5,779 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Neil O'Brien

   Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life

   The hon. Gentleman is completely right, and it is not the first time—it is generally the case that no one from Reform is present. On this issue, I am afraid that Reform MPs are chronically absent, as we say in education. I will continue with my theme. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has pointed out that the huge difference in performance, and the divergence in performance, between England and Wales cannot be explained by poverty rates or ethnicity. It is to do with the reforms that were not undertaken because of trade union pressure in Wales.

   Hansard source
2. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Neil O'Brien

   Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life

   I do not think that is true. Looking at the evidence pack produced by the Government’s curriculum review, it is clear that some of the arguments are overstated. It is true that we reversed the decline in the number of young people taking double and triple science; that had been falling for years, and it went back up again because there was more focus on science. It is true that there are a limited number of hours in the school day, but I do not accept that we had some sort of Gradgrindian educational agenda. There continues to be a broad and balanced agenda. If Labour Members want to say that much more time should be spent on a particular subject, they should at least be clear about where it will come from. Children in England were ranked the best in maths in the whole western world in the 2023 trends in international mathematics and science study, and they moved into the top five in the global rankings for science. What happened in Wales and Scotland? We do not know, as their Administrations removed themselves from those competitions because they do not like accountability. It is the same at all levels. Whereas we favoured parental choice and autonomy for schools, balanced by strong accountability, the current Government take a very different approach. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which is currently in the Lords, dilutes parental choice, and it gives local politicians more control over pupil numbers for the first time since 1988. The greater autonomy for schools that we brought in has been replaced by a tide of micromanagement of curriculum and staff, and the absurd situation where if someone wants to put up a bicycle shed they have to apply to the Secretary of State. On the other hand, the ultimate form of accountability—placing schools under new management via academy orders—is being slowed down and stopped, which has been criticised even by Labour MPs such as the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh). The Labour party’s attempts to mess around with Ofsted to please the trade unions have watered down accountability for parents and made things more complicated, but they have not made anybody happy; nobody is happy with what has been proposed in the end. The Government have axed all the forms of support that we were making available to schools for subjects from advanced physics to maths, Latin and advanced computing—they think they are elitist. They have also axed the behaviour hubs, even though there is clear evidence that they were working and schools that went through them were twice as likely to be good or outstanding afterwards. The reform agenda is just not there. At one point, the Government’s big answer was that they were going to employ 6,500 more teachers: they were going to increase VAT and employ all these extra teachers. The Chancellor said at the end of last year that every single penny of that VAT increase would go to education, but then, confusingly, the Prime Minister said that the money had been spent on social housing instead. It has been a long time since I studied formal logic, but we cannot spend every single penny on education and also spend that money on housing; we cannot spend it on two things. As it happens, we now know that actually there are not those extra teachers; there are 400 fewer teachers. We added 27,000 teachers under the last Government and under Labour there are 400 fewer teachers. At the point when the numbers came out showing that there were fewer teachers, the Government suddenly declared that primary school teachers do not count—that the fall of 2,900 in primary school teacher numbers did not count. Ministers implied that that had always been their intention—they said, “How dare you say that wasn’t our intention?”—but they announced this policy in a primary school, and they said they would hit their targets for early years through an increase in primary. Now they say, “Oh, numbers are falling in primary,” but numbers are falling by a lot less than when they made the pledge in the updated forecast. If we apply the same logic, half of secondary schools have falling numbers, so perhaps that will be the next way they try to monkey around with the numbers to pretend that the opposite is happening. I would not mind so much if we did not get these chirpy press releases from the Department saying, “We’re doing so well; we’ve got all these extra teachers.” There are fewer teachers—that is the bottom line in what has happened here.

   Hansard source
3. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Neil O'Brien

   Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life

   There are several things to say about that. The first is that the overall number went up: the hon. Gentleman said that some were leaving, but the overall number went up by 27,000. He makes a good point about early career teachers and that is why we put in the early career framework, which I do think is a big improvement. It is not that there is nothing in what the hon. Gentleman said, but I do think it is funny for him to stand up and talk about gaslighting when the Government are pumping out glossy propaganda saying that there are more teachers, even though their own Department for Education website says that there are 400 fewer teachers. So do tell me all about gaslighting. My broader worry about the Government’s approach to giving every child the best start in life is that it misses the wood for the trees. Ministers like to talk about some of the small interventions they are making, such as the £33 million they are spending on breakfast clubs and the “best start in life” centres and the increases in spending there. But on the other side of the ledger, how is this being paid for? It is being paid for with a £25 billion increase in national insurance, and, unbelievably for a notionally social democratic Government, that national insurance increase is brutally targeted on the lowest income workers. It is incredible.

   Hansard source
4. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Neil O'Brien

   Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life

   I am very grateful to be put right back in my box by Madam Deputy Speaker, and rightly so. I would not fund that by increasing taxes on low income workers by £25 billion. That means that someone who is earning £13,000 a year loses £500. It means someone earning £9,000 a year is losing 5% of their income. Ministers like to talk about the distributional impact of things like breakfast clubs and so on—they say 100,000 kids will be lifted out of poverty by something they are doing—but they will not produce any poverty analysis or any distributional analysis of the £25 billion. They are happy to talk endlessly about the distributional impacts of tiny measures, but not the £25 billion takeaway from low income working people in this country. I think it is astonishing—and I think a lot of Labour MPs will regret it later—that this is the way they have chosen to raise all this money. Let me ask a few specific questions while we are here. The Department for Education has confirmed to the specialist media that it does not hold any information on the number of children who will lose entitlement to free school meals as a result of the end of the universal credit transitional protection, yet it claims to be confident that it knows that the changes it is making will reduce child poverty by 100,000. How can the Department not know how many kids are going to be on free school meals yet be confident that it will have a positive effect? I ask the Minister to answer the question very simply: what proportion of pupils will be eligible for free school meals this year and in all future years across the forecast? How much will we be spending in real terms in each of those years? I like lots of things about the “best start in life” programme—it is a continuation of our family hubs programme—and I wonder whether the Minister could set out exactly how much will be spent on that programme in the ’26-27, ’27-28 and ’28-29 financial years. It is not a bad programme at all and we do not dislike it at all; the only thing that is not right is to pretend it is a completely new thing, when in fact it is a continuity of something that already existed. Something that is new that Ministers promised was two weeks of work experience for every child at secondary school. Can the Minister tell me how that pledge is going? It was made by the Prime Minister and was the big highlight of his ’21 conference speech. How many schools currently offer two weeks of work experience each year? Finally, I have a question of principle really. The Minister quite rightly talked about SEND, and we had an important report from the Education Policy Institute this morning about the overlap between SEND and school achievement, and the Government have said two things. We heard from a Health Minister that the Government want to see a smaller proportion of children in special schools, and we have heard from the Minister’s adviser on SEND that she thinks that they are having a conversation at the moment about not having education, health and care plans for children outside special schools, which covers about 300,000 children at the moment—60% of all children with an EHCP. Those are huge changes, but is it not the case that those two policy reforms are potentially in tension? If we tell people that they cannot get an EHCP outside a special school, more parents will want to go to the special school. Ministers have talked about there always being some kind of legal right to support for special needs, but what does that mean: if the support is not being delivered by an EHCP, how will it be delivered? I ask these questions because a lot of special needs parents are worried about that; they are concerned about what the Government are planning. Maybe they are wrong and maybe the Government have a brilliant plan on all this, and we are not against reform, but at the moment, there are big questions about the ideas that are now sloshing around in the public domain, worrying people. I encourage Ministers to move quickly to certainty on these questions so that people’s minds could be put at ease. To conclude, we are all in favour of giving each child the best start in life. We have a proud record, we made great progress, and we wish all the Government all the best, but we worry that they are too often missing the wood for the trees.

   Hansard source
5. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

   Financial Services Reform

   Order. Please be seated; I am on my feet. You heard the Minister say that. You do not refer to the Minister as “you”. Please come to the question.

   Hansard source
6. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

   Financial Services Reform

   Order. You meant, “as the Minister hollows out”, not me. Minister—a swift response.

   Hansard source
7. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

   Points of Order

   I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. The Chair is not responsible for Ministers’ replies to correspondence from hon. Members, but colleagues in all parts of the House are entitled to expect a timely response to their letters, especially from Ministers on constituency matters. He has put his point on the record, and I am sure that the Treasury Front Bench will have noticed his remarks and will pass that on forthwith.

   Hansard source
8. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

   Points of Order

   The hon. Member has now twice put her words on the record, no doubt. If she is not aware—and for colleagues across the House who may not be aware—Hansard has its own editorial policy. If she wishes to have her words corrected, she needs to take that up directly with Hansard. That is not a responsibility of the Chair.

   Hansard source
9. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

   Points of Order

   Order. We do not use language such as “misled the House” when talking about colleagues. The hon. Gentleman will have to check his words if he wishes to continue.

   Hansard source
10. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Points of Order

    The hon. Gentleman will no doubt have already contacted the Member he referenced. If not, I have no doubt that he will do so forthwith. If only the Chair were responsible for the content of Members’ questions and answers, but unfortunately it is not. The hon. Gentleman has now put his words on the record and will no doubt get a response privately.

    Hansard source
11. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life

    Order. I should say that the hon. Member is a shadow Minister, before you give him with a promotion.

    Hansard source
12. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life

    Mr Jogee, are you now finally comfortable in the Chamber? Before, you wanted to swap. [Interruption.] Marvellous. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

    Hansard source
13. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    Yesterday, the head of the Office for Budget Responsibility warned the Government that higher and higher levels of taxes are bad for growth. Does the Prime Minister agree?

    Hansard source
14. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    The Prime Minister is talking about what he has achieved, but we have just heard that inflation is up again—the worst in the G7. We left him with 2% inflation. We have borrowing up, unemployment up and taxes up under his Government. The fact is that the Prime Minister does not get it, so let me tell him. His Budget last year had high taxes. That is why the economy is contracting. The Government have said that they will not put up taxes for people on modest incomes, but they also seem incapable of explaining who is in that category, so can the Prime Minister clear up the confusion and tell us what he thinks a modest income is?

    Hansard source
15. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    I am not talking of the country down; I am talking the Prime Minister down. I asked him what a modest income was. He answered with what a working person is. He does not know what a modest income is, and they cannot even define who working people are. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that working people are people who get a payslip, but millions of self-employed people do not get a payslip, so are the self-employed next in line for a Labour tax raise?

    Hansard source
16. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    I do not know where these 3,000 jobs are coming from. Unemployment has gone up every month under his Government. Perhaps the Prime Minister should speak to farmers and small business people and find out what those working people think about his Government. But that is not all, because we know that the Chancellor is launching a review into pension contributions. It is as clear as day why this is. It is because the Government are considering taxing them. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that a tax on pension contributions is a tax on working people?

    Hansard source
17. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    The Prime Minister says that he is not going to write the Budget, but his Chancellor is on the front of the Daily Mirror talking about what she is going to do on taxes, so why can he not do the same in the Chamber? I asked him about pension contributions. The truth is that he does not want to talk about pension contributions. It is all right for the Prime Minister, because he has his own special law to stop his personal pension from being taxed. But let us be honest: this is really about choices. My party knows that there is an alternative to tax rises: cutting spending—something that the Government are too scared, or perhaps too weak, to do. We offered to work with him to reform welfare and make meaningful savings, but his refusal sent a signal and now the cost of borrowing is rising. The Budget is in November, which is months away and the markets may not wait. What will the Prime Minister be doing over the summer to get a grip on the cost of borrowing?

    Hansard source
18. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    The Prime Minister is not planning to do anything this summer to fix the economy. The shadow of the last Budget is hanging over the entire country. Just yesterday, only the Conservatives supported the two-child benefit cap, because only the Conservatives believe in living within our means—not Labour, not the Liberal Democrats, not Reform. But it is the end of term, so why don’t we go through the Prime Minister’s end-of-term scorecard? The economy is contracting, inflation is the highest in the G7, unemployment is up every month under this Government, spending is out of control, borrowing costs are more expensive than in Greece—and this is just the first year. The Labour party should be ashamed of what it is doing to the country. [Interruption.] Labour Members can shake their heads as much as they like, but the fact is that this summer they will have to go to their constituents and explain why the Government have been making such a mess over the past 12 months. And is it not the case, given that this is just their first year, that the worse is yet to come?

    Hansard source
19. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    RAF E-7 Wedgetail Programme

    On the matter of top guns, will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Air Marshal Harv Smyth on today being appointed as the new Chief of the Air Staff designate? He is what the Americans would call a warfighter. He and the new Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Rich Knighton, will provide a powerful team in the defence—including the air defence—of the United Kingdom. Does my hon. Friend welcome both appointments, as I do?

    Hansard source
20. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    RAF E-7 Wedgetail Programme

    My hon. Friend’s speech is obviously provoking a great deal of interest in the Chamber. Can he confirm that in the defence appropriations Bill that the Pentagon put forward in late June, which asks Congress for money for equipment in the next financial year, the Wedgetail programme for the United States air force was deleted?

    Hansard source
21. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    RAF E-7 Wedgetail Programme

    I should declare an interest: I served on the Defence Committee in the previous Parliament, so I contributed to that report, which was critical of the decision to cut the number from five to three. I do not deny that, and I still would prefer that we had stayed with five. I thought that, to be transparent, I should put that on the record.

    Hansard source
22. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    RAF E-7 Wedgetail Programme

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir Christopher, as we examine the progress—or rather the sheer lack of it—of the RAF’s E-7 Wedgetail programme. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) on introducing the debate in such an articulate manner, with a touch of humour to boot. As a battle of Britain buff, I enjoyed his historical analogies with that epic conflict in 1940 and the critical importance of radar and early warning. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), in whose constituency the valuable work of converting Boeing 737s into the Wedgetail variant is under way. A couple of years ago, when I served on the Defence Committee—it is great to see the Chairman of the Committee in his place—I had the privilege of visiting the facility in Meriden where the work was being conducted. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East has been an assiduous constituency MP in standing up for the highly skilled workforce undertaking the conversion. I do have a number of serious concerns about the status of the Wedgetail programme, however, as he is about to hear. I state for the record that none of this is aimed at the workforce in Meriden, but much more at the senior management of Boeing, a company now facing massive reputational issues in both civilian and defence areas. I would like to have congratulated the Reform MP who contributed to this debate but, as ever, they are not here because Reform don’t do defence. We live in an increasingly dangerous world. The head of the British Army stated almost a year ago that we need to prepare for the possibility of a peer-on-peer conflict with Russia by 2027. If that is so, having a modern airborne early warning control aircraft, such as Wedgetail, in operational service would be vital. Moreover, if there were to be a ceasefire in Ukraine, Ministers have told us several times that it might involve not just boots on the ground but jets in the air. They also need eyes in the sky to protect them from a potential Russian threat. In short, we do not currently have any. Part of the purpose of today’s debate is to elicit from the Government when E-7 Wedgetail will finally enter operational service with the RAF. That really matters. Experience in Ukraine shows the heavy propensity of Russia to attack targets with long-range cruise missiles. In the event of a peer conflict with Russia, it is highly likely that most of our fixed RAF radar stations would fall victim to cruise missile attacks within the early few days, or even hours, of such a conflict. At present, we can supplement those with a limited number of mobile radars. It is also unclear whether in wartime other airborne warning assets, such as via satellite and other overseas facilities, would also remain available for long. In such a scenario—one which, as the international sky continues to darken, we are increasingly forced to contemplate—having mobile airborne early-warning such as Wedgetail would be critical to maintain the integrity of the UK’s air defences, plus covering RAF aircraft abroad. That brings me to the current sorry state of the Wedgetail programme, which is running years late and has now unfortunately been rated red by the Infrastructure Projects Authority. To remind hon. Members, a red rating is defined as a project that “reflects serious concerns about the project’s ability to meet its objectives. Immediate corrective actions are needed to address fundamental issues, as the project is unlikely to succeed without significant changes or interventions.” So, where are we today? Three 737 airframes are being converted at Meriden, including retrofitting them with the MESA radar. One of those aircraft has been completed, while the other two are still in work. However, according to a freedom of information request answered on 12 June, the first aircraft has flown only three times—two of them to get painted—and MESA, which is the whole point of the aircraft, has not even been turned on yet in flight. Why? Moreover, as the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), a member of the Defence Committee, revealed at a meeting of that Committee two weeks ago, the lead aircraft is struggling to achieve certification. He said: “We were going to buy five, and then three, E-7s. They are horrendously late and overpriced. We have got one in with a special clearance, meaning that there is something that we do not know about that, which means that it cannot have a normal clearance.” I appreciate that the Minister is likely to say that the previous Conservative Government should have made greater progress on Wedgetail, and I accept that we are not without blame in this field. Nevertheless, the new Government have now had a year to sort it out. The MOD and Boeing have been locked in complex negotiations over the so-called full business case that would allow Wedgetail to enter service, but those negotiations have still not been brought to a fruitful conclusion. Indeed, whereas the original concept was to service and maintain the Wedgetail aircraft in the United Kingdom, there are some media reports that it will now take place in the US instead. Can the Minister confirm whether that is true, and if it is—I hope it is not—will he say what the additional cost will be? To be clear, we need E-7 Wedgetail in RAF service, but we need it now, not in several years’ time. The US, which also has to replace a large number of its ageing E-3 aircraft, was planning to do that with E-7, but the programme is likely to be cancelled. As a stopgap, the US is now apparently even considering buying several dozen E-2D Hawkeye aircraft, which, as the hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome) said, originally entered service in the ’60s. They were famously featured in “Top Gun: Maverick”, guiding the attacking F-18s into the target. What exactly has gone wrong with the programme in the United States? Why is the Department of Defence apparently going to junk Wedgetail in favour of Hawkeye, and later, space-based systems? If it does, what are the implications for the RAF Wedgetail programme? Apparently, Boeing is now claiming that what was originally an off-the-shelf purchase of E-7 for the RAF is now turning into a development programme. Can the Minister explain exactly what that means? Can he reassure the House that if the US does withdraw, we are not going to ask the Royal Air Force to pay a vast amount of money to develop E-7, when the United States has refused to do so? The Government have been running a competition for a national armaments director—the NAD. If media reports are to be believed, they have now narrowed it down to two remaining candidates. As the NAD will have to deal with the problem of Wedgetail, can the Minister update the House on exactly where we are on the appointment? Who are the two remaining candidates? Is it true that one of them is holding out for more money? When can we expect a definitive announcement on the appointment? It would appear that, despite extended tortuous negotiations between the RAF and Boeing, the matter has still not been brought to a conclusion. It may mean that the incoming NAD has to knock heads together to finally achieve some progress, which the 12,500 employees at Defence Equipment and Support do not appear to have managed to do. If it were me, I would start as I mean to go on. I would tell Boeing that it will not be granted any further contracts with the Ministry of Defence, be it for more helicopters or advanced jet trainers, unless and until it has introduced its project—its product, E-7 Wedgetail—successfully into operational service. On 25 June, when the House debated the new NAD role, the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), raised Wedgetail as a specific programme requiring more scrutiny. So concerned have I become while researching for this debate, and having considered the matter overnight, I asked this morning for a meeting with the Chair of the PAC, who wanted to be here this afternoon but unavoidably has to be elsewhere. He too was concerned, and he has authorised me to say that he is minded to write to the permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence to ask what on earth is going on—his words—regarding Wedgetail, and to request a meeting about the programme. In summary, as someone who served on the Defence Committee for seven years and was consistently highly critical of the Army’s Ajax programme—which I note in passing has still not entered operational service—I am afraid to say that, put bluntly, Wedgetail has now turned into the RAF’s very own Ajax. Here we are with another example of a highly complex, exquisite programme that, like Ajax, has not run massively over budget, but which is nevertheless years late, and there is still no guarantee that it even works properly in RAF service. This is threatening to become a £2 billion white elephant in the room. May I conclude by asking the Minister three direct questions? I hope he can provide clear and ambiguous answers, given that he is covering for the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry this afternoon, while the Minister for Veterans and People remains on resignation watch. Question one: what is the exact status of the flight trials programme of the E-7 Wedgetail aircraft, and when will active trials of the MESA radar commence and conclude? Question two: what is the issue regarding certification of the airframe? What is meant by “limited certification”, and when are the aircraft expected to be fully certified by the Military Aviation Authority? Question three: when is E-7 Wedgetail finally expected to enter operational service with the RAF, and when are the second and third aircraft anticipated, to provide full operational capability? All experience suggests that if we are to maintain one aircraft consistently on task for any length of time, we would need all three aircraft in operational service in order to guarantee it. I say again: when we were in government, we should perhaps have done more to accelerate the progress of this programme. But now that Labour is running the show, and has been for over a year, we need to know what the Labour Government are going to do about it. We cannot contemplate the possibility of war with Russia in which we would be virtually blinded within the opening hours. Wedgetail is now absolutely critical to the defence of the UK, so when, oh when are the RAF and Boeing going to get their collective house in order and bring this absolutely vital capability into service?

    Hansard source
23. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    RAF E-7 Wedgetail Programme

    I was just going to ask if you have turned the radar on yet.

    Hansard source
24. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    RAF E-7 Wedgetail Programme

    For the record, I was not quoting the NISTA report; I was quoting the IPA report. I asked the Minister three very specific questions, and he has 12 minutes left. I fear he is denial about the problems in this programme. To prove me wrong, with his 12 remaining minutes will he answer unambiguously the three very direct questions that I asked about the status of the programme?

    Hansard source
25. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    RAF E-7 Wedgetail Programme

    That is unacceptable. The reason for this debate—I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) for securing it—is that both Boeing and the MOD have been stonewalling on this issue for nearly a year. The Minister cannot just say, “I will write to the right hon. Gentleman.” He is in Parliament; he has had plenty of time to prepare and he has lots of civil servants to advise him. He must not fob me off with a letter, or fob off the Chairman of the PAC, who now wants to see the permanent secretary about it. The Minister has had plenty of time; he must answer now, in Parliament, the three very direct questions about the status of the programme. If he does not, the world will conclude that he has something to hide.

    Hansard source
26. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Mims Davies

    Industrial Strategy

    Let us have some reality. Today, inflation hit 3.6%, the highest across the G7. This UK Labour Government have a glossy shine on their so-called industrial strategy, but it is simply proving that their actions and ethos deliver only worse outcomes for Wales. Businesses across Wales are now facing a disgraceful double whammy, as just this week Labour in Cardiff passed plans to impose a dire tourism tax. Has the Minister actually carried out any meaningful assessment with the Welsh Government of how many jobs will be lost, as the vital 100,000-strong Welsh tourism sector will be impacted by this tax and by the failing approach to Wales by the two Labour Governments?

    Hansard source
27. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Mims Davies

    Cross-border Rail Connectivity

    Let us have another reality check. Information provided to us by the Department for Transport confirms that Conservative expenditure on Welsh rail exceeded £5 billion over our time in office, underpinned by our plans to deliver the north Wales main line. Yet in a January sitting of the Welsh Affairs Committee, the Welsh Secretary roundly criticised Welsh rail before claiming: “That is a direct consequence, I am afraid, of the last 14 years of underfunding”. As usual, this Government’s words and beliefs and the reality are poles apart. This Labour Government are now offering peanuts—just a miserable £400 million over an entire decade. Will the Secretary of State retract her past claims to the Welsh Affairs Committee and the similar ones that have been made on the Wales Office Government social media accounts?

    Hansard source
28. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    Credit Unions

    It is always a great pleasure to serve under you, Mr Twigg, and I apologise for nearly knocking you over on my bicycle first thing this morning.

    Hansard source
29. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    Credit Unions

    Thank goodness I was called to speak after all. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) on securing this debate. It has been fascinating to listen to all the great words used to describe credit unions. We have heard them described as lifeline services, community builders and financial educators that help to get people on to the road to financial stability, and as engines of economic inclusion. There is no doubt about it: credit unions are truly remarkable institutions. At their heart, they represent, in its simplest form, how and why the financial sector drives growth. They are the first rung on the ladder in the financial system. They take the savings entrusted by members, brought together by a common bond, pool those funds and turn them into everything from very simple loans, to pay for school uniforms, as we have heard, all the way up to mortgages. Those loans often go to individuals and families who would otherwise find the doors to mainstream financial institutions closed. Credit unions’ commitment to financial inclusion and community values are an example that many parts of the wider financial sector could definitely learn from. I am pleased to note that over the past decade, under the previous Government, credit unions have consolidated and grown. In Great Britain, the number of members rose by a third between 2014 and 2024. More than 2.3 million people are members, up from 1.5 million in 2014, so while the number of credit unions in operation has decreased, that reflects strategic mergers that have created larger, more resilient and more professional institutions. Their asset base has also expanded—it now totals nearly £5 billion in the UK—and their lending book stands at £1.83 billion as of the fourth quarter of 2024. The impact of credit unions stretches far beyond the balance sheet. Studies show that £1 invested into a credit union can translate to between £11 and £19 of value generated in the wider community, yet despite these strengths, it is clear that further growth is being held back. A major barrier to growth is a geographical common bond, as we have heard one or two Members mention. That prevents credit unions from serving large city regions such as London, the west midlands or Greater Manchester as a single entity. I welcome the Government’s publication of a call for evidence last year on common bond reform. However, the call for evidence is unclear about the Government’s position on expanding the geographical common bond, so I would definitely welcome the Minister’s views on raising the cap from 3 million to at least 10 million people, as called for by the Building Societies Association and others. That would not only unblock the growth of credit unions in major urban areas, but allow for strategic mergers and expansions, helping the sector to respond to local need at scale. From my own meetings with the credit union industry, I know that consolidation has improved professionalism, resilience and standards across the board. However, to truly unlock growth potential, we must enable greater investment into credit union service organisations. It is positive that the Prudential Regulation Authority recently clarified that credit unions can own these service organisations. However, further Government support, especially relaxing ownership and capital restrictions, could unleash digital transformation and help credit unions to modernise their services. I note and appreciate that the Minister has also asked the Financial Conduct Authority and the PRA to publish a report on the mutuals landscape by the end of this year. That is a welcome intervention, but can the Minister confirm whether it will deliver a root and branch review of credit union legislation, and in particular the Credit Union Act 1979? As we have heard, credit unions in the USA, Ireland and Canada have flourished under a very different legal framework, which I hope the Government will scrutinise and learn from. I also hope the review can look at central facilities. By pooling liquidity through a central facility, credit unions could manage risk more effectively and provide an even stronger backbone for local lenders. Similarly, do the Government have appetite to allow credit unions to access Bank of England reserve accounts and the sterling monetary framework, bringing them into line with other financial institutions of a similar size? I will draw my words to a close in a second, but first I gently remind the Minister that the Government were elected last year—quite wholeheartedly—on a pledge to double the size of the co-operative and mutual sector. It is the morning after the night before, when members of the Treasury team are no doubt nursing hangovers from a fantastic dinner last night at the Mansion House. It is notable that during the Chancellor’s Mansion House speech, which I think was very much welcomed by the City of London, the co-operative and mutual sector was not mentioned. I would be grateful if the Minister put that wrong right by addressing these points. All the evidence suggests that credit unions are a potential growth engine for communities. By introducing a modern legal framework, progressive common bond reform and investment into service organisations, we can help this sector to continue to flourish.

    Hansard source
30. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    Financial Services Reform

    I am very grateful to the Minister for advance sight of her statement. There is much in these Leeds reforms—many of which were formerly known as the Edinburgh reforms—that can be welcomed, and some of the details were laid out by the Chancellor in her Mansion House speech last night. The Conservatives will always support reforms to our financial sector that ensure that the City of London remains a global powerhouse, but the Chancellor’s rhetoric last night about growth and stability obscures the truth of this Government’s record of delivery. Inflation is now at 3.6%—the highest in the G7—and growth has all but stalled. Despite yesterday’s fanfare for reform, the reality is that having run short on other ideas, the Government are now forced to turn once again to the City of London for inspiration—a last throw of the dice, hoping that it will provide an engine for the growth that their policies are stifling. Last night the Chancellor described her Government as a “beacon of stability”, but let us not forget the actual legacy that was handed over to her. We enjoyed near record levels of employment. Unemployment was at historic lows, and inflation was under control. That is the stable foundation on which this Government were handed the keys, yet they now preside over instability. The Office for Budget Responsibility, the OECD and the Bank of England have all sounded the alarm that our growth prospects have collapsed. The Government claim to be cutting red tape for industry, but let us remember that their plan to make work pay would in fact burden employers with over 70 new regulations, reminiscent of the 1970s. The Chancellor’s talk of unleashing the power of the City comes even as her party threatens to smother businesses in paperwork and expense. When it comes to proposals for financial services, the Conservatives welcome much that gives the sector confidence and clarity, but warm words must be matched by careful delivery. On reforms to the Financial Ombudsman Service, there is agreement that it should return to its impartial roots as a fast and effective dispute resolution service, not a quasi-regulator, but so many business and consumers are awaiting clarity, so can the Minister confirm whether these changes will limit the FOS’s power to make backdated legal determinations, and what impact will the reforms have on ongoing legal proceedings, such as the crucial car finance case before the Supreme Court? Streamlining the approach of the FCA and the PRA may remove unnecessary friction, but we must ensure that this does not become window dressing while critical challenges remain. The FCA and the PRA must accept that stability in the markets is not the only way to deliver growth. Both their objectives must be aligned and equally ambitious in their drive for reform. The Chancellor trumpeted reforms to ISAs, including new rules for long-term asset funds, which we welcome if that broadens access to higher-return assets for ordinary savers, but there is still no certainty on the future of the cash ISA. Without clarity, the Government risk undermining their own ambition to promote home ownership and inclusive investment, which again was trumpeted by the Chancellor during her Mansion House speech last night. On capital investment policy, we welcome MREL reform, which was a change I championed during the recent passage of the Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Act 2025. This will help challenger banks to compete and expand lending. We cautiously welcome the Government’s review of ringfencing rules, but will they confirm that all options are being considered, including alignment with the US and the EU, which, as the Minister knows, never implemented ringfencing rules? More broadly, the history of the last Labour Government reminds us that good intentions are never enough. The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, introduced by the then Chancellor, along with the tripartite system, was well conceived but badly implemented, contributing to the events of the 2008 financial crisis. It falls to this Government now to demonstrate that they will not repeat those mistakes. Finally, at Mansion House last night the Chancellor missed a crucial opportunity to be straight with the British people and rule out further tax rises. Will the Minister guarantee that working families and businesses will not face more tax increases? Will she rule out any further surprise raids on the British taxpayer? Britain’s financial services sector has always thrived when reforms are clear. The test of these reforms will come when the full details emerge, but ultimately growth will come only when the Chancellor realises that hard-working people and businesses across the country are the real engines of economic growth.

    Hansard source
31. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

    Engagements

    Q11. I can see why you call these sessions Prime Minister’s questions and not Prime Minister’s answers, Mr Speaker.

    Hansard source
32. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

    Engagements

    Thank you, Mr Speaker. Following the magnificent success of the England cricket team earlier this week and the triumphal return of Mr Jofra Archer, does the Prime Minister agree that what he needs from his Ministers over the next 12 months is more pace and less spin?

    Hansard source
33. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·John Lamont

    Nuclear Power

    1. What discussions she has had with the Welsh Government on the future of nuclear power in Wales.

    Hansard source
34. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·John Lamont

    Nuclear Power

    I thank the Minister for that answer. Nuclear must be an important part of our energy security strategy. It is both clean and reliable, and creates good jobs for local communities. What more can the Secretary of State do to encourage and incentivise new nuclear power in Wales and across all parts of the United Kingdom?

    Hansard source
35. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·John Glen

    Financial Services Reform

    I warmly welcome the Leeds reforms; they build on many of the things that were done under the previous Administration and I acknowledge the consumer-facing changes on mortgages and ISAs and the aspiration to get more people investing. Those are positive things. I will just say two things. First, on the listing review, we did one about four years ago and it is all just about implemented. I urge the Minister to look at culture and fiscal issues as much as at regulatory issues. Secondly, on the PRA and the scale of ambition on that side of the regulatory framework, in conversations with senior leaders at Mansion House last night, it was felt that the FCA’s level of ambition is high but that there must be wariness about a constant shifting of the goalposts and a lack of real change, particularly on the internal rating base and how banks can get their regulatory capital treated differently more quickly. It is taking too long and that needs to change urgently.

    Hansard source
36. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·John Cooper

    RAF E-7 Wedgetail Programme

    I beg to move, That this House has considered the RAF E-7 Wedgetail programme. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. Victory in the battle of Britain means we are having this debate in this place in English, but how was that aerial triumph secured? Of course, it had much to do with the pilots of the RAF—Churchill’s famous “few”—who risked all at long odds to blunt the Luftwaffe’s talons. Key, too, was the workhorse Hawker Hurricane, which bagged most of the kills. There was also the show pony Supermarine Spitfire, which grabbed most of the glory, to the extent that German pilots would lie about being brought down by a Spit and not the deadly but less elegant Hurricane. I would contend that the unsung hero is the world’s first organised radar early warning system, code-named Chain Home and strung like pearls around the British coast, with particular emphasis on the English south and south-east. It meant Britain could see the enemy coming and marshal our meagre fighter resources to best effect. Radar allowed us to vector our squadrons against the bomber streams and their escorts for, had we to rely on the “mark 1 eyeball”, as RAF pilots call it even today, or imprecise Royal Observer Corps listening devices that were more great war than great efficiency, suffice it to say the world would be a different and much worse place. Soon radar was miniaturised and put aboard aircraft, and aerial combat was transformed, so that today it is less Biggles battling the Hun in the sun and more BVR—beyond visual range—spotting our enemy long before they spot us and taking them out at a remarkable distance. Airborne radar and comms are today’s air war essentials, as vital to modern air forces as the Rolls-Royce Merlin engines that powered both our Spitfires and Hurricanes in the second world war. But the RAF has a problem: a capability gap—and for capability gap read “credibility gap”—because it cannot offer the complete integral mission package.

    Hansard source
37. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·John Cooper

    RAF E-7 Wedgetail Programme

    As the Chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member is very knowledgeable about this subject, and I hope that we will tease out today much of what he raised—we may actually get some of the answers we seek. As I was saying, the RAF has a problem: it cannot offer a complete package, and we could be reliant on NATO allies to give us extra cover. That is because the venerable E-3D Sentry aircraft has retired, so we entirely lack an airborne early warning command and control aircraft providing situational awareness of the battlespace—that is the real-time 360° view of what is out there, so that our top guns know who to salute and who to shoot.

    Hansard source
38. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·John Cooper

    RAF E-7 Wedgetail Programme

    I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention and I do indeed welcome the fact that, given the situation we are in, we are welcoming warfighters into these senior positions. It is worth reflecting, yet again, that the military likes a TLA—three-letter acronym. The replacement for the Sentry, the E-7 Wedgetail, is already combat-proven with the Royal Australian Air Force, but it is still not in service with the RAF; indeed, it is already two years late. I hope that the Minister can give the House some assurance that it is not the Ajax of the skies, because that unhappy armoured fighting vehicle programme has become a byword for ruinously expensive waste.

    Hansard source
39. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·John Cooper

    RAF E-7 Wedgetail Programme

    I thank the hon. Gentleman, my near-constituency neighbour, for that intervention. There is something of a hostile environment for defence companies in Scotland, because the SNP Government refuse to put money into what they call “munitions”, which is scarcely credible in the current circumstances. Most recently, Rolls-Royce wanted to build a welding centre of excellence on the banks of the Clyde, close to where Thales is based, but incredibly the Scottish Government will not put money into it. To their credit, the UK Government have said they will back it to the hilt, which has to be good news, but it is very strange that the Scottish Government are taking an almost fifth-columnist view of the defence of the realm; indeed, it is quite remarkable. As I understand it, the delays to the E-7 Wedgetail programme are not costing the taxpayer more money because the contract with Boeing insulates the taxpayer from price surges; I hope the Minister can confirm that. Although one Wedgetail—complete with plug-ugly but lethally effective MESA, which is the multi-role electronically scanned array, perched atop what is basically a Boeing 737 airliner—is due to fly in the Royal International Air Tattoo this week, none of the three RAF orders is fully certified for military aviation. There are also worries that passion for Wedgetail is waning in the United States, where the Sentry aircraft are also designed to be gate guardians. US Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth said that the “gold-plated” Wedgetail is: “not survivable in the modern battlefield.” The White House is said to be anticipating the arrival of intelligence, surveillance and target acquisition constellation satellites, which are expected by the mid-2030s at the earliest. Meanwhile, the Pentagon is looking at the venerable E-2D Hawkeye to fill the potentially decade-long gap until interlinked satellites, like Chain Home in the heavens, actually arrive overhead.

    Hansard source
40. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·John Cooper

    RAF E-7 Wedgetail Programme

    I thank the hon. Member for that point. He is absolutely correct and he also referred to the fact that he, too, has Thales in his constituency, or close to it. That is the thing about the defence industry—it is intertwined with so many constituencies. In fact, I do not think that there is a single constituency that does not have some defence involvement. In my constituency, rural Dumfries and Galloway, we make the helmets for the F-35 Lightning II jets. Wherever anyone goes in the country, there is some defence involvement and we must back that to the hilt. We must also look forward, which is critical; I think that much of this debate is about looking forward, rather than looking backwards and raking over old coals.

    Hansard source