5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
Twelve months ago, the hon. Gentleman and I sat on the Bill Committee. This is the first time that the Commons has had the opportunity to debate this measure, courtesy of the House of Lords. The Lords have done us a favour, haven’t they?
The whole House will welcome the Foreign Secretary’s words on the terrorist attack on Bondi Beach. Without seeking to interfere directly in matters before the court in Hong Kong, we note that Jimmy Lai is 78, he is held in solitary confinement, his health is in sharp decline, he is unable to practise his religious beliefs and he is a British citizen. Surely this case cries out, at the least, for clemency. In view Jimmy Lai’s British citizenship, will the Foreign Secretary directly engage afresh with her opposite number, Foreign Minister Wang Yi, and the Chinese state to mount the very strong case for clemency for Jimmy Lai?
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 12 November, during Prime Minister’s questions, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) and leader of Reform announced that the “Reform-led West Northamptonshire Council will be issuing foreclosure notices on three migrant hotels”— including one in my constituency— “within the next few days,” because of “grave public concern about the safety of women and girls on the streets of West Northamptonshire.”—[Official Report, 12 November 2025; Vol. 775, c. 151.] A freedom of information request response dated 9 December confirms that no such foreclosure notices have been issued. I asked the hon. Member for Clacton to correct the record and apologise for inadvertently misleading the House, but I have received no response. Given the seriousness of the issue and the sensitivities around the implications in his question, will you please advise me on how I can take the matter forward? Members of the public should be able to trust what is said in this place.
I listened to the Foreign Secretary really closely, and I have to say that, without real action, even the strongest condemnation she may issue is not strong enough. Calling the ambassador will just be taken as words, because that has all been done before. The Chinese are not listening, as the conviction of Jimmy Lai proves. One show of strength she could make, of course, is to withdraw her support for the Chinese super-embassy in the heart of London. By doing so, I am sure that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government would listen, and the independent process. What the Chinese would hear is that the protection of British citizens is of paramount interest to us and that it will not be without consequence if they are maltreated.
Turnchapel Wharf and the Cattewater in my constituency host many marine autonomous defence innovators, but the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s workboat code edition 3 is hampering the testing, development and utilisation of autonomous vessels. They cannot even get the licences to be out on the water. What conversations has the Minister had with his counterparts in the Department for Transport to stress the urgency of sorting out this issue, so that the promised defence investment for Plymouth actually gets out to sea?
The Minister knows of the Plymouth Violence against Women and Girls Commission, which highlighted the role of pornography in VAWG. It is my view that schools should be a place where pupils can concentrate on learning and not have access to social media, including abusive forms of online pornography, which have been banned online. Australia has tackled this issue outside the classroom, as we know, by banning social media for teenagers under 16. Does the Minister agree with me that banning smartphones during the school day would not only improve pupils’ concentration, but be a practical way to stop boys in particular from accessing content that encourages them to perpetuate sexual abuse?
Millions continue to suffer in Sudan. It is clear that red lines are constantly being crossed. The world is witnessing unspeakable horrors and barbaric atrocities. The situation in El Fasher is of grave concern. No one in this House or the country can comprehend the level of barbarity in the acts that have been taken. We Conservatives have been calling for further sanctions on the warring parties, and we note the additional measures announced by the Government last week. That does represent progress, but it is important now that momentum builds and follows. I acknowledge what the Minister said about the closed session at the UN tomorrow. Can we expect to see more rounds of sanctions? It is vital that the sanctions directorate at the FCDO works around the clock to identify the culprits—be they individuals or organisations—and holds them to account. What contribution is the UK making to the urgent UN inquiry into El Fasher, and what further steps will the Government take? What direct engagement has the Minister had with the Sudan Quad on finding a diplomatic solution, and to pressure those with influence over the warring parties to agree a ceasefire and allow humanitarian aid to flow in, and to stop committing atrocities? Is the UK involved in the international processes, like Cairo, to develop and build confidence with the Sudanese political civilian forces? That is crucial for facilitating a transition to a civilian-led Government. As we have heard, the humanitarian situation is catastrophic, so will the Minister explain how the latest aid package will be delivered and by which organisations, and say how those who are in desperate need will receive it? How will the Government ensure that shifting frontlines and potential new challenges and blockages to aid delivery are addressed, and what is their assessment of the humanitarian assistance that we have already given? Has it been reaching those in need, and what is the timescale for the dispatch of new aid? Will the Minister update the House on whether there has been any progress since the Sudan summit in London earlier this year when it comes to the support and pledges made by other countries? What discussions are the Government holding with partners who could be deploying urgent relief and assistance in light of this ongoing and growing crisis?
On behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition and with your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to give our condolences following the antisemitic targeted murder of 15 people from the Jewish community in the shooting in Bondi Beach yesterday. This atrocity was absolutely appalling, and as the Jewish community comes together this Hanukkah, we honour a tradition that symbolises resilience, faith and the triumph of light over darkness. In the early hours of this morning, Jimmy Lai was convicted, following a shameful show trial under the repressive national security law imposed on Hong Kong in breach of the Sino-British joint declaration. Jimmy Lai’s imprisonment, trial and conviction mark a new low in the Chinese Communist party’s shameful attempts to extinguish freedom, democracy and the rule of law in Hong Kong. They are yet more serious violations of the Sino-British joint declaration. The scenes of Jimmy, a 78-year-old man, being paraded around in chains are disturbing, but his defiance stands as a source of hope for those who still believe in freedom, democracy and human rights. Despite all the pain and suffering, despite being persecuted at the hands of the Chinese Communist party, despite being held in solitary confinement for more than 1,800 days, and despite his health deteriorating, Jimmy’s spirit remains unbroken. Throughout the last few years, his son Sebastien, his family and supporters have fought hard for his freedom and to raise awareness of his appalling treatment. I pay tribute to them. The whole House will stand behind them as their fight to free Jimmy continues. Jimmy should be freed and allowed to come home to the United Kingdom to be with his family. We need to know what action the Government will now take to do everything possible to secure his release and to seriously ratchet up the pressure to end the disgraceful and draconian national security law. What will the consequences be if Beijing does not change its position? When was the last time the Prime Minister raised Jimmy Lai’s imprisonment directly with President Xi? Has he called President Xi today, in the aftermath of the conviction, to demand Jimmy’s release and to demand that Jimmy be free to come home to the UK? How often has the Prime Minister raised this case directly since July 2024? What was President Xi’s response to him on the occasions that the case was raised, either publicly or in private? What assurances have been given about Jimmy Lai’s treatment in prison? We know that his health is deteriorating and that he is being kept in absolutely cruel conditions, so what medical help and access to him is the Prime Minister pursuing, and what has been the response of the Chinese and Hong Kong authorities? Has the Prime Minister told President Xi, face to face and directly, that we will oppose this political show trial, and condemn China for breaching the Sino-British joint declaration with its national security law? This House has previously been informed that Ministers constantly raise this case and have been in touch with their Chinese counterparts, so can the Foreign Secretary tell us whether the National Security Adviser raised it on his recent visit to China? Did he have any discussions about Jimmy’s case? Has the Prime Minister continued to raise our concerns that the national security law breaches the joint declaration? What discussions are taking place with international partners, including the United States, to pressure China to release Jimmy and scrap its oppressive national security law? The immediate release of Jimmy Lai has to be a priority for this Government, but the case raises wider issues with UK-China relations. The Prime Minister is clearly seeking significantly closer relations with Beijing, and has, for economic reasons, effectively ended the policy of trying to reduce strategic dependency, even though the economic impact has been negligible and will not be felt in people’s pockets. The Foreign Secretary stands here condemning China, but she wrote a letter supportive of their super-embassy spy hub. Today shows exactly why that approach is deeply foolhardy. This morning Sebastien Lai asked how we can normalise relationships if the British Government cannot put a 78-year-old man, who is in seriously bad health, on a plane and send him back to the UK. He asked how, if they cannot even do something as simple as that, we can talk about closer relations. He has called for the release to be a precondition of any further talks with China. Do the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister agree? With the Chinese Communist party continuing to imprison Jimmy Lai and undermine freedom in Hong Kong, will the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister send a signal of our disgust to the CCP by cancelling the Prime Minister’s planned visit to China next January unless Jimmy Lai is released, blocking China’s super-embassy planning application and placing it on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme?
I thank the hon. Member for introducing the debate—and, as somebody who shares a house with a Newcastle fan, I thank him for a miserable weekend. It is important that we get the safety elements and aspects of the Online Safety Act correct, but does he agree that it should not be used as a blunt tool to stifle freedom of speech online?
Childnet has discovered that there has been increased downloading of VPNs by children over the last three months, as adolescents use them to circumvent age verification processes. I was interested to hear what the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) said—I presume he was referring to the Open Rights Group. I just had a quick look at the research, and although it says that it is not the youngest children who do that, it is children from the age of 13 up, so these are vulnerable adolescents. Does my hon. Friend agree that, for the Online Safety Act to be successful, the use of VPNs has to be examined further?
9. What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of Exchequer on meeting the NATO target of 5% of GDP on defence expenditure.
It was troubling to hear—unless I misheard the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith)—that the Secretary of State can talk with exactitude about the future of welfare spending, but not of defence spending. I remind him that the last time a Government spent 3% on defence was in 1996, and it was a Conservative Government. He is eloquent, but I would like him to be exact. When specifically—in which financial year—can we expect to hit 3% on defence spending?
Unfortunately, I am not responsible for the content of speeches made by Front Benchers or by Back Benchers. That is not a matter for the Chair, but the hon. Member has most definitely got his point on the record.
Does the Secretary of State wish to respond? Hopefully, we are not going to prolong the debate.
Order. To prevent any further confusion, I should point out that this is not a debate but a response to an urgent question, and Members do not intervene on the Minister.
We cannot prolong the debate, but the hon. Member has most definitely got his point on the record.
Regarding Northern Ireland veterans who served on Operation Banner, the Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles Bill has now been powerfully described by eight retired four-star generals and an air chief marshal as: “A direct threat to national security.” Can the Minister confirm that not all the Government’s six protections for veterans are even in the Bill, and that, moreover, at least half of them also apply to alleged paramilitaries?
That is not true. We had hoped to hear from the wannabe future Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), but as we have not—[Interruption.] He is not denying it. If what the Minister claims is true, how does she explain the recent comment by General Sir Peter Wall, the former head of the British Army, who said that the protections are “a meaningless insult and only become relevant once re-investigation is under way”? Respectfully, who knows more about defending our veterans: a brand new Minister or a former chief of the general staff who actually commanded them?
I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving the House the chance to discuss this important issue that affects the lives of millions of women and girls across the country. This issue is a stain on our society, and I am sure that Members across the House will support the ambition to halve violence against women and girls. For the same reason, I hope that the Minister can recognise the work undertaken by the previous Government through the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and the related plan, funded by hundreds of millions of pounds, alongside important changes to legislation in areas such as harassment. While it is clear that much more still needs to be done, those were critical steps in the right direction. Worryingly, according to data from the crime survey for England and Wales, sexual offences, rape, stalking and harassment have all increased by between 5% and 9% under this Labour Government. That has occurred at the same time as the number of police officers has fallen under this Government. It demonstrates that despite the targets that have been set and the undoubted will of the Minister to reduce these life-altering crimes, there remains a significant gap between ambition and results. We look forward to seeing the full scope of the strategy, which I am sure all Members would have wished to see sooner. I am sure that Members would have preferred to hear it in the House, rather than in the press. Is there a plan to identify and build on the measures in the strategy that are found to be most effective? Given the Government’s cuts to police numbers, what will be done to ensure that police forces have not only assigned individuals and titles, but the resources needed to tackle violence against women and girls head-on?
Police numbers are produced in March and September. The last official records show—
I remind colleagues that if they wish to speak, they should bob—quite a few colleagues are bobbing already, so thank you for that.
Before we continue, could I ask that everybody has their phone on silent, please?
T3. The Defence Secretary says that this country should get on a war footing, but the UK currently has no comprehensive anti-hypersonic, anti-ballistic missile defence system. Given the threats from Russia and elsewhere and their capabilities, that means that all our constituents, whether they vote Labour or Conservative, are defenceless, and that this country, frankly, is a sitting duck.
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry said that we would have the defence investment plan in the autumn. The Secretary of State has now told us that they are working flat-out to get it to us by the end of the year. When I was in the Army, we had a saying that two minutes early is three minutes late. Can we just make sure that this lackadaisical approach to punctuality has not spread to the military? Can the Secretary of State confirm that the King’s birthday parade will indeed take place at 11 am on 13 June?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John, not least because it means that you cannot speak. I think you would happily take up a good hour of the debate talking about the perils and ills of the internet, and how it needs to be shut down, so that is probably for the best.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) on introducing the debate. He made a particularly excellent contribution to last week’s petition debate on mandatory digital identification; although his party’s leadership may not have thanked him, I am sure his constituents did. He is right that the internet allows unprecedented connection, which is for good, but also for ill. Our job is to balance that inherent tension, while recognising that sometimes there is no balance to be found and that we have to make a choice when it comes to children being served a toxic online diet of extreme content. When we were in government, that choice was the Online Safety Act, about which thousands of petitioners have raised concerns, believing that its breadth and scope are having too restrictive an effect. I have some sympathy with those concerns, because the Act is large and very complex; although it is proving effective in protecting children in many ways, the implementation undoubtedly comes with challenges, whether that is VPN usage or the inadvertent capturing of no to low-risk sites in compliance duties.
I agree, and I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say about VPNs—whether they should be age-gated, whether we should look at app store controls so that parents have to consent to children downloading VPN apps, or whether there are other, more effective ways of doing that. The sites that we have talked about may be smaller community forums, or they may be volunteer-run, but they are often mid-size tech companies that do not have the resources that the social media giants have to navigate the legal risks and intricacies of the Act without diverting precious capacity that might otherwise be used to innovate and expand their businesses. I have talked to some of those businesses. They may have one person who can do legal compliance; if they are looking at the next stage of the OSA’s implementation, they may be pulled off other work that is helping to grow the economy. We have to take that very seriously and look into it. A lot of those sites are effectively no risk whatever, and the OSA is probably too burdensome for them. We do not want the Act to stifle our vital tech sector. Concerns have been raised about freedom of speech and user privacy. I can understand those concerns in principle; particularly when age verification first came into place over the summer, there were instances where there was a practical impact and posts were restricted. However, it seems that those early examples have been recycled many times to suggest that the Act is having a wholesale dampening effect on what people feel confident saying online, and I am not sure that that is actually the case. Those concerns are often conflated with other issues, such as the policing of tweets, non-crime hate incidents, the application of legislation such as the Public Order Act 2023, and outrageous cases of state overreach, such as that of Graham Linehan. We must also be mindful of those who seek to exaggerate those concerns for the sake of big tech’s commercial interests. I note the comments that the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) made about the power that platforms hold. On the other side of the ledger are worries that it remains relatively straightforward for under-18s to access pornography. There is no foolproof way to age-gate the internet. We have to see the Online Safety Act as a first step in a pushback against the wholly unacceptable situation that we witnessed previously. Of course some children seek out material and will continue to do so with determination, but far too many had previously been stumbling across explicit or illegal material by complete accident. Studies that have already been cited today suggest that 41% of children first encountered porn on X, rather than seeking it out. If the Online Safety Act has a material impact on reducing that risk, it will have served its purpose. The hon. Member for Milton Keyneps Central (Emily Darlington) provided some truly shocking statistics and rightly said that we are putting porn back on the top shelf. As she was saying that, I thought back to the advent of magazines such as Zoo and Nuts when I was a teenager. They were seen as having dreadfully explicit content that was far too readily available, but they seem quite quaint when we think about what children can access now. Pornhub reported a 77% reduction in visitors after implementing age verification measures, but it is important to note that the traffic previously going to such sites has not simply disappeared. A chunk of it has shifted to smaller sites that may be riskier because, in some cases, they think they can financially benefit from not implementing age-gating, which is against the law. Those sites need to know that Ofcom fines are coming. No website should assume that it can sidestep its legal duties. The fines are designed to outweigh any short-term commercial advantage gained by ignoring the law. I do not believe that the best way of dealing with these concerns is to repeal the Online Safety Act, and nobody in the Chamber has advocated for that, but it is for us to review it and to work out how to tighten up child safety while being honest about the aspects of the law that need to change. A very long and winding road led to the previous Conservative Government passing the Act in 2023, but it was one of the first markers on internet regulation to be put down globally that said that the status quo—children having easy access to illegal explicit content—simply could not continue. As the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) suggested, we cannot have untrammelled freedom for adults in this space, because that status quo caused significant harm to children. It is right that we now expect more from social media platforms, which were given an opportunity to self-regulate and were found wanting. The Act has driven them to make design changes to help parents, children and teenagers, including Meta’s teen accounts and some aspects of Roblox. Without those protections, more children would encounter harmful content, receive unsolicited contact from adults, and access material that encourages self-harm, eating disorders or even suicide. Families would also continue to face barriers when seeking answers from tech companies following tragedies. Pressure on those companies will continue for as long as we see technology’s pernicious effects on our children, including a chatbot’s recent encouragement of a teenager into suicide. Despite the criticisms levelled at this law, it remains popular with parents. Parents must remain sovereign in how children are raised, and they must have the parenting confidence to deny phones and social media to their children, but no matter how involved or savvy parents are, they need help with these challenges—challenges that creep into the heart of people’s homes in a way that we have not seen before, and find their way to children through what other children may be sharing with them. During the years that the Act was being drawn up, we made a lot of changes, including removing the provisions relating to legal but harmful content in 2022. That is good because, as we can see, Ofcom has an enormous job on its hands dealing with some of the biggest online problems, such as age-gating pornography. Had we taken an expansionist approach, we would now be facing far greater problems around free speech, and Ofcom would have an even heavier role—not to mention workload—as arbiter of the public square. Hon. Members need to think about that carefully: the OSA became a Christmas tree on which everybody hung their niche, individual concerns, and it became unimplementable. If the Labour Government wish to go down a more restrictive route in some of these areas, they have to be mindful of that risk. They need something that can actually be implemented in law and they need to resource the regulator to implement it. Long before the Act was brought in, the status quo was also having a negative impact on journalistic content. There is lots of discussion about freedom of speech, but I recall having discussions as a media Minister with traditional news content providers that were extremely frustrated by west coast content moderators arbitrarily taking down their content with no opportunity to appeal. With this legislation, we introduced must-carry provisions that would give proper news content providers a greater chance of their content being visible, which is important for journalistic credibility and to make sure that we have truth in online spaces. As I have said, the Online Safety Act represents the start of a journey as countries grapple to find the right framework through which adults can retain their freedom on the internet while children are treated as children. This debate is particularly timely as a new social media ban was introduced in Australia last week. My party will be watching that closely, but concerns about social media and mobile phones go far beyond the ability to access porn or illegal content. As a party, the Conservatives are concerned about the impact of social media and smartphone use on children’s mental health, education and social development. I suspect that any hon. Member who has recently been to a school in their constituency will have heard about the challenges to the learning environment, the challenges of the social interactions between children, and the challenges that parents are facing at home, which go way beyond the issue of illegal content. We have also heard other concerns. I liked the way the hon. Member for Worcester (Tom Collins) described it as “a veritable chemistry lab of…psychoactive substances”. He also made some interesting observations about safety and how, as a democracy, we must think very carefully about broader harms. The Act will be statutorily reviewed next year. I would welcome the Minister telling us whether the Government are examining the measures that have been discussed today, including whether GDPR protections on the processing of children’s data might be raised from age 13 to 16. Age-gating also needs attention. Reports of VPN use suggest that children have been circumventing protections, and we must consider whether age-gating should be applied more comprehensively, including to VPN use or via app stores or at device level to close those loopholes. Adults also need to be assured of the privacy preserving nature of the age verification tools that they are using. There are concerns about the volume of sensitive data being collected. As I have described, we also need to ensure that low-risk tech firms are not being disproportionately burdened. They did a huge amount of work before the July phase of Ofcom’s introduction of age verification, and they are worried that they will need to make a further step change for regulatory compliance, given the burden that will place on them. Regulation has to remain proportionate, targeting high-risk sites and services without undermining innovation or our competitive position in tech. We also need to examine, as has been discussed many times today, the emerging technologies such as generative AI and chatbots —as was suggested by the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) and the hon. Member for Worcester. The legal position under the OSA is not yet entirely clear, but children are increasingly exposed to AI-generated content, and we need to know if the Act is flexible enough to deal with innovations of that kind. As hon. Members have described today, the Online Safety Act is a necessary first step, but it is only the beginning of a much longer fight to protect childhood. We have to create the space for childhood and adolescence away from screens, with all the richness and stimulation that the real world can bring. Parents ultimately can never cease their vigilance. The internet cannot be made wholly safe, and we cannot be naive about that. Ultimately, parents have to remain the ultimate backstop to make sure that their children are safe online—but they need help. It is our role as legislators to provide some of those tools and that assistance to help children through their childhoods. I hope that we look back at the time before the Online Safety Act and wonder how we ever allowed children to be exposed to the unbridled internet culture that has hitherto been the norm. To return to the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Sunderland Central, the internet has led to the creation of new bonds and a huge multiplication of opportunity, but simultaneously the opportunity for harm. Sometimes we need to make a choice, and while the Online Safety Act is undoubtedly imperfect, the imperative to protect children will always take precedence. If social media platforms are held to greater account, so be it.
10. What discussions he has had with service chiefs on the proposed level of spending in the forthcoming defence investment plan.
I am a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and I have seen reports that service chiefs are drafting letters to the Secretary of State warning of their concerns about whether enough money is going into defence. When the delayed defence investment plan is produced, will it give clarity on when the Government will reach the critical 3% threshold? To be credible, the plan needs to distinguish between the start of the next Parliament, which will be in 2029, and the end of it, which will be in 2034. If the plan does not do that, no one will take the aspiration seriously.
The Secretary of State says that the strikes come at a time of maximum danger for the NHS and has called on the junior doctors to call off the strikes. I agree with him, but will he accept at least some responsibility for the second round of strikes on his watch? Last year he conceded a bumper pay deal to the same junior doctors with no strings attached. It is hardly surprising that they judge him a soft touch on pay and have come back for more this year.
We are short on time, so I will limit myself to two points. I will start with what my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) admirably described as the “craven capitulation” of the Liberal Democrats. Just a week ago, the Liberal Democrats were arguing passionately about unions’ abilities to cause strikes, and about the right to guaranteed hours. Then what happened? Five peerages came along. Now they are in favour of those things. It used to be the case with their last Prime Minister, Lloyd George, who famously used to sell peerages for money. Now it seems that the Liberal Democrats sell their principles for peerages.
I am grateful for that direction, Madam Deputy Speaker. Let us move to Lords amendment 120N. This is a major new policy. We do not have to argue about whether a £118,000 cap is a good or bad idea. I think the cap is a good idea, but the amendment seeks to clarify the process by which the Government have decided to impose this measure in the Bill. It was not part of the manifesto. It was not part of the Bill or discussed in the Bill Committee. It has just been inserted at the last moment in ping-pong. There has been no risk assessment, no impact assessment, and no consultation. The amendment does not put the Government off course. All it asks the Government to do is, within three months of Royal Assent, “conduct a review of the limit imposed by this section on the amount of the compensation awarded”. That consultation only has to consult employers’ organisations, trade unions—one would think Labour Members would be in favour of that—and “organisations representing employment law practitioners, and such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.” If the Government choose to implement policy on the hoof, the least they can do is undertake a consultation that they should have carried out—
On behalf of the Opposition, I join you in expressing our total condemnation of the horrific Bondi Beach terrorist attack, Mr Speaker. We must stand united in this House against antisemitism in all its forms. May I also offer our condolences to all affected both at Bondi and at Brown University, and to the family and friends of Lance Corporal George Hooley? We echo the Secretary of State’s sentiments about his service to our country. I echo the question from the hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome). It is a very simple and specific question. Will the defence investment plan be published before the rise of the House on Thursday: yes or no?
Is the Secretary of State seriously saying that he does not know his diary for the rest of the week? He could ask one of the other Ministers on the Front Bench, or one of the special advisers or officials. Surely he knows whether later this week—on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday—he will be giving the most important defence statement of the year. It is extraordinary that he does not. To remind the House, in June the Secretary of State promised from the Dispatch Box that the defence investment plan would be “completed and published in the autumn.”—[Official Report, 2 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 63.] It is already late—just like the strategic defence review, the defence industrial strategy and the housing strategy. Does that not illustrate perfectly why the Defence Committee said that when it comes to war readiness, Labour is moving at a “glacial pace”?
In May, the Secretary of State said from the Government Dispatch Box that the UK-EU defence pact “opens the door” to the €150 billion EU defence fund. From this Dispatch Box in June, I warned that what the Secretary of State was actually doing was surrendering our precious sovereign fishing grounds without getting a penny in return. Who was right?
19. What discussions he has had with service chiefs on the proposed level of spending in the forthcoming defence investment plan.
When Labour published the strategic defence review, the independent authors wrote in The Telegraph that the commitment to spending 3% of GDP on defence was “vital” to establishing the affordability of that review. Now the Government’s own service chiefs are voicing their concern over funding. Is the Minister really telling us that he has no idea in what year they will reach 3% and no plan for how they are going to get there?
2. What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of Exchequer on meeting the NATO target of 5% of GDP on defence expenditure.
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer, but it is curious to see what is and is not in the Red Book from the Budget we just had. Page 88 shows in intricate detail just how big the welfare budget will get as a result of the scrapping of the two-child benefit cap, but there is no such analysis anywhere in the Red Book of defence spending. Will he set out clearly at the Dispatch Box when the UK will hit the domestic 3% target, and when we will ultimately get to that 5% target? In which financial year will that be?
T5. Given that Germany has lifted its partial arms embargo on Israel, why do the UK Government persist with restrictions on defence export licences to our ally?