Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,578 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
Can the Minister be really specific? How many civil servants and special advisers are due to be permanently staffed at No. 10 North, and once they are all in place and working there, will the Government publish statistics for their attendance at the office?
<em>(Urgent Question): </em>To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if she will make a statement on the failure of the United Kingdom’s air traffic control system and the resulting disruption to flights and passengers.
Over 2,000 flights cancelled, with more than 150,000 passengers affected; delays, disruption and pain; embarrassment for Britain—what an absolute mess! As you said, Madam Deputy Speaker, there was no offer of a statement from the Government, hence this urgent question from the Conservative Benches. Nothing sums up the situation facing real people this week better than Martin Brundle’s scathing post on Tuesday: “Nine hours and counting sitting on a plane which has travelled nowhere. At a remote parking bay, no food throughout, and mother/baby and a person with a medical condition desperate to get off. As is everyone else. Toilets no longer available as blocked. No sign of steps or buses. And that’s before the wait for luggage. Pathetic and dangerous lack of corporate contingency and responsibility.” Is the Minister not embarrassed? A report by 16 September, which takes us into recess, and six months then to fully diagnose the problem—that is not good enough. A third failure deserves immediate action, not delaying tactics. The Government have a considerable say in how NATS operates. Ministers cannot suddenly discover the virtues of arm’s length government when something goes wrong in an organisation of which the taxpayer owns 49%. Passengers have heard before that lessons will be learned, reviews commissioned and improvements made; they do not want another sorry story of apologies and assurances while everyone waits for the next failure. A cyber-attack has been ruled out, so exactly what did happen? Was it a software failure? Were sufficient engineers available on site? Were previous recommendations actually implemented? If they were, why on earth are we back here again? Why are airlines and airports lacking suitable contingency plans for when NATS fails—when Government fails—and there is no Government support on the ground? The Secretary of State needs to take responsibility, get a grip of this mess and ensure that this time lessons are not simply learned but acted upon.
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add: “this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Social Housing Bill [Lords], despite supporting the measures in the Bill to protect victims of domestic abuse, because the Bill will effectively abolish Right to Buy, destroying the aspirations of social tenants who wish to one day purchase their own home; because the Government is failing to build the homes required, as in 2024-25 there were 12,810 fewer net additional dwellings delivered in England compared to the previous year, and the Bill does nothing to promote much-needed housebuilding; and because the Bill does not ensure that social housing is used effectively and is reserved for British citizens.” We come to the House, as we have done many times, to find that the Government are still failing to build more homes and still failing to support home ownership. This Bill is no different; indeed, it is a failure par excellence because for a Bill supposedly concerned with housing, it does nothing to build any new homes. The Bill does nothing to support the aspiration of home ownership; in fact, it goes out of its way to diminish it. It does not even free up any social homes for the 1.34 million people on the waiting list. It is a dud Bill and an ideological red herring. Most egregiously, however, the Government have taken a much-needed reform—the need for a new and effective framework to enable landlords to take possession action against perpetrators of domestic abuse—and surrounded it with unnecessary, damaging and punitive reforms to right to buy. We agree with the Government that it is vital that anyone stuck in an abusive household receives the urgent care, support and access to legal pathways they need, so His Majesty’s Opposition support this aspect of the Bill, but it is a shame to find the Government wedging it uncomfortably alongside the ideological and anti-aspirational measures that make up the majority of this counterproductive Bill.
I thank the hon. Lady—sorry, the right hon. Lady.
Sorry—I missed that comment from a sedentary position. This Bill does not contribute to building a single extra social home. I agree that people who are victims of domestic abuse should be rehoused—I said that in my remarks. We do not agree, however, that this Bill is the way to do it. Let us come to the main thrust of the Government’s policy: the effective end of right to buy as we know it. In 1980, Margaret Thatcher’s Government offered millions of people a hand up on to the property ladder by extending the opportunity to own property to hard-working, aspirational people living in social housing.
I will make some progress. Ever since and right up to the present day, Labour MPs have called for restrictions on the scheme. They have essentially called for an end to the opportunity to exercise the right to own one’s own home for around 5 million households. When owning one’s own home can bring such pride and such a sense of community, and can offer security and safety, one might wonder why on earth anyone would seek to lock millions of social housing tenants out of doing so. Aside from ideology, which of course is a major part of the problem for Labour Members, the Government seek to do this because they have misdiagnosed the problem. In their mind, it is somehow acceptable to lay the blame at the door of right to buy, as 1.34 million households—children, families, the elderly, the disabled and others—wait for a social home, while every year approximately 33,000 new social tenancies, funded by British taxpayers, go to households where the lead tenant is not a British national.
I agree with the hon. Lady that building more social homes is part of the answer, but I will address the central point of her question a bit later in my speech. Right to buy is not the reason for the diminishing available social housing, nor the reason for our current shortage of social housing. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord Jamieson pointed out in the other place, the Government’s own impact assessment shows that in 2026-27, the pre-November 2024 baseline was 8,050 right-to-buy sales leading to 5,450 replacement homes. The document goes on to show that if this Bill were to pass and the legacy impacts wind down in the period 2031 to 2035, annual right-to-buy sales would fall to around 1,100 a year, with around 1,450 replacement homes. That means that by their own analysis and admission, the Government would oversee a housing system in which there would be 4,000 fewer new social homes funded every year.
The point I am making, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) says from a sedentary position behind me, is that there will be even fewer new social homes under this Bill. It is not the answer to the problem. The Government’s own data is not the only data available that disproves the justification for restricting right to buy. The Government have argued that the Bill will mean that around 3,000 additional homes are retained a year, but research conducted by the House of Lords Library shows that only a net 3% of social homes become available each year to new tenancies. That means that about 90 additional homes will be available for a new tenant every year, instead of 5,000. The very premise that right to buy is taking homes away is a fallacy. The only people who qualify for right to buy are long-term tenants, and Government data has shown that 78% of new lettings remain lifetime tenancies. That means that in three quarters of cases, we are looking at social homes that are unlikely ever to be available to a prospective tenant when they need it. All of that clearly demonstrates that right to buy is not the issue—it is part of the solution. That is not the only available avenue that the Government could take to support those on the waiting list and get more people into the housing they need. I hope that you will not mind, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I offer two key areas in which progress could be made. First and foremost, it could be made through house building. The Government put forward clear and definite promises to voters in 2024. We were told that by the end of this Parliament, the Government will have built 1.5 million new homes, including “the biggest increase in social and affordable housebuilding in a generation.” The new Prime Minister—a self-proclaimed opponent of 1980s policies—has similarly committed to a social housing revolution, albeit without a defined target or an idea of what that looks like. But now, halfway through this Parliament, after the slog of the Planning and <span id="1262" class="column-number" data-column-number="1262"></span>Infrastructure Act 2025, multiple updates to the national planning policy framework and the publication of this Bill, we are left without a clear route to building more homes, and projections from the Government themselves show that they have managed to build just 26% of their target in nearly 50% of the time. The Bill does nothing to prioritise building. It will not add a single social home to the housing stock.
The Opposition will be very happy if the Government hit that target, but the point is they will not. The target was not nuanced in the way the hon. Gentleman sets out in the manifesto, nor was it nuanced straight after the election. We were told that 1.5 million homes were to be built by the end of this Parliament. There is no chance that the Government will hit that target.
On the contrary, it was the last Conservative Government who in 2023 introduced 100% receipts going to councils to rebuild the homes that had gone. Although Government Members like to pretend that history only began in 2010, I point out to them that successive Governments since the 1980s could have changed that and did not; it was the last Conservative Government who did so.
I share my right hon. Friend’s shock that no Reform MP is present in the Chamber. I am similarly totally taken aback that Reform would say one thing and do another. Of course, Reform councillors should not have said that if they did not mean it.
That is very well put by my right hon. Friend. The Government do nothing to prioritise building. The Bill will not add a single social home to the housing stock. The Government are seeking to heal an illness before they have properly diagnosed it, and are offering a solution to a problem to which there is already an answer. If they were serious about reforming the right to buy and building more homes at the same time, perhaps they would look at how proper management and effective reinvestment of receipts could lead to an increase in housing supply, especially on brownfield sites. As my colleagues in the other place noted, it is better for everyone and for the economy if we make two homes out of one. Through efficient, productive and successful management of right-to-buy receipts, we can both sell a family home and support a family on the waiting list into another one. As homelessness peaks at record levels and the number of children in temporary accommodation reaches a dizzying summit of 178,000, it beggars belief that the Government are not looking at that more closely. However, I recognise that house building is not an overnight fix; it takes time, but for many families on the waiting list, that is something they simply do not have. We must therefore consider how best to free up existing stock to support those most in need.
I listened to what the hon. Gentleman said. Of course, one of the things we do not get from Government Members is any commentary at all about the state of the economy in 2010, after 13 years of their party being in power. The public finances had to be right-sized—the country was heading towards bankruptcy. They are happy to disown their record and criticise everybody who followed, but perhaps it would be slightly more honest if they prefaced their arguments with an acknowledgement of that.
My hon. Friend knows of what he speaks. The Mayor of London’s record on housing is, of course, execrable. It is totally mystifying that at a time when London’s population and housing need is the highest it has ever been, the Government have simultaneously reduced the housing target for London and massively ramped up the target in outer London, where most of the green belt is. That tells us everything we need to know about their intentions, both for housing and for the green belt.<span id="1264" class="column-number" data-column-number="1264"></span> To the Opposition, two answers seem too obvious to miss, yet the Government wilfully ignore this part of the puzzle. The first answer is efficiency of stock management. Many councils and housing associations are well-run and proactive organisations, but too many remain plagued by poor stock utilisation, improper management and under-occupation. A proper understanding of national stock will go some way towards creating a fairer and more efficient system, in contrast to the failures we witness now. For example, up-to-date figures from the English housing survey suggest that around 186,000 social housing households have incomes above £50,000, while approximately 389,000 households are under-occupying social housing. That is clearly an inefficiency worth fixing, and it is not beyond the realms of possibility for many suppliers and managers to fix it, yet that does not feature in the Bill. Again, the Government look at the breadth of the issue and give a narrow and ideological legislative response. The second answer is this. Too many struggling families are understandably frustrated to find foreign nationals in homes paid for by the British taxpayer. To be clear, we are not talking about just anyone—after all, until recently, British taxpayers were funding the First Lady of Sierra Leone’s central London pad, which was a British social housing flat. There are other egregious cases—more precisely, another 127,000 cases. Official figures show that 72% of those who identify as Somali in England and Wales live in social housing.
No, I am not.
No. If the hon. Lady will listen to the remainder of my speech, she will hear what I have to say. It is understandable that as more and more people watch more and more of their salary slip away from their pockets and into the hands of the taxman, they begin to ask why they bother, and to question the fairness of the system. If the Government are not going to build enough social homes, they could follow our example, as laid out in our alternative King’s Speech: end all new social housing tenancies for all foreign nationals, as well as current tenancies for couples in which neither person is a UK, Irish or EU citizen, and free up those homes for British families. To be clear about the scale of what we are talking about, this would add 228,144 homes to the social housing sector—more homes than the Government built in the whole of 2024-25. Finally, I turn to the problems around shared ownership that could be fixed—an issue raised by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake), who is no longer in her place. My noble Friends in the <span id="1265" class="column-number" data-column-number="1265"></span>other place worked hard and successfully to bring this issue to the attention of the Government and see it added to the Bill. For far too long, and for far too many people, what should have been their first and proudest step on to the housing ladder instead became a logistical, legal and financial nightmare. I am proud of the Opposition’s work in the House of Lords to force the Government to finally realise that this has become a national issue, and to obtain a welcome commitment from the Government to reviewing shared ownership practices. I call on the Minister to reiterate that promise, and not to seek to remove any such commitment or obligation from the Bill in Committee. It is clear that this Bill fails the British people. By effectively destroying the right to buy, it does nothing to increase available social housing stock. It merely keeps people trapped in the system and not in control of their own life. It fails to provide more homes, to support aspirations of home ownership or to free up existing stock. Most crucially, it undermines the very essence of what makes for a successful and viable housing system. In such a system, people are supported to get into housing when they need it, and to own housing when they aspire to do so. This Bill, this Government and the Secretary of State—who is absent for reasons I think we all probably understand—not only fail but refuse to create such a system. That is why the Opposition tabled our reasoned amendment. We believe that the Bill is so lacking in ambition, so ideological in its motivation and so punitive in its measures that it should not proceed beyond this stage, or get anywhere near the statute book. I say that with great sorrow for the helpless victims of domestic abuse and violence, who deserve everything that the Bill promises on those issues. It is a shame that the Government have wedded such necessary support to such punitory legislation. I hope that the Secretary of State will reassure the House that if the Bill makes it to Committee and beyond, it will be amended to make it fit for purpose for those in need of housing, in need of escape from abuse, and in need of shelter.
That is total rubbish!
The Duke of Wellington was British.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Dr Huq. As the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed)—I call him my hon. Friend—pointed out, I have a particular interest in this subject. It is a number of years since I held a licence to practise, but the debate has taken me back to clinical days. Even worse, it took me back to vivas for Royal College examinations—I am still a member and am proud to support that community. I start by thanking the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate. I congratulate him and the APPG on vascular and venous disease on their work. As has been noted, vascular disease perhaps does not attract quite the same attention as cancer or heart disease. However, that does not make it any less serious. The consequences for patients can be extreme. We have heard about pain, loss of mobility, prolonged hospital stays and, in the worst cases, amputation. What makes this particularly frustrating is that a great deal of this harm is avoidable. The problems identified by the APPG are not especially complicated. <span id="423WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="423WH"></span>There are delayed diagnosis and treatment, inconsistent referral pathways, variable access to specialist care and fragmented services. The result is that patients who might have retained their limb and their independence do not always do so. The APPG’s report therefore makes five fairly practical recommendations: the national foot attack pathway, with same-day or next-day triage; community-based foot protection services in every integrated care system; maximum waiting times for vascular assessment and revascularisation, with national reporting; commissioning that rewards outcomes rather than simply activity; and faster adoption of proven innovation. None of those propositions strikes me as particularly revolutionary. Indeed, much of the thinking behind them is not new. The “Getting it right first time” programme established under the previous Conservative Government produced a vascular surgery report in 2018, which recommended a hub-and-spoke model to improve early diagnosis, specialist decision making and timely intervention. The NHS long-term plan subsequently committed to universal access to multidisciplinary foot care teams. In 2022, NHS England introduced a two-year commissioning for quality and innovation scheme intended to encourage timely revascularisation for patients with chronic limb-threatening ischaemia. The Government have said that they welcome the APPG’s report. They have said that the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England have engaged with stakeholders, and that recommendations will be considered as part of the cardiovascular disease modern service framework. That sounds encouraging, but there is a rather obvious difficulty: although it is welcome that the modern service framework, which was published in July, contains considerable material on cardiovascular disease, it contains no specific reference to vascular or venous disease. If the Government accept that vascular disease is an important part of the cardiovascular picture, why does their new modern service framework not specifically address it? If the answer is that the framework is intended to cover vascular disease through its wider approach to cardiovascular risk, that poses a second question: where precisely are the specific standards against which vascular services are to be judged? The APPG has given the Government some specific proposals, and it would be helpful if the Minister could tell us which of the five recommendations the Government accept and, perhaps more importantly, which they reject. The question then is who will deliver the services? The Government have embarked on a major reorganisation of the NHS, including the abolition of NHS England, and a substantial reduction in the size and cost of integrated care boards, with the Government saying that ICB budgets are to be reduced by 50%. How does the Minister expect ICBs to deliver these additional responsibilities at precisely the point when their budgets and staffing levels are being substantially reduced? Has his Department assessed the effect of those reductions on the commissioning of vascular care and foot protection services? I am far from opposed to reducing bureaucracy in the health service, but the test of any NHS reform has to come down to patient outcomes.<span id="424WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="424WH"></span> I hope the Minister will also address the question of clinical leadership in this area. Currently, although there are clinicians with huge experience and expertise in the field, including vascular clinical leads for GIRFT, there is no national clinical director specifically responsible for vascular and venous disease. The Government have previously said that national clinical directors play an important role in policy development and implementation, which is right, but we know that the future role and responsibilities of national clinical directors are being reconsidered as part of NHS reorganisation. Could the Minister set out the Government’s position on future clinical leadership for vascular and venous disease after NHS England has been abolished? Will a clearly identified senior clinical voice continue to be responsible for that important area, and if not, who will have responsibility for ensuring that the specific recommendations on vascular care are implemented? It is helpful that the national vascular registry already collects data on major vascular procedures, including bypass surgery and major lower-limb amputations, and there has been some improvement in the proportion of vascular providers meeting the relevant CQUIN framework, but we need to be careful not to confuse the mere collection of data with improvements in care. Will the Government therefore introduce national maximum waiting times for vascular assessment and revascularisation? If they do not propose to do so, why not, and if they do, when will it take place? Returning to the national foot attack pathway proposal, the principle behind it seems difficult to argue with. Where a patient presents with a potentially serious foot problem, particularly in the context of diabetes or vascular disease, as we have heard, they should have a clear route to an appropriate specialist assessment. Will the Government commit to establishing such a pathway nationally? Will the Minister ensure that data on performance against that is published? The same principle applies to innovation. The NHS has no shortage of good ideas, but it has traditionally lacked a reliable mechanism for taking an idea that works in one hospital and making it available elsewhere. Therefore, the APPG’s recommendation to make greater use of mechanisms such as the NHS innovator passport is sensible. However, what happens at the other end? If a technology is demonstrated to be clinically effective and cost-effective, does an NHS organisation have an obligation to consider adopting it? How will the Government prevent another postcode lottery, where an effective treatment is available to patients in one part of the country but not in another? In this debate, there is not much disagreement on the broad objectives: we all want to see earlier diagnosis, faster treatment and fewer amputations, as well as better use of NHS resources. Any disagreement is about whether the Government have set out a sufficiently specific plan for achieving those objectives. It is easy to welcome a report or publish a framework; it is much harder to deliver it. The Government have a genuine opportunity to take the practical recommendations of the APPG and turn them into measurable outcomes. That is the test: will they do that, or will they just allow vascular services and vascular disease to remain a subsidiary issue within the much broader context of cardiovascular disease and hope that local services are simply able to deal with it?<span id="425WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="425WH"></span>
Last weekend, I visited Cornerways in my constituency, which provides supported living for vulnerable adults. The Friends of Cornerways have spent the last year clearing the garden so that it is now a workable space for residents. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating them and other community groups that do so much for our local areas, and will he grant Government time to debate the importance of community projects for societal good?
I applaud the hon. Gentleman for raising this topic. Although he and I are in different parties, we have long been on the same page about how important it is to have male role models and about the role of men and boys. Under the previous leadership, we were making progress, with a men and boys summit due to take place this summer. Unfortunately, it did not happen, but I am keen to see the Government bring it forward again. I hope he shares my ambition for it to happen, because <span id="435WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="435WH"></span>for all the reasons he has talked about, it is imperative that the new leadership—the new Administration—keep grasping the nettle and take this forward. Does he agree?
This House will know that I continue to push for the issues affecting men and boys to be addressed, and we were making progress—the last Prime Minister committed to a men and boys summit. Sadly, there has been a reshuffle and that summit has not yet happened. I have written to the Ministry of Justice and the Cabinet Office, but have not heard anything back. Will the Leader of the House use his good offices to raise with No. 10 whether the summit will go ahead and if not, push it forward so that we can discuss the issues facing men and boys in this country?
It is good to hear that the Government plan to replenish the dwindling stocks of Patriot missiles in Ukraine, which I suspect it will need this winter. However, Patriot is low volume and high cost. What the Ukrainians need is high volume and low cost. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the Fire Point consortium’s Freya missile system, which stands every chance of providing the solution to that conundrum not just for Ukraine, but for the UK and its allies in NATO as we try to face down the threat from Russia?
Order. There is an immediate four-minute time limit for Back-Bench contributions.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Order.
I will introduce a three-minute time limit after the next speaker.<span id="1279" class="column-number" data-column-number="1279"></span>
Order. There is now a two-minute time limit.
That brings us to the Front-Bench contributions. I call the shadow Minister.
Order. Before I put the question, I need to inform the House that in the event of a Division—I pass no comment on whether there will be one—some of the pass readers in both Lobbies are currently not in operation. I ask all Members to follow the directions of Doorkeepers and Division Clerks and use the working pass readers, which <span id="1302" class="column-number" data-column-number="1302"></span>have notices on them. The Parliamentary Digital Service are working hard to restore the remaining pass readers for any Divisions tomorrow. <em>Question put,</em> That the amendment be made.
I thank the hon. Member for her point of order and indeed for giving notice of it. Did she raise the matter with the Leader of the House prior to making the point of order?
She did. As she will know, the content of ministerial answers to questions and contributions on the Floor of the House is not a matter for the Chair, but those on the Government Front Bench will have noted her remarks. If any correction to the record is necessary because of an inadvertent error, I am sure it will be forthcoming.
This is clearly a very unfortunate incident, and full transparency is essential. Does the Minister have a view on what the overall cost of the incident was to the UK economy? If the Government do not have that figure at the moment, will he update the House on that separately? What plans do the Government have, working with industry, to compensate affected passengers? There will have been all manner of costs borne by those who were unable to fly, and I am sure that collectively, they run into millions of pounds.
Bromsgrove continues to grind to a halt because of Worcestershire county council’s disastrous delivery of a local transport scheme, BREP—the Bromsgrove route enhancement programme. The scheme is backed by tens of millions of pounds of central Government funding. I recently wrote to the Transport Secretary with 34 questions that my constituents want answers to, and I received a reply that, frankly, did not answer a single one. I have resubmitted a letter to the Transport Secretary imploring her to answer questions. I am sure that I am often an irritant to the Government—whether through my campaign to protect Bromsgrove’s green belt or on this matter—but I <span id="1218" class="column-number" data-column-number="1218"></span>make a plea to the Leader of the House: will he press the Transport Secretary to support me in seeking answers in the interests of my constituents?
Many of my constituents work at Heathrow airport. They have had to work extra hours, as the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) mentioned, and they have suffered abuse, too. I put on record my appreciation for all that they have done. Even more of my constituents use Heathrow for business travel and social travel. Some will have insurance, but others will not. What advice is the Department giving to those people who have been affected on claiming compensation and alternative opportunities for travel? Has he set up a hotline, for example, whereby people can phone in and get advice immediately?
Since the changes, we have been inundated with requests from Select Committees to have statements in the House, which I welcome. Next Tuesday, before the two debates that have been scheduled, there will be Select Committee statements on the Treasury and Public Accounts Committee reports. I know that the Leader of the House will share my concern about the debate on Baby Loss Awareness Week being scheduled for the first day back after recess, following what happened last year, when the number of Government statements meant that the debate took place late at night and it was difficult for many Members to contribute. We thought long and hard before allocating the debate and approaching the sponsors, who were insistent that they wanted the debate on the first day back. I hope that the Leader of the House will again provide protected time and prevail on his colleagues not to have too many Government statements, so that we can have a reasonable debate on the subject. In addition, there are potentially another five Select Committee statements to come forward in the next few weeks, which I once again welcome. If we are offered 22 October, we have potential debates ready to go. In Westminster Hall, on Tuesday there will be a debate on building safety remediation of residential buildings. On Tuesday 13 October there will be a debate on the future of the UK coach industry. On Thursday 15 October there will be a Select Committee statement from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, followed by debates on support for unpaid carers and on the progress towards a smokefree UK. On Tuesday 20 October there will be a debate on manufacturing skills. On Thursday 22 October there will be a debate on compensation for Equitable Life policyholders.<span id="1208" class="column-number" data-column-number="1208"></span> I am sure that the whole House will recognise the importance of hospital radio across the country. It gives great comfort to patients, through the music, the discussions and the news, particularly when people are suffering in hospital. I am pleased to say that Radio Brockley, which operates at the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital in my constituency, will be celebrating its 60th anniversary next month, before we come back from recess. It is the longest-running hospital radio station in London. Indeed, we have volunteers who have served for more than 40 years, giving their service to that hospital. I am sure that the Leader of the House will join me in congratulating Radio Brockley on this wonderful anniversary. Perhaps we could have a statement in Government time on the importance of hospital radio in the health service and the benefits it brings to patients and staff.
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and welcome him to his place. I also welcome the ongoing commitment to defend Ukraine. In his statement, he reaffirmed the UK’s commitment to providing more than 120,000 drones to Ukraine this year, which I very much welcome. He also mentioned the recent plot to sabotage a UK drone factory. What action is being taken to ensure that UK manufacturing facilities are safe and secure, and if any action is required, who is funding that?
I welcome the Defence Secretary to his place. Romanian, Polish and Latvian airspace have all been violated by the Putin regime in the last year, and Russian drones are regularly shot down over NATO territory, yet the threshold for a NATO response is far too high. That only encourages Russia’s recklessness and probing of us, and it means that the risk of miscalculation by Russia, or of an attack on us, becomes much higher. Will the Defence Secretary commit to working with us to increase the number of article 4 referrals put forward, so that we crack down on this? If we do not pay any attention to those violations or dismiss them, we only increase the risk and the consequences to us, and we do not deter future threats.
I welcome the Minister to his post. I very much look forward to him updating the House on his negotiating mandate and his conversations with the European trade commissioner. Earlier this summer, the Prime Minister said that it would be wrong to rerun divisive arguments about rejoining the EU, but, soon after, the Minister refused to rule out rejoin being an option in the next Labour manifesto. Will he tell the House: will Labour rule out rejoin featuring in its next manifesto? <em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em>