Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office
Does the hon. Lady remember who led on the international response on Ukraine?
5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office
I am grateful to my constituency neighbour for giving way on that point. Would she like to give us a couple of examples where overseas development aid has prevented crises in the way that she describes?
- Hansard source
Ministry of Defence
I note that the House rose three hours early yesterday, yet we each get three minutes to speak about the defence estimate. Radically, I want to talk about the estimate itself; much as I would love to do some soaring Churchillian rhetoric, I will instead limit myself to the MOD’s supplementary estimate memorandum, which was reported to the House on 10 February, and I want to highlight two elements. Paragraph 1.1 lists the departmental expenditure limits for resource, capital and annually managed expenditure. Despite all the rhetoric about leaving black holes and this, that and the other, resource was actually £39 billion in 2022, £42 billion in the next year, and £45 billion in the year after. We then have the supplementary estimate, where the resource departmental expenditure limit goes up to a whopping £58 billion, and I thought, “Happy days!” This must be the new Labour Government that we have heard about, who have come along and put loads of new money in. This will be the ammunition we have been wanting, or the pay bump for personnel that will increase morale so effectively. However, I then looked at the footnote—forgive me, it is in very small print, for obvious reasons—which states: “2025-26 one-off increase in Resource is mainly driven by the Ringfenced RDEL increase to cover depreciation and impairments due to non-routine accounting adjustments.” I am just a simple soldier, but that does not sound a lot like ammunition to me. If the Minister could address that point when he sums up, I would be grateful. Equally, paragraph 2.1.3 covers annual managed expenditure. In the main estimate, which was published only a few months ago, the figure for this period was £1.7 billion. However, in the supplementary estimate, that figure has gone up to £7 billion—a 309% increase. Again, when I look at the small print, it says that these changes, “reflect the latest in-year forecast and reflect the application of updated discount rates to provisions”. When the Minister sums up, would he like to reassure the House that he has not been taken captive by the accountants in the Ministry of Defence, and that he is actually spending some new money on some new capability? From the estimate I have read today, that does not appear to be the case.
- Hansard source
Healthcare in Rural Areas
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) for securing this debate on such an important topic. Any Member who represents a rural constituency can attest to the practical challenges that our healthcare system faces in the countryside. It can often be difficult to sustain genuinely local GP services, and that forces people to travel long distances to access care. Where services do exist, they are often unable to provide the full suite of care owing to resource shortages or manpower deficiencies. Hospitals, of course, are even further away. The current make-up of the workforce and workload cannot meet those challenges, so I was heartened by this Government’s plans, introduced earlier this year, to prioritise British medical graduates over foreign-trained doctors, though there is still much work to be done on ensuring that our medical training system rewards our most talented graduates. I have also been heartened by some of the Health Secretary’s rhetoric on Pharmacy First, and the need to reduce the workload on doctors, so that the public can access basic services without contributing to the NHS waiting list. It is a superb initiative, and was launched by my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) under the previous Conservative Government. Clearly we need to move the healthcare service towards a model that reduces the workload on doctors, trains more of our workforce here and rewards our best-performing practitioners. That would be better for doctors and patients alike, and would be particularly welcomed in rural areas, where it is often much more practical to have a pharmacy in a village than a full GP surgery. In principle, the Health Secretary’s public statements on this issue represent a step in the right direction, but since coming to power, this Government have conceded to medical unions such as the British Medical Association, which takes an altogether different line. For example, on Pharmacy First, a scheme that allows people to be treated for simple conditions at their local pharmacy, the BMA said that patients are “being seen by less-skilled people to further enable the steady downgrade of patient expectations”. It has since retracted those comments, but that the sentiment exists within the BMA at all is deeply troubling. On physician associates—a group of healthcare professionals who can carry out certain assessments and tests to reduce the workload of doctors—the BMA has launched legal action over whether they can even be called “medical professionals”. Fortunately, it lost the case, but again, its overwhelming hostility towards the reforms that our healthcare system needs in rural areas is concerning. Enabling local health services such as pharmacies to provide care is particularly important in the countryside, where it will never be possible to sustain a large hospital in a rural area. I very much welcome the Government’s rhetorical direction on Pharmacy First and on reforming the NHS workforce, but will the Minister tell us what this Government intend to do to face down groups such as the BMA, which stand in the way of the reforms that we need to provide high-quality care to the British public?
- Hansard source
Engagements
Q11. The Government’s proposed terms of reference for the inquiry into rape and grooming gangs are fatally flawed, as victims and survivors have pointed out. They will not address the role that race and religion played in motivating these crimes or lead to prosecutions for those involved in the cover-up. They will not even investigate all cases—only a select few. The consultation on these terms ends this Friday. Will the Prime Minister assure us that if enough people call for change, including through groominggangjustice.uk, the final terms of reference will reflect those concerns?
- Hansard source
Engagements
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I believe the Prime Minister has inadvertently misled the House. I seek your guidance on how to get him to correct the record for claiming that I said something that I did not.
- Hansard source
Department for Business and Trade
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), who chairs the Business and Trade Committee on which I serve. As Chair of such a Committee, he is that rarest of things: capable of independent thought. We know that growth is predicted to be sclerotic, and that is before global conflicts whip up the waters around us such that Labour’s Britain is but a cork in storm-tossed seas. If growth truly were the mission, then the shock troops ought to be the Department for Business and Trade. Yet the Department’s plans to cut 1,500 jobs have been branded “irrational and arbitrary” by the civil service’s biggest union, the Public and Commercial Services Union. That is despite the 17.8% increase in day-to-day funding, plus extra capital compared with the main estimates that we have heard about today. The Minister for Trade, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), has said that “we’re going to have to achieve more with fewer people” —fine words and congratulations to the spads who crafted them, but the reality on the ground is we will inevitably get less done by fewer people. What a disaster, just as free trade agreements—the fruits of Brexit from seeds planted by previous Conservative Governments—come piling in. We should be maximising these deals given that global economic power is shifting towards a Pacific rim with a burgeoning middle class. Our far too few DBT experts will have their ranks thinned, making it tougher for British firms to tap into lucrative markets abroad. What does it say about this Government’s ambition? They would rather rush back to the skirts of nanny Europe—familiar old Europe with its feeble growth—when we could be the trading nation that Adam Smith envisaged 250 years ago with his book, “The Wealth of Nations”. We could and should be maximising the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, or CPTPP, giving us access to a market of 12 countries worth some £12 trillion and with 500 million potential customers. Even the EU, which never saw a trade deal it liked, is interested in joining. The great prize in the much-vaunted but barely discernible “reset” with the EU is, we are told, a sanitary and phytosanitary deal supposed to smooth the way for agricultural goods, seafood and livestock into and out of Europe. It should not have taken the renegotiation of the entire deal to get—French, especially—customs to stop being le squad awkward. Worse, so-called dynamic alignment on SPS is a cage without a key, meaning that Britain will once again revert to being rule takers and not rule makers. Turning to steel, I recall being in this place on that extraordinary Saturday listening to the self-congratulatory backslapping of Labour MPs hailing the saving of the industry in what was nationalisation in all but name. It seems to me that taxpayers are keeping blast furnaces alight with bundles of £20 notes, for the supplementary estimates earmarked £300 million for steel plants with no sign of the comprehensive steel strategy. Perhaps nothing sums up more the meltdown of the sector under DBT’s yoke than the reported news that the Dalzell plate mill in Scotland lacked the cash to buy slab steel from British Steel, risking the raw material that Navantia needs for the fleet solid support ships at their Harland & Wolff yard in Belfast. Not so much for the want of a horseshoe nail the kingdom was lost, but for the lack of a cohesive DBT strategy, the steel industry and billons in cash may be lost. For the wider economy, pivotal to each and every one of our constituents, the Department for Business and Trade looks like the linchpin which holds the wheels to the axle. The question is whether that pin is too small and too brittle.
- Hansard source
Economic Growth
Drinks producers warn that, because of the UK Government’s decision to allow Wales to include glass in a deposit return scheme, there is the threat of up to 90% of products being removed from shelves. Why have the Government taken the decision to allow a United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 exclusion that threatens jobs and consumer choice, and that will require unique Welsh labelling—all at a time when Wales already recycles 92% of glass at the kerbside?
- Hansard source
Draft Climate Change Levy (Fuel Use and Recycling Processes) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the scope and the impact of the draft regulations. We support the approach to update the legislation to put it beyond doubt that electricity used in electrolysis processes to produce hydrogen will count as a non-fuel use, and therefore benefit from the exemption from the levy. I also acknowledge that the inclusion of the production of sodium bicarbonate came as a result of the consultation, so there we have it: a Government who listen. Sadly, there are a host of issues on which the Government have not yet listened that I could talk about, were they in scope, from the farm tax to the jobs tax. We live in hope. I do not propose to detain the Committee unduly, but I would like to raise a couple of points. First, as Members will know, the consultation proposed three options to deal with the issue. The Government justified selecting option A on the basis that it was the quickest to implement. It is a sensible procedure to adopt, but option B included support for a broader category of methods of producing hydrogen. Will the Minister confirm the proposed timetable for the consideration of broader treatment as part of the wider review of the climate change levy to which the Government have committed? I note that the Finance (No. 2) Bill, which the Minister and I discussed in Committee, increases the overall levy, adding £2 billion to the cost on British industry. My second point concerns the costings in the tax information and impact note and the explanatory notes, which refer to this change as having a negligible impact. Given the ambitions for hydrogen across the economy, and the ramping up of its production, can the Minister share any projections of the potential benefits for the sector?
- Hansard source
Ministry of Defence
The hon. Gentleman is always generous in giving way on this point. I hope he has done his homework because I pointed out the last time I asked him that he would have to repay those bonds to the bondholders two years later. Where would that £20 billion come from?
- Hansard source
Ministry of Defence
It is an absolute pleasure to respond to the debate. I would have loved to go through all the speeches, but given a shorter time limit than I had expected and the consequent cuts in my speech—let alone the defence budget!—I cannot do that. What I will say, genuinely, is that it is always inspiring to hear constituency Members, such as the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae), talk about the defence industry and defence assets in their constituencies.
- Hansard source
Ministry of Defence
When I was a Minister, I was privileged to meet General Campo, then the officer commanding two bases, and to go around them with him. I would just say gently to the hon. Gentleman that, in my view, we should have provided the use of American bases as part of the mission to attack Iran from the outset, not least because the nuclear programme in Iran is a threat to us. That is still the most important point in the debate about the current action. Many Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown)—the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee—mentioned the need to learn lessons from Ukraine. I want to make one very important point about Ukraine. If we had not stepped up in providing weapons even before Russia’s invasion when we were in government, it is conceivable that Putin’s tanks could have reached Kyiv and Ukraine could have fallen. We were able to provide anti-tank weapons to prevent that column from reaching Kyiv because weeks before the invasion, Boris Johnson and Ben Wallace had the courage to ignore the advice of the Foreign Office and instead be bold to defend freedom. To put it another way, we did not wait for Putin to invade Ukraine before assisting so that we had a perfect case in international law. Thank God we acted pre-emptively. There is a lesson here. The Chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), made an excellent and eloquent speech, giving all the reasons why we need to increase defence spending. To be fair, I think we all know what they are, so I will not go through the details of the threat, but I have to say that it was shocking, with war raging on multiple fronts, that the Chancellor did not provide a single extra penny for defence in her spring statement yesterday. There are five huge consequences of not setting a path to 3% and instead adopting Labour’s decision to prioritise welfare over the defence budget. The first consequence is that the priorities of the Department are now wrong. The MOD has no choice, with its current financial settlement, but to prioritise penny-pinching and in-year savings over rearmament. The fact is that instead of increasing the budget for rearmament, it is initiating £2.6 billion of in-year savings this year, which leads us to the second consequence: the operational impact. We all know that, shamefully, not a single Royal Navy ship was in the middle east when war broke out. That is because the Department has had to prioritise in-year savings and retrench its activity. Last December, the Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), confirmed to me in a written answer that “over the next four years, the Royal Navy will scale back its participation in overseas training outside the Europe, Atlantic, and Arctic theatres.” That was a premeditated decision to pull our activity out of the middle east, and what have we seen this week? Drone attacks on the RAF Akrotiri base in Cyprus. As a direct consequence of the in-year savings, the Government are having to scramble to deploy HMS Dragon to Cyprus, when it should have been there weeks ago. As a Type 45 air defence destroyer, HMS Dragon will provide invaluable air cover around Cyprus against incoming missiles, but we know from BBC Verify that US Arleigh Burke air defence destroyers in the vicinity are providing cover for the time being. The shocking implication of this is that, until the Prime Minister’s U-turn on Sunday, he was preventing the US from using our bases while relying on it to defend them. It is an incredible situation. The third consequence of Labour’s lack of defence spending relates to procurement, which has effectively been on hold since the general election as a result of the Government’s clampdown on in-year spending at the MOD. At the election, we had a fully funded plan to provide £10 billion extra for munitions. [Interruption.] Labour Members always chunter about that. The plan was to be fully funded by cutting the size of the civil service, and they do not like doing that. They did not like the way that it was funded, but that funding would have delivered the munitions strategy, which I was working on as the Minister for Defence Procurement. I want to be clear: it was a comprehensive plan to replenish our arsenal and, in particular, would have seen additional significant investment in air defence missiles, including for ground-based air defence and maritime defence, which are so critical for our country right now. The problem is that the incoming Government had a better idea: cancel the munitions strategy and put any orders on hold while conducting a strategic defence review that would give all the answers but which, as I warned, would in the meantime put procurement on hold. Having told us that the SDR would have all the answers, the Government did not make any specific capability choices, which were punted into the defence investment plan. As my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) and many others have said, the strategic defence review was months late and the defence investment plan, promised for autumn 2025, is still nowhere to be seen. When the Prime Minister was asked at Prime Minister’s questions when it will be published, he did not even attempt to answer the question. To paraphrase the Leader of the Opposition, there is no money for defence because the Government have spent it on welfare. Because there is no money, there is no DIP. And because there is no DIP, there is no procurement. The fourth consequence of Labour’s penny-pinching approach relates to the lethality of our armed forces. The Defence Secretary and his Ministers like to mock the defence drone strategy that I produced in government in February 2024—the first ever from a major military player, as far as I am aware—but I gently remind them that, they confirmed in a written answer last April that it is Government policy to implement the defence drone strategy. The aim of the strategy is to procure drones “at scale for both the Ukrainian and UK armed forces”. The problem is that, since the election, the Labour Government have rightly continued providing drones for Ukraine, which we support, but they have not implemented the other side of the bargain: building a comprehensive UK military drone industrial base and procuring at scale for our military. Because the Treasury has agreed funding for Ukraine but not for our armed forces, the MOD has been buying brilliant drone and counter-drone technology made by British SMEs and sending it to Ukraine, while buying almost none of it in parallel for our own troops. That is why last December we announced the Conservative policy of a sovereign defence fund, which would deliver drones at scale for the armed forces and, crucially, take stakes in British SMEs to establish a strong UK defence industrial base, instead of losing the intellectual property abroad. The hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) asked where we would find the money, and I will tell the House one way that we would find it. Some £17 billion of public money would be transferred to defence, including £6 billion for drones from other research and development, and £11 billion from the National Wealth Fund to create a new national defence and resilience bank—a UK bank that would support the supply chain. We would also lever in public finance, as the hon. Members for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg) and for Aldershot (Alex Baker) argued for. I agree with them that we need to increase traditional defence spending, but we massively need to lever in private money and fire up the private sector for defence. Most importantly, our policy would put the world-leading technology that we have given to Ukraine into the hands of our armed forces, immediately boosting their lethality. The fifth big consequence of Labour’s prioritisation of penny-pinching is on the defence industry, risking jobs in every constituency. In January, it was reported that there is the worst sentiment among UK defence SMEs for 20 years. For an industry already hit by a £600 million increase in employer national insurance, this is not good enough. Of course, our constituents do not just want more money spent on defence; they want it spent well. That is why, in February 2024, I introduced the integrated procurement model in Parliament. Its main focus was to learn the lessons of our extraordinary effort to deliver capability to Ukraine at pace. In particular, a key element was the use of minimum deployable capability. That went live in April 2024, so it is fair to say we did not get a huge amount of time to put it into practice, but we did in one important case study. A number of commentators have made the important point that, in the latest exchanges in Iran, our RAF is having to use expensive missiles to take down cheap drones, and I think that observation was made by the hon. Member for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas). In April 2024, another of our Type 45 destroyers, HMS Diamond, was deployed in the Red sea when the Houthis, like Hezbollah, were receiving ballistic missiles from Iran. These were also used against HMS Diamond, and while her brave and brilliant crew defeated the threat at the time, I decided that we had to have a way of defeating those drones. I therefore not only procured the DragonFire anti-drone laser, but used the new procurement system to ensure it could be in service in 2027 rather than 2032, which means it will be with our ships from next year. Given that you are making those usual familiar signals, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will just say finally that when I visited Leonardo—the factory in Edinburgh that makes DragonFire—I was very chuffed to be told that the minimum deployable capability approach had removed hurdles and red tape, so this cutting-edge capability is going to be in service much faster and is genuinely making a difference. To conclude, all of this points to the crucial need for the Government to follow the lead of our party, and accelerate their plans by going to 3% in this Parliament, not in the next.
- Hansard source
Ministry of Defence
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way, given the time pressures. Given that the Prime Minister did not even attempt to answer the very explicit question of when the DIP will be published, will he tell us: when will the DIP be published?
- Hansard source
Energy Security and Net Zero: Scotland
I thank the hon. Lady for securing this debate. I completely agree that the oil and gas sector is vital, and that we must secure the workforce in our energy industries, but I would like some clarity on the Liberal Democrats’ position. My understanding is that they support Labour’s ban on new licences, and that they had a manifesto pledge to backdate the energy profits levy. Is that still the Liberal Democrats’ position on the North sea?
- Hansard source
Family Farms
More than 38,000 people are employed on Welsh farms, the food and farming sector is worth £9 billion to the Welsh economy, and 90% of land is given over to farming, yet in 2025 alone, more than 400 farming businesses closed in Wales. Given the importance of farming to Wales, when did the Wales Office last make representations to the Cabinet about Welsh farmers, and what actions, not meetings, has the Minister personally taken to support farming in Wales?
- Hansard source
Energy Security and Net Zero: Scotland
Of course, we cannot ignore the events of recent days in the middle east and the impact on oil and gas prices and supply. However, those events make it more obvious why we should be preserving and making the most of the supply and production we have in the North sea. The oil goes into the European market—not through the strait of Hormuz—so it stays accessible, and the gas all comes into our networks in the UK. It is vital that we secure our own production, and the Minister surely recognises that the energy profits levy and the ban on new licences put that at risk.
- Hansard source
China: Foreign Interference Arrests
China is a risk—we have so much evidence of that—yet the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero has signed an energy deal with China for co-operation on batteries, offshore wind, cables and inverters. It effectively gives China access to our energy grid—that is a massive risk. Was the Security Minister consulted by the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero before the deal was signed?
- Hansard source
Healthcare in Rural Areas
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I am extraordinarily grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson), who has campaigned tirelessly for a GP surgery in Wixams in his constituency. I was delighted to hear that his campaigning is beginning to bear fruit, and I wish him well with that. The challenge that my hon. Friend mentioned resonates strongly in my own constituency. There has been significant housing growth in areas such as Bordon, yet the supporting infrastructure, particularly primary care, has simply not kept pace. Residents move into new homes only to discover that securing a GP appointment is harder than it should be. Hon. Members across the House have made a consistent and compelling case this afternoon. Rapid housing growth places a real strain on local practices, and patients then struggle to access timely appointments. Infrastructure funding is too often misaligned with development, and co-ordination between local authorities, NHS bodies and developers remains insufficient. Healthcare must arrive with the new homes, not years afterwards. The Government’s 10-year plan puts having care closer to home at the centre of NHS reform. That ambition is entirely welcome, but as hon. Members have raised, the national neighbourhood health implementation programme begins with pilots in 43 areas, and each designated neighbourhood must serve a population of around 50,000 people. That population threshold presents a fundamental challenge for rural and semi-rural areas, where individual villages and market towns fall well below that figure. Although larger geographical regions might technically meet the requirement, genuinely rural communities cannot qualify as stand-alone neighbourhoods and are therefore excluded from the first phase—and potentially always. If the 50,000 population threshold is rigidly applied, smaller communities will only ever be served indirectly, folded into large neighbourhoods covering multiple dispersed settlements. That risks diluting the focus on their particular needs, and residents might continue to face long travel times, limited access to primary care and fewer co-ordinated services, as hon. Members have described. That is especially concerning given the demographic trends. Healthwatch England highlighted in 2023 that the NHS long-term workforce plan projects a 55% increase in the number of people aged over 85 living in rural areas by 2037. Demand is rising most sharply in precisely those areas excluded from the pilot phase. In areas like mine, where hospital access already involves significant travel, the case for strong, well-resourced local primary and community care is self-evident. Excluding rural and semi-rural constituencies from the first wave risks entrenching disparities rather than reducing them. I also have concerns about cuts and mergers in ICBs. The institutional knowledge and expertise built over many years risk being disrupted during the transition. For example, the Frimley integrated care board, which serves the northern part of my constituency, is being abolished, so the local leadership and co-ordination that previously existed will be lost and responsibilities will be redistributed. Change on such a scale requires clarity of governance, funding and accountability. Without it, delivery will vary and confidence will suffer. Access to primary care, pharmacy and dentistry remains central to this debate, particularly in rural and underserved communities. Since 2024, more than 200 pharmacies have closed in England. In the first three months of 2025 alone, 31 medium-sized and 24 large pharmacy branches closed. For villages and small towns, the local pharmacy is not a luxury; it is a frontline health service Although schemes such as the pharmacy access scheme and Pharmacy First are supported and welcome, there are significant problems with their roll-out, as highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), with unions like the BMA trying to undermine that very significant investment. I have a number of questions for the Minister. For rural and semi-rural constituencies such as mine, the details of the policy matter enormously. First, will the 50,000 population threshold be applied flexibly in rural and semi-rural areas? If so, how will smaller communities be guaranteed equal access to neighbourhood services? Secondly, what is the timetable for expanding the scheme beyond the initial 43 pilot areas? When can constituencies such as mine and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire expect to be included? Thirdly, how will the continuity of neighbourhood health delivery be safeguarded during the merger and abolition of ICBs, and who will ultimately be held accountable for that if implementation falters? Finally, will the Minister publish clear and measurable criteria for success, particularly in relation to rural access, travel times and coverage of elderly populations so that the House can judge whether care closer to home is being delivered in practice and is not merely a promise?
- Hansard source
China: Foreign Interference Arrests
The name of the Labour Member of Parliament whose husband has been arrested is circulating widely via the media. I do not intend to name that Member of Parliament, but if the reports are true, that Member of Parliament sits on a Select Committee that would have sensitive, maybe even secret, information and, through totally legitimate means, has visited a number of our defence sites across the country. Has there been, or will there be, an urgent review of what sensitive information that Member of Parliament might have been party to and, at the appropriate juncture, will the Minister release any correspondence between his Department and that Member of Parliament on things such as the Chinese embassy and other matters relating to China?
- Hansard source
Department for Business and Trade
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, not least for the promotion that you just gave me—I hope the Whips are listening. It is a genuine pleasure, even before the promotion, to respond to the debate on behalf of the official Opposition. I am grateful to all colleagues from across the House for what I think were pretty good speeches that supported local businesses and dealt with the issues at hand. I also congratulate the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), on what I thought was an incredibly thoughtful, detailed and typical speech for him. As he will hear, it did not inspire my speech, which was pre-written, but I will echo a number of the points that he made so eloquently just a few minutes ago. The theme of today is that, up and down the country, businesses, entrepreneurs and those they employ are the engine of our economy and the basis for our future prosperity. In so many sectors, it is British business that leads the way. Whether it is life sciences, defence, across professional services or in many other areas, businesses employ millions of people, undertake critical research and attract investment both here and overseas. In the same sense, everyone who has contributed today, as will be the case for all MPs, will know of some SME in their constituency that seeks to grow, create jobs in their community and provide the bedrock of their local economy. The Opposition know that backing British businesses, both big and small, to grow, trade and invest means reducing the tax and regulatory burdens that they face. Over the past year, covered by the estimate before us today, the Government have indicated that they disagree with that. Just this week, as a result, we have seen business confidence fall yet again, according to the Institute of Directors. More than ever, I am afraid that Ministers across this Government, including in the Department for Business and Trade, are failing to drive economic growth. Indeed, do not take my word for it, but listen to the Labour Health Secretary and rival to the Prime Minister, who said that the Chancellor has no economic growth strategy at all in a text message to the disgraced Labour peer, Lord Mandelson. Some may question why the Labour Health Secretary is commenting on the economy, but then again he is used to dealing with things in critical condition. Put simply: British businesses need the Government to create a far better environment for firms big and small to trade and, critically, to hire people. Let me turn specifically, and properly, to the detail of the estimate before us, and I wish to ask a few questions of the Minister. First, to build on the opening remarks of the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, the supplementary estimate shows an increase to the Department’s total managed expenditure of £1.5 billion, which is an uplift of 31%. For context, that is much higher than any other Department. In fact, the average in-year uplift for a Department under this Labour Government has been 4.6%—that is 31% versus 4.6%. In fact, last year also saw a large in-year uplift, when the departmental budget increased by some £1.8 billion, which was an uplift of 44.8%. It feels like the Department is developing a pattern of asking Parliament to approve a budget in the main estimate, only to return months later asking for 30% or 40% more. This is far from supplementary; it is a Department that systematically underestimates its budget in the main estimate, and then returns to ask us for even more. As such, can I ask the Minister please to comment on why DBT is such an outlier compared with other Departments, and can I suggest that when its Ministers next come to Parliament with main estimates, they come with a better estimate of how much taxpayers’ money they wish to spend? One item that particularly jumped out to me in the 10 February 2026 estimates was the cost of the intervention in British Steel, which the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North also alluded to. In a written answer to the shadow Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), on 15 December 2025, the Minister indicated that the total cost to the Exchequer of keeping operations running at British Steel came to £274 million. However, pages 12 and 13 of the supplementary estimates that we are reviewing and discussing today seem to indicate a total cost of more than £830 million across resource departmental expenditure limit and capital departmental expenditure limit business group funding. That is obviously a significant difference in cost, so when the Minister stands up, I would appreciate it if he could set out the detail of what this is all about. Whatever answer the Minister provides, given that we are still awaiting a steel strategy, as many Members have alluded to, is it not the case that the Government are asking Parliament to approve hundreds of millions of pounds in retrospective spending on an industry they do not really know how to support, and on a company whose future remains undecided and whose costs seem to be open-ended? I would really appreciate it if he could give a detailed answer. Finally, I turn to the British Business Bank—an organisation that I admire, that I like, and that I had the pleasure of overseeing from within the Treasury. When I looked at the supplementary estimate, I noted that the additional capital DEL that is being provided to DBT for the growth guarantee scheme, which supports business lending, is to the tune of £50 million. Meanwhile, the British Business Bank’s financial capacity has increased to £25.6 billion, and it also has a new industrial strategy growth capital initiative. The growth guarantee scheme is a perfectly legitimate use of Government funds—it creates Government-backed business lending and performs an important role in the economy. However, according to page 7 of the supplementary estimate, an additional £50 million has been provided to DBT this year, so it is natural that I want to ask a few more questions about the scheme. First, can the Minister tell us what the default rates are for the loans provided by this scheme, and how does he square that with the additional £50 million of capital? Secondly, it is critical to know whether those loans and that amount of money are complementing private lending, or are actually displacing it. What analysis has the Department done to provide this House with an adequate answer that will get us comfortable with approving that £50 million? From increased taxes to additional red tape, the Government have soured business confidence, and it is working people who are paying the price for their higher unemployment and higher prices. No matter how many billions are spent by the Department and then increased at supplementary estimates, that fact will sadly always remain.
- Hansard source
Engagements
Q9. The United States of America is our most important international strategic ally. Does the Prime Minister believe that his dithering and equivocal response to events in the middle east this week has made that relationship stronger or weaker?
- Hansard source
China: Foreign Interference Arrests
I know how seriously the Minister takes national security; he will feel keenly any interference with our democracy. However, the news that officials being are démarched will be cold comfort for the 4,500 Hongkongers who live in the borough of Solihull. Can the Minister guarantee that the Chinese ambassador to the UK will be summoned by the Foreign Secretary for an interview without coffee?
- Hansard source
NHS Capital Spending
I, too, associate myself with the comments about the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) on her stepping down as a Minister. She was a formidable opponent and will be sorely missed. I am sad to see her step back, but she has made the right decision for her, as in this place we should all do. I thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) for securing this debate. He was absolutely spot on when he said we do not scrutinise the process of NHS capital spending nearly enough. I was taken by what he said on that point, but less surprised that not many solutions came forward, although that is key to having this debate, because it is hugely technical. I will use an example from my constituency for both the pros and the cons, the good and bad stories about capital investment. I was elected in 2019 and Hinckley is my biggest town. Healthcare is an important priority for my constituents and talk of improved hospital services there has been ongoing for 30 years now. On the good side, we were lucky enough to be picked to have a community diagnostic centre, a £24 million investment, and I was lucky enough to open it last year. That shows what good can come of capital investment. Under the previous Government, at August 2024, there were 165 similar good news stories of community diagnostic centres being opened across the country, not to mention the 108 surgical hubs that have not been talked about, but that are increasing patients’ ability to be seen and treated quickly, helping to deal with the waiting lists. I also come with a negative story related to the same hospital. We were looking for a second project, a £10 million day case investment, but unfortunately, despite funding having been secured, delays in the system and difficulties with changing need have meant that that has been cancelled. The NHS papers specifically on that case state: “The STP Capital business case for the Hinckley Day Case Unit received national approval in March 2024”— but then struggled. The papers go on to say: “However, since business case approval there have been further key changes… Changing financial context nationally and local financial challenges… Increased capital costs of the scheme circa £2m compared to that approved by the board… Programme delays resulting in a significantly reduced capital resource”. They go on to explain that further delays to the programme occurred due to “Cost pressures that exceeded the STP capital allocation…Since the approval of the STP Capital Business case in 2024, delays can be attributed to…The planning application phasing (considering the contention surrounding the demolition of the Hinckley District Hospital…The delay in submitting the planning application to allow the development of a robust design to address the Local Planning Authority’s concerns”. We can already see the difficulties in how need is being allocated across Leicestershire and how planning and inflation interfere. That is the process issue at the heart of making these capital decisions. That leads us to the bigger picture that confronts the Government today. As has been mentioned, funding is important, so what is the best document we can look at to see what the Government are trying to do? The 10-year plan is clear: “We will continue to use private providers to improve access and reduce waiting times, to return the NHS to its constitutional standards. As we outlined in our Plan for Change, we will not let spare capacity go to waste on ideological grounds. We will continue to make use of private sector capacity to treat NHS patients where it is available, and we will enter discussions with private providers to expand NHS provision in the most disadvantaged areas.” The Opposition agree with that, but I am not sure that all Government Members will, so I am interested to know whether all the Minister’s hon. Friends are aligned with it. I agree with the concern that the previous Government’s private finance initiatives, which brought in £13 billion of investment for new hospitals, cost the taxpayer more than £80 billion in repayments. We are still paying for that now. Turning back to the NHS 10-year plan, a section called “Harnessing new investment” states that “we will learn from previous experience with the Private Finance Initiative…In other cases, however, PFI was a costly mistake which represented poor value for money. Contracts were too complex and lacked proper transparency. As the government considers new sources and models of private investment, we do so with this experience in mind.” How do we know that? Where is it set out that the Government have learned this time? In the same section, the Government tell us they will “evolve” their “infrastructure finance models and…consider the use of Public Private Partnerships…where there is a revenue stream, appropriate risk-transfer can be achieved, and value for money for taxpayers can be secured.” Those are not small tests; they are the fundamental ones that we must ensure are in place, so my simple question is this: what is different this time? How will we assure value for money, and who will make that decision? How will we see genuine risk transfer being assessed, rather than simply pricing it into decades of payments? How will that work? The 10-year plan also states: “We will codevelop this with the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority (NISTA), building on the successful NHS Local Improvement Finance Trust programme, and will look to drive competition in the market to incentivise others, including third party developers, to improve their offer to deliver better services at lower cost to the taxpayer.” That is great—but LIFT is used only for small practices, so what model will come forward for everything else? The plan states: “We will engage with the market on this programme and support NISTA in its wider market testing of a new PPP model.” What is that model? Can we see it? What does it look like? I note from the Minister’s answers to written questions that 120 neighbourhood health centres will be operated by 2030; 70 will be new buildings, 50 will come from refurbishment and, of those, 80% will be funded through PPPs. However, there are no plans to publish the business case. That raises legitimate questions. Why are the Government hiding this? We have been here before, and the country is nervous about this, so why can we not see what is being brought forward? If a new model is genuinely different, transparency should not be a threat; it should be a strength. Why will Parliament and the public not see it?
- Hansard source
NHS Capital Spending
I am grateful for the chance to put this on the record. The health infrastructure plan 2019 had the £3.7 billion, which was the seed funding to look into the projects to bring things forward. That also dealt with the first wave—the three hospitals that were brought forward to allow the second and third waves to come on. The hon. Gentleman will also know that, as the Government and the Opposition have stated, all big national infrastructure is done through a series of spending reviews. The money—£20 billion—was committed through those stages on the basis of that plan. The Government throw the same argument back at us when it is convenient for them to say, “We are not increasing defence spending because it needs to come in a spending review.” Both sides are playing politics, but there was money allocated in that plan. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman was not in Parliament at that time, but he can ask the House of Commons Library to look at it so that he understands it, and he can then pass that on to his constituents to answer that question. If we have a new model, we in this House need to be able to scrutinise it. GPs’ rents and rates are reimbursed, but there is concern that if we have further PPPs, similar to the previous PFIs, GPs may be on the hook for ongoing premises costs. We must have crystal clear guarantees, so they understand what they are and are not accountable for. The 10-year plan states: “We will also work with NISTA to consider the opportunities for health that could be achieved through private financing of revenue-raising assets (such as key worker accommodation and car parks)”. That will set alarm bells ringing, as it looks like the Government will use key workers, or staff and patients coming into car parks, to generate funds. I would be grateful for clarity about what the Government actually mean by that statement, because this is a contentious issue. People know that we need to have funding coming into the health services, but where will those streams come from and what will they look like? If the 10-year plan is looking at revenue-raising assets, I am keen to understand exactly what that looks like. Overall, there is a desire in the 10-year plan, which is shared across the House, to improve healthcare. Nobody disagrees with that, but the criticism of the 10-year plan is that there is no delivery chapter. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington for securing this debate so that the Opposition can ask questions about what delivery will actually look like when it comes to improving the health of the nation.
- Hansard source
China: Foreign Interference Arrests
A Member of Parliament’s partner has been accused of spying for China. The Minister has been asked this several times: have the Foreign Secretary or the Home Secretary specifically asked and summoned the ambassador to come to explain themselves, and if not, why not?
- Hansard source
China: Foreign Interference Arrests
As the Minister said, at the heart of this is the question of whether our enemies and malign actors fear the consequences of hostile acts against us. That question is why many of us say that the embassy should be paused. Why would the Chinese be worried about consequences of spying, when this week, another malign actor attempted to kill British armed forces personnel and attacked sovereign territory, but suffered no consequences? What lesson does the Minister think China will take from our failure to defend our own territory from military attack?
- Hansard source
Points of Order
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to put the Chair in the position of having to give an immediate answer, but as others have said, there are rumours online that the individuals arrested for spying include the partner of a Labour MP. I do not know any suggestion that that Labour MP has done anything wrong—it could have been any of us, potentially. However, we all know that MPs work with MPs from their own party and with those from other parties, sharing information and campaigning together, so we may well have been subjected to activities and we could volunteer information about them to the House authorities and others. Unless we have confirmation about who that individual is, that is not an easy position to be in. Will the House give consideration to letting us know who the individual is, so that we might reflect on whether we can offer any helpful information?
- Hansard source
Draft Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. The statutory instrument makes consequential amendments to references in primary and secondary legislation to reflect the abolition of the Information Commissioner’s Office and the transfer of its functions to a new body corporate, the Information Commission. The Information Commission was granted additional powers and duties under the Data (Use and Access) Act, reflecting the increasing breadth of issues that impact data protection regulation, including the power to commission a new strategic framework and implementation plan. Obligations under the new framework set out a requirement for the Information Commission to take into account specified considerations when undertaking its duties, including the promotion of innovation and competition and the fact that children merit specific protection. On the important question of protections for children, the Minister will be aware that His Majesty’s official Opposition, in my name, tabled a new clause to the Data (Use and Access) Bill on this very issue. It sought to compel the Secretary of State to undertake a review within 12 months of Royal Assent, which was received in June 2025, of the case for raising the age of consent for social media to 16 under GDPR. The new clause received broad cross-party support but was voted down by the Government. Having finally responded, albeit too little and too late, to His Majesty’s Opposition and widespread public pressure to act, the Government launched their consultation on social media access for under-16s earlier this week. Does the Minister agree that had the Government accepted our amendment, their review would now be well under way, and we would be several steps closer to a solution for this generationally important challenge. I hope that in future they will consider a bit further the question of accepting Opposition amendments. In an increasingly digitised world, our industry regulators, including the Information Commission, face an ever-growing workload in circumstances where resources are under pressure. What discussion is the Minister’s Department having with the Information Commission about its ongoing strategy to ensure that it can meet its expanded role effectively?
- Hansard source
Draft Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026
Apologies if I get this wrong, and I admit that I went through it quite quickly, but when I looked at the consultation data entry on the web earlier this week, I could not see a point where an entry could be linked to an individual person. Will the Minister’s Department double-check data security for the consultation? I am sure he agrees that we would not want the consultation to be hijacked by any group of a particular bent feeding in inappropriate responses or trying to drown out a particular type of view as the consultation goes forward.
- Hansard source
Family Farms
4. What discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on supporting family farms in Wales.
- Hansard source
Family Farms
International conflict and instability risk putting up food and fuel prices, and threaten our domestic food resilience. Instead of reviews and platitudes, we need action to protect our farmers and our UK food resilience. Will the Minister take action and scrap the damaging family farm tax?
- Hansard source
China: Foreign Interference Arrests
The Minister spoke of “severe consequences”. Will he outline what those severe consequences might be? Does he understand that Beijing is unlikely to take that terribly seriously, given what has happened in the recent past? Will the severe consequences include putting on hold plans for the Chinese super-embassy and spy centre, pending the outcome of the Met’s investigation?
- Hansard source
NATO and the High Arctic
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I echo the initial comments of the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), in thanking the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), a fellow former Royal Marine, for bringing this debate to the House today. This is a massively important subject, and I am glad that we have the opportunity to discuss it. I hope that we will continue to discuss it because the area will only increase in importance. We all know that the High North is no longer a distant theatre of academic interest or a place for explorers’ delight. It is fast becoming the new frontier of great power competition. As the ice retreats through climate change—we have heard about that from many Members today—strategic rivalry advances. Sea routes are opening, undersea infrastructure is exposed and military activity is increasing. The Arctic is no longer insulated by geography or climate, and it is becoming a central arena in the contest between major powers. The decisions that we take now will shape the security of the north Atlantic for decades. The hon. Member for Halesowen outlined that very clearly in his opening remarks. Russia views the Arctic as a core strategic bastion. Its northern fleet operates from heavily defended bases in the region, protecting its nuclear deterrent and projecting power into the north Atlantic. Moscow treats Arctic territory and resources as central to its long-term security and economic resilience. On the other hand, the United States sees the Arctic as integral to homeland defence and the security of the transatlantic alliance. Greenland, which we have heard about today, and the wider north Atlantic have returned to prominence in American strategic thinking, as reinforcement routes and early warning systems regain importance. Lastly, China, although not an Arctic state—it claims to be a near-Arctic state, whatever that means—has steadily expanded its presence through research, commercial investments and polar shipping, signalling long-term interests in Arctic trade routes and resources. That will only increase as climate change reduces the ice. The Arctic is a theatre where Russian militarisation, American strategic recalibration and Chinese expansion intersect, as many Members have set out clearly. That is why NATO now treats the defence of the High North as a strategic imperative. The accession of Finland and Sweden has transformed the strategic geometry of the region, as the hon. Member for Halesowen rightly said. We have seen over recent years that NATO’s northern flank is stronger and more coherent. The GIUK gap and the north-Atlantic sea lanes—the arteries through which reinforcements would flow in a crisis—have regained their cold war significance. NATO’s launch of Arctic Sentry earlier this year reflects that reality, and I am glad that has happened. It signals a recognition that deterrence in the High North must be persistent, co-ordinated and credible. The United Kingdom says that it understands the shift. Under the last Government, the 2023 “Looking North” policy framework set out a whole-of-Government approach across security, science and the environment. Fast-forwarding to this Government, the strategic defence review acknowledged that developments in the High North have direct consequences for the Euro-Atlantic and the United Kingdom’s place within it. Ministers have also highlighted the Royal Navy’s approach to Atlantic Bastion, which is intended to secure the north Atlantic through a networked mix of warships, aircraft and autonomous systems. Important steps have been taken. The United Kingdom is strengthening co-operation with Norway through the Lunna House agreement and the JEF, to counter undersea threats and protect NATO’s northern flank. The Royal Marines—my old outfit, and the hon. Member for Halesowen’s—continue to train in Norway, including through exercises such as Cold Response and our training presence at Camp Viking, which is set to expand. I put on the record my thanks to the Royal Marines delegation that recently came to Parliament, under Brigadier Jaimie Norman, to educate us on the High North. It was a fantastic day that left a lasting impression on us all. The UK will contribute to NATO’s Arctic Sentry mission, with the carrier strike group deploying to the north Atlantic later this year under Operation Firecrest. I hope the Minister will expand on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty). The actions I have mentioned demonstrate intent, but the House must distinguish between intent and delivery. The Government have chosen not to publish a refreshed stand-alone High North defence strategy; instead, Arctic policy has been folded into broader defence frameworks. I am sure there is a good reason for that and look forward to hearing the Minister’s rationale for it, but the Opposition, if we are playing a good friend to the policy, think it risks diluting focus. If the High North is truly the new frontier of great power competition, the United Kingdom’s objectives there should be clearly defined. Are we primarily focused on securing reinforcement routes across the north Atlantic, or on protecting critical undersea infrastructure, which the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) referred to? We need a much better strategy across all our partners. I think that is being developed, but the question is whether it is being developed fast enough. It has been made quite clear in the debate that the United Kingdom does not currently maintain capabilities dedicated specifically to Arctic operations. Without additional capacity, Arctic ambition risks becoming a competition for scarce assets rather than a sustained strategic commitment, as I think would be acknowledged by anyone who sees themselves as our adversaries. The Royal Marines are a good microcosm through which to see the challenge clearly. They are being asked to pivot towards High North operations—they are specialists in that environment—while continuing special operation roles and global deployments. I want to put on the record, as the hon. Member for Halesowen did, that I never spent any time in the Arctic, even though I am a former Royal Marine, and it is said that until someone has spent time in Norway, they are not a proper bootneck. Given that the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) has spent five more days in the High North than me, I defer to her more recent knowledge. Before the debate started, the Minister offered to join me back up again; I am still unsure whether that was a threat or some sort of treat; given that the hon. Member for Strangford also wants to join the Royal Marines, maybe we can do it together. Cold weather warfare cannot simply be improvised, as the hon. Member for Halesowen will know, having been deployed up in that area, nor can credible specialist capability exist without, as he said, the lift, logistics and sustainment that enable it. In the undersea domain, the stakes are even higher. The North Atlantic seabed carries the cables and energy links that underpin our economy and communications; the hon. Member for Strangford talked about the economic security that we all rely on. Deterrence in the High North will increasingly be measured below the surface, in the submarines tracked, cables monitored and infrastructure protected. The Lunna House agreement with Norway, which includes co-operation on anti-submarine warfare and the protection of undersea infrastructure, is strategically sound, but the interoperability on paper must translate into persistent operational presence at sea. That means modern anti-submarine capabilities, sufficient hulls available for deployment, and the crews required to sustain them. The strategic defence review acknowledged that the Arctic is a region of increasing competition in the United Kingdom’s wider neighbourhood, yet it did not outline specific capability adjustments tailored to the theatre. If the High North is becoming central to NATO deterrence, treating it simply as an adjunct to other priorities will not suffice. To go back again to the overriding point that we keep hearing, I really hope there is clear detail in the defence investment plan, whenever it is released, and that the Minister can give a clearer view on when that will be. The House of Lords has also raised concerns that the United Kingdom risks aspiring to a meaningful security presence in the High North without the resources to sustain it. Those concerns have not yet been fully answered. Recent events elsewhere underline the importance of readiness. When crises escalate, forces held at high readiness must deploy rapidly. Air and missile defence must be integrated, munition stockpiles must sustain operations over time, and the growing cost imbalance between high-end interceptors and low-cost threats cannot be ignored. These challenges go to the heart of credibility. NATO deterrence in the High North depends on the confidence that allies can reinforce Europe across the Atlantic, defend sea lanes and protect the northern flank under pressure. If we speak of Atlantic Bastion, we must demonstrate the ships, aircraft and trained crews required to make it real. Let me be clear: the Opposition support a strong NATO presence in the High North, and we want to work with the Government to strengthen it wherever we can, but we cannot support some of the plans without being a critical friend. We will therefore ask the Government to define clearly the objectives of the United Kingdom’s contribution to Arctic Sentry. We will ask how Atlantic Bastion is being resourced and crewed, how the expansion at Camp Viking will be sustained alongside global commitments, and how the protection of undersea infrastructure is being operationalised in practice. The High North is becoming the northern gateway to the United Kingdom’s security. It is the corridor through which allied reinforcements would flow, and it is where deterrence will increasingly be tested below the surface. If this is the new frontier of great power competition, we must treat it with the seriousness that such a frontier demands. The strategy must be clear, the capability must be credible, and the resources must match the ambition.
- Hansard source
Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office
I thank the Chair of the International Development Committee for her opening remarks, and I echo the sentiments of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Does she agree that it was extremely disappointing that the previous Government, and indeed this Government, did not follow the recommendation of the International Development Committee that there should be someone from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office on the board of BII—not to make investment decisions, but to ensure it is aligned with Government strategy and policy?
- Hansard source
Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office
Let me begin with a very specific request to the Minister, which I hope he will be able to grant. My request is for a continuing commitment to Abercrombie House in East Kilbride as the FCDO’s second headquarters. The Government scrapped plans to build a new headquarters in Glasgow, and have so far confirmed that they are staying at Abercrombie House. However, as the International Development Committee has heard, that building requires significant investment, and at a time of such significant cuts in the FCDO budget and, obviously, staffing changes, there is concern about whether this will actually be done. As a member of the International Development Committee, I now want to turn to the issue of official development assistance and development finance. As the Financial Times has reported, recent analysis from the Centre for Global Development reveals a startling reality: that this Labour Government are presiding over cuts in our overseas aid budget that are not only deeper but faster than those being implemented by the Trump Administration across the water. I cannot believe that that was the objective of a Government who said that they wanted to achieve global leadership in these matters. I understand the necessity of financial discipline, and, of course, the funding pressures with which the Treasury is wrestling, even if some of them are self-inflicted. I have often argued in the House that we must be pragmatic and strategic with our development resources, looking for where we can make the best and most profound difference. I agree with the Chair of the International Development Committee, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), that scrapping ICAI, which is monitoring how we obtain value, is the best way to achieve that. There have been some very significant ICAI reports, including the 2020 report that dealt with the extent of the value the Government obtained from investment in nutrition for every pound that was spent. As a champion of nutrition, I have long supported the Child Nutrition Fund. With a relatively modest investment from the UK Government, the fund can leverage philanthropic and private capital while mobilising domestic resources to dramatically improve the wellbeing of millions of women and children. In my view, the child nutrition fund meets the test of public expectations for ODA funding: it puts food in stomachs and jags in arms. Because I realise that we are in a changing world, I have also supported the IDC’s inquiry into the future shape of aid. We recognise that things will have to be different, but we want to see leadership from the UK Government in this regard, and we want to see a plan. When the UK Government are slashing development spending by some 27% by 2027—outpacing the reduction proposed in Washington, as I have said—one must ask: how does this stack up against other Government objectives, and where is the plan? Whereas the US Congress has acted as a vital check, I see little of the same approach here in the UK, despite the very best efforts of the International Development Committee. As I have said before, if cuts have to happen, they need to be thought through, and that thinking needs to come prior to the cutting. Sadly, that has not been the case. Unless the Minister pulls it out of the hat at the end of this debate, there is no evidence of a plan. Reductions in ODA were announced over a year ago, but the UK’s future of aid conference will not take place until May this year—if at all, I suspect. In the meantime, services that could be put on a sustainable footing through new and innovative approaches, or through being transferred to capable local partners, are falling over. The change in US policy has significant ramifications, which we should address now, particularly the withdrawal of funding for LGBT and family planning issues. This is most certainly not the time for the FCDO to cut its LGBT budget, as the Elton John AIDS Foundation, among others, has highlighted. We are told that the reductions are to fund our defence capabilities against Russian and, indeed, Iranian aggression. However, the Government must be careful not to create a vacuum of influence and allow malign actors to move in while we do this, as others have already highlighted. One need only look at the example of Russia’s Wagner Group and its operations in Africa, particularly around critical minerals. As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on HIV/AIDS, I want my final remarks to focus specifically on the impact of the changes on the fight against HIV/AIDS. I particularly commend The Independent newspaper and its correspondent, Bel Trew, for highlighting some of these issues. Last November, I was pleased to welcome the Government’s pledge of £850 million to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. At a time of tight resources, it offers real value for money by dealing directly with devastating and widespread diseases, but also by building capacity in the health systems of partner countries. The fund can be a crucial pathway to ending dependency, but although £850 million was welcome, it was none the less a £150 million reduction from 2022, and it was also coupled with uncertainty for other organisations, such as the Robert Carr Fund, Unitaid and UNAIDS. The One Campaign expects the shortfall to result in a very tangible 250,000 additional deaths and 1 million new infections. Here in the UK, the Government’s ability to reach our own target of zero new transmissions by 2030 would be imperilled by rising rates of HIV elsewhere. The UK’s life sciences and pharmaceutical sector—for which the Global Fund, among other organisations, is such an important partner—will also suffer. What that tells us, as we have heard already, is that the reductions come at a cost, particularly if they are not thought through. They come at the cost of influence, the economy and, sadly, lives. At the end of this debate, I want to hear from the Minister what the Government’s plan is. Everybody understands that there will be reductions, but they must be on a planned basis.
- Hansard source
China: Foreign Interference Arrests
Given the vulnerabilities of Members of Parliament, can I urge the Security Minister to work with the parliamentary authorities not just to pass information to Members but to work proactively with us to ensure that we are all aware of the risks that are posed to us and the steps we need to take to ensure that we are not exposed to interference from foreign states?
- Hansard source
Supplementary Estimates 2025-26
With the leave of the House, I will put the Questions on motions 3 to 8 together.
- Hansard source
Healthcare in Rural Areas
I beg to move, That this House has considered healthcare in rural areas. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I hope that this debate can be a constructive discussion of the particular challenges that rural communities face in accessing healthcare. In that spirit, I will open the debate by saying some things that I hope no one will find controversial. Rural communities are bigger and further apart than urban ones and have fewer people in a wider area, which makes the delivery of basic services much harder than in major conurbations. The time and money lost to travel is higher because the distance between places is larger, and it is more challenging to recruit and retain staff in public services such as healthcare. Accessing online support—often seen as a silver bullet for the future of healthcare—can be challenging in rural areas where high-quality broadband and mobile signal have not yet arrived. All that means that securing equal access to healthcare in rural areas as in urban areas is more challenging and expensive, which has practical implications. In the Health Secretary’s constituency of Ilford North, there are 20 main GP surgeries. In my constituency of Mid Bedfordshire, there are just nine. The age of the village doctor is gone. When my constituents heard of the plans for a neighbourhood health service, with a neighbourhood health centre, within the Government’s 10-year health plan, there was some optimism that that age might return, even if not necessarily in the same way as before. In principle, neighbourhood health centres are absolutely the right step. They are a way to empower people to get the healthcare that they need on their doorstep and to keep them out hospitals, which could then focus on those who need the most specialised care.
- Hansard source
Healthcare in Rural Areas
I know Lyneham quite well; it is a beautiful part of the world—although of course, Mid Bedfordshire is far more beautiful. I have to agree with the hon. Lady. The situation is deeply concerning for those in rural communities who are struggling to access GPs, and, given the growth and development in our communities, access is becoming much more difficult as the years roll on.
- Hansard source
Healthcare in Rural Areas
The hon. Lady front-runs entirely a point I will make later, and I thank her for doing so. Unfortunately, that early optimism about neighbourhood healthcare was somewhat tempered by a response I received to a written question, indicating that the Government expect neighbourhoods to have a geography of around 50,000 people. I am afraid that that will do nothing for people in Mid Bedfordshire. It will mean either that rural communities on the edge of urban catchments will be split up and served by “neighbourhood” health hubs in nearby major settlements, which will likely be Hitchin, Bedford, Luton or Milton Keynes, or that one rural “neighbourhood” will cover the vast majority of rural communities, meaning that constituents will have to travel to a central location to access the services that they need. In either case, that is what already happens now. People in rural communities can only get to healthcare services in big towns that are often a distance away. They deserve better than to be viewed as the hinterland of larger urban areas. They deserve a neighbourhood health service designed not as a one-size-fits-all solution, but as genuinely local to their needs. I appreciate that funding is not unlimited and that tough choices need to be made, but those tough choices always seem to result in rural communities losing out when it comes to access to healthcare.