Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Claire Coutinho

   Climate Change

   The analysis that the hon. Gentleman points to refers to TIMES modelling. That is used for the baseline. A few pages away, its says that the TIMES modelling specifically does not look at the impact of jobs on the overall energy transition. It is in there in black and white. The hon. Gentleman might desperately google it now in the Chamber, but the truth is that no Labour Members read and scrutinised the impact assessment properly because none of them cares. Let’s be honest: they are all here to read their boilerplate speeches, which will all be exactly the same, to virtue signal how much of a good person they are. That is the truth. Most of them come from climate NGOs and green lobby groups—the Minister does too, I am afraid—and they care more about ideology than evidence. How many of them have ever had to turn a profit for a living? How many have had to work out how to pay someone else’s wages? How many have had to consider all the costs that go into manufacturing and selling something in Britain? The thing is, we could do this so differently. We are 1% of global emissions; 99% are happening elsewhere. Those countries are not persuaded by Britain driving itself into poverty while the Secretary of State preaches at them from his pulpit. In fact, they are asking themselves why they should follow the path that Britain is taking when we are such an obvious example of what not to do. We are a country that is making its energy scarce and expensive, and deindustrialising and impoverishing its own citizens. What is the solution? First, we must reject decarbonisation by deindustrialisation. Therefore, we must measure the offshoring of emissions and get rid of the unilateral carbon tax and the stringent targets killing off British industry by repealing the Climate Change Act.

   Hansard source
2. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Claire Coutinho

   Climate Change

   I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The question is, can we protect the environment, the economy and living standards? Is what the Government are proposing today going to help us do those things? I would argue that it is not. [Interruption.] Well, let’s talk about it: Labour Members will vote today to increase the cost of aviation and shipping when our competitors in Asia, the middle east and the US are not doing so. That is mad. The first part of our plan is to save British industry. The second is to make electricity cheap. Just 10% of our emissions are in the electricity system; the vast majority are in transport, industry and buildings. Our electricity is clean. Does Labour even realise that? It is some of the cleanest electricity in the world. The problem is that it is too expensive and deterring electrification. I am not someone on the right who thinks that all clean tech is stupid, but I do think that cheap electricity and consumer choice should be king. Thirdly, we should wholeheartedly embrace innovation and exports of British clean tech, whether that is the next generation of nuclear, software or consumer products. Finally, we should pay much more heed to nature—something that we were proud to do but this Government are much less keen on. Funnily enough, they are much more attracted to net zero than nature. Perhaps that is because the former gives them unlimited powers to dictate to people what they can and cannot do, and to tax people who do things that they do not like. That is, after all, a socialist’s dream. I would bet everything that our approach is better for the British economy and the environment, but it would mean wresting this agenda away from the incredibly well-funded green lobby groups with vested interests, who provide these figures that Members on the Labour Benches all merrily cite without having actually read the reports. And, frankly, they do not have the balls to do it—they do not even have the balls to take on their out-of-control Secretary of State. I will end on this. The public keep being promised cheaper energy and more jobs, yet those things are not materialising. If people want to know why Governments keep failing, they should look at this impact assessment, which I am afraid is mumbo-jumbo that does not tell the reader what the target will do to the cost of food or energy, or the cost of business. They should consider the fact that parliamentarians are prepared to wave it through today. The Minister did not even take any questions. This is meant to be a debate in which we scrutinise these important decisions, but she did not want to answer any questions. Who in the public voted for this? Who in the public voted for more expensive food, energy bills and boilers? Who voted to increase our goods imports from China? Let us be very clear: this legislation takes control away from Ministers and gives it to civil servants, unaccountable bodies and activists who will tell Ministers that they cannot prioritise the cost of living or the economy, even if they were elected to do so. The Energy Secretary might not be in post for much longer, but the legacy of his target will be to make us poorer and weaker. Ministers will be more bound by red tape and less able to deliver on their promises, but it does not have to be that way. This is the moment to take back control for our constituents and say that Ministers should not be bound by legislation waved through with no scrutiny—by Ministers who will not take any questions. Ministers should be bound by the democratic promises they have made to the electorate. That is how we fix this. That is how we put our constituents back in the driving seat, and that is why Members should vote to reject this legislation today.

   Hansard source
3. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Claire Coutinho

   Climate Change

   The hon. Member is making an emotional speech, and I understand she cares deeply about this issue. This target is imposing costs on our businesses in Britain, which is driving them away from one of the cleanest energy systems in the world. Our refineries now pay more on their carbon tax bill than they do on their wage bill. What does that mean? It means we are importing back those same goods from countries such as India that have higher emissions—twice the emissions, in fact. Why should we set a target more onerous than that in other countries, driving production away, only to import goods with higher emissions? What does she think that will do for climate change?

   Hansard source
4. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Claire Coutinho

   Climate Change

   If the evidence is so science-led, will the hon. Member explain why the Climate Change Committee was out by a factor of three—300%—on the cost of offshore wind, which is one of the key inputs for the target that she will be voting for today?

   Hansard source
5. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Claire Coutinho

   Climate Change

   Will the hon. Lady give way?

   Hansard source
6. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Claire Coutinho

   Climate Change

   I appreciate the hon. Member’s tone and the quality of his remarks, but does he not agree that denying that the Government are making electricity more expensive and deterring electrification—something the former Labour Prime Minister has acknowledged—and denying that we are offshoring emissions by putting extra carbon taxes on our businesses that other countries do not face, therefore increasing global emissions, is also part of the problem?

   Hansard source
7. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Charlie Dewhirst

   Farming Road Map and Profitability Review

   The Secretary of State seemed to ignore the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) about the use of land and increasing food production, so I will ask specifically again: how are our farmers expected to increase food production if we are taking 9% of agricultural land out of productive use?

   Hansard source
8. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

   Climate Change

   With an immediate five-minute time limit, I call Olivia Blake.

   Hansard source
9. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

   Climate Change

   Order. I am going to reduce the time limit to four minutes from the next speaker. Clearly passions run very high in this debate, but may I remind Members that debates should be conducted with good temper and moderation? When Members are either taking an intervention or responding to an intervention, that carries on through the Chair. Twirling around and facing the person behind you, or wherever they may be in the Chamber, means you will not be picked up by the microphones and it is extremely discourteous. I call Justin Madders.

   Hansard source
10. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Climate Change

    Order. I call Fleur Anderson.

    Hansard source
11. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Climate Change

    We will go down to a three-minute time limit after the next speaker.

    Hansard source
12. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Climate Change

    Order. The Minister is better than that.

    Hansard source
13. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    North Sea Oil and Gas

    I beg to move, That this House has considered North Sea oil and gas. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. Energy security is a matter that impacts all of us. It allows us to reliably meet daily demand without concern for supply disruption or price spiking. It ensures that families can heat their homes, that schools and hospitals can continue to serve the community, and that drivers can stay on the road. Energy security is intertwined with everything we do. In a state of emergency, it guarantees a resilient power source, allowing essential service operations to continue unimpeded, and upholds our national security—indeed, energy security is national security. It should not be controversial to say that our energy security should be a high priority for the Government, yet here we are, turning our back on the North sea oil industry, all in the name of ideologically driven targets, irrespective of global context or the will of the British public. Time and again, it has been highlighted that the UK emits less than 1% of the world’s global emissions, while the top three nations together emit over 50%. Rather than acknowledge that context, the Energy Secretary continues to push a deadline that is 10 years ahead of the largest emitter and that precedes the third by 20 years, before the second has even set an official target. Twenty years! That time could be spent on ensuring a balanced transition that does not push the UK into a scenario where energy demand exceeds supply capabilities. Instead, the Energy Secretary insists on maintaining our weak bargaining position by pursuing his relentless targets, ignoring our preparedness levels and dismissing the genuine needs and wants of the nation. From the opportunistic solar farms being sprung up at the expense of our agricultural sector and rural communities, to reaching strike prices of £90 to £95 per megawatt-hour in the latest wind auction, which far exceeds the wholesale gas price at £55 per megawatt-hour, the sacrifices being made, including the interests of the British people, evidently know no bounds. The argument is not about whether oil and gas will still be needed for years to come, because the Climate Change Committee and the Government themselves have already acknowledged that. Instead, it is a question of where our oil and gas come from. Believe it or not, a Government should support domestic production. A Government should be against deindustrialisation, especially at a time of rising political tension and subsequent volatility. Energy security and economic stability are two sides of the same coin.

    Hansard source
14. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    North Sea Oil and Gas

    I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman supports continued activity in the North sea, and I will address that point later on in my remarks. Increasing reliance on imports and blaming unstable global markets regardless of the product, when we have the ability to produce it domestically and help stabilise the market, is not just reckless; it is madness. That is not to mention the fact that offshoring our carbon emissions, such as importing from the US, does not help the planet; it simply allows the UK to portray lower emissions in national statistics, while facilitating the generation of three times higher emissions via this method of supply. We should be supporting any domestic production that reduces product cost, generates jobs and has the potential to add billions more into our economy. It is no secret that households across the country are struggling with their energy bills. The UK currently has the highest industrial energy prices among developed nations and the second highest domestic electricity prices in the developed world. That stark fact is evident to anyone paying energy bills, and it is about to get worse. The Ofgem cap for July to September has risen by 13%, reaching £1,862, which is £294 more than when the Government came into office in July 2024. I am not sure where the Energy Secretary’s promise to decrease energy bills by £300 has gone, but it looks like he actually meant an increase. There is nothing complicated about these figures. The cost of energy is rising, and households and businesses across the country are feeling the impact. A recent poll found that, although 60% of people across the UK support reducing emissions, 68% of those supporters believe that reducing energy bills should be the first priority. That result was echoed in another poll, which found that 71% of people who support reducing emissions do so on the condition that it does not increase their energy bills. The undeniable fact is that these inflexible targets are driving up energy bills. As a democratically elected entity, the Government’s first priority should be to represent the nation and act in its best interests, but the public are being hung out to dry. It is not only the bill payers paying the brunt; thousands of oil and gas workers are also on the chopping block. Giving rising unemployment, it would be reasonable to presume that the Government would abandon any policy that compounds the issue further, but of course that is far too sensible a suggestion. They appear to prefer to allow 1,000 jobs a month to be lost from the oil and gas sector in places that rely on the industry such as Aberdeen, rather than admit they are on the wrong path. I take this opportunity to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) to his place. He emphatically won a by-election last week with almost 50% of the vote, which is a vindication of the fact that the public—particularly workers in places dependent on the oil and gas industry for employment—reject the pace and scale of the Government’s net zero agenda.

    Hansard source
15. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    North Sea Oil and Gas

    I thank my hon. Friend for his first spoken contribution as an elected Member. He is already demonstrating his resoundingly strong voice on behalf of the people of Aberdeen South, many of whom are employed in the industry and terrified about what the scale and pace of what the Government are doing represent for their futures. It appears that the Government would rather ignore warnings that their refusal to replace the energy profits levy is putting 200,000 jobs at growing risk than delay their ideology for even a few years. They would even rather ignore the Scottish Affairs Committee’s warnings that clean energy jobs are not keeping pace with oil and gas job losses, rather than give up on this net zero legacy. I have one question for the Government: what do they say to the thousands of workers who risk losing their jobs or have already lost them? The Government will claim that clean energy is providing 100,000 jobs, but have they shared the detail on the quality of those jobs and the pay cuts that the workers are having to take? Why has that not happened? Because it means that the Government would have to take responsibility for a mess that they are compounding. The bottom line is this: if we want to support those workers, we must support the North sea oil and gas industry. The ban on new oil and gas licences is leaving at least 2.9 billion barrels of oil in the ground—billions in monetary value that could be added to our economy, thousands of jobs that could be secured and millions of homes powered. I predict what the rebuttal point will be: it does not matter how many barrels come from the North sea because it is all sold on an international market and therefore will have no impact on our energy prices, which are dictated by global pricing.

    Hansard source
16. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    North Sea Oil and Gas

    Underpinning so many of the decisions taken by the Government is a fundamental lack of appreciation for how businesses take investment decisions. They are not incentivised to do so. Allow the market to operate by restricting regulation and financial pressure on it, and businesses will innovate. They will invest to extract resources that are viable because they can be sold on the international market. It is basic economics that the more product they have to meet demand, the more substantial the price reduction. Scarcity drives cost. The Labour party loves to argue that our North sea industry produces too little to have a significant impact on the global market, but less than 1% of global carbon emissions appears significant enough to dictate our national energy strategy. Why, then, is a 1.5% share of the global market considered too small to be worth pursuing? The answer is that it does not serve the “net zero by 2050 at any cost” narrative. The fact that our energy security and our North sea industries are in a crisis is not new information. We all know it. Members across this House know it. Tony Blair knows it. Even the Energy Secretary himself knows it; he just will not admit it. It is time to put personal ambition and ideology aside. People need their bills reduced and jobs secured now. They are tired of being left to the whim of global market fluctuations, when the Government are not acting to stabilise the market by increasing supply and securing jobs. It is time to do what is best for our country and support the North sea industry that provides employment, helps to regulate global pricing and protects our national energy security.

    Hansard source
17. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    North Sea Oil and Gas

    I thank all hon. Members from all parties across the House for participating. There is clearly lots of passion and enthusiasm for this topic, as well as much concern. The debate was conducted in a very pragmatic fashion, which recognises that there is no climate denial across the House. Members recognise that there needs to be a fair transition that supports existing oil and gas jobs, and does what it can to strengthen those jobs and to ensure that the UK maintains an energy security position where we are able to tap into natural resources while focusing on the jobs of the future. I was pleased to hear jobs, taxation and the importance of prosperity in Scotland emphasised in the debate, given the role that the region plays in our national security. I was pleased to hear the emphasis on refining. I implore the Minister to reflect on his words about the opportunities that have been missed in the past to strengthen the refining sector. I hope that the Government will take on board what has been said across the House today as they think about the role that North sea oil and gas can play going into the future. There was an emphasis on ensuring that drilling can continue, abandoning the energy profits levy, and doing whatever the Government can to work with industry and workers who currently have those jobs, so that we do not have a moment of regret in the future and wish that we had done more now to prevent job losses and a further reduction of our energy resilience.

    Hansard source
18. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Bob Blackman

    Media Green Paper

    Hostile state actors routinely broadcast misinformation to our young people and radicalise them in their own homes. I agree completely with the Secretary of State that we have to take action; the problem is that primary legislation will never keep up with technology. I urge her to therefore consider a media Bill with wide-ranging powers that makes use of secondary legislation that can keep up with those changes to technology.

    Hansard source
19. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Andrew Griffith

    Support for rural areas, farming, country sports and the equestrian sector

    I rise to present a petition from residents in my constituency of Arundel and South Downs in West Sussex. Hundreds of signatures have been gathered from local residents who see at first hand what feels like a constant attack on our countryside and country pursuits by this Government. For example, just in the past couple of weeks, we have seen the removal of plans for fast broadband fibre to thousands of rural homes. The petitioners therefore request “that the House of Commons urges the Government to bring forward measures to actively support rural areas, farming, traditional country sports, including trail hunting and shooting, and the equestrian sector.” Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of Arundel and the South Downs, Declares that the UK’s rural traditions and heritage are of great importance in preserving our natural landscapes and the wider economy. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to bring forward measures to actively support rural areas, farming, traditional country sports (including trail hunting and shooting) and the equestrian sector. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003212]

    Hansard source
20. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Andrew Bowie

    North Sea Oil and Gas

    Given the bombshell news the hon. Gentleman has just delivered to the Chamber—that we have a new energy strategy from the Scottish Government—when will that be published?

    Hansard source
21. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Andrew Bowie

    North Sea Oil and Gas

    Will the hon. Member give way?

    Hansard source
22. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Andrew Bowie

    North Sea Oil and Gas

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne—sorry, I mean my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas)—for securing this important and timely debate, although I think his call for personal ambition to be left aside at this time is a faint hope. Given what is happening on the Government Benches, this is surely a time for personal ambition to come to the fore, and I am sure we will see a lot more of it in the next few weeks. In that regard, I take this opportunity to welcome the newest Conservative party Member of Parliament to this House. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) secured an incredible majority in his constituency last week, in a referendum on the future of our oil and gas industry that was won by those of us who support its continuance, by those of us who support the jobs being maintained in this country, that city and that region, and by a real champion for that part of the world. I am sure that his voice, heard already in this Chamber this morning, will be heard loud and clear over the next few months and years as he continues to champion that great city and that great industry. I thank the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Mansfield (Steve Yemm), for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) and for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton), my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross), and the hon. Members for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran) and for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) for adding their voices to this debate. It was interesting that three of the four Labour Members spoke in favour of a change of policy on oil and gas. Although I have a lot of time and respect for the hon. Member for Stratford and Bow—indeed, I like her—I disagree considerably with her. She is a passionate advocate for what she believes, and she is right to stand up in this House and make those arguments about the UK contributing to the battle against climate change, but when she describes those of us who care passionately about the existing oil and gas industry as climate deniers, she is somewhat insulting the thousands of people in my constituency, and constituencies across the country, who rely on that industry for their income and have the very skills that will be relied upon by those developing the technologies of the future. It is supply chain industries based in Westhill, Portlethen, Banchory and Blackburn in my constituency, and in places around the country, including the north-east of England, that will develop the offshore wind or floating solar technologies of the future, or whatever it might be. It is people in Na h-Eileanan an Iar and across the United Kingdom that the hon. Lady will need and want to build more quickly.

    Hansard source
23. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Andrew Bowie

    North Sea Oil and Gas

    Absolutely—I could not agree more. We do need to bring communities with us. While I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove for securing the debate, I find it increasingly frustrating that we have to return to this House and platforms across the UK to make the same arguments. One of my constituents said just the other week, “It is like banging your head against a brick wall.” None of us understands what this Government need to see or hear from experts, trade unions, former leaders of the Labour party, leaders of Scottish Renewables and RenewableUK or the chairman of Great British Energy, which this Government established less than two years ago, who are all clamouring for a change of position on the UK’s oil and gas sector. My constituents, and people across Scotland and the United Kingdom, just do not understand why the Government, at this time of constraint on our economy, are voluntarily giving up a potential £13 billion of additional revenue over the next decade. They do not understand why the Government insist—and, indeed, are about to legislate—on a ban on new licences in the North sea while increasing imports from Norway, which has just issued more licences in its sector of the North sea, adding to the burden on climate change and undermining our economy, with British jobs lost in the process. People do not get why the Government say on one hand that they are passionately committed to tackling global climate change and want to be global leaders in ensuring that this world is a safer place for our children, and yet on the other hand are seemingly blind to the increased emissions produced by importing more of the oil and gas that we will need over the next 30 to 40 years from places such as Qatar and the USA. They do not get why the Government are seemingly treating workers in Aberdeen, the north-east of Scotland, Fife, the Northern Isles, Na h-Eileanan an Iar and the north-east of England—everywhere that has been mentioned—with callous disregard, given that there is no transition evident. There is a slow-down in the deployment of renewables, which is being driven by the accelerated decline in the oil and gas industry. The Port of Aberdeen, which invested millions of pounds in developing South harbour to take advantage of what it expected to be the boom in floating offshore wind less than 10 years ago, is laying off workers because the boom has not arrived. Some 63% of the harbour’s profit is generated from the oil and gas sector, and less than 2% from renewables. The decline in oil and gas is being driven too fast, and the uptick in renewables is not there. It is a cruel irony that we are having this debate at the very moment that Swire House, a multimillion-pound global energy headquarters building, which opened a decade ago to great fanfare in the city of Aberdeen, is being demolished. That is symbolic of this Government’s approach to our energy industry, oil and gas industry, the city of Aberdeen, the north-east of Scotland and those who worked proudly in the North sea, but are now looking overseas. As much as the Government like to say that they will increase funding and expand the transition fund, those workers are skilled workers; some of them have spent decades honing their skills in a specific, global industry, an industry that, in every country bar this one, is booming. Those skills are in high demand in the middle east, Australia, the Gulf of America—or Gulf of Mexico; take your pick—South America and Canada; basically, in every country with an oil and gas industry that does not have the current UK Energy Secretary in charge of energy policy. That is why those workers are taking the difficult decision to uproot their families, leave the communities where they have lived all their lives and go overseas, taking with them those vital skills needed by the technologies of the future and leaving the economy of the north-east of Scotland and the United Kingdom weaker as a result. We need to see a change of policy; surely the result last week in Aberdeen South demonstrated that. People are fed up and want change. Yes, they agree they want to get to net zero—overwhelmingly, people believe that we must tackle climate change—but this Government’s callous disregard for the industry and its workers speaks volumes about where their priorities lie. If last week did not demonstrate that, I do not know what will. I say to the Minister, “Please, please scrap the energy profits levy. Do not legislate to ban licences. Give the people of Aberdeen and north-east Scotland, and all who work in the oil and gas industry, hope for the future that the Government understand, are listening, recognise and will invest in that industry.”

    Hansard source
24. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    Defence Spending and Readiness

    Is it not the truth that we have a Government who said they were prepared to meet the threats that we face as a country, yet are simply dithering and delaying? With all the infighting on the Labour Benches, what hope is there for our country at a time when we need sustainability and certainty, not chaos?

    Hansard source
25. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    Defence Spending and Readiness

    Will the Minister give way?

    Hansard source
26. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    Defence Spending and Readiness

    rose—

    Hansard source
27. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    Defence Spending and Readiness

    rose—

    Hansard source
28. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    Defence Spending and Readiness

    Absolutely not. I stand here not as a Brexiteer, but as somebody who was a reluctant remainer. I voted for remain partly because of the security of our country, but let me tell the hon. Gentleman that there is no way that I regret that decision. I am a pragmatic Brexiteer—like most of our country—but it is no good him standing there and bemoaning this, that and the other; the decision about the defence investment plan falls on his Government. If it is such a good idea, what has stopped them—I notice the Government Benches are empty—just getting on and delivering it for the sake of our country?

    Hansard source
29. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    Defence Spending and Readiness

    Will the hon. Member give way?

    Hansard source
30. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Stuart Andrew

    Puberty Blockers

    This has been an important debate. It has been a difficult debate, but a necessary one none the less. There are some subjects in public life where the easiest course is silence, where every word is weighed, where motives are questioned and where hon. Members may be tempted to step back rather than step forward, but when the subject is the safety of children, silence is not an option. Children and young people are at the centre of the debate. They are not slogans or political symbols to be used by either side of any argument; they are children, and often vulnerable children experiencing distress that can be profound, complex and deeply painful. They need kindness, patience and support from adults who listen and act responsibly. They need services that are timely, professional and compassionate. Compassion is measured not by how quickly we medicalise a child’s distress but by whether we protect the child’s future and respond to their present pain. That is the heart of the debate. Sadly, those of us who are concerned about this trial are often labelled as transphobic. Personally, I find that offensive. Child safety matters to me, and so does equality for trans people, but we have to think about children. The Government ask the House to accept that the Pathways trial is the responsible way to build evidence. Ministers say that it is a carefully controlled study, that safeguards have been strengthened and that only a small number of children will be involved. But the question before us is not whether research matters—of course it does—but whether this particular trial involving children as young as 11 and 12 is the right and ethical way to proceed. We on the Conservative Benches do not believe that it is. My position is rooted in a simple principle: when evidence is uncertain, risks may be lifelong. When the patient is a child, the burden of proof must be exceptionally high. That is not ideology; that is good medicine. The Cass review changed the debate because it brought clarity to a field that had been allowed to drift for too long. It found weak evidence, poor data, inadequate follow-up and a service model that too often failed to look at the whole child. It was the previous Government who treated those findings with the seriousness that they deserved. The routine prescription of puberty blockers on the NHS was ended because the evidence did not justify the practice. That was not a rejection of vulnerable young people; it was an act of safeguarding. The Government now say that this trial is different. They say that it is not routine prescribing and that there will be monitoring, consent, assessment and withdrawal criteria. Yet process cannot answer the central moral question: can a child, at the start of puberty, truly understand the impact of interrupting that stage? Can an 11-year-old meaningfully consider questions of fertility, bone development, cognitive effects, sexual function and future regret? Can a parent, faced with a distressed child and a desperate sense of need for relief, rationally navigate the uncertainty without enormous pressure? Those are not abstract questions; they go to the integrity of consent itself. In most areas of medicine, when the risks are serious and the benefits uncertain, we become more cautious, not less. We do not reassure ourselves merely because the cohort is small, or say that because only a limited number of children may be exposed, the ethical concern is reduced. For each child in the trial, the consequences are enormous and personal. For each family, the decision is life-altering. For each future adult, the question may one day be, “Did the people in authority protect me properly?” The Secretary of State has said he feels “discomfort and unease”. I welcome that honesty, and I believe it to be heartfelt. Yet discomfort in this area should not be something that Ministers try to manage away; it should make them stop and think again. Unease is sometimes the proper response of conscience. The Government point to safeguards, but safeguards are not the same as certainty. Monitoring every three months may identify some problems, but it cannot guarantee that long-term harm will not emerge years later. Objective withdrawal criteria may be better than vague discretion, but they do not remove the risk of treating a child unnecessarily in the first place. The Government have still not answered a fundamental question: why proceed now before the existing evidence has been fully examined? There are children and young people who were treated under previous services. There is data that may help us to understand outcomes. There is a Tavistock-related evidence base that should be completed and analysed before more children are exposed to puberty blockers in a new trial. Surely the first duty is to learn from what has already happened and therefore potentially identify wherever there may be gaps. That is not obstruction; it is responsibility. The Government must not ignore the wider context. Many children who experience gender distress also have other needs: mental health difficulties, autism, trauma, family pressures, anxiety, depression, eating disorders or safeguarding concerns. Dr Cass was clear that services must look at the whole child and not just one aspect of identity. We should not accept a system that is slow to provide holistic support but prepared to move ahead with powerful medical intervention under the banner of research. The House must be honest about the tone of this debate. There will be young people listening who will be feeling frightened by it. There will be parents listening who feel judged. There will be clinicians listening who are trying to do their best in a difficult and contested area. Let us be clear: our concern is not with the dignity of any child—their dignity is beyond question. Our concern is with the decisions made by adults in positions of power. Children deserve adults who can hold two truths at once: that their distress must be taken seriously, and that serious distress does not automatically justify experimental medical treatment.

    Hansard source
31. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Stuart Andrew

    Puberty Blockers

    I can assure the hon. Lady that I have given this an enormous amount of consideration. I understand what she is saying, but my argument is that we already have a set of data on children who have gone through some of these experiences, and that needs to be looked at. Having spoken to some of them, I do not want to see others experience it.

    Hansard source
32. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Stuart Andrew

    Puberty Blockers

    I am going to continue because I want to give the Minister the opportunity to respond. The Secretary of State says that this trial will help settle the evidence, but a trial that follows children for a limited period cannot by itself settle questions that may only become clear in adulthood. It cannot fully answer the questions of what a child will think at 25, 35 or 45 about decisions that were made at 11 or 12. When I was in my teens, struggling with my sexuality, it was complex enough. It was emotionally draining. It was scary. I cannot imagine how much harder that would have been if someone had added to the mix by telling me that maybe it was not my sexuality but my gender. This is why we must listen to people like Keira Bell. We must not confuse the creation of some evidence with the resolution of all uncertainty. The Opposition’s approach is careful, proportionate and child centred. We must pause this trial, complete the analysis of existing data, publish a full account of the known risks and unknowns and strengthen non-medical support. Then, and only then, should we consider what further research should be ethically justified. This is not abandonment; it is protection. The first responsibility of any health system is not to validate every proposed treatment, but to ask whether that treatment is safe, necessary and in the long-term interests of the patient. When the patient is a child, that responsibility is heavier still. We owe these young people more than good intentions. We owe them caution. We owe them honesty. We owe them services that see them in the round, and we owe them the humility to admit that when the evidence is uncertain, the answer is not to press ahead and hope; the answer is to pause, learn and protect. For those reasons, I urge the House to support this motion.

    Hansard source
33. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Stuart Anderson

    Defence Spending and Readiness

    I thank the Minister for taking my intervention. I, too, served with 20th Armoured Brigade and was deployed in operations from Germany over to the Balkans. She talks about mismanagement. She is in a position where, unless more funding comes forward, the Government are about to make some of the biggest cuts to the armed forces during the most hostile situation since the second world war. How does she square that circle?

    Hansard source
34. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Stuart Anderson

    Defence Spending and Readiness

    rose—

    Hansard source
35. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Stuart Anderson

    Defence Spending and Readiness

    It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst). He speaks with passion on defence, and he clearly wants to increase our defence presence. I have listened to the debate and I am sounding an alarm. I grew up in a military family; both my parents were in the military. I left school and joined the military, and my brother served in the military. I spent my entire career in security and defence, and since coming to Parliament, everything I have done, outside traditional constituency engagements, is about backing security and defence. I am delighted to be graduating next month from the Royal College of Defence Studies. It has been brilliant to spend a year immersed in the best strategic command course in the world. I reiterate the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith): we are in a very serious situation, but rhetoric, or party political lines, are overtaking that, and we are missing the fact that we need to rearm to face the current situation. In 2024-25, there were 54 to 55 conflicts around the world—those figures might be adjusted, depending on the source. That is the largest number of conflicts in any one year since the second world war. If we believe that we can stop a major conflict, why can we not stop minor conflicts? There is complete instability, and the whole geopolitical situation has changed. Discussions that we are having now would have seemed impossible—beyond the realms of fantasy—five or even three years ago. We need to put that in perspective and really think about it. When Government Members start to talk about “14 years of hollowed-out defence”, they make an illiterate defence argument. They are taking a moment in time and comparing peace with war. We need to look at the situation over the past 100 years and learn from history. At the end of the second world war, Clement Attlee demobilised the military, because that was the right thing to do, as we did not need 5 million soldiers. Similarly, at the fall of the Berlin wall, the majority of the world de-armed and reduced the scale of their defence spending. However, the situation has changed. In 2022, defence spending was 2.22% of GDP, according to figures from the Office for National Statistics, not 2.1% as the hon. Member for North Durham said. There is no denying that the whole world has changed since 2014, or even since 2022, and we are in the most volatile situation. The debate is about whether we should measure from the end of the cold war or the end of the second world war. I firmly believe that we should measure from the end of the second world war. I believe that we will see a global conflict in the coming years, but we are not prepared to defend our nation. I believe that, at this stage, we cannot meet our article 3 NATO commitment to defend the nation for the period of time expected. Everybody talks about article 5, but there are three things that every Defence Minister and politician must look at when we speak about defence: readiness, lethality and survivability. Everything we must do is there. We talk about numbers, but are we funding the readiness of our armed forces? Are they as lethal as they can be? Do they have the ability to survive any conflict? We are not looking at the expeditionary side of warfare that we have seen in the middle east in recent years; we are looking at how we fit on the world stage, and how we prepare for a global conflict, while hoping that it never happens. We have to look at those three areas, but there is always a debate. Are we are ready enough? Should we spend more money on lethality, or should we look at survivability? The most important of those areas is readiness, but I am not saying that the other areas are not important. We have to be ready. If we are not, we cannot go to war. In 1999, after I got married—I celebrated my 27th wedding anniversary on Friday—I said to my wife, “See you in six months,” and deployed straight to Kosovo. When we arrived in theatre, there were no Army barracks. We found derelict, flea-ridden accommodation—blokes were covered in flea bites—and we moved into houses that had been abandoned, as people were still being ethnically cleansed. We did not have the kit, but we were about the most lethal bunch of soldiers you could see. We adapted. The readiness came from what Field Marshal Slim described in the Burma conflict as spiritual morale. You can take equipment away from soldiers and break everything, but if they have the spiritual morale to fight, they can get through everything. We are burning out that morale in the military over time, bit by bit. Let me go back to when I was on the Defence Committee, from 2020 to the middle of 2022. My name is on many reports that absolutely destroyed the Government of the time. That gave me many difficult conversations with the Whips, but calling out the Government was the right thing to do, because we were not able to procure equipment. We were not ready and able to prepare for the world as it was at the time. The Chief of the Defence Staff has recently said that we will have to cut operational services and training capability. Those are big issues, but he has also touched on something that most people do not mention: the resource spending. We have resource departmental expenditure limit spending and capital departmental expenditure limit spending. CDEL buys the ships, tanks, planes and big items, but they have to be run, and we have to pay our troops, so we have to look at the resources around that. Resource is about 62% of defence spending at the moment, but it is nowhere near enough—the balance is off. We are looking at big projects. It is great to be looking at issues such as how we fund new submarines and the Type 83, but will the global combat air programme be crewed or uncrewed? That is another debate; I have some good views on that that I would love to share another time. At the moment, the debate is about what war we are preparing to fight. The hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) has mentioned that the DIP did not fund enough preparation for wars that we may be fighting in the future. It is always hard to predict the future of warfare. It is easy to take lessons from Ukraine, and just think that that is what warfare will be, and while we should take those lessons, we need adapt and prepare, moving forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) mentioned the 18 defence primes. On the scalability of technology, I believe a disruptive model is coming, or is needed, in the defence industry. Two weeks ago, I was delighted to be at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology with NATO, discussing nanotechnology—even though I left school as a lad with no GCSEs, and joined the armed forces as a rifleman. Time has moved on.

    Hansard source
36. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Stuart Anderson

    Defence Spending and Readiness

    No. Let us look at how technology and innovation are moving forward. In some ways, we need to think differently. We need an understanding of how we prepare for different warfares. It is not a matter of nanotechnology on the one side and aircraft carriers on the other; there is a bit in the middle. We should look at the scalability of new technology, as artificial intelligence develops and quantum computing comes online. The battle space will be completely different, and we have to move into that space. People often say that the nature of warfare is changing, but it is not. The nature of warfare is brutal, and will always be, but the character of warfare is changing, and we have to be prepared for that. Let me go back to my point about readiness, lethality and survivability. All the things that happened on our watch, on Labour’s watch before us, and on Labour’s watch now, are chipping away at the spiritual morale of troops. I have a son who is a serving soldier, and I am watching that happen bit by bit. He is told, “That exercise is cancelled because we cannot afford it,” “You have to do extra time on deployment because we cannot rotate you through,” and “We are not going to order equipment, because the DIP is not ready.” All those things chip away at spiritual morale. There is one issue that we are dealing with that cuts to the heart of every veteran. I sat with a load of veterans watching the football last week—I will be watching football tonight with serving personnel, and spending time with veterans and colleagues—and I have heard at first hand what they are saying. I served for 18 months on Op Banner during the troubles, and the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 is cutting through. Regardless of the political debate here, serving soldiers believe that they will not be protected by the Government when they go on operations. We can argue the issue, and go back and forth on it, but that is what is landing, and what they believe. A change to what we have in place would be a betrayal to our veterans. It would remove spiritual morale—that British fighting spirit that I have spoken about. It would make us not ready, not lethal and unable to survive. Unless the DIP comes forward with the correct funding for the correct defence products, we will be in a serious situation, and I do not believe that we are ready for what is coming over the horizon.

    Hansard source
37. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Mel Stride

    Topical Questions

    Given all that is going on, this could be the last time. The legacy of this Chancellor has been the highest taxes on record, a benefits bill spiralling out of control, and unemployment 300,000 higher than it was at the last general election. The right hon. Lady trumpets 2.8% inflation, but that is still well above target, and only last year it was the highest in the G7, to the detriment of millions up and down our country. Under her plans, how much more does she intend to borrow in this Parliament than under the plan she inherited?

    Hansard source
38. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Mel Stride

    Topical Questions

    The right hon. Lady cannot bring herself to answer the simple question I asked. I will tell her: she is borrowing one quarter of a trillion pounds more than the plans that she inherited—that is her legacy. We hear that the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) is considering borrowing even more. Does she agree that that would be utterly reckless and that the bond markets will not wear it?

    Hansard source
39. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Defence Spending and Readiness

    One of the strong arguments put forward for the legislation is that it will help families to find out the truth of what happened to their loved ones, yet by repealing the Conservative legislation, it makes that less likely rather than more likely—because who is going to come forward and incriminate themselves by saying what happened to people who were unlawfully killed if they know that they will not then have immunity from prosecution?

    Hansard source
40. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Defence Spending and Readiness

    Another spurious argument, which I am afraid we heard earlier in the debate, is that the legislation put our armed forces on the same level as terrorists. The truth is that everybody is on the same level before the law. In any case, the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 sold the pass on that anyway, because under it nobody—even if they were convicted of first-degree murder, as the Americans might say—goes to jail for more than two years. That put everybody on the same level before the law, as any such legislation has to do.

    Hansard source