House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Speaker’s Statement
(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mr Speaker
Before we begin proceedings, I should advise the House that there is a fault with the Annunciator system that means it is slow to update. There may therefore be a delay before the current information is displayed. I hope that the fault will be rectified as soon as possible—I understand that the Clerk is already at work with his technical electrical skills as we speak.
Oral Answers to Questions
(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
It is great to see the House so full for Northern Ireland questions, and I congratulate all colleagues recently elected in Northern Ireland.
I met the First Minister and Deputy First Minister twice in my first four days, during which we discussed a wide range of issues, including the Government’s commitment to repeal and replace the legacy Act. I plan to update the House shortly on how we will begin that process.
Adam Jogee
It is very good to see my hon. Friends the Members for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) and for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) on the Government Benches. I am sure the commitment that the Secretary of State has just given us will be welcomed by many in Newcastle-under-Lyme and, indeed, in Northern Ireland, given the lack of support for the legacy Act. Can he undertake to consult widely on the Act’s repeal and replacement, and will he keep the House informed?
Hilary Benn
I can indeed give my hon. Friend that assurance, because the problem with the legacy Act is that it has almost no support in Northern Ireland among political parties and victims’ families. We have given a very clear commitment to consult on how the repeal and replacement will work: in the end, we hope to get a large measure of support for a new approach, which the current approach has failed to secure.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. He will recognise that Northern Ireland is represented in the Executive, in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and now in this place by more than just the parties of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. Will he give an assurance that he will deal openly and transparently with all those parties?
Hilary Benn
I will readily give the hon. Member that assurance. I have met with all the party leaders, and the commitment to consultation that I have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) will extend to all the parties in Northern Ireland.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I warmly welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his place. I know he brings considerable qualities to his role, and I look forward to working with him on behalf of all the people in Northern Ireland. I pay tribute to his predecessor, the right hon. Chris Heaton-Harris, who did such an excellent job and is much missed on the Conservative Benches.
I very much welcome the positive meetings that the Secretary of State has had with all parties since he was appointed. Following those meetings, may I ask him to reassure the House that on his watch, he will be an active supporter of the Union and an advocate for it?
Hilary Benn
I join the hon. Gentleman in expressing the House’s collective thanks to my predecessor, and congratulate him and his hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) on their appointments. I look forward to working with both of them.
The Government are strongly committed to our United Kingdom, as was clearly set out in our manifesto. I hope the hon. Gentleman will see that reflected in our work as we take it forward.
Alex Burghart
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his answer. The Government’s manifesto states that they are
“committed to implementing the Windsor Framework in good faith”.
However, that manifesto did not mention the Command Paper, which was vital in getting Stormont back. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that Command Paper contained a number of measures to strengthen the Union—the East-West Council and InterTrade UK, to name but two. Will the Government faithfully implement all those commitments in the Command Paper, which are designed to strengthen the Union?
Hilary Benn
As the hon. Gentleman knows, when we were in opposition, we supported the two statutory instruments and the Humble Address. We will set up the independent monitoring panel, and we have recently had a success in developing our relationship with the European Union over dental amalgam: the new Government have secured a 10-year derogation, which has been widely welcomed by the parties in Northern Ireland.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
The Government are committed to ensuring that Euro 2028 benefits the whole of the United Kingdom. We are working as quickly as possible with all partners to assess the options on the Casement Park project.
Sammy Wilson
Many people were surprised when the Secretary of State, on first being appointed, made it his priority to deliver on Casement Park. Committing £320 million for a stadium to host five matches at a time when there are huge waiting lists to be dealt with in the health service, and with special educational needs and social housing needing funding, is an indefensible use of public money. Can the Secretary of State assure us that the Government’s view has not been influenced by any personal interventions by the chief of staff of the Labour party, for whom this is a personal project, and can he confirm that such an intervention would be a breach of standards in public life?
Hilary Benn
I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that I said this was a priority because a decision needs to be made. The fact is that the Government have inherited a commitment to hosting the Euros at Casement Park. It is now a year and three quarters since UEFA awarded that right to Northern Ireland, and to the United Kingdom and Ireland, but nothing has happened during the year and three quarters since then to progress the project. We are left with a situation in which the cost has gone through the roof, and even if we had the money, we do not know if we could build it in time. That is why the Government are looking at it, and that is why I said it was a priority to make a decision.
Claire Hanna
The Gaelic Athletic Association is overwhelmingly a force for good across our island, and I was pleased to see so many in Britain enjoying the magic of the hurling final via the BBC on Sunday. GAA fans in Northern Ireland, like Northern Ireland football fans awaiting sub-regional stadium funding, have been let down by a decade of Stormont dither, by sniping such as we have just seen and by the last Government. Had they green-lit the project when they said they would, construction would have been well under way in time for the Euros. Can the Secretary of State assure us that Casement will ultimately be built, and that spectacles such as we will see for Armagh this Sunday will in time be hosted in Belfast?
Hilary Benn
I think we all wish Armagh well in the all-Ireland final. The Executive are committed to the Casement Park project—it has been a commitment for over a decade now—but it has not progressed. Windsor Park got an upgrade, Ravenhill got an upgrade and it is important that Casement Park is built. That is why I said on my recent visit that one way or another that project needs to be completed.
Jim Allister
Will the Secretary of State explain to the 356,000 citizens of Northern Ireland who await out-patient appointments and to the 94,000 who await in-patient admissions why, in the Government’s view, it seems to be a priority to pour hundreds of millions of pounds into a GAA sports stadium instead of fixing our health service? If the Government commit money and the Euros do not come to Belfast, will the Government not be in a position in which the rugby stadium and the football stadium did not get a penny of Treasury or Northern Ireland Office money, but the GAA did? How could that be fair and how could that be proportionate?
Hilary Benn
I hope very much that sport will be a force for unity in Northern Ireland, rather than a source of division. When it comes to the health service, the hon. Gentleman makes a very powerful point. The state of the NHS in Northern Ireland, with the longest waiting lists in the United Kingdom, is a function, if I may say so, of decisions that the Executive have failed to take over many years. The people of Northern Ireland want to have a better health service, and that needs the plan to which the new Health Minister is committed.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State agree that we would not be in the final minutes of extra time on whether Casement Park can be rebuilt in time for the Euros if the previous Government had actually done something about it after we were awarded host status a year and three quarters ago?
Hilary Benn
I agree with my hon. Friend. The facts speak for themselves: a year and three quarters since we were awarded the wonderful opportunity to host the Euros, nothing has happened on the project.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
The interim fiscal framework agreed earlier this year introduced a needs-based funding formula set at 124% of spending per head in England, based on the advice of the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council, and we are committed to taking forward these discussions with the Executive.
Sorcha Eastwood
I welcome the Secretary of State to his place, and look forward to working with him in his new role. Fixing Northern Ireland’s financial framework is crucial to ensuring that our public services are properly resourced, and indeed that impacts on my constituents in Lagan Valley. Will he ensure that any new arrangements are fully baselined and informed by independent expert analysis?
Hilary Benn
The Northern Ireland Fiscal Council was set up to help to answer the question about what the need is in Northern Ireland. It came up with a range of between 121% and 127%, and opted for 124% in the middle. The fact that that was in the interim fiscal framework that the previous Government negotiated is welcome, and was welcomed by the Finance Minister in Northern Ireland. We are committed to taking those discussions forward, and I understand that the Finance Minister in the Executive has already met the new Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
Jim Shannon
May I, too, welcome the Secretary of State to his place and wish him well in the role that he now plays? The Chancellor has indicated that there will be a 5% increase in wages for health workers and those in the education sector, but unfortunately, given the current Barnett consequentials for Northern Ireland, that will not mean 5% for those workers in Northern Ireland. Will the Secretary of State urgently look at that issue to ensure that health and education workers in Northern Ireland deserve the same increase in their wages as those on the mainland do because, quite clearly, I am here for them?
Hilary Benn
As the hon. Gentleman will be well aware, decisions about pay in Northern Ireland are a matter for the Executive. Any additional spending in England will apply through the Barnett consequentials to Northern Ireland in the normal way.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to needs-based funding for Northern Ireland. Does he agree that how funding is allocated and how further revenue might be generated are matters for the devolved Administration and the Assembly?
Hilary Benn
I certainly do agree. All Governments, including the Northern Ireland Executive, have the money they have coming in, the money they can raise in addition, and how they will prioritise their spending. The Northern Ireland Executive have more funding per head of population than England, and it is for the Executive to take decisions about what their priorities are, and allocate funding accordingly.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State and the Minister of State to their positions, and thank them for their gracious phone call last week to welcome me and my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) to our positions. On Monday, the Business Secretary slipped out a written statement, rather than coming to this House, revealing that the Government have decided not to proceed with an export development guarantee, or emergency loans that would save Harland and Wolff, despite its unique role and outstanding defence contract. Will the Secretary of State use his position to continue the support that the previous Government gave to Northern Ireland, and make it clear to the Treasury that the people of Northern Ireland expect the Government to intervene in this case, and support Harland and Woolf, as is desperately needed?
Hilary Benn
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment. The reasons for the Government’s decision about Harland and Wolff were clearly set out in the written ministerial statement that my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary laid before the House. Harland and Wolff is now talking to its main supporters, Riverstone, about potential additional financial support. We are committed to shipbuilding across the United Kingdom, including in Northern Ireland, and as that written ministerial statement made clear, Harland and Wolff is an essential part of the £1.6 billion contract for the fleet solid support ships.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Fleur Anderson)
I am delighted to be appointed to this role, and I look forward to working closely with Executive Ministers to see public services transformed in Northern Ireland. I will be meeting the First and Deputy First Ministers tomorrow in Stormont, as well as the Northern Ireland Health Minister, Mike Nesbitt.
Gavin Robinson
I welcome the Minister of State and Secretary of State to their positions. I am delighted to see them in post, and I know they are committed to effective public services and stability of the institutions in Northern Ireland. May I caution that in a number of responses that we have received from the Front Bench, we are having a recurring conversation that the fiscal framework that was announced back in December on an interim basis does not solve the problems we have? Even the stabilisation money that was agreed back in December has already been forecast as necessary to sustain pay in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister of State engage earnestly not only with what the Government—both of this hue and the previous Government—have been saying for the past six months, and recognise that to provide good public services in Northern Ireland we need not only to sustain, but to transform?
Fleur Anderson
I agree with the right hon. Member. Money is allocated specifically for transformation of public services to improve service delivery outcomes. In Northern Ireland, three in 10 people are on an NHS waiting list; that number is one in 10 here in England. That figure needs to be transformed for health outcomes.
I will be talking about funding when I meet Executive Ministers, but I will also be talking about other ways in which our doors, and those of other Government Ministers, too, are open. We are determined to work together to transform public services.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
As set out in the King’s Speech, the Government are committed to repeal and replace the legacy Act. As well as scrapping conditional immunity, we will set out steps to allow troubles-era inquests and civil claims to resume. We will consult with all interested parties on a way forward that can obtain the support of victims and survivors, and comply with our human rights obligations.
Bob Blackman
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment. Clearly, any delays will in-build a legacy for the victims and their families, who have waited a long time for closure on these issues. I understand absolutely the need to create consensus across Northern Ireland for what will be proposed, but will he set out the timeline and the plan for achieving that and agree to come back to the House to update us when that plan is ready?
Hilary Benn
I am happy to give the hon. Member that assurance about keeping the House informed and reporting to it on my plans. As far as the independent commission is concerned, the Government have decided that we will retain it. That is because the Stormont House agreement—we want to return to the principles that it set out—envisages both information recovery and continued investigation. Those two functions are in effect combined in the independent commission. I met Sir Declan Morgan yesterday to talk about how that work can be taken forward. The commission is now open for business and available for families to approach to find an answer, for which many of them have been looking for so long.
Mr Holden
The former Member for Plymouth Moor View was a strong advocate for veterans in Cabinet and in government. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure veterans in Basildon and Billericay and across the country that any future legislation will protect now-elderly veterans from vexatious legal action in the future?
Hilary Benn
I pay tribute to the work that veterans and members of the police and the security services did over many years during the troubles in trying to keep people safe from terrorism. I undertake, as part of the consultation that I have already set out to the House, to consult veterans’ organisations.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his position. Will he further outline what discussions he is having with groups and organisations who represent innocent victims? Will he assure the House that in repealing this legislation, there will be no pandering to those who were the victim makers? What meaningful engagement is he having with the Irish Government, who oppose the Act but have disgracefully refused to deal with the many allegations of state collusion with the Provisional IRA? I am thinking specifically about the long-awaited public inquiry into the Omagh bombing.
Hilary Benn
I discussed the matter with Micheál Martin when I saw him early after my appointment, and he has expressed the hope that a way forward can be found that might lead to the withdrawal of the interstate case that Ireland has brought. I will certainly engage with victims’ organisations—I met a number of them during my time as shadow Secretary of State—because I am committed to trying to find a way forward. In the end, if this is to work, it must work for the victims’ families, because they are the people who say, “What went before hasn’t given us what we were looking for.”
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
No. We are committed to implementing the Windsor framework in good faith in partnership with the EU, and to taking all steps necessary to protect the UK internal market. We are also looking to negotiate a sanitary and phytosanitary veterinary agreement with the EU, which could help.
Sir Desmond Swayne
Will the Secretary of State commit to all the provisions of the “Safeguarding the Union” agreement?
Hilary Benn
I already set out my answer to that in response to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart). We are taking forward those commitments, but we can make progress by working in partnership with the European Union. What was achieved recently on dental amalgam is a good example of precisely that.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Fleur Anderson)
I understand how important and urgent this issue is. I thank the hon Member for his contribution to the veterinary medicines working group, whose work we have committed to continuing. He will know that a grace period for veterinary medicines will remain in place until the end of 2025, which provides continuity of supply to Northern Ireland. The Government will make progress on this issue as quickly as possible.
Dr Hudson
I thank the Minister for her answer. The Windsor framework secured by the previous Government extended that grace period to veterinary medicines in Northern Ireland until the end of December 2025. That includes vaccines and anaesthetics, so it is vital for biosecurity and both animal and public health that access continues. Will the Minister assure the House that the Government will strain every sinew to secure permanent access to veterinary medicines in Northern Ireland, and will they continue the Cabinet Office’s veterinary medicines working group, on which I sat, which was working so hard to find a solution?
Fleur Anderson
I can confirm again that the veterinary medicines working group will continue. We recognise its importance, and we will continue to work at pace on a long-term solution, because continuity of supply and knowing about it well in advance of next December is very important.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I welcome the Secretary of State and his team to their place, and I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna). I can only hope that the success of the hurling at the weekend means that the BBC will consider showing the shinty-hurling international that takes place every year.
I welcome attempts by the new Government to continue to rebuild trust with Northern Ireland political parties and to improve relations with the European Union, which offers the opportunity to reduce trade frictions between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Could the Secretary of State set out what he is doing with ministerial colleagues and other Departments to open the door to securing a veterinary agreement with the EU, which will further reduce those barriers to trade?
Fleur Anderson
The Government are committed to working at pace on a long-term solution, including a veterinary agreement. That might change the relationship with the EU and build more trust, and so a bespoke agreement may be needed, but we are working at pace to secure that.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
A fortnight ago, the Minister and I met the Tánaiste Micheál Martin in Hillsborough, where we discussed strengthening relations between our two Governments, given the importance of our relationship with Ireland. The Prime Minister and the Taoiseach also held a bilateral meeting ahead of the European Political Community meeting last week.
Dr Gardner
Duchess China, which I believe are the suppliers of your excellent commemorative china service, Mr Speaker, is based in my constituency. The Republic of Ireland is an important export market for the company, and Northern Ireland is an important part of its domestic market. How will relations across the Irish sea and the Northern Ireland-Ireland border be enhanced for the benefit of companies such as Duchess China?
Hilary Benn
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the company that she mentioned and the products that it produces. We are committed to protecting the integrity of the UK internal market, so that great firms in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland are able to sell right across the United Kingdom and internationally. Northern Ireland in particular has extraordinary opportunities and so much potential, which we need to build on. One of the most important contributions that the Executive can make is to ensure stability, because that is what investors are looking for.
Emily Darlington
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his position, and I hope that he will be able to rebuild those relations that were strained through the Brexit process. Small and medium-sized business in Milton Keynes Central have gone under because of the additional paperwork and restrictions caused by our strained relations with the EU. Will he confirm that he is talking to the Irish Government and others about how to reduce those barriers to trade?
Hilary Benn
There is no doubt that the change in our trading relationship with the European Union has brought additional costs and paperwork for businesses, whether they are selling to the EU or into Northern Ireland. The Windsor framework is the means by which we are trying to manage that. I supported the Windsor framework, negotiated by the previous Government, because it represented an important and significant step forward. The reason why we have to continue to implement it is because if we are going to get the veterinary and SPS agreement, and other agreements we are seeking with the European Union—
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The Anglo-Irish agreement is absolutely vital, and the meeting between the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach is to be welcomed. Prime Ministers’ diaries become very full; will the Secretary of State use his good offices to ensure that that dialogue between Taoiseach and Prime Minister continues to build on that relationship to see it flourish still further?
Hilary Benn
I can indeed give that assurance. My right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister has agreed there will be an annual summit.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Does the Secretary of State agree with me that it is important that, in discussions with the Irish Government, they understand that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland, whether they consider themselves to be British, Irish or Northern Irish, can see that it is the United Kingdom context that allows them that diversity, and that improving the lives of present generations is the best way to preserve the lives of everyone for the future?
Hilary Benn
I join the hon. Gentleman in that commitment to improving the lives of the people of Northern Ireland. As a Government, we are committed to working on that with him and all his colleagues in Northern Ireland.
Mr Speaker
I welcome the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and all new Members to the first questions to the Prime Minister in this Parliament.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
I know the whole House will be shocked by the news that a soldier has been attacked in Kent. Our thoughts are with him, his family and our armed forces who serve to keep us safe. We wish him a swift recovery. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
The whole House will also want to join me in wishing Team GB good luck as they travel to Paris for the Olympic games.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, discussing how this Government will bring about the change the country has decisively voted for. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings today.
Calum Miller
May I begin by welcoming the Prime Minister to his first questions as Prime Minister? I associate myself with his remarks about the soldier in Kent, and, of course, send my wishes to the British Olympians.
At Combe in my constituency, Thames Water pumped sewage into the River Evenlode for over 2,600 hours last year. Thames Water was allowed by Ofwat to withdraw £7 billion in dividends, yet now wants to jack up my constituents’ bills. I welcome the water Bill in the King’s Speech, but does the Prime Minister agree with my constituents and me that the system is broken, and will he now commit to scrapping Ofwat and replacing it with a tougher regulator that will finally put people and planet ahead of water company profits?
The Prime Minister
I welcome the hon. Member to his place and thank him for raising this important issue in relation to water. Customers should not pay the price for mismanagement by water companies. We have already announced immediate steps to put water companies under a tougher regime. The Minister responsible for water, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), will meet the bosses of failing companies to hold them to account for their performance. After 14 years of failure with our rivers and beaches, it falls to this Government of service to fix the mess of that failure.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I welcome my hon. Friend back to her place. Our guiding principle must be the wellbeing of children. This is a serious Government, and we will approach that question with care, not with inflammatory dividing lines. The Cass review was clear that there is not enough evidence on the long-term impact of puberty blockers to know whether they are safe. The Health Secretary will consult organisations supporting young people and families, and I will ensure that there is a meeting with my hon. Friend and the relevant Minister as soon as that can be arranged.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)
I join the Prime Minister in expressing my shock at the attack on a British soldier. Our thoughts are with him and his family as we wish him a speedy recovery.
I also join the Prime Minister in his warm words about our Olympic athletes. I have no doubt that after years of training, focus and dedication they will bring back many gold medals—although, to be honest, I am probably not the first person they want to hear advice from on how to win. [Interruption.]
I am glad that in our exchanges so far we have maintained a cross-party consensus on important matters of foreign policy, and in that spirit I wanted to focus our exchange today on Ukraine and national security. The UK has consistently been the first country to provide Ukraine with new capabilities, such as the long-range weapons that have been used so effectively in the Black sea. Those decisions are not easy, and I was grateful to the Prime Minister for his support as I made those decisions in government. In opposition, I offer that same support to him. Will he continue to be responsive to Ukraine’s new requests, so that it does not just stand still but can decisively win out against Russian aggression?
The Prime Minister
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for not only raising the question of Ukraine, but doing so in a way that can maintain the unity across the House that has been so important to the Ukrainian people. I can assure him that we are, of course, talking to Ukraine about how it deals with the Russian aggression that it is facing and has been facing for many, many months. I will continue to try to do that in the way that he did, which is to reach out across the House to share such information as we can to maintain the unity that is so important.
Rishi Sunak
I thank the Prime Minister for that response. I also found that one of the United Kingdom’s key roles as Ukraine’s closest ally was to encourage other countries to follow our lead in providing new military capabilities. In that vein, I am sure that when the Prime Minister saw Chancellor Scholz recently he thanked him for the considerable air defence that the Germans are providing to the Ukrainians, but did he also raise with him the issue of the Germans perhaps providing long-range missiles, just as the UK, America and France have now done?
The Prime Minister
I had the opportunity in Washington, at the NATO council, to talk to our German counterparts. There was a strong theme there on Ukraine, discussed with all our allies, and part of my message was to urge all our allies to provide further support for the Ukrainian people where they can. That was well received, and there was unity coming out of the NATO council that that is what we must all do.
Rishi Sunak
I am glad to hear the Prime Minister raise the NATO summit, because I very much welcome the message that came out loud and clear from that summit, and indeed in the Prime Minister’s words from the Dispatch Box on Monday, about Ukraine’s irreversible path to NATO membership. Does he agree that fatuous Russian claims on Ukrainian territory must not act as a block to Ukraine’s joining the NATO defensive alliance?
The Prime Minister
I wholeheartedly agree. It is for NATO allies to decide who is a member of NATO—formed 75 years ago, a proud alliance, and probably the most successful alliance that has ever been formed. That is why it was so important that at the summit we were able to say that there is now that irreversible path to membership. It is a step forward from a year ago, and President Zelensky was very pleased that we have been able to make that successful transition.
Rishi Sunak
Thanks to the complex legal and diplomatic work that the UK has led over the past several months, together with our allies Canada and America, I hope the Prime Minister will now find that there is a sound and established legal basis to go further on sanctions, seize Russian assets and use them to fund Ukrainian reconstruction. That work has taken time, but I hope he is able to take a look at it. Can he confirm to the House that this work is something that he will take forward? If he does, I can assure him that the Opposition will support him in doing so.
The Prime Minister
Again, I am grateful for this opportunity to say how united we were on the question of sanctions across this House. The use now made of what has been seized and frozen is an important issue on which I think we can move forward, and I know the Chancellor is already beginning to have some discussions about how we can take more effective measures. Again, I will seek to reach out across the House as we do this important work together.
Rishi Sunak
I very much welcome the Prime Minister’s response. I also welcome both his and the Defence Secretary’s recent emphasis on the importance of the Tempest fighter jet programme. It is a crucial sovereign capability, as he mentioned, and important for our alliances with Italy and Japan. Furthermore, however, other countries also wish to participate. In government, we had begun initial productive discussions with our friend and ally Saudi Arabia about its desire potentially to join the programme, so could the Prime Minister confirm that he will continue those initial positive conversations with Saudi Arabia? Again, I can assure him that he will have our support in doing so.
The Prime Minister
Let me make this absolutely clear: this is a really important programme. Significant progress has already been made, and we want to build on that progress. I have had some initial discussions, not least in Farnborough, where I was just a few days ago.
Rishi Sunak
Finally, in the dangerous and uncertain world in which we now sadly live, I know at first hand how important it is that our Prime Minister can use his prerogative power to respond quickly militarily to protect British national security, sometimes without giving this House prior notice. These are perhaps the most difficult decisions that a Prime Minister can take, and I welcomed his support when I made them. I want to take this opportunity to assure him of the Opposition’s support if he deems it necessary to take similar action in the future. Does he agree that while the use of the prerogative power is sometimes politically controversial, it is essential to ensure the safety and security of the British people?
The Prime Minister
I agree that it is essential, and our security is the first duty of government. I was grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for reaching out to me personally when action had to be taken, to ensure that I was briefed on the sensitive issues that lay behind the decisions that he had to take. As I mentioned to him last week, I will endeavour to ensure that we proceed in the same way so that he has access to all the information that he needs to come to a determination, which I hope will be to support the position that this Government take.
Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Of course I wish them good luck. I admire them; I am not sure I envy them—it is 280 miles—but it is a brilliant cause. The whole House misses our dear friend Jo, and I know that she would have been incredibly proud to have seen this Government in place and would have played a big part it in. I welcome my hon. Friend back to her place, and I know that she will continue in Jo’s spirit, with the same dedication and determination. I think I am right in saying that her parents—and, of course, Jo’s parents—are in the Gallery today to see this first PMQs. We will always have more in common than that which divides us.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I welcome the Prime Minister to his place for his first Prime Minister’s questions. I associate myself and my party with the comments he made about the appalling attack on the soldier in Kent. Our thoughts are with his family, friends and comrades. I also associate my party with his comments on Team GB—we want them to succeed in Paris.
The Prime Minister has inherited many messes, and one is the scandal of the carer’s allowance repayments. An example is my constituent Andrea, who is a full-time carer for her elderly mum. She went back to work part time—mainly for her mental health, she tells me—and was earning less than £7,000 a year. She has been hit by a bill from the Department for Work and Pensions for £4,600. Andrea is just one of the tens of thousands of carers facing these repayments. They are being punished for working and earning just a few pounds more than the earnings limit. Will the Prime Minister agree to meet me and other family carers to try to resolve this matter?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Member for raising this matter. He of course has been a tireless advocate for carers, and I do not think any of us could have been other than moved when we saw the video of him and his son that was put out during the election campaign. He talks about Team GB. I am glad that he is in a suit today, because we are more used to seeing him in a wetsuit.
In relation to this issue, we have a more severe crisis than we thought as we go through the books of the last 14 years and we must review—[Interruption.] I know the Conservatives don’t like it, but there is a reason the electorate rejected them so profoundly. We will review the challenges that we face. We want to work with the sector and, where we can, across the House to create a national care service covering all these aspects, and we will start with a fair pay agreement for carers and those who work in the care sector. I am very happy to work across the House with all the people that care so passionately about this issue.
Ed Davey
I am grateful for the Prime Minister’s response. I hope he will look at the matter of carer’s allowance. Family carers save the taxpayer £162 billion a year. If we get this right, many could go back into work. But there is another care crisis that is even bigger, and that is the crisis in social care. I am sure that, like me, he has heard about the millions of people around the country for whom this is their biggest issue, as it has been for decades. After a once-in-a-century election, does he not think there is a once-in-a-century chance to fix social care and thus help our NHS? I ask him to set up a cross-party commission on social care so that we can address this urgent matter.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Member is right. It is a crisis, and I am sorry to have to report to the House that it is not the only crisis that we have inherited. There is crisis and failure absolutely everywhere, after 14 years of failure, that this Government of service will begin the hard yards of fixing, including in social care. We will work across the House, and we do endeavour to create a national care service. That will not be easy, but we can begin the first steps and we will share that across the House where we can.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Can I first express my gratitude to the service personnel who participated in the British nuclear testing programme? It is right that, I think, nearly 5,000 have now got their nuclear test medals in recognition of their service and that the veterans have the right to apply for no-fault compensation under the war pension scheme. I will ensure that a meeting on this issue is arranged for my hon. Friend with the relevant Minister.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
May I again warmly congratulate the Prime Minister on ending Tory rule? In his campaign to do so, he was of course—[Interruption.] The Tories are too close for comfort now. In his campaign to do so, he was joined by Gordon Brown. Just five days before the general election, on the front page of the Daily Record, Gordon Brown instructed voters in Scotland to vote Labour to end child poverty, yet last night Labour MPs from Scotland were instructed to retain the two-child cap, which forces children into poverty. So, Prime Minister, what changed?
The Prime Minister
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman mentions Gordon Brown, because the last Labour Government lifted millions of children out of poverty, which is something we are very proud of. This Government will approach the question with the same vigour, with our new taskforce. We have already taken steps, including introducing breakfast clubs, abolishing no-fault evictions and reviewing the decent homes standard—
Mr Speaker
Order. Props are not allowed—put it down. We do not need any more.
The Prime Minister
We have already set up a taskforce to put that vigour in place, as well as introducing free breakfast clubs in every primary school, abolishing no-fault evictions, reviewing the decent homes standard, adopting Awaab’s law and having a plan to make work pay. Before the right hon. Gentleman lectures everyone else, he should explain why, since the SNP came to power, there are 30,000 more children in poverty in Scotland.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Both the Foreign Secretary and I have set out the urgent need for a ceasefire to Prime Minister Netanyahu. We want a pathway to a two-state solution, with a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable, sovereign Palestinian state. I used my first overseas trip as Prime Minister, particularly at NATO, to raise this subject with world leaders. Under a Labour Government, it will be discussed, negotiated on and fought for at the highest levels on the world stage. The alternative is protesting on street corners. Ultimately, only one of those will deliver change.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The Prime Minister
Obviously, I understand the aspiration that parents who work hard and save hard have for the children they send to private school, but every parent has that aspiration, whichever school their children go to. I am determined that we will have the right teachers in place in our state secondary schools to ensure that every child, wherever they come from and whatever their background, has the same opportunity, and I do not apologise for that.
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
I am pleased that Great British Energy will be owned by and for the British people, to invest in the energy systems of the future. That means cheaper bills as renewables are cheaper, it means security so that Putin cannot put his boot on our throat, and it means the next generation of jobs for years to come.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
The SNP left for the election campaign with a significant number of Members and have come back with a small handful, so I do not think we need these lectures on what the electorate in Scotland are thinking. I am very proud of our Scottish Labour MPs. I simply repeat the point that I made to the SNP leader, the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), that perhaps the SNP needs to account for the 30,000 extra children in poverty in Scotland.
Dan Tomlinson (Chipping Barnet) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I welcome my hon. Friend to his place. He is the first ever Labour MP for Chipping Barnet, and I know that he will serve his constituency with pride.
Our guarantee will put 13,000 extra neighbourhood officers and police community support officers back on Britain’s streets, and that is a fully funded plan. My hon. Friend is right to say that the last Government absolutely hammered police numbers and he will have seen the impact of that in his constituency. It is telling that the former Justice Secretary said at the weekend that that could perhaps have been done differently. I am glad to see that the people of Chipping Barnet agreed with that assessment and returned my hon. Friend for that constituency.
Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Reform)
The Prime Minister
I am not sure that I agree with the hon. Member’s numbers, but I do think that it is serious that the previous Government lost control of our borders. Record numbers have crossed the channel. When the Leader of the Opposition was Prime Minister for 18 months, 50,000 people crossed the channel. It is a serious issue that requires a serious answer, which is why we will set up our border security command to take down the gangs that are running this vile trade. What we will not do is waste further time on a gimmick that cost a fortune and removed just four volunteers.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Clean energy is at the heart of this mission-driven Government. Boosting home-grown renewable energy is the best way to create new jobs and give us energy independence and lower bills for good. That is why we will change the planning rules to make sure that we can get Britain building again—not just the houses, but everything we need, including prisons, to make sure that we can deal with the mess we have inherited. I am pleased to hear of the viable projects that are being advanced, such as the Mersey tidal project, and we will look at them carefully.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I welcome the hon. Member to his place. Let me be clear: we intend to get Britain building. We will change the planning regime in order to do so; it has held us back for far too long. Young people have not been able to own a home until they are way past the age of 35, denying them the basic dream of home ownership. Of course we will work with communities, but we will take the tough decisions that the last Government ran away from.
Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
I welcome my hon. Friend to his place, and congratulate Ipswich on their promotion. I think it is on Boxing day that they will visit Arsenal. I am going to resist the temptation that he puts in front of me to choose between Ipswich and Norwich, but on town centres, he is right that we need vibrant high streets. We need to make the change that we were voted in to bring about. That is why we will replace the business rates system to level the playing field, and we will absolutely address regional inequality through our local growth plans.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
The Prime Minister
We are committed to nature recovery; it is a really important issue that this Government will tackle. The hon. Member talks about leadership. I would ask him to show some, because it is extraordinary that having been elected to this House as a Green politician, he is opposing vital clean energy infrastructure in his own constituency. We will put the plans before this House. I ask him to back those plans.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
On Sunday night, at a community event in north Kensington attended by hundreds of people, 15-year-old Rene Graham was shot and killed in a senseless act of violence. My heart goes out to his family and the wider community, who are feeling anxious, frightened and shocked. Can the Prime Minister ensure that north Kensington gets support from the Government at this difficult time, and can he outline what measures the Government will take to tackle gun violence and prevent young lives like Rene’s from being taken in the future?
The Prime Minister
I welcome my hon. Friend to his place, and thank him for raising this awful case. The loss of a teenage boy in west London is shocking, and our thoughts—I am sure I speak for the whole House—are with his family and friends. I urge the public to support the Metropolitan police with any information that could help in their investigation, which is ongoing. Making streets safer is one of the five central missions of this Government, and this is a shocking reminder of just how important that mission is. We have an ambition to drive down this sort of violence in our communities. We do not want interventions like this, as we have had over the last few years. It is shocking to hear of this particular incident.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman talks about Labour turning its back; I think he is the sole remaining Tory MP in the north-east or Teesside. I have already taken an early opportunity to make our commitment clear to the plans that we need for economic growth across the country. We will be working with all the mayors who are in place, including those who wear a different rosette. That is the way we will take this forward.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
In a week when the National Police Chiefs’ Council declared violence against women and girls a national emergency, Sky News has today published appalling accounts of sexual harassment and violence against women paramedics. Can the Prime Minister please update the House on progress towards the mission board to finally tackle this scourge in our society?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this; it is such a serious issue. We have made a commitment—a mission—to halve violence against women and girls. I know from my experience dealing with these cases, as a prosecutor and subsequently, just how hard that will be to achieve. We will have to deliver in a different way; we will have to roll up our sleeves and do difficult things that have not been done in the past. In answer to the specific question, we have already started work on the delivery board, and I look forward to updating my hon. Friend and the House on our progress on this really important issue.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr Speaker. [Interruption.] Another Freudian slip! The old dog is off the leash.
May I first thank the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for their supportive policies in relation to Ukraine? Their expressions today will have been of great comfort to the thousands of Ukrainian residents in the United Kingdom who simply wish to return to their lawful home.
Further to the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), can the Prime Minister tell the House how his planning reforms, which will smother with houses fields in east Kent that currently yield wheat for bread, are compatible with the desire of his own Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to achieve sustainability?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question. We have to get economic growth in this country. We have had failure over the last 14 years to build the infrastructure, the houses and the prisons we need, and the failure on economic growth has been central to that. There has been failure, and I think the whole House can see the consequences. We have prison overcrowding; emergency measures have had to be taken because the building of prisons has not kept pace with the sentencing of people to prison. We have a housing crisis; for most young people, the dream of home ownership was simply gone under the previous Government. For someone to be over the age of 35 before they can get a secure roof of their own over their head is a huge dashing of dreams. [Interruption.] We are not going to listen to the Conservatives. They put their case to the electorate, and the electorate rejected them profoundly. Having stood at the Opposition Dispatch Box for four and a half long years, my advice is that when you get rejected that profoundly by the electorate, it is best not to go back to them and tell them that they were wrong; it is best to reflect, and change your approach and your party.
Point of Order
(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mr James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In his question to the Prime Minister, the newly elected hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Dan Tomlinson) made what was, I am sure—I am certain—an inadvertent inaccuracy in his claims about the funding of the Metropolitan police, which is the best-funded force, both in absolute terms and per capita. The Mayor of London was offered £62 million with which to fund it, which he failed to use because of lack of recruitment. My broader point is whether advice can be given to new and, indeed, returning Members about how to correct the record when they make an erroneous claim on the Floor of the House.
Mr Speaker
First, the right hon. Gentleman has put on record his views. We are not going to continue the debate, and it is up to individual Members to correct the record if there has been an error in what has been said.
International Immunities and Privileges
(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Catherine West)
I beg to move,
That the draft Global Combat Air Programme International Government Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2024, which was laid before this House on 23 May, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
It is my pleasure as the Minister responsible for the Indo-Pacific in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to speak on behalf of the Government. In December 2022, the UK, Japan and Italy launched the global combat air programme, known as GCAP, to deliver a next-generation aircraft by 2035. The Prime Minister reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to promoting co-operation and collaboration between the UK and Italy on 5 July with the Italian Prime Minister, Giorgia Meloni, and between the UK and Japan on 6 July with the Japanese Prime Minister, Fumio Kishida. In the call to Japan, our Prime Minister concurred that the security of the Euro-Atlantic and the Indo-Pacific are indivisible.
His Majesty’s Government are committed to ensuring the security of the Indo-Pacific, working closely with our allies. For the UK, the aircraft will sit at the heart of a wider system; it will be networked and will collaborate with a range of wider air capabilities, including the F-35, and broader military capabilities. It will use information systems, weapons and uncrewed collaborative combat air platforms to complete the capability. Replacing the capability provided by Typhoon, this system will sustain the UK’s operational advantage.
In addition, GCAP will attract investment in research and development on digital design and advanced manufacture processes, providing opportunities for our next generation of highly skilled engineers and technicians.
Catherine West
I will continue, if the right hon. Gentleman allows.
The signing of the convention on the establishment of the GCAP international government organisation, commonly known as the GIGO, by the parties of the UK, Japan and Italy took place in December 2023 and was conducted by the Defence Secretaries of those three nations. The GIGO will function as the executive body, with the legal capacity to place contracts with industrial partners engaged in GCAP. Through the GIGO, the UK will lead on the development of an innovative stealth fighter jet with supersonic capability and equipped with cutting-edge technology, and will facilitate collaboration with key international partners that raise the profile of the UK’s combat air industrial capacity.
The GIGO headquarters will be based in the UK, employing personnel from the UK, Italy and Japan. The chief executive and director posts shall be filled by nationals of different parties according to a mechanism that shall preserve a balance between the parties. Given the nature of the GIGO as an international defence organisation, the Ministry of Defence, with support from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, has been leading on trilateral engagement and negotiations on its establishment. The convention, once in effect, will enable closer collaboration between the parties—the Governments of Japan, Italy and the UK—and support the development of His Majesty’s Government’s defence capabilities, stimulated by development of the UK-based headquarters. That will enable further collaboration with key industry partners, with the headquarters supporting hundreds of jobs, and working in close partnership with Rolls-Royce, Leonardo UK, MBDA UK, and hundreds of other companies across the UK in the supply chain, to deliver GCAP.
Catherine West
I am coming to an end, and then there are 90 minutes for debate.
This Order in Council is a statutory instrument and forms part of the secondary legislation needed to confer legal capacity and privileges and immunities on the GCAP international government organisation and accords certain privileges and immunities to the organisation’s personnel and the representatives of the parties to the convention. The order was laid in draft before Parliament on 23 May 2024—
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. To clarify, it is not my decision whether to allow interventions; it is up to the Minister. I would say that normally the shadow Secretary of State would get in, but it is up to the Minister whether she gives way.
Catherine West
If the shadow Secretary of State wants to say something, I would be happy to allow him, following your advice, Mr Speaker.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I am very grateful to the Minister. Can she confirm that there will be no delay to the Ministry of Defence’s currently planned spending on GCAP this year?
Catherine West
To be clear to Members new and old, this instrument is the legal framework within which the programme will sit. It does not have specific funding recommendations attached to it because it is the scaffolding, or the nest, within which all the work will happen.
This order was laid before Parliament in draft on 23 May 2024. It is subject to the affirmative procedure and will be made by the Privy Council once it is approved by both Houses. Subject to approval and ratification, the treaty will enter into force on the deposit of the last instrument of ratification or acceptance of the parties. That is anticipated to be in autumn 2024 to meet the 2035 in-service date.
This order confers a bespoke set of privileges and immunities to enable the GIGO to operate effectively in the UK. The Government consider those privileges and immunities both necessary and appropriate to deliver on the interests and commitments that the UK has towards the organisation.
Mr Francois
I am not a Minister, but I was for three years. Will the Minister give way?
Catherine West
As the right hon. Gentleman has so much experience on the Defence Committee, I am happy to take his point.
Mr Francois
I thank the Minister for giving way. She is a Foreign Office Minister heading this up, I believe, not a Defence Minister, which is interesting, but it is an international agreement. Can she tell the House whether, because of the threat to the programme from the defence review, she has had any representations from the Japanese Government or the Italian Government, our two other major programme partners, to express their concern about any threat to GCAP?
Catherine West
The right hon. Gentleman asks an important question. I can confirm that this is the legal framework around which the programme will sit. I can also confirm that the Defence Secretary yesterday met with his Japanese counterparts at the show and they were able to have further interesting discussions. The right hon. Gentleman will be able to continue his questioning when he is surely once again a member of the Defence Committee in the autumn.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Many jobs in our constituencies depend on contracts with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which is also interested in GCAP. What conversations have been had with Saudi Arabia, particularly in the light of the procrastination by the Prime Minister on this programme—reaffirmed, if I am honest, by the Minister today in her remarks?
Catherine West
The right hon. Member asks an important question, but there has been no procrastination. Within a month of being elected, we have got the legal framework to the House of Commons for a debate, expediting all the important organisational arrangements so that the programme can proceed at pace. He talks of procrastination, and after 14 years, I am sure he is a master of procrastination as part of the last Government.
The privileges and immunities conferred on agency personnel and representatives are not for their personal advantage, but to ensure complete independence in the exercise of their functions in connection with GCAP. To be clear, agency personnel have no personal immunity if they commit a crime and there is a clear carve-out ensuring that they have no immunity in any vehicle incident.
The immunities in respect of the GIGO cover immunity from suit and legal process, inviolability of premises and archives, and appropriate tax exemptions and reliefs in relation to official activities. In respect of representatives of the parties and staff, the provisions cover functional immunity and an immunity waiver. Additionally, the order includes an exemption from the legal suit and process immunity in the case of a motor traffic offence or damage caused by a motor vehicle. That is a standard clause included in statutory instruments and treaties to provide for privileges and immunities.
The support for the GIGO’s establishment ensured through the order is a unique opportunity to showcase UK leadership and innovation in the air force defence industry on a global stage. Through the GIGO the UK will lead on the development of an innovative stealth fighter jet with supersonic capability and equipped with cutting-edge technology, and facilitate collaboration with key international partners that raise the profile of the UK’s combat air industrial capacity.
Jim Shannon
There is much to be welcomed in the Minister’s speech. At the very beginning, she referred to a number of aircraft companies that will be involved across the whole of the United Kingdom. My understanding—maybe she can confirm this—is that Spirit AeroSystems will also be involved. If that is the case, it means that everybody in this great United Kingdom of Great and Britain and Northern Ireland will benefit from the jobs and opportunities.
Catherine West
Obviously the specifics of the supply chain and so on are not really part of the order, but we are aware that that is an important part of our industrial puzzle, and I am sure that there will be some knock-on benefits for Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman is a fierce defender of jobs and opportunities in that wonderful place.
The first duty of Government is to keep the country safe. Under this Government, defence will be central both to the UK’s security and to our economic prosperity and growth, including by harnessing the strength of our well-established defence industry. The GIGO is key to GCAP, and the UK Government continues to make positive progress with our partners Japan and Italy. I commend the order to the House.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
May I associate the shadow Defence team with the remarks from the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition about the terrible attack on a British solider in Kent? Our thoughts are with his family.
I can confirm that we support the measures before us and recognise that they are necessary to deliver into law the administrative governance of the global combat air programme. Although this is a Foreign Office measure, the statutory instrument was prepared with strong input from the Ministry of Defence—it certainly crossed my desk when I was Minister for Defence Procurement. May I put on the record that it was a great honour to serve in that role—with significant responsibility in relation to GCAP—alongside the two previous Secretaries of State, Ben Wallace and Grant Shapps.
It was a privilege to engage with our international GCAP partners from Italy and Japan, whom I had the pleasure of hosting last September in Lancaster House for trilateral discussions. This is not just about delivering UK military capability in the crucial area of combat air, but about doing so to the benefit of two great partners, and, in the case of Japan, one that faces the threat of China and Russia right on its doorstep. Since that trilateral, the project has achieved significant goals, not least the signing of the international treaty last December that we are legislating for today. The treaty establishes the legal basis for the formation of a new GCAP international organisation, the GIGO. I am delighted that we are able to agree that the international HQ of the GIGO will be in the UK, but that, in keeping with the spirit of equal partnership that underpins GCAP, the first chief executives of the GCAP agency and joint venture are from Italy and Japan. As such, the SI before us effectively enables this international treaty to enter into effect, with further important measures on immunity and privileges that are necessary for the effective operation of the GIGO.
All that said, although the SI is necessary to deliver GCAP’s governance arrangements, it will not directly deliver a single aircraft. Alongside this SI, we need the Government to back the GCAP programme wholeheartedly by ensuring that it has the funding necessary to deliver our sixth-generation fighter capability. Indeed, it would be quite extraordinary for the Government to ask us as a House to approve the regulations if they were at the same time seriously contemplating scrapping UK involvement in GCAP. Yet that prospect has figured prominently in the press in recent days. While the best of British defence aviation has been gathered at the Royal International Air Tattoo and Farnborough, incredibly the Government have not been able to repeat the wholehearted backing of GCAP that they gave prior to the general election.
In responding to the statement from his predecessor Grant Shapps on 18 December last year, when he confirmed the trilateral agreement for the GCAP treaty, the now Defence Secretary said:
“Developing a sixth-generation fighter will ensure that we can continue to safeguard our UK skies and those of our NATO allies for decades to come. It will inspire innovation, strengthen UK industry and keep Britain at the cutting edge of defence technology.”
I totally agree with his remarks. Yet fast-forward to the present, and, as we have just heard at Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister is only able to say that the programme is “important.” Meanwhile, the Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), who is on the Front Bench and for whom I have great personal respect, said:
“It's not right for me to prejudge what might happen in the defence review”.
He thus implied that the defence review might not continue the UK’s commitment to GCAP. We now need clarity from the Government for Parliament, industry and our international partners. We are being asked to approve this SI to deliver a key stepping-stone to the GCAP project, so are the Government still committed to it?
This is my guess about what is currently happening. I would be truly staggered if the Government were to withdraw from a programme that they have previously given such full support—not because theirs is a party that does not know a good U-turn, but because it would bring international ramifications that do not bear thinking about either for the Foreign Office or the Ministry of Defence. Rather, in my view, we need to have in mind another Department—one that I have also had the pleasure of serving in—the Treasury. I suspect that the overall question of whether the Government are committed to GCAP is a red herring. What really matters is whether they are committed to funding it this year, with important spending decisions to be made right now. They will be in the inbox of the Secretary of State, under “Funding decisions on GCAP.” We want the Government to continue that funding in the years beyond, and we want to know whether they are using the review as a chance to shift spending decisions to the right.
It is not unprecedented in the history of the Treasury for it to work in that way under successive Governments, probably. It might offer illusory short-term savings, but it would cause immediate and lasting pain to the most important conventional defence programme of our time. To be clear—and I mean this—I have the greatest respect for the way the Treasury has to balance the books and be responsible for the nation’s finances. I was delighted that the previous Government proposed moving to 2.5% once it was affordable—we were prepared to make difficult decisions to fund that 2.5% by reducing the size of the civil service to pre-pandemic levels—and once it was sustainable. Far from this Government inheriting what the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has described as the “worst economic inheritance” since world war two, we did what we promised and moved to 2.5% only once the economic conditions allowed—namely, when inflation was back to target, with healthy economic growth and a deficit heading towards a little over 1% over the forecast period. That is our clear pathway to 2.5% versus Labour’s uncertainty and delay, which makes the real difference.
To understand the direct short-term importance of 2.5% and its relevance to GCAP and this statutory instrument, we need only go back to what the Secretary of State said the response to the statement from his predecessor Grant Shapps in December. He said:
“This month, the National Audit Office reported on the MOD’s equipment plan. It exposed a £17 billion black hole in Britain’s defence plans and showed that Ministers have lost control of the defence budget.”—[Official Report, 18 December 2023; Vol. 742, c. 1137.]
It is not so much that we lost control of the defence budget; rather, Putin invaded Ukraine and sent inflation soaring all around the world. In a world that was then in a rush to rearm, that context caused an inevitable hit to the costs of major defence projects and matériel. I have never pretended otherwise.
Bearing in mind that the equipment plan—the MOD’s forward inventory—accounts for over 10 years, the NAO’s assessment of a black hole did not take account of one thing: moving to 2.5% by 2030. As I said in my wind up to the Thursday’s debate on the Gracious Speech, by setting out a fully costed and clearly timetabled pathway to 2.5%, we were able to deal with those funding pressures head on, and ensure that our largest two programmes—the nuclear deterrent and GCAP—would be stabilised, and, as a result, properly funded into the future. I asked the Foreign Office Minister who responded to my to confirm that the Government’s timetable would not put funding of either programme at risk. There was no answer, and we have had no answer today, either. That is the problem. The Government can afford to bring forward this SI and to continue building the administrative apparatus for GCAP, but we fear that they cannot afford to approve the funding requirements for the next stage of building the actual aircraft, because of their vacillation on reaching 2.5%.
We Conservatives are clear that we support the SI on the basis that we are also supporting GCAP as a whole, including by putting in place the funding necessary to deliver its requirements over the urgent timescale that all three member nations require. That is a key point: for all three nations, GCAP is all about pace and timetable. For the UK and Italy, that means replacing the Typhoon before it is withdrawn from service towards 2040; for Japan, with equal urgency, it means replacing the Mitsubishi F-2. That is why any delay or deferment, whether caused by the lack of a clear timetable to 2.5% or otherwise, is so important and critical.
Overall, it is my view that withdrawing from GCAP now would be the equivalent of scrapping the Spitfire programme in the 1930s. It is that serious. However, if such an outcome is seriously under consideration—and we know that there are those in government who are hugely sceptical—I will explain why we are ultimately supporting this SI. It is because we on the Conservative Benches believe that GCAP is a military necessity that will bring enormous economic and strategic benefits to the United Kingdom.
To start with the military capability argument, if there is one key lesson from Ukraine, it is that in the absence of air superiority we face the prospect of terrible attritional warfare with huge casualties, reminiscent of the worst battles of world war two.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I know it is thinking very far into the future, but does my hon. Friend accept that one of the lessons from the Ukraine conflict, where we have had to give indirect support, is the importance of maintaining aircraft that we have withdrawn from service—in mothballs, if necessary—so that they can be made available to allies, should they ever face a crisis such as this one? When the happy day comes that we have these great sixth-generation aircraft, can we be certain that we have not unduly disposed of their predecessors, in case someone else needs them in future?
James Cartlidge
My right hon. Friend’s question is an interesting one. Whenever I was in front of the Select Committee—it was always a great joy and privilege to be cross-examined, particularly by my colleagues on the Conservative Benches—there was always a debate about when we withdraw platforms and when we bring in their replacements. That will never go away, and I wish the Armed Forces Minister well when he has the unique privilege and experience of going in front of the Committee. What I would say to my right hon. Friend is that we have to accept that, as a matter of avionic reality, the Typhoon will reach the end of its service life, and we as a country have to replace it. GCAP is key to that, with the construction of the new core platform.
While investing in the best combat air capability does not guarantee air superiority in the future, it offers us the chance to deny adversaries such potentially deadly freedom of operation by maintaining technological competitiveness. However, there are those who ask, “Why don’t we simply go off-the-shelf and buy more F-35s?” I noticed similar views being expressed in The Daily Telegraph this very day, and there is even a rumour that some Government Departments, such as those I mentioned earlier, may take a view along those lines. We must be clear that the F-35, while a brilliant and highly capable aircraft, is a fifth-generation platform, not a sixth-generation one. It is not optimised for the battle space that is likely to pertain by the late 2030s, and the United States—which, after all, possesses and manufactures the F-35—is itself investing in a sixth-generation programme, as are our adversaries.
Jim Shannon
I commend the shadow Minister for what he is saying: his great focus on the issues of modern technology, our companies and what they are involved with. I know that he has a tremendous interest in Northern Ireland—he visited there regularly in his former role in government. Can he give us some suggestions about the role that aerospace in Northern Ireland could, and will, play in finding a way forward?
James Cartlidge
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is an absolute champion of the defence industry in Northern Ireland. He is right: one of my last visits was to the Thales factory in Belfast, which of course is home to the next-generation light anti-tank weapon, the lightweight multirole missile, and other key munitions. In terms of aerospace, the first small and medium-sized enterprise forum that I held as Defence Procurement Minister was in Larne in Northern Ireland, on Armed Forces Day last year. Spirit was one of the attendees, and I am confident that it has a strong place in the future of British aviation in the defence sector, as long as we put the funding in place and keep with the programmes.
Having said all that, there must obviously be debate when we are spending this amount of money on a capability, and I understand why there are those who question the sums of money involved, the timeframes and so on. To be clear, as a former Defence Procurement Minister, I would not support a programme that was purely about spending such a vast amount of money just on a new core platform to replace Typhoon. That brings us to what GCAP is really about, which the Minister mentioned in her opening remarks, to her credit. On one of my last visits to a land company—a company manufacturing armoured vehicles for this country—the chief executive I spoke to referred to the GCAP of land. The point is that, although the “A” stands for air, when we talk about GCAP in military capability terms, it is equally about how we work with autonomous and uncrewed systems. That is the key to the sixth-generation concept.
I am very passionate about this issue—I was proud to bring forward the first defence drone strategy at the Ministry of Defence—and although there are those who are concerned about the timeframe, I would just make the following points. First, the timescale for delivering GCAP is very ambitious compared with that of Typhoon; secondly, we can gain capability benefits from GCAP on a much shorter timescale. We have heard the Chief of the General Staff talking about the need for the Army to be able to fight a war within three years, and when I was Defence Procurement Minister, I was keen to ensure that all the services were looking at what they could do to boost lethality and survivability in the near term. Surely, the key to that is how we make use of uncrewed systems.
The United Kingdom is incredibly well placed in that regard: we jointly lead the maritime coalition in respect of Ukraine alongside Norway. Of course, Ukraine’s greatest military success has been naval, having pushed back the Russian fleet using what we might describe as innovative weapons rather than traditional naval deployments. Likewise on land, the incredible importance of drones cannot be overstated, including the psychological impact on those who are fighting out there.
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
I totally agree with what the former Minister is saying about the requirement for and necessity of sixth-generation aircraft, as well as about maintaining sovereign capability. However, does he agree that it seems peculiar that the Americans are developing their own sixth-generation aircraft with Lockheed Martin, the French and the Germans are developing their own sixth-generation aircraft as well, and we have forged this strange partnership with the Italians and the Japanese to develop GCAP? Does the Minister think that makes sense, in terms of pooling effort and making sure that our allies have at least one good sixth-generation fighter aircraft?
James Cartlidge
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question, but I do not regard it as a strange partnership. All my experience of dealing with GCAP and meeting my Italian and Japanese counterparts, particularly industry representatives from all three countries, and working so closely together—there is already so much work going on—tells me that this is about developing a brilliant platform that is needed by all three nations. There will always be a multiplicity of platforms from different countries, which I think is perfectly healthy. What is good about the hon. Gentleman’s question is that he has opened up the debate about sovereign capability, which I will come to shortly. I just wanted to finish my point about the uncrewed domain, and what it means to be sixth-generation.
Mr Francois
My hon. Friend was a very good Defence Procurement Minister, and we on the Committee liked him because, crikey, he actually answered the questions. He will know from that experience that even the Americans, who have a new thing called the next generation air dominance fighter, are struggling to afford it; there have been media reports in the US that they may even cancel that programme, because even the Americans cannot afford to do everything unilaterally anymore. In the light of that, does my hon. Friend believe that a three-way programme represents good value for money?
James Cartlidge
My right hon. Friend, who not only served on the Committee but was an Armed Forces Minister, makes an excellent point. There are those who argue that we should go beyond 2.5%; I would argue that 2.5% is still a significant jump for this country. We had a funded plan, and that 2.5%—crucially and critically, with the pathway we set out, which became an accumulation of significant additional billions of pounds for the MOD—enabled us to afford GCAP and stabilise that programme.
I want to make one crucial point about the uncrewed domain. To be frank, for the uncrewed side of the Navy, Army and Air Force, those programmes are not funded: hitherto, the funding has come primarily from support for Ukraine. That is entirely logical because, under the defence drone strategy, we were very clear that there is no point in the Army, for example, ordering large-scale drones now; it might order them to train with, but the technology is changing so fast. What we as a country need to build, as I set out in the drone strategy, is the ecosystem to develop those drones, and we are doing that.
I have always said—I said it during my statement on the integrated procurement model—that my most inspiring moment as Defence Procurement Minister was visiting a UK SME that was building a drone for use in Ukraine. It was a highly capable platform, but brilliantly, it was getting feedback and spiralling it—as we call it—the very next day. On GCAP, it should be a technology for the whole of defence—it should be a pan-defence technology of how we team with uncrewed systems, how the Navy fights with an uncrewed fleet above and below the surface, for the Army and of course for the Air Force.
I have two final points on military capability, as a couple of points have been floating around in the press. The first is that the Army is putting out its opposition to GCAP. I find that idea impossible to believe. Of course, if the Army wants to succeed, it needs the support of the Air Force and so on. That is why an integrated approach to procurement is so important, not single service competition. There has also been the point that we should choose between GCAP and AUKUS, as if, when the next war comes, the Russians will step into our dressing room and ask if we would like to bowl or bat: would we like to fight on land or sea—what is our preference? The fact is that we do not know where the threat will come from, but we know that it is growing, so we should support both GCAP and AUKUS, not least for the enormous economic benefit they bring.
You will be pleased to know, Mr Speaker, that that brings me to the last part of my speech, on the economic benefits of GCAP. There are those who say we should buy off the shelf. We would stress how, in a state of ever greater war readiness, it pays to have operational independence and sovereignty. In particular, investing in the great tradition of UK combat air offers huge economic gains for every part of the country.
In 2020, PricewaterhouseCoopers estimated that the Tempest programme alone would support an average of 20,000 jobs every year from 2026 until 2050. Those are well-paid jobs in every constituency up and down the country—including many in Lancashire, as you will know, Mr Speaker. Scrapping GCAP would hit our economy hard. Even delaying or deferring GCAP expenditure would undermine our brilliant aerospace industry, which was on display this past week at the Royal International Air Tattoo in Farnborough, and cast doubt over the vast sums of private investment that are waiting, from which hundreds of UK SMEs stand to benefit.
An interesting point was raised by the Leader of the Opposition when asking the Prime Minister about exports and discussions with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It is an incredibly important point. I was clear that, in reforming procurement, we have to have exportability at the heart of it because otherwise industrial supply chains wither. It is as simple as that. The demand from this country is not big enough. This has been the French lesson for many years, which is why they have put so much effort into export, and we need to do the same—whether it is GCAP, or any other platforms or capability manufactured by the United Kingdom.
To undermine GCAP is to undermine our economy, our future war-fighting capability and relations with our closest international partners. The Government should instead embrace GCAP wholeheartedly and confirm that they stand by their previous position of steadfast support. Then they should commit to a clear timetable on 2.5%, so that we can turbocharge the programme by investing not only in the core platform, but in the associated technology of autonomous collaboration and a digital system of systems approach, enabling the mass and rapid absorption of battlespace data.
To conclude, the best way to win the next war is to deter it from happening in the first place. Part of our overall deterrence posture is to signal to our adversaries our preparedness to always be ready to out-compete their technology. How can we send that deterrent signal if we have such mixed messages on our largest conventional military programme? We support this statutory instrument, we support GCAP and we support the powerful gains it will give to the United Kingdom’s economic and military strength.
Mr Speaker
Order. Can I gently say that I welcome the very thorough response from the Opposition, but the shadow Minister did take twice as long as the Minister? I do have other speakers on his own side who also want to get in, so please just work to make sure we can get everybody in.
We now come to a maiden speech—I call Calvin Bailey.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I thank the shadow Minister for his speech.
Mr Speaker, thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to speak. It appears that for once my sense of timing has been impeccable. Having completed 24 years and seven months of service in the Royal Air Force, I have arrived on time, uniquely placed as the only person who could sequence their maiden speech in amongst a debate about military aircraft. Unfortunately, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) suggested in his riposte to the King’s Speech, I will not be wearing a silk smoking jacket.
It is a life of service to this House that also characterises my predecessor’s career. A loved politician, John Cryer gave 14 years of service to the constituency of Leyton and Wanstead, and nine years as Member for Hornchurch before that. He is a fine parliamentarian and, more importantly, a fine socialist, like his mother and father before him. His incredible commitment to the parliamentary Labour party as its chair for the past nine years was instrumental in helping us get to where we are today. While he now moves on to the other place, I am certain that his children, and his family’s legacy, will follow in his footsteps in years to come.
This sentiment of service is something that resonates deeply with me. Service is fundamental to who I am, and it is fundamental to the Government and to my commitment to the wonderful constituency of Leyton and Wanstead. I am here because my constituents placed their trust in me, a trust for which I am grateful, and will repay with service and a commitment to ensuring they are represented in this place to the fullest of my abilities.
At the centre of my constituency is Leytonstone, at the heart of which is our beloved Whipps Cross hospital. Whipps has served our constituency for 121 years, during which time its NHS staff—quiet professionals—have given selflessly for those in need within our community. Yet this hospital is emblematic of 14 years of failed Tory commitments and lack of investment. Its rebuilding is central to my tenure as an MP.
Leytonstone is also a cradle for talent, having been home to notable figures such as my namesake David Bailey and Cartrain, and sports stars Jo Fenn, Andros Townsend and David Beckham. Leytonstone was the home, of RAF pedigree, of Douglas Webb DFM, the front gunner in the famous dam busters raid, and more lately, of James Sjoberg, Officer Commanding 47 Squadron. Leveraging this rich heritage to inspire our youth and give them pathways to success is a personal commitment of mine. Opportunities like these were scarce for young people like me. Creating similar pathways for our youth will be central to my service.
Leytonstone is also home to one of the most financially deprived areas in the country, but it is a spirited community that seeks to heal itself. Community leadership from Cann Hall mosque ensures the provision to all local people of a much-needed food bank and a youth group. Similarly, at St Margaret with St Columba, others gather to preserve a sense of community despite their obvious hardships.
Community spirit is also strong in South Woodford and Wanstead. If Whipps is the heart of our constituency, Wanstead park is its lungs and the River Roding its veins. Wanstead park is part of our historic Epping forest, which was saved by campaigners such as Octavia Hill, founder of the National Trust, and the spirit of activism and preservation continues in the Wanstead Community Gardeners, the South Woodford Society and the ever popular Wanstead fringe festival.
To the south is Leyton, home of Leyton Orient football club. The O’s and their trust embody the best of our community. From their sacrifices in the pal regiment in the first world war to their work with Waltham Forest Age UK, they support our vulnerable veterans. The club is also proud to celebrate our diverse communities, epitomised by Laurie Cunningham, the club’s first black player. His legacy continues to inspire, as does the leadership of Omar Beckles in improving representation in football. Such leadership is reflective of the club’s leadership in the establishment of governance for our footballing world.
Efforts such as these are key to me. Visible role models and leadership are essential for diverse communities. Without these inspirational characters, young black people like me will not see themselves in places of power. I reflect on the very low number of black men in our politics, despite an increase in representation across all ethnic groups. Addressing this is key to fixing the inequalities that face young people, particularly in the area of knife crime.
A pivotal moment in my upbringing was the murder of Stephen Lawrence. While we are aware of the continuing failure to provide justice to my friend Stuart’s family, we all know of the institutional failings that have led to this. I want to point all Members to a number of things surrounding this that were formative for me. First, the absence of representation inhibits our ability to hear voices and understand the challenges faced by others like us. I reflected during the campaign that when I was young I carried a knife, not because I wished to attack anyone, but because I was scared and felt that the fate that had befallen my friend’s brother could happen to me and others like me. Mistakenly, I assumed that I could look after myself similarly, but sadly, we know that is not the case, and that those who carry knives are more likely to be killed themselves. We need people like me to translate those experiences into policy.
Secondly, and in some ways most importantly, I look back with great upset and anger on how this matter was politicised by extreme groups. Our anger and upset was channelled by populists who manipulated us for their own political ends. Those voices are present in our House and vocal in our politics, and we must challenge them openly to prevent those actors from fostering anger, hate and division within our communities. I fear it is our greatest threat to democracy, and we must be fundamental in our moderation. We must challenge those behaviours without fear, openly, separating them from the underlying issues.
Finally, what saw me through that period in my life, and through a highly decorated flying career in the Royal Air Force, are the two things I value most: first, my friends; and secondly, my family. My mother and father instilled in me the values and virtues of service and humanity; my sisters shaped me and helped me to see the world through the eyes of a woman. My friends shepherded me through school, college and university, and through every difficult challenge in my life. But it is my wife who has supported me steadfastly through a military career and grown our wonderful family. I love her deeply and will never be able to thank her enough.
The reason I am here is my service not just as a Member of this House but to our nation in the RAF. I have chosen to speak in this debate because as a young engineering student I recall learning of the failings of the Duncan Sandys defence review, which did deep and lasting damage to our aerospace industry and industrial base. Already we have heard voices state that our commitment to this programme is a fallacy, but acceptance of that is merely acceptance of a failure to manage defence programmes and the companies contracted to deliver them. It is not GCAP that is a fallacy, but the way we contract and manage such programmes. Our interaction with defence primes must change. We must encourage risk taking, because without it there is no innovation. We must not allow the customer to set the demand for technologies that the customer itself cannot conceive.
We must be a Government who better understand science, and we need an industry that is incentivised with accountability. We have the sixth largest defence budget in the world. We must get our money’s worth, and we must make sure that our money leads to our security and not to excess corporate bonuses. For that reason, the remarks by the Minister for the Armed Forces about the sanctity of the defence review are key. We cannot allow defence simply to be bought out of its overspend. This is an exciting programme with two close and valued partners, and the Government’s defence review is critical to it.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
It is an absolute honour to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey). He has delivered an excellent maiden speech, and it is an example to every new, and old, Member of this House that he should set out his love and affection for the place where he lives and where he has clearly spent many happy years. It is obviously a custom in this House to use the term “honourable and gallant” for somebody who has served, but in the case of the hon. Member it has particular resonance, because he received an MBE a decade ago in recognition of meritorious, gallant, and distinguished services. He made a tremendous speech, and the whole House will have heard him talk about the importance of a new hospital to his constituency, and about the scourge of knife crime, and his own personal reflections on why young people carry knives. We will all reflect on his thoughts and comments as he makes them in the months and years to come.
I welcome the Minister of State to her place, and congratulate her on her new role at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Given that she shadowed that role for some time, I feel hopeful that she has a good understanding of our partnerships not just in Europe but in east and south-east Asia, and that they are safe with her.
On behalf of the Liberal Democrats I welcome the Government’s announcement that they remain committed to the global combat air programme. I also welcome the presence in the King’s Speech of the strategic defence review. Reflecting on the speech that we have just heard, it is essential that we go through a strategic defence review every time we have a serious change of Government, as we have had after 14 years. It was encouraging to hear that the review will be published soon, within the first half of next year.
Professor Michael Clarke points out that this is the 12th defence review to have taken place since the end of the cold war, and that most have “not been very strategic”. He says that most reviews have been cost-cutting exercises, and that only a couple of them could be described as genuinely strategic. He goes on:
“I think this one has an ambition to be more genuinely strategic.”
Sir Julian Lewis
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman’s analysis of past strategic defence reviews, and I particularly remember the 1998 SDR, which was after a Labour landslide. It was strategic and outlined concepts that stood the test of time. One reason for that was that it gave other people the opportunity to contribute to the review. I am hoping that Labour Ministers might pay a little attention to the idea that if they want their strategic defence and security review to do well, they should open up the process so that people on a non-partisan basis can have serious input to it—[Interruption.] I am delighted to see my friend the Minister for the Armed Forces nodding his agreement.
Richard Foord
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for that intervention, and so far I gather that the Government are prepared to listen to external expertise. I was encouraged to hear that Fiona Hill will be very much at the pinnacle of this review, and I know as an example that she has a great deal of insight into matters Europe, and in particular in relation to Russia. The defence review will need to look not only at means, which is what we are discussing today, but at ends and ways, so that it comes to thinking about means only after thinking about ends and ways. The problem with pre-empting a review and leaping straight into talking about particular procurement programmes is that it only serves, at this stage at least, to start to raise questions about what programmes have not been confirmed so far.
In this, the week of the Farnborough airshow, lots of questions have been raised about GCAP, or “Tempest” as the fighter aircraft will be known in the UK. On Saturday, one headline warned:
“RAF jet may never get off the ground”
and on Monday a subheading read
“questions are being asked about whether it should be scrapped to save money.”
On Tuesday an opinion column warned:
“The Government’s silence over the future of the Tempest fighter is deeply concerning.”
Sometimes the question is not as simple as whether to spend, but whether to spend in the near term or the long term, or on procuring equipment today or in the future. There is a trade-off in combat power between the near term and the long term.
I appreciate that the Government will be seeking to confirm to our allies that GCAP will proceed, and they will want to reassure Italy and Japan, as well as offer reassurance to commercial partners. Those of us from the west country need look no further than Yeovil to see what a success Leonardo has been for industry in our region. Defence exports from Yeovil amounted to £1.6 billion in 18 months. This issue clearly does matter a great deal to UK industry, but we must think about what else is happening in the commercial space.
We have heard about the European future combat air system—SCAF—consortium made up of France, Germany and Spain, which is developing a fighter jet in parallel. I urge the Government to consider whether the two systems can be as interoperable as possible. The pyramid open systems architecture that we anticipate will be part of GCAP would do well to be able to speak with whatever the SCAF comes up with.
Aside from GCAP, the strategic defence review should consider the UK’s existing capabilities, and existing combat air in particular. Twenty-six tranche 1 Typhoon fighter aircraft are due to be retired from service at the end of next March. The option remains for those tranche 1 aircraft to be brought up to the standard of tranche 2 or tranche 3. BAE systems provided the previous Government with the structural and avionic modifications that would be required, but they chose not to take that up. Instead, they intended to put the 26 tranche 1 aircraft on to a so-called reduce to produce programme to strip them of usable parts for the Typhoon fleet’s inventory of spares. I wonder whether consideration also could be given to whether they could become tranche 2 or tranche 3 aircraft instead.
An initial order of 150 F-35 Lightning aircraft has already been scaled back to 138, in part to release funding to GCAP. We can see that there is always a trade-off between thinking about future combat air in 2035 versus what we might need today. Upgrading the 26 tranche 1 fighter aircraft would grow the UK’s Typhoon fleet from 107 to 133. Of course, they will not have the latest air-to-ground capabilities of the F-35, and they certainly will not have the range, payload or stealth capabilities that we will expect of GCAP and Tempest, but they would be available soon. In recent months we have seen Typhoon intercept Russian long-range maritime patrol bombers north of the Shetland islands within NATO’s northern air policing area. Now does not seem to be the time to cannibalise Typhoon tranche 1 for spare parts.
I recall from my own service the phrase used in the armed forces that we should “deal with the crocodile nearest the boat.” In announcing that GCAP will go ahead, I trust that the defence review will also appraise those near-term risks in our near abroad rather than simply carrying on with existing programmes because they are already in train.
In closing, I will pose three questions to the ministerial team. First, is GCAP still too linked to the assumptions about geopolitics from the 2021 integrated review? Is it taking into full account the integrated review refresh of 2023, and particularly the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Secondly, if there is to be a parallel development of GCAP and SCAF by other European allies, will the Government reassure us that consideration is being given to interoperability such as in relation to open systems architecture? Thirdly, if there is not enough money in the pot to upgrade Typhoon tranche 1, buy more F-35s and develop GCAP, which of those three initiatives is the UK unlikely to do?
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker, may I begin by congratulating you on your election and welcoming you to the Chair? I am sure that you will chair our proceedings excellently. We wish you all good luck.
May I also thank the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) for a fine, fluent and—if I may say so—at times poignant maiden speech? He spoke well on behalf of his constituents. I have it on good authority that when my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) was the procurement Minister, the hon. Member took him on a tour of Brize Norton and helped to brief him on the A400M. My hon. Friend has asked me to pass on his thanks. As a former Army officer, may I say to a former RAF officer what a great pleasure it is to see the RAF turn up on time? There is indeed a first time for everything. [Laughter.]
The purpose of the order is laid out clearly in paragraph 4.1 of the explanatory memorandum, which states that it
“gives effect to the Convention between the Government of the Italian Republic, the Government of Japan and the Government of the United Kingdom…establishing the Global Combat Air Programme International Government Organisation signed on 14 December 2023”.
It points out that
“The Convention was negotiated by the Ministry of Defence.”
My third welcome is to the Minister; it is good to see her in her place. However, as the convention was nominated by the Ministry of Defence, could she explain for clarity why the FCDO and not the MOD is handling this statutory instrument?
The Minister kindly nominated me for a place on the House of Commons Defence Committee. As today appears to be a day for people taking up nominations, I will gladly accept that and announce that I am going to run—for that Committee.
I also point out that in the explanatory memorandum the policy context for the order—this is important—is described as follows:
“In December 2022, the Prime Ministers of UK, Japan and Italy launched GCAP to deliver a next generation aircraft by 2035. The signing of the GCAP Convention between the partners took place in December 2023 and was conducted by the respective Defence Secretaries of the three nations. The GIGO will function as the executive body with the legal capacity to place contracts with industrial partners engaged in the GCAP.”
So far, so good. The debate takes on some additional resonance, however, because we now have a defence review, which some people have interpreted as a sword of Damocles hanging over this important programme. My fourth welcome is to the new Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), who represents a military constituency; it is good to see him in his place, too.
A few minutes ago at Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister described GCAP as a “really important programme”. It is. It is good that he was able to go to Farnborough, see the mock-up of the aircraft for himself and receive a briefing.
When I served on the Defence Committee in the last Parliament, in March 2024 we travelled to Japan to examine the programme as best we could from the Japanese perspective. We spoke to politicians, civil servants, industrialists and the Japanese air self-defence force—its military. We were going to write what I believe would have been a very positive report, and then someone went and called a general election. We cannot blame the Minister for that, but she and some of her colleagues did somehow appear to benefit from it.
I would like to stress three themes from that trip, which came out strongly. The first was the absolute unanimity of purpose among the Japanese to deliver the programme. As one politician put it to us,
“We live in a tough neighbourhood, including three autocracies with nuclear weapons. We need to strengthen our defences, and this programme is fundamental to that.”
I think that is a very good summary of the Japanese perspective.
Secondly, we were struck by the willingness of the Japanese to consider third party exports of GCAP to make the aircraft affordable by increasing its production run. My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk was always hot on that when he was the procurement Minister. For various historical reasons, I do not think that the Japanese would necessarily have taken that view even a few years ago; that is important.
Thirdly, the Japanese have an absolute determination to achieve the in-service date of 2035, which is referred to directly in the memorandum. The Japanese air self-defence force uses a mixture of F-15J Eagle aircraft and the F-2, which is sort of a souped-up version of the American F-16. They are both good and capable aircraft, but they are getting rather long in the tooth. The Japanese have to plan forward against a threat from the Chinese J-20 or the Russian Su-57. The risk is that by the mid-2030s those aircraft will be outmatched by those two powerful new combat aircraft.
Reference has been made to the F-35. It is a fine aircraft, but it is expensive to buy and very expensive to run. The Americans have found that to their cost—the F-35 was nicknamed by the American media
“the plane that ate the Pentagon”.
It might not necessarily be the answer to the Treasury’s dream. Moreover, for the record, deliveries of the F-35 to the United States forces were suspended for nearly a year—they have only just been resumed—because of problems in upgrading the computers and the software. If we are to talk about the realities, the F-35 has been quite a troubled programme and, to some extent, continues to be so.
What would be the implications of cancellation of GCAP? This is an international agreement and, as it says in paragraph 7 of the explanatory memorandum:
“No external consultation was undertaken as the instrument implements provisions of an international agreement to which the United Kingdom will be obliged to give effect as a matter of international law once it enters into force.”
The first implication were we to cancel it is that it would put back Anglo-Japanese relations and Anglo-Italian relations, arguably for decades. I would not want to be the CEO of a British company trying to sell something to the Japanese Government in the aftermath of the cancellation of GCAP. Secondly, given the scale and the prominence of the programme, there would be a serious risk that we in the United Kingdom would achieve a reputation as an unreliable partner in major military collaborative programmes—everything from AUKUS through to collaboration in space. In an era when things such as a sixth-generation combat aircraft are so expensive that, as I intimated earlier, even the Americans are struggling to afford one on their own, the reality for us as a medium power is that we need to collaborate. We would find it very difficult to find future partners if we suddenly cancelled such an important and sizeable programme for financial reasons.
Thirdly, it would make a nonsense of the UK’s so-called tilt to the Pacific, which was inherent to the so-called integrated review and was reinforced when the review was refreshed before the general election. How can we tilt to the Pacific if we then cancel a major collaborative programme with a critical Pacific partner, which faces challenges from Russia and China even more immediately than we do? Bluntly, our name would be mud in that theatre of operations if we were to do that.
Fourthly, there is what one might call the prosperity agenda. As they said in the King’s Speech, the Government are very committed to growth—let us not debate building and the green belt now, but focus on this issue. In the last few years, about 80% of the UK’s defence exports have come from combat air—mainly sales of Typhoon or our 15% workshare on the F-35. That has averaged roughly £6 billion a year. Again, what would be the threat to our exports and our reputation as a reliable supplier if we were to cancel the programme?
What should we do? The GIGO, which this memorandum establishes, will incorporate prominent representatives from all three countries—the UK, Japan and Italy—and it will be headquartered here. If the programme is to survive, which I strongly believe it should, the GIGO has a vital role to play as the management organisation. It will have to be leaner and less bureaucratic than its predecessor organisations, which oversaw the Tornado and Typhoon programmes—two wonderful aircraft with a proud heritage in the Royal Air Force. I think everyone in the industry would admit that those organisations were a bit too bureaucratic.
The GIGO will have to be a lot leaner and meaner to get the job done. The principal industrial partners—BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Leonardo, among others—will have a real challenge. Historically, the answer to such a dilemma might have been, “Look, it’s a very complicated programme. It will take years to achieve, and it all depends on how many countries join, how many aircraft they buy and what configuration they go for. Will the Saudis participate? Will they want it built in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia if they do participate? There are lots of imponderables, so we will come back to you in about five years’ time with a unit price.” That will not wash. I would submit that one of the first tasks of the GIGO, working with those industrial partners and the three Governments, is to come up with at least a realistic pricing envelope for the programme, which the Treasury can look at and, hopefully, take a positive view on. If they do not do that, there can be no blank cheque, even for this.
To conclude, there is no such thing as an uncancellable defence programme—although I still hope for Ajax—but this comes close. To cancel this programme for short-term financial reasons would be a disaster militarily, politically, diplomatically and industrially. If it comes down to GCAP, AUKUS or Ajax, for me, Ajax has to go, and I say that as a former soldier. We need to understand how extremely serious the implications are of cancelling this programme.
I was a soldier, but the Royal Air Force has a proud tradition in the defence of this country and its interests, going back to the Battle of Britain and the first world war—when it grew out of the Army, I hasten to say.
Mr Francois
And the Navy, in which my father served, for completeness. The Royal Air Force needs this aircraft. We need it. The Japanese, the Italians and the west need it. By all means, let us control the costs, but let us keep it. We are not going to scrap the Spitfire of the future.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. I look forward to you extending your authority to unruly fourth parties, even if they are new to that role.
I welcome this statutory instrument, which gives effect to the convention on the establishment of GCAP. GCAP is not important but vital to a range of different priorities, to which I urge the new Government to pay very close attention. It is vital to the United Kingdom’s ability to play its role in defending our values against peer or near-peer adversaries and the threats that they present to our way of life. We will not do that in the very near future if we cannot command a sixth-generation capability. It is vital to developing and maintaining sovereign air capability. If we had no legacy of manufacturing complex combat air systems, we could not start it. That enterprise cannot be begun from nothing.
The flipside of that inevitable truth is that if we neglect what we have developed, at great cost to the public purse over the past 100 years, we defeat the legacy of world-leading extraordinary aircraft, civil and military, that have come out of the United Kingdom over the past 100 years. We also create an extraordinary gap in our ability to defend the realm—the first duty of any Government. The programme is vital for the 600 stakeholders in the UK alone who have been engaged with GCAP to date, and it has not even got up to speed yet. Those are just a few elements of why this is vital. In a geographical sense, it is extraordinarily important to defence manufacturers in the central belt of Scotland and the north-west of England, but I see no reason to disbelieve the claim that it has positive effects for constituencies all across the United Kingdom.
I seek to impress on the Minister for the Armed Forces—who I know gets it, and I am glad that he is here today—that he should challenge any rise in Treasury dogma when it comes to GCAP. It is an opportunity for the United Kingdom to repeat the world-leading performance of Harrier and the Blackburn Buccaneer, the extraordinary capabilities of the Panavia Tornado and the exceptional abilities of the BAE Typhoon. That is what it can do. What it expressly must not do is repeat the incredibly self-defeating cost to the public purse and defence capability of the TSR-2 fiasco in the 1960s. Unfortunately, an incoming Labour Government scrapped that at huge cost to our defence capability and huge cost to the public purse. It was a demonstrable exercise in a Treasury obsessed with the price of everything and myopic about the value of everything. I repeat, in case I sound political, that I know the Minister for the Armed Forces gets it. We trust him to do the right thing.
Mr Francois
The hon. Gentleman is quite right to highlight what happened to TSR-2, which was a generation ahead of its time and a world beater. It was scrapped because the Treasury wanted to buy the F-111 instead, which was an American aircraft, and then it did not end up buying it. There is a lesson from history there too, is there not?
Dave Doogan
If we take, as the United Kingdom has, an extraordinarily complex programme somewhere down the road, then the opportunity cost, much less the financial and operability cost, of turning back on that must be well set out. I am afraid that those are the details the Treasury has a history of not being that interested in. It is more focused on the number at the bottom right-hand side of the balance sheet, but this is far too important to yield to that level of priority.
It is much to be regretted that the future combat air system and GCAP are proceeding in the European theatre in parallel. That is a grossly expensive duplication. I greatly fear that there is nothing we can do about it now. Nevertheless, it is much to be regretted. I am not certain that the partners in the competing French-led FCAS programme will be happy partners throughout, but that remains to be seen. The Minister for the Armed Forces must ensure that the door is left open for any latecomers or laggards who want to get on board with GCAP. I would appreciate his assurance, either today or at a later date, on that willing acceptability and acceptance.
As it is a Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office Minister who is leading today, let me say that the one thing the extraordinary aircraft I listed did not enjoy was particularly healthy export success. GCAP must have exceptional export success because, quite apart from the standard avionics engines and air frames that we have to deal with in conventional traditional aircraft, this aircraft is a breed apart in terms of its electronic warfare capability. It is a combat system, which happens to be in an aircraft, that is extraordinarily expensive. If the price of that is left to the Italians, the UK and the Japanese, we will face no small measure of difficulty.
On the statutory instrument itself, article 34(2) of the convention makes provision for host countries experiencing “serious balance of payment” issues. I draw Members’ attention to the sovereign debt liabilities of both Japan and Italy—and the UK itself, although it would be the third of that list. But the convention merely seeks—to inform the Minister—to “consult” in such circumstances. It would be appreciated if we could know what type of consultation that would involve. Further, article 19(1)(c) clarifies that funding from each party will
“be set out in a further arrangement”.
However, the convention does set out that the steering committee will have equal representation from each of the parties. How will the convention decide what the funding will be based on? Will it be based on orders, or on the number of national employees employed in the steering committee? How will that work? It is unclear.
In closing, Leonardo in Edinburgh is the brain and nerve centre of GCAP; it is the central nervous system of this world-leading capability. The system is being designed and finalised in Edinburgh, and it will be built in Edinburgh at Leonardo. That brings me on to the final provision in the SI, which states that the headquarters of GIGO will be established at a later date, but that it will be in the UK. It is really important that wherever it is established, it has close connectivity with the key prime manufacturers of GCAP: Rolls-Royce, Thales, BAE and Leonardo. It must be in a part of this island where an outstanding quality of life can be enjoyed, with access to good schools, good quality of life, transport infrastructure, an international airport and good links with London. That place is Edinburgh.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your victory. You will be brilliant and I look forward to serving under your chairmanship in the three or four years ahead.
May I say how very much I support the statutory instrument? I do not support the Prime Minister’s lukewarm words at Farnborough. I think the concerns we have on the Conservative Benches are to do with the hares he set running not by what he said, but by what did not say. My advice to Ministers would be, “For goodness’ sake, up the rhetoric around this.” No Government in their right mind would cancel this project. This project is not only essential to our defence; it is the bridge to the unmanned future of defence that will come by mid-century. Kick away that bridge and we are left with very little: we undermine fundamentally the defence of these islands; we destroy the reputation of this country not just with the Japanese and the Italians, but with practically any partner in defence, present and future, that we can imagine, not least the Saudis; and it means that we will not be able to successfully translate our defence industrial base to the future, which we all appreciate is largely unmanned in each of the four domains that defence these days has to consider. Words mean what words say, except when they trip from the lips of politicians. Then, it is very often what is not said that influences the conversation, particularly in the media.
My plea, in the very short time available to me, is for Ministers, senior Ministers and the Prime Minister to correct what was said this week and, in particular, to ramp up the rhetoric on our support for this fundamentally important programme that is vital to our defence and our defence base. I appreciate that the Prime Minister has a problem, in that he has failed to commit to 2.5% of GDP within a recognisable timeframe, which is no commitment at all, and he has launched a largely unnecessary defence review, which will be a distraction for at least 12 months. I am confident in the sound good sense of Lord Robertson and Richard Barrons. I cannot image that they will be party to the cancellation or delay of this programme.
Catherine West
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate you, on behalf of the Government, on your accession to the throne—not literally, but to the Speaker’s Chair, which was actually a gift of the country of Australia to the House of Commons following the 1940s.
I thank my opposite number, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), in particular for his comments regarding the dreadful attack on a soldier outside the Kent barracks this week. I thank him for putting that on the record. I also thank all Members across the House for supporting the SI without a vote.
I will conclude briefly on some of the very important points that have been raised. If I do not cover them all, it is because I will be sending a copy of Hansard to those in charge of the review, including the Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard). All the points that have been raised are crucial in thinking through the next five years of defence spending. As I said at the beginning, this debate is about the international treaty part of the programme, so I will be very brief.
First of all, I thank the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) for his recommendations from his visit to Japan. There is nothing like visiting a country and getting to know the whole team there to give really good feedback, so I will be passing that on. We also had very supportive comments from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). There was a big plea from Edinburgh by the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan), for some defence jobs. That has been heard.
I praise fulsomely the maiden speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey). He has enormously big shoes to fill. Our friend has left the green Benches and will probably go the red Benches at some future point—who knows?—so he has very big shoes to fill. Perhaps his predecessor has already been ennobled. I loved my hon. Friend’s description of growing up with the challenges of knife crime and how he came through that. What an excellent role model he is for so many people who are watching our debates today! I also admired his commitment to value for money; that could prove very useful, given his particular area of interest.
A question arose in the debate relating to the role of other partners. The order names the United Kingdom, Japan and Italy because we needed to get on with this. We are the first to deal with this at this level in our parliamentary process. Japan and Italy will then engage in their own processes because of the reciprocity involved, and I am sure that after that, when we are all up to speed, discussions about further partnerships will be ongoing. In granting these privileges and immunities we will be able to bring the GIGO into force, and in doing so, we will be better positioned to support the achievement of GCAP’s aims and the fulfilment of the Government’s objectives. We will also be better placed to work with international partners and to influence the air combat industry as a result. I hope that the House will support the order.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Global Combat Air Programme International Government Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2024, which was laid before this House on 23 May, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
Education and Opportunity
(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered education and opportunity.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I congratulate you on your election.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about the Labour Government’s mission to break down the barriers to opportunity. We are bringing change to this nation. However, I know that any change we deliver will be brought about in partnership with our wonderful workforces, so let me take this opportunity, at the end of the academic year, to thank them for all that they do for our children, our young people and our country.
Let me begin by saying two things. First, I welcome my new opposite number, the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), to his place. In the previous Government he stood out for his commitment to his brief, his passion and dedication, and the collegiate and effective way in which he worked with colleagues in all parts of the House. We have disagreed on many things, and I am sure that we will go on to disagree on many things, but I hope that whenever we can, we will work together to build a country where children come first.
Secondly, I want to make an announcement, here and now, because our mission is urgent. I am pleased to announce that the Department will undertake a short pause and review of post-16 qualification reform at level 3 and below, concluding before the end of the year. This means that the defunding scheduled for next week will be paused. The coming year will see further developments in the roll-out of new T-levels, which will ensure that young people continue to benefit from high-quality technical qualifications that help them to thrive. I will update the House with more detail tomorrow.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement; I know it will also be welcomed by colleges throughout the country. Teachers in my constituency, like teachers everywhere else, do an extraordinary job in supporting our young people, but it is vital for them to be paid properly for it. Can the Secretary of State update us on the work of the independent pay body and the Government’s response to it?
Bridget Phillipson
We take the work of the pay review body extremely seriously, but the previous Government did not act responsibly in that regard. They sat on the report, and then they called an election. I understand the frustrations that school leaders and teachers are experiencing, but as my hon. Friend knows, we are moving as quickly as we can on this important issue, and the Chancellor will set out our position before the end of the month. We understand the importance of getting this right. Let me reiterate, once more, our thanks to our brilliant teachers and support staff for their work during this academic year.
We are putting education back where it belongs, at the heart of change. After years at the margins under the Conservatives, after years of ministerial merry-go-rounds, after years of opportunity for our children being treated as an afterthought, education is back at the forefront of national life. I know the power of education to transform lives, because I lived it. Standards were my story, and now I want standards to be the story for every child in the country, not just in some of our schools but in all our schools. I want high and rising standards for each and every child, but for 14 long years that has not been the story in our education system.
I think often of children born in the months after the Labour party last won an election, some 19 years ago. They entered school in September 2010, in the first autumn in which Conservative Members served as Ministers. By then the damage had already begun. Labour’s ambitious Building Schools for the Future programme had already been cancelled, and that was storing up problems for the decades ahead. As the years went by, those children saw opportunity stripped away. They saw not just resources drained from their childhood, but also hope. They saw the children’s centres they had attended being closed by the hundred. They saw falling investment in the school buildings in which they learned, and in the staff who taught and supported them. They saw a change in the support for children with special educational needs—a situation that, in a moment of unusual candour, my predecessor, the former MP for Chichester, described as “lose-lose-lose”, though she did almost nothing about it. A generation of children in social care were falling further and further out of sight.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend has mentioned the inequalities experienced by children with special educational needs and disabilities. What is she able to say about what we will do, and the difference that we will make to their lives?
Bridget Phillipson
I recognise the concern expressed by my hon. Friend, and by Members throughout the House, about that important issue. I will say more about it later in my speech, but let me say now that not for a second do I underestimate the challenge that we face. I give my hon. Friend this commitment: I want to ensure that we deliver a better system for children, families and schools—one that is a long way from the broken and adversarial system that too many people experience at the moment.
Young people in unregistered schools were missing out on not just the education but the childhood that they should have had, and as that generation grew older, the Government response to a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic made it clear to them that they were, quite simply, an afterthought. Pubs were reopening to punters before schools welcomed back children. Examination grading was first a farce and then a fiasco. We had a Government who forgot almost altogether about further education, and saw apprenticeship starts tumble year after year.
Earlier this month, the people of this country turned the page on that Government and that era. They turned to Labour, and to the hope, which drives us and so many who work in education, that tomorrow can be better than today, and that our best days lie not behind us but ahead of us. They turned to Labour in the belief—today a distinctively Labour belief—that the role of Government is not merely to administer, but to transform, and to deliver for all our children the freedom to achieve, thrive, succeed and flourish, which has been withheld from so many of them for so long.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
The Secretary of State has talked about turning a page, and about opportunity. She will be aware that young people today have fewer opportunities than our generation enjoyed, owing to disastrous Tory policies that removed their freedom of movement as well as Erasmus, which included apprenticeships. Will she turn the page on that disastrous Tory policy?
Bridget Phillipson
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I welcomed the opportunity to meet my opposite number in Scotland recently, and I want to find areas on which we can reach agreement constructively and collaboratively. As for his specific question, I am afraid I cannot give him that commitment, but I want to ensure that all young people have the chance to travel, learn and study.
The hope that I want for our young people comes from the opportunity that this Government will deliver. As Members know, opportunity is a journey that lasts a lifetime, and the first steps are in early years education, because the barriers to opportunity appear early in a child’s life. We will bring about a sea change in our early years system, beginning right now.
I am fully committed to rolling out the childcare entitlements promised to parents, but I need to be frank with the House: the challenges are considerable, and the last Government did not have a proper plan. The irresponsibility that we inherited was shocking. I acted immediately to get to grips with the task at hand, but I must be honest: the disparities across the country are severe, which means that some parents will, sadly, miss out on their first-choice place. They and their children deserve better, and I am determined to get this right. We will create 3,000 nurseries in primary schools to better connect early years with our wider education system. By the time we are done, we will have thriving children, strong families, and parents who are able to work the hours they want.
The foundations for a love of learning are laid early, in primary school, but child poverty puts up barriers at every turn. It is a scar on our society. The need to eradicate child poverty is why I came into politics, and it is why the Prime Minister has appointed me and the Work and Pensions Secretary to jointly lead the new child poverty taskforce. Together, we will set out an ambitious child poverty strategy, and I will introduce free breakfast clubs in every primary school. They are about more than just breakfast; they are important for driving up standards, improving behaviour, increasing attendance and boosting achievement.
What children are taught once they are in the classroom matters, too. We must start early with maths, and inspire a love of numbers in our youngest learners, and this Government are committed to fully evidence-based early language interventions in primary schools, so that all children can find their voice.
I want high and rising standards across all our schools and for all our children, but I mean that in the broadest and most ambitious of terms. We should be growing a love of learning, and encouraging children to explore the world around them, to be bold, to dream and to discover their power. Our curriculum must reflect that. That is why I have announced the Government’s expert-led review of the curriculum and assessment at all key stages, in order to support our children and young people, so that they succeed tomorrow and thrive today. By working with teachers, parents and employers, we will deliver a framework for learning that is innovative, inclusive, supportive and challenging, that drives up standards in our schools, and ensures that every child has access to a broad and rich curriculum.
However, any curriculum is only as strong as the teachers who teach it. Today, those teachers are leaving the classroom, not in dribs and drabs but in their droves—and too often, opportunity follows them out the door. I am working tirelessly to turn that around. We will back our teachers and support staff, and we will partner with the profession to ensure that workloads are manageable. We have already begun recruiting 6,500 more expert teachers. Together, we will restore teaching as the career of choice for our very best graduates, and we will invest in our schools and services by ending the tax breaks that private schools enjoy.
Accountability is vital and non-negotiable, but Ofsted must change, and change it will. Our reform will start with ending one-word judgments. We will bring in a new report card system. That is part of our plan to support schools and challenge them when needed in order to deliver high and rising standards for every child.
I have spoken to colleagues from across the House about their concerns about how the system is failing learners with special educational needs and disabilities. I share those concerns; the system is broken. I am delighted to see on the Government Benches my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), with whom I worked so closely on this issue in opposition, and who shares entirely my focus and concern. All families want the best for their children, but parents of children with special educational needs often face a slow struggle to get the right support. They are bogged down by bureaucracy and an adversarial system, and entangled by complexity. It is not good enough, and we will work relentlessly to put that right. We are committed to taking a community-wide approach in which we improve inclusivity and expertise in mainstream schools, as well as ensure that special schools cater to those with the most complex needs. I have already restructured my Department to start delivering on this commitment. There can be no goal more important and more urgent than extending opportunities to our most vulnerable children, which also means reforming children’s social care.
Young people and adults deserve high-quality routes to building the skills that they need to seize opportunity, and businesses need staff with the skills to help them grow. Those are two sides of the same coin, and the key to our future prosperity and growth. We need a skills system fit for the future, but we have a fragmented system that frustrates businesses, lets down learners and grinds growth into the ground. It is time for a comprehensive strategy, and for our country to take skills seriously, so this week, alongside the Prime Minister, I announced Skills England, a new body that will unify the fractured landscape. It will bring together central Government, combined authorities, businesses, training providers, unions and experts. Businesses have told us that they need more flexibility to deliver the training that works for them, so we will introduce a new growth and skills levy to replace the failing apprenticeship levy.
Post-16 education is all about giving learners the power to make choices that are right for them. For many, that choice will be university, and I am immensely proud of our world-leading universities. They are shining lights of learning, but their future has been left in darkness for too long. This must and will change. There will be no more talking down our country’s strongest exports. Under this Government, universities will be valued as a public good, not treated as a political battleground. We will move decisively to establish certainty and sustainability, securing our universities as engines of growth, excellence and opportunity.
This Government will break the link between background and success. We will create opportunities for children and learners to succeed. We will give them the freedom to chase their ambitions, and the freedom to hope. This Labour Government are returning hope to our country after 14 long years, and there can be no greater work than building a country where background is no barrier to opportunity. That work of change has already begun.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker, may I first welcome you to the big Chair on behalf of the Opposition? It is great to see you there, and may you have much success. We will no doubt all enjoy serving under you.
May I also welcome the Secretary of State and her entire team to their places? They have among the most important jobs in government and, without doubt, the best jobs in government. While their colleagues will be out visiting wind turbines and distribution sheds, they will be spending time with children and the inspirational adults who teach them, which is a much better way to spend a day. Although we have our differences, we do not for a moment doubt the ministerial team’s commitment to this crucial endeavour, and our exchanges across the Dispatch Boxes will always be in the spirit of seeking the very best for children, and for our society and country. We want the Government to succeed, because the success of the British Government is the success of Britain. That is true in every discipline, but it is especially true in education, where the effects of what happens are felt for many years to come and over the course of multiple changes of Government. We will scrutinise and hold them to account, as they know, but we will also support them where they look to build on what has been achieved.
Listening to the Secretary of State, I was wondering from which country or era she was drawing her material, because what has been achieved is that we now have nine in 10 schools in this country rated good or outstanding—up from just over two thirds when there was last a change of Government—with 27,000 more teachers, 60,000 more teaching assistants, a major upgrade in technical and vocational education through T-levels, higher-level technicals and reformed apprenticeships with employer-set standards, minimum lengths weeks and minimum off-the-job training time. We have also been rising up the international results table. At secondary school, England’s young people have risen from 27th in the world to 11th in mathematics, and from 25th to 13th in reading. At primary school, England’s children are the best readers in the western world.
Debbie Abrahams
Does the shadow Education Secretary accept the Institute for Fiscal Studies’ recent report? It says that although we have seen an improvement in average attainment, there remain educational inequalities, particularly for children on free school meals, children from ethnic minority backgrounds and disabled children. We have not seen any improvements, and the educational inequalities are stark
Damian Hinds
The hon. Lady, as ever, makes important points. It was the mission of Conservative Governments from 2010 onwards always to pursue two goals: first, to raise attainment overall and, secondly, to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor—between the advantaged and the disadvantaged or those with particular needs. Although those gaps are still too big, there was a decade of progress, as she knows. I think the IFS report that she mentions will almost certainly have said that there was a decade of progress right up until covid. I am afraid that covid struck a blow—[Interruption.] Labour Members may shake their heads, but believe me, covid struck a blow to education right throughout the world, including in our country, and there is yet more—[Interruption.] I think my point stands. There is yet more work to do.
The point I was making before the hon. Lady made her important intervention was that a great deal has been achieved but there are still challenges. In the aftermath of covid, we know that there are particular challenges on the attainment gap and attendance—by the way, those two things are related—but a great deal has been achieved. So my ask of the Government is that, while we acknowledge that they have just won the election with a big majority, we nevertheless ask them to be mindful and careful not to change things just because they can.
Of course, Ministers do not educate children. It is the teachers who educate children, and those great achievements are their achievements, but teachers exist within a framework and a system. There are dedicated teachers not just in England but in Scotland and Wales, but in those two countries we have not seen the same advances that we have seen in England. Indeed, in Wales, with a Labour Administration running education, we have seen declines. We have long had dedicated teachers in England, too, but the fact is that in the Labour years before 2010, England’s results actually declined relative to other countries, even though—some Labour Members may remember this—in new Labour’s target-rich but I am afraid highly gameable environment, it was made to look like the results were all getting better.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
First, may I congratulate you on your appointment, Madam Deputy Speaker?
Further to the point that the right hon. Gentleman has just made, I think it is fair to boast that Scottish education used to be the envy of the world, yet we now have so many staff vacancies in four of our highland secondary schools—Ullapool, Kinlochbervie, Farr and Gairloch—that the kids simply are not being taught what they ought to be taught and are having to rely in some cases on online learning, which is scarcely satisfactory. That is why the parents have banded together to form the Save our Rural Schools campaign. Is that not a damning comment on the Scottish Government’s delivery of education north of the border?
Damian Hinds
As ever, the hon. Gentleman makes an important point incisively and speaks up powerfully for rural communities—he was here the other night talking about rural health services and the challenges that they face—but this is already going to be a wide-ranging debate and I think I might try your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, if we moved into a debate about the Scottish education system and the SNP Administration, much as he and I would relish that opportunity. However, he is quite right to say that Scottish education has had massive historical strengths but has been let down by the SNP Administration.
When politicians on the left talk about a progressive agenda in education, I understand how that can sound beguiling and benign, but we must not forget that the legacy of the last Labour Government was for England to be the only country in the developed world where the generation approaching retirement was more literate and numerate than the youngest adults just entering the workforce and those who had just gone through their education under new Labour. But that is the past, and this team and this Government will be assessed and judged on the present and the future.
Damian Hinds
At the risk of widening the debate, I will very briefly give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Stephen Gethins
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will welcome the Scottish success in having more children and students going on to positive destinations after school. Does he also acknowledge the damage that has been done by years and years of Tory austerity and by removing the rights and opportunities we had through freedom of movement following our withdrawal from the EU, which, according to Labour figures, has cost £140 billion? He should have some reflection on his own record.
Damian Hinds
I admire the hon. Gentleman’s ability to turn everything into a discussion about Europe, but I have to tell him there are other things at play. If I were an SNP politician, I would not come to the Floor of this House boasting about the record of the SNP Government given their woeful performance on behalf of underprivileged children in Scotland. Nor, by the way, would I be complaining about the finances, when the Scottish Government are well financed for the things that they should and must do. Until recently it was us sitting on the Government Benches making these points, but now it will be Labour Members.
This is a debate about opportunity, and the point of greatest leverage in spreading opportunity is what happens in the very earliest years, as the Secretary of State said. Since 2010, we have had five major extensions in early years and childcare entitlements, and a sixth is now on its way. I think I heard the Secretary of State say that she was committing fully to our plan in each of its phases. Unless she corrects me now, that is certainly how I will interpret it. She then went on to say there were some difficulties and so on—[Interruption.] I can assure the Secretary of State, who speaks from a sedentary position, that there was indeed such a plan, and we look now to the Government to see that plan through. I would also like to hear from her colleague the Minister of State, Department for Education, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), when she sums up, about the 3,000 nurseries to be established in primary schools. It is important for us to know what proportion of those she expects to be full-time, year-round nurseries as opposed to term-time only.
We know that however much time young children spend in nursery or in childcare, they will spend more time at home, and the social mobility literature is clear that what happens at home makes a big difference to opportunity later in life. This is a difficult area for Governments and requires great care, but I hope that this new Government will look to build on the home learning environment programme—Hungry Little Minds—that we put in place and then reprised during covid, and do so in a supportive and non-invasive way.
I also hope that the Government will continue with the family hubs, recognising that while they are vital for the 0 to 2 age group, many issues go on right through childhood and adolescence. The supporting families programme is actually a cross-party story because it was brought in during the Cameron Government from 2012 following a pilot under the previous Labour Government. With its key worker approach it has so much potential, and it now covers 300,000 families, not the original 120,000. Bringing it into the Department for Education presents a great opportunity for the Secretary of State, and I hope she will make the most of it.
In schools, the success story we have been discussing, which can be seen in the results in the programme for international student assessment, the progress in international reading literacy study and other studies, has been based on three legs of a stool. The first is school autonomy, with transparency and accountability. The second is a knowledge-rich curriculum and proven learning methods such as phonics and maths mastery, with the Education Endowment Foundation evaluating and accrediting programmes. The third is the spreading of good practice through academy trusts and through schools learning laterally from other schools, with teachers learning from teachers rather than things being imposed top down, through a nationwide network of hubs in key subjects and in key areas such as behaviour. It is not yet clear exactly what the new Government’s plans are in each of those three areas, but if they seek to undo what has worked and what does work, we will argue the counter case robustly.
The Government have, as the Secretary of State said, announced a review of the curriculum, as of course they can, and as we did in the past. But again, I would urge them to reflect on what has worked and what does work, and in particular not to see a conflict between skills and knowledge. Clearly, when children are growing up, developing and being educated, they need both, but it is through having a depth of knowledge that they best develop skills. As to what knowledge, I hope the review will also acknowledge that a strength of our national curriculum is that, unlike what a lot of people think, it is not in fact a detailed specification of everything a pupil will learn in history or literature. Rather, it is a framework. That guards against political interference, and that is a principle that absolutely must be maintained. I hope that Labour did learn the lesson of the literacy hour and the numeracy hour—that seeking to set out to schools in 10 or 15-minute segments exactly what should be taught to children is a Bad Idea, with a capital B and a capital I.
On behaviour, a calm and ordered environment is a basic requirement for learning, and that is what children tell us they want. Of course, no one wants pupils to be suspended, still less expelled, but that option needs to be available as a last resort. Yes, we must think of the child’s wellbeing, but we also need to think of the wellbeing and life chances of the other 27 children in the class.
Having school leaders in the driving seat is essential, but that also brings a need for transparency so we can see whether children in some areas are not getting as strong an education as children in others. Progress 8, which we brought in, measures the progress of all children equally and is far better than the blunt and much-gamed approach of measuring how many children got over the five-plus C-plus at GCSE hurdle. It is also materially better than the old contextual value added measure, which effectively lowered expectations for entire groups of children.
We also need a threshold to trigger intervention, so that underperforming schools can be moved into a strong trust that can better support them. That is standing up for parents and children, who will get only one shot at schooling.
There are challenges to address and, as I said to the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), high on that list post covid is attendance. It is much better than it was, but there is further to go. I hope the Government will keep and build on the measures that we put in place, together with schools and the wider education family.
We always need to strive to do more to support children with special educational needs and disabilities and enable them to maximise opportunity. I was encouraged by what the Secretary of State said. I call on her and the Government to keep and grow our capital programme for more special school places, as well as, as she rightly said, to strive to support inclusion in mainstream education, where that is possible and beneficial.
Today there is a greater prevalence of mental ill health in young people. Crucially, this issue is not specific to this country. We see it in most comparable countries, or at least those where there is data we can look at; we see a similar trend there. The Labour manifesto spoke about having mental health professionals in schools. When we were in government, with the Department of Health and Social Care and the NHS, we were already rolling out mental health support teams to clusters of schools and I urge the Government to look at that.
Of course, we and other countries must also ask why there is this increased prevalence of mental ill health in young people. Because it is international in nature, some of the ready answers that might otherwise be thrown about cannot be correct. We will work constructively with the Government as they work to build on the landmark Online Safety Act 2023, for example, and ensure its most effective implementation.
Schools are all about teachers and we welcome the Government’s plan to recruit 6,500 more. Of course, 6,500 is a large number, but it is not quite so large in the context of the total number of teachers, which is 468,000, and it should be noted that the increase in the number of teachers over the last Parliament was considerably more than 6,500—in fact, it was more like 15,000. However, it is true that it has been tough to recruit for some subjects, such as computer science, physics and modern foreign languages, and I welcome the Secretary of State’s focus on that area.
Damian Hinds
If the hon. Member will forgive me, I had better press on, as I might be stretching Madam Deputy Speaker’s patience. Early in my time facing her in the Chair, I do not want to get off to a bad start.
We will be looking to see exactly what the 6,500 target covers, by when and, crucially, how it will be achieved.
The one subject in education that got a lot of coverage in the media and elsewhere during the election campaign was the taxation of independent schools. We recognise that that was in the Labour manifesto, but it is still wrong-headed. It will not hit the famous big-name schools, but it will hit small-town schools, families of children with special educational needs and certain religious faiths. Most of all, in the biggest way, it will hit state schools. We do not know how big the displacement effect will be of families who can no longer afford to send their children to their independent school, and we cannot know because there is no precedent, but we know that it will be a material number.
Mark Garnier
One thing that has not been discussed in this debate about extra taxation on private schools is that they generate £1 billion a year in export wins: this could have an effect on the country’s current account deficit.
Damian Hinds
We must not get into a long debate on this, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right that export earnings is part it, as is multinationals’ choice of this country to site their headquarters. All these things are considerations, including the Ministry of Defence.
I inadvertently skipped over the hon. Member, so I give way to him now.
Chris Vince
I thank the right hon. Member for taking my question. His figures on teacher numbers are very interesting. Does he not recognise that, over the last Parliament, the teacher retention rate was at an all-time low, with a third of teachers leaving within five years of going into the profession?
Damian Hinds
Again, I must not get into too lengthy a debate on this—[Interruption.] But I can. In the last couple of years, we actually found that retention was better than had been anticipated. We want teachers to stay longer in the profession, which is one of the reasons why, during my first spell in the Department for Education, we brought in the early career framework specifically to address that issue. The Secretary of State has said that the Government will continue to evolve that, which I welcome too, but the fact of the matter is that we have 468,000 teachers in the profession. Part of that is to do with retention, and part of it is to do with people returning to the profession, which at times has been better than anticipated. It is also to do with the significant programme to get people into teaching in the first place through bursaries and scholarships.
Returning to taxation and independent education, I ask the Minister of State, Department for Education, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), at the very least today when she sums up, to confirm that the Government will not bring the measure further forward so that we end up with in-year disruption for families, and for state schools trying to cope with a potential influx of large numbers of children. Can she also guarantee that the large number of spending programmes that have been linked to this taxation income stream, including the 6,500 teachers, are protected, regardless of what happens on that VAT income?
I am close to the end. We set about a major upgrade in technical and vocational education. The Secretary of State said something important and, I think, new about what was going to happen. I hope the Government will see through T-levels and the reform of technical and vocational education on the blueprint—we always did this in government: we took a cross-party approach—of Lord Sainsbury. The Secretary of State mentioned that she will update the House tomorrow. Will the Minister of State confirm in summing up that that will be an oral statement, giving hon. and right hon. Members a chance to question the Minister on exactly what is proposed?
We will also scrutinise the Government’s proposed changes to apprenticeships and the levy. I understand that businesses want more flexibility on what they can do with levy money, but the two crucial things about the apprenticeship levy is that, first, it dealt with what economists call the “free rider problem,” under which some businesses historically invested strongly in training their staff, while others did not, but benefited when staff left those businesses to join them after two or three years. Secondly, the levy ensured that human capital investment went into incremental training; it did not just rebadge training that would have happened anyway. In whatever reform the Government undertake, those two things will have to be delivered.
On Skills England, we just need to know what it is. We understand the desire of a Labour Government to say, “In an emergency, break glass, reach for quango” but what will it do that is different from what is done today by the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, by local skills improvement plans and by the Unit for Future Skills?
I am proud that disadvantaged youngsters are now much more likely to go on to higher education than they were—despite of course predictions of the opposite at the time the student financing system was brought in. I remember very well that, when in opposition, Labour Members of Parliament said repeatedly that fees should never go as high as £9,000, or £9,250, and we will be watching for consistency in their approach in the months and years ahead.
We need to ensure high-quality provision for students. It does no favours to a young person to go to university if it is for a course where we know a high proportion of students do not even complete the course. We spoke during the election campaign of our plan to build on our foundation of the Office for Students to ensure that, in whatever subject it might be, students could be confident that their course was of high quality. The new Government need to set out how they, in their way, will ensure that that quality is guaranteed.
To conclude—[Hon. Members: “Hooray.”] Come on. It is often said—it was said earlier this afternoon—that the first duty of Government is to defend our country and our national security and to keep people safe. It is the most fundamental function of Government to have sound management of the economy and the finances. The noblest drive in government is to strive to spread opportunity as far and as equitably as possible. Ultimately, education is the key to almost everything. We wish the new Government and this team of Ministers well. We will work positively and constructively with them. We will scrutinise what they say, monitor what they do and hold them to account for what they deliver.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
May I start by congratulating you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your election, and say what a great pleasure it is to see you in your place? I also congratulate the Secretary of State on her appointment. I know how deep her commitment is to increasing opportunity and adjusting disadvantage for children across our country.
Education from the early years through school and on to further and higher education is arguably the most important tool in the Government’s box for addressing disadvantage. I am therefore delighted to see that breaking down the barriers to opportunity at every stage is one of the core missions of this Labour Government.
Labour has always recognised the importance of education as a route to addressing poverty, disadvantage and inequality, as well as to driving economic growth. It is at the heart of what we believe in and at the heart of what we have always delivered in government—from comprehensive schools to the Open University, from Sure Start to the London Challenge for school improvement.
This new Labour Government will continue in that proud tradition of delivering for our children and young people with free breakfast clubs in every primary school; new nursery places across the country; open access mental health support in schools and communities; more teachers in our schools; a new fit-for-purpose curriculum; a further education sector to deliver the skills that young people need to thrive and our economy needs to grow; and new support to protect young people from serious violence.
I wish to highlight today, as we discuss the commitment of this new Government and also the mess that they have inherited after 14 years of Conservative cuts to children's services, some of the issues that are most pressing in my constituency. Services are now really stretched to the limit as they seek to support children, young people and their families.
The first issue is the funding crisis facing maintained nursery schools, which often provide a gold standard of early years education. Some 64 % of them are located in areas with the greatest deprivation. I have two in my constituency: Effra nursery school and children’s centre and Dulwich Wood nursery school. They are constituted as schools, and therefore have the additional expertise—and also the additional costs—of fully qualified headteachers and teaching staff. The number of maintained nurseries has already dropped dramatically and only 400 now remain, many of which face severe financial difficulties. I therefore urge the Government to bring forward measures in the Budget to ensure that the depth of knowledge, expertise and quality in our maintained nursery schools is not lost, and that they are put on a sustainable financial footing.
The second issue is special educational needs and disabilities support. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for mentioning the work that I did in this regard when we were in opposition. In the context of the decimation of local authority funding since 2010 and with increasing presentation of additional needs across the country, local councils and schools are simply buckling under the pressure of resources that they do not have and needs that they cannot meet, while families are suffering the consequences.
At a recent visit to an outstanding school in my constituency, the headteacher broke down as she described the conflict of seeking to be an inclusive school with the reality of simply not having the funding that she needed to deliver for children with additional needs. Increasingly, local authorities are being driven to the edge of financial viability by the costs of SEND support and SEND transport. I really welcome this Government’s focus on the inclusivity of mainstream schools, but they will need to work very closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that there is a sustainable approach to funding SEND support, which schools cannot deliver in isolation.
Thirdly, the outcomes for care-experienced people after 14 years of Conservative Government are utterly disgraceful. The system is so broken that frequently the state takes the decision to remove a child from their family because they are not considered to be safe, and places them in an environment in which they are even less safe and secure. Care-experienced people are so over-represented in both the criminal justice system and the homeless population because they are being so badly failed. If the Government are serious about tackling these challenges, they must turn their attention to delivering better support and better outcomes for care-experienced people.
One way that this situation could be turned around is through the development of a new care experience covenant, placed on a statutory footing, requiring every part of the public sector to take the responsibilities of corporate parenting seriously, supported by a national care leaver offer. I wonder whether the Minister is able to make any commitments in that regard today.
Finally, the Conservative Government changed the schools funding formula to remove the disadvantage weighting. That had the effect of proactively funnelling funding away from schools in constituencies such as mine with high levels of deprivation to more affluent areas of the country, and my local schools are really feeling the impact as they seek to provide an excellent education for every child.
Will the Minister give an undertaking to look at the schools funding formula, to ensure both that schools in the most disadvantaged areas of the country have the resources they need to deliver for every child, and that the formula itself is no longer pitting different areas of the country against each other, but represents a genuine levelling up of the resources for our schools?
I know that this Government will transform the life chances of children and young people across our country and make sure that no child is left behind. I look forward to seeing further plans come to fruition, as children, young people and their life chances are once again placed where they should be—at the centre of our national life.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Ghani)
As we have many maiden speeches to enjoy and Back-Bench contributions, may I ask those on the Front Bench to keep their speeches short? I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
May I warmly welcome you to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker? It is a pleasure to see you. I also warmly welcome the Education Secretary and all her Ministers to their posts. As the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) said, they absolutely have the best jobs in Government. I am very jealous indeed, but I am looking forward to working with them constructively over the course of this Parliament to deliver the best possible start for children and young people. I am delighted to be speaking today on behalf of the third party in the House from the vastly expanded Liberal Democrat Benches.
I am grateful for the Government making time today for a dedicated debate on education and opportunity. Over the past few years, children and young people’s education has frankly been sidelined in the political agenda. It was no surprise to me that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition did not seek to allocate specific time for this area during the King’s Speech debates, instead bundling all public services, welfare and the economy into a single evening’s debate. Today’s debate is therefore very welcome indeed. Education is the greatest investment that we can make to ensure that every child, no matter their background, has the opportunity to flourish to their full potential. As a result, it is also the greatest investment that we can make for our economy and our society.
The King’s Speech and Government announcements in the past three weeks have included some encouraging measures that the Liberal Democrats welcome. On that note, I very much welcome the Education Secretary’s announcement on the level 3 qualifications review. The Liberal Democrats have long been saying that BTecs should not be funded until T-levels have properly bedded in. Actually, T-levels are squeezing so many young people out of the system and leaving them without options that we need a good range of options, so the review is very welcome. I also welcome the curriculum review that she announced. The devil, of course, in all the announcements so far will be in the detail. I hope that Ministers will work collaboratively, cross-party, on the areas where we are in agreement, though there are areas where we are not in agreement.
One area where we are in violent agreement is the state in which the Conservative Government left our schools and colleges. Shortly before the election, I spoke to a school governor in my constituency who told me that their school is at rock bottom. Their school budget has been so squeezed that they are reliant on Amazon wish lists from which parents are asked to provide basic essentials such as whiteboard pens and glue sticks. That has become the reality for so many schools up and down the country. Not only are schools struggling to afford basic supplies, but they lack the resources to maintain their buildings. It is now well documented that the Leader of the Opposition, when he was Chancellor, repeatedly refused to fund the investment in school buildings that the Department for Education made clear was needed. The result? Children are being taught in classrooms with leaky windows, broken heating and crumbling concrete.
Where even to start with special educational needs? We heard about this issue from the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes). I suspect that every Member across this House, new and returning, has a bulging inbox of SEND casework. The system is in crisis. Local authorities are stretched to the limit and our most vulnerable children are struggling, with their parents stuck in an adversarial system, fighting day in and day out to ensure that their children can get an education and the support that they deserve to thrive. Inadequate support for SEND children in mainstream schools, coupled with a lack of specialist provision, means that too many children are languishing at home without proper access to education, or travelling huge distances at great cost to overstretched local authorities because there just is not enough local provision.
The lack of provision is having an impact on not only our pupils but our teachers. Many are being driven out of the profession because of the pressures that they face. They often tell me that they are acting as the fourth emergency service, because all the support services outside our schools are crumbling. Not enough new teachers are entering our classrooms, despite the figures that the shadow Secretary of State gave. The previous Conservative Government missed their own secondary schoolteacher training targets for 10 out of 11 years. That means not only that many children are not being taught by a specialist in their subject but that existing teachers are having to take on inordinate workloads due to the lack of staff. A study conducted this year found that 86% of teachers believe that their job has negatively impacted their mental health, with an increased workload being the main cause of stress. Over the past nine years, the Conservatives neglected our education system, and our children and young people are now paying the price. For the sake of our future generations, we must prioritise fixing it. [Interruption.] I will mention the coalition shortly, just to cheer up the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra).
The Liberal Democrats welcomed the announcement in the King’s Speech of a children’s wellbeing Bill. We have long argued that wellbeing should be at the heart of our policymaking for children and young people. Hungry children struggling with their mental health will not be able to achieve their potential, either academically or socially. We know that poverty and mental ill health are significant contributors to the staggering numbers of children missing from school. We welcome the long-awaited introduction of the children-not-in-school register, a measure that has had cross-party support for several years and featured in the Liberal Democrat manifesto. This is particularly important given that last autumn term there were 33,000 children missing from education, with vulnerable children slipping under the radar. The change is long overdue, and I hope that the Government implement it without delay.
That register is very important for safeguarding, but we must address the underlying causes of school absence. We have seen an explosion of mental ill health among children and young people in recent years. It is estimated that one in five children have a probable mental health disorder—that is six in every classroom. A lack of available mental health support means that many children are left languishing at home, missing out on key learning time. It also has much more serious consequences. The day after the election was called, I spoke to a local secondary headteacher in my constituency; several children in recent months had ended up in A&E after attempted suicide. A broken mother, whose teenage daughter had tragically been successful in taking her own life earlier this year, approached me in a local park and spoke to me about how local services had let her daughter down.
Prevention is better than cure. The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s commitment to introducing a mental health practitioner in every secondary school, but we must start at a younger age. That is why the Liberal Democrats have long called for the introduction of mental health practitioners in every primary and secondary school. I recognise the mental health support teams introduced by the previous Government, but they are shared across far too many schools. The average primary school gets half a day a week, and the average secondary school gets maybe one or two days a week. Those schools need full-time dedicated support, given the level of need in schools. We know that 50% of all lifetime mental health disorders develop by the age of 14. Putting mental health practitioners in every primary school would allow us to address those issues before they become permanent, ultimately saving our health services money in the long term.
Another underlying cause of absence from school, and pressure on school staff, is the growing number of children living in poverty. It is disappointing that the Government continue to refuse to lift the two-child cap on benefits. The Liberal Democrats will continue to campaign for that cruel policy to be removed, which would immediately lift 300,000 children out of poverty. Children up and down the country cannot afford to eat, with some children being forced to pretend to eat out of empty lunchboxes, or reportedly even eating rubbers out of desperation. In a country as wealthy as ours, no child should be going hungry at school. That is why I am immensely proud that it was the Liberal Democrats in Government who introduced free school meals for every infant schoolchild. [Interruption.] It was a Liberal Democrat policy that we had to fight for in Government. The benefits of free school meals are immense. They save parents time and money, help children to eat more healthily, and have even been proven to boost educational outcomes.
Although Labour has proposed free breakfast clubs for children in primary school, which will be beneficial, often the children most in need are those living very far from school in temporary accommodation, who have extremely long journeys and simply cannot get to school in time for breakfast. Free school meals guarantee that those children have access to a hot, healthy meal in the middle of each school day to give them the energy that they need to learn. Most importantly, hunger does not stop at the age of 11. According to the Child Poverty Action Group, an estimated 900,000 children in poverty miss out on free school meals, and many of them are in secondary school. That is why the Liberal Democrats are committed to rolling out free school meals to every child in poverty, whether they are primary or secondary school age, in line with Henry Dimbleby’s recommendations to the previous Conservative Government, which they completely ignored.
Sadly, research shows that the inequalities within our education system are deepening. As we have heard, according to data published by the Education Policy Institute just last week, by the time students from a disadvantaged background leave secondary school they are 19.2 months behind their peers. That is the highest attainment gap in over 10 years. Established by the Liberal Democrats in Government, the pupil premium was once a vital fund to support disadvantaged children. Unfortunately, we have seen that value erode by some 14% in real terms since the Tories were left to their own devices in 2015. One proven method to tackle the attainment gap is tutoring in small groups and one to one. In fact, research conducted by the Education Endowment Foundation shows that over the course of a year an average four months of additional progress is made because of tutoring. Although flawed in its delivery, the national tutoring programme, which was introduced during covid, and the 16 to 19 tuition fund had a transformational impact for many pupils. Talking about his experience of tutoring, Aiden from London South East Colleges said that he was aiming only for a 4 the third time he retook his English GCSE—he just wanted to get it over and done with—but he now has a 6, and it is all thanks to his tutor. He is going on to do higher-level qualifications, and he hopes to go to university and become a paramedic.
It was not just Aiden whose grades improved; there were 62,000 additional passes in GCSE English and maths over the two years that Government-funded tutoring was in existence. Sadly, at the last Budget, the Conservative Government refused to continue funding for the national tutoring programme or the 16 to 19 tuition fund. The funding runs out today, pretty much, because it is the end of the academic year. Given the new Secretary of State’s stated commitment to extending opportunity to all and narrowing the attainment gap, will she look at the programme urgently and ensure that tutoring funding continues?
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
Will my right hon. Friend allow an intervention?
Munira Wilson
I am not right honourable just yet, but I give way to my hon. Friend.
Susan Murray
Apologies. Given what my hon. Friend is talking about, it is important to note that applying VAT to independent schools will have a significant effect on their affordability for parents who make that choice. In my Mid Dunbartonshire constituency, not all parents will be able to afford the extra 20% per child. We hear about the pressure that the state is already under. Does she agree that there will be significant additional costs to the state in Scotland, as well as in England and Wales—