5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
Is it not the truth that we have a Government who said they were prepared to meet the threats that we face as a country, yet are simply dithering and delaying? With all the infighting on the Labour Benches, what hope is there for our country at a time when we need sustainability and certainty, not chaos?
Absolutely not. I stand here not as a Brexiteer, but as somebody who was a reluctant remainer. I voted for remain partly because of the security of our country, but let me tell the hon. Gentleman that there is no way that I regret that decision. I am a pragmatic Brexiteer—like most of our country—but it is no good him standing there and bemoaning this, that and the other; the decision about the defence investment plan falls on his Government. If it is such a good idea, what has stopped them—I notice the Government Benches are empty—just getting on and delivering it for the sake of our country?
This has been an important debate. It has been a difficult debate, but a necessary one none the less. There are some subjects in public life where the easiest course is silence, where every word is weighed, where motives are questioned and where hon. Members may be tempted to step back rather than step forward, but when the subject is the safety of children, silence is not an option. Children and young people are at the centre of the debate. They are not slogans or political symbols to be used by either side of any argument; they are children, and often vulnerable children experiencing distress that can be profound, complex and deeply painful. They need kindness, patience and support from adults who listen and act responsibly. They need services that are timely, professional and compassionate. Compassion is measured not by how quickly we medicalise a child’s distress but by whether we protect the child’s future and respond to their present pain. That is the heart of the debate. Sadly, those of us who are concerned about this trial are often labelled as transphobic. Personally, I find that offensive. Child safety matters to me, and so does equality for trans people, but we have to think about children. The Government ask the House to accept that the Pathways trial is the responsible way to build evidence. Ministers say that it is a carefully controlled study, that safeguards have been strengthened and that only a small number of children will be involved. But the question before us is not whether research matters—of course it does—but whether this particular trial involving children as young as 11 and 12 is the right and ethical way to proceed. We on the Conservative Benches do not believe that it is. My position is rooted in a simple principle: when evidence is uncertain, risks may be lifelong. When the patient is a child, the burden of proof must be exceptionally high. That is not ideology; that is good medicine. The Cass review changed the debate because it brought clarity to a field that had been allowed to drift for too long. It found weak evidence, poor data, inadequate follow-up and a service model that too often failed to look at the whole child. It was the previous Government who treated those findings with the seriousness that they deserved. The routine prescription of puberty blockers on the NHS was ended because the evidence did not justify the practice. That was not a rejection of vulnerable young people; it was an act of safeguarding. The Government now say that this trial is different. They say that it is not routine prescribing and that there will be monitoring, consent, assessment and withdrawal criteria. Yet process cannot answer the central moral question: can a child, at the start of puberty, truly understand the impact of interrupting that stage? Can an 11-year-old meaningfully consider questions of fertility, bone development, cognitive effects, sexual function and future regret? Can a parent, faced with a distressed child and a desperate sense of need for relief, rationally navigate the uncertainty without enormous pressure? Those are not abstract questions; they go to the integrity of consent itself. In most areas of medicine, when the risks are serious and the benefits uncertain, we become more cautious, not less. We do not reassure ourselves merely because the cohort is small, or say that because only a limited number of children may be exposed, the ethical concern is reduced. For each child in the trial, the consequences are enormous and personal. For each family, the decision is life-altering. For each future adult, the question may one day be, “Did the people in authority protect me properly?” The Secretary of State has said he feels “discomfort and unease”. I welcome that honesty, and I believe it to be heartfelt. Yet discomfort in this area should not be something that Ministers try to manage away; it should make them stop and think again. Unease is sometimes the proper response of conscience. The Government point to safeguards, but safeguards are not the same as certainty. Monitoring every three months may identify some problems, but it cannot guarantee that long-term harm will not emerge years later. Objective withdrawal criteria may be better than vague discretion, but they do not remove the risk of treating a child unnecessarily in the first place. The Government have still not answered a fundamental question: why proceed now before the existing evidence has been fully examined? There are children and young people who were treated under previous services. There is data that may help us to understand outcomes. There is a Tavistock-related evidence base that should be completed and analysed before more children are exposed to puberty blockers in a new trial. Surely the first duty is to learn from what has already happened and therefore potentially identify wherever there may be gaps. That is not obstruction; it is responsibility. The Government must not ignore the wider context. Many children who experience gender distress also have other needs: mental health difficulties, autism, trauma, family pressures, anxiety, depression, eating disorders or safeguarding concerns. Dr Cass was clear that services must look at the whole child and not just one aspect of identity. We should not accept a system that is slow to provide holistic support but prepared to move ahead with powerful medical intervention under the banner of research. The House must be honest about the tone of this debate. There will be young people listening who will be feeling frightened by it. There will be parents listening who feel judged. There will be clinicians listening who are trying to do their best in a difficult and contested area. Let us be clear: our concern is not with the dignity of any child—their dignity is beyond question. Our concern is with the decisions made by adults in positions of power. Children deserve adults who can hold two truths at once: that their distress must be taken seriously, and that serious distress does not automatically justify experimental medical treatment.
I can assure the hon. Lady that I have given this an enormous amount of consideration. I understand what she is saying, but my argument is that we already have a set of data on children who have gone through some of these experiences, and that needs to be looked at. Having spoken to some of them, I do not want to see others experience it.
I am going to continue because I want to give the Minister the opportunity to respond. The Secretary of State says that this trial will help settle the evidence, but a trial that follows children for a limited period cannot by itself settle questions that may only become clear in adulthood. It cannot fully answer the questions of what a child will think at 25, 35 or 45 about decisions that were made at 11 or 12. When I was in my teens, struggling with my sexuality, it was complex enough. It was emotionally draining. It was scary. I cannot imagine how much harder that would have been if someone had added to the mix by telling me that maybe it was not my sexuality but my gender. This is why we must listen to people like Keira Bell. We must not confuse the creation of some evidence with the resolution of all uncertainty. The Opposition’s approach is careful, proportionate and child centred. We must pause this trial, complete the analysis of existing data, publish a full account of the known risks and unknowns and strengthen non-medical support. Then, and only then, should we consider what further research should be ethically justified. This is not abandonment; it is protection. The first responsibility of any health system is not to validate every proposed treatment, but to ask whether that treatment is safe, necessary and in the long-term interests of the patient. When the patient is a child, that responsibility is heavier still. We owe these young people more than good intentions. We owe them caution. We owe them honesty. We owe them services that see them in the round, and we owe them the humility to admit that when the evidence is uncertain, the answer is not to press ahead and hope; the answer is to pause, learn and protect. For those reasons, I urge the House to support this motion.
I thank the Minister for taking my intervention. I, too, served with 20th Armoured Brigade and was deployed in operations from Germany over to the Balkans. She talks about mismanagement. She is in a position where, unless more funding comes forward, the Government are about to make some of the biggest cuts to the armed forces during the most hostile situation since the second world war. How does she square that circle?
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst). He speaks with passion on defence, and he clearly wants to increase our defence presence. I have listened to the debate and I am sounding an alarm. I grew up in a military family; both my parents were in the military. I left school and joined the military, and my brother served in the military. I spent my entire career in security and defence, and since coming to Parliament, everything I have done, outside traditional constituency engagements, is about backing security and defence. I am delighted to be graduating next month from the Royal College of Defence Studies. It has been brilliant to spend a year immersed in the best strategic command course in the world. I reiterate the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith): we are in a very serious situation, but rhetoric, or party political lines, are overtaking that, and we are missing the fact that we need to rearm to face the current situation. In 2024-25, there were 54 to 55 conflicts around the world—those figures might be adjusted, depending on the source. That is the largest number of conflicts in any one year since the second world war. If we believe that we can stop a major conflict, why can we not stop minor conflicts? There is complete instability, and the whole geopolitical situation has changed. Discussions that we are having now would have seemed impossible—beyond the realms of fantasy—five or even three years ago. We need to put that in perspective and really think about it. When Government Members start to talk about “14 years of hollowed-out defence”, they make an illiterate defence argument. They are taking a moment in time and comparing peace with war. We need to look at the situation over the past 100 years and learn from history. At the end of the second world war, Clement Attlee demobilised the military, because that was the right thing to do, as we did not need 5 million soldiers. Similarly, at the fall of the Berlin wall, the majority of the world de-armed and reduced the scale of their defence spending. However, the situation has changed. In 2022, defence spending was 2.22% of GDP, according to figures from the Office for National Statistics, not 2.1% as the hon. Member for North Durham said. There is no denying that the whole world has changed since 2014, or even since 2022, and we are in the most volatile situation. The debate is about whether we should measure from the end of the cold war or the end of the second world war. I firmly believe that we should measure from the end of the second world war. I believe that we will see a global conflict in the coming years, but we are not prepared to defend our nation. I believe that, at this stage, we cannot meet our article 3 NATO commitment to defend the nation for the period of time expected. Everybody talks about article 5, but there are three things that every Defence Minister and politician must look at when we speak about defence: readiness, lethality and survivability. Everything we must do is there. We talk about numbers, but are we funding the readiness of our armed forces? Are they as lethal as they can be? Do they have the ability to survive any conflict? We are not looking at the expeditionary side of warfare that we have seen in the middle east in recent years; we are looking at how we fit on the world stage, and how we prepare for a global conflict, while hoping that it never happens. We have to look at those three areas, but there is always a debate. Are we are ready enough? Should we spend more money on lethality, or should we look at survivability? The most important of those areas is readiness, but I am not saying that the other areas are not important. We have to be ready. If we are not, we cannot go to war. In 1999, after I got married—I celebrated my 27th wedding anniversary on Friday—I said to my wife, “See you in six months,” and deployed straight to Kosovo. When we arrived in theatre, there were no Army barracks. We found derelict, flea-ridden accommodation—blokes were covered in flea bites—and we moved into houses that had been abandoned, as people were still being ethnically cleansed. We did not have the kit, but we were about the most lethal bunch of soldiers you could see. We adapted. The readiness came from what Field Marshal Slim described in the Burma conflict as spiritual morale. You can take equipment away from soldiers and break everything, but if they have the spiritual morale to fight, they can get through everything. We are burning out that morale in the military over time, bit by bit. Let me go back to when I was on the Defence Committee, from 2020 to the middle of 2022. My name is on many reports that absolutely destroyed the Government of the time. That gave me many difficult conversations with the Whips, but calling out the Government was the right thing to do, because we were not able to procure equipment. We were not ready and able to prepare for the world as it was at the time. The Chief of the Defence Staff has recently said that we will have to cut operational services and training capability. Those are big issues, but he has also touched on something that most people do not mention: the resource spending. We have resource departmental expenditure limit spending and capital departmental expenditure limit spending. CDEL buys the ships, tanks, planes and big items, but they have to be run, and we have to pay our troops, so we have to look at the resources around that. Resource is about 62% of defence spending at the moment, but it is nowhere near enough—the balance is off. We are looking at big projects. It is great to be looking at issues such as how we fund new submarines and the Type 83, but will the global combat air programme be crewed or uncrewed? That is another debate; I have some good views on that that I would love to share another time. At the moment, the debate is about what war we are preparing to fight. The hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) has mentioned that the DIP did not fund enough preparation for wars that we may be fighting in the future. It is always hard to predict the future of warfare. It is easy to take lessons from Ukraine, and just think that that is what warfare will be, and while we should take those lessons, we need adapt and prepare, moving forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) mentioned the 18 defence primes. On the scalability of technology, I believe a disruptive model is coming, or is needed, in the defence industry. Two weeks ago, I was delighted to be at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology with NATO, discussing nanotechnology—even though I left school as a lad with no GCSEs, and joined the armed forces as a rifleman. Time has moved on.
No. Let us look at how technology and innovation are moving forward. In some ways, we need to think differently. We need an understanding of how we prepare for different warfares. It is not a matter of nanotechnology on the one side and aircraft carriers on the other; there is a bit in the middle. We should look at the scalability of new technology, as artificial intelligence develops and quantum computing comes online. The battle space will be completely different, and we have to move into that space. People often say that the nature of warfare is changing, but it is not. The nature of warfare is brutal, and will always be, but the character of warfare is changing, and we have to be prepared for that. Let me go back to my point about readiness, lethality and survivability. All the things that happened on our watch, on Labour’s watch before us, and on Labour’s watch now, are chipping away at the spiritual morale of troops. I have a son who is a serving soldier, and I am watching that happen bit by bit. He is told, “That exercise is cancelled because we cannot afford it,” “You have to do extra time on deployment because we cannot rotate you through,” and “We are not going to order equipment, because the DIP is not ready.” All those things chip away at spiritual morale. There is one issue that we are dealing with that cuts to the heart of every veteran. I sat with a load of veterans watching the football last week—I will be watching football tonight with serving personnel, and spending time with veterans and colleagues—and I have heard at first hand what they are saying. I served for 18 months on Op Banner during the troubles, and the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 is cutting through. Regardless of the political debate here, serving soldiers believe that they will not be protected by the Government when they go on operations. We can argue the issue, and go back and forth on it, but that is what is landing, and what they believe. A change to what we have in place would be a betrayal to our veterans. It would remove spiritual morale—that British fighting spirit that I have spoken about. It would make us not ready, not lethal and unable to survive. Unless the DIP comes forward with the correct funding for the correct defence products, we will be in a serious situation, and I do not believe that we are ready for what is coming over the horizon.
Given all that is going on, this could be the last time. The legacy of this Chancellor has been the highest taxes on record, a benefits bill spiralling out of control, and unemployment 300,000 higher than it was at the last general election. The right hon. Lady trumpets 2.8% inflation, but that is still well above target, and only last year it was the highest in the G7, to the detriment of millions up and down our country. Under her plans, how much more does she intend to borrow in this Parliament than under the plan she inherited?
The right hon. Lady cannot bring herself to answer the simple question I asked. I will tell her: she is borrowing one quarter of a trillion pounds more than the plans that she inherited—that is her legacy. We hear that the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) is considering borrowing even more. Does she agree that that would be utterly reckless and that the bond markets will not wear it?
One of the strong arguments put forward for the legislation is that it will help families to find out the truth of what happened to their loved ones, yet by repealing the Conservative legislation, it makes that less likely rather than more likely—because who is going to come forward and incriminate themselves by saying what happened to people who were unlawfully killed if they know that they will not then have immunity from prosecution?
Another spurious argument, which I am afraid we heard earlier in the debate, is that the legislation put our armed forces on the same level as terrorists. The truth is that everybody is on the same level before the law. In any case, the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 sold the pass on that anyway, because under it nobody—even if they were convicted of first-degree murder, as the Americans might say—goes to jail for more than two years. That put everybody on the same level before the law, as any such legislation has to do.
This debate has been characterised by so many powerful speeches that I think it would be invidious to pick out any of them. I congratulate everyone who has contributed, particularly the Government Back Benchers who have evidently come to the debate espousing the principle that the best defence is attack. Some of their speeches have been so combative that it is hard to believe that only recently they lost their Secretary of State for Defence, their Minister for the Armed Forces, and even their Prime Minister. If morale is indeed the measure of a successful fighting force, those Government Back Benchers are doing extremely well. By happy coincidence, I had a letter published in today's edition of The Times, which I had submitted before I knew that this debate was going to take place. I say that it is a happy coincidence because I know that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, are worried about the ticking clock, and one requirement for a letter to be published in that esteemed newspaper is for practically all the argument to be compressed into no more than 150 words. These are the slightly fewer than 150 words that I chose: “An erratic, isolationist White House, a ruthlessly imperialist Kremlin and a disturbing relationship between the two have put peace in Europe at greater risk than at any time since the height of the Cold War. The prime minister’s valedictory boast of securing ‘the biggest uplift in defence spending since the Cold War’ should therefore cut little ice. We are nowhere near investing even the 3 per cent of GDP—under current MoD calculation criteria—still being spent when the Conservatives were defeated in 1997, years after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Under Margaret Thatcher throughout the 1980s—again applying today’s criteria—defence received between 4.1 per cent and 5.5 per cent of GDP. This shows the scale of effort required once again to boost deterrence and prevent the appalling costs, in blood as well as in treasure, of full-scale war between Russia and the West.” That was the letter, and I will now briefly pick a couple of aspects of it on which to expand. The first is the use of the word “deterrence”. I am perturbed about the sense of inevitability that there is going to be a conflict with Russia, perhaps as soon as 2030. However, the question of whether or not there is such a conflict is not just down to Russia; it is also down to what we do—the preparations that we make, the investment that we think we can bear in the military in order to ensure that if Russia looks at the prospect of war with the NATO powers, it will see that the outcome is uncertain and the cost is likely to be unbearable. So we have to do our bit. The other aspect of that letter on which I would briefly like to comment is the opening point—the point about the isolationist White House. No one knows how far the isolationist virus that is embodied by President Donald J. Trump has spread throughout the rest of the American political system, but if when he is eventually replaced that virus reappears in his successor, the future for peace in Europe will indeed be imperilled, because the key achievement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was to ensure that any potential aggressor against any of the member countries would know that if they attacked, from day one they would be at war with the United States of America. What Donald Trump has done is cause that guarantee to be undermined. I do not know why he does it. I do not know what the nature is of what I described in that letter as his “disturbing relationship” with the killer in the Kremlin. All I know is that Europe will not be safe until again we can rely on the United States to guarantee our freedom. In the meanwhile, we must send a signal across the Atlantic, for our part, that we will do everything necessary to invest in our armed forces and to make the necessary preparations. If we do that, we will maximise the chance of restoring stability to the power balance between east and west, which saw us through the most deadly threats of the cold war—the times when it was thought that civilisation could perish—and we will get back to a situation in which people can then think about what it is nice to pay for in order to have a modern, civilised, compassionate society. Let me end with a famous quote from another Healey who was a Defence Secretary, Denis Healey. He said, memorably, that if we do not have adequate defence, we do not have all the aspects of a society that we wish to cherish; we do not have schools, we do not have hospitals, we do not have houses—what we have is “a heap of cinders”. So let us invest what we can while we can, let us get our priorities right, and let us restore the guarantee of the transatlantic relationship, which kept the peace and prevented a third world war.
I know that the Secretary of State has agonised over this matter—he made that clear in his statement to the House last night and again today—but what is not in doubt is the harm that these drugs do. It is an established medical fact. He is determined to be driven by the evidence. That is evidential. We know that the drugs have harmful effects, so in essence what he is saying is that we are prepared to wear those harmful effects on the off-chance that the drugs may have a beneficial set of effects, when there is no evidence to suggest up until now that they do.
The journey from childhood to adulthood is challenging for many, difficult for some, and tortuous for a few. Through that journey, the support of older people, who are often parents, loved ones, people who care, is critically important. For those who suffer from gender dysphoria, that journey is all the more challenging. Many people—perhaps all of us in this Chamber—will have struggled with the emerging sexuality that is part of the journey to adulthood, but most people who suffer from dysphoria cope with it as they go through puberty. Indeed, the evidence—and there has been much talk of evidence in this debate—shows that medical intervention in those cases would not only be unnecessary but profoundly damaging. Yet at the Tavistock clinic, the horrors of which I first highlighted in 2019, thousands of children were prescribed life-altering drugs. Indeed, it is more shocking still: more than 70 children aged three and four were sent to that clinic, and 382 children aged six and under were referred. The Government are fond, now, of speaking about the Cass review commissioned by. the previous Government, but the review was not welcomed by the Minister and the trans lobby. When it was commissioned, it was regarded with horror by those who presumably now support this trial. The Cass review found that doctors must be extremely cautious about giving trans drugs to under-18s—not 11, 12 or 13-year-olds, but people under 18. It found that doctors must be able to “refer to the longer-term benefits and risks” of treatment options; that young children should have therapy before they are allowed to socially transition; that many parents expressed concern about their child being socially transitioned and affirmed in their expressed gender without parental involvement; that too many decisions about changing gender have been rushed, with too little consideration given to whether children might regret their actions later in life; and that childhood trauma, neglect and abuse feature heavily in the cohort of patients seeking gender change. As many as two thirds of those referred had suffered neglect or abuse, with high levels of parental mental illness, substance abuse and exposure to domestic violence. Those are the vulnerable children who went to the Tavistock clinic, which was closed after pressure from those who understood the horrors that took place there. When it was opened, of course—
I will in a moment, when I have made an attack on the liberal bourgeoisie, which the hon. Gentleman might want to hear. When the Tavistock clinic was opened, it was seen as an emblem of progress by the liberal bourgeoisie. Now, of course, we know that it was the embodiment of wickedness. On that note, I give way to him.
Baroness Cass certainly wanted to gather more evidence. The evidence we have shows the damage that puberty blockers can do. We know that the substantial science suggests that they affect bone maturation, cerebral capacity and, of course, fertility. It is certain that there is no compelling evidence that puberty blockers have a beneficial effect. That is why she sought more evidence, as she concluded that there was no compelling evidence that they have a beneficial effect.
That experience clearly contradicts the Cass review’s findings, but it is for the hon. Lady to have that debate, no doubt, with Dr Cass. What is certain is that we have no indication from the Government about what success in the trial will look like. When challenged on that subject, answer came there none. How will we gauge whether the trial is a success or a failure? Are these children really guinea pigs to be used to provide the evidence that the hon. Lady says is already freely available in her anecdotal experience of communicating with her constituents and others? We know that there is certainly evidence from other countries. Have the Government looked to draw on that, rather than engaging in this dangerous trial? We know that there is evidence too from the 2,000 or more children who went through Tavistock. Some have suggested that we should look at the data already available rather than putting any more children at risk. Yet despite the Secretary of State’s agonised decision—I do not intend that to be sarcastic or pejorative; I appreciate that the Secretary of State was completely straightforward about how difficult it was to make the decision—the trial goes ahead. I accept that there are additional safeguards—this is not Tavistock; it is something different—but none the less it brings immense risk alongside the determination to try to gain facts. Instead, let us look at Finland and Denmark and at other countries that have already gathered evidence. Let us look at what we know of those who have already been through this process. G. K. Chesterton said: “children are innocent and love justice”. I fear that this trial will steal their innocence and deny them justice. I hope that even at this late stage the Government, recognising that, will abandon this awful trial and save innocent children from that fate.
Will the Minister at least commit to looking again at the experience of Finland and Denmark, whose evidence has led them to now emphasise counselling rather than medical intervention?
I thank the hon. Lady for opening the debate. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called. So far, only one Member has done so, which means that he has about half an hour to speak, if he wants it. He is not obliged to take all that time, but I will call Front Benchers shortly before 3.30 pm, at the latest.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, not least for his remarkable display of self-control. We now come to the Front-Bench speeches, beginning with the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
I will call Michelle Welsh to move the motion; I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind all other Members present that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and from the Minister, although they can of course intervene without prior permission. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up. It is highly likely that we will be interrupted during this debate for votes on the Floor of the House. I anticipate two votes, which means that I must suspend the sitting for up to 25 minutes. If the hon. Lady, the Minister and I are all back before 25 minutes, we can proceed more quickly, if that is any incentive.
Order. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for introducing the debate. I remind other Back-Bench Members who want to contribute that they should continue to bob to show that they still want to be called. I am loath to impose a time limit if I can avoid it, but, given the level of interest, if everyone can stick to about four minutes each we will get everyone in.
We have not been universally successful at keeping to four minutes. I ask everyone to now get closer to three minutes, because I need to begin Front-Bench contributions at 5.28 pm.
I thank all Members who have spoken so far for their co-operation. We now move on to the Front-Bencher contributions, beginning with the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but she has five minutes to sum up the debate, and she is on six and a bit. Can she swiftly get to her last sentence?
The debate must finish at 5.50 pm, so the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) has a minute to wind up his debate.
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does he recall that at the end of the cold war a paper was written by Francis Fukuyama called “The End of History?”? Does he agree that on the basis of that, everybody believed somehow that no longer would there be war, no longer would there be pressure and no longer would we need armed forces? That was such a mistake, as has been documented, which has affected everything since.
It is a tremendous privilege to take part in this debate. It has to be clear to us on both sides of the House that this is the most critical debate that we will be involved with. This is the most critical thing that we face but it often escapes our notice, and I credit my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) for centring on the very thing that is important. I say gently to those on the Government Benches that it is very easy to go around the whole time saying, “Well, of course, you did this and we didn’t.” The truth is, we can go right back and see how much previous Governments failed with regard to defence. I was serving in the late 1970s when the Labour Government were in terrible difficulty. They were slashing the budgets, and military personnel from the captain and senior sergeant ranks were leaving the Army in droves. I remember having one depressed conversation after another—helped by a certain amount of Scottish water. [Laughter.]
I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. [Laughter.] In those conversations, we decided that there was clearly no future for us in the Army. Now, I did stay on a bit longer, but many left who I knew were very competent and very good people, and it is difficult to fill those posts. That is the bit in the armed forces that is critical to everything else that happens. If we do not have a cadre of middle-ranking and senior non-commissioned officers, we do not have an Army. We just have a lot of orders from the top down but are unable to do them. What we speak about today is critical, because we have to send a message to our armed forces that we believe in them fully and strongly and will support them in every way. That is why it is a pleasure to see the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) sitting in his place after his resignation. He has the respect of many of my colleagues on these Benches, without question, not only for his past but for his present. I know what it is like to resign when you disagree with the Government—I have done it a few times myself—but the reality is that he will never regret it. The thing that matters most of all when we come to this place is not us or the debates that we have here and away; it is the people out there who put us here. If we do not plan to speak up, even when our own side does not want us to, we are not worthy of being in this place. I therefore congratulate him, not because I am in a party political game but because I respect him for having called out a problem that the Government face. All the Ministers on the Front Bench know that, as does he. The question is: what will we do about it? I want to start by talking about Northern Ireland, and I shall be here on 4 September, cheering my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne on with his private Member’s Bill. We cannot for one moment forget that we have reduced the morale of British soldiers who have served—veterans who are now often in their late 70s and 80s—and who find themselves persecuted. I say to the Defence Ministers that this really started in the Northern Ireland Office, which was overly persuaded by Sinn Féin that they could somehow change what had happened and come out as victors. As the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak said in his resignation speech, they lost; they lost because of the efforts of the armed forces, and of all those who did not see another day and who died in the service of their country. More importantly, we forget that walking down the streets in your own country armed and trying to protect civilians against aggression is quite different from anything else that the armed forces were trained to do. In doing it, they had to figure out all sorts of complications. The trouble with the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill is that it does not deal with the sense of what we asked our soldiers to do in risking their lives to protect the British public on the streets of the United Kingdom. We therefore have to understand that the legislation that the Government have brought forward is wrong. That does not mean to say that what the Conservative Government brought through was fantastic. It was not. There were many flaws and failings in it, but many of us felt that we would support it because it did one major thing: it stopped the constant attacks on those poor veterans whose lives are now coming to an end and who see themselves being dragged through the courts all over again.
That is exactly the point. I hope that we will be able to drag this point out again on 4 September and make it very clear that if we in this House do not stand by those whom we order to go to war or to bear arms for the sake of the country, who is going to do that? We have the power to sweep things away or to make them. I have disagreed with my own Government many times, but I say gently to this Government: think again. Do not allow the Northern Ireland Office to drive this thing through when Ministers know full well that it is wrong; they need to defend those soldiers, despite the rows that might take place in Cabinet or among Ministers.
I do; it was difficult and we stuck to the task. We were not very popular at the time, but that has been a constant in my life. [Laughter.] I think you only know you are successful when you are not popular, and we were not popular on that. What we were trying to get was not perfect, but it was better than what we now have, and that is the key. At the heart of it was the aim of protecting those who have been sent, bearing arms, to defend the British people. We need to defend them and respect the sacrifice they made.
Yes, that is quite correct, and my right hon. Friend is exactly right to make the point now. We really must understand that, if the first priority of Government is defence of the realm, then the second priority is defence of those they send to fight to protect the realm. If we cannot defend them, we are not worthy of being here. I say gently to Ministers that the House would support them if they went back to the Government and said about the Northern Ireland position, “This is quite wrong. It is unbalanced and deeply unfair.” I hope that they will do just that. The real reason that I decided to speak today is because I am really, really worried. As I have been saying for some considerable time, we are now in a more dangerous situation than we have been in not since the cold war—at least we arrived at the cold war knowing what we had to do; Governments co-operated, NATO was fairly newly formed, we were full of the attitude that we would defend one another no matter what, and we were armed and ready—but since the 1930s. I am not in the business of saying that this Government are responsible; all Governments bear responsibility, as my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne said. We are seeing the rise of a threat very similar to what we saw in the 1930s, and our behaviour towards that threat is exactly the same as it was in the 1930s. My father wrote a book many years ago about his time. He was a highly decorated fighter pilot, with five gallantry medals; he commanded in the war and fought all the way through. He said that he could never forgive politicians for having placed the country in the parlous situation of being close to losing the war because they did not see the danger and did not want to be involved in spending more on defence. That was the point he made, and it has resonated with me forever. I happen to believe that we are seeing in front of us the growth of totalitarian states. China is at the centre, but North Korea, Iran and Russia are there, and others, like Myanmar, are developing. More totalitarian states are coming to fruition around the world, and they now outnumber democratic states in the United Nations. The axis has shifted. Over the last 15 or 20 years, not only have we not made ourselves ready—even today we are not—but we have simply failed to recognise that they have made themselves ready. One naval shipyard in China now builds more naval ships than the whole of the United States in one year. I am told that China now has 130 times the capacity of America to build naval vessels. It is no good looking at Europe, because we hardly build naval vessels any more either. The difference between now and what happened in 1937, 1938 and 1939 is that we then had major industry here—an industry that could build tanks and aircraft, had brilliant aircraft designers, and could build ships. We had probably the most powerful fleet in the world ready to go to war if we had to. We are not in that situation today.
All these things are a great shame when we look back at the past, but no matter how much we fight the issues of the past, we always lose, because we cannot alter them. What we have to do is learn the lessons of the past. By the end, the previous Government had learned the lessons, were committed to spending more, and were spending more and doing more. The sad part is that the new Government have come in and there are differences, but I am not going to focus on that. We learn from our past and from our mistakes. If we do not do that, we are determined to repeat all those mistakes. This time, it may be too late for us to correct them. This should not be a debate at each other, but a coming together of this House to require that this Government finance defence at the necessary level. I am one of a number of hon. Members who are old enough to remember that, when we finally faced the threat of the Soviet Union, which increased the number of medium-range missiles threatening targets in Europe, we stepped up. Spending went to 5%. That was tough, but we did it. All of NATO did it. No one was lagging. Germany stepped up, even though there were massive crowds on the street saying no. We saw off that threat, because the Soviet Union realised that we were ready. The Government should appeal across the House for support for a higher level of spending. Three per cent in this Parliament should be de minimis. It is not enough: we should be at 3% before the end of this Parliament, with a commitment to rise at least to 4% or 5%. Other countries in Europe would in the past have looked to us for leadership in a crisis like this, but they are finding that they cannot do so, because we are behind them on spending and in the determination to defend NATO and our home countries. If we want to lead, we have to show the way through our financial commitments. I therefore urge the Government, this evening and beyond, to hear what the Ministers who sadly resigned from the Government have said to them, and to hear what the House in general terms wants. We are ready to commit that spending, we will work to find the savings and we will give support to those who are dedicated to defence. What we must never do is forget the lessons of the past and be unready for the greatest threat since that faced by those brave men and women who died for us to have freedom back in the 1930s and 1940s. It would be a shame if we forgot why they died.
The hon. Member talks about 2014 and the invasion, and he is quite right. I was in Cabinet at the time, and one of the points that I and some others raised was what our position was over this. But the EU got this badly wrong because the President of France and Mrs Merkel headed over, on their own decision, to set up a negotiation that left Russia in control of Crimea, forgetting all the original support and our promises to Ukraine. They were reducing spending and did not want to go to war, and so they sacrificed Ukraine in the process.
I am as surprised as I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell, for I was nominated by the Committee of Ways and Means to chair the Committee, only then to discover that I was to have the pleasure and honour of serving on it. This is a most welcome Measure because it reverses a very unwelcome modern trend—namely the trend to reduce discretion and to centralise decision making. The method by which the lead assessor will assess the different levels of complaint, whether grievance, misconduct or serious misconduct, enables him to have the decisions on the outcome of those complaints for grievances dealt with at the local level. Even where the threshold for misconduct is reached, if it is at the lower end of the scale, the lead assessor still has the discretion to have the matter resolved as a grievance. Nothing used to infuriate me more, as an assessor on the board of courts martial, than seeing a number of what I regarded as trivial cases come before us that, frankly, earlier in my career would have been settled and resolved by the commanding officer. Because they went through this litigious procedure, it wrecked careers and put officers and men under a huge amount of strain. We have heard from the Second Church Estates Commissioner, about the trauma that people accused of offences go through with prolonged procedures, so I welcome that provision. The other thing I welcome about this Measure is the provisions for dealing with vexatious litigants. The Church, like our constituency parties, is a voluntary organisation—although I sometimes wonder why I volunteer when I am subjected to some of the more gruesome modern liturgies. Nevertheless, it is a voluntary organisation in that, overwhelmingly—exclusively—the congregation is voluntary, and a significant amount of the clergy are now non-stipendiary. We all know from our experience of handling our own voluntary organisations that character clashes and differences emerge. It was always said that, when it came to any kind of selection, the local candidate was at a disadvantage because, if they know you, they know they do not like you. Therefore, these provisions for dealing with vexatious litigants are most welcome. On that basis, I will certainly be voting for this Measure.
As a consultant paediatrician, my hon. Friend will be able to give a definitive view on this matter. Some who campaign for this treatment and therapy argue that the effects of gene therapy are reversible. To what extent are they reversible? Should we be treating this as a reversible treatment? My hon. Friend has referred to permanent damage. Can we try to agree across the House at least on this matter: that gene therapy applied to children is not reversible?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making his case. Does he share my concern that, during last week’s urgent question, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry and the Secretary of State could not commit to delivering the capital ship programme that has already been set out? I am hearing rumours that the new Type 83 destroyers were being mothballed in plans six months ago. At a time when defence is so critical, does that concern my hon. Friend?
My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) mentioned the recently published studies in Finland. Does the hon. Gentleman not think there is any merit in waiting to see what the Finnish tests and trials throw up? We could then see what we could learn from them, rather than replicating or duplicating them here. International science should surely be respected.
This debate comes at a very apt time. It is Armed Forces Week, when we show our support for our armed forces community, whether serving personnel and their families, veterans or cadets. I look forward to going to Brackley’s Armed Forces Day celebration this Saturday. I put on record my thanks to all the Royal British Legion branches that do so much across our constituencies, with a particular call-out to Tony McCawley, who organises veterans breakfasts in the Brackley branch on the first Saturday morning of the month: thank you for indulging me once a month. Defence of the realm is the ultimate insurance policy: we invest now to protect our serving personnel and our people. If we fail to prepare, we prepare to fail. What the former Secretary of State says—that the Treasury is “unwilling” to commit the resources we need to defend the nation—is concerning. Given that the Prime Minister was unable to do that, what will the new Prime Minister—whoever that ends up being—do to move the dial and change that? That question lingers with us all, because it is really important. Assuming that we do see the DIP published before the NATO summit, I hope that it will be honoured. It may be media speculation, but there are questions about whether the DIP should even be delayed by the forthcoming Prime Minister and whether they would want to meet the spending requirements. That is something we are all very concerned about. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) has just said, many businesses are being affected by the DIP not being published. One of my businesses, EKA, has been told that there will be no new orders until the DIP is published. That is really kiboshing businesses, no matter what the Government say. We talk about “corrosive complacency”, but we are now in enforced limbo and it could go on for months. We do not have the time for that. Let me turn to the readiness part of this debate. One element of that is the preparedness of the NHS for any armed conflict. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) talked about us being in a situation that is more akin to the 1930s, and spoke about some of the risks. When we were fighting in the second world war, we did not have an NHS—it was formed afterwards. If we were to go into full-scale outright war now, there will be huge questions, because the NHS has never had to deal with that. The Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Richard Knighton, has warned that the NHS is not ready for the casualties of full-scale war. We have approximately 14,000 medical regulars and reservists who work in the NHS. If we were to go into full-scale war, they would need to be deployed and we would therefore be faced with a gap. The Government acknowledged in the SDR that there needs to be greater integration between defence and health to try to fix that, but the reality is that the Government still have no concrete plan for how the NHS would cope. As I said, we will have a gap in capability. If we see major returns of casualties, how will the NHS cope? When we had a recent incident, with only about eight soldiers returned, it overwhelmed the capacity of a particular hospital. That would have an impact on waiting lists and could potentially lead to the rationing of services, so what would it mean for civilians in the long term? Those are all points we have to be prepared for. I call on the Government to turn their attention to them. Although the SDR acknowledges the issue, nothing has come from that, and we must be prepared. I ask the Government, in their own famous phrase, to work at pace. Please, work at pace and make sure we are ready for conflict.