John Slinger MP: speeches

I warmly welcome the Secretary of State to her place. She rightly said that the NHS is its staff, so I pay tribute to the NHS staff in my constituency. Obviously, there are the doctors and nurses, but there are some people who do not always get mentioned, such as the allied health professionals, the caterers, the cleaners, the administrators, the managers and, may I say, the porters, since I was one in my 20s. They all do a fantastic job, and we owe them a debt of gratitude. I use those services in my constituency, and they are improving thanks to the work of this Government since July 2024. However, there is obviously much further to go, particularly in urgent care services. In my constituency of Rugby, like in many towns, there are urgent treatment centres that do a very good job, and I am very grateful to the Government for their investment in those. May I make a plea for some of the £450 million that the Secretary of State mentioned in her statement? Will she take a look at the urgent care centre in Rugby, where my constituents feel that more could be provided? I fully agree with them, so I hope that she can at least take a look at that.

I am a strong supporter of the right of the state of Israel to exist in security and prosperity and of the state of Palestine to exist in security and prosperity. Does my right hon. Friend agree that to achieve that, it is essential that the very welcome measures he has outlined take place at pace? We can demonstrate that the state of Israel, under the current Israeli Government, does not get to determine the destiny of the west bank and, for that matter, Gaza.

I welcome the First Secretary of State to her place and support her determination to rewire the state. In her statement, she spoke about an underpowered centre of Government and how Ministers often lack agency. In my view, Members of this House—MPs—also often lack agency and are underpowered. In the light of the welcome devolution of greater powers to unitary authorities and metro mayors, does she agree that it is important that we discuss and debate, in this place and elsewhere, the role of MPs? In fact, I have applied for debates on the subject. As we look to rewire the state, we need to enhance the status, powers and authority of Members of this place.

I welcome the Prime Minister’s plans for the biggest redistribution of power that this country has ever seen. Does he agree that in addition to redistributing power via geography, we need to rebalance power between the generations? Will he have a look at my ideas of a youth triple lock and a dedicated Minister for younger and future generations?

Our energy, defence and railway sectors depend on steel. Does my hon. Friend agree that steel made by British workers, in Britain, and owned by the British people, is not only in our infrastructure interest but in our national interest?

I thank the Secretary of State and his officials for all their hard work. I lobbied hard for a single unitary in Warwickshire, and I know that is not the decision that he has been made. There is pretty much near unanimity among politicians and officials at Rugby borough council and Warwickshire county council. Will the Secretary of State ensure that he looks at the disparities around tax income in the north of the county versus the amount of expenditure on services? Will he also ensure that towns and parish councils get a proper role, and that the role of MPs is protected, because it sometimes feels as though our role is diminished in this new ecosystem of government?

I send my deepest sympathies and condolences to the friends and family of Ann Widdecombe, and I extend that to her former colleagues from the Conservative party and Reform UK, for whom I know this must be a very difficult and sad time. Mr Speaker, you chose the security of MPs, candidates and elections to be the subject of the Speaker’s Conference this Parliament. We have done good work in the Speaker’s Conference, but there is much more to be done, as I am sure we can all agree. Will the Home Secretary confirm that she will work closely with you, Mr Speaker, the parliamentary security department and all others who care about protecting our democracy from the threats that sadly are growing?

To add to the list of my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor), people who support a single unitary for Warwickshire include me as the MP for Rugby and the political parties at Rugby borough council and at Warwickshire county council. As the Minister considers her statement on Wednesday, could she give a little bit more thought to two important stakeholder groups in the new local government reorganisation world? One group is MPs—what role are we going to have when so much more power and responsibility is devolved? The other group is towns; we need to make sure that they have as much representation as possible. I know she has considered those things, and I would love to hear a little more about it.

Does the Minister agree that the defence growth deal is a chance for Northern Ireland businesses to access the wider UK defence supply chain? What efforts is he making to achieve that?

1. What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the domestic supply chain for manufacturing in Northern Ireland.

I welcome the report and I put on record my respect for the senior leadership of Warwickshire police, with whom I have engaged. In the spirit of the comments by the Father of the House, I will say that the Conservative police and crime commissioner is a good man, with whom I have a good relationship regarding policing. Every senior police officer—indeed, every officer of any rank—that I have dealt with wants to be scrutinised and to work to the very highest of standards. Does the Minister agree that, since they want to serve the public in the best way possible, no police officer of any rank should fear the leadership improvements that are set out in the report?

When I visited NDT Equipment Ltd in my constituency, the director Dan Lenton showed me the ultrasonic test calibration blocks and reference pieces that it uses and supplies to manufacturers in a wide range of sectors in the UK and abroad. This steel is not manufactured in the UK; it is imported and is high grade. I know Ministers are being flexible and talking to hon. Members. Will the Minister please consider the grade of steel that the company uses, which I believe is EN3B, and exempt it from the tariffs?

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) for the assiduous work that she has done with her Select Committee. It is inspiring when we, as Back Benchers, can have genuine influence by bringing the concerns of our constituents to this House of Commons and directly into the minds of Ministers, and when improvements result from that. I can recall my hon. Friend the Housing Minister using his mobile phone to instruct officials from a debate—because he was hearing so many complaints from hon. Members—to call in the CEO of FirstPort. I want to touch on a couple of examples from my constituency. One constituent, a customer of FirstPort, had their service charge increase from £980 in 2023 to £3,800 in 2026, causing them financial hardship because they had to take out a loan in order to pay the bill. Now they say that their property is unsellable. There was a clear lack of transparency, with repeated requests for service charge accounts allegedly being ignored. Another constituent reported significant concerns about FirstPort property management, highlighting that service charges increased from around £1,000 in 2021 to £3,400 in 2026 for broadly unchanged services. They, again, allege lack of transparency and more. Residents ultimately exercised their right to manage and appointed a new managing agent, which estimates comparable services at around £1,600 per year, suggesting that FirstPort’s charges were unduly high. I pay tribute to the work of Labour for Leaseholders, and particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) and for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky). We held a mini-inquiry and gave evidence to that inquiry. I think it was clear to all hon. Members that there is a captive market and that private companies and others are exploiting people; it may be within the law, but we have seen the behaviour of these companies and we are calling it out. One has to ask why and whose interests are being served—I will simply leave that question there. In my remaining time, I want to move on to something that started as a negative and ended up as more of a positive. Residents of Eastfield House, a block of flats in Houlton in my constituency managed by Clarion Housing, repeatedly contacted me about problems. I went out to see them. I saw one of the flats, and the various problems with maintenance and lack of transparency—frankly, it was the usual story. It was deeply concerning: I saw the anguish, the stress and the upset of these people, who are having their dignity disrespected and damaged. I contacted Clarion, which generously attended a meeting that I held with residents a few weeks later, and is taking action. The company has already given a payment to those residents, and it has a single point of contact and an action plan. It is doing what it can to improve the situation. I pay tribute to Clarion; it has shown that things can improve. The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 was a very good start, and I know that the Government are consulting further. This Government are intervening in failing markets, because if we do not do so, the participants in the market will continue to do the bare minimum or, worse, to exploit people.

I entirely agree. As I was saying, the market is failing, and many of the participants in the market will continue to do the bare minimum or, at worst, exploit people. As we have heard from hon. Members, some of those companies and individuals will continue to push the limits of decency, and possibly legality, because there is no accountability. Let us make it as hard as we can for them. Let us protect and empower the people who really count: the leaseholders. In my remaining seconds, I ask the Minister to touch on the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) about the need to look at the right-to-manage process. I suggest that the threshold should be reduced to 30% or that a deemed consent process should be brought in so that our residents can take control of poor estate management. We owe it to them; they deserve dignity in the housing that they have purchased.

Building on the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley), what more can we in this House and this Government, and other Governments around the world, do to make it clear to those many Israelis who are appalled by the behaviour of this Israeli Government that a two-state solution and a viable Palestinian state are very clearly in their interests, and furthermore that we will do everything in our power to ensure that that state becomes a reality and is safe and secure, just as we want Israel to be safe and secure?

Last week I attended the Warwickshire employer and stakeholder conference, where we heard from students, alumni and businesses who are providing time to young people so that they can gain the skills they need—it was very inspiring and moving. Does my right hon. Friend agree that more needs to be done to encourage businesses to provide even more hours? Warwickshire College has said that this is a real challenge.

I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) for his moving and powerful speech and for all the work he does with the APPG. I also want to put on the record my respect for my right hon. Friend the Minister and thank him for his and the Government’s efforts, which I think have been acknowledged across the House. I have been contacted by a constituent of mine whose identity I am going to keep anonymous, and Members will therefore hear me using the pronoun “they” quite a lot. The crux of the issue is that after an operation in 1977, my constituent contracted hepatitis C. They are struggling to locate medical records, which is making it difficult to engage with the Skipton Fund or the English infected blood support scheme. The point about evidence has been made by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss). The concern here is that the records have been lost or destroyed, and there have been significant consequences for my constituent. They registered with the infected blood compensation scheme last October, but have not had any correspondence from the scheme. My constituent believes that they received contaminated blood during an operation at the Hospital of St Cross in Rugby in 1977 and was infected with hepatitis C. The hospital appears to have lost its notes of the operation, and both the Hospital of St Cross in Rugby and University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire have stated that any records of this operation have been destroyed. I want to put it on the record that I am not casting any aspersions whatsoever on the current staff of either hospital or the trust. My constituent tried to claim from the Skipton Fund in the early 2000s, but was turned down for lack of evidence because of the need for hospital records. They then applied to the England infected blood support scheme, but this request for compensation was also declined due to lack of evidence. They have since tried to appeal this decision, but this appeal was, of course, rejected because of the requirement to present new evidence. My constituent is concerned that they may not be registered with the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to receive compensation through the authority. I have written to the Department of Health and Social Care about this case, and I would like to know the status of any intervention. I think it is worth the Department checking whether there is evidence that any other people who were treated by the Hospital of St Cross in my constituency in or around October 1977 were infected in the way that my constituent appears to have been. I am also keen to know what happened to my constituent’s records—how and why they were lost or destroyed. Given that my constituent registered with the infected blood compensation scheme last October, I want to ensure that they receive the compensation they are owed. Could the Minister assure me that this case will be investigated and that my constituent will be updated on its progress, and that they will receive any compensation that they are owed? I will of course provide the Minister with details of this specific case. Finally, I want to make a broader point that has been made by many other hon. Members across the House today. The duty of candour, which I am glad our Government are committed to bringing in through the Hillsborough law, cannot come into effect soon enough. Hopefully it will deter future examples of such egregious state failure as well as deterring such behaviour in the private sector, which the duty of candour will have some relevance to in certain circumstances.

I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement, which is very interesting and important. I briefly draw her attention to the agreement between Rugby borough council and Frasers Group, which is setting up its global HQ in my constituency. Under the agreement, Frasers Group is providing £10 million for a much-needed training and innovation hub in Rugby town centre. Does she agree that encouraging businesses, such as Frasers Group and many others, to invest in towns and not just cities is vital? We need to remind our Government that cities are wonderful and attract lots of investment, but they have a lot going for them already, and we need to do more for our towns. What she said in her statement gives me some hope in that regard.

The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) mentioned reports that BBC Radio 4’s “The World Tonight” programme may be cut. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that in the age of fast news, disinformation and misinformation, we need more programmes such as “The World Tonight”, not fewer, and that we need more contemplative journalism so that our voters can understand politics and the world around them more effectively? Does she agree with me that the BBC perhaps ought to look at the vast salaries they pay their stars, both in entertainment and in news, in order to retain programmes such as “The World Tonight”, which will be much missed if it goes?

My thoughts are with the victims of the despicable grooming gangs. Does my hon. Friend agree that, despite the numerous actions that this Government have taken to protect women and girls, hon. Members sometimes use language, both inside and outside the House, that allows the spread online of tropes about my party and hon. Members on this side that—I speak from personal experience here—have real-world implications? Those online tropes affect the behaviour of people in the real world. Does she agree that it is incumbent on right hon. and hon. Members, both inside and outside the House, to use temperate language? Opposition is needed and expected, but politicising such an important issue can create real risks for hon. Members and others in the real world.

I am sure that I speak for all right hon. and hon. Members when I say that it is a privilege to serve our constituents in this place. We have a multifaceted role. There are many things that Back- Bench MPs can do in this place—some are welcome, and some are perhaps not so welcome. Sometimes Back Benchers even get above their station, such is the allure of high office. Can the Leader of the House find Government time for us to debate the role of Members of Parliament? As we know, there is no job description, no employer—save for our constituents—and perhaps not even a Government Department that could answer. But I think it is important that we debate and suggest ideas—in addition to those that we can send to the Modernisation Committee, as I have done repeatedly—about how we can improve the role of MPs. It is much misunderstood, and some might say under-resourced, and we can probably do better.

My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling) got there first in mentioning the disgraceful cuts by Reform-led Warwickshire county council. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) agree that it is also rather disgraceful that no Reform UK Members of Parliament are here for this debate? They often talk about the importance of our high streets, so where are they?

I am very glad that my hon. Friend has brought this debate to us. The petition to which he refers was in memory of the son of my constituent; his name was Stephen Realf, and sadly he died in 2014. The petition calls for increased funding to reach parity with the funding for leukaemia and breast cancer. Stephen’s father Peter is in the Chamber today. Would my hon. Friend care to comment on the importance of the work done by Stephen Realf’s sister Maria back then in raising the profile of this vital issue?

I welcome my right hon. and gallant Friend to his place and his new position. Given that nearly three times as many Conservative Members were in the Chamber for the urgent question on the defence investment plan as are here for this statement, does he agree that while we are all tempted on occasion to politicise issues, we in this House are better when we speak with one voice, particularly on matters of national security?

The hon. Lady is making a compelling speech, much of which resonates with me as the MP for Rugby. I am dealing with constituents and councillors who are concerned about the speed limit on the A426 into Rugby from junction 1 of the M6, which is currently 60 mph. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government’s new edition of the best practice guidance on setting local speed limits, plans for which were set out in the road safety strategy, cannot come too quickly? We need to ensure that residents and their elected representatives are empowered, but all too often the process seems almost resistant to those voices. As she rightly says, all too often we need the evidence of injury and risk to come first, and that is often too late.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that what we need to help the Palestinian Authority is the opposite of the approach that she has rightly outlined for British companies, individuals, organisations and charities regarding the illegal west bank settlements? By that I mean that we need companies, individuals and others to be encouraged, and indeed empowered, to help the Palestinian Authority with rebuilding, economic development, governance and more. As she has said, that would “reinforce the unity of the west bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem as inseparable pillars of the state of Palestine” which would be in support of the global alliance to implement a two-state solution, which I hope she can reiterate that we support.

I am an active, team-oriented and—some might even say—loyal member of the Labour crew, so I was very glad recently to visit the local McDonald’s at JunctionOne retail park and to be reminded of my time as a McDonald’s crew member at a drive-through in Gloucester. It was good to meet the franchisee and staff, and to see the hard work, high standards, and great training and career opportunities there are at that McDonald’s and others elsewhere. I also heard about the McDonald’s work experience programme, which gives young people much-needed opportunities, including work experience, help with writing CVs and interview techniques and so on. I believe that this Government have taken their responsibility very seriously, with initiatives such as the youth jobs grant, the jobs guarantee and more, but McDonald’s and many companies like it are also taking their responsibility seriously. May we have a debate in Government time to champion the work of businesses that are taking seriously their responsibility to help our young people get into work?

12. What steps she is taking to help tackle waste crime.

I welcome the new powers for councils to seize vehicles involved in fly-tipping and the Government’s action to further tackle waste criminals, including guidance on covert surveillance, CCTV and drones—something on which I have campaigned on behalf of my constituents in Rugby. There have been several incidences of illegal waste sites and fly-tipping in and around Rugby, and I commend the Environment Agency for clearing it up, but can the Minister confirm how the powers will be used, how councils will be supported and, if they do not enforce action against waste criminals, how they will be helped to do so?

Given that the urgent question is about Russian attacks on civilian infrastructure, I want to bring the voice of a Ukrainian who messaged me earlier today to the Chamber: “Today Ukraine marks the Day of Remembrance for the Children killed as a result of Russia’s aggression. And this is not history—even this week, there are new deaths, new wounded children, new families destroyed. My Instagram and Facebook feeds are full of these stories: children injured on the way to shelters, mothers and grandmothers killed, little ones left bleeding while people wait for the attack to end before help can reach them. This is what Russia’s attacks on civilian infrastructure mean for Ukrainians—not numbers, but children’s lives being stolen.” I ask the Minister and other hon. Members to reflect on that.

I associate myself with the words of the Minister in strongly condemning the Iranian attack on Kuwait airport and the continuing attacks by Hezbollah on Israeli civilians. It has been disturbing over recent weeks and days to see the IDF appearing to engage in a mission to seize land that does not belong to them, exemplified by the hoisting of the Israeli flag over Beaufort Castle, presumably as a symbol of conquest. Will my hon. Friend join me in condemning that act and in reiterating once again that international law applies to Hezbollah and to the Government of Israel?

Can the Minister assure me that we continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with our Ukrainian friends? Can he particularly reassure my Ukrainian constituents? One of them has written to me to say that “one of the biggest issues facing civilians in Ukraine is the constant uncertainty—not only physical safety, but the emotional pressure of living with disrupted homes, schools, work, healthcare and family life.” They are standing firm and I am sure that he can reassure me that we are standing firm by their side.

I do not know if colleagues noticed, but a lot of rhetoric and rumours have been flying around Westminster recently. MPs have been huddled in the Tea Room and the corridors, whispering feverishly—tensions are high. After all the anticipation and the angst, today was the day. Rumour became reality. Members will have guessed it: today it was announced that, for the start of 2026, we had the fastest GDP per capita growth in four years. In Q1, the UK’s growth was the fastest of six G7 nations for which we have data. Reports of the economy being in demise under the stewardship of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer have been greatly exaggerated, as have reports of the political demise of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Today’s good economic news matters for my constituents in Rugby. Economic growth matters for jobs and public services, for tackling the cost of living and much more. The Labour party is aptly named: labour, work. It is a party founded to represent working people in this House of Commons. We want people to work, and we are doing much to help people find work, to help people who face challenges of all kinds to get into work, to ensure that all have dignity when they are in work, to help them navigate a rapidly changing world of work and to ensure compassion and support for those who cannot work but who can still contribute and lead fulfilling lives. Because we are Labour we believe in an active state, not in the laissez-faire approach of the Conservatives or the money-from-who-knows-where approach of Reform UK. We believe in work. It is easy for people in here and for people outside to assume things about someone’s professional and work background. Even I have made that mistake. After reading the Reform UK leaflets that came through my door about the local elections, emblazoned with the face of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), I made the schoolboy error of thinking that, given his mythical status as a man of the people, his work background was varied, perhaps even working class. It turns out that this tribune of the people was a commodities trader in the City of London—nothing wrong with that. I would not want hon. Members to assume anything about my professional background. To misquote President Reagen in 1984, I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponents’ inexperience in blue collar jobs. My career has been varied. I did a paper round, I have been a gardener, I have done farmwork, I worked in a cinema, and I share with the Leader of the Opposition the fact that I worked in a McDonald’s restaurant for several years, although not the same one as her. I have been a waiter and a bartender, I was a hospital porter for two years, and I even worked here 20 years ago for Labour MPs. However, I have spent most of my career in the private sector in strategic communications consultancy. I say that because all jobs are important. All add value—public or private, blue or white collar, full time or part time. From our teenage years, they teach us that our labour is valuable and that we can benefit not only ourselves but the wider community. Members across the House will know that I have spoken many times about engaging young people and ensuring they have the best start in life. That has been a core tenet of my philosophy as an MP, and I am pleased to see it reflected in the King’s Speech, with policies that give young people more freedom, more opportunity and more hope, because building the foundations of a young life through work helps us strengthen the foundations of our country. In the Prime Minister’s much analysed speech on Monday, he described a vision to relentlessly pursue opportunities for our young people, promising a closer relationship with Europe, where young people can benefit from the Erasmus+ scheme and a new youth experience programme, which I strongly commend. He placed an even greater emphasis on young people: we will invest in apprenticeships, technical excellence colleges and a guaranteed offer of a job, training or work placement for every young person. Those measures will be brought forward in Bills announced in the King’s Speech. I welcome this Government’s laser focus on getting Britain working because, sadly, the latest official statistics make for depressing reading. They show that nearly 1 million 16 to 24-year-olds are not in education, employment or training. I want to see that figure come down, as I am sure all Members do. Not only does this situation rob young people of opportunity; it also risks condemning them to a life of inactivity, reliant on the state for their needs. That is unfair both to them and to the rest of the tax-paying population. The costs are borne by the individual, too. Analysis suggests that someone who is long-term unemployed loses around £1 million in lifetime earnings, which is absolutely shocking. Make no mistake, Madam Deputy Speaker: the scale of the problem is a direct consequence of 14 years of Tory rule. Under their watch, the number of 16 to 24-year-olds who are not in education, employment or training rose from 673,000 to 921,000. Shamefully, young people were written off, while the enormous benefits bill continued to grow. The Green party attracts those who are disillusioned with the status quo, but it offers no concrete pathways into work or training. I cannot see Reform offering anything substantial either, apart from Orwellian, un-British slogans about “remoralising” our youth. Young people do not need their morals recalibrated by that party or any other. Young people already have the initiative and the talent; they just need to be encouraged and helped. The Bills and measures announced in the King’s Speech will do just that and go beyond what this Government have already achieved to tackle the national scandal of young people being written off: the youth guarantee, backed by £820 million of new funding; hundreds of thousands of new training and work experience placements; and a new jobs guarantee that fully subsidises six months of paid employment for 18 to 21-year-olds who are long-term unemployed and on universal credit. Alan Milburn’s review seeks to dig deeper into this issue, and I have been in touch with him to contribute to the much-needed work he is conducting with the Secretary of State. I have previously spoken in Parliament about driving job creation for young people. I have visited Rugby College in my constituency and met with Intec Business Colleges, and I am campaigning for a youth hub that will offer employment advice and wellbeing support. I recently supported Jobcentre Plus and the DWP in organising a well-attended jobs fair in Rugby. I want to do all I can to help everyone right across my constituency into work. However, young people need more attention, resources and empowerment. They and their needs must be elevated in the decision-making process and the lawmaking process, as we govern more widely, and among other stakeholders in society. To co-ordinate that, I hope the Government will consider going further by appointing a youth commissioner, or even better, a dedicated Cabinet Minister for young people and the future generations. Such a role would scrutinise the work of Government, so that the benefits and trade-offs are assessed against the needs of young people and the future generations, ensuring that every decision takes their future into account. Their demographic is too often overlooked, but the legislation set out in the King’s Speech offers the Government an opportunity to give young people a genuine voice. Since January last year, I have been making the case for what I call a youth triple lock—a commitment to protecting and expanding the opportunities for young people in the same way that we protect pensioners. That idea is also supported by my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters). It could include free bus travel, increasing maintenance loans above inflation or a voucher scheme for constructive activities—answers on a postcard. Before I draw my remarks to a conclusion, I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne) for her moving words about her autism diagnosis. I am sure it is a difficult thing to speak publicly about. The Government should take this moment, and be bold in their approach. The Prime Minister set out on Monday that we can no longer continue with the status quo, or go back to the status quo ante, and that we must bring urgency to everything we do. I am glad we have a Chancellor, a Prime Minister, a Government and a parliamentary Labour party committed to ensuring that young people are empowered to become the architects and owners of the future, not merely tenants of one built by others. This is work in progress. This King’s Speech shows that Labour is the party of work, and we are making progress.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

rose—

I like the right hon. Gentleman a great deal and thank him for his kind words. The moment has somewhat passed, but he was implying that the Prime Minister is avoiding answering questions. [Interruption.] If Members will listen: this is the Prime Minister who came before the House last Monday and answered questions from right hon. and hon. Members for two and a half hours. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about transparency, but we are talking about a Prime Minister who led a Government who are releasing all the documents to this House and the public. He can talk all he likes about transparency and answering questions, but I have just demonstrated that both those things have been achieved already.

The Minister is quite right to point out that the clause is somewhat technical, but it speaks to the importance of we as a society and we as a Parliament—as legislators—making sure that, although we do not seek to professionalise the magistracy entirely, we give them the support that professionals would expect. If we want to attract people into the magistracy, this is exactly what we need to do. They certainly deserve an update to the system of expenses and more.

And in my hon. Friend’s constituency. It is time that more people heard about this—heard about what is going on nationally, regionally and locally. Creative arts bulletins would help to bring about the mind shift needed throughout society to normalise, celebrate and promote participation in the creative arts and help to embed them ever more deeply in our national consciousness. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That John Slinger, Adam Jogee, Jess Brown-Fuller, Cat Eccles, Bambos Charalambous, Peter Prinsley, Dr Simon Opher, Dr Beccy Cooper and Jonathan Davies present the Bill. John Slinger accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read t he First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 June, and to be printed (Bill 419). Pension Schemes Bill: Ways and Means (No. 2) Resolved, That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Pension Schemes Bill, it is expedient to authorise the making of provision in connection with— (a) the transfer by virtue of the Act of any property, rights or liabilities of the AWE pension scheme, or (b) the tax treatment of persons in relation to such a transfer, that scheme or any pension scheme established under provision made under the Act for persons who are or have been members of the AWE pension scheme.— ( Torsten Bell. ) Pension Schemes Bill: Programme (No. 2) Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)), That the following provisions shall apply to the Pension Schemes Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 7 July 2025 (Pension Schemes Bill: Programme): Consideration of Lords Amendments (1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement. (2) The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order: 1, 5, 6, 13, 15 to 24, 26, 27, 30 to 43, 77 to 79, 83, 85 to 88, 2 to 4, 7 to 12, 14, 25, 28, 29, 44 to 76, 80 to 82, 84 and 89. Subsequent stages (3) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put. (4) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.— ( Stephen Morgan. ) Question agreed to.

I am not going to do it now. It is lovely, but it is not the only part. To learn an instrument or create a painting takes massive amounts of hard work; to play in an orchestra or act in a play takes discipline, so the creative arts are about both soft and hard skills. We are told that in this age of artificial intelligence we need creative thinkers, as well as those with hard skills. Increasing the visibility of cultural news would stimulate interest among the public in becoming a spectator, a participant or both. It would inspire people, especially young people, to engage in the right kind of AI—actual involvement. It would broaden the reach of creative arts to new and more diverse audiences. It would help stimulate local high streets and local economies, and drive job creation, particularly in a sector where it is often too hard for artists to make a living, despite their talent and hard work. It would help the creative arts to strengthen community cohesion. How would this work in practice? My Bill would legislate for a central pool of news items that organisations can submit to, from which regional and national broadcasters could source their stories. Ofcom would have a duty to amend the broadcasting code, and all public service broadcasters and others deemed by the Secretary of State to have a significant audience would be required to include regular cultural news bulletins. As part of my campaign, I have launched an online petition to gather support from the creative world, the creative industries and the general public. Members should not just take my word for this: more than 250 organisations and individuals already back my idea. Creative arts bulletins featuring in all news broadcasts will elevate and normalise the creative arts, stimulate interest in schools, promote activities at both national and local levels, boost engagement and participation, and support town centre regeneration and economic growth. The Bill does not require Government spending. It does not subsidise the arts, although I obviously welcome more funding for the arts under this Labour Government. It does not displace or denigrate sport. It simply ensures that creative arts and culture are given the visibility that they so deserve in our national conversation. We have the best creative arts in the world and one of the most vibrant scenes at all levels of society, particularly in my constituency.

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the regular broadcast of news about creative arts and culture; to make provision about duties on the Secretary of State, Ofcom and certain broadcasters in relation to such broadcasts; and for connected purposes. First let me declare an interest: I am a classically trained violinist who learnt at Beauchamp Music Group and benefited from a brilliant musical provision at Newent community school. I am also a guitarist, keyboardist and singer-songwriter who played in rock bands including Eyes of Eden, Never Home Club, Ten Second Star and the New Loafers, but unless hon. Members were going to gigs in Gloucestershire in the late 1990s or they were listening to Radio 1 at one particular moment on one particular evening, they will not have heard of those bands. I want to ask Members of the House: when was the last time you heard or saw news dedicated to culture or our brilliant creative arts? Of course, we will all have seen dedicated coverage of a singular creative news story, but what about a bulletin that brings regular, updated coverage of cultural events that are happening both locally and nationally: art exhibitions, concerts, orchestras, dance classes, art groups and choirs? So many great events are happening that we just do not hear about, due in part to irregular and fragmented news coverage, yet we all know when the local football club down the road is relegated or—hopefully—promoted. People might instinctively think that sport has an enormous audience; of course it does, but millions of people attend theatres, galleries, concerts and cinemas every week as spectators. This is not a niche interest. It is a massive, underserved audience. Regular creative arts bulletins would serve that audience in the same way that sports bulletins serve sports fans. But there is another audience beyond the spectators: the participants, young and old, in all genres, at all levels, professional and amateur, elite and—perhaps most importantly—ordinary. Ordinary people participating in the creative arts are doing something extraordinary for themselves, their community and far beyond. A refrain heard all too often following the regular news programmes is, “And now for the sports and weather.” But what if we added one extra word? I hope that my Bill might lead to the following phrase: “And now for the sports, culture and weather.” It would be a small but important alteration to how we receive news and to the value that we place on cultural events. In practice, my Bill would instruct Ministers and responsible bodies such as Ofcom to engage with and ultimately, if necessary, require broadcasters who run regular news programmes to complement their sports news bulletins with a dedicated culture bulletin highlighting creative arts events and activities. By no means would this replace sports coverage or seek to replicate it, since of course sports have more competitions and leagues, and thereby generate a certain type of interest and news; it would simply level the playing field—excuse the pun—or, to put it another way, bring things into harmony, ensuring that everyone is playing in the same key. [ Laughter. ] I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) for laughing. I love sport. Indeed, I represent the constituency of Rugby—probably the only place in the world where a sport was both born in and named after a town. It is important that sports news is broadcast. It is an important part of people’s lives, and promotes healthy lifestyles and much more. Regular sports bulletins in broadcast news normalise sport as an important part of community life, but there is no objective reason why the same should not be done for the creative arts. I would argue that cultural news items are just as important a fixture in people’s lives. After all, who does not listen to music, watch films, or appreciate artwork or poetry? Cultural institutions, including theatres, cinemas, galleries and local venues, as well as institutions without physical venues, including numerous music groups, such as brass bands, artists’ groups and creative clubs in schools, colleges, universities and civil society, host newsworthy events every day, yet there is no consistent, recognisable broadcast space where audiences can receive up-to-date creative arts news. That represents a clear gap in current provision. Cultural events and the creative arts are a massive contributor to our economy. According the House of Commons Library, in 2024, the latest year available, the creative industries generated £145.8 billion in gross value added, accounting for 5.5% of total UK GVA. In comparison, the sports industry generated £20.6 billion, or 0.8% of total UK GVA. Exports in 2021 included £9.1 billion in goods and £45.6 billion in services. The economic contribution is undeniable, but the benefits of promoting cultural news items go far beyond the economic. Creative arts engagement improves physical and mental health, cognitive function, recovery and social connection. A report commissioned by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport found grade-A evidence that arts engagement reduces depression, improves early years development, enhances mood and life satisfaction, and supports older people’s cognitive and, importantly, physical health. Social prescribing schemes show a return of approximately £3 for every £1 invested. We often hear how sports participation improves discipline, teamwork and confidence—in essence, some important hard skills. People often have the misconception that the creative arts are all about soft skills or, as I like to put it, sitting around a campfire singing “Kumbaya”. I have done that—

The shadow Minister states that the reforms proposed by this Government are unprecedented. Actually, the reforms of the Callaghan Government removed jury trials for theft, burglary, actual bodily harm and certain drug offences in 1977, and the Thatcher Government did the same in 1988 for criminal damage. Those are quite substantial changes, so I object to what I believe is hyperbolic language that some Opposition Members have used not only in Committee today but more widely. It undermines public confidence in the judicial system.

Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that previous Governments of all political colours have changed the threshold for jury trials, including those of Jim Callaghan and Margaret Thatcher? It is not entirely accurate to say, in the way that he did, that it is the tearing up of centuries-old rights; Governments periodically look at the threshold for access to jury trial.

Q Professor Hohl, do you think the Bill will lead to a fairer system, particularly for women? Professor Hohl : This is an unanswerable question. What is fairness? [ Interruption. ] Well, it is an answerable question, but not a black and white one. We have heard this morning about a separation between the speediness of justice and the fairness of justice, as if they were two different things, when all the research shows that, for both defendants and victims, the time taken is part of justice. To artificially separate them does not work. The way we measure the fairness of the system is about due process, not about outcomes. We cannot measure fairness through conviction and acquittal rates. The way our system is set up is about due process. Due process is not taking place when the system is on its knees, so getting the system to function better, so that due process can take place, should lead to a fairer system—provided that the Bill functions as intended.

At the time of the Boston tea party, the American colonists demanded, “No taxation without representation.” Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should instil the principle that there should be no ability, in a game-changing way, to influence representation without taxation? Will he elaborate a little on the principles in his statement?

Q Thank you for coming today. My question is for Claire Davies. The open caseload is 80,000 and is projected by some potentially to rise to 200,000. In your evidence so far, you have not been able to identify a timeframe for the measures that you would prefer to be the focus at the moment. Do you think that victims would view that with concern, given that we have all agreed that justice delayed is justice denied? Claire Davies: Of course they are going to view it with concern—it is common sense that anyone would be concerned—but we need to have the opportunity, which we have not been given, to demonstrate that in fact it will not reach that high with the measures that we support. Efficiency in our system has long been lacking, despite repeated efforts, and this Government have shown that they will invest, and substantial investment is what is needed. We are not afraid of change—we make that absolutely clear. A lot more use could be made of technology in our courts; remote courtrooms could take the shorter hearings away from the trial courts so that they can concentrate on what they should be doing and have the full use of a court day to maximise that. It is a combination of features in the trial, but the matters that we have proposed—you heard this morning, as well, that we encourage the use of specialised courts—would have a dramatic impact. You have to remember that new sentencing provisions came into force on 22 March, and we believe that they will also have a dramatic impact on the current caseload. The ability to give suspended sentences for a longer period of up to three years will have an impact, as will efficiency measures and, most importantly, the investment that the Government have made in relation to uncapped sitting days. All of that, combined, will have a dramatic impact, to the point that losing, or curtailing, the right to jury trial—because we are not losing it completely. We make that clear and accept it. We say that it is not necessary to lose the legitimacy that juries bring to our court system. The judiciary have made great strides in their diversity, but they are still not representative of the communities they serve. The equalities statement makes clear the way that people elect those of different ethnic backgrounds. Given all of that combined, we would urge that clauses 1 to 7, which deal with repealing or restricting the right to a jury trial under certain circumstances, are not brought into force. There are many more ways in which action can be taken.

Q Sir Richard, you spoke of the importance of correcting the misconception that some have that we are scrapping, or doing away with, jury trials in the round, per se. Do you agree that another misconception or myth that needs to be challenged is that there is an ultimate right to a trial by jury? I ask you to comment on the House of Lords Library note citing Anthony Arlidge and Lord Judge writing about such myths: “It”—Magna Carta, that is— “did not immediately give us trial by jury, although when jury trial did evolve it came to be regarded as based on the Charter’s guarantee of trial by one’s peers. It did not offer sweeping statements about personal freedoms or human rights or fair trials and, in fact, for the most part did not establish general rights, but rather created or recognised privileges.” Therefore, as we debate this matter, we ought to bear those points in mind. Do you agree? Sir Richard Henriques: I agree with those observations without reservation. I think I speak for all of us present: given no backlog, we would not be here at all. We are concerned about this being shameful—a word I used in The Times , I think, in March 2020, and it was shameful then. On trial by jury, I have spent my whole professional life in the presence of juries, save in the very early days—

The hon. Gentleman keeps referring to “the back of the queue”, but my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not say “back of the queue”. She actually said, after her Mais lecture: “we want to make improvements. But is it front of the queue? No, it’s not.” May I just say— [ Laughter. ] Right hon. and hon. Members can chunter from a sedentary position, but Conservative Members have repeatedly said “back of the queue”. That is not what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that point?

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Will he give way?

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

I am grateful to hon. Members for giving me such support. The right hon. Lady makes the point that creative arts subjects are perhaps not providing young people with job prospects. Would she not concede that we need people with creative arts skills and experience in our society and economy? The sector contributes £124 billion to our economy. What we need is what this Government are doing: investing in the creative arts sector. We need people who are skilled and trained in that sector so that they can do those jobs. She is offering only a litany of woe.

Given the hon. Gentleman’s concern for the various categories of workers and businesspeople he has just set out, can he explain why his party, when in government, planned to oversee an increase in fuel duty and did not budget for the kind of freeze that he is now demanding, were it to have won?

I want to express my sorrow at the death and suffering of civilians, wherever that is happening in the region. I commend the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister for their calm and principled approach to this crisis, which is rooted in respect for international law. Could she expand on efforts that she, the Prime Minister and our allies are taking to de-escalate this conflict and to seek a diplomatic solution that will put the interests of those civilians front and foremost in our minds? We hear far too much about regimes and actors in this region; we need to hear more about the rights of civilians.

Given Iran’s reckless behaviour, it is of course right that the Prime Minister has made sure that our brave forces are protecting our allies and our people, and that UK bases are used for defensive operations. With regard to the strait of Hormuz and any further action that we may or may not take, can the Minister confirm that we will not get drawn into a wider conflict that we did not start?

The Prime Minister rightly called for the removal of peerages from disgraced peers. Will the Chief Secretary set out to the House when we might have an update on the proposed legislation in that regard?

An important component of the Government’s drive to reduce the number of NEETs is encouraging Jobcentre Plus to work innovatively in constituencies such as mine. Will the Secretary of State join me in commending its work in organising with me a jobs fair on 16 April from 10 am till 1 pm at the Indian community centre in Rugby? Of course, he or his Ministers would be very welcome to come and see that innovation in practice.

On my right hon. Friend’s point about working closely with local councils, will he join me in congratulating Rugby borough council on its work in running the superb Rugby Art Gallery and Museum? It is currently exhibiting its entire art collection as well as a history of Rugby in 50 objects, and is planning an exciting expansion in the coming years. I am sure its staff would be very grateful if my right hon. Friend might get on the West Coast Main Line and visit to see their excellent work and their plans to reach out even more effectively to our community in future.

My thoughts are with British citizens in the Gulf; as someone who has lived and worked in that region, I can only imagine how concerned they must be. Those on the Opposition Front Bench yesterday and today have used careless, aggressive and disrespectful language in this Chamber, and I imagine they are doing so in order to wrap themselves in the cloak of national security patriotism. Does my hon. Friend agree that this use of language actually undermines national security, because it suggests that this House is divided on such an important issue? I would like to pay tribute to his diplomats, our incredibly brave armed forces and other civil servants in this country who are dealing with this crisis. As they deal with it, they would benefit, I think, from a united House of Commons.

The Beatles did not quite sing about 1,000 holes in Rugby, Warwickshire, but we do have a problem with potholes—I do not know whether they still have a problem with potholes in Blackburn, Lancashire. I commend the staff of Warwickshire county council for filling 718 of the 1,127 potholes reported since the beginning of January, but there are still 409 holes remaining to be filled. My constituents are furious about the state of the roads in Rugby. The Government have put Warwickshire on the amber traffic light for potholes, despite this Labour Government putting in huge sums of money—£1.6 billion last year, with £25 million for Warwickshire. There is also £7.3 billion for local authorities in the Budget, and there was an additional £6 million for Warwickshire recently. Will the Leader of the House join me in urging Reform-led Warwickshire county council to get on with using the money provided by this Labour Government to fill those potholes, and might he grant Government time for a debate on whether local authorities always implement policies, and use money provided by Government, as this Government hope they will?

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we saw with the shadow Chancellor’s performance that the number of times a politician points their finger is often inversely proportionate to the number of valid points they make? The valid points that really matter to my constituents in Rugby and the surrounding villages are that there have been six interest rate cuts under my right hon. Friend’s chancellorship, inflation is coming down, we have the highest growth of European nations in the G7 and far too much more to mention.

I concur with my hon. Friend. I commend her and all involved in that event, and I certainly will check my diary—no doubt my head of office is looking at my calendar to see whether there is any space. That is a very important activity, and I hope it is replicated across the country. In Rugby, the main town in my constituency, I am sad to say that people came up to me after the Unite the Kingdom march to say that they felt not only uneasy, but scared. For the first time, they felt that they were being tutted at, and that people were saying things under their breath as they walked past in the street. They felt glared at. One woman, born and bred in Rugby, who has brown skin, told me as I campaigned that she did not want to go into town on a Saturday. That is absolutely disgraceful. As an MP, I see my role in part as being a convener. We have the power to bring people together. I campaigned on the theme of “Together we can”. I continue to believe in that and want to espouse it. Last year, I convened an interfaith forum, bringing together leaders of different religions and denominations to discuss how we can strengthen community bonds. I regularly visit churches, temples and other places of worship, as other hon. and right hon. Members do. They play a vital role in promoting tolerance and nurturing belonging. As an MP, I also have the honour of witnessing the dedication of others. Rugby is a shining example of a town forging community bonds—other constituencies are of course available, as a BBC presenter might say. There are too many initiatives to name, but the Benn Partnership stands out as a shining example of what could and should be replicated across the country. Its community centre in the heart of the Benn ward in Rugby offers meet and eat schemes and community lunches, alongside art and language sessions and very much more—I know that there are similar organisations run by members of staff and volunteers across the country. I hold Joyce Wooding and her team who run the centre in the highest regard. The peace walk in Rugby, which I had the privilege of attending, is another example of different faiths and non-believers coming together and uniting the community. I have visited the Hill Street, Bradby and Binley Woods youth clubs, and seen their amazing work to bring young people together. I have been on patrols with Rugby’s street pastors, and with the community wardens, who are organised brilliantly by Rugby borough council. They, too, work to strengthen our community. The common denominator in those schemes is the human element and the concept of community: being part of a group larger than ourselves, and having obligations to it as well as receiving benefits from it. When we meet people who look, speak and worship differently, we discover common ground—“It turns out that you watch rugby too. You enjoy a drink in the pub. You worship the same God, just in a different building on a different road”.

My hon. and gallant Friend will not be surprised to hear that I will come on to make similar points. I often say in my constituency—as I did at the Chinese new year celebrations only a week or so ago—that our diversity is a strength, not the weakness that, sadly, so many people increasingly feel it to be. It is a strength, and I am proud to say that again. The misuse of flags represents division, or even a thinly veiled warning. The infamous Overton window has shifted; values that we thought were sacrosanct—battles that were won—now need to be relitigated. Hoisting flags on lampposts, only to allow them to become torn and dirty, denigrates them. They should be flown high from civic buildings and other places with pride, not weaponised to intimidate. I will never surrender the flag. It represents the diverse, plural, generous nature of our United Kingdom, but recent displays have left people feeling frightened, fragmented and as though they do not belong here. The problem is not patriotism. I support any true patriot, but no one group, party, skin colour, race or ethnicity owns patriotism. Anyone who wants to build this country up rather than kick it down—anyone who cheers on our national teams, works in our health service, educates our young people, volunteers at a food bank or drives the bus with a smile—is a patriot, and I commend them. Those who stoke fear and division are not patriots. We saw fever-pitch, dangerous rhetoric last summer when Elon Musk and Stephen Yaxley-Lennon addressed the crowds. It is exactly that kind of language that now manifests itself, leaving my constituents, in Rugby of all places, feeling increasingly frightened.

I certainly pay tribute to that important organisation in my hon. Friend’s constituency. It knits together different elements of our community, providing support as well as joyous, fun things that people can do together, which strengthens the community. Through encounters with people who are different from us, horizons broaden and bonds strengthen. We realise that we share the same worries, the same dreams and the same desire for peaceful, happy lives for ourselves, our families and our friends. Exposure to difference does not divide us, it draws us closer—or at least it should. It does not matter what someone’s colour, creed or religion is, or whether they have a religion. If they live in my community, they are my people. Building this cohesion is an active process: it never stops and requires constant nurturing. It is our job to educate children on how to act, to accept difference, to show kindness— a much underrated word—to tolerate and to love. Different parties will, of course, take different approaches —from David Cameron’s big society to other models of civic renewal—but the principle is the same. If the mainstream fails to strengthen community bonds, others will seek to fracture them. It is not just an exercise in interfaith dialogue, although that is important. It is the other bonds that bring us together: clubs, sports teams, civic society, and public institutions such as libraries, museums and galleries—we have a brilliant one in the heart of Rugby—and faith groups, charities, jobcentres and schools that open themselves up to the community. Of course, as a Labour politician, I believe that the state, both locally and nationally, can, should and must help these groups and organisations, working in partnership with them and with business as well. I also commend the Jo Cox Foundation, which I met recently, for its tireless work to build bridges where others build barriers. We all have a responsibility for community cohesion, and I am playing my part. The key challenge is to give more opportunities for people to answer the call: to ask not what the community can do for them, but what they can do for the community. I will hold a strengthening community cohesion roundtable in March. Racism, xenophobia, myths and lies must be called out wherever they lurk. I know the Government are working hard and have been proactive in the face of an increasingly toxic and divisive force operating in our country. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has created various taskforces to deal with some of those issues, particularly around community cohesion, and I commend it for that. Can the Minister update us on the important work that her Department is doing? In closing, those who strengthen the community are the true patriots: the volunteers, the neighbours, the quiet grafters. They strengthen the bonds between citizens and give us, especially young people—although I am not a young person, just for the record—opportunities to flourish. They ask not what they can receive, but what they can contribute to the community. They are the best of us, and I will champion them for as long as I have the privilege of serving as a Member of Parliament. I will also do all I can to support the good work that the Government are doing across the piece, because it is not just in my hon. Friend the Minister’s Department that this work needs to be done, but in education, in culture, on the economy, for access to the creative arts and sports, and on housing, law and order, health and more. It is all part of building an ecosystem that creates community cohesion. I very much look forward to hearing the contributions of hon. and right hon. Members.

I thank you, Dr Murrison, and the Minister, the shadow Minister and the Lib Dem spokesperson. I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions; it was an interesting debate. We must be catalysts for community cohesion and create an unstoppable, positive chain reaction that will strengthen our communities. From what I have heard today, I am sure that we will do so. Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

I beg to move, That this House has considered the matter of strengthening community cohesion. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this important and timely debate. We are living in an increasingly divided world. Strong forces are pulling us apart; strong currents are dragging us out to sea. Powerful intoxicants of the snake-oil variety in commerce and politics, and with the social media companies and beyond, are undermining the sense of community cohesion that we innately know is so valuable. Community cohesion offers a bulwark against those worrying trends. While our sense of community is under threat from online toxicity and barely concealed racism, it is the everyday patriots—the volunteers, the grafters and the hard-working people who run food banks and other organisations—who show us what community truly means. They show us what it means to be British. I will highlight shining examples from my constituency of Rugby, and argue that human interaction is essential if we are to stave off the threats facing our community cohesion. Why is this happening? I believe that community hinges on human interaction. We are sociable beings, pack animals at heart—just ask the Whips. We require bonds with those around us, yet in an era of rapid urbanisation, fulfilling that innate need is becoming harder. As cities grow larger, people feel further apart, with 83% of the population now living in urban conurbations. For many, the sense of belonging is evaporating, supercharged by social media, where anything that anyone could wish to know sits at their fingertips, and people can be “friends” with someone they have never met. Technology and social media detach us from one another. Friendly interactions have become electrical impulses down fibre-optic cables; abuse has been amplified by algorithms designed to promote conflict and by those emboldened by the shield of their keyboards. Never have we felt so far apart while being so close electronically—together, alone. The deteriorating sense of community has started to manifest itself in ugly ways. People, organisations and vested interests are exploiting our fear, anger and alienation. Nowhere has that been more visible than in the demonstration of flags last summer, which in my eyes did not truly represent community.

I declare an interest as a member of the Speaker’s Conference that investigated the security of MPs, candidates and wider elections. I put on record my gratitude to the Secretary of State and the Government in the round for the efforts they are making to ensure that, through legislation, regulations and other efforts, we do everything we can to protect our democracy from those who would intimidate candidates and everyone else involved, including officials. It is very important work, and everyone in this House and in our country has a responsibility to do everything they can to protect our democracy.

I have been doing the maths on the Reform leader’s weekend. He spent 23 hours in the air in his private jet—perhaps run by “Man of the People Airways”—and 12 hours on the ground. That is a day and a half or so when he could have been delivering leaflets and knocking doors for the Gorton and Denton by-election. Does the Minister share my concern that the Reform candidate is missing out on the active support of the hon. Member for Clacton and instead has to fall back on the support and endorsement of Tommy Robinson—AKA Stephen Yaxley-Lennon?

Q5. Can the Prime Minister update the House on how the Government are tackling the misuse of illegal drugs, and will he reassure parents in my constituency of Rugby and throughout the country that Labour will continue to disagree with the views and the voices of those who think that it is a good idea to legalise class A drugs like heroin and crack cocaine?

12. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the defence industrial strategy 2025 on Northern Ireland.

The Government are doing good work to encourage young people into their careers via apprenticeships, and this week is National Apprenticeship Week. In my constituency we have GE Vernova, which is ramping up its apprenticeship scheme, while Rugby college, part of Warwickshire College Group, is getting apprenticeship programmes under way for 750 young people and adults. Does the Minister agree that the Government must go further to support apprenticeships in the vital defence sector, in my constituency and throughout the United Kingdom, including, of course, Northern Ireland?

I welcome the investment that has expanded and improved services at the Hospital of St Cross in Rugby, but my constituents want urgent treatment to improve further and to include more doctor-led services. I have raised this issue with Ministers and in the House. Locally, I have convened roundtables with stakeholders, including community health organisations, councillors and campaigners, to ensure their voices are heard by local health leaders. I have asked these leaders when their review of urgent emergency care will conclude; now I expect local health leaders to take note and, more importantly, to take action. The petitioners therefore request that: “the House of Commons urge the Government to work with NHS Coventry and Warwickshire Integrated Care Board to ensure that urgent care provision at the Hospital of St Cross…is retained and enhanced, to include a doctor led urgent care service. And the petitioners remain, etc.” Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of the constituency of Rugby Declares that the continuing investment in services at the Hospital of St Cross, a much-loved local hospital at the heart of our community is welcome; further declares that, as shown by recent demonstrations, members of the community in Rugby are concerned about ensuring the continued provision of urgent treatment from this site, and that these concerns have been raised at consultation events and meetings with health leaders; and further declares that there is not yet clarity as to how the Integrated Care Board’s review of urgent care will affect the Hospital of St Cross. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with NHS Coventry and Warwickshire Integrated Care Board to ensure that urgent care provision at the Hospital of St Cross, Rugby is retained and enhanced, to include a doctor led urgent care service. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003162]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this very important topic to the Floor of the House. Does he agree that anything that can be done to support businesses and employers in training young people must be done? When I visited my local college, Rugby college, I was informed that it is increasingly difficult to encourage employers to provide work experience time, particularly for T-level students, who need 315 hours. I wonder whether the Minister might reflect on any additional support that the Government can give to employers to incentivise them to do that.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I will make two brief points—one per minute. The first is around Rugby town centre and how the police officers, community wardens and BID rangers all work together to ensure that it is safe. Will the Minister look at whether borough or district council-run community wardens can play a really powerful role in defeating antisocial behaviour and criminality at the sub-policing level? My second point is about children and young people carrying out antisocial behaviour and criminality in our town centres. There was a recent case in Rugby in which the police made several arrests of young people for antisocial behaviour and criminality. Those officers made every possible effort to work collaboratively across agencies to avoid going down the criminal route with arrests. In some circumstances, however, it is sadly necessary to make arrests, particularly when members of the public, visitors, businesses and others are badly affected. Will the Minister set out her thoughts on the Government’s approach to antisocial behaviour and criminality among young people, given that the respect orders in the Crime and Policing Bill apply only to people over 16? That potentially leaves a gap for powers available to police and others in that regard. We need to ensure there is no lawlessness on our streets. Irrespective of the age of the perpetrator, we do everything we can to avoid arrests, but we must ensure that police have the powers they need.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the brutal, violent and illegal repression of Iranian civilians by this regime shows just how difficult it is for civilian populations to rise up against their oppressors, as is so often demanded by people around the world? Would he pay tribute to the young women who have been protesting on the streets with great courage at this incredibly difficult time for their country?

I am assuming that the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth is opposing the policy before us today. So you actually do not want to take the measure that we are going to take—

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is insulting, and it was surprising that the shadow Secretary of State could not cite any evidence at all. Regardless of any two-child limit, parents will of course still have children, and those children must never be punished for the circumstances of their birth. The best way to support them, the single most effective way to lift them out of poverty, is this Bill. Some Members across the House and some across our country implied that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor does not care about child poverty. They implied and claimed that she does not care about economic inactivity and our moral duty. That accusation was not just wrong; it was deeply disrespectful, particularly given her long record of campaigning on these issues.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention; I always enjoy them. I found this one particularly amusing—and I very much respect and like the right hon. Gentleman—given that I was not actually quoting. I did not say, “And I quote”. I am allowed to use words without having to justify every single one. [ Interruption. ] The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that I was referring to the general view of hon. and right hon. Members in this House. [ Interruption. ] I think I have dealt with that—it was a good effort, but I will move on. This measure, made possible by the policies of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor—let’s not forget that—will lift 450,000 children out of poverty, and I am proud to say that that includes 2,020 children in Rugby. Let me be clear: lifting the two-child limit is not the whole answer; it is part of the Government’s wider mission. I say to people outside this Chamber, “Do not let the doomsters, the gloomsters, the cynics and the propagandists mislead you.” In just 19 months, as part of that wider mission, this Labour Government have achieved the following: day-one rights for paternity and parental leave; Best Start family hubs bringing health, parenting and wellbeing under one roof; 30 hours of funded childcare from nine months old; free breakfast clubs, with 405 children in my constituency of Rugby benefiting from the April roll-out; minimum and living wages up; record investment in schools; apprenticeships reformed; full funding for apprenticeships for under-25s in our small and medium-sized enterprises; the youth guarantee, mentioned by the Chancellor in the recent Budget; ensuring routes into work, training and education; and Young Futures hubs and youth hubs. May I please ask Ministers on the Front Bench whether I can have one of those hubs in Rugby? Helping children is about more than lifting the two-child cap. This Government do not, and should not, define our moral purpose solely by the pounds we give to those in need—although we should of course give money to those in need. Unlike the Conservatives, we will do those things I listed and, of course, spend money on lifting the two-child limit. We are glad to do that because it is not just about poverty in financial terms; it is about the poverty of aspiration for our children, which all too often results from the policies of the parties of the right, and it is about the poverty of ambition for what a Government can and should do to unleash the potential of all children. We reject that poverty too. Opportunity, prosperity and dignity for all cannot come—whether through the animal spirits of the economy or the progressive policies of a Government such as ours—unless child poverty is ended once and for all. In conclusion, we are the Labour party; we want to give young people the skills and opportunities, and to create the ecosystem, that will unleash their potential. That starts by preventing their early years from being blighted unnecessarily by poverty. We also stand for compassion and support for those who really need it, and that is what we will provide. Ending the two-child limit, and the wider measures I have outlined, are vital to ensuring that our young people become the architects of their futures, not merely tenants living in a world shaped by the older generations, by vested interests and, indeed, by those who are opposed to this Bill.

I will not give way. The arguments we heard about parental responsibility, the claim that people have children to get benefits, are short-sighted, wrong and, frankly, insulting. The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), could not cite any evidence for her claims.

That is indeed the statistic that I was reaching for in my notes, and I thank my hon. Friend. Even now, Opposition Members would undo progress. They would reintroduce the limit; they would make things worse. And as for Reform UK— [Hon. Members: “Where are they?”] Exactly! Where are they? We have seen populist policy hokey-cokey already today. It was probably taking place while the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) was speaking.

The child poverty crisis that we inherited from the previous Government is, indeed, stark. In 2014, 16.5% of children were in relative poverty and by 2024, that had risen to 21.8%. The simple truth is that Conservative Members oppose a measure that lifts children out of poverty. They have not changed. Successive Conservative Governments—and yes, the Liberal Democrats, who cannot get off scot-free, given the coalition—carried out policies that led to hundreds of thousands more children being pushed into poverty. To be precise, the figure is 900,000 more , leaving 4.5 million children living in poverty across our country. That is a shameful number, as large as the population of countries such as Croatia or Ireland. By the end of the Conservatives’ time in office, almost a third of children in the UK were living in poverty. That tells us exactly who they prioritised and who they did not. Even now, they would undo progress.

Does my hon. Friend agree that fecklessness is not a trait exhibited only by poorer people in our country?

It is perfectly acceptable and reasonable for a Government such as ours to take measures in Budgets to provide the resources necessary to enact a policy, as this Bill would do, that will lift so many children out of poverty. I think the hon. Member makes a fairly fatuous point, if I may say so.

I could not have put it better, particularly the point my hon. Friend made about enjoying a pint. I too enjoy a pint, but linking something as serious as tackling child poverty to the price of a pint in our pubs is trivialising an incredibly serious topic— [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) is speaking from a sedentary position. Would he like to intervene?

I thank my hon. Friend. I was very moved by his speech, which he delivered from a position of great knowledge and great concern built up over a very impressive career. He is absolutely right. I, of course, would not recommend people to take too seriously policies that are, as I said, populist policy hokey-cokey. To scrap or to reinstate? It is hard to tell. What we have seen from Reform UK is the concept of political triangulation being stretched absolutely to breaking point. In fact, it has broken, with some of the populist nonsense that Reform has spoken about in recent days.

The number of children— [ Interruption. ] The number of children in poverty rose substantially.

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is opposing the policy that will reduce child poverty by an enormous number. Conservative Members have not really even tried to defend their record. Perhaps that is because it is indefensible. Their decisions were not accidents; they were choices. The consequences were known, the damage was predictable and the outcome is now painfully clear. Years of ignoring child poverty have left this country with many problems, including the number of children not in education, employment or training. That is an inheritance that this Government are now tackling, not least through the excellent work of Alan Milburn and his investigation into work and child poverty that was commissioned by my right hon. Friend the Work and Pensions Secretary. Children are being condemned to a lifetime of economic inactivity, which is bad for them and their future wealth. As the “Keep Britain Working” report found, someone leaving the workforce in their 20s would lose up to £1 million in earnings. It is also bad for their health. Having four more years in education on average relates to a 16% reduction in mortality rates and reduces the risk of heart disease and diabetes. It is also bad for the country—all that untapped potential and all that unnecessary benefit spend.

Like the Prime Minister, I am a musician and a strong advocate for the creative arts sector. Could he set out to the House a little more about why he took so many creative arts and cultural organisations with him to China? Does he agree that Britain is the best in the world at the creative arts, that they are good for trade, good for jobs and good for our young people in particular, and that the kind of visit he has been on will help with that, as will investment at home and abroad?

Could the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister explain what steps this Government have taken to make sure that the voices of the victims and survivors of sexual abuse and violence are heard by those in power?

I thank the even more loyal hon. and gallant Member for his history lesson, but it does not change the fundamentals: 85% of the negotiations took place under the Conservatives. In November 2022, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), who was then Foreign Secretary, said: “Through negotiations, taking into account relevant legal proceedings, it is our intention to secure an agreement on the basis of international law to resolve all outstanding issues”. —[ Official Report , 3 November 2022; Vol. 721, c. 354WS.] In February 2025, a spokesperson for the Leader of the Opposition insisted that she understood that negotiations over the islands were needed due to the international legal position. This motion is obvious political opportunism. These are hon. and right hon. Members of this House of Commons who raised no objections in Parliament, filed no critical questions and voiced no concerns on social media. Only after leaving government did they do so, but with no plan of their own. On the matter of the sovereignty of the Chagossians, the Conservatives’ view is logically inconsistent. They want the UK to retain sovereignty, but they attack the Government for not giving the Chagossians the right to self-determination. They ruled out resettlement. Some Chagossians want to return to Diego Garcia, so are Conservative Members calling for them to be returned to that island, with the inevitable issues that that would cause for the operation of the vital base? Opposition Members have gone rather silent on that point.

I thank the hon. and even-more-loyal-than-I Member for his intervention. We spar across the House—

Before I turn to the subject of the Opposition day debate, I must comment on the answer that the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), gave to the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart)—a Member I respect hugely. She mentioned climbing the greasy pole, possibly even in relation to me. It is always amusing when people who have served in the Cabinets of multiple Conservative Prime Ministers accuse Back-Bench Members of somehow being involved in climbing a greasy pole. It is just very, very amusing. [ Interruption. ] I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for his comment; I understand he also did pretty well in the past. This motion is the Conservatives playing politics with national security—their friends in the other place using a wrecking amendment to block the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill being a prime example of that. Conservative Members have never been able to answer this question: if there was no problem with British sovereignty and operation of the base, why did they begin the negotiations in the first place?

The sovereignty of the Chagossians is a sensitive and delicate issue which we are attempting to deal with, as my hon. Friend the Minister set out. We have established a contact group. Many meetings have taken place, and I strongly endorse those steps to give respect to the Chagossian people for what has happened to them. The Conservatives used only £1.6 million of the £40 million support fund for the Chagossian people, which hardly indicates that when they were in office the interests of the Chagossian people were their No. 1 priority. In conclusion, this motion is political opportunism of the worst kind, because it concerns national security and the British national interest, and the Conservatives really should not be playing party political games with that. Nor should they be using words like “surrender” with such abandon, as the shadow Foreign Secretary does, because that implies things that are simply not true and it is whipping up public concern, which is totally unnecessary, particularly regarding British national interest. That is why I am very glad to oppose this opportunistic motion before the House. I commend the Minister on her speech.

Q3. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that the good work of this Labour Government to get the NHS back on its feet, with waiting lists down—they are down by 2,400 in my constituency—as well as ambulance waits down and prescription charges frozen, could be put at risk by Reform UK, as was confirmed at the weekend, when the last-but-one defector, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), was asked about a private health insurance system and replied, “I don’t object to that”?

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) for her assiduous campaigning and for bringing this important issue to the Chamber. This is a problem suffered by women but caused by men—not all men, of course—and men must be the main part of the solution. Women’s spaces are being constricted. Women are forced to take exercise in more public places and to avoid footpaths and canal towpaths, and parents of daughters will have had those conversations with them. However, when they move into those more public places, which are better lit and supposedly safer, they face intimidation, catcalling and the like. That is a total outrage, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) said. If it were happening to men, I can assure Members that it would be dealt with very rapidly. Women are adapting their behaviour, but it is men’s behaviour and attitudes that need adapting, confronting, changing and—yes—on occasion prosecuting. Many men and boys do not even know they are doing anything wrong, but they are intimidating women, and shrinking their status and freedom as citizens. We therefore need a multifaceted approach, and that of course is what the Government are taking through their VAWG strategy, encompassing education, public education, police and criminal justice system work, and more. This is clearly not something that can be prosecuted out of existence, but part of the challenge is to defeat the defeatism, and more can and is being done. If we mention catcalling, people instinctively say, “That can’t be dealt with; How could you prosecute it?” However, as we heard in relation to the Jog On campaign, it is possible for police to take action. I want to touch briefly on the work of Warwickshire police in Rugby. They have a safer neighbourhood team that carries out VAWG walks; an enhanced policing initiative on Friday and Saturday nights that promotes Ask for Angela; and Project Vigilant, in which officers are trained to detect predatory behaviour. They have also set up a working group that looks at surveys from the parkrun and walking groups to get data so that they can work out whether they would like to carry out an operation similar to the Jog On operation carried out by Surrey police. They also do a lot of education in schools. We need to ensure that there are no no-go areas for women and girls in our society, and to commit to work more to tackle the misogynistic, predatory behaviour of some men and boys. They need to be the people who feel worried and intimidated when they go into public spaces—or any other spaces—with the attitudes we have talked about and perpetuate them.

I note what my hon. Friend says about his integrated care board. I have very positive meetings with my ICB, but a similar situation is affecting the town of Rugby, which I represent. The urgent treatment centre is nurse-led, and we very much want there to be a doctor-led treatment centre. A review is under way, but my constituents and I are simply not aware of its end date. That causes the kind of concern around services that you talk about—

That my hon. Friend talks about.

My hon. Friend is making a compelling speech. I should declare that in a previous role, I advised a mobile phone company on communications. There have been occasions in the past when mobile phone companies and other digital companies have made very grand promises about things like video calling, as happened when they rolled out 3G, and then 4G and then 5G, but unfortunately those promises have not always matched the expectations of the public, who watch the adverts and buy the devices. Does my hon. Friend agree that while companies are going to great lengths to improve services, we must implore them to match the reality of their service provision with the things that they are advertising and promising? I want to emphasise that I am not asking the Government and the providers for charity; I am asking for an opportunity for us to contribute. Telford is a wonderful town, Shropshire is a wonderful county and the west midlands is a fantastic region, and those consumers are a market opportunity for this ever-growing network. If we want Telford to continue to grow as we have done for the past 60 years, we need to be in the 21st century, and when it comes to 5G, we simply are not. Businesses need to know that they can operate; people need to know that they can work from home and access online GP appointments; and, crucially for a town that is impacted by flooding, especially around the famous world heritage site at Ironbridge gorge, we must be sure that we can contact the emergency services in a crisis. That resilience and connectivity must be there. Telford has so much to offer the Government, the private sector and anyone who wants to live, visit or invest in our town. In return, we need modern 5G infrastructure. I have both a national and a local ask of the Minister. Nationally, I echo the call of the digital communities all-party parliamentary group, which is chaired by the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), for an independent review of the UK’s digital connectivity framework and the integrity of the data in reporting. It is frustrating for me and my constituents to be hit with the “computer says no” answer when sharing our lived experience of something that is a real problem to so many people. The Ofcom reporting tool is welcome, but I ask the Minister to go further, so that we are not just starting with an inaccurate map and making individual residents responsible for correcting it. My local ask is this: will the Minister visit Telford with his officials and see for himself what my constituents and I are dealing with? Will he help me to convene the relevant providers and lend his voice to my call for better 5G, or at least 4G, connection, so that my constituents can rely on it to access public services and to make our economy grow, both in Telford and the wider region? I know that digital connectivity is a priority for the Government, and I welcome the steps that they are taking, including through project gigabit, to revolutionise our infrastructure. Bill, Peter, Waz, Phil and Joanne, as well as hundreds of other constituents, have contacted me about this issue. Will the Minister reassure them, as well as the hundreds of thousands across this country who are affected by this issue, that they will be connected to a world-class network that provides them with access to digital services? This Government’s priorities are clear: economic growth, reforming public services and change. I say this to the Minister: this is a grand opportunity for me to demonstrate to my constituents that the economy mission is being met and that the mission relating to access to reformed public services can be met. Every one of my constituents who has a phone in their pocket will feel change and be benefited through this measure. I thank the House for allowing me time to explore this issue.

I condemn the violent oppression of the Iranian people. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to the work of the BBC World Service and BBC Persian, not only in getting free journalism and the truth into that country, but in getting stories of bravery, courage and suffering out to the wider world?

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should send a message of reassurance to our children and young people, who will undoubtedly be feeling concerned and scared about the developments in the Arctic and Greenland, and more broadly regarding our international system? Does she agree that they know instinctively that international co-operation, standing up for our allies, international friendship and defending a rules-based system is the right way for our world? Does she agree that they should take some reassurance from the fact that our Government, this House and our allies agree with them?

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray), in particular for her moving comments about community. While obviously community starts with the people, it does need a bit of a boost from the planners and developers from time to time. Seeing is believing when it comes to delivering the homes that the country urgently needs, and I have seen and been inspired by things in Rugby. Just as we have heard from hon. Members about how the old new towns inform the new new towns, the urban extensions to old old towns such as Rugby can provide some guidance and inspiration. We have a fantastic Housing Minister who is totally committed—as are the Government—to delivering on the 1.5 million houses commitment. That is vital, and will avoid a return to an era in which successive Governments failed to build enough homes for our growing population. Whether in old or new towns, what our constituents want are first-class links to essential facilities such as GP surgeries, schools, green spaces, libraries and transport. In October 2024, I spoke about what I called the moon landing paradox—about how human beings can land a man on the moon and create artificial intelligence, nuclear power stations and the rest, but seem incapable of providing sufficient homes of sufficient quality at an affordable price for sufficient numbers of our citizens. A regular refrain in my inbox is concern about Rugby’s expansion as a conurbation, which I appreciate stems from the fear that infrastructure and services have not kept pace with development. Like all MPs, I meet developers to ensure that the appropriate section 106 funding is used to alleviate these problems. In Rugby, we have a place called Houlton, an urban extension, and Urban&Civic is the master developer. In my view, it is a model of some success that deserves close attention because of key ways in which it has sought to overcome the stumbling blocks that often lead to public scepticism or opposition to new housing developments. That is clearly vital as the Government proceed with their plans. Key to Houlton’s success was early investment in amenities, working with local and national stakeholders, providing confidence and reassurance, and demonstrating the tangible benefits of large-scale developments. For example, the early delivery of a 5 km link road to Rugby immediately mitigated residents’ concerns about congestion that could have occurred. It also enabled the accelerated development of St Gabriel’s primary school ahead of the first residents even moving in, and accelerated the development of Houlton school by seven years. I recently visited the primary school extension to that school. Let us take that link road and imagine if instead it had been delivered in 2026, when the planning obligation required it. My inbox would quite rightly have been filled to the brim with complaints about lorries, road traffic, road safety and so on. Developers thought carefully about the amenities to put in place, which include a supermarket, cafés, restaurants, the Dollman Farm community hub, great pedestrian routes and more. I am assured that a parkway train station will also arrive, but like trains these days, it may take some time. To replicate such developments and achieve this Government’s goals, we must be clear-eyed in our focus, maintain our vision and invest significantly—something I know the Government are doing with their £39 billion affordable homes plan, which is a priority for my constituents. What is clearly needed now is a resolute focus by the Government, which I believe they have, on working in partnership with developers and investors, and on making sure that the master developers or corporations have the resources and backing needed to deliver on the promises they make to our communities. Housing and planning are a terrain littered with broken promises and unintended consequences. We have constructed an edifice of often well-intentioned constraints on Government, which on the surface exist to protect the environment, archaeological sites, local political opinion, wildlife and so on, but which in reality make it harder for developments to be brought forward quickly. Although I did not coin the phrase, I was the first MP to say in the House—it was last January—that we should “build, baby, build.” I stand by that statement. I commend the Government for moving quickly and boldly in reforming our planning system, having an ambitious home building target and insisting—often against the will of some house builders—on affordability and the provision of social housing. What I would like to see is even more of an “action this day” approach, which I am confident Labour Members will support, using every power available to us as a Government to overcome any and all impediments to the delivery of these new towns across the country and to get them started pronto. I will suggest some ideas to the Minister. For example, we could stipulate five areas across the country where there are large populations of young people and pass legislation to allow modular housing developments. We could ensure that they are of high quality by running a competition globally and nationally for the best architects and engineers in the world to design small modular homes with up to two bedrooms for substantially less than the cheapest site-built home. I spoke about the moon landing paradox, and this could be something of a moonshot: an effort to show those of lower incomes and people starting their careers or families that we have their backs. We could further use the “prisoners building homes” model to innovate, reduce costs and simultaneously reduce reoffending. I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on those moonshot-type suggestions. Bold action is needed—it is essential if we are to truly make a difference for our communities—and that is exactly what we are seeing from the Government. More power to their elbow.

I have spoken consistently about the need to protect the international rules-based system. Not only is that system under direct and indirect threat throughout the world, but in Ukraine it has clearly failed, in so far as Russia invaded. This is a moment not to jettison it, but to redouble our defence of it, as we have done in the past. Britain has a proud track record: the world wars; the cold war; the liberation of the Falkland Islands, Kuwait and latterly Iraq; our actions in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and in Kosovo; and the no-fly zone in northern Iraq. In each case, we defended brave victims against bullies. We used military force to uphold the rights of nations and of human beings. We know that intervention has a chequered history. Arguably, the warlords and some dubious Governments noticed the abject failure of the international community to prevent the genocide in Rwanda. Even in cases where we took military action, others watched and drew conclusions. Malevolent actors around the world must have looked upon the former Yugoslavia and noticed that a quarter of a million civilians were killed before the international community got truly serious, with American leadership finally ensuring that NATO took decisive action. Need I add that Saddam Hussein got away with breaching every known international law before the Americans, this country and others belatedly took action? Belated tough action, feeble action, or the absence of action—which is itself an action—all have profound consequences. Many people forget that Russia’s move to consolidate its strategic military influence in Syria only proceeded apace once the west and the international community had signalled that they would not enforce the most basic of red lines and act against Assad for using chemical weapons. Surely that must have emboldened Russia in other in other parts of the world, such as Ukraine—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor). Despite the excellent efforts of the British military and diplomatic missions in Ukraine, which ramped up military and other support long before 2022, and which I commend, we can say with hindsight that it was self-evidently insufficient. I have always been hugely reassured by the almost universally cross-party nature of this Parliament’s steadfast support for Ukraine—this is Parliament at its best—but at this crucial moment, we must do everything we can to ensure that the sacrifice of Ukrainian soldiers and civilians is not in vain. More generally, we must make sure that the rules-based system does not wither on the vine. I want to say something about what is happening in my constituency, where there are two home fronts at work. One is our own, here among British citizens. It is crucial that they realise just what is at stake. It is not an exaggeration to say that if we get this wrong, or if we do not get it sufficiently right, war will come ever closer to these shores. The public will have to make sacrifices, because that is what is needed to defend democracy. Secondly, there is the extended Ukrainian home front in communities such as mine in Rugby, where families, schools and businesses have welcomed Ukrainians as they flee conflict. It is being supported by civil servants nationally, and especially by settlement teams in, for instance, Warwickshire county council, who do excellent and compassionate work alongside their district council colleagues, charities, volunteers and, most important, our citizens. It is also supported by community groups such as the Rugby branch of the Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain, whose work I have seen. This is Britain at its best, living up to our values of welcoming those in need. Let me share with the House some direct testimony from Ukrainian families who have been in touch with me this week. This is what they said: “Russia is systematically targeting the energy system, using hundreds of drones and missiles. Radiators go cold and water freezes in the pipes. People no longer live by the clock, but by the moments when electricity briefly returns. Children do their homework at night. Parents cook food in the dark hours. Civilian life itself is the target, not military locations. The aim is to break people, to exhaust them, to destroy society from within. And then there are the night attacks. Sirens, explosions, the constant fear, they don’t let you sleep. Your body is tired, but your mind stays awake, waiting for the next sound. This is what it does to your mental state: you live in constant anxiety. You are always on edge…Even in silence, you are listening. Supporting Ukraine’s energy system, its air defence and its logistics is not abstract assistance. It is the simplest and most effective way to save millions of lives and to prevent a new humanitarian catastrophe in Europe.” There is a great deal at stake, but, as the Government have made very clear, we will not turn our back on Ukraine; quite the reverse. We will strengthen international law and the rules-based system, which, in conjunction with military power, keeps us, our allies and the wider world safe.

Will the Foreign Secretary join me in firmly rejecting the instincts of some, including hon. Members in this House, who blame the current situation on the United States, the UK, Israel and the west, and does she further agree that blame for the current situation lies squarely with the oppressive regime in Tehran?

I too was at the meeting of the APPG for Greenland, in a room nearby where we heard from Greenland’s Minister for business, mineral resources, energy, justice and gender equality. In addition to my hon. Friend’s important points about the military strength and prowess of this country and others, and about our alliances, does he agree that we need to send a very strong message about international law and the international rules-based system? That would give reassurance to the High North and Arctic countries, particularly Greenland, at this moment.

I did, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) described the Government’s plans to reduce the blood alcohol limit as “absolutely ridiculous” and “wholly unacceptable”, and said that the current system worked “pretty effectively”. Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that the families of the 260 people who tragically died last year as a result of intoxicated drivers’ behaviour would strongly disagree, and that we should reject those claims?

Back Benchers in this House strengthen the hand of Ministers in tackling injustice, as was shown when the Housing Minister called in the managing director of FirstPort in real time during a debate. Labour Members are holding an informal inquiry into such issues, which are really important. A constituent of mine has seen his FirstPort service charge nearly quadruple in two years. Can there be a debate on the issue in Government time, so that Back Benchers can shine a cleansing light on the malpractice of such companies?

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. Does my hon. Friend agree that the chuntering— [ Interruption. ] Does my hon. Friend agree that the chuntering and laughter, which the Conservatives continue now, rather belie the fact that they seem not to agree that members of the public in rural areas benefit from the very public services that were so decimated by 14 years of their failure?

All the chuntering and laughing from Opposition Members rather indicates that they feel that the—

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in addition to the strong diplomatic and military leadership that he set out in his statement, it is, wherever possible, the unity of this House, and indeed unity in the country at large, that really counts in sending a clear and strong message to our friends and foe alike that this country believes in the international rules-based system, international law, standing up to bullies and valuing our alliances?

Does my hon. Friend agree that those who question the BBC and try to undermine it could well have an ulterior motive, in that the very point that he is making about having a trusted public space is precisely what they do not wish this country and other parts of the world to have?

Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish you, all Members and everyone who works in this place a very happy Christmas. Unfortunately, I cannot bring any Christmas cheer with my question, since it relates to the slow progress of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill in the other place. Will the Leader of the House join me in reaffirming that this elected Chamber has primacy in all legislation? The Government of course remain neutral on that particular Bill, but does he agree that we cannot be neutral about that principle, and that what is happening risks damaging the reputation of our political process?

I warmly welcome the settlement, which puts fairness at the heart of local government funding. I thank the Minister for the increased funding for Warwickshire, which will benefit people across the county and in Rugby. Would she care to comment on the fact that there is not a single Reform UK MP in the Chamber? Does that not indicate that Reform does not take local government seriously?

I have immense respect for my right hon. Friend, in particular for his commitment to equal access to healthcare. Will he say a little more about the mental health support available for children and young people involved in the trial, those who will not be able to be in the trial, those who are currently receiving puberty blockers, and those for whom the ban is causing immense stress or worse?

As the son of a Deutschlehrer, may I say danke, because Christmas has come early for the young people and teachers in my constituency? Does the Minister agree that greater co-operation and friendship across Europe and beyond is the best way forward for our world and for our country, and that perhaps that is why those with EU derangement syndrome are so opposed to his policy?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I feel it is incumbent on me to speak out on behalf of parents of trans people and, by extension, their children. On a couple of occasions, such parents have come to see me with, frankly, some of the most harrowing cases I have heard as an MP. One family is planning to leave the country. What kind of country have we become where that is even a possibility? One parent’s child, who is currently receiving puberty-blocking drugs and who has been thriving at school and socially as a girl, has in recent months seen her horizons shrinking just at the moment she hoped they would be expanding, as is the right of any young person. As people opine about rights, and debate the apparent clash of rights on this sensitive topic, hon. Members and members of the public would do well to put themselves in the shoes of that girl. How is that young person to feel, knowing that there is a growing hostility towards people like her that is being weaponised, exploited and unleashed? Although of course it is right that there is rigorous scrutiny of the efficacy of drugs, given the perceived risk of harm, I ask the Minister to consider that thousands of young people are deeply fearful because they are currently on puberty blockers that are now being banned. Just imagine if we suggested taking drugs away that treated a conventional medical issue. That would cause enough fear, but imagine what it must be like to fear that your very essence as a human being is going to be damaged against your will. As others have mentioned, the trial of such drugs will be for 226 young people, but many thousands are waiting to be seen by gender identity services, some of whom are ineligible for the trial anyway. We must put the humanity back into the debate about human rights, especially when they are seen to clash. We must put humanity back into our deliberations and the human back at the centre of our thoughts. Empathy and kindness cannot be drowned out in a debate about rights, and I will continue to speak up for vulnerable people.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would be grateful if you could confirm whether any points of order raised by Members of this House since this parliamentary Session began have actually been deemed to be points of order. If this is not the case, could you provide guidance to hon. and right hon. Members about what does constitute a point of order, so that the time of Members is not wasted in this House?

Does my hon. Friend agree that the activities of charities such as the Our Jay Foundation in my Rugby constituency are critically important? Naomi Rees-Issitt created the Our Jay Foundation in memory of her son Jamie. Not only has it installed hundreds of defibrillators in Rugby and the surrounding area, including bleed control kits, but—to her point—it holds training sessions in the community given by qualified paramedics and nurses. I have attended one of them, and they are lifesavers just as much as the defibs that go into our communities. All of this helps to reduce the number of sudden cardiac deaths in young people.

My hon. Friend is making a moving and powerful speech about the tragic loss of young lives—all the years that are lost of their lives, their families and so on, and all the suffering that happens when people die so young. I, too, lost a friend whom I met while we were studying master’s degrees at University College at Durham University in 2001. He died in 2012 of an undiagnosed heart condition, and he is a much-loved and missed son, husband, father and dear friend of mine. Does my hon. Friend agree that the huge loss that families and friends feel should inspire us all to seek as much effort as possible from the Government, from scientists and from medics to prevent these often avoidable situations? I continue my life with him in my memory, and I am inspired by everything that Michael McCarthy did and by our friendship. I miss him dearly.

On that critical point about the lack of equality between offline and online, does my hon. Friend agree that if I were to go out into the street and staple to somebody’s back an offensive but not illegal statement that was impermeable to being washed off and remained on their back for months, if not years, I would probably be subject to immediate arrest, yet online that happens routinely to our children—indeed, to anyone in society, including politicians? Is that not illustrative of the problem?

Ofcom officials came before the Speaker’s Conference, of which I am a member, so I declare that interest. They spoke about section 100 of the Act, which gives Ofcom the power to request certain types of information on how, for example, the recommender systems work on the companies’ algorithms. Unfortunately, they said that could be “complicated and challenging to do”, but one thing they spoke about very convincingly was that they want to require—in fact, they can require—those companies to put information, particularly about the algorithms, in the public domain to help researchers. That could really help with the point my hon. Friend is making about creating regulations that improve safety for our population.

I thank my hon. Friend for making an impassioned and powerful speech. Does she agree that outrage ought to be directed at us for not doing enough on these issues rather than for the way in which we have started to try to tackle them? If the behaviours that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members have referred to happened in the real world—the so-called offline world—they would be clamped down on immediately and people would be arrested. Certain items cannot be published, be put in newsagents or be smuggled into school libraries and people could not get away with the defence, “This is a matter of my civil liberty.” We should be far more robust with online companies for the frankly shoddy way in which they are carrying out their activities, which is endangering our children and doing immense damage to our political system and wider life in our country and beyond.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

It did not carry all the way to me.

The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech. On his point about risk, Conservative Members always look at that through the lens of the employer. There are, of course, risks—I spent most of my career in the private sector, so I have some experience of this—but does he accept that employees also take risks? When they take up a job, they need to be paid sufficiently so that they can live their lives with dignity, look after their children, and so on. Does he accept that a balance must be struck between people seeking jobs and employers providing jobs?

My hon. Friend, who continues to make an excellent speech, has referred to unfair dismissal. I think it worth putting on record that much of the debate over recent hours, days and weeks has implied that employers will not be able to dismiss people. That is simply not the case. What we are talking about here is unfair dismissal, not dismissal. This is a right that absolutely has to be at the heart of the biggest uplift in workers’ rights that any Government have introduced for a generation, or perhaps more.

Does the hon. Lady accept that more 18 to 24-year-olds are in employment than a year ago—210,000 more, according to the November labour force survey? The story of doom and gloom that she is portraying is not entirely the case.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Conservative Members often talk about wealth creators. Of course business people and entrepreneurs are wealth creators, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that wealth is also created by the public services and infrastructure that we need, which has to be paid for?

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Did she notice yesterday that the Leader of the Opposition said that she did not want the national minimum wage to increase at all? Does my hon. Friend think that indicates that there might be a cold freeze in the air?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Hon. Members—

In my constituency, I can combine rugby and gin, so I am grateful to the Chancellor for the measures in her Budget to help the hospitality trade and small businesses. Following, my visit to the family-owned Rugby Distillery—branded and flavoured around the game—can I ask what steps her Department could try to level the playing field, such as by extending small producer relief to alcohol above the 8.5% ABV limit? Small-scale producers find it harder to compete fairly with big producers, and we must help them to tackle their challenges and convert their entrepreneurial spirit into greater success.

13. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to support entrepreneurs.

I have been campaigning for a youth hub and working with officials in the DWP and local councils to try to secure a much-needed youth hub in Rugby. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this service, offering employment advice, wellbeing support and more, would help tackle the problem of youth dependency on benefits, which is at 16% in Rugby—roughly the national average? Does he further agree that, as young people would say: no cap, it is only this party that will do what is necessary to back young people?

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Does the Minister recall that the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) was chastised by the Office for Statistics Regulation when he was Housing Secretary? Does she further agree, therefore, that we will not take lessons from him?

Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating schools and youth groups in my constituency for their phenomenal 53 engagements with UK Parliament Week? It is not a competition, but I would like to update the House that Rugby came 12th out of 650 constituencies, and second in the west midlands. I visited Ashlawn school, Rugby Free secondary school, Cawston Brownies, Binley Woods youth club and the Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh Rugby branch to discuss politics with young people, while English Martyrs RC primary, Clifton-upon-Dunsmore Church of England primary and the 1st Hillmorton Guides sent questions that I answered on social media. Their questions and enthusiasm for contributing to improving their community, country and world shows that democracy has a bright future. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to the brilliant parliamentary staff who worked so hard to ensure a very successful UK Parliament Week?

Part 2 of the Angiolini inquiry notes that women and girls do not feel safe in public spaces due to the behaviour of predatory men. Does the Minister agree that “predatory” does not just mean following, stalking or attempting unwanted physical contact, and that it must be expanded to include leering, staring and catcalling? That behaviour is also predatory and it negatively impacts women and girls, as those in my constituency have told me. Does she further agree that of course we need more enforcement, but in particular we need better education of boys and men from an early age and for them to call out the behaviour of other boys and men—something that the White Ribbon campaign advocates brilliantly?

China clearly poses national security threats. It is also one of our largest trading partners and one of the biggest economies in the world, so does the Foreign Secretary agree that we should reject the binary choice between security and the economy, and the bluster from Opposition Members, and that we should instead focus on how to be strong on both national security and our economic interests?

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this important subject to the House. Will he join me in welcoming the announcement that is hot off the press this evening from the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about how councils, police and fire authorities in England will now be able to reserve bidding for lower-value contracts to local and UK suppliers? This is all about opening up Government work to small businesses and enabling—exactly as he was saying—small businesses and local people to get high-skilled jobs from such Government procurement.

The hon. Gentleman is a decent man and I like him a lot, but he seems a little fixated on this point. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has taken difficult economic and fiscal decisions so that she can lift the two-child cap, as well as doing many other things. We are getting child poverty down—I am proud of that and I will always support it. We are protecting our NHS, reducing the national debt and borrowing, and improving the cost of living. To unleash the potential of our country, we must place the needs of young people ever higher up the political agenda, which I intend to do in this place. While some talk this great nation down, we get on with the job of building it back up and laying the foundations on which to grow in the long term, and, most importantly, enabling our citizens, especially our young people and future generations, to thrive and play their part in building a fairer and far more prosperous country for all.

This Labour Budget safeguards the priorities of the British people: protecting our NHS, reducing national debt, and easing the cost of living. There is no better lens through which to view them than the eyes of the younger generations, who will feel the greatest impact of the decisions that we make today. Of course people are concerned about their material lives, but they are also emotionally and philosophically worried about the long-term future of the country. In particular, there was the feeling, after 14 years of the Conservatives, that things were not getting better, and the worry that their children would not be as well off as them, and would not have the same, let alone more, opportunities. That is a primordial fear, as any parent will know, and we all agree that we should be taking action right here, right now, to build back up, so that this becomes a land fit for future generations. The Budget does that. It rebuilds this country in many ways, but I want to focus specifically on young people. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said that this Labour Government is on the side of kids and will back their potential. Today I participated in an online assembly at Oakfield primary academy, just after the Chancellor’s speech. I am sure the children will be inspired to see this country’s first female Chancellor delivering such a brilliant Budget. As she said, she got involved in politics because the Conservatives under-invested in schools like hers, and she is, I am sure, someone with the long-term interests of young people at the forefront of her mind. It is excellent that the Chancellor is prioritising the youth guarantee, and the measures announced today are beginning to turn the tide against entrenched inter-generational unfairness. This Government are unleashing the talent of all our young people, with £800 million over the next three years for the youth guarantee, guaranteeing every young person a place in college, an apprenticeship, or personalised job support; funding to make training for under-25 apprenticeships free for SMEs; increasing the minimum and national living wages; £5 million for libraries in secondary schools, on top of £10 million to ensure that every primary school in England has a library; and £18 million to upgrade playgrounds across the country. We are ending the two-child benefit cap, lifting 450,000 children out of poverty.

I am a Labour MP and I vote with the Government—it is as simple as that. Lifting 450,000 children out of poverty is the biggest reduction in child poverty over a Parliament since records began. That will positively affect 2,020 children in my constituency of Rugby. This investment is not just anti-poverty, but pro the prosperity and life chances of all our children. More broadly, the Budget has at its core investment in housing, infrastructure and skills. The Chancellor’s decisions ensure £120 billion in additional capital spending over this Parliament, with a 10-year infrastructure strategy, an NHS back on its feet after 14 years of the Conservatives in government, a benefits system that provides support for those who need it, and help into work for people who can work, as I saw on a recent visit to Rugby jobcentre. The Budget ensures a stable economy, with support for entrepreneurship, growth forecast to rise, and inflation and borrowing forecast to fall. We are transforming the business rates system to protect the high street, with permanently lower tax rates for eligible retail hospitality and leisure properties. That will affect around 1,090 properties in my constituency of Rugby alone. The Chancellor rightly asked everyone to contribute. We all share a responsibility—in this House, in boardrooms, in businesses of all sizes and in organisations —to invest in our young people, and I am glad that this Government are sending that clear message today. Only on Monday, when one young person at Ashlawn school in my constituency asked about my views on the pension triple lock, I pointed out that while we must of course help pensioners—and we are doing so—when thinking about how to allocate resources most fairly, our young people have a very good claim for more support. So, if you will indulge me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am calling for a youth triple lock: three measures beyond the youth guarantee that will focus attention on the needs and voices of young people. My suggestions would be free bus travel, inflation-beating maintenance loans for students and additional help for young people with housing, but that is for another day. We are going in the right direction, as this excellent Budget shows. I am also pleased that the Budget stays true to what Government Members hold dear: our Labour values—values that put the priorities of the British people first.

I strongly welcome the Prime Minister’s emphasis on a just and lasting peace. Does he agree that while it is noble to want the fighting to stop, that can always be achieved in any conflict by giving in to the aggressor’s demands? History shows that that is not peace, but appeasement. Does he further agree that Ukraine must not be forced to give up its territory and long-term security needs, not only for its defence, but because it would weaken the very principles of sovereignty and the rules-based system, endangering us all?

During a stimulating discussion with the highly informed students of Ashlawn school in Rugby yesterday, I mentioned COP30 as an example of how global politics is highly relevant to them. Does my right hon. Friend agree that strong British leadership at multilateral negotiations is part of a rebalancing that is more important than ever; preferencing the interests of the younger and future generations and giving them meaningful agency in our world?

My hon. Friend is making a powerful and moving speech. Does he agree that organisations such as the one he mentioned mirror the work of Back and Forth Men’s Mental Health, a support group in my constituency who literally go out on walks together? They also run a podcast, which I was on this week. It is all about getting men together so that they can talk about the way they feel. In my view, that is one of the best ways to avoid terrible mental health problems. Boys and young men should always be encouraged to speak to friends and family, and to seek the help of charities and, when they need it, professional help. We can then break the stigma and prevent far more of these terrible cases of suicide.

On the point about the various organisations, governmental or otherwise, that are involved, will my hon. Friend join me in commending the work of Rugby borough council, which has partnered with the charity I mentioned earlier, Back and Forth Men’s Mental Health, to put plaques on benches across the council’s parks? These support plaques state: “There’s no need to sit alone.” They also encourage local businesses to sponsor them, which is a really good example of how the private sector, local government and the charitable sector can work together to make sure more men can gain access to support—not necessarily by calling a phone line, but just when they are in the park.

I praise my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. On apprenticeships, I wonder whether he would care to comment on the excellent work of the Catapult centres, which are Government-funded and which work collectively between business and academia. In my constituency of Rugby, at Ansty Park, we have the Manufacturing Technology Centre, which has its own training facility. It has already trained 1,200 apprentices. That can only be a good thing for our region, and particularly for our young people who want to get on and get jobs.

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this really important subject to the House. Does she acknowledge that the Government have invested £13.2 billion, which is a long-term investment? Further, does she acknowledge that in my constituency, that has meant £11 million for the warm homes plan, which was match-funded by the council? The council tells me that this enables it to get on with delivering efficiency improvements to about 1,000 council homes over the next three years. That sounds pretty long-term and substantial to me.

Could my hon. Friend set out what more the Government can do to engage with multinational investors and demonstrate that, from Rugby to Fife, the UK is an attractive environment for investment under this Labour Government?

Does the Chief Secretary agree that the Tories are still as irresponsible as they were under Liz Truss, blindly promising £47 billion of cuts to justify their wacky fiscal policies? Does he agree that that is back of the fag packet territory? Does he agree that the Chancellor will deliver an excellent Budget next week?

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is only thanks to this Labour Government investing at scale in our domestic nuclear industry that we can overturn the disastrous legacy of the Conservatives? Does he further agree that this Government, investing for the long term and working closely with our companies, can deliver the jobs and change to our energy system that constituencies across the country need?

I commend the Government’s action in this space. A contact of mine who used to work in environmental health tells me that there is a misplaced perception that in our covert surveillance regulation—the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000—“directed surveillance” prohibits surveillance of fly-tipping hotspots, yet surveillance of a “place” is not directed surveillance. The statutory code of practice makes this clear, with in-practice examples, but it simply needs updating to give fly-tip surveillance examples. That could liberate the enforcement agencies to catch far more criminals and produce a much-needed deterrent. Could my hon. Friend look into that?

I will not give way; I will make a little progress. The Conservatives paint themselves as economically competent and as the party of low taxes. Well, Liz Truss blew the first claim out of the water. On the second claim, the tax burden under the Conservatives reached a record high of 36.3% in ’22-23.

I am saying to this House that my right hon. Friends in the Government have to take very difficult decisions to deal with the problems this country faces, many of which were caused by decisions taken by the Conservatives. They left mines in our national finances, our public services, our system of taxation, and more besides. This Government are not just manoeuvring around those mines, leaving them for future generations; we are defusing them. We are getting on with the job of renewal and, unlike Opposition parties, we will not take risks with the next generation through undue debt. We will invest in the national interest, and we will reform things, as we are showing with NHS England. We will take the tough long-term decisions that are necessary to rebuild Britain. We are doing this with our Labour values at the forefront: fairness; opportunity for all; protecting the vulnerable; empowering people, businesses and organisations; challenging vested interests; long-term investment; an industrial strategy; skills for the future.

I will not; I may give way in a little bit, but let me make some progress. We will ensure that we avoid another decade of under-investment in public services and infrastructure. I am sure we all agree that we owe it to future generations to ensure that the economy we hand down is secure, with debt under control. I would like to hear more from Conservative Members—perhaps they would like to intervene on me. Their motion makes no mention of the public services that would be cut. How many doctors, teachers, soldiers and police officers would they want to cut? I am happy to take an intervention.

I am for doing absolutely everything we can to reduce child poverty. One way in which we can achieve that is by ending the two-child cap—there are other measures. However, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor; it is not for me to decide right now in the Chamber. Our approach is paying off. We were the fastest-growing economy in the G7 in the first half of the year, and the average person’s disposable income is £800 higher now in real terms than just before the election, but there is not time for me to go through the long list of our achievements. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will set out more in the Budget. In my view, ours is a can-do approach, not a kicking-the-can-down-the-road approach.

I absolutely accept that the previous Labour Government took difficult decisions towards the end of their tenure in office following the global financial crisis. What happened from 2010 onwards was unnecessary and reckless, and we are all still paying the price to this day.

I absolutely believe we should implement the manifesto that we stood on, and I am proud to do that.

Since hon. Members mention taxes from a sedentary position, let me say that the Conservatives broke their tax pledge by increasing national insurance in 2021.

Frankly, it took 14 years for the Conservatives not to apologise for any of the decisions they took, so I do not think we need any lectures from the hon. Member or from other Conservatives. Contrast our values with the values of the Conservatives: austerity, financial recklessness under Liz Truss, and a dodgy Brexit deal. We cannot return to austerity and economic chaos.

I commend the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) on his constituency, which I drove through. I enjoyed a drink or two in one of the pubs in his town of Ludlow, and it was really good to be there. Fortunately, I sat next to some Labour supporters in the pub, so I am grateful for that too. There has been quite a lot of bluster from the Conservatives today. However, sadly for them, a party that repeatedly broke its manifesto promises, crashed the economy and brought public services to their knees has no credibility. It is all brass neck and no contrition. This Labour Government are still cleaning up the mess that the Conservatives left—a mess that has deep consequences for our economy, with the impact of austerity, their bodged Boris Brexit deal, and Liz Truss’s mini-Budget, which homeowners and many others have been paying the price for. Changes to fiscal policy are made at the Budget, which will be set out on 26 November, not today. That is just one of the many reasons why we will vote against this motion. What I can say is that my colleagues in the Treasury will ensure that the Budget is underpinned by Labour’s values of fairness and opportunity and focused on the priorities of the British people: protecting our NHS, reducing the national debt and improving the cost of living.

I will not give way. The Conservatives broke their triple lock promise in 2022 and 2023.

No, I will not. The consequence? Chaos. Under the Conservatives, prisons were full. We had a lack of prison places and a crisis so bad that it led the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), it is said, to go to the country early. Local government was underfunded. Schools were literally at risk of collapse. Waiting lists were at a record high. Every time I knock on a door, people tell me of the lengthy waits they are undergoing. They often say that there is no difference between the parties and that all politicians are the same. Well, the Conservatives increased waiting lists, and we are getting them down faster than we promised; they are at the lowest level for two years. On promises, the Conservatives are in no position to lecture us. In 2019, they pledged to build 40 new hospitals. Where are they? I am waiting. In 2019, the former Prime Minister, Mr Johnson, said: “We will fix the crisis in social care once and for all with a clear plan we have prepared.” Where is it? How did that go? In 2010, 2015 and 2017, the Conservatives promised to bring net migration down to the “tens of thousands”. When was it that net migration peaked? It was in June 2023, when it peaked at 906,000.

That £47 billion seems rather like a number plucked out of thin air. Frankly, I do not think that that number holds any credibility. The previous Government cut national insurance in 2024, which was deliberate sabotage. They cut public services from 2010 onwards, which was deliberate ideological recklessness and is still damaging the services that our constituents rely on.

We should be rigorous in holding the BBC to account, especially when it makes mistakes, but does my right hon. Friend agree that some of those who jump on any infraction with glee may have ulterior motives? Does she further agree that the BBC is a beacon of fearless, impartial journalism here and abroad, and that as misinformation and disinformation grow, and as attempts to attack media outlets by those suspicious of their values are on the rise, the BBC is needed more than ever?

I warmly welcome the further support for creative arts subject teaching, the new national centre and the £25 million for new instruments and much more. Right hon. and hon. Members with a musical background, such as the Prime Minister and I, know the transformative power of the creative arts— the soft and hard skills are just as impactful as in other subjects. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will continue to turn up the volume, bang the drum, create a symphony and maybe even reach the tempo of “presto” on this issue, so that we can finally achieve creative arts for all?

I commend my hon. Friend for bringing this important debate to the House. Does she agree that organisations such as Change Grow Live, which I have visited in Rugby, are doing superb work with people as they recover after the problems that they have been facing, and that it is incumbent upon all of us to do everything we can to encourage the Government to ensure that those organisations get the funding and support they need to do that important work?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this very important debate. He has mentioned Srebrenica and the Bosnian conflict twice. Does he agree that in years gone by, conflicts causing immense humanitarian suffering, death and carnage resulted in international, UN-mandated military forces protecting civilians and humanitarian corridors? Is it not a reflection on the sorry state of international affairs that that does not even seem to be on the table as an option, despite this being the greatest humanitarian crisis that the world faces right now?

Will the hon. Lady give way?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I previously served as a councillor in the New Bilton ward on Rugby borough council, and I campaigned partly on a petition on HMOs. I called for an article 4 direction, and other councillors, including Councillor Richard Harrington, have since taken up the baton. Residents raised massive concerns with me about litter, antisocial behaviour, parking, the impact on house prices and the fundamental change in the nature of the community when family homes for two adults and two children are transformed into homes that house four, five, six, seven or more adults, each with a car. I was a councillor on the planning committee, and although residents came before the committee to express their concerns, it did not count for anything because those concerns were not material planning concerns. I concluded that HMOs are a flawed, market-based solution to a flawed market, despite them being, in some cases, a good form of housing for some people. People feel powerless as their community is transformed. An article 4 direction does not prevent conversions; it just ensures that the applications come before the planning committee, which then has to apply the law, and that often means the application is approved. The problem in Rugby was that the previous Conservative administration did not refer to HMOs in the local plan, which meant that everything defaulted to the national planning policy framework. The current Labour-led council has introduced an article 4 direction and has a radius-based approach in the current draft plan. That should help, but it will take time to be implemented. Will Ministers take another look at the guidance and the powers that may be available to local authorities in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, in other legislation and in the national planning policy framework? This is about empowering local communities and enabling them to have pride in place, by controlling the over-concentration of HMOs in the urban areas of our communities.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the central reasons for public disillusionment and outrage is that there are no successful prosecutions, or very few, in cases of egregious state failure? Does he agree that unless wrongdoers pay a price and are seen to pay a price, this impunity may persist, and that the duty of candour and the two new statutory offences will help overcome this malaise?

One crucial factor in achieving the current ceasefire was the unprecedented declaration at the end of July by all 22 members of the Arab League, calling on Hamas to release the hostages, lay down their arms and give up power in Gaza. That was hugely important in showing Hamas that they had run out of road. What role do the UK and our partners have in influencing that declaration? Does the Minister agree that our strong diplomatic relations, led by our excellent diplomats, have a positive impact?

While I do not doubt for a second the right hon. Lady’s impassioned belief in the need to keep dangerous offenders off our streets, does she agree that it was actually the Conservative Government that cut funding to our prisons? There was a 24% real-terms cut from 2010 to 2015, resulting in 30% cuts in staffing. That has clearly had an impact on the ability of any Government to send individuals to prison, and it happened under the last Government.

T3. I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the Kurdistan region in Iraq, and as I led a delegation there. The 2005 federal Iraqi constitution agreed in a popular vote to underpin Kurdish rights. We were told that Baghdad deliberately withholds salary payments to public employees in the region. The Foreign Secretary visited Erbil when she was Home Secretary, and knows how important this part of Iraq is to our security. Does she agree that we need our Kurdish ally to be strong and respected in a federal Iraq, and that a better relationship there would enable vital reform, for the benefit of that region and, indeed, our own country?

I will do my best, Madam Deputy Speaker. Conservative Members are being nothing short of opportunistic and are playing political games with our national security. It is, of course, their job and their right to oppose what the Government are doing, but on issues of national security I would have thought there could be more appreciation of the national interest and the nuances involved. In my speech I am going to do some myth-busting—quite a useful thing to do in this age of misinformation, disinformation and hyperbolic chest-thumping. What we are seeing is a somewhat phoney, but very definitely opportunistic, brand of national security patriotism. Frankly, if ever over-inflated balloons of confected outrage needed to be burst, it is today. So, I will bust two myths and state two truisms. Myth No. 1: a narrative that the Tories try to push is that Labour prioritised a strategic relationship with communist China. However, the Government fully recognise that China poses a series of threats to UK national security, from cyber-attacks to foreign interference and espionage targeting our democratic institutions. The true fault lies with the previous Government. The right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), the then Foreign Secretary, said in April 2023 that summing up China in one word as a “threat” was “impossible, impractical and—most importantly—unwise”. The Leader of the Opposition, while serving in the Cabinet, also said: “We certainly should not be describing China as a foe”. Now that this trial has collapsed, they are accusing this Government of interfering, when it was their carefully worded Government policy that did not define China as an “enemy”—and there is nothing that present Ministers can do to change that.

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is absolutely, deeply regrettable that the Conservative party, when in government, did not reform legislation sufficiently well. Myth No. 2, another myth that the Tories will continue to spread, is that the Labour Government interfered with the delivering of evidence. The shadow Home Secretary has made the accusation that “the government chose to deliberately submit inadequate evidence that led to two alleged spies getting off scot-free.” This accusation simply has no real substance, as the Prime Minister has confirmed that no Labour Ministers or special advisers were involved with the provision of evidence for this case. I shall move on to what I believe all Members across this House know to be true—truism No. 1. It is dangerous to undermine public confidence in the Government on matters of national security for party political advantage. Truism No. 2 is the more important one. It is perfectly possible to hold two thoughts in your mind at the same time: one is that China is clearly a strategic rival to the UK in certain areas, and another is that it is a vital partner, whether on the Security Council, in tackling global challenges or, of course, for trade and investment. I will conclude, taking the advice of Madam Deputy Speaker, by saying that the Conservatives really do need to look in the mirror on this issue. This Government are acting with integrity.

I do not have any other information on that point, but I do believe that Conservative Members ought to look in the mirror and acknowledge the decisions taken by the previous Government. Let me turn to myth No.2—

While it is obviously necessary to improve the lives and dignity of older people, does the Leader of the House agree that in order to build a fairer Britain there needs to be some rebalancing of attention and resources towards the younger generation? Will he therefore consider a debate in Government time on what I call a youth triple lock? Members, having consulted young people, could then discuss what such a measure might include—for example, free bus travel, uplifting maintenance loans by inflation or a voucher scheme for constructive activities.

Given that the Conservatives, during their 14 years of chaotic power, sought to develop an even closer relationship with China, can I urge the Government to continue Labour’s approach, which is to look at opportunities to work together while not compromising our values and national interest at any time?

I reassure my right hon. Friend that many of us on the Government Benches want us to get on and build, baby, build. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Thank you. While much of the national conversation is understandably London-centric, can she assure the House that regional airports, particularly those in the west midlands, and the communities and businesses that they support, are being considered by the Government?

I declare an interest as a member of the Co-operative party. My hon. Friend is speaking about renewable energy. Does he agree that one benefit of the co-operative movement and principles is that it can be innovative for local communities? A constituent of mine approached me about a problem faced by people living in flats: they do not have driveways and cannot charge electric vehicles at a good rate. It strikes me as a good example that a co-operative approach could help that large section of the community gain access to EVs, which would be socially useful and progressive for them, society and the environment. That is innovation in the interest of the entire community.

Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the Hindu, Sikh, Jain and Buddhist communities, Councillors Ish Mistry and Senthil Karadiar, Rugby First, Rugby borough council, Keya Joshi, the marshals, volunteers and participants on stage on their very successful Diwali celebration held on Saturday and enjoyed by all Rugbians? Diwali symbolises light over darkness and reflects the wider need for understanding in our community. Could the Leader of the House consider granting time for a debate on all we can do to boost community cohesion and counter the forces that seek to divide us?

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that more must be done to inform not just the British public, but countries that are equivocal in their support for Ukraine, that Russia’s illegal invasion is particularly egregious in its cynical and cruel targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure? I pay tribute to a member of Rugby’s Ukrainian community, who told me today: “Russia strikes not only the frontline but homes, hospitals and power plants. Whole regions are left in darkness after systematic attacks. Just recently, a maternity hospital in Sumy was targeted. Yet people wake up after nights of bombardment and go to work and school—the unimaginable has become normal. That is the true horror.” Does the Foreign Secretary agree that those horrors can only strengthen our resolve in supporting Ukraine?