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

1. 10 Jul 2025·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

   Resident Doctors: Industrial Action

   I have known the Secretary of State a long time. I knew him before he was an important man—although he was always important to me, of course. He will know that as a Minister, I worked with the trade unions in every sector for which I was responsible, as the RMT and the University and College Union will confirm, and I was also a member of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers. I entirely endorse and amplify what he says. Responsible trade unionism requires people to be reasonable, and reasonable people in this House know that this strike against this background is entirely unacceptable, as he has described. I ask the Secretary of State this: will he ensure that this unhappy, unwholesome and unhealthy action does not jeopardise the health of my constituents, and will he write to the local authorities—the integrated care boards—in my area and others to set out how they can minimise the impact of this action? The last thing that you want, Madam Deputy Speaker, or that I or any Member across this House wants, is for those at risk to be put at greater risk as a result of this irresponsible action by these militant people.

   Hansard source
2. 10 Jul 2025·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

   Children’s Social Care

   I am immensely grateful to the Chair of the Education Committee for the way she has introduced the report and the work she has done. I am particularly moved by what she said about disabled people, and I wonder if she would look at the relationship between that and special needs education as there is a close association between the two. Will she also look at the issue of the quality of parenting? I was at a school in my constituency just a week ago, and I was told that children are presenting to school really very poorly parented as that is related to the subject that the hon. Lady has studied. It is not all children, of course, but too many are suffering in that way.

   Hansard source
3. 10 Jul 2025·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

   Points of Order

   On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will not know this, but I have learned that independent experts have advised that Lincolnshire police are now at real risk of having to issue a section 114 notice—the equivalent of a public body declaring that it can no longer balance its budget. It comes after a long campaign, run my myself and colleagues, about Lincolnshire police funding more generally. Has the Home Secretary advised you on whether she intends to come to the House to address that, for the people of Lincolnshire are acutely worried that policing services in our county will cease to protect them from the risk and reality of crime and disorder?

   Hansard source
4. 10 Jul 2025·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

   Educational Attainment of Boys

   I had not intended to contribute to this debate, but the hon. Gentleman has provoked me to do so by the character of his insight. It is brave and right of him to deconstruct the nonsense about toxic masculinity, and to emphasise that white working-class boys, of the kind that are prevalent in his constituency, are particularly disadvantaged by a system that has underestimated, indeed neglected, their needs. He mentioned NEETs. As an education Minister, I did my best to address that issue, but successive Governments have done insufficient. I congratulate him on bringing this debate and on what he has said in it.

   Hansard source
5. 10 Jul 2025·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

   Educational Attainment of Boys

   I will praise the hon. Gentleman again. He is absolutely right about really valuing practical learning. I come from a similar background to him; I was not clever enough to be practical, so I had to become an academic. Re-establishing the idea that vocational, practical accomplishment has at least equal prowess to academic learning—I think it has greater prowess, actually—is fundamental. May I add one other example, with your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker? The hon. Gentleman will know of the Men’s Sheds movement, which is typically for older men. I visited the men’s shed in Long Sutton, of which I am president, and there was a youth shed bringing young people into a male community, allowing boys to share, learn and grow.

   Hansard source
6. 10 Jul 2025·Parliament·Sir Gavin Williamson

   Civil Service Relocation

   The last Government saw civil servant jobs relocated not just to Wolverhampton, but to Stoke-on-Trent. It is important that the very top level of the civil service is also located outside of London, so will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster set out how many permanent secretaries are currently located permanently outside London? What steps will he take to ensure that more permanent secretaries are located in both Wolverhampton and Stoke-on-Trent?

   Hansard source
7. 10 Jul 2025·Parliament·Sir Gavin Williamson

   Topical Questions

   I think the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and I are politically completely at one, because if it was down the two of us, we would relocate all civil servants to Wolverhampton and Staffordshire. What is also incredibly important is Ministers being in those offices. Will he commit to publishing the details of ministerial attendance in offices outside London, including how long they stayed in those offices?

   Hansard source
8. 10 Jul 2025·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

   Resident Doctors: Industrial Action

   We can all argue about the past, but if it helps the Secretary of State, I think we should just say today that the whole House absolutely 100% supports him in his robust attitude. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Of course we all love doctors, but the starting salary is not so very bad. They have a job—a very good job—for life, which most people do not have, and he could also mention that they have a much better career structure than most people. A far higher proportion of them get the top job—namely, as a consultant—and the consultant’s starting salary of £110,000 a year is not a bad whack.

   Hansard source
9. 10 Jul 2025·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

   Energy Planning

   We are all in favour of green energy in Lincolnshire, and we do our bit with massive wind turbines in the North sea, but will the Committee do a more in-depth report about the sheer concentration of solar farms in Lincolnshire, with 10,000 acres around the town of Gainsborough? I know that the grid connection is important, but surely the Committee could play a useful role in saying that all parts of the country should do their bit. We cannot simply take 10,000 acres out of good agricultural production in one small part of England.

   Hansard source
10. 10 Jul 2025·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

    Points of Order

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I support my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), but I want to make a different point of order. Have the Government told you that they will come to the House today to make a statement on channel crossings? The channel is in chaos today—already 220 people have poured across—and 1,195 arrived on 1 June. President Macron and the Prime Minister say that this cannot go on. This is an existential crisis for our country, and we want action. Just taking in a swap of 50 a week is not going to solve the problem. On this vital issue, have the Government come to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and said that they want to make a statement today?

    Hansard source
11. 10 Jul 2025·Parliament·Sir Desmond Swayne

    UK-EU Trading Relationship

    15. What assessment his Department has made of the effectiveness of the new UK-EU trading relationship.

    Hansard source
12. 10 Jul 2025·Parliament·Sir Desmond Swayne

    UK-EU Trading Relationship

    Yesterday on “Farming Today” at 5.45 am, it was put to a shellfish farmer that it was going to become much easier for her to export her produce to the European Union. Her response was, “Yes, but we are told that the changes will be two or perhaps four years away, if they happen at all.” Given what we have negotiated away, can those changes be expedited?

    Hansard source
13. 10 Jul 2025·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

    Plan for Change: Tracking Dashboard

    17. What progress he has made on publishing a tracking dashboard for the plan for change metrics.

    Hansard source
14. 10 Jul 2025·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

    Plan for Change: Tracking Dashboard

    The Government are clearly very happy to claim that all is rosy after their first year in power, yet on the ground in my constituency and around the country, the opposite story is being told. The Government’s policies are hitting my constituents hard—whether it is the impact of increased national insurance contributions on local charities, the prospect of more red tape for landlords, or moving the goalposts for the most vulnerable. Given the Government’s amazing claims, why are they so reticent to share the plan for change metrics in one place, so that the good people up and down the United Kingdom can see the reality of this Labour Government in hard facts?

    Hansard source
15. 10 Jul 2025·Parliament·Neil O'Brien

    Educational Attainment of Boys

    In Leicestershire, where I am from, it is the last week of term, so as we come to the end of the school year—my children’s primary school has only just broken up— I want to thank all the teachers and other staff in our schools who have worked so hard this year, for both our boys and our girls. We as MPs go in and teach for an hour or something like that and realise how hard it is, so we pay tribute to all of them. I also want to say thank you to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth), who led us off with an absolutely brilliant speech—it really was a genuinely brilliant speech. I saw my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), who is no longer in his place, go across the Chamber to congratulate him, so I am sure the Whips will have him on defection watch now. Indeed, everyone has given brilliant speeches, despite the three-minute time limit. When the hon. Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) said that he would give us his entire second PhD in two minutes and 15 seconds, I was a bit nervous for him, but he made a good fist of it, so well done everybody. This is a very timely debate. People have already talked about the recent reports from the Centre for Social Justice, and there has also been some great work by the Higher Education Policy Institute. It is also a very important debate, and one in which we must not be insular. There is a global trend; in fact, the OECD says that 56% of university entrants across the entire developed world are now women, which is a huge change right across the industrialised economies. In fact, women are the majority of entrants to university in every single OECD country now, which would have been mind-blowing in the 1970s. Those trends can be seen here in England and Scotland, and across the entire UK. A few Members have talked about the intersections of gender, ethnicity, class, income, and so on and so forth. Those intersections are interesting, and they show us powerfully how important culture is. For example, among white boys who were not on free school meals, 38% went to university. Among Indian girls who were on free school meals, 68% went. That is totally against the trend of income, and it shows the power of culture. We can see the big differences between girls and boys at every level of the income distribution. The culture for boys when it comes to education, particularly working-class boys, is pretty disastrous. I remember exactly what it was like—I was in it at school—and it has many origins, including perhaps the toxic Victorian cult of effortless brilliance. Some people, such as Mike Emmerich in Manchester, blame it on our early industrialisation, and there is still a lingering bad idea that a man’s job has to involve physical effort but not using the brain. It is deeply embedded in our culture. Indeed, I sometimes think we need to bribe J. K. Rowling to rewrite “Harry Potter” with Ron as the diligent swot and Hermione as the loyal pal. Of course, it is not J. K. Rowling’s fault—she is a great hero. That unhelpful framing of boys as undiligent goofballs is in a billion aspects of our culture, from ads to films to books, and it is not at all helpful. There are two things Members have often said in these debates over the eight years I have been here. The willingness to engage in this debate has massively increased over that time. Some people say that the performance of boys in the education system is pretty inseparable from the performance of the system as a whole given that they make up half of all people. That is broadly right, and a rising tide lifts all boats. On the other hand, there are good cases for doing things specifically to try and improve the attainment of boys in education—both those things are simultaneously true. First, we can see the difference that structural reforms make if we compare different bits of the UK. I will not relitigate old arguments, but for lots of different reasons, the Labour Government in Wales decided not to do the structural reforms that happened in England over the Blair period and our period in government. They did not do academies, accountability measures or the knowledge-intensive curriculum. The results were startling. A report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies called, “Major challenges for education in Wales” points out that—amazingly—disadvantaged children in England are now doing better on PISA than average children in Wales. There is a huge gap. From 2009 to 2022, England went from 21st to seventh in the PISA league table on maths, while Wales went from 29th to 27th. On science, England went from 11th to ninth, while Wales went down from 21st to 29th. There is a big looming gap between England and Wales. What does that mean for girls and boys? On PISA, for both England and Wales, we see that boys do better than girls on maths and science, but boys do worse than girls on reading. That gap between England and Wales is now so big that on reading, boys in England do better than girls in Wales, and on maths and science, girls in England do better than boys in Wales, so the absolute level matters. We must remember that while we have talked a lot in the debate about relativities, ultimately, it is the absolute performance that we really care about. We want to raise both levels, particularly given that we are in a global economy. Secondly, I turn to what we will do specifically to try to improve the performance of boys, and I will give a few relevant examples. It has already been mentioned that reading for pleasure is down most sharply among boys. That is one reason why we will continue to press for action not just to get phones out of our schools, but more widely, as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) said, to tackle the public health and educational problems being caused by the wider shift to a smartphone-based childhood, including on issues such as the age of consent for social media. I encourage Ministers to fight the good fight on all that stuff. We know that boys are much more likely to end up in trouble or in fights at school. I remember that was the worst single aspect of when I was at secondary school. A few Members have mentioned exclusions. I am always a bit wary of that—that is the symptom rather than the cause. Getting behaviour and discipline right is crucial for boys, who are often the victims of violence and fights. I will not relitigate all this stuff, but we had a schools Bill that did not have anything to say on discipline. The Government rejected our amendments to add provisions on behaviour. They have abolished the behaviour hubs, which were working. It went from one third of the schools that went through the hubs being rated good or outstanding to two thirds of those schools, yet the hubs have been axed. On forthcoming policy, as the hon. Member welcomed, boys have 71% of all EHCPs. We know the Government have said they are looking at ending EHCPs outside of special schools—that is, about 60% of EHCPs or over 300,000 children. We are not at all against reform of special needs provision. The Health Minister has said that the Government want to see a smaller proportion of pupils in special schools, too. Given these issues are now being debated in the public domain, as Ministers think about reform, they will need to move fast—as I am sure they will want to—to answer the big questions about the ideas they have put out that in some cases are causing parents worry. For example, how will the parents of these boys—and they are mainly boys—know that their child will get what they need if they do not have an EHCP? Is there not a tension between wanting fewer pupils in special schools and ending EHCPs outside them? What did the Minister mean when she said that effective support will not be removed? What does “effective” mean? These are all questions that I am sure the Minister is thinking about. They are crucial for boys; they are crucial for everyone, to be honest. I totally understand why Ministers are looking at this. According to the IFS, we increased funding by nearly 60%, or £4 billion in real terms, between 2015-16 and 2024-25—that is a fast rate of increase. But of course, it is vital that we get the right answers and certainty for parents as soon as possible. I will end with a couple of questions to the Minister. In opposition, the Prime Minister said that he wanted to improve employability—we have talked about young men who are NEETS—and said, “We will reinstate two weeks of compulsory work experience”. How many schools are delivering that now? What is the Government’s target to be delivered and by when? When will schools be seeing the £85 million that was promised in the Labour manifesto to fund that? Likewise, in opposition last year, the Government announced plans to help schools develop young male mentors and to teach pupils how to question the material they see on social media, particularly from people such as Andrew Tate. This is a rare example of total agreement between both sides of the House. We completely agree that we need to push back against terrible role models for boys —they are total, total, total losers teaching boys totally terrible ideas. We hope there will be an opportunity to prosecute some of those people, too. What has happened to the pledge to get mentors in place? Let me pick up on something that the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), said in her excellent speech. She talked about the gender pay gap. I think this is interesting and it needs careful analysis. For 18 to 29-year-olds, the gender pay gap now does not exist. It is actually negative for the youngest of that group and it appears to get bigger with age, but it is actually not a gender pay gap per se—it is a motherhood pay gap. I commend the work of Ruxandra Teslo. I am sure the Chair of the Select Committee is very familiar with it. She shows that the later women delay having children, the higher their income and, unfortunately, the fewer children they get to have. I think I am in agreement with Department for Education Ministers in thinking that that is unacceptable and must be changed. On that rare note of terrifying consensus, let me draw my remarks to a close by once again congratulating the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, who is quite right to bring this debate to the House. He gave an excellent speech. I am struck by the way the debates on this issue have changed even in the time I have been here. It is more clearly identified as a problem and by synthesising the arguments in such an excellent way today, he has helped to propel the argument forward.

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

    Children’s Health

    Order. To ensure everyone gets to contribute, we will have to have a three-minute speaking limit. I call Sarah Hall.

    Hansard source
17. 10 Jul 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Children’s Health

    I now call the Minister, who has up to 5 pm, although we do need a few minutes at the end for the lead Member to wind up.

    Hansard source
18. 10 Jul 2025·Parliament·Mr Richard Holden

    Civil Service Relocation

    Heads of Departments have said that 60% attendance in the office is the best balance for civil servants working in Government Departments, but in an answer to a recent written parliamentary question from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), the Cabinet Office said that no data exists for attendance outside London HQs—it is certainly not collected centrally. However, the Office for National Statistics has produced data about its own workforce, which, via the UK Statistics Authority, comes under the Cabinet Office. That shows a daily attendance rate of as little as 3% in some of the ONS’s regional offices. Does the Minister think that an attendance rate of 3% will help career progression and thereby help relocate civil servants outside London? Does he think that 3% is acceptable? Is this not just part of a wider pattern of non-attendance in offices outside London, and is it not time his Department published the data on attendance levels?

    Hansard source
19. 10 Jul 2025·Parliament·Mr Richard Holden

    Business of the House

    Does the Leader of the House agree that it is wholly unacceptable for a senior official at His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to refuse to respond to repeated reasonable requests from me on behalf of my constituents? We have correspondence going back to early March. Will she meet me to discuss how we can ensure proper accountability for some of these arm’s length bodies and that we get timely responses from executive agencies in all cases?

    Hansard source
20. 10 Jul 2025·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    Business of the House

    May I join the tributes to Lord Tebbit? He was a political giant in his day and far more capable than the “Spitting Image” puppet ever gave him credit for. May we have a debate in Government time on emerging proposals to cancel education, health and care plans? I say in all sincerity to the Leader of the House that we all know from our constituency work that the special educational needs system is broken and needs reform, but abolishing EHCPs would only lead to a backlash from angry parents and probably a major Back-Bench rebellion. Whatever her Government are going to do, please, in all seriousness, don’t do that.

    Hansard source
21. 10 Jul 2025·Parliament·Mr Gagan Mohindra

    Plan for Change: Tracking Dashboard

    7. What progress he has made on publishing a tracking dashboard for the plan for change metrics.

    Hansard source
22. 10 Jul 2025·Parliament·Mr Gagan Mohindra

    Plan for Change: Tracking Dashboard

    Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster reassure the House that once he has actually started publishing the tracking dashboard for the plan for change, the six milestones will not go the same way as the three foundations, the six first steps for change, the five missions and the seven pillars of growth, and that it will not be abandoned and replaced when the Government realise they are missing their targets?

    Hansard source
23. 10 Jul 2025·Parliament·Mr Andrew Snowden

    Resident Doctors: Industrial Action

    My wife has a long-term chronic health condition; she has had to have two major lifesaving surgeries, and has had countless stays in hospitals. We have seen the fantastic work that many doctors and consultants do, but we have also seen the impact it has when there are cancellations and delays, or when no doctors are available. Many people will have been flabbergasted by the sheer scale of the pay rise that was awarded in the first place, without anything in return to deliver the NHS reforms that the Government seek. Those people will now be absolutely outraged that the BMA is going on strike after having a near 30% pay increase. I plead with the Secretary of State to hold the line in these negotiations, and to take away the cross-party support he has in holding the line against the BMA on this issue.

    Hansard source
24. 10 Jul 2025·Parliament·Mike Wood

    UK-EU Trading Relationship

    As the Minister will be aware, under the existing framework, the UK is entitled to take unilateral measures to protect the internal market where there is a diversion of trade. The Federation of Small Businesses Northern Ireland says that a third of businesses that previously traded between Great Britain and Northern Ireland have ceased to do so. We know from his interview yesterday that the Minister does not consider three quarters of deportations being voluntary to represent a majority, but does he consider a third of businesses to be a diversion of trade? If he does not, what would be a diversion of trade?

    Hansard source
25. 10 Jul 2025·Parliament·Martin Vickers

    Business of the House

    At a recent constituency surgery, a constituent came to me who is in receipt of the survivor police pension. She drew my attention to the anomaly that if she were to remarry or cohabit, she would lose her pension. There has been an ongoing campaign about this for a number of years. I am looking to apply for a Backbench Business debate, but could the Leader of the House ask a Minister to make a statement and forestall that debate?

    Hansard source
26. 10 Jul 2025·Parliament·John Glen

    Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

    I remain concerned that Sir Brian Langstaff has never asked me, as the Minister who was responsible for the design of the scheme, to account for the process that I adopted under the advice of the civil servants that my successor, the Minister, shares. I am concerned now that there will be continued lack of clarity and certainty for those who have been waiting for too long. We appointed an expert group on the best advice of the civil servants, we ensured that there would be engagement with representatives from the 40 groups, and I met them over 18 meetings in 10 days prior to legislation coming to this House. I am gravely concerned that continued uncertainty through more report writing will not serve the best interests of this community. Does the Minister agree and what steps will he take to resolve these matters once and for all?

    Hansard source
27. 10 Jul 2025·Parliament·John Glen

    Business of the House

    The Institute for Fiscal Studies is undoubtedly the country’s leading economic research institute. I pay tribute to Paul Johnson, who finishes after 14 years in his role, and welcome Helen Miller. Clearly, there are challenges for all parties in making tough choices about our public finances, but could we have a debate about the options facing the Government? The deputy leader of Reform yesterday came up with a figure that was half what the IFS said a certain measure would cost. If we are to make the right decisions, and be led by rational economic analysis rather than by rhetoric, it is important that this House, and the experience that lies within it, informs the decisions made in the autumn.

    Hansard source
28. 10 Jul 2025·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Plan for Change: Tracking Dashboard

    14. What progress he has made on publishing a tracking dashboard for the plan for change metrics.

    Hansard source
29. 10 Jul 2025·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Plan for Change: Tracking Dashboard

    Given that the Government’s plan for change tracking dashboard is still in development, can I ask the Minister to include a column or facility to track all the U-turns—or, as the Government may prefer to call it, “The Changes to the Plan for Change (Subject to Change)”? That way, the public can see where those U-turns have taken place, such as on winter fuel payments, the grooming gangs inquiry and welfare reform. It would also help Labour Back Benchers to keep up with the Government’s current position.

    Hansard source
30. 10 Jul 2025·Parliament·Jesse Norman

    Business of the House

    Will the Leader of the House give the House the forthcoming business?

    Hansard source
31. 10 Jul 2025·Parliament·Jesse Norman

    Business of the House

    I am not going to let this moment pass—I am sure no colleague would wish me to—without again reminding everyone present that this week marks the 20th anniversary of the 7/7 bombings. On 7 July 2005, 52 people were killed in four separate attacks and 700 more were injured, many of them grievously. I know that the whole House will want to join me in mourning the victims of these dreadful crimes and in sending all our best wishes to their families and loved ones. While we are on the subject of anniversaries, the House will need no reminding that 2025 is 760 years since Simon de Montfort convened the first representative Parliament. Perhaps even more significantly, this year marks 800 years since the year 1225, when the charter we now know as Magna Carta was agreed as a statute and, indeed, became the first of all our statutes. To that extent, it is 1225 and not 1215 that should be recognised as the birth date of Magna Carta. [Interruption.] I am pleased to hear that wide array of support from the House—thank you. I thought it was an important point to put on the record. For the Government, of course, the past week marks an anniversary of a somewhat less glorious and happy kind: their first full year in office. As a House, it falls to us to ask how the Government have done. It would be right to focus in the first place on their shockingly negligent and abusive treatment of our Northern Ireland veterans, but that is the topic of a Westminster Hall debate next Monday, so let us focus on wider issues. Labour pledged to deliver the highest economic growth in the G7. In reality, UK growth has failed even to beat the G7 average. Labour promised to meet NHS waiting list targets for 92% of patients, but the current figure stands at 59.8%—just one percentage point better than a year ago. Labour vowed to smash the boats and the boat gangs, yet small boat migrant numbers are up by almost 50% compared with this time last year. Perhaps we can forget the pledges. How, then, is the UK economy actually doing? Well, we know that the Office for Budget Responsibility has cut its growth forecast to just 1%, inflation is higher than a year ago and unemployment stands at its highest for four years. So diminished is the Government’s standing in international markets that the Institute for Fiscal Studies recently pointed out that the UK now faces higher borrowing costs than almost all comparable countries. It is two full percentage points higher than Germany and higher even than Greece and Italy. I am afraid to say that the Government have stored up more pain to come. The junior doctors have now voted in favour of further strikes through the autumn and into the new year. They had a 22% increase last year, the House will recall, and they are now looking to their Labour brothers and sisters for a scarcely believable further 29%. That is before we include their pensions. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has, as the wildly overrated Aneurin Bevan said in 1948, “stuffed their mouths with gold”, and they are already coming back for more. What has the media reaction been to all this? Internationally, The Economist described the Prime Minister’s first year as “wasted”. Time called it “a catalogue of errors”. The normally sympathetic New York Times commented that Britain’s Prime Minister is “fading away before our eyes”. Even supportive British newspapers have not been able to disguise their dismay. The Financial Times has bewailed Labour’s “drift”, and The Guardian its “lack of vision”—not my words, but those of some of the most respected newspapers in the world. Finally, what do the poor, suffering public make of all this? We know what a laser focus those in 10 Downing Street keep on the polls, and it will not have escaped their notice that the Prime Minister’s approval rating is now at -35. No Government in recent times have ever lost public support after an election faster than this one. How mortified the Prime Minister must be to be wrenched back almost weekly from the perfumed chanceries of Europe to the grimmer realities of domestic politics. We need not dwell on the pieties and pomposities of Labour’s pronouncements about stability and trust before the July 2024 election. These are the facts, they speak for themselves, and they say only this: must do better—a lot better.

    Hansard source
32. 10 Jul 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Victims of Terrorism: State Support

    It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair today, Ms Harris. As other hon Members have done, I congratulate the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) on securing this important debate. The timing of it is perfect. I commend other hon. Members who have spoken for their thoughtful, powerful and persuasive arguments. So often in this Chamber and the other one, we have political ding-dong. Sometimes that is effective, and sometimes heat does create light, but this debate has been totally different; it has been from the heart and from experience, and it has brought real compassion and humanity to this very important issue. The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), made a good job of précising some of the arguments. I will try not to repeat what he said, but I want to highlight some of them. I will kick off with the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen. He made eight requests of the Minister, and I take this opportunity to amplify them in so far as I am able. I particularly focus on the three primary requests with which the hon. Gentleman finished: to publish the 63 recommendations of the Home Office review; to put forward a national day for victims of terrorism; and to get a date—hopefully an early date—for the opening of the victims and survivors of terrorism support hub. I repeat those requests for the Minister to respond to. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) made an incredibly thoughtful speech, in which he recalled the right hon. Lord Tebbit—he died just a couple of days ago—who was badly injured in the Brighton bomb, and his wife even more so. I bring my own very limited experience of this; both of my parents were blown up in that bomb, so it is real for me as well. The hon. Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) told the story of Christian. He was 13 when he was covered in trauma; I was 14. His scarring and injury have been so much worse than my own. The hon. Member highlighted the need for support in the first hour—the golden hour—but also the long-term support that is required, and he quite rightly said that this is a cross-party issue. I will be quite brief, but the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) showed how raw the impact of terrorism is, even 55 years later. He lives it today just as much as he lived it then. The hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) highlighted the Manchester Arena bombing. He focused on the survivors’ charter, criminal injuries compensation scheme—I will return to that in a minute—and the need for legal support for victims dealing with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. I could not agree more. Two careers ago, I was a barrister and represented applicants in front of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. I know the scheme is out of date, but the approach to compensation was one of penny-pinching and seeking to avoid paying compensation for victims of crime, rather than lessening their burden. There is definite work to be done. The hon. Member also highlighted the need to publish the 63 recommendations from the Home Office review. This debate addresses our fundamental duty as a state: how we care for those who have suffered the most grievous of harms—the physical and emotional harms that have stemmed from the wish to terrorise, divide and coerce our citizens and way of life. I want to take this opportunity, as others have done before me, to pay tribute to every victim, survivor, witness and family member whose life has been irrevocably altered by terrorism. Actions and events that play out over a fraction of a second leave lasting traumas, as we have heard—and, indeed, demonstrated—throughout the course of this debate. As one survivor of the Manchester Arena terrorist attack said: “It has been on my mind every single day since it happened…It is going to have a lasting effect.” How right that is. Successive Conservative Governments have committed to supporting victims of terrorism. We have always protected counter-terrorism budgets; these are meaningless numbers, but £2.5 billion was allocated to our intelligence services. Following the series of terrorist attacks in 2017, we created the victims of terrorism unit, establishing co-ordinated support for the first time. Theresa May, as Home Secretary, strengthened the legislative power of the state with the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015. Her successor, Amber Rudd, established the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism. My right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), during her time as Home Secretary, proscribed five extreme right-wing terrorist groups. By 2024, the Government were delivering £1 billion annually in counter-terrorism funding. Coming back to the criminal injuries compensation scheme, in 2020, it was announced that there would be a review, with proposals for a standalone scheme for victims of domestic and overseas terrorism designed for the unique trauma involved. Yet it feels as though that has essentially been shelved. I do not want to make a political point—that is not the tone of this debate—but I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why it has been shelved, when, on the face of it, the review supported having a standalone scheme. The impact of terrorism on victims is different from the impact of harms caused by crime. I welcome the recent tender announcement for the victims and survivors of terrorism support hub, but it is funded, as I understand it, by a grant of £2.5 million covering 3.5 years. I stand to be corrected by the Minister; if he has a different figure, I would be grateful to hear it when he responds. By my rough account, it is about £700,000 of support a year, so we will ask this hub to do an awful lot. It will have a wide and important remit. How will around £700,000 a year be sufficient to answer the real need that this organisation is designed to address? Since 2020, the Home Office has funded a number of organisations to help victims of trauma. Victim Support provides a 24/7 contact centre and initial needs assessments. The South London and Maudsley NHS foundation trust, which has not been mentioned so far in the debate, delivers specialist clinical mental health support. The Tim Parry Johnathan Ball Foundation facilitates peer-to-peer support networks, which are very important, while Cruse Bereavement Care offers specialist bereavement support. Although I welcome the tender process for the hub, the wording currently suggests that a new provider will be selected competitively. I wonder whether we risk creating a hollow hub. There are concerns that if it does not take advantage of the expertise that the existing organisations have built up, creating a wholly new, standalone body may lead to duplication and a loss of institutional memory and expertise. There is a solution to that, but I want to hear the Minister recognise that as a potential problem and tell us whether the Department is alive to it as a concern. Next, we come to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, which is often impersonal and defensive. A Survivors Against Terror survey of 130 victims found that only 7% felt that the CICA was sympathetic, while 72% felt it was unsympathetic. Whatever the outcome of the process, that demonstrates that it is failing—there is clearly something profoundly wrong. Additionally, 68% found the process unfair and unreasonable, and fewer than half could speak to someone for help. As Brendan Cox, the husband of our murdered colleague Jo Cox, stated: “CICA is broken…An organisation that is supposed to be helping survivors recover and rebuild is instead consistently doing them harm.” However, in May, the Government announced that it would not reform the CICA’s scope, the time limits associated with application or its rules. That feels like a significant error, so I ask the Minister: why do the Government appear to be prioritising existing CICA practices over the experiences and concerns of applicants through that process over many years, and particularly those who have experienced terrorism? Under our current system, victims can wait years. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth, has mentioned the French system. It has a guarantee fund for victims of terrorist acts and other offences, which proactively contacts victims within days and provides emergency monetary advances within the first month. However, here in the UK, as a Manchester bombing survivor stated five years after that terrible night: “I am still waiting for CICA to settle my claim.” The ultimate support we can offer victims is to ensure there are no more of them, which brings me to the crucial matter of prevention. The Shawcross review found that the Prevent programme had suffered from mission creep and cultural timidity in tackling Islamist extremism, which remains responsible for 75% of the work of counter-terrorism investigations. We must recognise that head-on and not shy away from it. I would therefore welcome it if the Minister could provide concrete data demonstrating Prevent’s fundamental rebalancing since the Government accepted all 34 of the Shawcross recommendations. In summary, I seek a response on four key areas. First, I would be grateful if the Minister set out his thinking on how the relatively limited funding for the victims and survivors of terrorism support hub will fulfil the hopes and ambitions we all have for that new organisation. Secondly, on integration, can he guarantee that the trusted and experienced organisations I referred to—the South London and Maudsley NHS trust, the Tim Parry Johnathan Ball Foundation and Cruse Bereavement Support—will be mandated as part of the new hub or that it will call on their expertise? Whatever the mechanism, can he guarantee that their expertise and service will not be lost as a result? Thirdly, on compensation, what is the rationale for not progressing the CICA reform, despite what I think is overwhelming evidence that it should be reformed? Fourthly, on prevention, what evidence demonstrates that the Shawcross recommendations are being implemented? Our duty to support victims is a moral obligation. Victims do not need another layer of barriers; they need immediate, compassionate and properly funded support. They need a dedicated terrorism compensation scheme—like the one the previous Government proposed—that would, importantly, put an end to the failing bureaucracy of the CICA. Those targeted by terror have faced humanity’s worst; they deserve society’s best in return.

    Hansard source
33. 10 Jul 2025·Parliament·James Wild

    Relations with the European Union

    This Government have a track record of announcing trade deals and then nothing actually happens, as our steel sector can attest. Two months on from the Prime Minister crowing about a deal with the EU, will the Minister confirm whether any legal text has been agreed on SPS checks, sharing criminal records data and energy co-operation, and whether any of those measures have been implemented?

    Hansard source
34. 10 Jul 2025·Parliament·James Wild

    UK-France Nuclear Partnership

    Clearly, our deepest and closest relationship on nuclear deterrence is with the United States of America. Can the Minister confirm how this agreement will affect that relationship, which is crucial for our security?

    Hansard source
35. 10 Jul 2025·Parliament·James Wild

    Electricity Market Review

    Under the current system, the most expensive generator sets the clearing price for electricity, pushing up prices for consumers and businesses. Can the Secretary of State explain how the reforms that he is setting out today change that by moving to a pay-as-bid system and providing more affordable energy for consumers and businesses?

    Hansard source
36. 10 Jul 2025·Parliament·James Wild

    Energy Planning

    There are plans for major solar farms, substations and other infrastructure in North West Norfolk and across the county, taking high-quality agricultural land out of use. The cumulative impact of that is being ignored. I welcome the Committee’s recommendation on solar. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the planning system should ensure that energy infrastructure is built on developed land, brownfield land and industrial land, not on best-quality agricultural land? Why does he think that the Government have so far failed to prioritise energy security in the national policy statements?

    Hansard source
37. 10 Jul 2025·Parliament·James Cartlidge

    UK-France Nuclear Partnership

    (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the UK-France nuclear partnership.

    Hansard source
38. 10 Jul 2025·Parliament·James Cartlidge

    UK-France Nuclear Partnership

    Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. I do think it is incredible that we have had to find out about such substantive matters overnight from the press and without a statement from the Government. We Conservatives back our nuclear deterrent 100% and have never wavered on that. We support steps that boost the resilience of our nuclear enterprise, diversify delivery and, above all, help our core continuous at-sea deterrence to remain the cornerstone of our homeland defence against the most extreme threats. We also welcome steps to genuinely strengthen UK-French co-operation on defence, building on Lancaster House. In particular, having been the Government who first authorised provision of long-range Storm Shadow missiles to Ukraine, we recognise the urgent need to replenish our own Storm Shadow stocks, which is in the press release. Can the Minister confirm whether we are placing orders for new Storm Shadow missiles from MBDA or simply reconditioning existing stocks? The nuclear aspect of this is by far the most significant. Can the Minister confirm where this will leave the operationally independent and sovereign nature of our existing Trident nuclear deterrent? The Telegraph quotes the declaration—which, of course, we have not seen—as saying that both nuclear arsenals “remain independent but can be co-ordinated and that there is no extreme threat to Europe that would not prompt a response by both nations”. Does this mean that our respective national deterrence will now be jointly operationally delivered, and how will that co-ordination take place in practice? Crucially, how does this new nuclear doctrine affect NATO and our very close co-operation on nuclear deterrence with the United States? Will France now be offering its nuclear deterrent to NATO, as we do? Perhaps most importantly, will France be joining the NATO Nuclear Planning Group? On the matter of tactical nuclear weapons, I have previously asked about options other than US-controlled gravity bombs, with no reply. Given the announcement on Storm Shadow and MBDA, will the UK and France now be looking at co-operation on tactical nuclear delivery options via our shared complex weapons industrial base? A particular concern of the Opposition is that there appears to be a deep paradox at play here: talk of closer co-operation with France, but in the background, the Government still getting nowhere on access to hard cash from the European rearmament fund, despite having given up our sovereign fishing grounds. To conclude, it is truly extraordinary that such significant defence developments do not warrant a Government statement, so the Minister must now be as transparent as possible in answering our questions—not least after weeks dominated by smoke and mirrors on defence spending and chaotic U-turns on welfare that raise the most profound question of all: where is the money going to come from?

    Hansard source
39. 10 Jul 2025·Parliament·James Cartlidge

    UK-France Nuclear Partnership

    Indeed. May I seek your guidance on how to set the record straight? Following the question from the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner), the Minister criticised the fact that I only partially referred to a quote from the declaration text. To be clear, I have not seen the declaration. It was leaked to the media overnight; that was all I could read from, and I am none the wiser from the answers we have just had.

    Hansard source
40. 10 Jul 2025·Parliament·Greg Smith

    UK-France Nuclear Partnership

    The two bedrocks of our national defence are our own sovereign capability and our membership of NATO. The United Kingdom and France are both members of NATO, but, as the shadow Secretary of State pointed out, the paradox is that we and every other NATO member bar one are members of the NATO nuclear planning group. Of course, that “bar one” is France. As part of these discussions, is France going to join the NATO nuclear planning group? If not, how on earth will this co-ordination work within that partnership?

    Hansard source