5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
I have great respect for Lord Robertson, an accomplished former Defence Secretary and a former Secretary-General of NATO, who joined the Labour party in 1961. He is a Labour lifer, and when even he accuses the Prime Minister of “corrosive complacency”, does that not prove how utterly out of touch this Government now are?
I thank my hon. Friend for his generosity in giving way. The Finns have what they call a total defence concept, which is that in the event of an attack from Russia—they have much experience of that, historically—it is not just the armed forces who resist, but the whole of society. They have planned that for decades. We had something a bit like that during the cold war, but the Finns take it to a greater degree. Having been there, does he agree that we could learn a great deal from Finland?
It is a privilege to sum up this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition in Armed Forces Week, when the nation pays particular attention and gives thanks to our armed forces, their families, veterans and cadets, for all that they do to ensure the security of this nation and its people. This debate has a historical aspect, too. A week tomorrow is the 110th anniversary of the first day of the Somme, the fateful occasion on which the British Army suffered some 60,000 casualties, killed and wounded—the greatest loss our Army has ever suffered in a single day. Their sacrifice must never be forgotten. Indeed, we must not forget the sacrifice of those who died in subsequent conflicts, up to and including Iraq and Afghanistan. In his emotive poem, “The Soldier”, the war poet Rupert Brooke famously said: If I should die, think only this of me: That there’s some corner of a foreign field That is for ever England. Those fields are still there, as are the cemeteries, lovingly and respectfully tended by the staff of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. In Armed Forces Week, we pay tribute to their highly professional efforts, too. We still live in an extremely dangerous world. Across the House we stand four-square with the noble people of Ukraine, who have been fighting against Russian aggression not just for four years, since the full-scale invasion in 2022, but for 12 years, since the original Russian invasion of Crimea and the Donbas—a period longer than the first and second world wars combined. I say respectfully to the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin), who has just rejoined us, that it was a Conservative Government who, in 2014—after that first invasion, when the Ukrainians realised what was coming—began the programme known as Operation Orbital to train the Ukrainian armed forces to resist the full-scale invasion that they knew was coming. Had it not been for that programme—had it not been for the soldier’s instinct of Ben Wallace and the determination of Boris Johnson to equip and train the Ukrainians to resist the Russian invasion—the Russians would be having supper in Kyiv this evening. Perhaps, despite his incredibly partisan speech, the hon. Gentleman could give us some credit for that.
No. [Laughter.] In February of this year, along with some 20 Members from this House—the largest ever parliamentary delegation to Ukraine as far as I am aware—I visited Odesa, Chernobyl and Kyiv. On 24 February, we were privileged to take part in the commemoration in Maidan Square to mark the fourth anniversary of the full-scale invasion. It is, in effect, Ukraine’s equivalent of Remembrance Sunday, and it was extremely poignant to be part of it. They lay lanterns with a candle at their memorial in much the same way as we lay wreaths in Britain. The principle is exactly the same: it is to remember those who gave their lives in defence of freedom and democracy. The Ukrainians are fighting for our values and, ultimately, for our freedom too. We absolutely stand shoulder to shoulder with them in their brave struggle, which we all hope that they will one day win. In order to help them, we need armed forces that can fight too. As the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) reminded us in his resignation letter, we need to plan for the next war and not the last. With that in mind, I would like to ask Ministers some questions on programmatics this afternoon. Having been in government for nearly two years now, Labour has to begin to take responsibility for something. I have three very specific questions for the Minister on military capability. First, where are we on the much delayed E-7 Wedgetail programme? When, if ever, will this vitally needed eye in the sky enter Royal Air Force service? When, if ever, will Boeing actually make it work properly? Secondly, turning to the Army, there are media reports that it will cost an additional £1 billion—above the £5.5 billion already allocated—to fix the Ajax programme and bring it fully into service. Is that true? If it is, can we be assured that General Dynamics will pick up the bill, per its current £5.5 billion firm-price contract, and that not a single extra penny will fall on the British taxpayer? Incidentally, where are we on the Morpheus tactical communication system? Thirdly, how can it be that our entire fleet of Astute-class nuclear attack submarines are currently laid up for maintenance? The new Secretary of State chided me last week for discussing submarine movements on the floor of the House. I did no such thing. I was, in fact, discussing the total absence of submarine movements. Given the First Sea Lord’s increasingly, and rightly, dire warnings about Russian naval activity in the English channel and the North sea, perhaps the Minister could tell us how we are supposed to credibly deter Russia when not a single one of our £1.5 billion attack submarines is currently at sea? That brings me to the question of what has happened to the defence investment plan. The three well-respected authors of Labour’s much-vaunted strategic defence review were adamant when it was published, over a year ago now, that the price of implementing the measures in the SDR would be to spend 3% of GDP on defence. The detail of how that would be afforded and the actual programmatics were to be provided subsequently in the defence investment plan. We were faithfully promised the plan in the autumn. Then we were absolutely promised it by Christmas. Then we were definitely going to get it early in the new year. Now we are in the middle of June and still do not have the DIP. Ministers tell us that they have been working flat out. Well, they are now comatose. The new Armed Forces Minister assured the House last night that it would be published by the time of the Ankara summit in July, yet The Times reported this morning that the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) is minded to delay the publication of the DIP because he wants to take these decisions himself. Presumably whoever his new Chancellor turns out to be—we all pray that there will be one—will have something to say about that too. Can the Armed Forces Minister commit absolutely that after crying wolf so many times, the Government are going to stick to the timetable and publish the DIP within the next fortnight, prior to Ankara? Or is it going to slip yet again? She laughs, but this is not funny. This is about the defence of the United Kingdom. Do Ministers not realise that what little credibility they have left is rapidly disappearing? Indeed, after Cabinet this morning, and even during the course of this debate, the BBC has reported: “No new major policies or spending decisions until new PM appointed, No 10 says”. Where does that leave the defence investment plan? Who is in charge of the clattering train? Who actually runs this country? Is it the current Prime Minister or the next one?
Absolutely; industry is exasperated, from BAE Systems down to the smallest defence suppliers in the land. When we were in government, we published—with one year’s exception, I think—a detailed equipment plan every year so that industry could plan accordingly. That is what the DIP is meant to be, but still we do not have it. Labour Ministers tell us and their own Back Benchers again and again that they are increasing defence spending to the greatest extent since the end of the cold war. That is literally untrue. The Defence Secretary told the world in his resignation letter that Labour’s spending plans envisage going from 2.6% of GDP this year to 2.68% of GDP by 2030. That is a 0.08% increase over four years. How is that the largest increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war? Help me out, someone over there. It gets worse. Labour is also seeking £3.5 billion of in-year, self-inflicted, Treasury-driven cuts to the operational and readiness spending of our armed forces. That means fewer ships at sea, fewer planes in the air and fewer exercises on Salisbury plain—and the Russian and Chinese embassies must be laughing themselves silly. If Members will not take it from me, take it from the Chief of the Defence Staff—the professional head of the armed forces—who warned just a few days ago that if Labour continues on its financial path and does not fund the DIP properly, he will have no option but to cut back on readiness and training, which is exactly the activity that is meant to deter a potential aggressor in the first place. The blunt truth—as a Brit, I take no joy in saying it—is that this Government are the laughing stock of NATO. Indeed, in NATO’s own readiness index, the United Kingdom ranks 31st out of 32 NATO countries, with the only one below us Iceland by virtue of having no armed forces to ready. As the Government disintegrate before our eyes, we can only hope that their successors are both competent and courageous and actually believe in defending this country, which clearly this collapsing Administration do not. Another area that we want to press Ministers hard on is the fate of their benighted Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. The hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak, who famously described it as “not fit for purpose”, spoke powerfully in his resignation letter to the Prime Minister in defence of Northern Ireland veterans. He mentioned his battle in government, where he “set out the changes I believed were necessary, and the lines which I could not in good conscience go beyond. Those lines have not been accepted. I have run out of room to argue this case honourably from inside government. A serving minister cannot ask fellow veterans to trust a process he no longer trusts himself.” He went on: “We ask soldiers to fight for this country. In return, we owe them the kit to do the job and the loyalty to stand by them when it’s done. We are failing on both.” Nine former four-star officers have told the world that the troubles Bill represents a “direct threat to national security.” A group of former SAS commanders who were at the sharp end of the battle against republican terrorism told us: “Today every British soldier deployed must consider not only the enemy in front of them but the lawyer behind them… Make no mistake, our closest allies are watching uneasily, and our enemies will be rubbing their hands.” We absolutely cannot allow this situation to continue against those who defended the rule of law. Those who served in Operation Banner stood effectively as piggy-in-the-middle for decades between two warring communities. Over 700 of them were killed and thousands more suffered life-changing injuries. They and their comrades are now to be pursued through the courts via lawfare, actively aided and abetted by a Government who for months have promised multiple times to produce amendments to the Bill to protect veterans and, just as with the DIP, we have seen nothing of substance on which the House can rely, with no amendments and no letters of comfort for them, either. It is a matter of record that a number of those regiments who served in Northern Ireland on Op Banner came from the north-west of England, including from in and around the Manchester area. I think of the Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment and its antecedent regiments, including the King’s Regiment, which traditionally recruited from Liverpool and Manchester—they did many tours of Northern Ireland. I therefore ask, in all seriousness, what is the attitude of the right hon. Member for Makerfield towards the benighted Northern Ireland Troubles Bill? If the new Prime Minister seeks some kind of reset for the Labour party, A good place to start would be to drop this dreadful piece of legislation, which threatens to put our soldiers in the dock solely to the advantage of those who sought to kill them. In lieu of that, he could agree to back the Northern Ireland Troubles (Criminal Investigations etc) Bill, the excellent new private Member’s Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), which will have its Second Reading on 4 September and which in essence seeks to curtail any further investigations, inquests or inquiries against our Op Banner veterans unless compelling new evidence as certified by a UK Supreme Court Justice is produced. Some of us on these Benches have literally spent years seeking to defend those who defended us; let us hope that the new Prime Minister will agree. There has been consensus on one point this afternoon—I heard it again and again—which is that the first duty of Government above all others is the defence of the realm, yet the Armed Forces Minister resigned, the Secretary of State for Defence resigned and now the Prime Minister has resigned. This Administration has failed. It is broken. It is going. It made many mistakes, but worst of all, it failed to defend this country. For that, it deserves to come to an end.
In February 2025, the now outgoing Prime Minister told this House that Labour defence investment would deliver “a new approach to defence, a revival of our industrial base, a deepening of our alliances; the instruments of our national power brought together; creating opportunity, assuring our allies and delivering security for our country.” —[Official Report, 25 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 634.] In the many months that we have waited for the overdue defence investment plan, all that has been delivered is evidence of a Government lengthy on announcements and short on deliver for the security of our country. This has been at arguably the most globally turbulent time since the cold war and the second world war—a time when our defence industry needed certainty and support from the Government. The 2025 strategic defence review set out that Labour’s defence investment plan would be completed in autumn 2025. Repeated pushbacks have real impacts on defence acquisition, expenditure and military capability. Labour has weakened our defence industry, leaving our armed forces in need of modernisation and transformation to ensure their readiness for modern warfare. However, as has been rightly highlighted by the Chief of the Defence Staff: “recent circumstances…suggest the opposite. Further delay to the Defence Investment Plan, long promised ‘in the autumn’, risks sending damaging signals to adversaries.” Our adversaries will not wait for a Government capable of bolstering our defence, and the Labour party should not be allowed to get away with this. Even more concerning, when we finally receive the defence investment plan, it will confirm the intention to spend only 2.68% of GDP on defence and intelligence by 2027—an offer to uplift by only 0.08% of GDP to address a £28 billion blackhole in the MOD’s defence budget. To quote the then Labour Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey), that “falls well short of what is required for defence and the country at this dangerous time.” It will increase the risk to personnel on operations and could make the country less safe. A plan pushed back five times that does not address the problem it was designed to address is not a plan at all. It shows a corrosive complacency, characteristic of this Government’s failure to make the tough decisions they need to for our country. The Conservatives have always highlighted how serious this is, and we have taken the position that defence spending must increase to 3% by the end of this Parliament—a position recently backed by the former Defence Secretary. Conservatives called for Labour to repurpose funding from the official development assistance budget for defence, and Labour followed our advice. We are now calling on Labour to go further and commit to spending 3% of GDP on defence by the end of this Parliament—doing this by reducing the welfare bill, not through more taxes and borrowing—growing the regular Army, and creating a sovereign defence fund that would mobilise billions in public and private funding to overhaul the defence industry. This morning, the Chancellor told the House that the defence investment plan will meet the scale of the challenges facing our country, but we cannot defend against today’s adversaries with inadequate policies from this Government. Like many others in the House, I urge the Government to get on with it. We can no longer defend our nation with soundbites.
It is always a pleasure to serve with you in the chair, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) for securing this important debate and talking with what is clearly lifelong passion and lifelong experience. I thank her for the campaigning and work that she has done over a number of years. I also thank the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) for his knowledge and passion around the largest deforestation project that is under way. I have listened to everyone talk about the visit to the orangutan school. I am beginning to feel like the only kid in school who was not on the trip, but it sounds like it touched a lot of people. I noted the description of the forest school teaching young orangutans how to behave in the wild, and the skills that they need—it feels a bit like what CCHQ does to Conservative candidates before we are released into the wild at a later date.
As a member of the Whips Office, I can assure the hon. Member that that is not something we will take up, although my team, if they are watching this debate, will probably now be panicking that I may be coming up with a YouTube video idea to try to go viral. Anyway, as Conservatives we recognise the need to protect the natural world. To that end, we welcome this debate on UK-Indonesia collaboration on environmental sustainability. We see the profound importance of the bilateral relationship between our countries in both our mutual economic growth and our shared commitment to protecting the natural world. The Opposition support robust engagement with Indonesia. We want the partnerships that our Government have announced to deliver real, measurable outcomes. Indonesia is the biggest economy in south-east Asia and is rich in biodiversity and natural beauty. However, it is precisely because the stakes are so high and the scale of investment is so considerable that this House is entitled to ask searching questions about whether the Government’s approach is truly adequate to the challenge. It is in that constructive spirit that I wish to raise a number of points with the Minister. Indonesia is home to the world’s third largest tropical forest and holds 36% of the world’s tropical peatland. As we heard from other Members, both have globally significant importance as carbon stores. Indonesia also hosts 3.5 million hectares of mangroves—about 23% of the world’s total—storing approximately 3.1 gigatonnes of carbon. These are not abstract statistics; they represent irreplaceable natural systems on which the global climate depends. Despite significant progress having been made in recent years, deforestation in Indonesia surged by 66% during 2025, with 1.1 million acres of forest removed. What is our Government’s position on that? Have they discussed it with their counterparts in Indonesia, and if so, what were the outcomes of those discussions? Indonesia has the world’s largest nickel reserves—estimated at 55 million tonnes—and accounted for 54% of global nickel production in 2023. The country’s critical mineral wealth makes it central to the global energy transition, but the risks associated with nickel extraction are well documented. In November 2024, the UK and Indonesia agreed a strategic partnership on critical minerals. That was with the aim of sharing technical knowledge and mitigating risks linked to this kind of mining. Can the Minister tell us what mechanisms are in place to encourage those standards, and what assessment has she made of the application of the standards? In January 2025, the two Governments agreed a new sustainable infrastructure partnership, which our Government say will open up new opportunities for British companies to design and construct projects in Indonesia. We support British commercial engagement; British companies obtaining projects abroad is something we should support, but what safeguards have the Government put in place to support commercial projects pursued under that partnership? On the UK-Indonesia carbon market partnership to support Indonesia in implementing a carbon pricing framework and developing a voluntary carbon market, the Minister will be aware that voluntary carbon markets have attracted significant criticism internationally for the quality and permanence of the carbon credits they generate. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that any carbon market developed under that partnership meets rigorous standards and will not simply allow carbon offsetting that fails to deliver genuine emissions reductions? Although Indonesia has the largest economy in south-east Asia, it ranks only 17th in the world by GDP according to the International Monetary Fund. Despite that, Indonesia is consistently among the top 10 carbon dioxide-emitting nations; indeed, the FCDO has estimated that it is the fifth-highest carbon-emitting country. The Indonesian Government aspire to reach net zero by 2060. By 2030, they aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 31.89% through national efforts and by 43.2% with international support. Those are significant ambitions, but the gap between aspiration and delivery is wide. Can the Minister set out what independent assessment the Government have made of whether Indonesia is currently on track to meet its 2030 targets, and what conditionality—if any—is attached to UK commitments? Finally, the scale of the investment being discussed today is substantial. British International Investment has committed £308 million in climate finance across south-east Asia until 2031, including a rooftop solar programme that aims to produce 600 MW of energy by 2028. The World Bank, which the UK contributes to, is providing $500 million to Indonesia’s electricity network transformation programme. What assessment have the UK Government made of value for money across the totality of UK investments in this relationship, and how are outcomes being measured and reported back to Parliament? We all share the objectives of supporting Indonesia’s journey towards greater environmental sustainability while protecting its extraordinary natural heritage, and of building a partnership that delivers for our country and for the planet. The foundations that have been laid, including by the previous Government, are real, but good intentions and headline announcements are not enough. The House deserves clarity on conditionality, environmental standards and genuine value for money. Can the Minister please provide us with that assurance by answering the questions that have been asked today?
Recently, the Government announced that they will legislate to prevent under-16s from viewing social media. We already ban under-16s from drinking alcohol and smoking, because we believe that they should be protected from doing things now that may have negative impacts on them later in life, particularly to their health. Does my hon. Friend think that this should sit in that category of protections for children?
The hon. Member—my Member of Parliament—is being very generous in giving way. Her comment about the community is very relevant. To give one example, there was an action day in Immingham only two or three weeks ago, which involved not only local authority councillors but, in our case, Lincolnshire Housing Partnership. The important thing I want to stress is that the funding was made available by Phillips 66, so does she agree that the private sector can make a contribution by supporting community groups?
I beg to move, That this House has considered the role of Big Tech in society. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. It is good to see the Minister in his place, and indeed the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune). I am grateful to Mr Speaker for selecting the debate. Today, I want to look at the relationship between Government and big tech, and its impact on wider society and the communities we all represent, as well as the national and even global consequences of this expanding, what I term “unreliable relationship of reliance”. Let me be clear: the Government do not have the resources necessary for research and development of new technologies compared with the wealthy and global tech companies’ resourcing—I get that. Private sector collaboration makes sense and is of benefit to our country. Improving the efficiency of Government, public sector productivity, and the outcomes and effects of Governments—whatever their political complexion—is something that I support. However, I think the Government need to establish—this is something for the Minister; perhaps a legacy for him —their very own centre for tech research: a Porton Down for tech innovation and development, or an expansion of the R&D work of the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory. Not everything can or should be outsourced to the private sector—this is a Conservative MP saying that. Today, I want to highlight some of the potential, if not inherent, democratic dangers for the UK Government —both today’s Government and future Governments—as the relationship with big tech becomes more embedded, we become more reliant, and by osmosis, we cede ever more power and influence to tech companies over all the people we represent in this Parliament, and the Governments they elect. Perhaps UK Government data could be seen as the crown jewels of data—the ultimate state capture: data capture. Data is increasingly entrusted to companies with no democratic oversight or accountability. Some big tech companies regard democracy, governance and oversight, for all their faults, with distain and even contempt—an irritant to their commercial progress, rather than as a challenging and helpful partner. I believe that any Government being beholden to big tech—I do not mean collaboration, which is positive—is a strategic risk to our country, full of moral hazard. I submit that it is a potential and emerging medium-term strategic risk, where conflict between democracy and big tech will come into stark contrast. Today, we feel only the tremors of such a conflict, but it is for the future and for all Governments to address it before that tremor becomes an earthquake for our democracy and for politics more generally.
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, and will touch on sovereignty later. The European Union—it is a positive in many ways—is looking at that. That is partly why I am making this speech today; it is about sovereignty too. Who knows the most—who owns or hosts the most data—and how that data is used determines who has the hierarchical advantage. I would argue that that gives the democratic or control advantage, not just the commercial advantage. The people, through democratically elected government, should always have ultimate control.
The hon. Lady makes an important point. I will not name individual companies today—she has clearly put her views on the record—but no monopoly, be it a public or private sector monopoly, is good for our constituents, consumers and small and medium-sized businesses. She makes her case well. Will this universal knowledge that tech companies have—this data capture—always be used for good? Will it always be benign? Will it seek the common good or the corporate good?
Let me make a bit of progress, and then I will try to come back to the hon. Lady. I have applied for this debate a few times—I have been lucky today, but we have only an hour, rather than 90 minutes. Is big tech politically neutral? Sometimes it does not seem like that. Is that of concern to the Government? Does the Minister agree that some Government data can never be white labelled? Are some big tech companies agnostic when it comes to the UK’s democratic values? Are they more interested in value than values? This is not speculation. Some—not all—of the most powerful figures in tech have openly questioned democracy and its relevance, authority and survivability. Some of those observers are not fringe voices shouting from the margins, but tech owners with capital, platforms and influence and with the ear of many of our constituents and, indeed, our Government. Again, big tech is a force for good in the world. I believe that. It provides huge benefits with regard to human geography, economic empowerment and borderless prosperity. But in so many ways, tech’s story has only just begun. That is one of the reasons why we need to have discussions like the one that we are having today. It is why Governments, wherever they might be, need to strike the right balance on how much power—how much of the people’s power—they cede to big tech and its shareholders. Many of its shareholders are known, but some are a bit more mysterious and, to the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee), do not necessarily always share our values, or are certainly not in the UK.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point. As I said, I am not going to reference particular tech companies or particular information or misinformation campaigns. I am trying to get Members across the House to raise their eyes a little and look at the big picture of the conflict, coming down the road, between big tech and sovereignty, democracy and all the people we represent. But the hon. Lady’s point is also on the record. Again, the close relationship between big tech and Governments is necessary, but is none the less becoming increasingly problematic and conflicted. Tech needs smarter regulation, certainly more competition, and a recalibration and rebalancing of its relationship with Government. The collaboration between the two should not mean Governments turning a blind eye to the breaking of laws, or big tech enjoying public policy vetoes. With big tech come big responsibilities. Governments should not rush to absolve big tech of the wrongs of tech in return for future technology transfer and unfettered access, and better terms for collaborations with Government. These questions arise, perhaps. If the relationship between Government and big tech is conflicted, is it also compromised? If so, does that compromise equate to a type of corporate kompromat? Who wins? Who loses? Who is in control? Has big tech gone beyond even the power of the global banking system in 2008? Has it become too big to fail, too big to challenge even if the challenge is by Ministers of the Crown, too big to be sufficiently stood up to and too big to be fairly taxed? If the Government’s mantra is “In tech we trust”, I hope this debate will challenge Whitehall and the Government on the fact that that laudable aim does not come without significant, inherent and strategic risks for the whole of our country, our institutions and democracy itself—the people we represent. Therefore the challenge for Government is how they preserve the benefits of private sector collaboration while ensuring that no single point of failure or future political, trade union or operational dispute can jeopardise or threaten the UK’s national security, sovereign capabilities or strategic interests. Who is ultimately in control? Is it the client—in this case, the Government—or is it big tech, or individual tech companies? Is there a master switch, and if so, whose hand is on it? If we are talking about a particular tech company, who within the tech company has the final say on disputed deployment of that tech, or on philosophical or political disagreements?
The hon. Lady raises a very interesting point. That is a challenge for all Governments and all Ministers, however able they are. We have a very good tech Minister here today, but it is a real challenge. The starting point is better co-operation, transparency and openness from big tech itself, as I set out in my introductory remarks. It is the owner or owners—as in shareholders, the board, the advisory board or even other clients and customers—who may object to collaboration between a particular Government and a tech company. That is problematic. Or could tech companies themselves find a moral or political argument to turn off a particular Government service at a particular moment in time? That has been seen in recent months in the conflict in the middle east. We have seen it in China where certain tech companies have switched off their moral compass to placate the Chinese regime in exchange for commercial advantage. Meanwhile, freedom and democracy in China is set back. What can the Government do? There need to be more robust legislative safeguards. The Government need to collaborate with tech companies, of course, but not to capitulate. In conclusion, tech companies should act as responsible corporate citizens, but they so often do not unless they are made to, and they are not made to enough for the reasons I have set out today. When Parliaments do regulate, tech companies fight it all the way. They weaponise the courts and demonise parents and legislators around the world who dare to even raise legitimate questions and scrutinise these companies. Big tech should not be asking what the minimum is it should do to keep Governments off its back, as it sees it, or to avoid negative publicity and public opinion. Big tech firms should be corporate leaders leading by example and setting high standards without Parliament or Ministers having to tell them what they should do. Big tech should do the right thing, because it is the right thing to do.
It is unusual for me to intervene, but I am glad the hon. Lady mentioned that number. I had no idea it was that many contracts for that particular company, and that underscores some of the points I was making. I can think of certain service companies, which I will not mention today, that have multiple contracts, some of which they deliver well, and some of which have been a complete disaster under successive Governments. I can think of some global IT companies—not big tech, but the old, traditional hardware companies—where some of those programmes are delivered well, and some have been a complete disaster. To have so many contracts in the hands of so few is concerning.
I did not have time to raise this issue in my speech. The National Security and Investment Act 2021 established the National Security Investment Unit, which was the right move. If a particularly sensitive company with strategic assets or a technology that affects UK interests is to be sold or receive outward investment, it has to be cleared by the Government. That is a welcome change, but it is rather perverse or even ironic that, when the situation is reversed, there is very little scrutiny.
I am conscious of time, so I want to give the Minister the opportunity to answer the questions I asked: who owns the data, who controls the data, and what does that mean for democracy and the balance of power?
Just a minute: no deviation, repetition or hesitation—never from the Minister, who was completely direct, cogent and excellent as ever. But the question remains for all of us: who owns and controls the data and what does that mean for democracy? That is not a party political point. Is that control and oversight of the governance sat in an office in San Francisco or elsewhere, or is it in a Minister of the Crown’s office here in Whitehall? That will be an ongoing debate that goes to the fundamentals of why we are all here. The people must have the power, not large corporate entities. I think we all agree that we need to see more competition. Tech is a force for good, but we need to ensure that it has oversight.
May I start by congratulating the former Economic Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Northampton North (Lucy Rigby), on her promotion to Chief Secretary? In the eight months that I shadowed her in her previous role, she made a strong impact and gained significant, well-deserved respect from those in the financial services industry. May I also welcome my fourth Economic Secretary, and wish her the very best of luck in the role? As the Leader of the Opposition said in a speech last week, tax and regulation is getting in the way of financial services lending and investing in the UK economy. Does the new Economic Secretary think that the next Chancellor will do a better job of ensuring growth for this country?
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Given what he is saying about Northern Ireland, would he support a private Member’s Bill that would set out in law that there should be no further investigations, inquiries, inquests or prosecutions unless, in the view of a Supreme Court judge, new and compelling evidence has come to light? If so, I can only recommend that he come to the Chamber on 4 September, when my Northern Ireland Troubles (Criminal Investigations etc) Bill will have its Second Reading.
May I say what a pleasure it is to follow the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie), who was speaking a great deal of sense? He mentioned the threat that we face in the High North. He might be interested to know that the Defence Committee was in Norway last week. We went up to the Arctic circle, to the Combined Air Operations Centre at Bodø, where we were told an extraordinary story. When the forces there were doing a security exercise, they put a baddie on the roof of a sangar near the air base’s gate, and took a dog round to find the baddie. The dog did not want to know about the bloke they had put on the roof of the sangar; he would not stop indicating an issue with the sangar itself. He kept on indicating, “There’s something there.” They thought, “Oh blimey, we’d better go and get the keys.” They got the keys and found a Chinese spy, who had been in there for a week. He was arrested and is doing time in prison in Norway—pre-trial, I believe, on remand. That brings home exactly what the hon. Member said: we are talking about real threats and real enemies, and in that case, they were are literally at the gate. I joined the Army in 1986, and it generously paid for me to go to university to study theology and philosophy—that was very broad-minded of it at the time. I went back to Sandhurst to confirm my commission in 1989. That was a significant moment. I was on college guard, polishing my boots, as I watched the Berlin wall fall. I did not really understand that the geopolitical glue that had helped keep the world safe for the last 40 years was coming unstuck, or what the implications might be for Officer Cadet Jopp, but the implications were certainly there. Those bonds, which had kept the cold war in stasis, did indeed start to melt, and that meant that I had a very busy military career. I went to war when the Conservatives were in power, and when Labour was in power. I have had poor equipment. Both sides of the House have been responsible for part of what happened following 1989, as we started to manage decline. Do not get me wrong: I am so proud of the men and women of our armed forces, particularly those I led. I buried men from my regiment, and I try not to forget to always pay tribute to them and what they did; it enabled me to stand here and be their voice today. Essentially, from the end of the cold war, successive Governments started to take risks. This ticking time bomb has been passed on from Government to Government. Bad luck, Labour: it has gone off on this Government’s watch; that is the fact of it. Essentially, a very big lie has been told to the British public; they have been told that we can have the defence we want at the price that we are prepared to pay for it.
My right hon. Friend and fellow Scots Guardsman makes a good point. The zeitgeist throughout that period of time was to say, “Look, wars are a thing of the past. We can take risk against defence.” That risk has rarely crystallised, so people have been tempted to take more and more risk. We have also seen it in the hypothecation of defence spending. I get an Army pension, which contributes to the 2% of GDP being spent on defence. The last time I checked—despite the Minister for the Armed Forces having threatened to mobilise me more than once—my pension was not making a huge contribution to our ability to face down a resurgent Russia. Everyone was taking risk and passing on that risk to one another. Now, I am afraid, that risk has crystallised in that we do face real enemies, and those enemies are very close. We do have to rearm—I should declare an interest as a founder of the all-party parliamentary group on rearmament—but unfortunately our record on that is not great. The numbers were run the other day and of the 32 NATO members recorded we came 31st for rearmament. The only trouble is, in 32nd is Iceland, which does not have any armed forces. That is not a great record for going over to Europe and trying to convince our European and NATO allies that we are pulling our weight. One or two other things happened in that period of time. First, the MOD got pretty bloated, in particular in procurement. It is deeply unhelpful that we are now on our third Procurement Minister in less than 22 months, which makes it look like we are not taking it seriously. Equally, it shows no consistency in the building of approach. When the Government came in, they appointed the national armaments director, who will be the second-highest paid civil servant in the country. I hope that he is a massive success. I tried to set up the national armaments director up for success before his appointment by asking two Procurement Ministers whether the director would be given carte blanche to tear up the book when it comes to procurement. One of them said not only would he be given the ability to tear up the book but that they would hold him to account for doing so. I said, “The last thing anyone on the Defence Committee wants is for the national armaments director to come in front of us, after being in post a year, to say, ‘Well, we did want to change things, but I wasn’t really allowed to.’” The way is set fair: the national armaments director can rip up that book. When the Defence Committee went to Ukraine last year, we were briefed on its procurement structure, which is extraordinary. Ukraine has put together an Amazon-like marketplace with 1,700 sovereign Ukrainian defence companies as suppliers and the customers being the fighting brigades, who simply write a requirement for a new bit of kit. For example, let us say that the Russians have got a new screen so the brigades cannot fly their fibre optically guided munition right into the Russians’ command post and have it blow up on the general’s desk. The brigade simply writes up that requirement, saying “I need a pre-charge of some sort to burst through that screen so I can fly my fibre optic guided missile in and get the baddies.” That gets put out to industry, which churns the problem; the record, from flash to bang—from requirement to kit delivery—is five days. That is what can be achieved. Hon. Members must look at what is being bypassed to achieve that level of agility: the whole of the military chain of command above brigade level, bypassed; the Ministry of Defence, bypassed; the Treasury, bypassed; and equally, all the regulators, bypassed. That should give the national armaments director a sense of where we have to go to generate the relevance. I think I heard the Armed Forces Minister—I cannot remember whether it was the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) or the current one—say the other day that it is rather tricky buying drones, because as soon as we have them they go out of date, so we will not buy any. That is pretty defeatist. We should redo the way in which we are thinking about things so that our land forces in Estonia have drones.
I thank the former Minister for his intervention. There is a huge challenge to us, in that we have to turn our ploughshares into swords rather than the other way round. We need industry that is sufficiently flexible to flick the switch and turn the lawn mower factory into the drone factory in double-quick time.
The other group that has been bypassed, and which I did not mention, is the 18 prime contractors. This is direct to the SMEs. I am afraid that the model that we have developed since the end of the cold war has seen the 18 primes getting rich off defence pounds and SMEs getting legged over. The national armaments director should look seriously at the way in which that is done, in order to capture the innovative nature of SMEs that are doing some wonderful stuff. Ironically, they are not selling that to the MOD; it is all going overseas. To the point made by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar about showing honesty about the threat, I agree that we must be very clear about the threat and express it outside this place at every opportunity. The Prime Minister of Norway talks about defence about once a week in all his radio and television interviews. We met Norway’s joint forces commander, and even he goes on once a week and talks about the threat. Okay, Norway is nearer Russia, and it has a small land border and a very large sea border with Russia. The strategic defence review mentioned starting a national conversation; it seems to be a conversation of one line. If we are to get the investment that defence needs, we need to talk much more openly. One other thing that happened during the cold war, I am afraid, is that the MOD became much more secretive. The Defence Committee always used to get things such as the major projects review and the equipment plan to see how the pounds were being spent. We do not get those any more. Similarly, James Heappey came to give evidence to the Committee on the Afghan data breach, but he got quite lyrical and started to say that he felt uneasy that, as Minister for the Armed Forces, he was getting lots of documents that said, “You can’t tell Parliament this” and “You can’t tell Parliament that”, because it was all highly classified. He claims that he wanted to be able to tell Parliament more but was constrained from so doing by the classification system. The Defence Committee used to do its own redaction. It used to get the full threat picture and was grown up enough to redact and not release secrets to the public. That would be a much healthier way of doing things as we go forward. I turn finally to the moral component of fighting power. We have talked a lot about the physical component, and the moral is to the physical as three to one. We know that is true because Napoleon said it, and he was brilliant. I have had conversations with both former and current Ministers about the undermining of the moral component of fighting power with the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. That is why, when I came tenth in the ballot for a private Member’s Bill, I took the opportunity to attempt to put in law that there should be no further investigations, inquests, inquiries or prosecutions of Northern Ireland veterans unless, in the view of a Supreme Court judge, there is new, compelling evidence. The Bill comes to the House of Commons on 4 September and I very much hope that I can get cross-party support for it. I fear deeply for the stain on the moral component through the constant hounding of our veterans; indeed, I declare an interest as I spent three-and-a-half years of my life in uniform trying to bring peace to that place. I was not shot and blown up there but somewhere else. When the children of the schools in my constituency hear that I have been shot, they all look at me and say, “Where?” I always say, “On the roof of the Mammy Yoko hotel in Freetown.” [Laughter.] The moral component must be reinforced; it does not need resourcing. I hope that the new Secretary of State for Defence was only prepared to accept the job because he had some deal over Northern Ireland veterans. I look forward to finding out whether that is indeed the case, because our veterans need protecting from those prosecutions.
I do not know whether my hon. and gallant Friend has yet had the opportunity to go down to Speaker’s Court and meet the armed forces representatives there. I met the very improbably titled Fungus 1, who is an F-35 pilot, and I was appalled to hear that he had spent nine years in training and has only just done three months on the frontline. As well as all the other things we are giving Defence Ministers to think about, surely pilot training has to be one of them, if we are going to be ready.
As my colleagues on the Conservative Benches have already noted, today and previously, the defence of the realm is the first duty of any Government, and as a fundamental part of that duty, any Government must provide the people who volunteer to keep our country safe—at great personal risk—with the tools they need and the support they deserve. Our country is not kept safe by people in this place or by bureaucrats in Whitehall offices. It is kept safe by brave men and women who put their lives on the line because they believe in this country and want to protect it. They suspend their family lives, they risk their own lives, and they operate in incredibly difficult conditions, because they think that this country is worth suffering for—and even dying for. They do this of their own free will, and certainly not for any great sums of money. We are incredibly fortunate that anybody puts themselves forward to serve, and even more fortunate that over the years this country has produced many thousands of courageous, professional and dutiful people who have preserved the freedom of this country and, at times, the world. The very least that the British Government can do is to treat these people—our armed forces personnel—fairly, to honour the implicit promise that their service will be repaid with respect and protection, and to make sure that when orders are issued from on high, the people charged with carrying out those orders are not punished for doing so. Since the last election, we have seen this Government do exactly the opposite. Their Northern Ireland Troubles Bill is a direct betrayal of that promise, and it will see veterans dragged through the courts and hounded by endless inquiries, decades after their service. Those who served in Northern Ireland did so at incredible personal risk. They operated under intensely challenging conditions, the likes of which most of us in this place—save for some gallant Members—will never be forced to withstand. They did all this to keep our country safe from murderous psychopaths who wanted to undermine our democracy and tear our country apart through the use of terrorist violence, the assassination of police officers and the murder of innocent civilians. Over the course of their service, the vast majority of those who served in our security forces did so with incredible professionalism. They behaved according to rules of engagement that did not constrain their terrorist enemies. They followed orders and procedures designed to protect innocent life. When those standards were not met, people were held responsible. Again, no such internal scrutiny took place within the terrorist organisations that they fought. Indeed, under the terms of the Belfast agreement and subsequent legislation, IRA terrorists were given immunity from prosecution, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) set out earlier. Many were released from prison before their sentences had been served, despite having carried out terrorist attacks that killed civilians. That charity and forgiveness stands in stark contrast to the treatment in the opposite direction. Many of those who served have been hounded for decades by vexatious legal claims. They include people who served in our armed forces and those who served in the police in Northern Ireland, which was then called the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Typically, these challenges have been politically motivated and brought by people linked to the Irish republican movement, often to furnish the republican narrative that our security forces behaved unlawfully throughout the troubles. Such challenges are usually launched not on the basis of new evidence, but because of the retrospective application of human rights laws that were never designed to govern counter-terrorist combat. On the morning of 3 June 1991, three members of the IRA drove a stolen car into a small village in County Tyrone. It was their intention to murder a part-time member of the Ulster Defence Regiment, a regiment of the British Army made up of local recruits from Northern Ireland. On reaching the village, the car stopped. One of the men got out and pointed an assault rifle at the person he believed to be their target, but who was in fact a member of the Special Air Service in disguise. Believing that the decoy’s life was in immediate danger, other SAS soldiers, hidden on the first floor of a nearby hotel, opened fire on the IRA men. All three were killed. Investigation at the scene showed that two of those men, Lawrence McNally and Michael Ryan, were armed with assault rifles. The third man, Tony Doris, was not armed, which the SAS soldiers who carried out the ambush could not have known. The three IRA men who were killed that day set out to murder a part-time soldier, and the actions of the SAS were designed to prevent that murder from happening. Fortunately, they succeeded. That operation took place before I was even born, yet until earlier this year, the soldiers who took part in it were still being subjected to legal harassment for their actions that day. More than three decades later, lawyers with no specialist knowledge of military operations were asked to rule on whether those soldiers had behaved in accordance with human rights law, which was not designed for combat. Fortunately, the Court of Appeal determined that the SAS had acted lawfully, but other veterans have not been so lucky. This Government’s troubles Bill will mean more cases like that one, with more veterans dragged through the courts, hounded in the press, and forced to testify at countless inquests and inquiries. It will scrap the protections put in place by the previous Government and open the doors to a whole new wave of politically motivated prosecutions. The Government say that this is necessary because of our obligations under the European Court of Human Rights, but if protecting our veterans from vexatious prosecution is not compatible with ECHR membership, what better case can there be for leaving the ECHR altogether? Earlier this week, we heard that we would be rid of this Prime Minister, who has repeatedly let down those currently serving in our armed forces by refusing to provide them with the material support they need, as well as those who have served previously, through the disastrous Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. I hope that his exit foreshadows the exit of the Attorney General and the Northern Ireland Secretary, both of whom have been responsible for advancing and defending the Bill. They have been warned repeatedly about what an awful signal it sends to those who are currently serving. Why would anybody risk their lives if their own Government might throw them under the bus decades later? I only hope that the chaos in Government will provide the new Defence Ministers— whenever they arrive—with an excuse to drop the Bill for good, and that they will instead support the private Member’s Bill brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), which I am honoured to support. Our Northern Ireland veterans made unimaginable sacrifices to keep us safe. It is not a lot to ask that we protect them from this nightmare in return.
We are facing dangerous and uncertain times, in a world that has dramatically changed in just a couple of years. To set the record straight following the discussions across the House, it is worth pointing out that Europe is on a path of rearmament. In 2025 the European Union launched its rearmament plan, ReArm Europe, with the goal of upping spending across Europe by 2030. As many of my hon. and gallant Friends have pointed out, we are at the bottom of the pile now on rearmament. Even just a few years back, we were at the top of the pile for NATO spending and our defence capability. How have we fallen so dramatically in comparison with our European neighbours? Earlier this year Germany launched its modern-day comprehensive military concept—the first for a very long time—with the goal of building the strongest conventional army in Europe. Things have radically changed in but a few years. How have we gone from being at the top of the pile in terms of our NATO contributions to being at the bottom? It is because of political choices, dithering and delay from this Government—a Government who think nothing of spending £330 billion a year on welfare benefits but cannot muster the courage to face down their Back Benchers to put our brave armed servicemen and women first; a Government who think our veterans are fair game for their Islington-dining-set lawyer friends and not deserving of our enduring thanks and protection from relentless lawfare. To govern is to choose. This Government chose an extra £18 billion of welfare spending this year—an extra £18 billion on showing Britain that work does not pay. That is £18 billion that could have secured 250,000 extra soldiers, according to a recent report from the Centre for Social Justice. Instead, it went to “Benefits Street”. It could have been spent on 200 fighter jets, according to the CSJ report. Instead, it went to “Benefits Street”. It could have built 15 warships. Instead, it went to “Benefits Street”. When Labour Back Benchers want action on welfare, nothing stands in this Government’s way, but when our country needs to show our enemies we are investing to protect our country and our future, we get weakness and delay. We may have lost the Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary and the Armed Forces Minister, but the same Government with no sense of putting our country first remains. I say to the Government: stop the lawfare on our veterans now. Make the tough decisions on welfare that we on the Opposition Benches will support. Put a defence investment plan forward now that will make our enemies think twice. We are saying goodbye to a Prime Minister without a backbone. He has left our country weaker, poorer and less safe. But the country cannot wait for Labour’s internal indulgence. It is time for the investment in our armed forces that the moment demands—investment that transcends party and puts our country first. It is about Britain and our role in an unsafe and dangerous world. It is time to act and give our armed forces the investment they need.
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36). Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put. Question agreed to. Question put accordingly (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
The reason I am in the Chamber today is the protection of children—that is why I care about banning social media, and it is why I am here to speak about puberty blockers. We protect young people under the age of consent from alcohol, heroin and sexual abuse, because they are children under the age of 18. This puberty blockers trial for 11-year-olds makes me ask whether we are putting sufficient safeguards in place for those young people, and whether they have the cognitive ability to understand what they are doing. Do they have the cognitive development to understand that, when their brain is fully developed, they will have made an irreversible choice, one that will last for the rest of their lives? We talk about these children giving consent. What about a class action lawsuit? Members have referred to 7% of people being happy to continue with the therapy. What will happen when these children are 18 or 25? Inevitably, a percentage will decide that they do not want to continue in the gender they chose as a child and want to go back to the gender they were before. What are they going to do? Are they going to sue the Government? Are they going to sue the clinicians for conducting the trial, because they were forced and coerced into something that they did not fully understand?
My doubts come from why, for example, we are not allowing the data linkage study to be fully completed before proceeding with the new trial. That study would find out what has happened to all the children who have already taken puberty blockers. I wanted to ask the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett), that question, but I was not able to make that intervention; I do not know whether that had anything to do with the £1.5 million donation from Ferring Pharmaceuticals that the Lib Dems took before the 2019 election. I do not know whether that had anything to do with it, but there has to be some level of declaration if a political party has taken donations from a pharmaceutical company that is promoting this drug. That is relevant to how one represents oneself in the Chamber. There is no justification for proceeding with the Pathways trial before the data linkage study is complete. Puberty is how a child transitions from childhood to adulthood, and anything that affects that process is going to have long-term effects. Those effects are going to be felt, not in one or two years, but in 10 years. The brains we have as adults, at the age of 24, are very different from the brains we have as 11-year-olds—our frontal cortexes are not fully developed. This is not just about the effect on these children’s psychology; what effects do these drugs have on humans over the long term? We do not know that, so why not look at the data linkage study? It does not have to be perfect, but it will allow us to protect the children going into this trial, so that the trial is as well-run as possible.
That is an excellent point. When I heard about those other uses for the drug, I thought that I would be interested to see more clinical trials for conditions such as endometriosis and cancer to establish its long-term effects. However, that is for adults. When it comes to protecting children, I want to ensure that this trial involves as much safeguarding as possible. We do not fully understand the long-term risk. We come to the House again and again to discuss what constitutes a child and what constitutes protecting a child. We need to be clear about the fact that we must protect people under the age of 16, or 18—I do not care which age it is, but it should be an age on which we all agree—and that they must be subject to extra protection and safeguarding until they reach adulthood. That is why we are asking for so many safeguards—we need to ensure that the unintended consequence of trying to help a few young people does not lead to greater harm to many—and it is why we are here today. I do not feel that asking the Government to include the data linkage study is too much to ask. This trial is a trade-off: long-term health is being exchanged for short-term happiness. This trial, in my opinion, is not safe, and this trial will not protect children from harm.
1. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of her Department’s policies on household budgets.
The Chancellor has overseen huge tax rises for those who work hard and do the right thing. Now they have been hit by soaring energy bills—a situation that is even more acute for many of my constituents who rely on heating oil. How does the Chancellor think that squares with the Government’s pledge to cut energy bills?
The Chancellor has obviously had to make some tough decisions since 2024, but the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) wants her to go further by aligning the capital gains tax rate to the higher rates of income tax. Did she examine the behavioural effects of such a policy before she made a much more modest increase in her first Budget?
I acknowledge the serious way that the Secretary of State is approaching this. I think many people will be concerned that, as the shadow Minister has said, there is no objective blood marker for these individuals; I think they will be concerned that a group of people will be taken forward in this trial when a whole range of influences could have governed how they have got to that point, given that the implications of taking these drugs are quite profound for their life and further development. How does one reconcile the fact that there is no way of verifying the suitability and the way that these individuals have been selected for the trial? Perhaps he could help me to understand it better.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Sir Jeremy. I will speak generally about the amendments on health inequalities, and specifically about some points that the group of amendments homes in on. On the general principle of dealing with health inequalities, the sentiment behind amendment 13 is important, and I support hon. Members’ motivation for tabling it, but I question exactly what “persons of different descriptions” means. Does it relate to protected characteristics, which employment law deals with, or to geography? I suspect that it is both, and I wonder whether there are more considerations than those two. It would assist us if the amendment were clearer on that, notwithstanding the fact that clarification may be made during the debate or to the amendment itself if it is accepted later. I have concerns about what “persons of different descriptions” means. Certainly, in everyday English, every individual could be described as a person of a different description, so the phrase does not have any particular legal meaning. If the phrase means something equivalent to protected characteristics, I wish to say something about health inequalities affecting those of different ages. I am the Member for Isle of Wight East, which, of course, has an older population. I want people of all ages to have equal access to health and social care, and inequalities in access to be levelled out and removed, but it is not only older people who find accessing health services difficult, not least for reasons of physical access; the entire population within an area with an older age demographic is affected. The Isle of Wight has a small local authority. We are fairly unique, in that we are surrounded by water and have a higher age profile, which, taken together with other challenges, makes health equality a challenge for the entire population, not just older people. The issue is aggravated by other considerations, primarily relating to geography. Amendment 34, tabled by the hon. Member for Winchester, refers to hospital transportation access. That can mean a lot of different things in different places. I support at least the aim of putting more pressure on the Secretary of State and the Department and encouraging them to recognise and eradicate inequalities in hospital transportation access. For my constituents, accessing specialist services means crossing a body of water, which is not only a physical barrier—a ferry has to be taken—but a cost barrier, because ferries cost money. I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, given the challenge in my constituency, but of course other places have different but challenging hospital transportation issues. Amendment 30, tabled by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, refers to cross-departmental working to ensure that health inequalities are taken into consideration. I think this is key. Of course the primary responsibility for health inequalities rests with the Department of Health and Social Care, but it is by no means the only Department with that responsibility. The more we think about the various inequalities that exist in this country, the more we realise that other Departments have considerable responsibility. We hear from politicians—of all parties, but particularly the Labour party in government—about better joined-up working between Departments, but without something more concrete in Bills such as this one, that will remain one of those aspirations that many talk about but few actually achieve. The most obvious Department to help achieve the reduction in health inequalities is the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, given its responsibility for local government funding. Of course, local government has primary responsibility for delivering social care and public health within its area. It is a well-known feature of the system we have in this country that healthcare is free at the point of use and delivered effectively by central Government, while social care is a combination of different provision but private funding and local government have the largest role to play, and too many people fall through the gaps in those fundamentally different ways of funding two parts of the system. Unless MHCLG is bound into the way we reduce health inequalities, even with the best intentions of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, it clearly will not be delivered in a comprehensive and holistic way. I refer again, as an example, to my area, which has a higher age demographic but a small unitary authority with a lower funding base. It is a matter of public record that the funding decisions made by the current Government at the beginning of this year have meant an effective reduction in funding for my local authority, notwithstanding its responsibility for an older population and the existing challenges in delivering social care. That is an argument that I and my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley), are making to the Government in an ongoing conversation about how we can resolve that issue. We are having that conversation with MHCLG, notwithstanding the fact that it has a very direct impact—the biggest impact, in my view—on health inequalities in my constituency and the effectiveness of the Government’s 10-year health plan and their intention to improve the general health of the population. That is the probably the key departmental relationship that will be relied on to deliver the reduction in health inequalities. The Department for Transport also has responsibility for this. If we refer to its responsibilities for reducing health inequalities outside the context of this argument, people might scratch their heads and wonder what we are talking about. but as soon as it is brought into a real-life example within this debate, it makes sense that the Department for Transport has some responsibility for reducing health inequalities. However, we will not achieve all we want to unless that responsibility is made more obvious and specific, named somewhere in some Bill. We have an option to achieve our intention to have joined-up decision making, and to ensure that every decision in any Department that has the potential to impact health inequalities is considered, whether in a formal impact assessment or just in the ordinary day-to-day decision making and mindset of the relevant Ministers, Secretary of State or departmental officials.
My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. Although all these amendments come from a very good place, they are so obvious that they should already be happening, and are too obvious to be enshrined in some overriding duty in a Bill.
The clause, and amendment 58, deal with innovation. Although the NHS is responsible for some great healthcare innovations, not only in this country but around the world, unfortunately, it is often an example of a complete failure to innovate, or even to use fairly basic technology that has been around for a long time—I am thinking of using computers for patient records, as paper records have lasted for far too long. Promoting innovation is clearly a good thing—it is essential—so I support the amendment. I will speak about the details in a moment.