5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
I am sorry, but the Chancellor’s recollection of her record is fantasy economics from a fantasy economist. Is it not the case that her true record is poor decision making: with U-turn after U-turn on winter fuel payments, business rates and family farm taxes; tax after tax on jobs, investment and savings; a country more indebted with higher interest rates; and a Chancellor unable to cut welfare and unwilling to fund our defence?
7. What fiscal steps she is taking to support the defence investment plan.
The former Defence Secretary has blown apart the defence investment plan, revealing that the Treasury was prepared to offer only a pitiful increase in defence spending—just 0.08% by 2030—despite growing threats across the world. At the same time, the Treasury continues to fork out billions for welfare and the net zero agenda. Innovative small and medium-sized enterprises in defence are effectively locked out of MOD contracts and denied the opportunity to scale their capabilities. As the Chief of the Defence Staff put it, “the price of peace is increasing”. Will the Chancellor commit this morning to filling the £28 billion gap in defence investment by 2030 to secure our position on the world stage, or will she stand in the way of the delivery of the DIP that we need?
I frankly cannot believe that we are here again. When the Pathways clinical trial was paused earlier this year, I felt that there had finally been—[Interruption.]
Yesterday, even the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care conceded—the second one to do so—that he is “uneasy” and even “uncomfortable”. I suggest that his discomfort is nothing next to the lifelong damage that the trial will potentially do to an extremely vulnerable cohort of children, whom we should be protecting. That funny feeling in his stomach—[Interruption.] Oh, he has left. That feeling is his good judgment trying to be heard—he will not hear this if he has left—and it is not too late for him to listen to it. I agree with what one of my hon. Friends said yesterday: he is a good man who is being placed under intolerable pressure on this issue. But he needs to find his courage. The number of children and young people presenting to the NHS with gender distress increased dramatically in the years after 2009, with an exponential rise from around 2014. What is behind the increase among Gen Z is unclear, but the reasons are likely to be multifaceted. It is speculated that the factors may include 24/7 internet access, the increased acceptance of trans identities, or even peer social and cultural influences. Over the past 20 years, groups such as Stonewall and Mermaids have called for better access to treatment and more rights for trans people. Large corporates have gone big on diversity and inclusion to boost their brands.
I am not saying that it is a negative thing; I am trying to explain why we have seen an increase in the numbers of young people with gender dysphoria. I am stating facts; we were just talking about the importance of doing so. In 2009, only 51 patients were referred to the NHS Gender Identity Development Service for children, of whom two thirds were male. In 2016, there were 1,766 referrals and two thirds of them were female. That is quite the change. There has been an overall surge in the number of children suffering gender distress, but the increase is especially notable among girls. We also see over-representation of neurodiversity, mental health issues and trauma in this group. To put it another way, these children are much more likely to have been in care, to suffer with anxiety and depression, to be autistic and to have been abused. It is a group of incredibly vulnerable children. GIDS was established in 1989. Its main approach to treatment at that time was therapeutic, referred to as watchful waiting. Early studies from the 1980s showed that in around 85% of cases, the gender incongruence or distress ceased in the child after going through puberty. Later studies reached a similar conclusion, with between 67% and 90% desisting after puberty. Only a small cohort of children continue to experience gender dysphoria or incongruence after puberty, and it was that extremely small group who would likely adopt a permanent trans identity in adulthood.
I completely agree with my hon. Friend; a child of this age cannot possibly consent to the life-changing, irreversible changes that come from puberty blockers. We need to remember that almost all children who start puberty blockers go on to cross-sex hormones, and there is no going back from that. We need to remember that we have already had a trial in the UK. When we started using puberty blockers in the UK after 2011, the preliminary results came out in 2015-16 and did not demonstrate psychological benefits, with some of the females actually suffering a worsening of symptoms, including a higher incidence of wanting to hurt or kill themselves. The results of the study, which were not formally published until 2020, demonstrated no statistically significant improvement in gender dysphoria or mental health outcomes. It is important to remember the early studies that told us that, in a majority of cases, going through puberty resolved gender distress. It follows, therefore, that stopping or delaying puberty using medication derails that natural desistance, essentially locking in.
I thank the hon. Member for that excellent question. I obviously always respect and listen to different clinicians, but what is happening with this debate is that one set of clinicians with one view is being listened to. Let me remind everyone about lobotomies. Lots of very respected people came out for lobotomies; in fact, the person behind the idea won a Nobel prize. I think we would all agree that those clinicians got that wrong, so it is incumbent upon us in this House to always question. It is absolutely right that we listen to clinicians, but unfortunately we are seeing only one set of clinicians with one set of opinions being listened to here. A Finnish study was published in April that looked at more than 2,000 adolescents and young adults who had been referred to gender services. It found that medical interventions did not reduce psychiatric problems and may even be associated with worsening mental health. How many times have we heard it said that puberty blockers offer a pathway towards improved mental health and reduced psychiatric distress for those struggling with gender identity? I have lost count. But there is hard evidence that not only says different; it says the opposite. I would be keen to understand from the Minister and the Secretary of State whether that study was taken into account before deciding to go ahead with the trial. I want to point out that children and young people who grow up to be same-sex attracted are over-represented in this cohort, and that is something we need to think about. If we look at the case of Keira Bell, she was a lesbian struggling with her sexuality, and instead of people saying, “It’s okay to find other women attractive—there’s nothing wrong with that. You do not need to change your body,” they said, “Ah! You’ve got gender dysphoria.” They put her on puberty blockers, and then she went on to testosterone shots. She then had her breasts removed in a double mastectomy, and then she detransitioned. This is a deeply homophobic approach to healthcare. Those on the other side of the argument think they have the progressive position. I am sorry, but you are repeating mistakes that have been made historically—
I thank the hon. Lady for giving an eloquent speech. It is really important that we are very responsible in the way we talk about suicide, and I would like to point out that Professor Louis Appleby did a study on exactly this issue following the ban of puberty blockers. His conclusion was that we were not seeing an increase in suicides as a consequence. He also made the point that it is important not to suggest that denying young people puberty blockers causes them to commit suicide. That is a negligent thing to do, and it is important that we put that on the record.
The Cass review also suggested a clinical trial for cross-sex hormones. On that basis, will the Government launch a clinical trial on cross-sex hormones as well?
It speaks to the timeliness of this debate that so many people want to contribute. On that specific point, my local authority of Bromley does very well cleaning up fly-tipping, but it is sometimes a bit hamstrung because the waste is tipped on to housing association land. Residents perceive that to be the council’s responsibility, but it cannot do anything about it. Does the hon. Member have any thoughts about that?
On Friday, I visited HMP Wandsworth with the Chess in Schools and Communities scheme. I saw its work to teach chess in prisons, which is also great for teaching resilience, patience and team working. May I send the hon. Member some information about what Chess in Schools and Communities does? It may be useful in the institution that she is talking about.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy, and a privilege to respond to this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) on securing this important debate. I know that we share a common interest in this area. I also congratulate him on bringing a debate about the big picture stuff. It is important that we get there, and I compliment hon. Members for rising to meet that challenge. The United Kingdom is home to Europe’s largest, and one of the world’s most dynamic, technology ecosystems. The digital and technology sector contributes an estimated £207 billion in gross value added to the UK economy and supports around 2.6 million jobs. It represents a vital pillar in our national prosperity that drives productivity, fosters high-skilled employment and enhances our global competitiveness. From artificial intelligence and cyber-security to fintech and advanced manufacturing, British innovation in technology continues to shape industries both at home and abroad. We fully recognise the substantial benefits that large technology companies bring. These firms deliver cutting-edge innovation, significant investment, world-class infrastructure and services that millions of people and businesses rely on every day. Their scale enables rapid advancement in areas such as cloud computing, mobile technologies and data analytics, which in turn support broader economic growth across sectors. At the same time, we must remain vigilant and ensure that market concentration does not inadvertently stifle competition or limit opportunities for emerging British firms. In key areas, a small number of global players hold dominant positions. Together, Apple and Google account for virtually the entire mobile operating system market in the UK, with iOS and Android combined making up nearly 100% of the share. Similarly, Amazon Web Services and Microsoft together command a very significant portion—often estimated at between 60% and 80%—of the UK’s cloud computing infrastructure market. That concentration brings clear efficiencies and capabilities, but it also highlights the need for effective oversight. We support a proportionate competition policy that promotes fairness, encourages new entrants and prevents any single player from abusing market power. Open and competitive digital markets are essential if we are to retain more economic value within the UK, nurture home-grown talent, and build a resilient and diversified digital economy. As Conservatives, we have long championed the importance of robust yet balanced digital competition enforcement. Regulation should protect consumers and smaller innovators without creating unnecessary bureaucratic barriers that slow growth. The Competition and Markets Authority has an important role to play in this regard, alongside evolving frameworks such as the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024. Our approach prioritises evidence-based intervention that fosters innovation while maintaining the attractiveness of the UK as a place to invest and scale business. This principle extends to other critical areas, including online safety. Timely and decisive action to protect children and other vulnerable users online is essential, and we have constantly advocated for stronger practical safeguards, working alongside parents, campaigners, experts and the industry, because protecting the most vulnerable must remain a priority. The Leader of the Opposition did not flinch from standing with parents and carers when the time came to be robust. Constructive collaboration between Government, technology companies and civil society will achieve better long-term outcomes than purely reactive measures. More broadly, the influence of technology touches every aspect of modern life. From boosting productivity in traditional industries to enabling breakthroughs in healthcare and climate solutions, the sector’s potential is immense. However, realising that potential requires the right conditions: access to talent, supportive infrastructure, access to finance for scale-ups, and a regulatory environment that rewards innovation rather than entrenching incumbents. At its core, this debate asks us to consider what kind of digital economy we wish to build for the future. We believe that Britain should aim for an economy in which a diverse range of innovative companies—from start-ups in our world-class universities and tech clusters to established firms—can compete, grow and deliver benefits to consumers and society on merit. This vision rests on a strong competition policy that prevents the abuse of market power while actively encouraging the investment, dynamism and entrepreneurship that drive long-term growth. We also recognise the global nature of technology. International co-operation on standards, data flows and emerging issues such as artificial intelligence will be increasingly important. The UK’s position as a leading tech nation gives us influence on the world stage, and we should use that influence to promote open markets, ethical innovation and high standards. The success of our technology sector is central to delivering the economic growth and opportunity that our country needs. By championing competition, supporting innovation and maintaining a balanced approach to regulation, we can ensure that the UK remains at the forefront of the global digital economy, creating jobs, driving prosperity and harnessing technology for the benefit of all. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s remarks on the Government’s current thinking regarding the role of large technology companies, and on how together we can best support a thriving, competitive and innovative UK tech sector.
My hon. Friend is talking about the future of warfare, and this issue was very much raised when we attended Space-Comm earlier this year: how the delay in the DIP is affecting our ability to keep up with advancing space technology. Does he agree that this is an important point, and that the Government should set a space strategy, as the previous Government did in 2022?
Although there are no proposals the size of a city in my constituency, there is a proposal to build thousands of new homes on the green belt in Hayes. Does my hon. Friend agree that this indiscriminate building on the green belt threatens communities and is swamping public services as well?
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Is not the real risk here that the defence investment plan, which the Government promised, will now be treated like a political football? The end result will be that defence supply chains in this country, and those of our international allies, will see that we are not worth doing business with.
The Minister mentions the fact that troops were being removed from Europe back to the United Kingdom. I may be interpreting this wrongly, but she seems to be slightly critical of that. May I remind her that that was because of the ever-changing geopolitical landscape we faced at the time and that our allies were doing the same? At the time, the Labour Opposition did not oppose it and did not criticise it. Is she criticising us for doing that, or is she just making an observation?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for saying that—not many people do! I remind him that his colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches also marched through the Lobby and made the savings in the armed forces budget when they were in Government. His party policy is £20 billion of so-called defence bonds. Can the hon. Gentleman outline to the House how he would intend to fund that—it is borrowing, is it not? Would that not make the economic situation in this country a whole lot worse at this troubling time?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for outlining those defence figures, but when his party came into office in 1997, defence spending was 3% of GDP and when it left it was 2.5%. I absolutely take his point, but is it not absolutely applicable to his party and Government, too?
I declare an interest: I am a trustee of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I encourage all Members of the House to undertake their placement on that scheme, if they can. The Prime Minister has been generating some sympathy with the dignified way in which he is choosing to leave office, and I add my voice to those who have stated that we are fortunate to live in a country with a political system that values leaders who put their country and the dignity of their office before personal gain. The Prime Minister is many things, and I disagree with him profusely, but first and foremost he is a gentleman who won a mandate, and everybody across this House should respect that and wish him well going forward. Others who have shown personal strength of character and commitment to public office include the former Secretary of State of Defence—the right hon. Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey)—and the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns). I know that both of them took their decision to resign seriously and with the intense reflection that it deserves. I also understand that their resignations came as a great surprise to the Prime Minister and No. 10, as they were expected to stay loyal, keep calm and carry on. Well, for those of us on the Opposition Benches, it was no surprise whatsoever. We do not know exactly what was said in Cabinet, let alone in the private discussions between the Defence Secretary and the Chancellor, and nor should we. But from what we have seen and what has been reported about the complete fiasco around the defence investment plan, and about the failure to plan and meet the expectations that the public and our allies around the world have of us, it is no wonder that the Defence Secretary felt that he was unable to work under those conditions any longer. For six months—a quarter of the time the Prime Minister has been in office—he could not make a decision. Since January, it has been clear to the Government that there is a gargantuan shortfall in the Ministry of Defence budget. The paltry sum that the Treasury deemed suitable to shower on the MOD was barely enough to replace a few helmets, let alone build a next-generation fighting force that can deliver on the priorities outlined in the strategic defence review. Let us be clear: the indecision may be based on process—the Prime Minister’s favourite wall to hide behind—and, yes, there must be a process to prioritise, delegate and decide, but his indecision will cost lives if and when this country faces a crisis that requires a military response. The question remains: why did the Prime Minister and the Chancellor not see this coming? The answer, of course, is that they did. They saw the threat of being exposed as weak on defence, and they chose to do nothing. I respect the Minister for the Armed Forces and thank her for her past service, but she has added to this. She has spent a lot of time criticising the last Government—quite rightly, because she is a Minister of the Crown—but she now sits in the Department, and she stands at the Dispatch Box saying that all is now well and that she is proud of the process she is putting forward, when one of the Ministers she served alongside in the Department has resigned, as has the Secretary of State, who said that things were not going in the right direction. I think she needs to look at their speeches again. There are few things more damning for the leader of a country to be accused of than being incapable of protecting the people they were elected to govern. That is not a party political point, but a point that has been made by the former Defence Secretary and the former Minister for the Armed Forces and one increasingly made across the defence sector, including by the Labour man, Lord Robertson, who wrote the strategic defence review in the first place. I sometimes wonder if Labour Members are deaf, because all these Labour voices are telling the Government that their strategic defence review, the lack of a defence investment plan and the lack of funding going into our armed forces are damning, but the Ministers at the Dispatch Box do not seem to hear.
My right hon. Friend the shadow Minister for the Armed Forces is absolutely correct. I think we can add somebody else, and that is the former Defence Secretary. He is known not as a party political man, but as a deep statesman. He is known as a Minister on whom Prime Ministers from across the Labour party could rely. When we reach the stage of a former Labour statesman who wrote the SDR and the recently serving Secretary of State saying the Government are not listening to them, I think the country at large needs to listen, and so do Ministers standing at the Dispatch Box. If I may, I will briefly mention specific points on the DIP and resilience. On the DIP, I know that the Ministers sitting on the Front Bench accept that the defence of the realm is the most important duty of any Government, and while I wish them success, I just think that this Government are falling short. There is no clearer sign of that than the lack of a defence investment plan, which they have promised. It has been much touted by this Government, but it is delayed by the latest drama. It is likely to be delayed again, which will spread uncertainty in our defence sector, including defence businesses in my constituency of Hamble Valley. Most importantly, it will spread uncertainty among our allies internationally. The elephant in the room is that the Ministers sitting here today may not be in their jobs in three weeks’ time. I do not wish that to happen—I believe they are good Ministers—but that is the nature of the job we are in, or that they are in. Again, that will add to the uncertainty faced by businesses in the defence sector that are looking to the Government for the investment they were promised two and a half years ago. In Hamble Valley, we have a thriving defence sector. The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry has been there: he kindly came down to a roundtable in the constituency. We have companies such as Domo Tactical Communications, Kraken, Safran, Saab and Windracers, but the constant feedback I get is that, without a defence investment plan, they do not know what they are supposed to do or where to invest. If the Minister and the new Secretary of State do not do this very quickly, those companies will suffer, and the United Kingdom as a whole will suffer. The figure of £13 billion is not the £18 billion identified by the National Security Adviser as needed just to maintain the status quo, which means that the United Kingdom will lose its credibility on the international stage. My final point is about resilience. Last week, I was in Finland with the European Leadership Network. With Finnish MPs, we were looking at some of the defence co-operation in the NATO framework in which the United Kingdom, Israel and Finland play their part. I have to say that I was left shocked by the comparison between Finland’s resilience and preparedness and the United Kingdom’s. Hon. Members may challenge me—I know that some went to Norway last week—and point to the fact that Finland has a population of 5 million and a 1,500 mile border with Russia, whereas we have 70 million people on an island, but I think a lot of comparisons can be made. Very early on in the school system and when young people are growing up, defence resilience and preparedness are embedded in them, as it is in civil society and Government Departments. As a former special adviser at the Cabinet Office, I know we have such documents, but what we urgently need to do—that is why this is in our motion—is not just look at international resilience and defence spending in order to attack, but make our population ready and willing to play their part in defending the homeland. The population in the Nordic countries have been polled about whether they would go to war if there was a threat. In Finland the figure is in the high 80s, but in the United Kingdom it is in the high teens, which worries me. Personally, I am a bit sceptical about how low it is here, because I believe our population would defend this country. I am looking for answers from Ministers about how they plan—whether through the national curriculum or by reversing the cuts they have made to cadet forces in our schools—to very quickly embed in people from a very young age and entering civil society a sense that they are prepared to defend this country should that be needed.
I absolutely do. The story was that if any Russian crossed the Finland border, the first thing they would hear from a Finn is “Hands up!”, and that if the Russians went into Finland, there would be a sniper’s rifle in every window. I am not saying that we need to do that—that was slightly tongue in cheek—but there is that resilience there. As a House, we have to accept that nobody under the age of 50 really remembers an adversarial cold war or the mentality of needing to be prepared to defend the country should there be an imminent and unprovoked attack. That is what we need to get back to, so I would be interested to hear from the Minister how the SDR will look at that. We are living in unparalleled times. Public warnings have come from the Chief of the Defence Staff and from two Ministers who have resigned. A Prime Minister is now going and, I have to say, the ministerial team have not taken any notice of those warnings and are still carrying on without giving the money our armed forces need. We are paralysed: we are paralysed in this House and the Government are paralysed about putting in the much-needed money that the professionals are asking for. I hope that in three weeks’ time, when we get a new Prime Minister, that will be unlocked and it will change. Call me a cynic, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am not sure it will.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. My hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) and I mentioned a number of businesses that are not growing—and I know that the shadow Secretary of State went to Kraken yesterday. Businesses are trying to get orders and grow, but are holding off because they do not have the defence investment plan. This lack of action is costing jobs, is it not?
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder if I can seek your guidance. In this Opposition day debate, many of us have spent four and a half hours in this Chamber seeking answers from a Government Minister. When he refuses to give way, how do we ensure that he responds to our questions? Is it in order, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] I will still have my say. Is it in order for a Minister not to give way through the whole of his speech?
I draw your attention, Madam Deputy Speaker, to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I also declare that my family and I are local residents affected by the development proposal we are about to discuss. I am grateful for this debate about the proposed Forest City, and I am especially grateful to Mr Speaker for allowing me to lead it, given my shadow Cabinet responsibilities. I sought this debate because Forest City is such a danger to our way of life in West Suffolk. For those who are unfamiliar with this monstrous proposal, this is it: a city of 1 million people—the size of Birmingham—between Newmarket and Haverhill in Suffolk, and over the border into Cambridgeshire. It would be a city of 1 million people, supposedly to service the needs of Cambridge—a city that is seven times smaller, with only 145,000 residents. It would be a city of the same population density as London, where on average 58 people live in each hectare. That would all be where today stand ancient villages, communities built on trust and reciprocity, beautiful countryside, family businesses, new tech firms, the international headquarters of horseracing and breeding, and the best arable farmland in the country. The most important thing to say about the plan is that its premise is absolute junk. The Forest City developers make specific claims regarding land assembly, compulsory purchase, affordability mechanisms, infrastructure funding, tax treatment and the scale of state involvement, none of which stands up to scrutiny. First, the resale model removes residential land value and caps resale at inflation-indexed build cost, excluding land.
I think we have just had it—the people of West Suffolk will know that local Labour representatives are in favour of Forest City, which I think is shameful. As I was saying, the resale model removes residential land value and caps resale at inflation-indexed build cost, excluding land. Where homes cost £350,000, as promised by the developers, this creates a permanent capital gap of £275,000 per unit. At the scale proposed—approximately 400,000 homes—that implies up to £110 billion of housing capital subsidy paid by the Government. Secondly, the plan relies on a development corporation with powers of compulsory purchase, while denying itself increases in land value uplift. For a city of 1 million people, non-housing infrastructure will cost anywhere up to £60 billion in capital expenditure. The developers suggest selling a limited number of commercial plots to cross-subsidise investment, but this falls far too short. Without capturing the wider increase in land value, this is another massive black hole. Thirdly, the plan implies water self-sufficiency at scale. The east of England is a water-stressed region, and a city of 1 million people would require around 170 megalitres per day of additional supply. That is equivalent to one south Lincolnshire reservoir or two fens reservoirs in deployable output terms, at a capital cost of up to £4 billion, excluding network reinforcements and financing. There is no plan and no funding for that work, and when I wrote to Anglian Water, it said that the developers had not even been in touch. Fourthly, even assuming compulsory purchase at existing use value with hope value removed—which I believe is not what the developers have said to local landowners—land acquisition would require around £1 billion of up-front public expenditure. Removing hope value reduces up-front costs, but capping resale prices through a so-called permanent affordability model means that there is no mechanism to pay back the capital. In other words, this is yet another black hole. Taken together, these funding gaps suggest up to £175 billion of Government funding, with no way for the state to recover the costs. When I put these problems and detailed questions to the developers in a letter sent in March, the reply I received one day later did not even seek to provide answers. When their report, “We Can Build A City”, was published and sent to Ministers in April, it failed to address a single one of these very serious challenges. That is no wonder, because building a city is far more complicated than these cowboys pretend. Let us take the Government’s new towns programme as an example. Those are only towns, not cities, and only seven of the original 12 schemes are going ahead. Where whole cities have been built from scratch elsewhere in the world, many have failed. Those that have worked—to an extent—are often artificial new capital cities where the functions of government create jobs, such as Brasilia and Islamabad. Often they are in countries where there is still a great migration of people from rural areas to cities, such as in China. Even in China, though, people have simply chosen not to move to many of the new cities, and they stand partially empty. There are similar stories in Songdo in South Korea, Ciudad de la Paz in Equatorial Guinea, and Masdar City in the United Arab Emirates. The reasons for that failure are all too familiar to those of us who have studied the Forest City proposal. These cities are built speculatively, without real demand; there are massive infrastructure costs without feasible revenue generation; and they are elite-driven projects, disconnected from the needs of real people.
It is undoubtedly the case that we need to build more houses in this country, but schemes such as the one described by my hon. Friend must be proportionate for the areas in which they are proposed, and must come with infrastructure, services and amenities.
I completely agree, and I will come to the needs of Cambridge and the surrounding area. You will have noticed, Madam Deputy Speaker, that none of the examples that I have just given is in a western country. That is because advanced economies do not build artificial communities from scratch in the hope that economic growth will follow. That is the logic of the autocrat and the socialist planner, and there is enough evidence from history to inform us of its chances of success. In truth, the Government know that. In the small print of the new towns programme, officials were dismissive of Forest City, saying that it had no local support, no landowner backing, no broader development interest, and no route to delivery. They said that Haverhill did not meet their economic tests, and that the area near Exning and Newmarket had too little water. Simon Dudley, the former chairman of Homes England, called Forest City “a recipe for disaster, paid for by the taxpayer and dressed up as progress.” Simon Lovegrove, an expert in new towns and cities around the world, has said that there is “no need for such a city”, that the proposal has “major flaws”, and that—for the reasons that I have already given—it is “unaffordable”. As Mr Lovegrove says, according to the employment-population ratio and the labour force participation rate, a city of 1 million people would have a working population of nearly 400,000, but the city of Cambridge has a working population of less than 70,000. The developers talk about the Oxford-Cambridge corridor, but I wonder whether they have even looked at a map, because we are on the wrong side of Cambridge for that.
I do agree, but it is not just a distraction from the need to build in the way that that is needed in the broader region around Cambridge. Only today I received an email from one of my constituents who said, “I see that you have a debate. Please will you emphasise the damage that this is doing to people’s mental health, and the anxiety that it is causing local residents?” Why, if this proposal is so flawed, has it not already been killed off? The developers behind Forest City have won fawning media coverage in The Guardian, the Financial Times and the BBC, and to date the Government have refused to say no. In March, the Housing Minister said in answer to a question from me: “Officials will review this proposal in the usual way, including through a meeting with the promoters.” In April, he confirmed that the meeting had in fact been held in February. When the developers claimed to be in talks with the Treasury, I asked Ministers there, in April, whether they, their advisers or their officials had met the Forest City team, but they refused to answer. When I asked whether the advisers from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government had met the Forest City team, I was directed to a publication about meetings held last year—not this year—with senior media figures, not developers. To date, everyone has been completely evasive about the whole thing. During a debate in the other place two weeks ago, Baroness Taylor, a Housing Minister, told my noble Friend Lord Herbert: “We are aware of the Forest City proposals and will be following how they progress through the appropriate local consultations and approvals”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 June 2026; Vol. 856, c. 1423.] But this is the point: Forest City will not go through local consultations and approvals. Its proposers are asking the Government to circumvent local democracy and create a development corporation with compulsory purchase powers. The Government could just say no, but so far they have refused. In the meantime, it is local people who are suffering. I have had emails from people who have told me that they would like to sell their house, but cannot. I have had emails from people who have found their dream home in Suffolk, but cannot commit to buying it as long as this development remains on the table. People in the Bradleys have been told that their village will have to be flooded to make way for a reservoir. People in Great Wratting and the Thurlows have been told that village life will be gone forever. People in Exning, Newmarket and Haverhill have been told that their communities will become suburbs. People in Wickhambrook and Withersfield and Hundon and Kedington and Denston and Stradishall and Ousden and Dalham and Lidgate and Cowlinge—which, like Haverhill, the developers cannot even spell—have been told that they do not matter. Their lives will be ruined, and they have been told that they will have to live amid a building site for decades, often for the remainder of their lives. They have been not only disrespected, but insulted. The Forest City developers, Shiv Malik and Joe Reeve, bussed in supporters from outside the area to a supposedly local meeting in Haverhill. They cancelled a public meeting in Thurlow because too many locals wanted to come—it was apparently a secret public meeting. Behind our backs, they and their supporters have disparaged local people as too old to have a stake in the future, too white to be interesting, and too rural to understand the obvious joys of city life. In the Financial Times, Mr Malik was photographed next what was called a “deserted field”, seemingly unaware that the farmland in our corner of Suffolk is the best in the country. The poor behaviour does not end there. Malik and Reeve present their plan as an act of altruism for the country and the next generation, but they want to keep 160 acres of the city for themselves. Based on Cambridge land values, that would be worth hundreds of millions of pounds. The chairman of their company, Dame Patricia Hewitt, is opening doors for them and promoting the proposition as being in the national interest. She is less open about the fact that Mr Malik will soon be her son-in-law, and her family therefore have a direct financial stake in what she promotes. On different occasions, Mr Malik has claimed the support of local landowners, when only one is believed to support Forest City and the rest oppose it. He has claimed the support of the British Horseracing Authority, which has had to write to him to tell him to stop. He has also claimed the support of the Jockey Club, which has also sent him a legal letter. He threatened to sue me for revealing these things, but when I held my ground, he backed down. In truth, Forest City has attracted almost universal opposition among the people of West Suffolk—those living in villages and those in the towns; those who were born and bred in the area and those who chose to move there; those who are young and those who are old; the landowners, homeowners and renters; and the businesses and residents. There is value in the rural way of life, even if the Forest City developers disparage it. Local people do not want to see their homes and communities destroyed. This is not about knee-jerk opposition to new homes, because we have had thousands of new homes built in the last five years. The new local plan proposes 5,000 new homes, on top of the 8,700 already marked for planning permission. Although Government housing targets have been cut for the cities, they have gone up by 57% for us. To put things into context, Haverhill has doubled in size in only 30 years. Given our proximity to Cambridge, this is understandable. As I said in my maiden speech, we should “embrace the opportunities, not just fear the risks”,—[Official Report, 22 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 445.] of housing demand connected to Cambridge. That is why I have never been an anti-housing campaigner, but the solution to the demand created by the innovation and enterprise of Cambridge is not Forest City. The solution is the densification of Cambridge itself, the development of land adjacent to the city, and the construction of transport connections to the towns and villages within a commutable distance. Haverhill, for example, provides Cambridge with workers, including many at Addenbrooke’s hospital. It needs a rail link and not just the often single-lane A1307. The line between Newmarket and Cambridge should be dualled, and there need to be more services through Newmarket and Brandon. My concern is that this Government, who have been setting and missing ambitious house building targets, will see Forest City not for the impracticability of the plan but as a big idea that they can seize to show that they still have radicalism. The developers are already talking about their pitch to the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), and some local Labour politicians—we have heard from one today—have already hinted at, or even given, their own support.
To be honest, I am at a complete loss as to how that does not express support for the scheme, and if the hon. Gentleman is saying that he does not support it after his earlier intervention, that may be a record U-turn even for this Labour party. This debate presents us with an opportunity to kill off this disastrous idea and all the anxiety and blight it is causing, so I want to ask the Minister the following questions. I gave him advance notice to ensure that we get clear answers, and on behalf of everybody in West Suffolk, I really do ask for clarity. First, do the Government recognise, despite prior ministerial statements, that the Forest City developers do not seek to go through “the appropriate local consultations and approvals”, and plan to rely instead on the legal, financial and political support of central Government? Secondly, for all the reasons I have given, will the Government take this opportunity to rule out Forest City for good? Thirdly, in particular, will the Government rule out the establishment of a development corporation and the use of compulsory purchase powers for the construction of Forest City? Fourthly, do the Government share some or all of my concerns about the financial modelling and affordability gap in the Forest City proposal, as presented, and if so, where do they agree or disagree? Fifthly, will the Government publish details of all meetings and conversations held between all Ministers, officials and advisers in different Departments and the representatives of Forest City, including the chairman and members of its advisory board?
I thank the Minister for his considered answers to my questions. The point is that the Forest City developers are not seeking a process where Ministers consider an application using their quasi-judicial role; it is that they are seeking a policy decision to support the creation of a development corporation with compulsory purchase powers. I think that is a different question, which I would like to press him on. Will he rule that out, or can he not?
Order. The hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) is making an important speech, but before she gets back to her feet, I must tell her that I need to get 12 more Members in to speak.
Order. Forgive me—there is a five-minute time limit, which is the only way that I can incorporate all the Back Benchers who wish to contribute.
Order. Obviously, I have not said anything, so I am not repeating anything. No “yous” and “yours”.
We come to the wind-ups; I invite the shadow Secretary of State.
Order. Minister, if you were late, you would not be able to respond, so you got here just in time.
The hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. I want to turn to legacy. Our motion calls on the Government to drop the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which the Liberal Democrats, like the Conservatives, voted against on Second Reading. That Bill has now famously been described by the outgoing Armed Forces Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), as “unfit for purpose”. Is the hon. Gentleman’s party, like us, still opposed to the Bill, and does that also apply to his colleagues in the House of Lords?
Perhaps we can achieve some consensus on this: yet again, we are debating defence, our armed forces, and the people who keep us safe, but the plastic patriots of Reform cannot be bothered to turn up. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that people who wrap themselves in the flag should at least turn up to debate the future of the people whose job it is to defend it?
Does my right hon. Friend recall he and I and others having multiple meetings in the Northern Ireland Office when we were Back Benchers, going through the detail of the Bill—almost line by line on occasions—and trying to defend the interests of veterans, and bit by bit overcoming the resistance of civil servants at the Northern Ireland Office? Does he recall how difficult that was, and does he still believe, like me, that it was worth it?
When I served on the Defence Committee, just before the election, we went to RAF Marham and spoke to two F-35 pilots. We asked them how long it had taken since they first walked through the door of a recruiting office for them to be allowed to fly the F-35. One said he had been lucky, and it had been six years; the other said he had been unlucky, and it had been 10 years. Does my hon. Friend agree that the MFTS programme requires fundamental reform?