Diego Garcia and British Indian Ocean Territory
Order. We need to lower the temperature—and everyone can be seated. The Minister can answer each question in full if he wishes to do so.
5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Diego Garcia and British Indian Ocean Territory
Order. That was two yous in one go, Minister. Have another go.
- Hansard source
Diego Garcia and British Indian Ocean Territory
Order. We will move on to the final question. I call Jim Shannon.
- Hansard source
Diego Garcia and British Indian Ocean Territory
The Father of the House is no doubt hugely respected across the whole House. He knows that we do not discuss urgent questions publicly—let alone on the Floor of the House—so that was a slight error on his part. He also knows that the Chair is not responsible for the content of the responses provided by Ministers—if only we were—but he has most robustly got his point on the record.
- Hansard source
Diego Garcia and British Indian Ocean Territory
I thank the hon. Member for giving me notice of his point of order. The Chair is not responsible for which Minister the Government put forward to respond to an urgent question. The Minister may wish to respond at this point.
- Hansard source
Diego Garcia and British Indian Ocean Territory
The hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) might not be satisfied with the response, but that was a response none the less. We will not continue the debate.
- Hansard source
Diego Garcia and British Indian Ocean Territory
I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench, including Ministers, heard that. It is not good enough when Members put in for bits of information and table written questions and the responses do not come back in a timely fashion. I see those on the Treasury Bench and the Ministers nodding. One can assume that a response will be forthcoming very quickly. The hon. Member has got his point on the record. We do not want to continue the debate.
- Hansard source
Grenfell Tower Annual Report
I call the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell)—take your time.
- Hansard source
Grenfell Tower Annual Report
Order. I know that this is a very sensitive issue, but the hon. Member has two minutes and he is now over by 35 seconds. Timing is everything, so will he please ask his next question quickly?
- Hansard source
Post Office Green Paper
Before we begin the next statement, I remind the Front Benchers that there are time limits on each of their statements. In particular, the Liberal Democrats tend to be running over.
- Hansard source
Post Office Green Paper
I know—not the present Front-Bench spokeswoman, but they have been all afternoon. Please keep within time limits.
- Hansard source
Bills Presented
Are you trying to object, Sir Roger? Marvellous. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 389) with explanatory notes (Bill 389-EN).
- Hansard source
Ukraine
I also want to pay my tribute to the Ukrainian people and the many Ukrainians who live in my constituency of Sussex Weald. Estimates (Backbench Business Committee Recommendation) Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 152J, as amended by the Order of 2 February relating to Estimates day debates), That this House agrees with the Report of the Backbench Business Committee of 24 February: That a day not later than 18 March be allotted for the consideration of the following Estimates for the financial year 2025-26: Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office; Ministry of Defence; and Department for Business and Trade.—(Taiwo Owatemi.) Question agreed to.
- Hansard source
Engagements
May I associate the Conservative party with the Prime Minister’s comments about Ukraine and Team GB? Before the Prime Minister and I became MPs, parties of every colour increased the cost of going to university. The system is now at breaking point for graduates. I believe that student loans have become a debt trap. It is time for all of us to do something about it. Will he cut interest rates on student loans?
- Hansard source
Engagements
I asked the Prime Minister if he would cut interest rates on student loans—no answer. For the record, energy bills are still higher than when he came into office. He keeps talking about the last Government. In case he has not noticed, my party is under new leadership—a lot of people wish his was too, including his own Back Benchers. Let us talk again about student loans and student fees, even, because to win the Labour leadership, with Labour Together, the Prime Minister promised to abolish tuition fees. In opposition, the Education Secretary said: “Graduates, you will pay less under a Labour government.” I wonder what happened to those people? Will the Prime Minister tell us whether graduates are paying more or less under Labour?
- Hansard source
Engagements
I am amazed that while we are trying to talk about student loans, the Prime Minister has the cheek to talk about my party being smaller. His party is smaller too, including one MP who was arrested for child sex offences. Perhaps before he gets on his high horse, he should ask why his Back Benchers are saying that they are being called “the paedo defenders party”. [Interruption.] I did not say it—
- Hansard source
Engagements
I know that Labour Members do not like it, but I have not said anything that is not true, have I? Perhaps they should get off their high horse and stop making stupid jokes. Why don’t we talk about student loans? Policies that may have been fine for 2012, with low interest rates, are not fine for 2026. The fact is that graduates are paying more, not less. On Monday, the Schools Minister was asked on the BBC why Labour froze the repayment thresholds. She said that the Government have “huge pressures”. Those pressures have been created by the Prime Minister’s taxes and borrowing to pay for more welfare. Why is the Prime Minister taking from students to give to “Benefits Street”?
- Hansard source
Engagements
The Prime Minister says that the Government are fixing the student loans system. How? He was not even talking about this until I raised it. The fact is that those policies—[Interruption.]
- Hansard source
Engagements
The Prime Minister is only talking about student loans now because I raised them. He says that the Government are fixing the problem, but the fact is that he is not. Why is it that I am willing to ditch old Conservative policies that do not work, but he wants to keep them? He is not going to do anything about it at all. On Monday, the Government voted to increase benefits yet again. The fact is that the Prime Minister is taking money out of the pockets of graduates and giving it to people who are not working. It is not fair. It is not just that the Prime Minister is saddling graduates with debt. Yesterday, the Bank of England, where the Chancellor used to work—in customer services—said that the Prime Minister’s policies are fuelling youth unemployment. That is not coming from us; that is from the Bank of England. For the first time ever, youth unemployment is now higher here than it is in the EU. While he blames everyone else, our young people cannot get jobs; they are losing hope and even leaving the country. Will the Prime Minister tell us how he plans to deal with that?
- Hansard source
Engagements
The Prime Minister is desperate to talk about the last Government so that he can distract from the mess that he is making now. The fact is that he is the Prime Minister today. This is a man who got legislation in to fix his own pension—just his, no one else’s. He will not sort out student loans for other people. He has no plan to get young people into work. He has no plan to help graduates to get out of the debt trap. [Interruption.] Labour Members can complain as much as they like, but these are facts. There are 411 Labour MPs, and not a single one of them has any imagination. We are the ones doing all the thinking. The Prime Minister has already made 15 U-turns. Will he make another one next week at the spring statement to fix the student loans system?
- Hansard source
Engagements
The economy will only turn around this year if the Prime Minister stops being the leader. Perhaps his party can do something about that. He wants us to welcome the economic news; I am sorry, but I am not going to welcome the fact that youth unemployment is at its highest ever. I am not going to welcome the fact that unemployment has increased every single month under this Labour Government. He is not doing anything about student loans because he is not governing, and he is not governing because he cannot govern. He is distracted by Labour scandal after Labour scandal. Even today, there is an inquiry into the inquiries Minister! That is all his party has offered since it came in. The defining moment of this man’s premiership will not be breakfast clubs; it will be the sight of the man he appointed ambassador to Washington just last year getting arrested. No wonder Labour Members are calling themselves all sorts of things. He needs to stop moaning about us, and start fixing his useless Government. Why should the country have to put up with three more years of this?
- Hansard source
Minister for Men and Boys
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for securing this important debate. Men are often told that we do not talk enough about our feelings and that we bury our heads in the sand, and too often in this House and across Whitehall there is a tendency to overlook the challenges faced by men and boys. We rightly and frequently hear about the importance of protecting the rights of women and girls, and that is obviously very important, but equality must mean fairness for everybody across the United Kingdom. If we want to build a nation that everybody is proud to be part of, we must be prepared to confront the challenges facing men. We have a Minister for Women and Equalities and a Select Committee scrutinising that brief, while the civil service employs diversity and inclusion managers to promote the interests of seemingly any group other than men and boys. I am not claiming that that is done on purpose, but it needs to change. This is not about diminishing the progress made in advancing opportunities for women and girls, but we must acknowledge that in several key areas, such as education, employment, justice and health, men face profound challenges that are simply not spoken about enough or dealt with. In education, the disparity starts early: only about 60% of boys are deemed to be school ready, compared with 75% of girls. The gap does not disappear, but persists through secondary education and beyond. Some 45,000 fewer men go to university and 18,000 fewer young men have started apprenticeships since 2017. At the same time, boys are more than twice as likely as girls to be permanently excluded from school. Alongside the statistics, an unhelpful narrative has developed that boys are a problem to society and that they need to be managed. That does nothing to raise aspiration or instil pride and responsibility in young men. We see the issue even in working life. The number of young men unemployed for more than a year now stands at more than 107,000—the highest level since 2015, in part thanks to the economic decisions of the current Government, sadly. As we all know, long-term unemployment has serious social consequences. As has been mentioned, we have a male prison population of more than 90,000 and we have thousands of young men sleeping rough on any given night. That is not the life that any of us in this place would want for our sons, brothers or friends. Finally, we cannot ignore the realities of men’s health. Men are more likely to become alcoholics or have addictions than women. Physically, men are more likely to be overweight, to suffer from cardiovascular disease and to die earlier than women from a range of conditions, including cancer. Most worrying of all is the fact that in England and Wales suicide is about three times more common among men than among women, and the gap continues to widen. This is the elephant in the room that we are simply not talking about enough. These outcomes demand serious and sustained attention.
- Hansard source
Minister for Men and Boys
I could not agree more. I think that, at times, Departments work in silos. Strategy is not often cross-departmental and decisions made in one Department mat have a massive impact on another, so I absolutely agree with the point that the hon. Member makes. As I said, these outcomes demand serious and sustained attention. I do see the merits of a Minister for men and boys, but I do not believe that the answer lies in creating another bureaucratic post that politicians can hide behind. When a group appears to be struggling, Whitehall groupthink leads to a new title, a new office or, God forbid, yet another quango, but symbolism does not deliver. We need real systemic and cultural change across Whitehall to improve outcomes for men, just like we do for women. Only then will we truly be able to improve the lives of not just men and boys, but everybody.
- Hansard source
Ukraine
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome), who always speaks knowledgably on defence matters—and not just because of his own service—as he has done again today. I must apologise to the House for missing the initial speeches in this debate, which I would not usually do. I offer the small excuse that I have been travelling for 17 hours and, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), have just returned—hotfoot, as it were—from Kyiv. Under those unusual circumstances, I am very grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to Mr Speaker, for allowing me to sum up for the Conservatives and to report back to the House on what we learned from our trip to Ukraine. In my role as shadow Armed Forces Minister, I was one of around 20 UK MPs to visit Ukraine. This was, I believe, the largest delegation we have ever sent, and it included MPs from all the main parties in the House of Commons—although there was no MP from Reform. I regret in all sincerity that, yet again, when we are debating foreign policy and defence in this House, the Reform Benches are empty. As the son of a D-day veteran, I have always believed that the first duty of Government, above all others, is the defence of the realm, so those who aspire to form a Government should at least be bothered to turn up and talk about it. I also pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter), who, while we were there, was presented with President Zelensky’s Order of Merit for the brilliant campaigning she has undertaken on behalf of Ukrainian children who have been captured and forcibly adopted by Russian families, or—in some cases, with older children—put into military training camps for the Russian army, which is totally and utterly contrary to the Geneva convention. We in this House know that she has been a stalwart campaigner on the issue, but so now does the President of Ukraine. We honour her for the honour that she has done us. I would also like to mention—because if I did not mention him, I will never hear the end of it—the former Member of Parliament for Filton and Bradley Stoke, Jack Lopresti, who served in Afghanistan as a reservist and who has recently joined the Ukrainian army. He is serving as a specialist in communications and information warfare. Good luck and Godspeed, Jack, in all that you do. Our main purpose in going to Ukraine was to attend the official ceremony of the fourth anniversary of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which we did in Maidan Square yesterday morning. The ceremony was also attended by President Zelensky and his wife; by Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Union; and by several other European Prime Ministers and Foreign Ministers, including our own Foreign Secretary, who had a platoon of British MPs to support her in her duty. We all laid a small commemorative lamp and paid our respects. In some ways, it is the Ukrainian equivalent of our ceremony at the Cenotaph in November, and I can report to the House that it was carried out with equal solemnity and respect.
- Hansard source
Ukraine
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it was great to have him as a colleague on that visit. He brought his great knowledge of defence and foreign affairs to our trip. I can also report to the House that my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness exchanged some humorous words with President Zelensky, but they are probably best left to posterity. We visited at a very difficult time. As well as being in Kyiv, we initially visited Odesa via Moldova, which was under drone and missile attack for part of the time we were there. We visited Chernobyl, which I am pleased to report was not under drone or missile attack, although it was attacked by Russian drones some months ago, incredibly irresponsibly. We then moved on to Kyiv, which again was under bombardment for part of our time there. We had burner phones—I do not think I am giving away any secrets by saying that—and they put an app on them that goes off if there is an air raid warning. When that happens, it is quite sobering, but there is also an all-clear, and with typical Ukrainian humour and defiance, when they play the all-clear, it is followed by the words, “May the Force be with you.” We had multiple meetings while we were there. As the House knows, people come and go on these delegations, but between us we were there for the best part of a week. We met senior staff from the Office of the President, who gave us an up-to-date briefing on the state of the ceasefire negotiations. We met a dozen Ukrainian MPs from the UK friendship group, and we had an intelligence briefing from the Ukrainian military. We visited several bombed-out residential apartments, including, I am sad to say, one on Kyiv’s left bank, which has suffered particularly heavily as it is an industrial area and a logistics centre where there is a large amount of working-class housing—a bit like the east end of London in some ways. We visited one apartment where, tragically, 23 innocent people were killed, including several children, in a Russian strike. We think that it was aimed at the railway marshalling yards nearby, but because this was a drone it was not as accurate as a hypersonic missile, and those people were tragically murdered. We also attended a veterans’ rehabilitation centre. As the Secretary of State, who is with us, will know, when I was the Veterans Minister I had a bit to do with that, and I am proud of the fact that we managed to provide the Genium prosthetic for our wounded. We saw the Ukrainian equivalent of a rehabilitation centre, and I understand that this is one area in which Britain has been able to provide some advice and expertise, which was clearly warmly welcomed during our visit. We attended the official opening of the Ukrainian Parliament, the Rada. I am pleased to report to the House that its Speaker, who is a big man in every sense, acknowledged all the international delegations one by one, but the loudest applause was for the Polish delegation and the British delegation. It was probably impossible to tell between the two, but I think that the MPs in the Rada were under no illusion about who had backed them to the hilt. It was a difficult time, and at all those different meetings three themes emerged consistently. We were asked to report them to the House, so I will perform that solemn, duty now. First, our interlocutors were clear about the fact that although we were formally celebrating—or, I should say, commemorating—the fourth anniversary of the full-scale invasion, Ukraine was originally invaded by Russia in 2014. It has been at war with Russia not for four years but for 12, which, to put it into perspective, is longer than the first and the second world wars put together. I think that Ukraine’s resistance for over a decade, in the face of the most brutal attacks from a larger and more powerful neighbour, deserves the respect and admiration of every single Member of this House and every single citizen in this country. The Ukrainians are fighting for us. They are fighting for the same values: for freedom, democracy, and the right to decide their own destiny. Their fight is our fight. We spoke a great deal to people about morale, and I think it is realistic. There are many in Ukraine who long for peace, for very understandable reasons, but they were all clear on one thing, namely that they would not accept peace at any price. Too much blood has been shed by the youth of Ukraine for them to accept a purely unilateral solution proposed by Russia. That theme emerged many times. The second theme concerned sanctions. Most of the Ukrainians whom we spoke to in those meetings were understandably keen for an extension of sanctions by the western democracies, not least with regard to frozen Russian assets, a subject that we have debated in the House on numerous occasions. Many Ukrainians feel that now really is the time for the western democracies to bite the bullet and use those $300 billion or so of frozen Russian assets to help Ukraine. However, they also made had a particular point about the shadow fleet, and here I ask for the Minister’s special attention. The sale of hydrocarbons, whether oil or gas, ultimately props up the Russian economy, which allows Putin to spend about 40% of Russia’s budget on its military and to recruit mercenaries to fight in the Russian armed forces. In some cases, mercenaries are being offered up to $38,000 as a signing-on fee to fight in the Russian armed forces, but according to Ukrainian intelligence officers—they said we could say this—the average life expectancy of those mercenaries is four months. The Ukrainians would like to see much greater sanctioning of the shadow fleet. The Minister knows that some of those vessels are uninsured, but many are insured and, moreover, many are insured by syndicates at Lloyd’s of London. Surely there is more that we could do to cramp the activities of the shadow fleet by working with Lloyd’s and other insurers to make sure that those ships cannot have insurance, which would make it difficult for them to visit at least some of their destination points. I make a particular point of that, because I am trying to do justice to the Ukrainians, who raised this issue with us again and again and again. They are really hard over on this, and I hope the Minister can say something in his summing up.
- Hansard source
Ukraine
I am not an insurance expert and would not claim to be, but surely there is more that we can do. It is not a state secret that Lloyd’s of London is a world leader in maritime insurance, and surely there is more that can be done here. We promised—all of us—that we would relay this back to the House. Minister, over to you.
- Hansard source
Ukraine
As ever, my hon. Friend is entirely right. The sale of hydrocarbons, including to China and India, is effectively Putin’s windpipe. Some people now refer to Russia as “China’s gas station”. If we could do more against those ships, it would be important for Ukrainian morale. We were told time and again that when the Ukrainians hear that a shadow fleet vessel has been impounded or captured, it raises their morale. This is something that we could do, in difficult circumstances, to raise their morale even further. Between us, my hon. Friend and I have made the point, and hopefully the Minister can follow up on it. The third theme that I want to stress before I finish is that we were thanked again and again for Britain’s support militarily, diplomatically and economically, and for our humanitarian aid. Wherever we went, people said, “Thank you.” I think it is true to say that the previous Government gave real leadership in Europe on this and I think it is true to say that the current Government have continued in the same vein, but the House should know that people from the Office of the President downwards went out of their way to thank us for everything that Britain, and indeed this House, has done. The Speaker of the Rada gave us a sombre warning. He said: “No one knows the Russians better than us. If we fall, you and your friends are next.” It is important that this House appreciates that. I do not want to spoil the non-partisan spirit of this debate, but there are lessons for us in the United Kingdom not just about the overall level of defence spending, but about the long-delayed defence investment plan. I say to the Secretary of State for Defence that we desperately need that document. We cannot wait much longer, and we have waited since the autumn, so the ball is in the Secretary of State’s court. It would be good for Ukrainian morale to see Britain committing to a long-term equipment programme.
- Hansard source
Ukraine
My right hon. Friend is quite right. The Ukrainians were—and I use this word deliberately—warning us. They have been at war for 12 years, and they were warning us not to be complacent, but to learn from their suffering about the need never to take freedom for granted. The Secretary of State has heard me use these words before, so I crave his indulgence, but the Roman military strategist Vegetius said: “Si vis pacem, para bellum”— he who desires peace should prepare for war in order to deter it. We heard those words again in Ukraine. To conclude, on the Monday evening before the ceremony in Maidan Square the following day, we were entertained at a reception at the British embassy. I hope the Minister will understand the spirit in which this is said, but there was a slightly humorous moment when the chargé d’affaires thanked the British delegation for ignoring Foreign Office advice not to travel to Ukraine to be at the reception. I thank the Minister for his letter also advising us not to go. I am terribly sorry, but we exercised Nelson’s eye, and we went anyway. In all seriousness, it was a wonderful evening, and we were entertained by several people from what the Ukrainians call the cultural forces of Ukraine, including, very memorably, a group of Ukrainian soldiers singing a cappella. They were brilliant, and there were genuine shouts of “more” and “encore” at the end. They encored with Frank Sinatra’s “My Way”. For those who know the song, there are the wonderful lines where Sinatra sings: To say the things he truly feels And not the words of one who kneels. The Ukrainians have not knelt. They have not knelt in the face of terrorism. They have not knelt in the face of barbarism, including the use of highly accurate cruise missiles to deliberately attack children’s hospitals. They have not knelt in the face of genocide at places such as Bucha. They have stood up, and this House—every man jack of us—stands with them. Slava Ukraini!
- Hansard source
Ukraine
We would all be intrigued to know who Reform’s defence spokesperson is, so if the Minister picks up any hints about that, perhaps he could give me a ring.
- Hansard source
Ukraine
I am sorry to hammer the nail on the point about insurance; I do not expect the Minister to make policy on the hoof, but so many of the Ukrainians we spoke to were so hard over on the point about insurance in London for the shadow fleet. Could the Minister at least give the House a commitment now that he will go away and work with ministerial colleagues to see what more can be done in this area? So many Ukrainians are asking for exactly that.
- Hansard source
Draft Surrey (Structural Changes) Order 2026
The Minister referenced £500 million of debt repayment support off the back of Woking’s unsupported debt. That rings a bell with me; my neighbouring authority in Blackpool has £500 million of debt, while my Fylde borough council carries no debt. How much do the Government think they will pay in debt support as they look at the other councils going through this process, and have they budgeted an amount for that? Will the debt be paid off before the new authority is created, or will it be transferred to it?
- Hansard source
UK-German Relations
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick), on securing this important debate. As we are going down the line of declaring interests or key products that we own, I too am a loyal customer of BMW and own one now. I realise that we will probably get some nasty emails from all the “buy British” campaigners, since we have declared our love for German cars. To pick up on the contribution of the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) on town twinning, I reassure her that it is okay to have Tory friends occasionally; if Labour party T-shirts are to be believed, you are just not allowed to kiss us. In the debate generally, that clear love for Germany, the relationships that people built up and the places that they enjoyed visiting really came across. I note that, as a proud Brexiteer, I am heavily outnumbered in this Chamber, although I was grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—he has now legged it—who is usually my Brexiteer bodyguard in Westminster Hall debates. Perhaps we will save that one for discussion over a litre or two of Weissbier. Few bilateral relationships matter more to Britain’s security, prosperity and global standing than our partnership with Germany. This is a year of particular significance, as has been noted, but also marks 80 years since Britain founded North Rhine-Westphalia after the second world war, today Germany’s most populous state. My right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), the shadow Foreign Secretary, was pleased to meet the North Rhine-Westphalia International Affairs Minister in Munich earlier this month, along with the German Foreign Minister. We Conservatives recognise that a confident Britain needs a confident, outward-looking Germany as a partner, and that a strong Germany and a strong Britain can be an anchor of stability at a time of global volatility. From a party political perspective, we are naturally pleased to see our sister party, the CDU/CSU, return to Government. Only last week, my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary attended the Munich security conference, where she met German counterparts from our sister party to reaffirm the depth of the UK-German relationship and our shared determination to strengthen European and transatlantic security. Germany is now markedly stepping up its role in European and global security. The new federal Government have put significant resource behind defence and support for Ukraine. Germany’s 2026 budget includes a commitment to provide in excess of €11 billion in support to Ukraine, which is extremely welcome and will make a material difference on the ground. Politically, Berlin has taken steps to alter long-standing fiscal constraints so that it can fund the rearmament. The medium-term fiscal plan and recent constitutional adjustments reflect a willingness to unlock resources for defence in a way not seen for decades. The way in which Germany is funding its defence rise is, of course, specific to its fiscal situation and the way it manages its economy and spending, which is different from the UK. That, however, raises some simple but urgent questions for our own Government as part of that relationship. If one of our closest allies can set a date and a credible trajectory for higher defence spending, why has the UK not done the same? Germany has been explicit about its political timetable for increasing defence spending. By contrast, here at home we are still waiting for the defence investment plan, which the Government told us was due last autumn and has now been repeatedly delayed. In my constituency, I have a great defence manufacturing capability in BAE Systems, and I would like to see much more defence industrial collaboration across the board with Germany, made possible by the defence investment plan. With NATO allies, industry leaders and even senior military figures noting the strategic importance of clear spending pathways, can the Minister finally say when the defence investment plan will be published, and how it will ensure we meet our NATO ambitions? The Conservatives in Government laid the foundations for the deepening of UK-German co-operation, in particular on defence: the 2024 defence declaration, the Trinity House arrangements on defence and industrial co-operation, and the long-range precision missiles are of significance. Will the Government publish a clear timetable for delivering against those commitments and the commitments set out in the 2025 Kensington treaty? What progress has been made to date, and what should we expect to see in the coming weeks and months? Britain and Germany can together anchor European security in an unpredictable world. The Opposition want that partnership to flourish and will support steps that deepen it, but we will also insist that the British Government match their own rhetoric with credible resource plans. Only then will a strong Germany and a strong UK translate ambition into the hard capabilities required.
- Hansard source
Minister for Men and Boys
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg, on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) on securing this important debate. I declare an interest as the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on men and boys’ issues. It is a huge pleasure to work with the Centre for Policy Research on Men and Boys in that role, advancing the wellbeing, safety and happiness of men and boys across the country. The fact that I have the opportunity to work with the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) makes it even more thrilling. It is wonderful to work cross-party on something that matters in all our communities, which has been highlighted this afternoon. It is only when all of us—men and boys, women and girls—are happy, leading by example, and creating a fair, safe and equal society where everybody has the opportunity to prosper, that some of the deep, ingrained issues in our constituencies and daily lives will be fixed. It was a pleasure to hear some of the speeches and comments from Members on both sides of the House, who have passionately and rightly spoken up about the great work in their constituencies and their experiences. It has been a really insightful conversation this afternoon. It is a sad fact that, as we have heard today, 14 men die by suicide every day—more than 5,000 a year in England and Wales. Families and loved ones are affected, and those men are deeply cared about. The fact that suicide continues to be the largest killer of men under 50 in the UK is a huge cause for concern. The first men’s health strategy for England is extremely welcome, and I will say more on that shortly. The initiatives on the stigma surrounding mental health, particularly for men, are vital, but I was pleased to see support for emergency service workers in the policing reform White Paper, which is welcomed by Samaritans. That is a key step forward, and it will partly help with the issue. In my constituency role and shadow ministerial roles, I have met some amazing organisations that do so much for men and boys. The charitable area is often the first point of contact for men and boys. Women often have moments, friendships and other things in their lives where there is a natural conversation point. For men, it is very often a health issue that they reach out about—if they do at all—so it is vital that we fund and support those areas. There are organisations such as Movember, MAN v FAT—I will say more on that shortly—the wonderful Men’s Sheds, which I and many of us have in our constituencies, and there is the work of Samaritans. Where there are suicide hotspots and other issues in Sussex, that work really matters. I was delighted, like many of us, to win a Movember award for being a men’s health champion, which now sits proudly in my office. I am delighted to see so many other people winning those. Hon. Members have rightly spoken about talking of masculinity in a positive way. Positive role models are important, but I wonder why we need an adjective around masculinity. I thank everybody who has taken on points about culture this afternoon. I said I would return to the men’s health strategy, tackling HIV, prostate cancer and health equality. My hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth opened the debate fantastically well; I am proud to call him a friend. His work on this really matters. It is now standard that we have an International Men’s Day debate and fringe events at our party conferences. Those have been as well attended as the Conservative women’s organisation events I am involved in. I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend, as I am sure we all do, that it should never be a choice of either/or. It was important that he opened the debate by spelling out why that matters. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) talked about the key, which is outcomes. Co-ordinated action is a key message from today’s debate. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) expressed strong views and values, many of them sounding very Conservative. I am not sure she would be delighted to hear that. The point about family courts and family breakdown is important, as well as being there for kids and being challenging. Men often want to be there for family, but the process holds them back. It is difficult for men to put their heads above the parapet. Many men want and need to be involved in their children’s lives. The hon. Lady was right to spell that out, having heard from her constituents. I said I would talk about MAN v FAT. I enjoyed meeting Richard Crick, its director, some time ago. That is an amazing, inclusive programme, which coaches and supports men in their health. He and I, like the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland and many others, are Centre for Policy Research on Men and Boys champions. I have never felt so championing—it is amazing. I am delighted to be mentioned in the same breath as Gareth Southgate and Lawrence Dallaglio. Gareth Southgate’s LinkedIn posts are amazing, offering the best time on social media. My hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth thought I was interested in this just because of his work with David Gandy, but I promise I am interested in the whole gamut. That shows the breadth and importance of role models across all sections of society. I know the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) feels this strongly. Perhaps this Parliament is doing the wrong thing; how about it always trying to do the right thing? In this area, working with role models and more widely, there is an opportunity for all of us. The hon. Member is right that there is a blame game. Where are the role models? Let us have a look at that. Single men on apps, how does that work? We know of incel culture and the challenges around those who are lost and lonely. We know that loneliness can tip into mental health conditions, so it is right to look at social media. The leader of my party is talking about the under-16 challenge. It is right that we properly address the issue of white working-class boys. Too many young people are being left disillusioned and left behind. That is a fact; let us get on with doing something about it, for example, dealing with online safety and the harms around young children. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland rightly talked about pornography. We have heard today about men as victims of domestic violence from the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt). I do not believe in using the words domestic abuse and I do not like the term domestic violence. I call it criminality in the home. It does not matter who instigates it; we should deal with it. If it were on the front lawn or down the street, we would deal with it, no matter who is the perpetrator. We need to continue in that vein with that cross-party approach. My question to the Minister, whom I am pleased to see in her place, is: what is the Government’s position on the culture of men and boys? We have heard about the thought-provoking approach of Gareth Southgate and others. Do the Government believe that masculinity needs an adjective? Mothers of young boys, and indeed this mother of young girls, want all our young people to be supported. Crucially, whether they be feminine or masculine, they need to be happy, particularly our young boys in their masculinity. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, my co-chair in the all-party parliamentary group, mentioned the boy problem. He spoke about excellent role models. One we work with is the amazing Mark Brooks OBE, who is the director of the Centre for Policy Research on Men and Boys. The hon. Member rightly talked about partnership and fatherhood, and made some typically thoughtful comments.
- Hansard source
Minister for Men and Boys
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point, and that is why I take such an interest in this area. The feeling of hopelessness and anger is being exploited, which creates myriad challenges that make the most vulnerable even more vulnerable. We must step up on education, employment, health and aspiration. All of that is impacting hope. Some people in particular sectors, such as farming, are more isolated. It is not okay that our men are not thriving. Hope and confidence need to be in every community. This is truly a cross-party issue.
- Hansard source
Minister for Men and Boys
The Minister has rightly outlined strategies and different strands across Government. Could she set out whether there those strategies are driving at any particular outcomes, including around young offenders and other areas, so that we can track whether they are having the desired outcomes in our constituencies?
- Hansard source
Post Office Green Paper
Kingswinford is the largest town centre in my constituency, but it has been without a post office since the Midcounties Co-operative closed the store in which the post office was located. That loss has become even more significant since Lloyds bank announced this month that it was closing the only bank in the town centre. The Minister has spoken about retaining a minimum post office network, but what will the Government do to help re-open post offices in town centres that do not currently have a post office, such as Kingswinford?
- Hansard source
Draft Surrey (Structural Changes) Order 2026
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. When creating new unitary councils, it is important that we take communities with us, and community identity is really important. I have raised concerns about this whole devolution and unitarisation process and how we take all the communities within the shire councils across the country with us. On Surrey in particular, will the Minister, in her summing up, reflect on a comment made in the Chamber by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp)? He called for the new proposed unitary authority covering his constituency to be named West Surrey and South Middlesex, rather than simply West Surrey, to ensure that we get that historical county representation and take communities with us.
- Hansard source
Draft Surrey (Structural Changes) Order 2026
I completely agree. I do not think the Government have spent much time considering that fundamental flaw and how we take communities with us by getting that identity right. The people of Spelthorne feel strongly about their historical ties to Middlesex, and I urge the Minister to listen to those concerns. Creating big new super-unitary councils by shoving multiple areas together does not make people feel included, because no one wants to end up like Birmingham. It is really important that we take communities with us.
- Hansard source
Diego Garcia and British Indian Ocean Territory
We have been saying for months that to give away the Chagos islands and pay for the privilege is complete and utter madness. Having rammed this through, we are now told that the Government are taking a “pause for thought”. Can the Minister explain why the Government signed off this disastrous and disastrously expensive handover agreement without having thought about it first?
- Hansard source
Hospitality Sector
6. What discussions he has had with the First Minister of Scotland on support for the Scottish hospitality sector.