Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,750 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 17 Jul 2025·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

   Strategy for Elections

   Democracy is fragile and, here in the United Kingdom, our democracy is strongly in the crosshairs of nefarious states including Russia and China, which do not share our values. We are seeing increasing activity online, particularly to distort the outcome of elections, via platforms including TikTok, which have links to communist regimes in China. Can the Minister update the House on what steps are being taken in particular to protect our democracy from misinformation that vehemently seeks to distort the outcome of elections?

   Hansard source
2. 17 Jul 2025·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

   NHS Pensions: Frontline Patient Care

   The Minister knows that I have a keen interest in NHS reorganisation and the impact on frontline services, particularly in Mid Bedfordshire. Given the failures of NHSBSA, has consideration been given to reorganising that authority? I also repeat the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild): given the failures, will the Minister rule out bonuses for the NHSBSA’s leadership?

   Hansard source
3. 17 Jul 2025·Parliament·Andrew Rosindell

   Freedom of Religion or Belief: UK Foreign Policy

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris, not least as you have another role as trade envoy to New Zealand. I was very pleased to visit Christchurch, New Zealand, some years ago to see its magnificent cathedral. I then went again a few years later and saw that it had been destroyed. I pay tribute to our New Zealander friends because theirs is a Christian country, they uphold Christian values and they are part of our Commonwealth family. Many New Zealand MP friends of mine would be fascinated by, and very supportive of, this wonderful and important debate. I commend the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) for securing it and, more importantly, for continuing the work of our friend and former colleague Fiona Bruce, who was Member of Parliament for Congleton until last year. We can all agree that the hon. Gentleman is doing a splendid job as the special envoy on freedom of religion or belief, upholding the values shared by Members on both sides of the House. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) and the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for paying tribute to Fiona; she is a lovely person and we miss her. But we are delighted that the work she started is being continued by the hon. Member for North Northumberland. The British nation has always stood resolutely for liberty, not just here at home but around the world. We are one of the few nations that have appointed a special envoy of this nature, and that is no small thing. But with that leadership comes immense responsibility. When millions across the globe face violence, imprisonment and discrimination simply because of what they believe, we cannot look the other way or pass by on the other side. We have a moral obligation to defend the fundamental freedoms that have shaped our history in these islands and defined our values. We must never retreat from upholding what is right. Indeed, it is precisely because we always stand firm in defence of such principles that the United Kingdom commands such deep respect around the world. Liberty generally, and freedom of religion or belief more broadly, must be at the heart of our foreign policy. I commend all Members who spoke in this debate. I pay particular reference to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) for highlighting the issue of what is happening in Taybeh, and how horrific the actions taken there are. It is very upsetting to hear, and I hope that our friends in Israel will be listening to this debate. As someone who is, and has always been, pro-Israel, I am very upset to hear what is going on. My heart goes out to the members of St George’s church, the Christian community and all those being persecuted or losing their lives in that dreadful conflict. At the start of his speech, the hon. Member for North Northumberland spoke about visiting the Soviet Union and seeing the persecution there. I remember that during my days in the Young Conservatives we supported freedom of religion in the Soviet Union; Bibles were being smuggled over there—a lot of work was going on in those days. Earlier this year, I visited Shkodër, in the north of Albania. I visited a prison where the most appalling torture had taken place under the vile Albanian communist regime. We all agree that the world must move on from those atrocities and not go back. Sadly, there are parts of the world where these things continue. We must stand together, unified against such things. I commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury for making a clear statement: he said that we should be bold and courageous in proclaiming our Christian faith. And so we should. The entirety of the foundations, traditions, customs and heritage of our country are based on the Christian faith. The cross is on the top of the crown—when the King wears the crown, there is a cross on the top. That means that all religions and denominations are equal, but there has to be an understanding that there is a Christian foundation to our society. I say to the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) that I was honoured to travel to Iceland a few years ago with Lord Campbell-Savours, the hon. Member’s father. We had many discussions about all kinds of things. The hon. Member has a wonderful father, who serves in the other place, and I am delighted to see that he is continuing his father’s work and talking about Iceland, a country with which we have a huge amount in common. There are many dear friends in that country. I also thank the hon. Members for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for speaking in this significant debate. We learned last week, and this has been articulated this afternoon, that the FCDO has now announced a five-point strategy on freedom of religion or belief. That is a welcome step, but as ever it is not about the plan—it is about delivery. What matters now is whether this Government are matching the words with actions. The first point that has been articulated is that of upholding international standards. The UK has long had influence in international forums, as a member of the UN Security Council and given that our capital, London, is home to the Commonwealth Secretariat, but are we really using that influence to lead the charge on religious freedom to the full? Are we naming those who trample on religious rights? Are we truly standing up to regimes that ignore international law and persecute people of faith? Or are we hesitating when that might come at a diplomatic cost? Maybe the Minister can answer those questions later. Secondly, on bilateral engagement, Ministers regularly tell us that they raise these issues behind closed doors. When will we see the results? What outcomes have been achieved from our talks with long-standing members of the Commonwealth, such as, for instance, Pakistan, where blasphemy laws continue to be abused with devastating effect; or Nigeria, where only last year, 218 Christians were slaughtered by Islamic fundamentalists in the middle belt? Have we made clear to those Governments that this simply cannot go on and that there will be consequences if it does? And what about China? The persecution of Uyghur Muslims, Christians and Falun Gong practitioners has long been systematic, brutal and well-documented. Governments, past and present, talk of engagement, but what does that mean in practice? Given that His Majesty’s Government have gone back on their promise of a fully published China audit, will the Minister assure us all today that freedom of religion and belief will be front and centre in any negotiations with the Chinese Communist party? Or are we still willing to trade human rights for economic deals and the allure of a super-embassy on prime real estate in London? Is that really something we should be supporting? The third strand of the FCDO’s policy strategy is building coalitions. In principle, of course I support that, but coalitions must be seen to be achieving things. Who are our partners? What practical steps have we taken with allies to defend freedom of religion and belief in the toughest regions, such as the Sahel, the middle east or central America? Have we formed joint initiatives or are we merely issuing polite statements?

   Hansard source
4. 17 Jul 2025·Parliament·Andrew Rosindell

   Freedom of Religion or Belief: UK Foreign Policy

   Of course; I could not possibly disagree. Now that point is on the record, I am sure the Minister will take note and take that case forward. The fourth strand is about maintaining FORB across the FCDO. If done properly, that could be transformative. But, again, where is the detail? Are our ambassadors trained on FORB? Are they expected to report on it? Is religious freedom considered when we decide where aid goes or when arms are sold? Is FORB integrated in our dealings with Commonwealth partners, many of whom face significant challenges on these issues? Or is it still viewed as a specialist interest and a box simply to be ticked? The final point is civil society. Those brave individuals on the ground are often the first line of defence for religious freedom. They speak out when Governments will not. They face threats, harassment and even death. How are we supporting them? Are we funding grassroots organisations? Are we giving them access to our embassies and high commissions, our diplomats and our protection, or are they being left to fend for themselves? At the recent FCDO briefing on this subject, cases were presented regarding countries such as Nicaragua, Eritrea, Yemen and Afghanistan. The picture was bleak, with repressive laws, targeted killings and the crushing of dissent. This is seemingly part of a wider pattern. In Nicaragua, the Ortega regime is targeting the Catholic Church in a campaign of repression. In Eritrea, Christians are languishing in prison. In Yemen, religious minorities are caught between war and persecution. In Syria and Iraq, ancient communities have been decimated. What exactly is the UK doing in each of those places? Where are the consequences for those who commit these crimes? The Government recently announced the suspension of sanctions on the new Syrian Government. However, as recently as this week, we have witnessed the eruption of violence between the Druze minority and Islamists, with the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reporting dozens of deaths. In the light of those developments, was the suspension of sanctions on Syria premature? I think it was. If FORB is central to our foreign policy, was the suspension of sanctions on Syria an indication that religious freedom has been restored in Syria? Are we monitoring the dangers faced by religious and ethnic minorities such as the Druze, who have long sought to remain neutral in Syria’s civil conflict? The sad truth is that freedom of religion and belief is deteriorating and violations are increasing. Perpetrators are becoming more brazen and the people who are suffering, be they Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Yazidis, Jewish people, Baha’is or others, too often have nowhere to turn. If the Government are prepared to back fine words with firm action, let us see it now. Will they publish regular updates on how the five-point strategy is being delivered? Will they bring transparent, accountable and measurable goals into the work published? I believe that Britain has always stood for freedom. Let us not falter now. We have a voice through the previous Government’s creation of the special envoy position. We have the tools now; what we need is the resolve to use them. I urge the Minister to ensure that all our talk of freedom of religion and belief is not merely honeyed words, but a real statement of intent from His Majesty’s Government that we take this seriously and that those who violate the sacrosanct principles of religious freedom will suffer the consequences.

   Hansard source
5. 17 Jul 2025·Parliament·Andrew Rosindell

   Strategy for Elections

   I thank the Minister for her statement, but I have not heard her say anything about the work of the boundary commissions for local government and constituencies. I think they should form part of this discussion, particularly to ensure that constituencies can be made up of genuine communities by getting rid of the pointless rule that a constituency cannot go beyond a certain region. Areas of Essex near my constituency, for instance, cannot be included within Romford, which only goes into London. Similarly, local council wards would surely be better if they were one-member wards, whereby they could be like mini-constituencies looking after a particular community. Would that not be a better way forward, and would the Minister consider it as part of the review?

   Hansard source
6. 17 Jul 2025·Parliament·Andrew Rosindell

   Business of the House

   I would like to make the Leader of the House aware of the serious delays to cladding remediation faced by residents of the Axis apartments in Mercury Gardens, Romford. It is a common problem across the country. Residents of the Axis apartments have endured years of uncertainty since fire safety issues were identified nearly four years ago, following the Grenfell Tower fire. Despite the building’s management agent applying for permission for remediation works over a year ago, the Building Safety Regulator has still not approved the application. This regulatory delay has left leaseholders trapped; they are unable to remortgage or sell their homes, and face ever-increasing insurance premiums and unaffordable safety costs. Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to make an urgent statement on this matter, so that my constituents, and others across the country facing similar problems, can escape financial ruin and move on with their lives?

   Hansard source
7. 17 Jul 2025·Parliament·Andrew Rosindell

   Global Plastics Treaty

   I am sure the Minister is aware that His Excellency the Ambassador of Ecuador is the chairman of the UN intergovernmental negotiating committee on plastics. Is the Minister working with him? His Excellency is in London and doing incredible work in this area, and I hope that our Government are co-operating with him. He is also doing work toward and looking forward to the day when Ecuador can join the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership.

   Hansard source
8. 17 Jul 2025·Parliament·Andrew Rosindell

   Future of the Church of England

   My hon. Friend is making a very moving and powerful speech. Our Head of State, who is also the head of the Church of England, represents the rights of all peoples to live in a free society and to worship freely. It is because our Head of State is also the head of our established Church that there are protections for all religions and denominations in our constitution. The cross is on the top of the crown that he wears, which demonstrates that the Christian faith is the basis of our constitution, our customs, our heritage and our British way of life. Does my hon. Friend agree?

   Hansard source
9. 17 Jul 2025·Parliament·Andrew Rosindell

   Future of the Church of England

   My hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) referred to the importance of the local parish. Across England, the parish is central to everything. The church and the local vicar are a part of our community. In fact, we are very lucky in Romford to have the Church of St Edward the Confessor. We have a new vicar, the Rev. Jordan Palmer, who has just joined our church. Does the Minister agree that the parish is vital? It is not just about the church community, the members of the church; it has a wider responsibility to all people of all religions and no religion, not just Church of England members. The Church of England should cherish the importance of the parish as a part of all our communities in the constituencies we represent.

   Hansard source
10. 17 Jul 2025·Parliament·Andrew Griffith

    Topical Questions

    May I start by paying tribute to Norman Tebbit? He was a former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and a great reformer who did a great deal to unleash growth in this country. The only thing growing under this Government are the unemployment queues. Today, the Office for National Statistics revealed that the number of payrolled employees has fallen by 180,000 over the last year and 40,000 in the last month alone. Unemployment has been higher in every month since the Chancellor has been in office. In the last hour, we have heard news of another 500 job losses at Jaguar Land Rover. This is a great country with great people. When the Secretary of State talks to businesses, what reason do they give to him for unemployment rising?

    Hansard source
11. 17 Jul 2025·Parliament·Andrew Griffith

    Topical Questions

    That answer was complacent and unsympathetic. It is the most vulnerable—those looking for their first shot, their first chance—who pay the price of unemployment. Let us start again. Last night in the other place, the unemployment Bill was improved with sensible amendments to probation periods, a definition of seasonal workers that protects hospitality and agriculture, and provision for a consultation about the impact on the smallest businesses. Those measures have been proposed by employers, and by independent business groups such as the Confederation of British Industry, Make UK and the Federation of Small Businesses, who say that the Bill in its current form is deeply damaging. If the Secretary of State will not shelve the Bill entirely, will he at least commit to accepting those entirely reasonable amendments?

    Hansard source
12. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    Sudan

    I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) for pursuing this matter. The situation in Sudan is dire. We are deeply concerned by the International Criminal Court’s findings last week that there are reasonable grounds to believe that war crimes and crimes against humanity may be being committed in Darfur. The humanitarian situation continues to deteriorate, with the UN warning on 30 June of drastic cuts to life-saving food aid for Sudanese refugees fleeing to neighbouring countries. Sudan has been identified as the global hunger hotspot of highest concern, and without immediate humanitarian assistance, the risk is terrible. With recent attacks on UN aid convoys, can the Minister provide her latest assessment of the situation and the extent of aid blocking? How is she ensuring that UK aid—including the £120 million announced at the April Sudan conference—will reach those who need it, and that aid workers are protected? More broadly, what new measures are the Government taking to compel the warring parties into a ceasefire, to allow more aid in and to facilitate deconfliction for its delivery in the meantime? How has the Minister supported Sudanese civilian and political forces to engage in constructive dialogue processes such as the Cairo conference, and what is her assessment of the effectiveness of these processes? Despite the spending review, we are yet to understand what the 0.3% figure means for bilateral aid, so will she confirm the bilateral spend for Sudan this year? Sudan matters. It is not in the UK’s national interests for the crossing of red lines in this conflict to persist, to have the displacement of people on this scale, nor to see the further destabilisation of this region of Africa.

    Hansard source
13. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Smith

    Engagements

    Q5.   A much better understanding of the particular needs of autistic and neurodiverse children is vital to expanding capacity in mainstream education for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities. As the Prime Minister looks at the SEND Bill over the summer, can I urge him to introduce mandatory training for all teachers and staff on autism and neurodiversity?

    Hansard source
14. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Sudan

    Will the Minister explain to the House what, in practical terms, the Security Council could do, even if all its members were neutral on the question of backing one side over the other? If two sides are determined to fight one another and neither is dependent on outside military assistance to pursue the conflict, is there anything practical that the Security Council could do, even if it was united and in agreement on the need for an intervention?

    Hansard source
15. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Financial Services Reform

    Whenever I listen to the excellent Times Radio and other commercial broadcasters, I am always favourably impressed by the fact that at the end of every positive advertisement for a financial product, three words are said: “capital at risk”. Can the Minister assure the House that in the review of risk warnings that will be undertaken, that fundamental red flag, at the end of people pushing us to invest our money in some grand and profitable enterprise, will not be left out?

    Hansard source
16. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Sir Gavin Williamson

    Sudan

    Such an enormous civilian price is being paid in Sudan, but one of the greatest horrors is the use of rape and sexual violence against women and children as a weapon of war—and it is being used systematically as a weapon of war. I appreciate that the Minister has limited options, but I urge her to look at every single way that we can be more robust and stronger, and really lead the charge to ensure that vital aid—not only to combat hunger but to help people who have been raped and who have suffered so much—is delivered as quickly as possible. Let us please lead the way.

    Hansard source
17. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Sir Desmond Swayne

    Engagements

    Q2. Jack Straw told us that the Human Rights Act 1998 places on us no expectation that we will remedy a declaration of incompatibility issued by a court, so the Prime Minister is wrong to say that the legacy Act is struck down. His own proposals, which open the door to compensation to Gerry Adams and place in jeopardy our own servicemen, present enormous difficulty to those of us who have served—that is increasingly the case on the Prime Minister’s own Benches. Will he consider that?

    Hansard source
18. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Sir Christopher Chope

    RAF E-7 Wedgetail Programme

    Minister, you have 35 minutes in which to respond.

    Hansard source
19. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Sir Christopher Chope

    Further Education Institutions

    If the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) wishes to participate in this debate, I should say that there are only 10 minutes or so for the Minister to respond to the mass of points that have been made. I hope she will be brief.

    Hansard source
20. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Sir Andrew Mitchell

    Sudan

    (Urgent Question): To ask the Minister if she will make a statement on Britain’s response to the worsening situation in Sudan.

    Hansard source
21. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Sir Andrew Mitchell

    Sudan

    Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question today. I make no apologies for raising the dire and desperate straits of the Sudanese people again in this House, not least because Britain leads on the Sudanese situation at the United Nations on behalf of all other nations. As the Minister said, the people of Sudan are in the throes of the worst humanitarian catastrophe in the world and the situation is worsening, even if such things can hardly be imagined. Earlier this month, the United Nations and international organisations reported the mass displacement of tens of thousands of people following the combatant forces advancing across the Kordofan states. There have been months of increased mobilisation of fighters, including the recruitment of children from across Darfur. As fighting expands, the Kordofan states are the next deadly front. In the recent and welcome ministerial conference hosted by the Foreign Secretary, much-needed money was raised, but the goal of a high-level contact group to drive political efforts towards achieving a ceasefire and protecting Sudanese civilians met with an impasse. We must accept that despite our efforts the past two years have been a story of faltering international endeavour where world events have cast Sudan into the shadows as its people have faced only deepening peril. I ask the Minister three questions. First, what lessons have the Government learned from the siege of El Fasher and the overwhelming of the camp for displaced people at Zamzam to prepare for and protect civilians from the spread of violence across the Kordofan states? How are the Government supporting the local emergency response rooms? Secondly, can she confirm that the prevention of atrocities remains a key pillar of British policy and is unaffected by the recent cuts in the development budget? Thirdly, and finally, what are the Government doing to advance international efforts to protect civilians alongside their pursuit of a ceasefire? Are we to assume the Jeddah process is dead? What discussions has she had with her counterparts in the United States over recent weeks?

    Hansard source
22. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Saqib Bhatti

    RAF E-7 Wedgetail Programme

    It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) for securing the debate. He spoke incredibly eloquently not just about the programme, but about why it is so important. I will pull him up slightly, because he talked about Birmingham. The facility is in my constituency of Meriden and Solihull East, and Solihull is very different from Birmingham, as any Silhillian will tell us, but I welcome the case that he made. I am very proud that these planes are being built in my constituency. I have had the privilege of going to see them at various phases of construction and, as they are Boeing 737s that are being restructured and refitted, seeing them in the different states of fitting, not least during various liftings of lockdowns, when I was able to do so. I went there with a lot of pride because, as has been alluded to and I know all the Members in the Chamber will agree, our paramount and first duty as Members of Parliament is defence of the realm. Across the world, whether it is in Ukraine or in the brief conflict between Pakistan and India recently, we see a real need for credible technology that is capable of dealing with modern warfare in the 21st century. For me, the E-7 Wedgetail is essential to that because, as my hon. Friend said, it provides a 360° capability with advance warning and strategic capacity to deal with movements in the battlefield way beyond our enemies’ visibility. It would, should and ought to secure air superiority, so it is very important. I thank STS Aviation Services, which is fitting out the plane alongside Boeing. I think we can all agree that we want this done. I would like to see the Wedgetail project, or at least the two planes, completed. I am happy to work cross-party to make sure that we work with Boeing and STS to deliver that, not least because of the importance of the defence of our realm and the need to be ready. In this age of autocrats, when we see technological advancement from the Russians, the North Koreans, the Chinese and even the Iranians, we need to be ready for what might come our way. The hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) chided the last Government for a number of their decisions, but what an excellent decision it was to have a fixed-price contract. That means that, despite the delays, there should not be an additional cost to the taxpayer. Once the project is completed, I hope it will be seen as value for money. As has already been said, but I will put it on the record not least because some of my constituents will see this, Wedgetail will be, when completed, one of the most advanced strategic analytical planes to be built and to hopefully serve in our armed forces. It will be able to co-ordinate with joint forces and of course, most essentially in the 21st century, provide high-quality data. As I have already said, it will operate beyond visual range and secure strategic superiority and dominance. It should be stressed that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway said, overcoming the capability and credibility gap is absolutely essential if we are to be an air force capable of holding its own in the 21st century, with the challenges that will come our way. As was mentioned earlier, the Wedgetail programme is also essential given advancements in space and space defence technology, about which there is clearly concern. I would like Wedgetail to be part of the multifaceted platform needed to make sure that those who would do us harm by taking advantage of space technology cannot do so. Wedgetail will be really important in that. What is important for me is that Wedgetail creates really high value, highly skilled jobs. It caters for about 150 jobs at the moment, and that figure is predicted to double. Sadly, as a layperson, I was not able to convince the people responsible to give the maintenance contract to Birmingham airport, but I believe that Wedgetail is a product of great capability, including export capability. That means further jobs for my constituents in Meriden and Solihull East. I should say that in my part of the world, we have Jaguar Land Rover and the old factories that helped to build Spitfire. We have a great tradition and great heritage. My constituents are incredibly patriotic and will be proud that Wedgetail is being built there. I have some questions for the Minister. Will he share his assessment of the export capability of this product? Where does he see the opportunities and value? He has already been challenged, so will he enlighten us on how he is working to ensure its faster delivery? Who is he working with and what conversations is he having in that regard? The offer to meet interested stakeholders has been put out there, and I would like to be part of that. The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry would be an important person to have around that table in that conversation. More broadly, what work are the Government doing to ensure that our defence products are exported across the world? Technological advancement in warfare has often separated the victor from the defeated. That is a really important part of the conversation, and I hope it will go beyond the strategic defence review.

    Hansard source
23. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Saqib Bhatti

    RAF E-7 Wedgetail Programme

    Of course I agree with the hon. Member—anyone in the Chamber would agree that the capability and credibility gap has to be overcome. We know where the threats are coming from, or at least the visible threats. To quote a former US politician, there are lots of unknown knowns, known knowns and known unknowns—I am sure I have messed that up, but hon. Members know what I mean. We have to be capable of delivering on that. The hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) said that there had to be focused delivery of this product; I echo and double down on that. In conclusion, the issue is about jobs, which matter, and our security, which matters too. It is absolutely essential.

    Hansard source
24. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Rebecca Paul

    Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life

    I am grateful to be closing this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition. I thank colleagues from across the House for their passionate contributions, and I am going to attempt to list them all: my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), and the hon. Members for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed), for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed), for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) and for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell). I also have it on good authority that the MPs from Staffordshire hunt in a pack, and after today I can confirm that they do indeed. Before I begin my speech, I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Ensuring that every child, regardless of their background or circumstances, has the opportunity to thrive is something that cuts to the very heart of why many of us were drawn to politics in the first place. We know that in those crucial early years the foundations of health, learning and wellbeing are laid for life, so it is right that we ensure that those foundations are as solid as can be. I want to first reflect on the Conservative record on early years and families, starting with childcare. It was Conservative Governments who introduced and expanded free childcare entitlements, not just for parents of three and four-year-olds but for parents of younger children. It was a Conservative Government who launched the family hubs and start for life programme, investing £300 million across 75 local authorities to provide parenting and breastfeeding support to families when they need it so that problems can be addressed before they escalate. We fully recognise that stable and secure families ensure the best start in life for children. That means ensuring that support is more broadly targeted than just at the child. Family hubs are a vital part of achieving this. For 14 years, our model was to have targeted investment, early help and a determination to move away from a system where postcode determines life outcomes. Nowhere is that approach more vital than in the first 1,001 days of a child’s life—from conception to age two. The science is clear: a child’s brain develops more rapidly in these years than at any other point in their life. Attachment, stimulation, nutrition and the emotional environment during this time all have lifelong implications for learning, resilience and health. Interventions in these early days can literally change life chances, and we know that failure to act compounds over time. I pay tribute to Dame Andrea Leadsom for all her excellent work on this subject. Earlier this month, the Government published their “Giving every child the best start in life” strategy. The House will be aware that the strategy’s name, scope and substance owe much to the work begun by the Conservative Government. There is much to celebrate when a new Government build on the good work of the previous one—and as the old saying goes, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. The strategy identifies the very early years as a priority for the Government, which is welcome, but I must echo the Institute for Fiscal Studies in suggesting that this strategy is a first step, not the finished article. The Government’s approach to family hubs is a good example of what I mean by that. It is welcome that the Government are continuing the programme, with a further £69 million announced in the autumn Budget and £57 million in Start for Life funding for 2025-26. The goal of rolling out Best Start family hubs in every local authority is certainly ambitious and something to be welcomed, but there is one important point I want to make. Even with this new funding, spending on integrated early years services will be remain at less than one third of what was spent on Sure Start at its peak. Family hubs are being asked to do more, serving children up to the age of 19, but with far fewer resources per child. If this Labour Government want it to be Sure Start 2.0—and I truly hope they do—they may need to be more ambitious with their funding plans. If the Government want to build on the solid foundation they inherited from their Conservative predecessors, they must guarantee long-term investment, retain high-quality staff and ensure that hubs are universal in reach but suitably targeted in mission. Before I move on from hubs, I welcome the fact that each one is promised a SEND-trained staff member who can deliver practical and well-informed help to families navigating what is a complex system. As we in the House all know, SEND is a big issue. I am all too aware from casework in my constituency that the families of SEND children are too often left fighting against the very system that should be fighting for them. Early identification of SEND is still inconsistent, and when that diagnosis is eventually made, EHCP needs assessments and much needed support are often delayed too. Disappointingly, Ministers have refused to rule out scrapping ECHPs outside special schools, despite over 300,000 children currently relying on them in mainstream settings. That has triggered real fear among families and professionals alike. More than 110,000 people have signed a petition opposing these changes, yet to date Ministers have offered no firm reassurance that no child will lose the legal right to the support they need. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity today to provide some clarity and reassurance to those worried parents. Looking at the Government’s approach in the round, the “best start in life” strategy contains much that the Opposition welcome in principle, such as more family hubs, the expansion of funded childcare to 30 hours a week for working parents of children from nine months old, thousands more nursery places and the development of a digital offer. However, if we are seeking to ensure that every child has the best start in life, a key ingredient must be the provision of high-quality education: the very provision that the Government’s Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill seeks to sabotage. Far from ensuring that schools can serve as a foundation for success in the early years, Ministers have led an attack on school standards by undermining the academies that have led the way on school improvement for decades. If the Government get their way, academies will no longer be able to recruit teachers without qualified teacher status from non-traditional backgrounds and will be forced to follow the same national curriculum as other schools. Those measures will risk the progress made during three decades of cross-party consensus on academies. It is nothing less than educational vandalism. If any Member of the House doubts that fact, they need only pay a visit to Labour-run Wales. After 26 years of Labour in power, Wales finds itself at the bottom of the rankings for the whole of the UK in maths, English and science. The Government cannot even bring themselves to ban smartphones in schools—something so simple yet so effective in improving a child’s wellbeing and educational outcomes. The hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) introduced a Bill that would have done just that. I applaud him for doing so and for the strong cross-party consensus he built up. It is shameful that much of his work was undone by a Government who insisted on watering down his Bill and burying their heads in the sand to the harms. A Government who refuse to act against that danger give me cause for concern about their commitment to offering children the best start in life. I will conclude by making an observation on nurseries, which face extreme financial pressure because of decisions taken by the Government. The lack of compensation for the employer national insurance contribution increase is forcing nurseries and childcare providers to either hike fees, opt out altogether from offering funded places or close down entirely. I ask the Minister to ponder what use any number of policies aimed at supporting nurseries and increasing funded places will be if the Treasury is driving nurseries into the ground with tax hikes before those policies have even started.

    Hansard source
25. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Neil O'Brien

    Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life

    Everybody wants to give children the best start in life. That is why we increased spending per pupil in schools by 11% in real terms in the last Parliament, and why we doubled real-terms spending on the free entitlement for the early years. More importantly, it is why we pushed through difficult reforms to schools, which were often opposed by the Labour party. It is why we brought in the knowledge-rich curriculum, why we brought in stronger accountability, and why we pushed through the academies revolution and more parental choice. The Minister said that our record speaks for itself, and it does. Labour’s record speaks for itself as well. Between 2009 and 2022, England went from 21st to seventh in the programme for international student assessment league table for maths, while Wales—spending the same amount as before—went from 29th to 27th. [Interruption.] Labour MPs clearly do not like hearing this, but I am afraid I am going to carry on. In science, England went from 11th to ninth, while Wales—with same amount of money as before but run by Labour, with no reforms—slumped from 21st to 29th.

    Hansard source
26. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Neil O'Brien

    Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life

    I am happy to take an intervention.

    Hansard source
27. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Neil O'Brien

    Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life

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

    Hansard source
28. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Neil O'Brien

    Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life

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

    Hansard source
29. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Neil O'Brien

    Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life

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

    Hansard source
30. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Neil O'Brien

    Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life

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

    Hansard source
31. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Financial Services Reform

    I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

    Hansard source
32. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Financial Services Reform

    I call John Grady, a member of the Treasury Committee.

    Hansard source
33. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Financial Services Reform

    I call a Treasury Committee member, John Glen.

    Hansard source
34. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Financial Services Reform

    I call a Treasury Committee member, Bobby Dean.

    Hansard source
35. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Financial Services Reform

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

    Hansard source
36. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Financial Services Reform

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

    Hansard source
37. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Points of Order

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

    Hansard source
38. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Points of Order

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

    Hansard source
39. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Points of Order

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

    Hansard source
40. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Points of Order

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

    Hansard source