G7 Summit
Reform is in no position to ask questions or make demands when its leader is refusing to own up about his £5 million donation and whether he lobbied the Bank of England about cryptocurrencies.
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,942 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
G7 Summit
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We all want to see peace maintained in the middle east, and we look with horror at the settler violence in the west bank. I condemn the inflammatory language that we hear once again from members of the Israeli Government.
- Hansard source
G7 Summit
I have stood at this Dispatch Box and discussed these issues over several years. I remember negotiating with the Iranians in Geneva and hearing some of their mendacity regarding their nuclear ambitions. I was pleased to see the G7 statement on Iran, to which I would refer the hon. Gentleman if he has not already read it. As he would expect, the United Kingdom stands ready to support that deal and hold Iran to the obligations it must necessarily have in relation to its nuclear ambitions and uranium enrichment.
- Hansard source
G7 Summit
Let me thank again the Royal Marines and National Crime Agency officers for their bravery and professionalism. The vessel is now held off the south coast at a UK anchorage. A live criminal investigation is ongoing, so I cannot comment further, but my hon. Friend has heard us talk again and again about the Russian shadow fleet and seen us corral much of the international community into action.
- Hansard source
G7 Summit
The hon. Gentleman is right: the Leader of the Opposition and her party delivered a botched Brexit, and we must hold them to account for that. That is why we have sought, day after day, to reconnect with our European friends and partner with them where we can. We held the first summit, and I look forward to the next summit. We have made progress in repairing the damage that was done together with our European friends.
- Hansard source
G7 Summit
Protecting primary steel production, which is critical to UK national infrastructure, is the No. 1 priority. From 1 July, overall quota levels for steel imports will be reduced by 60% compared with current arrangements, with steel coming into the UK above those levels subject to a 50% tariff. Measures are targeted at steel that could be made in the United Kingdom. We continue to engage with the industry and trading partners on our steel measures, and we will confirm final quotas shortly ahead of 1 July. We will monitor the impact closely, including through a review after 12 months.
- Hansard source
G7 Summit
The right hon. Lady and I have discussed these issues—indeed, we did so before we came into Government. There is no change to our manifesto red lines, and I will not pre-empt what our next manifesto might say, but I look forward to the next EU summit and am quite sure that it will take place as soon as is possible.
- Hansard source
G7 Summit
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question—I expect to be here for a few days yet. We did publish a statement on that issue, and it will be 1 July.
- Hansard source
G7 Summit
1 January.
- Hansard source
G7 Summit
I am proud of the work we have done to reconnect with the European Union. Alongside the Minister for the Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), and the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my dear hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) who is on the Front Bench, we have put a lot of work into the run-up to that EU summit. I was pleased to sit around the table with Foreign Secretaries across Europe for the first time, and that momentum will continue not just for the next year, but right up to the general election many years ahead.
- Hansard source
G7 Summit
I just remind the hon. Lady that in the past decade, 70,000 jobs were lost in the North sea because of her party. We have headquartered Great British Energy in Aberdeen, we have established the Office for Clean Energy Jobs to help create jobs, and there are already 105,000 jobs in renewables in Scotland. We are committed to jobs and that is why we have provided an extra £1.2 billion in support of upskilling the workforce.
- Hansard source
G7 Summit
It is great to hear the Greens talking about climate again, frankly—more, more, more! I am very proud of our record on climate, on renewables and on nature. I was very pleased to deliver my Kew lecture on this subject, and the great work continues not just in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, but at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, to ensure that Britain once again is at the leadership table on climate and nature.
- Hansard source
G7 Summit
Despite the repartee, the hon. Gentleman is well aware that in our constitutional system, just as I deputised for the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions last week and answered questions on a range of issues on behalf of the Government, I deputise today to update the House on the G7.
- Hansard source
G7 Summit
Ben-Gvir’s words are reprehensible and of course I condemn them. I was very proud to sanction him for all that he continues to do to destabilise the middle east and undermine the prospect of a two-state solution.
- Hansard source
G7 Summit
I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that I expect that the EU summit will happen as quickly as possible. He knows our constitutional arrangements. My right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) won a massive victory in Makerfield, and I look forward to working with him over the coming weeks and months.
- Hansard source
G7 Summit
The G7 was a great act of diplomacy and I commend President Macron for a successful G7 summit. In relation to the terrible geopolitical environment that the right hon. Gentleman describes, the summit was successful in part because President Macron chose to invite India, Kenya, partners in the Gulf and others to talk about the very same issues that I know have dominated much of the right hon. Gentleman’s career.
- Hansard source
G7 Summit
We must always do what is right for the country. I do not recognise the either/or that the hon. Gentleman is positing. Of course we are global leaders in areas such as AI, digital and tech, but with the EU as our biggest trading partner, it is vital that we continue to work in partnership with it, and I am proud of the Government’s record in that regard.
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
Like many other Members on both sides of the House, I have heard from countless families who have been let down by the existing SEND system. In one particularly upsetting case, a bright young boy was expelled from infant school owing to the mishandling of his complex needs. Thankfully, he was later re-enrolled as a result of his mother’s tireless work. Does the Minister agree that the reforms outlined in the Government’s SEND White Paper will support productive early intervention and create a fairer, more fulfilling school experience for every child?
- Hansard source
East Midlands Railway Collision
I express my deepest condolences to the family, friends and colleagues of Shaun Burton. As a train driver, he carried enormous responsibility and we should remember his dedication and service. I also wish a full recovery to those who are injured. This was a tragic incident, but it was genuinely moving to witness the extraordinary response from our community. I saw at first hand the professionalism and compassion of rail staff, emergency services and NHS staff, alongside the many local businesses, community groups and individuals who stepped forward to help. From distributing water and food to transporting stranded passengers and supporting these superb emergency operations, Bedford and Kempston came together as one community, and I am immensely proud of everyone involved. Given that thousands of commuters rely on these services, can the Secretary of State confirm that replacement services are operating effectively, and can she tell me what support is being provided for rail staff who are working in challenging conditions during the rare red heat warning period, while also coping with the impact of this tragedy?
- Hansard source
Armed Forces Bill
The hon. Member says that the SDR is not about strategy, but the clue is in the name. It is a strategic defence review. Does he not agree?
- Hansard source
Armed Forces Bill
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), mostly because it is such a rarity—like hen’s teeth—to see our Reform colleagues in the Chamber for these debates. I turn to new clause 10, tabled by the Conservative party. I would be supportive of it if it focused less on the timeframes and more on getting the defence investment plan right. There is an urgent need to properly fund the defence investment plan as a credible, long-term commitment for our nation’s security. I call on the Government to do that. We have seen what happens when defence is funded inconsistently—the Conservatives, in their 14 years in government, provided a masterclass in that. For years, too often spending has been drip-fed, reactive, fragmented and tied to short-term pressures rather than long-term strategy. That approach does not save money; it stores up costs and leads to delays, inconsistencies and, ultimately, weaker capability. Nowhere is that clearer than in my constituency of Barrow and Furness, the heart of our sovereign submarine building capability. When investment falters, as it did under the coalition Government of the Opposition parties, skills are lost, highly trained engineers move on, the training pipeline is cut and the supply chain contracts. When the nation inevitably needs to accelerate production again, we are forced to rebuild that capacity at far greater expense. That is why the DIP—the first line-by-line, long-term plan of its kind in a decade—is so important. It is vital that we get it right, but also that it is properly funded to meet the scale of the threats we face and the demands placed on our armed forces. The consequences of not doing so extend beyond cost; over time, our armed forces risk becoming “hollowed out”, as referenced by former Conservative Defence Secretaries.
- Hansard source
Armed Forces Bill
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. As he rightly says, nobody felt that more than we did in my constituency. I agree that we have to invest properly in the DIP, but we must also ensure that the priorities in the DIP are right. Warfare has changed so dramatically in recent years that we cannot go to the capabilities that we have always looked at, and we cannot continue to fund it in the way that has been done for the past couple of decades. It is about putting the right amount of money in, and about putting it into the right places. Over time, our armed forces have become hollowed out. Our adversaries will be emboldened, and we leave ourselves at a greater risk of the conflicts that we all want to avoid. Defence is not just a cost; it is an engine for growth in communities like mine. Investment in defence supports skilled jobs, apprenticeships and innovation across the country. This Armed Forces Bill demonstrates the Government’s commitment to strengthening our services through improving support for personnel and their families, updating service justice arrangements and ensuring that our armed forces are better equipped to meet the challenges of the modern world. Those are important steps forward, and I am confident that the Bill significantly delivers the improvements that are needed. I therefore oppose new clause 10.
- Hansard source
Draft Private Landlord Redress Schemes (Approval and Designation) Regulations 2026
I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Private Landlord Redress Schemes (Approval and Designation) Regulations 2026. It is an absolute pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Barker—it is my first time doing so, which makes it all the more special. In our manifesto, we promised to overhaul the regulation of an insecure and unjust private rented sector. Our transformative Renters’ Rights Act 2025, which received Royal Assent on 27 October last year, delivered on that commitment. In the implementation road map, published on 13 November 2025, the Government set out our intention to switch on the provisions of the Act in three distinct phases. As the first phase, on 1 May 2026, we commenced the new tenancy regime. As a result, section 21 no-fault evictions were finally abolished, all fixed-term tenancies transitioned to periodic tenancies; rent increases were limited to once a year, with new rights to challenge unreasonable rent hikes; rental bidding wars were banned; demands for large amounts of rent in advance were prohibited; discrimination against renters who have children or receive benefits was banned, and the right to request permission for a pet was introduced. In the second phase of our reforms, we will introduce our innovative database of private rented sector properties and establish a landlord ombudsman for the PRS to improve dispute resolution between tenants and landlords and avoid costly court proceedings. These regulations concern the latter measure, but do not themselves approve or designate a specific scheme. As hon. Members may be aware, the 2025 Act provides for the establishment of one or more landlord redress schemes for the private rented sector. These regulations preserve that flexibility, in case it is needed; however, the Government do not intend to create multiple schemes at launch. Our immediate intention is to establish a single designated scheme. Once further regulations are made and that single designated scheme is operational, residential private landlords will be required to join it, giving prospective, current and former tenants a route to fair, impartial and binding resolution where they have a legitimate complaint against their landlord. That will close an important gap in the current PRS regulatory landscape, where agent redress is already mandatory, but there is no equivalent mandatory route where responsibility lies with the landlord. The regulations are therefore the next legislative step towards establishing mandatory landlord redress for the private rented sector. However, as I mentioned, they do not approve or designate the scheme. This is an enabling instrument that must be put in place before a scheme can later be approved or designated. In the interest of providing clarity to the Committee on precisely what the instrument does and does not do, let me set out further detail. In essence, the regulations set the detailed framework for how a private landlord redress scheme may be approved or designated. In practice, the regulations will mean that any future scheme must be shown to have robust arrangements around independent decision making, fair complaints handling, binding redress, proportionate enforcement, fair and transparent fees, co-operation and information sharing with other bodies, public reporting and regular reviews, continuity if a scheme closes and access for users who need to engage by post or telephone. To be clear, an approved scheme would be designated and administered by an independent body and approved by the Secretary of State for the purposes of mandatory landlord redress. A designated scheme would be administered by or on behalf of the Secretary of State, who would designate it a mandatory landlord redress scheme. The regulations also set out how a scheme may be amended, so that it can respond to changes in the sector over time—including, but not confined to, changes in landlord and tenant behaviour, operational learning and the needs of the people who use the scheme. The Government’s view is that the framework should be robust, but not so rigid that it prevents a scheme from remaining effective and fit for purpose over time. The regulations also protect continuity of redress if a scheme closes, or if its approval is withdrawn or its designation revoked. That means that there must be arrangements to support an orderly transition, including the transfer of relevant information and records where necessary, so that tenants and landlords are not left without clarity or continuity if a scheme stops operating. I once again stress that the regulations do not approve or designate a redress scheme; that decision will come later. Their purpose is to establish the statutory conditions that any future scheme must meet, so that it can proceed only if the Secretary of State is satisfied that it meets the required standard. That provides clarity for landlords on what will be expected of them, and for tenants on how complaints can be escalated once the scheme is in place. The regulations do not require landlords to join a scheme immediately. Next steps will involve preparing and designating a scheme, and subsequently bringing forward separate regulations, specifying which landlords must join and when that requirement will take effect, once the service is ready. It is essential that we establish this framework now because, without it, a scheme cannot be approved or designated and we cannot proceed to the next stage of implementation. However, doing so will also provide clarity, certainty and confidence to the sector. Subject to parliamentary approval of this instrument, our focus will turn to the scheme itself, ensuring that it is designed to meet the rigorous conditions set out in these regulations and that the Secretary of State can be satisfied that it is ready for designation. The Government’s intention, as I confirmed during the passage of the Bill, is for the Housing Ombudsman Service, which already administers social landlord redress, to operate the private landlord redress scheme too. The Housing Ombudsman will need enough time to develop the service ahead of launch, and we will ensure that we give landlords sufficient notice and clear guidance before any future requirement to join the scheme takes effect, including what will be expected of them in order to comply with the scheme. To conclude, these regulations put in place the minimum standards and safeguards that the private landlord redress scheme must meet. They are a necessary enabling step towards delivering a fair, impartial and binding redress scheme for private tenants, and a clear route to resolution when things go wrong. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
- Hansard source
Draft Private Landlord Redress Schemes (Approval and Designation) Regulations 2026
I thank both the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, and the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, for those questions. I will seek to answer them each in turn, beginning with giving the Committee a sense of when things will change for landlords and for tenants. I made it clear that the draft regulations set out the framework for the redress scheme to come; they do not themselves approve or designate a specific scheme. Much of the detail will follow in regulations. The draft regulations do not themselves create an immediate live complaints route for private tenants and they do not yet require private landlords to join a scheme. As I said, further regulations will be needed before membership becomes mandatory, once the service is ready to go live. The shadow Minister asked about fees. As we debated at length in the Bill Committee, landlords will be required to pay for the scheme. That is in line with established practice across the sector. The draft regulations require a scheme to include provision for fees, but they do not themselves set fee amounts. The intention is that the scheme document will outline the approach to setting and calculating membership, while details of the fees will be published elsewhere. That will allow administration and membership fees to be managed proportionately, without requiring the scheme to be amended whenever fee levels change. The Secretary of State, however—this is the important point in response to the shadow Minister’s question—will retain oversight of fees, including any increases, to ensure that they remain proportionate and represent value for money. Again, to respond to the point that the draft regulations do not set out the actual scheme, broadly, the PRS landlord ombudsman will consider complaints from tenants about actions, inactions or behaviours by their landlord that have caused harm or inconvenience. Those may include, for example, complaints relating to property standards and repairs, the landlord’s handling of requests or inappropriate behaviour by a landlord. We have deliberately not set out an exhaustive list on the face of this instrument, however, because the ombudsman will need discretion to consider the facts of individual cases and to respond to a change in the rental market. Again, as the designated scheme comes forward, we will see more detail and more examples of how that will work. To answer the shadow Minister’s question about fees and compensation, hon. Members will have noted that the draft instrument sets a compensation cap of £25,000 to align with the established cap for mandatory property agent redress. That helps, we think, to support consistency across the housing redress landscape, but the Government will of course keep the operation of the scheme, including the cap, under review as part of our wider governance monitoring and evaluation arrangements, with an initial review required within five years of the scheme being approved or designated. The shadow Minister touched on local authorities. It is important to be clear that the ombudsman is intended to provide a quicker, cheaper and less adversarial route to redress, where that is appropriate; it is not intended to replace either the courts or local authority enforcement. We have debated local authority enforcement at length on many occasions. He knows what we are doing about new burdens funding coming forward. Also, there is the ability for local authorities to levy fines and to use the proceeds of those fines to fund their enforcement work—we have recently switched those powers on, perhaps even today, although the exact date escapes me. Local authorities will continue to enforce regulatory requirements, with the ombudsman focusing on investigating complaints and, where appropriate, awarding redress to put things right. I touched on the point about landlords, which the Liberal Democrat spokesman asked me about. The draft regulations themselves do not mandate membership. A separate set of regulations will be needed to specify when landlords must be members of the scheme. We will have a chance to debate what kind of landlords are covered at that point, and I expect he will have a series of questions in that regard at that stage. We will, however, ensure—I think this is important—that landlords have clear guidance and sufficient notice before any membership requirement takes effect. I think I have answered all the questions. To conclude, while the draft instrument creates a legal framework for future private landlord redress schemes, it does not yet require landlords to join a scheme or create a live complaints route. It is, however, a critical step in delivering the private rented sector landlord ombudsman and our wider reforms to empower tenants. I commend the regulations to the Committee. Question put and agreed to.
- Hansard source
Armed Forces Bill
Does my hon. Friend agree that the compassion and dedication of community volunteers in supporting our veterans is second to none? I certainly extend my gratitude to Lauren Fox and Luther Blissett, who support people in my constituency of Watford with an invaluable level of help.
- Hansard source
Armed Forces Bill
I recently visited a 92-year-old constituent in Watford who had been terribly concerned about the state of the housing provided for her grandson, which is obviously a consequence of the previous Government’s tenure. As a result of the work of this Labour Government, his housing situation is greatly improved. Does the hon. Member agree with me that the trajectory is at least in the right direction?
- Hansard source
Spinal Muscular Atrophy: Newborn Screening Test
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Mundell. My hon. Friend is talking about lifesaving treatments. One of my constituents has a niece who was born with SMA type 1 and previously would have been at risk of dying. My constituent was told that her niece was unlikely to live past the age of two, but because of the advances in treatment that my hon. Friend has just spoken about, she has just celebrated her ninth birthday. However, she did have to be fed through a stomach pump. Does my hon. Friend agree that for £3.1 million we can get full coverage across England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and ensure that all babies are tested, so that those with SMA can be treated as early as possible?
- Hansard source
SEND Provision: Finance
Many parents rely heavily on SENDIASS—special educational needs and disabilities information, advice and support services. We know that these services are free, impartial and vital for parents. Given that we expect demand on these services to increase, how will the Minister ensure that local authorities have the necessary financial and practical resources to maintain the independence and quality of SENDIASS?
- Hansard source
Point of Order
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to make a point of order in relation to my answer to the urgent question on 15 June in this House. In my answer, I said that the Defence Secretary was “currently with His Majesty the King”, as that was my understanding from the Defence Secretary —[Official Report, 15 June 2026; Vol. 787, c. 571.] Although the Defence Secretary was indeed summoned by His Majesty on Monday 15 June, he arrived back in London from Windsor earlier that day, prior to the UQ. I was unaware of this fact when I spoke in the Chamber; I believed him to be with the King and therefore unable to take the question himself. However, at the time of my answering the urgent question, the Defence Secretary was no longer with His Majesty. I wish to correct the record on that point.
- Hansard source
Armed Forces Bill
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
- Hansard source
Armed Forces Bill
The Bill is perhaps one of the most constitutionally significant Bills that Parliament regularly debates, as it renews the mandate for a standing Army on a five-yearly basis. It has therefore been a privilege to serve on the Select Committee established to scrutinise it. I am grateful to the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), for pointing out the convention that one should address the opening speech, and the new clauses moved in it, because that gives me the opportunity to say—I am very sorry that the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) is not in his place, because it would have been a delight to cross swords with him metaphorically—that I am really quite flabbergasted that in new clauses 1 and 2 the right hon. Member has managed to insert issues relating to the middle east into a debate that is primarily about the welfare of the armed forces here in the UK. It was extremely imaginative of him to manage to do that, which perhaps indicates a degree of dedication to one particular policy area that is in some ways commendable and in other ways slightly disturbing. I am sorry he is not here, because I would have been delighted to have taken an intervention from him on that subject. Just in case he scrutinises what I have said, I refer right hon. and hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I once again pay tribute to the armed forces community across the North Durham constituency. As I have noted at every opportunity I have had to speak on the Bill, North Durham is home to a considerable number of veterans, as well as the families of service personnel. It was an honour yesterday to speak at the flag raising ceremony in Stanley Front Street for Armed Forces Week. We are so into Armed Forces Week in North Durham that we have two ceremonies—one at the start of the week and one at the end of the week—and this year it was my honour to be at the one at the start of the week. I pay tribute to Stanley town council and the Durham Light Infantry Association for their role in that ceremony. You could really see the pride that people in North Durham take in their connection to the armed forces. I am always seeking to use my platform here to advocate for those who serve our country, and I have taken every opportunity, such as serving on the Bill’s Select Committee, to play a role in advancing policy that helps our armed forces community. The Labour Government introduced the Armed Forces Bill to deliver on their pledge to renew the contract between the state and the armed forces community. The Bill will deliver for veterans, serving personnel and the next generation of our armed forces by making key strides forward on the covenant, housing and service justice, as well as bolstering our defensive capabilities by changing reservist criteria—at the request of reservists, I might add—and giving the Government powers to tackle drone activity. I believe the parliamentary scrutiny the Bill has had, by the Select Committee and on the Floor of the House, will make it even stronger than it was at the start. I pay tribute to the Government for engaging so constructively with the Bill Select Committee and for accepting the vast majority of our recommendations, resulting in 81 Government amendments to further strengthen the legislation in Committee of the Whole House. In particular, I want to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the former Defence Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey) and the former Armed Forces Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) for their tireless work. They have consistently stood up for what is right, not only for our armed forces community but for our country. From their service as Ministers to making the case for the increased defence spending to adequately protect the British people and, ultimately, to the very honourable decision they took to resign, I hope their decision will have encouraged the Government so that when we finally see the defence investment plan, the quantum and content of it will reflect the political sacrifice they have made in standing down. I welcome the new Defence Secretary, my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), and the new Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones), with full confidence in their ability to step up and continue to do the right thing by serving personnel and veterans. All of us in this House should wish them well. They are doing hugely important work on the final stages of getting agreement on the DIP. Whatever the politics going on in Whitehall around that, we wish them all the very best in that process. They are taking on huge responsibility at a time when this country faces really severe threats. I repeat that I pay tribute to their predecessors, but I also pay tribute to them for stepping up and taking on these hugely important responsibilities at a time when it could not be more important.
- Hansard source
Armed Forces Bill
Is the strategy not in the strategic defence review that was published last year? I remember reading it, and copies were available from the Vote Office. I would recommend that the hon. Gentleman has a look at the SDR, because it sets out what our role is in terms of geopolitics and military strategy.
- Hansard source
Armed Forces Bill
My understanding is that the recommendations in the SDR that do not require financial investment—changes of doctrine or stance or the deployment of existing forces—have been implemented. It is the defence investment plan that we are waiting for, which is primarily about additional spending above and beyond what we already spend on equipment.
- Hansard source
Armed Forces Bill
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
- Hansard source
Armed Forces Bill
First, I want to take this opportunity to put on record my huge thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey) for his service as Secretary of State for Defence. He has been a stalwart champion of our armed forces, and I am especially grateful for his support for our service personnel and their families, driving forward improvements to pay, housing and childcare. His guiding light is, and has always been, to serve those who serve us. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns). He is a formidable operator, a passionate advocate for military modernisation and transformation, and not half-bad at pull-ups either. I hope to match his work on the former, although perhaps am unlikely to do so on the latter, and I look forward to working with both of these fine colleagues as we go forward. I thank hon. and right hon. Members from across the House for their contributions to this debate. Given the number of amendments before us, many of which raise issues fully debated in Committee and on which the Government position remains unchanged, I do not intend to repeat those arguments, but I will focus on the new amendments and a number of the principal issues raised while relying on the record of earlier debates for the remainder.
- Hansard source
Armed Forces Bill
To confirm, where the covenant duty is provided by local government, then it will apply. For example, if it provides housing, it applies. I hope that answers the hon. Lady’s question. I will begin by speaking to the amendment in the Secretary of State’s name making minor and technical changes to the Military Lands Act 1892 that are consequential to the establishment of the reserve forces and cadets associations by clause 38 of the Bill. New clause 4 would waive settlement visa fees for members of the armed forces and the dependants of serving or discharged members of the armed forces. I acknowledge the concerns raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) and recognise that the new clause has been significantly redrafted to reflect the points raised in previous debates, and I also recognise the important role that stakeholders such as the Royal British Legion have played in highlighting this important issue. The Government are committed to delivering the manifesto commitment in full. Work is actively under way across Government and we are determined to bring forward a solution that is clear and works for service personnel and their families. It is important that we get this right, rather than legislate in a way that is partial or risk creating inconsistencies and, as in Committee, new clause 4 does not clearly achieve the stated aim. It is also important that immigration fee waivers continue to be provided for through the established framework in secondary legislation, rather than be fixed in primary legislation. I know how passionate the hon. and gallant Gentleman is about this issue, and he is right to demand speed and progress. I hope he will recognise that while primary legislation is not needed, our commitment—my commitment—is no less than his and I look forward to when we do deliver this important manifesto commitment.
- Hansard source
Armed Forces Bill
I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his valiant attempt. I can assure him it is our manifesto commitment, and we will deliver it. I will now turn to new clauses 21 and 22. These amendments seek to introduce additional statutory reporting requirements on the defence investment plan through both regular updates to Parliament and specific assessments of the impact of any delays. As was set out in response to the Leader of the Opposition’s urgent question last week, the Government are already committed to keeping Parliament appropriately informed, and we do not consider it necessary to add to those commitments. Work to finalise the defence investment plan is continuing under our new Defence Secretary, and we are clear that we will publish it ahead of the NATO summit in July. In the meantime, we are getting on with delivery, having signed over 1,400 major contracts since the election, with 94% of spend going to UK-based companies.
- Hansard source
Armed Forces Bill
We are committed to publishing the DIP before the Ankara summit in July. Amendment 11 concerns the Defence Housing Service’s budget and the defence investment plan. I hope that the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) will understand that I will not comment on any figures in the DIP—it will be published soon enough. Our defence housing strategy will deliver a decade of renewal for defence family housing. Previously, military housing was subject to insufficient, stop-start funding. That did not deliver value for money for the taxpayer, or the improvements that our service families deserve. The Defence Housing Service’s budget will be clearly set out, and it will account for its spending to Parliament via an annual report. As the Select Committee heard during the evidence sessions, there is nothing in the defence investment plan process that stops the Department getting work under way. The Defence Housing Service will be up and running from April 2027, and the work of renewing the estate can continue.
- Hansard source
Armed Forces Bill
I will not comment, piece by piece, on what might be in the defence investment plan. We are getting on with the job of making improvements for service families now, and we are preparing for the launch of the new Defence Housing Service. Amendment 11 states that the Defence Housing Service must operate within a budget set out in the DIP. That risks constraining the Defence Housing Service in a scenario where investment is set out in the plan, but has to rise thereafter. Any additional spending then risks being in breach of this requirement, unless and until a new defence investment plan is published. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that that would constrain the service’s ability to respond swiftly and appropriately to changing requirements. New clause 11 would require any future Secretary of State to consider whether to make a derogation under article 15 of the ECHR, which provides that “in time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation…a State may take measures derogating from its obligations under the Convention only to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation”, provided that such measures are “not…inconsistent with the State’s other obligations under international law”. When the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill was being considered, concerns were raised that its clause 12 risked damaging the UK’s reputation for upholding the rule of law. It was also seen as unnecessary, because the Government can already derogate under article 15 of the ECHR, so the provision did not add any additional legal power and was largely symbolic. It was the last Government who agreed to its removal from that Bill, and I have not heard a convincing case for its inclusion in this Bill. I will address new clauses 3 and 5 together, as they both deal with how we care for our veterans. I thank hon. Members for tabling them. I appreciate their concerns about our armed forces veterans, and I acknowledge the sentiments behind the new clauses. We have published our new 10-year veterans strategy, which sets out a new narrative around the remarkable men and women who have served in our armed forces. It applies UK-wide, is cross-Government and cross-sector in scope, and will provide significant opportunity for both data collection and data sharing, and we do not wish to distract from the progression of this work.
- Hansard source
Armed Forces Bill
My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. Recruitment and retention have both improved, and, crucially, morale has improved, as measured through the armed forces continuous attitude survey, so our work so far has shown clear results.