Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
The hon. Member makes a good point, but let us be quite clear that it is not some wild west out there. Gambling firms operate within quite a strict framework and take seriously their responsibilities to protect people as best they can.
I would like to make a little bit of progress rather than just go back and forth with a Q&A. We must recognise that betting and gaming is an entirely legitimate commercial practice for responsible gambling firms, as is advertising and sponsorship, but there are already alarming signs that businesses are facing difficulties in this area. The gambling sector is forecast to increase advertising by only 5% this year, which is a slowdown on last year’s 9% increase. Betting and gaming is declining as a share of advertising expenditure, as other sectors are expanding their advertising more rapidly. Even more worrying is the growth of harmful and illegal gambling operators, the activities of which are unregulated both in the market in general and in gambling advertising in particular. Just a few years ago, licensed operators accounted for more than 80% of gambling advertising, but new analysis published this week by the global marketing intelligence firm WARC has shown that illegal operators now account for almost half of all gambling advertising. Within two years—by 2028—it is expected that they will account for the majority of advertising spend in the UK, overtaking regulated British-based operators.
Absolutely; I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. We have seen that trend not just in gambling but in tobacco. Taxation levels have become so high that they have created an enormous black market, which I believe has led to the Treasury losing about £6 billion in revenue. Any sector that is over-taxed or over-regulated will be replaced by a black market.
I used an example of another sector to make a wider point that, if we over-tax or over-regulate anything, it will encourage the creation of a black market. There are various issues with that, whether for those exposed to the black market or for the Treasury, which might have concerns about the impact of a black market on its bottom line. It was a wider point about over-regulation and over-taxation, and there are number of examples of that. I have already said that we should not allow gambling firms to target children in any way because they are not legally allowed to bet, and there has been progress. The reforms under the last Government were quite robust, and I always welcome ideas about how we can go further on that, but we should not necessarily go too far. Banning gambling advertising in sport, with the exception of horseracing and greyhound racing, feels excessive to me. There are other ways that we can address this.
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The gambling black market is extraordinarily large globally; it is hugely significant. As I mentioned earlier, there are specific challenges elsewhere in the world where gambling is not allowed at all, but we all know that gambling exists in those countries at very significant levels. That is a matter for other nations to try to solve, but it is an example of how banning something does not stop it happening.
Thank you, Mrs Harris. I will put some numbers on my discussion of the value of regulated versus unregulated advertising. The regulated market is expected to decline by more than £107 million this year, but unregulated companies will increase their expenditure to £845 million this year, which is up 32%, and to £934 million by the end of 2028, which is another 10% rise. A significant proportion of that investment originates from overseas companies that are not paying British tax, not regulated by the British market and not subject to British laws. It is not just about advertising. More advertising by unregulated and illegal gambling companies only drives people to the harmful, unregulated and untaxed black market. Stakes on the illegal market are already estimated to equate to £4.3 billion per year. A PwC report based on H2 Gambling Capital data shows that the size and growth of the UK’s unregulated market has increased in recent years, alongside the implementation of tighter regulations. In my opening, I mentioned that regular betting and gaming contributes £6.8 billion to our economy and generates £4 billion in taxes—£4 billion that the Treasury could potentially lose. The effects of that are self-evident. There are other measures that are squeezing people. The Gambling Commission has found that there are concerns about the introduction of new checks and how intrusive they may be. The last Government wanted to pilot that scheme, and there are potential benefits to it, but we have to be a bit careful, because the concern is that blanket checks are being brought in without a pilot scheme. People are naturally nervous—the regular people who like to have a bet are concerned—about the intrusive nature of what private companies, and indeed the Government, are doing to try to access their financial data. We need to be wary of that, because it can put people off using British, regulated companies and push them toward foreign, unregulated spaces that are not subject to the same gambling taxation, which often allows for more attractive stakes and so on. All of that is drawing people into a place we do not want them to be in. We do not want to over-regulate our own market and force people into a place that is of no advantage to us and that we have no influence over. We must be very mindful of that, whether it is gambling or any other sector. The modelling shows a depressing outlook for the industry under the current taxation system. There is some very headline-grabbing stuff: Coral has pulled out of its deal to sponsor Cheltenham, and the industry expects to lose 16,000 jobs across the UK, a number of which are high-tech jobs. This is a high-tech industry these days; there is a huge online element to it, as we know. Those jobs will be lost in places such as Stoke, Warrington, Leeds, Sunderland, Manchester, Nottingham and Newcastle-under-Lyme where the successful gambling firms are based. Those job losses will then filter down to the gambling shops on our high streets; in recent weeks, we saw William Hill announce the loss of 200 high street stores. Beyond the costs to the taxpayer and people’s jobs and lives, gambling advertising and sponsorship also supports broadcast media and sports across the spectrum. As well as regulated advertising falling, the WARC report also found that sponsorship by regulated companies plateaued in 2021 and is set to decline. That sponsorship covers prize money, along with increased levels of interest, competition and viewership. It is a virtuous circle. It gets people enthused by sport and gets them involved. It is not something that we should see as simply a bad thing to do. Given that much free-to-air sports coverage—along with the lower levels or grassroots of certain sports—is largely dependent on this advertising revenue, there is a risk that we will further lose free-to-air coverage because sports will have to look to a more lucrative broadcast deals. Look at examples from the grassroots, with those firms sponsoring lower league clubs in football and the good work that they do there to support grassroots football—it is not just about what is going on in the premier league. We see less of those things on a day-to-day basis, but they are going on in clubs across the country. While sponsorship by regulated companies plateaued and is falling, total sponsorship by the gaming sector has grown, from £158 million in 2019 to £250 million this year. The growth is not by those regulated companies, however. Unregulated firms have accelerated their sponsorship—more than tripling it in the same period—and by next year more than half of sponsorship will be by unregulated firms.
The hon. Member has made a number of points on that subject. I will make some progress as I am sure that you, Mrs Harris, are keen for me to wrap up this contribution as soon as I can.
My right hon. Friend has jogged my memory. There is a serious issue here. A lot of this advertising is online in a space that we cannot necessarily regulate, and search engines will bring up these sites with obvious key words. For example, a problem gambler who has been part of GamStop or similar will have access to non-GamStop sites and that will bring up illegal betting sites. There is no way of regulating these particularly easily. That is why we need to be very conscious about what we do to damage our own regulated market. We are exposing people to unregulated websites where protections for those who need them do not exist. In fact, illegal operators specifically promote those sites on the internet through the various ways that they can advertise in a less regulated space. They also do other things regarding how bonuses are constructed and how they target people and so on. Regulated betting and gaming operators are already committing 20% of their advertising to safer gambling messaging, in addition to the messaging that sits within all advertising. During Safer Gambling Week, 1.53 million safer gambling tool limits were in place—an increase of 22% on the previous year. I was at a gambling shop on my high street ahead of the grand national a couple of weeks back, and it was interesting to note that they now run a similar system to Pubwatch—so it is not just online. They share information about individuals in the local area who have problems and need to be supported should they wish to try and place a bet in one of those shops. None of those robust protections and specific licence conditions for operators, nor the strengthening of the UK advertising codes in 2022—which included new protections for children and vulnerable adults—will make any difference if the Government drive people into the black market. In conclusion, banning something does not necessarily stop it from happening, and the Government’s policies and this report—if it were to be implemented—could in theory move more people into that less regulated illegal space. The hon. Member for Halesowen said that he is not anti-gambling, but my concern is that he is anti-regulated gambling by UK companies, and there is a very real danger that we will push people into the black market.
If something is already illegal, we do not regulate it. Does the hon. Member agree?
If the Government are so confident in the Prime Minister’s decision to sack Sir Olly Robbins, will the Minister today rule out settling any employment tribunal in advance of a hearing or imposing any gagging orders on Mr Robbins?
I wish you and the whole House a very happy St George’s day, Madam Deputy Speaker. Following the launch of the local media action plan, will the Leader of the House join me in celebrating local newspapers in my constituency such as the Bridlington Echo, the Bridlington Free Press, the Driffield & Wolds Weekly and the Holderness & Hornsea Gazette, and local radio stations including Bridlington Gold Radio, Great Driffield Radio and This is the Coast? Can we have a debate in Government time on the funding for local radio and for local newspapers, to ensure that that £12 million effectively reaches those brilliant independent outlets, so that they can innovate and attract high-quality journalism?
I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order. This House is entitled to expect that when a written statement is to be delivered to the House, it will be done promptly on the day the Government have given notice that it will be made. Those on the Government Front Bench will have heard her point of order, and may wish to verify what is happening about the written statement. The hon. Member may wish to take advice from the Table Office on the steps that she can take to obtain clarity on the substance of the matter.
Members might be interested to know that we will come to the Front-Bench spokespeople at half-past 4. About 10 Members are standing, so you can work out that a time limit will not be needed, unless they talk for an excessive 10 minutes each.
Order. It might be helpful if I highlight that driving tests are governed not by the DVLA, but by the DVSA—the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency. The subject of this afternoon’s debate is very specifically the DVLA. Perhaps Members might take that as a point of information and constrain their remarks to the DVLA.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
I call the shadow Minister.
16. What recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on the future EU-UK relationship.
The European Union currently allows for food production methods that are either banned or being phased out in the UK, which is undercutting British farmers. Will the Minister outline what discussions have taken place with the European Union to ensure parity of welfare standards so that British farmers are not priced out of the market?
For far too long, mobile phone connectivity across Bromsgrove and the villages, Worcestershire and, frankly, the rest of the country has been woeful. I find it shocking that humanity can send a rocket to loop around the moon and back, and yet we cannot get reliable mobile phone signal. This morning, I read in The Times and The Telegraph that Vodafone, Three, O2 and EE are considering rationing mobile phone connectivity in the light of surging energy costs. Will the Leader of the House allow for a debate in Government time on the adequacy of mobile phone connectivity—not just in rural areas, but across the whole country?
20. What recent progress he has made on implementing the Humble Address agreed on 4 February 2026.
Happy St George’s day, Mr Speaker. The Minister is working diligently to produce all those documents. Will he ensure that they are provided before Parliament is prorogued at the end of the Session?
I begin by paying tribute to the late Brian Jones, who died overnight, aged 89, at Northwick Park hospital. Brian was either president or chairman of the Harrow East Conservative Association for 25 years, and he was also my election agent for three general elections. He was a distinguished civil servant who worked on international trade matters before he retired, and he was the district scout commissioner in Harrow. He will be sorely missed, and we obviously express our sadness to his relatives and friends. I suspect that these will be the last business questions before Prorogation. As is usual at the end of a Session, I shall write to the Leader of the House, on behalf of the Backbench Business Committee, with a list of debates that are still on our waiting list. We have debates for the Chamber until the Christmas recess; for Tuesday mornings in Westminster Hall until the November recess; and for Thursdays in Westminster Hall until the conference recess. If the Leader of the House wants to have any general debates before the Committee is reconstituted following state opening, there is a long list of them. I thank him for laying the Standing Orders, but when will they be considered by the House? I pay tribute to the members of the Backbench Business Committee, the Clerks and the other support services, who have done such a brilliant job assisting us in formulating the debates that we have had. There have been recent attacks on Jewish communities across north London. The recent arrests of individuals that have taken place are welcome, but Jewish people will be thinking twice about whether they should go to synagogue this weekend and whether they will be safe. It is imperative that the Government not only take measures to reassure Jewish people in this country, but take prompt action. The individuals perpetrating these evil attacks are controlled by Iranians; it is often Iranian diplomats or other third parties who are directing these operations. We must put a stop to what is going on in radicalising our young people and using them as stooges for the Iranian regime. Will the Leader of the House encourage the Security Minister to take prompt action to round up the individuals instructing these evil people so that Jewish people can feel safe once again in this country?
I rise to speak about an issue that goes to the very heart of the responsibilities we have as parliamentarians: namely, the duty to protect the most vulnerable people in our society from exploitation, neglect and harm. In 2016, I had the honour of being drawn in the private Members’ Bills ballot. I sat on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee for some 14 years prior to the last general election, and at the time we were conducting an inquiry into homelessness in England. I was shocked by the treatment that single homeless people received from local authorities and the public sector in general, so I had the privilege of sponsoring the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017—it took 18 months to be enacted—to transform how we prevent and respond to homelessness in this country. It was built on the very simple but powerful principle that early intervention, dignity and support can change lives. To date, my Act has prevented 1.6 million people from becoming homeless. In 2022, the Committee undertook an inquiry, at the behest of several Birmingham MPs, into what can only be described as the wild west situation in supported housing in Birmingham. When we went there, we were shocked: we saw whole streets where rogue landlords had bought up three-bedroom houses, extended them to the side, to the rear and upwards, and converted them into eight single-room properties, with a small shared kitchen and bathroom. More shocking than that was the fact that these landlords were not providing any support whatsoever to the vulnerable people living in their properties. These houses could have housed someone who had been a drug addict next door to a drug pusher, and a lady fleeing domestic violence next door to someone convicted of domestic violence. There was no regulation at all. To be fair to it, Birmingham city council had introduced a voluntary scheme, but unfortunately the rogue landlords were the ones who would not register. Before I go on, it is very important that I pay tribute to the wonderful charities up and down the country that provide not only a home, but support for vulnerable people. Having been drawn in the private Members’ Bills ballot in 2022, I took the step of introducing what is now the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023. This House and the other place took vital steps when they supported the Act. I worked with charities such as Crisis, and the Act was born out of necessity, with mounting evidence in too many cases that supported housing was failing the very people it was meant to help and that rogue landlords were getting away without proper regulation. I think it is fair to say that I have been patient, given that the Act was passed in 2023 and, in 2026, it still has not been brought into operation. I know that the Government have consulted on it, and I welcome the fact that they continue to commit to implementing it, as they set out in their recent response to the consultation, but the time for consultation and delay must now be over. We have to get on with this, because every single day, vulnerable people are being exploited by rogue landlords. The need for action is urgent and immediate, because while we continue to talk about the issue, rogue landlords continue to operate. While we delay, vulnerable people continue to suffer and public money continues to flow into the hands of those who exploit those in need, rather than support them. Supported housing should be one of the great strengths of our social system. It provides accommodation alongside care, support and supervision for people who are literally rebuilding their lives. Let us not forget that these people may have experienced homelessness, may have fled domestic abuse, or may be living with complex needs. The good charities assess those people’s needs just after providing a roof over their heads and supply a network of support; the rogue landlords pop along once a week and say, “Everyone all right? Yes? See you next week.” That is the extent of the support that these people receive. As Crisis has set out, when it is delivered well, supported housing can provide high-quality transitional homes that help people to move on from homelessness and rebuild their independence. Emmaus UK’s recent “Rebuilding Lives” report reinforces this, showing how good supported housing not only offers shelter, but provides purpose and opportunities for training and work, which are key ingredients in helping people to regain stability and confidence. When it works well, supported housing is transformative. It provides a pathway to independence and access to employment, it helps people to rebuild relationships and move on to settled homes, and it saves the public purse billions by reducing demand on health, criminal justice and emergency services. However, when it fails and rogue landlords take control, we have seen individuals punished for daring to get a job, because if they do so, they lose their housing benefit and the landlord cannot charge the earth in rent. Those rogue landlords refuse to provide even basic support and, as I have said, they sometimes house people literally next door to the very people they are fleeing. Over recent years, we have seen the rise of rogue operators in the exempt accommodation sector. Crisis has documented how those providers exploit gaps in regulation, particularly in non-commissioned accommodation, where oversight is at its weakest. They have entered the market not to deliver support, but to maximise profit. That is because exempt accommodation allows providers to charge higher rents through housing benefit, recognising that supporting vulnerable people comes with additional costs. The fundamental flaw, as Crisis has highlighted, is that there has been no consistent, enforceable mechanism to ensure that the support justifying those higher rents is delivered, and there is no single regulator responsible for overseeing that support. The result is that in some cases, we are rewarding exploitation. We have heard deeply troubling accounts from residents. Crisis has reported people being forced to share basic facilities with literally dozens of others, living in properties that are plagued by damp, mould and vermin, and experiencing intimidation and abuse—I have spoken to tenants who were abused and forced to move from one property to another. Some have even been forced back into homelessness to escape these conditions. Others have been charged additional fees for support that does not exist—charges that eat into their already limited incomes and push them further into poverty. Heaven help those vulnerable people if they dare to get a job, because the reduction in housing support means that, in most cases, the rogue landlord kicks them out. These findings are echoed in wider evidence from the sector, including the collapse of providers such as Prospect Housing, where residents were charged for inadequate or absent support. To be absolutely clear, this is not an isolated problem. While I remember visiting cities such as Birmingham where the issues with supported housing have been most prominent, Crisis and other organisations have identified similar patterns across London, the midlands, the south-east and beyond. Rogue providers are expanding, exploiting inconsistencies in oversight between local authorities and adapting their business models to stay one step ahead of enforcement. Local authorities are responsible for assessing eligibility for housing benefit and verifying that support is being provided, but as Crisis has highlighted, they face significant barriers of limited resources, inconsistent powers and legal constraints. There is also evidence that some councils struggle to proactively verify whether meaningful support is being delivered at all. Other regulators exist, but none has comprehensive responsibility for the support element of exempt accommodation. Guidance such as the national statement of expectations sets out a vision, but it is not legally enforceable. Voluntary standards exist in some areas, but compliance is optional. In short, the system has allowed far too many providers to slip through the cracks.
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. Clearly, if people are living in tents or are homeless on the streets, they are not getting the support they need to rebuild their lives, which is the key. I introduced the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023 to provide the framework we need to bring order, accountability and integrity to the sector. The Act enables the introduction of national supported housing standards—clear benchmarks for what good provision looks like, covering both accommodation and support. It establishes a licensing regime, empowering local authorities to approve, monitor and, where necessary, shut down providers that fail to meet the standards. The Act requires councils to develop local strategies, ensuring that supported housing provision is aligned with genuine local need, rather than driven by profit. That issue has been highlighted by Crisis and Emmaus UK research. Crucially, the Act allows for the linking of enhanced housing benefit to compliance, ensuring that public money supports only those providers that meet the required standards. The reality is that the system is costing the taxpayer a fortune, and it is going to rogue landlords. The Government’s recent response to the consultation provides much-needed further detail on how the measures will be implemented, and I welcome the commitment to a national licensing system, the introduction of national supported housing standards and the application of a fit and proper person test for those managing schemes. I hope that we can ensure that some of the weasel ways that some rogue landlords use to get around things can be corrected. These are supposed to be not-for-profit organisations, but often a person will buy a property and rent it to a registered charity, which then pays rent to the landlord. Although the charity is not making a profit, the owner of the property is making a fortune. I hope we can correct that particular area. I also welcome the decision, strongly supported by Crisis, to make eligibility for enhanced housing benefit contingent on a scheme holding a licence. That gives the system real teeth, removing the financial incentive that has driven rogue providers into the market, but I must express my concern about the timeline. The Government have indicated that implementation will begin in April 2027, four years after my Act received Royal Assent. I welcome the commitment, but we have pointed out that there must be no further delay, given the scale of harm that has already been caused since the Act was passed. During that time, the harms we sought to address have escalated. We must continue to ensure that these people do not continue their profit making. Every month of delay allows rogue landlords to operate unchecked. Every delay means more vulnerable people placed in unsafe conditions. Every delay represents a failure to deliver on the promise we made on a cross-party basis in this House. We must ask ourselves: how many more people will suffer before these powers are brought into force? We must also recognise that regulation alone is not enough. The problem in this sector has been exacerbated by years of under-investment in support services. Crisis has made it clear that the growth of poor-quality, non-commissioned provision is closely linked to the decline in funding for support and the absence of a dedicated national funding stream. Housing benefit can cover higher rents, but it cannot fund support services. That creates a perverse incentive, in that providers must house people with support needs to qualify for higher payments, but there is no dedicated funding to meet those needs. Some providers go to great lengths to bridge this gap, relying on charitable funding or volunteers. That has been highlighted by Emmaus, and its model demonstrates the value of meaningful activity, work and community. Others, however, pass the costs on to the residents, charging additional fees that push people further into poverty. If we are serious about making this system work, we must address that imbalance. The Treasury’s ongoing review of homelessness spending presents an opportunity to align funding with the new regulatory framework. As Crisis has argued, this must include a reset and an increase in funding for support services, including approaches such as Housing First and floating support. I urge the Government—they have not only a majority on their side, but support across the House on this issue—to really get on and do it. We must ensure that local authorities have the resources they need to implement licensing and enforcement, the new burdens placed on councils must be fully funded if the system is to succeed, and we must ensure that, as we tackle rogue provision, we do not inadvertently increase homelessness. The Government’s commitment to produce guidance on rehousing residents affected by scheme closures is welcome, but I would caution that guidance alone is not enough. Local authorities must be supported financially and strategically to prevent homelessness and to take a proactive, co-ordinated approach. We must also listen to those with lived experience. Evidence from residents, including the testimonies gathered by Emmaus, consistently shows that good supported housing is about more than accommodation. It is about meaningful support, opportunities for training, work and a sense of community and belonging. It is about rebuilding lives. We must ensure that these voices are at the heart of the new system shaping national standards, informing local strategies and holding providers to account. Ultimately, that is what this Act is about: it is about people—people who have already faced significant hardship and who deserve better from us. The Act represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reset the system, drive out rogue landlords, raise standards and ensure that supported housing truly supports those in need. We should just look at the success of my first Act—the Homelessness Reduction Act—which, I say again, has prevented 1.6 million people from being made homeless. That is why we must implement the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act, and we must do so with urgency. In closing, I ask the Government simply to bring forward the regulations and the guidance, ensure that the April 2027 timetable is met without further delay, provide the resources needed for effective implementation, and ensure that no further delays stand in the way of protecting vulnerable people. Let us honour the intent of this House, let us deliver on the promise we made in 2023, and let us never again allow vulnerable people to be treated as commodities in a broken system. The time for action is now. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
I thank the Minister for the response she has given thus far. I am not going to get into the politics of this, but local government reorganisation is going on, so could she say a little about what will happen to ensure that local government sets up in the right sort of way with the licensing scheme?
Paragraph 1.6.c of the ministerial code states: “It is of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity.” Yesterday, the Prime Minister said to the House that Sir Olly Robbins “went on to say: ‘I…have complete confidence that… recommendations to me and the discussion we had and the decision we made were rigorously independent of’ any ‘pressure.’”—[Official Report, 22 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 316.] What Sir Olly actually said to the Foreign Affairs Committee was: “I also have complete confidence that their recommendations to me and the discussion we had and the decision we made were rigorously independent of that pressure.” Sir Olly said “that” pressure, not “any” pressure. The Prime Minister materially changed Sir Olly’s meaning. Robbins was clear that he had been put under pressure. Does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister know whether the Prime Minister intends to correct the record?
The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister is perfectly intelligent enough to know that there is an enormous difference between those two words. I will remind him that the Prime Minister is bound by the ministerial code. Yesterday, the Prime Minister also told the House: “Sir Olly was absolutely clear that nobody put pressure on him to make this appointment”—[Official Report, 22 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 316.] but that is not what Sir Olly said to the Foreign Affairs Committee. He actually said: “Throughout January, honestly, my office and the Foreign Secretary’s office were under constant pressure.” Again, he said that “while I think the Department felt under pressure, we were proud of the fact that we had not bowed to that pressure.” Again, he said that Philip Barton’s handover to him “contributed to my strong sense that there was an atmosphere of pressure”. To avoid being in breach of the ministerial code, Ministers must correct the record at the earliest available opportunity. At the very latest, the earliest opportunity is now. Will the Prime Minister correct the record?
Last week, someone in the heart of Government leaked some extremely sensitive documents to The Guardian. This appears potentially to be a crime under the National Security Act 2023. Has the Cabinet Office reported it to the Metropolitan police?
Cat Little, the permanent secretary, has just told the Foreign Affairs Committee that a very, very small number of people have actually seen the document in question. Will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister commit to the House that when he has identified who leaked it, he will report them to the Metropolitan police?
I beg to move, That this House has considered the Army Reserve. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Barker. It is also a pleasure to have the Minister in her place; she brings with her a distinguished service record and is recognised across the House as having a genuine commitment to our armed forces. I am sure that she, like me, recognises that the role of the Army Reserve has changed in recent years. When we debate this issue, we are not simply talking about training days with the reserves; they play a much more active role in supporting defence capabilities on a daily basis. In bringing forward this debate, my purpose is not to strike a partisan tone. There is much on which both sides of the House can agree. First, the Government are right to say that the threat to our national security has increased, and increased materially. The strategic defence review is right to focus on expanding our reserves as one of the measures that we need to take. The Armed Forces Bill, despite some of the noise in the media, has a number of sensible measures on updating legislation. There are areas, as a foundation, that all sides of the House can agree on. My principal concern is the gap between the Government’s words and their delivery. In particular, I am concerned about their delivery in the context of negotiations with the Treasury, and in the context of a No. 10 that is perhaps distracted by other issues and not as focused on responding to the national security threat with provisions such as the reserves. I will address that point through three areas: first, the reserve numbers; secondly, a specific issue this year around the Government’s commitment to reserve service days, a material issue on which it would be helpful to hear directly from the Minister; and thirdly, funding prioritisation and to what extent—given some of the media stories regarding the Ministry of Defence and the wider context that it faces—funding, whether for equipment or estate for the reserves, will be ringfenced or secured this year. On numbers, Members on both sides of the House recognise that boosting the number of our reserves is probably one of the best-value options for the MOD in terms of building defence capability. It is what I would regard as low-hanging fruit—something that should be done. The SDR set a modest ambition of a 20% increase, but I think we should be doubling the numbers this Parliament; other countries such as France are doing that—and from a higher base, so up to over 100,000. Even on the Government’s more modest ambition of 20%, if we actually look at what has happened since the general election, there was an initial fall in numbers until the SDR. In that non-partisan spirit, however, let us just look at the numbers since the SDR: in that period, there has been virtually no increase. Since coming into office, the number of reservists fell by 119 personnel—not particularly consequential—but since the SDR, it has risen by just 249. To put that in context, on the Government’s current trajectory, it is going to take 13 years to meet their own more modest target—a target that is a fifth of the French target and that starts from a lower base. In other words, it is going to take 13 years just to add 20% to our reserves, when the French are going to double theirs. The record so far does not match the Government’s words about the increased threat and the importance of the reserves.
I know that the hon. Member has a long-standing commitment to the cadets and the military in general. The cadets is a recognised pipeline into the armed forces, and I am sure the Minister recognises its importance in giving people their first taste of military experience. Again, I think that is an area of agreement. The first point I want to land is that in the first two years of this Government, the number of reservists has fallen overall, if we take the quarterly statistics published in April that give the numbers to January. The current record does not match the Government’s words. My second point is on reserve service days and this year’s commitment—
That commitment is the most important point, but it can wait until after the hon. Member’s welcome intervention.
The hon. Member is right. I represent the rural constituency of North East Cambridgeshire, and I recognise the point that he raises; that plays into the issue of overall numbers and into the second point that I am coming on to, which is about the commitments for the existing numbers. Let me set out the crux of the issue. Media reports suggest that the MOD has been asked to make efficiency savings of £3.5 billion this year. My concern is that quite often, areas of the budget are locked down—they are fixed and cannot be shifted—so it is tempting for the MOD to look to the reserves as an area most able to meet those efficiency targets. The reserve service days could be cut as part of that. That is hugely disruptive because it often means that posts, as they come up for renewal, are delayed and left vacant; it means those who might have planned financially to do a certain number of days find those plans change; and it means those trying to fit in annual leave or commitments with their existing employer find those plans disrupted at short notice. Given that I have heard anecdotal reports of units already being told that their reserve service days may be reduced this year, could the Minister send a clear message to reservists up and down the country that the Government do value their work and the reserve service days, and that there will be no reduction in reserve service days this year? In the overall scheme of things, for a budget of £60 billion, the cost of the reserves is tiny if one is trying to meet those wider budget challenges.
I completely agree. The Government say they are committed to tackling things such as the cost of living; everyone in the House is very worried about the growth in youth unemployment and other pressures, and we want society to come together in more integrated ways. The armed forces are a unifier within society, so the hon. Gentleman’s points are extremely pertinent. Let us look at this key point of reserve service days in the context of what has happened in the first two years of the Labour Government. In 2023, there were 1.339 million training days recorded; that dropped to 1.17 million last year. I am not trying to overstate the position—those are modest changes—but the direction of travel is wrong. Given the national security threats, the reserves are more important, and other countries are moving much faster on this. That is why I want to hear from the Minister a clear commitment to units up and down the country and to reserve service days. That is the most material issue that I want to flag in this debate. My third point, which I concede has been an issue for many years, is that there has always been a temptation to give a lower priority to the reserve estate and equipment within the MOD more generally. The Government are right to say that the reserves are really important, but following on from that we need ringfenced funding for equipment and the estate. I know that there are specific issues, and we have the reserve estate optimisation programme, but the funding for that this year is not clear. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that. Given the £3.5 billion efficiency target, the Department could be tempted to stray into such areas, but if someone is a reservist in the logistics unit and there are no vehicles, or is in an artillery unit and there are very few guns, that has a corrosive impact on morale and on wider defence capability. Let us look at how things have changed. The conflict in Ukraine is, in essence, a conflict between two reservist armies: reservists have been called up on the Ukraine side, and there are now reservists on the Russian side. We can see from the direction of travel just how important the capability of our reserves is. The Government are right to flag that, so it would be very odd if they were to cut reserve service days this year or if they did not protect the budget.
Again, there is a lot of agreement in the House about these points. With that in mind, I will suggest a couple of potential solutions—I always think it is better to come with solutions than with problems—and ask the Minister for an update. First, it would be great to have a clear signal to units about reserve service days. Secondly, the Minister will be familiar with the case of Major Milroy, which goes to the issue of fairness. The Government have lost twice in tribunal. There was a debate on that case a couple of months ago, so it would be helpful to have an update. Thirdly, Labour Members often talk about the perils of zero-hours contracts, but of course reservists are often in essence on zero-hours contracts. It would be interesting to know whether the Government are considering a statutory underpinning for employers’ commitments.
It is worth putting on the record that there are many good employers who recognise that. At the same time, we want to make it as easy as possible for those willing to be reservists to do so. I want to flag that and some of the consistency across Government. I will come on to some solutions. I talked about the context of the £3.5 billion efficiency savings this year—the money is next year, 2027—and the pressure of that. I remind Treasury colleagues that reserve pay and bounties is less than one quarter of 1% of the MOD budget, which is why this area of MOD spend brings a lot of bang for its buck. I also remind the Minister of the 2009 Guardian front page, when Gordon Brown had to intervene because that past Labour Treasury was straining to make savings in this territory. That caused such angst on the Government Benches at the time that the decision was U-turned. I know this Government do not particularly want to U-turn—that would be a heresy in the current climate—but it may be helpful for the Minister to get ahead of the argument with Treasury colleagues. We are talking about a very small sum of money in an area that offers real defence capability. It is not the most fertile political terrain for the Treasury to strike. The Minister will know better than most in this House about the NATO commitments in article 3 and how we meet those—the reserves are key to that. And I am sure she has seen the excellent paper from Professor Vincent Connelly and Hamish Mundell, part of a series by the Royal United Services Institute, highlighting the importance of this area and why we in this House should focus on it.
Could the Minister perhaps write to me?
I say this very gently, because there is huge agreement on this, but I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that the Public Accounts Committee, which has a majority of Labour members, says no movement is expected on that until the next decade—so not this Parliament. Does she agree on that, or does she think her colleagues are wrong?
It seems to me as though the Government are just kicking the can down the road. We have an opportunity in the legislation before us, and particularly in Lord Nash’s amendment—which we are not being allowed to vote on as I understand it—to limit the use of social media outlets to those who are over 16. We also have the opportunity to tighten very seriously the regulations relating to the use of mobile phones in schools, but again, there is a loophole. Why are we being so wishy-washy?
Let me try again with the question that I put to the Minister. We have the opportunity today to carry a motion tabled in the other House that would introduce the ban. The can is being kicked down the road. We cannot have consultation indefinitely. The question on the consultation paper is not, “How do we do this?”, but, “Shall we do it?” That is not necessary—am I right?