Muster Point. It is which is called Muster Point. It is is a simple premise, but it's about bringing veterans together to meet, to socialise, to build networks and connections. He's had great success in doing that in Stevenage. Working with my hon. Friend the Member for with my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage, and we are in the process of extending it to Welwyn Hatfield and I want to put on Hatfield and I want to put on record my thanks to Stuart Madam Deputy Speaker is also the first time that I've had the opportunity to address the chamber since the Prime Minister announced his resignation, and that's a moment of regret for me, and I do want to put on record my thanks to him for all of his service to my party and the country, and the fact that when he leaves office, most likely in a few weeks time.
Defence spending today will be higher than it was at any point over five previous prime Ministers. The tone of the House Madam Deputy Speaker has changed somewhat since the initial speech by the Shadow Secretary of State, but I am going to re inject a little bit of politics into the into the day, because I think it's important on opposition day that we assess whether the rhetoric of one party does match their record in office. And I want to go back to 2014, the moment in which Crimea was annexed by Putin, the moment which now, I think people on all sides of politics, when we should have realised the depth of the threat that we faced in Europe and at that moment in time, defence spending was 2.2%.
And I had a look at what defence spending was in 2022, the moment at which the full scale invasion of Ukraine began, and defence spending in that eight year period fell, it fell to just under 2.1%. So I'm afraid when they were in office, the Conservative Party didn't heed those warnings. I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
will give way to the honourable. Gentleman for outlining those defence figures. But when his party defence figures. But when his party came into office in 1997, defence spending was 3% of GDP and when spending was 3% of GDP and when they left it was 2.5. So isn't his point, which I take? Absolutely, I take absolutely applicable to his
**** Possible New Speaker ****
party and his government to. I'm pleased that he takes my point, but I think what we're saying is that the circumstances saying is that the circumstances have changed, and that's why. But if no, if I if I'll make the point, I think I'll give way in a second. That is why I intentionally picked those two dates. 2014 annexation of Crimea, 2022, the full scale invasion of Ukraine. Those two points are indelibly linked, and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
our failure to act was a decisive moment in history. I'll give way to the honourable, hon. Gentleman. I thank.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank. The Member for giving way. I'd like to point out. That at the point of in the last June last the point of in the last June last government, we were the third highest spenders in NATO for defence spending. The rest of Europe was also not taking defence Europe was also not taking defence as seriously. We all enjoyed the peace dividend and nobody was spending money on defence like they spending money on defence like they should be. To that extent, though, we have.
We continue to maintain our presence within NATO, but now we are the 12th biggest spenders in NATO. So does his government not giving?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah, exactly. I thank him for his intervention. But is he therefore excusing the But is he therefore excusing the lack of investment in that period between 2014 and 2022? That's what I'm not sure of, because there are I'm not sure of, because there are members on that side of the House who have been clear and consistent that they didn't serve in the conservative government, and they thought it was wrong that defence spending fell. I appreciate he wasn't here at that period.
Neither wasn't here at that period. Neither was I, but I don't know if that was his position. I'm going to make a little bit of progress and this might I'll make a little bit of progress, then I'll let other people, and this may really on the o So brace yourself. It is also the ten year anniversary of Brexit and it is most members on SAT opposite me supported Brexit, and I raise it in the context of public spending choices, because what is now emphatically proven that the decision to leave the European Union has cost our economy tens and tens of billions of pounds.
The estimate ranges between 4% of GDP and 6% of GDP, and that equates to a total of nearly £100 billion. So in a scenario where we've been remained, members of the European Union had a stronger economy. Whoever was making the choices on defence would have been a far better place to invest. Does the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
hon. Lady not agree? And I stand here, not as a Brexiteer, as somebody who was a reluctant Remainer I voted for remain partly because of the remain partly because of the security of our country. But let me tell the gentleman now, there is no way that I regret that decision. way that I regret that decision. I'm a pragmatic Brexiteer like most of our country, but it's no good him standing there and bemoaning him standing there and bemoaning this, that and the other.
The decision about the defence investment plan falls on his government. What has stopped them getting on if it's such a good idea and I noticed their benches are empty, why haven't they just got on
**** Possible New Speaker ****
and delivered it for the sake of our country? Yeah. Well, I'm pleased we were on the same side in 2016, and maybe we will be at some point again in the future. Madam Deputy Speaker let me future. Madam Deputy Speaker let me fast forward to 2024, because that point was a really important moment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
point was a really important moment Brendan. He talks about 2014 and the invasion. He's quite right. I was invasion. He's quite right. I was in Cabinet at the time. It was one of the points that I and some others raised as what was our position over this. But actually also the EU got this very badly wrong because the leader of France, the president, and also Mrs. Merkel themselves headed over on their own decision to set up a negotiation that left Russia in control of Crimea, forgetting all of the original support that they had.
Promises and our promises we've made to Ukraine. So it wasn't when they were reducing spending and they didn't want to go to war. And so they made sure that they sacrificed Ukraine in the process. Yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm not sure I'd agree with the characterisation of sacrificing Ukraine, but I'm also not saying that the European Union is blameless. I'm not saying the European Union is blameless. I'm saying that we had a period of history after Crimea, where much of the West was not investing sufficiently in defence, but it is the case that it was the party in the case that it was the party in opposite who in government at that point in time. The point about 2024 is an important one.
We had a is an important one. We had a decisive, a very important general election for the country. And so we hear now about the Conservatives prioritising defence. So I looked back at their record and their manifesto. And what was the offer to the country on the eve of the general election, a big cut in National insurance, a cut that was going to cost £10 billion a year. So again, when faced with a choice, this is two years into the Ukraine
**** Possible New Speaker ****
war. Are you going to prioritise defence spending? That was not the choice that you made, was it not? I'm very grateful.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm very grateful. He talks about the Ukraine war Madam Deputy Speaker it has to be remembered that only one European country stood by Ukraine at the outset of that invasion. Was that our Secretary of State for defence our Secretary of State for defence and the then Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, took the decision to arm Johnson, took the decision to arm Ukraine against the advice of the Foreign Office. Does he seriously think any other Prime Minister we can think of recently in this country would have defied the advice of the Foreign Office? And can he tell us which other European country had the strength to stand by Ukraine and keep them in the war so that Russia didn't get to Kyiv?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah. But the Prime Minister at the time had the full support of the then Leader of the Opposition, now Prime Minister, that is the case. So we were united as a House on that. So I agree with him that that. So I agree with him that Boris Johnson at that moment made the right judgement. But he had the full support of our Prime Minister. Today I'm going to make some Today I'm going to make some progress to talk about the record of this government.
I know, I know you're enjoying it, but it is you're enjoying it, but it is really important to, speaker, that we reflect on the progress and the investment that we have made. The aid to defence spending, which was not a policy that was universally welcomed on this side of the House. But I believe it was a necessary decision, and the right decision to have made to have been made. We've got the type 26 frigate deal, we've got the typhoon deal with Turkey, and we've got 13 new sites for munitions and factories that are so important for our rearmament and the armed forces pay rise.
The most generous and most urgently overdue pay rise for 20 years, again delivered by this government. And my final point on this, Madam Deputy Speaker, is we've had some really authoritative interventions today about the changing nature of warfare, and I have much to learn from other colleagues. I think it is to be I think it is to be applauded that this government is investing in drone warfare. My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon North has been a champion for investment in drone factories in his constituency.
In just the last week, we have learnt about the development of long range missiles, which the UK and Ukraine are working on together without the need for US components. That is a very significant and welcome step forward. Madam Deputy Speaker. It is with regret that whilst I admire many people on the other side of the House, that the last government at every opportunity to increase investment in defence spending didn't take that option. And I'm afraid that the enduring image that has been left with the public is of the last conservative Prime Minister leaving the beaches on D-Day early.
It was a picture that, I'm afraid told a thousand words. Madam Deputy Speaker, in politics, parties need to be judged by their record and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Not just their rhetoric. I recognise that this government. I'm going to I'm going to come to a conclusion. I recognise that this conclusion. I recognise that this government has lots more work to do. But under the watch, under the watch of this Prime Minister, watch of this Prime Minister, defence spending is up. It is higher than at any point in the last 14 years, or the last five conservative prime Ministers, and whoever is the next leader of the Labour Party will have my support
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Labour Party will have my support in increasing it further. Hear, hear. Joy Morrissey.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We are facing dangerous and uncertain times. A world that has dramatically changed in just a dramatically changed in just a couple of years. And to set the record straight from discussions that have happened across this that have happened across this House, it might be worth pointing out that Europe is on a path of out that Europe is on a path of rearmament in 2025, Europe the European Union launched its European Union launched its rearmament plan. Europe rearm and its.
The goal is 2030 to have it
Defence spending today will be higher than it was at any point over five previous prime Ministers. The tone of the House Madam Deputy Speaker has changed somewhat since the initial speech by the Shadow Secretary of State, but I am going to re inject a little bit of politics into the into the day, because I think it's important on opposition day that we assess whether the rhetoric of one party does match their record in office. And I want to go back to 2014, the moment in which Crimea was annexed by Putin, the moment which now, I think people on all sides of politics, when we should have realised the depth of the threat that we faced in Europe and at that moment in time, defence spending was 2.2%.
And I had a look at what defence spending was in 2022, the moment at which the full scale invasion of Ukraine began, and defence spending in that eight year period fell, it fell to just under 2.1%. So I'm afraid when they were in office, the Conservative Party didn't heed those warnings. I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
will give way to the honourable. Gentleman for outlining those defence figures. But when his party defence figures. But when his party came into office in 1997, defence spending was 3% of GDP and when spending was 3% of GDP and when they left it was 2.5. So isn't his point, which I take? Absolutely, I take absolutely applicable to his
**** Possible New Speaker ****
party and his government to. I'm pleased that he takes my point, but I think what we're saying is that the circumstances saying is that the circumstances have changed, and that's why. But if no, if I if I'll make the point, I think I'll give way in a second. That is why I intentionally picked those two dates. 2014 annexation of Crimea, 2022, the full scale invasion of Ukraine. Those two points are indelibly linked, and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
our failure to act was a decisive moment in history. I'll give way to the honourable, hon. Gentleman. I thank.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank. The Member for giving way. I'd like to point out. That at the point of in the last June last the point of in the last June last government, we were the third highest spenders in NATO for defence spending. The rest of Europe was also not taking defence Europe was also not taking defence as seriously. We all enjoyed the peace dividend and nobody was spending money on defence like they spending money on defence like they should be. To that extent, though, we have.
We continue to maintain our presence within NATO, but now we are the 12th biggest spenders in NATO. So does his government not giving?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah, exactly. I thank him for his intervention. But is he therefore excusing the But is he therefore excusing the lack of investment in that period between 2014 and 2022? That's what I'm not sure of, because there are I'm not sure of, because there are members on that side of the House who have been clear and consistent that they didn't serve in the conservative government, and they thought it was wrong that defence spending fell. I appreciate he wasn't here at that period.
Neither wasn't here at that period. Neither was I, but I don't know if that was his position. I'm going to make a little bit of progress and this might I'll make a little bit of progress, then I'll let other people, and this may really on the o So brace yourself. It is also the ten year anniversary of Brexit and it is most members on SAT opposite me supported Brexit, and I raise it in the context of public spending choices, because what is now emphatically proven that the decision to leave the European Union has cost our economy tens and tens of billions of pounds.
The estimate ranges between 4% of GDP and 6% of GDP, and that equates to a total of nearly £100 billion. So in a scenario where we've been remained, members of the European Union had a stronger economy. Whoever was making the choices on defence would have been a far better place to invest. Does the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
hon. Lady not agree? And I stand here, not as a Brexiteer, as somebody who was a reluctant Remainer I voted for remain partly because of the remain partly because of the security of our country. But let me tell the gentleman now, there is no way that I regret that decision. way that I regret that decision. I'm a pragmatic Brexiteer like most of our country, but it's no good him standing there and bemoaning him standing there and bemoaning this, that and the other.
The decision about the defence investment plan falls on his government. What has stopped them getting on if it's such a good idea and I noticed their benches are empty, why haven't they just got on
**** Possible New Speaker ****
and delivered it for the sake of our country? Yeah. Well, I'm pleased we were on the same side in 2016, and maybe we will be at some point again in the future. Madam Deputy Speaker let me future. Madam Deputy Speaker let me fast forward to 2024, because that point was a really important moment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
point was a really important moment Brendan. He talks about 2014 and the invasion. He's quite right. I was invasion. He's quite right. I was in Cabinet at the time. It was one of the points that I and some others raised as what was our position over this. But actually also the EU got this very badly wrong because the leader of France, the president, and also Mrs. Merkel themselves headed over on their own decision to set up a negotiation that left Russia in control of Crimea, forgetting all of the original support that they had.
Promises and our promises we've made to Ukraine. So it wasn't when they were reducing spending and they didn't want to go to war. And so they made sure that they sacrificed Ukraine in the process. Yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm not sure I'd agree with the characterisation of sacrificing Ukraine, but I'm also not saying that the European Union is blameless. I'm not saying the European Union is blameless. I'm saying that we had a period of history after Crimea, where much of the West was not investing sufficiently in defence, but it is the case that it was the party in the case that it was the party in opposite who in government at that point in time. The point about 2024 is an important one.
We had a is an important one. We had a decisive, a very important general election for the country. And so we hear now about the Conservatives prioritising defence. So I looked back at their record and their manifesto. And what was the offer to the country on the eve of the general election, a big cut in National insurance, a cut that was going to cost £10 billion a year. So again, when faced with a choice, this is two years into the Ukraine
**** Possible New Speaker ****
war. Are you going to prioritise defence spending? That was not the choice that you made, was it not? I'm very grateful.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm very grateful. He talks about the Ukraine war Madam Deputy Speaker it has to be remembered that only one European country stood by Ukraine at the outset of that invasion. Was that our Secretary of State for defence our Secretary of State for defence and the then Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, took the decision to arm Johnson, took the decision to arm Ukraine against the advice of the Foreign Office. Does he seriously think any other Prime Minister we can think of recently in this country would have defied the advice of the Foreign Office? And can he tell us which other European country had the strength to stand by Ukraine and keep them in the war so that Russia didn't get to Kyiv?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah. But the Prime Minister at the time had the full support of the then Leader of the Opposition, now Prime Minister, that is the case. So we were united as a House on that. So I agree with him that that. So I agree with him that Boris Johnson at that moment made the right judgement. But he had the full support of our Prime Minister. Today I'm going to make some Today I'm going to make some progress to talk about the record of this government.
I know, I know you're enjoying it, but it is you're enjoying it, but it is really important to, speaker, that we reflect on the progress and the investment that we have made. The aid to defence spending, which was not a policy that was universally welcomed on this side of the House. But I believe it was a necessary decision, and the right decision to have made to have been made. We've got the type 26 frigate deal, we've got the typhoon deal with Turkey, and we've got 13 new sites for munitions and factories that are so important for our rearmament and the armed forces pay rise.
The most generous and most urgently overdue pay rise for 20 years, again delivered by this government. And my final point on this, Madam Deputy Speaker, is we've had some really authoritative interventions today about the changing nature of warfare, and I have much to learn from other colleagues. I think it is to be I think it is to be applauded that this government is investing in drone warfare. My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon North has been a champion for investment in drone factories in his constituency.
In just the last week, we have learnt about the development of long range missiles, which the UK and Ukraine are working on together without the need for US components. That is a very significant and welcome step forward. Madam Deputy Speaker. It is with regret that whilst I admire many people on the other side of the House, that the last government at every opportunity to increase investment in defence spending didn't take that option. And I'm afraid that the enduring image that has been left with the public is of the last conservative Prime Minister leaving the beaches on D-Day early.
It was a picture that, I'm afraid told a thousand words. Madam Deputy Speaker, in politics, parties need to be judged by their record and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Not just their rhetoric. I recognise that this government. I'm going to I'm going to come to a conclusion. I recognise that this conclusion. I recognise that this government has lots more work to do. But under the watch, under the watch of this Prime Minister, watch of this Prime Minister, defence spending is up. It is higher than at any point in the last 14 years, or the last five conservative prime Ministers, and whoever is the next leader of the Labour Party will have my support
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Labour Party will have my support in increasing it further. Hear, hear. Joy Morrissey.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We are facing dangerous and uncertain times. A world that has dramatically changed in just a dramatically changed in just a couple of years. And to set the record straight from discussions that have happened across this that have happened across this House, it might be worth pointing out that Europe is on a path of out that Europe is on a path of rearmament in 2025, Europe the European Union launched its European Union launched its rearmament plan. Europe rearm and its.
The goal is 2030 to have it
14:30
Joy Morrissey MP (Beaconsfield, Conservative)
-
-
Joy Morrissey MP (Beaconsfield, Conservative)
completely up the. Spending up rearmament across Europe and as many of our gallant and noble many of our gallant and noble friends have pointed out, we are at the bottom of the pile now on rearmament plan. We. We. We were at rearmament plan. We. We. We were at the top. Even just a few years back. We were at the top for NATO spending. We were at the top for spending. We were at the top for what we were doing in terms of our defence capability.
How is it that we have fallen so dramatically in comparison to our European comparison to our European neighbours? And in 2026, Germany launched its German modern day comprehensive military concept, its first that it's had for a very, very long time becoming. And its goal is to become the strongest conventional army in Europe. This was launched in 2026. Things have radically changed in but a few years. How have we gone from being the top of of NATO in terms of our contributions to being at the bottom? It's because of choices, political choices, dithering and delay from this government, a government that thinks nothing of spending £330 billion a year on welfare benefits, but cannot muster the courage to face down its backbenchers, to put a brave, to put our brave arm, servicemen and women first.
A government that thinks our veterans are fair game for their Islington dining set. Lawyer friends not deserving of our enduring thanks and protection. From relentless lawfare. To govern is to choose. This government chose £18 billion of welfare, spending an extra £18 billion this year, showing Britain work doesn't pay 18 billion. That could have secured 250 000 extra soldiers, according to the Csj and their recent report. Instead, it went to benefit Street £18 billion that could have been spent on 200 fighter jets, according to the Csj report.
Instead, it went to benefit Street 18 billion that could have built 15 warships. Instead, it went on Benefit Street when Labour backbenchers. One action on welfare. Nothing stands in the government's way. But when our country needs to show our enemies, we are investing to protect ourselves and our country and our future, what they get is weakness and delay. We may have lost the Prime Minister, defence Secretary, defence Minister but the same government with no sense of putting our country first remains.
So I say to the government, stop the lawfare on our veterans now. Make the tough decisions on welfare that we, on this side of the House will support. Put a defence investment plan forward now that will make our enemies think twice. We are saying goodbye to a Prime Minister without a backbone. He has left our country weaker, poorer and less safe. But the country cannot wait for Labour's internal indulgence. It is time for the investment of our armed forces that the moment demands, that transcends party, that puts our country first.
It is about Britain and our role in an unsafe and dangerous world. It is time to act
**** Possible New Speaker ****
and give our armed forces the investment they need. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Luke Akehurst thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker. I'm grateful for the opportunity to once again make the opportunity to once again make the case for a sustained uplift in defence spending, as I've done at every opportunity in this place, every opportunity in this place, and I feel quite humbled following some of the right Honourable and some of the right Honourable and hon. Members who spoke on on the other side, the Member for Chingford, the Member for Spelthorne, made very thoughtful contributions to the debate.
My my
How is it that we have fallen so dramatically in comparison to our European comparison to our European neighbours? And in 2026, Germany launched its German modern day comprehensive military concept, its first that it's had for a very, very long time becoming. And its goal is to become the strongest conventional army in Europe. This was launched in 2026. Things have radically changed in but a few years. How have we gone from being the top of of NATO in terms of our contributions to being at the bottom? It's because of choices, political choices, dithering and delay from this government, a government that thinks nothing of spending £330 billion a year on welfare benefits, but cannot muster the courage to face down its backbenchers, to put a brave, to put our brave arm, servicemen and women first.
A government that thinks our veterans are fair game for their Islington dining set. Lawyer friends not deserving of our enduring thanks and protection. From relentless lawfare. To govern is to choose. This government chose £18 billion of welfare, spending an extra £18 billion this year, showing Britain work doesn't pay 18 billion. That could have secured 250 000 extra soldiers, according to the Csj and their recent report. Instead, it went to benefit Street £18 billion that could have been spent on 200 fighter jets, according to the Csj report.
Instead, it went to benefit Street 18 billion that could have built 15 warships. Instead, it went on Benefit Street when Labour backbenchers. One action on welfare. Nothing stands in the government's way. But when our country needs to show our enemies, we are investing to protect ourselves and our country and our future, what they get is weakness and delay. We may have lost the Prime Minister, defence Secretary, defence Minister but the same government with no sense of putting our country first remains.
So I say to the government, stop the lawfare on our veterans now. Make the tough decisions on welfare that we, on this side of the House will support. Put a defence investment plan forward now that will make our enemies think twice. We are saying goodbye to a Prime Minister without a backbone. He has left our country weaker, poorer and less safe. But the country cannot wait for Labour's internal indulgence. It is time for the investment of our armed forces that the moment demands, that transcends party, that puts our country first.
It is about Britain and our role in an unsafe and dangerous world. It is time to act
**** Possible New Speaker ****
and give our armed forces the investment they need. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Luke Akehurst thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker. I'm grateful for the opportunity to once again make the opportunity to once again make the case for a sustained uplift in defence spending, as I've done at every opportunity in this place, every opportunity in this place, and I feel quite humbled following some of the right Honourable and some of the right Honourable and hon. Members who spoke on on the other side, the Member for Chingford, the Member for Spelthorne, made very thoughtful contributions to the debate.
My my
14:34
Luke Akehurst MP (North Durham, Labour)
-
-
Luke Akehurst MP (North Durham, Labour)
first pay tribute to, as I did yesterday in the Armed Forces Bill debate, to the former defence debate, to the former defence secretary and the former armed forces Minister. I'm disappointed has left the chamber. So you can't hear me saying nice things about hear me saying nice things about him for the second time, for their steadfast commitment to equipping our country to deal with the emerging threats from hostile actors who wish to attack our democracy, our freedom, and our way democracy, our freedom, and our way of life.
I, I do think, and I said this directly to the Prime Minister, when a Defence Secretary tells us that the funding envelope on defence could make, could make the country less safe, could reduce the readiness of our forces, and could increase the risk to personnel on operation. It's my firm belief that the government has a duty to listen and to act. I also want to commend the new Defence Secretary and the new Veterans Minister and the promoted Armed Forces Minister, and indeed the continuing to serve dry Minister.
Is that the correct acronym that I should use for stepping up to serve or continuing to serve our country in these challenging circumstances? For the two new Ministers, the Secretary of State and the Veterans Minister, they are gallant colleagues who, before coming into politics, served our great country in the military. And I could think of no one more appropriate to be making the case within government for increased prioritisation of defence. We have heard some slightly confusing messages during the day, none of them definitive about the timing of the announcement of the dip.
There was a reference to it from the shadow Minister, but I've also aware that the Chancellor was still talking about before Ankara in Treasury questions, and the Paymaster General gave an interview where he indicated before Ankara, I personally think there's a very strong argument for sticking to that deadline, because I think we ought to go to the NATO summit and be able to tell our partners what we have committed. And I actually think there is an argument for doing it with the current Prime Minister, because this needs to be seen as an issue of continuity, where it doesn't matter if we have a change of party and national leadership, we're still committed to this.
I would I would urge the current Prime Minister, who I'm a great supporter of, to cement his legacy as someone who has consistently actually, despite what has been said earlier, taken difficult political decisions and actually paid a huge political price for some of the political some of the difficult decisions that is taken because it's taken them in the national interest. And I would like him to secure the necessary uplift in defence spending before he leaves office to keep this country safe.
I'm sure that history will be kinder to the outgoing Prime Minister than opinion polls and political commentary have been, especially if, decades from now, we can look back to his leadership and the final days of it as the moment that the UK faced up to the reality of the real and dangerous facing threats it faces, and appropriately responded with the money required to counter these threats. I know that it's beholden on members like me, who have consistently made the argument for increased defence spending, to also make the argument for where that money should come from.
I understand the political point the opposition are making about looking to welfare for this funding. I know, and I supported welfare reform proposals last year, that we can't afford an ever growing welfare bill, and that's not good for the people that are not in work and could be. And I was proud to support the proposed reforms last year, which wouldn't actually have cut the total benefit package, though, about reducing the increase by about 5 billion over the course of the Parliament.
That would have been a useful contribution to the revenue side of the of any gap in defence funding. And the issue with this argument is, though, that that only covers revenue spending and doesn't free up capital expenditure for new equipment. Therefore, reducing the welfare bill cannot be the only answer to the funding requirements of the Dip. It is not as though if the government hasn't already and it isn't already, taking politically painful decisions to ensure to ensure that we fulfil our first duty of the safety of the nation, as set out in the manifesto as I was elected on.
On top of the difficult decision to halve overseas aid spending to fund an uplift on defence, which I know was felt deeply on this side of the House. Everything that was led to believe about the Dip negotiations are indicate that every government department has already been asked to accept a 1% cut, known as a haircut, to their capital budgets. I'm fully aware this would slow things down, that members across the House and our constituents in the country care about, from transport infrastructure programmes to new hospitals to rebuilding schools.
And I can think of projects that I've argued for in the House that I would have to accept were going to arrive slower because of that 1% change. But if we heed the former secretary of state's calls and go further, as is clearly required, we must look to the departments with the greatest capital budgets for any additional uplift that we go for. And I would argue that additional capital funding has been mentioned earlier, could have come, could still come from DESNZ, of course, programmes being rolled out by that department are important, though you'd be forgiven for forgetting that amid this week's heat wave, my North Durham constituency has a cold microclimate and lots of badly insulated homes, so home insulation programmes that might be one of the capital programmes that could be cut would harm my constituents if those were delayed.
Similarly, investment in carbon capture and storage means that new jobs in the North Sea would come on tap later. I'm also actually have a position where I'm in favour of the new oil and gas fields. Their proposed. This is as near to rebelliousness as anyone has probably ever. Going to see me in the house we're in, in this freedom hall, in between administrations. However, when compared to the immediate need to keep our country safe, it's hard to see why these projects ought to be prioritised in the short term over ensuring that our armed forces have the kit they need to defend the nation from threats that are here or coming in the very near term.
Future, given the long lead times in defence procurement, any month we go without spending the money needed on equipment could translate to a month in just a few years time, when our brave men and women on the front line do not have the weapons and ammunition they need to protect themselves and the country. In the final weeks of his premiership, I would urge the Prime Minister to look again at whether additional funding can be found for the MoD's capital Budget. From the source that I've mentioned or other sources.
For the avoidance of doubt, let me set out just how pressing the threats we face really are. Developments across the Atlantic
**** Possible New Speaker ****
have made abundantly clear. Yes. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend agree that there has been slightly lacking from this debate some praise for the Prime Minister and the government, for Minister and the government, for the investments that they have made in defence, including the new submarine reactors that are being submarine reactors that are being made in my constituency of Paisley and Renfrewshire North. Thank you.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To the achievements already of this government in a minute, but I thank her for urging me to get on with it. Let me talk about the threat first. The era when taxpayers in Mississippi, in Missouri or Virginia paid for the defence of Europe is long gone. Europe and the UK must fund their own defence, although currently we can be optimistic about the progress our gallant allies in the Ukraine are making. Until the war is over, it remains possible it will end in a harsh peace treaty for Ukraine, which could leave Ukraine with borders that are not realistically defensible from a third Russian invasion and constrain the size of its military to remove them and their ability to remove the largest and most battle hardened, remove the largest and most battle hardened anti-Russian force from a future conflict.
From that point, the clock starts to tick on Russia's ability to launch a new war of aggression against another of its Western neighbours, perhaps this time a NATO ally like Finland or the Baltic states. Within two years, Russia will have rearmed to exact two years of peace. Russia could rearm to exactly the same level of offensive capability it had when it invaded Ukraine in February 2022, this time, having learned lessons from that experience, it could choose to engineer a scenario testing whether NATO will hold, perhaps taking up Narva on on on, on, on on the Estonian border, which is largely Russian.
Speaking in an attempt to break the alliance politically, the only way we can stop this is by developing effective deterrence, conventional as well as as our existing nuclear deterrent. Whilst we possess a strategic nuclear deterrent, we lack almost every rung on the escalatory level below a global thermonuclear war which would end humanity and civilisation as we know it. The F-35a program that I believe will be in in the dip is an important additional nuclear rung, but we also need many more rungs of conventional capability.
I have consistently argued, including my 2024 Westminster Hall debate. We need additional air and missile defence to counter the threat of Russian missile and drone attacks coming at us from from the High North, as well as defences against grey zone conflict. This is especially urgent when the last government reduced spending on ground based air defence by 70% in their final years in office, and we need to deter by investing in long range strike missiles. And I know that that's part of the SDR and will be in the dip as well.
The only way we can avoid a conflict is by ensuring our enemies. And in this case, the proximate threat is Russia that know that we are prepared for one. This isn't just about hard power through military personnel and equipment. It also involves the political resolve of the British people and the politicians they elect. Without a strong military, our way of life could be ripped away from us in an instant. Without a fair and good society worth defending, there will not be the public and political will to fight.
Russia will know these weaknesses and will prey on them. They could aim to take advantage of perceived societal weaknesses and political divisions, knocking us out of a conflict early by making continuing to fight a political impossibility. I'm going to wind up now, as I appreciate, I've taken quite a lot of time. I can see the Deputy Speaker indicating, let's compare and contrast the Labour and Tory record, though under the Tories, armed forces personnel saw a real terms pay cut in nine out of 14 years.
Under Labour, they've received a third consecutive above inflation pay rise, bringing the cumulative increase since 2024 above 10%. Under the Tories armed forces, housing was left in disarray with a record 13,000 complaints a year under Labour. We're setting up a defence housing service, bringing homes into public ownership to address the unacceptable state they are in. Under the Tories, the armed forces fell in size by 25000 to their lowest level since the Napoleonic era. Under Labour, recruitment is up and over 100 outdated recruitment policies have been scrapped because of 14 years of underfunding and dereliction of the duty of government to protect our nation, even when that involves tough political choices.
Our armed forces presence in Estonia, for instance, is down to fewer than ten challenger two tanks. We know the shortage of ships because we struggle to find even one type 45 at a moment of extreme crisis. My message to the opposition is, let's have the thoughtful contributions that we have from the backbenches, rather than some of the rhetoric from from from the front bench. So today I want to recognise the progress of the Labour Government has already made and urge them to, to, to, to get to the 3%.
I can say that as a backbencher, I know that Ministers can't talk about percentages of GDP with quite such freedom, but that they should know that there is backbench support for getting to 3% by the end of this Parliament.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Stuart Anderson thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is an honour to follow on from the hon. Member, follow on from the hon. Member, from North Durham. He does speak with passion on defence and he clearly, I can see that he wants to increase our defence presence and so it's nice to follow on. I just want to sort of listen to this debate and I I'm sounding an alarm, so to speak. So I grew up in a military family, both my parents in the military.
I left school, joined the military. My brother served in the military. I then spent my entire life in security and defence and even coming to Parliament. Everything I've done in Parliament outside of traditional constituency engagements, is backing security and defence, and I'm delighted to be graduating next month from the Royal College of Defence Studies. It's been brilliant to spend that year immersed in that, in what is the best strategic command course in the world. But I want to reiterate the point.
My right hon. Friend from Chingford and Woodford Green was saying is we are in a
I, I do think, and I said this directly to the Prime Minister, when a Defence Secretary tells us that the funding envelope on defence could make, could make the country less safe, could reduce the readiness of our forces, and could increase the risk to personnel on operation. It's my firm belief that the government has a duty to listen and to act. I also want to commend the new Defence Secretary and the new Veterans Minister and the promoted Armed Forces Minister, and indeed the continuing to serve dry Minister.
Is that the correct acronym that I should use for stepping up to serve or continuing to serve our country in these challenging circumstances? For the two new Ministers, the Secretary of State and the Veterans Minister, they are gallant colleagues who, before coming into politics, served our great country in the military. And I could think of no one more appropriate to be making the case within government for increased prioritisation of defence. We have heard some slightly confusing messages during the day, none of them definitive about the timing of the announcement of the dip.
There was a reference to it from the shadow Minister, but I've also aware that the Chancellor was still talking about before Ankara in Treasury questions, and the Paymaster General gave an interview where he indicated before Ankara, I personally think there's a very strong argument for sticking to that deadline, because I think we ought to go to the NATO summit and be able to tell our partners what we have committed. And I actually think there is an argument for doing it with the current Prime Minister, because this needs to be seen as an issue of continuity, where it doesn't matter if we have a change of party and national leadership, we're still committed to this.
I would I would urge the current Prime Minister, who I'm a great supporter of, to cement his legacy as someone who has consistently actually, despite what has been said earlier, taken difficult political decisions and actually paid a huge political price for some of the political some of the difficult decisions that is taken because it's taken them in the national interest. And I would like him to secure the necessary uplift in defence spending before he leaves office to keep this country safe.
I'm sure that history will be kinder to the outgoing Prime Minister than opinion polls and political commentary have been, especially if, decades from now, we can look back to his leadership and the final days of it as the moment that the UK faced up to the reality of the real and dangerous facing threats it faces, and appropriately responded with the money required to counter these threats. I know that it's beholden on members like me, who have consistently made the argument for increased defence spending, to also make the argument for where that money should come from.
I understand the political point the opposition are making about looking to welfare for this funding. I know, and I supported welfare reform proposals last year, that we can't afford an ever growing welfare bill, and that's not good for the people that are not in work and could be. And I was proud to support the proposed reforms last year, which wouldn't actually have cut the total benefit package, though, about reducing the increase by about 5 billion over the course of the Parliament.
That would have been a useful contribution to the revenue side of the of any gap in defence funding. And the issue with this argument is, though, that that only covers revenue spending and doesn't free up capital expenditure for new equipment. Therefore, reducing the welfare bill cannot be the only answer to the funding requirements of the Dip. It is not as though if the government hasn't already and it isn't already, taking politically painful decisions to ensure to ensure that we fulfil our first duty of the safety of the nation, as set out in the manifesto as I was elected on.
On top of the difficult decision to halve overseas aid spending to fund an uplift on defence, which I know was felt deeply on this side of the House. Everything that was led to believe about the Dip negotiations are indicate that every government department has already been asked to accept a 1% cut, known as a haircut, to their capital budgets. I'm fully aware this would slow things down, that members across the House and our constituents in the country care about, from transport infrastructure programmes to new hospitals to rebuilding schools.
And I can think of projects that I've argued for in the House that I would have to accept were going to arrive slower because of that 1% change. But if we heed the former secretary of state's calls and go further, as is clearly required, we must look to the departments with the greatest capital budgets for any additional uplift that we go for. And I would argue that additional capital funding has been mentioned earlier, could have come, could still come from DESNZ, of course, programmes being rolled out by that department are important, though you'd be forgiven for forgetting that amid this week's heat wave, my North Durham constituency has a cold microclimate and lots of badly insulated homes, so home insulation programmes that might be one of the capital programmes that could be cut would harm my constituents if those were delayed.
Similarly, investment in carbon capture and storage means that new jobs in the North Sea would come on tap later. I'm also actually have a position where I'm in favour of the new oil and gas fields. Their proposed. This is as near to rebelliousness as anyone has probably ever. Going to see me in the house we're in, in this freedom hall, in between administrations. However, when compared to the immediate need to keep our country safe, it's hard to see why these projects ought to be prioritised in the short term over ensuring that our armed forces have the kit they need to defend the nation from threats that are here or coming in the very near term.
Future, given the long lead times in defence procurement, any month we go without spending the money needed on equipment could translate to a month in just a few years time, when our brave men and women on the front line do not have the weapons and ammunition they need to protect themselves and the country. In the final weeks of his premiership, I would urge the Prime Minister to look again at whether additional funding can be found for the MoD's capital Budget. From the source that I've mentioned or other sources.
For the avoidance of doubt, let me set out just how pressing the threats we face really are. Developments across the Atlantic
**** Possible New Speaker ****
have made abundantly clear. Yes. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend agree that there has been slightly lacking from this debate some praise for the Prime Minister and the government, for Minister and the government, for the investments that they have made in defence, including the new submarine reactors that are being submarine reactors that are being made in my constituency of Paisley and Renfrewshire North. Thank you.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To the achievements already of this government in a minute, but I thank her for urging me to get on with it. Let me talk about the threat first. The era when taxpayers in Mississippi, in Missouri or Virginia paid for the defence of Europe is long gone. Europe and the UK must fund their own defence, although currently we can be optimistic about the progress our gallant allies in the Ukraine are making. Until the war is over, it remains possible it will end in a harsh peace treaty for Ukraine, which could leave Ukraine with borders that are not realistically defensible from a third Russian invasion and constrain the size of its military to remove them and their ability to remove the largest and most battle hardened, remove the largest and most battle hardened anti-Russian force from a future conflict.
From that point, the clock starts to tick on Russia's ability to launch a new war of aggression against another of its Western neighbours, perhaps this time a NATO ally like Finland or the Baltic states. Within two years, Russia will have rearmed to exact two years of peace. Russia could rearm to exactly the same level of offensive capability it had when it invaded Ukraine in February 2022, this time, having learned lessons from that experience, it could choose to engineer a scenario testing whether NATO will hold, perhaps taking up Narva on on on, on, on on the Estonian border, which is largely Russian.
Speaking in an attempt to break the alliance politically, the only way we can stop this is by developing effective deterrence, conventional as well as as our existing nuclear deterrent. Whilst we possess a strategic nuclear deterrent, we lack almost every rung on the escalatory level below a global thermonuclear war which would end humanity and civilisation as we know it. The F-35a program that I believe will be in in the dip is an important additional nuclear rung, but we also need many more rungs of conventional capability.
I have consistently argued, including my 2024 Westminster Hall debate. We need additional air and missile defence to counter the threat of Russian missile and drone attacks coming at us from from the High North, as well as defences against grey zone conflict. This is especially urgent when the last government reduced spending on ground based air defence by 70% in their final years in office, and we need to deter by investing in long range strike missiles. And I know that that's part of the SDR and will be in the dip as well.
The only way we can avoid a conflict is by ensuring our enemies. And in this case, the proximate threat is Russia that know that we are prepared for one. This isn't just about hard power through military personnel and equipment. It also involves the political resolve of the British people and the politicians they elect. Without a strong military, our way of life could be ripped away from us in an instant. Without a fair and good society worth defending, there will not be the public and political will to fight.
Russia will know these weaknesses and will prey on them. They could aim to take advantage of perceived societal weaknesses and political divisions, knocking us out of a conflict early by making continuing to fight a political impossibility. I'm going to wind up now, as I appreciate, I've taken quite a lot of time. I can see the Deputy Speaker indicating, let's compare and contrast the Labour and Tory record, though under the Tories, armed forces personnel saw a real terms pay cut in nine out of 14 years.
Under Labour, they've received a third consecutive above inflation pay rise, bringing the cumulative increase since 2024 above 10%. Under the Tories armed forces, housing was left in disarray with a record 13,000 complaints a year under Labour. We're setting up a defence housing service, bringing homes into public ownership to address the unacceptable state they are in. Under the Tories, the armed forces fell in size by 25000 to their lowest level since the Napoleonic era. Under Labour, recruitment is up and over 100 outdated recruitment policies have been scrapped because of 14 years of underfunding and dereliction of the duty of government to protect our nation, even when that involves tough political choices.
Our armed forces presence in Estonia, for instance, is down to fewer than ten challenger two tanks. We know the shortage of ships because we struggle to find even one type 45 at a moment of extreme crisis. My message to the opposition is, let's have the thoughtful contributions that we have from the backbenches, rather than some of the rhetoric from from from the front bench. So today I want to recognise the progress of the Labour Government has already made and urge them to, to, to, to get to the 3%.
I can say that as a backbencher, I know that Ministers can't talk about percentages of GDP with quite such freedom, but that they should know that there is backbench support for getting to 3% by the end of this Parliament.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Stuart Anderson thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is an honour to follow on from the hon. Member, follow on from the hon. Member, from North Durham. He does speak with passion on defence and he clearly, I can see that he wants to increase our defence presence and so it's nice to follow on. I just want to sort of listen to this debate and I I'm sounding an alarm, so to speak. So I grew up in a military family, both my parents in the military.
I left school, joined the military. My brother served in the military. I then spent my entire life in security and defence and even coming to Parliament. Everything I've done in Parliament outside of traditional constituency engagements, is backing security and defence, and I'm delighted to be graduating next month from the Royal College of Defence Studies. It's been brilliant to spend that year immersed in that, in what is the best strategic command course in the world. But I want to reiterate the point.
My right hon. Friend from Chingford and Woodford Green was saying is we are in a
14:47
Stuart Anderson MP (South Shropshire, Conservative)
-
-
Stuart Anderson MP (South Shropshire, Conservative)
very serious situation and there are there is rhetoric or party are there is rhetoric or party political lines that is overtaking this. And we are missing the need to re-arm for the current situation in 2024 2025, there was 54 to 55 conflicts around the world. Regardless, there might be adjusted depending on which source you look depending on which source you look at, which is the most conflicts we've seen in any one year since the Second World War. And if you believe you can stop a major conflict, why can't you stop minor conflicts? There is complete instability.
The whole geopolitical situation has changed, and discussions that we're having now were seen impossible or beyond the realms of fantasy. Even five, five years ago, even three years ago. So we need to put that point into perspective and really think of that when we're starting to say, 14 years of hollowed out, and it's actually an illiterate defence argument, because we're taking a moment in time comparing peace with war. We need to be looking at the situation in the last hundred years and learn from history.
So at the end of the Second World War, when Clement Attlee demobilised the military, it was the right thing to do. We didn't need 5 million soldiers. The same at the end of the Berlin Wall. The world, the majority of the world disarmed or actually put down the scale of defence spending that they were doing. We now see that that has changed. There is a clear line, whether it's 2022 and actually in 2022, 2.22% of defence spending, if you check with the official ONS figures of what was spent there, not 2.1, as the hon.
Member had mentioned. But if you take 2014 2022, there is no no denying now that the whole world has changed and we're in the most volatile situation. It's just a debate. Was it from the end of the Cold War or the Second World War? I firmly believe it's from the Second World War, and I believe we are going to see a global conflict in the coming years. We are not prepared to defend our nation. We could not meet our article three NATO commitment.
I believe, at this stage, to defend the nation for the period of time expected. Everybody talks about article five, and there's three things that every defence Minister, every politician must look at when we're speaking on defence, it's readiness, lethality and survivability. Everything we must do is look on there. We're talking on numbers. Are we funding the readiness of our armed forces? Are they as lethal as they can be? And is? Are they do they have the ability to survive any conflict? We're not looking at expeditionary warfare that we'd have seen in the Middle East in recent years.
We're looking at a potential how we fit on the world stage and preparing for a global conflict, or having the ability to do that and hope it never happens. So in those three areas, we've got to look at it and there is always a debate are we ready enough or do we spend more money in lethality, or do we look at survivability? The first and the key most important one of those is readiness. We have to be ready. And I'm not saying the others are not as equally important.
If we are not ready, we cannot go to war. In 1999, I got married. I celebrated on Friday my 27th wedding anniversary. I then deployed, said to my wife, see you in six months. Deployed straight to Kosovo. When we arrived in theatre, there was no army barracks. We found derelict accommodation, flea ridden accommodation where blokes were covered in flea bites and everything and moved into houses that had been abandoned as they were still ethnically cleansing people. We just moved in there. We didn't have the kit, but we were about the most lethal bunch of soldiers you had seen, and we adapted.
But the readiness came from what I describe as Field Marshal Slim describes in the Burma Conflict of Spiritual Morale. You can take the equipment away from the soldiers. You can break anything. But if they have the spiritual morale to fight, they can go through everything. And we are burning that out through the military, through our time, through different little bits, on and on and on. And if we go back to when I was on the Defence Select Committee in 2020 to 20, middle of 2022, there are many reports my name is on absolutely destroying the government of our time, which gave me many difficult conversations with the whips, but it was the right thing to do to call it out because we weren't able to procure equipment, we weren't ready.
We weren't able to, to prepare for the world as it was at that time. And the Chief of Defence Staff has recently mentioned. We've said that we would have to. He said that we would have to cut operational services, training capability. Those are big issues. But he's also touched on what most people aren't mentioning is the resource spending. So we have R l and C, c l spending. So one boys, if we look at that buys capital spending, buys the ships, the tanks, the planes, the big things, the big items.
But they've got to run. We have to pay our troops. And we got to look at the resources around that. And that's the resource is about 62% of defence spending at the moment. And it's no way near the balance is offset. And we're looking at big projects, and it's great to be looking at things like how we funding the new submarines that we're looking, the type 83 GCap, is that going to be crewed uncrewed? That's another debate. I've got some good views on that.
I'd love to share another time, but actually the debate at the moment is what is the war we're preparing to fight? So the previous the the member from Birmingham and Selly Oak has mentioned the dip didn't fund enough and it didn't fund the wars that we what we should be funding fighting in the future. It's always hard to predict what the future war of warfare looks like, and it's easy to take lessons from Ukraine and just think that's what it's going to be.
But actually, we do need to take lessons and adapt and prepare for what's moving forward. The the hon. Member from Spelthorne has mentioned about the. 18 Defence Prime. I believe actually there's a disruptive model coming or needed within the defence industry that looks at scalability of technology. Two weeks ago, I was delighted to be in MIT, in Boston with NATO, looking at nanotechnology from a lad who left school with no GCSEs and joined as a rifleman. I was discussing nanotechnology, so time has has moved on.
You know what it is, but no, but but actually looking at how technology and innovation is moving forward, there are ways that we need to think differently. We need to have an understanding of how we prepare for those warfares. And it's not nanotechnology on one side and aircraft carriers on the other. There is a bit in the middle where we look at scalability of new technology as AI develops and quantum computing comes online in the to meet the the, the battle space is going to be completely different.
And people often say that the nature of warfare is changing. It's not. The nature of warfare is always brutal and always will be. The character of warfare is changing and we have to move into this space and be prepared for this. But when I go back to those three points, the the readiness, the lethality and the survivability, as I finish off here, each of the things that are happening under our watch, under Labour's watch before us, under the watch, now are chipping away at that spiritual morale of troops.
I have a soul, a son who's serving soldier as well. And I'm watching bit by bit that exercise is cancelled because we can't afford it. You have to do extra time on deployment because we can't rotate you through. We're not going to order the equipment because the ship isn't ready. And all of those chip away. What I will say on the departing point, there is one, one issue that we're dealing with at the moment that is cutting to the heart of every veteran, and I sat with a load of veterans watching the football last week.
I will be with serving personnel tonight, watching the football again, spending time with veterans and colleagues. And I hear firsthand what they're saying. The Northern Ireland Legacy Act and I served 18 months in on banner during the troubles that is Cutting Through, regardless of what political debate here. They believe soldiers serving believe that they will not be protected by the government when they go on operations. I know we can argue this backwards and forwards. That is what's landing, and that's what they believe.
And I believe a change to what we've have in place is a betrayal to our veterans, and it will remove any spiritual morale that has that British fighting spirit that I've spoke about through here. And it will mean that we're not ready, we're not lethal, and we can't survive without the dip coming forward with the correct funding on the correct defence products. We're in a serious situation and I do not believe we're ready for what is coming over the horizon. Ben Obese-Jecty thank
**** Possible New Speaker ****
you, Madam Speaker. Corona Morales. Now, I'd. Wager that there are few, if any, in this chamber who have ever heard of this term. Perhaps the odd classicist, but it was one of ancient Rome's most coveted military decorations. According to military decorations. According to Aulus Gellius, it was a golden crown shaped like a city wall and was awarded for bravery, much like the Victoria Cross, awarded to the Victoria Cross, awarded to Roman soldiers for being the first up the ladder and onto the enemy castle walls during a siege.
Whoever received it found fame in Whoever received it found fame in the accolade could be leveraged as a political stepping stone. Survival was unlikely, but the prospect of personal and political
The whole geopolitical situation has changed, and discussions that we're having now were seen impossible or beyond the realms of fantasy. Even five, five years ago, even three years ago. So we need to put that point into perspective and really think of that when we're starting to say, 14 years of hollowed out, and it's actually an illiterate defence argument, because we're taking a moment in time comparing peace with war. We need to be looking at the situation in the last hundred years and learn from history.
So at the end of the Second World War, when Clement Attlee demobilised the military, it was the right thing to do. We didn't need 5 million soldiers. The same at the end of the Berlin Wall. The world, the majority of the world disarmed or actually put down the scale of defence spending that they were doing. We now see that that has changed. There is a clear line, whether it's 2022 and actually in 2022, 2.22% of defence spending, if you check with the official ONS figures of what was spent there, not 2.1, as the hon.
Member had mentioned. But if you take 2014 2022, there is no no denying now that the whole world has changed and we're in the most volatile situation. It's just a debate. Was it from the end of the Cold War or the Second World War? I firmly believe it's from the Second World War, and I believe we are going to see a global conflict in the coming years. We are not prepared to defend our nation. We could not meet our article three NATO commitment.
I believe, at this stage, to defend the nation for the period of time expected. Everybody talks about article five, and there's three things that every defence Minister, every politician must look at when we're speaking on defence, it's readiness, lethality and survivability. Everything we must do is look on there. We're talking on numbers. Are we funding the readiness of our armed forces? Are they as lethal as they can be? And is? Are they do they have the ability to survive any conflict? We're not looking at expeditionary warfare that we'd have seen in the Middle East in recent years.
We're looking at a potential how we fit on the world stage and preparing for a global conflict, or having the ability to do that and hope it never happens. So in those three areas, we've got to look at it and there is always a debate are we ready enough or do we spend more money in lethality, or do we look at survivability? The first and the key most important one of those is readiness. We have to be ready. And I'm not saying the others are not as equally important.
If we are not ready, we cannot go to war. In 1999, I got married. I celebrated on Friday my 27th wedding anniversary. I then deployed, said to my wife, see you in six months. Deployed straight to Kosovo. When we arrived in theatre, there was no army barracks. We found derelict accommodation, flea ridden accommodation where blokes were covered in flea bites and everything and moved into houses that had been abandoned as they were still ethnically cleansing people. We just moved in there. We didn't have the kit, but we were about the most lethal bunch of soldiers you had seen, and we adapted.
But the readiness came from what I describe as Field Marshal Slim describes in the Burma Conflict of Spiritual Morale. You can take the equipment away from the soldiers. You can break anything. But if they have the spiritual morale to fight, they can go through everything. And we are burning that out through the military, through our time, through different little bits, on and on and on. And if we go back to when I was on the Defence Select Committee in 2020 to 20, middle of 2022, there are many reports my name is on absolutely destroying the government of our time, which gave me many difficult conversations with the whips, but it was the right thing to do to call it out because we weren't able to procure equipment, we weren't ready.
We weren't able to, to prepare for the world as it was at that time. And the Chief of Defence Staff has recently mentioned. We've said that we would have to. He said that we would have to cut operational services, training capability. Those are big issues. But he's also touched on what most people aren't mentioning is the resource spending. So we have R l and C, c l spending. So one boys, if we look at that buys capital spending, buys the ships, the tanks, the planes, the big things, the big items.
But they've got to run. We have to pay our troops. And we got to look at the resources around that. And that's the resource is about 62% of defence spending at the moment. And it's no way near the balance is offset. And we're looking at big projects, and it's great to be looking at things like how we funding the new submarines that we're looking, the type 83 GCap, is that going to be crewed uncrewed? That's another debate. I've got some good views on that.
I'd love to share another time, but actually the debate at the moment is what is the war we're preparing to fight? So the previous the the member from Birmingham and Selly Oak has mentioned the dip didn't fund enough and it didn't fund the wars that we what we should be funding fighting in the future. It's always hard to predict what the future war of warfare looks like, and it's easy to take lessons from Ukraine and just think that's what it's going to be.
But actually, we do need to take lessons and adapt and prepare for what's moving forward. The the hon. Member from Spelthorne has mentioned about the. 18 Defence Prime. I believe actually there's a disruptive model coming or needed within the defence industry that looks at scalability of technology. Two weeks ago, I was delighted to be in MIT, in Boston with NATO, looking at nanotechnology from a lad who left school with no GCSEs and joined as a rifleman. I was discussing nanotechnology, so time has has moved on.
You know what it is, but no, but but actually looking at how technology and innovation is moving forward, there are ways that we need to think differently. We need to have an understanding of how we prepare for those warfares. And it's not nanotechnology on one side and aircraft carriers on the other. There is a bit in the middle where we look at scalability of new technology as AI develops and quantum computing comes online in the to meet the the, the battle space is going to be completely different.
And people often say that the nature of warfare is changing. It's not. The nature of warfare is always brutal and always will be. The character of warfare is changing and we have to move into this space and be prepared for this. But when I go back to those three points, the the readiness, the lethality and the survivability, as I finish off here, each of the things that are happening under our watch, under Labour's watch before us, under the watch, now are chipping away at that spiritual morale of troops.
I have a soul, a son who's serving soldier as well. And I'm watching bit by bit that exercise is cancelled because we can't afford it. You have to do extra time on deployment because we can't rotate you through. We're not going to order the equipment because the ship isn't ready. And all of those chip away. What I will say on the departing point, there is one, one issue that we're dealing with at the moment that is cutting to the heart of every veteran, and I sat with a load of veterans watching the football last week.
I will be with serving personnel tonight, watching the football again, spending time with veterans and colleagues. And I hear firsthand what they're saying. The Northern Ireland Legacy Act and I served 18 months in on banner during the troubles that is Cutting Through, regardless of what political debate here. They believe soldiers serving believe that they will not be protected by the government when they go on operations. I know we can argue this backwards and forwards. That is what's landing, and that's what they believe.
And I believe a change to what we've have in place is a betrayal to our veterans, and it will remove any spiritual morale that has that British fighting spirit that I've spoke about through here. And it will mean that we're not ready, we're not lethal, and we can't survive without the dip coming forward with the correct funding on the correct defence products. We're in a serious situation and I do not believe we're ready for what is coming over the horizon. Ben Obese-Jecty thank
**** Possible New Speaker ****
you, Madam Speaker. Corona Morales. Now, I'd. Wager that there are few, if any, in this chamber who have ever heard of this term. Perhaps the odd classicist, but it was one of ancient Rome's most coveted military decorations. According to military decorations. According to Aulus Gellius, it was a golden crown shaped like a city wall and was awarded for bravery, much like the Victoria Cross, awarded to the Victoria Cross, awarded to Roman soldiers for being the first up the ladder and onto the enemy castle walls during a siege.
Whoever received it found fame in Whoever received it found fame in the accolade could be leveraged as a political stepping stone. Survival was unlikely, but the prospect of personal and political
14:57
Ben Obese-Jecty MP (Huntingdon, Conservative)
-
-
Ben Obese-Jecty MP (Huntingdon, Conservative)
glory was the motivation for men embarking on this suicide mission, convinced that they would fare better against impossible odds than better against impossible odds than those who had tried and failed before them in the history of Rome, Livy wrote, the men dashed on in Livy wrote, the men dashed on in the face of wounds and missiles, and neither walls nor armed men standing on them can restrain them from vying with one another in the from vying with one another in the attempt to climb.
And with that, I welcome the defence Ministers to their new roles and wish them luck their new roles and wish them luck in the forthcoming reshuffle, the new Defence Secretary tells us he's working round the clock, another idiom to add to the lexicon that includes flat out at pace and the perennial favourite, laser focussed this government's failure to invest in defence, particularly given the high horse, and rode in on whilst waxing lyrical about hollowing out, is farcical given we've already seen two experienced defence Ministers quit.
We now see two more, both decorated former officers, each with an MBE for their service, take up the colours Corona and Morales. All round. The Defence Investment Plan has entered the zeitgeist, but the duty of those in this House to hold the government to account. We can talk about top level budgets and use exciting buzzwords, but unless we're actually talking about what's in the plan itself, that capability is largely irrelevant. Defence Investment Plan is not funded properly. It isn't even close to being funded properly.
An additional 10 billion plus 3.5 billion of loose change it found on the back of the sofa won't touch the sides. The new defence secretary will need to make cuts damaging and difficult cuts, much of which won't be truly realised until the publication of the 2627 Ministry of Defence accounts at the end of next year, by which point he may be long gone. There are those projects that sit under the major projects portfolio, specifically dreadnoughts and GCap. The defence nuclear enterprise takes up 18% of the entire defence Budget.
To put that into context, that means our spending on conventional forces is last in NATO, proportionately less than North Macedonia and Luxembourg. The spiralling cost of dreadnought is an issue we need to be mindful of, coupled with the cost of upgrading the warhead to Australia and alongside the Aukus commitment, we are locked into a huge proportion of the available Budget being spent on submarines alone. RUSI last week wrote that they anticipate the DfE may hit 25% of the Budget within the period covered by this Defence Investment Plan.
Meanwhile, it's Ariel contemporary. GCap continues to be a costly endeavour, so costly, in fact, that despite the Minister for Defence, Readiness and Industry last week informing me that a new funding deal for ageing had been agreed, my sources at the MoD tell me that the deal isn't the multi-year settlement needed, so I would be grateful if the Minister can confirm the duration of the new funding deal. With the demise of FCA's GCap and F 47 are the only NATO sixth gen programmes left in town.
Yet the RAF is struggling to find the money for the platform. There's apparently rowed back on committing to pillar two, and is in danger of being superseded by events. The new uncrewed fighters currently in development are a fraction of the cost and will be many iterations developed by the time we see the first Tempest, it will take something special to ensure GCap is not a relic before it even leaves the drawing board. Last year, the previous chief of the air staff, now chief of the Defence Staff, made clear that there would be no major equipment programmes planned for the next 15 years.
We have what we have for the near and medium term. Despite the combat air strategy about to undergo a refresh. So when the RAF. So what the RAF has planned now is what we'll have through to 2040. We've taken delivery of 48 F-35b jets thus far. The programme of record states that we're committed to 138. Does anyone genuinely believe that the Defence Investment Plan will lay out the pathway to buying another 90? If we've only bought half that number since 2012, in order to fulfil a purpose in being carrier deployable, that now makes little strategic sense.
For reference, the US have budgeted for 85 this year alone at a cost of $21.4 billion. Analysis by the US Government Accountability Office has shown that the full mission capable rate of the F-35 is a lamentable 25%. Our own Public Accounts Committee reported in March that the UK F-35 fleet achieved approximately one third of the MoD target for the time it was able to fly all its required missions in 2024, and achieved only 2/5 of the level of available availability of the F-35b fleet.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
What do you think? I'm grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I don't know if he's had the opportunity yet to go down to Speakers Court and meet the armed Speakers Court and meet the armed forces representatives there. I met very unlikely. Titled fungus one, who is a F-35 pilot, and I was absolutely appalled to hear that he had spent nine years in training, and he has only just done three months on the front line, as well as all the other things.
We're giving the defence Minister to ream out and think about. Surely that pilot training has got to be one of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
them if we're going to be ready. Ben Obese-Jecty I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend, the UK agree with my hon. Friend, the UK military flying training system is, is is is on its uppers, and I don't hold that this government hold that this government necessarily responsible for that. I think there's a longer term issues with the flying training system. I believe the average length of time believe the average length of time that takes pilots to qualify is somewhere in the region of six years.
I think most of the pilots who are now hitting the front line who are now hitting the front line have done as long in training as I spent in my entire military career, by which point I'd done numerous operational tours. So I do think that there is significant work that needs to be done there. I think there are questions to be asked of the the company that we've outsourced flying training to, as well as the actual propensity for the Hawk jet, which I won't cover in this this debate.
The Minister knows it's a hobby horse of mine, but I won't come on to it here. But he realises that there is a sense of urgency there. Well, yeah, just on that, we'll give way.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm very grateful. When I served on the defence committee just before the election, we went to RAF Marham and we spoke to two F-35 Marham and we spoke to two F-35 pilots and we asked them how long had it taken since they first walked through the door of a recruiting office to when they were recruiting office to when they were allowed to fly the F-35? One said he'd been lucky and it was six years. The other said he'd been years. The other said he'd been unlucky and it was ten.
Does he agree with me? The MFTS program requires fundamental reform.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Ben Obese-Jecty. I thank my hon. Friend. Right hon. Friend. I do agree that the military flying training system. We need to get more pilots through the door. I've asked numerous questions around the ratio that we have of pilots to aircraft. I appreciate that the Minister doesn't want to divulge that information, but I would suggest that it is currently not as good as it could be. The Joint Program Office that should fix the F-35 is undergoing a global support solution recess that will cost an additional $13.7 billion.
And I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether any of that figure will be paid for by us here in the UK. As a result, there's no timeline for completing technology. Refresh three, which 72% of the F-35bs we have still require no timeline for the completion of the block four upgrade, either. Talk of the 12 F-35as for the NATO nuclear mission that the Member for North Durham mentioned has gone suspiciously quiet, with rumours that they will be cut. And that's before we talk about the four year lead times for material required to build them.
But crucially, there is no more money currently allocated to the F-35 lightning program. The departmental Budget laid out in the Integrated Review Defence Command paper back in 2021, only included the procurement of the 48 we now have. All new funding for the F-35 will need to be outlined in the Defence Investment Plan, which takes us on to drones. We know the RAF is committed to having the Tempest as a manned platform, but by the time it comes into service, the US will be a decade deep into their programme.
The US has just awarded General Atomics and Anduril sizeable contracts for the FQ42, A dart Merlin and FQ44A Fury uncrewed fighter jets. The Secretary of the Air Force has stated that the US plans to procure over 150 capable collaborative combat aircraft by the end of the decade. The US has budgeted 1 billion for procurement, $822 million for modifications and another 1.4 billion for research and development. How much do we think we're planning to spend from the 10 billion of additional funds available to our entire defence Budget? When the Defence Investment Plan is published, we will need to look closely at investment in those projects that should deliver drones.
So how does this all tie together? I've spoken about Project Asgard briefly before, and the chief of the General Staff was at the RUSI Land Warfare Conference, talking earlier about the need to be able to strike Russia within 30 minutes. But whether or not this is properly resourced in the Dip, it will be instrumental to our fortunes. We need to move past the squeamishness that we currently have and invest properly in both Project Asgard and its RAF cousin, Project Boyd. I was fortunate enough to visit the demonstration of Asgard during Exercise Arcade Strike last month, and it gave a glimpse into how the next war may be fought.
My takeaway, however, was how desperately it will need to be invested in. We risk being a day late and a dollar short when it comes to an integrated A, two D and Iamd solution. The reluctance of our senior leaders to move from an inner loop and on the loop approach to the kill chain to an on the loop and out of the loop posture, concerns me. Better to have the capability and not need it than need it and not have it. The Minister for defence, Readiness and Industry confirmed to me last week that the MoD is looking at machine vision for lock on in the terminal phase of one way effectors, but we must move further and faster.
For all the talk of defence investment in exquisite capabilities, nobody is suggesting we increase the mass of the army significantly. That's before you consider that every single vehicle platform the Army operates, except for Foxhound, is due to go out of service by 2030. Our ability to field an armoured division is at best optimistic. In reality, it's laughable. My own background is in armoured infantry and that of the hon. Member for Spelthorne, and were it to try and field an armoured battlegroup, let alone a division, I'd be interested to see what form it would take at the front of any armoured push information reconnaissance, formation, reconnaissance.
That role should by now be delivered by Ajax. My views on Ajax are well documented. Having delivered an entire debate on the topic in Westminster Hall earlier this year. But since then, what progress has been made? In the wake of Exercise Titan storm, the government commissioned an independent expert panel review, the results of which have been submitted via a final report, but the Minister appears hesitant to publish the outcome. I would be grateful if, now that the review has concluded, he would publish those findings for scrutiny in this House.
In his summing up, could the Minister outline when the House will receive an update on those findings? We know that the first phase of bringing Ajax up to speed will require the restarting of trials with the current version of Ajax, but the Minister has also informed me that there are a number of upgrades that are required to be made to the current platform, outside of the scope of work and upgrading from capability drop 3 to 4, including improvements to the electrical power generation system, the crew compartment heating and the air filtration system.
And whilst these all sound like gremlins that need to be worked through on any new platform, can you tell me which, if any, of these modifications will mitigate the injuries sustained by service personnel on Exercise Titan Storm Ajax must be a success. We cannot afford to be stuck with a platform that no other country is willing to buy. The reputational damage to the platform is in danger of being baked in if the government do not get the fix right. First time. All 589 holes have been built.
The factory will have no further work once these vehicles are assembled and rolled out. What work will the. With general. With the General Dynamics facility in Merthyr Tydfil have to do then when I raised this with the government, they stated that it's an issue for General Dynamics themselves. There is a reason why the government did not include the facility within the scope of the Defence Growth Deal for Wales. Put simply, the government cannot afford for Ajax to fail neither from a defence exports perspective and there are currently no pending orders nor from a capability perspective, the government knows this, having made no assessment of any potential replacement platforms such as CV 90.
So when will we finally see Ajax realise its potential? But sadly, this isn't the only issue behind Ajax should be challenger three. The challenger three remains in the demonstration phase, now beset by problems based on reports in the Telegraph last week, the turret power traverse gearbox potentially proving to be a problem that may push back delivery of the tank by years. And to put that in layman's terms, that's the part that makes the turret rotate. Now, the government have said that this isn't the case, but it is a concern that they are yet to declare the planning assumption for service entry for the new tank.
Despite all remaining 148 challenger two tanks being in scope for upgrade and conversion. Now, the government has also previously told me that they are continuing to explore export opportunities for challenger three. But what export opportunities? We have 148 main battle tanks. How many are we planning to sell and who would buy them? We have no plans to replace them. I'd be interested to understand the full scope of the Army's Heavy Armour Automotive Improvement Programme. In January, the Minister for Defence Procurement Industry told me that manufacturing will begin once the tanks performance is proven, rather than being tied to a specific deadline by when does he anticipate the tank's performance will be assessed to make the grade? Meanwhile, our allies look elsewhere to rearm with both the Franco-German main ground combat system to replace the Leclerc and Leopard two respectively, and other fledgling initiatives.
What is the future of armour behind the tanks? Warrior is due to go out of service next year, currently with no realistic replacement warriors due to be replaced by a mixture of boxer and Ajax derived Aries, but neither looks set to be ready in time. More concerning, the government's position appears to have shifted once again, with the Minister telling me last week that under current plans, boxer is being fielded as a supporting capability to armoured units within Third Division before being fielded to mechanised infantry units between 2030 and 2035.
Warrior goes out of service next year. So what is filling this capability gap? We haven't yet seen an order for the Patria six by six as part of the armoured vehicle system. The government recently told me that they are continuing to monitor the market for potential future platforms, but the Defence Investment Plan is supposedly going to be published next week. So why haven't these decisions already been made? From a Royal Navy perspective, it's no secret that the hybrid Navy concept is the direction that they're sailing in.
The commitment of the Royal Marines to the High North and potential investment in a joint commando craft. The Littoral Strike craft would illustrate a longer term commitment to that force posture. But the hybrid Navy concept means that the type 83 is dead in the water. The decision to give type 26 build slots to the Royal Norwegian Navy kicks the can down the road. Regarding the sticky issue of when we need to pay for the new ships with just eight to be built for us, and further five for Norwegian.
Given our significant commitment to global operations compared to the Norwegians, do we really think that just three more ships will cover off our global commitments? This is a whistle stop tour through some of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the myriad capability that will need to be detailed in the Defence Investment Plan within the next week or so. Not sure about that.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Not sure about that. I mean, I left a lot out. I know people are chuckling, but I could have gone, I could have gone, I was, I could have gone another hour. But we need to spend more on defence. We need to resource our military to We need to resource our military to meet the threats we face, not the ones we'd like to. If this Prime Minister, this Chancellor and this Defence Secretary won't find the Defence Secretary won't find the funding required through cutting the welfare Budget and changing the fiscal rules, then they should make way for someone who will.
But maybe that will happen sooner rather than later.
And with that, I welcome the defence Ministers to their new roles and wish them luck their new roles and wish them luck in the forthcoming reshuffle, the new Defence Secretary tells us he's working round the clock, another idiom to add to the lexicon that includes flat out at pace and the perennial favourite, laser focussed this government's failure to invest in defence, particularly given the high horse, and rode in on whilst waxing lyrical about hollowing out, is farcical given we've already seen two experienced defence Ministers quit.
We now see two more, both decorated former officers, each with an MBE for their service, take up the colours Corona and Morales. All round. The Defence Investment Plan has entered the zeitgeist, but the duty of those in this House to hold the government to account. We can talk about top level budgets and use exciting buzzwords, but unless we're actually talking about what's in the plan itself, that capability is largely irrelevant. Defence Investment Plan is not funded properly. It isn't even close to being funded properly.
An additional 10 billion plus 3.5 billion of loose change it found on the back of the sofa won't touch the sides. The new defence secretary will need to make cuts damaging and difficult cuts, much of which won't be truly realised until the publication of the 2627 Ministry of Defence accounts at the end of next year, by which point he may be long gone. There are those projects that sit under the major projects portfolio, specifically dreadnoughts and GCap. The defence nuclear enterprise takes up 18% of the entire defence Budget.
To put that into context, that means our spending on conventional forces is last in NATO, proportionately less than North Macedonia and Luxembourg. The spiralling cost of dreadnought is an issue we need to be mindful of, coupled with the cost of upgrading the warhead to Australia and alongside the Aukus commitment, we are locked into a huge proportion of the available Budget being spent on submarines alone. RUSI last week wrote that they anticipate the DfE may hit 25% of the Budget within the period covered by this Defence Investment Plan.
Meanwhile, it's Ariel contemporary. GCap continues to be a costly endeavour, so costly, in fact, that despite the Minister for Defence, Readiness and Industry last week informing me that a new funding deal for ageing had been agreed, my sources at the MoD tell me that the deal isn't the multi-year settlement needed, so I would be grateful if the Minister can confirm the duration of the new funding deal. With the demise of FCA's GCap and F 47 are the only NATO sixth gen programmes left in town.
Yet the RAF is struggling to find the money for the platform. There's apparently rowed back on committing to pillar two, and is in danger of being superseded by events. The new uncrewed fighters currently in development are a fraction of the cost and will be many iterations developed by the time we see the first Tempest, it will take something special to ensure GCap is not a relic before it even leaves the drawing board. Last year, the previous chief of the air staff, now chief of the Defence Staff, made clear that there would be no major equipment programmes planned for the next 15 years.
We have what we have for the near and medium term. Despite the combat air strategy about to undergo a refresh. So when the RAF. So what the RAF has planned now is what we'll have through to 2040. We've taken delivery of 48 F-35b jets thus far. The programme of record states that we're committed to 138. Does anyone genuinely believe that the Defence Investment Plan will lay out the pathway to buying another 90? If we've only bought half that number since 2012, in order to fulfil a purpose in being carrier deployable, that now makes little strategic sense.
For reference, the US have budgeted for 85 this year alone at a cost of $21.4 billion. Analysis by the US Government Accountability Office has shown that the full mission capable rate of the F-35 is a lamentable 25%. Our own Public Accounts Committee reported in March that the UK F-35 fleet achieved approximately one third of the MoD target for the time it was able to fly all its required missions in 2024, and achieved only 2/5 of the level of available availability of the F-35b fleet.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
What do you think? I'm grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I don't know if he's had the opportunity yet to go down to Speakers Court and meet the armed Speakers Court and meet the armed forces representatives there. I met very unlikely. Titled fungus one, who is a F-35 pilot, and I was absolutely appalled to hear that he had spent nine years in training, and he has only just done three months on the front line, as well as all the other things.
We're giving the defence Minister to ream out and think about. Surely that pilot training has got to be one of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
them if we're going to be ready. Ben Obese-Jecty I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend, the UK agree with my hon. Friend, the UK military flying training system is, is is is on its uppers, and I don't hold that this government hold that this government necessarily responsible for that. I think there's a longer term issues with the flying training system. I believe the average length of time believe the average length of time that takes pilots to qualify is somewhere in the region of six years.
I think most of the pilots who are now hitting the front line who are now hitting the front line have done as long in training as I spent in my entire military career, by which point I'd done numerous operational tours. So I do think that there is significant work that needs to be done there. I think there are questions to be asked of the the company that we've outsourced flying training to, as well as the actual propensity for the Hawk jet, which I won't cover in this this debate.
The Minister knows it's a hobby horse of mine, but I won't come on to it here. But he realises that there is a sense of urgency there. Well, yeah, just on that, we'll give way.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm very grateful. When I served on the defence committee just before the election, we went to RAF Marham and we spoke to two F-35 Marham and we spoke to two F-35 pilots and we asked them how long had it taken since they first walked through the door of a recruiting office to when they were recruiting office to when they were allowed to fly the F-35? One said he'd been lucky and it was six years. The other said he'd been years. The other said he'd been unlucky and it was ten.
Does he agree with me? The MFTS program requires fundamental reform.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Ben Obese-Jecty. I thank my hon. Friend. Right hon. Friend. I do agree that the military flying training system. We need to get more pilots through the door. I've asked numerous questions around the ratio that we have of pilots to aircraft. I appreciate that the Minister doesn't want to divulge that information, but I would suggest that it is currently not as good as it could be. The Joint Program Office that should fix the F-35 is undergoing a global support solution recess that will cost an additional $13.7 billion.
And I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether any of that figure will be paid for by us here in the UK. As a result, there's no timeline for completing technology. Refresh three, which 72% of the F-35bs we have still require no timeline for the completion of the block four upgrade, either. Talk of the 12 F-35as for the NATO nuclear mission that the Member for North Durham mentioned has gone suspiciously quiet, with rumours that they will be cut. And that's before we talk about the four year lead times for material required to build them.
But crucially, there is no more money currently allocated to the F-35 lightning program. The departmental Budget laid out in the Integrated Review Defence Command paper back in 2021, only included the procurement of the 48 we now have. All new funding for the F-35 will need to be outlined in the Defence Investment Plan, which takes us on to drones. We know the RAF is committed to having the Tempest as a manned platform, but by the time it comes into service, the US will be a decade deep into their programme.
The US has just awarded General Atomics and Anduril sizeable contracts for the FQ42, A dart Merlin and FQ44A Fury uncrewed fighter jets. The Secretary of the Air Force has stated that the US plans to procure over 150 capable collaborative combat aircraft by the end of the decade. The US has budgeted 1 billion for procurement, $822 million for modifications and another 1.4 billion for research and development. How much do we think we're planning to spend from the 10 billion of additional funds available to our entire defence Budget? When the Defence Investment Plan is published, we will need to look closely at investment in those projects that should deliver drones.
So how does this all tie together? I've spoken about Project Asgard briefly before, and the chief of the General Staff was at the RUSI Land Warfare Conference, talking earlier about the need to be able to strike Russia within 30 minutes. But whether or not this is properly resourced in the Dip, it will be instrumental to our fortunes. We need to move past the squeamishness that we currently have and invest properly in both Project Asgard and its RAF cousin, Project Boyd. I was fortunate enough to visit the demonstration of Asgard during Exercise Arcade Strike last month, and it gave a glimpse into how the next war may be fought.
My takeaway, however, was how desperately it will need to be invested in. We risk being a day late and a dollar short when it comes to an integrated A, two D and Iamd solution. The reluctance of our senior leaders to move from an inner loop and on the loop approach to the kill chain to an on the loop and out of the loop posture, concerns me. Better to have the capability and not need it than need it and not have it. The Minister for defence, Readiness and Industry confirmed to me last week that the MoD is looking at machine vision for lock on in the terminal phase of one way effectors, but we must move further and faster.
For all the talk of defence investment in exquisite capabilities, nobody is suggesting we increase the mass of the army significantly. That's before you consider that every single vehicle platform the Army operates, except for Foxhound, is due to go out of service by 2030. Our ability to field an armoured division is at best optimistic. In reality, it's laughable. My own background is in armoured infantry and that of the hon. Member for Spelthorne, and were it to try and field an armoured battlegroup, let alone a division, I'd be interested to see what form it would take at the front of any armoured push information reconnaissance, formation, reconnaissance.
That role should by now be delivered by Ajax. My views on Ajax are well documented. Having delivered an entire debate on the topic in Westminster Hall earlier this year. But since then, what progress has been made? In the wake of Exercise Titan storm, the government commissioned an independent expert panel review, the results of which have been submitted via a final report, but the Minister appears hesitant to publish the outcome. I would be grateful if, now that the review has concluded, he would publish those findings for scrutiny in this House.
In his summing up, could the Minister outline when the House will receive an update on those findings? We know that the first phase of bringing Ajax up to speed will require the restarting of trials with the current version of Ajax, but the Minister has also informed me that there are a number of upgrades that are required to be made to the current platform, outside of the scope of work and upgrading from capability drop 3 to 4, including improvements to the electrical power generation system, the crew compartment heating and the air filtration system.
And whilst these all sound like gremlins that need to be worked through on any new platform, can you tell me which, if any, of these modifications will mitigate the injuries sustained by service personnel on Exercise Titan Storm Ajax must be a success. We cannot afford to be stuck with a platform that no other country is willing to buy. The reputational damage to the platform is in danger of being baked in if the government do not get the fix right. First time. All 589 holes have been built.
The factory will have no further work once these vehicles are assembled and rolled out. What work will the. With general. With the General Dynamics facility in Merthyr Tydfil have to do then when I raised this with the government, they stated that it's an issue for General Dynamics themselves. There is a reason why the government did not include the facility within the scope of the Defence Growth Deal for Wales. Put simply, the government cannot afford for Ajax to fail neither from a defence exports perspective and there are currently no pending orders nor from a capability perspective, the government knows this, having made no assessment of any potential replacement platforms such as CV 90.
So when will we finally see Ajax realise its potential? But sadly, this isn't the only issue behind Ajax should be challenger three. The challenger three remains in the demonstration phase, now beset by problems based on reports in the Telegraph last week, the turret power traverse gearbox potentially proving to be a problem that may push back delivery of the tank by years. And to put that in layman's terms, that's the part that makes the turret rotate. Now, the government have said that this isn't the case, but it is a concern that they are yet to declare the planning assumption for service entry for the new tank.
Despite all remaining 148 challenger two tanks being in scope for upgrade and conversion. Now, the government has also previously told me that they are continuing to explore export opportunities for challenger three. But what export opportunities? We have 148 main battle tanks. How many are we planning to sell and who would buy them? We have no plans to replace them. I'd be interested to understand the full scope of the Army's Heavy Armour Automotive Improvement Programme. In January, the Minister for Defence Procurement Industry told me that manufacturing will begin once the tanks performance is proven, rather than being tied to a specific deadline by when does he anticipate the tank's performance will be assessed to make the grade? Meanwhile, our allies look elsewhere to rearm with both the Franco-German main ground combat system to replace the Leclerc and Leopard two respectively, and other fledgling initiatives.
What is the future of armour behind the tanks? Warrior is due to go out of service next year, currently with no realistic replacement warriors due to be replaced by a mixture of boxer and Ajax derived Aries, but neither looks set to be ready in time. More concerning, the government's position appears to have shifted once again, with the Minister telling me last week that under current plans, boxer is being fielded as a supporting capability to armoured units within Third Division before being fielded to mechanised infantry units between 2030 and 2035.
Warrior goes out of service next year. So what is filling this capability gap? We haven't yet seen an order for the Patria six by six as part of the armoured vehicle system. The government recently told me that they are continuing to monitor the market for potential future platforms, but the Defence Investment Plan is supposedly going to be published next week. So why haven't these decisions already been made? From a Royal Navy perspective, it's no secret that the hybrid Navy concept is the direction that they're sailing in.
The commitment of the Royal Marines to the High North and potential investment in a joint commando craft. The Littoral Strike craft would illustrate a longer term commitment to that force posture. But the hybrid Navy concept means that the type 83 is dead in the water. The decision to give type 26 build slots to the Royal Norwegian Navy kicks the can down the road. Regarding the sticky issue of when we need to pay for the new ships with just eight to be built for us, and further five for Norwegian.
Given our significant commitment to global operations compared to the Norwegians, do we really think that just three more ships will cover off our global commitments? This is a whistle stop tour through some of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the myriad capability that will need to be detailed in the Defence Investment Plan within the next week or so. Not sure about that.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Not sure about that. I mean, I left a lot out. I know people are chuckling, but I could have gone, I could have gone, I was, I could have gone another hour. But we need to spend more on defence. We need to resource our military to We need to resource our military to meet the threats we face, not the ones we'd like to. If this Prime Minister, this Chancellor and this Defence Secretary won't find the Defence Secretary won't find the funding required through cutting the welfare Budget and changing the fiscal rules, then they should make way for someone who will.
But maybe that will happen sooner rather than later.
15:11
Rt Hon Sir Julian Lewis MP (New Forest East, Conservative)
-
-
Rt Hon Sir Julian Lewis MP (New Forest East, Conservative)
So, Julian Lewis. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And this debate has been characterised by so many powerful speeches that I think it would be speeches that I think it would be invidious to pick out any of them. I'd like to congratulate everyone who's contributed, and particularly the the government backbenchers who've evidently come to this debate espousing the principle that the best defence is attack. Some of their speeches have been so combative that it's hard to believe that only recently they lost their Secretary of State for defence, their Minister for the armed forces and even their Prime Minister.
But if morale is. Indeed, if morale is indeed the measure of a successful fighting force, then the government backbenchers are certainly doing very well indeed. Now I, by happy coincidence, had a letter published in today's edition of the times, which I've submitted before. I knew that this debate was going to take place. I say it's a happy coincidence, because I know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you're worried about the ticking clock and one of the requirements for a letter in that esteemed newspaper is that you must compresse practically all of your argument into no more than 150 words.
So these are the slightly fewer than 150 words which I chose. Quotes an erratic, isolationist White House, a ruthlessly imperialist Kremlin, and a disturbing relationship between the two have put peace in Europe more at risk than at any time since the height of the Cold War. The Prime Minister's valedictory boast of securing quotes within quotes the biggest uplift in defence spending since the Cold War should therefore cut little ice. We are nowhere near investing. Even the 3% of GDP under current MoD calculation criteria still being spent.
When the Conservatives were defeated in 1997 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall under Margaret Thatcher throughout the 1980s. Again applying today's criteria, defence received between 4.1% and 5.5% of GDP. This shows the scale of effort required once again to boost deterrence and prevent the appalling costs in blood, as well as in treasure of full scale war between Russia and the West. That was the letter, and I will just briefly pick on a couple of the aspects on which to expand.
First is the use of the word deterrence. I am very perturbed about the fact that there is a sense of inevitability, that there is going to be a conflict with Russia, perhaps as soon as 2030. The question of whether or not there is such a conflict is not just down to Russia. It's down to what we do, the preparations we make, the investment that we think we can bear in the military in order to ensure that if Russia looks at the prospect of war with the NATO powers, it will see that the outcome is uncertain and the cost is likely to be unbearable.
So we have to do our bit. But the other aspect of that letter, on which I would briefly like to comment, is the opening point. The point about the isolationist White House. Nobody knows how far the isolationist virus that is embodied by, professed by President Donald J. Trump, has spread throughout the rest of the American political system. If, when he eventually is replaced, that virus reappears in his successor, then the future for peace in Europe is indeed imperilled.
Because the key achievement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was to ensure that any potential aggressor against any of the member countries would know that if they attacked from day one, they would be at war with the United States of America. What Donald Trump has done is to cause that guarantee to be undermined. I don't know why he does it. I don't know what the nature is of what I called in that letter. His disturbing relationship with the killer in the Kremlin.
All I know is that Europe will not be safe until, again, we can rely on the United States to guarantee our freedom. But in the meanwhile, we must send a signal across the Atlantic, for our part, that we will do everything necessary to invest in our armed forces and to make the necessary preparations. If we do that, we will maximise the chance of restoring stability to the power balance between East and West, which saw us through the most deadly threats of the Cold War.
The times when it was thought that civilisation could perish and we will get back to a situation where people can then think about what it is nice to pay for, to have a modern, civilised, compassionate society. But I end with a famous quote from another Healey, who was a defence secretary, Denis Healey and Denis Healey said memorably that if you do not have adequate defence, you do not have all the aspects of a society that you wish to cherish.
You don't have schools, you don't have hospitals, you don't have houses. What you have is a heap of cinders. So let us invest what we can while we can. Let us get our priorities right and let us restore the guarantee of the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
transatlantic relationship, which kept peace and prevented a Third World War. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Peter Lamb thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as colleagues on this side of the House have already this side of the House have already noted today and previously, the defence of the realm is the first duty of any government. And as a duty of any government. And as a fundamental part of that duty, any government must provide the people who volunteer to keep our country who volunteer to keep our country safe, at great personal risk, with the tools they need and the support that they deserve.
Because our country is not kept safe by people in this place or by bureaucrats in Whitehall offices. It is kept safe by brave men and women who put their lives on the line because they believe in this country and want to protect it. They suspend their family lives, they risk their own lives, and they operate in incredibly difficult conditions because they think that this country is worth suffering for and even dying for. They do this of their own free will, and certainly not for any great sums of money.
We are incredibly fortunate that anybody puts themselves forward to serve, and even more fortunate that over the years, this country has produced many thousands of courageous, professional and dutiful people who have preserved the freedom of this country and at times the world. The very least that the British government can do is to treat these people, our armed forces personnel, fairly, to honour the implicit promise that their service will be repaid with respect and protection, to make sure that when orders are issued from on high, the people charged with carrying out those orders are not punished for doing so.
Since the last election, we have seen this government do exactly the opposite. The Northern Ireland Troubles Bill is a direct betrayal of that promise, and it will see veterans dragged through the courts and hounded by endless inquiries decades after their service. Those who served in Northern Ireland did so at incredible personal risk. They operated under intensely challenging conditions, the likes of which most of us in this place,
But if morale is. Indeed, if morale is indeed the measure of a successful fighting force, then the government backbenchers are certainly doing very well indeed. Now I, by happy coincidence, had a letter published in today's edition of the times, which I've submitted before. I knew that this debate was going to take place. I say it's a happy coincidence, because I know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you're worried about the ticking clock and one of the requirements for a letter in that esteemed newspaper is that you must compresse practically all of your argument into no more than 150 words.
So these are the slightly fewer than 150 words which I chose. Quotes an erratic, isolationist White House, a ruthlessly imperialist Kremlin, and a disturbing relationship between the two have put peace in Europe more at risk than at any time since the height of the Cold War. The Prime Minister's valedictory boast of securing quotes within quotes the biggest uplift in defence spending since the Cold War should therefore cut little ice. We are nowhere near investing. Even the 3% of GDP under current MoD calculation criteria still being spent.
When the Conservatives were defeated in 1997 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall under Margaret Thatcher throughout the 1980s. Again applying today's criteria, defence received between 4.1% and 5.5% of GDP. This shows the scale of effort required once again to boost deterrence and prevent the appalling costs in blood, as well as in treasure of full scale war between Russia and the West. That was the letter, and I will just briefly pick on a couple of the aspects on which to expand.
First is the use of the word deterrence. I am very perturbed about the fact that there is a sense of inevitability, that there is going to be a conflict with Russia, perhaps as soon as 2030. The question of whether or not there is such a conflict is not just down to Russia. It's down to what we do, the preparations we make, the investment that we think we can bear in the military in order to ensure that if Russia looks at the prospect of war with the NATO powers, it will see that the outcome is uncertain and the cost is likely to be unbearable.
So we have to do our bit. But the other aspect of that letter, on which I would briefly like to comment, is the opening point. The point about the isolationist White House. Nobody knows how far the isolationist virus that is embodied by, professed by President Donald J. Trump, has spread throughout the rest of the American political system. If, when he eventually is replaced, that virus reappears in his successor, then the future for peace in Europe is indeed imperilled.
Because the key achievement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was to ensure that any potential aggressor against any of the member countries would know that if they attacked from day one, they would be at war with the United States of America. What Donald Trump has done is to cause that guarantee to be undermined. I don't know why he does it. I don't know what the nature is of what I called in that letter. His disturbing relationship with the killer in the Kremlin.
All I know is that Europe will not be safe until, again, we can rely on the United States to guarantee our freedom. But in the meanwhile, we must send a signal across the Atlantic, for our part, that we will do everything necessary to invest in our armed forces and to make the necessary preparations. If we do that, we will maximise the chance of restoring stability to the power balance between East and West, which saw us through the most deadly threats of the Cold War.
The times when it was thought that civilisation could perish and we will get back to a situation where people can then think about what it is nice to pay for, to have a modern, civilised, compassionate society. But I end with a famous quote from another Healey, who was a defence secretary, Denis Healey and Denis Healey said memorably that if you do not have adequate defence, you do not have all the aspects of a society that you wish to cherish.
You don't have schools, you don't have hospitals, you don't have houses. What you have is a heap of cinders. So let us invest what we can while we can. Let us get our priorities right and let us restore the guarantee of the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
transatlantic relationship, which kept peace and prevented a Third World War. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Peter Lamb thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as colleagues on this side of the House have already this side of the House have already noted today and previously, the defence of the realm is the first duty of any government. And as a duty of any government. And as a fundamental part of that duty, any government must provide the people who volunteer to keep our country who volunteer to keep our country safe, at great personal risk, with the tools they need and the support that they deserve.
Because our country is not kept safe by people in this place or by bureaucrats in Whitehall offices. It is kept safe by brave men and women who put their lives on the line because they believe in this country and want to protect it. They suspend their family lives, they risk their own lives, and they operate in incredibly difficult conditions because they think that this country is worth suffering for and even dying for. They do this of their own free will, and certainly not for any great sums of money.
We are incredibly fortunate that anybody puts themselves forward to serve, and even more fortunate that over the years, this country has produced many thousands of courageous, professional and dutiful people who have preserved the freedom of this country and at times the world. The very least that the British government can do is to treat these people, our armed forces personnel, fairly, to honour the implicit promise that their service will be repaid with respect and protection, to make sure that when orders are issued from on high, the people charged with carrying out those orders are not punished for doing so.
Since the last election, we have seen this government do exactly the opposite. The Northern Ireland Troubles Bill is a direct betrayal of that promise, and it will see veterans dragged through the courts and hounded by endless inquiries decades after their service. Those who served in Northern Ireland did so at incredible personal risk. They operated under intensely challenging conditions, the likes of which most of us in this place,
15:20
Katie Lam MP (Weald of Kent, Conservative)
-
-
Katie Lam MP (Weald of Kent, Conservative)
save some gallant members, will never be forced to withstand. They did all this to keep our country did all this to keep our country safe from murderous psychopaths who wanted to undermine our democracy and tear our country apart through and tear our country apart through the use of terrorist violence, the assassination of police officers, and the murder of innocent civilians over the course of their service. The vast majority of those who served in our security forces did so with incredible professionalism.
They behaved according to rules of engagement, which did not constrain their terrorist enemies. They followed orders and procedures designed to protect innocent life. When they standards were not met, people were held responsible. Again, no such internal scrutiny took place within the terrorist organisations that they fought. Indeed, under the terms of the Belfast Agreement and subsequent legislation, IRA terrorists were given immunity from prosecution. As my right hon. Friend set out earlier and many were released from prison before their sentences had been served.
Despite having carried out terrorist attacks which killed civilians. This charity and forgiveness stands in stark contrast to the treatment in the opposite direction. Many of those who served have been hounded for decades by vexatious legal claims. Those include people who served in our armed forces and those who served in the police in Northern Ireland, then called the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Typically, these challenges have been politically motivated and have been brought by people linked to the Irish Republican movement, often to furnish the Republican narrative that our security forces behaved unlawfully throughout the troubles.
These challenges are almost never launched on the basis of new evidence. But because of the retrospective application of human rights laws, which were never designed to govern counter-terrorist combat. On the morning of the 3rd of June 1991, three members of the IRA drove a stolen car into a small village in County Tyrone. It was their intention to murder a part time member of the Ulster Defence Regiment, a regiment of the British Army made up of local recruits from Northern Ireland. On reaching the village, the car stopped.
One of the men got out and pointed an assault rifle at the person that he believed to be their target, but who was in fact a member of the SAS in disguise, believing that the decoys life was in immediate danger. Other SAS soldiers, hidden on the first floor of a nearby hotel opened fire on the IRA men. All three were killed. Investigation at the scene showed that two of those men, Lawrence McNally and Michael Ryan, were armed with assault rifles. The third man, Tony Doris, wasn't armed, which the SAS soldiers who carried out the ambush could not have known.
The three IRA men who were killed that day set out to murder a part time soldier. The actions of the SAS were designed to prevent that from happening. Fortunately, they succeeded. That operation took place before I was even born. Yet until earlier this year, the soldiers who took part in it were still being subjected to legal harassment for their actions that day. More than three decades later, lawyers with no specialist knowledge of military operations were being asked to rule on whether those soldiers had behaved in accordance with the human rights law, which was not designed for combat.
Fortunately, in that case, the Court of Appeal determined that the SAS had acted lawfully, but other veterans have not been so lucky. This government's troubles bill will mean more cases like this one. More veterans dragged through the courts, hounded in the press and forced to testify at countless inquests and inquiries. It will scrap the protections put in place by the previous government and open the doors to a whole new wave of politically motivated prosecutions. They say that this is necessary because of our obligations under the European Court of Human Rights, but if protecting our veterans from veterans, from vexatious prosecution really isn't compatible with EC membership, what better case can there be for leaving the ECHR altogether? Earlier this week, we heard that we'd be rid of this Prime Minister who has repeatedly let down those currently serving in our armed forces by refusing to provide them with the material support they need and those who served previously through this disastrous Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, I hope that his exit foreshadows the exit of both the Attorney General and the Northern Ireland Secretary, both of whom have been responsible for advancing and defending this Bill.
They had been warned repeatedly about what an awful signal this sends to those who are currently serving. Why would anybody risk their lives if their own government might throw them under the bus decades later? I only hope that the chaos in government will provide the new defence Ministers whenever they might arrive, with an excuse to drop this bill for good, and that they will instead support the private member's bill. Brought in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne, which I am honoured to support.
Our Northern Ireland veterans made unimaginable sacrifices to keep us safe. It is not a lot to ask that we protect them from this nightmare in return.
They behaved according to rules of engagement, which did not constrain their terrorist enemies. They followed orders and procedures designed to protect innocent life. When they standards were not met, people were held responsible. Again, no such internal scrutiny took place within the terrorist organisations that they fought. Indeed, under the terms of the Belfast Agreement and subsequent legislation, IRA terrorists were given immunity from prosecution. As my right hon. Friend set out earlier and many were released from prison before their sentences had been served.
Despite having carried out terrorist attacks which killed civilians. This charity and forgiveness stands in stark contrast to the treatment in the opposite direction. Many of those who served have been hounded for decades by vexatious legal claims. Those include people who served in our armed forces and those who served in the police in Northern Ireland, then called the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Typically, these challenges have been politically motivated and have been brought by people linked to the Irish Republican movement, often to furnish the Republican narrative that our security forces behaved unlawfully throughout the troubles.
These challenges are almost never launched on the basis of new evidence. But because of the retrospective application of human rights laws, which were never designed to govern counter-terrorist combat. On the morning of the 3rd of June 1991, three members of the IRA drove a stolen car into a small village in County Tyrone. It was their intention to murder a part time member of the Ulster Defence Regiment, a regiment of the British Army made up of local recruits from Northern Ireland. On reaching the village, the car stopped.
One of the men got out and pointed an assault rifle at the person that he believed to be their target, but who was in fact a member of the SAS in disguise, believing that the decoys life was in immediate danger. Other SAS soldiers, hidden on the first floor of a nearby hotel opened fire on the IRA men. All three were killed. Investigation at the scene showed that two of those men, Lawrence McNally and Michael Ryan, were armed with assault rifles. The third man, Tony Doris, wasn't armed, which the SAS soldiers who carried out the ambush could not have known.
The three IRA men who were killed that day set out to murder a part time soldier. The actions of the SAS were designed to prevent that from happening. Fortunately, they succeeded. That operation took place before I was even born. Yet until earlier this year, the soldiers who took part in it were still being subjected to legal harassment for their actions that day. More than three decades later, lawyers with no specialist knowledge of military operations were being asked to rule on whether those soldiers had behaved in accordance with the human rights law, which was not designed for combat.
Fortunately, in that case, the Court of Appeal determined that the SAS had acted lawfully, but other veterans have not been so lucky. This government's troubles bill will mean more cases like this one. More veterans dragged through the courts, hounded in the press and forced to testify at countless inquests and inquiries. It will scrap the protections put in place by the previous government and open the doors to a whole new wave of politically motivated prosecutions. They say that this is necessary because of our obligations under the European Court of Human Rights, but if protecting our veterans from veterans, from vexatious prosecution really isn't compatible with EC membership, what better case can there be for leaving the ECHR altogether? Earlier this week, we heard that we'd be rid of this Prime Minister who has repeatedly let down those currently serving in our armed forces by refusing to provide them with the material support they need and those who served previously through this disastrous Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, I hope that his exit foreshadows the exit of both the Attorney General and the Northern Ireland Secretary, both of whom have been responsible for advancing and defending this Bill.
They had been warned repeatedly about what an awful signal this sends to those who are currently serving. Why would anybody risk their lives if their own government might throw them under the bus decades later? I only hope that the chaos in government will provide the new defence Ministers whenever they might arrive, with an excuse to drop this bill for good, and that they will instead support the private member's bill. Brought in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne, which I am honoured to support.
Our Northern Ireland veterans made unimaginable sacrifices to keep us safe. It is not a lot to ask that we protect them from this nightmare in return.
15:25
Paul Holmes MP (Hamble Valley, Conservative)
-
-
Paul Holmes MP (Hamble Valley, Conservative)
Hear, hear. >> Hear, hear. >> Paul Holmes thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I declare an interest that I am a trustee of the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme and encourage all members of the House to undertake their placement House to undertake their placement on that scheme, if they possibly can. The Prime Minister has been generating some sympathy with the dignified way in which he is choosing to leave office, and I'd like to add my voice to those who have stated that we are fortunate to live in a country with a political system which values those leaders who put their country and the dignity of their office before personal gain.
The Prime Minister is many things, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I disagree with him profusely. But first and foremost, he's a gentleman who won a mandate, and everybody across this House should respect that and wish him well going forward. Yeah. And others who have shown personal strength of character and commitment to public office include the former Secretary of State of Defence, the right hon. Member for Raw Rawmarsh and Conisbrough and the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak. I know both of those members took their decision to resign seriously and with the intense reflection that it deserves.
I also understand that their resignations came as a great surprise to the Prime Minister and to number ten, as they were expected to keep loyal and keep calm and carry on well, from this side of the House, I would say it was no surprise whatsoever. We do know. We don't know what exactly was said in Cabinet, let alone the private discussions between the Defence Secretary and the Chancellor, and nor should we. But from what we have seen and what has been reported about the complete fiasco around the Defence Investment Plan, the failure to plan and meet the expectations of the public and our allies around the world world have of us? It is no wonder that the Defence Secretary felt he was unable to work under those conditions any longer.
And for six months, a quarter of the time the Prime Minister has been in office, he could not make a decision. Since January this year, it has been clear to the to the government that there was a gargantuan shortfall in the Ministry of Defence's Budget, the paltry sum the Treasury deemed suitable to shower on the MoD was barely enough to replace a few helmets, let alone build a next generation fighting force which can deliver on the priorities that were outlined in the Strategic Defence Review.
And let us be clear this decision may be based on process. The Prime Minister's favourite war to hide behind. And yes, there must be a process to prioritise and to delegate and decide. But his indecision will cost lives. If and when this country faces a crisis which requires a military response. The question remains why did the Prime Minister and the Chancellor not see this coming? The answer is, of course, that they did. They saw the threat of being exposed as weak on defence, and they chose to do nothing.
And the Minister, when she opened up the debate this afternoon, and I respect her and thank her for her service in the past, actually has added to that, because she spent a lot of the time criticising the last government, quite rightly, because she is a Minister of the Crown, but she is sitting in the department and standing at that despatch box, saying that all is now well and proud of the legacy of the of the process that she's putting forward. While two men, while one Minister resigned in her department that she served with and the Secretary of State resigned, who she served with, saying that things weren't right and weren't going in the right way.
So I really think she needs to look at their speeches once again. And there are few things more damning for the leader of a country to be accused of than being incapable of protecting the people that they were elected to govern. It is not a party political point. It's a point that's been made by the former defence secretary, the former Minister. Minister for the armed forces, and a point that is being increasingly made across the defence sector. And, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Labour man, the Lord Robertson that wrote the Strategic Defence Review in the first place.
So I really do think that this is a. I wonder sometimes, Madam Deputy Speaker, if members on that side of the House of death, because they are all Labour voices that are saying to this government that their strategic defence review and the lack of a defence investment plan and the lack of funding that they are putting into our armed forces is damning. But Ministers at the Dispatch Box don't seem to hear
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that. The problem on that point I will give way. Mark Francois. I have great respect for Lord Robertson, a respect for Lord Robertson, a former accomplished defence secretary, a former secretary general of NATO, a man who joined general of NATO, a man who joined the Labour Party in 1961, a Labour lifer. When even he accused the lifer. When even he accused the Prime Minister of corrosive complacency. Does that not prove
**** Possible New Speaker ****
complacency. Does that not prove how utterly out of touch this government now is? Well, my my the shadow Minister, my right hon. Friend is absolutely correct, and I actually think we can add somebody else into that bucket. And that is the former defence secretary, the former defence secretary for the Member for Conisbrough isn't known as somebody that is a party political man. He is somebody that is known as a deep statesman. He's somebody that's known as a reliable Minister, that the prime Ministers from across the Labour Party could rely on.
And when it comes to the stage where a former statesman, a former Labour statesman who wrote the SDR and the acting and the current serving Secretary of State, say the government aren't listening to them, then I think the country at large needs to listen as a whole, and so do the Ministers standing at that despatch box. Madam Deputy Speaker, if I can just briefly mention the dip specific points on the dip and then resilience. I'd be very grateful. Specifically on the dip.
I know the Minister sitting at the despatch box, except that the defence of the realm is the most important duty of any government, and while I wish them success, I just think this government is falling short. No clearer sign of that is the lack of a defence investment plan, something that they promised, much touted by this government because and delayed because of the latest drama. It's likely to be delayed again, spreading uncertainty to our defence sector. Sector defence businesses in my constituency of Hamble Valley and most importantly, our allies and enemies in the international world.
The elephant in the room, Mr. Madam Deputy Speaker, is that Ministers who are sitting there today might not be in their jobs in three weeks time, and I don't wish that to happen. I believe that they are good Ministers, but that's the nature of the of the of the job that we're in. Well, the hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman are in, but that would just add uncertainty again to the defence sector that are looking for the investment that this government promised them two and a half years ago.
Now, in Hamble Valley, we have a thriving defence sector. The Minister of State has been we've got companies like Domo, Tactical Communications, Kraken, Safran, Saab and races. But the constant feedback I get, and I know that he kindly came down to a round table in the constituency, is that without a defence investment plan, they don't know what they're supposed to do, and they don't know where they're supposed to invest. And if the Minister and the new Secretary of State don't do it very, very quickly, then those companies will suffer and the United Kingdom suffers as a whole.
£13 billion is not the £18 billion identified by the national security adviser just to maintain the status quo. And it does mean that the United Kingdom will lose its credibility on the international stage. Now, my final point, Madam Deputy Speaker, is about resilience. Last week I was in Finland with with Finnish MPs looking at some of the defence cooperation within the NATO framework that the United Kingdom, Israel and Finland play its part in. And I have to say, I was left shocked about Finland's resilience and preparedness compared to the United Kingdom.
And someone can challenge me and they will. I know some hon. Members went to Norway last week. Some members can quite rightly challenge me about the fact Finland is a population of 5 million with a 1500 mile border with Russia, whereas we are 70 million people and an island. But I actually think there can be a lot of comparisons met very early on within the school system, very early on from when young people grow up, that defence resilience and preparedness is embedded within them.
It's embedded within civil society. It's embedded within government departments. And I know as a former special adviser at the Cabinet Office that we have those documents, but what we very urgently need to do, which is why it's contained within our motion, is not just look at international resilience and defence spending to attack, but we need to make our population here ready and willing to play their part in defending the homeland, too. And I just am worried that when you look at some of the Nordic countries where the population is polled, whether they'd go to war if there was a threat in Finland in the high 80s, but in the United Kingdom, it's in the high teens.
Now, personally, I'm a bit sceptical about how low it is here. I believe our population would defend this country, but very, very quickly now, I think, and I looked for some answers from the government, how they plan to embed from a very early age, whether it's in the national curriculum or reinstating some of the cuts that they made to our cadet forces in our schools, that people from a very young age and going through our civil society is prepared to defend this country should it be needed.
And I, I will, of course.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
For his generosity in giving way. The Finns have what they call a total defence concept. That is, in the event of an attack from Russia. And they have much experience of this historically. It's not just the armed forces that resists, it's the whole of society. And they've the whole of society. And they've planned this for decades. We had something a bit like this during the Cold War, but the Finns take the Cold War, but the Finns take this to a greater degree.
Does he agree with me? Obviously, having been there, we could learn a great deal from Finland.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I absolutely do. I mean, there was a there was a story that said if any Russian cross the Finland border, the first thing that they'd hear from a Finn is hands up. And that if the Russians went into Finland, there'd be a sniper's Finland, there'd be a sniper's rifle in every window. Now, I'm not saying that we need to do that. It was slightly tongue in cheek, but was slightly tongue in cheek, but there is that resilience there, and we have to accept as a house that anybody under the age of 50 doesn't remember, really remember.
An adversarial Cold War doesn't really remember to have the mental psyche about the fact that we need to be prepared to defend the country, should there be an imminent and unprovoked attack. That's where we need to get back to. And I'd be interested to hear from the Minister about how the Strategic Defence review will look to that. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, we're living in unparalleled times. Public warnings came from the chief of the defence staff. It's come from two Ministers who have resigned. A Prime Minister is now going, and, I have to say, a ministry ministerial team that haven't taken any notice of those warnings and are still carrying on without giving the money our armed forces need.
We are paralysed, we are paralysed in this House and the government is paralysed about the government putting that much needed money that the professionals are asking for. I hope that in three weeks time, when we get a new Prime Minister, that will be unlocked and that will change. However, Madam Deputy Speaker, call me a cynic. I'm not sure it will.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Be terrible. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker yeah, yeah, I think this debate comes in a very apt time, and that is Armed Forces Week. time, and that is Armed Forces Week. That is a week where we show our support for our armed forces community, whether that is the serving personnel, their families, serving personnel, their families, veterans and cadets. And I certainly just look forward to going to Brackley's Armed Forces Day celebration this Saturday. And Day celebration this Saturday. And I want to put on record my thanks to all of the Royal British Legion branches who do so much across our constituencies, and in particular call out to Tony Macaulay, who in the Brackley branch organises the veterans breakfasts, which are available every Saturday morning.
So thank you for indulging me once a month, every Saturday. So turning particularly to this debate, defence of the realm is the ultimate insurance policy. You invest now to protect our serving personnel, but also our people. And if you fail to prepare, you prepare to fail. As is aptly said. Now what is concerning is what has been said from the former Secretary of State when he said that the Treasury was unwilling to commit the resources
The Prime Minister is many things, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I disagree with him profusely. But first and foremost, he's a gentleman who won a mandate, and everybody across this House should respect that and wish him well going forward. Yeah. And others who have shown personal strength of character and commitment to public office include the former Secretary of State of Defence, the right hon. Member for Raw Rawmarsh and Conisbrough and the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak. I know both of those members took their decision to resign seriously and with the intense reflection that it deserves.
I also understand that their resignations came as a great surprise to the Prime Minister and to number ten, as they were expected to keep loyal and keep calm and carry on well, from this side of the House, I would say it was no surprise whatsoever. We do know. We don't know what exactly was said in Cabinet, let alone the private discussions between the Defence Secretary and the Chancellor, and nor should we. But from what we have seen and what has been reported about the complete fiasco around the Defence Investment Plan, the failure to plan and meet the expectations of the public and our allies around the world world have of us? It is no wonder that the Defence Secretary felt he was unable to work under those conditions any longer.
And for six months, a quarter of the time the Prime Minister has been in office, he could not make a decision. Since January this year, it has been clear to the to the government that there was a gargantuan shortfall in the Ministry of Defence's Budget, the paltry sum the Treasury deemed suitable to shower on the MoD was barely enough to replace a few helmets, let alone build a next generation fighting force which can deliver on the priorities that were outlined in the Strategic Defence Review.
And let us be clear this decision may be based on process. The Prime Minister's favourite war to hide behind. And yes, there must be a process to prioritise and to delegate and decide. But his indecision will cost lives. If and when this country faces a crisis which requires a military response. The question remains why did the Prime Minister and the Chancellor not see this coming? The answer is, of course, that they did. They saw the threat of being exposed as weak on defence, and they chose to do nothing.
And the Minister, when she opened up the debate this afternoon, and I respect her and thank her for her service in the past, actually has added to that, because she spent a lot of the time criticising the last government, quite rightly, because she is a Minister of the Crown, but she is sitting in the department and standing at that despatch box, saying that all is now well and proud of the legacy of the of the process that she's putting forward. While two men, while one Minister resigned in her department that she served with and the Secretary of State resigned, who she served with, saying that things weren't right and weren't going in the right way.
So I really think she needs to look at their speeches once again. And there are few things more damning for the leader of a country to be accused of than being incapable of protecting the people that they were elected to govern. It is not a party political point. It's a point that's been made by the former defence secretary, the former Minister. Minister for the armed forces, and a point that is being increasingly made across the defence sector. And, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Labour man, the Lord Robertson that wrote the Strategic Defence Review in the first place.
So I really do think that this is a. I wonder sometimes, Madam Deputy Speaker, if members on that side of the House of death, because they are all Labour voices that are saying to this government that their strategic defence review and the lack of a defence investment plan and the lack of funding that they are putting into our armed forces is damning. But Ministers at the Dispatch Box don't seem to hear
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that. The problem on that point I will give way. Mark Francois. I have great respect for Lord Robertson, a respect for Lord Robertson, a former accomplished defence secretary, a former secretary general of NATO, a man who joined general of NATO, a man who joined the Labour Party in 1961, a Labour lifer. When even he accused the lifer. When even he accused the Prime Minister of corrosive complacency. Does that not prove
**** Possible New Speaker ****
complacency. Does that not prove how utterly out of touch this government now is? Well, my my the shadow Minister, my right hon. Friend is absolutely correct, and I actually think we can add somebody else into that bucket. And that is the former defence secretary, the former defence secretary for the Member for Conisbrough isn't known as somebody that is a party political man. He is somebody that is known as a deep statesman. He's somebody that's known as a reliable Minister, that the prime Ministers from across the Labour Party could rely on.
And when it comes to the stage where a former statesman, a former Labour statesman who wrote the SDR and the acting and the current serving Secretary of State, say the government aren't listening to them, then I think the country at large needs to listen as a whole, and so do the Ministers standing at that despatch box. Madam Deputy Speaker, if I can just briefly mention the dip specific points on the dip and then resilience. I'd be very grateful. Specifically on the dip.
I know the Minister sitting at the despatch box, except that the defence of the realm is the most important duty of any government, and while I wish them success, I just think this government is falling short. No clearer sign of that is the lack of a defence investment plan, something that they promised, much touted by this government because and delayed because of the latest drama. It's likely to be delayed again, spreading uncertainty to our defence sector. Sector defence businesses in my constituency of Hamble Valley and most importantly, our allies and enemies in the international world.
The elephant in the room, Mr. Madam Deputy Speaker, is that Ministers who are sitting there today might not be in their jobs in three weeks time, and I don't wish that to happen. I believe that they are good Ministers, but that's the nature of the of the of the job that we're in. Well, the hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman are in, but that would just add uncertainty again to the defence sector that are looking for the investment that this government promised them two and a half years ago.
Now, in Hamble Valley, we have a thriving defence sector. The Minister of State has been we've got companies like Domo, Tactical Communications, Kraken, Safran, Saab and races. But the constant feedback I get, and I know that he kindly came down to a round table in the constituency, is that without a defence investment plan, they don't know what they're supposed to do, and they don't know where they're supposed to invest. And if the Minister and the new Secretary of State don't do it very, very quickly, then those companies will suffer and the United Kingdom suffers as a whole.
£13 billion is not the £18 billion identified by the national security adviser just to maintain the status quo. And it does mean that the United Kingdom will lose its credibility on the international stage. Now, my final point, Madam Deputy Speaker, is about resilience. Last week I was in Finland with with Finnish MPs looking at some of the defence cooperation within the NATO framework that the United Kingdom, Israel and Finland play its part in. And I have to say, I was left shocked about Finland's resilience and preparedness compared to the United Kingdom.
And someone can challenge me and they will. I know some hon. Members went to Norway last week. Some members can quite rightly challenge me about the fact Finland is a population of 5 million with a 1500 mile border with Russia, whereas we are 70 million people and an island. But I actually think there can be a lot of comparisons met very early on within the school system, very early on from when young people grow up, that defence resilience and preparedness is embedded within them.
It's embedded within civil society. It's embedded within government departments. And I know as a former special adviser at the Cabinet Office that we have those documents, but what we very urgently need to do, which is why it's contained within our motion, is not just look at international resilience and defence spending to attack, but we need to make our population here ready and willing to play their part in defending the homeland, too. And I just am worried that when you look at some of the Nordic countries where the population is polled, whether they'd go to war if there was a threat in Finland in the high 80s, but in the United Kingdom, it's in the high teens.
Now, personally, I'm a bit sceptical about how low it is here. I believe our population would defend this country, but very, very quickly now, I think, and I looked for some answers from the government, how they plan to embed from a very early age, whether it's in the national curriculum or reinstating some of the cuts that they made to our cadet forces in our schools, that people from a very young age and going through our civil society is prepared to defend this country should it be needed.
And I, I will, of course.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
For his generosity in giving way. The Finns have what they call a total defence concept. That is, in the event of an attack from Russia. And they have much experience of this historically. It's not just the armed forces that resists, it's the whole of society. And they've the whole of society. And they've planned this for decades. We had something a bit like this during the Cold War, but the Finns take the Cold War, but the Finns take this to a greater degree.
Does he agree with me? Obviously, having been there, we could learn a great deal from Finland.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I absolutely do. I mean, there was a there was a story that said if any Russian cross the Finland border, the first thing that they'd hear from a Finn is hands up. And that if the Russians went into Finland, there'd be a sniper's Finland, there'd be a sniper's rifle in every window. Now, I'm not saying that we need to do that. It was slightly tongue in cheek, but was slightly tongue in cheek, but there is that resilience there, and we have to accept as a house that anybody under the age of 50 doesn't remember, really remember.
An adversarial Cold War doesn't really remember to have the mental psyche about the fact that we need to be prepared to defend the country, should there be an imminent and unprovoked attack. That's where we need to get back to. And I'd be interested to hear from the Minister about how the Strategic Defence review will look to that. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, we're living in unparalleled times. Public warnings came from the chief of the defence staff. It's come from two Ministers who have resigned. A Prime Minister is now going, and, I have to say, a ministry ministerial team that haven't taken any notice of those warnings and are still carrying on without giving the money our armed forces need.
We are paralysed, we are paralysed in this House and the government is paralysed about the government putting that much needed money that the professionals are asking for. I hope that in three weeks time, when we get a new Prime Minister, that will be unlocked and that will change. However, Madam Deputy Speaker, call me a cynic. I'm not sure it will.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Be terrible. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker yeah, yeah, I think this debate comes in a very apt time, and that is Armed Forces Week. time, and that is Armed Forces Week. That is a week where we show our support for our armed forces community, whether that is the serving personnel, their families, serving personnel, their families, veterans and cadets. And I certainly just look forward to going to Brackley's Armed Forces Day celebration this Saturday. And Day celebration this Saturday. And I want to put on record my thanks to all of the Royal British Legion branches who do so much across our constituencies, and in particular call out to Tony Macaulay, who in the Brackley branch organises the veterans breakfasts, which are available every Saturday morning.
So thank you for indulging me once a month, every Saturday. So turning particularly to this debate, defence of the realm is the ultimate insurance policy. You invest now to protect our serving personnel, but also our people. And if you fail to prepare, you prepare to fail. As is aptly said. Now what is concerning is what has been said from the former Secretary of State when he said that the Treasury was unwilling to commit the resources
15:37
Sarah Bool MP (South Northamptonshire, Conservative)
-
-
Sarah Bool MP (South Northamptonshire, Conservative)
the nation needs to defend this country, and given that the Prime Minister was unable, what will the Minister was unable, what will the new Prime Minister, whatever, whoever that may end up being, do to move that dial and change that? to move that dial and change that? And that is a question that is lingering with us all, because it is really important. Now, assuming that we do see the dip published that we do see the dip published before the NATO summit, I hope that this will be honoured because, OK, it may be media speculation, but there are questions about whether the dip should even be delayed by a forthcoming Prime Minister and whether they will want to be able to meet the spending requirements.
So it is something that we are all very concerned about. And indeed, as the Member for Hamble Valley Valley has just been saying, look, many businesses are being entirely affected by the lack of the Dip publication. One of my own businesses has said it has been told that there will be no new orders until that dip is being published. It is really kiboshed businesses, no matter what the government says. In opposite. We talk about corrosive complacency, but we are now in enforced limbo and this could go on for months at a time where we do not have the time for that.
Now, turning particularly to the readiness part of this debate, one particular element is about the NHS and its preparedness for any armed conflict. Now the Member for Chingford, West Chingford and Woodford Green talked about us being in a situation which is more akin to the 1930s and about some of those risks. Now, when we were fighting in the Second World War, we didn't actually have an NHS, obviously, that was formed afterwards. If we were to go into full scale outright war.
Now we have huge questions because we've never actually had to deal with that with the NHS. Now, even the chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Richard Knighton, has warned that the NHS is not ready for the casualties of full scale war. Now we have around about 14,000 medical regulars and reservists who therefore work within the NHS. If we were to go into all scale war, they would need to be deployed and we therefore are faced with a gap. Now the government in the SDR has acknowledged that there needs to be a greater integration, integration between defence and health to try and fix this.
But actually the reality is that the government still has no concrete plan as to how the NHS would cope. We will have, as I said, a gap in capability if we then see major returns of any casualties, how will the NHS cope? Because when we had a recent incident, only about eight soldiers were returned and it overwhelmed the capacity and the particular hospital. And then what will that mean for us, for civilians in the long term? Because it will have an impact on waiting lists and it will have an impact and potentially rationing of services.
So these are all points that we have to be prepared for. And it is something that I do call on the government to really turn their attention to at the same time, because, as I said, whilst the SDR has acknowledged it, nothing is coming of it and we have to be prepared. So all I would say is I ask the government to, in its own famous phrases of working at pace, please work at pace and make us sure we are ready for this conflict.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah, yeah, well, Gagan Mohindra yeah. Madam Deputy Speaker, in February 2025, the now outgoing February 2025, the now outgoing Prime Minister told this House that Labour defence investment would deliver and I quote, a new approach deliver and I quote, a new approach to defence, a revival of our industrial base, a deepening of our industrial base, a deepening of our alliances, the instruments of our national power brought together, creating opportunity, assuring our creating opportunity, assuring our allies and delivering security for our country.
In the many months that we have waited for the the overdue Defence Investment Plan so far, all that has been delivered is evidence of a government lengthy announcements and short on delivery for the security of our country. This arguably the most globally turbulent time since the Cold War and indeed the Second World War, a time which our defence industry needed certainty and support from the government with even greater reason. The 2025 Strategic Defence Review set out that Labour's Defence Investment Plan would be completed in autumn 2025.
Repeated pushbacks have have real impact on defence acquisition expenditure and military capability. Labour has weakened our defence industry, leaving our armed forces in need of modernisation and transformation to ensure that their readiness for for modern warfare. Yet, as highlighted rightly by the chief of the Defence Staff and I quote, recent circumstances suggest the opposite with further delay to the to the dip long promised in the autumn, we're sending damaging signals to our adversaries. Our adversaries will not wait for government capable of bolstering our defence, and the Labour Party should not be
So it is something that we are all very concerned about. And indeed, as the Member for Hamble Valley Valley has just been saying, look, many businesses are being entirely affected by the lack of the Dip publication. One of my own businesses has said it has been told that there will be no new orders until that dip is being published. It is really kiboshed businesses, no matter what the government says. In opposite. We talk about corrosive complacency, but we are now in enforced limbo and this could go on for months at a time where we do not have the time for that.
Now, turning particularly to the readiness part of this debate, one particular element is about the NHS and its preparedness for any armed conflict. Now the Member for Chingford, West Chingford and Woodford Green talked about us being in a situation which is more akin to the 1930s and about some of those risks. Now, when we were fighting in the Second World War, we didn't actually have an NHS, obviously, that was formed afterwards. If we were to go into full scale outright war.
Now we have huge questions because we've never actually had to deal with that with the NHS. Now, even the chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Richard Knighton, has warned that the NHS is not ready for the casualties of full scale war. Now we have around about 14,000 medical regulars and reservists who therefore work within the NHS. If we were to go into all scale war, they would need to be deployed and we therefore are faced with a gap. Now the government in the SDR has acknowledged that there needs to be a greater integration, integration between defence and health to try and fix this.
But actually the reality is that the government still has no concrete plan as to how the NHS would cope. We will have, as I said, a gap in capability if we then see major returns of any casualties, how will the NHS cope? Because when we had a recent incident, only about eight soldiers were returned and it overwhelmed the capacity and the particular hospital. And then what will that mean for us, for civilians in the long term? Because it will have an impact on waiting lists and it will have an impact and potentially rationing of services.
So these are all points that we have to be prepared for. And it is something that I do call on the government to really turn their attention to at the same time, because, as I said, whilst the SDR has acknowledged it, nothing is coming of it and we have to be prepared. So all I would say is I ask the government to, in its own famous phrases of working at pace, please work at pace and make us sure we are ready for this conflict.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah, yeah, well, Gagan Mohindra yeah. Madam Deputy Speaker, in February 2025, the now outgoing February 2025, the now outgoing Prime Minister told this House that Labour defence investment would deliver and I quote, a new approach deliver and I quote, a new approach to defence, a revival of our industrial base, a deepening of our industrial base, a deepening of our alliances, the instruments of our national power brought together, creating opportunity, assuring our creating opportunity, assuring our allies and delivering security for our country.
In the many months that we have waited for the the overdue Defence Investment Plan so far, all that has been delivered is evidence of a government lengthy announcements and short on delivery for the security of our country. This arguably the most globally turbulent time since the Cold War and indeed the Second World War, a time which our defence industry needed certainty and support from the government with even greater reason. The 2025 Strategic Defence Review set out that Labour's Defence Investment Plan would be completed in autumn 2025.
Repeated pushbacks have have real impact on defence acquisition expenditure and military capability. Labour has weakened our defence industry, leaving our armed forces in need of modernisation and transformation to ensure that their readiness for for modern warfare. Yet, as highlighted rightly by the chief of the Defence Staff and I quote, recent circumstances suggest the opposite with further delay to the to the dip long promised in the autumn, we're sending damaging signals to our adversaries. Our adversaries will not wait for government capable of bolstering our defence, and the Labour Party should not be
15:41
Mr Gagan Mohindra MP (South West Hertfordshire, Conservative)
-
-
Mr Gagan Mohindra MP (South West Hertfordshire, Conservative)
allowed to get away with this. Even more concerning is that when we finally receive the the Defence Investment Plan, which confirms the policy that intends only to spend policy that intends only to spend 2.68% of GDP on defence and intelligence by 2027, an offer of intelligence by 2027, an offer of only 0.08% GDP uplift to address a only 0.08% GDP uplift to address a £28 billion black hole in the MoD's defence Budget. To quote the then Labour defence secretary, this falls well short of what is required for defence and the country at this dangerous time, and will increase the risk to personnel on operations and could make the country less safe.
A plan pushed back five times that does not address the problem it is designed to address is in fact not planned at all. It shows a corrosive complacency characteristic of this government's failure to make the tough decisions it needs for our country. The Conservatives have been have highlighted how serious this is all along, and we've taken the position that defence spending must increase to 3% by the end of this Parliament. Most recently, this has been backed by John Healey. Sorry, I shouldn't name him by the former defence secretary.
Conservatives have called for Labour to repurpose funding from the Official Development Assistance Budget for the defence Budget, and Labour followed our advice. We are now calling on Labour to go further and commit to 3% of GDP on defence by the end of this Parliament, and to do this by reducing the welfare Bill, not by more taxes and borrowing, growing our regular army and the creation of Sovereign Defence Fund, which would mobilise billions in public and private funding to overhaul the defence industry.
This morning, the Chancellor even told this House that the development of the Defence Investment Plan will meet the scale of challenges facing our country, but we cannot simply defend against today's today's adversaries with inadequate policies in this government. I think, in conclusion, like many others in this House, can I urge the government to actually get on with this. Soundbites will no longer continue to defend our nation. Thank you.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah. Shallow Minister Mark Francois. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It's a privilege to sum up in this debate on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition in Armed Forces Week, when the nation pays particular attention and indeed gives thanks to our armed forces, their families, veterans and cadets for all that veterans and cadets for all that they do to ensure the security of this nation and its people. This this nation and its people. This has a historical aspect to a week.
Tomorrow is the 110th anniversary
A plan pushed back five times that does not address the problem it is designed to address is in fact not planned at all. It shows a corrosive complacency characteristic of this government's failure to make the tough decisions it needs for our country. The Conservatives have been have highlighted how serious this is all along, and we've taken the position that defence spending must increase to 3% by the end of this Parliament. Most recently, this has been backed by John Healey. Sorry, I shouldn't name him by the former defence secretary.
Conservatives have called for Labour to repurpose funding from the Official Development Assistance Budget for the defence Budget, and Labour followed our advice. We are now calling on Labour to go further and commit to 3% of GDP on defence by the end of this Parliament, and to do this by reducing the welfare Bill, not by more taxes and borrowing, growing our regular army and the creation of Sovereign Defence Fund, which would mobilise billions in public and private funding to overhaul the defence industry.
This morning, the Chancellor even told this House that the development of the Defence Investment Plan will meet the scale of challenges facing our country, but we cannot simply defend against today's today's adversaries with inadequate policies in this government. I think, in conclusion, like many others in this House, can I urge the government to actually get on with this. Soundbites will no longer continue to defend our nation. Thank you.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah. Shallow Minister Mark Francois. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It's a privilege to sum up in this debate on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition in Armed Forces Week, when the nation pays particular attention and indeed gives thanks to our armed forces, their families, veterans and cadets for all that veterans and cadets for all that they do to ensure the security of this nation and its people. This this nation and its people. This has a historical aspect to a week.
Tomorrow is the 110th anniversary
15:44
Rt Hon Mark Francois MP (Rayleigh and Wickford, Conservative)
-
-
Rt Hon Mark Francois MP (Rayleigh and Wickford, Conservative)
of the first day of the Somme, when on that fateful occasion, the British army suffered some 60,000 casualties, killed and wounded. The greatest loss our army has ever greatest loss our army has ever suffered in a single day. Their sacrifice must never be forgotten, sacrifice must never be forgotten, and indeed, neither must that of those who have died in subsequent conflicts up to and including Iraq conflicts up to and including Iraq and Afghanistan. The war poet Rupert Brooke, in his emotive poem The Soldier, famously said, if I should die, think only this of me that there's some corner of a foreign field that is forever England.
Those fields are still there, as are the cemeteries, lovingly and respectfully tended by the staff of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and in Armed Forces Week we pay tribute to their highly professional efforts to. We still live in an extremely dangerous world. Across the house we stand foursquare with the noble people of Ukraine who have been fighting against Russian aggression, not just for four years, since the full scale. Since the full scale invasion in 2022. But for 12 years, since the original Russian invasion of Crimea and the Donbas, a period even longer than the First and Second World wars combined, I would respectfully say to the hon.
Gentleman from Hertfordshire who has just rejoined us. As a matter of fact, it was after 2014. In that first invasion, the Ukrainians realised what was coming and it was a conservative government that began the programme, known as Operation Orbital, to train the Ukrainian armed forces to resist the full scale invasion that they knew was coming. Had it not been for that programme, had it not been for the soldiers instinct, if you like, of Ben Wallace and the determination of Boris Johnson to equip and train Ukrainians to resist the Russian invasion, the Russians would be having supper in Kyiv this evening.
And perhaps despite his incredibly partisan speech, he could give us some credit for that. Yes. No. In February of this year, in February of this year, along with some 20 MPs from this House, the largest parliamentary delegation we've ever sent to Ukraine. As far as I'm aware. We visited Odessa, Chernobyl and then Kyiv on the 24th of February. We were privileged to take part in the commemoration in Maidan Square, which marked the fourth anniversary of the full scale invasion.
It is, in effect, Ukraine's equivalent of Remembrance Sunday, and it was extremely poignant to be part of it. They lay lanterns with a candle and deputy speaker in their memorial, in much the same way that we lay wreaths in Britain. But the principle is exactly the same. It is to remember those who gave their lives in defence of freedom and democracy. The Ukrainians are fighting for our values and ultimately for our freedom to. And we absolutely stand shoulder to shoulder with them in their brave struggle, which we all hope one day they will win.
Yeah. Now, in order to help them, we need armed forces that can fight too. And as gentleman, gallant gentleman for Birmingham Selly Oak, in his resignation letter reminded us, we need to plan for the next war and not the last. With that in mind, I'd like to ask Ministers three very specific questions on Programmatics this afternoon. Having been in government now for nearly two years, they have to begin to take responsibility for something. So let me ask three very specific questions about military capability, for when the Minister sums up, firstly, where are we on the much delayed E-7 Wedgetail programme? When, if ever, is this vitally needed eye in the sky going to enter Royal Air Force service? When, if ever, will Boeing actually make it work properly? Secondly, turning to the Army, there are media reports that it will cost an additional £1 billion above the £5.5 billion already allocated to fix the Ajax programme and bring it fully into service.
Is that true? And if it is, can we be assured that General Dynamics will pick up the Bill as per their current 5.5 billion firm price contract, and not a single extra penny will fall on the British taxpayer? And incidentally, where are we on the Morpheus tactical reconnaissance communication sorry, tactical communication system two and thirdly, how can it be that our entire fleet of astute class nuclear attack submarines are currently laid up for maintenance? The new Secretary of State chided me last week for discussing submarine movements on the floor of the House.
I did no such thing. I was, in fact, discussing the total absence of submarine movements. So, given the first Sea Lord's increasingly dire warnings, rightly about Russian naval activity in the English Channel and the North Sea, perhaps the Minister could tell us how we're supposed to credibly deter Russia, when not a single one of our 1.5 billion attack submarines is currently at sea. This brings me on to the subject of what has happened to the Defence Investment Plan. The three well respected authors of Labour's much vaunted strategic Defence review, the SDR, were adamant when it was published over a year ago.
Now the price of implementing the measures in SDR would be to spend 3% of GDP on defence. The subsequent detail of how this would be afforded, and the actual programmatics, were to be provided in a defence investment plan. The dip we were faithfully promised this plan in the autumn. Then we were absolutely promised it by Christmas, and then we were definitely going to get it early in the new year. And now we are here in the middle of June, but still no dip.
Ministers tell us they've been working flat out. Well, they're now comatose. The new armed forces Minister last night assured the House that it would be published by the time of the Ankara summit in July. And yet the times are reporting this morning that the right hon. Member for Makerfield is mildly to delay the publication of the dip because he wants to take these decisions himself, presumably his new Chancellor. And we all pray there will be one. Whoever that turns out to be will have something to say about that, too.
So can the armed forces Minister absolutely commit that after crying wolf so many times, the government are going to stick to that timetable and publish the dip within the next fortnight prior to Ankara, or is it going to slip yet again? She laughs. This isn't funny. This is about the defence of the United Kingdom. Do Ministers not realise that what little credibility they have left is rapidly disappearing? Nine months indeed, after Cabinet this morning, even during the course of this debate itself, the BBC have reported that no new major policies or spending decisions until new PM appointed number ten says.
So where does that leave the Defence Investment plan? Who is in charge of the clattering train? Who actually runs this country? Is it
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the current Prime Minister or the next one? Will my right hon. Friend give way? I will. I thank my right hon. Friend.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank my right hon. Friend. For giving way. And he's absolutely right, because, as has been outlined in this debate, my hon. Friend for South Northamptonshire and myself Northamptonshire and myself mentioned a number of businesses that are not growing. And I know the Shadow Secretary of State went the Shadow Secretary of State went to Preston yesterday that are trying to grow, trying to get orders, but are holding off because they do not have the defence they do not have the defence investment plan.
This lack of action is costing jobs, isn't it? Absolutely.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Industry is exasperated from BAE systems down to the smallest defence suppliers in the land. When we were in government, we published, I think with one year's exception, I think with one year's exception, a detailed equipment plan every year so that industry could plan year so that industry could plan accordingly. That is what the dip is meant to be, and still we do not is meant to be, and still we do not have it. And Labour Ministers tell us again and again they tell their own backbenchers that they are increasing defence spending to the greatest extent since the end of the Cold War.
That is literally untrue. The Defence Secretary, in his own resignation letter, told the world that Labour's spending plans currently envisage going from 2.6% of GDP this year to 2.68% of GDP by 2030. That is a 0.0% increase over four years. How is that the largest increase in defence spending since the end of the Cold War? Help me out. Someone over there. But it's worse because Labour are also seeking 3.5 billion of in-year self-inflicted Treasury driven cuts to the operational and readiness spending of our armed forces.
That means fewer ships at sea, fewer planes in the air, fewer exercises on Salisbury Plain, and the Russians and Chinese embassies must be laughing themselves silly. And if you won't take it from me, take it from the chief of the Defence Staff, who warned just a few days ago, as the professional head of the Armed Forces, that if Labour continue on their financial path and don't fund the dip properly, he will have no option but to cut back on readiness and training exactly the activity that is meant to deter a potential aggressor in the first place.
The blunt truth. And as a Brit, I take no joy in saying it, is that this government is now the laughing stock of NATO. Indeed, in NATO's own readiness index, the United Kingdom ranks 31st out of 32 NATO countries. The only ones below us are Iceland, by virtue of the fact they have no armed forces to ready. As this government disintegrates before our eyes, we can only hope their successors are both competent and courageous and actually believe in defending this country, which clearly this collapsing administration does not.
And another area we want to press Ministers hard on this afternoon is the fate of their benighted Northern Ireland troubles. Bill. The Member for Birmingham Selly Oak, who's already described it famously as not fit for purpose in his resignation letter to the Prime Minister, spoke powerfully in defence of Northern Ireland veterans. He mentioned his battle in government and I quote him directly I. He set out the changes I believed were necessary and the lines which I could not in good conscience go beyond.
Those lines have not been accepted. I've run out of room to argue this case honourably from inside government. A serving Minister cannot ask fellow veterans to trust a process. He no longer trusts himself. He went on we ask our soldiers to fight for this country. In return, we owe them the kit to do the job and the loyalty to stand by them when it's done. We are failing on both, nine former four star officers have told the world the troubles bill represents a direct threat to national security.
A group of former SAS commanders, who are absolutely at the sharp end of the battle against Republican terrorism, told us today. Every British soldier deployed was considered not only the enemy in front of them, but the lawyer behind them. Make no mistake, our closest allies are watching uneasily, and our enemies will be rubbing their hands. We absolutely cannot allow this situation to continue against those who defended the rule of law. Those who served on Operation Banner stood effectively as piggy in the middle for decades.
Between two warring communities, over 700 of them were killed. Thousands more suffered life changing injuries. They and their comrades are now to be pursued through the courts via lawfare, actively aided and abetted by a government which has promised multiple times to produce amendments to the bill to protect the veterans for months. And just as with the dip, we have seen absolutely nothing of substance on which the House can rely. No amendments for our veterans and no letters of comfort for them either.
It's a matter of record that a number of those regiments who served in Northern Ireland are not. Banner came from the north west of England, including from in and around the Manchester area itself. I think of the Duke of Lancaster Regiment and the antecedent regiments, including the King's Regiment, which traditionally recruited from Liverpool and Manchester. They did many tours of Northern Ireland. So I asked this afternoon, in all seriousness, what is the attitude of the right hon. Member for Makerfield towards the benighted Northern Ireland Troubles Bill? If he seeks some kind of reset for the Labour Party, a very good place to start would be to drop this dreadful piece of legislation which threatens to put our soldiers in the dock solely to the advantage of those who sought to kill them.
In lieu of that, the new Prime Minister could agree to Batman and gallant friend from Spelthorne excellent new private member's bill, which has its Second Reading on the 4th of September and which in essence seeks to curtail any further investigations, inquests or inquiries against our Upper Bann veterans unless compelling new evidence is certified by the UK Supreme Court, justice is produced. Some of us on these benches have spent literally years seeking to defend those who defended us. Let's hope the new Prime Minister will agree.
So to conclude, there has been consensus on one point this afternoon, Madam Deputy Speaker, I've heard it again and again that the first duty of government above all others is the defence of the realm. Yet the armed Forces Minister has resigned. The Secretary of State for defence has resigned, and now the Prime Minister has resigned. This administration has failed. It is broken. It is going. It made many mistakes, but its worst of all was it failed to defend this country,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
and for that it deserves to come to an end. Yeah, yeah. Minister Luke Pollard.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker And can I first of all, thank our armed forces for the work that they do to keep this nation safe every single day. That is, the regulars, the reserves, the cadets, the civil servants that back our forces, the servants that back our forces, the men and women of our defence industry that keep our fighting forces on the front line with the forces on the front line with the kit and equipment that they need to keep Britain secure at home and strong abroad.
I've heard it from both sides of the House today in debates, our pride in our armed forces. And though there was quite a lot of politics in particular from the front bench opposite, I think that all those people who serve in uniform can take from this debate today that regardless of party, that we back them and that we will continue to support them. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite. It's a shame that reform are still not here in a defence debate, but nonetheless, in their absence, I will continue to press on.
And there was a number of common themes that were raised today. But before I do that, can I say to the House, I'm very proud to be a Plymouth MP, proud to represent Devonport, the largest naval base in Western Europe, proud to be the son of a Royal Navy submariner, proud to be an Rcds graduate. And I wish my colleague opposite all the best for his graduation. In due course on Saturday I will be on Plymouth Hoe for Armed Forces Day, a brilliant annual event.
I know that there is cross-party support for the men and women of our armed forces, but in particular, I want to thank one set of armed forces who have done an amazing job in Plymouth over the last year, and that is all those service personnel who have been clearing all the Second World War bombs that we keep finding in our city. Our armed forces do a lot of roles, but ones that have been on the TV news across the country have been those brave men and women of our forces who have been moving Second World War bombs around, putting their lives at risk to safeguard others from a conflict
**** Possible New Speaker ****
many, many decades ago. And I thank them for it, have given away. I thank my friend for giving way.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank my friend for giving way. And in Armed Forces Week, would he join me in thanking the brave men and women, the staff, the recruits and women, the staff, the recruits of HMS Raleigh and the local community that keep them going, especially the reservists who are such unsung heroes in this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
such unsung heroes in this important week here. Can I thank my hon. Friend and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Can I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for her comments. HMS Raleigh is an important training establishment for the Royal Navy and right across the country, whether that is in the Navy, Army or the Air Force or now the new direct entry for cyber. We have some brilliant people training the next generation of talent in our armed forces, and I join her in thanking all those people who serve at HMS Raleigh. Can I say that this has been a good debate across the House? Actually, some really passionate speeches, and people are passionate because they care about defence.
That is why I stand here as a defence Minister, because I care about defence, I care about our national security, and I'm proud that I'm part of a government that also does. There's been a number of themes that have been discussed, and I want to detail them here. Across the House. We've spoken about defence spending, about readiness, about armed forces personnel and veterans, about how we deal with an inheritance left by the previous government, how we value our people more, and how we publish the Defence Investment plan.
And I'd like to turn to each of them. But first of all, can I turn to the dip? Those who were present at the Treasury questions this morning would have heard the Chancellor say, the MoD are producing the dip that will meet the scale of the challenges and will meet the moment with increased readiness. I am confident that the new dip will be published before the NATO Ankara summit. It will involve more money spent, more effectively and will meet the scale of the challenges facing our country.
And I think that answers the question that came from. I will make some progress if I can. So. So that was a clear answer to the questions that have been asked on this. When it comes to defence spending that was raised by a number of colleagues across the House, let me be clear. This Labour government is spending more on defence. I welcome a debate that says, how can we spend even more faster? But we should be absolutely clear that we are spending more on defence.
Next year. We'll be spending 2.5% of GDP on defence. That was a figure not met in any single year of the previous 14 years under the Conservatives. And and and and the shouty people on the frontbench opposite say the world has changed. You must be he must be terrible when he goes to the cinema in terms of being shouty. But let me say to him, I agree that the world has changed. That's why we're spending more on defence. That's why we're spending more on defence.
Would I like to spend more on defence? Of course I would. No, I'm going to make some progress on this one here. And so we're spending more of that increasing defence Budget with British companies. And I'm grateful for the members opposite. I think the Member for Hamble Valley mentioned Kraken in his constituency, who I visited very recently. He will be pleased if he's not familiar with it, in the increased orders that we have given Kraken for their K three scout, I believe there's a K3 scout on show in speaker's court at the moment, a brilliant company investing in cutting edge technology that we're not only backing for for seven commander in the Royal Marines in receipt of K3 for Project Beehive, but also for the autonomous hybrid Navy options, especially in the Strait of Hormuz, a brilliant company doing brilliant things when it comes to readiness.
Let me say very clearly, we need to develop our warfighting capabilities. Moving from an era of expeditionary warfare, the Strategic Defence Review set out very clearly the change that is required because our forces have been postured and resourced for a period of expeditionary warfare for quite some time leading up to where we are today, the SDR set out that we need to move away from expeditionary warfare to warfighting readiness against a peer adversary. Now, that does mean a number of things.
Firstly, it means retiring old kit and equipment that's not suitable for that task. Secondly, it means massively reforming our procurement system so we can procure faster because we inherited a broken procurement system that we are fixing. I'm very pleased that the new national armaments director is leading much of that work, and I know that we can achieve improvements in procurement because the brilliant men and women of our Ministry of Defence do so in the support that they provide our friends in Ukraine, because on one side of their desks, they can use increased permissions to procure kit and equipment for Ukraine faster.
And we are trying to make it easier on the other side of their desk to procure what could be similar equipment for our armed forces here. Now, I'm going to make some progress. The third area that people spoke about here was about armed forces personnel and veterans, and I'm grateful for a number of members from across the House for mentioning people that are doing incredible things in their own constituency. I believe it was the the Member for South Northamptonshire who spoke about Tony Courtley, who runs the Veterans Breakfast.
I'd like to thank him and the hundreds and hundreds of people like Tony, who run veterans breakfasts up and down the length of the country. I know it makes such a difference for veterans, especially those that might be having a tough time to go to somewhere where other people there have walked in their boots, maybe a different unit, maybe a different time of service. But having someone that they can relate to make such a big difference. I'd also like to thank the my member, my friend from Welwyn Hatfield, who spoke about Muster Point and Stuart Mendelson from Stevenage, who's doing such a good job in supporting veterans in his community as well.
I know that if there was more time, Madam Deputy Speaker, every single member who would have spoken would have been able to single out brilliant people in their own constituency doing brilliant things. And I thank them, and I'm still going to make some progress. Now. Let me now make some answer. The details about dealing with the inheritance that we face. I've already spoken about the SDR wanting us to move from expeditionary warfare to war fighting readiness, but we now need to deliver the changes that we've set out.
We've made good progress, but we inherited a situation where 47 of 49 major defence programs were over Budget and delayed. I believe the gentleman opposite was responsible for those delayed programmes when he sat in my seat. I'm still going to make some progress. Let me also be clear about this, about the inheritance that we have in terms of housing, in terms of morale, because we inherited a situation where many of our armed forces were living in housing that was frankly unacceptable.
Black mould in their children's bedrooms, leaky boilers, leaky roofs. We're we're sorting that out with a generational repair. 9 in 10 military homes either refitted or rebuilt in the next decade. We've already delivered the first 1200, the worst homes of our military estate, being able to be refitted. That's what we've delivered by taking those houses back into back into public control. I'm still going to make some. Let
**** Possible New Speaker ****
me also now. Paul Holmes Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder if I can seek your I wonder if I can seek your guidance on an opposition day debate, where many of us have spent 4.5 hours in this chamber seeking answers from a government Minister answers from a government Minister when he refuses to give way, how do we make sure that he does respond to our questions? And is it in to our questions? And is it in order and is it in order? Madam Deputy Speaker, I still have my say.
Is it an order, Madam Deputy
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is it an order, Madam Deputy Speaker, for a Minister not to give way through the whole of his speech? Yeah, yeah. As the hon. Gentleman will well know, it is at the minister's discretion should he choose to give way or not. Minister Luke Pollard.
Those fields are still there, as are the cemeteries, lovingly and respectfully tended by the staff of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and in Armed Forces Week we pay tribute to their highly professional efforts to. We still live in an extremely dangerous world. Across the house we stand foursquare with the noble people of Ukraine who have been fighting against Russian aggression, not just for four years, since the full scale. Since the full scale invasion in 2022. But for 12 years, since the original Russian invasion of Crimea and the Donbas, a period even longer than the First and Second World wars combined, I would respectfully say to the hon.
Gentleman from Hertfordshire who has just rejoined us. As a matter of fact, it was after 2014. In that first invasion, the Ukrainians realised what was coming and it was a conservative government that began the programme, known as Operation Orbital, to train the Ukrainian armed forces to resist the full scale invasion that they knew was coming. Had it not been for that programme, had it not been for the soldiers instinct, if you like, of Ben Wallace and the determination of Boris Johnson to equip and train Ukrainians to resist the Russian invasion, the Russians would be having supper in Kyiv this evening.
And perhaps despite his incredibly partisan speech, he could give us some credit for that. Yes. No. In February of this year, in February of this year, along with some 20 MPs from this House, the largest parliamentary delegation we've ever sent to Ukraine. As far as I'm aware. We visited Odessa, Chernobyl and then Kyiv on the 24th of February. We were privileged to take part in the commemoration in Maidan Square, which marked the fourth anniversary of the full scale invasion.
It is, in effect, Ukraine's equivalent of Remembrance Sunday, and it was extremely poignant to be part of it. They lay lanterns with a candle and deputy speaker in their memorial, in much the same way that we lay wreaths in Britain. But the principle is exactly the same. It is to remember those who gave their lives in defence of freedom and democracy. The Ukrainians are fighting for our values and ultimately for our freedom to. And we absolutely stand shoulder to shoulder with them in their brave struggle, which we all hope one day they will win.
Yeah. Now, in order to help them, we need armed forces that can fight too. And as gentleman, gallant gentleman for Birmingham Selly Oak, in his resignation letter reminded us, we need to plan for the next war and not the last. With that in mind, I'd like to ask Ministers three very specific questions on Programmatics this afternoon. Having been in government now for nearly two years, they have to begin to take responsibility for something. So let me ask three very specific questions about military capability, for when the Minister sums up, firstly, where are we on the much delayed E-7 Wedgetail programme? When, if ever, is this vitally needed eye in the sky going to enter Royal Air Force service? When, if ever, will Boeing actually make it work properly? Secondly, turning to the Army, there are media reports that it will cost an additional £1 billion above the £5.5 billion already allocated to fix the Ajax programme and bring it fully into service.
Is that true? And if it is, can we be assured that General Dynamics will pick up the Bill as per their current 5.5 billion firm price contract, and not a single extra penny will fall on the British taxpayer? And incidentally, where are we on the Morpheus tactical reconnaissance communication sorry, tactical communication system two and thirdly, how can it be that our entire fleet of astute class nuclear attack submarines are currently laid up for maintenance? The new Secretary of State chided me last week for discussing submarine movements on the floor of the House.
I did no such thing. I was, in fact, discussing the total absence of submarine movements. So, given the first Sea Lord's increasingly dire warnings, rightly about Russian naval activity in the English Channel and the North Sea, perhaps the Minister could tell us how we're supposed to credibly deter Russia, when not a single one of our 1.5 billion attack submarines is currently at sea. This brings me on to the subject of what has happened to the Defence Investment Plan. The three well respected authors of Labour's much vaunted strategic Defence review, the SDR, were adamant when it was published over a year ago.
Now the price of implementing the measures in SDR would be to spend 3% of GDP on defence. The subsequent detail of how this would be afforded, and the actual programmatics, were to be provided in a defence investment plan. The dip we were faithfully promised this plan in the autumn. Then we were absolutely promised it by Christmas, and then we were definitely going to get it early in the new year. And now we are here in the middle of June, but still no dip.
Ministers tell us they've been working flat out. Well, they're now comatose. The new armed forces Minister last night assured the House that it would be published by the time of the Ankara summit in July. And yet the times are reporting this morning that the right hon. Member for Makerfield is mildly to delay the publication of the dip because he wants to take these decisions himself, presumably his new Chancellor. And we all pray there will be one. Whoever that turns out to be will have something to say about that, too.
So can the armed forces Minister absolutely commit that after crying wolf so many times, the government are going to stick to that timetable and publish the dip within the next fortnight prior to Ankara, or is it going to slip yet again? She laughs. This isn't funny. This is about the defence of the United Kingdom. Do Ministers not realise that what little credibility they have left is rapidly disappearing? Nine months indeed, after Cabinet this morning, even during the course of this debate itself, the BBC have reported that no new major policies or spending decisions until new PM appointed number ten says.
So where does that leave the Defence Investment plan? Who is in charge of the clattering train? Who actually runs this country? Is it
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the current Prime Minister or the next one? Will my right hon. Friend give way? I will. I thank my right hon. Friend.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank my right hon. Friend. For giving way. And he's absolutely right, because, as has been outlined in this debate, my hon. Friend for South Northamptonshire and myself Northamptonshire and myself mentioned a number of businesses that are not growing. And I know the Shadow Secretary of State went the Shadow Secretary of State went to Preston yesterday that are trying to grow, trying to get orders, but are holding off because they do not have the defence they do not have the defence investment plan.
This lack of action is costing jobs, isn't it? Absolutely.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Industry is exasperated from BAE systems down to the smallest defence suppliers in the land. When we were in government, we published, I think with one year's exception, I think with one year's exception, a detailed equipment plan every year so that industry could plan year so that industry could plan accordingly. That is what the dip is meant to be, and still we do not is meant to be, and still we do not have it. And Labour Ministers tell us again and again they tell their own backbenchers that they are increasing defence spending to the greatest extent since the end of the Cold War.
That is literally untrue. The Defence Secretary, in his own resignation letter, told the world that Labour's spending plans currently envisage going from 2.6% of GDP this year to 2.68% of GDP by 2030. That is a 0.0% increase over four years. How is that the largest increase in defence spending since the end of the Cold War? Help me out. Someone over there. But it's worse because Labour are also seeking 3.5 billion of in-year self-inflicted Treasury driven cuts to the operational and readiness spending of our armed forces.
That means fewer ships at sea, fewer planes in the air, fewer exercises on Salisbury Plain, and the Russians and Chinese embassies must be laughing themselves silly. And if you won't take it from me, take it from the chief of the Defence Staff, who warned just a few days ago, as the professional head of the Armed Forces, that if Labour continue on their financial path and don't fund the dip properly, he will have no option but to cut back on readiness and training exactly the activity that is meant to deter a potential aggressor in the first place.
The blunt truth. And as a Brit, I take no joy in saying it, is that this government is now the laughing stock of NATO. Indeed, in NATO's own readiness index, the United Kingdom ranks 31st out of 32 NATO countries. The only ones below us are Iceland, by virtue of the fact they have no armed forces to ready. As this government disintegrates before our eyes, we can only hope their successors are both competent and courageous and actually believe in defending this country, which clearly this collapsing administration does not.
And another area we want to press Ministers hard on this afternoon is the fate of their benighted Northern Ireland troubles. Bill. The Member for Birmingham Selly Oak, who's already described it famously as not fit for purpose in his resignation letter to the Prime Minister, spoke powerfully in defence of Northern Ireland veterans. He mentioned his battle in government and I quote him directly I. He set out the changes I believed were necessary and the lines which I could not in good conscience go beyond.
Those lines have not been accepted. I've run out of room to argue this case honourably from inside government. A serving Minister cannot ask fellow veterans to trust a process. He no longer trusts himself. He went on we ask our soldiers to fight for this country. In return, we owe them the kit to do the job and the loyalty to stand by them when it's done. We are failing on both, nine former four star officers have told the world the troubles bill represents a direct threat to national security.
A group of former SAS commanders, who are absolutely at the sharp end of the battle against Republican terrorism, told us today. Every British soldier deployed was considered not only the enemy in front of them, but the lawyer behind them. Make no mistake, our closest allies are watching uneasily, and our enemies will be rubbing their hands. We absolutely cannot allow this situation to continue against those who defended the rule of law. Those who served on Operation Banner stood effectively as piggy in the middle for decades.
Between two warring communities, over 700 of them were killed. Thousands more suffered life changing injuries. They and their comrades are now to be pursued through the courts via lawfare, actively aided and abetted by a government which has promised multiple times to produce amendments to the bill to protect the veterans for months. And just as with the dip, we have seen absolutely nothing of substance on which the House can rely. No amendments for our veterans and no letters of comfort for them either.
It's a matter of record that a number of those regiments who served in Northern Ireland are not. Banner came from the north west of England, including from in and around the Manchester area itself. I think of the Duke of Lancaster Regiment and the antecedent regiments, including the King's Regiment, which traditionally recruited from Liverpool and Manchester. They did many tours of Northern Ireland. So I asked this afternoon, in all seriousness, what is the attitude of the right hon. Member for Makerfield towards the benighted Northern Ireland Troubles Bill? If he seeks some kind of reset for the Labour Party, a very good place to start would be to drop this dreadful piece of legislation which threatens to put our soldiers in the dock solely to the advantage of those who sought to kill them.
In lieu of that, the new Prime Minister could agree to Batman and gallant friend from Spelthorne excellent new private member's bill, which has its Second Reading on the 4th of September and which in essence seeks to curtail any further investigations, inquests or inquiries against our Upper Bann veterans unless compelling new evidence is certified by the UK Supreme Court, justice is produced. Some of us on these benches have spent literally years seeking to defend those who defended us. Let's hope the new Prime Minister will agree.
So to conclude, there has been consensus on one point this afternoon, Madam Deputy Speaker, I've heard it again and again that the first duty of government above all others is the defence of the realm. Yet the armed Forces Minister has resigned. The Secretary of State for defence has resigned, and now the Prime Minister has resigned. This administration has failed. It is broken. It is going. It made many mistakes, but its worst of all was it failed to defend this country,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
and for that it deserves to come to an end. Yeah, yeah. Minister Luke Pollard.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker And can I first of all, thank our armed forces for the work that they do to keep this nation safe every single day. That is, the regulars, the reserves, the cadets, the civil servants that back our forces, the servants that back our forces, the men and women of our defence industry that keep our fighting forces on the front line with the forces on the front line with the kit and equipment that they need to keep Britain secure at home and strong abroad.
I've heard it from both sides of the House today in debates, our pride in our armed forces. And though there was quite a lot of politics in particular from the front bench opposite, I think that all those people who serve in uniform can take from this debate today that regardless of party, that we back them and that we will continue to support them. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite. It's a shame that reform are still not here in a defence debate, but nonetheless, in their absence, I will continue to press on.
And there was a number of common themes that were raised today. But before I do that, can I say to the House, I'm very proud to be a Plymouth MP, proud to represent Devonport, the largest naval base in Western Europe, proud to be the son of a Royal Navy submariner, proud to be an Rcds graduate. And I wish my colleague opposite all the best for his graduation. In due course on Saturday I will be on Plymouth Hoe for Armed Forces Day, a brilliant annual event.
I know that there is cross-party support for the men and women of our armed forces, but in particular, I want to thank one set of armed forces who have done an amazing job in Plymouth over the last year, and that is all those service personnel who have been clearing all the Second World War bombs that we keep finding in our city. Our armed forces do a lot of roles, but ones that have been on the TV news across the country have been those brave men and women of our forces who have been moving Second World War bombs around, putting their lives at risk to safeguard others from a conflict
**** Possible New Speaker ****
many, many decades ago. And I thank them for it, have given away. I thank my friend for giving way.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank my friend for giving way. And in Armed Forces Week, would he join me in thanking the brave men and women, the staff, the recruits and women, the staff, the recruits of HMS Raleigh and the local community that keep them going, especially the reservists who are such unsung heroes in this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
such unsung heroes in this important week here. Can I thank my hon. Friend and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Can I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for her comments. HMS Raleigh is an important training establishment for the Royal Navy and right across the country, whether that is in the Navy, Army or the Air Force or now the new direct entry for cyber. We have some brilliant people training the next generation of talent in our armed forces, and I join her in thanking all those people who serve at HMS Raleigh. Can I say that this has been a good debate across the House? Actually, some really passionate speeches, and people are passionate because they care about defence.
That is why I stand here as a defence Minister, because I care about defence, I care about our national security, and I'm proud that I'm part of a government that also does. There's been a number of themes that have been discussed, and I want to detail them here. Across the House. We've spoken about defence spending, about readiness, about armed forces personnel and veterans, about how we deal with an inheritance left by the previous government, how we value our people more, and how we publish the Defence Investment plan.
And I'd like to turn to each of them. But first of all, can I turn to the dip? Those who were present at the Treasury questions this morning would have heard the Chancellor say, the MoD are producing the dip that will meet the scale of the challenges and will meet the moment with increased readiness. I am confident that the new dip will be published before the NATO Ankara summit. It will involve more money spent, more effectively and will meet the scale of the challenges facing our country.
And I think that answers the question that came from. I will make some progress if I can. So. So that was a clear answer to the questions that have been asked on this. When it comes to defence spending that was raised by a number of colleagues across the House, let me be clear. This Labour government is spending more on defence. I welcome a debate that says, how can we spend even more faster? But we should be absolutely clear that we are spending more on defence.
Next year. We'll be spending 2.5% of GDP on defence. That was a figure not met in any single year of the previous 14 years under the Conservatives. And and and and the shouty people on the frontbench opposite say the world has changed. You must be he must be terrible when he goes to the cinema in terms of being shouty. But let me say to him, I agree that the world has changed. That's why we're spending more on defence. That's why we're spending more on defence.
Would I like to spend more on defence? Of course I would. No, I'm going to make some progress on this one here. And so we're spending more of that increasing defence Budget with British companies. And I'm grateful for the members opposite. I think the Member for Hamble Valley mentioned Kraken in his constituency, who I visited very recently. He will be pleased if he's not familiar with it, in the increased orders that we have given Kraken for their K three scout, I believe there's a K3 scout on show in speaker's court at the moment, a brilliant company investing in cutting edge technology that we're not only backing for for seven commander in the Royal Marines in receipt of K3 for Project Beehive, but also for the autonomous hybrid Navy options, especially in the Strait of Hormuz, a brilliant company doing brilliant things when it comes to readiness.
Let me say very clearly, we need to develop our warfighting capabilities. Moving from an era of expeditionary warfare, the Strategic Defence Review set out very clearly the change that is required because our forces have been postured and resourced for a period of expeditionary warfare for quite some time leading up to where we are today, the SDR set out that we need to move away from expeditionary warfare to warfighting readiness against a peer adversary. Now, that does mean a number of things.
Firstly, it means retiring old kit and equipment that's not suitable for that task. Secondly, it means massively reforming our procurement system so we can procure faster because we inherited a broken procurement system that we are fixing. I'm very pleased that the new national armaments director is leading much of that work, and I know that we can achieve improvements in procurement because the brilliant men and women of our Ministry of Defence do so in the support that they provide our friends in Ukraine, because on one side of their desks, they can use increased permissions to procure kit and equipment for Ukraine faster.
And we are trying to make it easier on the other side of their desk to procure what could be similar equipment for our armed forces here. Now, I'm going to make some progress. The third area that people spoke about here was about armed forces personnel and veterans, and I'm grateful for a number of members from across the House for mentioning people that are doing incredible things in their own constituency. I believe it was the the Member for South Northamptonshire who spoke about Tony Courtley, who runs the Veterans Breakfast.
I'd like to thank him and the hundreds and hundreds of people like Tony, who run veterans breakfasts up and down the length of the country. I know it makes such a difference for veterans, especially those that might be having a tough time to go to somewhere where other people there have walked in their boots, maybe a different unit, maybe a different time of service. But having someone that they can relate to make such a big difference. I'd also like to thank the my member, my friend from Welwyn Hatfield, who spoke about Muster Point and Stuart Mendelson from Stevenage, who's doing such a good job in supporting veterans in his community as well.
I know that if there was more time, Madam Deputy Speaker, every single member who would have spoken would have been able to single out brilliant people in their own constituency doing brilliant things. And I thank them, and I'm still going to make some progress. Now. Let me now make some answer. The details about dealing with the inheritance that we face. I've already spoken about the SDR wanting us to move from expeditionary warfare to war fighting readiness, but we now need to deliver the changes that we've set out.
We've made good progress, but we inherited a situation where 47 of 49 major defence programs were over Budget and delayed. I believe the gentleman opposite was responsible for those delayed programmes when he sat in my seat. I'm still going to make some progress. Let me also be clear about this, about the inheritance that we have in terms of housing, in terms of morale, because we inherited a situation where many of our armed forces were living in housing that was frankly unacceptable.
Black mould in their children's bedrooms, leaky boilers, leaky roofs. We're we're sorting that out with a generational repair. 9 in 10 military homes either refitted or rebuilt in the next decade. We've already delivered the first 1200, the worst homes of our military estate, being able to be refitted. That's what we've delivered by taking those houses back into back into public control. I'm still going to make some. Let
**** Possible New Speaker ****
me also now. Paul Holmes Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder if I can seek your I wonder if I can seek your guidance on an opposition day debate, where many of us have spent 4.5 hours in this chamber seeking answers from a government Minister answers from a government Minister when he refuses to give way, how do we make sure that he does respond to our questions? And is it in to our questions? And is it in order and is it in order? Madam Deputy Speaker, I still have my say.
Is it an order, Madam Deputy
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is it an order, Madam Deputy Speaker, for a Minister not to give way through the whole of his speech? Yeah, yeah. As the hon. Gentleman will well know, it is at the minister's discretion should he choose to give way or not. Minister Luke Pollard.
16:09
Luke Pollard MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Plymouth Sutton and Devonport, Labour )
-
-
Luke Pollard MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Plymouth Sutton and Devonport, Labour )
I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker and the hon. Gentleman Speaker and the hon. Gentleman opposite did say that I was a good Minister, which is a kiss of death, I'm sure, for my career, but I I'm sure, for my career, but I welcome nonetheless. He asked me how I'm trying to answer the questions. I'm answering the questions by not giving way so I can answer the questions that have been asked in this debate. Because I've taken copious notes, I am going to make some progress.
I'm not going to be giving way to the gentleman. Now, the fifth area that we've spoken about a lot in this debate is how we value our people more, and valuing our people more means improving their conditions. That means improving defence housing. It also means improving childcare for deployed personnel, a really important and that means improving childcare for deployed personnel, including those deployed within the United Kingdom. Changes to an increases for childcare for those deployed in Scotland and based in Scotland, for instance, an important step in addressing that.
We also. We also. I'm going to make some progress. I've said this a number of times. I hope he will start listening. And the biggest pay rise for 22 years is something that I'm especially proud of because, as has been mentioned, I believe my friend from North Durham in his remarks spoke about the effect the real terms pay cuts to our armed forces under the Conservatives real terms, pay cuts under the Conservatives for armed forces, although they've had above inflation pay rises from this Labour government, I'm still going to be answering the questions raised.
I'm not going to be giving way to him on this one here. And let me also now turn to a number of the questions that have been asked by a number of these things. They are very shouty, Madam Deputy Speaker. They're very shouty, a little bit angry as well. Let me start here. The gentleman from Surrey Heath, I have to say, I have a lot of time for him. I do, I do rate him quite highly. I appreciate his honesty when he spoke about decisions that his party made when he was his party was in coalition with the Conservatives.
I hadn't seen that level of honesty for many of the speeches opposite about what could be changed, but I'm grateful for him doing so. I'm still not going to be giving way to him. I, my friend from Dunfermline and Dollar meant a very good point about numbers versus capabilities. Having responded to a number of urgent questions and debates around the Defence Investment Plan, I would like more discussion around what are the new capabilities that we need to bring on board. How can we, for instance, taking my friend from North Durham place, how can we invest in more deep precision strike, integrated air and missile defence? How can we make sure that we're looking at F-35 as.
And that's precisely what we need to invest more. I have to say the excellent speech from the Member for Spelthorne, I think, is one that I listened very carefully to, and I'm very grateful for him being able to set that out. I think in particular, his experience. And I have to say, when he mentioned that the men that he buried from his regiment, I think, just shows what an important figure with experience that we need to listen to in this House. He is. When he asked around the national armaments director ripping up the books, he will also
**** Possible New Speaker ****
bring up the rules around procurement. Joy Morrissey to move that the question now be put.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yes. The question is that the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that the question be now put as many as are of that opinion, say I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The question it. The ayes have it. The question is that the original word stand part of the question. As many as of that opinion say aye. I Of the
I'm not going to be giving way to the gentleman. Now, the fifth area that we've spoken about a lot in this debate is how we value our people more, and valuing our people more means improving their conditions. That means improving defence housing. It also means improving childcare for deployed personnel, a really important and that means improving childcare for deployed personnel, including those deployed within the United Kingdom. Changes to an increases for childcare for those deployed in Scotland and based in Scotland, for instance, an important step in addressing that.
We also. We also. I'm going to make some progress. I've said this a number of times. I hope he will start listening. And the biggest pay rise for 22 years is something that I'm especially proud of because, as has been mentioned, I believe my friend from North Durham in his remarks spoke about the effect the real terms pay cuts to our armed forces under the Conservatives real terms, pay cuts under the Conservatives for armed forces, although they've had above inflation pay rises from this Labour government, I'm still going to be answering the questions raised.
I'm not going to be giving way to him on this one here. And let me also now turn to a number of the questions that have been asked by a number of these things. They are very shouty, Madam Deputy Speaker. They're very shouty, a little bit angry as well. Let me start here. The gentleman from Surrey Heath, I have to say, I have a lot of time for him. I do, I do rate him quite highly. I appreciate his honesty when he spoke about decisions that his party made when he was his party was in coalition with the Conservatives.
I hadn't seen that level of honesty for many of the speeches opposite about what could be changed, but I'm grateful for him doing so. I'm still not going to be giving way to him. I, my friend from Dunfermline and Dollar meant a very good point about numbers versus capabilities. Having responded to a number of urgent questions and debates around the Defence Investment Plan, I would like more discussion around what are the new capabilities that we need to bring on board. How can we, for instance, taking my friend from North Durham place, how can we invest in more deep precision strike, integrated air and missile defence? How can we make sure that we're looking at F-35 as.
And that's precisely what we need to invest more. I have to say the excellent speech from the Member for Spelthorne, I think, is one that I listened very carefully to, and I'm very grateful for him being able to set that out. I think in particular, his experience. And I have to say, when he mentioned that the men that he buried from his regiment, I think, just shows what an important figure with experience that we need to listen to in this House. He is. When he asked around the national armaments director ripping up the books, he will also
**** Possible New Speaker ****
bring up the rules around procurement. Joy Morrissey to move that the question now be put.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yes. The question is that the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that the question be now put as many as are of that opinion, say I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The question it. The ayes have it. The question is that the original word stand part of the question. As many as of that opinion say aye. I Of the
16:12
16:13
Opposition Day Debate: Defence spending and readiness: Division
-
Opposition Day Debate: Defence spending and readiness: Division
No, no. The. Tellers for the ayes of Jerome Mayhew and James Wild Tellers for the noes. Lilian
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Great Great Yarmouth.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Great Yarmouth.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order, order! The ayes to the right 108. The
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The ayes to the right 108. The Noes to the left 370.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The ayes to the right were. 108 the noes to the left. 307 so the the noes to the left. 307 so the noes have it the noes have it noes have it the noes have it unlock. The question is that the unlock. The question is that the proposed words be there added as many as of that opinion, say aye. Of the contrary. No, no. Division.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Great Great Yarmouth.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Great Yarmouth.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order, order! The ayes to the right 108. The
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The ayes to the right 108. The Noes to the left 370.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The ayes to the right were. 108 the noes to the left. 307 so the the noes to the left. 307 so the noes have it the noes have it noes have it the noes have it unlock. The question is that the unlock. The question is that the proposed words be there added as many as of that opinion, say aye. Of the contrary. No, no. Division.
16:27
Defence spending and readiness: Prime Minister's AMDT: Division
-
Defence spending and readiness: Prime Minister's AMDT: Division
Is that Is that the proposed words be there, added as
**** Possible New Speaker ****
many as of that opinion, say aye. Of the contrary. No. The Tellers for the ayes a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The Tellers for the ayes a Lilian Greenwood and Jade Botterill the Tellers for the noes James Wild
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order. Order. Order!
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order. Order! Order. Order! The
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order. Order! The Order. Order! The ayes Order. Order! The ayes to Order. Order! The ayes to the right were 294. The noes to the right were 294. The noes to the right were 294. The noes to the left were 110. The ayes to the right were 294. The noes to the left 110. So the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Unlock. I declare the question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Which brings us to the opposition day motion on puberty blockers. I inform the House that the speaker has not selected the amendment. I call the opposition spokesperson to move the motion. Doctor. Caroline Johnson.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yes. Thank you chair. And before I start, I declare an interest as an
**** Possible New Speaker ****
many as of that opinion, say aye. Of the contrary. No. The Tellers for the ayes a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The Tellers for the ayes a Lilian Greenwood and Jade Botterill the Tellers for the noes James Wild
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order. Order. Order!
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order. Order! Order. Order! The
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order. Order! The Order. Order! The ayes Order. Order! The ayes to Order. Order! The ayes to the right were 294. The noes to the right were 294. The noes to the right were 294. The noes to the left were 110. The ayes to the right were 294. The noes to the left 110. So the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Unlock. I declare the question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Which brings us to the opposition day motion on puberty blockers. I inform the House that the speaker has not selected the amendment. I call the opposition spokesperson to move the motion. Doctor. Caroline Johnson.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yes. Thank you chair. And before I start, I declare an interest as an
16:37
Opposition Day Debate: Puberty blockers
-
Opposition Day Debate: Puberty blockers
start, I declare an interest as an NHS consultant paediatrician, a member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and a member of the British Medical Association. I also think it's important at the beginning that we important at the beginning that we recognise that we're talking about the protection of children. We're talking about vulnerable children who are troubled, need our care and compassion, and the very best quality of health care. The health care of children distressed about their gender is an area where there have been made attempts to shut down debate with threats and accusations of transphobia.
And we see the way the Member for Canterbury was treated when she raised concerns. We have a duty as adults and as elected members of this House, to safeguard children in our country, and that means protecting them from adults who, with whatever motivation, good or bad, could do them harm. Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, as the children's doctor myself, I have recruited patients for trials and I
And we see the way the Member for Canterbury was treated when she raised concerns. We have a duty as adults and as elected members of this House, to safeguard children in our country, and that means protecting them from adults who, with whatever motivation, good or bad, could do them harm. Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, as the children's doctor myself, I have recruited patients for trials and I
16:38
Dr Caroline Johnson MP (Sleaford and North Hykeham, Conservative)
-
-
Dr Caroline Johnson MP (Sleaford and North Hykeham, Conservative)
have cared for children and babies participating in clinical trials. I recognise the value of a well-designed clinical trial in improving clinical care. But today, Madam Speaker, the House is not Madam Speaker, the House is not being asked to consider the principle of performing clinical trials in general or on children in particular. I hope we can all agree that a well-designed trial can improve care. We are being asked to consider the pathways trial. If consider the pathways trial. If this meets ethical test, what it does, the cohort, the protocol, the consent, and I'll go to each of these in turn.
The Pathways trial is part of a group of studies run by King's College London and funded by the government. So what does it do and why are we so concerned? The pathways trial will take 226 children who are physically healthy, who are developing normally, and it injects them with powerful drugs to delay that normal development in a way which may weaken their bones, affect their ability to think, damage their sexual function, and leave them unable to have children of their own.
We are told this is to treat a diagnosis of gender incongruence. So what is gender incongruence? The International Classification of Diseases definition states that gender incongruence is, and I quote, characterised by a marked and persistent incongruence between an individual's experienced gender and the assigned sex, which often leads to a desire to transition. We know that gender incongruence is a condition that is subjective. It's based on how someone tells us they feel. There are no blood tests, no lab markers that can be used to diagnose it.
As a paediatrician myself, I understand that how patients feel, particularly in relation to their mental health, is very important. We know with the Cass Review that the vast majority of children with gender incongruence will get better on their own. And again, as a paediatrician, I'm used to providing supportive treatment for conditions like respiratory viruses and gastroenteritis, which generally get better on their own, but not used to giving powerful drugs to children that can cause permanent long term damage for subjective self resolving
**** Possible New Speaker ****
difficulties during adolescence. I will. Grateful to my hon. Friend
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Grateful to my hon. Friend giving way. But she, as a consultant paediatrician, will be consultant paediatrician, will be able to give a definitive view on this matter that some campaigning this matter that some campaigning for this treatment and therapy argue that the effects of gene argue that the effects of gene therapy is reversible. To what extent is it reversible, and should we be treating this as a reversible treatment, or is it? I hear her saying permanent damage. And can we try and agree across the House, at least on this matter, that gene therapy applied to children is not reversible?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
intervention. So it's just to be clear, it's
**** Possible New Speaker ****
So it's just to be clear, it's not a form of gene therapy. It's it's a medication that is a GnRH analogue. And what it essentially analogue. And what it essentially does is delay delay puberty. Now, it was designed as a drug to treat children who go into puberty much children who go into puberty much earlier than they than they would be expected to, and to delay it till the right the right time, as till the right the right time, as it were.
The effects of using these puberty blockers in older children and for a much longer period when they ought to be in puberty from from their age is not is not fully understood.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well, my hon. Friend, on that point, I will Stafford I thank her for giving way. And she's obviously says we don't know the effects, but we have we have had a number of children being put through this process via the now discredited process via the now discredited Tavistock process. So why does she think the NHS isn't going to use the data linkage study to use the the data linkage study to use the data that would have been gained from those children who were put through this to find out what the through this to find out what the effects are before they decide to put a whole new cohort of children who, through this, this clearly
**** Possible New Speaker ****
damaging process. Doctor Caroline Johnson. My hon. Friend raises a very good point, and if you'll allow me, good point, and if you'll allow me, I'll come to the data linkage study shortly. What we what we do know from the Cass Review is that the from the Cass Review is that the vast majority of children who went on to puberty blockers in adolescence did go on to receive cross-sex hormones. And they do. They are known to have permanent effects. One of the things that's crucially important is that it's not possible for clinicians to confidently determine which children with gender incongruence will go on to persist with the trans identity into adulthood, and which will not.
So how can the clinicians possibly know that they're not injecting potentially dangerous drugs into children whose incongruence will resolve? The answer is they can't. Can the Secretary of State tell us if he is aware of new evidence allowing clinicians to confidently work out which children will persist with the trans identity at 11 and which will not. We need to think about the risk of treatment and whether it's worth the benefits that they they purport it will receive. The trial suggests they're going to take a wider approach to looking at potential benefits.
They're going to look at quality of life and body satisfaction, and that they must have a reasonable prospect of benefit in order to go into the trial. But how can they know if there's a reasonable prospect of benefit when they don't know whether it's going to persist or not? Some have suggested that giving puberty blockers will help the few adults who retain their trans identity into adulthood to pass as the opposite sex. Does the Secretary of State think the long term damage to many is worth it? For the cosmetic benefit of a few? The medicines for Human Use Clinical Trial Regulations 2004 specify that anticipated benefits must justify the risk.
So this is an ethical question rather than a medical question. Really. Does the Secretary of State think that the benefits justify the risk? I regret in many ways that we ended up discussing the details of a clinical trial in the chamber, because the reality is that things should be done impartially by scientists in most cases. But with this topic, we have seen the quashing of open debate. And so this is where we've ended up where we are now. Moving on to my hon.
Friend from Farnham and Bordon Point. Even if the Secretary of State thinks the principle of the trial is right, he must surely agree that it is unnecessary and unethically broad. For example, if someone was designing a trial to treat children with a specific form of cancer, then the children who got entered into that trial will be children with that specific form of cancer. We would not include children with any disease because that would make the results unreliable in terms of benefit to the target group, and children would be unnecessarily put at risk of receiving experimental drugs they didn't need.
The same applies to this trial. The Cass Report tells us that many of the children in this proposed trial would be children who would get better on their own. The Secretary of State said yesterday that we are talking about a very small subset of a very small pool, even. Well, yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Scott Arthur thank you, Madam Speaker, and I do thank her for giving me. And she knows she's one of my favourite Tories. I think I've said that before. But she's quoted. She's quoted. I'm trying to be a suitcase. She's quoted Baroness Cass many times. Baroness Cass, of course, thinks this trial Cass, of course, thinks this trial should go ahead because the benefits outweigh the costs. Why is
**** Possible New Speaker ****
benefits outweigh the costs. Why is Baroness Cass wrong and is she right? Caroline Johnson?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well, one of the things the doctors has asked two different doctors. You might get two different opinions, of course, but you know, I respect completely, you know, I respect completely, Baroness Cass. She has, you know, she's been president of the Royal College, which I'm a member of. She has done great work with this report that we commissioned in the last Parliament. I know that she's because she said that she's concerned about how people may obtain these drugs illegally if obtain these drugs illegally if they're not provided.
I don't share that concern. I think I personally think the important thing is whether the people obtaining it legally are doing it in the in a way that is safe. And I'm not convinced that this is the case. OK.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. By giving me for a second time, she's showing why she is my favourite Tory. Baroness. Baroness Cass says that she's she's met young people who have been self-medicating with testosterone. And this is irreversible. And that is that is one of the problems is that is one of the problems we're trying to address, where this trial is about protecting those young people. So they are not going down their own medical pathway.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
They are actually listening to medical advice, and they are well supported in a coherent framework. Doctor Caroline Johnson.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm sorry, I just don't support that. We would not give children, for example, cocaine on the basis for example, cocaine on the basis that they wanted it and they would get it illegally. Otherwise. This is a this is this is not this is is a this is this is not this is not sweeties. These are these are powerful drugs. And they need to be powerful drugs. And they need to be treated with that respect. So even if we accept the premise that a very, very small number might benefit from treatment, how could the clinical clinicians decide which children those would be on? What ethical or moral code would we want to inject powerful drugs into children who are likely to have a self-limiting illness and therefore don't need it.
But that's what the government has chosen to do, and it's not necessary. In coming to the point of my hon. Friend from Farnham and Bordon, they have this data already. The Tavistock was a travesty, but it does mean that the government could analyse the data from the outcomes of those children. It could establish the outcomes as they went into adulthood. And Baroness Cass tried to do this using a data linkage study. But shockingly, Madam Deputy Speaker six out of seven of adult gender clinics refused to provide the government with the data, even when a specific piece of legislation was passed by the previous government to clarify that it was legal to provide the information to this trial, they still didn't provide it.
I understand that NHS England is working on the data linkage study, but I would like to ask the Secretary of State why is it taking so long? Is the abolition of NHS England causing delay? Why is he letting this trial, which is expressed reservations about himself, go ahead in the knowledge that it's unnecessarily broad in advance of the data linkage study
**** Possible New Speaker ****
is I will. Iqbal Mohamed would. She agree with me that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
She agree with me that unblocking the reasons why the data is not being made available should be the top priority? An analysis of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
be the top priority? An analysis of that data should be done before any further experiments on children are done. Caroline Johnson.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Caroline Johnson. The hon. Gentleman is exactly right and expresses my point succinctly, which is, why is the Secretary of State going ahead with a trial when he has the data to analyse already, because that's experimenting on more children unnecessarily. And why is he chose to fund this trial? Is he worried about the children who'll be put on a medical pathway, which may lead to cross-sex hormones in a lifetime of medicalisation, where they would have got better by themselves? Anyway, I also want to talk about the age of these young people.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the MHRA warned in February that the youngest patients are at the greatest risk and may end up on puberty blockers for a much longer period. They have a higher risk to fertility because sperm and eggs have not yet fully developed at Tanner stage two, but this government has chosen to include children of 11 or 12. Now, some will wonder why it's 11 for girls and 12 for boys. And indeed, I was asked that question yesterday. But as a paediatrician, I'm aware that puberty starts earlier in girls than boys.
It is somewhat ironic that a trial based on the premise that girls could be boys recognises this biology, but I'm glad that in this respect it does. However, this means that some of these participants will be primary school aged children with Amira's form of puberty. How can they possibly meet the eligibility criteria, which includes, and I quote, sufficient understanding of the treatment advantages and disadvantages, including discussion of fertility preservation. How can a child of 11 understand what it means to lose sexual function, to be unable to have children when they're older, to have difficulties in thinking and to have weak bones? Remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, this government thinks that 14 year olds are not old enough to watch social media, but they think 11 year olds
**** Possible New Speaker ****
are capable of understanding this. I will give way. Jim Shannon can I just say to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Jim Shannon can I just say to the hon. Lady, and perhaps more importantly, to the Minister who's here? And the Minister is a very genuine and personable person, easy to speak to in Northern Ireland. The Assembly and the Minister there The Assembly and the Minister there has taken a decision not to pursue this with the honourable. Really agree whenever it comes to agree whenever it comes to government pursuing something here that may set a precedent for elsewhere, where it may not be agreed at this moment in time that there could be an influence will come here.
We've had adverse impact upon the regional administrations, the Northern Ireland Assembly, where we are and elsewhere, and it's important that government here
**** Possible New Speaker ****
doesn't take a decision that could influence areas where they don't have control over. Doctor Caroline Johnson.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the gentleman for his intervention on devolution, and I'm sure that the Secretary of State is listening and giving consideration listening and giving consideration to what he said. In thinking of the ages back to the ages. Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm reminded of the Speaker, I'm reminded of the judgement in Bell v Tavistock, and it says we do not think that the answer to this case is simply to answer to this case is simply to give the child more and more detailed information.
The issue, in our view, is that in many cases, however much information the child is given as to the long term consequences, she or he will not be able to weigh up the implications of the treatment to a sufficient degree. And I draw hon. Members and right hon. Members attention to this particular part of the quote. There is no age appropriate way to explain to many of these children what losing a fertility or full sexual function may mean to them in later years. Yet, as the Secretary of State confirmed yesterday, the children must consent or assent to being in this trial.
And the question again, he didn't answer yesterday. Why did they not heed the MHRA recommendation for a minimum of 14 years? So, Mr. Speaker, Madam Deputy Speaker, having established that the government is going to put a group of physically healthy children with a self-resolving condition at a risk they may not fully understand, the remaining question is why would they want to do this? And the trial itself is an interesting design. We're told it's a randomised controlled trial. And as a doctor, I'm familiar with this term, but in this case it's a bit of a fudge.
So yes, this government sponsored trial will randomise which children get the drugs now and which get them in a year's time. But the comparison group that do not receive puberty blockers, 300 children from the horizon intensive trial, who the trial will seek to compare with, may not be considered a reliable comparison because the group is a different group with different eligibility criteria. So when the results of this trial is published, this fact is bound to be used by people who dispute and disagree with the findings.
The Secretary of State said this trial will resolve the dispute over the issue, but this is one of the reasons that I think it won't. I want to discuss sexual function because yesterday the Minister said the trial would involve completion of a number of questionnaires, and also one of my hon. Friends raised the question about what happens to children's sexual function in the long term. So what is sexual function, Madam Deputy Speaker? It's desire, arousal and orgasm. The trial organisers are clearly concerned about this because they put the Alspac Romantic Relationships Measure questionnaire on the trial, and I read the questionnaire on the HRA website.
These questions will be asked to children from the age of 12 and over. One of the questions is Madam Deputy Speaker, in the last year, have you had oral sex with another person? This is when they put their mouth or tongue on your penis or vagina, or you put your mouth or tongue on their penis or vagina. Let's be clear, Madam Deputy Speaker, if that is happening to a 12 year old, that is sexual abuse and the police should be called, is the Secretary of State contempt for the government to be asking these questions of such young children? And can you believe that? In addition, they'll be paid £20 for completing their questionnaires alongside the £30 for completing the assessment of cognitive ability and £15 for completing the physical and height assessments, in addition to travel expenses.
Madam Deputy Speaker, there will be lots of talk this week about the Prime Minister's legacy, putting children as young as 11 on puberty blockers with irreversible, life changing consequences will be the most disturbing final chapter in what has been a troubled book of leadership today. Honourable and right hon. Members will be asked to vote to consider their approval or disapproval of their trial. I urge them, look at your conscience. Read the trial protocol. It's online. And remember, these are vulnerable children who deserve the best care.
One day, the children caught in the middle of this debate would be adults. It's our responsibility to ensure when they look back on their childhood, their one adolescence and their one chance to enjoy growing up, they must know that every decision was made with the utmost care, caution and respect for their future. The power to make that happen is in our hands today. I urge hon. Members to protect
**** Possible New Speaker ****
children's futures. Yes.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yes. The question is, as on the Order Paper, Secretary of State for health. James Murray.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
health. James Murray. Yes. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker and Madam Deputy Speaker, I know and Madam Deputy Speaker, I know what a sensitive, emotive and difficult issue this is, and as I difficult issue this is, and as I said in the House yesterday, I have myself struggled with the profound challenges this subject raises. We
The Pathways trial is part of a group of studies run by King's College London and funded by the government. So what does it do and why are we so concerned? The pathways trial will take 226 children who are physically healthy, who are developing normally, and it injects them with powerful drugs to delay that normal development in a way which may weaken their bones, affect their ability to think, damage their sexual function, and leave them unable to have children of their own.
We are told this is to treat a diagnosis of gender incongruence. So what is gender incongruence? The International Classification of Diseases definition states that gender incongruence is, and I quote, characterised by a marked and persistent incongruence between an individual's experienced gender and the assigned sex, which often leads to a desire to transition. We know that gender incongruence is a condition that is subjective. It's based on how someone tells us they feel. There are no blood tests, no lab markers that can be used to diagnose it.
As a paediatrician myself, I understand that how patients feel, particularly in relation to their mental health, is very important. We know with the Cass Review that the vast majority of children with gender incongruence will get better on their own. And again, as a paediatrician, I'm used to providing supportive treatment for conditions like respiratory viruses and gastroenteritis, which generally get better on their own, but not used to giving powerful drugs to children that can cause permanent long term damage for subjective self resolving
**** Possible New Speaker ****
difficulties during adolescence. I will. Grateful to my hon. Friend
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Grateful to my hon. Friend giving way. But she, as a consultant paediatrician, will be consultant paediatrician, will be able to give a definitive view on this matter that some campaigning this matter that some campaigning for this treatment and therapy argue that the effects of gene argue that the effects of gene therapy is reversible. To what extent is it reversible, and should we be treating this as a reversible treatment, or is it? I hear her saying permanent damage. And can we try and agree across the House, at least on this matter, that gene therapy applied to children is not reversible?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
intervention. So it's just to be clear, it's
**** Possible New Speaker ****
So it's just to be clear, it's not a form of gene therapy. It's it's a medication that is a GnRH analogue. And what it essentially analogue. And what it essentially does is delay delay puberty. Now, it was designed as a drug to treat children who go into puberty much children who go into puberty much earlier than they than they would be expected to, and to delay it till the right the right time, as till the right the right time, as it were.
The effects of using these puberty blockers in older children and for a much longer period when they ought to be in puberty from from their age is not is not fully understood.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well, my hon. Friend, on that point, I will Stafford I thank her for giving way. And she's obviously says we don't know the effects, but we have we have had a number of children being put through this process via the now discredited process via the now discredited Tavistock process. So why does she think the NHS isn't going to use the data linkage study to use the the data linkage study to use the data that would have been gained from those children who were put through this to find out what the through this to find out what the effects are before they decide to put a whole new cohort of children who, through this, this clearly
**** Possible New Speaker ****
damaging process. Doctor Caroline Johnson. My hon. Friend raises a very good point, and if you'll allow me, good point, and if you'll allow me, I'll come to the data linkage study shortly. What we what we do know from the Cass Review is that the from the Cass Review is that the vast majority of children who went on to puberty blockers in adolescence did go on to receive cross-sex hormones. And they do. They are known to have permanent effects. One of the things that's crucially important is that it's not possible for clinicians to confidently determine which children with gender incongruence will go on to persist with the trans identity into adulthood, and which will not.
So how can the clinicians possibly know that they're not injecting potentially dangerous drugs into children whose incongruence will resolve? The answer is they can't. Can the Secretary of State tell us if he is aware of new evidence allowing clinicians to confidently work out which children will persist with the trans identity at 11 and which will not. We need to think about the risk of treatment and whether it's worth the benefits that they they purport it will receive. The trial suggests they're going to take a wider approach to looking at potential benefits.
They're going to look at quality of life and body satisfaction, and that they must have a reasonable prospect of benefit in order to go into the trial. But how can they know if there's a reasonable prospect of benefit when they don't know whether it's going to persist or not? Some have suggested that giving puberty blockers will help the few adults who retain their trans identity into adulthood to pass as the opposite sex. Does the Secretary of State think the long term damage to many is worth it? For the cosmetic benefit of a few? The medicines for Human Use Clinical Trial Regulations 2004 specify that anticipated benefits must justify the risk.
So this is an ethical question rather than a medical question. Really. Does the Secretary of State think that the benefits justify the risk? I regret in many ways that we ended up discussing the details of a clinical trial in the chamber, because the reality is that things should be done impartially by scientists in most cases. But with this topic, we have seen the quashing of open debate. And so this is where we've ended up where we are now. Moving on to my hon.
Friend from Farnham and Bordon Point. Even if the Secretary of State thinks the principle of the trial is right, he must surely agree that it is unnecessary and unethically broad. For example, if someone was designing a trial to treat children with a specific form of cancer, then the children who got entered into that trial will be children with that specific form of cancer. We would not include children with any disease because that would make the results unreliable in terms of benefit to the target group, and children would be unnecessarily put at risk of receiving experimental drugs they didn't need.
The same applies to this trial. The Cass Report tells us that many of the children in this proposed trial would be children who would get better on their own. The Secretary of State said yesterday that we are talking about a very small subset of a very small pool, even. Well, yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Scott Arthur thank you, Madam Speaker, and I do thank her for giving me. And she knows she's one of my favourite Tories. I think I've said that before. But she's quoted. She's quoted. I'm trying to be a suitcase. She's quoted Baroness Cass many times. Baroness Cass, of course, thinks this trial Cass, of course, thinks this trial should go ahead because the benefits outweigh the costs. Why is
**** Possible New Speaker ****
benefits outweigh the costs. Why is Baroness Cass wrong and is she right? Caroline Johnson?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well, one of the things the doctors has asked two different doctors. You might get two different opinions, of course, but you know, I respect completely, you know, I respect completely, Baroness Cass. She has, you know, she's been president of the Royal College, which I'm a member of. She has done great work with this report that we commissioned in the last Parliament. I know that she's because she said that she's concerned about how people may obtain these drugs illegally if obtain these drugs illegally if they're not provided.
I don't share that concern. I think I personally think the important thing is whether the people obtaining it legally are doing it in the in a way that is safe. And I'm not convinced that this is the case. OK.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. By giving me for a second time, she's showing why she is my favourite Tory. Baroness. Baroness Cass says that she's she's met young people who have been self-medicating with testosterone. And this is irreversible. And that is that is one of the problems is that is one of the problems we're trying to address, where this trial is about protecting those young people. So they are not going down their own medical pathway.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
They are actually listening to medical advice, and they are well supported in a coherent framework. Doctor Caroline Johnson.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm sorry, I just don't support that. We would not give children, for example, cocaine on the basis for example, cocaine on the basis that they wanted it and they would get it illegally. Otherwise. This is a this is this is not this is is a this is this is not this is not sweeties. These are these are powerful drugs. And they need to be powerful drugs. And they need to be treated with that respect. So even if we accept the premise that a very, very small number might benefit from treatment, how could the clinical clinicians decide which children those would be on? What ethical or moral code would we want to inject powerful drugs into children who are likely to have a self-limiting illness and therefore don't need it.
But that's what the government has chosen to do, and it's not necessary. In coming to the point of my hon. Friend from Farnham and Bordon, they have this data already. The Tavistock was a travesty, but it does mean that the government could analyse the data from the outcomes of those children. It could establish the outcomes as they went into adulthood. And Baroness Cass tried to do this using a data linkage study. But shockingly, Madam Deputy Speaker six out of seven of adult gender clinics refused to provide the government with the data, even when a specific piece of legislation was passed by the previous government to clarify that it was legal to provide the information to this trial, they still didn't provide it.
I understand that NHS England is working on the data linkage study, but I would like to ask the Secretary of State why is it taking so long? Is the abolition of NHS England causing delay? Why is he letting this trial, which is expressed reservations about himself, go ahead in the knowledge that it's unnecessarily broad in advance of the data linkage study
**** Possible New Speaker ****
is I will. Iqbal Mohamed would. She agree with me that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
She agree with me that unblocking the reasons why the data is not being made available should be the top priority? An analysis of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
be the top priority? An analysis of that data should be done before any further experiments on children are done. Caroline Johnson.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Caroline Johnson. The hon. Gentleman is exactly right and expresses my point succinctly, which is, why is the Secretary of State going ahead with a trial when he has the data to analyse already, because that's experimenting on more children unnecessarily. And why is he chose to fund this trial? Is he worried about the children who'll be put on a medical pathway, which may lead to cross-sex hormones in a lifetime of medicalisation, where they would have got better by themselves? Anyway, I also want to talk about the age of these young people.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the MHRA warned in February that the youngest patients are at the greatest risk and may end up on puberty blockers for a much longer period. They have a higher risk to fertility because sperm and eggs have not yet fully developed at Tanner stage two, but this government has chosen to include children of 11 or 12. Now, some will wonder why it's 11 for girls and 12 for boys. And indeed, I was asked that question yesterday. But as a paediatrician, I'm aware that puberty starts earlier in girls than boys.
It is somewhat ironic that a trial based on the premise that girls could be boys recognises this biology, but I'm glad that in this respect it does. However, this means that some of these participants will be primary school aged children with Amira's form of puberty. How can they possibly meet the eligibility criteria, which includes, and I quote, sufficient understanding of the treatment advantages and disadvantages, including discussion of fertility preservation. How can a child of 11 understand what it means to lose sexual function, to be unable to have children when they're older, to have difficulties in thinking and to have weak bones? Remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, this government thinks that 14 year olds are not old enough to watch social media, but they think 11 year olds
**** Possible New Speaker ****
are capable of understanding this. I will give way. Jim Shannon can I just say to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Jim Shannon can I just say to the hon. Lady, and perhaps more importantly, to the Minister who's here? And the Minister is a very genuine and personable person, easy to speak to in Northern Ireland. The Assembly and the Minister there The Assembly and the Minister there has taken a decision not to pursue this with the honourable. Really agree whenever it comes to agree whenever it comes to government pursuing something here that may set a precedent for elsewhere, where it may not be agreed at this moment in time that there could be an influence will come here.
We've had adverse impact upon the regional administrations, the Northern Ireland Assembly, where we are and elsewhere, and it's important that government here
**** Possible New Speaker ****
doesn't take a decision that could influence areas where they don't have control over. Doctor Caroline Johnson.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the gentleman for his intervention on devolution, and I'm sure that the Secretary of State is listening and giving consideration listening and giving consideration to what he said. In thinking of the ages back to the ages. Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm reminded of the Speaker, I'm reminded of the judgement in Bell v Tavistock, and it says we do not think that the answer to this case is simply to answer to this case is simply to give the child more and more detailed information.
The issue, in our view, is that in many cases, however much information the child is given as to the long term consequences, she or he will not be able to weigh up the implications of the treatment to a sufficient degree. And I draw hon. Members and right hon. Members attention to this particular part of the quote. There is no age appropriate way to explain to many of these children what losing a fertility or full sexual function may mean to them in later years. Yet, as the Secretary of State confirmed yesterday, the children must consent or assent to being in this trial.
And the question again, he didn't answer yesterday. Why did they not heed the MHRA recommendation for a minimum of 14 years? So, Mr. Speaker, Madam Deputy Speaker, having established that the government is going to put a group of physically healthy children with a self-resolving condition at a risk they may not fully understand, the remaining question is why would they want to do this? And the trial itself is an interesting design. We're told it's a randomised controlled trial. And as a doctor, I'm familiar with this term, but in this case it's a bit of a fudge.
So yes, this government sponsored trial will randomise which children get the drugs now and which get them in a year's time. But the comparison group that do not receive puberty blockers, 300 children from the horizon intensive trial, who the trial will seek to compare with, may not be considered a reliable comparison because the group is a different group with different eligibility criteria. So when the results of this trial is published, this fact is bound to be used by people who dispute and disagree with the findings.
The Secretary of State said this trial will resolve the dispute over the issue, but this is one of the reasons that I think it won't. I want to discuss sexual function because yesterday the Minister said the trial would involve completion of a number of questionnaires, and also one of my hon. Friends raised the question about what happens to children's sexual function in the long term. So what is sexual function, Madam Deputy Speaker? It's desire, arousal and orgasm. The trial organisers are clearly concerned about this because they put the Alspac Romantic Relationships Measure questionnaire on the trial, and I read the questionnaire on the HRA website.
These questions will be asked to children from the age of 12 and over. One of the questions is Madam Deputy Speaker, in the last year, have you had oral sex with another person? This is when they put their mouth or tongue on your penis or vagina, or you put your mouth or tongue on their penis or vagina. Let's be clear, Madam Deputy Speaker, if that is happening to a 12 year old, that is sexual abuse and the police should be called, is the Secretary of State contempt for the government to be asking these questions of such young children? And can you believe that? In addition, they'll be paid £20 for completing their questionnaires alongside the £30 for completing the assessment of cognitive ability and £15 for completing the physical and height assessments, in addition to travel expenses.
Madam Deputy Speaker, there will be lots of talk this week about the Prime Minister's legacy, putting children as young as 11 on puberty blockers with irreversible, life changing consequences will be the most disturbing final chapter in what has been a troubled book of leadership today. Honourable and right hon. Members will be asked to vote to consider their approval or disapproval of their trial. I urge them, look at your conscience. Read the trial protocol. It's online. And remember, these are vulnerable children who deserve the best care.
One day, the children caught in the middle of this debate would be adults. It's our responsibility to ensure when they look back on their childhood, their one adolescence and their one chance to enjoy growing up, they must know that every decision was made with the utmost care, caution and respect for their future. The power to make that happen is in our hands today. I urge hon. Members to protect
**** Possible New Speaker ****
children's futures. Yes.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yes. The question is, as on the Order Paper, Secretary of State for health. James Murray.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
health. James Murray. Yes. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker and Madam Deputy Speaker, I know and Madam Deputy Speaker, I know what a sensitive, emotive and difficult issue this is, and as I difficult issue this is, and as I said in the House yesterday, I have myself struggled with the profound challenges this subject raises. We
16:56
Rt Hon James Murray MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ealing North, Labour )
-
-
Rt Hon James Murray MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ealing North, Labour )
all, as adults, owe a duty of care to every child and young person in this country, and that is a this country, and that is a responsibility that I bear, both as a citizen and as health secretary. With the utmost seriousness and sincerity. It is why, in all of my deliberations over this matter, my consideration is to protect the safety and wellbeing of children and young people. Children's health and young people. Children's health care must always be evidence led, safe and effective.
The way to ensure that is to follow expert clinical advice, which is what this government is doing now. Madam Deputy Speaker, Doctor Hilary Cass, the clinician who I think has more respect in this space than any other, has spoken about the importance of this trial in recent days. I would remind the shadow Minister that it was her party that commissioned the cash review and accepted its findings, which included the pathways trial. I have been clear to the House that this is a challenging area, and whilst I accept and welcome the scrutiny of members, I encourage us to keep in mind Doctor Cass's request to consider the issue sensitively and cautiously.
As she says and I quote, polarisation and stifling of debate do nothing to help the young people caught in the middle of a stormy social discourse, and in the long run, will also hamper the research that is essential to finding the best way of supporting them to thrive. Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not think that there is any question that a few years ago, children's safety and wellbeing was not being protected when it came to gender incongruence. From around 2009, the number of children and young people being referred for NHS support around their gender identity increased rapidly.
Stories subsequently emerged of young people struggling after undergoing radical and permanent transition surgery at an early age of children rushed into taking medication without adequate therapy beforehand, and of clinicians disregarding conditions such as neurodiversity and mental health issues. As such, there was rightly deep concern about the vulnerability of these children and young people, the care and treatment they were receiving and the surge in referrals. And so in 2020, NHS England commissioned the leading paediatrician, doctor Hilary Cass, to carry out a review into NHS gender identity services for under 18 seconds.
What Doctor Cass uncovered was shocking and scandalous, and she made a series of recommendations for how children can be better protected and supported. It was, in my mind, unquestionably wrong for children and young people to be routinely prescribed puberty blockers for gender dysphoria, without any clear evidence on their benefits or risks. The situation then was out of control, and so I fully supported the indefinite ban introduced by my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Ilford North, which followed the temporary ban brought in by the previous government.
In considering what to do next, Madam Deputy Speaker Doctor Cass identified that treatment for gender incongruence was, and I quote, an area of remarkably weak evidence. She found that even clinicians working in the field were divided on the best way to support, treat, and care for young people suffering gender dysphoria, where there is strong divergence of medical opinion on treatment. The two possible responses are either to continue with uncertainty and with that, conflicting opinions and advice, or to undertake a trial.
It is only by doing that that we can make sure that children with gender related distress get the same access to care and the same standards of care
**** Possible New Speaker ****
as everyone else in the NHS. For giving way. But there is a third option, isn't there, which is third option, isn't there, which is to get NHS England to motor ahead with the data linkage study, so we can use the data that has already can use the data that has already been collected to find out the answers to the questions that he is posing, and only then if that if the information is not there, then
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the information is not there, then go on with the trial. Why is he not pushing that third way? Absolutely, yeah. Secretary of State.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Secretary of State. Thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, which allows me to address this matter directly. Now, the data linkage study will not provide clear evidence of the risks and benefits of puberty suppressing hormones, which is needed in order to guide future clinical practice for this cohort. The type of information. Madam Deputy Speaker, that will be available in a linkage study is much more limited than the detailed information that the research team will be able to collect about the relative benefits and harms of puberty suppressing hormones when accessed, alongside a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
holistic model of care. I will give way. To state for giving way for my
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To state for giving way for my clarity. Does our Scottish children going to be included in this trial, going to be included in this trial, either via being able to travel south of the border or via NHS Scotland directly?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Scotland directly? Secretary of State. Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have responsibility for NHS England, have responsibility for NHS England, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and I'm setting out the protocol which has been agreed in relation to this particular trial in the debate today, because that is a subject which is arousing a lot of questions in the chamber today, and that is fair. I will come back to that in a moment. If you allow me to make a little progress, because I'm going to make a little progress and then I will open to more interventions a bit later, because, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think we need to be clear about who we are talking about here, because, as Doctor Cass herself has said, the vast majority of children and young people who question their gender will resolve it without needing any support other than their friends and family.
For many young people, questioning their identity on many different fronts is a normal part of growing up, and we should simply let them be. For a small number of these young people, though, they need greater support because of the level and longevity of discomfort they feel, and that can often involve counselling or therapy. And for a very, very small number of young people, it is possible, and I emphasise the word possible here, that medical treatment would help improve their quality of life and mental health and reduce their gender related distress.
That is why Doctor Cass recommended a trial to study the effects of puberty suppressing hormones on young people's physical, social and emotional well-being and to establish how best to support children and young people suffering gender incongruence.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Iqbal Mohamed. Just on that point, children. In normal clinical trials, you would use the active trials, you would use the active substance and a placebo and check what impact or changes or benefits what impact or changes or benefits each cohort will receive. If children have a psychological children have a psychological leaning and are emotionally feeling that they're in the wrong body, that they're in the wrong body, isn't there value in having a cohort that takes a placebo and seeing if that improves their
**** Possible New Speaker ****
mental health? Secretary of State.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Secretary of State. Well, the hon. Gentleman raises an important question around how the clinical trial is designed. And the clinical trial is designed. And in this case, the young people involved in the trial, of whom involved in the trial, of whom there will be around 226, will be split into two groups, one half of split into two groups, one half of whom will have the the puberty blockers from the start, the other half of whom will receive it after a year.
Now, my understanding of this, having interrogated the detail carefully, is that a placebo would not be appropriate for this trial because the impacts of having or not having the puberty blockers will be will be seen, will be able to be known by the subject. So they will be aware whether they are having the medications or not. What is important, though, and I hope will help to set this pathways trial in a wider context, is all the other work which is being done to study the incidence of gender incongruence and the responses to that amongst young people, and that will include far more than just the trial we're talking about today, looking at children and young people who are questioning their gender through talking to them, understanding their mental health, understanding their approach to that.
All of that will happen alongside this trial. This trial is just one part of a much wider study to understand how best to support young people who are facing these gender related issues that we're talking about today. Now, I will give way. Yes.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
So grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I acknowledge the serious ways of approaching this, but I think many people will be concerned about the fact that, as the shadow Minister said, there is the shadow Minister said, there is no objective blood marker for these individuals, and I think people individuals, and I think people will be very concerned that there will be a group of people that will be taken forward in this trial, when a whole range of influences could have governed how they got to that point, and the implications of taking these drugs are quite profound to their life and further development.
How does one reconcile that fact that there is no way of verifying the suitability, if you like, and the way that those individuals have been selected for that trial, perhaps you could help
**** Possible New Speaker ****
me understand it better. I thank the right hon. Gentleman
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question and for the tone which he took in asking, what is an important question for him to raise, and one which I'm pleased to be able to respond to, because I suppose what's important for me is that the bar is extremely high. And that the bar is extremely high. And to get on this trial, the strict eligibility criteria involve parental consent alongside the young person themselves, consenting or assenting. The young person will have to have had gender incongruence diagnosed for at least two years, and there will be permission or consent rather required from both the NHS care team and a national multidisciplinary team, which includes a wide range of disciplines to understand all aspects of a young person's health and context and situation.
So the level of approvals, if you like, the level of scrutiny that young people have to go through in order to participate in this trial sets the bar for that extremely high, and I'll come to that. I will give away one more time, then I'll make
**** Possible New Speaker ****
some progress. Harriett Baldwin I'm extremely grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. He mentioned parental consent. What would happen parental consent. What would happen in a situation where the child is in the care of the state? Would they be included or excluded from
**** Possible New Speaker ****
they be included or excluded from this trial? State? I thank the right hon. Lady for
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the right hon. Lady for her question. And if a child is looked under, it's looked after under a care order, then the local authority has parental responsibility and would therefore need to be part of the consent process as the corporate parent in that case. But, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to address some of the points raised by the right hon. Member who spoke just a moment ago about young people becoming involved in this trial and the checks which are in place for that to to happen, because I believe, as I set out earlier, because this involves children, it comes with a particular responsibility to interrogate and understand the design of the trial.
And that's why, as Health Secretary, I have sought the most detailed assurances possible from my clinical advisers about how children taking part in the trial will be protected. There are a number of important safeguards. Children, as I mentioned, can only participate with the consent of a parent or guardian, and the child themselves must consent or assent. They can only participate if they have a diagnosis of gender incongruence for at least two years. They can only participate if they have received psychosocial support through the NHS.
They can only participate if they are of stable physical and mental health. They can only participate if they are not subject to any safeguarding concerns. They can only participate if they and their parents demonstrate sufficient understanding of the nature of the treatment, including its possible advantages and disadvantages. They can only participate if it has been deemed clinically appropriate by both the NHS care team and the national multidisciplinary team, and they can only participate if they are already accessing NHS gender services.
And so, Madam Deputy Speaker, when it comes to eligibility, the bar, as I said, is extremely high. Now, the number of young people who would expect to qualify for the trial will be low, and the safeguards to ensure their safety and wellbeing rigorous. And once any young people are involved in the trial, I have sought and had assurance that participants may be may be withdrawn at any point. We are not proceeding with the previous and now decommissioned model of care overseen by the opposition when they were in government.
We are proceeding cautiously with rigorous safeguards in pursuit of the evidence. As Doctor Cass recommended. Madam Deputy Speaker last week. On Thursday, the independent MHRA approved an updated protocol that significantly strengthened the objective criteria for withdrawing children from the trial. And that is a change that I welcome. Signs of greater risk to. Participants will now trigger increased monitoring, clinical review or their automatic withdrawal from the trial. All participants will be monitored before at the start of every three months, during and after the trial.
Before and during the trial, information will be collected about mental health, quality of life, self-harm and suicidality, body image, cognition, puberty, stage, physical health and side effects. I have been determined to ensure the oversight of this trial is as rigorous and robust as it possibly can be, and so I have requested monthly updates on its progress, including being notified of any emerging risks. Madam Deputy Speaker. This trial is rightfully one of the most scrutinised UK clinical trials of recent times.
We should expect nothing less when we are talking about the health and wellbeing of some of the most vulnerable children in our country. Yet, as Doctor Cass has made clear, we have to build the evidence base to show whether the treatments are safe and whether they produce the positive outcomes that young people and clinicians want from them. What today's opposition motion does, Madam Deputy Speaker, is to try to prevent us from following expert clinical advice. When proceeding with the trial is the most appropriate way forward, and I say that not because I am suggesting we should feel instinctively comfortable in doing so, but because I have arrived at that conclusion.
After considering the clinical evidence and receiving
**** Possible New Speaker ****
robust assurances on the safeguards that are in place. Secretary Stafford giving way.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Secretary Stafford giving way. And I know that he's agonised over this matter. He made that clear when he contributed last night. when he contributed last night. He's done so again today. But what's not in doubt is the harm these drugs do. That's an these drugs do. That's an established medical fact. He's determined to be driven by the evidence that is evidential. We know that they have harmful effects. So in essence, what he's saying is we're prepared to wear those harmful effects on the off chance that these drugs may have a beneficial set of effects when there's no evidence to suggest up
**** Possible New Speaker ****
until now, they do. So. Secretary of State.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
So. Secretary of State. Madam Deputy Speaker, the additional safeguards that the MHRA additional safeguards that the MHRA have introduced as a result of their dialogue with the trial sponsors in the amended protocol sponsors in the amended protocol published last week, increase the level of safeguards, which means that in the regular monitoring, that in the regular monitoring, which, as I said, happens at least every three months, it can be more regular during the trial because of that monitoring, should there be any signs of any increased risk of harm that will lead to increased monitoring, clinical review and when considered against objective criteria, automatic withdrawal from the trial.
So it is a question of monitoring this trial, possibly more closely than than any trial has been before. The level of scrutiny is, is, is very great indeed to make sure that at the first sign of any increased risk of harm, action will be taken. That's the assurance that I have sought in interrogating this matter carefully in recent days, and that is the basis on which I'm talking to the right hon. Member and others in the House today, because, Madam Deputy Speaker, we must come to a fair and settled conclusion on this matter to move forward as a country, and I believe we should follow clinical advice and establish the clinical evidence gathered in a highly scrutinised trial.
With all the safeguards in place that I have described, only that approach will give us the confidence about where we settle on this matter in the future and on that basis. Madam
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Deputy Speaker, the government opposes this motion. Yes. Liberal Democrat spokesperson
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Liberal Democrat spokesperson Alison Bennett thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Today's debate is Deputy Speaker. Today's debate is on a subject that goes without saying is emotive and complex, and saying is emotive and complex, and we must therefore endeavour, as always, to have this conversation with compassion and with empathy.
The way to ensure that is to follow expert clinical advice, which is what this government is doing now. Madam Deputy Speaker, Doctor Hilary Cass, the clinician who I think has more respect in this space than any other, has spoken about the importance of this trial in recent days. I would remind the shadow Minister that it was her party that commissioned the cash review and accepted its findings, which included the pathways trial. I have been clear to the House that this is a challenging area, and whilst I accept and welcome the scrutiny of members, I encourage us to keep in mind Doctor Cass's request to consider the issue sensitively and cautiously.
As she says and I quote, polarisation and stifling of debate do nothing to help the young people caught in the middle of a stormy social discourse, and in the long run, will also hamper the research that is essential to finding the best way of supporting them to thrive. Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not think that there is any question that a few years ago, children's safety and wellbeing was not being protected when it came to gender incongruence. From around 2009, the number of children and young people being referred for NHS support around their gender identity increased rapidly.
Stories subsequently emerged of young people struggling after undergoing radical and permanent transition surgery at an early age of children rushed into taking medication without adequate therapy beforehand, and of clinicians disregarding conditions such as neurodiversity and mental health issues. As such, there was rightly deep concern about the vulnerability of these children and young people, the care and treatment they were receiving and the surge in referrals. And so in 2020, NHS England commissioned the leading paediatrician, doctor Hilary Cass, to carry out a review into NHS gender identity services for under 18 seconds.
What Doctor Cass uncovered was shocking and scandalous, and she made a series of recommendations for how children can be better protected and supported. It was, in my mind, unquestionably wrong for children and young people to be routinely prescribed puberty blockers for gender dysphoria, without any clear evidence on their benefits or risks. The situation then was out of control, and so I fully supported the indefinite ban introduced by my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Ilford North, which followed the temporary ban brought in by the previous government.
In considering what to do next, Madam Deputy Speaker Doctor Cass identified that treatment for gender incongruence was, and I quote, an area of remarkably weak evidence. She found that even clinicians working in the field were divided on the best way to support, treat, and care for young people suffering gender dysphoria, where there is strong divergence of medical opinion on treatment. The two possible responses are either to continue with uncertainty and with that, conflicting opinions and advice, or to undertake a trial.
It is only by doing that that we can make sure that children with gender related distress get the same access to care and the same standards of care
**** Possible New Speaker ****
as everyone else in the NHS. For giving way. But there is a third option, isn't there, which is third option, isn't there, which is to get NHS England to motor ahead with the data linkage study, so we can use the data that has already can use the data that has already been collected to find out the answers to the questions that he is posing, and only then if that if the information is not there, then
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the information is not there, then go on with the trial. Why is he not pushing that third way? Absolutely, yeah. Secretary of State.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Secretary of State. Thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, which allows me to address this matter directly. Now, the data linkage study will not provide clear evidence of the risks and benefits of puberty suppressing hormones, which is needed in order to guide future clinical practice for this cohort. The type of information. Madam Deputy Speaker, that will be available in a linkage study is much more limited than the detailed information that the research team will be able to collect about the relative benefits and harms of puberty suppressing hormones when accessed, alongside a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
holistic model of care. I will give way. To state for giving way for my
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To state for giving way for my clarity. Does our Scottish children going to be included in this trial, going to be included in this trial, either via being able to travel south of the border or via NHS Scotland directly?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Scotland directly? Secretary of State. Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have responsibility for NHS England, have responsibility for NHS England, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and I'm setting out the protocol which has been agreed in relation to this particular trial in the debate today, because that is a subject which is arousing a lot of questions in the chamber today, and that is fair. I will come back to that in a moment. If you allow me to make a little progress, because I'm going to make a little progress and then I will open to more interventions a bit later, because, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think we need to be clear about who we are talking about here, because, as Doctor Cass herself has said, the vast majority of children and young people who question their gender will resolve it without needing any support other than their friends and family.
For many young people, questioning their identity on many different fronts is a normal part of growing up, and we should simply let them be. For a small number of these young people, though, they need greater support because of the level and longevity of discomfort they feel, and that can often involve counselling or therapy. And for a very, very small number of young people, it is possible, and I emphasise the word possible here, that medical treatment would help improve their quality of life and mental health and reduce their gender related distress.
That is why Doctor Cass recommended a trial to study the effects of puberty suppressing hormones on young people's physical, social and emotional well-being and to establish how best to support children and young people suffering gender incongruence.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Iqbal Mohamed. Just on that point, children. In normal clinical trials, you would use the active trials, you would use the active substance and a placebo and check what impact or changes or benefits what impact or changes or benefits each cohort will receive. If children have a psychological children have a psychological leaning and are emotionally feeling that they're in the wrong body, that they're in the wrong body, isn't there value in having a cohort that takes a placebo and seeing if that improves their
**** Possible New Speaker ****
mental health? Secretary of State.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Secretary of State. Well, the hon. Gentleman raises an important question around how the clinical trial is designed. And the clinical trial is designed. And in this case, the young people involved in the trial, of whom involved in the trial, of whom there will be around 226, will be split into two groups, one half of split into two groups, one half of whom will have the the puberty blockers from the start, the other half of whom will receive it after a year.
Now, my understanding of this, having interrogated the detail carefully, is that a placebo would not be appropriate for this trial because the impacts of having or not having the puberty blockers will be will be seen, will be able to be known by the subject. So they will be aware whether they are having the medications or not. What is important, though, and I hope will help to set this pathways trial in a wider context, is all the other work which is being done to study the incidence of gender incongruence and the responses to that amongst young people, and that will include far more than just the trial we're talking about today, looking at children and young people who are questioning their gender through talking to them, understanding their mental health, understanding their approach to that.
All of that will happen alongside this trial. This trial is just one part of a much wider study to understand how best to support young people who are facing these gender related issues that we're talking about today. Now, I will give way. Yes.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
So grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I acknowledge the serious ways of approaching this, but I think many people will be concerned about the fact that, as the shadow Minister said, there is the shadow Minister said, there is no objective blood marker for these individuals, and I think people individuals, and I think people will be very concerned that there will be a group of people that will be taken forward in this trial, when a whole range of influences could have governed how they got to that point, and the implications of taking these drugs are quite profound to their life and further development.
How does one reconcile that fact that there is no way of verifying the suitability, if you like, and the way that those individuals have been selected for that trial, perhaps you could help
**** Possible New Speaker ****
me understand it better. I thank the right hon. Gentleman
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question and for the tone which he took in asking, what is an important question for him to raise, and one which I'm pleased to be able to respond to, because I suppose what's important for me is that the bar is extremely high. And that the bar is extremely high. And to get on this trial, the strict eligibility criteria involve parental consent alongside the young person themselves, consenting or assenting. The young person will have to have had gender incongruence diagnosed for at least two years, and there will be permission or consent rather required from both the NHS care team and a national multidisciplinary team, which includes a wide range of disciplines to understand all aspects of a young person's health and context and situation.
So the level of approvals, if you like, the level of scrutiny that young people have to go through in order to participate in this trial sets the bar for that extremely high, and I'll come to that. I will give away one more time, then I'll make
**** Possible New Speaker ****
some progress. Harriett Baldwin I'm extremely grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. He mentioned parental consent. What would happen parental consent. What would happen in a situation where the child is in the care of the state? Would they be included or excluded from
**** Possible New Speaker ****
they be included or excluded from this trial? State? I thank the right hon. Lady for
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the right hon. Lady for her question. And if a child is looked under, it's looked after under a care order, then the local authority has parental responsibility and would therefore need to be part of the consent process as the corporate parent in that case. But, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to address some of the points raised by the right hon. Member who spoke just a moment ago about young people becoming involved in this trial and the checks which are in place for that to to happen, because I believe, as I set out earlier, because this involves children, it comes with a particular responsibility to interrogate and understand the design of the trial.
And that's why, as Health Secretary, I have sought the most detailed assurances possible from my clinical advisers about how children taking part in the trial will be protected. There are a number of important safeguards. Children, as I mentioned, can only participate with the consent of a parent or guardian, and the child themselves must consent or assent. They can only participate if they have a diagnosis of gender incongruence for at least two years. They can only participate if they have received psychosocial support through the NHS.
They can only participate if they are of stable physical and mental health. They can only participate if they are not subject to any safeguarding concerns. They can only participate if they and their parents demonstrate sufficient understanding of the nature of the treatment, including its possible advantages and disadvantages. They can only participate if it has been deemed clinically appropriate by both the NHS care team and the national multidisciplinary team, and they can only participate if they are already accessing NHS gender services.
And so, Madam Deputy Speaker, when it comes to eligibility, the bar, as I said, is extremely high. Now, the number of young people who would expect to qualify for the trial will be low, and the safeguards to ensure their safety and wellbeing rigorous. And once any young people are involved in the trial, I have sought and had assurance that participants may be may be withdrawn at any point. We are not proceeding with the previous and now decommissioned model of care overseen by the opposition when they were in government.
We are proceeding cautiously with rigorous safeguards in pursuit of the evidence. As Doctor Cass recommended. Madam Deputy Speaker last week. On Thursday, the independent MHRA approved an updated protocol that significantly strengthened the objective criteria for withdrawing children from the trial. And that is a change that I welcome. Signs of greater risk to. Participants will now trigger increased monitoring, clinical review or their automatic withdrawal from the trial. All participants will be monitored before at the start of every three months, during and after the trial.
Before and during the trial, information will be collected about mental health, quality of life, self-harm and suicidality, body image, cognition, puberty, stage, physical health and side effects. I have been determined to ensure the oversight of this trial is as rigorous and robust as it possibly can be, and so I have requested monthly updates on its progress, including being notified of any emerging risks. Madam Deputy Speaker. This trial is rightfully one of the most scrutinised UK clinical trials of recent times.
We should expect nothing less when we are talking about the health and wellbeing of some of the most vulnerable children in our country. Yet, as Doctor Cass has made clear, we have to build the evidence base to show whether the treatments are safe and whether they produce the positive outcomes that young people and clinicians want from them. What today's opposition motion does, Madam Deputy Speaker, is to try to prevent us from following expert clinical advice. When proceeding with the trial is the most appropriate way forward, and I say that not because I am suggesting we should feel instinctively comfortable in doing so, but because I have arrived at that conclusion.
After considering the clinical evidence and receiving
**** Possible New Speaker ****
robust assurances on the safeguards that are in place. Secretary Stafford giving way.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Secretary Stafford giving way. And I know that he's agonised over this matter. He made that clear when he contributed last night. when he contributed last night. He's done so again today. But what's not in doubt is the harm these drugs do. That's an these drugs do. That's an established medical fact. He's determined to be driven by the evidence that is evidential. We know that they have harmful effects. So in essence, what he's saying is we're prepared to wear those harmful effects on the off chance that these drugs may have a beneficial set of effects when there's no evidence to suggest up
**** Possible New Speaker ****
until now, they do. So. Secretary of State.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
So. Secretary of State. Madam Deputy Speaker, the additional safeguards that the MHRA additional safeguards that the MHRA have introduced as a result of their dialogue with the trial sponsors in the amended protocol sponsors in the amended protocol published last week, increase the level of safeguards, which means that in the regular monitoring, that in the regular monitoring, which, as I said, happens at least every three months, it can be more regular during the trial because of that monitoring, should there be any signs of any increased risk of harm that will lead to increased monitoring, clinical review and when considered against objective criteria, automatic withdrawal from the trial.
So it is a question of monitoring this trial, possibly more closely than than any trial has been before. The level of scrutiny is, is, is very great indeed to make sure that at the first sign of any increased risk of harm, action will be taken. That's the assurance that I have sought in interrogating this matter carefully in recent days, and that is the basis on which I'm talking to the right hon. Member and others in the House today, because, Madam Deputy Speaker, we must come to a fair and settled conclusion on this matter to move forward as a country, and I believe we should follow clinical advice and establish the clinical evidence gathered in a highly scrutinised trial.
With all the safeguards in place that I have described, only that approach will give us the confidence about where we settle on this matter in the future and on that basis. Madam
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Deputy Speaker, the government opposes this motion. Yes. Liberal Democrat spokesperson
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Liberal Democrat spokesperson Alison Bennett thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Today's debate is Deputy Speaker. Today's debate is on a subject that goes without saying is emotive and complex, and saying is emotive and complex, and we must therefore endeavour, as always, to have this conversation with compassion and with empathy.
17:14
Alison Bennett MP (Mid Sussex, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Alison Bennett MP (Mid Sussex, Liberal Democrat)
with compassion and with empathy. The Liberal Democrats position on this issue is clear, and it is simple, as reflected in our amendment to this motion, any medical treatment of the approval of any clinical trial, including the one we are discussing today, must be led by expert medical advice. It should not be led by personal belief, no matter how sincerely and passionately this belief is held. Politics has a place, but not in questions of medical trials and clinical consensus.
That is better left to experts. The Cass Review, originally commissioned by the Conservatives, was clear that there is a need to gather more evidence. The safety of young people is paramount, and the experts involved in this space know this better than anybody. They work with these children day in, day out, and understand the risks of both action and inaction. That's why we supported the previous decision to pause the trial after the MHRA raised concerns, and it is why we now support the decision to start it again.
We will listen to the experts and the clinicians, but to build trust in expert advice, we need transparency and clarity. Throughout this process, we have pushed for exactly this. We want the expert opinions on the public record that allows us, as politicians and the wider public, to approach this issue with clarity and facts, not ideology or misunderstanding. That's why we called for the government to push to publish how the MHRA arrived at their decision when concerns were first raised, and yesterday we called for the Minister to confirm that the MHRA had confirmed that their concerns had been substantially addressed.
Transparency is needed so people
**** Possible New Speaker ****
can be confident that clinical advice is being followed. On that point.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
On that point. I'm afraid I will not. Liberal Democrats have been arguing for many years that improved access to better social specialist health care services for children and young people struggling with their gender identity is extremely important. These young people have been badly let down by low care been badly let down by low care standards and extremely long waiting lists. The closure of the Gids clinic made it clear beyond doubt that change was needed. We have consistently campaigned for real action to tackle the shocking waiting times across the NHS, including for gender identity services.
Liberal Democrats welcome the move to create new regional centres to offer this care to the young people who need it, and there is a need for multiple geographically dispersed clinics, so care is closer to those who need it. But rollout has been slow and more needs to be done to tackle the waiting lists. Quite simply, a three year average wait is not acceptable. For the centres to run effectively, we must support the specialists that provide children and young people with high quality, compassionate and clinically appropriate care.
Treatment. First and foremost should be based on talking therapies, space and time to talk through their feelings is vitally important for young people struggling with their gender identity. It is a deeply complex set of feelings, questioning and understanding one's identity is never an easy thing, especially for a child. For this to be an effective first step, though, children must be able to access talking therapies when they need it, not after years on a waiting list. This debate is about access to a form of healthcare, one that is led by doctors and clinicians.
And like any other form of healthcare, we must listen to the experts, the people who have spent years training and years delivering care. I will not we must never lose sight of the fact that at the core of this debate is young people's well-being and health. It is not about ideology. It is about what is best for young people. The government must always prioritise clinical evidence and put the interests of patients at the heart
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of care. Gender, Women and Equalities Committee.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Committee. Sarah Owen thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker and it's a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Madam Deputy Speaker and it's a pleasure to follow the member from Mid Sussex, and I wholeheartedly agree with her points around the agree with her points around the importance of talking therapies for children who are in gender distress. These are incredibly important tools, but I would say for all children, we need to see greater access to talking therapies in a timely fashion. And before I start, may I say that there is far too
That is better left to experts. The Cass Review, originally commissioned by the Conservatives, was clear that there is a need to gather more evidence. The safety of young people is paramount, and the experts involved in this space know this better than anybody. They work with these children day in, day out, and understand the risks of both action and inaction. That's why we supported the previous decision to pause the trial after the MHRA raised concerns, and it is why we now support the decision to start it again.
We will listen to the experts and the clinicians, but to build trust in expert advice, we need transparency and clarity. Throughout this process, we have pushed for exactly this. We want the expert opinions on the public record that allows us, as politicians and the wider public, to approach this issue with clarity and facts, not ideology or misunderstanding. That's why we called for the government to push to publish how the MHRA arrived at their decision when concerns were first raised, and yesterday we called for the Minister to confirm that the MHRA had confirmed that their concerns had been substantially addressed.
Transparency is needed so people
**** Possible New Speaker ****
can be confident that clinical advice is being followed. On that point.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
On that point. I'm afraid I will not. Liberal Democrats have been arguing for many years that improved access to better social specialist health care services for children and young people struggling with their gender identity is extremely important. These young people have been badly let down by low care been badly let down by low care standards and extremely long waiting lists. The closure of the Gids clinic made it clear beyond doubt that change was needed. We have consistently campaigned for real action to tackle the shocking waiting times across the NHS, including for gender identity services.
Liberal Democrats welcome the move to create new regional centres to offer this care to the young people who need it, and there is a need for multiple geographically dispersed clinics, so care is closer to those who need it. But rollout has been slow and more needs to be done to tackle the waiting lists. Quite simply, a three year average wait is not acceptable. For the centres to run effectively, we must support the specialists that provide children and young people with high quality, compassionate and clinically appropriate care.
Treatment. First and foremost should be based on talking therapies, space and time to talk through their feelings is vitally important for young people struggling with their gender identity. It is a deeply complex set of feelings, questioning and understanding one's identity is never an easy thing, especially for a child. For this to be an effective first step, though, children must be able to access talking therapies when they need it, not after years on a waiting list. This debate is about access to a form of healthcare, one that is led by doctors and clinicians.
And like any other form of healthcare, we must listen to the experts, the people who have spent years training and years delivering care. I will not we must never lose sight of the fact that at the core of this debate is young people's well-being and health. It is not about ideology. It is about what is best for young people. The government must always prioritise clinical evidence and put the interests of patients at the heart
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of care. Gender, Women and Equalities Committee.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Committee. Sarah Owen thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker and it's a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Madam Deputy Speaker and it's a pleasure to follow the member from Mid Sussex, and I wholeheartedly agree with her points around the agree with her points around the importance of talking therapies for children who are in gender distress. These are incredibly important tools, but I would say for all children, we need to see greater access to talking therapies in a timely fashion. And before I start, may I say that there is far too
17:19
Sarah Owen MP (Luton North, Labour)
-
-
Sarah Owen MP (Luton North, Labour)
much debate about trans people? Without them, we would not tolerate Without them, we would not tolerate this in any other debate. But somehow, whether in the media, whether in politics, debate after debate, online, in the media and in debate, online, in the media and in this place, we talk about trans people and people in gender distress without actually acknowledging the fact that we are acknowledging the fact that we are lucky to be born into a body we identify with. I will never know the pain of gender distress.
There are times when I look in the mirror and I think, God, I wish I could change this. Usually I wish I could not look so tired, but I do not know what it is like to not be in a body that I identify with. And I am fortunate and therefore speak from a position of great privilege. So I will start with the words of one of my constituents, an 83 year old trans woman called Tarana. And she said, and I quote, I was born a male, but I have never been a man.
I tried, but I failed. I have always felt female, even at school. As a boy, I was bullied for being and in her words, a sissy. So I left. I'm 83. I have lived my life. This is about the future generations and the others who come next. She discharged herself from hospital to have that conversation with me, because she feels so strongly about the future generations that they should not be bullied for who they are. They should be able to access treatment, and that they should be able to be who they are.
And it is for the future generations of people like Tarana that we must get this right, because too many have lost their lives or have suffered, living a life that was not fully theirs. It is fair to say that there are a varied range of views in the Cass review. However, it. Future. If future access to treatment for gender dysphoria is dependent on more research than. It is vital that the pathways trial goes ahead with the additional safeguards now put in place.
Whatever one's views are on this trial, it is clear that every step has been taken to put the safety of patients at the heart of it. It has been designed by experienced clinical researchers and checked by independent scientists who advise the niHr and included independent academic peer reviewers. This clinical trial, as with all clinical trials, will be overseen by the Data Monitoring Committee as the safety and wellbeing of those taking part is vital. And while all of that should be welcome, all of those safeguards, they are the experts.
After all, when it comes to the medical procedures, to the science, the experts when it comes to individual children, however, are the parents. I think some of the rhetoric around the statement today and yesterday
**** Possible New Speaker ****
has ignored the important role of the parents in this trial. Well.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well. Of course I will. James Asser thank you for giving way. I know her constituents, she has spoken about, and I think she has spoken about, and I think she makes a very valuable point about the need for people who have lived a life, and when these things have been done in ignorance. But her point she makes about parents is key. I have a constituent who is trans, whose parents have been trans, whose parents have been engaged with me and has explained the difficulties that it is of learning to deal with that and how to manage it.
Their voices are
**** Possible New Speaker ****
really important in understanding this alongside the clinicians, the Shrewsbury. Absolutely, and I thank my hon.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Absolutely, and I thank my hon. Friend for his commitment to the Lgbt+ community and for the work Lgbt+ community and for the work that he does and the work that he does with his constituents, because ultimately, we have heard a lot ultimately, we have heard a lot today about throwing children to wild experiments. But actually, this is not what we are talking about. This is done in collaboration with parents, parents who love their children and want the best for them, and with medical professionals who also want the same.
And I think the rhetoric around that really needs to change. No child will be able to take part in the trial without parental consent. That has been confirmed again from the Secretary of State, from the Dispatch Box. And actually, there will, of course, be some children who will never gain their parents consent. And this will be heartbreaking situation for any family. However, there will be many parents who will truly support and know the wishes of their child. They will agree with the suitability of the treatment and want to support them on their journey.
And much has been discussed about the child. But parents have huge agency in this process. We are not just talking to the children, we are talking to adults who want the best for their child, and that should be
**** Possible New Speaker ****
recognised as the people who will want the best for their child. I will give way. Thank my hon. Friend for giving
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank my hon. Friend for giving way and she's making a powerful speech. I have huge respect for her and I completely agree that nobody and I completely agree that nobody here or outside should be looking to disrespect or harm any to disrespect or harm any individual, whatever their age. But talking of parents, would she agree talking of parents, would she agree with me that parents should also be given all the information available around this condition, its treatments and the past that children follow, and that over 93% of children who experience gender dysphoria grow out of it and then are happy in their natural body, that information and other information should be made available to the parents.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and his kind words at the beginning, because I think that the beginning, because I think that is the tone that we need to get right. Information is key, and people need to be able to make informed decisions, whether that is informed decisions, whether that is the child or whether that is a parent, and that needs to be independent information so that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
independent information so that people can make fully informed decisions. On that point, I will. I thank you very much. Just give
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank you very much. Just give a very powerful and moving speech. But further to that point, is it not the case? And does she not agree with me that the motion proposed by the opposition to prevent a clinical trial is not giving people information, options and choices. It's cutting down information, options and choices. And for the 7% or whatever, percent
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of people who won't grow out of gender dysphoria. The A constituent in her 80s that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
A constituent in her 80s that she mentioned, who clearly didn't grow out of her gender dysphoria at 80. This is closing off life saving
**** Possible New Speaker ****
80. This is closing off life saving and life changing treatment for people. I thank my hon. Friend for his powerful intervention and absolutely. Information and scientific evidence is key on this scientific evidence is key on this part, and this will be conducted by experts with patient's best interest at heart. I have heard from the opposition spokesperson as a doctor who cares about her patients, I am sure as much as all of those doctors and clinical specialists that will be involved in all of these trials.
Last year, the Women and Equalities Select Committee held a one off inquiry into the safety and effectiveness of puberty blockers. We stuck to the science. There were different views on the on the panel of witnesses that we had. But I wanted to demonstrate something that hasn't happened very often, sadly, around this topic, that we could discuss this in a sensitive, respectful way, based in fact, not opinion, not for social media clips or for likes down a particular outlet sidebar of shame, but for the good of the people that we represent.
We also examined the use of puberty blockers for other medical purposes, something that has not been discussed today when talking about the risks or perceived risks of puberty blockers. It is commonplace to use puberty blockers for certain cancers, endometriosis and for children experiencing premature sexual maturity, also known as precocious puberty. When it comes to cancers like prostate cancer, the professors on the panel described the need to essentially turn off testosterone. This is now commonplace treatment for prostate cancer.
The other is for endometriosis, and we already know the disgraceful delays in diagnosis and treatment for endometriosis and adenomyosis at least 10 to 13 years, even just for diagnosis. Women are living in pain for far too long, but experts are using puberty blockers to, again, essentially turn off menstruation and oestrogen for women with severe endometriosis.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And when it comes to the I shall. Sorry. I thank the hon. Lady for giving
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way and I'm listening to this very intently. And I wondered, does the intently. And I wondered, does the hon. Lady know what a measure is of hon. Lady know what a measure is of success for this puberty? Blocker success for this puberty? Blocker trial? Is it. If 80% of the children on it are happy with the outcome, is that success? What are the measurements for success? Ultimately, that we that we can
**** Possible New Speaker ****
base this on? I know she's making a very important speech. I need.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I need. To get 12 more members in before the day is done. Thank you. Thank you. I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, and I know that further details will be coming from the Secretary of State as to what is a marker of success, as to what is a marker of success, but I think we have to ask ourselves, what is a marker of success for the individuals and individual families? For some staying in their in their in their sex from birth may look like success.
For others, that won't be the case. This is very much on the individual. And when it comes to puberty blockers, I. I won't give way. I'm going to make some progress. Thanks. As I've been told. And when it comes to the use of puberty blockers for children, this is for children. Treatment of premature sexual maturity or precocious puberty uses puberty blockers for children. Now the professor's reported to our committee. It is recognised as a reversible treatment, with Professor Butler going on to add from follow up studies with children who have received it for precocious puberty, that there are no ill health effects in the long term, nor are there any negative effects on fertility recovery.
Professor Grossman on our panel also pointed to a huge amount of evidence from Harvard University highlighting successful treatment of outcomes in terms of fertility and their subsequent life for girls, prescribed puberty blockers for premature sexual maturity. I'm not going to take any more interventions, as I've been told that I need to crack on the. These are the. These puberty blockers are the same drugs prescribed in the same way. But instead of treating gender distress, they are instead treating prostate cancer, endometriosis, and premature sexual maturity in children.
Yet we have heard no call from scientists, no call from campaigners or the medical community to stop the use of puberty blockers for the treatment and for those who have been critical of this trial. Going ahead, I question what happens if it doesn't for young people experiencing gender distress. Doctor Hilary Cass believes without a trial, young people will continue to get drugs from unregulated, dangerous routes. My Select Committee heard evidence to support this. Unfortunately, young people right now are self-treating because they see no other option available to them.
They are getting hold of medication from abroad with no assessment, no support and no medical advice. I believe Doctor Hilary Cass was right to say she is absolutely convinced that more children will be harmed if we don't do the trial than if we do. For me, safety is paramount, but this is an issue of access to health care, and there should never be a block to health care for anyone. And while the trial goes forward now and beyond, there will be many young people, younger and older who will be scared and frightened about what the future holds.
I hope the Secretary of State, in their response, can address the hostile environment for young trans people and what support outside of legislation and the medical world, needs to be more widely available for people in gender distress and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the entire LGBTQ plus community. Yeah. A couple yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Doctor. Speaker, I frankly cannot believe we are here again. When the believe we are here again. When the pathways clinical trial was paused earlier this year, I felt that there had finally been order.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
there had finally been order. Forgive me. There is a five minute time limit. That's the only way I can incorporate all the way I can incorporate all the backbenchers that are wishing to contribute. Rebecca Paul.
There are times when I look in the mirror and I think, God, I wish I could change this. Usually I wish I could not look so tired, but I do not know what it is like to not be in a body that I identify with. And I am fortunate and therefore speak from a position of great privilege. So I will start with the words of one of my constituents, an 83 year old trans woman called Tarana. And she said, and I quote, I was born a male, but I have never been a man.
I tried, but I failed. I have always felt female, even at school. As a boy, I was bullied for being and in her words, a sissy. So I left. I'm 83. I have lived my life. This is about the future generations and the others who come next. She discharged herself from hospital to have that conversation with me, because she feels so strongly about the future generations that they should not be bullied for who they are. They should be able to access treatment, and that they should be able to be who they are.
And it is for the future generations of people like Tarana that we must get this right, because too many have lost their lives or have suffered, living a life that was not fully theirs. It is fair to say that there are a varied range of views in the Cass review. However, it. Future. If future access to treatment for gender dysphoria is dependent on more research than. It is vital that the pathways trial goes ahead with the additional safeguards now put in place.
Whatever one's views are on this trial, it is clear that every step has been taken to put the safety of patients at the heart of it. It has been designed by experienced clinical researchers and checked by independent scientists who advise the niHr and included independent academic peer reviewers. This clinical trial, as with all clinical trials, will be overseen by the Data Monitoring Committee as the safety and wellbeing of those taking part is vital. And while all of that should be welcome, all of those safeguards, they are the experts.
After all, when it comes to the medical procedures, to the science, the experts when it comes to individual children, however, are the parents. I think some of the rhetoric around the statement today and yesterday
**** Possible New Speaker ****
has ignored the important role of the parents in this trial. Well.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well. Of course I will. James Asser thank you for giving way. I know her constituents, she has spoken about, and I think she has spoken about, and I think she makes a very valuable point about the need for people who have lived a life, and when these things have been done in ignorance. But her point she makes about parents is key. I have a constituent who is trans, whose parents have been trans, whose parents have been engaged with me and has explained the difficulties that it is of learning to deal with that and how to manage it.
Their voices are
**** Possible New Speaker ****
really important in understanding this alongside the clinicians, the Shrewsbury. Absolutely, and I thank my hon.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Absolutely, and I thank my hon. Friend for his commitment to the Lgbt+ community and for the work Lgbt+ community and for the work that he does and the work that he does with his constituents, because ultimately, we have heard a lot ultimately, we have heard a lot today about throwing children to wild experiments. But actually, this is not what we are talking about. This is done in collaboration with parents, parents who love their children and want the best for them, and with medical professionals who also want the same.
And I think the rhetoric around that really needs to change. No child will be able to take part in the trial without parental consent. That has been confirmed again from the Secretary of State, from the Dispatch Box. And actually, there will, of course, be some children who will never gain their parents consent. And this will be heartbreaking situation for any family. However, there will be many parents who will truly support and know the wishes of their child. They will agree with the suitability of the treatment and want to support them on their journey.
And much has been discussed about the child. But parents have huge agency in this process. We are not just talking to the children, we are talking to adults who want the best for their child, and that should be
**** Possible New Speaker ****
recognised as the people who will want the best for their child. I will give way. Thank my hon. Friend for giving
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank my hon. Friend for giving way and she's making a powerful speech. I have huge respect for her and I completely agree that nobody and I completely agree that nobody here or outside should be looking to disrespect or harm any to disrespect or harm any individual, whatever their age. But talking of parents, would she agree talking of parents, would she agree with me that parents should also be given all the information available around this condition, its treatments and the past that children follow, and that over 93% of children who experience gender dysphoria grow out of it and then are happy in their natural body, that information and other information should be made available to the parents.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and his kind words at the beginning, because I think that the beginning, because I think that is the tone that we need to get right. Information is key, and people need to be able to make informed decisions, whether that is informed decisions, whether that is the child or whether that is a parent, and that needs to be independent information so that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
independent information so that people can make fully informed decisions. On that point, I will. I thank you very much. Just give
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank you very much. Just give a very powerful and moving speech. But further to that point, is it not the case? And does she not agree with me that the motion proposed by the opposition to prevent a clinical trial is not giving people information, options and choices. It's cutting down information, options and choices. And for the 7% or whatever, percent
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of people who won't grow out of gender dysphoria. The A constituent in her 80s that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
A constituent in her 80s that she mentioned, who clearly didn't grow out of her gender dysphoria at 80. This is closing off life saving
**** Possible New Speaker ****
80. This is closing off life saving and life changing treatment for people. I thank my hon. Friend for his powerful intervention and absolutely. Information and scientific evidence is key on this scientific evidence is key on this part, and this will be conducted by experts with patient's best interest at heart. I have heard from the opposition spokesperson as a doctor who cares about her patients, I am sure as much as all of those doctors and clinical specialists that will be involved in all of these trials.
Last year, the Women and Equalities Select Committee held a one off inquiry into the safety and effectiveness of puberty blockers. We stuck to the science. There were different views on the on the panel of witnesses that we had. But I wanted to demonstrate something that hasn't happened very often, sadly, around this topic, that we could discuss this in a sensitive, respectful way, based in fact, not opinion, not for social media clips or for likes down a particular outlet sidebar of shame, but for the good of the people that we represent.
We also examined the use of puberty blockers for other medical purposes, something that has not been discussed today when talking about the risks or perceived risks of puberty blockers. It is commonplace to use puberty blockers for certain cancers, endometriosis and for children experiencing premature sexual maturity, also known as precocious puberty. When it comes to cancers like prostate cancer, the professors on the panel described the need to essentially turn off testosterone. This is now commonplace treatment for prostate cancer.
The other is for endometriosis, and we already know the disgraceful delays in diagnosis and treatment for endometriosis and adenomyosis at least 10 to 13 years, even just for diagnosis. Women are living in pain for far too long, but experts are using puberty blockers to, again, essentially turn off menstruation and oestrogen for women with severe endometriosis.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And when it comes to the I shall. Sorry. I thank the hon. Lady for giving
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way and I'm listening to this very intently. And I wondered, does the intently. And I wondered, does the hon. Lady know what a measure is of hon. Lady know what a measure is of success for this puberty? Blocker success for this puberty? Blocker trial? Is it. If 80% of the children on it are happy with the outcome, is that success? What are the measurements for success? Ultimately, that we that we can
**** Possible New Speaker ****
base this on? I know she's making a very important speech. I need.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I need. To get 12 more members in before the day is done. Thank you. Thank you. I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, and I know that further details will be coming from the Secretary of State as to what is a marker of success, as to what is a marker of success, but I think we have to ask ourselves, what is a marker of success for the individuals and individual families? For some staying in their in their in their sex from birth may look like success.
For others, that won't be the case. This is very much on the individual. And when it comes to puberty blockers, I. I won't give way. I'm going to make some progress. Thanks. As I've been told. And when it comes to the use of puberty blockers for children, this is for children. Treatment of premature sexual maturity or precocious puberty uses puberty blockers for children. Now the professor's reported to our committee. It is recognised as a reversible treatment, with Professor Butler going on to add from follow up studies with children who have received it for precocious puberty, that there are no ill health effects in the long term, nor are there any negative effects on fertility recovery.
Professor Grossman on our panel also pointed to a huge amount of evidence from Harvard University highlighting successful treatment of outcomes in terms of fertility and their subsequent life for girls, prescribed puberty blockers for premature sexual maturity. I'm not going to take any more interventions, as I've been told that I need to crack on the. These are the. These puberty blockers are the same drugs prescribed in the same way. But instead of treating gender distress, they are instead treating prostate cancer, endometriosis, and premature sexual maturity in children.
Yet we have heard no call from scientists, no call from campaigners or the medical community to stop the use of puberty blockers for the treatment and for those who have been critical of this trial. Going ahead, I question what happens if it doesn't for young people experiencing gender distress. Doctor Hilary Cass believes without a trial, young people will continue to get drugs from unregulated, dangerous routes. My Select Committee heard evidence to support this. Unfortunately, young people right now are self-treating because they see no other option available to them.
They are getting hold of medication from abroad with no assessment, no support and no medical advice. I believe Doctor Hilary Cass was right to say she is absolutely convinced that more children will be harmed if we don't do the trial than if we do. For me, safety is paramount, but this is an issue of access to health care, and there should never be a block to health care for anyone. And while the trial goes forward now and beyond, there will be many young people, younger and older who will be scared and frightened about what the future holds.
I hope the Secretary of State, in their response, can address the hostile environment for young trans people and what support outside of legislation and the medical world, needs to be more widely available for people in gender distress and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the entire LGBTQ plus community. Yeah. A couple yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Doctor. Speaker, I frankly cannot believe we are here again. When the believe we are here again. When the pathways clinical trial was paused earlier this year, I felt that there had finally been order.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
there had finally been order. Forgive me. There is a five minute time limit. That's the only way I can incorporate all the way I can incorporate all the backbenchers that are wishing to contribute. Rebecca Paul.
17:32
Rebecca Paul MP (Reigate, Conservative)
-
-
Rebecca Paul MP (Reigate, Conservative)
OK, yesterday, even the >> OK, yesterday, even the Secretary of State for health, the second one to do so, in fact, conceded that he is uneasy, even conceded that he is uneasy, even uncomfortable. I would suggest that his discomfort is nothing next to the lifelong damage the trial will potentially do to an extremely vulnerable cohort of children that we should be protecting. That funny feeling in his stomach. Oh, he's left. That's his good judgement trying to be heard. He won't hear it if he's gone out there.
It is not too late for him to listen to it. As one of my hon. Friends said yesterday, I too believe he is a good man, being placed under intolerable pressure on this issue, that he needs to find his courage. We know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the number of children and young people presenting to the UK, NHS with gender distress increased dramatically in the years after 2009, with an exponential rise from around 2014. What is behind the increase among Gen Z is unclear, and the reasons are likely to be multifaceted.
It is speculated that the factors may include 24 over seven internet access, increased acceptance of trans identities, or even peer social and cultural influences. Over the last 20 years, we have seen groups such as Stonewall and Mermaids call for better access to treatment and more rights for trans people. Large corporates have gone big on diversity and inclusion to boost their brands impactful TV dramas,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
and I will, of course give way. I I'm I'm slightly concerned.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I I'm I'm slightly concerned. Thank you, thank you. I am slightly. Concerned about the idea that trans acceptance is part of the trans acceptance is part of the problem. Does the hon. Member accept that trans acceptance is completely reasonable and that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
completely reasonable and that trans people have always been here? I thank the hon. Lady for the intervention. I, I, I'm not saying intervention. I, I, I'm not saying it's a negative thing. I'm trying to explain why we've seen an increase in the numbers of young people with gender dysphoria. I'm using those stating facts as we were just talking about the importance of doing that. So in 2009, only 51 patients were referred to Gids, the NHS Gender Identity Development Service for children, of whom two thirds were male.
In 2016, there were 1766 referrals and two thirds of them were female. That is quite the change. There has been an overall surge in the number of children suffering gender distress, but the increase is especially notable among girls. We also see overrepresentation of neurodiversity, mental health issues and trauma in this group. To put it another way, these children are much more likely to have been in care to suffer with anxiety and depression, to be autistic and to have been abused. It is a group of incredibly vulnerable children.
Gids was established in 1989. Its main approach to treatment at that time was therapeutic, referred to as watchful waiting. Early studies from the 1980s showed that in around 85% of cases, the gender incongruence or distress ceased in the child after going through puberty. Later studies reached a similar conclusion, with between 67% and 90% desisting. After puberty, only a small cohort of children continue to experience gender dysphoria or incongruence after puberty, and it was that extremely small group who would likely adopt a permanent trans
**** Possible New Speaker ****
identity in adulthood. My hon. Friend, give way. I will, of course, give way. I thank.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank. My hon. Friend for giving way. Recently, the government has announced that they are going to be announced that they are going to be legislating to prevent under 16 seconds from viewing social media. So social media, we already ban So social media, we already ban under 16 seconds from drinking alcohol and smoking, because we do not believe that they should be, that they should they should be protected from doing things now that may have impact on them negatively later in life, particularly in their health.
Does my hon. Friend think that should sit in this category of protections for children?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I completely agree with him. A child of this age with him. A child of this age cannot possibly consent to the life changing, irreversible changes that come from puberty blockers. And the come from puberty blockers. And the thing we need to remember is that when a child, almost all of them when a child, almost all of them that start puberty blockers go on to cross-sex hormones, and there's no going back from that. We also no going back from that.
We also need to remember we have already had a trial in the UK. So when we started using puberty blockers in the UK after 2011, the preliminary results came out in 20 1516 and did not demonstrate psychological benefits, with some of the females actually suffering a worsening of symptoms, including higher incidence of wanting to hurt or kill themselves. The results of the study, which were not formally published in 2000 to 2020, demonstrated no statistically significant improvement in gender dysphoria or mental health outcomes.
It is also important to remember the early studies that told us, in a majority of cases, going through puberty resolves gender distress. It follows, therefore, that stopping or delaying puberty using medication derails that natural
**** Possible New Speaker ****
desistance, essentially locking in. I will, of course, give way. Thank you. Thank you to the hon.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you. Thank you to the hon. Member. And as as a member of a political class and a medical class, would she not accept that it's would she not accept that it's better for politicians to accept advice from medical experts around medical issues?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
medical issues? I think my hon. Friend for that excellent question. So I obviously always respect and listen to different clinicians, but what is happening with this debate is one set of clinicians with one view are being listened to. And let me remind everyone about lobotomies. There were lots of very respected people that came out with lobotomies. In fact, someone, the person behind it won a Nobel Prize. And I think we would all agree that those clinicians got that wrong.
So it's really incumbent upon us in this House to always question. So I think it's absolutely right that we listen to clinicians. But unfortunately, we are seeing only one set of clinicians with one set of opinions being listened to here. I would also just like to highlight that a Finnish study was published in April this year, which looked at more than 2000 adolescents and young adults who had been referred to gender services. It found that medical interventions did not reduce psychiatric problems and may even be associated with worsening mental health.
So how many times have we heard it said that puberty blockers offer a pathway towards improved mental health and reduce psychiatric distress for those struggling with gender identity? I've lost count. But there is hard evidence that not only says different. It says the opposite. So I'd be keen to understand from the Minister and the Secretary of State whether this study has been taken into account before deciding to go ahead with the trial. I think the other thing I just want to point out is the fact that young people, children that would grow up to be same sex attracted are overrepresented in this, in this cohort.
And that is something we really need to think about. And if you look at the case of Keira Bell, she was a lesbian struggling with her sexuality. And instead of people saying it's OK, it's OK to find girls, other women attractive, there's nothing wrong with that. You do not need to change your body. But instead people said, oh, you've got gender dysphoria. And they put her on to puberty blockers. And then she went on to testosterone shots. She then had her breasts removed in a double mastectomy, and then she detransitioned.
So I would say to everyone, this is a deeply homophobic approach to healthcare. It is, it is. And those people on the other side of the benches, on the other side of the argument, this they they think they have the progressive position. But I'm sorry, you are repeating mistakes that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
have been made historically. And obviously I've not said anything, so I'm not repeating
**** Possible New Speaker ****
anything, so I'm not repeating anything. It's no use. And yours. Richard Quigley. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. I must confess that opposition days are beginning to feel a little bit like Groundhog Day. In a party that largely sat on its hands during largely sat on its hands during some of the most significant and difficult challenges, is now returning to tell us where we're getting this government is going getting this government is going wrong. And doing so with all the fervour of a party has never held power, let alone govern for 14 years.
This is a deeply and just a warning. I won't be taking interventions. This is a deeply emotional issue, and I recognise that it provokes strong and differing views across the House. I am not here to shout down or dismiss any perspective. I have never had to face this decision myself, either as a parent or as a young person. It is a decision that invites intense scrutiny and judgement, often unfairly casting those involved as villains for doing what they believe is right for a child.
We would all do well to remember that we can never truly know what is like to walk in someone else's shoes. Yet too often this debate has been shaped by vilification and misinformation, much of it amplified by opposition voices and anonymous social media accounts, again to the detriment of one of our most vulnerable communities, we hear the warped suggestion that people simply wake
It is not too late for him to listen to it. As one of my hon. Friends said yesterday, I too believe he is a good man, being placed under intolerable pressure on this issue, that he needs to find his courage. We know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the number of children and young people presenting to the UK, NHS with gender distress increased dramatically in the years after 2009, with an exponential rise from around 2014. What is behind the increase among Gen Z is unclear, and the reasons are likely to be multifaceted.
It is speculated that the factors may include 24 over seven internet access, increased acceptance of trans identities, or even peer social and cultural influences. Over the last 20 years, we have seen groups such as Stonewall and Mermaids call for better access to treatment and more rights for trans people. Large corporates have gone big on diversity and inclusion to boost their brands impactful TV dramas,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
and I will, of course give way. I I'm I'm slightly concerned.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I I'm I'm slightly concerned. Thank you, thank you. I am slightly. Concerned about the idea that trans acceptance is part of the trans acceptance is part of the problem. Does the hon. Member accept that trans acceptance is completely reasonable and that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
completely reasonable and that trans people have always been here? I thank the hon. Lady for the intervention. I, I, I'm not saying intervention. I, I, I'm not saying it's a negative thing. I'm trying to explain why we've seen an increase in the numbers of young people with gender dysphoria. I'm using those stating facts as we were just talking about the importance of doing that. So in 2009, only 51 patients were referred to Gids, the NHS Gender Identity Development Service for children, of whom two thirds were male.
In 2016, there were 1766 referrals and two thirds of them were female. That is quite the change. There has been an overall surge in the number of children suffering gender distress, but the increase is especially notable among girls. We also see overrepresentation of neurodiversity, mental health issues and trauma in this group. To put it another way, these children are much more likely to have been in care to suffer with anxiety and depression, to be autistic and to have been abused. It is a group of incredibly vulnerable children.
Gids was established in 1989. Its main approach to treatment at that time was therapeutic, referred to as watchful waiting. Early studies from the 1980s showed that in around 85% of cases, the gender incongruence or distress ceased in the child after going through puberty. Later studies reached a similar conclusion, with between 67% and 90% desisting. After puberty, only a small cohort of children continue to experience gender dysphoria or incongruence after puberty, and it was that extremely small group who would likely adopt a permanent trans
**** Possible New Speaker ****
identity in adulthood. My hon. Friend, give way. I will, of course, give way. I thank.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank. My hon. Friend for giving way. Recently, the government has announced that they are going to be announced that they are going to be legislating to prevent under 16 seconds from viewing social media. So social media, we already ban So social media, we already ban under 16 seconds from drinking alcohol and smoking, because we do not believe that they should be, that they should they should be protected from doing things now that may have impact on them negatively later in life, particularly in their health.
Does my hon. Friend think that should sit in this category of protections for children?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I completely agree with him. A child of this age with him. A child of this age cannot possibly consent to the life changing, irreversible changes that come from puberty blockers. And the come from puberty blockers. And the thing we need to remember is that when a child, almost all of them when a child, almost all of them that start puberty blockers go on to cross-sex hormones, and there's no going back from that. We also no going back from that.
We also need to remember we have already had a trial in the UK. So when we started using puberty blockers in the UK after 2011, the preliminary results came out in 20 1516 and did not demonstrate psychological benefits, with some of the females actually suffering a worsening of symptoms, including higher incidence of wanting to hurt or kill themselves. The results of the study, which were not formally published in 2000 to 2020, demonstrated no statistically significant improvement in gender dysphoria or mental health outcomes.
It is also important to remember the early studies that told us, in a majority of cases, going through puberty resolves gender distress. It follows, therefore, that stopping or delaying puberty using medication derails that natural
**** Possible New Speaker ****
desistance, essentially locking in. I will, of course, give way. Thank you. Thank you to the hon.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you. Thank you to the hon. Member. And as as a member of a political class and a medical class, would she not accept that it's would she not accept that it's better for politicians to accept advice from medical experts around medical issues?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
medical issues? I think my hon. Friend for that excellent question. So I obviously always respect and listen to different clinicians, but what is happening with this debate is one set of clinicians with one view are being listened to. And let me remind everyone about lobotomies. There were lots of very respected people that came out with lobotomies. In fact, someone, the person behind it won a Nobel Prize. And I think we would all agree that those clinicians got that wrong.
So it's really incumbent upon us in this House to always question. So I think it's absolutely right that we listen to clinicians. But unfortunately, we are seeing only one set of clinicians with one set of opinions being listened to here. I would also just like to highlight that a Finnish study was published in April this year, which looked at more than 2000 adolescents and young adults who had been referred to gender services. It found that medical interventions did not reduce psychiatric problems and may even be associated with worsening mental health.
So how many times have we heard it said that puberty blockers offer a pathway towards improved mental health and reduce psychiatric distress for those struggling with gender identity? I've lost count. But there is hard evidence that not only says different. It says the opposite. So I'd be keen to understand from the Minister and the Secretary of State whether this study has been taken into account before deciding to go ahead with the trial. I think the other thing I just want to point out is the fact that young people, children that would grow up to be same sex attracted are overrepresented in this, in this cohort.
And that is something we really need to think about. And if you look at the case of Keira Bell, she was a lesbian struggling with her sexuality. And instead of people saying it's OK, it's OK to find girls, other women attractive, there's nothing wrong with that. You do not need to change your body. But instead people said, oh, you've got gender dysphoria. And they put her on to puberty blockers. And then she went on to testosterone shots. She then had her breasts removed in a double mastectomy, and then she detransitioned.
So I would say to everyone, this is a deeply homophobic approach to healthcare. It is, it is. And those people on the other side of the benches, on the other side of the argument, this they they think they have the progressive position. But I'm sorry, you are repeating mistakes that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
have been made historically. And obviously I've not said anything, so I'm not repeating
**** Possible New Speaker ****
anything, so I'm not repeating anything. It's no use. And yours. Richard Quigley. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. I must confess that opposition days are beginning to feel a little bit like Groundhog Day. In a party that largely sat on its hands during largely sat on its hands during some of the most significant and difficult challenges, is now returning to tell us where we're getting this government is going getting this government is going wrong. And doing so with all the fervour of a party has never held power, let alone govern for 14 years.
This is a deeply and just a warning. I won't be taking interventions. This is a deeply emotional issue, and I recognise that it provokes strong and differing views across the House. I am not here to shout down or dismiss any perspective. I have never had to face this decision myself, either as a parent or as a young person. It is a decision that invites intense scrutiny and judgement, often unfairly casting those involved as villains for doing what they believe is right for a child.
We would all do well to remember that we can never truly know what is like to walk in someone else's shoes. Yet too often this debate has been shaped by vilification and misinformation, much of it amplified by opposition voices and anonymous social media accounts, again to the detriment of one of our most vulnerable communities, we hear the warped suggestion that people simply wake
17:41
Richard Quigley MP (Isle of Wight West, Labour)
-
-
Richard Quigley MP (Isle of Wight West, Labour)
up one day and decide on a whim to embark on years of hormone treatment, to face discrimination treatment, to face discrimination and to fight for legal recognition or, worse, that clinicians involved are reckless experimenters intent are reckless experimenters intent on subjecting vulnerable children to harm. The Conservatives are, of course, entitled to their opposition, but what is the opposition, but what is the alternative? They are actually proposing? As usual, they found an apparent problem. But where is apparent problem. But where is their suggested solution? Is it a return to a time when children experiencing gender incongruence were ignored or dismissed as an inconvenience? That approach belongs to the era of section 28, not to 2026.
If the answer is an outright ban, they risk driving vulnerable young people into what Doctor Hilary Cass has described as, I quote, unregulated and dangerous routes. We are already seeing reports of children presenting at clinics, having already accessed irreversible treatments at a very young age. The outrage we hear today about so-called experimentation rings hollow when it is accompanied by no viable alternative, only return to the same vacuum that previously existed. I do not suggest that this trial provide all the answers, but is undeniably better than turning our backs on a complex reality and leaving young people without safe supported, I won't.
I'm afraid indeed, indeed, if we can't trust up to Hilary Cass, the author of a report, The Conservative. I did warn you the Conservative Party, and I do like the hon. Gentleman very much. Conservative party itself has endured not enough to give way is endorsed when she says, and I quote again, that she is absolutely convinced that more children will be harmed if we don't do the trial than if we do, then who exactly are we prepared to trust? Do we follow the evidence, the clinicians and the science? Or do we retreat into denial, burying our heads in the sand, pretending that trans people do not exist and have never existed? The process the government have chosen is to follow is not reckless.
It is rigorous. The MHRA and King's College London have undertaken detailed scientific scrutiny, and a revised protocol has been agreed that meets the highest regulatory and ethical standards. That is exactly what responsible evidence led policy making looks like. So it is up to us to decide what kind of Parliament we want to be, one that confronts complex and sensitive issues with care and compassion and evidence, or one that turns away, leaving vulnerable young people to navigate these challenges alone and in the shadows.
For me, the choice is clear we owe it to those young people not to look away, not to inflame and not to exploit, but to act guided by science, led by compassion and grounded in responsibility. And I'm once again proud to be part of a government that is doing just that.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Ashfield Madam Deputy Speaker. Last autumn, on the announcement of the trial of puberty blockers on children, a cross-party coalition of members and peers assembled who of members and peers assembled who have serious concerns and are campaigning together for the government to reverse this terrible decision from across the political decision from across the political spectrum. Members as diverse as the independent group, the Lib Dems, independent group, the Lib Dems, DUP, Tories reform Labour and restore not usually in agreement on most political issues.
Working together on something we believe is about the fundamental safeguarding and protection of children. The previous Secretary of State held a meeting for members and peers, which allowed us to directly question those responsible for overseeing the trial. I had one main question is there a lower age limit? And I was told no, categorically no. So a child presenting with possible gender dysphoria pre-puberty could actually have been as young as eight years old. Thankfully, in this latest evolution, the trial seems to have been now excluded those younger children and were told it's for those aged 11 and over.
But an 11 year old child also has no possible way of envisaging life changing pathways. Future possibly serious health issues, regret, infertility damage, sexual function. The Health Secretary talked yesterday of consent or assent being given by those children. We are told that at least one parent must consent. You don't have to be a genius to work out that that's a future nuclear missile aimed directly at the family courts separated parents, many of whom will not agree with each other about whether to affirm
If the answer is an outright ban, they risk driving vulnerable young people into what Doctor Hilary Cass has described as, I quote, unregulated and dangerous routes. We are already seeing reports of children presenting at clinics, having already accessed irreversible treatments at a very young age. The outrage we hear today about so-called experimentation rings hollow when it is accompanied by no viable alternative, only return to the same vacuum that previously existed. I do not suggest that this trial provide all the answers, but is undeniably better than turning our backs on a complex reality and leaving young people without safe supported, I won't.
I'm afraid indeed, indeed, if we can't trust up to Hilary Cass, the author of a report, The Conservative. I did warn you the Conservative Party, and I do like the hon. Gentleman very much. Conservative party itself has endured not enough to give way is endorsed when she says, and I quote again, that she is absolutely convinced that more children will be harmed if we don't do the trial than if we do, then who exactly are we prepared to trust? Do we follow the evidence, the clinicians and the science? Or do we retreat into denial, burying our heads in the sand, pretending that trans people do not exist and have never existed? The process the government have chosen is to follow is not reckless.
It is rigorous. The MHRA and King's College London have undertaken detailed scientific scrutiny, and a revised protocol has been agreed that meets the highest regulatory and ethical standards. That is exactly what responsible evidence led policy making looks like. So it is up to us to decide what kind of Parliament we want to be, one that confronts complex and sensitive issues with care and compassion and evidence, or one that turns away, leaving vulnerable young people to navigate these challenges alone and in the shadows.
For me, the choice is clear we owe it to those young people not to look away, not to inflame and not to exploit, but to act guided by science, led by compassion and grounded in responsibility. And I'm once again proud to be part of a government that is doing just that.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Ashfield Madam Deputy Speaker. Last autumn, on the announcement of the trial of puberty blockers on children, a cross-party coalition of members and peers assembled who of members and peers assembled who have serious concerns and are campaigning together for the government to reverse this terrible decision from across the political decision from across the political spectrum. Members as diverse as the independent group, the Lib Dems, independent group, the Lib Dems, DUP, Tories reform Labour and restore not usually in agreement on most political issues.
Working together on something we believe is about the fundamental safeguarding and protection of children. The previous Secretary of State held a meeting for members and peers, which allowed us to directly question those responsible for overseeing the trial. I had one main question is there a lower age limit? And I was told no, categorically no. So a child presenting with possible gender dysphoria pre-puberty could actually have been as young as eight years old. Thankfully, in this latest evolution, the trial seems to have been now excluded those younger children and were told it's for those aged 11 and over.
But an 11 year old child also has no possible way of envisaging life changing pathways. Future possibly serious health issues, regret, infertility damage, sexual function. The Health Secretary talked yesterday of consent or assent being given by those children. We are told that at least one parent must consent. You don't have to be a genius to work out that that's a future nuclear missile aimed directly at the family courts separated parents, many of whom will not agree with each other about whether to affirm
17:45
Rosie Duffield MP (Canterbury, Independent)
-
-
Rosie Duffield MP (Canterbury, Independent)
their child's chosen gender identity, how to treat their gender distress, what, if any, social distress, what, if any, social transition to accommodate at home or school will be potentially battling each other over whether or not their child should be participating in this or future trials, all while their trials, all while their pre-pubescent son or daughter begs for the medical treatment they believe with all of their hearts, will save all of their discomfort will save all of their discomfort and distress. There are many clinicians experts who worked at the Tavistock and informed journalist Hannah Barnes, award winning investigations for Newsnight and subsequent book Time to Think, who are totally opposed to this trial.
We have had meetings with several of them, including Marcus Evans and Susan Evans. Marcus is a former former Tavistock consultant, psychotherapist and psychoanalyst employed by the Portman NHS trust for 35 years, including as the head of nursing. Sue is also a psychoanalytic psychotherapist and mental health nurse, formerly Gids. They both argue against the affirmative only model of treatment, such as the use of puberty blocking drugs, as it masks underlying issues such as childhood trauma or autism. Along with psychologist Stella O'Malley and James Essex, both with years of experience of treating children and young people experiencing gender dysphoria, they are completely against the pathways trial, and the treatment pathway puts very young people on.
Detransitioners often experience years of extreme distress and choose not to speak publicly about their own personal stories, but some would willingly engage with Ministers and members Keira Bell, Richie Heron, Philippa Roberts, Johnny Skinner to name a few who have bravely shared their heartbreaking experiences of severe treatments, irreversible surgeries, mental health battles and years of painful regret. Although we have had nine health secretaries in just nine years, anyone in this post, however briefly given the power to sign off such an enormously consequential trial with huge potential for future investigations, must at the very least engage with those who've treated and been treated for this condition.
I cannot think of any valid arguments against doing so and hearing from both sides of the argument. There are so many other reasons for stopping the plans for this trial. Most of all, proper analysis of the data that already exists, along with the conservative government's previous decision to ban the use of these drugs on children, the DLS study complete completion is the strongest reason, along with the social, psychological and physical reasons already heard. Myself and the cross-party coalition will not stop campaigning until this dangerous experiment on children is cancelled for good.
Puberty is a natural, necessary life stage, a right. We should be able to help and support young people through it until they are old enough to make
**** Possible New Speaker ****
life changing decisions with certainty and the maturity they lack as young children. Hear, hear.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Sir. Thank you. Thank you, Madam
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. So this has been an interesting debate so far, and I really was really grateful to be able to follow the Member for Canterbury, who I know has worked so much in this area. I think it's not an easy issue. I think we all acknowledge that, and I think we should if we're not doing so in our speech and. But the reason why I'm here is that back when I was trying to get elected in 2024, I met the mother of a young trans woman.
And she told me about how when her daughter was entering puberty, that's when she really started to come to terms with who she was. And that led her to stop eating because she didn't want to go into puberty, and her condition got so bad that she had to get taken to hospital and she almost died. So we shouldn't view this as a lifestyle choice. And we shouldn't we shouldn't think that doing nothing comes with no consequences. I know not all cases are the same, but the reality is that doing nothing is not the answer.
We do have to answer these questions. So I welcome the news this week that the trial is set to go ahead. Since the
We have had meetings with several of them, including Marcus Evans and Susan Evans. Marcus is a former former Tavistock consultant, psychotherapist and psychoanalyst employed by the Portman NHS trust for 35 years, including as the head of nursing. Sue is also a psychoanalytic psychotherapist and mental health nurse, formerly Gids. They both argue against the affirmative only model of treatment, such as the use of puberty blocking drugs, as it masks underlying issues such as childhood trauma or autism. Along with psychologist Stella O'Malley and James Essex, both with years of experience of treating children and young people experiencing gender dysphoria, they are completely against the pathways trial, and the treatment pathway puts very young people on.
Detransitioners often experience years of extreme distress and choose not to speak publicly about their own personal stories, but some would willingly engage with Ministers and members Keira Bell, Richie Heron, Philippa Roberts, Johnny Skinner to name a few who have bravely shared their heartbreaking experiences of severe treatments, irreversible surgeries, mental health battles and years of painful regret. Although we have had nine health secretaries in just nine years, anyone in this post, however briefly given the power to sign off such an enormously consequential trial with huge potential for future investigations, must at the very least engage with those who've treated and been treated for this condition.
I cannot think of any valid arguments against doing so and hearing from both sides of the argument. There are so many other reasons for stopping the plans for this trial. Most of all, proper analysis of the data that already exists, along with the conservative government's previous decision to ban the use of these drugs on children, the DLS study complete completion is the strongest reason, along with the social, psychological and physical reasons already heard. Myself and the cross-party coalition will not stop campaigning until this dangerous experiment on children is cancelled for good.
Puberty is a natural, necessary life stage, a right. We should be able to help and support young people through it until they are old enough to make
**** Possible New Speaker ****
life changing decisions with certainty and the maturity they lack as young children. Hear, hear.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Sir. Thank you. Thank you, Madam
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. So this has been an interesting debate so far, and I really was really grateful to be able to follow the Member for Canterbury, who I know has worked so much in this area. I think it's not an easy issue. I think we all acknowledge that, and I think we should if we're not doing so in our speech and. But the reason why I'm here is that back when I was trying to get elected in 2024, I met the mother of a young trans woman.
And she told me about how when her daughter was entering puberty, that's when she really started to come to terms with who she was. And that led her to stop eating because she didn't want to go into puberty, and her condition got so bad that she had to get taken to hospital and she almost died. So we shouldn't view this as a lifestyle choice. And we shouldn't we shouldn't think that doing nothing comes with no consequences. I know not all cases are the same, but the reality is that doing nothing is not the answer.
We do have to answer these questions. So I welcome the news this week that the trial is set to go ahead. Since the
17:49
Dr Scott Arthur MP (Edinburgh South West, Labour)
-
-
Dr Scott Arthur MP (Edinburgh South West, Labour)
government announced an indefinite pause on prescription of puberty blockers last year, both young people and clinicians have been stuck in limbo. This uncertainty has helped no one, not the young people who are desperate for medical support, or the researchers that need to gather data to fully understand the effects of these drugs. It is right that this renewed permission, however, for a trial is based on clinical judgement and not political discourse. We should be less led by science, not politics, where the health of our young people are concerned.
King's College and the MHRA have worked extensively to propose a safe and ethical trial, increasing safeguards since March and continuing dialogue with the Health Research Authority. I understand the concerns around the trial, and I think we all should. We all want to ensure the safety of the children involved. Nonetheless, it is time that we find a way forward that balances both the safety of the young people involved and the opportunity to enhance care that we provide for children struggling with their gender identity.
At the moment, far too often this care is lacking. Many of the party opposite have consistently called for the full implementation of the cartridge. She was quoted multiple times. Baroness Cass by the the opposition front Bench in the introduction of this debate. And yet they have called in this debate today to pause the trial, despite that being one of the recommendations of Baroness Cass. I ask why they are not willing to listen to Baroness Cass on that single issue. In her original review in 2024, Doctor Cass made clear that research into puberty blockers was necessary.
Not just this week. Sorry. Now, just this week, she has said that the trial to examine the risks and the benefits of puberty blockers will reduce harm, not cause it. In fact, she goes further, telling us that the debate about the risks of puberty blockers has been exaggerated. And I think we have seen some of that today, if we are
**** Possible New Speaker ****
honest and on this point, she is absolutely right. Happy to give way. My hon. Friend, for giving way. The conservative government commissioned the Cass Review in their 2024 manifesto. The Conservatives committed to Conservatives committed to implement the review in full, which includes a trial. But as my hon. Friend is saying here, they now Friend is saying here, they now propose for this motion to stop that trial. Isn't that proof that we actually need to have a trial, we actually need to have a trial, that we need to be taking the party politics out of this? We need to be stopping politicians from being the lead commentators, and we need to put this in the hands of the families and the clinicians.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Exactly. Brian Leishman is is a respected expert in this field. She made recommendations which were made recommendations which were which were broadly, broadly accepted, but we should be using accepted, but we should be using science as a basis for decision making, not rejecting her findings purely on the basis of politics. And I will go back to what I said at the start. Doing nothing will at the start. Doing nothing will lead to young, our young people being harmed, and that is an incredibly important point.
We cannot rely on debates in this place to decide how and when puberty blockers should be used. Rather, we should be relying on thorough scientific research carried out in a proper trial conditions led by medical experts. And we heard earlier our front bench explaining some of the detail around protections for our young people. Doctor Klass is also clear that more children will be harmed by preventing the trial than allowing one to go ahead. That is an incredibly important point.
Preventing a trial drives children who are desperate to look online or internationally for unregulated hormones or hormone suppressants. This leads to young people to to unsafe puberty blockers or beginning to take hormones such as testosterone, which a much earlier stage, which are irreversible. Once they start to take hold. We can prevent this by providing properly regulated use of puberty blockers in the UK via this trial. This trial will provide that understanding and will allow clinicians to effectively guide government on our next step.
It is right that the right and necessary thing to do for the government, for clinicians and for our young people. We need to take better care of our young people, and we need to do this via a clinical trial. I want to say, again, doing nothing. It makes me seem like the easy thing to do, but it will come with consequences, and I really do hope we hear more from the opposition bench about what they think the consequences of doing nothing will be for the health and wellbeing of our young people.
We did not hear that. I will give way because I came to speak.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I am grateful to the. Hon. Gentleman, my hon. Friend for Reigate mentioned the studies for Reigate mentioned the studies that have been done in Finland recently published. Does he not think there may be any merit in waiting to see what the Finnish tests and trials throw up, to see tests and trials throw up, to see what we can learn from them, rather than replicate or duplicate here,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
than replicate or duplicate here, international science should surely be respected. This is a really good point, a fantastic point actually, so I do welcome it. I was, until I was unexpectedly elected, I was an academic in what I learned was never to focus on a single study when you're doing research, because that's, that's basically an anecdote. What you have to do is look at the breadth of the research we've seen. We've seen, we see exactly the same, if I may say so.
And the climate change debate, the broad spectrum of science supports the argument around climate change. But there is always 1 or 2 contrary views which are welcome. But we do not base our view on just on one study. We will look at the breadth of the research. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question the reason I'm here today is for the protection of children. It's the reason I care children. It's the reason I care about banning social media. It's the reason I'm here speaking on puberty blockers, because it's about what young people under the age of consent, who we would protect from alcohol, heroin, sexual abuse. We would be protecting them because they're children under the age of 18. And children under the age of 18. And this puberty blockers trial for 11 year olds makes me feel that.
Are we putting sufficient safeguards in place for these young people, and do they have the cognitive ability to understand what they are doing? Do they have the cognitive development in their brains to understand that when their brain is fully developed, they have made a choice that is irreversible for the rest of their lives? And we talk about giving consent to these children. What about a class action lawsuit? When when you said when people have referred to, OK, 7% of people want to, you know, continue with the therapy and they're happy, that's 7%.
What about if this trial goes ahead? When when they're 18, when they're 25 and a percentage, which inevitably will happen, will decide they don't want to continue in the gender that they've chosen as a child, and they want to go back to the gender that they were before. How what are they going to do? Are they going to sue the government? Are they going to sue the clinicians for the trial because they were forced into and coerced into something that they didn't fully understand? How can we didn't fully understand? How can we measure that as as, yes, I'll give way.
King's College and the MHRA have worked extensively to propose a safe and ethical trial, increasing safeguards since March and continuing dialogue with the Health Research Authority. I understand the concerns around the trial, and I think we all should. We all want to ensure the safety of the children involved. Nonetheless, it is time that we find a way forward that balances both the safety of the young people involved and the opportunity to enhance care that we provide for children struggling with their gender identity.
At the moment, far too often this care is lacking. Many of the party opposite have consistently called for the full implementation of the cartridge. She was quoted multiple times. Baroness Cass by the the opposition front Bench in the introduction of this debate. And yet they have called in this debate today to pause the trial, despite that being one of the recommendations of Baroness Cass. I ask why they are not willing to listen to Baroness Cass on that single issue. In her original review in 2024, Doctor Cass made clear that research into puberty blockers was necessary.
Not just this week. Sorry. Now, just this week, she has said that the trial to examine the risks and the benefits of puberty blockers will reduce harm, not cause it. In fact, she goes further, telling us that the debate about the risks of puberty blockers has been exaggerated. And I think we have seen some of that today, if we are
**** Possible New Speaker ****
honest and on this point, she is absolutely right. Happy to give way. My hon. Friend, for giving way. The conservative government commissioned the Cass Review in their 2024 manifesto. The Conservatives committed to Conservatives committed to implement the review in full, which includes a trial. But as my hon. Friend is saying here, they now Friend is saying here, they now propose for this motion to stop that trial. Isn't that proof that we actually need to have a trial, we actually need to have a trial, that we need to be taking the party politics out of this? We need to be stopping politicians from being the lead commentators, and we need to put this in the hands of the families and the clinicians.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Exactly. Brian Leishman is is a respected expert in this field. She made recommendations which were made recommendations which were which were broadly, broadly accepted, but we should be using accepted, but we should be using science as a basis for decision making, not rejecting her findings purely on the basis of politics. And I will go back to what I said at the start. Doing nothing will at the start. Doing nothing will lead to young, our young people being harmed, and that is an incredibly important point.
We cannot rely on debates in this place to decide how and when puberty blockers should be used. Rather, we should be relying on thorough scientific research carried out in a proper trial conditions led by medical experts. And we heard earlier our front bench explaining some of the detail around protections for our young people. Doctor Klass is also clear that more children will be harmed by preventing the trial than allowing one to go ahead. That is an incredibly important point.
Preventing a trial drives children who are desperate to look online or internationally for unregulated hormones or hormone suppressants. This leads to young people to to unsafe puberty blockers or beginning to take hormones such as testosterone, which a much earlier stage, which are irreversible. Once they start to take hold. We can prevent this by providing properly regulated use of puberty blockers in the UK via this trial. This trial will provide that understanding and will allow clinicians to effectively guide government on our next step.
It is right that the right and necessary thing to do for the government, for clinicians and for our young people. We need to take better care of our young people, and we need to do this via a clinical trial. I want to say, again, doing nothing. It makes me seem like the easy thing to do, but it will come with consequences, and I really do hope we hear more from the opposition bench about what they think the consequences of doing nothing will be for the health and wellbeing of our young people.
We did not hear that. I will give way because I came to speak.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I am grateful to the. Hon. Gentleman, my hon. Friend for Reigate mentioned the studies for Reigate mentioned the studies that have been done in Finland recently published. Does he not think there may be any merit in waiting to see what the Finnish tests and trials throw up, to see tests and trials throw up, to see what we can learn from them, rather than replicate or duplicate here,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
than replicate or duplicate here, international science should surely be respected. This is a really good point, a fantastic point actually, so I do welcome it. I was, until I was unexpectedly elected, I was an academic in what I learned was never to focus on a single study when you're doing research, because that's, that's basically an anecdote. What you have to do is look at the breadth of the research we've seen. We've seen, we see exactly the same, if I may say so.
And the climate change debate, the broad spectrum of science supports the argument around climate change. But there is always 1 or 2 contrary views which are welcome. But we do not base our view on just on one study. We will look at the breadth of the research. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question the reason I'm here today is for the protection of children. It's the reason I care children. It's the reason I care about banning social media. It's the reason I'm here speaking on puberty blockers, because it's about what young people under the age of consent, who we would protect from alcohol, heroin, sexual abuse. We would be protecting them because they're children under the age of 18. And children under the age of 18. And this puberty blockers trial for 11 year olds makes me feel that.
Are we putting sufficient safeguards in place for these young people, and do they have the cognitive ability to understand what they are doing? Do they have the cognitive development in their brains to understand that when their brain is fully developed, they have made a choice that is irreversible for the rest of their lives? And we talk about giving consent to these children. What about a class action lawsuit? When when you said when people have referred to, OK, 7% of people want to, you know, continue with the therapy and they're happy, that's 7%.
What about if this trial goes ahead? When when they're 18, when they're 25 and a percentage, which inevitably will happen, will decide they don't want to continue in the gender that they've chosen as a child, and they want to go back to the gender that they were before. How what are they going to do? Are they going to sue the government? Are they going to sue the clinicians for the trial because they were forced into and coerced into something that they didn't fully understand? How can we didn't fully understand? How can we measure that as as, yes, I'll give way.
17:56
Joy Morrissey MP (Beaconsfield, Conservative)
-
-
Joy Morrissey MP (Beaconsfield, Conservative)
My neighbour, for giving way on that point. There's a lot of kind of what about in in the remarks that I just just don't remember. Reflect on Doctor Cass's comments that the trial will lead to less harm than would otherwise be the case. Why does she believe that Doctor Hilary Klass is saying that? And does she doubt Doctor Hilary
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Cass's expertise in. In this instance. What I doubt is the fullness of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
What I doubt is the fullness of why we're not. For example, allowing the. The data linkage study before proceeding with the study before proceeding with the new trial. The data linkage study would find out what happens to all the children who have already taken the puberty blockers. And I did the puberty blockers. And I did want to ask the Lib Dem spokesperson, but I wasn't able to make that intervention. And I don't make that intervention. And I don't know if it had to do with the £1.5 million of donations from Ferrier Pharmaceuticals that they were taken by the Lib Dems before the 2019 election.
I don't know if that had anything to do with it, but that there has to be some level of declaration if there's if a political party has taken donations from a pharmaceutical company that is promoting this drug, I think that does have to do with how one represents oneself in the chamber, and there is no justification for proceeding with the pathways trial before the data linkage study is complete. If it's something that affects puberty, which is how a child transitions from childhood puberty to adulthood, the effects are going to be long term.
The effects are not going to be felt in one year, two years. They are going to be felt in ten years. Our brains do not fully mature. What a brain that we have as an adult at 24 is very different than a brain of an 11 year old. We don't have the frontal cortex of our brains fully developed. What effect is this going to have on not just their psychology, but also on the long term effects of the drugs on a human long term? And we don't know that.
So why not look at these, the the, the data study, it doesn't have to be perfect, but it's to allow us to protect the child going into this trial so that the trial
**** Possible New Speaker ****
is as, as as well-run as possible. I will give way. Yes. I thank my hon. Friend for
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and making a passionate speech. And I think we all agree across the House that we are not across the House that we are not here to politicise. We're not here to demonise, we're here to try and make the right decisions for the safety of children. And I think all safety of children. And I think all members here share that intention. But would she agree with me that the comments earlier that these drugs are already used for different conditions for prostate cancer, for endometriosis and for precocious puberty? For the first two, they are taken by adults for a very short period of time.
And for the third, the again, they'll be taken for a limited period until that child reaches the age of puberty. So these kind of misinformation or comparisons are
**** Possible New Speaker ****
not really valid and should be avoided. And my friend makes an excellent those.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
those. Other uses for the drug, I'd be interested to see more clinical trials on those types of things, on trials on those types of things, on endometriosis, on cancer, to see what the long term effects of those of that drug is on, on, on those of that drug is on, on, on those type of cancers and on, on, on Dimitrios. But it is for an adult. Dimitrios. But it is for an adult. And so going back to protecting children, I just want to make sure that this trial has as much safeguarding put in place as possible.
And the long term risk we just do not fully understand. And I think we keep coming back to this House again and again about what is a child and protecting a child. And this goes back to so many debates that I see us having in the chamber again and again. And we need to be clear that a person under the age of 16, under the age of 18, I don't care whatever the the, you know, age is that we all agree to that is an age that we have to protect that person, and they are under extra protection and safeguarding until they reach adulthood.
And that is why we are asking for so many safeguards that we put in place to make sure that the unintended consequence of trying to help a few young people does not affect the greater harm of many. And that is why we're here today. And. It is not too much to ask the government to to include the, you know, the data linkage study. I don't feel that that is too much to ask. And this trial is a trade off.
It's the long term health exchange for short term happiness. This trial, in my opinion, is not safe. And this trial will not protect children from harm.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you. Samantha Niblett madam Deputy. Speaker.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Everyone should have the right to access high quality, evidence based health care, no matter their age. And at the heart of this debate are young people experiencing profound gender related distress and the families related distress and the families who support them. Too often, they have found themselves caught in the middle of a political argument whilst facing long waits, whilst facing long waits, uncertainty and a lack of clear treatment options. Every young person deserves compassionate,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Cass's expertise in. In this instance. What I doubt is the fullness of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
What I doubt is the fullness of why we're not. For example, allowing the. The data linkage study before proceeding with the study before proceeding with the new trial. The data linkage study would find out what happens to all the children who have already taken the puberty blockers. And I did the puberty blockers. And I did want to ask the Lib Dem spokesperson, but I wasn't able to make that intervention. And I don't make that intervention. And I don't know if it had to do with the £1.5 million of donations from Ferrier Pharmaceuticals that they were taken by the Lib Dems before the 2019 election.
I don't know if that had anything to do with it, but that there has to be some level of declaration if there's if a political party has taken donations from a pharmaceutical company that is promoting this drug, I think that does have to do with how one represents oneself in the chamber, and there is no justification for proceeding with the pathways trial before the data linkage study is complete. If it's something that affects puberty, which is how a child transitions from childhood puberty to adulthood, the effects are going to be long term.
The effects are not going to be felt in one year, two years. They are going to be felt in ten years. Our brains do not fully mature. What a brain that we have as an adult at 24 is very different than a brain of an 11 year old. We don't have the frontal cortex of our brains fully developed. What effect is this going to have on not just their psychology, but also on the long term effects of the drugs on a human long term? And we don't know that.
So why not look at these, the the, the data study, it doesn't have to be perfect, but it's to allow us to protect the child going into this trial so that the trial
**** Possible New Speaker ****
is as, as as well-run as possible. I will give way. Yes. I thank my hon. Friend for
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and making a passionate speech. And I think we all agree across the House that we are not across the House that we are not here to politicise. We're not here to demonise, we're here to try and make the right decisions for the safety of children. And I think all safety of children. And I think all members here share that intention. But would she agree with me that the comments earlier that these drugs are already used for different conditions for prostate cancer, for endometriosis and for precocious puberty? For the first two, they are taken by adults for a very short period of time.
And for the third, the again, they'll be taken for a limited period until that child reaches the age of puberty. So these kind of misinformation or comparisons are
**** Possible New Speaker ****
not really valid and should be avoided. And my friend makes an excellent those.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
those. Other uses for the drug, I'd be interested to see more clinical trials on those types of things, on trials on those types of things, on endometriosis, on cancer, to see what the long term effects of those of that drug is on, on, on those of that drug is on, on, on those type of cancers and on, on, on Dimitrios. But it is for an adult. Dimitrios. But it is for an adult. And so going back to protecting children, I just want to make sure that this trial has as much safeguarding put in place as possible.
And the long term risk we just do not fully understand. And I think we keep coming back to this House again and again about what is a child and protecting a child. And this goes back to so many debates that I see us having in the chamber again and again. And we need to be clear that a person under the age of 16, under the age of 18, I don't care whatever the the, you know, age is that we all agree to that is an age that we have to protect that person, and they are under extra protection and safeguarding until they reach adulthood.
And that is why we are asking for so many safeguards that we put in place to make sure that the unintended consequence of trying to help a few young people does not affect the greater harm of many. And that is why we're here today. And. It is not too much to ask the government to to include the, you know, the data linkage study. I don't feel that that is too much to ask. And this trial is a trade off.
It's the long term health exchange for short term happiness. This trial, in my opinion, is not safe. And this trial will not protect children from harm.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you. Samantha Niblett madam Deputy. Speaker.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Everyone should have the right to access high quality, evidence based health care, no matter their age. And at the heart of this debate are young people experiencing profound gender related distress and the families related distress and the families who support them. Too often, they have found themselves caught in the middle of a political argument whilst facing long waits, whilst facing long waits, uncertainty and a lack of clear treatment options. Every young person deserves compassionate,
18:02
Samantha Niblett MP (South Derbyshire, Labour)
-
-
Samantha Niblett MP (South Derbyshire, Labour)
evidence based care that includes transgender young people and children with gender incongruence. The irony of today's motion is that it seeks to stop the very research that many members have argued is necessary before decisions about necessary before decisions about treatment can be made. And if we are serious about evidence based medicine, then we must also be medicine, then we must also be serious about gathering evidence. The pathways trial follows a recommendation made by Baroness recommendation made by Baroness Cass in her independent review, a recommendation that had enjoyed cross-party support when it was published.
Since then, the trial has undergone extensive scrutiny by researchers, ethics committees, independent reviewers and regulators following further modifications and additional safeguards. It has been approved by both the MHRA and HRA. If members believe more evidence is needed, then surely they should support the process designed to produce that evidence. Much has been said about risk and of course, risk must be taken seriously. But the answer to uncertainty cannot simply be to refuse to learn more. The answer is careful, closely monitored research.
With robust protections, participants must have experienced gender incongruence for at least two years, already be receiving NHS gender services, have undergone psychosocial support and be assessed by physically and and be assessed as physically and mentally stable. Both the young person and their parents must consent, and every participant must be approved by clinicians and a national multidisciplinary team. This is not an uncontrolled experiment. It is tightly regulated clinical trial operating under some of the highest standards of oversight available in modern medicine.
And the hon. Member for Reigate made a very valid point, actually, about making sure that we don't have children who realise they are gay, feeling that they are transgender, and actually makes the case for making sure that we are not feeling like we need to push more gay people back into the closet if they are feeling very much under threat right now. But there is another risk we must discuss today. And that's the risk of inaction. For two years, puberty blockers have effectively been unavailable outside of research settings.
Young people and their families have been told repeatedly that more evidence is needed. And now, when a trial designed to generate that evidence is ready to proceed, some seek to stop it. And what message does that send? Behind every statistic is a family. Parents of transgender children and children with gender incongruence often speak of the distress of watching their child struggle and feeling powerless to help. They see anxiety, fear and growing distress as their child experiences physical changes that they can feel deeply uncomfortable and alienating.
These families are not political talking points. They are looking for support, answers, and for hope. For many transgender young people, puberty itself can be a source of profound distress. We should not pretend that doing nothing is a neutral act. Delays, uncertainty and the absence of treatment options have consequences to puberty. Blockers have generally been understood as reversible intent intervention, intended to pause puberty and provide time for further assessment and support. The purpose of this trial is to strengthen our understanding of both the benefits and the risks.
If opponents argue that more evidence is needed than blocking, the research that would provide that evidence is a contradiction this House should reject. I also want to address something that often sits beneath debates such as this. If you come to this debate from a position that transgender people do not exist or it's a fad, then you're mistaken. Transgender people exist. They have always existed, and they deserve the same dignity, compassion and evidence based health care as anyone else. And if you come to this debate motivated by concern for children's safety and well-being, as I believe we all do, then I ask you this how can we say we are protecting children while being comfortable with them, living in fear of the changes that puberty may bring? How can we say we are acting in their best interests? While some young people are terrified of growing into an adult body that does not align with who they understand themselves to be, while parents watch helplessly from the sidelines.
If our goal is to truly safeguard children, then we should support careful research, rigorous oversight, and evidence based medicine. We should seek answers, not prevent them. We should reduce uncertainty, not prolong it. And that is why this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
trial should proceed. Thank you. Very much, Madam Deputy Speaker,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it's a pleasure to follow the hon. Member from South Derbyshire, who I have made a very effective, who I have made a very effective, very powerful speech. And I think like everybody else here today, we like everybody else here today, we are concerned about the safety and the wellbeing of children, making the wellbeing of children, making sure that young people facing a crisis of identity get the support that they need and is appropriate for them.
And in many cases, that will be talking therapies. And we need to give children and their families time to figure out exactly what the issue is and whether they will, in time, develop out of it. But that is not always the case in my concern, and I believe the concern of many here today is for those children who don't. As the hon. Member put it, grew out of it as if it were some problem. Those children who have a genuine fear of what puberty will bring and what adulthood in a body that they do not recognise as theirs will mean.
And those children currently feel they have no option. And if we take away the possibility of puberty blockers, where will they go? Where will they turn to? Too many young children we are seeing today young people committing suicide, and that, I think we have to acknowledge, is the very real danger of just putting up a very different type of putting up a very different type of block, a block to understanding, to helping them develop. I certainly will. will.
Since then, the trial has undergone extensive scrutiny by researchers, ethics committees, independent reviewers and regulators following further modifications and additional safeguards. It has been approved by both the MHRA and HRA. If members believe more evidence is needed, then surely they should support the process designed to produce that evidence. Much has been said about risk and of course, risk must be taken seriously. But the answer to uncertainty cannot simply be to refuse to learn more. The answer is careful, closely monitored research.
With robust protections, participants must have experienced gender incongruence for at least two years, already be receiving NHS gender services, have undergone psychosocial support and be assessed by physically and and be assessed as physically and mentally stable. Both the young person and their parents must consent, and every participant must be approved by clinicians and a national multidisciplinary team. This is not an uncontrolled experiment. It is tightly regulated clinical trial operating under some of the highest standards of oversight available in modern medicine.
And the hon. Member for Reigate made a very valid point, actually, about making sure that we don't have children who realise they are gay, feeling that they are transgender, and actually makes the case for making sure that we are not feeling like we need to push more gay people back into the closet if they are feeling very much under threat right now. But there is another risk we must discuss today. And that's the risk of inaction. For two years, puberty blockers have effectively been unavailable outside of research settings.
Young people and their families have been told repeatedly that more evidence is needed. And now, when a trial designed to generate that evidence is ready to proceed, some seek to stop it. And what message does that send? Behind every statistic is a family. Parents of transgender children and children with gender incongruence often speak of the distress of watching their child struggle and feeling powerless to help. They see anxiety, fear and growing distress as their child experiences physical changes that they can feel deeply uncomfortable and alienating.
These families are not political talking points. They are looking for support, answers, and for hope. For many transgender young people, puberty itself can be a source of profound distress. We should not pretend that doing nothing is a neutral act. Delays, uncertainty and the absence of treatment options have consequences to puberty. Blockers have generally been understood as reversible intent intervention, intended to pause puberty and provide time for further assessment and support. The purpose of this trial is to strengthen our understanding of both the benefits and the risks.
If opponents argue that more evidence is needed than blocking, the research that would provide that evidence is a contradiction this House should reject. I also want to address something that often sits beneath debates such as this. If you come to this debate from a position that transgender people do not exist or it's a fad, then you're mistaken. Transgender people exist. They have always existed, and they deserve the same dignity, compassion and evidence based health care as anyone else. And if you come to this debate motivated by concern for children's safety and well-being, as I believe we all do, then I ask you this how can we say we are protecting children while being comfortable with them, living in fear of the changes that puberty may bring? How can we say we are acting in their best interests? While some young people are terrified of growing into an adult body that does not align with who they understand themselves to be, while parents watch helplessly from the sidelines.
If our goal is to truly safeguard children, then we should support careful research, rigorous oversight, and evidence based medicine. We should seek answers, not prevent them. We should reduce uncertainty, not prolong it. And that is why this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
trial should proceed. Thank you. Very much, Madam Deputy Speaker,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it's a pleasure to follow the hon. Member from South Derbyshire, who I have made a very effective, who I have made a very effective, very powerful speech. And I think like everybody else here today, we like everybody else here today, we are concerned about the safety and the wellbeing of children, making the wellbeing of children, making sure that young people facing a crisis of identity get the support that they need and is appropriate for them.
And in many cases, that will be talking therapies. And we need to give children and their families time to figure out exactly what the issue is and whether they will, in time, develop out of it. But that is not always the case in my concern, and I believe the concern of many here today is for those children who don't. As the hon. Member put it, grew out of it as if it were some problem. Those children who have a genuine fear of what puberty will bring and what adulthood in a body that they do not recognise as theirs will mean.
And those children currently feel they have no option. And if we take away the possibility of puberty blockers, where will they go? Where will they turn to? Too many young children we are seeing today young people committing suicide, and that, I think we have to acknowledge, is the very real danger of just putting up a very different type of putting up a very different type of block, a block to understanding, to helping them develop. I certainly will. will.
18:07
Christine Jardine MP (Edinburgh West, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Christine Jardine MP (Edinburgh West, Liberal Democrat)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving a very eloquent speech. And I think when it comes to talking about suicide, it's really important that we're very responsible in the way we talk about suicide. And I would just like to point out that Professor Louis Appleby did a study and an exercise on exactly this issue following the ban of puberty blockers, and his conclusion was that we weren't seeing an increase in suicides as a consequence of this. And he also made the point that it was really important that no one should be suggesting that not getting puberty blockers causes young people to commit suicide.
That is a a negligent thing to do. And I think it's just really
**** Possible New Speaker ****
important that we put that on the record. Thank you. I thank the hon. Lady. I would point out to her that that is not point out to her that that is not actually what I said. What I said was that we were leaving children without an option. And I would also without an option. And I would also point out to the hon. Lady that if we're going to be responsible, then please do not accuse people of please do not accuse people of being homophobic because they are trying to support the transgender community.
Many of those people who community. Many of those people who are supporting the transgender community are actually lesbians or gay. And I know this because I am the honorary president of the LGBTQ plus community within the Liberal Democrats, and there is a great feeling of community between the two. So I would caution anyone not to call anyone who wants to support the trans community homophobic, but to the point that we are discussing here today, these children need our support and we, in providing.
That, should listen to clinicians, to experts, to Doctor Hilary Cass, who has said, as so many people have pointed out today, this. This trial will help protect children. It will mean they are less likely to to be harmed. And that, I think, is what we should take as our guiding principle in this. The hon. Member for Mid Sussex laid out quite clearly my party's policy, and I am proud of the fact that I was actually, as a women and equality spokesperson, responsible for the formation of most of that policy towards the transgender community.
I have to say, I spoke to a great many of them, and they would be appalled if they felt for one moment that we were not going to support them, that we were not going to support this trial, stand up for them at a time when they are under increasing pressure, and we see the demonisation of that community in a way that for young children facing a crisis of identity, wondering who they are, wondering what support they will get, they are looking to us to give them that support.
And that is why I will oppose this motion from the Conservatives today. Deputy.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Speaker, and it's a pleasure to follow the Member for Edinburgh West, and I agree wholeheartedly West, and I agree wholeheartedly with the comments about homophobia. I would like to just remind the House that I am a former biomedical science scientist. I've read probably lots more medical publications than many in this chamber, and I also volunteered many times for medical research, many times for medical research, either as a healthy patient in my younger years or as a patient now in my slightly older years.
So I know the process on both sides. And I think it's really important that we recognise that in the UK we have some of the highest standards for medical research, especially when they involve patients. And I do want to say that, you know, talk of why isn't there a placebo? Well, sometimes it's just not ethical to do a placebo based trial because if you're withholding a form of medical intervention from someone just to prove that the next best thing is going to be the next best
That is a a negligent thing to do. And I think it's just really
**** Possible New Speaker ****
important that we put that on the record. Thank you. I thank the hon. Lady. I would point out to her that that is not point out to her that that is not actually what I said. What I said was that we were leaving children without an option. And I would also without an option. And I would also point out to the hon. Lady that if we're going to be responsible, then please do not accuse people of please do not accuse people of being homophobic because they are trying to support the transgender community.
Many of those people who community. Many of those people who are supporting the transgender community are actually lesbians or gay. And I know this because I am the honorary president of the LGBTQ plus community within the Liberal Democrats, and there is a great feeling of community between the two. So I would caution anyone not to call anyone who wants to support the trans community homophobic, but to the point that we are discussing here today, these children need our support and we, in providing.
That, should listen to clinicians, to experts, to Doctor Hilary Cass, who has said, as so many people have pointed out today, this. This trial will help protect children. It will mean they are less likely to to be harmed. And that, I think, is what we should take as our guiding principle in this. The hon. Member for Mid Sussex laid out quite clearly my party's policy, and I am proud of the fact that I was actually, as a women and equality spokesperson, responsible for the formation of most of that policy towards the transgender community.
I have to say, I spoke to a great many of them, and they would be appalled if they felt for one moment that we were not going to support them, that we were not going to support this trial, stand up for them at a time when they are under increasing pressure, and we see the demonisation of that community in a way that for young children facing a crisis of identity, wondering who they are, wondering what support they will get, they are looking to us to give them that support.
And that is why I will oppose this motion from the Conservatives today. Deputy.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Speaker, and it's a pleasure to follow the Member for Edinburgh West, and I agree wholeheartedly West, and I agree wholeheartedly with the comments about homophobia. I would like to just remind the House that I am a former biomedical science scientist. I've read probably lots more medical publications than many in this chamber, and I also volunteered many times for medical research, many times for medical research, either as a healthy patient in my younger years or as a patient now in my slightly older years.
So I know the process on both sides. And I think it's really important that we recognise that in the UK we have some of the highest standards for medical research, especially when they involve patients. And I do want to say that, you know, talk of why isn't there a placebo? Well, sometimes it's just not ethical to do a placebo based trial because if you're withholding a form of medical intervention from someone just to prove that the next best thing is going to be the next best
18:11
Olivia Blake MP (Sheffield Hallam, Labour)
-
-
Olivia Blake MP (Sheffield Hallam, Labour)
thing, that's not ethically right, because you're withholding medical care when someone needs it. Very care when someone needs it. Very different from a healthy patient kind of model where you're treating healthy patients to see if there's healthy patients to see if there's a bio logical change that would be harmful to all patients. And all harmful to all patients. And all too often, healthcare for the trans community is marked by lengthy wait community is marked by lengthy wait lists, inconsistent treatment, discrimination.
And we've heard some of that stigma today. And there needs to be a concerted effort to change that. And we've heard a lot about safeguarding children. I think everyone in this room agrees that has to be paramount, but I fear we are dividing trans children away from other children when it comes to their medical needs and what support should be in place. I'm pleased that yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care confirmed that the pathway trial will go ahead, and we've heard many people mention that young people getting better.
Is is kind of a way through this. And I think that that is is very stigmatising to those who do hold on to their trans identity into adulthood. And in fact, we know that in very many in the majority of those young trans people will go on to be trans adults. And in fact, we know also that those that do transition, there are some instances where they're transition because they do transition for social reasons of not having supportive family and other social pressures.
So it is not as static as some might think. And in fact, it is that fluidity which young people often raise with me. And trans young people need this trial to move forward. For many, this represents the only legal route at the moment to access puberty suppressants. A pathway can be profoundly impactful, and we have heard people say and describe this as life saving. This hasn't fallen from the sky. There are well-established scientific and clinical precedents for use of puberty suppressing hormones, supported by decades of research and medical practice, and for a variety of different conditions.
Even fertility clinics use this drugs in some of their regimes with certain patients and placebos, as I mentioned, are not the solution to making this a safer trial. Puberty suppressing hormones are not new. They're not experimental. They've been used safely since the 80s, and we have decades of clinical experience supporting their use in controlled settings. But instead of engaging seriously with the potential benefits of such a trial, we've seen the opposition have this issue framed as a broader culture war issue.
In fact, trying to erase trans children's identities by removing health care. We're not going to be removing trans children. They will look for alternative access to treatments, including starving themselves to prevent puberty, starting as we've heard, which is horrific to hear. As someone who is has been very active on eating disorders, I think that that's really, really quite terrifying. And we should be really focussed on making sure that the voices of those people who are going to be impacted by this, the young people and their families, should be part of this discussion.
And I think that the way in which this trial has been put together, of course, is not perfect. No medical trial is perfect, but it is really, really important. And the risk of harm by not going ahead with this trial has to outweigh the risk of harm of doing this trial. We need the data, we need the understanding so we can make the right decisions when designing the clinical interventions and and the services that should be available to young people.
And I think that anyone who is denying that should in fact, think, think again about why they are making that argument, because this isn't an issue about whether trans young people exist. It's whether you choose to respond to that with the reality.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Madam. Deputy Speaker. I'm absolutely appalled by the government's decision to press ahead with the pathways puberty blockers trial, because when I look at this because when I look at this decision, I genuinely find myself asking, what lessons has this asking, what lessons has this government learned from the last number of years? Parents have raised concern, families have raised concern, families have raised concerns, clinicians have raised concern, campaigners have raised concerns. Many in this House have raised concerns.
This is not a concern that has appeared overnight. The petition on this issue that was debated some time ago attracted significant support, and I must note that my constituency of Upper Bann was one of the leading constituencies in raising concerns about puberty blockers and the impact of them. Ministers have been warned time and again. The Cass review the closure of the Tavistock Clinic, the decision to stop the routine prescribing of the puberty blockers to children, all of those developments pointed in one
And we've heard some of that stigma today. And there needs to be a concerted effort to change that. And we've heard a lot about safeguarding children. I think everyone in this room agrees that has to be paramount, but I fear we are dividing trans children away from other children when it comes to their medical needs and what support should be in place. I'm pleased that yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care confirmed that the pathway trial will go ahead, and we've heard many people mention that young people getting better.
Is is kind of a way through this. And I think that that is is very stigmatising to those who do hold on to their trans identity into adulthood. And in fact, we know that in very many in the majority of those young trans people will go on to be trans adults. And in fact, we know also that those that do transition, there are some instances where they're transition because they do transition for social reasons of not having supportive family and other social pressures.
So it is not as static as some might think. And in fact, it is that fluidity which young people often raise with me. And trans young people need this trial to move forward. For many, this represents the only legal route at the moment to access puberty suppressants. A pathway can be profoundly impactful, and we have heard people say and describe this as life saving. This hasn't fallen from the sky. There are well-established scientific and clinical precedents for use of puberty suppressing hormones, supported by decades of research and medical practice, and for a variety of different conditions.
Even fertility clinics use this drugs in some of their regimes with certain patients and placebos, as I mentioned, are not the solution to making this a safer trial. Puberty suppressing hormones are not new. They're not experimental. They've been used safely since the 80s, and we have decades of clinical experience supporting their use in controlled settings. But instead of engaging seriously with the potential benefits of such a trial, we've seen the opposition have this issue framed as a broader culture war issue.
In fact, trying to erase trans children's identities by removing health care. We're not going to be removing trans children. They will look for alternative access to treatments, including starving themselves to prevent puberty, starting as we've heard, which is horrific to hear. As someone who is has been very active on eating disorders, I think that that's really, really quite terrifying. And we should be really focussed on making sure that the voices of those people who are going to be impacted by this, the young people and their families, should be part of this discussion.
And I think that the way in which this trial has been put together, of course, is not perfect. No medical trial is perfect, but it is really, really important. And the risk of harm by not going ahead with this trial has to outweigh the risk of harm of doing this trial. We need the data, we need the understanding so we can make the right decisions when designing the clinical interventions and and the services that should be available to young people.
And I think that anyone who is denying that should in fact, think, think again about why they are making that argument, because this isn't an issue about whether trans young people exist. It's whether you choose to respond to that with the reality.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Madam. Deputy Speaker. I'm absolutely appalled by the government's decision to press ahead with the pathways puberty blockers trial, because when I look at this because when I look at this decision, I genuinely find myself asking, what lessons has this asking, what lessons has this government learned from the last number of years? Parents have raised concern, families have raised concern, families have raised concerns, clinicians have raised concern, campaigners have raised concerns. Many in this House have raised concerns.
This is not a concern that has appeared overnight. The petition on this issue that was debated some time ago attracted significant support, and I must note that my constituency of Upper Bann was one of the leading constituencies in raising concerns about puberty blockers and the impact of them. Ministers have been warned time and again. The Cass review the closure of the Tavistock Clinic, the decision to stop the routine prescribing of the puberty blockers to children, all of those developments pointed in one
18:17
Carla Lockhart MP (Upper Bann, Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
Carla Lockhart MP (Upper Bann, Democratic Unionist Party)
direction greater caution, greater scrutiny and greater protection for scrutiny and greater protection for vulnerable children. Yet somehow this Labour government has looked this Labour government has looked at all of that and reached the conclusion that will harm more children, not less children. It is children, not less children. It is decided that the answer to this difficult issue is to recommence a difficult issue is to recommence a trial using the very drugs that are considered unsuitable for routine use, the very drugs that children cannot routinely be prescribed, the very drugs Ministers themselves acknowledge raise serious unanswered questions.
That is the contradiction at the heart of this announcement to recommence the puberty blockers trial. If these drugs are not considered sufficiently safe, sufficiently evidence or sufficiently understood to be routinely prescribed to children, why is this government prepared to recruit children into a trial involving the same drugs? Madam Deputy Speaker, what troubles me in particular is the age of the children involved children as young as 11. When I think of an 11 year old, I think of a child at the very beginning of secondary school, maybe even in primary school.
I think of a child still trying to work out who they are. I think of a child whose views, interests and outlooks on life can change dramatically in the space of a few months, and indeed, even in the space of a few days when you're dealing with children, I think of a child who still needs adults to guide them, protect them, and make decisions in their best interest. I do not think of somebody who should be carrying the burden of unresolved questions about fertility, about bone development, about neurological development, and about long term health outcomes.
The government tells us more evidence is needed. But whose shoulders is it placing that burden on the shoulders of children? Children who are being asked to participate because adults still do not have the answers? That cannot be right. Madam Deputy Speaker, I have had the honour of meeting with Keira Bell, one of the bravest campaigners I have encountered in public life, because she has been willing to speak publicly about consequences that she will carry for the rest of her life.
When people discuss this issue, they often hide behind clinical language and clinical advice. Clinical advice can be wrong in Northern Ireland. Under an FOI response recently, I queried clinical negligence and malpractice. In one single year, £9 million is paid out, so clinicians can't be wrong. And yes, we need them. Yes, we depend on. I have so much respect for them, but they are not always right. Keira Bell has spoken openly about the loss of her healthy breasts, concerns about her future fertility and the permanent changes she lives with because of the pathway she was placed on as a vulnerable young person.
And perhaps the most heartbreaking thing she has said is I was a vulnerable teenager who needed help, not drugs help. She has also said, I believe I should have been challenged on my views. Think about that. A young woman looking back and saying that the adults around her should have asked harder questions, should have exercised greater caution, should have protected her. Madam Deputy Speaker, we are all called to this place to do the right thing, and the right thing is to look at the data that is already there, and that young people that have been on this pathway and stop this puberty blockers trial with immediate
**** Possible New Speaker ****
effect. Thank you, speaker. I support an individual's
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I support an individual's freedom to choose to live their life in however manner, whichever manner they want, subject only to the law. And that includes someone's right to want to live a life and in a different gender identity to that that they were born with. But this debate is not about that. It is about administering powerful drugs to children. And while I have no direct experience of what it must be like to want to live a life as somebody, as somebody of a different gender identity, I have represented parents in the family court disputing their own child's identity, and in one case, a child under the age of ten in legal proceedings, there is an absolutist argument that I want to reject.
That is the argument. This is only
That is the contradiction at the heart of this announcement to recommence the puberty blockers trial. If these drugs are not considered sufficiently safe, sufficiently evidence or sufficiently understood to be routinely prescribed to children, why is this government prepared to recruit children into a trial involving the same drugs? Madam Deputy Speaker, what troubles me in particular is the age of the children involved children as young as 11. When I think of an 11 year old, I think of a child at the very beginning of secondary school, maybe even in primary school.
I think of a child still trying to work out who they are. I think of a child whose views, interests and outlooks on life can change dramatically in the space of a few months, and indeed, even in the space of a few days when you're dealing with children, I think of a child who still needs adults to guide them, protect them, and make decisions in their best interest. I do not think of somebody who should be carrying the burden of unresolved questions about fertility, about bone development, about neurological development, and about long term health outcomes.
The government tells us more evidence is needed. But whose shoulders is it placing that burden on the shoulders of children? Children who are being asked to participate because adults still do not have the answers? That cannot be right. Madam Deputy Speaker, I have had the honour of meeting with Keira Bell, one of the bravest campaigners I have encountered in public life, because she has been willing to speak publicly about consequences that she will carry for the rest of her life.
When people discuss this issue, they often hide behind clinical language and clinical advice. Clinical advice can be wrong in Northern Ireland. Under an FOI response recently, I queried clinical negligence and malpractice. In one single year, £9 million is paid out, so clinicians can't be wrong. And yes, we need them. Yes, we depend on. I have so much respect for them, but they are not always right. Keira Bell has spoken openly about the loss of her healthy breasts, concerns about her future fertility and the permanent changes she lives with because of the pathway she was placed on as a vulnerable young person.
And perhaps the most heartbreaking thing she has said is I was a vulnerable teenager who needed help, not drugs help. She has also said, I believe I should have been challenged on my views. Think about that. A young woman looking back and saying that the adults around her should have asked harder questions, should have exercised greater caution, should have protected her. Madam Deputy Speaker, we are all called to this place to do the right thing, and the right thing is to look at the data that is already there, and that young people that have been on this pathway and stop this puberty blockers trial with immediate
**** Possible New Speaker ****
effect. Thank you, speaker. I support an individual's
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I support an individual's freedom to choose to live their life in however manner, whichever manner they want, subject only to the law. And that includes someone's right to want to live a life and in a different gender identity to that that they were born with. But this debate is not about that. It is about administering powerful drugs to children. And while I have no direct experience of what it must be like to want to live a life as somebody, as somebody of a different gender identity, I have represented parents in the family court disputing their own child's identity, and in one case, a child under the age of ten in legal proceedings, there is an absolutist argument that I want to reject.
That is the argument. This is only
18:21
Joe Robertson MP (Isle of Wight East, Conservative)
-
-
Joe Robertson MP (Isle of Wight East, Conservative)
a clinical question, and the argument that politicians, decision makers, government must follow clinical advice. The clinical clinical advice. The clinical advice itself is disputed, but I accept the weight the government accept the weight the government has placed on the Cass review. That, of course, is where a commissioned piece of work was done under the piece of work was done under the previous government. So it is right the current government wants to place weight on that. But this is much more than just a clinical question.
It's an ethical question. It's a moral question. It's a legal question. And those decisions, those issues that need to be grappled with, fall on the shoulders of the people in this place, elected members. And I want to explore one of those issues that I think is fundamental. And it's the it's the issue of consent. What can consent mean when we're talking about young children and what can consent mean when we're talking about a parent giving consent for something to happen to their child? The issue of consent is not new.
We have the legal age of consent for engaging in sexual activity, society through this place. And the courts has decided that children should not be engaging in sexual activity under the age of 16. That is not a fundamentally clinical issue. That is an issue around the emotional, psychological, moral, ethical impact that it can have on a child who perhaps doesn't fully understand what they're getting themselves into. When it comes to a child under 13, we have a law that says consent is impossible under 13.
There is no such thing as consent to sexual activity. It amounts to what we might term statutory rape. Yet in this trial, children under the age of 13, the age of 12 are going to be asked if they have engaged in oral sex in the last year. That is something that is illegal. That is something that they cannot consent to by law. Why are they being asked a question like that within these clinical trials? And I ask the Minister to address that directly.
Plainly, consent is only meaningful if a child understands all the ramifications. I challenge anyone to to stand up and back the idea that a child under the age of, for example, 13, understands what it's like to give up the possibility of fertility, to live a life in a different gender to the one they currently have to really understand what gender means in its entirety at that age. And if I turn now to the role of the parent, what parent can possibly say whether their child has been able to grapple with those issues in any meaningful way, they may be better placed than anyone else, but that doesn't mean that they can really form a judgement or a view on that.
After all, it would be preposterous to suggest that adults can consent to their own child engaging in sexual activity. So how can they possibly consent to a child grappling with these ideas such that they Minister a powerful drug to suppress their development and their puberty? We have a government who has taken the view, and I welcome it, that an adult can't possibly consent to their own child having a social media account, because they are not in a position to assess all the harms.
How can it, by extension, say, but they are in a position to consent to their child taking powerful drugs that will suppress their puberty and their sexual development. It lacks any sort of coherence, and I urge the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
government to think again and. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think it's a great shame that this debate has become broken up in party lines. I think it's very much party lines. I think it's very much the sort of debate we should have had, as we had with assisted dying, where basically people from all sides of the House would stand up sides of the House would stand up and make their own case. And indeed, many members of Parliament from many members of Parliament from really across the House have have been supportive of what I'm about to say.
Follow the publication of the Cass Review in 2024. The use of puberty blockers for gender dysphoria in children and young people was restricted by the Secretary of State for health due to an unacceptable safety risk, with their use limited to clinical
It's an ethical question. It's a moral question. It's a legal question. And those decisions, those issues that need to be grappled with, fall on the shoulders of the people in this place, elected members. And I want to explore one of those issues that I think is fundamental. And it's the it's the issue of consent. What can consent mean when we're talking about young children and what can consent mean when we're talking about a parent giving consent for something to happen to their child? The issue of consent is not new.
We have the legal age of consent for engaging in sexual activity, society through this place. And the courts has decided that children should not be engaging in sexual activity under the age of 16. That is not a fundamentally clinical issue. That is an issue around the emotional, psychological, moral, ethical impact that it can have on a child who perhaps doesn't fully understand what they're getting themselves into. When it comes to a child under 13, we have a law that says consent is impossible under 13.
There is no such thing as consent to sexual activity. It amounts to what we might term statutory rape. Yet in this trial, children under the age of 13, the age of 12 are going to be asked if they have engaged in oral sex in the last year. That is something that is illegal. That is something that they cannot consent to by law. Why are they being asked a question like that within these clinical trials? And I ask the Minister to address that directly.
Plainly, consent is only meaningful if a child understands all the ramifications. I challenge anyone to to stand up and back the idea that a child under the age of, for example, 13, understands what it's like to give up the possibility of fertility, to live a life in a different gender to the one they currently have to really understand what gender means in its entirety at that age. And if I turn now to the role of the parent, what parent can possibly say whether their child has been able to grapple with those issues in any meaningful way, they may be better placed than anyone else, but that doesn't mean that they can really form a judgement or a view on that.
After all, it would be preposterous to suggest that adults can consent to their own child engaging in sexual activity. So how can they possibly consent to a child grappling with these ideas such that they Minister a powerful drug to suppress their development and their puberty? We have a government who has taken the view, and I welcome it, that an adult can't possibly consent to their own child having a social media account, because they are not in a position to assess all the harms.
How can it, by extension, say, but they are in a position to consent to their child taking powerful drugs that will suppress their puberty and their sexual development. It lacks any sort of coherence, and I urge the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
government to think again and. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think it's a great shame that this debate has become broken up in party lines. I think it's very much party lines. I think it's very much the sort of debate we should have had, as we had with assisted dying, where basically people from all sides of the House would stand up sides of the House would stand up and make their own case. And indeed, many members of Parliament from many members of Parliament from really across the House have have been supportive of what I'm about to say.
Follow the publication of the Cass Review in 2024. The use of puberty blockers for gender dysphoria in children and young people was restricted by the Secretary of State for health due to an unacceptable safety risk, with their use limited to clinical
18:26
Mr Angus MacDonald MP (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Mr Angus MacDonald MP (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire, Liberal Democrat)
trial settings. Now, polling by Whitestone Insight polling in 25 showed that the public do not support a trial. 67% agree that puberty blockers should never be given to under 18 seconds, even as given to under 18 seconds, even as part of a clinical trial. This is 70% among children of parents of 70% among children of parents of children under 18. The Secretary of State, like his predecessor, has declared that he is uneasy allowing this trial to proceed. He cites clinical advice and a need for scientific evidence as a cover to allow him to support this trial.
Now, I've worked with many scientists, and we should be wary of thinking that all scientists are working for the betterment of the world. Absolutely. There were clinicians who said that the thalidomide drug was safe. There were clinicians who promoted lobotomies as a breakthrough mental health treatment, and clinicians assured parents that puberty blockers were safe and reversible. It was in the name of science that clinicians prescribed puberty blockers to children. At the Tavistock Clinic Clinic for over a decade, and an estimated 2000 children received these powerful drugs.
Where are these children now and how have they got on? But more importantly, I believe that a member of Parliament, we have an overriding moral responsibility to protect those who are most vulnerable in our society, especially children in in our induction as an MP, we were told that we had a duty to speak out when things were wrong. And it's clear to me that allowing irreversible or possibly irreversible medical research to be carried out on 11 year old girls and 12 year old boys, when we know that some of these children at least, would reconcile themselves to their biological sex at birth is completely inhumane and uncivilised.
Many of us feel uncomfortable about using beagle beagles for medical research. How on earth can it be right to use children for irreversible and life changing
**** Possible New Speaker ****
medical research? Thank you. Sir John Hayes.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you, Madam Speaker. The journey from the journey from childhood to adulthood is childhood to adulthood is challenging for many, difficult for challenging for many, difficult for some, and torturous for a few. And through that journey, the support through that journey, the support of older people, often parents, loved ones, people who care is critically important for those who suffer from gender dysphoria. That journey is all the more challenging, and many people, perhaps all of us
Now, I've worked with many scientists, and we should be wary of thinking that all scientists are working for the betterment of the world. Absolutely. There were clinicians who said that the thalidomide drug was safe. There were clinicians who promoted lobotomies as a breakthrough mental health treatment, and clinicians assured parents that puberty blockers were safe and reversible. It was in the name of science that clinicians prescribed puberty blockers to children. At the Tavistock Clinic Clinic for over a decade, and an estimated 2000 children received these powerful drugs.
Where are these children now and how have they got on? But more importantly, I believe that a member of Parliament, we have an overriding moral responsibility to protect those who are most vulnerable in our society, especially children in in our induction as an MP, we were told that we had a duty to speak out when things were wrong. And it's clear to me that allowing irreversible or possibly irreversible medical research to be carried out on 11 year old girls and 12 year old boys, when we know that some of these children at least, would reconcile themselves to their biological sex at birth is completely inhumane and uncivilised.
Many of us feel uncomfortable about using beagle beagles for medical research. How on earth can it be right to use children for irreversible and life changing
**** Possible New Speaker ****
medical research? Thank you. Sir John Hayes.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you, Madam Speaker. The journey from the journey from childhood to adulthood is childhood to adulthood is challenging for many, difficult for challenging for many, difficult for some, and torturous for a few. And through that journey, the support through that journey, the support of older people, often parents, loved ones, people who care is critically important for those who suffer from gender dysphoria. That journey is all the more challenging, and many people, perhaps all of us
18:29
Rt Hon Sir John Hayes MP (South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
-
-
Rt Hon Sir John Hayes MP (South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
in this room, would have struggled with the emerging sexuality, which with the emerging sexuality, which is part of the the journey to adulthood. But most people who adulthood. But most people who suffer from dysphoria cope with it as they go through puberty. And as they go through puberty. And indeed the evidence. And there's been much talk of evidence in this debate shows that medical intervention in those cases will not only be unnecessary, we profoundly, profoundly damaging. And yet, at the Tavistock Clinic, which I first highlighted with horror the horrors of which I first highlighted in 2019, thousands of children were prescribed life altering drugs.
It's more shocking still. Madam Deputy Speaker. More than 70 children aged three and four years of age were sent to Tavistock Clinic. 380 children aged six and under referred. Now the government is fond now to speak about the Cass review commissioned by the last one. The Cass Review wasn't welcomed, by the way, by the military and trans lobby. It was regarded with horror when it was commissioned by those people who now presumably support this trial. What does the review found find? It found that doctors must be extremely cautious about giving trans drugs to under 18 seconds, not 11 year olds or 12 year olds or 13 year olds.
People under 18. They found that doctors must be able to refer to longer term benefits and risks of treatment options. Young children should have therapy for. They're
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Now to socially transition that many parents expressed concerns about their child being socially transitioned, affirmed, expressed gender without parental involvement. There are too many decisions about changing gender have been rushed changing gender have been rushed with too little consideration. Given that children might regret Given that children might regret their actions later in life and that childhood trauma, neglect, that childhood trauma, neglect, abuse feature heavily in the cohort of patients seeking gender change. As many as two thirds of those referred suffer neglect or abuse, with high levels of parental mental illness, substance abuse and exposure to domestic violence.
These are the vulnerable children who went to the Tavistock Clinic closed after pressure from those who understood the horrors that took place there when it was open. Of course I will in a second. When I made an attack on the liberal bourgeoisie, which you might want to might want to hear when it was open. Of course, it was seen as an emblem of progress by the liberal bourgeoisie. Now, of course, we
**** Possible New Speaker ****
know that it was the embodiment of wickedness. I give weight on gentlemen. On that note. I do thank him for giving me.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I do thank him for giving me. I'm part of the liberal working class. I guess the E, of course, of course. This debate, this debate isn't about the Tavistock Clinic. And he did debate. He did quote Baroness Cass extensively there. One of her recommendations, which she didn't talk about, was that she she didn't talk about, was that she did recommend a clinical trial. Go ahead. And she said recently that she supports the trial because she thinks would be real benefits to it.
Does he want to address that point rather than talking about Tavistock? Does he want to address what Baroness cast that he's quoted extensively thinks about this trial that we are debating today? Well,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
thank you. To to gather more evidence, we know that the evidence that we have shows the damage that puberty blockers can do. We know the blockers can do. We know the substantial science which suggest they affect bone maturation, they affect bone maturation, cerebral capacity, and of course, fertility. But it's but it's fertility. But it's but it's certain that there is no compelling evidence that puberty blockers have a beneficial effect. And that's why she sought more evidence, because she concluded there was no evidence, no compelling evidence that they had a beneficial effect.
I give way to the hon. Member, and I must make.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you very much. As another member of the Liberal working class, I would also wonder whether the hon. Member has the experience that many of us in this place have of talking to constituents, friends, talking to constituents, friends, family, who have children, who have struggled with their gender struggled with their gender identity and have benefited from puberty blockers. So while he says there is no evidence many of us
**** Possible New Speaker ****
there is no evidence many of us here have direct experience of seeing the benefits and action. Well, that that experience clearly contradicts the Cass Reviews findings. But of course it's lady to have that debate, no doubt with Doctor Cass, what's absolutely certain is that we have no indication from the government about what success will look like in this trial. When challenged on that subject. Answer was there none. How are we going to gauge whether this trial is a success or a failure? And are these children really kind of guinea pigs to be used to provide the evidence that the hon.
Lady says is already freely available in her anecdotal experience of communicating with her constituents and others? We certainly know there's evidence from other countries. Has the government looked to drawing on that, rather than engaging in this dangerous trial? We know there's evidence from the 2000 or more children that went through Tavistock. It's been suggested by some that we should we should look at the data already available, rather than putting any more children at risk. And yet, despite the Secretary of State's agonised decision, and I do say that that's not it's not not meant to be sarcastic or pejorative.
I appreciate that he was completely straightforward about how difficult it's been to make this decision. Despite that, this trial goes ahead with I accept additional safeguards. This is not Tavistock, this is something different, but nonetheless bringing immense risk alongside the determination to try and gain facts. Let's look at Finland and Denmark. Let's look at other countries who've already gathered evidence. Let's look at what we know of those who've already been through this process. G.K.
Chesterton said children are innocent and love justice. I fear that this trial will steal their innocence and deny them justice. And I hope that even at this late stage, recognising that this government will abandon this awful
**** Possible New Speaker ****
trial and save those innocent children from that fate. Yeah, yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah, yeah. I now come to wind up. I invite the Shadow Secretary of State. Stuart Andrew. Yes. Thank you very much, Madam.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you very much, Madam. Deputy Speaker. And this has been an important debate and also a difficult debate, but a necessary one nonetheless. There are some subjects in public life where the subjects in public life where the easiest course is silence, where every word is weighed, where motives are questioned, and where members may be tempted to step back rather than step forward. But when the subject is the is the safety of children. Silence is not an option.
Children and young people are at the centre of this debate, and they are not slogans. They are not political symbols, not to be used by either side of any argument. They are children, often vulnerable children experiencing distress that
It's more shocking still. Madam Deputy Speaker. More than 70 children aged three and four years of age were sent to Tavistock Clinic. 380 children aged six and under referred. Now the government is fond now to speak about the Cass review commissioned by the last one. The Cass Review wasn't welcomed, by the way, by the military and trans lobby. It was regarded with horror when it was commissioned by those people who now presumably support this trial. What does the review found find? It found that doctors must be extremely cautious about giving trans drugs to under 18 seconds, not 11 year olds or 12 year olds or 13 year olds.
People under 18. They found that doctors must be able to refer to longer term benefits and risks of treatment options. Young children should have therapy for. They're
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Now to socially transition that many parents expressed concerns about their child being socially transitioned, affirmed, expressed gender without parental involvement. There are too many decisions about changing gender have been rushed changing gender have been rushed with too little consideration. Given that children might regret Given that children might regret their actions later in life and that childhood trauma, neglect, that childhood trauma, neglect, abuse feature heavily in the cohort of patients seeking gender change. As many as two thirds of those referred suffer neglect or abuse, with high levels of parental mental illness, substance abuse and exposure to domestic violence.
These are the vulnerable children who went to the Tavistock Clinic closed after pressure from those who understood the horrors that took place there when it was open. Of course I will in a second. When I made an attack on the liberal bourgeoisie, which you might want to might want to hear when it was open. Of course, it was seen as an emblem of progress by the liberal bourgeoisie. Now, of course, we
**** Possible New Speaker ****
know that it was the embodiment of wickedness. I give weight on gentlemen. On that note. I do thank him for giving me.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I do thank him for giving me. I'm part of the liberal working class. I guess the E, of course, of course. This debate, this debate isn't about the Tavistock Clinic. And he did debate. He did quote Baroness Cass extensively there. One of her recommendations, which she didn't talk about, was that she she didn't talk about, was that she did recommend a clinical trial. Go ahead. And she said recently that she supports the trial because she thinks would be real benefits to it.
Does he want to address that point rather than talking about Tavistock? Does he want to address what Baroness cast that he's quoted extensively thinks about this trial that we are debating today? Well,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
thank you. To to gather more evidence, we know that the evidence that we have shows the damage that puberty blockers can do. We know the blockers can do. We know the substantial science which suggest they affect bone maturation, they affect bone maturation, cerebral capacity, and of course, fertility. But it's but it's fertility. But it's but it's certain that there is no compelling evidence that puberty blockers have a beneficial effect. And that's why she sought more evidence, because she concluded there was no evidence, no compelling evidence that they had a beneficial effect.
I give way to the hon. Member, and I must make.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you very much. As another member of the Liberal working class, I would also wonder whether the hon. Member has the experience that many of us in this place have of talking to constituents, friends, talking to constituents, friends, family, who have children, who have struggled with their gender struggled with their gender identity and have benefited from puberty blockers. So while he says there is no evidence many of us
**** Possible New Speaker ****
there is no evidence many of us here have direct experience of seeing the benefits and action. Well, that that experience clearly contradicts the Cass Reviews findings. But of course it's lady to have that debate, no doubt with Doctor Cass, what's absolutely certain is that we have no indication from the government about what success will look like in this trial. When challenged on that subject. Answer was there none. How are we going to gauge whether this trial is a success or a failure? And are these children really kind of guinea pigs to be used to provide the evidence that the hon.
Lady says is already freely available in her anecdotal experience of communicating with her constituents and others? We certainly know there's evidence from other countries. Has the government looked to drawing on that, rather than engaging in this dangerous trial? We know there's evidence from the 2000 or more children that went through Tavistock. It's been suggested by some that we should we should look at the data already available, rather than putting any more children at risk. And yet, despite the Secretary of State's agonised decision, and I do say that that's not it's not not meant to be sarcastic or pejorative.
I appreciate that he was completely straightforward about how difficult it's been to make this decision. Despite that, this trial goes ahead with I accept additional safeguards. This is not Tavistock, this is something different, but nonetheless bringing immense risk alongside the determination to try and gain facts. Let's look at Finland and Denmark. Let's look at other countries who've already gathered evidence. Let's look at what we know of those who've already been through this process. G.K.
Chesterton said children are innocent and love justice. I fear that this trial will steal their innocence and deny them justice. And I hope that even at this late stage, recognising that this government will abandon this awful
**** Possible New Speaker ****
trial and save those innocent children from that fate. Yeah, yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah, yeah. I now come to wind up. I invite the Shadow Secretary of State. Stuart Andrew. Yes. Thank you very much, Madam.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you very much, Madam. Deputy Speaker. And this has been an important debate and also a difficult debate, but a necessary one nonetheless. There are some subjects in public life where the subjects in public life where the easiest course is silence, where every word is weighed, where motives are questioned, and where members may be tempted to step back rather than step forward. But when the subject is the is the safety of children. Silence is not an option.
Children and young people are at the centre of this debate, and they are not slogans. They are not political symbols, not to be used by either side of any argument. They are children, often vulnerable children experiencing distress that
18:37
Rt Hon Stuart Andrew MP (Daventry, Conservative)
-
-
Rt Hon Stuart Andrew MP (Daventry, Conservative)
can be profound, complex and deeply painful. They need kindness, patience and support from adults who listen and act responsibly. who listen and act responsibly. They need services that are timely, professional and compassionate. professional and compassionate. Compassion is not measured by how quickly we medicalise a child's quickly we medicalise a child's distress. Compassion is measured by whether we protect the child's future and respond to their present pain. That is the heart of this debate. Now, sadly, those of us who are concerned about this trial are often labelled as transphobic.
And personally, I find that offensive. Child safety matters to me and so does equality for trans people. But we have to think about children. The government asks the House to accept that the pathways trial is the responsible way to build evidence. Ministers say that this is a carefully controlled study, that safeguards have been strengthened, and that only a small number of children will be involved. But the question before us is not whether research matters. Of course it does.
The question is whether this particular trial, involving children as young as 11 and 12, is the right and ethical way to proceed on this side of the House. We do not believe that it is. My position is rooted in a simple principle. When evidence is uncertain, risks may be lifelong, and when the patient is a child, the burden of proof must be exceptionally high. That is not ideology. That is good medicine. The Cass Review changed this debate because it brought clarity to a field that had been allowed to drift for too long.
It found weak evidence, poor data, inadequate follow up, and a service model that too often failed to look at the whole child. It was the previous government that treated those findings with the seriousness they deserved. The routine prescription of puberty blockers on the NHS was ended because the evidence did not justify the practice. That was not a rejection of vulnerable young people. It was an act of safeguarding. The government now says this trial is different. It says it is not routine prescribing and that there will be monitoring, consent assessment and withdrawal criteria.
But process cannot answer the central moral question can a child at the start of puberty truly understand the impact of interrupting puberty? Can an 11 year old meaningfully, meaningfully consider questions of fertility, bone development, cognitive effects, sexual function, and future regret? Can a parent face with a distressed child and a desperate sense of need for relief, rationally navigate the uncertainty without enormous pressure? Those are not abstract questions. They go to the integrity of consent itself.
In most areas of medicine, when the risks are serious and the benefits uncertain, we become more cautious, not less. We do not reassure ourselves merely because the cohort is small, or say that because only a limited number of children may be exposed, the ethical concern is reduced for each child in this trial. The consequences are enormous and personal for each family, the decision is life altering for each future adult. The question May 1st day be, did the people in authority protect me properly? Now the Secretary of State has said he feels discomfort and unease, and I welcome that honesty.
And I believe that to be heartfelt. But discomfort in this area should not be something Ministers try to manage away. It should make them stop and think again. Unease is sometimes the proper response of conscience. The government points to safeguards, but safeguards are not the same as certainty. Monitoring every three months may identify some problems, but it cannot guarantee that long term harm will not emerge years later. Objective withdrawal criteria may be better than vague discretion, but they do not remove the risk of treating a child unnecessarily in the first place.
And the government has still not answered a fundamental question why proceed now before the existing evidence has been fully examined? There are children and young people who were treated under previous services. There is data that may help us understand outcomes. There is a Tavistock related evidence base that should be completed and analysed before more children are exposed to puberty blockers in a new trial. Surely the first duty is to learn from what has already happened and therefore potentially identify wherever there may be gaps.
That is not obstruction. It is responsibility. The government must not ignore the wider context. Many children experience gender distress, also have other needs mental health difficulties, autism, trauma, family pressures, anxiety, depression, eating disorders or safeguarding concerns. Doctor Cass was clear that services must look at the whole child, not just one aspect of identity. We should not accept a system that is slow to provide holistic support, but but prepared to move ahead with powerful medical intervention under the banner of research.
This House must be honest about the tone of this debate. There will be young people listening who will be feeling frightened by it. There will be parents listening who feel judged. There will be clinicians listening who are trying to do their best in a difficult and contested area. So let us be clear. Our concern is not with the dignity of any child. Their dignity is beyond question. Our concern is with the decisions made by adults in positions of power. Children deserve adults who can hold two truths at once, that their distress must be taken seriously, and that this and that serious distress does not automatically justify
**** Possible New Speaker ****
experimental medical treatment. I will. I thank the honourable the hon. Member for.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Member for. Giving way. I am slightly confused because we know that this trial, these these young people trial, these these young people will already have all of those other things in place. The Minister has been very clear about how the the talking therapies and all of the other expressions and the time period. It takes two years within period. It takes two years within the gender system before anyone can access this trial. So I'm worried it's slightly disingenuous to suggest that these children are going to be popped straight on a trial without everything else in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
place. I wonder if he could just clarify. He understands that. I absolutely I can assure the hon. Lady that I've given this an hon. Lady that I've given this an enormous amount of support of consideration. And I do understand what she's saying. But my argument what she's saying. But my argument is that we already have a set of data that needs to be looked at with children that have gone with children that have gone through some of these experiences, and having spoken to some of them, I do not want to see others experience it.
Now I'm going to continue because I do want to give the Minister the opportunity to to to respond. The Secretary of State says that this trial will help settle the evidence, but a trial that follows children for a limited period cannot by itself settle questions that may only become clear in adulthood. It cannot fully answer questions what a child will think at 25, 35 or 45 about decisions made at 11 or 12. When I was in my teens struggling with my sexuality, it was complex enough.
It was emotionally draining. It was scary. Add into the mix that if someone had said to me, maybe isn't my sexuality, but it's my gender, I cannot imagine how much harder that would have been. And that's why we must listen to people like Kiera Bell. We must not confuse the creation of some evidence with the resolution of all uncertainty. The opposition's approach is careful, proportionate and child centred. Pause this trial. Complete the analysis of existing data. Publish a full account of the known risks and unknowns.
Strengthen non-medical support. Then, and only then, consider what further research should be ethically justified. This is not abandonment. That is protection. Madam Deputy Speaker, the first responsibility of any health system is not to validate every proposed treatment. It is to ask whether that treatment is safe, necessary and in the long term interests of the patient. When the patient is a child, that responsibility is heavier still. We owe these young people more than good intentions. We owe them caution.
We owe them honesty. We owe them services that see them in the round. And we owe them the humility to admit that when the evidence is uncertain, the answer is not to press ahead and hope. The answer is to pause, to learn and to protect. And for those reasons, I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
urge the House to support this motion. Mr. Stephen Kinnock. Thank you very.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you very. Much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I'd like to start by declaring an interest because my son Milo, of interest because my son Milo, of whom I'm extremely proud, is a trans man. I have listened to colleagues very carefully over the colleagues very carefully over the course of our proceedings. There have been some truly heartfelt speeches, and this strength of speeches, and this strength of feeling is certainly warranted wherever children are concerned. The government welcomes this scrutiny, and I want to thank members from all sides of the House for the constructive tone and substance of this debate.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not the Minister who is responsible for leading on this policy in the Department for Health and Social Care. Nevertheless, I do feel a great deal of responsibility for the health and wellbeing of children in our country. As the Minister of State for care, I am, for example, responsible for making sure children at end of life are receiving the right palliative and end of life care and tooth decay,
And personally, I find that offensive. Child safety matters to me and so does equality for trans people. But we have to think about children. The government asks the House to accept that the pathways trial is the responsible way to build evidence. Ministers say that this is a carefully controlled study, that safeguards have been strengthened, and that only a small number of children will be involved. But the question before us is not whether research matters. Of course it does.
The question is whether this particular trial, involving children as young as 11 and 12, is the right and ethical way to proceed on this side of the House. We do not believe that it is. My position is rooted in a simple principle. When evidence is uncertain, risks may be lifelong, and when the patient is a child, the burden of proof must be exceptionally high. That is not ideology. That is good medicine. The Cass Review changed this debate because it brought clarity to a field that had been allowed to drift for too long.
It found weak evidence, poor data, inadequate follow up, and a service model that too often failed to look at the whole child. It was the previous government that treated those findings with the seriousness they deserved. The routine prescription of puberty blockers on the NHS was ended because the evidence did not justify the practice. That was not a rejection of vulnerable young people. It was an act of safeguarding. The government now says this trial is different. It says it is not routine prescribing and that there will be monitoring, consent assessment and withdrawal criteria.
But process cannot answer the central moral question can a child at the start of puberty truly understand the impact of interrupting puberty? Can an 11 year old meaningfully, meaningfully consider questions of fertility, bone development, cognitive effects, sexual function, and future regret? Can a parent face with a distressed child and a desperate sense of need for relief, rationally navigate the uncertainty without enormous pressure? Those are not abstract questions. They go to the integrity of consent itself.
In most areas of medicine, when the risks are serious and the benefits uncertain, we become more cautious, not less. We do not reassure ourselves merely because the cohort is small, or say that because only a limited number of children may be exposed, the ethical concern is reduced for each child in this trial. The consequences are enormous and personal for each family, the decision is life altering for each future adult. The question May 1st day be, did the people in authority protect me properly? Now the Secretary of State has said he feels discomfort and unease, and I welcome that honesty.
And I believe that to be heartfelt. But discomfort in this area should not be something Ministers try to manage away. It should make them stop and think again. Unease is sometimes the proper response of conscience. The government points to safeguards, but safeguards are not the same as certainty. Monitoring every three months may identify some problems, but it cannot guarantee that long term harm will not emerge years later. Objective withdrawal criteria may be better than vague discretion, but they do not remove the risk of treating a child unnecessarily in the first place.
And the government has still not answered a fundamental question why proceed now before the existing evidence has been fully examined? There are children and young people who were treated under previous services. There is data that may help us understand outcomes. There is a Tavistock related evidence base that should be completed and analysed before more children are exposed to puberty blockers in a new trial. Surely the first duty is to learn from what has already happened and therefore potentially identify wherever there may be gaps.
That is not obstruction. It is responsibility. The government must not ignore the wider context. Many children experience gender distress, also have other needs mental health difficulties, autism, trauma, family pressures, anxiety, depression, eating disorders or safeguarding concerns. Doctor Cass was clear that services must look at the whole child, not just one aspect of identity. We should not accept a system that is slow to provide holistic support, but but prepared to move ahead with powerful medical intervention under the banner of research.
This House must be honest about the tone of this debate. There will be young people listening who will be feeling frightened by it. There will be parents listening who feel judged. There will be clinicians listening who are trying to do their best in a difficult and contested area. So let us be clear. Our concern is not with the dignity of any child. Their dignity is beyond question. Our concern is with the decisions made by adults in positions of power. Children deserve adults who can hold two truths at once, that their distress must be taken seriously, and that this and that serious distress does not automatically justify
**** Possible New Speaker ****
experimental medical treatment. I will. I thank the honourable the hon. Member for.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Member for. Giving way. I am slightly confused because we know that this trial, these these young people trial, these these young people will already have all of those other things in place. The Minister has been very clear about how the the talking therapies and all of the other expressions and the time period. It takes two years within period. It takes two years within the gender system before anyone can access this trial. So I'm worried it's slightly disingenuous to suggest that these children are going to be popped straight on a trial without everything else in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
place. I wonder if he could just clarify. He understands that. I absolutely I can assure the hon. Lady that I've given this an hon. Lady that I've given this an enormous amount of support of consideration. And I do understand what she's saying. But my argument what she's saying. But my argument is that we already have a set of data that needs to be looked at with children that have gone with children that have gone through some of these experiences, and having spoken to some of them, I do not want to see others experience it.
Now I'm going to continue because I do want to give the Minister the opportunity to to to respond. The Secretary of State says that this trial will help settle the evidence, but a trial that follows children for a limited period cannot by itself settle questions that may only become clear in adulthood. It cannot fully answer questions what a child will think at 25, 35 or 45 about decisions made at 11 or 12. When I was in my teens struggling with my sexuality, it was complex enough.
It was emotionally draining. It was scary. Add into the mix that if someone had said to me, maybe isn't my sexuality, but it's my gender, I cannot imagine how much harder that would have been. And that's why we must listen to people like Kiera Bell. We must not confuse the creation of some evidence with the resolution of all uncertainty. The opposition's approach is careful, proportionate and child centred. Pause this trial. Complete the analysis of existing data. Publish a full account of the known risks and unknowns.
Strengthen non-medical support. Then, and only then, consider what further research should be ethically justified. This is not abandonment. That is protection. Madam Deputy Speaker, the first responsibility of any health system is not to validate every proposed treatment. It is to ask whether that treatment is safe, necessary and in the long term interests of the patient. When the patient is a child, that responsibility is heavier still. We owe these young people more than good intentions. We owe them caution.
We owe them honesty. We owe them services that see them in the round. And we owe them the humility to admit that when the evidence is uncertain, the answer is not to press ahead and hope. The answer is to pause, to learn and to protect. And for those reasons, I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
urge the House to support this motion. Mr. Stephen Kinnock. Thank you very.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you very. Much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I'd like to start by declaring an interest because my son Milo, of interest because my son Milo, of whom I'm extremely proud, is a trans man. I have listened to colleagues very carefully over the colleagues very carefully over the course of our proceedings. There have been some truly heartfelt speeches, and this strength of speeches, and this strength of feeling is certainly warranted wherever children are concerned. The government welcomes this scrutiny, and I want to thank members from all sides of the House for the constructive tone and substance of this debate.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not the Minister who is responsible for leading on this policy in the Department for Health and Social Care. Nevertheless, I do feel a great deal of responsibility for the health and wellbeing of children in our country. As the Minister of State for care, I am, for example, responsible for making sure children at end of life are receiving the right palliative and end of life care and tooth decay,
18:48
Stephen Kinnock MP, Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care) (Aberafan Maesteg, Labour)
-
-
Stephen Kinnock MP, Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care) (Aberafan Maesteg, Labour)
for example, has an appalling effect on children's wellbeing. So when it comes to gender when it comes to gender incongruence, I cannot help but think of those children suffering in great distress who may even be in great distress who may even be watching our proceedings this evening. And I want them to know that all of us in this chamber want what is best for them, and we may disagree about how we get there, disagree about how we get there, but I do not doubt the sincerity of anyone who has spoken today.
Fundamentally, Madam Deputy Speaker, our approach on this side of the House is to be led by the evidence. And on this I pay tribute to Doctor Hilary Cass, who has taken on one of the most sensitive and polarising issues of our times with such courage and professionalism. Now, the Shadow Minister and I hugely respect her expertise as a paediatrician, has said that our decisions could be motivated by fear and hostility, but I do not think that that is a charge that anyone could level at.
Doctor Cass, who has shown the utmost courage and professionalism from the moment that she was appointed. It was on the strength of her independence and integrity that the previous conservative government, of which the hon. Lady was. Of course, a member, accepted her recommendations, and one of those recommendations was for a regulated, robustly safeguarded trial. Yesterday, Doctor Cass went on to say that she is, and I quote, absolutely convinced that more children will be harmed if we don't
**** Possible New Speaker ****
do the trial than if we do so. Thank you. First of all, I want to commend him on an excellent and to commend him on an excellent and brave speech. When when the Cass Report came out, I was criticised for not accepting the Cass report for not accepting the Cass report in full. Now, those exact people who said that to me are not accepting the Cass report in full. accepting the Cass report in full. Do you not agree that's hypocrisy that they should stick to their word at the time?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank him for that intervention. I know that feelings are strong and heartfelt on these matters. I accept that if the party opposite has changed its position and it's putting forward its arguments with with sincerity and honour, that is a perfectly acceptable position to take. But I simply would remind the House of the journey that the party opposite
**** Possible New Speaker ****
has been on. I will give way. I thank the Minister for giving way. The Cass review also suggested way. The Cass review also suggested doing a clinical trial for cross-sex hormones. So on that basis, is the government going to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
basis, is the government going to be launching a clinical trial on cross-sex hormones as well? Well, I thank her. This is a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well, I thank her. This is a debate, of course, about the hormones for suppressing puberty. hormones for suppressing puberty. It's it's related to the matter that she raises. But of course, I think it's very important that we get the sequencing right. Let's look at the trial. Let's look at the evidence. And that is, of course, part of the process of understanding the milestones and the forks in the road that children who are experiencing gender incongruence go on. And so let's do this one step at a time.
So we are proceeding carefully, cautiously, and under the mantra that the safety and well-being of children is non-negotiable and with clarity that a robustly scrutinised trial with rigorous safeguards is the only way of establishing a robust evidence base for puberty suppressing hormones. If you'll just allow me to make a little bit of progress, I'll talk through the safeguards and then I'll allow him to intervene. Now, many hon. Members have asked about safeguards. So please allow me to remind the House what they are, that children can only participate with the consent of a parent or guardian, and the child themselves must consent or assent.
They have a diagnosis of gender incongruence of at least two years. They are of stable physical and mental health. They are not subject to any safeguarding concerns. If they and their parents demonstrate sufficient understanding of the nature of the treatment, including its potential advantages and disadvantages. They must have deemed be deemed clinically appropriate by both their NHS care team and the national multidisciplinary team. And if they are already accessing NHS gender services, including participating in a tailored package of psychosocial care.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The Minister would at least commit to look again at the experience of Finland and Denmark, experience of Finland and Denmark, where their evidence has led them to the point where they are now
**** Possible New Speaker ****
emphasising counselling rather than medical intervention. Thank you for. The intervention. A little bit
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The intervention. A little bit later in my comments, I'm going to go through all of the different work that's going on. This is absolutely not happening in isolation. There are a range of other studies that we're taking into account, and I will come on to that in a little bit. So some colleagues have raised the work of the MHRA to strengthen the safeguards for young people involved in the trial. The MHRA has been engaged in a scientific dialogue with the trial sponsors, and it was the outcome of that process that led the MHRA as an independent body to publish the updated protocol last week.
We welcome these changes because it shows the MHRA is taking its job seriously and the system is working as intended. We cannot cut corners when it comes to the safety and wellbeing of children, and the safeguards are now in place to guarantee greater monitoring and clinical reassessment, including objective criteria for withdrawing children and young people from the trial entirely. I would also remind colleagues that the bar is extremely high. To qualify for this trial, only a small number of young people are anticipated to meet the strict criteria.
Now, some other colleagues and I turn now to the hon. Gentleman's point. Some other colleagues have queried the need to have a clinical trial when a number of children have already taken puberty blockers and information is already available. But Doctor Cass's conclusions were that there is not enough evidence about the risks or benefits of these medications. That is why she was so clear in recommending a trial to find that clinical evidence, because that is the basis on which we can take those decisions.
The information in the data linkage study is much more limited than the detailed information that the research team will be able to collect about the relative benefits and risks of hormone suppressing puberty suppressing hormones. NHS England is, however, committed to delivering the data linkage study and has taken time to ensure that the data is shared by relevant organisations.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the Minister. I've been listening to this debate and I haven't heard yet what the haven't heard yet what the government deems to be a measure of success of this puberty blocker success of this puberty blocker trial before it goes ahead. What are the criteria? What are the measurements? What are the measurements? What are the percentages? Numbers? What are the timeline over which it's going to be measured? Can he explain what
**** Possible New Speaker ****
be measured? Can he explain what that is? If somebody is unhappy, can they sue the government? Well. The hon. Lady will know a lot of this is about the distress and tremendous mental health pressure that young people going through. Gender incongruence feel so clearly, one of the outcomes that we'll be looking for from the trials is an alleviation and an amelioration of those significant mental health issues, distress, and the kind of outcomes that we want to see to help some of those young people who often end up in awful situations, leading to self-harm and other terrible situations.
Now, some colleagues have asked about the wider support we're providing for children and young people with gender dysphoria and incongruence. I am pleased that the pathway study is just one part of the wider work being done to make sure the support is there. For example, Pathways horizon is an observational study of all children and young people attending NHS children and young people's specialist gender services. Pathways connect is a brain imaging study. Pathways voices will interview young people, and Horizon Intensive is about making sure that there's a comparison group of 300 participants who are expressing gender incongruence.
Furthermore, NHS England has opened three new children and young People's Gender services in the northwest London and Bristol, with a fourth planned for the East of England this year. And I can confirm that the government aims to have a service in every region of England in the coming years. These services use a different model, with multidisciplinary teams, including mental health support and paediatrics within specialist children's hospitals to provide holistic care. The new services will increase clinical capacity and reduce waiting times, so patients can be seen sooner and closer to home.
Now I can update the house as well that waiting lists for children and young people's gender services have come down since this government took office. As of April, there were nearly 3000 fewer children and young people on the waiting list when compared to September 2024. Madam Deputy Speaker, this government stands by the principle that we will always be led by clinical advice and clinical evidence, but that does not mean that we take these decisions lightly, and it does not mean that we are abdicating our responsibilities either.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has requested monthly updates on the progress of the trial, including any emerging risks. Throughout this process, he has immersed himself in the detail, scrutinised the issue and sought the strongest assurances from his most senior clinical advisers. We have received those assurances and we are proceeding on the basis of evidence, not ideology. Now I end with regret that the cross-party consensus on on Doctor Cass's review expert review has been lost, it would appear, but also with hope that colleagues can get behind Doctor Cass's work as we have done before.
We will move forward on the basis of taking decisions based on expertise, clinical and medical professionals acting with within clearly defined safeguards and robust oversight, including in this House, to provide the best quality of healthcare and support for all children and young people to access what they need. Madam Deputy Speaker On one level, this is a specific debate about a specific issue, but when you zoom out, you see that it goes to the heart of what our NHS is about, which is how best to do the greatest possible good for the greatest possible number of people.
And when you look at this through that basic ethical prism, there can be no doubt that this government's position is the right one. A small cohort of vulnerable children are struggling and it is our job to help them. It really is as simple as that. I would therefore urge colleagues to evening.
Fundamentally, Madam Deputy Speaker, our approach on this side of the House is to be led by the evidence. And on this I pay tribute to Doctor Hilary Cass, who has taken on one of the most sensitive and polarising issues of our times with such courage and professionalism. Now, the Shadow Minister and I hugely respect her expertise as a paediatrician, has said that our decisions could be motivated by fear and hostility, but I do not think that that is a charge that anyone could level at.
Doctor Cass, who has shown the utmost courage and professionalism from the moment that she was appointed. It was on the strength of her independence and integrity that the previous conservative government, of which the hon. Lady was. Of course, a member, accepted her recommendations, and one of those recommendations was for a regulated, robustly safeguarded trial. Yesterday, Doctor Cass went on to say that she is, and I quote, absolutely convinced that more children will be harmed if we don't
**** Possible New Speaker ****
do the trial than if we do so. Thank you. First of all, I want to commend him on an excellent and to commend him on an excellent and brave speech. When when the Cass Report came out, I was criticised for not accepting the Cass report for not accepting the Cass report in full. Now, those exact people who said that to me are not accepting the Cass report in full. accepting the Cass report in full. Do you not agree that's hypocrisy that they should stick to their word at the time?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank him for that intervention. I know that feelings are strong and heartfelt on these matters. I accept that if the party opposite has changed its position and it's putting forward its arguments with with sincerity and honour, that is a perfectly acceptable position to take. But I simply would remind the House of the journey that the party opposite
**** Possible New Speaker ****
has been on. I will give way. I thank the Minister for giving way. The Cass review also suggested way. The Cass review also suggested doing a clinical trial for cross-sex hormones. So on that basis, is the government going to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
basis, is the government going to be launching a clinical trial on cross-sex hormones as well? Well, I thank her. This is a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well, I thank her. This is a debate, of course, about the hormones for suppressing puberty. hormones for suppressing puberty. It's it's related to the matter that she raises. But of course, I think it's very important that we get the sequencing right. Let's look at the trial. Let's look at the evidence. And that is, of course, part of the process of understanding the milestones and the forks in the road that children who are experiencing gender incongruence go on. And so let's do this one step at a time.
So we are proceeding carefully, cautiously, and under the mantra that the safety and well-being of children is non-negotiable and with clarity that a robustly scrutinised trial with rigorous safeguards is the only way of establishing a robust evidence base for puberty suppressing hormones. If you'll just allow me to make a little bit of progress, I'll talk through the safeguards and then I'll allow him to intervene. Now, many hon. Members have asked about safeguards. So please allow me to remind the House what they are, that children can only participate with the consent of a parent or guardian, and the child themselves must consent or assent.
They have a diagnosis of gender incongruence of at least two years. They are of stable physical and mental health. They are not subject to any safeguarding concerns. If they and their parents demonstrate sufficient understanding of the nature of the treatment, including its potential advantages and disadvantages. They must have deemed be deemed clinically appropriate by both their NHS care team and the national multidisciplinary team. And if they are already accessing NHS gender services, including participating in a tailored package of psychosocial care.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The Minister would at least commit to look again at the experience of Finland and Denmark, experience of Finland and Denmark, where their evidence has led them to the point where they are now
**** Possible New Speaker ****
emphasising counselling rather than medical intervention. Thank you for. The intervention. A little bit
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The intervention. A little bit later in my comments, I'm going to go through all of the different work that's going on. This is absolutely not happening in isolation. There are a range of other studies that we're taking into account, and I will come on to that in a little bit. So some colleagues have raised the work of the MHRA to strengthen the safeguards for young people involved in the trial. The MHRA has been engaged in a scientific dialogue with the trial sponsors, and it was the outcome of that process that led the MHRA as an independent body to publish the updated protocol last week.
We welcome these changes because it shows the MHRA is taking its job seriously and the system is working as intended. We cannot cut corners when it comes to the safety and wellbeing of children, and the safeguards are now in place to guarantee greater monitoring and clinical reassessment, including objective criteria for withdrawing children and young people from the trial entirely. I would also remind colleagues that the bar is extremely high. To qualify for this trial, only a small number of young people are anticipated to meet the strict criteria.
Now, some other colleagues and I turn now to the hon. Gentleman's point. Some other colleagues have queried the need to have a clinical trial when a number of children have already taken puberty blockers and information is already available. But Doctor Cass's conclusions were that there is not enough evidence about the risks or benefits of these medications. That is why she was so clear in recommending a trial to find that clinical evidence, because that is the basis on which we can take those decisions.
The information in the data linkage study is much more limited than the detailed information that the research team will be able to collect about the relative benefits and risks of hormone suppressing puberty suppressing hormones. NHS England is, however, committed to delivering the data linkage study and has taken time to ensure that the data is shared by relevant organisations.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the Minister. I've been listening to this debate and I haven't heard yet what the haven't heard yet what the government deems to be a measure of success of this puberty blocker success of this puberty blocker trial before it goes ahead. What are the criteria? What are the measurements? What are the measurements? What are the percentages? Numbers? What are the timeline over which it's going to be measured? Can he explain what
**** Possible New Speaker ****
be measured? Can he explain what that is? If somebody is unhappy, can they sue the government? Well. The hon. Lady will know a lot of this is about the distress and tremendous mental health pressure that young people going through. Gender incongruence feel so clearly, one of the outcomes that we'll be looking for from the trials is an alleviation and an amelioration of those significant mental health issues, distress, and the kind of outcomes that we want to see to help some of those young people who often end up in awful situations, leading to self-harm and other terrible situations.
Now, some colleagues have asked about the wider support we're providing for children and young people with gender dysphoria and incongruence. I am pleased that the pathway study is just one part of the wider work being done to make sure the support is there. For example, Pathways horizon is an observational study of all children and young people attending NHS children and young people's specialist gender services. Pathways connect is a brain imaging study. Pathways voices will interview young people, and Horizon Intensive is about making sure that there's a comparison group of 300 participants who are expressing gender incongruence.
Furthermore, NHS England has opened three new children and young People's Gender services in the northwest London and Bristol, with a fourth planned for the East of England this year. And I can confirm that the government aims to have a service in every region of England in the coming years. These services use a different model, with multidisciplinary teams, including mental health support and paediatrics within specialist children's hospitals to provide holistic care. The new services will increase clinical capacity and reduce waiting times, so patients can be seen sooner and closer to home.
Now I can update the house as well that waiting lists for children and young people's gender services have come down since this government took office. As of April, there were nearly 3000 fewer children and young people on the waiting list when compared to September 2024. Madam Deputy Speaker, this government stands by the principle that we will always be led by clinical advice and clinical evidence, but that does not mean that we take these decisions lightly, and it does not mean that we are abdicating our responsibilities either.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has requested monthly updates on the progress of the trial, including any emerging risks. Throughout this process, he has immersed himself in the detail, scrutinised the issue and sought the strongest assurances from his most senior clinical advisers. We have received those assurances and we are proceeding on the basis of evidence, not ideology. Now I end with regret that the cross-party consensus on on Doctor Cass's review expert review has been lost, it would appear, but also with hope that colleagues can get behind Doctor Cass's work as we have done before.
We will move forward on the basis of taking decisions based on expertise, clinical and medical professionals acting with within clearly defined safeguards and robust oversight, including in this House, to provide the best quality of healthcare and support for all children and young people to access what they need. Madam Deputy Speaker On one level, this is a specific debate about a specific issue, but when you zoom out, you see that it goes to the heart of what our NHS is about, which is how best to do the greatest possible good for the greatest possible number of people.
And when you look at this through that basic ethical prism, there can be no doubt that this government's position is the right one. A small cohort of vulnerable children are struggling and it is our job to help them. It really is as simple as that. I would therefore urge colleagues to evening.
18:59
Debate: Puberty blockers: Division
-
Debate: Puberty blockers: Division
When you're ready, sir. John Hayes. >> Marvellous.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Marvellous. The question is, as on the Order Paper as many that. I of the contrary, no. know. Tellers for the ayes David Simmonds Andrew Snowden Tellers for the noes are Jade
**** Possible New Speaker ****
South South Dorset.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order. Order. Order.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order. Order. Order. Order. The Order. Order. The eyes.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order. Order. The eyes. To the right. Were 112. The noes to the left were 283.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The ayes to the right 112. The noes to the left 283. The nose habit. The nose habit. Unlock. As that concludes that bit of business. Do Ministers wish to swap over before we continue with business? Right. We will continue. Motion number two on redress scheme. Minister Tamworth.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I beg to move. The question is, as on the order
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is, as on the order papers that say I have gone to no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Motion number three on the Motion number three on the Speaker's Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. Mr. Tamworth, the question is, as on the Order Paper question is, as on the Order Paper as many of that opinion say, I. Of the contrary, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Motion number four on Modernisation Committee Minister to move.
The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. the ayes have it. The
**** Possible New Speaker ****
ayes have it. Yeah. It's your moment. I beg to move that this house
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I beg to move that this house now. I beg to move that this house do now adjourn. Right. The question is that this House do now adjourn and I call House do now adjourn and I call Nick Timothy on impact of the Forest City housing proposal on
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Forest City housing proposal on Timothy. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Marvellous. The question is, as on the Order Paper as many that. I of the contrary, no. know. Tellers for the ayes David Simmonds Andrew Snowden Tellers for the noes are Jade
**** Possible New Speaker ****
South South Dorset.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order. Order. Order.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order. Order. Order. Order. The Order. Order. The eyes.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order. Order. The eyes. To the right. Were 112. The noes to the left were 283.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The ayes to the right 112. The noes to the left 283. The nose habit. The nose habit. Unlock. As that concludes that bit of business. Do Ministers wish to swap over before we continue with business? Right. We will continue. Motion number two on redress scheme. Minister Tamworth.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I beg to move. The question is, as on the order
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is, as on the order papers that say I have gone to no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Motion number three on the Motion number three on the Speaker's Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. Mr. Tamworth, the question is, as on the Order Paper question is, as on the Order Paper as many of that opinion say, I. Of the contrary, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Motion number four on Modernisation Committee Minister to move.
The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. the ayes have it. The
**** Possible New Speaker ****
ayes have it. Yeah. It's your moment. I beg to move that this house
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I beg to move that this house now. I beg to move that this house do now adjourn. Right. The question is that this House do now adjourn and I call House do now adjourn and I call Nick Timothy on impact of the Forest City housing proposal on
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Forest City housing proposal on Timothy. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
19:13
-
I draw your attention to my register of interests and declare that my family and I are local residents affected by the development proposal we are about to discuss. I'm grateful for this debate about the proposed Forest City, and especially grateful to the speaker for allowing me to lead it. Given my Shadow Cabinet responsibilities, I sought the debate because Forest City is such a danger to our way of life in West Suffolk. For those who are unfamiliar with this monstrous proposal, this is it.
A city of 1 million people the size of Birmingham, between Newmarket and Haverhill, in Suffolk and over the border into Cambridgeshire, a city of a million people supposedly to service the needs of Cambridge, a city seven times smaller with only 145,000 residents, a city of the same population density as London, where on average 58 people live in each hectare. All where we stand, all where stand today. Ancient villages, communities built on trust and reciprocity, beautiful countryside, family businesses, new tech firms, the international headquarters of horse racing and breeding, and the best arable farmland in the country.
The most important thing to say about the plan is its premise is absolute junk. The Forest City developers make specific claims regarding land assembly, compulsory purchase, affordability mechanisms, infrastructure funding, tax treatment and the scale of state involvement, and none of it stands up to scrutiny. First, the resale model removes residential land value and caps resale at inflated
**** Possible New Speaker ****
at. I will give one. I'm grateful to my neighbour. For allowing. An intervention. I regard this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
An intervention. I regard this as quite a bold idea. Like the NHS. That was a bold idea just after the That was a bold idea just after the war. So just let us try and use our imagination. Perhaps we'll create a imagination. Perhaps we'll create a shining city, not a city on a hill, but in the flatlands of Suffolk. And perhaps, just perhaps, a solution to the housing crisis we have in our land.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think we just had it. And the people of West Suffolk will know people of West Suffolk will know that local Labour representatives are in favour of the Forest City, are in favour of the Forest City, which I think is shameful. As I was saying, the resale model removes residential land value and caps residential land value and caps resale as in inflation indexed build costs, excluding land where homes cost £350,000, as promised by the developers.
This creates a permanent capital gap of £275,000 per unit at the scale proposed approximately 400,000 homes. This implies up to £110 billion of housing capital subsidy paid by government. Second, the plan relies on a development corporation with powers of compulsory purchase while denying itself increases in land value uplift for a city of 1 million people, non housing infrastructure will cost anywhere up to £60 billion in capital expenditure, the developers suggest selling a limited number of commercial plots to cross-subsidise investment, but this falls far too short without capturing the wider increase in land value.
This is another massive black hole. Third, the plan implies water self-sufficiency at scale. The East
A city of 1 million people the size of Birmingham, between Newmarket and Haverhill, in Suffolk and over the border into Cambridgeshire, a city of a million people supposedly to service the needs of Cambridge, a city seven times smaller with only 145,000 residents, a city of the same population density as London, where on average 58 people live in each hectare. All where we stand, all where stand today. Ancient villages, communities built on trust and reciprocity, beautiful countryside, family businesses, new tech firms, the international headquarters of horse racing and breeding, and the best arable farmland in the country.
The most important thing to say about the plan is its premise is absolute junk. The Forest City developers make specific claims regarding land assembly, compulsory purchase, affordability mechanisms, infrastructure funding, tax treatment and the scale of state involvement, and none of it stands up to scrutiny. First, the resale model removes residential land value and caps resale at inflated
**** Possible New Speaker ****
at. I will give one. I'm grateful to my neighbour. For allowing. An intervention. I regard this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
An intervention. I regard this as quite a bold idea. Like the NHS. That was a bold idea just after the That was a bold idea just after the war. So just let us try and use our imagination. Perhaps we'll create a imagination. Perhaps we'll create a shining city, not a city on a hill, but in the flatlands of Suffolk. And perhaps, just perhaps, a solution to the housing crisis we have in our land.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think we just had it. And the people of West Suffolk will know people of West Suffolk will know that local Labour representatives are in favour of the Forest City, are in favour of the Forest City, which I think is shameful. As I was saying, the resale model removes residential land value and caps residential land value and caps resale as in inflation indexed build costs, excluding land where homes cost £350,000, as promised by the developers.
This creates a permanent capital gap of £275,000 per unit at the scale proposed approximately 400,000 homes. This implies up to £110 billion of housing capital subsidy paid by government. Second, the plan relies on a development corporation with powers of compulsory purchase while denying itself increases in land value uplift for a city of 1 million people, non housing infrastructure will cost anywhere up to £60 billion in capital expenditure, the developers suggest selling a limited number of commercial plots to cross-subsidise investment, but this falls far too short without capturing the wider increase in land value.
This is another massive black hole. Third, the plan implies water self-sufficiency at scale. The East
19:16
Adjournment: Impact of the Forest City housing proposal on West Suffolk constituency
-
Adjournment: Impact of the Forest City housing proposal on West Suffolk constituency
of England is a water stressed region, and a city of a million people would require around 170 megalitres per day of additional supply. That's equivalent to one South Lincolnshire reservoir or two fens reservoirs in deployable output terms, at a capital cost of up to £4 billion, excluding network reinforcements and financing. There's no plan and no funding for
19:16
Nick Timothy MP (West Suffolk, Conservative)
-
-
Nick Timothy MP (West Suffolk, Conservative)
this work, and when I wrote to Anglian Water, they said the developers hadn't even been in developers hadn't even been in touch with them. Fourth, even assuming compulsory purchase at existing value with hope value existing value with hope value removed, which I believe is not what the developers have said to local landowners. Land acquisition local landowners. Land acquisition would require around £1 billion of upfront public expenditure. Removing hope value reduces upfront costs, but capping retail prices through so-called permanent affordability model means there's no mechanism to pay back the capital.
In other words, this is yet another black hole. Taken together, these funding gaps suggest up to £175 billion of government funding, with no way for the state to recover the costs. When I put these problems and detailed questions to the developers in a letter sent in March, the reply received one day later, didn't even seek to provide answers. When their report We Can Build a City, was published and sent to Ministers in April. It failed to address a single one of these very serious challenges.
And no wonder, because building a city is far more complicated than these cowboys pretend. Take the government's new Towns programme. There are. These are only towns and not cities, and only seven of the original 12 schemes are going ahead, where whole cities have been built from scratch. Elsewhere in the world, many have failed. Those that have worked to an extent are often artificial. New capital cities with a function of government creating jobs like Priscilla and Islamabad. Often they're in countries where there's still a great migration of people from rural areas to cities like in China.
But even in China, people have simply chosen not to move to many of the new cities, and they stand partially empty. There are similar stories in Songdo in South Korea, Ciudad de la Paz in Equatorial Guinea, and Masdar City in the United Arab Emirates. The reasons for the failure are all too familiar to those of us who have studied the Forest City proposal. These cities have built speculatively without real demand. There are massive infrastructure costs without feasible revenue generation. They're elite driven
**** Possible New Speaker ****
projects disconnected from the needs of real people. With one of my hon. Friend. Give
**** Possible New Speaker ****
With one of my hon. Friend. Give way. I will thank you. I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. And whilst in my constituency of Bromley and Biggin Hill, we do not Bromley and Biggin Hill, we do not have any proposals the size of the city, there is a proposal to build thousands of new homes on the greenbelt in Hayes, and would my hon. Friend agree with me that this indiscriminate building on greenbelt threatens communities and swamping public services as well?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and thank you to my hon. Friend. It is undoubtedly the case that we need to build more houses in this country, but schemes such as the one that he describes have to be proportionate for the areas in which they are proposed, and they have to come with infrastructure and services and amenities. And I think that somebody else who wants to give way on the other side.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm grateful on that point of speculative building, and I appreciate it's probably not a fan of big, bold projects like this, of big, bold projects like this, but would he agree with me that there is a very good example just down the road in Cambridge, where down the road in Cambridge, where the sale of Cambridge Airport just recently to Homes England is a really exciting initiative that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
genuinely will provide homes and businesses we need. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I actually completely agree with I actually completely agree with what the hon. Gentleman says, and I will come on to the needs of Cambridge and the surrounding area. And, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will have noticed that none of the examples I just gave is in a Western country, because advanced economies don't build artificial communities from scratch, in the hope that economic growth follows. Doing that is the logic of the autocrat and the socialist planner, and there is enough evidence from history to inform us of the chances of success.
In truth, the government knows this. In the small print of the New Towns programme, officials were dismissive of Forest City, saying it had no local support, no landowner backing, no broader development interest and no route to delivery. They said Haverhill didn't meet their economic tests and the area near Exning and Newmarket has two little water. Simon Dudley, the former chairman of Homes England, called Forest City a recipe for disaster paid for the paid for by the taxpayer and dressed up as progress.
Simon Lovegrove, an expert in new towns and cities around the world, says there is no need for such a city. The proposal has major flaws and for the reasons I've already set out, is unaffordable. As Mr. Lovegrove says. According to the employment population ratio at a labour force participation rate. A city of a million people would have a working population of nearly 400,000. But the city of Cambridge has a working population of under 70,000. The developers talk about the Oxford-cambridge corridor, but I wonder if they've even looked at a map, because we are on the wrong side of Cambridge for that.
So why
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I will give them. Sarah Bool member for giving way in St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire in St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire we're in the in the path of the Oxford Cambridge arc. And indeed, you know, our welcoming development around Cambourne and and just south of the constituency at Tempsford, of the constituency at Tempsford, there's a new town proposed, you know, the Forest City does he agree that the Forest City could just be that the Forest City could just be a huge distraction from that new towns programme? That is actually a credible way of delivering the housing that we're certainly seeing the need for in my constituency and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
getting on with delivering. Deputy Speaker and I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I agree, and it's not only that it's a distraction from the need of it's a distraction from the need of the need to build in the way that the the broader region around the the broader region around Cambridge needs. Only today I had an email from one of my constituents who said, I see you have a debate. Please can you have a debate. Please can you emphasise the damage it's doing to people's mental health with the anxiety it's causing to local residents? So why, if this proposal is so flawed, has it not already been killed off? The developers behind Forest City have one fawning media coverage in The Guardian, the Financial Times and the BBC.
And to date the government has refused to say no. In March, the housing Minister said in answer to my question this is a quote. Officials will review this proposal in the usual way, including through a meeting with the promoters in April. He confirmed the meeting had in fact been held in February, when the developers claimed to be in talks with the Treasury. In April. I asked Ministers there whether they, their advisers or their officials had met the Forest City team, but they refused to answer.
And as to whether the Ministry of Housing Advisers had met the Forest City team, I was directed to a publication about meetings held last year, not this year, with senior media figures, not developers. The whole thing to date has been completely evasive. And in a debate in the other place two weeks ago, Baroness Taylor, a housing Minister, told my noble friend Lord Herbert, this is another quote. We are aware of the Forest City proposals and will be following how they progress through the local consultations and approvals.
But this is the point. Forest City will not go through local consultations and approvals. Its proposers are asking the government to circumvent local democracy and create a development corporation with compulsory purchase powers. The government could just say no. But so far it's refused. And in the meantime, it's local people who are suffering. I've had emails from people who have told me they'd like to sell their house, but say they can't. I've had emails from people who found their dream home in Suffolk, but can't commit to buying it, as long as this development remains on the table.
People in the Bradleys have been told that their village will have to be flooded to make way for a reservoir. People in Great Wratting and the Thurloe's have been told village life will be gone forever. People in Exning, Newmarket and Haverhill have been told their communities will become suburbs. People in Wickhambrook and Withersfield and Hundon and Kedington and Denston and Stradishall and Houston and Dallam and Lydgate and Cowling, which, like Haverhill, the developers can't even spell, have been told that they do not matter.
Their lives will be ruined and they've been told they'll have to live amid a building site for decades, often for the remainder of their lives. And they've been not only disrespected but actually insulted. The Forest City developers, Shiv Malik and Joe Reeve, bussed in supporters from outside the area to a supposedly local meeting in Haverhill. They cancelled a public meeting in Thurlow because too many locals wanted to come. It was apparently a secret public meeting behind our backs. They and their supporters have disparaged local people as too old to have a stake in the future, too white to be interesting and two rural to understand the obvious joys of city life in the Financial Times.
Mr. Malik was photographed next to what was called a deserted field, seemingly unaware that the farmland in our corner of Suffolk is the best in the country and the poor behaviour doesn't end there. Malik and Reeve present their plan as an act of altruism for the country and the next generation. But of course, they want to keep 160 acres of the city for themselves, which, based on Cambridge land values, would be worth hundreds of millions of pounds. The chairman of their company, Dame Patricia Hewitt, is opening doors for them and promoting the proposition, as in the national interest.
She is less open about the fact that Mr. Malik will soon be her son in law, and her family, therefore has a direct financial stake in what she promotes. On different occasions, Mr. Malik has claimed the support of local landowners when only one is believed to support Forest City and the rest oppose it. His claim, the support of the British Horse Racing Authority, which has had to write to him, telling him to stop and his claimed the support of the Jockey Club, which has also sent him a legal letter.
He threatened to sue me for revealing these things, but when I held my ground he backed down. In truth, Forest City has attracted almost universal opposition among the people of West Suffolk. Those living in villages and those in the towns, those who were born and bred in the area and those who chose to move there. Those who are young and those who are old. The landowners, the homeowners and renters. The businesses and the residents. There is value in the rural way of life. Even if the Forest City developers disparage it.
Local people don't want to see their homes and communities destroyed. This is not about knee jerk opposition to new homes. We've had thousands of new homes built in the last five years. The new Local Plan proposes 5000 new homes on top of the 8700 already marked for planning permission. And while government housing targets have been cut for the cities, they've gone up by 57%. For us, to put things into context, Haverhill has doubled in size in only 30 years. Given our proximity to Cambridge, this is understandable.
As I said in my maiden speech, we should embrace the opportunities, not just fear the risks of housing demand connected to Cambridge. That's why I've never been an anti housing campaigner. But the solution to the demand created by the innovation and enterprise of Cambridge is not Forest City. The solution is the densification of Cambridge itself, the development of land adjacent to the city and the construction of transport connections to the towns and villages within a commutable distance. Haverhill, for example, provides Cambridge with workers, including many at Addenbrooke's Hospital.
It needs a rail link and not just the often single lane a one 307. The line between Newmarket and Cambridge should be dualled and there needs to be more services through Newmarket and Brandon. My concern is that this government setting and missing ambitious housebuilding targets will see Forest City not just for the impracticability of its plan, but as a big idea that it can seize to show it still has radicalism. The developers are already talking about their pitch to the right hon.
Member for Makerfield and some local Labour politicians, and we heard one today have already hinted
**** Possible New Speaker ****
or even given their own support. This I will. Yes. I don't wish to declare my
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I don't wish to declare my support for this. What I wish to declare is that there has to be some imagination here. It seems to some imagination here. It seems to me that my hon. Friend from my neighbour hasn't grasped. What is the imagination behind this project. We're not talking about simply We're not talking about simply expanding a number of existing towns. This is a completely new idea. And what does he think about
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that? The. To be honest, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am at a complete loss as Speaker, I am at a complete loss as to how that doesn't express support for the scheme. And if he's saying he doesn't support it after his he doesn't support it after his earlier intervention, that might be a record U-turn, even for this a record U-turn, even for this Labour Party. The debate presents us with an opportunity to kill off this disastrous idea and all the anxiety and blight it's causing.
So I want to ask the Minister the following questions. I gave him advance notice to make sure that we get clear answers. And on behalf of everybody in West Suffolk, I really do ask for clarity. So one does the government recognise, despite prior ministerial statements, that the Forest City developers do not seek to go through the appropriate local consultations and approvals, and plan to rely instead upon the legal, financial and political support of central government? Two for all the reasons I have given, will the government take this opportunity to rule out Forest City for good? Three in particular, will the government rule out the establishment of a development corporation and the use of compulsory purchase powers for the construction of Forest City? Four does the government share some or all of my concerns about the financial modelling and affordability gap in the Forest City proposal as presented? If so, where does the government agree or disagree? And five will the government publish details of all meetings and conversations held between all Ministers, officials and advisers in different departments and the representatives of Forest City, including the chairman and members of its
**** Possible New Speaker ****
advisory board? Yes, sir. Mr. Pennycook. Yes. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and please accept my sincere apologies for being slightly late to the chamber.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to the chamber. You were late. You wouldn't be able to respond. So you got here just in time, Mr. Pennycook. Excellent. I'm very glad to hear
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Excellent. I'm very glad to hear it. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I start by congratulating the hon. Gentleman, the Member for West hon. Gentleman, the Member for West Suffolk on securing this debate? I can assure him I've heard loud and clear his concerns about the high level Forest City one proposals. I can assure him I'll reflect carefully on them. I also thank those other hon. Members who have made contributions to it. Madam Deputy Speaker, setting aside the detailed criticism made of the proposals in question, the core argument that the hon.
Gentleman has advanced is that the government has to date, refused to say no to it. I think those were his words. I want to respond to this charge head on at the outset, because, as the hon. Member knows full well, it is not the role of government to opine on every development proposal that materialises across the country, for good or ill. Madam Deputy Speaker, depending on one's viewpoint, we have a discretionary planning system in which schemes of various sizes are judged on their site specific merits by individual local planning authorities.
The Secretary of State has powers to call in or recover planning applications, where they involve matters of more than local importance, and they are exercised where necessary. The department can also take forward specific initiatives and programs involving the delivery of large scale new communities. The recent consultation and decision to establish a Greater Cambridge Development Corporation, and the ongoing work taking place to progress a new towns programme are two good examples, but in each instance, government clearly sets out the parameters for its support and consults, where appropriate.
What we do not do, indeed, we are obliged not to do. Given the quasi judicial role of Mhclg Ministers in the planning system, is to publicly pass judgement on every unsolicited proposal that the Department receives. The hon. Gentleman looks somewhat confused by that notion. That is how the planning system operates. But the hon. Gentleman has kindly provided me with advance notice of the questions he intends to ask. So in in response to each of them, let me give him as much clarity as I can.
He asked whether the government recognised that the Forest City promoters do not seek to go through the appropriate local consultations and approvals, and plan to rely instead upon the legal, financial and political support of central government. In response, I would say to the hon. Gentleman that while the size and nature of the proposed development would suggest as much, it is not entirely clear from the high level material published by the promoters. Their website states, for example, that subsidy is not sought.
A clear preference is expressed, however, for a development corporation as the delivery model, but it is not made explicit whether they are seeking government backing for a
In other words, this is yet another black hole. Taken together, these funding gaps suggest up to £175 billion of government funding, with no way for the state to recover the costs. When I put these problems and detailed questions to the developers in a letter sent in March, the reply received one day later, didn't even seek to provide answers. When their report We Can Build a City, was published and sent to Ministers in April. It failed to address a single one of these very serious challenges.
And no wonder, because building a city is far more complicated than these cowboys pretend. Take the government's new Towns programme. There are. These are only towns and not cities, and only seven of the original 12 schemes are going ahead, where whole cities have been built from scratch. Elsewhere in the world, many have failed. Those that have worked to an extent are often artificial. New capital cities with a function of government creating jobs like Priscilla and Islamabad. Often they're in countries where there's still a great migration of people from rural areas to cities like in China.
But even in China, people have simply chosen not to move to many of the new cities, and they stand partially empty. There are similar stories in Songdo in South Korea, Ciudad de la Paz in Equatorial Guinea, and Masdar City in the United Arab Emirates. The reasons for the failure are all too familiar to those of us who have studied the Forest City proposal. These cities have built speculatively without real demand. There are massive infrastructure costs without feasible revenue generation. They're elite driven
**** Possible New Speaker ****
projects disconnected from the needs of real people. With one of my hon. Friend. Give
**** Possible New Speaker ****
With one of my hon. Friend. Give way. I will thank you. I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. And whilst in my constituency of Bromley and Biggin Hill, we do not Bromley and Biggin Hill, we do not have any proposals the size of the city, there is a proposal to build thousands of new homes on the greenbelt in Hayes, and would my hon. Friend agree with me that this indiscriminate building on greenbelt threatens communities and swamping public services as well?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and thank you to my hon. Friend. It is undoubtedly the case that we need to build more houses in this country, but schemes such as the one that he describes have to be proportionate for the areas in which they are proposed, and they have to come with infrastructure and services and amenities. And I think that somebody else who wants to give way on the other side.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm grateful on that point of speculative building, and I appreciate it's probably not a fan of big, bold projects like this, of big, bold projects like this, but would he agree with me that there is a very good example just down the road in Cambridge, where down the road in Cambridge, where the sale of Cambridge Airport just recently to Homes England is a really exciting initiative that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
genuinely will provide homes and businesses we need. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I actually completely agree with I actually completely agree with what the hon. Gentleman says, and I will come on to the needs of Cambridge and the surrounding area. And, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will have noticed that none of the examples I just gave is in a Western country, because advanced economies don't build artificial communities from scratch, in the hope that economic growth follows. Doing that is the logic of the autocrat and the socialist planner, and there is enough evidence from history to inform us of the chances of success.
In truth, the government knows this. In the small print of the New Towns programme, officials were dismissive of Forest City, saying it had no local support, no landowner backing, no broader development interest and no route to delivery. They said Haverhill didn't meet their economic tests and the area near Exning and Newmarket has two little water. Simon Dudley, the former chairman of Homes England, called Forest City a recipe for disaster paid for the paid for by the taxpayer and dressed up as progress.
Simon Lovegrove, an expert in new towns and cities around the world, says there is no need for such a city. The proposal has major flaws and for the reasons I've already set out, is unaffordable. As Mr. Lovegrove says. According to the employment population ratio at a labour force participation rate. A city of a million people would have a working population of nearly 400,000. But the city of Cambridge has a working population of under 70,000. The developers talk about the Oxford-cambridge corridor, but I wonder if they've even looked at a map, because we are on the wrong side of Cambridge for that.
So why
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I will give them. Sarah Bool member for giving way in St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire in St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire we're in the in the path of the Oxford Cambridge arc. And indeed, you know, our welcoming development around Cambourne and and just south of the constituency at Tempsford, of the constituency at Tempsford, there's a new town proposed, you know, the Forest City does he agree that the Forest City could just be that the Forest City could just be a huge distraction from that new towns programme? That is actually a credible way of delivering the housing that we're certainly seeing the need for in my constituency and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
getting on with delivering. Deputy Speaker and I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I agree, and it's not only that it's a distraction from the need of it's a distraction from the need of the need to build in the way that the the broader region around the the broader region around Cambridge needs. Only today I had an email from one of my constituents who said, I see you have a debate. Please can you have a debate. Please can you emphasise the damage it's doing to people's mental health with the anxiety it's causing to local residents? So why, if this proposal is so flawed, has it not already been killed off? The developers behind Forest City have one fawning media coverage in The Guardian, the Financial Times and the BBC.
And to date the government has refused to say no. In March, the housing Minister said in answer to my question this is a quote. Officials will review this proposal in the usual way, including through a meeting with the promoters in April. He confirmed the meeting had in fact been held in February, when the developers claimed to be in talks with the Treasury. In April. I asked Ministers there whether they, their advisers or their officials had met the Forest City team, but they refused to answer.
And as to whether the Ministry of Housing Advisers had met the Forest City team, I was directed to a publication about meetings held last year, not this year, with senior media figures, not developers. The whole thing to date has been completely evasive. And in a debate in the other place two weeks ago, Baroness Taylor, a housing Minister, told my noble friend Lord Herbert, this is another quote. We are aware of the Forest City proposals and will be following how they progress through the local consultations and approvals.
But this is the point. Forest City will not go through local consultations and approvals. Its proposers are asking the government to circumvent local democracy and create a development corporation with compulsory purchase powers. The government could just say no. But so far it's refused. And in the meantime, it's local people who are suffering. I've had emails from people who have told me they'd like to sell their house, but say they can't. I've had emails from people who found their dream home in Suffolk, but can't commit to buying it, as long as this development remains on the table.
People in the Bradleys have been told that their village will have to be flooded to make way for a reservoir. People in Great Wratting and the Thurloe's have been told village life will be gone forever. People in Exning, Newmarket and Haverhill have been told their communities will become suburbs. People in Wickhambrook and Withersfield and Hundon and Kedington and Denston and Stradishall and Houston and Dallam and Lydgate and Cowling, which, like Haverhill, the developers can't even spell, have been told that they do not matter.
Their lives will be ruined and they've been told they'll have to live amid a building site for decades, often for the remainder of their lives. And they've been not only disrespected but actually insulted. The Forest City developers, Shiv Malik and Joe Reeve, bussed in supporters from outside the area to a supposedly local meeting in Haverhill. They cancelled a public meeting in Thurlow because too many locals wanted to come. It was apparently a secret public meeting behind our backs. They and their supporters have disparaged local people as too old to have a stake in the future, too white to be interesting and two rural to understand the obvious joys of city life in the Financial Times.
Mr. Malik was photographed next to what was called a deserted field, seemingly unaware that the farmland in our corner of Suffolk is the best in the country and the poor behaviour doesn't end there. Malik and Reeve present their plan as an act of altruism for the country and the next generation. But of course, they want to keep 160 acres of the city for themselves, which, based on Cambridge land values, would be worth hundreds of millions of pounds. The chairman of their company, Dame Patricia Hewitt, is opening doors for them and promoting the proposition, as in the national interest.
She is less open about the fact that Mr. Malik will soon be her son in law, and her family, therefore has a direct financial stake in what she promotes. On different occasions, Mr. Malik has claimed the support of local landowners when only one is believed to support Forest City and the rest oppose it. His claim, the support of the British Horse Racing Authority, which has had to write to him, telling him to stop and his claimed the support of the Jockey Club, which has also sent him a legal letter.
He threatened to sue me for revealing these things, but when I held my ground he backed down. In truth, Forest City has attracted almost universal opposition among the people of West Suffolk. Those living in villages and those in the towns, those who were born and bred in the area and those who chose to move there. Those who are young and those who are old. The landowners, the homeowners and renters. The businesses and the residents. There is value in the rural way of life. Even if the Forest City developers disparage it.
Local people don't want to see their homes and communities destroyed. This is not about knee jerk opposition to new homes. We've had thousands of new homes built in the last five years. The new Local Plan proposes 5000 new homes on top of the 8700 already marked for planning permission. And while government housing targets have been cut for the cities, they've gone up by 57%. For us, to put things into context, Haverhill has doubled in size in only 30 years. Given our proximity to Cambridge, this is understandable.
As I said in my maiden speech, we should embrace the opportunities, not just fear the risks of housing demand connected to Cambridge. That's why I've never been an anti housing campaigner. But the solution to the demand created by the innovation and enterprise of Cambridge is not Forest City. The solution is the densification of Cambridge itself, the development of land adjacent to the city and the construction of transport connections to the towns and villages within a commutable distance. Haverhill, for example, provides Cambridge with workers, including many at Addenbrooke's Hospital.
It needs a rail link and not just the often single lane a one 307. The line between Newmarket and Cambridge should be dualled and there needs to be more services through Newmarket and Brandon. My concern is that this government setting and missing ambitious housebuilding targets will see Forest City not just for the impracticability of its plan, but as a big idea that it can seize to show it still has radicalism. The developers are already talking about their pitch to the right hon.
Member for Makerfield and some local Labour politicians, and we heard one today have already hinted
**** Possible New Speaker ****
or even given their own support. This I will. Yes. I don't wish to declare my
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I don't wish to declare my support for this. What I wish to declare is that there has to be some imagination here. It seems to some imagination here. It seems to me that my hon. Friend from my neighbour hasn't grasped. What is the imagination behind this project. We're not talking about simply We're not talking about simply expanding a number of existing towns. This is a completely new idea. And what does he think about
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that? The. To be honest, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am at a complete loss as Speaker, I am at a complete loss as to how that doesn't express support for the scheme. And if he's saying he doesn't support it after his he doesn't support it after his earlier intervention, that might be a record U-turn, even for this a record U-turn, even for this Labour Party. The debate presents us with an opportunity to kill off this disastrous idea and all the anxiety and blight it's causing.
So I want to ask the Minister the following questions. I gave him advance notice to make sure that we get clear answers. And on behalf of everybody in West Suffolk, I really do ask for clarity. So one does the government recognise, despite prior ministerial statements, that the Forest City developers do not seek to go through the appropriate local consultations and approvals, and plan to rely instead upon the legal, financial and political support of central government? Two for all the reasons I have given, will the government take this opportunity to rule out Forest City for good? Three in particular, will the government rule out the establishment of a development corporation and the use of compulsory purchase powers for the construction of Forest City? Four does the government share some or all of my concerns about the financial modelling and affordability gap in the Forest City proposal as presented? If so, where does the government agree or disagree? And five will the government publish details of all meetings and conversations held between all Ministers, officials and advisers in different departments and the representatives of Forest City, including the chairman and members of its
**** Possible New Speaker ****
advisory board? Yes, sir. Mr. Pennycook. Yes. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and please accept my sincere apologies for being slightly late to the chamber.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to the chamber. You were late. You wouldn't be able to respond. So you got here just in time, Mr. Pennycook. Excellent. I'm very glad to hear
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Excellent. I'm very glad to hear it. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I start by congratulating the hon. Gentleman, the Member for West hon. Gentleman, the Member for West Suffolk on securing this debate? I can assure him I've heard loud and clear his concerns about the high level Forest City one proposals. I can assure him I'll reflect carefully on them. I also thank those other hon. Members who have made contributions to it. Madam Deputy Speaker, setting aside the detailed criticism made of the proposals in question, the core argument that the hon.
Gentleman has advanced is that the government has to date, refused to say no to it. I think those were his words. I want to respond to this charge head on at the outset, because, as the hon. Member knows full well, it is not the role of government to opine on every development proposal that materialises across the country, for good or ill. Madam Deputy Speaker, depending on one's viewpoint, we have a discretionary planning system in which schemes of various sizes are judged on their site specific merits by individual local planning authorities.
The Secretary of State has powers to call in or recover planning applications, where they involve matters of more than local importance, and they are exercised where necessary. The department can also take forward specific initiatives and programs involving the delivery of large scale new communities. The recent consultation and decision to establish a Greater Cambridge Development Corporation, and the ongoing work taking place to progress a new towns programme are two good examples, but in each instance, government clearly sets out the parameters for its support and consults, where appropriate.
What we do not do, indeed, we are obliged not to do. Given the quasi judicial role of Mhclg Ministers in the planning system, is to publicly pass judgement on every unsolicited proposal that the Department receives. The hon. Gentleman looks somewhat confused by that notion. That is how the planning system operates. But the hon. Gentleman has kindly provided me with advance notice of the questions he intends to ask. So in in response to each of them, let me give him as much clarity as I can.
He asked whether the government recognised that the Forest City promoters do not seek to go through the appropriate local consultations and approvals, and plan to rely instead upon the legal, financial and political support of central government. In response, I would say to the hon. Gentleman that while the size and nature of the proposed development would suggest as much, it is not entirely clear from the high level material published by the promoters. Their website states, for example, that subsidy is not sought.
A clear preference is expressed, however, for a development corporation as the delivery model, but it is not made explicit whether they are seeking government backing for a
19:33
Matthew Pennycook MP, Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Greenwich and Woolwich, Labour)
-
-
Matthew Pennycook MP, Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Greenwich and Woolwich, Labour)
centrally led urban development corporation or are interested in a future mayoral or locally led approach. In short, we simply do not have enough detail about this proposal to be able to say with any certainty precisely how its certainty precisely how its promoters believe it should be delivered. When it comes to the East of England, however, the East of England, however, the government's focus is firmly on the establishment of the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation and using it to deliver nationally and using it to deliver nationally significant growth in Cambridge and its surrounding areas, in partnership with local leaders and communities.
The hon. Gentleman pressed me on whether the government will take this opportunity to rule out Forest City for good, for the reasons I have just said out, it is not for the government to rule in or out any proposed scheme. In general terms, the hon. Gentleman is aware that when the promoters of Forest City one applied to be part of the new towns programme, officials reviewed the application and concluded that it did not meet the programme's objectives. Specifically the deliverability objective. However, as per the remarks made by Baroness Taylor in the other place, on the 10th of June, the hon.
Member cited it is open to the promoters of the scheme to engage with the relevant local planning authorities and communities about their proposals.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
He asked me to rule out the establishment. I will give one. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank the Minister for his answers to my questions. I think the point is that the Forest City the point is that the Forest City developers are not seeking a developers are not seeking a process where Ministers consider an application using their quasi judicial role. It's that they are seeking a policy decision to support the development of the creation of a development corporation with compulsory purchase powers.
I think that's a different question, and that's what I'd like to press him on. Would he would you rule that out or can he not.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Member for that question? He pre-empts the next of his questions that I was going to come to. He asked me specifically to rule out the establishment of a development corporation and use of compulsory purchase powers for the construction of Forest City. I construction of Forest City. I believe I've already confirmed in answer to a written question to him on the 9th of February, but the on the 9th of February, but the government has no current plans to consult on the establishment of a centrally led urban development centrally led urban development corporation to deliver the Forest City One proposals.
I don't think we could be more clear than that. The government are not exploring creating a development corporation to take forward this speculative proposal. The hon. Gentleman invited me to provide an assessment of the financial modelling and subsidy gap in respect of the Forest City. One proposal, it wouldn't be appropriate for me to do so, even if the evidence base on which to make a rigorous assessment existed, which, to the best of my knowledge, it doesn't, given that a business case has not even been put together by the promoters.
Finally, he asked me to publish details of all meetings and conversations held between government Ministers, officials and advisers and the promoters of the scheme. I can confirm that neither I or the Secretary of State have met with the promoters. I have met some of the board members in the past, but not in relation to the Forest City one proposals. The promoters met with my officials earlier this year and proposals were reviewed by officials when the promoters formally applied to be part of the new Towns programme.
As we've discussed, special advisers in our department have had a single meeting with the promoters with the aim of learning more about the proposals and, as he will know, details of meetings that special advisers have with external organisations are published on gov.uk, in line with the requirements set out in the relevant guidance. To conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker, I appreciate fully the hon. Gentleman's desire to have the government express an opinion on the high level scheme proposal. I'm afraid there isn't much more to add to what I have set out already.
As I've made clear when it comes to the East of England, the government's focus is firmly on delivering high quality, sustainable growth for Cambridge and its environs. We announced the establishment of the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation on the 2nd of June, and the required Statutory Instrument was laid two days later, subject to forthcoming parliamentary scrutiny and approval. The Development Corporation will be established as an entity. A Powers and Functions Statutory Instrument will be laid later in the year, which will grant the Development Corporation both plan making and development management powers.
The Development Corporation will be expected to work closely with neighbouring local planning authorities, including West Suffolk. Engaging collaboratively to ensure that growth delivers positive outcomes across the wider area. And on that note, I welcome the support he's expressed for the government's focus on Cambridge.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that this House do now adjourn as man up and say do now adjourn as man up and say aye. Aye. The ayes have it. The
The hon. Gentleman pressed me on whether the government will take this opportunity to rule out Forest City for good, for the reasons I have just said out, it is not for the government to rule in or out any proposed scheme. In general terms, the hon. Gentleman is aware that when the promoters of Forest City one applied to be part of the new towns programme, officials reviewed the application and concluded that it did not meet the programme's objectives. Specifically the deliverability objective. However, as per the remarks made by Baroness Taylor in the other place, on the 10th of June, the hon.
Member cited it is open to the promoters of the scheme to engage with the relevant local planning authorities and communities about their proposals.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
He asked me to rule out the establishment. I will give one. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank the Minister for his answers to my questions. I think the point is that the Forest City the point is that the Forest City developers are not seeking a developers are not seeking a process where Ministers consider an application using their quasi judicial role. It's that they are seeking a policy decision to support the development of the creation of a development corporation with compulsory purchase powers.
I think that's a different question, and that's what I'd like to press him on. Would he would you rule that out or can he not.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Member for that question? He pre-empts the next of his questions that I was going to come to. He asked me specifically to rule out the establishment of a development corporation and use of compulsory purchase powers for the construction of Forest City. I construction of Forest City. I believe I've already confirmed in answer to a written question to him on the 9th of February, but the on the 9th of February, but the government has no current plans to consult on the establishment of a centrally led urban development centrally led urban development corporation to deliver the Forest City One proposals.
I don't think we could be more clear than that. The government are not exploring creating a development corporation to take forward this speculative proposal. The hon. Gentleman invited me to provide an assessment of the financial modelling and subsidy gap in respect of the Forest City. One proposal, it wouldn't be appropriate for me to do so, even if the evidence base on which to make a rigorous assessment existed, which, to the best of my knowledge, it doesn't, given that a business case has not even been put together by the promoters.
Finally, he asked me to publish details of all meetings and conversations held between government Ministers, officials and advisers and the promoters of the scheme. I can confirm that neither I or the Secretary of State have met with the promoters. I have met some of the board members in the past, but not in relation to the Forest City one proposals. The promoters met with my officials earlier this year and proposals were reviewed by officials when the promoters formally applied to be part of the new Towns programme.
As we've discussed, special advisers in our department have had a single meeting with the promoters with the aim of learning more about the proposals and, as he will know, details of meetings that special advisers have with external organisations are published on gov.uk, in line with the requirements set out in the relevant guidance. To conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker, I appreciate fully the hon. Gentleman's desire to have the government express an opinion on the high level scheme proposal. I'm afraid there isn't much more to add to what I have set out already.
As I've made clear when it comes to the East of England, the government's focus is firmly on delivering high quality, sustainable growth for Cambridge and its environs. We announced the establishment of the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation on the 2nd of June, and the required Statutory Instrument was laid two days later, subject to forthcoming parliamentary scrutiny and approval. The Development Corporation will be established as an entity. A Powers and Functions Statutory Instrument will be laid later in the year, which will grant the Development Corporation both plan making and development management powers.
The Development Corporation will be expected to work closely with neighbouring local planning authorities, including West Suffolk. Engaging collaboratively to ensure that growth delivers positive outcomes across the wider area. And on that note, I welcome the support he's expressed for the government's focus on Cambridge.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that this House do now adjourn as man up and say do now adjourn as man up and say aye. Aye. The ayes have it. The
11:00
Oral questions: HM Treasury
-
Oral questions: HM Treasury
Or. Or. The Or. The order Or. The order will Or. The order will start Or. The order will start with
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Exchequer. John Lamont thank you, Mr. Speaker. Question number one. Chancellor of the Exchequer.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Chancellor of the Exchequer. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With permission, I would like to answer this question with question 14. The this question with question 14. The government recognises that energy costs, inflation and global pressures continue to squeeze household budgets, budgets. That's why we've taken careful, targeted action through the Great British Summer Savings Package, which Summer Savings Package, which launches on Thursday, cutting VAT on summer activities so adventure
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Exchequer. John Lamont thank you, Mr. Speaker. Question number one. Chancellor of the Exchequer.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Chancellor of the Exchequer. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With permission, I would like to answer this question with question 14. The this question with question 14. The government recognises that energy costs, inflation and global pressures continue to squeeze household budgets, budgets. That's why we've taken careful, targeted action through the Great British Summer Savings Package, which Summer Savings Package, which launches on Thursday, cutting VAT on summer activities so adventure
11:34
11:34
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
-
-
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
Well. Chancellor has overseen huge tax rises for those who work hard and do the right thing. Now they've been hit by soaring energy bills, a situation made even more acute for many of my constituents who rely on heating oil. How does the Chancellor think that this squares with the government's pledge to cut energy bills, Chancellor?
11:35
John Lamont MP (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, Conservative)
-
-
John Lamont MP (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, Conservative)
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The measures that I took in my Budget measures that I took in my Budget last year took £150 off energy bills by getting rid of some levies altogether and moving others to general taxation. But if you look at the most recent inflation numbers, inflation in the UK was 2.8% last month. That compares to 3.2% in the eurozone and 4% in the US. And food inflation was at its lowest rate for 17 months. lowest rate for 17 months.
Speaker.
Speaker.
11:35
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
-
-
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
The Chancellor will know that I raised the need for action on costs faced by farmers and families alike, both of which she has done. The Great British Summer Savings Scheme will be a brilliant help with the cost of giving kids a great school holiday, particularly the free bus travel for 5 to 15 year olds throughout August, with the Chancellor agree that continuing to look at how we can support affordable bus travel for constituents like mine, Cannock Chase will be very important even beyond the great summer break to come.
11:35
Josh Newbury MP (Cannock Chase, Labour)
-
-
Josh Newbury MP (Cannock Chase, Labour)
Chancellor. question, and as he knows, we are investing £3 billion in local bus services, both to improve the service for passengers, but also to freeze the bus fares until at least March next year. But this summer there will be unlimited travel for free for children aged between 5 and 15. In my hon. Friend's Cannock Chase constituency and across the country. Can I also give a special shout out to my mayor, Tracy Brabin, shout out to my mayor, Tracy Brabin, for the beautiful Weaver network of electric buses manufactured in Northern Ireland and Yorkshire, and serving the people of West Yorkshire.
11:36
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
-
-
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
Andrew Rosindell.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Question two. Mr. speaker. Worcester thank you, Mr. Speaker. The government has introduced legislation in the Finance Act to provide for a new settlement offer for those affected by the loan charge, and the government will charge, and the government will write off the first £5,000 of liabilities. And that's in addition to the proposals put forward by the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to the proposals put forward by the independent reviewer, Ray McCann. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Question two. Mr. speaker. Worcester thank you, Mr. Speaker. The government has introduced legislation in the Finance Act to provide for a new settlement offer for those affected by the loan charge, and the government will charge, and the government will write off the first £5,000 of liabilities. And that's in addition to the proposals put forward by the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to the proposals put forward by the independent reviewer, Ray McCann. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The
11:37
11:37
Andrew Rosindell MP (Romford, Reform UK)
-
-
Andrew Rosindell MP (Romford, Reform UK)
anxiety to so many people. Surely the Minister must agree that the victims deserve a resolution and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
victims deserve a resolution and closure so that they can move on with their lives? Mr.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do agree that those who have been affected by the loan charge do need to be able to move on with their to be able to move on with their lives, and that is why the government put forward a generous settlement, offer, a generous settlement offer at the last Budget that went further than the proposals set out by the independent reviewer. And I would just note it was a government that just note it was a government that he supported for 14 years that introduced the loan charge and didn't do enough to reform it for
**** Possible New Speaker ****
victims deserve a resolution and closure so that they can move on with their lives? Mr.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do agree that those who have been affected by the loan charge do need to be able to move on with their to be able to move on with their lives, and that is why the government put forward a generous settlement, offer, a generous settlement offer at the last Budget that went further than the proposals set out by the independent reviewer. And I would just note it was a government that just note it was a government that he supported for 14 years that introduced the loan charge and didn't do enough to reform it for
11:38
Dan Tomlinson MP, The Exchequer Secretary (Chipping Barnet, Labour)
-
-
Dan Tomlinson MP, The Exchequer Secretary (Chipping Barnet, Labour)
didn't do enough to reform it for those who were affected by it. >> Euan Stainbank Mr. Speaker, Chelsea.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The government remains dedicated to raising living standards for people raising living standards for people in Falkirk and across the UK by driving economic growth, bearing down on inflation, which I know down on inflation, which I know continues to squeeze household budgets. Measures announced in my Budget last year are already taking Budget last year are already taking effect, raising the National Living Wage and the national minimum wage, maintaining the triple lock on
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The government remains dedicated to raising living standards for people raising living standards for people in Falkirk and across the UK by driving economic growth, bearing down on inflation, which I know down on inflation, which I know continues to squeeze household budgets. Measures announced in my Budget last year are already taking Budget last year are already taking effect, raising the National Living Wage and the national minimum wage, maintaining the triple lock on
11:38
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
-
-
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
maintaining the triple lock on pensions and extending free school meals to more families. Our Great British Summer savings package builds on this, reducing VAT on a whole range of summer attractions,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
including, I believe, air thrill in my hon. Friend's constituency. The cut to VAT for family days
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The cut to VAT for family days out. The summer starts along the summer holidays later this week. This is a Labour government acting to bring down the cost for families to bring down the cost for families visiting Falkirk fantastic tourism, leisure and hospitality attractions. Many families are anxiously looking Many families are anxiously looking at the other side of summer, with energy bills rising directly because of the consequences of the illegal Iran war. Will the Chancellor agree that any Chancellor agree that any forthcoming targeted energy bill support must similarly extend to working families?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
including, I believe, air thrill in my hon. Friend's constituency. The cut to VAT for family days
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The cut to VAT for family days out. The summer starts along the summer holidays later this week. This is a Labour government acting to bring down the cost for families to bring down the cost for families visiting Falkirk fantastic tourism, leisure and hospitality attractions. Many families are anxiously looking Many families are anxiously looking at the other side of summer, with energy bills rising directly because of the consequences of the illegal Iran war. Will the Chancellor agree that any Chancellor agree that any forthcoming targeted energy bill support must similarly extend to working families?
11:39
11:39
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
-
-
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
families around the country as well as in England. For the free bus as in England. For the free bus travel in August, we didn't start the war in the Middle East, we the war in the Middle East, we didn't join the war. And I've been very clear about my views on the war. But it is clearly having war. But it is clearly having consequences here at home. We will continue to monitor the situation and take every action necessary to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
and take every action necessary to support families here at home. Alex Easton. Question number four, Mr. Speaker.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Minister. I thank the hon. Member for giving me another chance to talk about the Great British summer savings schemes. As the Chancellor has just talked us through, it is fantastic. It's coming into place fantastic. It's coming into place in just a couple of days time and will run until the end of the summer holidays. It extends across all four nations of the United all four nations of the United Kingdom, benefiting businesses in Northern Ireland as well as in Great Britain.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
and take every action necessary to support families here at home. Alex Easton. Question number four, Mr. Speaker.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Minister. I thank the hon. Member for giving me another chance to talk about the Great British summer savings schemes. As the Chancellor has just talked us through, it is fantastic. It's coming into place fantastic. It's coming into place in just a couple of days time and will run until the end of the summer holidays. It extends across all four nations of the United all four nations of the United Kingdom, benefiting businesses in Northern Ireland as well as in Great Britain.
11:40
Q4. What assessment she has made of the adequacy of the temporary reduction in the rate of VAT in supporting the hospitality sector in Northern Ireland. (900557)
-
Q4. What assessment she has made of the adequacy of the temporary reduction in the rate of VAT in supporting the hospitality sector in Northern Ireland. (900557)
Great Britain. >> Alex Easton thank you, Mr. Speaker. Given Northern Ireland's unique position in the United Kingdom, sharing an open border with the Republic of Ireland, where there. That rate is 13.5% for the hospitality industry, will the hospitality industry, will the Chancellor now look at a minimum trial or indeed permanently reducing the rate of VAT for the hospitality sector in Northern hospitality sector in Northern Ireland to maintain a price competitiveness, safeguard, safeguard UK jobs and businesses safeguard UK jobs and businesses and make us more competitive with the Republic of Ireland.
11:40
Alex Easton MP (North Down, Independent)
-
-
Alex Easton MP (North Down, Independent)
Minister. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do understand that there are different rates of VAT in Northern Ireland than in Ireland. There are different rates of VAT across Europe. I think it's important, though, that we remember that VAT is a national tax in the UK at 20% across the country, and it is important to have that consistency for businesses operating across the UK as a whole. And significant cuts to VAT do come with significant fiscal costs. Mr. speaker, halving the rate of VAT on hospitality, for example, would cost the Exchequer example, would cost the Exchequer around £11 billion.
11:41
Dan Tomlinson MP, The Exchequer Secretary (Chipping Barnet, Labour)
-
-
Dan Tomlinson MP, The Exchequer Secretary (Chipping Barnet, Labour)
Claire Young.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Speaker. Minister yes, very busy today,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Minister yes, very busy today, Mr. Speaker, as ever I. I thank the hon. Member for asking about business rates. She will know that business rates. She will know that we've already started the work of reforming the business rates system so that we can put permanently so that we can put permanently lower multipliers in for high street businesses. And today, as part of Tax Update Day, we will be
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Speaker. Minister yes, very busy today,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Minister yes, very busy today, Mr. Speaker, as ever I. I thank the hon. Member for asking about business rates. She will know that business rates. She will know that we've already started the work of reforming the business rates system so that we can put permanently so that we can put permanently lower multipliers in for high street businesses. And today, as part of Tax Update Day, we will be
11:41
Q5. What steps she is taking to reform business rates. (900558)
-
Q5. What steps she is taking to reform business rates. (900558)
part of Tax Update Day, we will be consulting on ways to collect more of the VAT that online sellers dodge by making online marketplaces liable for VAT on both UK and overseas business sales of goods, and we will put every penny of the and we will put every penny of the additional revenue raised into improving the business rate system for high street businesses. for high street businesses.
11:42
Dan Tomlinson MP, The Exchequer Secretary (Chipping Barnet, Labour)
-
-
Dan Tomlinson MP, The Exchequer Secretary (Chipping Barnet, Labour)
Mr. speaker, when I met Chipping Sodbury Chamber of Commerce recently, business owners told me that the business rates system is broken and unfair, in part as it's based on turnover, not profit. In response to a letter, the Exchequer Secretary promised to bear in mind the points I raised ahead of future budgets. So will. Will he now accept that business rates system is broken and rather than reform, it should be abolished and replaced with a fairer system.
11:42
Claire Young MP (Thornbury and Yate, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Claire Young MP (Thornbury and Yate, Liberal Democrat)
I thank the hon. Member for her question. We do have a tax in the UK. That's a tax on profits, that's corporation tax and our corporate tax roadmap. We've committed to keeping that stable in this Parliament rather than having it jump around as it did in the last one. And it is important to have a broad tax base. And so I do think it reasonable for business rates to continue, as they have been since the late 1980s, set in accordance to an estimate of the rents of property.
So I don't I don't think it'd be right to change it, Mr. speaker.
So I don't I don't think it'd be right to change it, Mr. speaker.
11:43
Dan Tomlinson MP, The Exchequer Secretary (Chipping Barnet, Labour)
-
-
Dan Tomlinson MP, The Exchequer Secretary (Chipping Barnet, Labour)
Neil Duncan-Jordan thank you, Mr. Speaker. represent rely on small businesses. Poole wouldn't be Poole without its restaurants or its ice cream parlours. Now, polling this week shows strong public support for higher levies on Big Tech. Couldn't this be a way to raise revenue, to cut business rates and support the bricks and mortar shops that give life to our high streets?
11:43
Neil Duncan-Jordan MP (Poole, Labour)
-
-
Neil Duncan-Jordan MP (Poole, Labour)
Minister? understand my hon. Friend's point and there are many businesses in rural and coastal communities across the country that we do want to see thrive and grow, and that's why the Chancellor announced the Great British Summer Savings Scheme, running to the 1st of September, on the point he raises, Mr. Speaker, about the online giants. As I said just now, we're looking at further ways to, through the online giants, raise more revenue in our VAT system to go after those dodging VAT.
And at the last Budget, the Chancellor changed the multipliers Chancellor changed the multipliers in the business rate system so that the tax rate paid by a small high street business would be 33% lower street business would be 33% lower than the tax rate paid by large properties, such as those occupied by online giants.
And at the last Budget, the Chancellor changed the multipliers Chancellor changed the multipliers in the business rate system so that the tax rate paid by a small high street business would be 33% lower street business would be 33% lower than the tax rate paid by large properties, such as those occupied by online giants.
11:44
Dan Tomlinson MP, The Exchequer Secretary (Chipping Barnet, Labour)
-
-
Dan Tomlinson MP, The Exchequer Secretary (Chipping Barnet, Labour)
Daisy Cooper Liberal Democrat spokesperson. elected hon. Member for Makerfield have pledged that he would cut business rates by 20% 20% for pubs, clubs and music venues if he became Prime Minister. So, given that the hon. Member may well be facing a near certainty of becoming Prime Minister, could I ask the frontbench whether or not the Treasury has started modelling the numbers to deliver on that pledge, and if not, when that work will begin.
11:44
Daisy Cooper MP (St Albans, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Daisy Cooper MP (St Albans, Liberal Democrat)
I would have to correct the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. I don't think this hon. Member has a near certainty of becoming Prime Minister anytime soon, but what I would say on the point what what what what I what what I would say on the point that she made is that it is good that the newly elected member for Makerfield has taken inspiration from the decision that we made in January to cut business rates by 15% for pubs and bars and live music venues, so that we can back the Great British Pub and other hospitality venues.
11:45
Dan Tomlinson MP, The Exchequer Secretary (Chipping Barnet, Labour)
-
-
Dan Tomlinson MP, The Exchequer Secretary (Chipping Barnet, Labour)
Peter Lamb. Question number six,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Mr. Speaker. Chancellor. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Treasury published the Green Book Supplementary Guidance on Wellbeing in 2021. This helps officials to in 2021. This helps officials to assess how their policies and projects affect the wellbeing of citizens. But in February, this government published an update to the Green Book that reaffirms the importance of considering wellbeing.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Mr. Speaker. Chancellor. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Treasury published the Green Book Supplementary Guidance on Wellbeing in 2021. This helps officials to in 2021. This helps officials to assess how their policies and projects affect the wellbeing of citizens. But in February, this government published an update to the Green Book that reaffirms the importance of considering wellbeing.
11:45
Q6. Whether she plans to update the Treasury Green Book supplementary guidance on wellbeing. (900559)
-
Q6. Whether she plans to update the Treasury Green Book supplementary guidance on wellbeing. (900559)
importance of considering wellbeing. But most importantly, my new Green Book will support fairer and more balanced decisions on investment in every part of the country, including outside of London, in the South east, across urban, rural and South east, across urban, rural and coastal communities, so that projects have a better chance of securing government funding.
11:46
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
-
-
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
Peter Lamb. I thank you, Chancellor, for that response. With the. offers governments an increasingly sophisticated means of supplementing conventional economics in decision making. It reveals. The big ticket items very often offer little wellbeing benefit to our constituents, while much cheaper interventions can have a dramatic impact. Well-Being levels have even been shown across Europe to be a better predictor of electoral outcomes than traditional economic measures. With the Chancellor wanting to meet with myself and other members of the APPG to discuss how wellbeing APPG to discuss how wellbeing economics can better enhance the work of the Treasury.
11:46
Peter Lamb MP (Crawley, Labour)
-
-
Peter Lamb MP (Crawley, Labour)
Chancellor. Minister meets my hon. Friend and and others to discuss how we can make further enhancements to the Green Book. But one thing that has helped Britain back for too long is that projects outside of London and the South East, and including in rural communities and coastal communities, miss out on funding from the way that the Treasury used to evaluate those projects. I have changed those rules so that we can make investments in all parts of the United Kingdom.
the United Kingdom.
the United Kingdom.
11:47
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
-
-
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
John Milne Mr. Speaker, in my. and air offence defence technology. Yet like much of the defence sector, it's been left waiting for clarity on future investment. Given the recent turmoil at the top of the Labour Party, can the Minister assure us that the vitally important Defence Investment plan will not be pushed back even further and finally give defence manufacturers the go ahead?
11:47
John Milne MP (Horsham, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
John Milne MP (Horsham, Liberal Democrat)
Sorry, that's not relevant to the question. Right? the question. Right? >> Rebecca Smith question of the 70s, Mr. Speaker.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
70s, Mr. Speaker. Just this question. I'm pleased to update the House that I met yesterday with the Secretary of State for defence and the Chief of Defence Staff to to talk through the Defence Investment Plan. The Ministry of Defence are producing the Defence Investment Plan that will meet the scale of the challenges and meet the moment with increased readiness. I am confident that the new Defence Investment Plan will be published before the NATO Ankara summit. It before the NATO Ankara summit.
It will involve more money spent, more effectively and will meet the scale of challenges facing our country. of challenges facing our country.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
70s, Mr. Speaker. Just this question. I'm pleased to update the House that I met yesterday with the Secretary of State for defence and the Chief of Defence Staff to to talk through the Defence Investment Plan. The Ministry of Defence are producing the Defence Investment Plan that will meet the scale of the challenges and meet the moment with increased readiness. I am confident that the new Defence Investment Plan will be published before the NATO Ankara summit. It before the NATO Ankara summit.
It will involve more money spent, more effectively and will meet the scale of challenges facing our country. of challenges facing our country.
11:48
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
-
-
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
Rebecca Smith Mr. Speaker, the former Defence Secretary has blown apart the Defence Investment Plan, revealing that the Treasury were prepared to offer only a pitiful increase in defence spending just 0.08% by 2030, despite growing threats across the world. At the same time, the Treasury continues to fork out billions to welfare and net zero agendas. Innovative investment, innovative defence SMEs are effectively locked out of MoD contracts and denied the opportunity to scale their capabilities. So, as the Chief of capabilities.
So, as the Chief of Defence Staff put it, the price of peace is increasing. So will the Chancellor commit this morning to filling the £28 billion gap in filling the £28 billion gap in defence investment by 2030 to secure our position on the world stage, or will she stand in the way stage, or will she stand in the way of the delivery of the dip? We need?
So, as the Chief of Defence Staff put it, the price of peace is increasing. So will the Chancellor commit this morning to filling the £28 billion gap in filling the £28 billion gap in defence investment by 2030 to secure our position on the world stage, or will she stand in the way stage, or will she stand in the way of the delivery of the dip? We need?
11:48
Rebecca Smith MP (South West Devon, Conservative)
-
-
Rebecca Smith MP (South West Devon, Conservative)
Chancellor. first question, the dip will be published before the summit and it will involve more money spent, more effectively, and it will meet the scale of the challenges we face. But frankly, I will take no lectures from the party opposite who left our armed forces, in the words of their former defence secretary, as hollowed out, our forces hit rock bottom for pay,
11:49
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
-
-
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
morale and in numbers. The Tories don't like to mention the £12 billion worth of cuts that they billion worth of cuts that they made to defence in their first five years in office. We are turning that around with the biggest uplift that around with the biggest uplift in defence spending since the end of the Cold War. This Labour government will continue to invest government will continue to invest in defence, with contracts awarded to firms here in Britain to keep
**** Possible New Speaker ****
our country safe. Chair of the Select Committee, Dame Meg Hillier. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and my right hon. Friend is right to highlight the challenge. Over the ten year equipment plan, there was always a £14 billion deficit that never seemed to go away. So it's great that we're seeing more investment because the Chancellor update the House on conversations that she or her Ministers are having with our with governments in Europe and in Canada about the Dzb and the MDM mechanisms for funding NATO.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
our country safe. Chair of the Select Committee, Dame Meg Hillier. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and my right hon. Friend is right to highlight the challenge. Over the ten year equipment plan, there was always a £14 billion deficit that never seemed to go away. So it's great that we're seeing more investment because the Chancellor update the House on conversations that she or her Ministers are having with our with governments in Europe and in Canada about the Dzb and the MDM mechanisms for funding NATO.
11:50
Dame Meg Hillier MP (Hackney South and Shoreditch, Labour )
-
-
Dame Meg Hillier MP (Hackney South and Shoreditch, Labour )
Hear, hear. Chancellor. question, and as the House will know, this government are working on plans with NATO allies around a multilateral defence mechanism. We have already signed a treaty agreement with Finland and with the Netherlands, and we are working closely with other Scandinavian, Baltic and Eastern European
11:50
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
-
-
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
countries. The multilateral defence mechanism will enable us to procure jointly and also stockpile jointly and also stockpile equipment off the balance sheet, making it better value for money for taxpayers and enabling innovative forms of finance to fund our defence. We are also working our defence. We are also working closely with Canada at how we can bring the multilateral defence mechanism and the Defence and Security Resilience Bank, which Security Resilience Bank, which lends to smaller businesses in the supply chain, so that we can have
**** Possible New Speaker ****
one model that helps us better fund defence in our country and across Europe. Gentlemen. Mr. James Wild.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Gentlemen. Mr. James Wild. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. And it's good that the Chancellor has had that meeting, but perhaps has had that meeting, but perhaps it's come too late, because when he resigned, the former defence secretary said the Treasury was unwilling to provide the resources unwilling to provide the resources needed to defend the country against rising threats. Yet the Chancellor has said national Chancellor has said national security always comes first. So why this dereliction of duty, and why is she failing to tackle the ever expanding welfare Budget and blocking the Defence investment blocking the Defence investment plan from getting the funding to meet the threats we face? Chancellor.
Chancellor.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
one model that helps us better fund defence in our country and across Europe. Gentlemen. Mr. James Wild.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Gentlemen. Mr. James Wild. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. And it's good that the Chancellor has had that meeting, but perhaps has had that meeting, but perhaps it's come too late, because when he resigned, the former defence secretary said the Treasury was unwilling to provide the resources unwilling to provide the resources needed to defend the country against rising threats. Yet the Chancellor has said national Chancellor has said national security always comes first. So why this dereliction of duty, and why is she failing to tackle the ever expanding welfare Budget and blocking the Defence investment blocking the Defence investment plan from getting the funding to meet the threats we face? Chancellor.
Chancellor.
11:51
James Wild MP (North West Norfolk, Conservative)
-
-
James Wild MP (North West Norfolk, Conservative)
The hon. Gentleman is literally sitting two away from the former welfare Secretary, who presided over a record increase in welfare spending. We have commissioned an Alan Milburn to do a report, the first part of which has just recently been published, to get young people back into work and to address the problem that we
11:52
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
-
-
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
inherited of young people not in employment, education or training. And we will address that. But I am And we will address that. But I am proud to be the Chancellor that has overseen the biggest uplift in defence spending since the end of defence spending since the end of the Cold War. We funded that through a difficult decision to reduce overseas development reduce overseas development assistance, but that was the right choice. And when we set out the Defence Investment Plan ahead of Defence Investment Plan ahead of the NATO summit, the whole House will see the further changes we are making so that we can better support defence in an increasingly unstable, unstable world.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Bradley Thomas number eight, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. UK employment levels are strong by historic and international standards, but the right on. The hon. Member is right, though, to hon. Member is right, though, to highlight a structural challenge when it comes to young people being out of work and for that matter, being out of education. That is why being out of education. That is why we've committed £2.5 billion over the next three years to the Youth
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Bradley Thomas number eight, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. UK employment levels are strong by historic and international standards, but the right on. The hon. Member is right, though, to hon. Member is right, though, to highlight a structural challenge when it comes to young people being out of work and for that matter, being out of education. That is why being out of education. That is why we've committed £2.5 billion over the next three years to the Youth
11:53
Q8. What assessment she has made with Cabinet colleagues of the potential impact of her Department’s policies on levels of youth unemployment. (900561)
-
Q8. What assessment she has made with Cabinet colleagues of the potential impact of her Department’s policies on levels of youth unemployment. (900561)
Guarantee, helping to deliver up to 500,000 opportunities to earn and learn. >> Bradley Thomas thank you, Mr. Speaker. 42% of employers have cut back on graduate recruitment, and across Bromsgrove and the villages, across Bromsgrove and the villages, there has been a 25% increase in youth unemployment over the last two years, with unemployment undoubtedly weighing heavily on the undoubtedly weighing heavily on the Chancellor's mind. Does she regret the choices that she has made in the impact they're having on young the impact they're having on young people's futures?
11:53
11:53
Bradley Thomas MP (Bromsgrove, Conservative)
-
-
Bradley Thomas MP (Bromsgrove, Conservative)
up 920,000 since since the election. But as I said in my first, as I But as I said in my first, as I said in my first answer, there are structural challenges when it comes to youth unemployment. I would gently refer. I would gently refer gently refer. I would gently refer to the party opposite to the fact that we saw a 250,000 increase in Neet numbers in the last three Neet numbers in the last three years. They were in office. We saw a 40% fall in youth unemployed youth apprenticeships and when they
11:54
Torsten Bell MP, The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Swansea West, Labour)
-
-
Torsten Bell MP, The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Swansea West, Labour)
were in office, what this government is getting on with is supporting them. And that's why this month will see the introduction of a £3,000 hiring
**** Possible New Speaker ****
bonus for firms that bring on someone who's 18 to 24 looking for work for six months. Catherine West thank you very
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Catherine West thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. And what assessment would the Minister make of the unemployment issues for of the unemployment issues for graduates? And will he and the team pledge to listen carefully to the evidence from thousands of evidence from thousands of graduates taken by members cross party on the Treasury Select Committee, so that we can come up with a fairer system that disregards the year that you enrolled in university, so that hopefully we can equalise the plans so that it doesn't matter what year you enrolled that you're playing, more or less the same for your more or less the same for your graduate loan.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
bonus for firms that bring on someone who's 18 to 24 looking for work for six months. Catherine West thank you very
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Catherine West thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. And what assessment would the Minister make of the unemployment issues for of the unemployment issues for graduates? And will he and the team pledge to listen carefully to the evidence from thousands of evidence from thousands of graduates taken by members cross party on the Treasury Select Committee, so that we can come up with a fairer system that disregards the year that you enrolled in university, so that hopefully we can equalise the plans so that it doesn't matter what year you enrolled that you're playing, more or less the same for your more or less the same for your graduate loan.
11:54
Catherine West MP (Hornsey and Friern Barnet, Labour)
-
-
Catherine West MP (Hornsey and Friern Barnet, Labour)
Mr.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She's been campaigning on this issue significantly in recent months, and we all know why. This months, and we all know why. This government has obviously inherited a situation with the student loan system. As it is, we've already acted to cap the interest rate on acted to cap the interest rate on student loans, and we look forward to hearing her report, and I'm sure issue.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
issue. Alan Mak thank you, Mr. Speaker. Question nine. Minister.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Minister. I thank the honourable. Member for his question. At Budget, the government
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She's been campaigning on this issue significantly in recent months, and we all know why. This months, and we all know why. This government has obviously inherited a situation with the student loan system. As it is, we've already acted to cap the interest rate on acted to cap the interest rate on student loans, and we look forward to hearing her report, and I'm sure issue.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
issue. Alan Mak thank you, Mr. Speaker. Question nine. Minister.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Minister. I thank the honourable. Member for his question. At Budget, the government
11:55
11:55
Rachel Blake MP, The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Cities of London and Westminster, Labour )
-
-
Rachel Blake MP, The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Cities of London and Westminster, Labour )
Trust Scheme. Overall, the Enterprise Investment Scheme and Venture Capital Trust Scheme changes are forecast to generate changes are forecast to generate around £100 million per year of additional investment into high growth scaling companies, thanks to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the increased scheme limits at Budget. Yes. I'm right. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A recent
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A recent industry survey revealed that 62% of VCT founders are scaling back growth plans, 45% are cutting headcount and 25% are leaving the country. Will the government now country. Will the government now reverse that cut in response to the Chancellor's plans, or will the Chancellor's legacy to Britain's tech sector be lower growth, fewer
**** Possible New Speaker ****
tech sector be lower growth, fewer jobs and lasting damage? Minister no. Absolutely not. We've got real confidence in the British venture capital sector. The British venture capital sector. The Budget 2025. We doubled the investment limits in gross assets threshold for the Investment in threshold for the Investment in Enterprise Investment scheme and venture capital trust schemes. These changes are supporting their These changes are supporting their growth and development.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the increased scheme limits at Budget. Yes. I'm right. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A recent
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A recent industry survey revealed that 62% of VCT founders are scaling back growth plans, 45% are cutting headcount and 25% are leaving the country. Will the government now country. Will the government now reverse that cut in response to the Chancellor's plans, or will the Chancellor's legacy to Britain's tech sector be lower growth, fewer
**** Possible New Speaker ****
tech sector be lower growth, fewer jobs and lasting damage? Minister no. Absolutely not. We've got real confidence in the British venture capital sector. The British venture capital sector. The Budget 2025. We doubled the investment limits in gross assets threshold for the Investment in threshold for the Investment in Enterprise Investment scheme and venture capital trust schemes. These changes are supporting their These changes are supporting their growth and development.
11:56
Rachel Blake MP, The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Cities of London and Westminster, Labour )
-
-
Rachel Blake MP, The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Cities of London and Westminster, Labour )
And if I may, can I start off by congratulating the former economic secretary on her promotion to being chief Secretary in the eight months that I shadowed her in her previous role, she made a very strong impact and gained significant, well-deserved respect amongst the financial services industry. And Mr. Speaker, can I also welcome my fourth Economic Secretary and wish her the very, very best of luck in the role? Mr. speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition said in a speech last week, tax and regulation is getting in the way of financial services, lending and financial services, lending and investing into the UK economy.
Does the new Economic Secretary think that the next Chancellor will do a better job of growth for this country?
Does the new Economic Secretary think that the next Chancellor will do a better job of growth for this country?
11:57
Mark Garnier MP (Wyre Forest, Conservative)
-
-
Mark Garnier MP (Wyre Forest, Conservative)
Look. interest rate cuts. We are creating the conditions for. We're creating the conditions for investment in business. Investment in skills and innovation is up. Investment in regional infrastructure is up and whole economy investment is up by 4.9% since the election. This country is the best place for start ups and scale ups, thanks to the economic stability that this Chancellor has been securing. Chancellor has been securing.
11:57
Rachel Blake MP, The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Cities of London and Westminster, Labour )
-
-
Rachel Blake MP, The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Cities of London and Westminster, Labour )
Matt Bishop Mr Speaker Minister. and wellbeing of people across the country, including in our border communities. We've been working closely with the Welsh Government to deliver a plan for Welsh Rail, and we continue to work with devolved governments to ensure that border communities stay connected.
11:58
Q10. What discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on potential funding for improving transport connectivity for border communities. (900563)
-
Q10. What discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on potential funding for improving transport connectivity for border communities. (900563)
Matt Bishop thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Minister for Speaker. I thank the Minister for her answer. The Forest of Dean sits on the England and Welsh border and many of my constituents rely on cross-border transport links to access work, education and healthcare. Does the Minister agree that improving connectivity in border communities can play a significant role in driving economic growth? And what economic growth? And what consideration is the Treasury given to support an investment in key cross border transport infrastructure.
infrastructure.
infrastructure.
11:58
Matt Bishop MP (Forest of Dean, Labour)
-
-
Matt Bishop MP (Forest of Dean, Labour)
Minister Mr. speaker, I know border communities rely on having strong transport links, and my hon. Friend is a very strong advocate indeed for the interests of his constituents, constituency and indeed the surrounding area. This government is delivering for people in all parts of the UK, including investments that will benefit both sides of the English Welsh border. This includes at places such as Padeswood on the Wrexham to Liverpool line, as part of the £445 million investment to rail allocated enhancements in Wales at the 2025 Spending Review.
11:59
Rt Hon Lucy Rigby KC MP, The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Northampton North, Labour)
-
-
Rt Hon Lucy Rigby KC MP, The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Northampton North, Labour)
Tim Farron thank you, Mr. Speaker. The the trial scheme, which connects the north west of England with the south of Scotland. The upgrade to the West Coast Main line are the busiest railway line in Western Europe has been deferred by this government and its predecessors for years and years, undoubtedly or very likely contributing to the near fatal derailment at Shap just a few months ago. Does the Chancellor think that the MP for the hon. Member for Makerfield believes that the North east of England exists beyond the M62? And if he does, will he make sure he invests in upgrading our railway line for the good of all of us, England and Scotland?
11:59
Tim Farron MP (Westmorland and Lonsdale, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Tim Farron MP (Westmorland and Lonsdale, Liberal Democrat)
Mr. the hon. Member for his question. The hon. Member for Makerfield will indeed speak for himself, but I'm confident that his view is, of course, that growth expands far beyond the area that he referred to. And most importantly, Mr. Speaker, it is the approach of this government to to ensure that growth can be generated right across the country, rather than in just a few postcodes.
12:00
Rt Hon Lucy Rigby KC MP, The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Northampton North, Labour)
-
-
Rt Hon Lucy Rigby KC MP, The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Northampton North, Labour)
From London. >> Question 11, Mr. Speaker. >> Chancellor. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This government is committed to improving transport connectivity right across the north of England, and we know that part of how we can deliver is recognising that decisions about local transport are better made locally. That is why we are giving mayors and local leaders the powers and the funding to make decisions locally. With £4.1 billion alone through the transport billion alone through the transport for City Region funds to Greater Manchester and Liverpool City Region between 2027 and 2032, and Region between 2027 and 2032, and further devolution through the integrated Settlements.
12:00
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
-
-
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the Chancellor will know, that Northern Powerhouse has been spoken about since 20 1412 years ago. If we are to get Northern Powerhouse rail off the ground and delivered, we cannot let valuable land that could create tens of thousands of jobs and really boost the northern economy be used as a cheap option. What recent conversations, therefore, have been had with local leaders regarding the proposed underground station at Manchester Piccadilly? station at Manchester Piccadilly?
12:01
Mrs Elsie Blundell MP (Heywood and Middleton North, Labour)
-
-
Mrs Elsie Blundell MP (Heywood and Middleton North, Labour)
May I thank my hon. Friend for that question. And for the first time, this government have backed Northern Powerhouse Rail with actual money in the spending review, and Northern Powerhouse Rail will improve connections between key cities Liverpool, Manchester, Bradford, Leeds, Sheffield and York. We have not yet taken a decision on the type of station that we will deliver at Manchester Piccadilly, but I absolutely recognise my hon. Friend preference for an underground station I met recently underground station I met recently with Bev Craig, the leader of Manchester City Council, to discuss how the government can support Manchester's ambition for an underground station at Manchester Piccadilly.
Piccadilly.
Piccadilly.
12:02
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
-
-
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
Cat Eccles number.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
John Slinger thank you, Mr. Speaker. We're cutting electricity costs for up to ten 000 businesses costs for up to ten 000 businesses through the British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme and also expanding the supercharger scheme. expanding the supercharger scheme. We are also strengthening key supply chains and protecting jobs through the steel strategy. The new £350 million Critical Chemicals Resilience Fund and the £120
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Resilience Fund and the £120 million support for our ceramic ceramics sector. Cat Eccles. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And can I welcome the decisions taken by the Chancellor and Government colleagues to revise the EV targets for 2030, following representations from the industry, unions and MPs. Targets are really great, but they need to match capabilities and market realities. So what assessment has she made of how this change will safeguard jobs in the automotive supply chain? In my constituency of Stourbridge and across the UK?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
John Slinger thank you, Mr. Speaker. We're cutting electricity costs for up to ten 000 businesses costs for up to ten 000 businesses through the British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme and also expanding the supercharger scheme. expanding the supercharger scheme. We are also strengthening key supply chains and protecting jobs through the steel strategy. The new £350 million Critical Chemicals Resilience Fund and the £120
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Resilience Fund and the £120 million support for our ceramic ceramics sector. Cat Eccles. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And can I welcome the decisions taken by the Chancellor and Government colleagues to revise the EV targets for 2030, following representations from the industry, unions and MPs. Targets are really great, but they need to match capabilities and market realities. So what assessment has she made of how this change will safeguard jobs in the automotive supply chain? In my constituency of Stourbridge and across the UK?
12:03
Cat Eccles MP (Stourbridge, Labour)
-
-
Cat Eccles MP (Stourbridge, Labour)
Chancellor. question and also for the representation of of her and other MPs who represent constituencies with a presence of automotive businesses. As my hon. Friend said, we are bringing forward the review of the Zev mandate, so it will now take place this year, a year earlier than planned. And within that review, we will be looking at
12:03
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
-
-
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
a slower phasing of those targets to bring us closer to example, for to bring us closer to example, for where the EU is. Automotives are the crown jewel of British the crown jewel of British manufacturing. We mustn't let a target damage our sector, indeed, target damage our sector, indeed, therefore, paying out money to foreign companies who produce more electric vehicles, for example, in China. And that is why we have made these changes and why we are having this review.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Greg Smith thank. You. Mr. Speaker. Mid Buckinghamshire is home to a number of businesses that are part of the supply chain for the aerospace and defence industries. Those businesses rely industries. Those businesses rely on steel that is categorically not made here in the United Kingdom. So if the Department for Business and if the Department for Business and Trade fail to rectify the cliff edge that is coming on steel tariffs, what will the Treasury do
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Greg Smith thank. You. Mr. Speaker. Mid Buckinghamshire is home to a number of businesses that are part of the supply chain for the aerospace and defence industries. Those businesses rely industries. Those businesses rely on steel that is categorically not made here in the United Kingdom. So if the Department for Business and if the Department for Business and Trade fail to rectify the cliff edge that is coming on steel tariffs, what will the Treasury do
12:04
Greg Smith MP (Mid Buckinghamshire, Conservative)
-
-
Greg Smith MP (Mid Buckinghamshire, Conservative)
tariffs, what will the Treasury do to backfill that and ensure many businesses, such as those in my constituency, don't become completely unviable?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Chancellor. My the hon. Gentleman makes an important point about making sure important point about making sure we get the balance right between supporting steel made in Britain, which the previous government which the previous government neglected, and we are backing through the nationalisation of the steelworks in Scunthorpe and more steelworks in Scunthorpe and more support for Port Talbot and also in Sheffield as well. But I also Sheffield as well. But I also recognise the challenge that some British companies will face, which is why, for example, in the work that we are doing with the EU on the upcoming EU UK summit, we want the upcoming EU UK summit, we want to have a steel Alliance to reduce tariffs on steel.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Chancellor. My the hon. Gentleman makes an important point about making sure important point about making sure we get the balance right between supporting steel made in Britain, which the previous government which the previous government neglected, and we are backing through the nationalisation of the steelworks in Scunthorpe and more steelworks in Scunthorpe and more support for Port Talbot and also in Sheffield as well. But I also Sheffield as well. But I also recognise the challenge that some British companies will face, which is why, for example, in the work that we are doing with the EU on the upcoming EU UK summit, we want the upcoming EU UK summit, we want to have a steel Alliance to reduce tariffs on steel.
12:05
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
-
-
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
James Wild Shadow Minister Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Next week, those swingeing 50% tariffs on steel imports will hit manufacturing businesses across the country, putting thousands of jobs at risk. And while they are intended to protect domestic production, industry is warning that many grades in the quantity that they need simply are not made in the UK. So it's a simple question for the Chancellor. Will she guarantee that tariffs will not apply where businesses cannot get apply where businesses cannot get steel in the UK? Chancellor.
12:05
12:05
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
-
-
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
Gilmore. >> Question 13. Mr. speaker. >> Chancellor. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At a time of great global uncertainty, it is more important than ever that we deepen ties with our closest allies and biggest trading partners, whose values we share and whose interests are bound to our own. It's ten years today since the Brexit referendum, but the economic
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At a time of great global uncertainty, it is more important than ever that we deepen ties with our closest allies and biggest trading partners, whose values we share and whose interests are bound to our own. It's ten years today since the Brexit referendum, but the economic
12:06
12:06
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
-
-
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
Indeed, recent studies indicate its impact could be as great as 8% reduction in GDP. I have worked reduction in GDP. I have worked closely with my counterparts across the EU as part of this government's commitment to resetting that commitment to resetting that relationship. Most recently at meetings in the G7 in Paris and the meetings in the G7 in Paris and the Ebrd meetings in Riga, they have been clear that they welcome those closer ties, which is in all of our interests.
And at the upcoming UK EU summit, we hope to be able to conclude deals on food and agrifood linking the EU emissions trading schemes, as well as an ambitious
**** Possible New Speaker ****
youth mobility scheme. Rachel Gilmour. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Today does. Indeed mark. Ten years since Britain voted to leave the European Union. One of.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
One of. The consequences of Brexit has been to bury my constituents in red tape. My farmers who can't export tape. My farmers who can't export without reams of paperwork, small businesses seemingly locked out of businesses seemingly locked out of European markets. The EU remains the world's largest trading bloc, and it sits on our doorstep. So will the Chancellor set out a path to an ambitious and ambitious UK EU reset? As my party have called for, including a new customs union that including a new customs union that would slash costs for British businesses, open markets for our farmers and bring down.
farmers and bring down.
And at the upcoming UK EU summit, we hope to be able to conclude deals on food and agrifood linking the EU emissions trading schemes, as well as an ambitious
**** Possible New Speaker ****
youth mobility scheme. Rachel Gilmour. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Today does. Indeed mark. Ten years since Britain voted to leave the European Union. One of.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
One of. The consequences of Brexit has been to bury my constituents in red tape. My farmers who can't export tape. My farmers who can't export without reams of paperwork, small businesses seemingly locked out of businesses seemingly locked out of European markets. The EU remains the world's largest trading bloc, and it sits on our doorstep. So will the Chancellor set out a path to an ambitious and ambitious UK EU reset? As my party have called for, including a new customs union that including a new customs union that would slash costs for British businesses, open markets for our farmers and bring down.
farmers and bring down.
12:07
Rachel Gilmour MP (Tiverton and Minehead, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Rachel Gilmour MP (Tiverton and Minehead, Liberal Democrat)
Prices for the British consumer. Or will we have to wait for her successor to show that ambition here?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Chancellor. I thank the hon. Lady for that question, and I have been working question, and I have been working hard as part of this Labour government to reset the relationship so damaged by the relationship so damaged by the choices of the party opposite, and that is why we have committed to that is why we have committed to this second UK EU summit. After the agreement between President Ursula von der Leyen and our Prime von der Leyen and our Prime Minister last year to finalise the deal on food to help our farmers on youth mobility, to help our young people, and on emissions trading to help keep the cost of energy down.
help keep the cost of energy down.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Chancellor. I thank the hon. Lady for that question, and I have been working question, and I have been working hard as part of this Labour government to reset the relationship so damaged by the relationship so damaged by the choices of the party opposite, and that is why we have committed to that is why we have committed to this second UK EU summit. After the agreement between President Ursula von der Leyen and our Prime von der Leyen and our Prime Minister last year to finalise the deal on food to help our farmers on youth mobility, to help our young people, and on emissions trading to help keep the cost of energy down.
help keep the cost of energy down.
12:08
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
-
-
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
Fred Thomas. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Given what my right hon. Friend has rightly said about the disastrous deal negotiated by the party opposite once we left the EU, when the next UK EU summit does eventually happen, after successfully concluding discussions on the existing priorities of the UK, EU reset, won't it be time to discuss the opportunity and its costs and benefits of rejoining the single market? For more of the key parts of our economy? Chancellor.
12:08
Gareth Thomas MP (Harrow West, Labour )
-
-
Gareth Thomas MP (Harrow West, Labour )
I understand why my hon. Friend makes those arguments, and we are clearly poorer outside the European Union than we otherwise would have been. We made a manifesto commitment that we would not rejoin the single market, the customs union or return to free movement of labour, though those red lines stand. But within those there is an awful lot we can do to improve relations, and we are doing just that.
12:09
12:09
Q15. What steps she has taken to help support people with the cost of living in Wythenshawe and Sale East constituency. (900568)
-
Q15. What steps she has taken to help support people with the cost of living in Wythenshawe and Sale East constituency. (900568)
Mr. Chancellor. cost of living pressures for people in Wythenshawe and Sale East and across the UK. Budget measures are across the UK. Budget measures are already helping households freezing prescription charges for the second year in a row, freezing rail fares for the first time in 30 years and taking £150 off energy bills, as well as protecting pensioners through the triple lock and lifting half a million children out of poverty.
12:10
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
-
-
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
Mike Kane my constituents, Darren and Nicole shared with me their story of hardship, raising five children on one income. They, like me, are grateful to this Chancellor for ending the two cap benefit cap.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah yeah yeah. Would she consider an independent process to advise independent process to advise government on how much Universal Credit needs to be to afford everyday items going forward in the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah yeah yeah. Would she consider an independent process to advise independent process to advise government on how much Universal Credit needs to be to afford everyday items going forward in the
12:10
Mike Kane MP (Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
-
-
Mike Kane MP (Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
future? >> Chancellor. >> Thank you for bringing the story
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you for bringing the story of Darren and Nicole to this House. And I hope that they will be some of the beneficiaries and their children will be some of the beneficiaries for changes that I made around the two child limit within Universal Credit, but also the rolling out of free breakfast clubs to all primary schools, and the introduction of free school meals for all children whose
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you for bringing the story of Darren and Nicole to this House. And I hope that they will be some of the beneficiaries and their children will be some of the beneficiaries for changes that I made around the two child limit within Universal Credit, but also the rolling out of free breakfast clubs to all primary schools, and the introduction of free school meals for all children whose
12:10
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
-
-
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
parents are on Universal Credit. And that will start in September and be available at primary, and be available at primary, Secondary Nursery and Fe. And as the Trussell Trust have said, because of the decisions that I because of the decisions that I made in my Budget, the cruel two child limit which lifted, which drove countless families into drove countless families into hardship and forced them to turn to food banks to survive, will end.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
food banks to survive, will end. Munira Wilson Preston 16, Mr Speaker Minister. Mr. speaker, we've been clear that Heathrow expansion needs to benefit everyone, not just London. The Department for transport has shown that expansion would deliver UK wide support for trade. 40% of the estimated GDP benefits from expansion will be outside of London and the South East.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
food banks to survive, will end. Munira Wilson Preston 16, Mr Speaker Minister. Mr. speaker, we've been clear that Heathrow expansion needs to benefit everyone, not just London. The Department for transport has shown that expansion would deliver UK wide support for trade. 40% of the estimated GDP benefits from expansion will be outside of London and the South East.
12:11
Rt Hon Lucy Rigby KC MP, The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Northampton North, Labour)
-
-
Rt Hon Lucy Rigby KC MP, The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Northampton North, Labour)
Munira Wilson. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. When the Chancellor announced her support for Heathrow expansion last year, she claimed it would deliver year, she claimed it would deliver 0.43% GDP growth. The Heathrow expansion national policy statement, snuck out last week, now predicts a 90% reduction in that figure to just 0.0, 5% growth and what little growth there might be will largely be sucked out of other parts of the country, such as Birmingham and country, such as Birmingham and indeed, Manchester.
So will she now finally admit Heathrow expansion is not the grand growth plan she not the grand growth plan she thought it was, and it will hurt areas outside London the most. areas outside London the most.
So will she now finally admit Heathrow expansion is not the grand growth plan she not the grand growth plan she thought it was, and it will hurt areas outside London the most. areas outside London the most.
12:12
Munira Wilson MP (Twickenham, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Munira Wilson MP (Twickenham, Liberal Democrat)
Mr. speaker, nothing was snuck out whatsoever. A third runway at Heathrow means over 6000 good local jobs and over £40 billion for the British economy. But if I may say so, Mr. Speaker, I think this approach rather highlights the Lib Dems pretty curious approach to growth. When they were in government, they absolutely decimated our economy with austerity, and they now oppose all of the investment in infrastructure needed for growth. This government is taking a wholly better approach.
12:12
Rt Hon Lucy Rigby KC MP, The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Northampton North, Labour)
-
-
Rt Hon Lucy Rigby KC MP, The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Northampton North, Labour)
John Grady thank.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Since I became Chancellor, our economy has became Chancellor, our economy has grown by 2.3%, the fastest among European G7 economies in that period. Over that time, we have progressed our strategy for stronger and more secure growth through fiscal stability, through through fiscal stability, through bringing in an additional £120 billion in public investment, as
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Since I became Chancellor, our economy has became Chancellor, our economy has grown by 2.3%, the fastest among European G7 economies in that period. Over that time, we have progressed our strategy for stronger and more secure growth through fiscal stability, through through fiscal stability, through bringing in an additional £120 billion in public investment, as
12:13
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
-
-
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
well as crowding in private investment through the National Wealth Fund and British Business Bank. Because I changed our fiscal rules. And third, removing structural barriers to growth, including big reforms to our planning system, our pension system and progress to reduce regulatory
**** Possible New Speaker ****
burdens, particularly on smaller businesses. Mr. speaker, the long term strength of the economy depends on strength of the economy depends on long term investments in the UK. UK growth companies still struggle for capital, whilst UK savers money flows to trackers concentrated on a small number of US stocks. And this is bad news for our future. My is bad news for our future. My right hon. Friend has made brilliant progress reforming pensions. But can my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, reassure me Friend the Chancellor, reassure me that the Treasury is looking at further reforms to increase the amount of UK savers money that is
**** Possible New Speaker ****
invested in our future. Chancellor. I thank my hon. Friend for his
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and the work that he's done on the Treasury Select Committee on Pension Reforms. We. Committee on Pension Reforms. We. Through the mansion House accord and through Sterling 20, have got pension funds to commit to investing more in British businesses, both through British venture schemes and also in British infrastructure. Changes secured by the Pension Schemes Bill that my hon. Friend took through Parliament and for the first time ever requiring that investment in UK businesses and in infrastructure.
We are also making reforms to how our Isa system works, so that for people under the age of 65, after investing £12,000 in cash, any additional money has to be invested in stocks and shares, helping start up and scale up businesses grow and stay in Britain.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
John Glen thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Chancellor has obviously had to make some tough decisions since 2024, but the Member for Ilford North wants her to go further in North wants her to go further in terms of aligning the capital gains tax rate to the higher rates of tax rate to the higher rates of income tax. Did the Chancellor examine the behavioural effects of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
burdens, particularly on smaller businesses. Mr. speaker, the long term strength of the economy depends on strength of the economy depends on long term investments in the UK. UK growth companies still struggle for capital, whilst UK savers money flows to trackers concentrated on a small number of US stocks. And this is bad news for our future. My is bad news for our future. My right hon. Friend has made brilliant progress reforming pensions. But can my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, reassure me Friend the Chancellor, reassure me that the Treasury is looking at further reforms to increase the amount of UK savers money that is
**** Possible New Speaker ****
invested in our future. Chancellor. I thank my hon. Friend for his
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and the work that he's done on the Treasury Select Committee on Pension Reforms. We. Committee on Pension Reforms. We. Through the mansion House accord and through Sterling 20, have got pension funds to commit to investing more in British businesses, both through British venture schemes and also in British infrastructure. Changes secured by the Pension Schemes Bill that my hon. Friend took through Parliament and for the first time ever requiring that investment in UK businesses and in infrastructure.
We are also making reforms to how our Isa system works, so that for people under the age of 65, after investing £12,000 in cash, any additional money has to be invested in stocks and shares, helping start up and scale up businesses grow and stay in Britain.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
John Glen thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Chancellor has obviously had to make some tough decisions since 2024, but the Member for Ilford North wants her to go further in North wants her to go further in terms of aligning the capital gains tax rate to the higher rates of tax rate to the higher rates of income tax. Did the Chancellor examine the behavioural effects of
12:15
Rt Hon John Glen MP (Salisbury, Conservative)
-
-
Rt Hon John Glen MP (Salisbury, Conservative)
such a policy before she made a much more modest increase in her first Budget? >> Chancellor.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In my two budgets, I have raised an additional £30 billion through an additional £30 billion through taxes for more wealthy people, whether that is through the changes to the non-dom rules, VAT and business rates on private schools, taxes on private jets, the high taxes on private jets, the high value council tax surcharge or indeed the increases in capital
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In my two budgets, I have raised an additional £30 billion through an additional £30 billion through taxes for more wealthy people, whether that is through the changes to the non-dom rules, VAT and business rates on private schools, taxes on private jets, the high taxes on private jets, the high value council tax surcharge or indeed the increases in capital
12:15
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
-
-
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
indeed the increases in capital gains tax. And if you combine those things, that's an extra £30 billion secured for our public services and also to stabilise our public finances and get debt down as a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
share of our economy by asking those with the broadest shoulders to pay more. Richard Fuller Shadow Minister.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Richard Fuller Shadow Minister. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I'm sorry, but the Chancellor's I'm sorry, but the Chancellor's recollection of her record is fantasy. Economics from a fantasy economist isn't the true record. This poor decision making with U-turn after U-turn after U-turn on winter fuel payments, on business rates and on family farm taxes, tax after tax after tax, on jobs, on investment, on savings. A country more indebted with higher interest rates to Anna Chancellor unable to cut welfare and unwilling to fund our defence.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
share of our economy by asking those with the broadest shoulders to pay more. Richard Fuller Shadow Minister.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Richard Fuller Shadow Minister. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I'm sorry, but the Chancellor's I'm sorry, but the Chancellor's recollection of her record is fantasy. Economics from a fantasy economist isn't the true record. This poor decision making with U-turn after U-turn after U-turn on winter fuel payments, on business rates and on family farm taxes, tax after tax after tax, on jobs, on investment, on savings. A country more indebted with higher interest rates to Anna Chancellor unable to cut welfare and unwilling to fund our defence.
12:17
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
-
-
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
and free school meals, 500,000 children lifted out of poverty, creating the National Wealth fund creating the National Wealth fund and leveraging in private sector investment. Those things are only possible because the decisions that possible because the decisions that I have made as Chancellor and as a result, for the first time since 2019, government borrowing was less 2019, government borrowing was less than 5% of GDP, a very far change
**** Possible New Speaker ****
than 5% of GDP, a very far change from the mess that I inherited from the party. Opposite we. Come to topicals David Williams.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
For one, please, Mr. speaker. Chancellor.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Chancellor. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This government has the right economic plan, the fastest growth in the G7 plan, the fastest growth in the G7 at the start of this year, the second fastest rate of growth in the G7 since the election. Inflation lower than forecast with food inflation at its lowest level
**** Possible New Speaker ****
than 5% of GDP, a very far change from the mess that I inherited from the party. Opposite we. Come to topicals David Williams.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
For one, please, Mr. speaker. Chancellor.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Chancellor. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This government has the right economic plan, the fastest growth in the G7 plan, the fastest growth in the G7 at the start of this year, the second fastest rate of growth in the G7 since the election. Inflation lower than forecast with food inflation at its lowest level
12:18
Topical questions: HM Treasury
-
Topical questions: HM Treasury
food inflation at its lowest level for 17 months. Despite the disruption in the Middle East, wages have risen faster than prices in every single month since I became Chancellor, and I am tackling the cost of living tackling the cost of living challenges. With rail fares frozen with prescription charges frozen with money off, energy bills and with money off, energy bills and fuel duty frozen. Our economic plan is the right one and I will continue to deliver for the British people. Speaker.
12:18
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
-
-
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
We don't.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Say thank you enough. So I'd like to offer my heartfelt thanks to the Chancellor for listening. to the Chancellor for listening. She listened to me. My fellow MPs, She listened to me. My fellow MPs, our pottery workers and our GMB union, and especially Sterling Yates, by offering a £120 million Yates, by offering a £120 million support and growth package for our ceramics sector. So can the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Say thank you enough. So I'd like to offer my heartfelt thanks to the Chancellor for listening. to the Chancellor for listening. She listened to me. My fellow MPs, She listened to me. My fellow MPs, our pottery workers and our GMB union, and especially Sterling Yates, by offering a £120 million Yates, by offering a £120 million support and growth package for our ceramics sector. So can the
12:18
David Williams MP (Stoke-on-Trent North, Labour)
-
-
David Williams MP (Stoke-on-Trent North, Labour)
ceramics sector. So can the Chancellor now outline how she will ensure smaller manufacturers benefit from this fantastic new
**** Possible New Speaker ****
scheme? Well said. Chancellor. I thank my hon. Friend for that question, but also for the question, but also for the representation he and other MPs representing ceramic constituencies have made. It was a real honour for have made. It was a real honour for me to be able to meet the impressive force of nature that is impressive force of nature that is Sharon Yates. When I visited Dunoon, a ceramics business in Staffordshire, just a couple of Staffordshire, just a couple of months ago.
I would like to pay tribute to her and the campaigning trade union GMB, ceramics UK and all campaigning Labour MPs on their efforts. As a result, they have efforts. As a result, they have been heard and that on £120 million package of support for ceramics announced earlier this year, will announced earlier this year, will sector.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
scheme? Well said. Chancellor. I thank my hon. Friend for that question, but also for the question, but also for the representation he and other MPs representing ceramic constituencies have made. It was a real honour for have made. It was a real honour for me to be able to meet the impressive force of nature that is impressive force of nature that is Sharon Yates. When I visited Dunoon, a ceramics business in Staffordshire, just a couple of Staffordshire, just a couple of months ago.
I would like to pay tribute to her and the campaigning trade union GMB, ceramics UK and all campaigning Labour MPs on their efforts. As a result, they have efforts. As a result, they have been heard and that on £120 million package of support for ceramics announced earlier this year, will announced earlier this year, will sector.
12:19
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
-
-
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
Can I just remind everybody we're on top of this and lots of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
members need to get in, so. Mel Stride. Chelmsford. Yeah. Speaker.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Given all that is going on, Mr. Speaker, this could be the last time. So the legacy of this Chancellor has been the highest taxes on record, a benefits bill spiralling out of control, spiralling out of control, unemployment 300,000 higher than it was at the last general election.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
members need to get in, so. Mel Stride. Chelmsford. Yeah. Speaker.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Given all that is going on, Mr. Speaker, this could be the last time. So the legacy of this Chancellor has been the highest taxes on record, a benefits bill spiralling out of control, spiralling out of control, unemployment 300,000 higher than it was at the last general election.
12:20
Rt Hon Sir Mel Stride MP (Central Devon, Conservative)
-
-
Rt Hon Sir Mel Stride MP (Central Devon, Conservative)
was at the last general election. The right hon. Lady trumpets 2.8% for inflation, still well above target, and only last year it was the highest in the G7, to the detriment of millions up and down our country and borrowing. Well, could I ask the right hon. Lady, how much more, under her plans she intends to borrow this Parliament
**** Possible New Speaker ****
than the plan she inherited? Chancellor of the Exchequer.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Mr. speaker, let's talk about my record. Six cuts in interest rates, wages rising faster than inflation, wages rising faster than inflation, trade deals secured, investments delivered, support for our energy intensive industries. Half a million children lifted out of poverty, record investment in our poverty, record investment in our National health Service, more money for local transport infrastructure right around the country. The biggest uplift in defence spending since the end of the Cold War, and an economy that has constantly beat an economy that has constantly beat the forecasts.
An economy that is growing, an economy where inflation has come down. Compare that to the disastrous 14 years when they were in office. I would take our record any day. any day.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
than the plan she inherited? Chancellor of the Exchequer.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Mr. speaker, let's talk about my record. Six cuts in interest rates, wages rising faster than inflation, wages rising faster than inflation, trade deals secured, investments delivered, support for our energy intensive industries. Half a million children lifted out of poverty, record investment in our poverty, record investment in our National health Service, more money for local transport infrastructure right around the country. The biggest uplift in defence spending since the end of the Cold War, and an economy that has constantly beat an economy that has constantly beat the forecasts.
An economy that is growing, an economy where inflation has come down. Compare that to the disastrous 14 years when they were in office. I would take our record any day. any day.
12:21
Rt Hon Sir Mel Stride MP (Central Devon, Conservative)
-
-
Rt Hon Sir Mel Stride MP (Central Devon, Conservative)
Lady cannot bring herself to answer that simple question, and I will tell her she is borrowing one will tell her she is borrowing one quarter of £1 trillion more than the plans that she inherited. That is her legacy. Now we hear that the right hon. Member, the Member for Makerfield, is considering borrowing even more. Does she agree with me that that would be utterly reckless and that the bond markets
**** Possible New Speaker ****
will not wear it? Chris Bloore when the Conservatives were in office in the Conservatives were in office in the last Parliament, they borrowed more than the G7 average for every single year. This year we are single year. This year we are borrowing less than the G7 average and have brought down government and have brought down government borrowing to 4.2% of GDP. In the most recent data. And we have most recent data. And we have brought forward our fiscal rules.
So they kick in two years earlier, and we are meeting those fiscal rules to ensure that we have sustainable public finances. A far cry from those that I inherited. cry from those that I inherited.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
will not wear it? Chris Bloore when the Conservatives were in office in the Conservatives were in office in the last Parliament, they borrowed more than the G7 average for every single year. This year we are single year. This year we are borrowing less than the G7 average and have brought down government and have brought down government borrowing to 4.2% of GDP. In the most recent data. And we have most recent data. And we have brought forward our fiscal rules.
So they kick in two years earlier, and we are meeting those fiscal rules to ensure that we have sustainable public finances. A far cry from those that I inherited. cry from those that I inherited.
12:22
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
-
-
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
Adam Jogee. support for the ceramics industry. It's important for jobs and livelihoods in Newcastle-under-Lyme where we make excellent British bricks. So can I urge the Minister to do whatever possible to increase the use of British made bricks in construction projects right across our United Kingdom? Chancellor.
12:22
Adam Jogee MP (Newcastle-under-Lyme, Labour)
-
-
Adam Jogee MP (Newcastle-under-Lyme, Labour)
I thank my hon. Friend for his >> I thank my hon. Friend for his question and also the representation that he makes on behalf of the ceramics industry in behalf of the ceramics industry in Newcastle under Lyme. The £120 million funding will be launched in the autumn. We are working with the sector now and it will be available for firms of all sizes, because it is important that small ceramics manufacturers can benefit as large as well as larger ones. spokesperson.
12:23
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
-
-
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today is exactly. thanks to the Conservatives, the post-Brexit red tape has created an extra 2 billion pieces of extra paperwork for British businesses, enough to stretch around the world 20 times. The hit to growth is the equivalent of the Treasury losing out on £90 billion every single year. Surely by now the Labour government and the Labour Party must recognise that if they want to go for growth and raise revenue, go for growth and raise revenue, they should drop their red lines on Europe now.
12:23
Daisy Cooper MP (St Albans, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Daisy Cooper MP (St Albans, Liberal Democrat)
That's what.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
With with all respect, the Liberal Democrats backed that referendum ten years ago, and they were part of the government that legislated for that referendum and legislated for that referendum and on manifesto commitments, unlike the Liberal Democrats, the Labour Party actually stick to our
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Party actually stick to our manifesto commitments. Unlike you. Euan Stainbank Mr. Karin Smyth,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
With with all respect, the Liberal Democrats backed that referendum ten years ago, and they were part of the government that legislated for that referendum and legislated for that referendum and on manifesto commitments, unlike the Liberal Democrats, the Labour Party actually stick to our
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Party actually stick to our manifesto commitments. Unlike you. Euan Stainbank Mr. Karin Smyth,
12:24
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
-
-
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
>> Euan Stainbank Mr. Karin Smyth, it was a loss to Scotland's economy. The Chancellor rightly consulted on including refined products in the carbon border adjustment mechanism to level the playing field for domestic refining, a level playing field that the Tories did not pursue before the closure of Grangemouth was announced in 2023. Will the Chancellor meet me and other colleagues to discuss the merits of accelerating inclusion of refined products in the cbam?
12:24
Euan Stainbank MP (Falkirk, Labour)
-
-
Euan Stainbank MP (Falkirk, Labour)
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank my hon. Friend for his thank my hon. Friend for his question and his strong representation on behalf of his constituency and the important refining industry. I have seen the letter to the Chancellor that that has been sent by colleagues, and I would be very happy to meet with the honourable with with my hon. interested.
12:24
Dan Tomlinson MP, The Exchequer Secretary (Chipping Barnet, Labour)
-
-
Dan Tomlinson MP, The Exchequer Secretary (Chipping Barnet, Labour)
Luke Evans thank you. >> A question for the Chancellor. Could she explain why she is now clawing back VAT on the Compassionate Medicine Scheme, which means that this Labour which means that this Labour government is taxing free cancer drugs given to children? Will she reverse this decision because patients are starting to miss out on the treatments they really need? Yeah.
12:25
Dr Luke Evans MP (Hinckley and Bosworth, Conservative)
-
-
Dr Luke Evans MP (Hinckley and Bosworth, Conservative)
Minister thank you, Mr. Speaker. I regret to inform the member opposite that this was a policy that was implemented by his that was implemented by his government. It was it was in 2023 that HMRC wrote to businesses that were not paying the VAT. Unlike some others that were and began the enforcement action, it started under his government. But I recognise, Mr. Speaker, that the challenges that these rules are
12:25
Dan Tomlinson MP, The Exchequer Secretary (Chipping Barnet, Labour)
-
-
Dan Tomlinson MP, The Exchequer Secretary (Chipping Barnet, Labour)
causing. And so I do want to today confirm that the government will soon bring forward a new approach consisting of changes to the VAT consisting of changes to the VAT rules, Mr. Speaker, or a reimbursement scheme. The changes will be effective for donations of will be effective for donations of medicines made on or after today. Well, in all our constituencies, Well, in all our constituencies, small hospitality businesses such as Smiths in Beckenham and the Alma Pub in Crystal Palace provide Pub in Crystal Palace provide important third spaces, bringing life to our high streets and providing good jobs.
The Chancellor has visited my constituency to outline additional support for local pubs. Can she set out what further steps she is taking to ensure that these small businesses can grow and thrive?
The Chancellor has visited my constituency to outline additional support for local pubs. Can she set out what further steps she is taking to ensure that these small businesses can grow and thrive?
12:26
12:26
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
-
-
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
I am well aware of many of the pubs in Beckenham and Penge. This summer, this, this, this summer. This summer, the Great British This summer, the Great British Summer savings from this Thursday will benefit businesses in Beckenham and Penge and around the Beckenham and Penge and around the country, where dinners in restaurants, pubs, cafes and bars for children will see their VAT rate cut and children's entertainment venues as well in Beckenham and Penge around the country will also see cuts in VAT.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Sarah Olney thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today marks ten years since the Brexit referendum and since that day we've had ten home since that day we've had ten home secretaries, nine foreign secretaries, eight Chancellors, seven defence secretaries and six seven defence secretaries and six prime Ministers. So which would the Chancellor agree with me that such instability has acted as a brake on instability has acted as a brake on growth in this country? And can she set out what she plans to do to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
reverse that trend? Well, in the first quarter of this year, we were the fastest growing economy in the G7. And since I became Chancellor, we've had growth of 2.3%, which is the second fastest rate of growth in the G7. We are growing our economy by bringing investment and stability back to the UK, and businesses are following our lead by investing in our country.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Sarah Olney thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today marks ten years since the Brexit referendum and since that day we've had ten home since that day we've had ten home secretaries, nine foreign secretaries, eight Chancellors, seven defence secretaries and six seven defence secretaries and six prime Ministers. So which would the Chancellor agree with me that such instability has acted as a brake on instability has acted as a brake on growth in this country? And can she set out what she plans to do to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
reverse that trend? Well, in the first quarter of this year, we were the fastest growing economy in the G7. And since I became Chancellor, we've had growth of 2.3%, which is the second fastest rate of growth in the G7. We are growing our economy by bringing investment and stability back to the UK, and businesses are following our lead by investing in our country.
12:27
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
-
-
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
Mr. Speaker. Last week, the Chancellor announced the biggest insourcing of government caterers, insourcing of government caterers, cleaners and security officers that we have seen in a very long time when the current contract ends. Does she agree that this move will finally recognise workers that have been undervalued and underappreciated for far too long?
12:27
Mark Sewards MP (Leeds South West and Morley, Labour)
-
-
Mark Sewards MP (Leeds South West and Morley, Labour)
Chancellor. >> When we were in opposition, I promised the biggest wave of insourcing in a generation, and we are now working in government to are now working in government to deliver exactly that. The GPA contract that expires in 2028 will come back in house, and that means people working, I think around 40 locations across government in London, but around the country will find that instead of being employed by an outsourcing company, will be employed directly by the government and will have the same terms and and will have the same terms and conditions as other civil servants, a huge difference to them and their families.
12:28
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
-
-
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
Robin Swann.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. And an earlier answer. The Minister ruled out a VAT reduction for hospitality across the United hospitality across the United Kingdom. Would he at least meet with me? Hospitality, Ulster and the Food to Go Association to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the Food to Go Association to discuss the concept of a Northern Ireland specific pilot? Yeah. Minister.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Minister. I would, of course, meet with the hon. Member. Sarah Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My constituency of Tamworth has
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. And an earlier answer. The Minister ruled out a VAT reduction for hospitality across the United hospitality across the United Kingdom. Would he at least meet with me? Hospitality, Ulster and the Food to Go Association to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the Food to Go Association to discuss the concept of a Northern Ireland specific pilot? Yeah. Minister.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Minister. I would, of course, meet with the hon. Member. Sarah Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My constituency of Tamworth has
12:28
Robin Swann MP (South Antrim, Ulster Unionist Party)
-
-
Robin Swann MP (South Antrim, Ulster Unionist Party)
>> My constituency of Tamworth has been. Extremely lucky in getting £20 million for Glasgow South and. Stonydelph under the Pride in Place programme. This gives local people the ability to choose how this funding is to be spent. So could I ask the Chancellor? Are there going to be more rounds of this funding or similar schemes, so that local people can be put in charge of how their money is spent?
12:29
Dan Tomlinson MP, The Exchequer Secretary (Chipping Barnet, Labour)
-
-
Dan Tomlinson MP, The Exchequer Secretary (Chipping Barnet, Labour)
Minister. to my friend for her question. The Pride in Place programme provides £5.8 billion of support to 284 £5.8 billion of support to 284 neighbourhoods right across the country, including five places in my hon. Friend's constituency constituency that she does so much constituency that she does so much to advocate for. We'll be setting out more details of further funding in the Budget.
12:29
12:29
Rt Hon Lucy Rigby KC MP, The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Northampton North, Labour)
-
-
Rt Hon Lucy Rigby KC MP, The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Northampton North, Labour)
famous Russell Donald Russell Butchers in recent months, both crucial to the agricultural supply crucial to the agricultural supply chain. Both blamed high energy costs and the increased cost of doing business, such as the huge rises in national insurance under rises in national insurance under this government and big business rate rises under the SNP. What steps is the Treasury taking to support, not suffocate, the
12:29
Harriet Cross MP (Gordon and Buchan, Conservative)
-
-
Harriet Cross MP (Gordon and Buchan, Conservative)
support, not suffocate, the agricultural supply chain and other crucial elements of the farming sector?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Minister. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon. Member for her question and the representations that she makes on behalf of the businesses in her constituency. This government is taking every step we can within the tight fiscal constraints that we inherited from the previous government, to make sure that we can reform and invest in our business rate system, to make sure that we can raise revenue in a fair and sustainable way. But I am sure that the Chancellor and colleagues across government will continue to listen to representations and consider what further changes we can make at the Budget to support businesses.
Budget to support businesses.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Minister. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon. Member for her question and the representations that she makes on behalf of the businesses in her constituency. This government is taking every step we can within the tight fiscal constraints that we inherited from the previous government, to make sure that we can reform and invest in our business rate system, to make sure that we can raise revenue in a fair and sustainable way. But I am sure that the Chancellor and colleagues across government will continue to listen to representations and consider what further changes we can make at the Budget to support businesses.
Budget to support businesses.
12:31
David Burton-Sampson MP (Southend West and Leigh, Labour)
-
-
David Burton-Sampson MP (Southend West and Leigh, Labour)
Chancellor. question. Today, the government has responded to the Covid counter-fraud commissioner's recommendations, a report that I recommendations, a report that I commissioned. It confirms that the government left the door open to more than £10 billion worth of pandemic fraud, money that could have gone into our NHS and into our schools. We have acted in the last two years to claw that money back, and today set out how we will go even further, launching a powerful
12:31
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
-
-
Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
new public authorities fraud investigation and enforcement service with new powers to make service with new powers to make sure that we get that money back directly from fraudsters bank accounts. Nearly 2000 directors accounts. Nearly 2000 directors have been disqualified. 86 criminal criminals prosecuted in actions that will bring more money back to that will bring more money back to the public purse. I want those who have defrauded the taxpayer to know that there is nowhere to hide. We
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that there is nowhere to hide. We are coming after you. You will pay that money back. Right. That completes questions. We'll move on to the next. Don't We We now We now come We now come to We now come to the opposition day motion on defence spending and readiness. I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I call the spokesperson to move the motion. Secretary of State James Cartlidge Mr.
speaker, I beg to move the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that there is nowhere to hide. We are coming after you. You will pay that money back. Right. That completes questions. We'll move on to the next. Don't We We now We now come We now come to We now come to the opposition day motion on defence spending and readiness. I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I call the spokesperson to move the motion. Secretary of State James Cartlidge Mr.
speaker, I beg to move the.
12:32
Opposition Day Debate: Defence spending and readiness
-
Opposition Day Debate: Defence spending and readiness
Motion in the name of His Majesty's Opposition. Mr. speaker, it is a pleasure to open this opposition day debate, but before commencing my speech, I wish to respond to the point of order which respond to the point of order which the Minister made yesterday, not least as neither myself nor the Leader of the Opposition were able to respond to his point of order, because we were not given advance notice of it, which may not have been mandatory, but was surely in
12:32
James Cartlidge MP (South Suffolk, Conservative)
-
-
James Cartlidge MP (South Suffolk, Conservative)
the spirit of proceedings given it related to the urgent question tabled by the Leader of the Opposition to the Secretary of State for defence last Monday. Now, as a reminder, last Monday's urgent question from my right hon. Friend concerned the extremely the extremely serious situation regarding the resignations of the regarding the resignations of the two most senior defence Ministers at the time the previous week. In her questions, my right hon. Friend her questions, my right hon. Friend asked why the Secretary of State was not responding.
Given the severity of the circumstances. The Minister said at the time, and I quote, The Defence Secretary is currently with His Majesty the King, a point repeated a little later. In good faith by yourself, sir, in response to a question from the Father of the House. In his point of order yesterday, the Minister admitted that this was not true,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
and I quote. I won't have that. Do we understand each other? I'm not being funny. You are a shadow being funny. You are a shadow Minister, I expect better. Mr. Mullen, please.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Mullen, please. Sir. In his point of order, yesterday, the Minister admitted that this was not true. And I quote the Secretary of State arrived back the Secretary of State arrived back in London from Windsor earlier that day prior to the UQ. This begs the question why didn't the Secretary question why didn't the Secretary of State respond? In particular, to quote Erskine May, chapter 21, paragraph 20, His Majesty cannot be supposed to have a private opinion apart from that of his responsible advisers, and any attempt to use his name in debate to influence the judgement of Parliament is immediately checked and censured.
Given this, a Minister of the Crown should surely not only desist from raising the monarchy in the chamber in such a context, it is particularly inappropriate to do that when the facts prayed in aid are not correct. Mr. speaker, this is cowboy stuff, very sloppy, very disrespectful to this House. And it's not the first time the armed forces Minister, in her previous role as veterans Minister, also had to correct the record from the despatch box. After saying at all that, my right hon.
Friend Rayleigh and Wickford was not a details man and that the Prime Minister had not worked with disgraced lawyer Phil Shiner. In fact, as she admitted at the Dispatch Box, the Prime Minister did did indeed work with that traitor to the British Army who tried to have our soldiers put away for war crimes on the basis of fabricated evidence. And finally, the previous Secretary of State had to correct the record after he justified not giving me prior side to the Strategic Defence Review, because supposedly I had not allowed him prior to the Defence Command paper refresh when I was a Minister.
Petty as this was. This was also, again, wholly untrue. Mr. speaker, this is not acceptable. Ministers must tell the truth from the despatch box. I said I had the greatest respect for the new Secretary of State, and I meant it, and I hope he will ensure that his Ministers show.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Just a little bit worried about truth and facts. Infernus. Both the truth and facts. Infernus. Both the Minister and myself were told. I just want to put it to make sure we understand that. We were told the understand that. We were told the Secretary of State was down at Windsor. We didn't know what time was coming back. We weren't told. None of us. But I want to be careful about using truth and facts. I just really do worry about how we I just really do worry about how we do attack each other in this house.
I really do think the records have been corrected in all the cases stated so far. I know this is about defending spending plan going back in history. I'm not quite sure how
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that is fitted into the bit, so soon. Thank you. I informed your
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you. I informed your office earlier about this because we feel it is very important. Can I just. Say by telling my office is one
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Say by telling my office is one thing, unfortunately, the office haven't had time to tell me either. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I've
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I've made the point and I hope Ministers are listening, because it is particularly special to be debating defence today on the on the second day of Armed Forces Week in Armed Forces Week, we recognise.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm sorry you didn't. Please finish off the other part, because what I was offended by that day was what I was offended by that day was calling a member who served in the Armed Forces a gallant officer of this house a coward. I didn't think this house a coward. I didn't think it was appropriate. And I'm sure that all of us will regret such
**** Possible New Speaker ****
comments against each other. Noted Mr. Speaker. And as I said, it is particularly special to be it is particularly special to be debating defence today. On the second day of Armed Forces Week in Armed Forces Week, we recognise the extraordinary commitment made by our brave servicemen and women, past and present, to keep this country safe, and I pay tribute to all serving today and to their families and our veterans. Mr. speaker, the last time I spoke in an opposition day debate on defence was in March on the subject of the long delayed Defence Investment Plan.
Since then, we've still had no defence investment plan. Instead, we've had chaos. The resignation of the Secretary of State for defence, the resignation of the Minister for the Armed forces, and yesterday the resignation of the Prime Minister himself. These resignations are not unconnected. On the contrary, for a Prime Minister who thought that national security was his strong suit. Those resignations from the MoD were fatal for his career and they have a common thread, namely Labour's massive strategic mistake of prioritising an ever bigger welfare state over properly funding defence.
Despite war in Europe and the Middle East. As the previous defence secretary said himself, he simply could not put his name to a defence investment plan with a financial settlement that, to quote, falls well short and would make the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
country less safe. He. I will do. Alec Shelbrooke thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I'm grateful to the case. My hon. Friend is making up, case. My hon. Friend is making up, but does my hon. Friend share the concern that I had last week in the statement from the Minister of State opposite and the Secretary of State opposite and the Secretary of State, that they could not commit to delivering the capital ship programme that has already been programme that has already been laid out.
And I'm hearing rumours, Mr. Speaker, rumours that the new Mr. Speaker, rumours that the new type 83 destroyers were being mothballed in planned six months
**** Possible New Speaker ****
ago. Does that concern my hon. Friend, at a time when defence is so critical. James Cartlidge.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
James Cartlidge. My friend who served in the Navy, was a defence Minister, speaks with expertise. It is an extremely expertise. It is an extremely serious and important point. This is why we want to see the Defence Investment Plan. Mr. speaker, we've been waiting for months. We've been been waiting for months. We've been promised it repeatedly from the Dispatch Box. We need to see the details, whether it's the Navy, the details, whether it's the Navy, the Army, or the Royal Air Force.
And of course, the previous Secretary of State knew this was a problem. Let's just remind ourselves what else he said. He said that he was being, and I quote, forced to make decisions that would reduce the readiness of our forces and increase the risk to personnel on operations. That is a staggering indictment. The Prime Minister was seriously considering a financial settlement for defence that would, in the words of the man responsible for defence in this government until less than two weeks ago, make Britain less safe.
But he wasn't alone in that warning. Last week, the chief of the defence staff issued a stark message of his own when he said, and I quote, we will have to dial back our activities and our exercise and operational activity. If the level of resource funding that is available to us does not increase. Mr. Speaker, that is the stark reality. If the financial offer stays the same at a time of war and the most profound threats to our nation since the Cold War, defence will have to be cut.
Our country made less safe. Well, they cut £2.6 billion last year from defence. They're cutting £3.5 billion this year. How much more to come when our country needs
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the complete opposite? I will. My hon. Friend. Does he agree with me that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Does he agree with me that Ankara is going to be extremely interesting this year, particularly when characters like Sikorski, when characters like Sikorski, Foreign Minister Sikorski are pointing out that Poland is going pointing out that Poland is going to be spending 4.8% on defence, whilst we spend 4.5 billion on whilst we spend 4.5 billion on cycle tracks. He's pointed out that that's indicative of the priorities of this government and fears as an Anglophile, a committed Anglophile that is indicative of this country
**** Possible New Speaker ****
retreating into the shadows. It's difficult to avoid that conclusion, isn't it? Well, my right hon. Friend also served in the Navy and as a Minister, speaks with great expertise. And he's absolutely right to remind us the the problems right to remind us the the problems of Defence Investment Plan are about our international prestige, how our allies see us, and they are worried. Poland is a close ally of worried. Poland is a close ally of the United Kingdom. I'm proud of the strength of our relationship, and I think we should all listen to and I think we should all listen to what our allies are saying about the need for more funding.
But the question we have to ask ourselves is why? Why? Why would the government have to cut defence? I'm going to come to that question when I've taken this intervention, then
**** Possible New Speaker ****
make more progress. I do thank the gentleman for giving way. Of course, this isn't a this isn't a debate about whether this isn't a debate about whether or not we increase defence spending. It's about how much we increase it by. He talks about our standing with our allies, which is incredibly important. What our allies think. When his government was cutting defence, what did they
**** Possible New Speaker ****
was cutting defence, what did they think? Can he tell us? Yeah, yeah. Here we go. Well, I'm grateful for the hon. Gentleman. It's a nice try. The Gentleman. It's a nice try. The question he needs to answer is, if things are so good, why did the Secretary of State resign and the Minister for the Armed Forces Madam Deputy Speaker and this question I was asking. I will give way in a minute to my friend, especially as I'm coming to a an area of policy that she knows only too well, because we ask ourselves, why would they have to cut defence? Because they won't cut welfare.
So I give way to the former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you very much indeed. Now, can my right hon. Friend clarify the financial offer that the Prime the financial offer that the Prime Minister made for the Defence Investment Plan and that it was Investment Plan and that it was only 0.0, 8% of GDP, which was £10 billion in real cash terms, not the £13 billion on offer. And it was £13 billion on offer. And it was that that prompted the Defence Secretary to resign, because it was
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Secretary to resign, because it was not enough to keep our nation safe. Well, I'm very grateful for my friend. She's absolutely literally on the money. That's exactly right. Just a derisory increase to 2.68% when the 2.6 figure already includes things like the intelligence Budget, which have been used to inflate it. But I was speaking about welfare and Madam Deputy Speaker I will do in a bit. I just want to make an important point, because I didn't have the privilege of serving in the armed forces.
I did have the privilege of being defence Procurement Minister, and I hope that what I did before entering Parliament helped a little in that role. I ran a small business. I employed people, and I will never forget the time I offered pay rises and extra hours to my staff, and they turned me down. Why? Because the cripplingly expensive tax credit system we inherited from labour created a massive disincentive against work. The country was literally paying billions to put a ceiling on people's aspiration.
When I was brought up to believe that we should smash the ceilings that hold people back from success, so that instead of trapping people in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
dependency, we set them free to make the most of their talents. I give way to the hon. Gentleman. I thank.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank. The right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will he accept that welfare is actually only part of the story of where we might need to find money from, because that would provide valuable revenue resource. But actually, a lot of what we're talking about is, is an equipment programme that needs to be funded from capital. When I speak substantively later, I'll suggest substantively later, I'll suggest where I might like to find it from, but I'd like to know which capital budgets the opposition would look
**** Possible New Speaker ****
at in order to increase capital spending. Well. The hon. Gentleman, I'll take him in the spirit. He asks it him in the spirit. He asks it because he's being very open. He's asking the question, where are we going to get the money? We've been debating that. We think welfare is incredibly important. It's not just about the quantum Madam Deputy Speaker. It would make us a more resilient country if we get people into work instead of on welfare. But he asked the question on capital.
We have said, and people may disagree, but it's a clear commitment. We would take £11 billion in the national wealth fund that will currently be going to net zero, and we would ring fence it for defence because that is our priority given the world we are
**** Possible New Speaker ****
facing. I give way to my friend. At the minute. It's not only do we have a shadow opposition, we've got a shadow government as well, a got a shadow government as well, a whole set of Ministers who we don't know they're going to be in place, and we've got someone who's about to become Prime Minister, potentially for whom we know absolutely almost nothing about their priorities, his priorities on defence, on on the strategic defence, on on the strategic challenges, on welfare. Does that concern him, that we're going to get somebody new when we know very, very little about their position on
**** Possible New Speaker ****
very little about their position on these incredibly important issues? Well, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point because, of course, what this all creates is massive uncertainty. And defence is a massive industry in this country. That uncertainty is damaging for our businesses, our defence businesses and indeed dual use companies right across the nation who employ thousands and thousands of people. So we do need far more certainty whoever is going to be Prime Minister. But I was talking about welfare reform and my right hon.
Friend for Chingford and Woodford. Woodford Green reformed that system of tax credits with the introduction of Universal Credit. And before the pandemic, we saved billions from welfare, all in the face, as my colleagues will remember, of unending and total opposition to any reduction in welfare dependency from the Labour Party. But they can't go on like that, setting their face against welfare reform. It must be obvious that in the national interest we have to reform welfare. Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister, knows we need to cut welfare to fund defence.
Lord Robertson, the former defence secretary, knows it too, saying you can't keep Britain safe with an ever expanding welfare Budget. That's why last week, the Leader of the Opposition wrote to the Prime Minister offering our support in the national interest to cut welfare and fund defence. Last week I repeated that offer to the Secretary of State in his statement last Monday. He didn't answer, so I wrote to him last week with the same offer and I hope he will accept, and I hope he will now confirm that he wants to put politics to one side and work with us to make those difficult decisions so that the Defence Investment Plan can finally be funded and published.
So on the. I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
will give way to my hon. Friend. I'm grateful to. My hon. Friend for giving way. Isn't the truth for giving way. Isn't the truth here, though, that we had a government that said that it was prepared to meet the threats that prepared to meet the threats that we face as a country, and yet the government is simply dithering and delaying. And with all the infighting that's going on on their infighting that's going on on their benches now, what hope is there for our country at a time when we need sustainability? We need certainty,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
sustainability? We need certainty, not chaos. Yeah. Yeah. Well. An excellent question from my hon. Friend. Dither and delay have been the theme all the way. We've been waiting for months. I've stood up at every single Oral Questions and asked them, when are they going to publish the Defence Investment Plan? Hundreds of times it feels. They've replied, we're working flat out and we still haven't got it. So can I ask the Minister to tell us if the dip will definitely be published before the NATO summit in Ankara in particular, can he tell us who is deciding the timetable for publication of Defence Investment Plan? Is it the acting Prime Minister or the right hon.
Member for Makerfield now, it was reported today by the political editor of the Times, Steve Swinford, that there is now an argument between the two as to when to publish the defence investment plan. They're working flat out having this discussion. Mr. Mr. Mr. Swinford said on X, the first conflict of the transition period, Sir Keir Starmer is planning to push ahead with announcing the Defence Investment plan, despite Andy Burnham wanting it delayed until he is in office. So it is a simple question.
Madam Deputy Speaker, who is in charge of defence in the United Kingdom at a time of war on two fronts. Is it
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the Prime Minister or the right hon. Member for Makerfield. I give way to my. I thank my hon. Friend, and he's
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank my hon. Friend, and he's made a right hon. Friend and he's making an excellent point. Isn't the real risk here that the Defence Investment Plan, which that government promised in the first place, is actually now going to be treated like a political football, and the end result of that would be
**** Possible New Speaker ****
and the end result of that would be defence supply chains in this country, international adversaries, but also international allies would actually see that we're not worth doing business. Yes.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yes. Well, I am sorry. Political football is when? Tonight. I think maybe our football team in action. Nevertheless, it's pretty obvious whether it's football, rugby or a tug of war. We already have a massive argument in the heart of government and the shadow government over who is in charge. And at a time when we face a threat, we do. That is an extraordinary position for Labour to have us in. I'll give away, first of all, to the hon.
Gentleman.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm very grateful. He's right to hold the government to account. The plan is massively delayed. Is he.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Aware, surely, that all of us here, including my party, who spent time in government in the last few time in government in the last few years, ever since the fall of the Berlin Wall, we have been complacent as a country about the scale of threat that we face. And scale of threat that we face. And isn't it something, therefore, that all parties need to recognise? We've got our smallest army since the Napoleonic Times. We have 8000 the Napoleonic Times. We have 8000 drones in stock.
Ukraine are using 8000 drones a day. Isn't it a time that we work together across party to make sure we defend our country the way we need to in the years to come?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well, I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman because to be fair, I have always said I think we do I have always said I think we do need to work in the national interest. And I have said repeatedly. Spending fell on defence since the fall of the defence since the fall of the Berlin Wall under successive governments. That must be blindingly obvious and there are decisions Labour made, there are decisions Labour made, there are decisions we made, there are decisions the Lib Dems made us make in the coalition, for example, about the nuclear submarines I.
Everyone has got some culpability in relation to this record. The key issue. I'm just responding to this intervention. If hon. Members will allow me. The key issue is what we do now to fund defence. I'm going
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to take one more intervention, then I'm going to make some progress to the hon. Gentleman from Strangford. Can I commend the Shadow
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Can I commend the Shadow Minister and the Conservative Party for what they're bringing forward today? Warfare is changing, and the today? Warfare is changing, and the shadow Minister knows that in the paper today, they're talking about a warfare that could be done by AI, which would include maybe some 10,000 drones. Just as an example of how warfare is changing, the the of how warfare is changing, the the veterans Minister resigned and he made that he made that statement and his personal statement just last week in Parliament.
Does the shadow Minister agree when it comes to deciding that the defence strategy going forward, we must look at the new technology, we must look at how wars are going to be
**** Possible New Speaker ****
fought because they will be different, but we need to be on the that. Well.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well. My my hon. Friend is always at the cutting edge with his interventions and he was spot on there. It is not just about the there. It is not just about the funding Madam Deputy Speaker with warfare changing so fast, as he says, we need to prioritise capability. Put simply, the defence capability. Put simply, the defence investment plan must be genuinely transformative. So it is incredibly, incredibly worrying that once he incredibly worrying that once he finally got to see the Defence Investment Plan, the previous Minister for the armed forces resigned not long afterwards, stating that the plan was, and I quote, not built for the threats we face.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this country led the way in supplying Ukraine with cutting edge drone tech produced by UK SMEs. I cannot emphasise that point enough. We were a leader when you consider the progress we were making, supplying drones that were so effective on the battle front in the spring of 2024 and bringing forward extraordinary counter drone capability like Dragonfire. It was another strategic blunder from Labour to put procurement on hold whilst we waited for the Strategic Defence Review, and now still waiting for the Defence Investment Plan.
With war changing so fast, we cannot afford to waste two years paralysing procurement. I'm going
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to take two interventions. My hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman. I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way when he talks about the giving way when he talks about the future of warfare. This was very much raised when we attended Spacecom earlier this year, where the delay in the dip is having an the delay in the dip is having an impact on our ability to keep up with advancing space technology. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is an important point,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that this is an important point, and we should set a space strategy, as the previous government did in 2022. Well.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well. I'm very grateful to my hon. Friend, that's exactly why we have announced the policy of a sovereign defence fund, £2 billion extra for year for drones, AI and tech, alongside £11 billion, I said earlier from the National Wealth Fund, repurposed from net zero to defence to fund our sovereign industrial base so that they can scale up and meet the level of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
output we will require to be war ready. I give way to the gallant and hon. Gentleman. I thank the right hon.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He's talking about air defence. I'm glad you raised that. Does he regret.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Does he regret. The cuts that were made to air defence under the last government, when funding for defence reduced so when funding for defence reduced so dramatically? And does he welcome the investment that this government is making in air defence? Learning the lessons that we're now seeing
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the lessons that we're now seeing from Ukraine. I don't know what he is talking about. What investment in air defence we procured rapid century Madam Deputy Speaker. What do we think is being used on our bases in the Middle East right now to defeat drones? Stuff we procured in government who procured Dragonfire laser? I did Madam Deputy Speaker it is going to be the most cutting edge air defence. I procured the radio frequency directed energy weapon, which could also be incredibly cutting edge taking, frying, literally frying entire swarms of drones.
This is where we need to be at the cutting edge. We invested in it. They specialise in dither and delay. Now Madam Speaker as important as drones and tech is, our most important capability remains. The people who serve. So whilst it is critical that the government rapidly embraces the uncrewed Revolution right across our armed forces, we must also back our people. That's why in government, we increased pay for junior ranks in 2023 by 9.7%, and I took the decision to buy back the defence estate from Annington Homes when I was Minister.
So, on housing, I want to ask a very important question that they didn't answer yesterday. Until very recently, Ministers have consistently repeated a pledge to invest £9 billion in military accommodation over the next ten years, with rumours that this funding will be cut, as reported in the press yesterday. My right hon. Friend, the shadow Armed Forces Minister asked if this commitment stood. Is it the case, yes or no? Will the Minister say in her speech? Of course, in Armed Forces Week Madam Deputy Speaker, I must pay tribute to those who serve in our reserves.
Back in 2023, we also increased the bounty for reserves personnel by 5.8%. And I believe with the threats we face, we must continue to strengthen our reserves. Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, we agree wholeheartedly with what the previous armed Forces Minister said about the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill in his resignation speech. And I quote, the IRA failed to achieve its political ends through the use of terrorist tactics and whilst we must be exceptionally careful that we do not help them achieve those ends through other means, so can the Minister say whether the Secretary of State for defence, a veteran of Operation Banner himself, agrees that whoever is the next Prime Minister, a top priority must be to scrap the troubles bill and back our veterans.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yes. So, Madam Speaker, to conclude, assuming the right hon. Member of Makerfield becomes Prime Minister Makerfield becomes Prime Minister in the coming weeks, he will have many items in his in-tray. But the first duty of any government is defence of the realm. So when defence of the realm. So when Labour's own Secretary of State for defence until days ago, resigned, saying Labour's defence investment plan would make the country less safe, it must be obvious that this is the top item for the new Prime Minister's attention.
If the new Prime Minister is to succeed, the quantum of cash on the table will need to be far more substantial given the threats we face. And that means finding the money without increasing our national debt or taxes. Instead, to make our country stronger and more resilient, we are offering to work in the national interest to cut welfare and fund defence in Armed Forces Week. We all agree that the men and women who serve our country are second to none. So I ask Ministers again, are they prepared to work together to find the cash to fund defence, so that we can give our brave personnel the tools to do the job and keep this country safe?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well done. Very good. The question is, as on the Order Paper, I call the Minister to move
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the amendment. Yes. I beg to move the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. the name of the Prime Minister. Madam Deputy Speaker, on the 5th of May 2013, I joined the British Army as Officer Garrett Jones, joining the mighty 29 platoon Alamein Company at the Royal Military Company at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst. I was joining an army with a full time strength of just under 100 000 personnel. Operation Herrick in Afghanistan
Given the severity of the circumstances. The Minister said at the time, and I quote, The Defence Secretary is currently with His Majesty the King, a point repeated a little later. In good faith by yourself, sir, in response to a question from the Father of the House. In his point of order yesterday, the Minister admitted that this was not true,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
and I quote. I won't have that. Do we understand each other? I'm not being funny. You are a shadow being funny. You are a shadow Minister, I expect better. Mr. Mullen, please.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Mullen, please. Sir. In his point of order, yesterday, the Minister admitted that this was not true. And I quote the Secretary of State arrived back the Secretary of State arrived back in London from Windsor earlier that day prior to the UQ. This begs the question why didn't the Secretary question why didn't the Secretary of State respond? In particular, to quote Erskine May, chapter 21, paragraph 20, His Majesty cannot be supposed to have a private opinion apart from that of his responsible advisers, and any attempt to use his name in debate to influence the judgement of Parliament is immediately checked and censured.
Given this, a Minister of the Crown should surely not only desist from raising the monarchy in the chamber in such a context, it is particularly inappropriate to do that when the facts prayed in aid are not correct. Mr. speaker, this is cowboy stuff, very sloppy, very disrespectful to this House. And it's not the first time the armed forces Minister, in her previous role as veterans Minister, also had to correct the record from the despatch box. After saying at all that, my right hon.
Friend Rayleigh and Wickford was not a details man and that the Prime Minister had not worked with disgraced lawyer Phil Shiner. In fact, as she admitted at the Dispatch Box, the Prime Minister did did indeed work with that traitor to the British Army who tried to have our soldiers put away for war crimes on the basis of fabricated evidence. And finally, the previous Secretary of State had to correct the record after he justified not giving me prior side to the Strategic Defence Review, because supposedly I had not allowed him prior to the Defence Command paper refresh when I was a Minister.
Petty as this was. This was also, again, wholly untrue. Mr. speaker, this is not acceptable. Ministers must tell the truth from the despatch box. I said I had the greatest respect for the new Secretary of State, and I meant it, and I hope he will ensure that his Ministers show.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Just a little bit worried about truth and facts. Infernus. Both the truth and facts. Infernus. Both the Minister and myself were told. I just want to put it to make sure we understand that. We were told the understand that. We were told the Secretary of State was down at Windsor. We didn't know what time was coming back. We weren't told. None of us. But I want to be careful about using truth and facts. I just really do worry about how we I just really do worry about how we do attack each other in this house.
I really do think the records have been corrected in all the cases stated so far. I know this is about defending spending plan going back in history. I'm not quite sure how
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that is fitted into the bit, so soon. Thank you. I informed your
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you. I informed your office earlier about this because we feel it is very important. Can I just. Say by telling my office is one
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Say by telling my office is one thing, unfortunately, the office haven't had time to tell me either. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I've
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I've made the point and I hope Ministers are listening, because it is particularly special to be debating defence today on the on the second day of Armed Forces Week in Armed Forces Week, we recognise.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm sorry you didn't. Please finish off the other part, because what I was offended by that day was what I was offended by that day was calling a member who served in the Armed Forces a gallant officer of this house a coward. I didn't think this house a coward. I didn't think it was appropriate. And I'm sure that all of us will regret such
**** Possible New Speaker ****
comments against each other. Noted Mr. Speaker. And as I said, it is particularly special to be it is particularly special to be debating defence today. On the second day of Armed Forces Week in Armed Forces Week, we recognise the extraordinary commitment made by our brave servicemen and women, past and present, to keep this country safe, and I pay tribute to all serving today and to their families and our veterans. Mr. speaker, the last time I spoke in an opposition day debate on defence was in March on the subject of the long delayed Defence Investment Plan.
Since then, we've still had no defence investment plan. Instead, we've had chaos. The resignation of the Secretary of State for defence, the resignation of the Minister for the Armed forces, and yesterday the resignation of the Prime Minister himself. These resignations are not unconnected. On the contrary, for a Prime Minister who thought that national security was his strong suit. Those resignations from the MoD were fatal for his career and they have a common thread, namely Labour's massive strategic mistake of prioritising an ever bigger welfare state over properly funding defence.
Despite war in Europe and the Middle East. As the previous defence secretary said himself, he simply could not put his name to a defence investment plan with a financial settlement that, to quote, falls well short and would make the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
country less safe. He. I will do. Alec Shelbrooke thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I'm grateful to the case. My hon. Friend is making up, case. My hon. Friend is making up, but does my hon. Friend share the concern that I had last week in the statement from the Minister of State opposite and the Secretary of State opposite and the Secretary of State, that they could not commit to delivering the capital ship programme that has already been programme that has already been laid out.
And I'm hearing rumours, Mr. Speaker, rumours that the new Mr. Speaker, rumours that the new type 83 destroyers were being mothballed in planned six months
**** Possible New Speaker ****
ago. Does that concern my hon. Friend, at a time when defence is so critical. James Cartlidge.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
James Cartlidge. My friend who served in the Navy, was a defence Minister, speaks with expertise. It is an extremely expertise. It is an extremely serious and important point. This is why we want to see the Defence Investment Plan. Mr. speaker, we've been waiting for months. We've been been waiting for months. We've been promised it repeatedly from the Dispatch Box. We need to see the details, whether it's the Navy, the details, whether it's the Navy, the Army, or the Royal Air Force.
And of course, the previous Secretary of State knew this was a problem. Let's just remind ourselves what else he said. He said that he was being, and I quote, forced to make decisions that would reduce the readiness of our forces and increase the risk to personnel on operations. That is a staggering indictment. The Prime Minister was seriously considering a financial settlement for defence that would, in the words of the man responsible for defence in this government until less than two weeks ago, make Britain less safe.
But he wasn't alone in that warning. Last week, the chief of the defence staff issued a stark message of his own when he said, and I quote, we will have to dial back our activities and our exercise and operational activity. If the level of resource funding that is available to us does not increase. Mr. Speaker, that is the stark reality. If the financial offer stays the same at a time of war and the most profound threats to our nation since the Cold War, defence will have to be cut.
Our country made less safe. Well, they cut £2.6 billion last year from defence. They're cutting £3.5 billion this year. How much more to come when our country needs
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the complete opposite? I will. My hon. Friend. Does he agree with me that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Does he agree with me that Ankara is going to be extremely interesting this year, particularly when characters like Sikorski, when characters like Sikorski, Foreign Minister Sikorski are pointing out that Poland is going pointing out that Poland is going to be spending 4.8% on defence, whilst we spend 4.5 billion on whilst we spend 4.5 billion on cycle tracks. He's pointed out that that's indicative of the priorities of this government and fears as an Anglophile, a committed Anglophile that is indicative of this country
**** Possible New Speaker ****
retreating into the shadows. It's difficult to avoid that conclusion, isn't it? Well, my right hon. Friend also served in the Navy and as a Minister, speaks with great expertise. And he's absolutely right to remind us the the problems right to remind us the the problems of Defence Investment Plan are about our international prestige, how our allies see us, and they are worried. Poland is a close ally of worried. Poland is a close ally of the United Kingdom. I'm proud of the strength of our relationship, and I think we should all listen to and I think we should all listen to what our allies are saying about the need for more funding.
But the question we have to ask ourselves is why? Why? Why would the government have to cut defence? I'm going to come to that question when I've taken this intervention, then
**** Possible New Speaker ****
make more progress. I do thank the gentleman for giving way. Of course, this isn't a this isn't a debate about whether this isn't a debate about whether or not we increase defence spending. It's about how much we increase it by. He talks about our standing with our allies, which is incredibly important. What our allies think. When his government was cutting defence, what did they
**** Possible New Speaker ****
was cutting defence, what did they think? Can he tell us? Yeah, yeah. Here we go. Well, I'm grateful for the hon. Gentleman. It's a nice try. The Gentleman. It's a nice try. The question he needs to answer is, if things are so good, why did the Secretary of State resign and the Minister for the Armed Forces Madam Deputy Speaker and this question I was asking. I will give way in a minute to my friend, especially as I'm coming to a an area of policy that she knows only too well, because we ask ourselves, why would they have to cut defence? Because they won't cut welfare.
So I give way to the former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you very much indeed. Now, can my right hon. Friend clarify the financial offer that the Prime the financial offer that the Prime Minister made for the Defence Investment Plan and that it was Investment Plan and that it was only 0.0, 8% of GDP, which was £10 billion in real cash terms, not the £13 billion on offer. And it was £13 billion on offer. And it was that that prompted the Defence Secretary to resign, because it was
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Secretary to resign, because it was not enough to keep our nation safe. Well, I'm very grateful for my friend. She's absolutely literally on the money. That's exactly right. Just a derisory increase to 2.68% when the 2.6 figure already includes things like the intelligence Budget, which have been used to inflate it. But I was speaking about welfare and Madam Deputy Speaker I will do in a bit. I just want to make an important point, because I didn't have the privilege of serving in the armed forces.
I did have the privilege of being defence Procurement Minister, and I hope that what I did before entering Parliament helped a little in that role. I ran a small business. I employed people, and I will never forget the time I offered pay rises and extra hours to my staff, and they turned me down. Why? Because the cripplingly expensive tax credit system we inherited from labour created a massive disincentive against work. The country was literally paying billions to put a ceiling on people's aspiration.
When I was brought up to believe that we should smash the ceilings that hold people back from success, so that instead of trapping people in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
dependency, we set them free to make the most of their talents. I give way to the hon. Gentleman. I thank.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank. The right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will he accept that welfare is actually only part of the story of where we might need to find money from, because that would provide valuable revenue resource. But actually, a lot of what we're talking about is, is an equipment programme that needs to be funded from capital. When I speak substantively later, I'll suggest substantively later, I'll suggest where I might like to find it from, but I'd like to know which capital budgets the opposition would look
**** Possible New Speaker ****
at in order to increase capital spending. Well. The hon. Gentleman, I'll take him in the spirit. He asks it him in the spirit. He asks it because he's being very open. He's asking the question, where are we going to get the money? We've been debating that. We think welfare is incredibly important. It's not just about the quantum Madam Deputy Speaker. It would make us a more resilient country if we get people into work instead of on welfare. But he asked the question on capital.
We have said, and people may disagree, but it's a clear commitment. We would take £11 billion in the national wealth fund that will currently be going to net zero, and we would ring fence it for defence because that is our priority given the world we are
**** Possible New Speaker ****
facing. I give way to my friend. At the minute. It's not only do we have a shadow opposition, we've got a shadow government as well, a got a shadow government as well, a whole set of Ministers who we don't know they're going to be in place, and we've got someone who's about to become Prime Minister, potentially for whom we know absolutely almost nothing about their priorities, his priorities on defence, on on the strategic defence, on on the strategic challenges, on welfare. Does that concern him, that we're going to get somebody new when we know very, very little about their position on
**** Possible New Speaker ****
very little about their position on these incredibly important issues? Well, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point because, of course, what this all creates is massive uncertainty. And defence is a massive industry in this country. That uncertainty is damaging for our businesses, our defence businesses and indeed dual use companies right across the nation who employ thousands and thousands of people. So we do need far more certainty whoever is going to be Prime Minister. But I was talking about welfare reform and my right hon.
Friend for Chingford and Woodford. Woodford Green reformed that system of tax credits with the introduction of Universal Credit. And before the pandemic, we saved billions from welfare, all in the face, as my colleagues will remember, of unending and total opposition to any reduction in welfare dependency from the Labour Party. But they can't go on like that, setting their face against welfare reform. It must be obvious that in the national interest we have to reform welfare. Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister, knows we need to cut welfare to fund defence.
Lord Robertson, the former defence secretary, knows it too, saying you can't keep Britain safe with an ever expanding welfare Budget. That's why last week, the Leader of the Opposition wrote to the Prime Minister offering our support in the national interest to cut welfare and fund defence. Last week I repeated that offer to the Secretary of State in his statement last Monday. He didn't answer, so I wrote to him last week with the same offer and I hope he will accept, and I hope he will now confirm that he wants to put politics to one side and work with us to make those difficult decisions so that the Defence Investment Plan can finally be funded and published.
So on the. I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
will give way to my hon. Friend. I'm grateful to. My hon. Friend for giving way. Isn't the truth for giving way. Isn't the truth here, though, that we had a government that said that it was prepared to meet the threats that prepared to meet the threats that we face as a country, and yet the government is simply dithering and delaying. And with all the infighting that's going on on their infighting that's going on on their benches now, what hope is there for our country at a time when we need sustainability? We need certainty,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
sustainability? We need certainty, not chaos. Yeah. Yeah. Well. An excellent question from my hon. Friend. Dither and delay have been the theme all the way. We've been waiting for months. I've stood up at every single Oral Questions and asked them, when are they going to publish the Defence Investment Plan? Hundreds of times it feels. They've replied, we're working flat out and we still haven't got it. So can I ask the Minister to tell us if the dip will definitely be published before the NATO summit in Ankara in particular, can he tell us who is deciding the timetable for publication of Defence Investment Plan? Is it the acting Prime Minister or the right hon.
Member for Makerfield now, it was reported today by the political editor of the Times, Steve Swinford, that there is now an argument between the two as to when to publish the defence investment plan. They're working flat out having this discussion. Mr. Mr. Mr. Swinford said on X, the first conflict of the transition period, Sir Keir Starmer is planning to push ahead with announcing the Defence Investment plan, despite Andy Burnham wanting it delayed until he is in office. So it is a simple question.
Madam Deputy Speaker, who is in charge of defence in the United Kingdom at a time of war on two fronts. Is it
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the Prime Minister or the right hon. Member for Makerfield. I give way to my. I thank my hon. Friend, and he's
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank my hon. Friend, and he's made a right hon. Friend and he's making an excellent point. Isn't the real risk here that the Defence Investment Plan, which that government promised in the first place, is actually now going to be treated like a political football, and the end result of that would be
**** Possible New Speaker ****
and the end result of that would be defence supply chains in this country, international adversaries, but also international allies would actually see that we're not worth doing business. Yes.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yes. Well, I am sorry. Political football is when? Tonight. I think maybe our football team in action. Nevertheless, it's pretty obvious whether it's football, rugby or a tug of war. We already have a massive argument in the heart of government and the shadow government over who is in charge. And at a time when we face a threat, we do. That is an extraordinary position for Labour to have us in. I'll give away, first of all, to the hon.
Gentleman.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm very grateful. He's right to hold the government to account. The plan is massively delayed. Is he.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Aware, surely, that all of us here, including my party, who spent time in government in the last few time in government in the last few years, ever since the fall of the Berlin Wall, we have been complacent as a country about the scale of threat that we face. And scale of threat that we face. And isn't it something, therefore, that all parties need to recognise? We've got our smallest army since the Napoleonic Times. We have 8000 the Napoleonic Times. We have 8000 drones in stock.
Ukraine are using 8000 drones a day. Isn't it a time that we work together across party to make sure we defend our country the way we need to in the years to come?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well, I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman because to be fair, I have always said I think we do I have always said I think we do need to work in the national interest. And I have said repeatedly. Spending fell on defence since the fall of the defence since the fall of the Berlin Wall under successive governments. That must be blindingly obvious and there are decisions Labour made, there are decisions Labour made, there are decisions we made, there are decisions the Lib Dems made us make in the coalition, for example, about the nuclear submarines I.
Everyone has got some culpability in relation to this record. The key issue. I'm just responding to this intervention. If hon. Members will allow me. The key issue is what we do now to fund defence. I'm going
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to take one more intervention, then I'm going to make some progress to the hon. Gentleman from Strangford. Can I commend the Shadow
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Can I commend the Shadow Minister and the Conservative Party for what they're bringing forward today? Warfare is changing, and the today? Warfare is changing, and the shadow Minister knows that in the paper today, they're talking about a warfare that could be done by AI, which would include maybe some 10,000 drones. Just as an example of how warfare is changing, the the of how warfare is changing, the the veterans Minister resigned and he made that he made that statement and his personal statement just last week in Parliament.
Does the shadow Minister agree when it comes to deciding that the defence strategy going forward, we must look at the new technology, we must look at how wars are going to be
**** Possible New Speaker ****
fought because they will be different, but we need to be on the that. Well.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well. My my hon. Friend is always at the cutting edge with his interventions and he was spot on there. It is not just about the there. It is not just about the funding Madam Deputy Speaker with warfare changing so fast, as he says, we need to prioritise capability. Put simply, the defence capability. Put simply, the defence investment plan must be genuinely transformative. So it is incredibly, incredibly worrying that once he incredibly worrying that once he finally got to see the Defence Investment Plan, the previous Minister for the armed forces resigned not long afterwards, stating that the plan was, and I quote, not built for the threats we face.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this country led the way in supplying Ukraine with cutting edge drone tech produced by UK SMEs. I cannot emphasise that point enough. We were a leader when you consider the progress we were making, supplying drones that were so effective on the battle front in the spring of 2024 and bringing forward extraordinary counter drone capability like Dragonfire. It was another strategic blunder from Labour to put procurement on hold whilst we waited for the Strategic Defence Review, and now still waiting for the Defence Investment Plan.
With war changing so fast, we cannot afford to waste two years paralysing procurement. I'm going
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to take two interventions. My hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman. I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way when he talks about the giving way when he talks about the future of warfare. This was very much raised when we attended Spacecom earlier this year, where the delay in the dip is having an the delay in the dip is having an impact on our ability to keep up with advancing space technology. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is an important point,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that this is an important point, and we should set a space strategy, as the previous government did in 2022. Well.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well. I'm very grateful to my hon. Friend, that's exactly why we have announced the policy of a sovereign defence fund, £2 billion extra for year for drones, AI and tech, alongside £11 billion, I said earlier from the National Wealth Fund, repurposed from net zero to defence to fund our sovereign industrial base so that they can scale up and meet the level of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
output we will require to be war ready. I give way to the gallant and hon. Gentleman. I thank the right hon.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He's talking about air defence. I'm glad you raised that. Does he regret.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Does he regret. The cuts that were made to air defence under the last government, when funding for defence reduced so when funding for defence reduced so dramatically? And does he welcome the investment that this government is making in air defence? Learning the lessons that we're now seeing
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the lessons that we're now seeing from Ukraine. I don't know what he is talking about. What investment in air defence we procured rapid century Madam Deputy Speaker. What do we think is being used on our bases in the Middle East right now to defeat drones? Stuff we procured in government who procured Dragonfire laser? I did Madam Deputy Speaker it is going to be the most cutting edge air defence. I procured the radio frequency directed energy weapon, which could also be incredibly cutting edge taking, frying, literally frying entire swarms of drones.
This is where we need to be at the cutting edge. We invested in it. They specialise in dither and delay. Now Madam Speaker as important as drones and tech is, our most important capability remains. The people who serve. So whilst it is critical that the government rapidly embraces the uncrewed Revolution right across our armed forces, we must also back our people. That's why in government, we increased pay for junior ranks in 2023 by 9.7%, and I took the decision to buy back the defence estate from Annington Homes when I was Minister.
So, on housing, I want to ask a very important question that they didn't answer yesterday. Until very recently, Ministers have consistently repeated a pledge to invest £9 billion in military accommodation over the next ten years, with rumours that this funding will be cut, as reported in the press yesterday. My right hon. Friend, the shadow Armed Forces Minister asked if this commitment stood. Is it the case, yes or no? Will the Minister say in her speech? Of course, in Armed Forces Week Madam Deputy Speaker, I must pay tribute to those who serve in our reserves.
Back in 2023, we also increased the bounty for reserves personnel by 5.8%. And I believe with the threats we face, we must continue to strengthen our reserves. Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, we agree wholeheartedly with what the previous armed Forces Minister said about the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill in his resignation speech. And I quote, the IRA failed to achieve its political ends through the use of terrorist tactics and whilst we must be exceptionally careful that we do not help them achieve those ends through other means, so can the Minister say whether the Secretary of State for defence, a veteran of Operation Banner himself, agrees that whoever is the next Prime Minister, a top priority must be to scrap the troubles bill and back our veterans.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yes. So, Madam Speaker, to conclude, assuming the right hon. Member of Makerfield becomes Prime Minister Makerfield becomes Prime Minister in the coming weeks, he will have many items in his in-tray. But the first duty of any government is defence of the realm. So when defence of the realm. So when Labour's own Secretary of State for defence until days ago, resigned, saying Labour's defence investment plan would make the country less safe, it must be obvious that this is the top item for the new Prime Minister's attention.
If the new Prime Minister is to succeed, the quantum of cash on the table will need to be far more substantial given the threats we face. And that means finding the money without increasing our national debt or taxes. Instead, to make our country stronger and more resilient, we are offering to work in the national interest to cut welfare and fund defence in Armed Forces Week. We all agree that the men and women who serve our country are second to none. So I ask Ministers again, are they prepared to work together to find the cash to fund defence, so that we can give our brave personnel the tools to do the job and keep this country safe?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well done. Very good. The question is, as on the Order Paper, I call the Minister to move
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the amendment. Yes. I beg to move the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. the name of the Prime Minister. Madam Deputy Speaker, on the 5th of May 2013, I joined the British Army as Officer Garrett Jones, joining the mighty 29 platoon Alamein Company at the Royal Military Company at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst. I was joining an army with a full time strength of just under 100 000 personnel. Operation Herrick in Afghanistan
12:56
Louise Sandher-Jones MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Defence) (Minister for the Armed Forces) (North East Derbyshire, Labour)
-
-
Louise Sandher-Jones MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Defence) (Minister for the Armed Forces) (North East Derbyshire, Labour)
was still ongoing, although soon to draw to a close. ISIS were on the offensive, and it had been several years since the invasion of Georgia by Russia. Perhaps that would prove to be a one off the Army's main platforms. Apart from those procured for Afghanistan, such as the light road light Royal Foxhound were challenged to. Warrior as 90 CVR all ageing platforms with some bought. Before I was born. In 2015, I was posted to Germany. Now Lieutenant Jones serving with the indomitable 44 Emma Foody company.
I was now part of an army of a strength of just 82,000. Operation shader had been launched to counter ISIS to great effect. Herrick had ended, replaced by the more limited operation OP Toral 20 Armoured Infantry Brigade, who I was attached to, was still made up of challenger two warrior as 90 and CVR. Crucially, by then Russia had launched its first operation of its evil assault on Ukraine and had annexed Crimea in 2014. It was clear then what Russia's ambitions were and their tactics.
Little green men showed that warfare was already changing. Most importantly of all, this clearly showed that once again, war was on the doorstep of Europe. How useful it might be, you may think, to have an armoured infantry brigade based in Germany, sat with a railhead connecting to the whole network of Europe, able to move armour quickly and at short notice, a sign of our commitment to defence. But alas, the decision had been made in Westminster. Instead of readying for the new threat, I watched as our bases closed down around me and troops moved back to the UK.
When I left in 2020, as captain Jones troop numbers had dropped to the mid 70,000. Our main army platforms are still the same as when I had joined. Troops were down, morale was down and our
**** Possible New Speaker ****
footprint was down. Hon. Friend, give way. Yes, I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I recognise a similar circumstance when I served in a shorter period of that time than she did. Does she of that time than she did. Does she also recognise the massive impact on morale of the successive real terms pay cuts the Conservatives
**** Possible New Speaker ****
gave to our brave armed forces during that period? Real terms? I really do, and the wider
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I really do, and the wider impact on the state of housing, which I like him, had to live in, and the relentless pressure on our fantastic people asking them to dig out blind every day just to keep the show on the road, and a story
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that was repeated across many of our public services. I thank you, Mr.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank you, Mr. And she. Mentioned the fact that troops were being removed from Europe back to the United Kingdom. I may be interpreting this wrong, but she seemed in her speech to be slightly critical of that. May I remind her critical of that. May I remind her that at the time, that was because of the ever changing geopolitical landscape in which we faced, and landscape in which we faced, and also allies were doing the same. And at the time, the Labour opposition position did not oppose that and did not criticise it.
So is she criticising us for doing that, or is she just making an
**** Possible New Speaker ****
observation? You never oppose. Sizing the decision makers for that decision. And I think, by the that decision. And I think, by the way, on reflection, others would agree with me. All of this occurred agree with me. All of this occurred under conservative prime Ministers, whether in coalition or as a conservative government. They conservative government. They attempted to crush the proud British Army with their mismanagement.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
mismanagement. I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way on that point. We've talked about the changes after 2014. Would we also look back to what was referenced earlier on the 2010 coalition, where the blame seemed to very suddenly shift to the Liberal Democrats? It was a joint decision to delay what was happening with our submarines. And I'll take no arguments from the honourable sorry, from the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, because it was his party that helped damage Barrow and Furness.
If they hadn't made that commitment to pause under the coalition government, the hon. Friends sitting opposite, we would have had our boats in the water now and our submariners wouldn't be spending
**** Possible New Speaker ****
200 days at sea. She's absolutely right to highlight those who were responsible for the defence of this country and the decisions that they made. No, I'm just I'll make some made. No, I'm just I'll make some progress and then I will. If you insist. If you insist.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
insist. If you insist. I'm fascinated by her remarks about the withdrawal of troops after the Cold War. Actually, many after the Cold War. Actually, many of them to Salisbury Plain in and around my constituency, where they continued to train for current operations. Is she seriously saying that she would recreate the British army of the Rhine? Is that government policy, this government or the government to come? If so,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
how is she going to fund it? Yeah. I appreciate him trying to conjure me, saying something that I conjure me, saying something that I have not said. I do appreciate that he will be aware. I was talking he will be aware. I was talking about the decisions made in the mid 20 tens, and I am critical of that decision. He will also know that being able to undo something is not the same as never having done it, and I hope you will appreciate that and I hope you will appreciate that I am sincere in what I am saying there.
The conservative government attempted to crush the proud British Army with their mismanagement, their short sighted cuts, their shameful negligence and refusal to adapt to new threats, and members of the current shadow team played key roles in that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
record of failure. I thank the Minister for taking
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the Minister for taking the interventions, and I also serve with 20 Armoured Brigade and deployed on operations with armour deployed on operations with armour from Germany over to the Balkans. I've seen that. So the Minister is I've seen that. So the Minister is saying about mismanagement. She is in a position that unless more funding comes forward, is mount to funding comes forward, is mount to make some of the biggest cuts to the armed forces during the most hostile situation since the Second
**** Possible New Speaker ****
World War, how does she square that circle? Yeah. I'm proud of the record that we
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm proud of the record that we have already achieved in government for defence. We have raised defence for defence. We have raised defence spending despite the record of previous governments. I am in a position to argue every day for our
**** Possible New Speaker ****
position to argue every day for our armed forces to get what they need so. For the Minister area.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
For the Minister area. This Labour government was elected in places like Aldershot, Portsmouth and Plymouth to fix their mess, and we have begun to do so. Recruitment is up, retention is up, morale is up. Personnel have received three above inflation pay rises. A real action to improve housing, enabling our armed forces to focus on national security like the. I'm going to make some progress. Like the RAF pilots who recently flew over 3000 hours of defensive missions, intercepting drones and missiles to protect our people and our allies in the Middle East.
The ground based air defence crews who under fire, protected UK and Allied bases, shooting down more than 100 drones, and our Royal Navy and Royal Marines who expertly intercepted a Russian shadow fleet vessel and work around the clock to protect our underwater infrastructure. I'm just going to make a little bit of progress. I think I've been quite generous. I'm just going to make a bit of progress from the high north to the Far East as our world becomes more dangerous, demands on defence grow, and as usual, our armed forces are responding with incredible professionalism and effect.
Our forces continue to deliver vast amounts of military equipment to Ukraine, including our largest ever numbers of drones, and are ready to lead the multinational force to bolster Ukraine's defences in the event of a cease fire in the Middle East, we have HMS Dragon and RFA Lyme Bay deployed, along with autonomous minehunting equipment, to play our part in a multinational mission to secure freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz
**** Possible New Speaker ****
and bring down prices for families across the UK. The Minister for.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The Minister for. Giving way. And I. Just wanted to ask her if
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Just wanted to ask her if everything is so great, why has Lord Robertson described the government's situation as one of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
corrosive complacency? I'm proud of the record that we
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm proud of the record that we have achieved so far in government. I think we all recognise that there is more to do and we are working hard to do that.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Will the Minister give way? Yes. I thank.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank. The Minister for giving giving a speech and talking about her personal experiences being in the armed forces for the party opposite, to hear again the figures she quoted of the number of armed forces personnel there were at the forces personnel there were at the start of her time in in the forces to the time that she left the forces and and the difference in forces and and the difference in the amount of officers we had. And could she also talk about what this Labour government is doing to support our armed forces, armed
**** Possible New Speaker ****
forces, personnel and actually increase morale, which is hugely important. Yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank him for his question. And he's absolutely right to talk about the importance of our armed about the importance of our armed forces personnel. And I'm very proud to be able to point to the improvements we have made in improvements we have made in recruitment, in retention and in morale, which shows that we are being effective in delivering for being effective in delivering for them. I won't I'm going to make some progress. While the motion before us may claim otherwise, the facts are that the work being done by our forces on the multiple deployments speak for themselves every hour of every day.
Our armed forces are out there across the world, serving their country, serving UK interests and protecting our freedoms and prosperity. It's business as usual for them and it's business as usual across defence.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The Defence Secretary. For. To the Minister, and she talks
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To the Minister, and she talks up the effect that our armed forces deliver in various different theatres, but they are doing so on a shoestring because while the dip a shoestring because while the dip is delayed, apprentices will not start this August in Scotland or start this August in Scotland or the September in England. Investments being made by primes will not happen this financial year because of the delayed dip. More important than that, our allies are looking at the United Kingdom and they are seeing an investment plan that does not exist and a government in disarray.
But more important than that, those that would seek to do us harm can look at the UK now and see a company, a country that either does not know how to or cannot afford to defend itself. Is that a legacy she is
**** Possible New Speaker ****
proud of? It is on on him as well. He has questions to ask about his party's questions to ask about his party's support for defence as well. For example, refusing to fund the welding school, which would have
**** Possible New Speaker ****
welding school, which would have brought us vital skills. Yeah yeah yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The Defence Secretary is working through the Defence Investment Plan line by line, and so that our personnel have the kit and personnel have the kit and technology they need to deter, fight and win. He has been clear he will get the dip right and will publish it before the NATO summit in Ankara. And unlike I think I've been generous. I'm just going to keep going. Thank you. I don't like the suggestion. In today's motion. The dip has not halted this government's investment in turning around our hollowed out armed forces.
Since the election, we have signed over 1400 major defence contracts and 94% of that total contract spend going to UK based companies. As we deliver on our commitment to back British. I've given away enough time so I will keep going. I know the opposition want to use the wider situation in Westminster for political grandstanding. It's all they can do and it's all they know how to do. But we are rebuilding our armed forces for our age of big data, AI and autonomy and have reclaimed our position on the world stage.
We have committed to. We have committed to an uplift in defence spending. We have delivered the biggest export deals for decades and fuelled defence as an engine for growth benefiting communities across the UK. This is a record to be proud of and a record that we will build upon as we build war fighting readiness. Rather than debate these issues constructively, we have a motion urging orderly government. I will not, I will keep going from the party who gave us five different prime Ministers, five different defence secretaries
**** Possible New Speaker ****
in ten years. Calls. Minister, please. The Minister has made very clear that she's not
**** Possible New Speaker ****
has made very clear that she's not taking any more interventions. Minister. A plea for defence spending to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
A plea for defence spending to hit 3% by 2030. From a party whose manifesto committed to spend just manifesto committed to spend just 2.5% by that date, calls for a fully funded defence investment plan fit for the modern battlefield from a government whose fantasy equipment plan was overcommitted under fitted and unsuited, who left 47 of 49 major defence programs delayed or overbudget, and a motion that claims to understand the delicate legacy issues in Northern Ireland from a party whose own plan was struck down as unlawful.
It protects nobody. We have had many debates on this issue that the government is reflecting on. I've set out my position many times and in partnership with colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office, we will progress that bill in due course. And I have said before, I'm very mindful of the responsibilities to get it right. Madam Deputy Speaker No, I'm going to finish. Madam Deputy Speaker, Armed Forces Week is a moment to say thank you, but the best thanks the government can give our servicemen and women is not warm words from these benches.
It is our full backing. I know that there are more Officer Cadet Jones's serving today, more Lieutenant Jones's, more Captain Jones's. We're a big family, but I say to them, the conservative government failed me. This Labour government will deliver
**** Possible New Speaker ****
for them. The original question was, as on the Order Paper, since when amendment A is being proposed as on the Order Paper, the question is the Order Paper, the question is that the original word stand part of the question I call Liberal Democrat spokesperson Doctor Al Pinkerton.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Pinkerton. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It's a pleasure to speak in this debate today at the start of Armed
I was now part of an army of a strength of just 82,000. Operation shader had been launched to counter ISIS to great effect. Herrick had ended, replaced by the more limited operation OP Toral 20 Armoured Infantry Brigade, who I was attached to, was still made up of challenger two warrior as 90 and CVR. Crucially, by then Russia had launched its first operation of its evil assault on Ukraine and had annexed Crimea in 2014. It was clear then what Russia's ambitions were and their tactics.
Little green men showed that warfare was already changing. Most importantly of all, this clearly showed that once again, war was on the doorstep of Europe. How useful it might be, you may think, to have an armoured infantry brigade based in Germany, sat with a railhead connecting to the whole network of Europe, able to move armour quickly and at short notice, a sign of our commitment to defence. But alas, the decision had been made in Westminster. Instead of readying for the new threat, I watched as our bases closed down around me and troops moved back to the UK.
When I left in 2020, as captain Jones troop numbers had dropped to the mid 70,000. Our main army platforms are still the same as when I had joined. Troops were down, morale was down and our
**** Possible New Speaker ****
footprint was down. Hon. Friend, give way. Yes, I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I recognise a similar circumstance when I served in a shorter period of that time than she did. Does she of that time than she did. Does she also recognise the massive impact on morale of the successive real terms pay cuts the Conservatives
**** Possible New Speaker ****
gave to our brave armed forces during that period? Real terms? I really do, and the wider
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I really do, and the wider impact on the state of housing, which I like him, had to live in, and the relentless pressure on our fantastic people asking them to dig out blind every day just to keep the show on the road, and a story
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that was repeated across many of our public services. I thank you, Mr.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank you, Mr. And she. Mentioned the fact that troops were being removed from Europe back to the United Kingdom. I may be interpreting this wrong, but she seemed in her speech to be slightly critical of that. May I remind her critical of that. May I remind her that at the time, that was because of the ever changing geopolitical landscape in which we faced, and landscape in which we faced, and also allies were doing the same. And at the time, the Labour opposition position did not oppose that and did not criticise it.
So is she criticising us for doing that, or is she just making an
**** Possible New Speaker ****
observation? You never oppose. Sizing the decision makers for that decision. And I think, by the that decision. And I think, by the way, on reflection, others would agree with me. All of this occurred agree with me. All of this occurred under conservative prime Ministers, whether in coalition or as a conservative government. They conservative government. They attempted to crush the proud British Army with their mismanagement.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
mismanagement. I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way on that point. We've talked about the changes after 2014. Would we also look back to what was referenced earlier on the 2010 coalition, where the blame seemed to very suddenly shift to the Liberal Democrats? It was a joint decision to delay what was happening with our submarines. And I'll take no arguments from the honourable sorry, from the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, because it was his party that helped damage Barrow and Furness.
If they hadn't made that commitment to pause under the coalition government, the hon. Friends sitting opposite, we would have had our boats in the water now and our submariners wouldn't be spending
**** Possible New Speaker ****
200 days at sea. She's absolutely right to highlight those who were responsible for the defence of this country and the decisions that they made. No, I'm just I'll make some made. No, I'm just I'll make some progress and then I will. If you insist. If you insist.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
insist. If you insist. I'm fascinated by her remarks about the withdrawal of troops after the Cold War. Actually, many after the Cold War. Actually, many of them to Salisbury Plain in and around my constituency, where they continued to train for current operations. Is she seriously saying that she would recreate the British army of the Rhine? Is that government policy, this government or the government to come? If so,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
how is she going to fund it? Yeah. I appreciate him trying to conjure me, saying something that I conjure me, saying something that I have not said. I do appreciate that he will be aware. I was talking he will be aware. I was talking about the decisions made in the mid 20 tens, and I am critical of that decision. He will also know that being able to undo something is not the same as never having done it, and I hope you will appreciate that and I hope you will appreciate that I am sincere in what I am saying there.
The conservative government attempted to crush the proud British Army with their mismanagement, their short sighted cuts, their shameful negligence and refusal to adapt to new threats, and members of the current shadow team played key roles in that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
record of failure. I thank the Minister for taking
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the Minister for taking the interventions, and I also serve with 20 Armoured Brigade and deployed on operations with armour deployed on operations with armour from Germany over to the Balkans. I've seen that. So the Minister is I've seen that. So the Minister is saying about mismanagement. She is in a position that unless more funding comes forward, is mount to funding comes forward, is mount to make some of the biggest cuts to the armed forces during the most hostile situation since the Second
**** Possible New Speaker ****
World War, how does she square that circle? Yeah. I'm proud of the record that we
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm proud of the record that we have already achieved in government for defence. We have raised defence for defence. We have raised defence spending despite the record of previous governments. I am in a position to argue every day for our
**** Possible New Speaker ****
position to argue every day for our armed forces to get what they need so. For the Minister area.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
For the Minister area. This Labour government was elected in places like Aldershot, Portsmouth and Plymouth to fix their mess, and we have begun to do so. Recruitment is up, retention is up, morale is up. Personnel have received three above inflation pay rises. A real action to improve housing, enabling our armed forces to focus on national security like the. I'm going to make some progress. Like the RAF pilots who recently flew over 3000 hours of defensive missions, intercepting drones and missiles to protect our people and our allies in the Middle East.
The ground based air defence crews who under fire, protected UK and Allied bases, shooting down more than 100 drones, and our Royal Navy and Royal Marines who expertly intercepted a Russian shadow fleet vessel and work around the clock to protect our underwater infrastructure. I'm just going to make a little bit of progress. I think I've been quite generous. I'm just going to make a bit of progress from the high north to the Far East as our world becomes more dangerous, demands on defence grow, and as usual, our armed forces are responding with incredible professionalism and effect.
Our forces continue to deliver vast amounts of military equipment to Ukraine, including our largest ever numbers of drones, and are ready to lead the multinational force to bolster Ukraine's defences in the event of a cease fire in the Middle East, we have HMS Dragon and RFA Lyme Bay deployed, along with autonomous minehunting equipment, to play our part in a multinational mission to secure freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz
**** Possible New Speaker ****
and bring down prices for families across the UK. The Minister for.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The Minister for. Giving way. And I. Just wanted to ask her if
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Just wanted to ask her if everything is so great, why has Lord Robertson described the government's situation as one of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
corrosive complacency? I'm proud of the record that we
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm proud of the record that we have achieved so far in government. I think we all recognise that there is more to do and we are working hard to do that.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Will the Minister give way? Yes. I thank.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank. The Minister for giving giving a speech and talking about her personal experiences being in the armed forces for the party opposite, to hear again the figures she quoted of the number of armed forces personnel there were at the forces personnel there were at the start of her time in in the forces to the time that she left the forces and and the difference in forces and and the difference in the amount of officers we had. And could she also talk about what this Labour government is doing to support our armed forces, armed
**** Possible New Speaker ****
forces, personnel and actually increase morale, which is hugely important. Yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank him for his question. And he's absolutely right to talk about the importance of our armed about the importance of our armed forces personnel. And I'm very proud to be able to point to the improvements we have made in improvements we have made in recruitment, in retention and in morale, which shows that we are being effective in delivering for being effective in delivering for them. I won't I'm going to make some progress. While the motion before us may claim otherwise, the facts are that the work being done by our forces on the multiple deployments speak for themselves every hour of every day.
Our armed forces are out there across the world, serving their country, serving UK interests and protecting our freedoms and prosperity. It's business as usual for them and it's business as usual across defence.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The Defence Secretary. For. To the Minister, and she talks
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To the Minister, and she talks up the effect that our armed forces deliver in various different theatres, but they are doing so on a shoestring because while the dip a shoestring because while the dip is delayed, apprentices will not start this August in Scotland or start this August in Scotland or the September in England. Investments being made by primes will not happen this financial year because of the delayed dip. More important than that, our allies are looking at the United Kingdom and they are seeing an investment plan that does not exist and a government in disarray.
But more important than that, those that would seek to do us harm can look at the UK now and see a company, a country that either does not know how to or cannot afford to defend itself. Is that a legacy she is
**** Possible New Speaker ****
proud of? It is on on him as well. He has questions to ask about his party's questions to ask about his party's support for defence as well. For example, refusing to fund the welding school, which would have
**** Possible New Speaker ****
welding school, which would have brought us vital skills. Yeah yeah yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The Defence Secretary is working through the Defence Investment Plan line by line, and so that our personnel have the kit and personnel have the kit and technology they need to deter, fight and win. He has been clear he will get the dip right and will publish it before the NATO summit in Ankara. And unlike I think I've been generous. I'm just going to keep going. Thank you. I don't like the suggestion. In today's motion. The dip has not halted this government's investment in turning around our hollowed out armed forces.
Since the election, we have signed over 1400 major defence contracts and 94% of that total contract spend going to UK based companies. As we deliver on our commitment to back British. I've given away enough time so I will keep going. I know the opposition want to use the wider situation in Westminster for political grandstanding. It's all they can do and it's all they know how to do. But we are rebuilding our armed forces for our age of big data, AI and autonomy and have reclaimed our position on the world stage.
We have committed to. We have committed to an uplift in defence spending. We have delivered the biggest export deals for decades and fuelled defence as an engine for growth benefiting communities across the UK. This is a record to be proud of and a record that we will build upon as we build war fighting readiness. Rather than debate these issues constructively, we have a motion urging orderly government. I will not, I will keep going from the party who gave us five different prime Ministers, five different defence secretaries
**** Possible New Speaker ****
in ten years. Calls. Minister, please. The Minister has made very clear that she's not
**** Possible New Speaker ****
has made very clear that she's not taking any more interventions. Minister. A plea for defence spending to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
A plea for defence spending to hit 3% by 2030. From a party whose manifesto committed to spend just manifesto committed to spend just 2.5% by that date, calls for a fully funded defence investment plan fit for the modern battlefield from a government whose fantasy equipment plan was overcommitted under fitted and unsuited, who left 47 of 49 major defence programs delayed or overbudget, and a motion that claims to understand the delicate legacy issues in Northern Ireland from a party whose own plan was struck down as unlawful.
It protects nobody. We have had many debates on this issue that the government is reflecting on. I've set out my position many times and in partnership with colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office, we will progress that bill in due course. And I have said before, I'm very mindful of the responsibilities to get it right. Madam Deputy Speaker No, I'm going to finish. Madam Deputy Speaker, Armed Forces Week is a moment to say thank you, but the best thanks the government can give our servicemen and women is not warm words from these benches.
It is our full backing. I know that there are more Officer Cadet Jones's serving today, more Lieutenant Jones's, more Captain Jones's. We're a big family, but I say to them, the conservative government failed me. This Labour government will deliver
**** Possible New Speaker ****
for them. The original question was, as on the Order Paper, since when amendment A is being proposed as on the Order Paper, the question is the Order Paper, the question is that the original word stand part of the question I call Liberal Democrat spokesperson Doctor Al Pinkerton.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Pinkerton. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It's a pleasure to speak in this debate today at the start of Armed
13:11
Dr Al Pinkerton MP (Surrey Heath, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Dr Al Pinkerton MP (Surrey Heath, Liberal Democrat)
debate today at the start of Armed Forces Week and also as a member of the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme, which it has been an honour of a lifetime to be a member of for the past couple of years. It's been wonderful to get to know friends and colleagues across the House on that programme. There's truly no better way to understand the challenges and opportunities of our armed forces than in participating in that scheme, and I would encourage all members, if they haven't already done so, to consider participating in it.
And in that spirit, I would also encourage members to go and engage with the Defence Showcase, which is currently being held in Speaker's Corner. I've had the privilege to speak to the bomb disposal unit based in Aldershot already today. They drew incredible work in hugely dangerous circumstances. The Liberal Democrats have tabled an amendment today because Britain needs a serious defence policy for a dangerous age. That is a sentiment that I know is shared across this House, even if sometimes you disagree about quite how to get there.
But let me be clear about our position on the conservative motion today, because I do believe that parts of it identify genuine, real problems. Britain does undoubtedly need to restore our military capability. Recruitment, retention and morale must be rebuilt. Service personnel and veterans deserve dignity with suitable housing to mental health support. But recognising a problem is different from offering a credible solution. We cannot support a motion that asks this House to forget who hollowed out our armed forces in the first place, and if not, forget, at least fail to properly acknowledge it.
Talks of rebuilding the army after the Conservatives cut troops by 10,000. It proposes to pay for new commitments by punishing struggling families and targeting the two child benefit cap, sacrificing human security for strategic security without doing the hard work to genuinely move people into the workplace. And it fails to meet the central strategic challenge facing Britain. Europe is rearming. The United States is less reliable than it once was, and Britain must be at the heart of common European
**** Possible New Speaker ****
defence cooperation. I would absolutely be delighted to give. The hon. Gentleman thank him for that doesn't often. Not many people that doesn't often. Not many people say that. I thank him for saying that, and I welcome him to the debate. Can I just remind him that his colleagues on those benches also marched through the division lobbies and made the savings in the lobbies and made the savings in the armed forces Budget during the time that they were in government. But his party policy is £20 billion of his party policy is £20 billion of so-called defence bonds.
Can he outline to the House how he would intend to fund that? His borrowing isn't it? And wouldn't that make
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the economic situation in this country a whole lot worse than this troubling time? Very good.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Very good. To my hon. Friend, if I may say so, for for his intervention. He is absolutely right. The Liberal absolutely right. The Liberal Democrats, as my hon. Friend the Member for Westmoreland, has already acknowledged, parties already acknowledged, parties across this House sought to leverage too much from the so-called peace dividend. Whilst he so-called peace dividend. Whilst he and I have acknowledged that, I wonder whether his party will do the same and borrowing. And on the second question about defence investment bonds, this absolutely is about engaging the wider public and also other private finance institutions in the common participation in the recognition that we need to invest more in defence.
This absolutely is borrowing, but it is. It's money that can be injected into the into the defence economy right now, instantaneously. Whereas the proposals from the official opposition will take years to filter through because cuts, cuts
**** Possible New Speaker ****
instantaneous. Give way. On that. I will give way. I am genuinely very.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I am genuinely very. Grateful he is entering the sort of semi consensual spirit that we have seen from some. And I said, and I recognise that spending had and I recognise that spending had fallen under successive governments. But further to my hon. Friend's question and it's very important. The the the Lib Dems position is £20 billion extra on war bonds. But that's not their only policy. Their other policy is for international other policy is for international aid to go to 0.7%.
Where's the money going to come from for that? Is it aid bonds or other borrowing?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
How will they fund that massive black hole? And secondly. I do not believe there is a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I do not believe there is a black hole because I don't because because international aid is not a zero sum game. You you can't you zero sum game. You you can't you cannot have defence and security. You cannot have defence and security in the modern world unless security in the modern world unless you are tackling the very challenges that drive contemporary conflict at source and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
conflict at source and international aid is an absolutely fundamental part. The money is not free. Where's the money going to come.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
From this? The the money is, is, is absolutely there. Because if we don't spend it, if we don't spend it up front, we end up spending it further down the line. And not only further down the line. And not only and not only treasure, but also in blood. I'm going to I'm going to make some progress. Now if I if I may. Come on.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
may. Come on. What's going to come from somewhere? Our amendment recognises the the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Our amendment recognises the the reality that I have just outlined in terms of Europe, the United States and indeed Britain's role at the heart of European defence, the scale of the threat, the urgency of investment and the need for deeper pragmatic cooperation with our European allies. The threats facing the United. Just one moment. The threats facing the United Kingdom are the greatest since the end of the Cold War. I will give way.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you to my honourable. Friend for giving way. We've just come back on the Defence. Select Committee.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Select Committee. From Norway, and it worries me that some of the defence programs that some of the defence programs may be withdrawn in the dip. So does my hon. Friend agree with me that defence programmes set out in that defence programmes set out in the Defence Investment Plan are important not only for our national important not only for our national security, but also for maintaining and deepening the UK's relationships with our allies and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
partners. Well, I'm. Grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me. He's asked me to speculate on elements of the dip speculate on elements of the dip that of course I haven't seen. And he has the privileged position of of the insights he's gained from of the insights he's gained from his recent visit. I would I would simply I would simply point out simply I would simply point out that investment in the kind of structures and networks he talked about pay dividends in terms of about pay dividends in terms of defence cooperation, but also in terms of long standing and sustainable defence diplomacy.
And at a time when the threats facing the United Kingdom are at the greatest since they have been since the end of the Cold War, that is particularly important. After all, Vladimir Putin continues his brutal invasion of Ukraine while expanding hybrid war, sabotage and disinformation across the United Kingdom and across Europe. And at the same time, Donald Trump's wavering commitment to European security does cast doubt on NATO's collective defence. That is the world in which this debate takes place more fragmented and unstable, one in which Britain cannot afford delay, drift or self-deception.
I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
will give way to my hon. Friend. I'm grateful. And so far. The debate. Has been very much about.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Has been very much about. How much funding should be found for defence. What we should also think about is the resignation think about is the resignation speech by the former Minister of State for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Selly Oak, who said hon. Member for Selly Oak, who said last week that the dip which he has seen does not strike the right balance between high end balance between high end sophistication and low end mass, to quote the dip, does not strike that balance.
Does the hon. Member agree that we also need to think about that balance between sophistication and mass?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well. My friend speaks from a position of authority, from his personal of authority, from his personal experience and and also from his roles in committees in this House. I, I defer, as always, to his superior insights on this matter and certainly wouldn't defer from and certainly wouldn't defer from anything he has just suggested. Britain's European allies share our values and commitment to collective values and commitment to collective defence. We cannot be a spectator while Europe rebuilds its defences, but should shape and lead within that effort.
Under the Conservatives watch, our army fell to its smallest size since the Napoleonic Wars and the Navy's surface fleet to its smaller size since the English Civil War, we saw crisis of recruitment, retention and morale, and a failure to look after our service personnel and veterans properly. With shoddy housing and one of the worst privatisation deals in British
**** Possible New Speaker ****
political history, I will give way to my good friend for. Giving way. As chair of the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Giving way. As chair of the Women in Defence APPG, women only make up only 11% of the regular forces and so we cannot talk about forces and so we cannot talk about defence readiness while failing to recruit and retain half the population. So does my hon. Friend population. So does my hon. Friend agree that Defence Investment Plan must include a concrete plan to reach the Women in Defence
**** Possible New Speaker ****
reach the Women in Defence Charter's 30% target by 2030. I'm grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. She puts her finger on an incredibly important point that is absolutely intrinsic to the publication of the dip, and we should never ignore the experiences of women in our armed
**** Possible New Speaker ****
forces who perform brave service every day. I will give one. I'm very grateful. He is being very generous.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
very generous. With his time. Can I turn to legacy? Our motion calls on the government to drop the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which his party voted against at Second party voted against at Second Reading, as did we. A bill which the outgoing armed forces Minister the outgoing armed forces Minister now famously described as unfit for purpose. Is his party like us still opposed to the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill? And does that also apply for his colleagues in the House of Lords?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, if I may say indeed my hon. Friend who has supported me in hon. Friend who has supported me in debates in the past. We are we are opposed to the Northern Ireland opposed to the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. It does not deliver either justice for victims or protection for veterans. And I will protection for veterans. And I will come on and talk a little bit more about that as I conclude my my speech. I'm incredibly grateful speech.
I'm incredibly grateful this. Let me in fact, let me move on because I am, in fact, about to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
talk about the issue of of legacy. He knew that. Obviously he, the hon. Gentleman, clearly knew very well the exactly
**** Possible New Speaker ****
clearly knew very well the exactly the structure that I would adopt today. Consensus.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The Conservatives. This is where the consensus briefly ends the Conservatives Legacy Act, I would contend, failed victims, survivors contend, failed victims, survivors and veterans alike. It removed legal avenues for justice, eroded public trust and threw its conditional amnesty, established a shameful equivalence between British service personnel and members of the IRA. Key provisions were found to be incompatible with the. Which matters because a country that asks its armed forces to serve with honour must legislate with honour to the is too often characterised as a threat to those who serve in truth.
It also helps to protect service personnel, families and veterans who seek accountability. When the state has failed in its duty, withdrawing from it would remove a vital safeguard and a route to justice for victims and families, such as those in the Snatch Land Rover case. But this is where the consensus returns. The Liberal Democrats are firmly on the side of veterans. That is why we voted against the carry over motion for the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. As drafted, it lacked safeguards veterans deserve, including protection against repeated investigations.
Without genuinely new evidence, the government's bill should be human rights compliant, rooted in transparency and independent oversight, holding victims rights while importantly ensuring no process is used to discredit those who serve with honour and integrity. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. for.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Giving way, given what he is saying about Northern Ireland, would he support a Private Member's Bill which would make law that there should be no further investigations, inquiries, inquests investigations, inquiries, inquests or indeed prosecutions unless, in the view of a Supreme Court judge, new and compelling evidence has come to light because if he does support that, I can only recommend
**** Possible New Speaker ****
support that, I can only recommend that he's in the chamber on the 4th of September, when I will be bringing it to the House. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you. I'm grateful to the hon. Gentleman, my honourable near neighbour and friend for his neighbour and friend for his intervention. The the the private member's bill he described sounds entirely consistent with the argument that I'm making today. If argument that I'm making today. If I may take the opportunity to study the precise wording before fully committing to it, but it sounds entirely consistent with what I'm arguing today, and I'm grateful to you, to him, for bringing it to my attention.
The hon. Member for Wimbledon and I have engaged extensively with veterans associations, and our amendments today reflect their concerns by enhancing oversight and protecting veterans rights. At the time of acute threat, our military need urgent restoration and Labour has to move has moved previously too slowly to undo the damage. The delay to the investment Defence Investment Plan has created uncertainty for our armed forces, our industry and our allies. I note, Madam Deputy Speaker, that His Majesty's Opposition failed to back our new clause 22, which would have required a report into the damage that the delay to the dip has done to British business.
And I think that was a missed opportunity. I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
will give way. I thank. The intervention. This is to take the opportunity
**** Possible New Speaker ****
This is to take the opportunity just to express a specific regret for the role that the Liberal for the role that the Liberal Democrats played during the coalition in slowing down the coalition in slowing down the nuclear continuous at sea programme, and indeed, they actually argued to scrap it entirely and replace it scrap it entirely and replace it with a Biggles type aircraft taking off off of aircraft carriers or something, which would have put us in a very, very dangerous position.
But as it was, they used the influence that they had to delay it. And one of the reasons why there is such a difficulty in the MoD Budget is catching up on that. Essential
**** Possible New Speaker ****
spending on the continuous at sea deterrent. I.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I. In my role today as spokesperson and indeed my hon. Friend the Member for Westmoreland, have both acknowledged mistakes that have been made in the past, and I think, frankly, those mistakes need to be shared across this House because shared across this House because they are they are shared across this House. I would just say that defence cannot be switched on overnight. We cannot rebuild industrial capacity, train personnel, modernise equipment or restore deterrence through vague promises about working at pace.
Small and medium sized businesses have told me plainly that investment decisions are being delayed, expansion is on hold and contracts are being lost. Overseas
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Ministers must publish the Defence Investment Plan Immediately. To reassure partners and provide
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To reassure partners and provide a roadmap for regenerating our armed forces after years of mismanagement. At a moment when Europe is re-arming, Britain is hesitating and hesitation sends signals to our armed forces, to industry, to our allies, and, most dangerously, to our adversaries. When the former defence secretary When the former defence secretary and the armed Forces Minister resigned, that was a clarion warning from those who who have scrutinised the numbers and they were left wanting. I will give way to them.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Very generous. The Liberal. Democrats are famously known for
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Democrats are famously known for their love of bicycling. So does he agree with me that it would be a very good idea if the government dropped its plan to spend £4.5 dropped its plan to spend £4.5 billion over five years on creating defence?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yes. Why does that come from? I mean, it's a it's a curious argument that the hon. Gentleman makes. We the United Kingdom is a is a is a modern 21st century European nation. I have had a very pleasant cycle to and from Fulham this morning on both lime bikes and using cycleways. Frankly, I don't think. I don't think you can have. You can have one without the without the other. I'm perfectly happy for the government to spend to spend money on cycleways as well as as defence.
It's a very strange equivalence that the hon. Gentleman seeks seeks to make. However, however, I would just. I would just urge the hon. Gentleman for Makerfield, who isn't in his place today, which is a disappointing opportunity, a failure to engage with issues of our armed Forces and our defence. I would compel him to urge the Treasury to unlock the funding that we need as urgently as possible. Strengthen. This moment will be measured by investment, industrial renewal and the courage to deepen defence relationships with our European allies.
And that is why we in this amendment are calling for the Defence Investment Plan to be published urgently, alongside a plan to issue those £20 billion of defence bonds. They would help to rebuild our armed forces, unlock investment, strengthen our industrial base, give Britain's businesses the confidence that they need to expand and to hire. Investment, however, cannot stop there. The defence must. The government must commit to spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2030 at the latest, and convene cross-party talks.
In the spirit of collaboration across this House, that the hon. Gentleman on the front Bench has talked about today, because only then can we have responsible and sustainable defence spending. Britain must lead and Britain must lead. In Europe, our European allies share our values, our geography and our commitment to collective defence. They are partners with whom we share intelligence, defend our sea lanes, protect our skies, secure our infrastructure and confront the same threats Britain should now be leading in terms of European defence.
And that's why we have proposed a growth and defensive partnership with the European Union. This is not about building an alternative to NATO, but ensuring that Europe carries more of the burden of collective defence. And if I may just say in conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I can see you looking at me with some eagerness. Now, we must never forget the people who serve our nation in our armed forces. The government was right to accept the Liberal Democrats proposal to apply the Decent Homes standard to service family accommodation, and that must now be extended to single living accommodation too.
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Liberal Democrats are clear. Britain needs the Defence Investment Plan to be published now. Defence spending must reach 3% of GDP by 2030. A £20 billion defence bond programme should rebuild capacity, capability and industry and it can do so quickly. Northern Ireland needs a fair, lawful and trusted legacy framework, including protections for our UK veterans who served with honour. Our armed forces deserve the highest standards, including the Decent Homes standard standard extended to single living accommodation and Britain needs a new growth and defence partnership with Europe that places us at the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
heart of defence cooperation. A I call Graeme Downie. Thank you.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker, and it's always a pleasure to follow the Member for Surrey Heath, who's always very gracious with his time always very gracious with his time and always very entertaining to listen to. So I thank him for that. Can I give my remarks, Madam Deputy Speaker, by thanking all of our serving armed forces that are protecting our country at the moment, and it is very important
And in that spirit, I would also encourage members to go and engage with the Defence Showcase, which is currently being held in Speaker's Corner. I've had the privilege to speak to the bomb disposal unit based in Aldershot already today. They drew incredible work in hugely dangerous circumstances. The Liberal Democrats have tabled an amendment today because Britain needs a serious defence policy for a dangerous age. That is a sentiment that I know is shared across this House, even if sometimes you disagree about quite how to get there.
But let me be clear about our position on the conservative motion today, because I do believe that parts of it identify genuine, real problems. Britain does undoubtedly need to restore our military capability. Recruitment, retention and morale must be rebuilt. Service personnel and veterans deserve dignity with suitable housing to mental health support. But recognising a problem is different from offering a credible solution. We cannot support a motion that asks this House to forget who hollowed out our armed forces in the first place, and if not, forget, at least fail to properly acknowledge it.
Talks of rebuilding the army after the Conservatives cut troops by 10,000. It proposes to pay for new commitments by punishing struggling families and targeting the two child benefit cap, sacrificing human security for strategic security without doing the hard work to genuinely move people into the workplace. And it fails to meet the central strategic challenge facing Britain. Europe is rearming. The United States is less reliable than it once was, and Britain must be at the heart of common European
**** Possible New Speaker ****
defence cooperation. I would absolutely be delighted to give. The hon. Gentleman thank him for that doesn't often. Not many people that doesn't often. Not many people say that. I thank him for saying that, and I welcome him to the debate. Can I just remind him that his colleagues on those benches also marched through the division lobbies and made the savings in the lobbies and made the savings in the armed forces Budget during the time that they were in government. But his party policy is £20 billion of his party policy is £20 billion of so-called defence bonds.
Can he outline to the House how he would intend to fund that? His borrowing isn't it? And wouldn't that make
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the economic situation in this country a whole lot worse than this troubling time? Very good.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Very good. To my hon. Friend, if I may say so, for for his intervention. He is absolutely right. The Liberal absolutely right. The Liberal Democrats, as my hon. Friend the Member for Westmoreland, has already acknowledged, parties already acknowledged, parties across this House sought to leverage too much from the so-called peace dividend. Whilst he so-called peace dividend. Whilst he and I have acknowledged that, I wonder whether his party will do the same and borrowing. And on the second question about defence investment bonds, this absolutely is about engaging the wider public and also other private finance institutions in the common participation in the recognition that we need to invest more in defence.
This absolutely is borrowing, but it is. It's money that can be injected into the into the defence economy right now, instantaneously. Whereas the proposals from the official opposition will take years to filter through because cuts, cuts
**** Possible New Speaker ****
instantaneous. Give way. On that. I will give way. I am genuinely very.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I am genuinely very. Grateful he is entering the sort of semi consensual spirit that we have seen from some. And I said, and I recognise that spending had and I recognise that spending had fallen under successive governments. But further to my hon. Friend's question and it's very important. The the the Lib Dems position is £20 billion extra on war bonds. But that's not their only policy. Their other policy is for international other policy is for international aid to go to 0.7%.
Where's the money going to come from for that? Is it aid bonds or other borrowing?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
How will they fund that massive black hole? And secondly. I do not believe there is a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I do not believe there is a black hole because I don't because because international aid is not a zero sum game. You you can't you zero sum game. You you can't you cannot have defence and security. You cannot have defence and security in the modern world unless security in the modern world unless you are tackling the very challenges that drive contemporary conflict at source and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
conflict at source and international aid is an absolutely fundamental part. The money is not free. Where's the money going to come.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
From this? The the money is, is, is absolutely there. Because if we don't spend it, if we don't spend it up front, we end up spending it further down the line. And not only further down the line. And not only and not only treasure, but also in blood. I'm going to I'm going to make some progress. Now if I if I may. Come on.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
may. Come on. What's going to come from somewhere? Our amendment recognises the the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Our amendment recognises the the reality that I have just outlined in terms of Europe, the United States and indeed Britain's role at the heart of European defence, the scale of the threat, the urgency of investment and the need for deeper pragmatic cooperation with our European allies. The threats facing the United. Just one moment. The threats facing the United Kingdom are the greatest since the end of the Cold War. I will give way.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you to my honourable. Friend for giving way. We've just come back on the Defence. Select Committee.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Select Committee. From Norway, and it worries me that some of the defence programs that some of the defence programs may be withdrawn in the dip. So does my hon. Friend agree with me that defence programmes set out in that defence programmes set out in the Defence Investment Plan are important not only for our national important not only for our national security, but also for maintaining and deepening the UK's relationships with our allies and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
partners. Well, I'm. Grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me. He's asked me to speculate on elements of the dip speculate on elements of the dip that of course I haven't seen. And he has the privileged position of of the insights he's gained from of the insights he's gained from his recent visit. I would I would simply I would simply point out simply I would simply point out that investment in the kind of structures and networks he talked about pay dividends in terms of about pay dividends in terms of defence cooperation, but also in terms of long standing and sustainable defence diplomacy.
And at a time when the threats facing the United Kingdom are at the greatest since they have been since the end of the Cold War, that is particularly important. After all, Vladimir Putin continues his brutal invasion of Ukraine while expanding hybrid war, sabotage and disinformation across the United Kingdom and across Europe. And at the same time, Donald Trump's wavering commitment to European security does cast doubt on NATO's collective defence. That is the world in which this debate takes place more fragmented and unstable, one in which Britain cannot afford delay, drift or self-deception.
I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
will give way to my hon. Friend. I'm grateful. And so far. The debate. Has been very much about.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Has been very much about. How much funding should be found for defence. What we should also think about is the resignation think about is the resignation speech by the former Minister of State for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Selly Oak, who said hon. Member for Selly Oak, who said last week that the dip which he has seen does not strike the right balance between high end balance between high end sophistication and low end mass, to quote the dip, does not strike that balance.
Does the hon. Member agree that we also need to think about that balance between sophistication and mass?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well. My friend speaks from a position of authority, from his personal of authority, from his personal experience and and also from his roles in committees in this House. I, I defer, as always, to his superior insights on this matter and certainly wouldn't defer from and certainly wouldn't defer from anything he has just suggested. Britain's European allies share our values and commitment to collective values and commitment to collective defence. We cannot be a spectator while Europe rebuilds its defences, but should shape and lead within that effort.
Under the Conservatives watch, our army fell to its smallest size since the Napoleonic Wars and the Navy's surface fleet to its smaller size since the English Civil War, we saw crisis of recruitment, retention and morale, and a failure to look after our service personnel and veterans properly. With shoddy housing and one of the worst privatisation deals in British
**** Possible New Speaker ****
political history, I will give way to my good friend for. Giving way. As chair of the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Giving way. As chair of the Women in Defence APPG, women only make up only 11% of the regular forces and so we cannot talk about forces and so we cannot talk about defence readiness while failing to recruit and retain half the population. So does my hon. Friend population. So does my hon. Friend agree that Defence Investment Plan must include a concrete plan to reach the Women in Defence
**** Possible New Speaker ****
reach the Women in Defence Charter's 30% target by 2030. I'm grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. She puts her finger on an incredibly important point that is absolutely intrinsic to the publication of the dip, and we should never ignore the experiences of women in our armed
**** Possible New Speaker ****
forces who perform brave service every day. I will give one. I'm very grateful. He is being very generous.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
very generous. With his time. Can I turn to legacy? Our motion calls on the government to drop the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which his party voted against at Second party voted against at Second Reading, as did we. A bill which the outgoing armed forces Minister the outgoing armed forces Minister now famously described as unfit for purpose. Is his party like us still opposed to the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill? And does that also apply for his colleagues in the House of Lords?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, if I may say indeed my hon. Friend who has supported me in hon. Friend who has supported me in debates in the past. We are we are opposed to the Northern Ireland opposed to the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. It does not deliver either justice for victims or protection for veterans. And I will protection for veterans. And I will come on and talk a little bit more about that as I conclude my my speech. I'm incredibly grateful speech.
I'm incredibly grateful this. Let me in fact, let me move on because I am, in fact, about to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
talk about the issue of of legacy. He knew that. Obviously he, the hon. Gentleman, clearly knew very well the exactly
**** Possible New Speaker ****
clearly knew very well the exactly the structure that I would adopt today. Consensus.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The Conservatives. This is where the consensus briefly ends the Conservatives Legacy Act, I would contend, failed victims, survivors contend, failed victims, survivors and veterans alike. It removed legal avenues for justice, eroded public trust and threw its conditional amnesty, established a shameful equivalence between British service personnel and members of the IRA. Key provisions were found to be incompatible with the. Which matters because a country that asks its armed forces to serve with honour must legislate with honour to the is too often characterised as a threat to those who serve in truth.
It also helps to protect service personnel, families and veterans who seek accountability. When the state has failed in its duty, withdrawing from it would remove a vital safeguard and a route to justice for victims and families, such as those in the Snatch Land Rover case. But this is where the consensus returns. The Liberal Democrats are firmly on the side of veterans. That is why we voted against the carry over motion for the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. As drafted, it lacked safeguards veterans deserve, including protection against repeated investigations.
Without genuinely new evidence, the government's bill should be human rights compliant, rooted in transparency and independent oversight, holding victims rights while importantly ensuring no process is used to discredit those who serve with honour and integrity. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. for.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Giving way, given what he is saying about Northern Ireland, would he support a Private Member's Bill which would make law that there should be no further investigations, inquiries, inquests investigations, inquiries, inquests or indeed prosecutions unless, in the view of a Supreme Court judge, new and compelling evidence has come to light because if he does support that, I can only recommend
**** Possible New Speaker ****
support that, I can only recommend that he's in the chamber on the 4th of September, when I will be bringing it to the House. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you. I'm grateful to the hon. Gentleman, my honourable near neighbour and friend for his neighbour and friend for his intervention. The the the private member's bill he described sounds entirely consistent with the argument that I'm making today. If argument that I'm making today. If I may take the opportunity to study the precise wording before fully committing to it, but it sounds entirely consistent with what I'm arguing today, and I'm grateful to you, to him, for bringing it to my attention.
The hon. Member for Wimbledon and I have engaged extensively with veterans associations, and our amendments today reflect their concerns by enhancing oversight and protecting veterans rights. At the time of acute threat, our military need urgent restoration and Labour has to move has moved previously too slowly to undo the damage. The delay to the investment Defence Investment Plan has created uncertainty for our armed forces, our industry and our allies. I note, Madam Deputy Speaker, that His Majesty's Opposition failed to back our new clause 22, which would have required a report into the damage that the delay to the dip has done to British business.
And I think that was a missed opportunity. I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
will give way. I thank. The intervention. This is to take the opportunity
**** Possible New Speaker ****
This is to take the opportunity just to express a specific regret for the role that the Liberal for the role that the Liberal Democrats played during the coalition in slowing down the coalition in slowing down the nuclear continuous at sea programme, and indeed, they actually argued to scrap it entirely and replace it scrap it entirely and replace it with a Biggles type aircraft taking off off of aircraft carriers or something, which would have put us in a very, very dangerous position.
But as it was, they used the influence that they had to delay it. And one of the reasons why there is such a difficulty in the MoD Budget is catching up on that. Essential
**** Possible New Speaker ****
spending on the continuous at sea deterrent. I.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I. In my role today as spokesperson and indeed my hon. Friend the Member for Westmoreland, have both acknowledged mistakes that have been made in the past, and I think, frankly, those mistakes need to be shared across this House because shared across this House because they are they are shared across this House. I would just say that defence cannot be switched on overnight. We cannot rebuild industrial capacity, train personnel, modernise equipment or restore deterrence through vague promises about working at pace.
Small and medium sized businesses have told me plainly that investment decisions are being delayed, expansion is on hold and contracts are being lost. Overseas
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Ministers must publish the Defence Investment Plan Immediately. To reassure partners and provide
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To reassure partners and provide a roadmap for regenerating our armed forces after years of mismanagement. At a moment when Europe is re-arming, Britain is hesitating and hesitation sends signals to our armed forces, to industry, to our allies, and, most dangerously, to our adversaries. When the former defence secretary When the former defence secretary and the armed Forces Minister resigned, that was a clarion warning from those who who have scrutinised the numbers and they were left wanting. I will give way to them.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Very generous. The Liberal. Democrats are famously known for
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Democrats are famously known for their love of bicycling. So does he agree with me that it would be a very good idea if the government dropped its plan to spend £4.5 dropped its plan to spend £4.5 billion over five years on creating defence?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yes. Why does that come from? I mean, it's a it's a curious argument that the hon. Gentleman makes. We the United Kingdom is a is a is a modern 21st century European nation. I have had a very pleasant cycle to and from Fulham this morning on both lime bikes and using cycleways. Frankly, I don't think. I don't think you can have. You can have one without the without the other. I'm perfectly happy for the government to spend to spend money on cycleways as well as as defence.
It's a very strange equivalence that the hon. Gentleman seeks seeks to make. However, however, I would just. I would just urge the hon. Gentleman for Makerfield, who isn't in his place today, which is a disappointing opportunity, a failure to engage with issues of our armed Forces and our defence. I would compel him to urge the Treasury to unlock the funding that we need as urgently as possible. Strengthen. This moment will be measured by investment, industrial renewal and the courage to deepen defence relationships with our European allies.
And that is why we in this amendment are calling for the Defence Investment Plan to be published urgently, alongside a plan to issue those £20 billion of defence bonds. They would help to rebuild our armed forces, unlock investment, strengthen our industrial base, give Britain's businesses the confidence that they need to expand and to hire. Investment, however, cannot stop there. The defence must. The government must commit to spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2030 at the latest, and convene cross-party talks.
In the spirit of collaboration across this House, that the hon. Gentleman on the front Bench has talked about today, because only then can we have responsible and sustainable defence spending. Britain must lead and Britain must lead. In Europe, our European allies share our values, our geography and our commitment to collective defence. They are partners with whom we share intelligence, defend our sea lanes, protect our skies, secure our infrastructure and confront the same threats Britain should now be leading in terms of European defence.
And that's why we have proposed a growth and defensive partnership with the European Union. This is not about building an alternative to NATO, but ensuring that Europe carries more of the burden of collective defence. And if I may just say in conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I can see you looking at me with some eagerness. Now, we must never forget the people who serve our nation in our armed forces. The government was right to accept the Liberal Democrats proposal to apply the Decent Homes standard to service family accommodation, and that must now be extended to single living accommodation too.
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Liberal Democrats are clear. Britain needs the Defence Investment Plan to be published now. Defence spending must reach 3% of GDP by 2030. A £20 billion defence bond programme should rebuild capacity, capability and industry and it can do so quickly. Northern Ireland needs a fair, lawful and trusted legacy framework, including protections for our UK veterans who served with honour. Our armed forces deserve the highest standards, including the Decent Homes standard standard extended to single living accommodation and Britain needs a new growth and defence partnership with Europe that places us at the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
heart of defence cooperation. A I call Graeme Downie. Thank you.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker, and it's always a pleasure to follow the Member for Surrey Heath, who's always very gracious with his time always very gracious with his time and always very entertaining to listen to. So I thank him for that. Can I give my remarks, Madam Deputy Speaker, by thanking all of our serving armed forces that are protecting our country at the moment, and it is very important
13:30
Graeme Downie MP (Dunfermline and Dollar, Labour)
-
-
Graeme Downie MP (Dunfermline and Dollar, Labour)
moment, and it is very important that this debate taking place in Armed Forces Week. I think it is to the credit of the opposition, for once at least, they have brought together the topic of debate today, although I am not sure we have quite reached the level of consensus hoped for across the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
House when we speak about issues of defence. Madam Deputy. Speaker. Just quickly.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Just quickly. Perhaps we could achieve some consensus on this yet again, yet consensus on this yet again, yet again, when we debate defence and our armed forces and the people who keep us safe, the plastic patriots of reform can't be bothered to turn up. Does he agree with me and the rest of this house? People who wrap themselves in the flag should at least debate the future of the people whose job is to defend it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah. Thank you, Madam Deputy. I was slightly concerned that I was going to have to disagree with the hon. Gentleman at an early stage. I absolutely agree with him. I find that any politician, frankly, who wraps themselves solely in a flag should not, without any substance to it, should not actually be worthy of leading any constituency worthy of leading any constituency or indeed any party, and certainly not any country. Madam Deputy Speaker, as I've mentioned this Speaker, as I've mentioned this House previously, I actually grew up in Berlin in 1987 to 1990.
I was there when the Berlin Wall came down. That gives me a slight and perhaps unusual insight for someone of my age. I grew up one mile from hearing Russian artillery and Russian helicopters testing and firing. I was there when Rudolf Hess died and saw the various security measures in place. Madam Deputy Speaker, that makes me unusual for people my age and younger, most of whom have not seen what a Cold War threat is, most of whom have been used to a safe world, who have not seen the necessity for increased defence spending.
Unless, of course, you have a member of the armed forces in your family or have served yourself. But nonetheless, the majority of people in this country of my age and younger do not know what a threat from Russia looks like, or indeed a threat from any other country. I have said before that I believe the UK is already in a conflict with Russia, and not only that, that we are a front line nation and should always consider ourselves as that, whether that the High North, whether that is RAF jets taking off from Lusby to defend our airspace, whether that is Royal Navy ships and Royal Air Royal Air Force aircraft in the High North, protecting us from Russian aircraft, from Russian threats to our subsea cables.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this country is in conflict with Russia. Russia considers itself to be in conflict with us, and we must always respond with. In that way, those attacks extend into cyberspace. They extend. Every single day. We see thousands of attacks, whether that's on private businesses or indeed on our defence or energy infrastructure. But these threats are there. We see it in misinformation peddled online, which seek to undermine our democracy. Madam Deputy Speaker, this country is in conflict with Russia. Madam Deputy Speaker, in order to respond effectively to that, we need the public to understand the direct implications of what that means for them.
That a cyber attack on Jaguar Land Rover has has consequences for our economy. An attack on Marks and Spencers has consequences for their ability to buy a jumper, but also for the staff working at these institutes as well. This is a direct impact on our economy and our society every single day. And one conversation I think that we must have across this House, and it is always slightly daunting to be in the House on a day like this, where there are people who have served in the military and know far more than I do.
But we must, wherever possible, draw lines from the threats that we face and the detailed military programs that we talk about and face about what that means on the day to day lives of people in this country. Otherwise, those people will not grant any government the authority or in the licence to take the action to increase defence spending and capability that we see across this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
House. I will give way. I am. Extremely grateful that he always speaks on defence matters always speaks on defence matters and with with his very unique passion for it, from from his upbringing near the Berlin Wall and so on, which I very much respect so on, which I very much respect and admire. But a serious point, Madam Speaker, has been reported by the BBC that it's been the number the BBC that it's been the number ten have said no new major policies or spending decisions will be made until the new Prime Minister has until the new Prime Minister has been appointed.
If that is the case and given the timetable, how can the Defence Investment Plan be delivered before the NATO summit? Does he agree with me? That question now has to be answered.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Madam chair, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. His intervention is not something we want to get drawn into in the want to get drawn into in the chamber today. I've not seen the news report, and I believe it would be something that would have to come from government. So I'm not going to get drawn into that. Madam Deputy Speaker, when we talk about defence and national security, we defence and national security, we must also, as well as making sure we are speaking to the public and things that matter to them, broaden out the conversation when we're out the conversation when we're talking about national security and defence readiness, we are not only talking about Ministry of Defence budgets, we should also be talking about what that means for energy security, for food security and everything else that makes our country safe, whether it's economic security, delivering the skills and apprenticeships we needed, we need for the future.
And that is a way that we make sure we engage the public with why it matters to them. If we are saying that we must spend more on protecting our North Sea infrastructure or on our national grid infrastructure, because if we do not, that will put up your energy bills by even more. It will cause blackouts. These are the consequences. And we must always be clear when it comes to things like defence, like energy infrastructure, that some things cost money. If we want a more energy secure nation and more resilience, people will be asked to pay more in one way or another.
That is the nature of defending our nation properly and effectively. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am very proud of the steps this government has taken to prepare our armed forces for the future, having been having been left a hollowed out basin when they took over, and the hon. Members opposite have talked about the parties across the House not spending on defence since the end of the Cold War. And I do to a point agree with what they're saying, but the threats were there in 2014 and beyond, and there was no mass drive from any party in government for massive increases in defence and for any increases in defence at that point.
But the warning signs were there already, and it is this government that has had to pick up that mantle and move forward to make the kind of changes that we are needing. The awarding of 1400 major defence contracts since July 2024 in my in Scotland £10 billion frigate deal with Norway that will secure jobs on the Clyde as well. Pressing for the £8 billion typhoon deal with Turkey and upgrading typhoon jets as well. Madam Deputy Speaker, we must look after the people as well, and I am very proud that this government is updating recruitment policies that are seeing us make sure that we have better recruitment and retention.
And as the Minister mentioned in her introductory remarks as well, we are seeing recruitment up, increasing in pay and turning around the decade of decline that we saw under the party opposite, with a cumulative pay reward of 10.5% since July 2024 and the largest on record, with new recruits receiving a pay boost of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
35%. I will give way, the hon. Gentleman. For letting me intervene and one of the things we must do when it comes to spending and see the. The former veterans Minister in his place. We need to ensure that our place. We need to ensure that our veterans are looked after, those who have had mental health issues, and I regularly come across people and I regularly come across people who are affected by what they've seen in the in their service as affect them physically, sometimes affect them physically, sometimes with respect them emotionally and mentally as well.
Does he feel that when it comes to the span that is necessary, there must be a commitment as well to ensure that those veterans who have served and who suffer are looked after.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He always makes sure he picks on the issues that really he picks on the issues that really matter to our people. And the Minister of Veterans, OP courage does exactly the kind of work that he is talking about. We see that I am sure members across the House see that in their constituency mailbag all the time. We must make mailbag all the time. We must make sure that we are properly protecting our veterans. Not only is it important for our responsibility to them, but also that is how we make sure that we have effective recruitment and retention in the future.
We must be a nation that looks after our serving soldiers as well as we progress. Madam Deputy Speaker, I mentioned in my opening remarks that I believe we are already in a conflict with Russia, and I would like in particular, to praise the focus of the previous Secretary of State for defence on the Joint Expeditionary Force work that he did in the High North. We are a frontline nation and our frontline is in the North Sea. The Greenland, Iceland, UK gap and tackling the threats that we face there.
The partnership with Norway on the type 26 frigates, the other work that has been done with Joint Expeditionary Force nations is exactly the kind of capability that this country needs to make sure that we are focusing on. And when we are discussing budgets and things, I want to make sure that this House and the debate around defence does not solely become focussed on a number. We must not focus and think that just because we have hit a particular number by a particular date, that our country is safe, it is not.
The country is safe when we have the right capabilities in each domain to fight against the threats that we face, whether that is in the air, on land, on sea or in cyberspace or any other domain. And for that discussion, we must make sure that we focus on capability. If we have the capabilities to defend our nation, then we will have spent the amount of money that we should spend to defend our nation. And I believe that that would be higher than the current level we are spending at the moment.
But the discussion must stay on capability and not merely spending money for its own sake, which this government is doing a very good job of turning around on issues on defence procurement to ensure that that is not the case. But I would urge members from across the House to please keep that in mind when we are discussing defence spending today. Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope that we are continuing with the focus on consensus where possible when it comes to defence spending and protecting our nation.
But I would just like to end by thanking, again the armed forces that are serving right now. And to all of those veterans that have served in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the past. Thank you. Lincoln Jopp. Yeah. Yeah, yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah, yeah. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, can I say what a pleasure it is to follow the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar, who I think was and Dollar, who I think was speaking a great deal of sense, and he was he was mentioning the threat we face from the High North, and he we face from the High North, and he might be interested to to know that the Defence Select Committee were in Norway last week and we went up
**** Possible New Speaker ****
House when we speak about issues of defence. Madam Deputy. Speaker. Just quickly.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Just quickly. Perhaps we could achieve some consensus on this yet again, yet consensus on this yet again, yet again, when we debate defence and our armed forces and the people who keep us safe, the plastic patriots of reform can't be bothered to turn up. Does he agree with me and the rest of this house? People who wrap themselves in the flag should at least debate the future of the people whose job is to defend it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah. Thank you, Madam Deputy. I was slightly concerned that I was going to have to disagree with the hon. Gentleman at an early stage. I absolutely agree with him. I find that any politician, frankly, who wraps themselves solely in a flag should not, without any substance to it, should not actually be worthy of leading any constituency worthy of leading any constituency or indeed any party, and certainly not any country. Madam Deputy Speaker, as I've mentioned this Speaker, as I've mentioned this House previously, I actually grew up in Berlin in 1987 to 1990.
I was there when the Berlin Wall came down. That gives me a slight and perhaps unusual insight for someone of my age. I grew up one mile from hearing Russian artillery and Russian helicopters testing and firing. I was there when Rudolf Hess died and saw the various security measures in place. Madam Deputy Speaker, that makes me unusual for people my age and younger, most of whom have not seen what a Cold War threat is, most of whom have been used to a safe world, who have not seen the necessity for increased defence spending.
Unless, of course, you have a member of the armed forces in your family or have served yourself. But nonetheless, the majority of people in this country of my age and younger do not know what a threat from Russia looks like, or indeed a threat from any other country. I have said before that I believe the UK is already in a conflict with Russia, and not only that, that we are a front line nation and should always consider ourselves as that, whether that the High North, whether that is RAF jets taking off from Lusby to defend our airspace, whether that is Royal Navy ships and Royal Air Royal Air Force aircraft in the High North, protecting us from Russian aircraft, from Russian threats to our subsea cables.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this country is in conflict with Russia. Russia considers itself to be in conflict with us, and we must always respond with. In that way, those attacks extend into cyberspace. They extend. Every single day. We see thousands of attacks, whether that's on private businesses or indeed on our defence or energy infrastructure. But these threats are there. We see it in misinformation peddled online, which seek to undermine our democracy. Madam Deputy Speaker, this country is in conflict with Russia. Madam Deputy Speaker, in order to respond effectively to that, we need the public to understand the direct implications of what that means for them.
That a cyber attack on Jaguar Land Rover has has consequences for our economy. An attack on Marks and Spencers has consequences for their ability to buy a jumper, but also for the staff working at these institutes as well. This is a direct impact on our economy and our society every single day. And one conversation I think that we must have across this House, and it is always slightly daunting to be in the House on a day like this, where there are people who have served in the military and know far more than I do.
But we must, wherever possible, draw lines from the threats that we face and the detailed military programs that we talk about and face about what that means on the day to day lives of people in this country. Otherwise, those people will not grant any government the authority or in the licence to take the action to increase defence spending and capability that we see across this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
House. I will give way. I am. Extremely grateful that he always speaks on defence matters always speaks on defence matters and with with his very unique passion for it, from from his upbringing near the Berlin Wall and so on, which I very much respect so on, which I very much respect and admire. But a serious point, Madam Speaker, has been reported by the BBC that it's been the number the BBC that it's been the number ten have said no new major policies or spending decisions will be made until the new Prime Minister has until the new Prime Minister has been appointed.
If that is the case and given the timetable, how can the Defence Investment Plan be delivered before the NATO summit? Does he agree with me? That question now has to be answered.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Madam chair, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. His intervention is not something we want to get drawn into in the want to get drawn into in the chamber today. I've not seen the news report, and I believe it would be something that would have to come from government. So I'm not going to get drawn into that. Madam Deputy Speaker, when we talk about defence and national security, we defence and national security, we must also, as well as making sure we are speaking to the public and things that matter to them, broaden out the conversation when we're out the conversation when we're talking about national security and defence readiness, we are not only talking about Ministry of Defence budgets, we should also be talking about what that means for energy security, for food security and everything else that makes our country safe, whether it's economic security, delivering the skills and apprenticeships we needed, we need for the future.
And that is a way that we make sure we engage the public with why it matters to them. If we are saying that we must spend more on protecting our North Sea infrastructure or on our national grid infrastructure, because if we do not, that will put up your energy bills by even more. It will cause blackouts. These are the consequences. And we must always be clear when it comes to things like defence, like energy infrastructure, that some things cost money. If we want a more energy secure nation and more resilience, people will be asked to pay more in one way or another.
That is the nature of defending our nation properly and effectively. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am very proud of the steps this government has taken to prepare our armed forces for the future, having been having been left a hollowed out basin when they took over, and the hon. Members opposite have talked about the parties across the House not spending on defence since the end of the Cold War. And I do to a point agree with what they're saying, but the threats were there in 2014 and beyond, and there was no mass drive from any party in government for massive increases in defence and for any increases in defence at that point.
But the warning signs were there already, and it is this government that has had to pick up that mantle and move forward to make the kind of changes that we are needing. The awarding of 1400 major defence contracts since July 2024 in my in Scotland £10 billion frigate deal with Norway that will secure jobs on the Clyde as well. Pressing for the £8 billion typhoon deal with Turkey and upgrading typhoon jets as well. Madam Deputy Speaker, we must look after the people as well, and I am very proud that this government is updating recruitment policies that are seeing us make sure that we have better recruitment and retention.
And as the Minister mentioned in her introductory remarks as well, we are seeing recruitment up, increasing in pay and turning around the decade of decline that we saw under the party opposite, with a cumulative pay reward of 10.5% since July 2024 and the largest on record, with new recruits receiving a pay boost of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
35%. I will give way, the hon. Gentleman. For letting me intervene and one of the things we must do when it comes to spending and see the. The former veterans Minister in his place. We need to ensure that our place. We need to ensure that our veterans are looked after, those who have had mental health issues, and I regularly come across people and I regularly come across people who are affected by what they've seen in the in their service as affect them physically, sometimes affect them physically, sometimes with respect them emotionally and mentally as well.
Does he feel that when it comes to the span that is necessary, there must be a commitment as well to ensure that those veterans who have served and who suffer are looked after.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He always makes sure he picks on the issues that really he picks on the issues that really matter to our people. And the Minister of Veterans, OP courage does exactly the kind of work that he is talking about. We see that I am sure members across the House see that in their constituency mailbag all the time. We must make mailbag all the time. We must make sure that we are properly protecting our veterans. Not only is it important for our responsibility to them, but also that is how we make sure that we have effective recruitment and retention in the future.
We must be a nation that looks after our serving soldiers as well as we progress. Madam Deputy Speaker, I mentioned in my opening remarks that I believe we are already in a conflict with Russia, and I would like in particular, to praise the focus of the previous Secretary of State for defence on the Joint Expeditionary Force work that he did in the High North. We are a frontline nation and our frontline is in the North Sea. The Greenland, Iceland, UK gap and tackling the threats that we face there.
The partnership with Norway on the type 26 frigates, the other work that has been done with Joint Expeditionary Force nations is exactly the kind of capability that this country needs to make sure that we are focusing on. And when we are discussing budgets and things, I want to make sure that this House and the debate around defence does not solely become focussed on a number. We must not focus and think that just because we have hit a particular number by a particular date, that our country is safe, it is not.
The country is safe when we have the right capabilities in each domain to fight against the threats that we face, whether that is in the air, on land, on sea or in cyberspace or any other domain. And for that discussion, we must make sure that we focus on capability. If we have the capabilities to defend our nation, then we will have spent the amount of money that we should spend to defend our nation. And I believe that that would be higher than the current level we are spending at the moment.
But the discussion must stay on capability and not merely spending money for its own sake, which this government is doing a very good job of turning around on issues on defence procurement to ensure that that is not the case. But I would urge members from across the House to please keep that in mind when we are discussing defence spending today. Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope that we are continuing with the focus on consensus where possible when it comes to defence spending and protecting our nation.
But I would just like to end by thanking, again the armed forces that are serving right now. And to all of those veterans that have served in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the past. Thank you. Lincoln Jopp. Yeah. Yeah, yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah, yeah. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, can I say what a pleasure it is to follow the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar, who I think was and Dollar, who I think was speaking a great deal of sense, and he was he was mentioning the threat we face from the High North, and he we face from the High North, and he might be interested to to know that the Defence Select Committee were in Norway last week and we went up
13:41
Lincoln Jopp MP (Spelthorne, Conservative)
-
-
Lincoln Jopp MP (Spelthorne, Conservative)
in Norway last week and we went up to the Arctic Circle to the Combined Air Operations Centre at, at Buda, and they told an extraordinary story there, which was they were doing a security exercise, and they put a baddie on the roof of a sangar near the airport, the air bases gate, and they took a dog round and to find the baddie. And the dog didn't want to know about the bloke they put on the roof of the Sangar. The dog was indicating into the Sangar itself and he wouldn't let go.
He kept on indicating there's something there, there's something there. They thought, oh blimey, we better go and get the keys. And went and got the keys and found a Chinese spy who had been in there for a week. So he'd now been arrested. He's doing time in, in prison in Norway, I believe, pre-trial on remand. But it just brings home exactly what he was saying, that these are real threats and these are real enemies. And they are in that case, literally at the gates.
So I joined
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the I joined the army in in I. Went, I. Joined the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Joined the. Army in. 1986. I joined the Army in 1986.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
1986. I joined the Army in 1986. me. Trojan horse. Paid for me to go to university
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Paid for me to go to university to study theology and philosophy. Very broad minded of them at the time. And I then went back to time. And I then went back to Sandhurst to confirm my commission in 1989. And that's a significant moment because I was on on College Guard polishing my boots as I watched the Berlin Wall fall, and I didn't really understand that the, you know, the geopolitical glue that had helped keep the world safe for the last 40 years was coming unstuck or what the implications be for Officer Cadet job, but they certainly were there.
And those bonds which had kept the the Cold War in stasis did indeed start to melt. And it meant I had a very busy military career, and I have been to war with conservatives in power, with Labour in power. I've had poor equipment, all of all of sides of this House have been responsible for. Part of what happened following 1989, and that is that we started to manage decline. And it's it's I don't get me wrong, I am so proud of the men and women of our armed forces, and particularly the ones I led.
But equally, and I always try to remember to do this. I buried men from my regiment, and I tried not to forget always to pay tribute to them and their. What they have done to enable me to stand here and be their voice today.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah, yeah. But essentially what happened is successive governments from the end successive governments from the end of that Cold War started to take risk, and they simply passed on this ticking time bomb from government to government and bad government to government and bad luck Labour. It's gone off under your watch. That's the that's the fact of it. And the situation. There have been essentially a very big lie being told to the British public, which is that, you know, we can have the defence that we want at the money.
We are prepared to pay for it. I'd be delighted to give away.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And he's making, obviously a very, very powerful intervention. Does he recall, like I do at the Does he recall, like I do at the ending of the Cold War, there was a paper written, I think, by Francis
**** Possible New Speaker ****
paper written, I think, by Francis Fukuyama that was referred to as The End of History. Yeah, yeah. Does he not agree with me? It was on the basis of that, that everybody believed somehow no longer was there going to be war. No longer was there going to be
**** Possible New Speaker ****
No longer was there going to be pressure. No longer do we need the armed forces. Such a mistake has documented everything since. Yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My right hon. Friend and and fellow Scots guardsman makes a very fellow Scots guardsman makes a very good point. And the zeitgeist throughout that period of time has been to say, look, the wars are a been to say, look, the wars are a thing of the past and that we can take risk against defence. And that take risk against defence. And that risk has rarely crystallised. And so people have been tempted to take so people have been tempted to take more and more risk, and also hypothecating defence spending.
I mean, I get a I get an army pension, and that contributes to 2% of GDP being spent on defence. Well, last time I checked, despite the fact that the. Despite the fact that the. The Minister for the Armed Forces has threatened to mobilise me more than once, I don't actually think
He kept on indicating there's something there, there's something there. They thought, oh blimey, we better go and get the keys. And went and got the keys and found a Chinese spy who had been in there for a week. So he'd now been arrested. He's doing time in, in prison in Norway, I believe, pre-trial on remand. But it just brings home exactly what he was saying, that these are real threats and these are real enemies. And they are in that case, literally at the gates.
So I joined
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the I joined the army in in I. Went, I. Joined the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Joined the. Army in. 1986. I joined the Army in 1986.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
1986. I joined the Army in 1986. me. Trojan horse. Paid for me to go to university
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Paid for me to go to university to study theology and philosophy. Very broad minded of them at the time. And I then went back to time. And I then went back to Sandhurst to confirm my commission in 1989. And that's a significant moment because I was on on College Guard polishing my boots as I watched the Berlin Wall fall, and I didn't really understand that the, you know, the geopolitical glue that had helped keep the world safe for the last 40 years was coming unstuck or what the implications be for Officer Cadet job, but they certainly were there.
And those bonds which had kept the the Cold War in stasis did indeed start to melt. And it meant I had a very busy military career, and I have been to war with conservatives in power, with Labour in power. I've had poor equipment, all of all of sides of this House have been responsible for. Part of what happened following 1989, and that is that we started to manage decline. And it's it's I don't get me wrong, I am so proud of the men and women of our armed forces, and particularly the ones I led.
But equally, and I always try to remember to do this. I buried men from my regiment, and I tried not to forget always to pay tribute to them and their. What they have done to enable me to stand here and be their voice today.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah, yeah. But essentially what happened is successive governments from the end successive governments from the end of that Cold War started to take risk, and they simply passed on this ticking time bomb from government to government and bad government to government and bad luck Labour. It's gone off under your watch. That's the that's the fact of it. And the situation. There have been essentially a very big lie being told to the British public, which is that, you know, we can have the defence that we want at the money.
We are prepared to pay for it. I'd be delighted to give away.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And he's making, obviously a very, very powerful intervention. Does he recall, like I do at the Does he recall, like I do at the ending of the Cold War, there was a paper written, I think, by Francis
**** Possible New Speaker ****
paper written, I think, by Francis Fukuyama that was referred to as The End of History. Yeah, yeah. Does he not agree with me? It was on the basis of that, that everybody believed somehow no longer was there going to be war. No longer was there going to be
**** Possible New Speaker ****
No longer was there going to be pressure. No longer do we need the armed forces. Such a mistake has documented everything since. Yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My right hon. Friend and and fellow Scots guardsman makes a very fellow Scots guardsman makes a very good point. And the zeitgeist throughout that period of time has been to say, look, the wars are a been to say, look, the wars are a thing of the past and that we can take risk against defence. And that take risk against defence. And that risk has rarely crystallised. And so people have been tempted to take so people have been tempted to take more and more risk, and also hypothecating defence spending.
I mean, I get a I get an army pension, and that contributes to 2% of GDP being spent on defence. Well, last time I checked, despite the fact that the. Despite the fact that the. The Minister for the Armed Forces has threatened to mobilise me more than once, I don't actually think