NHS Corridor Care
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,868 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
NHS Corridor Care
My mother, who is 94 and fit and healthy, fell and fractured her collarbone. She went in and was medically discharged on the same day, but because there was no care support for her, she was then in hospital for a week, bed blocking. Because of the quality of care she received, when she came out she ended up with a very severe urinary tract infection and sepsis, and then had to stay in hospital for six weeks. Obviously that cost my mother a lot, but it also cost the NHS a huge amount of money. Does the hon. Lady agree that one of the problems is adult social care and that we need to fix it?
- Hansard source
European Entry and Exit System
I thank the Minister for all his efforts in trying to sort out a Tory mess. As a fellow Kent MP, I like and greatly respect the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale), but is it not a bit cheeky to ask the Government of the day to sort out the mess that the Conservatives voted for? Will the Minister ask the Conservative party to respond with regard to creating the problem that he is having to sort out?
- Hansard source
Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness
I beg to move, That this House recognises the danger that Russia’s renewed illegal invasion of Ukraine poses to European and British security; further recognises the threat to the international order and the UK posed by China; also recognises the increasing uncertainty surrounding the reliability of the US as an ally within NATO; acknowledges the current shortfalls in the UK’s ability to deploy a credible fighting force; further acknowledges that this lack of military capability is resulting in the coercion of Britain and its interests in the international sphere; and calls on the Government to begin a programme of rapid rearmament to strengthen the defence of the UK and its allies. The key word of the motion on the Order Paper today is “rapid”—rapid rearmament, not eventual rearmament or rearmament with an asterisk. The reason it is the key word is that the clock is not ours to choose. Three weeks ago, before the defence investment plan came out, the Prime Minister said: “it is our intelligence assessment, and the assessment of other countries in NATO, that there could be an attack by Russia on NATO as soon as 2030.” The deadline is not contested. Intelligence confirms it, NATO proclaims it—they are speaking of this in Ankara today—and our Government accept it. We must be ready by 2030. That is why the defence investment plan is so maddening. I have read it from cover to cover—I am that kind of guy—and I cannot wrap my head around it. It fails the test of its own threat assessment. It does not go far enough, and what it does do, it does too slowly. Large parts of it are also unfunded. It is too little, too late, and there is not enough cash. It is worth considering how this plan came into being. Lord Robertson, the lead author of the strategic defence review, wanted to have the DIP—that is, the money bit—as an annexe to the SDR. That is really good practice when making strategy: set out a vision, which is the SDR, and then set out the resources, which are the DIP. If a Government do not have the resources to deliver their vision, they need either to downgrade the vision somewhat or to increase their resources. The decoupling of the two documents by a year, with the vision coming a year ago in the SDR, and the money and resources just recently in the DIP, is the greatest failure of statecraft committed by this Labour Government in the two years they have been in office. First, allow me to speak about the money in some detail. Quite well ventilated in the media is the £4.7 billion that quite blatantly must be found in the next Budget, in the autumn. Although the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) has said that he intends to fund defence seriously, he has not specifically said that he will find those sums in that Budget. As the Government repeatedly tell us, defence of the realm is the most important duty of any Government. So why is £5 billion of that sacred duty in the in-tray of the next Chancellor—a person unknown at this point? Secondly, I would like to talk about these efficiency savings—£10.7 billion of them. Speaking in this Chamber, the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), called this the oldest accounting trick in the book. If we dig just one layer below, we can see the detail: £2.4 billion of that £10.7 billion is what the Ministry of Defence calls “high maturity initiatives”. I find that it is always worth really looking into what the MOD says, because the remaining £8.4 billion of that nearly £11 billion of efficiency savings is what the MOD calls “plans at lower maturity”. Lower-maturity plans, Madam Deputy Speaker, is MOD-speak for “we have not worked out how to deliver those savings yet.” Thirdly, and most egregiously, is a theme that I will keep returning to: the fact that this is a DIP of two halves. The first period is from now until 2030, which is covered by the current spending review, subject to the caveats that I laid out earlier. However, the second part, which covers 2030 to 2035, has to be confirmed in the forthcoming spending review. If the future Chancellor or Prime Minister do not agree to those sums going into the next spending review—due, one assumes, in the spring of 2027—the DIP will then not exist. It will just be an unfunded piece of paper.
- Hansard source
Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness
This actually speaks to the delay. Had the DIP come out when it was meant to, in 2025, it would have been a 10-year plan, because it would have gone from 2025 to 2035. However, the Government were unable to get their ducks in a row and the DIP was delayed by a year. If we had waited for them to rejig the plan to go up until 2036, I think we might have waited until 2040 for the plan. This is a DIP of two halves, and the really worrying bit is that most of the investment is in the second half, which is unfunded. Let me give the House some examples. In the air domain there is £27.8 billion before 2030, and £70 billion after—unfunded. In the maritime domain there is £18 billion before 2030, and £32 billion after—unfunded. In the land domain there is £19.2 billion before, and £36 billion after—unfunded. For weapons and munitions there is £11.1 billion before, and £20 billion after—unfunded. It beggars belief. Why bother publishing a plan when, by my calculations, almost two thirds of the investments that the Government seek to make are in the second half, which is unfunded? One of the reasons that we have pulled this plan together is to give certainty to industry, so that they know how to invest.
- Hansard source
Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness
I think we have all heard stories of firms such as the one in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, whether in our own constituencies or in the conversations we have as Members of Parliament who are interested in defence. It has been catastrophic for British industry, and rushing out an unfunded DIP, which is effectively what this is, has not helped. It has meant that some small capital investments, one third of the total pot for the next four years, can be made by firms. However, for anything that stretches beyond 2030, nobody can be sure enough to make that investment.
- Hansard source
Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness
All I will say is that the defence of the realm is the most serious issue for any Government.
- Hansard source
Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness
The original sin is divorcing the strategic defence review from the DIP—divorcing the vision from the resources. For the past year, the Department has been arguing first with itself about whether it can downgrade some of the things in the strategic defence review—there are a couple of instances where that has happened, which I will come on to—and then with the Treasury to get more money to fill the gap. Effectively, it wrote a vision that was far too grand for the money that was ever going to be available. Let me turn from the money to the metal and have a look at some of the capabilities. I could give a very long speech on military analysis about which capabilities should be in or out, but I will not do that. I think it would test—[Interruption.] I know that right hon. and hon. Members would like me to do that; perhaps I will set up a Substack or something. Let us look at the Royal Navy—the senior service. At the turn of this century—as someone born in 1982, I still feel weird saying that—the UK had 20 frigates. By the end of this year, we will have five. Pre-DIP, they were scheduled to go out of service in 2035. In a little-noticed line in the DIP, we are bringing forward that date. All five frigates, which have well exceeded their service date, are going in 2033. Their replacements, the Type 26s and the Type 23s, will come into service—you guessed it—in 2030-35. We therefore have old ships retiring on a fixed schedule and new ships coming in on an unfunded one. My back-of-a-fag-packet maths—probably the same quality of analysis goes into the MOD under this Government—shows that we will have three frigates in 2030, the year, according to our intelligence assessments, of maximum Russian threat against NATO. We need a frigate to protect our cables, another to get the carrier group out to sea, and another for our deterrent. According to the rule of three—for every three ships, we have only one at sea at any one time—that is nine frigates. If anything kicks off in the middle east or anywhere else, there is no contingency plan. We can see straightaway that there is a huge gap—the frigate gap, as many call it—and the DIP has made it much worse. The picture with our current Type 45 destroyers and their replacements is not much better. Our Type 45s primarily provide air defence. One was parked in the Thames estuary to defend the Olympics in 2012 because we do not have any other air defence. They go out of service from 2035. Their replacements are supposed to be crewed common combat vessels such as mother ships. Various autonomous ships, which provide missiles, sensors or underwater and above-water support, are meant to be arranged around them. A whole fleet of different ships is therefore meant to replace the destroyers and some other elements of our Navy. That is the hybrid Navy that was much touted last week in the media coverage of the DIP. I am totally in favour of moving towards autonomy as fast as we can. However, it is worth saying that the maritime domain, particularly the High North, is the most difficult in which to do autonomy. I have spent a lot of time at sea and I can tell hon. Members that everything breaks all the time. There is a reason why the maritime domain is the last to be autonomised. We started with air because that is predictable and quite easy to do, although the aircraft still do not fly in bad weather. We then moved to the ground stuff for picking up casualties and dropping off ammunition. However, the new ships—the common combat vessels—are simply PowerPoints at the moment, yet we expect to move from PowerPoints to power projection on the high seas in nine years with not just one class, but several classes of ships that have to work together. That seems quite risky to me. If we take what is happening to the frigate fleet and what is happening to the destroyer fleet together, it is fair to say that the DIP spells the end of the Royal Navy as we know it.
- Hansard source
Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness
I will give way to the former Minister.
- Hansard source
Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness
I agree with everything that the hon. Member has just said, and I thank him. However, all I am highlighting is that, on past performance, going from PowerPoints to ships at sea in nine years with several classes of ship seems extremely risky. Moreover, the DIP sets aside only £1.3 billion in the first funded period to set up those ships. The remainder of the investment falls beyond 2030. I want to move to autonomy because it is the right thing to do, but that seems like an incredibly risky bet.
- Hansard source
Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness
I will make some progress because I am having eyes made at me by Madam Deputy Speaker. The DIP commits £8.6 billion to the global combat air programme, which is the sixth-generation fighter jet that we are building with Italy and Japan. Realistically, we will get the jets in service sometime after 2040. They are manned fighter jets. I ask hon. Members to cast their minds forward to beyond Putin’s death—he will probably be buried by that point—and ask themselves whether, in 2040, humans will be flying fighter jets. I think the answer is no. The Minister is a former pilot, so he will always argue for humans in fighter jets, but I will present my argument. When we dig into GCAP, we find that it is a crewed rather than an uncrewed system because that is what our Japanese partners wanted.
- Hansard source
Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness
I am afraid that I will not because I want to make progress. We are privileging a good diplomatic relationship, which would weather the storm of our pulling out of GCAP, over military capability. We must consider whether we want manned fighter jets in 2040 or a Royal Navy right now. Do we want frigates and destroyers in the next four years? Do we want to transition effectively, in a funded way, to a hybrid Navy, or manned fighter jets in 2040? The same story is repeated wherever we look: deep precision strike missiles are due in the early 2030s; nuclear-enabled F-35As are due in the early 2030s; putting 76,000 soldiers in the British Army to reverse the Tory cuts is an investment through to 2035. [Interruption.] I know that hon. Members were waiting for that—I had to get one little elbow in the ribs. Time and again, the capability that the threat demands by 2030 is scheduled for after 2030, funded by a spending review that has not happened and has been signed off by no one. That leaves one final question: does the current Prime Minister believe his own threat assessment? If he does and he is not funding it—not putting his money, or our money, where his mouth is—that is highly negligent. Perhaps he does not believe his own intelligence chiefs’ assessments and those of his partners. In that case, he should tell us. I fear that future generations will look back at this Labour Government’s approach to defence with their heads in their hands.
- Hansard source
Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness
I specifically said that I am fully in favour of moving to autonomy as fast as we can. All I questioned was whether we could go from a PowerPoint concept for multiple vessels to their being at sea on operations within nine years. That is all I questioned—not the idea that we need to move to autonomy.
- Hansard source
Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness
I will not list the constituencies of all the hon. and right hon. Members who have contributed; they know who they are and I thank them very much. Three themes came out of this debate that were interesting and bear repeating. First, we are already in a war and it is happening in different ways and it is happening below the threshold, but the threshold is moving about and we need to think about that. Secondly, there is the point about national resilience, the economy and the industrial base. In an age of drones that get depleted, with a cycle in which the drone model changes every six weeks, it is about how quickly we can build stuff. Nations win wars, and we need our economy to reflect that. Thirdly, we need to trust the public and tell them not just about the threat that we face but about the current state of our armed forces and where they need to get to. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House recognises the danger that Russia’s renewed illegal invasion of Ukraine poses to European and British security; further recognises the threat to the international order and the UK posed by China; also recognises the increasing uncertainty surrounding the reliability of the US as an ally within NATO; acknowledges the current shortfalls in the UK’s ability to deploy a credible fighting force; further acknowledges that this lack of military capability is resulting in the coercion of Britain and its interests in the international sphere; and calls on the Government to begin a programme of rapid rearmament to strengthen the defence of the UK and its allies.
- Hansard source
European Entry and Exit System
It is now 10 years on from the Brexit referendum, and in the words of the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), where are we? We are here, stuck in queues at the EU border for hours at a time, because he and his acolytes forced a damaging Brexit on this country. It is interesting to note that the Conservatives have come to the Chamber today complaining about the consequences of the Brexit deal that they negotiated. The Brexit plan of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), implemented by the Conservatives and unresolved by this Government, has left British holidaymakers in this position. Indeed, the Government are guilty not just of failing to plan, but of political and diplomatic failures that have let down holidaymakers. We are already seeing reports of queues of up to five hours—what a way to start our holidays. What immediate steps is the Minister taking to mitigate disruption? Will he seek an immediate meeting with the European Commission so that contingency measures can be put in place to protect passengers as a matter of urgency? Will the Government drop their red lines on Europe, and commit to joining the single market and customs union? Not only would that reverse the damage done by Brexit and get our economy back on track, but it would mean that we—[Interruption.]
- Hansard source
Maritime and Coastguard Agency
Since October last year, I have been taking part in the parliamentary knowledge scheme that relates specifically to frontline services, under the auspices of Mr Speaker. As part of the scheme, we visited the MCA and met CROs. I took part in a training exercise about rescues from muddy situations, so I know at first hand the fabulous work they do. But they are not the only voluntary search and rescue organisation out there. I know that many other volunteer organisations are very worried about the implications for them. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact on other maritime search and rescue organisations, such as the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and other independent lifeboat associations?
- Hansard source
Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness
On the point about communicating with the public, there is a way to do it. I visited Norway recently, and it has communicated with its population incredibly well, to the extent that it has this concept of total defence and civil preparedness, where everybody in the entire nation recognises that they have a role to play. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we can learn a lot from some of our friends and allies?
- Hansard source
Maritime and Coastguard Agency
The CROs I have spoken to in Selsey in my constituency do their job out of a real sense of duty. Many of them have done it for many years. It is not actually at all about the remuneration, but the reality is that some of them will have to take on additional paid work if they lose the very small amount of money given to them by the Government to recognise their value. Will the Minister please come to Selsey, which is an isolated coastal community, to talk to my CROs so that he can see not only the brilliant work they are doing, but the value that they bring to the community?
- Hansard source
Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness
I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) on securing this extremely valuable debate. Much has been said about rearmament and defence in this House in recent months. It is widely accepted that successive Governments have allowed our nation’s defences to decline to a perilous extent. This debate should therefore be an opportunity for the House to come together to address the first duty of any Government, the defence of the realm. It is a conversation that cannot be limited only to this building; it needs to be had in every corner of our great nation. The Prime Minister and others tell us that the point of maximum threat from Russia is in 2030. That is just over three years away. If that is the case, we must show urgency and clarity. It is for that reason that the long delay in the publication of the defence investment plan was so serious and so damaging. That delay cost us precious time, which our adversaries have spent building their own forces and probing our vulnerabilities. The Public Accounts Committee has already told us what that delay cost us. It called the resulting bureaucratic drift damaging to Britain’s international credibility and warned that it has created deep uncertainty across our defence industrial base while sending a weak signal to allies and adversaries alike. When the plan finally arrived, what did we find? The Secretary of State told the House that he had secured an extra £1 billion, yet it has come to light since then that most of that money has simply been taken from cancelled transport and energy projects or clawed back from funds that were meant to improve military housing. Worse still, £4.7 billion of the £15 billion promised increase is, in the Government’s own words, still to be “confirmed at the Budget”. That, I am afraid, is not a funding plan. Defence chiefs have been explicit that anything below £28 billion would leave this country vulnerable and force Ministers into hard choices about capabilities that we simply cannot afford to lose. The figure the Prime Minister has now settled on falls well short of that warning. Nowhere is that more alarming than in air defence. The strategic defence review recommended that we spend at least £1 billion in this area. The people of this country rightly assume that they are safe from missile and drone attack. We must urgently work with our NATO allies to build up our collective integrated air defence. It is folly to spend billions on equipment if it can all just be destroyed in an instant by Russian ballistic missiles. The SDR was also clear that we needed pace in investing in the capabilities needed to deter Russia. That is why the Liberal Democrats have argued for issuing defence bonds to make £20 billion available in the next two years—before 2030—to spend on plugging those gaps. We have also urged the Government to explore multilateral efforts to fund rearmament, such as the defence, security and resilience bank or leading on the establishment of a European rearmament bank. The threat is real and the money is needed now, not years down the line, and we need to spend not only more, but better. Around 5% of the defence procurement budget currently reaches SMEs and 42% of contracts remain concentrated among the same 10 suppliers. These smaller firms are the source of much of the flexibility and innovation the sector needs, and they support skilled jobs in every part of the United Kingdom. The long delay to the DIP left them in limbo for over a year. Some went out of business in that time or even moved overseas, and with the £4.7 billion gap still to be resolved at the Budget, uncertainty has not been lifted from their shoulders. To make their funding numbers add up, the Government have also started chipping away at their previous commitment to fix mouldy military homes and crumbling barracks. The Liberal Democrats have supported the Government’s efforts to sort out that mess, so to hear that hundreds of millions have been trimmed is bitterly disappointing. The Liberal Democrats changed the law so that service family accommodation must now be assessed against the decent homes standard—we forced the Government to concede that principle in the House of Lords. We went further still, and sought to extend that same standard to single living accommodation, so that no member of our armed forces is left living in substandard conditions, but the Government voted that down in Committee. If Ministers are serious about retention and persuading talented people to stay in uniform, they must reverse that decision and bring all military housing under a single, decent standard. They must also stop backsliding on their commitment to fully fund the recovery of our military housing stock. We cannot meet this moment alone. Our security is bound up with that of our European neighbours, because geography has not changed, even if American commitment is growing less certain. The Liberal Democrats want the Government to show real ambition to restart negotiations for Britain to join the Security Action for Europe programme, to work with partners towards a European rearmament bank, and to help build a European security council that can co-ordinate our allies’ efforts to meet NATO’s requirements, even as Washington draws back. Our alliances are one of our greatest strengths, and should the worst ever happen, we are far stronger standing with our friends than on our own. That is why squandering soft power through cuts to international development aid and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office are an entirely false economy. Those cuts diminish our standing in the world and create issues for which we will have to pay far more down the line. It is always cheaper to prevent a war than to fight one, which is why our hard and soft power must go hand in hand. I will end where I started: it is time that the Government and the new Prime Minister, when he takes office, lead a serious national conversation with the public. We hear endless rhetoric about tough choices, and those will not get any easier without public support. The parties represented in this Chamber will come up with different answers to the question—we can debate that here—but every party will find it harder to justify those choices unless they are part of a real national conversation on defence, and that conversation is simply not happening right now. Just this week, the United States warned of a possible imminent attack by Russian forces on Poland to test NATO defences. The threat is not abstract; the threat is real, and it is to the safety of our children and our nation’s future. I urge Ministers and the incoming Prime Minister to be decisive, issue defence bonds, take the conversation on defence out into the real world, and show the urgency that the moment deserves before it is too late.
- Hansard source
The Greater Cambridge Development Corporation (Establishment) Order 2026
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I would like to be clear at the outset that the diagnosis behind the idea of the corporation is one that I and many in the area broadly share. Cambridge’s growth is constrained by water supply, wastewater capacity, and transport and energy infrastructure. They are real problems with real consequences, and not just for the current residents that I and others in the area represent, but for future residents. Nobody disputes that. However, the Lib Dems cannot support establishing a corporation whose purpose remains undefined at the point at which we are being asked to approve it. This order does one thing: it creates the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation in name. The powers and functions order, which will determine what it actually does, including any planning powers, comes later in the autumn. We are being asked to vote on an institution before we know what it will be for. That is not just a procedural quibble; it goes to the heart of whether development corporations actually work. The historical cases that genuinely justify optimism—London Docklands and the Olympic Delivery Authority are really good examples of development corporations working—succeeded because they had a clearly defined task, a timeline and a funding commitment to match that ambition. That clarity is what gave them the authority and legitimacy that made the democratic trade-off arguable, at the very least, and worthwhile for those who agreed. When I asked the Minister recently at departmental questions what infrastructure the corporation would have responsibility for delivering, and by when, he replied that further details would be set out in due course. I do not highlight that as a criticism of him; he has been very constructive in his engagement with my area, and I really appreciate that. In fact, I think one of his first acts as a Minister was to give me a call on the Sunday night after the election to tell me about an intervention in Northstowe in my constituency. However, his answer to my question was telling. We are establishing what will be the largest urban development corporation of its type, covering an area almost double that of all 17 previous urban development corporations combined, and the specific infrastructure it will deliver has not yet even been outlined, never mind detailed. The powers and functions order will also bring forward planning powers for which I find it difficult to see the justification. In the medium term, the corporation is expected to take over determination of planning applications above 250 dwellings, as the Minister said, and in time it will replace the local plan process entirely. I heard what the Minister had to say, but I would argue that 250 dwellings is not a strategic site; it is a medium-sized development. The greater Cambridge area already has planning permission for 37,000 homes that have not yet been built. The evidence is clear that planning is not the barrier at that level. Water, sewerage and transport—those are the barriers, and none of them is fixed by changing who determines a 250-home planning application. I am also concerned about the boundary. We have had some discussion about that already. Lord Lansley has tabled a regret motion in the Lords specifically on this point, arguing that the geographic scope should correspond to the functional economic geography of the Cambridge economy and that any planning powers should be focused on very large new sites rather than applications on the 250 scale. I share both his concerns. The functional economic geography of Cambridge extends well beyond Cambridge city and South Cambridgeshire district, as the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough independent economic review established back in 2018. The boundary drawn here does not follow the task; it follows two administrative areas. If the Government intend to proceed with planning powers in the autumn, as I am sure they do, will the Minister make four specific commitments? First, will he publish a clear, evidenced rationale for why removing local plan-making powers is necessary—something that I do not think has yet been provided? Secondly—I think he said this in his opening remarks, so this is more for clarification—will he commit that those powers will not be transferred until the existing draft greater Cambridge local plan has been adopted? That work has been years in development and is already at an advanced stage. Thirdly, will he guarantee that any decision to activate those powers will be accompanied by published reasons and an opportunity for further representations before it takes effect? Fourthly, can he confirm that the powers and functions order will be subject to the same affirmative procedure as the order we are considering today, giving Parliament a proper opportunity to scrutinise the planning powers before they come into force, rather than having them take effect without oversight? I will be voting against the order today, not because I oppose growth in Cambridge or the principle of strategic intervention where it is justified—I hope the Minister appreciates that I try to engage constructively with him on growth and infrastructure in my constituency; there are lots of brilliant opportunities there and it is a great part of the country to grow—but because establishing a body of this scale and duration, at 25 years, with this level of democratic cost before the purpose has been defined is the wrong way to proceed. I hope that at the very least the Government come back with a powers and functions order that sets out what the corporation will actually build, where and by when, and a clear, evidenced rationale for why planning powers are necessary to deliver it.
- Hansard source
Maritime and Coastguard Agency
The MCA has told MPs that it has data to back its claim that CROs would rather be volunteers than employees. Can the Minister confirm that those findings can be shared? This has a massive bearing on the MCA’s decision, and may greatly undermine the essential lifeline that CROs provide to coastal communities like mine in North Devon.
- Hansard source
Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness
I thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) for securing this debate. There are moments in politics when delay is not just a mistake, but a danger. This is one of those moments. The truth is that the world has become more dangerous much faster than Britain has become ready. The strategic defence review mattered because it stripped away comforting illusions. From the end of the cold war, we enjoyed a peace dividend that offered more security and more money for public services, but war has returned to Europe. Hostile states challenge us daily with cyber-attacks and sabotage, flouting international law and the liberal rules-based order. The absolute supremacy of the western alliance is no longer absolute. The SDR set out the right ambition: a more integrated force, a more digital force and a more resilient Britain, ready to learn lessons from Ukraine and the middle east. The defence investment plan accepts that analysis, but next comes the hard part: not only recognising the problem but solving it. Does the plan move quickly enough to make Britain safer? I fear it does not. We lost nearly a year waiting for the defence investment plan to be published. Months of hesitation when industry held its breath, investments stalled, contracts went unsigned and momentum was lost. The SDR talks of mobilising “rapidly in the event of a crisis”. If only that sense of urgency were reflected in government. Capability delayed is capability denied. The pace matters as much as the decision. The review rightly placed at the heart of Britain’s future military capability the digital targeting web—the system that links sensors, commanders and weapons into one integrated force that can identify a threat and destroy it. The defence investment plan commits money for our armed forces to do more, but too much of that funding is still on the other side of 2030. The Prime Minister has said that NATO could face an attack from Russia before 2030. Yesterday, Lord Robertson and General Sir Richard Barrons pointed out to the Defence Committee that many of the capabilities deemed urgently needed in the SDR are only due to arrive at the end of a nine-year investment cycle. An example is air and missile defence, where the scale of the £790 million investment falls short of what was planned and arrives years down the line.
- Hansard source
Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness
I certainly do, and I will come that later in my speech. There are areas where the Government seem to have cut corners: munitions reserves, medical support, industrial resilience—all essential for enduring a longer crisis. Professionals talk logistics. In 1940, Sir Winston Churchill appointed Lord Beaverbrook to rapidly streamline aircraft production. Lord Beaverbrook responded by throwing out all the old rules and doubling production output inside 12 months. His sayings have become famous, describing the factories as the frontlines of the war. He said: “Organisation is the enemy of improvisation”, “Committees take the punch out of war,” and “The need is great, the time is short, urgency must be the watchword.” He sounds like a nightmare to work for, but he helped rescue this country in an hour of great crisis.
- Hansard source
Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness
I agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and I thank him for his distinguished service too. We are seeing that in how we are learning lessons from Ukraine. I have been out there and seen the systems, so I totally agree. Defence reform is a very important element that the MOD should look at, and I am sure the Minister will have something to say about that. I cannot find that spirit of urgency that Lord Beaverbrook showed in 1940 in the defence investment plan. The purpose of rearmament is not to prepare for war; it is to prevent that disaster, to deter aggression and to bolster our allies. As Liberal Democrats, and I am sure across the House, we believe Britain’s security depends on our alliances. A stronger Britain means a stronger NATO. A safer Europe means a safer United Kingdom. We must preserve the peace previous generations sacrificed so much to secure. Let this House be remembered not as the House that scrambled in an emergency, but that saw the danger coming and acted.
- Hansard source
Engagements
Q9. Constituents in western North Shropshire were delighted when road investment strategy 3 was announced, because a roundabout at the desperately dangerous Llynclys crossroads came a step closer as part of the national safety programme. However, with the announcement that the defence investment programme will be funded by cuts to transport programmes, will the Deputy Prime Minister reassure my constituents that the national safety programme will not be cut? Will he consider using the Liberal Democrat idea of defence bonds to fund the defence investment plan so that critical security projects such as those in transport are not put at risk?
- Hansard source
NHS Corridor Care
I thank the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) for her excellent opening speech—it was what we expected, given her unparalleled experience and knowledge in this area. As we have heard over and over again, our A&E departments are at breaking point and ambulance services have been overwhelmed. The corridor care data, which was finally released last month, confirmed the extent of this crisis, well after the end of what we would consider to be the winter peak. Corridor care is no longer a phenomenon confined to the winter months; it is a year-round crisis. I have no doubt that the recent heatwaves will have put unbearable pressure on services yet again. The scale of corridor care has a huge impact on patients. Some 36% of visitors to hospitals have seen care delivered in a corridor. A freedom of information request by the Liberal Democrats revealed that the average hospital trust now sees nearly 3,000 patients wait more than 24 hours in A&E each year. Corridor care is also extremely detrimental to staff. A 2025 Royal College of Physicians survey found that 78% of doctors had provided care in a temporary space. In testimonies collected by the Royal College of Nursing, nursing staff described patients deteriorating unnoticed and suffering avoidable harm. They expressed their anxiety and demoralisation at the level of care they were able to give and being unable to guarantee patient safety, because corridors are unsafe for patients and unsafe for staff, too. Staff are losing hope, and corridor care has become so normalised that one hospital advertised for a dedicated corridor care nurse. Another, as we have heard, even created a makeshift ward in an on-site Costa Coffee. The Government owe it to patients and staff to make fixing this crisis an urgent priority. Even the release of corridor care data was a shambles, arriving late after months of the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), paying lip service to transparency and delaying its publication. Concerns have already been raised over loopholes in the Government’s definition of corridor care, which anecdotal evidence suggests has encouraged trusts to hide the true extent of the crisis, with treatment being pushed back into ambulances to avoid incidents being labelled as corridor care. University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS trust had no patients being treated in corridors, while ambulance crews were providing care in its car parks, according to a recent West Midlands ambulance service board paper. Increasing ambulance handover times will not tackle the indignity of corridor care, but will only compound it and prevent the release of those ambulances to people with potentially life-threatening conditions. The corridor care data, which is the best we have got, revealed that May alone saw a shocking 90,000 incidents of corridor care. The Royal College of Emergency Medicine’s recent report estimated that long waits caused at least 15,860 excess deaths in England in 2025. All of the evidence is there. The royal colleges have been sounding the alarm for years. Data and reports demonstrate the huge scale of this scandal. Countless individual stories remind us of the personal tragedies behind the numbers. One of my constituents, a carer for three adult sons, called after a truly awful experience last year. His eldest son had collapsed on the stairs in the middle of the night. After calling 999 and being told no ambulance was available for some time, my constituent drove his son to A&E himself with some difficulty, and only once his son had regained consciousness. They waited in A&E for 28 hours to then be put in a holding area for one and a half days before being transferred to a ward. Each of these numbers and cases involves a person. Madam Deputy Speaker, it could be your child, an elderly relative or a vulnerable friend—each experiencing no privacy, no dignity and suffering poor outcomes. I look forward to hearing the Government’s plan to resolve this crisis. The Liberal Democrats have an action plan to fix corridor care. We believe that hospital capacity is a key issue, and that cannot be fixed without fixing social care. One of the biggest factors behind lack of capacity is the lack of social care. Baroness Casey’s final report is not due until 2028, and I hope that the Minister will be able to announce that the Secretary of State will bring that forward, so that we can solve the social care crisis. Without those beds, people are either held outside in ambulances or on corridors outside wards. We would invest £1.5 billion to provide 6,000 more beds across the system. Those would be provided through new staffed hospital beds and investment in safety-net social care beds, proper step-down care packages and more support for carers and hospices, so that thousands more patients can leave hospital. To solve corridor care, we have to fix the front door and the back door, and invest in primary care as well as social care. That would include boosting recruitment and retention to provide 8,000 more GPs to reduce pressure on hospitals and save the NHS time and money in the first place. We would also place a duty on the Secretary of State to prevent 12-hour waits in A&E and ensure that they do not continue to happen year in, year out. The Liberal Democrats have a plan to bring back the dignity and safety that patients deserve, and the working conditions that NHS staff deserve too. I hope that the Government will listen to our plan, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
- Hansard source
Societal Impact of AI: Government Policy
On the demise of society, AI can fuel the threat of disinformation, which can inflame tension and distort debate. We have seen that in Epsom and Ewell. Does my hon. Friend agree that AI must be regulated and that the Government must bring forward the AI Bill?
- Hansard source
Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness
My hon. Friend highlights the dangers that threaten us with Putin on our continent, and the desperate need for us to rearm, and to rearm quickly, so we have the right warfighting equipment. The recent example of Ajax, and the 16 years it has taken to try to procure it, is a demonstration of how difficult and challenging MOD procurement is, and of how we need to improve on that. We could not wait 16 years if a sudden threat arrived on our doorstep tomorrow. Does my hon. Friend agree that we urgently need to work more with our European allies to ensure that we can develop joint capabilities together?
- Hansard source
NHS Corridor Care
Many people in my constituency have written about experiencing corridor care, and that loss of dignity when vulnerable and elderly patients are sitting in corridors. Does the hon. Member agree that we desperately need urgent action to ensure that dignity is prioritised wherever care is given?
- Hansard source
Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness
Given the important armed forces community in Taunton and Wellington, which includes 40 Commando Royal Marines, 675 Squadron Army Air Corps, our sea and air cadets and our army cadet force, I start by thanking all those who are serving and all the veterans in my community who have served. At the weekend, I was pleased to have the opportunity to thank Ed Cullen and all the veterans who organised our superb Somerset Armed Forces Day event, drawing 49,000 people, which was a record attendance. I hope that the Minister will join me in congratulating them, as well as Terry Williams, who is fundraising to establish the “poppy of honour”, with 1.1 million named paper poppies for every individual lost in world war one. Indeed, I call on the Government to support that fundraising effort in a meaningful way. Speaking of those who have been on active service, I also congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) on his service. He brings to these Benches the sharpest of insights on defence and rearmament, and great experience too. How we treat our veterans is a vital component of how we will attract the men and women to serve in the forces and deliver the warfighting readiness that this debate is about. That is why the superb work of the NHS Somerset armed forces link team must not be cut back as a result of cuts to integrated care boards by the Department of Health and Social Care. Former Royal Marine Steven Summers has said to me that “the support provided…has been life changing. They have helped bridge the gaps between the NHS, local GP surgeries, and the commitments made under the Armed Forces Covenant… Their work really does make a difference.” The support that we give our veterans should also include those who served in Operation Banner in Northern Ireland. They should never have to face double jeopardy. That is why the Liberal Democrats voted against carrying over the Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. Given the heat, I will spend a moment thanking soldiers on ceremonial duties. I am personally appalled by the way a minority of members of the public treat the guards and their horses, as is regularly shown on social media. Veterans in my constituency have asked me to raise that here today. I urge the Government to consider whether anything can be done to better prevent people from interfering with guards’ duties. Cadets are tomorrow’s servicemen and women, so I welcome that our cadet forces are set to keep growing, and the 30% target must be met as soon as possible. A decent home for serving personnel matters, so I was proud as the Liberal Democrats housing spokesperson to take forward the work begun by my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) and propose amendments to the Renters’ Rights Bill, which were eventually made by the Government, to bring service family accommodation up to a decent home standard by law. I am delighted that the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) to the Armed Forces Bill would extend that to single living accommodation. I welcome the £15 billion defence investment plan, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells said, it does not go nearly far enough. With £4.75 billion of that yet to be found, any raiding of the military housing budget would be a false economy and bitterly opposed by Liberal Democrats. If this defence investment is to be spent well, the promise made to our small businesses to properly integrate them into procurement must be kept. The current 5% procurement budget for SMEs is a pittance. An SME in my constituency—Coker Engineering in Taunton—needs reliable access to steel imports. I repeat the call for defence companies to be granted exclusions from steel import tariffs so that they can make the arms our forces need. In conclusion, if the Government’s ambition falls short, the Liberal Democrats’ ambition does not. We call for: a new EU-UK defence pact providing the basis for negotiating UK entry into SAFE, or Security Action for Europe; decent homes for service families and single living accommodation; and a £20 billion programme of defence bonds to inject the capital that our forces urgently need to meet the challenges set out by my hon. Friend and the strategic defence review. That is the defence of our country that Liberal Democrats have been campaigning for, and that is what we would deliver.
- Hansard source
Point of Order
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 2 June, my hon. Friends the Members for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) and for Witney (Charlie Maynard) and I sent a letter to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care concerning the decommissioning of important mental health services in Oxfordshire, including: the Infant-Parent Perinatal Service, the Child and Adolescent Harmful Behaviour Service, and the Family Assessment and Safeguarding Service. We invited the Secretary of State to exercise powers under the Health and Care Act 2022 to call in the decision. I am aware that there is a 20-day timeframe for ministerial responses to Members’ correspondence. However, that has passed. Normally when this occurs, I tend not to chase it, but this is a really important time-sensitive case, so I seek your guidance on how we may receive a response from the Department.
- Hansard source
Draft UK-EU Agreement on Gibraltar
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) on securing this important debate. Before I begin, I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It was my privilege to represent the Liberal Democrats at the Gibraltar national day celebrations last year as a guest of His Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar. That visit, and my work on the Foreign Affairs Committee, gave me the opportunity to question Ministers, the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, opposition politicians and business leaders about the treaty. Those discussions made it clear that the agreement has been shaped by the priorities of Gibraltar itself. The Brexit deal left Gibraltar in a state of limbo for years. The treaty finally resolves one of the last outstanding Brexit issues and provides Gibraltar with the certainty it has been seeking ever since the United Kingdom left the European Union. In 2016, 96% of Gibraltarians voted to remain in the European Union; they have had to live with the consequences of a Brexit that they did not vote for. This agreement is about undoing some of the damage caused by a Brexit deal that Boris Johnson called “oven-ready” but in reality was always destined for the bin. The Chief Minister made it clear to the Foreign Affairs Committee that the single most important priority was ensuring that people who live in Spain but work in Gibraltar, particularly in the financial services and gaming sectors, could continue to cross the frontier every day without excessive delays. Without an agreement, Gibraltar would have been required to implement the full Schengen border code, and travellers would have faced European entry and exit systems and, in the future, the ETIAS—European travel information and authorisation system—digital travel authority. Those additional checks would have created significant delays, threatening Gibraltar’s competitiveness and potentially encouraging businesses to relocate. Instead, eligible travellers will enjoy fluid movement comparable with travelling between Schengen countries. Their ability to continue doing so quickly and efficiently underpins Gibraltar’s economy and the public services that Gibraltarians rely on. But this deal is about more than economics. The Chief Minister reminded the Foreign Affairs Committee that Gibraltar and the surrounding Campo de Gibraltar are communities bound together by families, friendship and shared history. During the closure of the frontier between 1969 and 1982, families were physically separated, forced to wave to one another across a closed border. Nobody wants a future resembling that painful past. This agreement protects the everyday relationships that exist across the frontier for work, family, education and leisure, and allows those connections to continue. Approximately 96% of Gibraltarian goods arrive through the land frontier with Spain. After Brexit, sanitary and phytosanitary barriers made importing fresh British food significantly more difficult, with products even requiring air freighting during the Christmas period. This treaty offers businesses the certainty they need. Essential food products will be zero-rated under a new transactions tax, and there will be reduced rates on other essential goods. The Chief Minister also made it clear that Gibraltar rejected any “freedom of establishment” in the treaty. Gibraltar is home to about 38,000 people living within approximately 2.5 square miles; it was never the intention to create unrestricted rights of establishment across a bloc of approximately 480 million people. Instead, the agreement focuses on facilitating movement across the frontier while preserving Gibraltar’s own immigration rules. Perhaps the greatest misconception about the treaty concerns sovereignty. The Government of Gibraltar state that there are no sovereignty concessions. The British Government state that sovereignty was never on the negotiating table. Article 2 explicitly preserves the position of both the UK and Spain on sovereignty and jurisdiction. Three independent legal opinions commissioned by the Government of Gibraltar conclude unequivocally that the treaty makes no concessions whatsoever to Spain or the European Union. The agreement also protects Britain’s strategic interests. The operational autonomy of the military base remains entirely unaffected. Protecting unrestricted military access was a red line throughout negotiations, supported fully by the Ministry of Defence and the Defence Secretary. In the highly unlikely event that Spain should ever seek to terminate the agreement, it cannot do so unilaterally. Under article 66, termination would require a qualified majority among European Union member states followed by action by the European Commission. That provides important legal certainty for Gibraltar’s future. I want to say something briefly about the wider UK-EU relationship. Gibraltar demonstrates something important: where the UK and the EU work together pragmatically, solutions can be found that benefit everyone. It shows that close co-operation with our European neighbours delivers tangible benefits. Britain’s long-term future should lie at the heart of Europe, because our economy, our security and our young people’s opportunities are stronger when we work alongside our closest neighbour and ally. I praise those who made this agreement possible. Officials from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, Ministers, the Governor’s Office, His Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar, the European Commission and Spain have spent many years negotiating what the Minister has rightly described as a practical and lasting solution. This treaty will protect Gibraltar’s economy, safeguard British sovereignty, preserve military interests, strengthen regional stability and, above all, respect the democratic wishes of the Gibraltarian people.
- Hansard source
Draft UK-EU Agreement on Gibraltar
Perhaps it is useful to point out that the Foreign Affairs Committee does not, as standard, hold evidence sessions on every treaty that is laid before Parliament under the CRaG process. The Minister and the Chief Minister very kindly appeared before us to give evidence, and frankly a lot of the questions that the shadow Minister asked were probably answered in that evidence session.
- Hansard source
Government Support for Bus Services: West Dorset
I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for bus services in West Dorset constituency. It is a pleasure, as always, to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey. It is my privilege to bring this debate to the House. This issue may seem niche, but it matters a great deal to my residents. It has generated a huge number of queries, social media comments, emails and constituency casework since I became an MP, reflecting just how deeply it affects people’s daily lives. Buses determine whether my constituents can get to work, reach college, attend a hospital appointment, visit the high street or simply remain independent. When services are reduced or withdrawn, it can cause real anxiety for those who rely on them and, as I recently saw through casework, their families, too. That is especially true when it comes to reaching vital hospital appointments or when there are further cuts to essential routes, as we saw when the X53 and X51 services were significantly reduced due to last-minute increases in the subsidies demanded by the bus company, which the council could not afford to meet, when changing to a winter timetable. In the spirit of constructive opposition, I welcome the direction that the Government have taken. I welcome the introduction of the new local authority bus grant, bringing together previous funding streams into a single multi-year settlement. I welcome the recognition of rurality in the funding model, as well as the extra funding that has been provided to local authorities. Long-term funding provides certainty. It allows authorities to plan strategically and move away from the stop-start cycle of short-term funding announcements that has characterised this area for too long.
- Hansard source
Government Support for Bus Services: West Dorset
The hon. Member rightly touches on a lot of the issues that I will come to, all of which I know are as pressing in his part of the United Kingdom as they are in mine. I thank the Minister for the constructive meeting we had on these issues. For the first time, the funding formula explicitly recognises rurality. That is an important step forward, and one that I and many other rural Members have called for from our first days in the House. However, recognising rurality and adequately funding rurality are two different things. The scale of the challenge in rural areas is immense, requiring a sustained and significant effort to rebuild networks that have been hollowed out over many years. Rural bus services fell by 52% between 2008 and 2023.
- Hansard source
Government Support for Bus Services: West Dorset
My hon. Friend and neighbour is right to raise the pertinent issues of older buses and the closing of depots, which are directly linked. I hope that has been heard by the Minister. Across England, there were over 1 billion fewer passenger journeys in 2023 than in 2015. Bus service frequency in West Dorset has fallen by an astonishing 62%, and 10 of Dorset’s 14 towns are already transport deserts or at serious risk of becoming one. That creates barriers to employment, healthcare and independence. Patients miss hospital appointments, which contributes to the £1.2 billion annual cost of missed appointments for NHS England. Young people miss out on opportunities, older residents become isolated, and communities slowly lose confidence that public transport will ever return. That is why simply maintaining today’s network cannot be considered a success; the scale of decline means that we must actively rebuild what has already been lost. Between 2026 and 2030, Dorset will receive £13.8 million in Government bus funding: the lowest allocation anywhere in the south-west. That is £10.9 million less than neighbouring Somerset receives and £7.5 million less than Wiltshire. Devon and Torbay alone will receive over three and a half times Dorset’s allocation and Hampshire will receive nearly four times as much. It is therefore unsurprising that neighbouring authorities can expand services, modernise fleets and increase frequency, while Dorset is often forced simply to maintain what it has left. The Government deserve credit for recognising rurality, but rurality now needs to be given greater weighting within the funding formula. Serving dispersed populations inevitably costs more per passenger than operating in dense urban areas. There is a significant difference between increasing the frequency of an existing service and recreating a lost route from scratch. The latter requires considerably greater investment before passenger numbers can even begin to increase. Every summer, West Dorset’s population increases by over 42% due to seasonal visitors. Around 4 million day visitors and 2 million overnight visitors place a huge additional demand on our transport networks, which were designed to serve a much smaller permanent population. Yet that seasonal pressure is barely recognised in the national funding allocations. The Prime Minister in waiting takes great pride in the transformation of Manchester’s bus network. However, the Bee network demonstrates the scale of the investment required. Greater Manchester receives about £41.42 per resident, compared with approximately £4.84 per resident in Dorset—over eight times as much in funding per head. Transport for Greater Manchester manages a budget exceeding £480 million and subsidises almost a quarter of the network. That level of investment has transformed services, and I want Dorset to have the same level of ambition. However, rebuilding transport across hundreds of square miles of villages, market towns and dispersed communities is significantly harder than doing so in a major urban area. If the Government truly wish to level up rural transport, the funding formula must recognise that restoring services in rural Britain costs more, not less, than maintaining them in our cities. The consequences of poor bus services are perhaps felt most keenly by young people. The recent Milburn review identified transport as one of the main drivers of young people becoming detached from education, employment and training. The review found that in rural, deprived and coastal communities, transport itself had become a major barrier to opportunity for those without access to a car. The proportion of 17 to 20-year-olds holding a full driving licence has fallen to 29%, while for many families the cost of owning and insuring a car has simply become unaffordable. At the same time, bus services have become less frequent and more expensive. Bus fares increased by 59% between 2015 and 2023. On average, young people are now 15% less likely to travel than they were just 15 years ago, which should concern every Member of this House. When the last bus leaves before a hospitality evening shift finishes, a young person cannot access that hospitality job; they have been presented with a challenge that they cannot overcome. That is why I was pleased to table amendments to the Bus Services Bill during its passage to improve connectivity for young people by providing free bus travel for 16 to 18-year-olds, to encourage better co-ordination between buses and trains, and to ensure that funding reflects the realities that rural communities face. Those amendments were not adopted, but I hope the Government will start to move in the positive direction that they indicated. West Dorset has an ageing population, and many people rely on buses to reach GP surgeries, hospitals, pharmacies and shops. When the bus services disappear, independence disappears with them. Poor transport also increases pressure on the NHS, on social care and on local authorities—all these things are connected. That is why I believe we should return to a sort of “total place” thinking, which was first developed over a decade ago: looking across departmental boundaries, instead of operating within them. The Dorset total transport pilot brought together school transport, adult social care transport, public bus services and community transport. With just £180,000 of funding, the pilot improved services in some areas while identifying longer-term efficiencies and introducing more flexible, demand-responsive transport. It also explored digital technology to better match transport supply with demand. Rather than allowing buses to sit empty after a school run or to return to depots, we should ask how those vehicles could transport patients home from hospitals, connect isolated villages or just provide additional journeys during the day. We also need a more joined-up approach between different modes of transport. People should not wait 40 minutes for a bus because the train was three minutes late. We need a properly integrated local transport network with more regulated and co-ordinated bus services. In many rural communities, community transport is often the only reason people remain connected at all.
- Hansard source
Government Support for Bus Services: West Dorset
I agree 100%—talk to anyone who has got off the last train from Crewkerne when the last bus stopped two hours beforehand. We are depriving our communities of the ability to get around, and of course there is an economic impact to that. The CB3 community bus in Beaminster demonstrates exactly what local communities can achieve when volunteers, councils and residents work together. Similarly, the new LB1 evening service between Lyme Regis and Bridport has quickly proved a success, despite disruption caused by necessary works on the A35. I am also encouraged by proposals for further community transport in places such as Sherborne, which have my support, but parish councils and volunteers cannot continue to carry the burden alone. The Department for Transport currently makes up to £3.8 million available annually for eligible community transport operators, but that is across the whole country. Given the scale needed, that is simply not enough. Instead, there should be dedicated, ringfenced grant funding specifically to help communities establish new community transport services where commercial routes have disappeared. A hub-and-spoke model supported by smaller community buses and demand-responsive transport could reconnect villages at a fraction of the cost of restoring traditional commercial routes immediately. Importantly, that funding should recognise that the greatest cost comes at the beginning. Communities need capital investment to purchase vehicles, recruit drivers, establish a booking system and build passenger confidence. Once services become established and passenger numbers increase, public subsidies can reduce over time. Demand-responsive transport has already shown real promise in Wiltshire, where passengers can book flexible journeys through an app and AI software identifies the most efficient routes. Data suggests that these services have been particularly successful among younger users travelling between villages and market towns before they learn to drive. West Dorset would be an ideal place to pilot a similar, larger-scale approach. For rural communities such as West Dorset, buses are fundamental to tackling social isolation, supporting economic growth and giving young people genuine opportunities. I hope that the Minister will listen to the appeals of my residents and ensure that rural Britain is no longer left waiting at the bus stop while the rest of the country moves ahead.
- Hansard source
Greenhouse Gas Removals Sector
I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to bring this Adjournment debate to the House and to make the case for greater Government support for the greenhouse gas removals sector. First, I thank the sector for engaging so openly with me about its businesses and concerns, the Minister for his continued co-operation on this issue and Dr Alan Whitehead for publishing his extremely important review. Before entering this place, I spent almost a decade working in renewable energy, and before that on climate impact projects. I would certainly not claim to be an expert on greenhouse gas removals, but, through my work in the renewable energy sector, and now as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on climate technology and the co-chair of the net zero APPG, I have at least become a passionate advocate for the sector. It has been encouraging to see a Secretary of State and Ministers who genuinely recognise the scale of the climate challenge. However, warm words must now become concrete action if Britain is not to miss yet another opportunity to become a world leader in one of the defining industries of the next century. Climate change is here. It is happening now. We see it through rising temperatures and increasingly frequent heatwaves, flooding, drought and wildfires. The changing climate is already affecting our communities, businesses and public services. Much of the conversation has rightly focused on reducing our emissions, and let me be clear: decarbonisation must remain our first priority. Every tonne of carbon dioxide we avoid emitting now is better than having to remove it later. However, even if we achieve every single one of our net zero targets—and we absolutely must—we will still have a problem. Net zero does not remove the carbon dioxide that is already sitting in our atmosphere, which is why this debate is not about carbon capture and storage, but about carbon removal. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been absolutely clear that without greenhouse gas removals, keeping global warming within internationally agreed limits becomes effectively impossible. Today, humanity removes only about 2 billion tonnes annually, 99.9% of which is done by trees and plants. Meanwhile, we continue adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere every single year. The scale of the challenge is enormous. Whenever I speak about this issue, someone invariably asks, “Why do we not just plant more trees?” I agree: trees are wonderful, and we should absolutely plant more of them. However, to keep global temperature increases below the 1.5% or 2% target, we would need to remove 10 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere every single year, which would require us to plant roughly 50 million hectares of new forest annually. That is equivalent to covering the entirety of the UK with trees, twice, every single year. Even the most committed of environmentalists would accept that that approach has practical limitations.
- Hansard source
Greenhouse Gas Removals Sector
My hon. Friend and neighbour is absolutely right. There are many exciting nature-based solutions for which I have high hopes. In my role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on climate technology, my focus today is mainly on the engineered solutions, but we need to consider all solutions to meet the challenge ahead.
- Hansard source
Greenhouse Gas Removals Sector
I believe that we should back any and all solutions that help us face the challenge, and Northern Ireland is as well placed as any part of the UK to offer innovative solutions. Technology such as direct air capture and engineered removal methods will become an essential part of moving beyond net zero towards net negative emissions. Those technologies are nascent. The businesses that will develop them need to be founded today and to scale over the next decade. They need investment, certainty and confidence if they are to become globally competitive and properly supported. The encouraging news is that Britain already possesses almost everything needed to succeed. We have world-class universities that produce cutting-edge research, exceptional engineers, innovative start-ups and university spin-outs, globally respected financial services and investors, and advanced manufacturing capability. The UK’s GGR sector already contributes about £1.2 billion to the UK economy. It has the potential to contribute between £7 billion and £9 billion to GDP by 2050 while supporting more than 100,000 skilled jobs. The countries that build those technologies first will not simply reduce emissions at home; they will be central to global emission reductions for decades to come. Britain should aspire to become the global centre of carbon removal innovation, the home of future climate tech unicorns and a leading exporter of GGR technologies.