5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
Hundreds of public sector bodies, including a number of Departments and arm’s length bodies, are registered to sponsored visas, as the Minister will know. Does she agree that the public sector should lead from the front and sponsor visas by exception only in the cases of hiring truly world-class talent? Can she confirm whether all Departments and arm’s length bodies are complying with the guidance issued by the Cabinet Office?
I thank the Minister for his statement. I have a constituent who has a 16-year-old daughter in Dubai seeking repatriation to the UK. May I put on the record my thanks to the officials for all the work they are doing? I have heard the Minister today say that the advice now is not to travel by land from Dubai to Oman, but my constituent, as of this morning, is very concerned for the safety of her daughter, who has been told to travel the 400 km to Oman to catch a repatriation flight without consular assistance. It sounds like the advice may have changed recently. Please can the Minister look into this, particularly to ensure that UK minors who are trapped in the region are provided with the right consular support, so that they can transit safely to Oman to catch those repatriation flights?
The National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell commenced his role on 2 December 2024, and his appointment was announced on 8 November 2024. I appreciate that the Minister will not have this information to hand, but I would be grateful if he could write to me and confirm when the National Security Adviser was granted security clearance for that role.
On his visit to Washington in February last year, the Prime Minister and Peter Mandelson had an undisclosed meeting with US data company Palantir. Palantir at the time was a client of Global Counsel, the company in which Peter Mandelson retained a commanding share. Later that year, Palantir received a direct award for £240 million from this Government. Given the apparent conflict of interests, will the Minister agree to publish full details of that meeting in February last year, and explain why it was not disclosed at the time?
I never had an undisclosed meeting with Palantir, with a person—[Interruption.] I never had an undisclosed meeting with Palantir, with a man who was advising that company. This is something entirely different, as the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister knows full well. There was an undisclosed meeting between the Prime Minister and that company in February last year. That should not have happened. This looks, to all intents and purposes, like a conflict of interests. Will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister agree to publish that information? He says it is within the scope of the Humble Address, but the Humble Address was about the appointment of Lord Mandelson. This is not about the appointment of Lord Mandelson; this is about a meeting that the Prime Minister and Mandelson had in February 2025. Will the Minister please publish the details of that meeting, and ensure that the new Cabinet Secretary looks into what happened at that meeting, and everything between that meeting and the direct award?
Yesterday, in the light of the new China spy case, I asked the Security Minister to place China on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. He told us that FIRS is “a relatively new tool”, and that the Government “are seeking to ensure that we can derive the maximum operational capability from it.”—[Official Report, 4 March 2026; Vol. 781, c. 817.] That is wonderful Whitehall language, but will he please tell us what it means?
Well, it is not very clear, because FIRS is three years old. This morning, I spoke to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), who established FIRS. When he was establishing it, MI5 told him that it was essential for understanding the operation of the Chinese state in the UK. The enhanced tier would impose mandatory registration and transparency requirements on individuals and organisations in the UK working with Chinese entities. I think most people in this House would now agree that that is entirely necessary. It is there to help our security services protect our country. Please will the Security Minister give us a date by which he will come back to this House to tell us definitively whether he will put China on the enhanced tier, and to set out his explanation?
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to return to this subject. It is very clear that the Government do not wish to have an investigation into what happened at the meeting between Lord Mandelson, the Prime Minister and Palantir, and everything that occurred between that meeting and the direct award given to Palantir later in the year. This is clearly a possible conflict of interest. Given that the Government do not wish to investigate the matter, what options are at the disposal of the House to force such an investigation?
I absolutely endorse everything that the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee has said about the BBC World Service. Will she, in the time available, make a brief comment about its sister organisation, BBC Monitoring? That monitoring service used to receive a modest ringfenced grant from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, as it then was, but that was done away with, and it is now entirely dependent on the BBC’s wider organisation for its funding. Is not the restoration of that dedicated ringfenced grant for BBC Monitoring, which filters all the most interesting comments that other countries’ broadcasters are making, long overdue?
I am very grateful for the opportunity to debate the future spending of the Foreign Office. The Foreign Affairs Committee, which I sit on, shares the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) about the impact of the settlement, which will result in significant reductions in headcount within the Department. We have tried in vain to discover exactly how that will impact on its different activities, but at a time when the world is becoming an ever more dangerous place and when the need for British diplomacy and soft power is increasing, it seems utterly extraordinary that we should be cutting back spending on the Foreign Office. I fully support the Government’s ambition to increase spending on defence—indeed, I press them to go further—but soft power is as important as hard power. That is the area in which this country has built an extraordinary reputation for effectiveness, yet we are potentially going to cut it back exactly when it is needed most. Will the Minister say specifically what the future is of the Soft Power Council, which was set up by the previous Foreign Secretary and was something I strongly welcomed? The Foreign Affairs Committee took evidence about the work of that council, but it has gone very quiet in recent months, and I hear disturbing rumours that it is no longer regarded as a priority by the Department. I hope that in his response, the Minister will be able to assure me that that is not the case. I want to touch on three areas of Foreign Office funding. The first, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Rotherham, is the BBC World Service. The need for reliable, trusted information around the world is greater than ever before, yet we are seeing America withdraw from that. Voice of America, Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia have all been cut right back, leaving a gap that I was told this morning is being filled by Russia and China. That makes the BBC World Service even more important as virtually the sole reliable source to which people can turn, yet I understand that it has still not been told how much money it will get in 2026-27. I was allowed to attend the Public Accounts Committee a few weeks ago when the director general of the BBC and the director of the World Service told us of the impossibility of planning ahead in such circumstances. Here we are, just a few weeks before the beginning of the financial year, and they still have not been told. I ask the Minister to confirm whether the BBC World Service can find out how much it will get, and I also press him to increase that money. Originally, the BBC World Service was told that it should plan for a real-terms freeze or a possible cash cut. That comes at the same time as the licence fee is under pressure and the BBC is reducing its contributions to the World Service through the licence fee. So the World Service is subject to a double squeeze. I have considerable sympathy for the World Service, but the right mechanism of funding is through the Foreign Office, and I support the BBC’s request that the Government consider returning to the position of the World Service being fully funded by the Government. Secondly, I want to touch on the British Council, which we know faces huge challenges, principally as a result of the loan that was advanced to it during the time of covid. Unlike many other organisations that were given loans and not required to repay them, the British Council is being required to repay the loan even though it appears to have almost no prospect of being able to do so. At the moment, the British Council’s outgoings are greater than its income, so it cannot pay the loan and nor is it viable. I thank the Minister for the briefing that I and the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee have been given about the future of the British Council, and I urge him to press ahead with drawing up a plan that will both meet the existing challenges and set out a route forward that will put the British Council on a firm footing. It does incredibly important work, especially in those parts of the world where malign forces seek to influence democratic elections and people’s attitudes.
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. He is right about the importance of the work, which is not always fully visible, including in established countries—I have a particular knowledge of and interest in the Baltic nations, which are on the frontline against Russia. Latvia especially has a Russian minority population that is subject to a constant barrage of attempts by Russia to influence it. That is an area where the British Council is very active, and I am concerned by reports that it may be forced to withdraw from its activities in the Baltic nations. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, Russia and China are active in other countries that are of huge importance strategically but at risk of tipping back into the orbit of hostile powers. The British Council can play an important part in seeking to prevent that.
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Africa is of huge importance, and if ever we needed a reminder of the risk posed to the values we hold dear from hostile powers, in particular China, we had a perfect demonstration in the statement earlier today. Thirdly, I want to touch on media freedom, which I am delighted that the Minister has specific responsibility for. I welcome the commitment he has already shown to it. The Media Freedom Coalition was established under the last Government by the then Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt). It is great news that the Foreign Secretary was able to announce in Munich recently that the UK will take back the chair of the coalition. It is even more important today than it was when it was set up. I hope that taking back the chair will not just be symbolic but matched by a real commitment to promoting media freedom, which is under huge threat in a wide range of countries. We have seen journalists threatened with imprisonment, harassed and, in some cases, murdered. The UK has a very important role to play in promoting media freedom and taking a lead on such things as the introduction of visas for journalists who are under threat and sanctions. I was pleased to see that we have just placed sanctions on Georgia—[Interruption.] You suggest to me that other Members wish to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will just say that I hope the Minister will be able to say more about those three areas in his response.
As I hope the Minister would accept, the last trial of those accused of alleged espionage on behalf of China foundered—to put it at its mildest—because of a lack of shared understanding between the Crown Prosecution Service and the Government about the evidence that the Government could properly submit in support of that prosecution. I do not expect him to comment about the specifics of this case, but would he accept that it would be sensible for the Government now to ensure that as this matter develops, no such misunderstanding occurs, and that the relationship between the CPS and the Government is in the right place to ensure that evidential conversations are held early rather than late? Finally, would he accept that it would be sensible for the Intelligence and Security Committee to be kept up to date as this matter develops, given that we meet in private and the risks of prejudicing future prosecutions are lower in our case?
The Minister may be aware that the Public Accounts Committee held a session on 8 January on the BBC World Service. At that session, we pushed for the BBC to be given a budget for the World Service, but here we are, two months on, and I understand that we have still not had notification of that budget, although we are nearly at the beginning of the next financial year. Will the Minister tell us when that budget will be forthcoming?
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am grateful to catch your eye to speak in this very important debate. I congratulate the Chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), not only on securing this important estimates day debate, but on his excellent speech. We face a common problem, so I am afraid that some of my speech will repeat what he said, but I can assure the House that we did not collaborate on our speeches. The job of the PAC, as the House knows, is to look at expenditure right across Government. However, Ministry of Defence procurements and finances have too often been dysfunctional in the past. Indeed, the Comptroller and Auditor General qualified his opinion on this year’s MOD accounts because it could not provide adequate accounting records to support the value of assets under construction of £6.13 billion. It also incurred non-budget expenditure of £2.56 billion, which will result in an excess vote. This debate could not have come at a more significant time, with the events in Ukraine and the middle east. When the PAC last examined the defence procurement budget, over two years ago, the 10-year programme was £16.9 billion in deficit, which the National Audit Office described at that time as “unaffordable”. In June last year, the Government announced a highly ambitious strategic defence review. The defence investment plan—and I absolutely echo the remarks of the Chairman of the Defence Committee—has been continuously promised at the Dispatch Box, but we are still without the detail. We know that nuclear is consuming over 25% of the entire budget and growing, which is bound to have a knock-on effect on how much we can afford to spend on the rest of the procurement programme, so it is vital that we have the defence investment plan. I say to the Minister in the most gentle but persuasive way I possibly can that, if we achieve nothing else from this debate, will he confirm in clear terms when the defence investment plan will be published so that the PAC, the Defence Committee and the House can scrutinise it properly? I note that, during today’s Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister did not answer the question from the Leader of the Opposition about the date of publication.
It is shocking, as my hon. Friend says from the Front Bench. As the Chair of the Defence Committee said, not only is it terrible for defence companies wanting to be able to plan their manufacturing programmes, but it is not good for MOD personnel, because they do not know how to plan either. Current events in the middle east have given a serious warning that we need to increase defence expenditure. It is therefore really important that we see the defence investment plan so that Parliament can scrutinise the latest plans. Without this information, the Office for Budget Responsibility has questioned whether the Government will be able to reach their target of 3% in five years’ time. That will also be too late, because we need to get the investment soon. As everybody knows—and the Minister certainly knows—it takes a long time to procure and manufacture some of these important bits of kit, so we need to get on with that now.
The hon. and gallant Member has great experience in these matters. I think he must have been reading my speech. If he is patient, I think he will get exactly what he wants. The PAC recommended more than two years ago that the Government should set up a sensitive scrutiny committee to examine confidential military expenditure. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for Defence and the Minister on the Front Bench today, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, for their careful consideration of that matter. I hope it will now be possible to make real progress, but as the Minister will remember, I raised this matter in the estimates debate in June last year. I hope it will not be necessary to raise it again in another year’s time. There is a commitment to increase defence expenditure from 2.2% of GDP to 2.5% by 2027, followed by an increase to 3.5% of GDP by 2035. In the Government spending review, the current budget is expected to increase by 18.2%, or £11.3 billion by 2028-29. Minister, we really do need to see those numbers incorporated into the Government’s expenditure plan in the autumn Budget so that we can be absolutely certain about them. Many Members will know—certainly the Chair of the Defence Committee knows, because I have been a guest on his Committee—that the MOD has been reorganised into the Quad: the permanent secretary Jeremy Pocklington; the Chief of the Defence Staff, Air Chief Marshal Richard Knighton; the National Armaments Director, Rupert Pearce; and the Chief Of Defence Nuclear, Madeleine McTernan. I sincerely hope, given their new powers, they will radically reform how the MOD functions. We need to take a more strategic view of systems that we procure—going to the point made by the hon. Member for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas)—and consider above all the capability and speed we are able to acquire them. Why is it, I say to the Minister, that the Japanese can procure their version of the highly sophisticated Type 26 frigate, a Mogami class, in a third of the time that we do? The consequence of that is that the Australians have just struck a deal for £10 billion to purchase those ships from the Japanese. Why is it that the Israelis can procure their military equipment with just 1,000 people, yet our procurement body, Defence Equipment and Support, employs 12,500 people? Our procurement system is far too slow, subject to mission creep, usually late and usually over-budget. As the Chair of the Defence Committee said, Ajax is a classic example of all those problems. We need to learn those lessons, move on and make sure they do not happen in future. Last week, as the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) mentioned—he is no longer in his place—I joined a group of 20 MPs who visited Ukraine. We were in air raid shelters several times during our visits to Odessa and Kyiv. On one night the Russians fired 290 drones: 220 were destroyed but 70 got through, causing a significant amount of damage, and a few injuries and fatalities as well. Ukraine’s technology and digital capability in tracking and destroying those drones is some of the most sophisticated in the world. The drone operators’ experiences are directly and rapidly informing their procurement decisions. The Ukrainians are able to change the specification of their drones within a week. I suggest that it would probably take us some months to do the same thing. One of the top Ukrainian military experts told us that the future of warfare was following three domains: drones, cyber/electronic and space. I think, hearing those words, that some of our capabilities in those areas need bolstering pretty rapidly. We and NATO need to learn the lessons of the war in Ukraine. Without being too specific, there are severe gaps in NATO’s anti-drone technology. The experts also made the telling point that modern main battle tanks can cost between $4 million to $9 million per unit, but they can be destroyed by a swarm of drones costing less than $20,000 each. They say that tanks are effectively redundant. The Ukrainians inform us that 80% of their kills are as a result of drone strikes. Modern warfare is changing rapidly, and the MOD needs to be sufficiently agile to adapt. From the recent activity in Cyprus, and other lessons learned from the conflict in Ukraine and ongoing war in the middle east, we need to invest in comprehensive counter-drone systems and training across our armed forces. As an example, we use the Sky Sabre air defence system, which can shoot down drones, but can cost up to £250,000 a shot. We need to invest further in anti-drone technology to ensure we can do this far more rapidly and cheaply. As I am sure the Minister is aware, last Thursday the PAC visited RAF Marham, which houses two F-35 squadrons. I have four main takeaways from that visit, all of which stem from the lack of urgency to be ready for war according to General Walker’s three-year timescale. First, the accommodation for our servicemen needs urgent upgrading. It is a disgrace that servicemen can be sent on long tours while their families do not have proper accommodation. My second takeaway was the effect that has on retention. We were told that pilots and training instructors for the F-35 programme are 50% below optimum levels, which is highly unsatisfactory for a project of this importance. Thirdly, it is difficult to plan the whole operation when the timing and procurement of the additional 27 F-35s are unclear. Hopefully, that will be revealed in the defence investment plan when it is published. Fourthly, one of the squadrons had recently returned from the highly successful Operation Highmast to deploy around the world, ending up in Japan. Now, in a matter of a week or two, they have had to redeploy to the middle east. This is a good illustration of how some of our servicemen face considerable stretch. This is to be expected in wartime, but more resources must be deployed to support them and their families. Another example of that is that our submarine crew on HMS Vanguard recently served a 204-day deployment. The MOD budget is going to grow considerably, but the money is not going to purchase military hardware in the most strategic or cost-effective way. That will happen only if the Quad radically reforms the way the MOD has been run, especially with smarter recruitment of personnel and procurement of equipment.
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. In the reorganisation of the MOD into the Quad that I have talked about, the critical person is the Chief of the Defence Staff, because he has now assumed responsibility for all personnel matters. I am sure that he will be looking at this very carefully. We need to look at recruiting people with different skills from those we have recruited for in the past. To operate drones, for instance, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we need people with good computer and dexterity skills. That may mean recruiting youngsters, who have the brains to be able to do this work, but who are not necessarily the people we would traditionally have recruited to be running around the battlefield 100% of the time. It might mean different things; it might mean retraining some of our existing personnel to operate these new weapons. Above all, our armed forces are at the lowest they have been for decades—the Army in particular. We will need to bolster the numbers somewhat because of the reason I have just given: the overstretch of our personnel. We cannot go on doing that to them. We need to have enough people available on rotation so that next time a long deployment comes around, different people—different regiments and different squadrons—are deployed. There are a lot of things we need to think about when it comes to personnel. One is that we must have a pipeline in the future. The PAC did an inquiry into reserves and cadets, and it seems to me that we need to do a little better in both categories. [Interruption.] I can see that you are urging me to finish, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have overrun, but I did not wish to try your patience. Simply put, we cannot go on doing what we did in the past. We need to do things differently and better in the future.
The Chinese only represent strength, and for them everything is transactional, so I think the country would rejoice if the Government were to summon the Chinese ambassador and say to him, “This sort of behaviour is intolerable. You cannot build this mega-embassy in just about the most sensitive site in London while you behave like this.” I am not asking about what MI5 and MI6 have said. This is transactional. We must say, “Treat British nationals like Jimmy Lai properly, and don’t spy on us; otherwise, we’re going to pause this embassy until you learn to behave.”
Will the Minister, in listening mode, listen to Welsh sheep farmers who are desperately concerned about being able to access Australian and New Zealand sheep shearers this year, as this is now an animal welfare issue? What conversations has she had with her right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to ensure that those Commonwealth citizens can come in—they never overstay, and are here only for the shearing season—and ensure that sheep farming in Wales, and across the United Kingdom, can be supported and continue to flourish?
We have had a wide-ranging debate. I will not touch on all the areas mentioned, but I will add a few others. While the debate focuses on budgets and all the other issues around the FCDO’s work, its people and the reforms, it is overshadowed by ongoing events in the middle east. With British nationals in the region sheltering, fearful for their safety while Iran is indiscriminately firing missiles and drones, perhaps this is an opportunity for the Minister to say a few words about the steps being taken to support British nationals in the region. As we know, our bases are being fired on by the Iranians, and British nationals are in fear for their lives. I know that everyone in the FCDO is working hard to protect Britain’s interests in the region and the safety and security of our bases against the Iranian threat. In the light of the fact that our nationals and bases are under threat, when will the Foreign Secretary call in the Iranian terrorist regime’s spokesperson in London? Frankly, this is a very difficult and worrying time. As the debate covers FCDO resources, the Prime Minister said on Sunday that our allies in the Gulf had asked the British Government to do more to defend them. Is that happening now to the extent that it genuinely can? Is there an issue with resources and deployments? Perhaps the Minister might be able to update the House on whether the Government have taking any action at all to support and protect international shipping, particularly during this difficult time when we have significant defence expertise in the region. We all pay a big tribute to our armed forces, who are doing so much for our service personnel and their families in the region. At times like these, the expertise of officials and diplomats is essential, and we pay tribute to and thank them. We know that the FCDO has undertaken a programme of efficiency savings—that has been touched on—and that there is some upheaval in the Department. The Conservative party is supportive of the principle of finding efficiencies and streamlining in government—there is no question of that—but it is important that that is done in the right way and that we do not lose expertise and capabilities. We cannot lose them in the diplomatic service—I use that phrase deliberately—because they are a vital asset to our country and to our national interests. We have invested in their training, skills and capability, and they are literally on the frontline around the world battling for our national interests. I would welcome the Minister giving an update on the impacts of some of the upcoming changes. One area where the FCDO has been spending money, and on which Opposition Members, including me, have been asking questions—written questions and letters to the Department—is with regards to the disgraced former ambassador to the United States, Peter Mandelson, and his payouts and expenses. I have received some non-answers to written parliamentary questions. In the light of the investigations taking place, I appreciate that some of what my questions asked about may be sensitive, but hard-pressed taxpayers deserve the right to know the financial cost of the Prime Minister’s terrible judgment in making that appointment. There is not only that appalling financial cost, but the impact on our incredible team in Washington. Given the outstanding team in our mission there, working so hard with regards to our special relationship, to appoint the Prime Minister’s crony to that role is unforgivable. One of the biggest costs to British taxpayers could be the result of another foreign policy failure: Labour’s Chagos surrender deal. The Prime Minister told a press conference last year that the costs were just £3.4 billion, claiming that was “how the OBR counts the cost”. However, the Office for Budget Responsibility confirmed in a letter to me that it “does not hold any information on the costs or financial impacts of the specific treaty over the future sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago” and that it has not “undertaken any modelling of these costs.” We should not be surprised by that misinformation. The Prime Minister has said a lot about the deal—he also stated that China, Russia and Iran oppose the deal, when in fact they back Mauritius—but the fact is that the Opposition had to drag out the information about the forecast costs, which will be £35 billion. That is taxpayers’ money, so Ministers should provide full clarity. If the Minister cannot do that today, the House is owed a written explanation in the light of what the OBR said. We want Ministers to be transparent—it is public money, at the end of the day—including under which budget lines in the FCDO budget the costs of the Chagos surrender will come. The Attorney General of Mauritius is complaining that Mauritius has not yet received any of the money it was expecting from the British Government—some 10 billion Mauritian rupees, or 4% of its revenues. Clearly this money has to be accounted for from the FCDO’s or the Government’s budgets, so can the Minister tell us what further sums of money are being paid to Mauritius under the strategic partnership signed alongside the treaty last year, and other schemes? The Mauritian Government are also expecting a further 86 million Mauritian rupees in support from the UK Government in their current financial year. That is in their country’s budget, so can the Minister disclose when this is being accounted for? British taxpayers deserve to know what is happening to this money. Can the Minister also give details of what the £135,000 of funding referenced on page 99 of the supplementary estimates is for? It is in section K. I do not need to go into the full details; I am sure the Minister’s officials will get that information for him. Of course, one way to deal with all of this, and to save British taxpayers a lot of money, is to tear up this terrible surrender treaty. That money could go to many of the areas that hon. Friends and colleagues have discussed this afternoon. Could the Minister also provide some clarity as to when the Bill is coming back? I noticed that the Minister for the Middle East got himself into a bit of difficulty last week, and I think clarity would be welcome. The whole House should also be concerned about the actions of the Chinese Communist party. The FCDO plays a key role in this relationship. In the last few weeks the Prime Minister has visited China and the Foreign Secretary has met Wang Yi in Munich, yet there is very little to show for this relationship so far. We must bear in mind what the CCP is doing and the harm it is causing by jailing Jimmy Lai for 20 years, which is political persecution, by putting bounties of the heads of Hongkongers living in our country, and by spying on our own country and democratic institutions. We heard only moments ago the Security Minister’s statement that three people were arrested today under counter-terrorism legislation. I introduced the National Security Bill in Parliament back in 2022, and I think it is fair to say that every single Member in this House is deeply concerned about what is going on. This does not stand our country in good stead. It damages our reputation in the world. I am going to say it again: it is time that the FCDO and the Government played an important role by placing China on the enhanced tier of FIRS. We must be robust in defending our national interests. My hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) spoke earlier about education and the Palestinian Authority. While the situation in Israel, Gaza and the west bank continues to cause a great deal of concern, the 20-point peace plan is now out there and in my view the UK needs to use its influence to support it. We need to see progress on the dismantling of Hamas, and we need to see aid getting to where it needs to get to. The FCDO plays an important role in that. We also need to see progress on reforming the Palestinian Authority, as has been pointed out today. When it comes to questions around education, we have heard some very robust comments today. The Minister for the Middle East referred to an audit taking place on “pay to slay” and reviews of the education curriculum, which is deeply worrying. We need assurances from the Government immediately that they are being robust around the £101 million of British taxpayers’ money that was given to the Palestinian Authority last year and that that money is not going into supporting those appalling practices. The one-year anniversary of the memorandum of understanding is coming up next month. There should be some transparency on this, and I welcome the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury. Many hon. Members have referenced aid, ODA and the budget this afternoon. It is right that the funding has been repurposed to support our defence and security, given the threats that we face. Our contributions make a difference, and it is vital that the Government continue to explain the projects they are prioritising, to make sure that the money is followed, tracked and traced and that all outcomes are working for our national interests. We must ensure that every single penny counts and that there is transparency and removal of waste in spending. There has not been enough discussion about the role of private sector finance and the multilateral development banks, about where the FCDO sits on that and about what is happening to our money in those institutions. That matter is absolutely vital, but there is very little scrutiny in this House. The Minister who holds this portfolio fully may be in the other House, but these issues should be scrutinised here. At the end of the day, this is public money. While there are many areas of conflict in the world, the UK continues to make a difference, and the whole House should recognise that. We have heard colleagues speak about the brutality of the war in Sudan—it is absolutely appalling, and much has been said in the House on that. In Afghanistan, basic human rights are being denied. Women’s basic freedoms are being suppressed, and those rights have to be restored. On Syria, perhaps the Minister could add something about where our resources are going with regard to the transitional Government and the Syrian Democratic Forces. What are we putting in, and what is happening on stability and bringing peace there? There is still a lack of accountability around the destruction of chemical weapons, the state’s ability to deal with ISIS, which we deal with in this country through the Ministry of Defence, and the strikes that are essential to reduce ISIS. On reports that Syria has been deploying troops on its border with Lebanon in recent days, does the Minister agree that Hezbollah must not be able to draw on arms smuggled across the border? On the Government’s decision to lift a wave of Syria sanctions, has any work been undertaken to measure the impact to ensure that bad actors are not facilitated and do not profit? All those issues affect us and the FCDO in many of its roles and responsibilities. I want to quickly make a couple of other points. We have all marked the fourth anniversary of Putin’s awful full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The House is united on Ukraine, but the Minister’s Department has an important role to play with the MOD in ensuring that resources get into Ukraine and that we support Ukraine. Also, when it comes to going after Russia and its financial flows—this is about both sanctions and the shadow fleet—we need to ensure that oil finances in particular are being tackled. Sanction busting must stop, and Britain has a role to play there. Finally, it is absolutely right that Britain stands tall in the world, and the FCDO is pivotal in that. Whether it is soft power or hard power or our diplomats around the world, how we project our country’s power and influence is vital to securing our interests both at home and abroad, and protecting British nationals overseas and keeping our country safe from threats is what the Foreign Office leads on and does well in. There is still much more to do, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s responses to my questions.
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. I assume that he informed the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) and the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) about his intention to refer to them.
He is nodding affirmatively. As was made clear from the Chair when this matter was raised during a point of order on Monday, there is a mechanism for correcting the record for any Member who wishes to do so, but that is a matter for individual Members themselves. The hon. Member has now placed his own view substantially on the record.
I appreciate the hon. Member’s concern, but the Chair is not responsible for the content of the statements made by Ministers. Ministers will no doubt update the House when and if appropriate.
I see the Ministers are nodding positively. It is not a matter for the Chair. I will leave it there, because I do not want to continue the debate any further.
Order. If colleagues could keep their contributions to under 10 minutes, it would help other Members. I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
I pay tribute to our brave servicemen and women in the middle east during this very difficult period. Our bases in Cyprus and Bahrain have now been attacked. The US has taken offensive action to destroy missile launch sites to defend British territory. Why will the Prime Minister not allow the RAF to do the same?
That was not the question I asked the Prime Minister. Nobody wants to see an escalation. The fact is—[Interruption.] In case Labour MPs do not realise, the fact is that our bases have already been attacked. Iran is trying to kill our servicemen and women, and the Prime Minister is catching arrows rather than stopping the archer. That is what we are talking about. Why is he asking our allies to do what we should be doing ourselves? I say to Labour MPs that we are in this war whether they like it or not. What is the Prime Minister waiting for?
The Prime Minister has read out a long list—it is not enough. He says that we are pre-deploying; the one ship that we are sending, HMS Dragon, is still in Portsmouth. The fact is that the Type 45s cannot take out incoming missiles. This is not enough—he has read out a long list, but the people who understand know that it is not enough. He should be doing more. Yesterday, the Chancellor could have given more money to defence. [Interruption.] I do not know why Labour MPs are laughing—I do not know why that is funny. It is not funny. Yesterday, the Chancellor could have given more money to defence; instead, she gave more money for welfare. Their priorities are all wrong—[Interruption.] They can chunter as much as they like. The fact of the matter is that the war in Iran is happening now—[Interruption.]
The country will not be distracted by Labour MPs moaning. The fact of the matter is that the war in Iran is happening now, but the Office for Budget Responsibility says that the Government will not hit 3% on defence for five years. The war is happening now. There is no urgency from the Prime Minister. Why is he leaving the job of funding our armed forces to the next Government?
I was not asking about evacuations; I was asking about defence spending. The Prime Minister needs to focus on the question he is being asked, not the statement that was prepared in the bunker. He stands there telling us that he is spending more money on defence—[Interruption.] No, he is not. In fact, the Government are cutting defence spending by £2.6 billion from the Ministry of Defence budget this year, and that is why there are no Royal Navy warships in the middle east—[Interruption.] He should ask his Defence Secretary for the numbers, because that is what is happening. In June last year, the Government promised that their plan for funding our armed forces would be ready by autumn. In autumn, they promised it would be ready by the end of 2025. It is March 2026 and still nothing. Can the Prime Minister tell the House when his defence investment plan will finally be published?
The Prime Minister does not want to talk about the defence investment plan because he does not know. He does not know what is going on in respect of any policy, so he reads pre-prepared statements irrespective of the question, and the whole country can see it. The truth is that, because the Government spent money on welfare, there is no defence investment plan, and because there is no defence investment plan, they are not ordering enough missiles. The fact is that this crisis goes beyond defence spending—[Interruption.] They can chant as much as they like. They are pathetic, spending money on welfare instead of defence. But they are not just pathetic; they are also weak. This crisis goes beyond defence spending; it is also about the cost of living. This war is interrupting the supply of oil and gas, which is dragging up the cost of petrol and making it more expensive to heat our homes, yet the Prime Minister is stopping drilling in the North sea while importing the same oil and gas from Norway. Does he think that, at a time of geopolitical crisis, it makes sense to kill our oil and gas industry and give up that ready supply of energy?
The Prime Minister, again, does not understand the energy transition. You do not need to stop drilling for oil and gas to get renewables. This is basic stuff. The Prime Minister does not understand his policy. He has a sea of orcs and goons who have no idea at all how anything is working. [Interruption.] They can complain all they like. The fact is that they are letting down the people—
Mr Speaker, I have not asked my question. The situation in Iran shows that this Prime Minister has the wrong priorities. When it comes to defence, it is someone else’s job. When it comes to welfare, the Government find the money. When our bases are attacked, they call the lawyers. When our energy security is under threat, they stop drilling in the North sea. After last week’s by-election, is it not the truth—[Interruption.] They are going to hear it, whether they like it or not. Is it not the truth that the Prime Minister is prioritising his job security over our national security?
I hope that the Chairman of the Select Committee, who is making an excellent speech, will forgive me for interrupting him. He has referred to readiness and timings. Is he, like me, concerned about the comment on—from memory—page 43 of the strategic defence review that we must be prepared to fight a peer enemy by 2035, which is nine years from now? We may not have that much time.
Q3. In my constituency, the Liberal Democrat-run Three Rivers district council has failed for years to submit an adequate local plan. It now has a ministerial direction, and prime green-belt land faces a serious threat from this Government’s harmful planning policies. How does the Prime Minister expect me to explain to my constituents that, while I consistently defend our green belt, the Liberal Democrats’ incompetence has made it vulnerable to destruction by this Labour Government?
Let us try this again: one of the UK’s greatest strengths is the ability of all four nations to trade freely in a strong internal market. This Labour Government’s choice to permit their colleagues in Cardiff Bay to include glass in their deposit return scheme risks sectors, livelihoods and market withdrawal. The UK Spirits Alliance and the wider food and drink sector warn that this will disrupt supply chains, deter future investment and hamper growth. Will the Secretary of State accept that the scheme is unworkable and unenforceable, and will she act to protect the United Kingdom from this separatism?
Or the Government could just not do it, as we Conservatives say. Wales has the highest unemployment and economic inactivity rates in the UK. Following the spring forecast, the Office for Budget Responsibility confirmed that the Chancellor’s welfare spending will increase by a staggering £18 billion to £333 billion this year alone, up 5.8%. In the light of those figures, what measure is the Secretary of State taking to jump-start confidence and boost economic growth in Wales, so that work pays, and people see that the Government are not just about welfare dependence and bankrupting the country?
I know that I am risking the wrath of the rest of the Committee, but, as I understand the Minister’s explanation, moving the functions from a corporation sole to a body corporate slightly dilutes the personal role of the Information Commissioner inasmuch as it spreads responsibility to a board. The last time I checked, the Information Commissioner was being paid about £200,000—that was in 2021. Will the changes put more or less responsibility on the current Information Commissioner? Will they be paid more or less?
Does the Minister think that that will expand or detract from the commissioner’s personal responsibilities and accountabilities?