Spending Review: Health and Social Care
After more than an hour of diligent bobbing, I call Chris Vince.
5,779 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Spending Review: Health and Social Care
I thank the Minister for her answers this afternoon. I ask anyone who is leaving before the Select Committee statement to do so quickly and quietly.
- Hansard source
Industrial Strategy
We now come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Business and Trade Committee. Liam Byrne will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement; these should be brief questions, not speeches. I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee Chair and not to the relevant Ministers, and that Front Benchers may take part in questioning.
- Hansard source
Industrial Strategy
Order. I can run this only until 2 pm, so can questions and answers be brief, please?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
A third of my constituents emanate from Gujarat, so my thoughts and prayers are with the families and relatives who are obviously concerned about the plight of the 242 passengers on that flight. I understand that the plane came down in a residential area, so the people who live there will also be affected. I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week and for announcing the estimates days. Estimates day applications can be obtained from the Table Office or the Committee’s website. We welcome applications. They will close tomorrow at the rise of the House, and we will be considering applications for debates at our meeting on Tuesday at 4.15 pm. Anyone applying should expect to turn up and present their case. We intend to allocate three debates each day, with a preference given to those who were unsuccessful in the supplementary estimates days. In addition to the business announced by the Leader of the House, in Westminster Hall next week, on Tuesday there will be a debate on hydrogen-powered aviation, and on Thursday there will be a Select Committee statement from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, followed by debates on the role of careers education in improving social mobility and on Down’s syndrome regression disorder. On Tuesday 24 June, there will be a debate on the right to maintain contact in care settings. On Thursday 26 June, there will be a Select Committee statement from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, followed by debates on the role of the RAF photographic reconnaissance unit during the second world war and on the funding of the BBC World Service. In recent weeks, I have raised the plight of Hindus in Bangladesh. I have also raised the atrocities in Pahalgam, but now things have come home to this country. Earlier this week, three young Indian boys were playing cricket in Headstone park. They were approached by three slightly older men. An altercation took place, and the three young boys were hospitalised, one with a fractured eye socket. We understand that the police are dealing with this as an aggravated racial assault. It took place between young Hindu boys and older Muslim men. The police are appealing for witnesses to come forward to see who the perpetrators are, and community leaders are trying to take down the temperature so that there is no escalation. But if this type of religious hatred is going to come to this country, we desperately need the Home Secretary to make a clear statement about what the Government will do to prevent it from happening. I ask the Leader of the House to facilitate that next week.
- Hansard source
Gibraltar
It is clearly in the best interests of Spain and Gibraltar for there to be a free flow of individuals backwards and forwards across the border. For UK citizens who fly into Spain or Gibraltar and hire a car to cross the border into Gibraltar or Spain, what checks will there be at the border? Clarity on that point would help.
- Hansard source
SEND Funding
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) for securing this important debate, and for his work on this issue. According to the latest figures, there are around 1.7 million school pupils in England with identified special educational needs. That equates to 18% of all pupils. Of those pupils with identified SEN, around 1.2 million receive SEN support, and around 400,000 have EHCPs. In Huntingdon, the schools that I represent have expressed many concerns about the whole SEND system, and funding consistently underlies many of the issues that they face. Schools pay the first £6,000 towards meeting the outcomes of an education, health and care plan. The rest of the funding is topped up by the local authority. Often the funding provided does not cover the cost that the school incurs in supporting children with needs. I urge the Government to address that as a matter of urgency, as this is stopping schools from providing help to children suspected of requiring SEND support. I thank Yasmine Trace, the headteacher of Sawtry infant school, and Jo Dyke, the school’s SEND co-ordinator, for highlighting this matter. I know that they speak on behalf of other schools in Huntingdon, and across the country. The unacceptably long wait to obtain an EHCP in Huntingdon—one child at Wheatfields primary school waited 62 weeks for a draft—has led many desperate parents to seek to fund them themselves. The cost of a private educational psychologist’s assessment in Huntingdon varies, depending on the services required and the provider, but it might be in the range of £900 for a full assessment, or £450 for an assessment of an under-three. For example, a full assessment could be £775 with a £400 deposit, and one provider offers an assessment for £900 with a £400 deposit. These figures are a significant barrier for most families that I represent. It is yet another burden for parents, and yet another reason why we need more support on offer. The Government have hinted at sweeping changes to the EHCP system, and I would welcome further detail and clarity for the many parents, carers and teachers in Huntingdon who are uncertain about what these changes will mean. There is a fear among parents that the rug will be pulled from under their feet. I would welcome it if the Minister could confirm the ongoing support for EHCPs going forward. To conclude, I want all children to get the education, care and support that they need. There are a growing number of children with SEND, and we must adapt to ensure that they are catered for and do not fall by the wayside. I would welcome plans from the Government on how they will support schools in meeting the costs of EHCPs—or of whatever they are replaced with. I wish to hear that parents will be supported throughout the process, and that the Government will not force parents down expensive routes, which most of them cannot afford, to ensure that their children get the education and support that they need.
- Hansard source
SEND Funding
It was strongly suggested the other day that the Government were going to look at changing EHCPs and possibly even scrapping them completely. Can the Minister give some reassurance to the House, and to constituents who may be watching this debate, that EHCPs will remain extant and will be worked on?
- Hansard source
Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. Government amendments 26 to 29 risk undoing some of the good work done in the other place, where careful improvements were made to strengthen the Bill and ensure a more compassionate and effective response to mental health crises. I am concerned that by removing the words “by a constable or other authorised person” and deleting clause 5(7), which provides a clear definition of who the authorised persons are, we will open up ambiguity about who is permitted to detain someone under the Mental Health Act. This is not just a technical or drafting issue; it has very real consequences for the people involved. I understand and support the principle of enabling more flexible and clinically led responses to mental health incidents. We all recognise that the police should not be the default option in every case. The amendments made in the Lords acknowledged that and broadened the group of people who could respond to mental health crises beyond police officers to trained and equipped professionals: mental health nurses, approved mental health professionals, paramedics and, crucially, someone trained and equipped to carry out detentions under the Act and who would not be put at unnecessary risk by doing so. “Trained and equipped”—that is the key point. The definition of “authorised person” in the Bill as it stands makes it clear that those given such a serious responsibility must have the appropriate training and experience and must not be “put at unnecessary risk” when carrying out that role. That wording is important. As the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth, said, it provides a framework of accountability, not a free-for-all. By removing that structure, the Government’s amendments will leave a legal vacuum. The law will say that someone must be detained, but not by whom. That uncertainty will create a risk that services will simply revert to defaulting to the police. I stress again that that is not fair on the police, who are already under immense pressure. Yes, they are used to seeing people at their most vulnerable, but dealing with someone in a mental health crisis is a very particular challenge, and one that they might not be fully trained to manage. The College of Policing’s 2019 mental health snapshot found that almost 95% of police call-outs flagged as involving mental health did not actually require a police response, yet police officers continue to be sent out because the system lacks clarity and capacity elsewhere. Baroness May, speaking from real experience as a former Home Secretary, made that very point in the other place. She said that police officers were being sent to mental health incidents for which they had no training or clinical expertise, and were being asked to make judgments that they simply were not equipped to make. She went on to say that “the very essence of a police presence—somebody in the uniform coming to deal with them—could actually exacerbate their mental health situation”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 January 2025; Vol. 842, c. 1525.] I would add that, for the individual experiencing a mental health crisis, being approached by the police may feel criminalising rather than supportive. It reinforces a justice-led response rather than a health-led one. That is not the direction in which we should be going. Although I welcome the Government’s intention to offer more flexibility in emergency and clinical settings, we have to be careful about how we achieve that. Removing the wording inserted into the Bill will not create clarity; it will create confusion. In a system already under pressure, confusion tends to mean delay, risk aversion and inappropriate responses. Removing the specification will not free professionals; it will expose them, and it will expose patients to the possibility of being handled by someone without the right qualifications, which may worsen their condition or create a longer-term distrust of mental health services. I hope that the Minister can offer some reassurances, both about who will be expected to carry out these detentions and about how we can ensure that they have the proper training, resourcing and protection. Without a clear definition of “authorised person”, we cannot be confident that those involved will have the right expertise to support extremely vulnerable individuals at times of acute need. I want to touch briefly on the importance of early intervention and de-escalation. Situations involving mental health crises can often be tense, and support in the early moments can be critical. De-escalation is a vital skill; the presence of a calm, trained mental health nurse, for example, in those early moments can change the outcome of a person’s crisis. Having the right professional present—someone who can act without waiting for the police to attend—can be the difference between escalation and calm. The identity of the responder matters. This is not just about outcomes, but about the experience of the individual. Removing the criminal justice framing from the outset is essential to delivering dignity and the right kind of care.
- Hansard source
Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)
It is extremely important that people are not put at risk, and that is exactly the point I have been making. People need to be properly trained, and we need to set out who those individuals can be, rather than leaving ambiguity in the wording. The Government amendment will undo exactly the protection that the hon. Lady rightly points out.
- Hansard source
Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)
My hon. Friend helpfully expands on the points that I and other Opposition Members have been making. If we are not careful, the Government amendments will move us further away from the aim of a person-centred approach. I urge the Minister to reconsider the amendments. The wording inserted in the other place struck a thoughtful balance. The wording inserted in the other place struck a thoughtful balance. It allowed flexibility, but grounded it in clear criteria of training, safety and competence. Removing that definition will weaken the Bill. It will make it harder, not easier, to ensure that the right person is supporting someone at their moment of greatest need. We owe it to patients, professionals and the police themselves to get this right.
- Hansard source
Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I rise to speak in support of amendments 44 and 45, which have been tabled by my hon. Friend the shadow Minister. These amendments seek to put patients at the centre of the Bill by promoting a safe therapeutic environment and recovery from any childhood trauma. Clause 8 provides for a new definition of “appropriate medical treatment”, which requires that treatment to have “a reasonable prospect of alleviating, or preventing the worsening of…a patient’s mental disorder.” Amendment 44 would introduce an additional criterion to the definition of “appropriate medical treatment” by establishing that an appropriate medical treatment should not only address the individual’s immediate health needs, but be designed with the intent to reduce psychological distress and actively support an individual’s recovery from the effects of childhood trauma. This recognises the long-term impact that early, adverse experience can have on mental and emotional wellbeing and ensures that treatment approaches are trauma-informed, compassionate and conducive to long-term improvement. People who present with serious mental health concerns need to know that they are receiving support and care in the right environment. They are at their most vulnerable, and having the confidence in their environment can make a world of difference. That is particularly pertinent for those who have suffered childhood trauma. It is important that we deal with the consequences of mental ill health, and adequately address the root causes. Among these, childhood trauma is one of the most serious and persistent factors contributing to long-term psychological conditions. By supporting this amendment, we would create a more resilient system that is equipped to respond to the reality and prevalence of childhood trauma in our society. I recently met with Alison, who heads up a fantastic organisation called WeMindTheGap. It is based in Wrexham, but it is now moving and expanding to cover parts of my constituency, Chester South and Eddisbury. It does a fantastic job supporting young people who have struggled in the conventional education system, are absent from school or have dropped out of the system. We discussed childhood trauma and the rise in the number of young people not currently in any kind of education. One of the points that Alison made that resonated with me is that absence from school is linked not just to deprivation, but many contributing factors, including difficult domestic situations, isolation and rural isolation. Many of these challenges are the most severe ones linked to childhood trauma, and although there are many wonderful organisations stepping in to support young people at an early stage, for some the impacts of childhood trauma continue to affect psychological wellbeing into adulthood. Sadly, childhood trauma is a societal issue that we face, and it is more common that we might imagine. Therefore, a step to embed trauma-informed care into the legal framework, specifically for childhood trauma, is a step in the right direction. Childhood trauma can lead to self-destructive behaviour in adults. There is, as my hon. Friend pointed out, evidence to show that it is a causal factor. We must recognise the long-term impact of adverse childhood experiences on mental health. This amendment, by adding a new criterion to the definition of “appropriate medical treatment” to require that treatment to aim to minimise distress and to support recovery from childhood trauma, would embed trauma-informed care into the legal framework. Amendment 45, by inserting the words “seeks to minimise the patient’s distress and promote their psychological wellbeing and recovery from any childhood trauma”, would reduce the risk of re-traumatisation. Responses to symptoms or behaviours must be supported; it is about helping people to move towards genuine recovery. Childhood trauma is unique, and it presents symptoms that are different from other mental health illnesses. Therefore, having a dedicated, compassionate and person-centred approach to care is incredibly important. Setting the right culture to support patients, recognising the trauma that they carry and ensuring that there is adequate support and provisions in the legislation and the legal framework, is the right approach. I am therefore pleased to support these amendments, which would strengthen clause 8.
- Hansard source
High Street Businesses
Chester South and Eddisbury is home to some truly special high streets, lined with independent shops and pubs that play a vital role in the life of our communities. I have spoken to local business owners, especially in hospitality, who are already feeling the pressure. Following the spending review, the chief executive of UKHospitality said that “the overwhelming challenge holding back hospitality from meeting its potential is the current tax burden”. Does the Minister accept that unless action is taken to ease the burden on high street businesses, especially in hospitality, the Government risk undermining the very communities they claim to support?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
The Leader of the House will be aware that Queen’s hospital in Romford, which serves the boroughs of Havering, Barking and Dagenham and of Redbridge, is in urgent need of an A&E upgrade. Indeed, I met the Minister for Secondary Care only this week to discuss it. May we have an urgent statement from the Government on this issue? The situation has led to many patients being left on trolleys for more than 24 hours. The hospital serves 800,000 people in that radius, and that is simply not acceptable. Please can some of the money from the statement yesterday be spent in Romford on a hospital that serves local people?
- Hansard source
Spending Review: Health and Social Care
The Minister will know that I too want to abolish corridor care at the Queen’s hospital in Romford. I thank her deeply for meeting me on Monday, with the chief executive of the NHS trust for Barking, Havering and Redbridge, Matthew Trainer, who is appealing for a new A&E facility at the Queen’s hospital. The situation has led to patients being cared for on trolleys in corridors. I find that unacceptable, and it is costing my local trust, which services 800,000 people in the area, an extra £100,000 a month because of additional staffing needs. Will the Minister ensure that what was said at our meeting is carried forward, and that we get a better facility for boroughs in the east London and Essex area, which the Queen’s hospital serves?
- Hansard source
SEND Funding
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) for securing this important debate. It is a pleasure to speak on a matter so close to the hearts of parents, carers, teachers and pupils in Bognor Regis, Littlehampton and across West Sussex: the urgent need for equitable and sustainable funding for special educational needs and disabilities. Since 2015, the number of EHCPs in West Sussex has risen dramatically, from 3,362 to 7,684 in 2024, an increase of 128%. That surge mirrors an England-wide trend, where the number of EHCPs has grown by over 70% since 2018. That equates to about 180,000 additional high-needs pupils. Local mainstream schools, like Bishop Tufnell and Edward Bryant, report being stretched to capacity. They rely on fundraising from charities merely to maintain basic SEN provision, while increasing staff shortages and rising national insurance costs exacerbate burnout. Nationally, high-needs spending has risen to roughly £11 billion, but with pupil numbers growing faster than funding, per pupil support has actually fallen by a third in real terms. The Government have recognised that pressure. A capital investment of £740 million aims to support the creation of 10,000 additional SEND places, including in specialist units in mainstream schools, and a further £1 billion is being allocated to support 44,500 mainstream school placements by 2028 under the high-needs national funding formula. However, even with that funding, experts warn of a ticking time bomb, as councils, including West Sussex, face soaring deficits that could reach £5 billion by 2026. Until 2018-19, the council was in a surplus, but since then, the exponential rise in need has put immense pressure on the system. I have asked the Leader of the House to facilitate a debate on a sustainable model for SEND funding that ensures that local authorities like West Sussex receive adequate per-head resources; that delivers timely funding adjustments as EHCP numbers grow; and that supports retention of specialist staff and inclusive practices in mainstream settings. I urge the House to commit to sustainable and future-proofed funding.
- Hansard source
Spending Review 2025
This spending review is not worth the paper it is written on, because the Chancellor has completely lost control. This is the “spend now, tax later” review, because the right hon. Lady knows that she will need to come back here in the autumn with yet more taxes, and a cruel summer of speculation awaits. How can we possibly take this Chancellor seriously after the chaos of the last 12 months? We were assured at the election that Labour’s plans involved barely any additional spending or borrowing. Now the Chancellor parades her largesse, with hundreds of billions in additional spending over this Parliament. The initial profile for that spending was, of course, significantly front-loaded, but the Chancellor now expects us to believe that she will let spending rise by only 1.2% a year. There is no chance whatsoever of that happening, for the lesson of the last year has been that when the going gets tough, the right hon. Lady blinks. She presented herself as the iron Chancellor, but what we have seen is the tinfoil Chancellor: flimsy and ready to fold in the face of the slightest pressure. She said she would not fiddle her fiscal rules; then she did. She said that she would not make any unfunded commitments; with the humiliation of the winter fuel U-turn, she just has. She looked business leaders in the eye and said no more taxes, but we all know what happened next, and we all know what is coming in the autumn. Her own Back Benchers, her Cabinet colleagues, Labour’s trade union paymasters and even the Prime Minister himself have all seen that she is weak, weak, weak. They can smell the blood. They will be back for more, and they will get it. These spending plans are a fantasy, and is it not the truth that the Chancellor has to maintain this fiction because she has left herself no room for manoeuvre? She is constantly teetering on the edge of blowing her fiscal rules, which she has already changed to allow even more borrowing. The only way she can claim to be meeting her rules is by pretending that she can control spending over the coming years, but let us look at the record so far. Borrowing in the last financial year came out £11 billion above even the Office for Budget Responsibility’s March forecasts, and 70% higher than the plans she inherited from the Conservatives. For someone so keen on borrowing, the Chancellor seems strangely reticent even to use the word. Indeed, Ministers bizarrely tell us that it is Labour’s fiscal rules themselves that have “generated investment”. The reality is a little more straightforward: they have loosened the fiscal rules so they can borrow more. They borrow and borrow and borrow, allowing the national debt to continue to rise higher every single year while Ministers pretend that it is not. There will be an eye-watering £200 billion of additional borrowing in this Parliament compared with the plans set out in the last Conservative Budget, with £80 billion more to be spent on debt interest alone. In fact, if the Chancellor had retained our fiscal rules—[Laughter.] Labour Members may laugh, but if she had retained our fiscal rules, as she said she would before the election, the OBR has confirmed that she would be breaking them right now. Our country is now vulnerable to even the smallest changes in the bond markets. Should we face a sudden external shock, we have no fiscal firepower left with which to respond, all thanks to the right hon. Lady’s choices. So can I ask the Chancellor: will she be open about what she has done? Will she admit that she has made a conscious choice to borrow more and to accept higher debts? Does she accept that this means interest rates and mortgages will be higher than they would otherwise have been, as the OBR itself has said? Given that she continues to claim that she has brought stability to the public finances, can I ask her what on earth her definition of “stability” is? The Chancellor must be delighted that she does not have to face a new OBR forecast today, because if she did, she would have to set out how she would fund her humiliating U-turn on winter fuel payments, having already blown the savings on buying off her trade union paymasters last year. She said this week that there was still “work to do to ensure the sums always add up”. From the person in charge of the nation’s finances, that is hardly reassuring. You do not need to have worked at the Bank of England for a decade to know that that pitiful utterance is unlikely to soothe the markets. So can the Chancellor confirm categorically that there will be no additional borrowing to pay for this chaotic reversal? And if that is the case, can she explain how on earth it can be paid for without raising taxes? Can she explain why, last summer, apparently to avoid a run on the pound, this measure was so urgent that pensioners had to be left in the cold over the last winter? What exactly has changed? Because it certainly has not been made possible by an improvement in the economy or the public finances, which the Institute for Fiscal Studies said this week are both in a worse state now than when Labour came into office. If we had an OBR forecast, we might also get some answers on how the Government intend to find £3.5 billion to abolish the two-child benefit cap, which we are led to believe is imminent—another addition to the ballooning welfare bill; another expensive surrender to the Labour left. And we would certainly get the OBR’s assessment of the economic outlook following the tariffs—changes that the right hon. Lady knew full well were coming. Meanwhile, her deluge of taxes and regulations has left business confidence at record lows, costing people their livelihoods. Only yesterday we saw the latest evidence of that. Figures for last month show that the number of people on payrolls fell by more than 100,000, after already falling by 55,000 in April. Unemployment is up by more than 10% since Labour came to office. The right hon. Lady may trumpet extra spending today, but is it not the simple truth that she has trashed the economy and left no contingency in the face of a highly volatile global outlook? Is it not the reality that the Chancellor knows she will have to come back in the autumn with more tax rises to fund these plans? Or can she assure us right now that this is not the case—yes or no? We know that the Deputy Prime Minister has helpfully provided her with an entire brochure of tax rises that she will no doubt be perusing over the summer—the Corbynist catalogue. Can the Chancellor confirm that, as promised, the income tax thresholds will not be frozen at the Budget, a move she herself said would hurt working people? What about the uncertainties in the departmental spending plan that the Chancellor has set out today? Can she assure us that these plans will not be topped up and that no backroom deals have been cut with disgruntled Cabinet Ministers? Can she assure us that the capital allocations announced today will actually be spent on capital and will not be diverted in-year, as she has done in the past, to day-to-day budgets to play more games with her fiscal rules? The Chancellor has had to impose a settlement on the Home Secretary because this spending review will not deliver for our hard-working police officers across the country. Instead, the Home Office budget gets squandered on asylum costs because this Government simply do not have a plan on illegal migration. As the Defence Secretary has admitted, the Government have “lost control” of our borders. Small boat crossings are up by 42% on the same point last year. On energy, at a time when businesses up and down the country are struggling with high energy costs, the Chancellor has chosen today to fund the Energy Secretary’s vanity projects such as GB Energy. And although we welcome the announcements on expanding nuclear capacity, the scale of ambition is a downgrade on the commitments made previously by the Conservatives. Labour barely mentioned farming in its manifesto, and now we know why. It is not enough to have hit the farmers of our country with a family farm tax; today, what we see in black and white is a choice to make further cuts to the vital grants on which many farmers rely. This is a huge betrayal of our farming communities, and something that many Labour MPs in rural areas will have to go back to their constituencies later this week to explain. On defence, we will always welcome any additional investment in our armed forces and capabilities, though I note nothing was said about when 3% will be achieved. All we heard was that intelligence services spending was to be included in defence spending to flatter the numbers. We left Labour a fully funded plan that they dithered over for a year, but now what we get is the Chancellor’s own black hole on defence spending and the lack of a timeline on when we will achieve 3%. Instead, we get a £30 billion bill for the Chagos surrender—money that should have gone to our brave armed forces rather than, as is being reported, funding lower taxation in Mauritius. The first tax cuts for which this Chancellor has been responsible are in Mauritius. We would have made different choices. We would not have killed growth with huge tax rises and new regulations. We would not have talked down our economy and the great businesses up and down our country. We would be focusing on efficiency and productivity in the public sector, not handing out pay rises with no strings attached. We would be getting a grip on welfare. Labour cancelled our plans for fundamental reform to health and disability benefits that would have seen 450,000 fewer people on long-term sickness benefits—that is a disgrace. Instead of proper reforms to PIP, the Government’s own plans are a rushed cost-cutting exercise—so rushed they even had to change them after they were announced. Their own Back Benches are in full revolt. Yet again, the Government talk tough, but there is no substance. The right hon. Lady has no grip. She has no clue. The markets and the public see a Chancellor completely out of her depth. Having blown her headroom and more from her Budget in the autumn, she was forced into an emergency Budget in March to scrabble around to try to repair the damage. Today she comes before us again with yet another fantastical tale that she knows will have completely fallen apart come the autumn. We are not left with stronger foundations, as she would have us believe, but rather another dose of that hallmark for which her actions have made her so renowned: uncertainty and failure. So there the right hon. Lady sits, powerless to resist her disillusioned MPs and her panicking Prime Minister, like a cork on the tide, the drumbeat for U-turns pounding in her ears. Yet her tone today suggests that all is well; the sunlit uplands await. What a hopeless conceit—a masterclass in delusion. Inflation is up, unemployment is up, growth is marked down, business and households are hurting, investors are fleeing in their droves, the bond market vigilantes circle—and here we have the Chancellor who refuses to listen, not only tinfoil, but tin-eared, too. Let me be clear: it is working people and businesses who will pay the price come the autumn, with yet more taxes to pay for her weakness and her failures. We cannot afford this spending review, and for many, the growing conclusion is that we cannot afford this Chancellor.
- Hansard source
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill
I am sure that we wish the Government well in what they are trying to do. I gather that the International Air Transport Association highlighted only last week that, at the moment, sustainable aviation fuels cost approximately five times as much as conventional jet fuel. Will she explain how the measures in the Bill will bridge that gap to make it economical?
- Hansard source
Spending Review 2025
The billions of pounds that have been announced by the Chancellor are very big rises, and the Public Accounts Committee looks forward to scrutinising that expenditure—I am sure it will be welcomed by those who receive it—to ensure we are getting value for money, but can the Chancellor explain to the House how it will be funded, because debt and tax are at record levels? Can British workers look forward to a summer of expecting more tax increases?
- Hansard source
Spending Review 2025
High Speed 2 owns vast swathes of the Staffordshire countryside. In fact, it owns a third of all the properties in the village of Hopton, which is having an enormous impact on residents and causing an enormous blight. Could the Chancellor set out for the House, and for so many residents right across Staffordshire, when we will know whether farmers are going to have their land back and whether villages will be able to return to normal life, with people moving into the empty houses?
- Hansard source
NHS Funding: South-west
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. The NHS is a vital service. I pay tribute to the doctors, nurses and many other health professionals who look after my constituents. Bridgwater community hospital, Burnham-on-Sea War Memorial hospital and GP practices across the constituency provide the health services that people need. Hon. Members will know that during the five years of coalition Government and nine years of Conservative Government, spending on the NHS rose in real terms every year. However, increased spending alone will not fix the problems in our region. NHS productivity fell during the pandemic and, despite recovering, is still lower than it was in 2019. We need improvements in both productivity and service quality. My constituents have raised the difficulty of getting GP appointments when they need them. Last year, the Government announced a large pay rise for junior doctors with no strings attached. What is the result of that? Less than a year later, junior doctors are back asking for more and threatening to go on strike unless they get another above-inflation pay increase. I want to see our NHS staff paid more—they do vital work in our community—but those increases must come with improved productivity and service for our constituents. How does the Minister propose to provide more GP appointments? My constituents also find it difficult, if not impossible, to find an NHS dentist. What steps will the Minister take to improve dental care in the south-west? The Government have announced that they will abolish NHS England. I sincerely hope that will reduce bureaucracy and lead to improved services and shorter waiting lists, but if it results in the same people being shuffled around and given different job titles, few savings will be made. I wish the Minister well as she endeavours to improve healthcare across our region.
- Hansard source
Engagements
It is National Diabetes Week, and as someone living with type 1, as we both are, Mr Speaker, I am more than aware of the serious complications of diabetic ketoacidosis—DKA—which can prove fatal if not caught early enough. A quarter of children are diagnosed with type 1 diabetes when in DKA, and that could be avoided with early diagnosis. Will the Prime Minister commit to rolling out a national universal screening programme, as seen in Italy, for type 1?
- Hansard source
NHS Funding: South-west
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) for securing this debate. I am here to focus specifically on fertility treatment in Devon, which is one of the costs we have because of the atrocious funding situation to which the hon. Member referred. The Devon integrated care board is not currently funding fertility care for local patients in line with Department of Health and Social Care expectations, and is not following National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines in their entirety. Its policy is not based entirely on the clinical factors recommended by NICE, but is based instead on previous clinical commissioning group policy, economic factors and additional non-clinical factors, which are all understandable, but that is not good enough for local patients. NICE states: “Commissioners…should commission sufficient capacity within specialist fertility services to provide 3 full cycles…for women aged under 40 years who meet the criteria for IVF…A full cycle should include 1 episode of ovarian stimulation and the transfer of any resultant fresh and frozen embryo(s)”, and that any previous cycle counts towards that total. NICE guidelines also state that women under 40 who meet the criteria for IVF treatment “should be offered 3 full cycles of IVF” with a cycle defined as including one episode, as I have said. A full cycle ends either when every available but viable embryo has been transferred, or when one results in a pregnancy. Devon ICB incompletely funds only a portion of one cycle. It has made up a different definition of a cycle, and, in the commissioning policy, defines a cycle as “one…fresh and one…frozen implantation of embryos. A frozen embryo transfer episode will only be available if there are embryos generated from the fresh cycle suitable for freezing.” That does not include any remaining embryos from the first cycle of stimulation, nor the remaining two cycles recommended by NICE. Devon should be funding three full cycles, and it is not. That means that we are living in a legitimate postcode lottery: people with a PL, TQ or EX postcode are being completely sold short. I believe we need to treat this, and we need to see what the Government can do to mitigate the problem and to encourage ICBs such as Devon to ensure that just living within their health authority should not mean that people cannot access the treatment that others in other parts of the country can access, particularly those under 40 years old.
- Hansard source
Letter Boxes (Positioning)
As a frequent leafleteer in Sussex Weald, I am particularly invested in this piece of legislation. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Anneliese Midgley, Lee Barron, Charlie Dewhirst, Colum Eastwood, Emma Foody, Louise Haigh, Sally Jameson, Joe Morris, Sarah Owen, Laurence Turner, Chris Webb and Michael Wheeler present the Bill. Anneliese Midgley accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July, and to be printed (Bill 259).
- Hansard source
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill
Order. I will now announce the result of today’s deferred Division on the draft Contracts for Difference (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 2025. The Ayes were 350 and the Noes were 176, so the Ayes have it. [The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]
- Hansard source
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill
I notice that that was an exclusive invitation just to the Minister.
- Hansard source
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill
It would rather depend on whether the date ended up marrying him, wouldn’t it?
- Hansard source
Engagements
Perhaps the Prime Minister knows something I do not, because there is only one hospital in my constituency. Since Labour took office, inflation has nearly doubled, growth has halved and unemployment has surged. Is this what the Prime Minister meant when he tweeted that “The economy is improving”?
- Hansard source
Engagements
The Prime Minister must be talking about a different economy. All of us in this House heard about unemployment increasing—unemployment has increased every month since Labour took office. Last year, the Prime Minister said that he was taking the winter fuel payment away to balance the books, but the books are not balanced; in fact, they are worse. This year, the deficit is forecast to be £10 billion higher since the Budget—not since last year’s election, but since the Budget. In what way are the books now balanced?
- Hansard source
Engagements
The Prime Minister loves talking about Liz Truss. Why? Because he wants to hide from his own economic record. He is a coward. Every time he stands at the Dispatch Box and talks about Liz Truss, it is because he is scared of talking about his record and what is happening to the economy out there. Let us bring the Prime Minister back to the U-turn that he is running away from—a U-turn on a policy that his MPs went out defending time and again. Let us go through what is happening here. One minute, they said that it was right to take the winter fuel payment away, because there might be a run on the pound; the next minute, they said it was right to give it back. This is laughable. The Prime Minister stands there, all puffed up and self-righteous. Why can he not just admit that he made a mistake?
- Hansard source
Engagements
I get better every week; the Prime Minister gets worse. Last week—[Interruption.]
- Hansard source
Engagements
Last week, the Prime Minister had to get his lines from the Russian embassy. I think we all know that he is getting worse, and what he does not want to talk about is how he is going to make the economy better. That is what the people out there want to hear, and he has got no answers. His trade deals have unravelled. With the strategic defence review, everyone out there is asking where the money is coming from. The fact is that he does not know how to balance the books. The Chancellor says that the winter fuel payment U-turn will not be funded through higher borrowing, so will the Prime Minister admit that it will be funded by putting everybody’s taxes up?
- Hansard source
Engagements
Every week I come here to tell the Prime Minister the truth. The truth is that the economy is in a spiral because Labour—all of them—put up taxes, which cuts growth. We all heard the Prime Minister. He did not rule out tax rises, so the Government are going to have to put up taxes even more. This is a spiral. If that was not bad enough, this morning we heard that because of his terrible Chagos deal, Mauritius is scrapping income tax. Why on earth should the British taxpayer pay £30 billion for tax cuts in Mauritius?
- Hansard source
Engagements
The Prime Minister knows this has nothing to do with national security; it is his bad negotiating. I have had the security briefings; it was a bad deal before, and it is still a bad deal. In half an hour, the Chancellor is going to stand up and tell us that everything is fine, but the truth is that she has made bad choices—bad choices that mean higher inflation, bad choices that have led to lower growth, and bad choices that have meant that jobs have been lost every single month since Labour came into office. That is hundreds of thousands of families who have lost their income in Stoke, Grangemouth and Luton. Those are their constituencies and businesses across the country. The Chancellor has lost all her headroom. She has fallen out with the Cabinet. She is making unfunded spending commitments, which she promised not to do. Is the truth not that we have got the wrong Chancellor and the wrong priorities?
- Hansard source
Defence Spending: Wales
Given how precarious global affairs are, Conservatives believe that defence, and defence jobs, should be a No. 1 priority for the Labour-controlled Wales Office. Major defence companies, such as General Dynamics in Merthyr and Caerphilly, and Tekever in Ceredigion, among others, await answers. Plaid wants to break up the cherished Union, withdraw Wales’s full membership from NATO and surrender our nuclear defence system. Is the Minister seriously concerned about that, and if so, will she rule out her Labour Senedd colleagues ever forming a coalition with the nationalists in an expanded Cardiff Bay?
- Hansard source
Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: Wales
Does the Minister prefer peanuts, cashew nuts or simply scraps for Wales? The fabled “two Labour Governments in lockstep” is simply a myth for voters. Changing rail classifications and short-changing Welsh communities is a true reality. Is the Minister concerned about today’s reported peanuts? When did she become aware of the paltry settlement of just over £400 million that is to come to Wales? How will that be split for the Welsh Government? How does it compare with our Government’s £740 million for rail alone? What specific action did she take to argue for a fair share for Wales, and for its place in the Union?
- Hansard source
Employment: Wales
Turbocharging the Welsh economy—and the economy at large, frankly—is vital for social mobility and prosperity. We Conservatives delivered two Welsh investment zones, two freeports, more than £1 billion in extra funding, and we helped more than 2 million women into the jobs market across the UK. Yet the UK and Welsh Labour Governments are undoing that work. Their jobs tax, their tourism tax and the 20 mph default speed limit are a hammer blow to business confidence, particularly in the hospitality sector. Disgracefully, the unemployment rate for young women in Wales is up by 4.6%. Will the Secretary of State join me in calling for those damaging policies to be dropped so that our young women can get into the workforce and progress?
- Hansard source
Spending Review 2025
Of course I welcome the continuing support for Scunthorpe steelworks, but may I gently remind the Chancellor that that support came seven months after I first raised the issue in the House, and we then had the panic of the Saturday sitting in April? The Chancellor mentioned support for the Viking carbon capture and storage project, for which, again, I have lobbied for a long time. Can she give me a little more detail about the timeframe?
- Hansard source
Space Industry
I beg to move, That this House has considered the impact of the space industry on the economy. I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and to my non-financial interests. For the purposes of this important debate, I speak as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for space. The global space industry is set to expand over the coming years as businesses take advantage of the huge drop in launch costs driven by tech billionaires such as Elon Musk with his SpaceX business and Jeff Bezos with Blue Origin. No longer is space the sole domain of Governments; it is available to everyone with an idea of how to exploit the opportunities that space presents. Indeed, the global space economy in 2023 was valued at about $630 billion, but that number is expected to expand to $1.8 trillion by 2035—a compound annual growth rate of about 9%. Some optimists expect growth to outpace even that impressive figure, with expectations reaching as high as $2.2 trillion by 2035. Even for the most pessimistic economist, however, it is expected to still exceed $1.2 trillion, a figure that sees the global space industry outpacing global GDP over that period. As I said, that growth is being driven by the 90% drop in launch costs over the last 20 years, but it is also being driven by commercial innovation in areas such as components and software. As clever people invent ever more clever things, deploying assets in the harsh and complicated area of space is becoming increasingly affordable. In turn, that has driven a broad set of investors to look to space for opportunities. Meanwhile, we have all become more relaxed and enthusiastic about the idea of space as a commercial entity in itself, and we already know that space has changed our lives enormously. After all, we have no excuse not to find a location or a fast route to a destination, now that we all have satellite navigation in our pockets. That technology will enable fresh, new technologies. Companies such as Amazon are already looking at rolling out drone delivery services enabled by satellite navigation, and that will expand to things like driverless Uber taxis as we advance our driverless technologies. It is already the case that the technology behind satellite navigation goes far beyond just letting us know where the nearest pub is. Position, navigation and timing technology, or PNT, provides timing signals that enable our payment system. Who here realised that buying a ticket on the tube this morning, coming into work, was enabled by a satellite passing overhead at 17,600 mph? According to a 2024 report by McKinsey, 60% of the growth in the space economy will be driven by five industries: state-sponsored defence, digital communications, supply chain and transportation, food and beverages, and consumer goods and lifestyle. The report also pointed out that space’s return on investment will be more than just financial. Space will play an increasingly crucial role in mitigating world challenges, ranging from disaster warning and climate monitoring to improved humanitarian responses and more widespread prosperity. That is the fabulous opportunity globally, but what of the UK’s ambitions? Back in 2013, the UK Government set a plan to secure 10% of the global space economy. That plan would have given us about £180 billion of activity by 2035, but it feels like that ambition has been quietly dropped—not necessarily by this Government, but certainly over the closing years of the previous Government. The UK space economy is valued at about £19 billion and supports some 52,000 jobs through nearly 2,000 businesses. That is a good start, but we need to be more ambitious. We need to decide what role we want to play in the global space economy, not least because the space economy will help us to address our productivity problems here in the UK. At one end of the spectrum is the business of launch. Launch is, of course, a small part of the space economy, at about 10%—but launch is, to the purist, not really space. For sure, the space economy cannot exist without launch, but it is an enabler; it is logistics; it is the white delivery van of the space sector. It is, however, the most symbolic part of the space sector. It is the piece that fires the imagination; it is the image that excites people to follow space as a sector. We have already had a successful horizontal launch from Newquay. Every part of the Newquay spaceport worked perfectly. The rocket separated from its Boeing 747 and successfully deployed the second stage into space. However, as we all know, a fuel filter in the Virgin second stage failed and the flight was lost, but Newquay performed in every way that it should have done. Later this year we will see the first vertical launch from the far north of the Shetlands. The SaxaVord spaceport has been working for years to develop the launch site, and it is entirely possible that the first launch from British soil will be with the British launch company Orbex. The Government have financially supported both Orbex and the SaxaVord space centre, but those are private companies that also have private investors, which is crucial for the space sector. Unfortunately the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) cannot be here. He has had a prior engagement in his diary for a long time to go and judge a Blackface sheep competition, which he has to go to, but he has been instrumental in the success of the SaxaVord space centre, which has done an incredible job in delivering the first vertical launch from the UK. Continued Government support for our launch sector is important. The Government have supported Orbex to the tune of £20 million this year, and that will pay for the development of low Earth orbit launches from SaxaVord. Orbex is keen to develop its product range, and its next milestone is medium Earth orbit with heavier payloads. Support for it to develop its next generation launchers could come from the European Space Agency and its European launcher challenge. The ELC programme is designed to turbocharge European launch opportunities. With demand rising and the queue for SpaceX launches getting ever longer, there is a huge opportunity in Europe with the UK leading the charge. That is why the UK Space Agency is keen that the UK continues to support membership of the European Space Agency and its support for the ELC. Imagine our joy as a nation, with the Minister as the person partly in charge, when we see a British-designed and built rocket thrust skywards from British soil later this year. It will be a moment of intense national pride. But it is important that we have a follow-up to that key moment. We need to define what our ambition is for space and, to a certain extent, what we mean by “space”. The last Government published a space strategy, but that was seen at the time as more of a list of hopes—a kind of manifesto, rather than a strategy with tactics and ambitions. We need to be clear about what it is that we want to do in this area that will undoubtedly increase UK productivity. We already know and recognise that the UK space economy broadly falls into five sectors. First, we have a strong service sector of downstream applications that are driven by satellites. This is the largest sector and includes satellite communications, Earth observation and navigation and timing services. Those sectors, as I have mentioned, power sectors such as agriculture, climate monitoring, finance, transport, humanitarian relief and defence applications. Because of the ever-increasing demand for data, the service sector is a lead growth driver for the space economy. Second is our manufacturing and engineering sector, which manufactures rockets and satellites. The UK is a leader in small satellite manufacturing through companies such as Surrey Satellite Technology. But within this sector we have fascinating companies such as Magdrive, looking to develop non-chemical drive systems for in-orbit manoeuvring that will extend the life of a satellite significantly and, I believe, as much as twentyfold. We also have lead companies here in the UK that look at the sustainability of space: Astroscale and ClearSpace. Both of them are excited about the upcoming announcement of a UK sovereign mission to literally clean up space debris. It would be helpful if the Minister could perhaps give us a clue about how that is progressing. Then we have spaceports and launch—that great symbol of a spacefaring nation that I have already spoken about. Fourth is research and development, an area we have been strong at for decades. We are proud to have strong academic institutions doing extraordinary work in forging new technologies, including areas such as in-space manufacturing, where zero gravity makes for an interesting formation of crystalline materials. Fifth is space data and analytics, driven by huge leaps forward in artificial intelligence and big data. But we should not see space as just about space stuff. I have long argued that we need to ensure we maximise the opportunity across all sectors of our economy, and that brings me to finance. The City of London has been innovative in finance for a few centuries now. It financed the growth of trade that built the British empire and our economy. Right now we have an opportunity here in London to seize the space finance markets. I look back at the inspiration given by the former Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer in the late 1990s. He saw an opportunity in the flagging UK film industry, so he created a financial trigger to encourage investment into that industry. Despite being abused by some who benefited from it, his tax break created investment into our film industry that has been transformational. The success of the UK film industry can trace its origins back to that single act. The Harry Potter franchise would have always been a huge success, but were it not for that single act of tax planning, those spells would almost certainly have been cast with an American accent. That single act of tax planning can be adopted for the UK space industry. It does not need to be complicated, and it would generate more income for the economy than it would cost. Something as simple as, for example, tax-free commissions on space-related primary issues of bonds and equities would send a signal to the world’s top space financiers that the UK will be the centre of excellence for space finance. With all these bright financial wizards here in the City of London, space companies would be attracted to locate right here, to secure the finance and list on the London stock exchange. It does not stop there. Our already strong space insurance market would get even stronger. Space legal services would grow. Our position as a global thought leader in the future of space would blossom, and—importantly, for our valuable financial services industry—the City would continue to be at the cutting edge of developing financial needs. It would create a symbiotic relationship between financial services, in which we are already world leaders, and the global space industry, in which we want to be among the world leaders. I have spoken about how the Government can support the space sector, but I want to talk more about how the Government can be a customer of the space sector, and that brings me to the strategic defence review. The SDR looks good for space. It identifies the three main areas in which space is relevant to the Ministry of Defence. Watching situations develop from the height of space gives a spacefaring nation a tactical advantage over aggressors who do not have those advantages. We can not only look at the ground with the normal vision spectrum but use infrared Earth observation, which gives us the opportunity to spot a column of Russian tanks warming their engines in the dead of night ahead of an early invasion. Meanwhile, radio frequency observation gives us a chance not only to listen but to see where the enemy’s actors are located in a battlefield. We can see all sorts of activities across a range of spectra, in surprising detail. Similarly, the SDR recognises that space gives us the advantage when responding to threats. Battlefield management and response can be orchestrated from space—again, giving us a tactical advantage. Of course, the SDR recognises that these space assets are, in themselves, a potential target, so defence of the space domain becomes as important a part of the MOD’s activities as defence of our own territories. Indeed, it is not just the MOD’s assets that need defending. While things such as Skynet are important to the MOD, position, navigation and timing satellites are important to our economy. As I mentioned, if we lose navigation satellites, we lose our entire payments system. The SDR provides an opportunity for the UK space sector, and the trade body, UKspace, has already published an intelligent briefing note on the SDR, giving advice to members on how to take advantage of the review and what it means for the sector. It is optimistic, and so am I. Although the space section of the SDR’s 145 pages amounts to just one and a half pages, the document presents a lot of opportunities. The commitment to spend 3% of GDP on defence, and defence that seeks ever greater technologies, should be seen as a huge opportunity for the sector. The document recognises that defence procurement is unfathomable for all but those with extensive experience—the primes. The review seeks ways of opening up Ministry of Defence procurement to small and medium-sized enterprises, which is a very good thing. The MOD, acting as the Government as a customer for space, must be easy to navigate for those wanting to sell and to support the Government. The SDR raised one area of concern, which is where space sits in Government and who champions it. The SDR suggests a Cabinet Sub-Committee or ministerial group that looks after space. I have seen this before, having been on the ministerial group of 12, from memory, who could claim an interest in space. Back in 2017, it included the science Minister who had the lead in his portfolio, me as a trade Minister, a Minister from the Department for Exiting the European Union, and Ministers from the Department for International Development, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the Ministry of Defence and anybody else we could think of. Some Ministers did not have a clue why they were on it. Others did not have much of an interest. In due course, space became a Cabinet Sub-Committee, chaired at the start by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and then by the Prime Minister. It met just once, I believe, and it was obsessed by launch, which is important but, as I have mentioned, represents just 10% of the space economy. The problem is that space is both unique and ubiquitous. For a launch site operator, it is real estate. For a launch company, it is logistics. For PNT users, it is supply chain management. For internet users, it is data. For most, it is commercial. It is located in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, but most would agree at this stage of the cycle that one thing space is not is a science project. That is not to level criticism at either the DSIT Secretary or his civil servants, who do an excellent job of championing the sector. Should space be in the Department for Business and Trade? That is an interesting question. I am delighted to see the Minister from DBT here today, who is responding on the commercial aspects of space—a side of space that is bigger, more important and more relevant to our economy than the simple science of it. However, the sector would far prefer the lead Department to be the Cabinet Office, as it crosses so many Departments—that is what organisations such as UKspace are saying. I will finish with an example that illustrates the point. I chair the advisory board of the Space Energy Initiative and am a non-executive director of Space Solar Limited, with no financial interest in either. That is a good example of how space will deliver something vital for humanity, which is energy. Humanity has always needed energy and developing energy has progressed our societies. We started as hunter-gatherers thousands of years ago, but after we learned how to farm and ensure regular calories for ourselves, we developed the skills that gave us civilisation and culture. When we figured out that coal produced more energy than wood, we started the industrial revolution that continues today. But we now realise that we need to produce energy at ever-increasing levels. Indeed, we heard in yesterday’s statement that the UK will need twice the capacity by 2050, and I wager that we will need it earlier than that. We need to deliver that capacity sustainably. Demand for energy will go through the roof: by 2030, the US will be producing around 4,000 TWh of electricity a year. Just one need, global artificial intelligence, will demand more than that. As we are all moving to electric vehicles too, we can see the colossal problem facing us. Nuclear is good, and we heard yesterday that there will be plenty of opportunity, but it will take time, be expensive, and produce waste that is tricky to deal with. Wind and solar are renewable and relatively cheap, but they are not baseload and not dispatchable. They cannot be predictably turned on and off as demand changes. Gas is both baseload and dispatchable, but we want to move away from gas for good reasons. Biomass is not what we thought it was, and nuclear fusion is a distant dream. We need something that is sustainable, baseload, dispatchable and cheap—step forward, space-based solar power. Sounding like the stuff of science fiction, it has been possible for decades. Photovoltaics in space have been around since Sputnik 2 was launched in November 1957. Energy beaming was developed by Nikola Tesla in the 1880s, and we are familiar with it every time we listen to Radio 4 in the morning and hear one of our colleagues being beaten up by Nick Robinson. What has changed is a 90% reduction in the cost of launch. That makes the economic model feasible, so space-based solar power is developing at pace around the world. The lead development, with what we believe is the best technology, is right here in the UK in Harwell. I am pleased that the Government have supported the development of this leading technology with £10 million so far. We have seen support from the European Space Agency’s SOLARIS project, other innovation projects and a range of companies and universities. When I first pitched this to an Energy Minister under the previous Government, he said, “Yeah, but it’s space, no?” I pointed out that nuclear power is not part of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs because it is built on farmland, and he eventually got the point. That illustrates how the Government can make mistakes by looking at where space is, not what space is. Space energy solves a load of problems. Because a beam can be moved near instantaneously, it can not only provide gigawatts of energy but balance the grid very simply. Electricity can be exported to eastern economies before we wake up, and to the US when we sleep and demand here is low, improving our export opportunities and balance of payments. It is dispatchable, baseload, cheap and green. It will transform our economy with endless cheap, reliable energy. We have had good support from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, but the first power will not be delivered before 2032, falling outside the Government’s target of carbon neutrality by 2030. Because of that arbitrary political target, we run the risk of losing the space energy race to other nations. Although space-based solar power is an energy play, pure and simple, the associated engineering technology will transform our space sector. With satellites that are kilometres across, robotics are being developed in the UK to enable the manufacture and assembly of those satellites in orbit. The technology will enable the UK to take a lead in developing in-orbit assembly, thus further securing our place as a leading space nation. We have the opportunity here and now to lead in energy—our most critical need and asset—and in the space sector. In yesterday’s statement, DESNZ made an interesting choice. Space energy can deliver gigawatts of space-based solar power within a decade, but the Government have chosen to invest £2.5 billion in nuclear fusion. There is no doubt that space energy is an engineering challenge, but nuclear fusion is a substantial physics challenge. I ask the Minister to come up and see for herself what genius is happening right here in the UK. We have an opportunity to seize the moment, but we must not be left behind. Space is not just about where something is; it is about what it enables. Seizing both the metaphorical and literal high ground that space presents is vital for our economy, our productivity, our energy, our services and, frankly, how we save the planet.
- Hansard source
Space Industry
I thank all Members who made a contribution to the debate. It has been fantastic to hear from the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Congleton (Sarah Russell), for St Ives (Andrew George), for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) and for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), as well as the Front-Bench contributions from the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith). It is a great pleasure to see so many different people and so many new MPs contribute to this debate from such diverse parts of the world, rather than just hearing the same old characters talking about the same old stuff—