5,779 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
Earlier this week, the Security Minister, the hon. Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), came to this House and said that the National Security Adviser did not have any links to the 48 Group, a group that promotes economic links between the UK and China. Why did the Minister say that when the National Security Adviser was listed as a fellow of the 48 Group on its website until very recently?
I thank the Leader of the House for allowing protected time on Monday for the debate on baby loss. It was a three-hour debate and a three-minute limit was imposed on contributions from Back Benchers so that everyone had the opportunity to speak. I trust that we can look at doing that again in future, in particular next Wednesday, when we will have a debate on devolution in Scotland, which had to be pushed from its original date. I know that there will be important Government business before the debate, so will he allow protected time for the Back-Bench business? I am always keen to offer support to the Leader of the House. If we are granted the date, there will be a debate on property service charges on Thursday 30 October, followed by a debate on ageing communities and end of life care. Next week in Westminster Hall, on Tuesday there will be a debate on progress in ending homelessness, and on Thursday there will be a debate on the performance of the Building Safety Regulator, followed by a debate on the impact of NHS workforce levels on cancer patients. On 28 October in Westminster Hall, there will be a debate on obesity and fatty liver disease, and on Thursday 30 October there will be debate on histological testing of all excised moles, followed by a debate organised by the Liaison Committee about the work of the Education Committee, the subject of which, I believe, will be special educational needs and disabilities. Next week, Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists will be celebrating Diwali, followed by Hindu new year. That will be a happy occasion, and everyone will be celebrating, but unfortunately that will not be the case in Bangladesh. On Tuesday, at the all-party parliamentary group for British Hindus, we received a report from Insight UK about the persecution of Hindus in Bangladesh. They are being persecuted, oppressed and killed, their temples are being destroyed, and their properties are being burned down, with household members in them. I have raised the issue before, but can we have a statement from a Government Minister about what action we are going to take to safeguard minorities in Bangladesh who are suffering from severe oppression?
The Leader of the House will be aware that 2027 will mark the 1,100th anniversary of the unification of England under King Athelstan, and the Royal Society of St George is proposing that we have a bank holiday on 12 July 2027. Will he make time for a debate on such a great, momentous occasion for our country, and will he also join me in celebrating Essex Day on 26 October? I thank you, Mr Speaker, for ensuring that the flag of Essex will be flown from the Palace of Westminster for the first time ever. I hope the Leader of the House will ensure that under the new local government reorganisation, historic and ceremonial counties will be put together, so that we can celebrate our true county identity.
I thank the Minister for her explanation of the Bill. It is an important piece of legislation, and I thank her for acknowledging that it started under the previous Government. I hope there will be a consensus, but there are many questions to be answered, and we need to go into this legislation in a lot of detail to ensure that there are not unintended consequences. Nobody in this House doubts the importance of protecting our oceans. The high seas belong to us all, to every nation on this planet, and the United Kingdom, as a proud seafaring nation and a world leader in natural sciences with no less than 16 overseas territories spanning—for now at least—all five of the world’s major oceans, has always led the world in safeguarding them. The protection of our oceans is one of the defining challenges of our age. Two thirds of the world’s oceans lie beyond the jurisdiction of any single nation, and those waters are home to a vast array of life that sustains the planet’s ecosystems. Britain depends on the seas for our trade. They have been a moat for our national security and are our bridge to the wider world. We therefore have not only a moral duty to protect them but a strategic one. One of the core values of the small c conservatism that I believe in, as the name suggests, is to conserve things that truly matter. That applies not only to our institutions and our way of life here in these islands, but to the preservation of our green and pleasant land and, in this case, that of the marine biodiversity, so that we can hand on to our descendants the natural beauty that I know we all cherish. That principle is certainly not in question today by anyone in this House of any party. Nowhere is our record clearer than in the crown jewel of our leadership on the environment that is the blue belt programme. Through it, the United Kingdom and our overseas territories have created over 4.4 million sq km of marine protected areas from the South Atlantic and the Pacific to the Indian ocean. These waters safeguard king penguins on the Falkland Islands, green turtles on Ascension Island, grey reef sharks on the Pitcairn Islands and countless other species across the globe. I have had the privilege to visit the Falkland Islands and Ascension Island and see the amazing biodiversity that we are responsible for, and the oceans around those territories are vital to protect. The blue belt is one of the largest networks of protected ocean on Earth, and it exists because of British leadership alongside the Governments of the British overseas territories. We granted those creatures and their habitats protection from exploitation by others, from industrial fishing fleets and from countries that would plunder our resources without a second thought. That is something this nation should be immensely proud of.
The chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee is, I am afraid, incorrect. We have raised those issues on many occasions, and I have personally raised them on countless occasions over the years. Before too long, the right hon. Member will hear a bit more about the Chagos Islands and the importance of protecting marine stocks and biodiversity in that part of the world. Despite what has been said today, I fear that at this stage the Government are riding roughshod over that record and undermining those very principles through their abject surrender of a marine protected area. The British Indian Ocean Territory might look like a scattering of remote atolls in a far-flung region of the planet, but they are home to 640,000 sq km of ocean—one of the most pristine marine ecosystems on the earth, an area of ocean the size of France. Within it live more than 1,000 species of fish and over 200 species of coral. I had the opportunity to see it for myself in 2019 when I visited the Chagos islands, in particular the atoll of Peros Banhos, where I was greeted by the wonderful Chagossian coconut crabs, as I jumped out of the dinghy and walked on to the beach and into the uninhabited island—where we shamefully forced the people to leave their homes all those years ago and refused to allow them to return. Its waters shelter seabirds, turtles and dolphins. It is an environmental treasure that the world envies and that Britain has rightly protected over so many years.
The hon. Member should examine how Mauritius behaves in reality, which I will come to later. If we want a nation that will actually take these issues seriously, it is the United Kingdom. It is easy to sign a treaty, it is not so easy to follow it through in practice. In what I believe to be an act of historic folly, this Government are to hand that amazing territory over to Mauritius. That nation does not have the record, the capability or the will to protect such a fragile environment. Its own waters have suffered from overfishing and poor enforcement. Its close alignment with China, and indeed India, should concern anyone who cares about the Indian ocean’s future. Indeed, the evidence speaks for itself. In the 2024 Environmental Performance Index, Mauritius ranked 109th for marine key biodiversity area protection, with a score of just 0.8 out of 100; 83rd for marine habitat protection; and 131st for marine protection stringency, down nearly 78%. Are these the credentials of a nation ready to steward one of the world’s most delicate ecosystems? The Government appear to think so. I disagree.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Some of us do care about our British overseas territories and the marine environment. Some of us have made these arguments for many, many years, as have many on the Government Benches. If we are to take this issue seriously, we need to take our responsibilities seriously. Otherwise, future generations, not just in this country but across the world, will look back at this debate and what we are doing today, and think, “What on earth were they doing, giving away such a vital part of the planet that we are responsible for?” Either the Government truly believe that Mauritius will reverse course and persuade China to respect this marine protected area, or, as I am afraid the Chagos surrender treaty implies, we shall end up doing the heavy lifting while paying for the privilege. Forgive me for not being entirely convinced, but I do not believe that the statistics I have cited are those of a nation ready to take on responsibility for one of the world’s most delicate marine ecosystems. Scientific assessments show that live coral cover in Mauritian waters fell by up to 70% in the late 1990s, while coastal erosion and reef degradation continue unchecked. A United Nations review in 2022 found that, while on paper Mauritius has environmental laws, enforcement is inconsistent, community involvement is limited and responses to emerging threats such as ocean acidification remain inadequate. Unbelievably, seagrass beds, which are vital for carbon storage and marine biodiversity, are still cleared to make way for tourism development. Is this really the environmental guardian that Ministers are entrusting with 640,000 sq km of some of the most pristine ocean on earth? It beggars belief. We need to look around the world to see what happens when Chinese fishing interests move in. In Ecuador, thousands of octopuses and sharks have been left dead on the shore because of illegal fishing by Chinese vessels. We need to guard against that in future. Off the coast of Ghana, fishermen’s catches have fallen by 40% due to Chinese bottom trawlers decimating local fish stocks. Around the Korean peninsula, squid populations have collapsed by 70%. I hope that this legislation and this agreement will help to protect the oceans around the world and countries where there are no protections at the moment. If the Chagos islands are handed over, the same fleets will soon appear in some of those waters, and Chagos will be at the mercy of exploitation. That is the context in which the House is considering the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill. It runs to 26 clauses, as the Minister has said. It is impossible to run through them all today, but no doubt we will look at them in greater detail in Committee. There are, however, several points that must be addressed in today’s debate. When will ratification happen? Clause 25 provides for the commencement of regulation, but without any statutory deadline or parliamentary trigger, leaving ratification entirely at the discretion of the Secretary of State. To add to that, clauses 9 and 11 grant far-reaching powers to the Secretary of State to make regulations to amend existing Acts of Parliament by secondary legislation. Where is Parliament’s role in that? How will the House scrutinise decisions taken by the conference of the parties under the agreement? Will we be consulted before international rules are imposed on British institutions and industries? Will British waters or those of our overseas territories ever fall under the jurisdiction of a foreign or supranational regulator? We surely cannot allow global bureaucracy to override British parliamentary sovereignty. Beyond the question of control lies the spectre of bureaucracy. Clauses 2 and 3 impose heavy reporting duties on marine research and genetic sampling. Clause 16 allows still more procedures by regulation. Has the Department assessed what that will cost in time and money for our scientists and shipping operators and for legitimate researchers? How will small British enterprises compete if they face mountains of paperwork, while less scrupulous nations exploit the same waters freely? We all support high standards, but in the world we currently live in, we cannot afford to lose innovation or competitiveness. Then there is the matter of expense. The impact assessment admits that compliance, licensing and enforcement will not be cheap, yet provides little detail on who pays. At a time of fiscal restraint, when every Department must justify every pound spent, can the Minister explain whether this legislation will truly be the best use of taxpayers’ money? How much will it cost to implement the BBNJ regime in full? Will the task of monitoring fall to the Royal Navy or the Marine Management Organisation, and what extra resources will they receive to do the job? What is the cost-benefit ratio, and have the Government assessed whether there could be indirect impacts on the taxpayer? What of the impact on British industries, fishermen, offshore energy and biotechnology? Can the Minister assure us that British fishermen will not face restrictions, that our energy sector will not be burdened by impractical licensing demands, and that our biotech pioneers will not find their discoveries trapped in international bureaucracy?
The Minister will have plenty of time to explain all these matters in detail in Committee. This is Second Reading, when we raise issues of concern. I look forward to Committee, and to all my questions being answered at that stage, if not today. I thank her for her intervention. What safeguards will protect British intellectual property in marine genetic research? Will the benefit-sharing provisions prevent our scientists from developing the fruits of their own work? Will other nations shoulder equal obligations, or will Britain be left carrying the cost because we are doing the right thing and others are not? Our research institutions are some of the most prestigious global leaders in the marine sector, whether it is the Natural History Museum, the National Oceanography Centre or our magnificent universities. First and foremost, there must be a guarantee from the Government that this Bill will not drown them in red tape. Clause 20 rightly extends the Bill’s provisions to the British overseas territories, which are central to our environmental success story. From the Pitcairn islands, with their 35 residents, to Tristan da Cunha, home to barely 240 residents, these far-flung Britons have shown what small communities can achieve for global conservation when they have British support. But how can they have confidence in the Government’s assurances when they witness what is happening in Chagos? If Ministers are willing to trade away one British territory without consultation or consent, what message does that send to the rest? I remind the House that conservation with the loss of sovereignty and without credible means of enforcement is a hollow virtue. The United Kingdom has a record to be proud of, from Captain Cook to David Attenborough. We must build on that record and not undermine it with rushed ratification. If Ministers will answer the questions that I have laid out, and if they will commit in statute to parliamentary oversight, a fully costed implementation plan, explicit safeguards for British science and intellectual property, and legally enforceable protections for the overseas territories, many on the Conservative Benches will consider how to support measures that genuinely conserve our seas. If they will not, I and others—
I was literally about to get there, Madam Deputy Speaker. If Ministers will not do so, I and others will oppose any step that weakens Britain’s hand. I end where I began. As Conservatives, our principle is that we want to conserve, to keep safe, to steward and to defend what we are responsible for. We must be true to that principle. We must continue to act as custodians of the seas in a way that respects our sovereignty, honours our obligations to our descendants and protects the livelihoods and ecosystems that depend on the United Kingdom.
I thank the Minister for speaking about the points made about the British Indian Ocean Territory by myself and others, including the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). The marine protected area was established by the Government of Gordon Brown at the tail end of the last Labour Government. It is a vital area that we need to protect. What guarantees can she honestly say we are getting that, if we are to hand over the sovereignty of the Chagos archipelago to Mauritius, Mauritius will protect it in the same way we have done under both Labour and Conservative Governments?
Can the Minister tell us whether the Attorney General shares the concern of the CPS that there is not enough evidence to prosecute?
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Until the statement was published last night, some of us had no idea about the details of this case, but the Government appear to be unwilling to answer three questions that have been asked repeatedly in this Chamber, so can you, Mr Speaker, kindly help me to ascertain how we get answers to them? The first concerns proof that, for the 14 months the CPS asked about, the DNSA at no point spoke to any Ministers or the National Security Adviser. Why, when the Prime Minister was informed that the case would collapse, did he not do everything in his power, and is there any evidence that he took any action at all? And why, if the Government are so disappointed that the case collapsed, have there been to this day no repercussions for the Chinese Communist party, despite the Government in power having every tool in the box to make it clear that we will protect this House, this democracy and this country?
The lines that we have heard from the Government in recent days have been a conflation of fabricated stories trying to set up straw men and knock down things that have not been said. The real question in this whole debate is whether or not the Director of Public Prosecutions charged legally and properly. If they did, then the Official Secrets Act is valid, and all this talk about the National Security Act 2023, which I introduced, is completely irrelevant. If they did not, why is he not charging his successor with abuse of power? Well, we know the reality, Mr Speaker. Although the Prime Minister has answered the question about evidence, the real question is: what political direction did this Government give to their officials before they went to give evidence?
Many families are desperate for answers about what happened to their loved ones. That is often not about wanting to take legal action; they just want to know. Under this new Bill, how quickly will that be delivered for those families? How quickly will they get the information that they have waited decades to receive?
Q2. Those on family farms in North Yorkshire and across the UK are increasingly worried about the tax changes coming up next year. We really need the next generation of family farms to keep farming for our national food security. The Centre for the Analysis of Taxation has produced an excellent, detailed academic report proposing a number of compromise amendments and changes that would both deliver for the Government and protect the family farm. I realise that the Prime Minister cannot comment on the Budget, but will he and the Chancellor look at that report as they prepare for the end-of-November Budget?
The only thing wrong with the Foreign Secretary’s admirable statement is the fact that it was made by a British Foreign Secretary rather than by the President of the United States, given that, only a few months ago, President Trump said that President Zelensky had few, if any, cards to play. The Foreign Secretary takes a much more optimistic view of the geopolitical situation as regards the invasion of Ukraine. Has she identified any signs that the leader of the free world is coming to a more realistic view of the nature of the killer in the Kremlin?
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the statement that the Security Minister made earlier this week and then again in answer to a question today, I have been misquoted—and the misquote, I think, is significant. It has been said that I, in a speech at Mansion House, said that describing China as a threat was “impossible, impractical and—most importantly—unwise.” The quote was that describing China or our policy “in one word” was “impossible, impractical and—most importantly—unwise.” In that speech, I went on to say of our policy: “First, we will strengthen our national security protections wherever Beijing’s actions pose a threat to our people or our prosperity.” I finished by saying: “And when there are tensions with other objectives, we will always put our national security first.” How can I get redress for this misquote, Mr Speaker?
I am the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Magnitsky sanctions and reparation, and we have encouraged the last Government and the present Government to be much more aggressive about their sanctions regime. When we look at the number of people who have been sanctioned, it does not compare to what the United States and many others have done. First, it is long overdue that the whole business of the money from the Chelsea sale was settled; it beggars belief that we have not managed to get that one done. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—the ex-Prime Minister, rather; some of us live in hope. The shadow fleets could easily be attacked by sanctioning British marine insurers who have insured those ships. Without that insurance, they will not be put to sea because they will have no financial backing for it. Why we have not done that up until now is a complete mystery to me. That is surely something we should get on with straightaway, because we can act on it immediately.
Fifty years ago, I was working down the corridor here for Margaret Thatcher. I make that point to give an opportunity to the Foreign Secretary to pay tribute, on the centenary of her birth, to the lady who won the cold war with Ronald Reagan. The other point I want to make is: why did we win the cold war? We did not fire a single bullet; it was all about economic pressure on the Soviet Union—Russia’s precursor, of course. Following the point made by the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), I think the whole House is determined and united on the issue of Russian assets. I also serve on the Council of Europe, and everybody there is passing motions trying to propel this forward. Is the Foreign Secretary confident that we can make progress on this, because the way to bring down this regime and end the war is, as we did with the Soviet Union, to break them economically?
I am listening very carefully to what the hon. Gentleman says and I completely support his good intentions. The problem with sustainable aviation fuel is that it is perhaps five times more expensive than what we are currently paying, and that stocks are very limited and—we have been talking about livestock feeds—even more difficult. I am completely with him on the ambition, but we must also protect consumer rights, the right to fly at a reasonable cost and the cost to the economy. As with all green energy policies, there must be a balance. I am sure he will agree with that.
I commend my hon. Friend on his speech. Does he agree that the Conservative way is to ensure practicality over mere ideology, and consumer rights over Government imposition of controls and regulations that can do serious damage to the economy and people’s livelihoods?
Given that time is the most precious commodity in war, and that, as former head of MI5 Eliza Manningham-Buller said, Britain may already be at war with Russia, why have we allowed Russia so much time to build up a stock of 155 mm shells, for example—three times the quantity of the entire European and American stock of 155 shells? How long does Ukraine now have to hold out against Russia, which has mobilised its entire economy and put it on a war footing to win the war at almost any cost to Russia itself? Do we not have to up our long-range weapons and other military support to help Ukraine finish and win this war?
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier today, the Prime Minister promised that certain papers would be published as soon as they could be, but he did not give a time. Has there been any indication of when those papers will be published? We are still waiting for them.
I welcome the fact that south Bridgwater has been included in this programme. These funds come on top of the £23 million allocated to Bridgwater under the last Government’s town deal. Parts of Highbridge in my constituency are equally deserving of funding, so can the Minister advise whether there will be any further rounds of allocating funding in this Parliament?
May I congratulate the hon. Lady on her new role, and, perhaps, strike a more slightly consensual note? In Sutton Coldfield we welcome this initiative. It is good that it builds on the towns fund set up by the last Government, and we in the royal town are very pleased to be part of it. I can tell the hon. Lady that we are undertaking extensive community consultation, led by Royal Sutton Coldfield Town Council and its leader, Simon Ward, and that our local board, under the chairmanship of Doug Wright MBE, is forging ahead and already making considerable progress. May I invite her—as I invited her predecessor—to pay a state visit to the royal town of Sutton Coldfield, where she can see how we will use this money to the best possible advantage?
I thank my friend and neighbour, the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), for securing this urgent question. I have exactly the same problem as he and the hon. Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan), but in Shaftesbury in my constituency. I thank the staff of Boots, who are picking up such a huge amount of slack because Jhoots is not there. There is a danger to the member of staff who is on duty, because there are prescribed drugs on the premises, and she is the only person there, and I worry for her safety. What additional support can the Department give to existing providers, such as Boots, that are picking up the slack, particularly during the winter peak, in terms of advice to patients and administering vaccines? This is a clear breach of contract, but I am told by our ICB that it does not fall within contract law. The regulations are moot on this point, because the circumstances that Jhoots finds itself in were never envisaged when the regulations were written. That is the problem that the Minister has identified. There seems to be some timidity among officials and others on the overhanging threat of a judicial review, were the Government to act in extremis to introduce some urgency. I urge the Minister to take that risk on behalf of all our constituents. I certainly welcome his offer, following the suggestion of the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), that all Members of Parliament with constituents affected by this dire problem should be involved in meetings. I look forward to that, so that we can provide timely advice, updates and support to our constituents, who are rightly worried.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) for securing this important debate and for his opening remarks. By almost any metric, the English education system is one of the best performing in the world. In the latest programme for international student assessment results, English pupils have continued to score significantly above the OECD average for mathematics, reading and science. England’s average PISA scores were significantly higher than those of SNP-run Scotland and Labour-run Wales. Assessments and exams have led to that. That is what is at stake here—that is what we are discussing, and we should be clear about that. That success is owed to the foundations of a knowledge-rich curriculum and rigorous and thorough assessment across all stages of a student’s educational build-up. That success story means that the suggestions from Government Members of reforming the educational assessment system—or, alarmingly, scrapping it—need close scrutiny. When launching their review of the curriculum and assessment system in England last year, the Government made it clear that they were taking aim at the examination and assessment system.
I can assure the hon. Lady that I listened to every speech. As I make progress, I hope to answer her question; if I do not, I will happily take another intervention from her. The examination and assessment system has ensured that children are learning the basic skills and knowledge needed to succeed in life, that children are improving their understanding in a knowledge-rich curriculum, and that England’s position as an educational world leader in international league tables is secured. The wealth of evidence showing the benefits of exams as a means of assessment is clear, even in the very review of the curriculum and assessment system that the Government commissioned. The interim report, published earlier this year, highlighted that national assessment and qualifications are “working well”, and that examinations such as GCSEs play an important role in driving high standards and ensuring fairness, “reducing the risk that assessment of students’ performance is influenced by their gender, ethnicity or background.” Even more encouragingly, polling conducted for the interim report made it clear that students themselves value the role of exams as an “opportunity to demonstrate everything they have learned in their studies”. That students themselves recognise the value of exams shows that they understand what this Government seemingly struggle to: that exams offer students of all backgrounds the very best chance to succeed. Our educational system is designed to be a tool of social mobility and to allow the most disadvantaged children to demonstrate their potential—something that replacing exams with coursework would fundamentally undermine. In an instant, every advantage that some children have, such as access to a laptop at home, a tutor or a subscription to an artificial intelligence service, and some children from other backgrounds do not would be baked into our assessment of educational attainment. Students would no longer be rewarded for hard graft in the classroom, which they demonstrate in answering an exam question, but rather for the perks that can access outside school and pass off as their own work.
I do not agree with the hon. Lady. Students need assessment and examinations so they can measure up not just within England but against the international landscape that we operate in. By the way, I am sure that she was an excellent teacher who encouraged and nurtured the curiosity in her children, just as my chemistry teacher and my physics teacher did, but we should be clear about what is at stake here and what is at risk if there are changes to the educational system that we reformed, built and created. Let me make some progress, and I hope that I can answer the question from the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade). The students who would lose out are the very ones the Government claim they want to protect—the very students in our education system we should all strive to empower. There is no denying that exams can be stressful, as we have all acknowledged. Students want to do well, and they are setting themselves up for future study and careers, so it is no surprise that they feel some pressure—a lot of pressure, even—during exam season. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) said, exams are by their very nature stressful. As a father, it is true that I want to protect my children from every stress and injury, but I also know that they need to go through that process to learn the resilience that they will need to go through life.
I will address that question in one second. As the interim report said, students relish the chance to demonstrate their knowledge and capabilities, despite the stress of exams. I was moved by the hon. Gentleman’s speech. He talks about panic attacks, and other people have talked about mental health and wellbeing, so let me be clear: if those things are observed and not accommodated by the current system, Opposition Members will happily look at suggestions and work on a cross-party basis, if we believe that that will improve the system while also protecting our children. If the Government really want to tackle the challenges affecting student mental health on a day-to-day basis, we have been clear: this is not just about exam season, and we think that banning phones from schools would do far more to relieve many of the social pressures that face young people, and allow them to focus on their educational needs instead. I welcome support from the Government Benches for a proven mechanism that clearly leads to addressing students’ mental health. After speaking to teachers and other stakeholders we are clear about the positive impact that banning mobile phones would have on mental health—[Interruption.] I am happy to take a positive intervention on that. It is deeply disappointing, if unfortunately not too surprising, that this seems to be the direction that the Government are taking with our education system, given the appalling record of their colleagues in the Welsh Government on education. Even the most disadvantaged children in England achieve better educational outcomes than the average student in Wales, thanks to the Welsh Government choosing ideology over evidence, and it is the students who suffer in the long term.
Let me address that point directly. First, I am not sure that narrowing the curriculum to that degree would lead to better PISA results. I think the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) spoke about that, and I was nodding my head. I agree that we should have those investments in music that the Government have not committed to—[Interruption.] Let me finish, because it is important to recognise for the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden)—hopefully I have got his constituency right—that Wales, which is run by Labour, has much lower standards. That means less positive outcomes for children, which means less positive outcomes in the rest of their life. It is clear that those children are being let down by Welsh Labour. We want extracurricular activities. That is why, when I visited Coppice academy in my constituency, which also has a forest school, I was heartened to see all the work that the kids are doing in those schools. Narrowing the curriculum is not what we are talking about. We are talking about something that is wholly rounded, but we must have a standardised and anonymised test system that allows a better level playing field for people from any background to be able to challenge and to thrive in life. Let me return to the topic at hand. It is almost a month to the day that I welcomed the Minister to her seat, and we had a fantastically packed Chamber where we addressed special educational needs. I wrote to her after that debate, but I have still not had a response. Perhaps she could provide some clarity on the schools White Paper, say what will happen with the SEND reforms and also the curriculum review—I look forward to hearing from her on that, perhaps when she winds up the debate. The world’s best-performing educational systems test to ensure that all students have a strong grasp of reading, writing and arithmetic in their early years, setting up children for future success at the earliest opportunity in their education. The widespread adoption of phonics testing in year 1 in England has seen English pupils rise up the international league tables, while the Welsh Government’s blind adherence to the widely discredited cueing method and its rejection of phonics testing has seen thousands of Welsh pupils leaving primary school effectively unable to read. Students and parents alike have plentiful cause for concern if that is the sort of education system that the Government want to create in England. I hope that the Minister can wholeheartedly reject the Welsh educational system—one in which thorough assessment of students’ progress has been replaced with a union-influenced aversion to testing in any form. If the Government do go ahead with banning exams in favour of coursework and formal assessments, they could undermine every major achievement of our education system over the last decade and a half. Academies have changed the lives of their students through the initiative of their leadership. They are already being deprived of the freedoms that they have been used to in leading the way to school improvement and providing a knowledge-rich curriculum that has given every student the opportunity to access quality academic education. That is already being threatened with being dumbed down. If that were to happen, our education system would be left in an even sorrier state. I hope that the Ministers listen to the views of students and parents. The Conservatives reformed education, and by the time we left, it was one of the best systems in the world. I hope we can keep it that way.
I welcome the Foreign Secretary to her new role and commend her on a very strong statement. I welcome the progress being made by the G7 Finance Ministers in DC on seizing Russian state assets. It is an issue I first started working on three years ago, and I know the Chancellor has continued that work. Because of that, there is a body of clear technical analysis that has been done in the Treasury that I think shows clearly at this point, first, that there is a sound legal basis for taking these assets and using them; secondly, that there is now a practical way to use them, especially as the bonds have matured into cash; and thirdly, that by acting in concert with allies, any risk to financial stability can be absolutely minimised. I urge the Foreign Secretary to show continued UK leadership on this issue, as I know she is, especially sharing that work with our European allies, because I know she would agree that this is an urgent issue that requires action.
Q5. Later this afternoon I will be launching a small business survey so that the 3,000 small and medium-sized enterprises in my constituency, which employ thousands of my constituents, can have their say about what is like to run a business under a Labour Government, and what their concerns are ahead of the Budget. However, I want to give the Prime Minister the opportunity to provide a word of hope that I can share. Will he tell my constituents that he has heard the pleas of SMEs and their fright about the Budget, that he will scrap business rates for hospitality and leisure as well as the family business and family farm taxes, and that his Government will commit themselves to no further tax rises for business?
I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for giving me advance sight of her statement. I would also like to welcome her to her place in her new role. We meet again at the Dispatch Box; we have shadowed each other in many roles, and this time around it feels like she is following me in this portfolio. On the occasion of the visit of the Chairman of the Ukrainian Parliament to our Parliament, it is right that Britain should stand with Ukraine on what will soon be the eve of the fourth winter of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. Putin’s relentless efforts to obtain the territory of a sovereign European state by barbaric levels of force have undermined peace in Europe and the established international order. In recent months, we have seen European and NATO airspace brazenly and deliberately violated by Russian fighter jets. From Poland to Estonia to Romania, such aggressive provocation must yield stronger deterrence against Russia. The same applies to the intensified aerial bombardment of Kyiv. The hundreds upon hundreds of Iranian Shahed drones attacking civilians represent a cruel attempt by Putin to psychologically torture Ukrainians, but the bombing will not break their resolve. From Russia’s kidnapping of Ukrainian children to the daily bombardment of propaganda and bombs, Britain must stand firm to level the playing field for Ukraine so that it can repel those attacks. We must continually refuel our country’s ability to support Ukraine, and never stand still. Is the Foreign Secretary brokering more packages, here at home or across NATO, to support Ukraine’s air defence? The 100-year partnership agreement with Ukraine must be leveraged to support innovation in defence technology and production within Ukraine right now, while we also learn from Ukraine’s successes in these fields. The way the Ukrainian people have conducted themselves and continued to fight for what is rightfully theirs in the face of the barbarity and savagery that many of us thought was confined to a bygone era will go down in history. We must ensure that Russia’s defeat goes down in history, too. To do that, Britain must lead all allies to raise the price of Russia’s aggression by cutting off Russia’s financial lifelines, which continue to fund Putin’s war in Ukraine and fight against our democratic values. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s announcements today of the new entities, including the ships that have been sanctioned as of today. She will know that China, India and Turkey have become the mainstay of Russian oil exports, together purchasing around $380 billion of Russian crude. This provides Putin with a lifeline to fund this illegal war and invasion, at the cost of around $1 billion per day, so in addition to the new sanctions announced today, can the Foreign Secretary confirm whether she or the Prime Minister have had any discussions with India, Turkey and China about refineries in their own countries purchasing Russian oil and then re-exporting it? Is the UK in a position to spearhead a direct challenge and get this stopped? Will the Foreign Secretary challenge European countries who are still importing Russian liquefied natural gas to phase this out far more rapidly? I recognise and appreciate her comments about EU countries and the sanctions package. Further to the new banking sanctions that the Foreign Secretary has announced, will she commit to review what we can do to limit Russia’s banking sector, including its regional banks? On the mobilisation of frozen assets, we need to go beyond just offering Ukraine loans from the revenues of the sanctioned assets and find a new formula under the law that mobilises the assets to fund Ukraine’s defeat of Russia in the immediate term. London is home to our world-class capital market, and the City of London must be deployed to help find solutions that our diplomats can then sell to our allies, because this needs concerted action. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm whether the coalition of the willing, convened in February this year, is as determined as it was then not just to stand with Ukraine but to work to find solutions to these major issues? The UK must commit to spending 3% on defence by the end of the decade. This is a vital step on our route to the higher sustained spending demanded by the new NATO targets. In her new role as Foreign Secretary, is the right hon. Lady in discussions with the Chancellor about this? Britain must be ready for continuous tension with Russia with effective deterrents against sub-conventional threats such as hybrid warfare, sabotage of infrastructure, disinformation, election interference and killings. If we do not put up boundaries now, Russia will come closer, but it is stoppable. We have seen positive developments in recent weeks, including the decisive election result in Moldova that should cement its Euro-Atlantic trajectory, but Russia’s behaviour elsewhere, from Georgia to the Balkans and including the stationing of nuclear weapons in Belarus, is deeply alarming. Here at home, there are reports that the cyber-attack on Jaguar Land Rover may have emanated from Russia. Is the Foreign Secretary able to confirm that attribution? The whole Euro-Atlantic alliance needs to be incredibly robust, because the lessons of the last 20 years are crystal clear and the outcome of the war in Ukraine will shape the future of European global security. President Trump’s recent remarks were absolutely right. Our Ukrainian friends can regain the territory that is rightfully theirs, and we support them on that. Britain and our European allies must now pull out all the stops to help our Ukrainian friends to expedite Putin’s exit from their country. We should be clear that territorial concessions must never happen, as this would be a reward for Putin’s barbarism. Britain should and can lead the way in weakening Putin’s war machine with a full range of hard-hitting new sanctions and brokering new military aid packages with our allies to ensure that Ukraine has the capabilities it needs to defeat Putin’s tyranny.
I send my condolences to Chris and his family. Over the past five years, Bromley council has planted around 5,000 street trees and another 800 in parks, all working with residents and schoolchildren. Does my right hon. Friend agree that other local authorities could look to Bromley council for best practice in maintenance?
I welcome the Minister to her new position. I enjoyed shadowing her on the energy brief. I really welcome the inclusion of Lakenheath in this announcement, and I look forward to working with her, and with residents and councillors, on making sure that the funds are well spent. I want to ask the Minister how we build pride in place by improving local economies. Her Department is contemplating its plans for the development of Cambridge. My constituency is very affected by that development, and there is rising demand for new housing. I would appreciate it if I could meet her, or one of her colleagues, to discuss how we integrate new housing with transport connections. In particular, I am thinking of connections from Cambridge to Haverhill in West Suffolk.
Order. As the Foreign Secretary, with prior agreement with the Chair, was allowed to speak a little while longer than the allocated time, the same will be allowed to those on the Opposition Front Benches. I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.
Order. I remind colleagues that we have another statement followed by the business of the day. Questions do not require a preamble. They should be sharp and to the point.
That concludes the statement on Ukraine. I will allow the Front Benchers a few moments to shuffle over as we prepare for the second statement.
Order. Mr Waugh, you do not cross the Front Bench, even to take a shortcut. It is not on.