5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
I thank the right hon. Member for his point of order. In the first instance, he may wish to consult the Clerks in the Table Office for advice on how he can best elicit a response. He might also like to raise the issue at business questions with the Leader of the House, who will then ensure that the question is directed to the correct Government Department.
I thank the right hon. Member for his point of order. He is quite right: I have had no notice of a statement on this issue. He can raise it at Health questions and with the Leader of the House. He has certainly done an excellent job of highlighting this matter, as he has done in debates that I have listened to. I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard him.
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. As she will know, the Government conduct diplomatic relations at the United Nations under Crown prerogative. Nevertheless, she has placed her concerns on the record, and those on the Front Bench will have heard them. As the House has not debated the issue, she might do well to apply for a Backbench Business debate or a Westminster Hall debate, or raise it with the Leader of the House at business questions.
I inform the House that the Speaker has selected the amendment tabled in the name of the Prime Minister. I call the shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Net Zero.
Order. I alert Members to the fact that there will be a four-minute time limit on speeches, which of course does not apply to the Front Benchers. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Order. There was a particularly unedifying exchange between Members in which the use of “you” and “your” was very liberal indeed; I assume that it was addressed directly to me. Can we all try to do a little better? While I am on my feet, I will say that after the next speaker, the time limit will have to be reduced to three minutes in order to get all Members in.
Net zero is a socialist dream, because it epitomises centralised control, Government interference in daily life and redistribution. When an idea becomes immune to scrutiny, it is precisely then that scrutiny is most needed. That definitely applies in the case of Britain’s rush to net zero, because in our haste, we risk undermining our economy, our energy security and, ultimately, the resilience we will need to face the future. Caring for the environment is necessary, reducing pollution is noble, and innovation in energy is essential, but pursuing an inflexible target at any cost without regard for the consequences is madness. First, take the economic reality. The UK is attempting one of the most rapid energy transitions ever undertaken by an advanced economy. Entire industries are being reshaped or phased out, and energy systems built over decades are being dismantled in a matter of years. And who bears the cost? It is not abstract. It is households facing rising energy bills, businesses struggling with higher operating costs, and manufacturers deciding whether to stay in Britain or to relocate to countries with cheaper, more reliable energy.
We only have to speak to businesses across our constituencies, and they will tell us about the reality of the economic calamity caused by decisions taken by this Government and the costs bearing down on them. The reality is that choices made by this Government continue to hollow out our industrial base, not because we lack skill or ambition but because energy, which is the lifeblood of industry, has become prohibitively costly. Energy security is not a theoretical concept; it is the difference between stability and vulnerability. It is the ability to heat our homes, power hospitals and keep the economy running, no matter what is happening anywhere else in the world. Yet at this moment, when we should be strengthening our domestic energy supply, we are choosing to restrict it. That brings us perfectly to the North sea, which is one of the UK’s greatest strategic assets. Beneath those waters lie opportunity—reserves of natural gas that could provide reliable domestic energy for years to come—yet the Government are choosing to turn away from it. The argument often made is that extracting more gas contradicts our climate commitments and locks us into the past, but that overlooks a crucial fact: the UK will continue to be dependent on fossil fuels for decades to come. That is where the comparison with Norway becomes so instructive. Norway is often held up as a leader in environmental responsibility, and it has chosen not to turn its back on North sea resources. It has done the opposite: it has increased gas extraction, recognising both the economic value and the strategic importance of domestic supply. Norway understands something that we would do well to remember: energy independence is not at odds with environmental ambition; it underpins it. The UK risks increasing its dependence on imports, even as domestic resources remain available.
We are increasingly dependent on China because of decisions taken by this Government. The pursuit of renewables-based future energy infrastructure is increasingly dependent on countries that are adversarial to us and pose a risk to our long-term energy security. The hon. Member is right on that point. This is not just about energy; it is also about jobs and public finances—something the Government know only too well, following their economic choices. The North sea has long been a vital source of revenue for the Treasury, creating billions of pounds that support public services and infrastructure. Analysis by Offshore Energies UK shows that there is £165 billion of estimated economic value in the North sea, should the Government muster the political will to seize it.
I will not give way any further. To accelerate the decline of that sector without a fully viable replacement is not just economically risky but fiscally short-sighted. At the same time, we must consider the livelihoods tied to the industry, as colleagues across the House have stressed. Tens of thousands of skilled workers depend directly or indirectly on oil and gas. These are not abstract numbers; they are engineers, technicians, supply chain workers, families and, more importantly, whole communities. If we move too quickly without a realistic transition plan, we do not simply phase out an industry; we create unemployment, lose expertise and weaken entire regions. That is happening right now. This is not just a theoretical concern; it is raised by those who are closest to the issue. Trade union leaders have been clear. The general secretary of the GMB has described the Government’s stance on oil and gas as “madness”. Unite the union has warned plainly that such policies will put jobs at risk. Even Juergen Maier said that extracting more gas and oil from the North sea would boost jobs and tax revenues. Those are not voices that the Government usually say are opposed to progress; they are voices that represent working people, so why on earth are the Government choosing to ignore them? We have to consider the global context. The UK accounts for a relatively small share of global emissions. Even if we were to reach net zero tomorrow, the impact on global temperatures would be limited. Meanwhile, major economies that compete with us continue to rely heavily on fossil fuels as they balance growth, development and transition. That is why we have to get the balance right. True leadership from the Government lies not in symbolic gestures but in practical solutions that can be adopted globally. The pursuit of net zero, as currently framed, risks becoming an exercise in self-imposed constraint—one that weakens our economy, compromises our energy security, threatens jobs, reduces vital tax revenues and lowers living standards for all, while delivering limited benefit.
Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge the comments made by Greg Jackson, the founder of Octopus Energy, who said that importing LNG has a greater carbon footprint than extraction from the North sea? Does he also agree that Labour and the Liberal Democrats are now acknowledging that the renewables market is itself not competitive?
The problem for the West London Alliance, which comprises six boroughs, is the lack of grid capacity, which means that new home developments and new projects providing business opportunities are frozen for a number of years, into the 2030s. Unless there is urgent action to provide more power to the grid, all those excellent projects will be frozen for far too long.
Will the hon. Member just explain where we were in the standings for NATO defence spending in 2022 and where we stand today?
I will start with a quote: “Your path leads to war. You know that. So war is coming. What will you do when you feel its breath upon your neck?” The answer is: not enough. The defence investment plan was due last autumn, then by Christmas, and then it was to be delivered as soon as the MOD finishes working flat-out. If the MOD spent as much time on the DIP as it has done telling everyone that it is working at pace, maybe it would have been delivered by now. Let us look at the impact of the delay. In the air, we are yet to see investment in the capability that has been committed to. The Chief of the Defence Staff, in his prior role as Chief of the Air Staff, last year confirmed that the RAF has “no major equipment programmes planned for the next 15 years. We have what we have for the near and medium term”. Given the evolution development cycle of current capability, is that really a tenable position? The F-35B is due to graduate as a Government major projects portfolio programme by the end of this month, but will it? Will we see the delivery of the remaining seven F-35Bs by the end of next month, as scheduled? The Royal Air Force is yet to even place an order for the 12 F-35As that are due to qualify us to join NATO’s dual capable aircraft nuclear mission. That was announced nine months ago, with no orders placed and no progress made. It might as well just be a poster on the Defence Secretary’s bedroom wall. Likewise, the next tranche of F-35Bs has also not yet been ordered from Lockheed Martin. This goes back to my point regarding overstretch. Operation Firecrest will see the carrier strike group deploy with 24 F-35Bs. There are six deployed forward in Akrotiri, seven are awaiting delivery, and one fell in the sea. That leaves us with just 10 planes for training and to cover any other tasks. We are maxed out. Later this year we may be in a position where we have no realistic spare capacity of our only fifth-generation platform, with no current plans to purchase any more—and if/when we do purchase more, they are years away from delivery. But are we actually going to buy any more? Given our limited resources, putting all our chips on the global combat air programme and inevitably short-cutting our way to never truly fleshing out the accompanying system-of-systems does not augur well. We are already struggling to find the funding for the next phase of that project, delaying the signing of the trilateral contract for the next phase from last September because of the delay to the DIP, creating tensions with Japan and Italy and threatening the 2035 timeline that is crucial for Japan. When I challenged the Prime Minister on the delay, he would not commit to when the contract would be signed. On the high seas, Britannia most certainly does not rule the waves. HMS Dragon has finally arrived in the eastern Mediterranean, but it was one of only three Type 45s available. I use the term “available” loosely, as it had to be withdrawn from its NATO Maritime Group One commitment—a commitment that starts in a few weeks and for which we currently have no replacement ship available. The Government have no plan to facilitate that commitment and are presumably hoping that HMS Dragon can be recalled. The Royal Navy has to deliver Type 26 and Type 31, with all ships coming into service, optimistically, within the next nine years. Type 83 will see its outline business case submitted by June, but my understanding is that that programme may not make the cut, which raises serious questions about the future air dominance system. I would be surprised if Type 91 made the cut either, given that it is currently being assessed for feasibility and affordability. Decisions are pending on: the future cruise anti-ship weapons system; batch 1 offshore patrol vessels; the global decision support system, the maritime aviation transformation programme; Project Beehive; and Project Vantage. Charting a course to a much vaunted hybrid Navy looks perilous at best—I hope the Minister has his sextant to hand. On land, despite all that, the Army arguably has the most work to do. The Army has a huge transformation programme that will make it almost unrecognisable by the next Parliament. If there is one capability that we should be throwing the kitchen sink at, it is Project Asgard, which the Chief of the General Staff spoke effusively about last year in his Royal United Services Institute land warfare conference speech. He said: “It’s a project that, through AI-fuelled, software-defined and network enabled capabilities we are confident has made 4 Light Brigade capable of acting 10 times faster and 10 times further than it could last year.”
I concur. There is a huge need to ensure we have the correct amount of logistics, and that includes supply of troops, in particular in munitions and energetics. The Government have pledged to build factories; we are still not entirely clear where they will be, but ammunition supplies will be key to anything we do going forwards. Project Asgard is the programme in defence that could arguably be delivered quickest and to the most immediate effect, trading space for time and allowing us to develop our most exquisite capabilities with longer lead times in slow time. Alongside its RAF equivalent, Project Boyd, it presents the vanguard of future capability and outlines where the armed forces are going in these domains. There is a painful conversation to be had about the use of AI in the kill chain in the not-too-distant future. The Government must commit to 3%, must commit to delivering the right capability and must commit to armed forces that are fit to fight the next war, not the current war or the last war. “Your path leads to war. You know that. So war is coming. What will you do when you feel its breath upon your neck?”
Thank you, Mr Speaker. “In the face of further geopolitical turmoil, now is the time to alter our approach to energy… Drilling in the North Sea and scrapping carbon taxes on British manufacturing would kickstart economic growth, tackle unemployment…as well as prevent further deindustrialisation.” Does the Secretary of State agree with those comments from the Labour Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell)?
This is extraordinary—mad, even. No other country on Earth would deprive itself of the vast natural resource we are lucky enough to have at our disposal underneath the North sea. The Jackdaw field alone could provide 250 million barrels of oil equivalent in natural gas to the UK, and it could be up and running by Christmas, but because of the Secretary of State it is stuck in limbo. It is utter insanity. His inaction is an act of national economic self-harm. When will he make a decision and act in the national interest?
There is some confusion about current SNP policy on oil and gas. Is it, or is it not, still SNP policy to be against new oil and gas in the North sea?
Let me start by agreeing with fellow Aberdonian the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) in paying tribute to all the energy workers, who, over decades, have worked in incredibly dangerous conditions. Some gave their lives to ensuring that the lights stayed on and industry continued to function in this country. Many of them came from my constituency. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) for his outstanding contribution. He brought to the House’s attention the dependence of so many industries in this country to gas, and the de-industrialisation that we are seeing across so many aspects of our industry right now. With war raging in the middle east and in Europe, Labour is a party being held captive by extremists who refuse to act in our national interest, who are content to see jobs lost in their thousands and who will not take advantage of our greatest asset lying untapped and unexplored under our own waters.
We welcomed investment from around the world, but, obviously, we divested ourselves of any Russian investment in the North sea as soon as we could after Putin’s actions in Ukraine, as I am sure the hon. Member would have expected us to do as a responsible Government. On days like this we have to wonder whose side this Government are on, because unlike the Conservative Government, who acted in the national interest, they are not on the side of Britain or of the British people. We have witnessed for four years now how Putin’s armies have weaponised energy not only to starve the people of Ukraine, but to weaken our continent. The Energy Secretary, if he were here, would tell us that that proves why we should double down on his plans to ditch oil and gas, except even under his ridiculously ambitious and unrealistic plans, Great Britain would still need gas to meet around 50% of its energy demand. The National Energy System Operator has highlighted that gas will be the UK’s energy of last resort for the next 10 to 20 years, and that we will require a diverse and resilient supply. But Labour MPs—the enablers of this absurdity—would rather see us reliant on others for gas, such as Qatar or Norway, than on our own British industry. They would rather we get gas from other countries at a higher cost and with 15 times the emissions of our own supply, leaving us more exposed to price spikes. To be absolutely clear, 100% of all British North sea gas goes directly into the British gas grid. I do wonder if Labour Members understand this, so let me explain: by choosing to use less from British waters, we have to import more and we become more insecure as a country. The real human tragedy at the centre of this blatant disregard for our national interest is playing out on rigs, in offices and in homes across the north-east of Scotland right now, and it is happening thanks to the Labour party, enabled by the Liberal Democrats. While we are talking about the Liberal Democrats, we heard today from their spokeswoman, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings), that they do not support any new oil and gas licences. I think she might want to explain that to their candidate for the upcoming parliamentary election in Shetland, who warned of the impact if the Clair oilfield was not expanded, or their candidate for North East Scotland who said: “We are going to need oil and gas for the foreseeable future and it is better to support production here than rely on imports of LNG from abroad which are more polluting.” Which is it? What is the Liberal Democrats’ plan, and why do they always say one thing in this place and another thing everywhere else? Once again, we cannot trust a word that the Liberal Democrats say, but they are enabling the Labour party and choosing to see 1,000 jobs lost in the North sea every single month.
I am equally a fan of the hon. Member’s work, but I would like to make this very clear: it is not that we would have joined the war ongoing in the middle east; it is that we would not have left British bases and British assets undefended in the way that this Government shamefully did by removing assets from the region when we knew very well what was coming round the corner. One thousand high-skilled, high-paid jobs are being lost every single month, and this is personal. I have the immense privilege of living in and representing the north-east of Scotland. To me, these jobs are not figures on a spreadsheet, as they are to Labour MPs. They are my constituents, neighbours, friends and family. The callousness and disregard with which the Labour party is treating that region and these people at the minute will not be forgotten. The Labour party refuses to acknowledge it, but it is real and it is happening—and at frightening speed. People are, right now, having to make a terrible choice: either they hang around in the north-east of Scotland awaiting the long-promised yet never-delivered renewable jobs boom, which always seems to be just around the corner and which pays far less, or they leave their homes, communities and families and move overseas. Many, indeed most, are choosing the latter. They are leaving the country altogether, taking their families and, crucially, their skills out of the United Kingdom to countries that have Governments who are awake to the reality and who support their domestic oil and gas industries—to places like Houston, Riyadh, Calgary or Stavanger. In Stavanger they are drilling right now in the very same sea that we could be drilling in, only to sell it back to us. It is utterly perverse. Workers in Aberdeen are going to any country with an oil and gas industry in which the eco-extremism that the Secretary of State is so enthralled by is not found in government. That, by the way, is every other country in the world where there is a domestic oil and gas industry. It used to be said that in every country in the world where there is oil and gas, you can find an Aberdonian accent. It turns out that soon, the only place where you will not be able to find an Aberdonian oil worker is, in fact, Aberdeen. There has been a steady beat of job losses every single month since Labour entered government—from BP, Hunting, Harbour Energy, Chevron, Well-Safe, Petrofac, and Ithaca Energy. Labour MPs talk about what we did in government, but during the 2014-15 energy price shock, when jobs were sadly lost in the north-east of Scotland, we commissioned Ian Wood to produce a review into the future of the North sea. We implemented a policy of maximum economic recovery from the North sea. We reduced taxes on our domestic oil and gas industry, and we stabilised the workforce in our last six years. During our time in government, we made the North sea the most investable basin in the world. What are the Labour Government doing? The exact opposite. They are seeing job losses and investment turn away. They are surrendering this country to the whims of dictators overseas. I could go on about the job losses. All the companies I mentioned have had operations in this country for many years, and when they are not cutting jobs they are consolidating their operations. I therefore welcome the recent intervention from the hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell) in calling for an end to the Government’s war on the North sea. We can add his name to the ever growing list of people and organisations calling on the Government to change course: the GMB, Unite, Tony Blair, Octopus’s Greg Jackson, Great British Energy’s own Juergen Maier, who was appointed by the Secretary of State, and RenewableUK. Why are all those people wrong and only the Secretary of State right?
I will not because of time. Notably, that list does not include one Scottish Labour MP. Indeed, some Scottish Labour MPs are actively campaigning to stop any production at all, with two of their number signing a letter asking the Secretary of State to block the Rosebank oilfield. For a moment, let us entertain the idea that clean power 2030 is not ridiculous and utterly undeliverable. Who does the Minister think will deliver it? The people with the skills needed for floating offshore wind are leaving in their thousands, and the assets to deploy those new technologies are moving overseas. Who does the Minister think will invest in the transition? The Port of Aberdeen has recently invested in a new harbour to accommodate the long-promised boom in floating offshore wind, but there are no new turbines going out to sea today, the quayside has no blades waiting and the port is laying off staff because 60% of its revenue still comes from oil and gas; only 1% comes from renewables. We could change course. I hope that Labour Members who represent Scottish constituents have paid close attention, and I hope they have thought about whose side they are on. Labour MPs have an opportunity to join us in the voting Lobby and demonstrate clearly whose side they are on. Are they on the side of British workers, our industry, our security and our economic success, or are they on the side of an increasingly isolated Secretary of State? The Government could decide to vote to end the ban on new licences and unlock the 2.9 billion barrels of opportunity that lie below the sea. They could vote to scrap the energy profits levy and vote to approve the Rosebank and Jackdaw fields immediately, but it is clear that they will not. As ever, there is only one party with a plan to get Britain drilling again, to make Britain secure, to cut bills and to deliver a stronger economy and a stronger country. That is, and always will be, the Conservative and Unionist party.
I will keep this short, as I am conscious of time. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) for allowing me to speak in her Adjournment debate on rail connectivity between London and what she refers to as rural towns. My constituency is not exactly rural—we are on the edge of the west midlands—but the rail line she talked about runs right through Aldridge-Brownhills, hence I am speaking in this debate. I was very fortunate to travel on a recent charter service that took in the whole of the line—a number of Members were able to travel on that train—but I had to hop on in Walsall. I will come shortly to the reason for that, because the service passed right through Aldridge in my constituency. The proposed Wrexham, Shropshire and midlands railway line—the WSMR line, as we refer to it—should and could be a huge opportunity for communities such as mine in Aldridge-Brownhills. Finally reconnecting us to the rail network, it would unlock jobs, growth, investment, access to education and social links, some 60-odd years after the last passenger services left Aldridge. Sadly, however, we in Aldridge have no railway station at all, and we are at risk of missing such opportunity because of the Labour mayor. We saw new stations open at Willenhall and Darlaston just last week—projects delivered thanks to the leadership and funding of the former mayor, Andy Street—but Aldridge, by contrast, is very much in the sidings at the moment, because the Labour mayor has stripped away the funding for our station. The project had been promised to my constituents and funding had been set aside by the previous mayor, Andy Street. I want to be clear about what that means: if WSMR goes ahead—and Members should be in no doubt that I sincerely hope it does so—we could soon see trains running from Wrexham to London, which would be great, and they would be going straight through Aldridge, but they would not be able to stop, all because of the decision not to build the railway station. The reality we face is passenger trains running through our village and our communities, but my constituents being left standing on the trackside watching them pass by, which would be a complete failure of priorities. I cannot let this opportunity go without saying to the Minister that an open-access bid from WSMR is a great idea—this evening, we can show our support for it—so please will he back this line and the connectivity that our region needs? However, I challenge the decisions that risk leaving communities such as mine behind, because Aldridge does not need or want passenger services that simply run through the constituency; it needs a station where the train can actually stop.
Is there definitely space for open access in GBR? The Wrexham, Shropshire and midlands railway, which the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) talked about, is an open-access bid.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. We should start off by recognising that the life choices that adults make, in whatever way they make them, are to be respected and not criticised. This matter is not in any way a criticism of anybody who chooses a trans identity or who identifies as trans, or who chooses any other identify or identifies in any other way. It is simply about the experimentation on children. Let us be clear: we would not tolerate any form of medical experimentation on children in such an uncertain category with any other treatment. We would, quite rightly, put forward the Hippocratic oath to do no harm. To change that, particularly for a group of children who are often already suffering from some other element of potential harm, including autism, as the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) mentioned, would be to re-victimise children who are already vulnerable. This issue must be treated delicately and carefully, but the truth is that it is getting wrapped up in identity politics and being played with politically by those who wish to advertise their progressive credentials but who are forgetting that it is fundamentally about one thing: the protection of children.
I will not. Whatever the views of people in this room, there is a second element that this Government must consider. We are already seeing honourable individuals like Keira Bell who have raised the problem of detransitioning, and we are seeing the legal costs of their actions against the state. What money has the Government set aside for legal action for those who are too young to consent because they are not 18 years old and who will therefore able to bring legal action against the state for any experimentation that was done on them, as would have happened in this circumstance?
I have five children, and have watched half of them go through puberty. They continually change their minds about things. Ethically, I can see no justification for allowing children to be experimented on. What might be a short-term solution could become a permanent solution that people often grow to regret.
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I fully support the case that he is making for full transparency, but in the spirit of “I’ll start by starting”, he touched on witness statements that would have been prepared beforehand but were still not available. If the Minister accepts the principle around greater transparency, does my hon. Friend agree that certain aspects could immediately be made much more available, while some of the other technical discussions are taken in parallel?
Over the years, I have often found that when the Members on each Front Bench agree on an issue, there are dangers for Parliament, not least because legislation is often insufficiently scrutinised. Conversely, when the Back-Bench Members of each of the parties agree, it is often—it certainly was when I was a Minister—a warning sign that the Government of the day need to move. What has been uplifting about the debate we have heard so far, with evidence from those on the Government Benches—the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), who spoke very powerfully, and the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash)—as well as from my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), has been the consensus that this is a burning issue of concern to our constituents. It clearly is a burning concern, given the volume of respondents to the petition—has more than 200,000 signatories, which signals how much this matters. I do not want to divert away from today’s debate but, given the restriction of access to jury trials and that direction of travel from the Government—a direction that I regret and indeed many on the Government Benches appear to regret—the opportunity for the Government to move more quickly on transparency and transcripts is even more pertinent that it would otherwise be. I am speaking in this debate because I am keen to hear from the Minister about where he sees the sticking point. My sense from the Government’s comments today has been that they are broadly sympathetic to the direction of travel—I think the Minister is nodding his head to indicate that, and I have no reason to believe otherwise. It would be helpful, given that he and the Government are sympathetic, to understand how the House can support them in moving more quickly, and in particular whether the constraint is one of legislation. As we know from past debates in this place, this House can move very quickly on legislation when it so desires, particularly if there is cross-party agreement. Indeed, the hon. Member for Richmond Park indicated there was agreement in the House of Lords as well. If, then, the constraint is legislative, there are ample opportunities for us to address that at pace. If it is contractual, I suspect that the sums are relatively modest, given the prize on offer. It would be helpful to understand what the contractual costs would be if one were to try to terminate or to vary the agreement. Indeed, where there is significant cross-party political pressure, it is surprising how suppliers, perhaps with a view to other contracts in future, may be willing to amend a contract. If the restrictions and difficulties for Ministers are technological, we saw in the covid period that, with a clear enough demand signal from Government, it is surprising how quickly technology improvements can be put in place when there is the will to do so. But I fear that what is at fault here is not this Minister, but the slow pace at which Whitehall is in the habit of operating. That is why it is important that in this debate we support the Minister and the direction of travel that I think he wants to go in, while understanding where the blockages are. I have a few quick questions. First, given the Government’s support, as I understand it, for the recording of proceedings in court, to what extent could audio clips, either in whole or in part, be made more quickly available? If there is some concern with the accuracy of the AI, for example, are there other ways of solving that? Where can we start, rather than waiting for the whole thing to be resolved? Secondly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley touched on, witness statements and huge numbers of documents are produced as part of the discovery process in court. Court bundles—a huge number of documents—are prepared in advance of court hearings. It strikes me that much more could be done to make those available, particularly to the victims of crime, than is the case now. What assessment has been made of which parts of those court bundles could be made available? Thirdly, what exactly are the technology constraints? Again, looking at the progress in other areas of Government and commitments made by the Prime Minister about AI in No. 10 summits recently, why can we not move more quickly than the slow pace at which the Ministry of Justice appears to be operating? That is particularly pertinent because of the point my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley made about the 28-day time limit for appeal. That is a hard deadline, and yet, as he sets out, decisions often take a while to come. The cost is prohibitive, and people are not able to get the information they seek in a timely fashion ahead of the deadline. My sense is that the Government want to move in that direction, so I hope the debate today has signalled the cross-party consensus to do so. When the Minister sums up, I encourage him to clarify exactly where the blockages are. If he reads the Institute for Government reports, he will see that Ministers have a habit of moving very frequently. Those on the Government Benches who are seen as talented often move very frequently indeed. He has an opportunity during his tenure in the Ministry of Justice to move quickly, to take advantage of the cross-party support and—at a time when his own Government are restricting access to jury trials—to do something that will be hugely helpful to victims, and something that the public have signalled they want very much.
It is not surprising that the Minister is setting out the concerns that MOJ officials have no doubt raised with him about reporting restrictions and accuracy in the text, which are all valid. However, there is a danger that the perfect becomes the enemy of the good. I have two specific points. First, to what extent could the judge, as the trial proceeds, earmark packages of documents, audio recordings or other information that could be made more readily available, rather than the perfect being the enemy of the good? Secondly, the Government have made a lot of passing a duty of candour. Is the duty of candour complied with if the cost of obtaining a transcript is so high that the victim simply cannot afford it, or if it arrives after the 28 days that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) spoke about?
The Government are making top-up payments to asylum support enablement cards, but have refused to answer my written parliamentary questions regarding how many payments have been made and how much is being spent. That is even though that is information the Department must have. It is held digitally, and the accounting officer under chapter 3 of “Managing Public Money” has a duty to demonstrate that such payments constitute value for money. Can the Home Secretary say why she is covering up this information?
There is a glaring contradiction between the Defence Secretary’s statement, which refers to “taking the necessary action to strengthen our collective defence,” and announcing to the House that we will have another recess without the defence investment plan. Does he recognise that last year the Defence Committee, which has a majority of Labour Members on it, said that “demand signals will not exist until the Defence Investment Plan is published”? At a time when so many of our allies have invested in defence, does he not recognise that delaying the plan is likely to stoke inflation, undermining the spend as and when it comes?
Hatzola is an organisation that I know very well; it supports many of my constituents and is supported voluntarily by many of my constituents. It was attacked simply because of its connection to the Jewish community, which is why the community feels so deeply fearful right now. The Minister has rightly said that no Jew should have to lead a smaller life, but right now, they are—people are having to hide symbols of their faith. They fear that antisemitism is simply not taken as seriously in this country as other forms of racism. What can the Minister do to reassure my constituents and Jews up and down the country, who are deeply worried right now, that that is not the case?
I believe many children were treated with puberty blockers, among other drugs, before the Gender Identity Development Service programme was closed down. Does the hon. Member know what has happened to all the data from those children who were previously treated, or why it should be necessary to treat any more children with these drugs until enough time has elapsed to enable that data, and the treatment’s consequences, to be verified?
May I remind Defence Ministers yet again that they should be comparing increases in defence expenditure not with the post-cold war years, but with what we used to spend on defence during the cold war years, which was between 4.5% and 5% of GDP? Can the Secretary of State look the House straight in the eye, as it were, and say that, given the very close relationship between China and the Mauritians, which includes a 25-year treaty of co-operation, it would be a sounder situation if Mauritius had sovereignty over Diego Garcia and we were only lessees to them?
The people who carry out such attacks are mainly seeking to terrorise the target community, but the people who plan such attacks often have another end in mind, which is to set two communities at each other’s throats. Without revealing anything that one should not about the techniques of the Security Service, can we spare a moment to pay tribute to those members of the Muslim community who bravely go undercover to infiltrate plots of this sort, who are briefly seen in court, often under an assumed name, when convictions are assured, and without whose work many more such plots would succeed than is the case?
We can debate what the armed forces think or do not think, but I always think it best to leave them out of these debates. However, there is an issue here at home, and defence of the realm is defence at home first and foremost. We know that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has threatened us on these shores endlessly for a number of years, and many colleagues across the House have called for it to be proscribed. As yet, in the middle of this war, we have not proscribed the IRGC, but it would make the life of our security services so much easier if we did so. Will the Secretary of State please get up and say that it is his determination that the IRGC should be proscribed and kicked out, or arrested for all the awful deeds that it does by chasing, hounding, and killing people on British shores?
With the Government’s plans to regionalise police forces and the potential scrapping of Staffordshire constabulary, many involved in the care of vulnerable young people fear that there will be less focus on protecting children as fewer senior police officers will be working with local authorities to ensure that they are cared for. What actions will the Minister take to ensure that that does not happen?
1. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the number of asylum seekers on levels of recorded crime.
The Home Secretary knows perfectly well how much it worries and infuriates people that people can enter this country illegally and commit crimes, and that there is no proper vetting procedure before they are unloosed on society. To reassure our own citizens, will she ensure that everybody who enters this country illegally is detained and fully vetted, and, as most of their asylum claims are bogus anyway, perhaps deal with their asylum claims while they are in detention and then deport them to protect our own people?