Conservative and Unionist Party: a sourced timeline of public activity, with filters by source type and a sidebar of tracked totals

Conservative and Unionist Party

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

  1. ParliamentBen Obese-Jecty

    Costs for Motorists

    I want to come back to what the Minister said earlier about the war in Iran. She knows full well that the Leader of the Opposition did not say that she would take us into the conflict, and she knows full well that it was a NOFORN—no foreign nationals—operation and that there was never an opportunity for the UK to be involved. If she does not know that, she should go and speak to the Defence team and get up to date with the details. She has some cheek, considering that the Government have just decided that they are going to row back on the pressure they put on Russia. Given that the Minister did not explain it in her media round this morning, will she now explain exactly why the Government decided to exempt oil and oil products that originate from Russia under commodity codes 2709 and 2710?

    Hansard source

  2. ParliamentBen Obese-Jecty

    Middle East: Economic Response

    Back in March, the Chancellor announced the £50 million crisis and resilience fund to help families with the price of heating oil, which is a big issue in rural constituencies such as mine. Does she have any plans to extend or repeat that scheme come the autumn, given that we are likely to have a similar crisis with the strait of Hormuz still shut? To what extent will the Russian oil that will come via a third country under commodity code 2710 form part of the fuel mix?

    Hansard source

  3. ParliamentAphra Brandreth

    Middle East: Economic Response

    Although I welcome some of the measures announced today, the reality is that instability in the middle east is having a direct impact on the UK economy and on the price paid by British households. Can the Chancellor therefore outline what steps her Department is taking to work across Government to ensure a stable region, including by boosting our defence spending? Will she finally commit to spending 3% of GDP in this Parliament and to working collaboratively towards reopening the strait of Hormuz?

    Hansard source

  4. ParliamentAndrew Griffith

    Topical Questions

    First, I congratulate the Government on securing the Gulf Co-operation Council deal. Success has many authors, and Members on both sides of the House have been part of these negotiations as Ministers, but a win is a win. These are—[Interruption.] These are our historical friends and allies, and this is part of a growth agenda. Summer is approaching and young people are graduating. The Office for National Statistics reported this week that, as a direct result of this Government’s choices, one in six young people is looking for a job, but cannot find one. Sectors like retail and hospitality are shedding jobs by the thousands. Will the Secretary of State finally accept that, well-intentioned or otherwise, the Government have got it wrong?

    Hansard source

  5. ParliamentAndrew Griffith

    Topical Questions

    I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. I hope he would agree, cross-party, with the Tony Blair Institute, which has said that the UK must restore “dynamism” to its labour market, rather than imposing restrictions such as the Employment Rights Act 2025. Could the Secretary of State, who is a good man, at least promise me that, if he gets to serve as Chancellor in a Government led by his friend, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), he will use that chance to change the Government’s approach?

    Hansard source

  6. ParliamentAndrew Griffith

    Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

    I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add: “this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill because it believes that politicians should not be running businesses; because expropriating businesses sets a precedent that will deter inward investment into other UK businesses; because the Bill exposes taxpayers to unlimited liabilities; because the powers that the Bill confers on Ministers are far wider in scope than would be required for its stated purpose; and because it fails to contain any measures that would address the issues which are currently making domestic production of steel unprofitable such as higher employment costs and policies in pursuit of net zero, such as carbon taxes and associated regulations and levies.” Conservatives will never be neutral about the deindustrialisation of our country, but we do not believe that politicians or Whitehall bureaucrats should run businesses. Instead, we need a Government who do fewer things better, such as defending our nation, securing energy supplies and restoring the nation’s finances. We believe in British steelmaking and the importance of sovereign capabilities—not just steelworks, but the steel supply chain, critical minerals and many defence- related technologies—but that is not what this Bill does. This Bill is the Government’s attempt to break out of a mess we warned one year ago they were getting themselves into, and it fails even in the Government’s own terms. It does not keep the blast furnaces open and it does not guarantee that military needs can be met domestically. Let us be clear what we are doing today. We are being asked to nationalise British Steel, and put the British taxpayer permanently on the hook for a business that this Government had every chance to keep in private hands, but chose not to. They ignored plans to open electric arc furnaces on Teesside, and chose to let the situation deteriorate until the only option left was the one that suited their ideology. The Prime Minister went kowtowing to China, gave it an embassy spy base and, instead of a deal on Jingye, came back with a box of fortune cookies with only a bill for the taxpayer to be found inside.

    Hansard source

  7. ParliamentAndrew Griffith

    Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

    That was a waste of an intervention. If the hon. Member lets me continue, I will explain exactly what the Conservative plan is for British Steel, and it is a better plan and a more sustainable plan than we have heard from the Secretary of State today. This Government did not inherit—

    Hansard source

  8. ParliamentAndrew Griffith

    Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

    When it suits the hon. Gentleman, he claims to be a fan of the late Margaret Thatcher, but he seems to have forgotten that most of her time in office was spent untangling the mess of Labour’s past nationalisations. Unlike him, she did not bend with the wind or find herself in the same Lobby as a Government who have hiked taxes to record highs, driven wealth offshore and drowned business in red tape. Members would like to know what our plan is, and our plan is to address the cause, not the symptoms. [Interruption.] Labour Members would do well to listen to this, and we might have more of a steel industry left if they do. We cannot have an industrial policy for steel without an energy policy for industry. Britain has the highest industrial electricity prices in the world, and every choice the Government are making has pushed those prices further up. This week, they voted against new licences in the North sea, choosing to import from Norway gas that could be drilled here, at a cost of 200,000 jobs and £12 billion in tax revenue. The Secretary of State knows this and his Back Benchers know this, but the Prime Minister is too weak to stand up to his windmill-fetishist Energy Secretary. We have offered an alternative. Our cheap plan would slash energy prices and improve energy security. Why would the Government not want that? If they were genuinely interested in securing the future of steelmaking, as well as those of many other industries, they could have come here today and adopted that plan. Instead, this Bill is an indictment—

    Hansard source

  9. ParliamentAndrew Griffith

    Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

    I will happily give way, as long as the hon. Member is going to talk about our cheap energy plan.

    Hansard source

  10. ParliamentAndrew Griffith

    Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

    The only way we are going to have a sustainable steelmaking industry in this country, and the same applies to the manufacturing sector and our defence supply chain, is lower energy costs. That is the only sustainable way.

    Hansard source

  11. ParliamentAndrew Griffith

    Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

    We have a plan for sustainable steelmaking. The Government do not have a plan for sustainable steelmaking. Ministers themselves have admitted that the blast furnaces in Scunthorpe will close. They are reverting to a plan that already exists. The Bill is an indictment of this Government’s modus operandi—a spray and pray Government who write blank cheques from the taxpayer and call that a strategy. We are doomed to relearn the hard lessons of the 1970s: if it moves, tax the hell out of it; when it stops moving, subsidise it. It was socialist idol Tony Benn who wanted to nationalise everything that moved, and one result that the Government may care to look at was the state-owned Kirkby Manufacturing and Engineering company, which simultaneously made car radiators and orange juice. When the Government last ran British Steel in the late 1970s, the company’s losses hit £1.3 billion a year. Since Labour’s botched nationalisation of just a year ago, it has already spent £500 million of taxpayers’ money—£1.3 million a day. Where is the Government’s published, costed and scrutinised plan for what nationalised British Steel will look like in five years’ time, or even in one year’s time? I have read the Bill and there is not one. There is no provision for a proper impact assessment before the sweeping powers are used. There is no acknowledgment of the monumental decommissioning liabilities—in the billions—that will sit on the Treasury’s balance sheet. There is a sunset clause, but it can be extended indefinitely by Ministers—a sunset where the sun never sets. The House deserves better than this. We deserve a Bill with a proper thought-through plan. The Government have turned a negotiation into a crisis, a crisis into an emergency and an emergency into this nationalisation. We know that Ministers, however well-meaning, will be unable to resist using their power to tilt the playing field in favour of steel businesses that they themselves own: no longer the referee, they will be on the pitch wearing one of the teams’ shirts. There is no better example of that than their plans on steel tariffs.

    Hansard source

  12. ParliamentAndrew Griffith

    Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

    The hon. Member would be better addressing that question to his own Ministers, who, notwithstanding the nationalisation, acknowledged that the blast furnaces will cease—they will go dark and close on this Government’s watch. The Bill does not protect blast furnaces and he should invite the Minister, when he winds up, to talk about the future there. There was a plan to invest in British Steel in Redcar to secure those jobs, but the Government pulled the chain—

    Hansard source

  13. ParliamentAndrew Griffith

    Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

    There was absolutely a plan before the election to open arc furnaces in Redcar—that was absolutely case—and to move Scunthorpe operations to Redcar. I asked the Secretary of State to address the issue of tariffs. There is no better example of the folly of these plans—

    Hansard source

  14. ParliamentAndrew Griffith

    Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

    No, I am going to make some progress on tariffs. A number of hon. Members have raised this very important issue, shedding light on the way that the Government are tilting the playing field on tariffs. Under this Government, we have already seen a flurry of Trump-style tariffs—doubling steel tariffs and halving quotas—that elevate the interests of one firm over the automotive, aerospace, advanced manufacturing and defence sectors. Firms involved in the supply chains of AUKUS and Tempest are now looking at shifting tooling and jobs to other countries, instead of manufacturing components here.

    Hansard source

  15. ParliamentAndrew Griffith

    Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

    My hon. Friend makes exactly the right point, and that point has been made by other hon. Members and across the manufacturing industry. We are at risk of losing critical parts of our defence, aerospace and automotive supply chains.

    Hansard source

  16. ParliamentAndrew Griffith

    Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

    My right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) have made exactly the right point: we need a more thoughtful approach. I have written to the Secretary of State, as have many of my colleagues, asking that the tariffs are delayed for six months while the Department does more work; that the Government investigate more specialist grades of steel; that within the broader tariff buckets, they look again at the steel alloys used in the defence, aerospace and automotive sectors that are simply not made here today, because there are perhaps unintended consequences of the tariffs; that they be more forensic in their approach; and that they bring forward the measures the Conservatives have talked about on industrial energy costs, which are damaging not just the steel industry but many other industries’ and our basis on which to compete. There is no point securing what the Secretary of State thinks is in the national interest for one steel manufacturer in a particular location if the foreseeable consequence, unintended or otherwise, is to ship offshore large parts of our high-end automotive manufacturing, engineering and defence industries, so that they are lost forever and conducted in other countries. I have raised that serious point with the Minister, and I ask him to address it.

    Hansard source

  17. ParliamentAndrew Griffith

    Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

    I will give way if it is about this particular point.

    Hansard source

  18. ParliamentAndrew Griffith

    Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

    I am afraid that the hon. Member ought to look again at the calendar, because I was not only not in Government but not in this House—I was getting on in business trying to help grow the British economy. When the same issue arose in Port Talbot, it was the previous Government—indeed, my right hon. Friend who is now the Leader of the Opposition—who took action and were willing to back the private sector owner to secure the future of steelmaking in Wales. That was what we did in Government. We are talking about the issue of tariffs because it is intrinsically related to the Government and the taxpayer taking ownership of one participant in a complex industry supply chain. I know that on the Government Benches, some of the truths that we share today may not be immediately popular, but past Governments failed because they were happy to do what was popular in the moment, without looking at the long-term consequences. The truth is that we should not be nationalising British Steel, and certainly not with the Bill in this form—my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East made the point about the sweeping nature of the clauses, whatever we think about the Secretary of State’s intentions. We have demonstrated in the past, and we will again, that there are other options, such as partnering with the private sector and negotiating a better deal. The Conservatives would fix the cause, not the symptoms; we would save steelmaking in this country not through state quick fixes, but by fixing the state itself. We would not pit industries against each other, as Labour is now doing, and we would not sit idly by for a rerun of the 1970s horror show that Labour made Britain sit through the last time around.

    Hansard source

  19. ParliamentAndrew Griffith

    Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

    I will be very brief. I thank the Minister for his remarks. One ideological difference he has not mentioned once is the huge gulf between those on our side and his party on energy, and the Government are not going to have a sustainable steel industry due to energy.

    Hansard source

  20. ParliamentAlicia Kearns

    Imprisonment of Craig and Lindsay Foreman in Iran

    The hon. and learned Gentleman is making absolutely the right points. So far the Government have limited themselves to saying that Craig and Lindsay were innocent tourists, but they have not said categorically that they are not spies, despite promising to do so. They have also refused to say that they are being arbitrarily detained. We are dealing with a terrorist state. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there is no reason for the Government to hold back in their rhetoric? Iran is a terrorist state with a record of holding people hostage for political leverage. If we are not willing to do so in this situation, when would we ever do so when it comes to allies, or those who purport to be our friends, holding British citizens hostage?

    Hansard source

  21. ParliamentAlicia Kearns

    Imprisonment of Craig and Lindsay Foreman in Iran

    I thank the Minister for saying that he is pressing on the matter, and that he has been talking to our ambassador, but can he tell the House when he last spoke to his Iranian counterpart, and how many times in the past three months he has raised the case with his Iranian counterpart? With all due respect, getting the couple home requires Government-to-Government negotiation.

    Hansard source

  22. ParliamentAlicia Kearns

    Imprisonment of Craig and Lindsay Foreman in Iran

    Will the Minister give way?

    Hansard source

  23. ParliamentAlicia Kearns

    Imprisonment of Craig and Lindsay Foreman in Iran

    The Minister has made the point about public versus private, and what works. The French approach of declaring their person arbitrarily detained worked; they are home. On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies), given that the Minister has just recognised that Iranian law does not provide for a fair trial, and that we cannot recognise due process to have been followed, will the Minister at least declare on the Floor of the House that Craig and Lindsay are being arbitrarily detained?

    Hansard source

  24. ParliamentStuart Anderson

    Defence Readiness

    It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards), who clearly understands the topic. He spoke passionately and gave a great speech. I want to turn the attention of the House to the following countries: Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Norway, the US, Denmark, Greece, Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands. What do all those countries have in common? Well, last year they all funded their defence with a higher percentage of their GDP than the UK did. To put that in perspective, only two NATO countries spent more on defence than we did in 2021—so there has been a significant change. I ask myself, “What do those countries know that we do not?” I am fortunate to be a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. I have spoken with representatives—Ministers and other parliamentarians —from every one of those countries, and they realise that the world is changing. We face probably the most volatile geopolitical situation in over 80 years; as I have continually said, I do not believe that the world is going to go back to how it was and how we have seen it within our lifetime. Those countries understand that the world is rearming. They look at the threats they face from China, Russia, Iran and North Korea, which are trying to break down democracy and destabilise the world—and we just heard a great speech from the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley about the impact this situation is having on the streets of the UK. So what do those countries see in the UK? Many believe that we are leaving the room—that we are not standing up on the international stage anywhere near as much as we did. I will back that comment up. One of my proudest moments on the cross-party NATO Parliamentary Assembly was in 2022 in the Latvian Parliament. The Defence Minister there said to the UK and the US, “Hold your head up high. You have led the world in this—you have funded and you have led—and we need to follow.” That was a really proud moment. I have fed this information directly to the Secretary of State, but in the same cross-party forum last month, a NATO Defence Minister—I will not say which country he was from—said, “With all due respect, the UK are not leading; they are not even in the room, and they are not funding as they were.” I could not disagree with him. That was one of my saddest days at the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. We need this investment in defence. We need to clearly chart a course so we can ensure that we are funding where we need to be. I am saying this out of respect for Defence Ministers; I believe that there is a credible set of Defence Ministers, but the argument is not currently being won. We have dropped in the rankings. The NATO average for defence spending is about 2.76% and we are averaging about 2.4%, give or take. The argument that we have the largest sustained defence funding since the end of the cold war is a bit of a mockery, because we are comparing a peacetime situation to the most unstable geopolitical situation of our time. They are not comparable. If we look at the facts, we see that in 2019-2020, spending went up by 0.2%, which is similar to the situation now. I called that out at the time. The Defence Committee was united in the last Parliament six and a half years ago, after I got into Parliament, when we said that we needed spending of 3%. That was the cross-party position then. We need to get to that position now. We need our ships funded, we need more troops, and we need drone warfare—we have seen what is happening in Iran. We must expand our technological approach to defence. The shape of defence is changing, and we need to look at this issue really seriously if we are to be able to stand on the world stage. Our military strength has always been the bedrock, and our global soft power has given us authority and a platform to stand up for British values, but on the world stage at the moment, that authority is waning and our platform is shaking. As we chart our course, we have to have a serious response today—I am not interested in what has happened over 10, 20 or 40 years. As we have heard from hon. Members on all sides of the House, defence funding was significantly higher many years ago. It has been very hard to put that across to the public, but that conversation is getting easier. When they see the impact on fuel prices of what is happening in the middle east, they ask, “Will I be able to fly away on holiday in the summer?” All those equations are coming to the forefront, and people are asking those questions. When I used to speak at dinners or events, every so often, someone would talk about defence. Now, almost every question is, “Can we defend ourselves, and can we rearm?” I am pleading with the Ministers to win the argument, because I know that every single one of them wants more funding for defence. I am pleading with them to do whatever it takes so that we can rearm and have the armed forces we need, and can stand on the world stage with our head held high.

    Hansard source

  25. ParliamentStuart Anderson

    Defence Readiness

    If the defence investment plan is the Secretary of State’s priority and the Prime Minister’s priority, is it completed and just waiting for the financial sign-off, or is there a gap in capability to be able to complete it?

    Hansard source

  26. ParliamentSir Oliver Dowden

    Artificial Intelligence

    Given the recent rapid advances of frontier AI models in areas such as identifying software vulnerabilities, and in rapid testing for those vulnerabilities in a very sophisticated way, what engagement do the Government have with those frontier companies, and particularly Anthropic? Are the Government considering making changes to the carried-over Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill to address these very real vulnerabilities?

    Hansard source

  27. ParliamentSir Julian Lewis

    Processed Russian Oil Products: Sanctions

    Before the Minister pointed it out himself, I was going to acknowledge his long and honourable record of opposing the killer in the Kremlin when he was on the Opposition Back Benches. I have no reason to believe that he has changed his mind, but does he agree with me that this complex issue has been handled very, very clumsily, to put it mildly? Would it not have been better to have made a statement, rather than having to respond to an urgent question? Were the Ukrainians given this quite complicated explanation in advance? Will he not concede that if we had not embarked on quite such a doctrinaire journey against further drilling in the North sea, we might not have been put in the position of having to make such an unsavoury and unpalatable decision?

    Hansard source

  28. ParliamentSir Julian Lewis

    Defence Readiness

    As my hon. Friend knows, the then Defence Committee did two reports into this question, and in the course of those inquiries, we interviewed four eminent professors of law, including one particularly famous left-wing one. We did not ask them what they wanted to happen; we asked them what could legally be done about a statute of limitation. They all agreed, however reluctantly, that it would be legal to have a statute of limitation provided that it was coupled with a truth recovery process that met the requirement for an investigation to occur. Their other key condition was it should be applied to all people involved in the conflict. The Government could pursue the line that those four professors of law took, but they do not want to do so. They are happy to shelter behind court judgments that they could appeal against but will not.

    Hansard source

  29. ParliamentSir Julian Lewis

    Defence Readiness

    The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) has such a sunny personality that I always feel cheered up after listening to her contributions, even when she is the bearer of somewhat disappointing news about the economy. I was also impressed by the speech of the former Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), who is just about to escape from the Chamber. However, it did leave me wondering what my headline would be if I were a parliamentary sketch writer. I think it would be, “Why on earth did he resign?” It sounded much more like a manifesto in a leadership campaign than a trigger for calling one, but there we are—we all have our own motives. The right hon. Gentleman made a point that is of great relevance to this debate, which I promise I had already written down before I heard him make it: the comparison between the terrible experience of the pandemic and the terrible experience of a country involved in a full-scale war. There were, of course, casualties during the pandemic, and there was the determination to learn from it. The outcome is that we are a lot better prepared for the future, should another deadly virus attack us. As a result of the lessons learned during the pandemic, we will be in a much better position to develop effective vaccines far more quickly. However, I am afraid the real parallel is not a very happy one. It is a fact that if someone had said before we knew we were going to have the pandemic, “You need to invest a considerable sum of money in developing a system that enables you to develop vaccines quickly in response to the emergence of a new deadly virus,” we probably would not have done it. That is where the parallel lies with wartime situations, because for many years, defence-minded Members on both sides of the House have been urging successive Governments to spend a lot more on defence. If those warnings go unheeded and this country ends up in a full-scale armed conflict with a peer adversary, we will not be talking about spending 3% or 4% of GDP on defence; we will have to spend 30% or 40% of GDP on defence. We do not wish to get to that situation, because it would lead to not only economic loss—think of the human cost. If, by investing in defence in peacetime, we can deter a potential enemy from starting a war, we not only save the treasure; we save the blood that is otherwise shed so copiously. As we know, Russia is spending something of the order of between a third and a half of its gross domestic product on military power. In the past, the Defence Committee has looked at the question of what this country has spent historically. In a report entitled “Shifting the goalposts?”, and a second report entitled “Shifting the goalposts: an update”, the figures show that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) was completely correct. He said that in the mid-1980s, when he was serving, we were spending something of the order of 5% of GDP on defence. In fact, the figure given in 1983-84 was 4.4%, and in 1984-85 the figure was 4.5%. In reality, however, that was because we had higher criteria than the other NATO powers for what counted as defence expenditure, and we adopted their lower standards later. Looking back, we can see that the figures were actually 5.3% in 1983-84 and 5.5% in 1984-85. Those are very big figures. People talk about the way in which the peace dividend was taken, but as the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), pointed out, 1996-97—the year in which Tony Blair took over from the Conservative Government—was already at least half a dozen years after the end of the cold war, if we understand that to have taken place in 1991 rather than in 1989 with the fall of the Berlin wall. At that time, we were still spending 3%. That was the figure then, so as the current Chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), rightly said in an admirably objective speech, given that Russia is preparing for conflict now, we are responding too slowly and “time is short”, given the urgency of the situation. When we talk about achieving figures of 3% in a few years’ time and 5% in a few more years’ time, I would ask the House: does the killer in the Kremlin intend to give us that time? If we want to deter him from taking a step that would be to the detriment of the world, we need to invest now and, as in the case of the pandemic, find the money now. If a war broke out tomorrow, we would find the money at once, so let us find it today and diminish the chance of that terrible conflict happening the day after.

    Hansard source

  30. ParliamentSir Iain Duncan Smith

    Defence Readiness

    My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Having served in Northern Ireland, I have spoken to many veterans I was there with and others who were there before, and there is a scintilla of a real question mark about how they will be treated. The vexatious nature of these complaints will, of course, eventually drag them back into the courts. That is the fear. They are sure that they are innocent, but by the time the courts have finished with them, innocence would not matter at all, because their life would have been destroyed. Does my hon. Friend not agree?

    Hansard source

  31. ParliamentSir Iain Duncan Smith

    Defence Readiness

    It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi). He will recall that I voted for him to hold his position, and I will come for payback later on. It is also very good to see my area neighbour, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), in the Chamber. I will listen with great interest to what he has to say, and I hope that the Labour party finds another use for him through its talent spotting, if I can put it like that. Before coming to the topic of defence in this debate on the Address, I want to touch on another issue that has arisen. My brilliant assistant, Alice Stuttaford, spotted yesterday something that tells me that we have a slight problem with the Government’s commitment to the legal position on the use of slave-made products by Great British Energy. In answer to a question from Politico about whether they were implementing what, thanks to many Labour Back Benchers and many Opposition Members, is the law—my amendment passed and became law—and applying it to the producers as well, a spokesman for the Government said: “We have strict procurement controls in place to ensure that any solar panels”— it is not just solar panels, but all elements to do with net zero— “are free from forced labour, as far as possible”. That is not the law. There is no caveat to the law. Everybody rebelled on the Labour Benches, and Opposition Members also voted for it, and we implemented an absolute, which is that it is not for Great British Energy to use any products that have been produced using any kind of forced labour. I know that this is not the speciality of the Ministers present, but I ask them to raise it, because I also saw that the Gracious Speech contained very peculiar commitments to using immigration as a way of tackling forced labour. That is not good enough. We need to reinforce the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and make it an offence for any company to import or use any items or goods that were made using forced or slave labour. That should be a unifying factor across this House, and I do not know why the Government have now watered down their intention. Madam Deputy Speaker will know this full well as she has been party to it: this cause goes to the root of one of the issues I will come on to, which is the threat that we face from places such as China. If we go on strengthening such places by buying their slave-made goods, then we do our own defence no good at all. What is needed is a wide-ranging commitment through the Modern Slavery Act to ban all products made by slave labour. This debate is on defence, and we are now facing the greatest threat to our freedom across the western world since the 1930s. I do not believe that the threat is less than it was during the cold war; in a way, it is a greater threat, because at least during the cold war we already knew and recognised what war was about, why we had to be prepared for it, and what we were defending. We have lost lots of that. Many people out there do not fully understand how the threat has changed and grown. The reality today is that one shipyard in China makes more naval ships than the whole of the United States in one year. China has over 130 times the capacity to build naval ships than Europe and America have at the moment. I say to people who do not think that this is a threat: do not necessarily listen to what those totalitarian states say; go and have a look at what they are doing. They are producing and preparing for war. I am not, I hope, scaremongering, as I believe this to be a reality. China is reinforcing and supporting Russia in its brutal invasion of Ukraine. Without China, Russia could not have continued this war. Russia was running out of ammunition, but China brokered an arrangement with North Korea, which now produces millions of rounds of ammunition for Russia, and even provides soldiers who, once used, abused and wounded on the battlefield, are then assassinated so that they are not a source of shame when they go back. This is about totalitarian states. The Government should not use the phrase authoritarian states. They are totalitarian states, and there is a difference. Authoritarian states are about dictators and others who have risen to power and at some stage have to be brought down. Totalitarian states are ones where every element of how people live their lives is controlled, run and spied on—with people arrested as a result—by the state organs, regardless of who is in charge. Communism is the key here; those states are communist. There are other extremist versions of such states. Iran is part of that alliance. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is an extremist organisation, and I do not understand why the Government have failed to proscribe it. It really is high time, as it is present in our country stirring up violence and hatred. We should deal with that and say it is a criminal act for the IRGC to be here. To that extent, how the Government respond to this challenge in defence terms is critical. I am one of those people who has argued since the end of the cold war that we made a mistake in reducing defence. Nobody listened to me then, and there is no reason why they should listen to me today, but I tell the Minister that I am going to keep on saying it. I hope Members on the Government Benches and others will ask that question. I know what the restrictions are, and that the Treasury dictates to Departments and says, “We can’t afford this. We won’t do it.” People at the Treasury are the last people in the world to ever recognise a threat to anybody, at any time, from anything. The Treasury continues as if all was sweetness and light because it does not want to make any changes. It is for Defence Ministers to make the point about the threat. Why in heaven’s name have we not published the defence readiness Bill? It is the Ministry of Defence’s greatest weapon in the fight with the Treasury. Every other Department—Health or whatever—know what I am talking about. It is always a fight, but it has to be, because we are facing what is likely to be our greatest threat since the 1930s. To face that threat, Ministers need to make it clear to the Treasury that we cannot skirt around this any longer; we have to spend that money and commit. The Government have talked about being committed to 3% in due course, but that will not be enough. When I was serving, we were committed to 5% of GDP to face down the Soviet Union. We will need the same again, because I believe we are about to face an even greater threat. Ministers will know that the Conservatives will give them our full support if they are prepared to fight for that. Let us get the defence investment plan published right away—that is really important. Those totalitarian states do not face the restrictions that we do. We have those restrictions for a good reason: we believe in democracy. But freedom is the most expensive thing that we will ever try to own, and it can be taken away with just a wish. The Government’s job is to stand firm and say that the No. 1 priority is to defend the realm from threats, internal and external. If we do not do that, we will have failed in our obligations, failed the British people, and failed our allies and friends, who look to us for leadership. We can only lead, however, if we have the equipment to show our allies that we have the endeavour. When we took the Falkland Islands, we had 53 frigates and destroyers available to us. We could not do that today. That is the measure of how far we have gone under both Labour and Conservative Governments. The Ministry of Defence must tell the Government, “Enough is enough. We are going to publish this Bill and the defence investment plan—and, by the way, where is the China audit? Let’s publish that too”.

    Hansard source

  32. ParliamentSir Iain Duncan Smith

    Defence Readiness

    This business with what is going on over Northern Ireland is not alone, because it builds on a perception and on the gratuitous pursuit of soldiers involved in Afghanistan and Iraq—partly by the Prime Minister in a previous life, but certainly by lawyers knowing full well that what they were pursuing were in fact complete untruths. That has made those former soldiers wonder what is the point. If politicians will not stand up for them, who will?

    Hansard source

  33. ParliamentSir Iain Duncan Smith

    Defence Readiness

    The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have huge regard for him. We go back quite a long way, and I hope that what I am going to say now will be helpful to him and his Defence team. Poland is planning eventually to spend 9% of its GDP on defence. It is approaching 5% today from a standing start. Everybody in this House with an ounce of common sense wants the right hon. Gentleman and his team to succeed and to get the money they require to increase our defences, but we are behind the curve. I am not blaming him; I am blaming other elements in Government. Will he use this opportunity to send the message to the Government that the House requires that we get the money, publish the plan and get on with making defence successful? The Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), has said this, and Members on both sides of the House want the Secretary of State to have it. Please take this message back to the Chancellor: “Enough is enough. We have to do this for our security.” Will he now do that?

    Hansard source

  34. ParliamentSir Alec Shelbrooke

    Defence Readiness

    It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba). He made some very important points about being prepared and the importance of the reserve. I want to focus on the actual threats to this country as we stand here today. To a certain extent, the threats we face on a day-to-day basis get overlooked. A lot of people think a Russian invasion of the country would see missiles and bombs coming down, but there is a long, long way to go before we get to that sort of war. In fact, in many ways, we are already at war with Russia. Let us not forget that in 2017 Russia launched a chemical weapon attack in this country. If it had not been for favourable weather conditions, it could have killed thousands of people. In such circumstances, would article 5 have been triggered? In conversations I have had in the NATO Parliamentary Assembly at the North Atlantic Council, the general thought is that it would have been triggered. Whether accidental or not, a chemical weapon attack using one of the deadliest chemical weapons in the world was launched in this country. Let me outline what the wrapper of hybrid warfare includes. Yes, there are cyber-attacks, which I will come back to. We also see sabotage across Europe, as well as arson, vandalism and terrorism. The destructive acts that we see on railway networks throughout Europe are almost certainly coming from the Russians. The chemical weapons attack I mentioned is not the only example of an assassination attempt on our soil. We know that malign finance, despite Governments’ praiseworthy efforts to crack down it, also takes place. One thing that people perhaps do not realise takes place daily is information manipulation, or cognitive warfare. The Russians are brilliant at it and are well embedded in it, as are the Chinese. We have all described people who go down the rabbit holes of social media and the internet, but that is where it starts. They are monitoring people’s clicks. They are monitoring what you look at first of all. They are building a psychological profile of what you are, and then they identify your psychological vulnerabilities. They then feed that line. Why? Because they are trying to get this country, among lots of other countries, not to see the need to invest in defence. I am sure that most Members will have first-hand experience of people saying to them that the war in Ukraine is NATO’s fault and Ukraine’s fault; that they represented a threat to Russia and Russia had no choice. Let me remind the House and the wider public that the only threat Russia felt was when the people of Ukraine said, in the purple revolution of February 2014, “We don’t want a dictatorial president,” and booted him out. They said, “We don’t want to look to Moscow; we want to look to Europe, because that is where they have the freedom of choice that we want to have.” That is what Russia saw as a threat. It could not let that happen and immediately invaded Crimea. It is to the shame of all of us that that was not taken as a warning at the time. I am once again very pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) spoke before me, because he brings such experience to these issues. He spoke widely on that issue at the time. He makes the point that the money we were spending in the ’80s involved huge figures. That is the point we have to get back to. We must get the public to recognise the threats that we are under. Today Marks & Spencer announced a £131 million loss from the cyber-attack it suffered. People saw empty shelves at Marks & Spencer, so they went to Sainsbury’s or Morrisons, but they did not see that a cyber-attack had emptied those shelves. They do not see that a software upgrade mistake can knock out the NHS for 24 hours, as happened a couple of years ago. That is what these threats represent. Probably the most unpopular thing we can say to the public is that we must cut the budgets for other things to pay for defence. But the services that people want their money spent on will be gone if we do not pay for defence. They will not work. The biggest threat in the first 24 hours of any attack would be the knocking out of the power grid. Cyber-technology is embedded in a lot of areas, and we have to make sure that we can deal with that threat. Cyber-warfare has to have a whole-of-society approach to it. Governments cannot tackle it all on their own; they need companies such as Jaguar Land Rover and Co-op to protect those areas. It is going to cost an enormous amount of money but—in the old and well used phrase—the best way to have peace is to prepare for war. There are credible threats, so we have to spend huge amounts of money. To deviate slightly from our policy, I think GDP percentages are a nonsense. It was ridiculous when NATO went there. We talk about what we were spending in the ’80s, but let me remind Members that the 2% of GDP came about in this century. The GDP figures of the past were what it cost. I urge the Government to look carefully at our proposals on reducing the welfare bill. Look at what Lord Robertson said about the welfare bill. The threats are real. We must have the deterrents in place so that an attack is not worthwhile, but the cost is an enormous amount of money, and the cognitive warfare that is taking place is making our citizens not recognise why we need to spend it. It will be a brave decision by the Government to spend that money, but as we have made clear, we would support them in it.

    Hansard source

  35. ParliamentRebecca Smith

  36. ParliamentRebecca Smith

    Defence Readiness

    I have a simple question for the Minister. He keeps stating that 1,000 or so contracts have been signed, nearly all with companies based in the UK, but what percentage of those companies are small or medium-sized enterprises compared with the primes?

    Hansard source

  37. ParliamentRebecca Smith

    Defence Readiness

    We have heard plenty this afternoon about the lack of a defence readiness Bill in the King’s Speech and lots about the yawning delay of the defence investment plan, which has been rehearsed over and over again. I want to remind Ministers of why that is important. It is important because SMEs right across this country are waiting for the detail to be set out so that they can plan for the future, to provide the skills and jobs that the country needs. We have already heard from the Minister that contracts have been awarded since the Government came into power, but that is not good enough, because they are not providing reassurance and security, particularly to SMEs. That is incredibly serious, whether to constituents of mine working in Portsmouth or to businesses in my constituency who tell me that they are waiting with bated breath for the DIP. However, I want to focus on two things: the regulating for growth Bill and the challenge that manufacturing is facing around the steel industry. The King’s Speech included a regulating for growth Bill. We might argue that that is a misnomer as regulations usually have the opposite effect and stifle growth, but I appreciate what is trying to be done here—it is something that I have long been calling for. Plymouth has been named the centre for marine autonomy by the Government. That is a welcome designation, but that means nothing if we cannot change regulations to enable these businesses to do what they have set out to do and deliver for our defence industry. I have raised this issue here time and again. I have met key stakeholders, local businesses, industry experts and the Marine Management Organisation. I have also spoken with relevant Ministers and I know that they have been aware of the issue for a considerable amount of time. I have to say, though, that I am disappointed with the speed at which things have moved. At the end of the day, marine autonomy waits for no man—it is progressing quickly down the river, so to speak—and we are not doing the industry any favours with the amount of time this is taking. The matter requires primary legislation, which is why the Bill is welcome. However, the Government were able to push through the removal of the two-child benefit cap, which was never on their programme, so that highlights their priorities. That is why I tabled an Autonomous Maritime Vessels (Regulation) Bill in March this year, because I was keen to force the conversation. That seems to have had the desired effect, so I will take some credit for the regulating for growth Bill. I am pleased to see that, within the Government’s write-up of the Bill as it stands already, there are illustrations from overseas. I was recently at Oceanology International at the Excel centre, where I met Canadians from Nova Scotia who already have the regulations that we need here, which, in about six weeks, enable equivalent marine autonomy businesses to get the right permissions to test and develop and put the development of the new vessels into practice. Similarly, I recently met an American company whose ambition to manufacture unmanned ships would not yet be deliverable in this country purely because of our out-of-date regulations. Local businesses such as MSubs, ZeroUSV and ACUA Ocean—I know the Secretary of State is familiar with many of them—are all cutting-edge and desperately in need of the legislation to fully deliver on their ambitious potential, a part of which is the developing of test sites. I believe the coast off Plymouth is the perfect place to pilot that, and we do not need to wait until it is ready for everyone at the same time. Turnchapel Wharf and those behind Team Plymouth are keen to get going, and I would be delighted for us to be that pilot, if that were helpful. I call on the Government to make the Bill a priority, and let us see Second Reading soon after the Whitsun recess so we can get moving. Please, let us also keep the Bill agile and flexible in its drafting to avoid a repeat situation where regulations cannot keep up with technology. Let us make sure this legislation is as good as it needs to be. Tomorrow sees the debate on the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill. Before that even begins, however, we have another steel-related issue that has the potential to significantly damage UK manufacturing and, by association, our defence readiness. The new UK steel regime kicks in on 1 July. Plymouth is home to Plymouth Manufacturers’ Group, which is a cluster of manufacturing businesses ranging from Alderman Tooling, Lang and Potter, Olympus Algram and Plessey to Rittal CSM and Kawasaki Precision Machinery. All those businesses have been part of a system of manufacturing in Plymouth that was set up after the war when the dockyard was seeing a decline, so naturally, we have this hub there. Yet ultimately, the new regime that will come in on 1 July means those businesses are already seeing costs going into the hundreds of thousands—in one case, there are additional costs of at least £2 million a year—simply because of the steel quotas. I think you will agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, that while I understand what the Government are trying to do to promote British industry, if we impact British manufacturing inadvertently—I am sure it is not deliberate—where the supply chain cannot always buy purely British steel, we ultimately hinder the Government’s aims to see growth, jobs, skills and manufacturing, particularly around the industrial strategy. I therefore urge the Ministers here to listen to manufacturers. Letters have gone to the Secretary of State about the issue, but it is vital that we do not tie another hand behind the backs of these manufacturing industry professionals, who want to help and make a difference and who are passionate about what they do. If we start giving them additional costs on top of the challenges they have had around employment, we will see the end of manufacturing in this country, and I am sure no one in this Chamber wants that.

    Hansard source

  38. ParliamentMs Nusrat Ghani

    Defence Readiness

    Order. Before the Minister responds, I can tell that the question is incredibly serious and the right hon. Gentleman needed to give detail, but we are very short on time and over 40 people wish to contribute, so interventions and responses must be short.

    Hansard source

  39. ParliamentMs Nusrat Ghani

    Defence Readiness

    I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

    Hansard source

  40. ParliamentMs Nusrat Ghani

    Defence Readiness

    Order. I was not talking about anything. Please do not use the words “you” or “your”.

    Hansard source