PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Foreign Affairs and Defence - 18 July 2024 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

I call the Secretary of State for Defence.

The question is—[Interruption.] Sorry, go ahead.

You are confusing me, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I have confused myself!

But may I say how great it is to see you in the Chair for this debate, albeit in a temporary role? And may I say, through you, that the Foreign Secretary wanted to be here for the debate, but he and the Prime Minister are hosting the leaders of over 40 European countries at the European Political Community meeting at Blenheim palace today—it is an important day for our country. He will look forward to following the debate as soon as he returns.

I congratulate all 315 re-elected and returning Members of this House, and welcome in particular all Members who were elected for the first time. Savour that special feeling when you first walk into this Chamber and sit on these green Benches. Remember it; respect it. Our constituents have given each of us their confidence; they have given us the mandate to serve them and the country.

Two week ago, I stood at my local constituency election count in a sports hall in Rotherham. It is the honour of my life to stand at this Dispatch Box today as the Defence Secretary—as part of the new Government at the start of this new era for Britain. The last time that I spoke at this Dispatch Box was a week before the election in 2010, as a housing Minister dealing with planning reform. Even then, I warned that

“there are fundamental flaws in the Conservatives’ proposed planning regime”.

However, my main argument on that day focused on accountability. I said:

“accountability is a central tenet”—[Official Report, 29 March 2010; Vol. 503, c. 611.]

of public life, serious decisions and good government. Having re-entered Government, I feel that just as fiercely as I did 14 years ago. What we do, what we say and how we conduct ourselves in Government matters. We must always be accountable in this House, to the public and to Parliament. By doing that, we will help to regain trust in Government and return politics to public service.

I pay tribute to my predecessors, Grant Shapps and Ben Wallace, whom I shadowed for over four years from the Opposition Benches. The House will now miss them both in differing ways. They served as Defence Secretaries during what the Chief of the Defence Staff has described as the most extraordinary time for defence in his career. That responsibility now passes to me. I am grateful to have the support of such a stand-out ministerial team: the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry, my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle); the Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard); the Minister for Veterans and People, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns); and Lord Coaker in the other place.

The first duty of any Government is to defend the country and keep our citizens safe. That is why I pay tribute, on behalf of the House, to the men and women who serve in Britain’s armed forces, many of whom are overseas on deployment right now. They are rightly respected worldwide for their bravery and their professionalism. We thank them for what they do to keep us all safe, as we thank those out of uniform in UK defence. They will have this new Government’s fullest support to do their job in defending this country

That is why at the NATO summit in Washington last week, the Prime Minister confirmed the Government’s unshakeable commitment to NATO, and our total commitment to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence. It is why the Prime Minister launched this week a first-of-its-kind strategic defence review. And it is why we announced in the King’s Speech legislation to create a new armed forces commissioner to improve service life.

I wish the right hon. Gentleman, who was a committed parliamentarian in his shadow role, all the best in his new role, to which he brings great depth and seriousness. He has just described the strategic review and outlined the ambition to get to 2.5% of GDP. If that strategic review recommends more than 2.5%, will the Government still enact it in full?

We have launched the strategic defence review, which was a manifesto commitment. It will be conducted within the framework set out in our manifesto, with the determination to complete it within the first year and to raise defence spending to 2.5% of GDP as soon as we can. The country has not spent at that level since I last stood at the Dispatch Box back in 2010 under the then Labour Government.

I welcome to their roles the new shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson on defence, the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), who cannot be here for the debate—the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) is ably standing in for him, and we look forward to hearing what he has to say. I also welcome the SNP spokesperson on defence, the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan). As Defence Secretary, I want to take the politics out of national security. I say to the House: I will always look to work with you—putting country first, party second. I have offered the shadow Defence Secretary access to intelligence briefings, and will do so for other relevant Members. The new strategic defence review will brief and welcome submissions from other parties across this House.

I want us to forge a British defence strategy for the future, not just a defence strategy for the new Labour Government. No party has a monopoly on defence or on pride in our military. We in the Labour party have deep roots in defending this country. Throughout the last century, it was working men and women who served, and sometimes died, on the frontline fighting for Britain. It was Labour that established NATO and the nuclear deterrent. As his Majesty the King said yesterday, our commitment to both is “unshakeable.” We are a party with deep pride in forging international law and security: the Geneva conventions, the universal declaration of human rights, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the comprehensive nuclear-test-ban treaty were all signed by Labour Prime Ministers. We are a party with deep respect for the serving men and women of our armed forces. Theirs is the ultimate public service: they defend the country and are essential to our resilience at home. I know they will inspire me in the weeks, months and years ahead in this job.

As the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), said yesterday in the debate on the Address:

“Every month in my previous job, I became more concerned about the threats to our country’s security.”—[Official Report, 17 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 51.]

We know that these are serious times, with war in Europe, conflict in the middle east, growing Russian aggression and increasing global threats. We know, too, that there are serious problems. It was Ben Wallace who said to me in this Chamber last year that our armed forces had been “hollowed out and underfunded” over the past 14 years. Morale is at record lows, alongside dreadful military housing and a defence procurement system that the Public Accounts Committee has described as “broken” and wasting taxpayers’ money.

Less than two weeks into this Government, we now see that those problems are much worse than we thought. Just today, new official figures that we have been able to release as scheduled show that forces families’ satisfaction has fallen to the lowest level ever reported. We cannot solve those problems all at once, but we are determined to fix them.

My right hon. Friend is right to say that NATO is the cornerstone of our defence policy. We must also strengthen our role in the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, but would he elaborate on how we will be extending our support and solidarity to Ukraine as it faces Russian aggression?

My hon. Friend has served with distinction in the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, a body that draws together well-informed, committed Members from all parties in this House. It is an important civilian bulwark in the NATO military alliance, and I thank him for that service. He intervened on me just as I was about to move to the topic of Ukraine, so I ask him to bear with me for two or three minutes; if I have not answered his questions by then, I would welcome another intervention.

On Ukraine, I have been proud of UK leadership—proud that the UK and this House are united on Ukraine, because the defence of the UK starts in Ukraine. Ukraine is my first priority, and on my second day in this job, I was in Odessa. I spent the afternoon with President Zelensky and his team. We held our bilateral talks, we celebrated Ukraine’s navy day, and we also toured a military hospital, talking with injured Ukrainian servicemen. The Ukrainians, military and civilians alike, are fighting with huge courage. They have regained vast territory that was taken by Putin at first, and as a country without a navy, they have driven Russia’s fleet out of the western Black sea. They have opened up grain corridors and are now able to export almost as much as they did before Putin’s full-scale invasion in February 2022. However, Russia is far from a spent force, and if Putin wins, he will not stop at Ukraine.

In opposition, we gave the Government our fullest support for all the military aid this country gave to Ukraine, and I trust this Opposition will do the same. The UK is united for Ukraine, and I want to work together to ensure we remain united for Ukraine. The Government are now stepping up support: with President Zelensky, I was able to say that we will speed up the delivery of the military aid already pledged. We will step up support through a new package of more ammunition, more anti-armour missiles, more de-mining vehicles and more artillery guns. At the NATO summit in Washington last week, the Prime Minister went further, confirming £3 billion a year to help Ukraine for as long as it takes.

This King’s Speech shows the Government getting on with the job, just as we have in the first fortnight, with urgency and purpose. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and I have all spoken with our counterparts from across the world. At the NATO 75 summit, we met leaders of all 32 NATO nations—it was a NATO summit bigger, stronger and more united than ever. At that summit, the Prime Minister and Chancellor Scholz of Germany announced an new

“firm commitment to strike a deep UK-Germany defence agreement…without delay”,

a first step towards resetting Britain’s relationships with European allies. Last weekend, I hosted the Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister of Australia at Sheffield Forgemasters, then at Wentworth Woodhouse in Rotherham, where I reaffirmed our commitment to AUKUS and to our Indo-Pacific partners. I have also had the privilege of meeting outstanding personnel in these first less than two weeks, including personnel at the permanent joint headquarters, RAF Northolt and NATO maritime command, alongside top-class civilian officials in the Ministry of Defence and other Government Departments.

This week, the Foreign Secretary went to the middle east, pursuing our push for peace and an immediate ceasefire, and the Prime Minister launched the strategic defence review headed by Lord Robertson, General Barrons and Dr Fiona Hill. That review will be carried out at pace, ensure that we have a NATO-first defence strategy, and put people at the heart of Britain’s defence plans. I thank the reviewers for the work they will do in the weeks and months ahead. To end where I started, Britain is today hosting the European Political Community—a 47-strong grouping of European leaders—at Blenheim palace, discussing Russian aggression, European security and counter-migration action.

Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?

I obviously did not answer my hon. Friend’s questions on Ukraine earlier on. I give way again.

I thank my right hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene once again—he is being very generous with his time. He slightly touched on this point, but does he agree that the level of death and destruction and the loss of innocent lives in Gaza are intolerable, and that we must work to have an immediate ceasefire, an immediate release of hostages and urgent humanitarian aid into Gaza? Will my right hon. Friend outline what His Majesty’s Government are doing to bring that into effect?

My hon. Friend is right: the scale of the conflict and, in particular, the deaths that we see in Gaza are not just intolerable, but agonising. When we think back, the terrorist attack launched on Israel in October was deeply shocking as well. I am proud that it was the Labour party that led the debate in Parliament in February, when this House agreed to push for an immediate ceasefire. I am proud of the way that we have led arguments for that ceasefire, but also of the way we worked in private in opposition—work that we are now picking up in government. My hon. Friend may not have heard me say this, but the Foreign Secretary has already been to the middle east to pursue what the Prime Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition, declared at the end of October in a speech at Chatham House: that if we got into government, we would help lead a new push for peace. In the first fortnight, that is exactly what we have been doing.

I congratulate the Secretary of State on the appointment he has received; I know it is a position he has sought, and I wish him well. The conflict that is going on and the bombing in Gaza have already resulted in 40,000 deaths. Are the Government serious in pushing Israel to take part in an immediate ceasefire? Are they also prepared to suspend or stop all arms sales to Israel in order to save further lives?

The Secretary of State also made a point in his speech about the need to adhere to international law. There are international court judgments at the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court; are the Government going to support those judgments and ensure that they are carried out, whatever the political consequences? They require action to be taken internationally to bring a halt to this appalling conflict. Forty thousand are already dead, and the occupation continues. Surely there must be a way forward that stops the loss of life.

The right hon. Member is no longer a member of the Labour party, but I know that he watches what we do and say very closely. He will know that from the outset, we have argued that international humanitarian law must apply in this conflict, and must apply equally to both sides. The answer to his first question is yes: this Government are serious about pursuing an immediate ceasefire, which is why the Foreign Secretary has already been out to Israel to press that case.

On the question of arms sales to Israel, on the Foreign Secretary’s first day in post, through the established system that we use, he commissioned the British Government’s most up-to-date assessment of the degree to which any of our UK arms export licences may be facilitating a serious risk of a breach of international law. He has said clearly that he wants that process to be as swift and transparent as possible, and he is looking hard at exactly that issue. I hope that underlines the simple answer to the right hon. Member’s first question: yes, this Government are serious about a ceasefire, and about the application of international humanitarian law without fear or favour.

First, I commend the Secretary of State for the role he played in opposition and the role he now plays in government. I think that each of us, on hearing the words of the Secretary of State, will be inspired and feel more confident about road forward. When it comes to the middle east, we are all aware of the influence of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Iran, and we are aware of the axis of evil of Iran, North Korea, Russia and China. We are also aware that the IRGC supplies ammunition, finance and personnel to the Houthis in Yemen, Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon and terrorist groups right across Syria. When it comes to addressing that group and what it does across the world, can the Secretary of State today give the House an assurance that it is a priority for this Government to proscribe the IRGC and put it out of action?

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we are looking really hard, as he and this House would expect, at the growing threats that Iran poses not just as a state, but through its proxies and its growing alliances with other hostile nations. In many ways, he helps me supply an answer to a question that I have sometimes been asked over the last two days, which is: why have another strategic defence review now? The simple answer is exactly that: the threats are increasing and changing, the nature of warfare is changing and the growing importance of our alliances is becoming clearer. It is for that reason, a year after the last Government’s defence review, that this is imperative. We will pursue this properly and do it at pace, because that is what we need to do both to respond to the growing and changing threats we face and to take the decisions we must take on the capabilities we need to defend the country.

I will wind up now so that other Members from all sides can speak. We were elected on a manifesto promising change. After less than two weeks, I hope that the House and the public see that the work of that change has begun to strengthen the foundations of this new mission-driven Government in making Britain better defended and making Britain democracy’s most reliable ally. The Prime Minister said in his speech in this House yesterday:

“This Government have been elected to deliver nothing less than national renewal…and start the work of rebuilding our country—a determined rebuilding, a patient rebuilding, a calm rebuilding.”—[Official Report, 17 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 54-55.]

That is the task he has set me to lead with my Defence team, but there is so much more to do. I want defence to be central not just to the future security of Britain, but to the country’s success in this new era, bringing greater economic growth and wealth across the UK, reconnecting Britain in the world and forging a new partnership for Britain between Government, business and workers with their trade unions. Together we will make Britain more secure at home and strong abroad.

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and welcome to the Chair.

May I warmly congratulate the Defence Secretary on his new role, and strongly endorse the comments he made about Britain’s armed forces? My own regiment has recently been on the frontline in Estonia, and I want to strongly endorse the words he used. I also endorse the advice he gave to new Members sitting on these green Benches. I first sat on these green Benches—on the Government side—37 years ago, and I strongly agree with what he said. I feel that sense of honour and privilege every day in this House.

I had hoped to start by welcoming the Foreign Secretary to his place. I wanted to wish him well in discharging the immense responsibilities of the office he now holds. I have to say that I was dismayed to hear the Foreign Secretary answer questions on the “Today” programme this morning that should more properly have been answered in this House—a view that I believe Mr Speaker shares. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that the Foreign Secretary will be very well served by the outstanding civil servants at the Foreign Office. I want to express my gratitude to our ambassadors and high commissioners around the world. On overseas visits throughout my tenure, I was superbly served and looked after. I also want to thank the outstanding young officials who worked in my private office.

I should like to pay a special tribute to my noble Friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton. He demonstrated clear strategic thinking about how British foreign policy needed to adapt to the world as it is today and injected real energy into British diplomacy. I hope the whole House will acknowledge that to persuade a former Prime Minister to serve as Foreign Secretary was a real benefit to our country. It was also a pleasure to serve alongside the former Members for Berwick-upon-Tweed and Macclesfield, who I am very sorry are no longer sitting alongside me on the Front Bench. They were both superb Ministers, who worked diligently at the Foreign Office.

I cannot recall a more perilous period in international affairs. I entered the House of Commons just two years before the momentous fall of the Berlin wall, which precipitated the demise of the Soviet Union and the consequent end of the cold war. It is difficult to overstate, having lived with the terrifying spectre of nuclear confrontation, the collective relief we all felt. Yet the world is once again in the grip of a galloping escalation of tensions and dangers, where the international institutions created on the heels of the second world war to defend our values and protect mankind are being undermined, the narrow nationalism that so disfigured our continent is once again rearing its destructive head, and despots and dictators increasingly ride roughshod over democratic freedoms and the rules-based order.

Putin’s brutal and illegal invasion of Ukraine has brought war once again to the European continent. The Israel-Gaza conflict is devastating and risks regional conflagration. Poverty and debt stalk the global south. Yet covid taught us that no one is safe until we are all safe, while climate change is the greatest existential threat of our time. Never have we faced dangers so grave when our fates are so closely entwined. So at the very time when we need an international rules-based order to tackle these common threats—climate change, migration, terror and pandemics—we are more fragmented than ever. Divisions are hardening and debate is coarsening.

I am very grateful to the right hon. Member, my constituency neighbour, for giving way and I am delighted to see him in his place—on the Opposition side of the Chamber. Can I take it from his remarks that he subscribes to the view that we need not only a rules-based order, but a rights-based order? Here in our country, and indeed in Europe, the framework for those rights is the European convention on human rights. Are we to take it from his remarks that it is the policy of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition that we should remain a member of the ECHR?

That is certainly the policy of the Opposition, and I hope it is common across the House that we should remain part of the European convention.

I was talking about divisions hardening and debate coarsening. Public discourse is increasingly vitriolic, be it in pursuit of single issue causes or broader agendas, from the left or the right, or driven by motives that may or may not be religious and may or may not be well-intentioned. The challenge this presents to British foreign policy is immense, but Britain has punched above its weight precisely because of our leadership role in the international system.

As His Majesty’s Opposition, our role is to hold the Government to account, but also to give the strongest possible support where we can. I hope that we can work constructively, as our two parties have done hitherto. In opposition, we will continue to make the case that Britain must be a force for good, that it is outward-looking and global in perspective, that we stand up for internationalism and co-operation, that we stand against populism and isolationism, and that we stand with the world’s poorest and most vulnerable. I am very proud of the Conservative party’s record in government on all those fronts. We stood firmly behind Ukraine, and we worked day and night with international partners to maximise the flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza, while supporting negotiations to secure the release of the Israeli hostages. We produced a groundbreaking White Paper on international development, which drew in the support of all political parties in tackling global poverty in a complex geopolitical environment.

I am grateful to the shadow Foreign Secretary for his comments. One duty of the Opposition is to point out blind spots. We are talking about security, but one thing that was not mentioned in the King’s Speech was food security. For a rural community like mine, which has an 85% agricultural base, food security is really important. We have seen the attacks on Ukraine and the grain coming out of it. What can my right hon. Friend do in opposition to hold the Government to account to ensure we have food security on these isles?

My hon. Friend is quite right about the importance of food security. He will remember that the then Prime Minister launched the global food security summit last November in Britain. Food security is an issue not just for us but, as my hon. Friend rightly says, all around the world, and we will continue to press the Government to take it as seriously as we did.

I would like to expand on some themes that I anticipate will remain dominant over the course of this Parliament. First, I turn to Ukraine. Britain’s work in supporting Ukraine is a shining example of cross-party co-operation. I pay tribute to the Labour party for the constructive approach it demonstrated while in opposition. The Government can rely on us to continue in that spirit, because the struggle in Ukraine is an existential issue. Let no one believe that Putin will stop at Ukraine if he is victorious in this struggle. Our support for Ukraine in the face of Putin’s brutality remains unwavering, and I know that the Government’s position is the same. We welcome the Government keeping in place the commitment we made to spend at least £3 billion a year on military support for Ukraine for as long as is necessary.

In government, we were also a leading advocate for sanctioned Russian assets being used to support Ukraine and for ensuring that Russia pays for the destruction it has caused. I urge the new Government to push the international community to coalesce around the most ambitious solution possible to achieve those important aims. We on the Opposition Benches welcome the declaration agreed at the NATO summit in Washington last week—to which the Defence Secretary referred—which committed to support Ukraine

“on its irreversible path to full Euro-Atlantic integration, including NATO membership.”

It is right that the Government also committed to this in the Gracious Speech.

In relation to the middle east. we want to see the conflict in Gaza come to a sustainable end as quickly as possible. Our view remains that a negotiated pause in the fighting is the best way to secure the release of the hostages, enable a significant scaling up of much-needed humanitarian aid, and help bring about the conditions that will allow for a permanent end to hostilities. That is the plan that Britain championed in New York, and which secured the consent of the international community at the UN. There is a deal on the table to achieve those goals, backed by Israel, the United States and the United Nations Security Council. The onus is now on Hamas to accept it and bring to an end the suffering of the Palestinian people and the hostages, who remain in such awful jeopardy.

The Government must build on our hard work to see aid reach those in Gaza who desperately need it. The Conservative Government trebled their aid commitment in the last financial year and did everything possible to get more aid into Gaza by land, sea and air. Israel has committed to increasing the amount of aid reaching Gaza, and the Government of Israel must be held to account for delivering on their promises.

I want to signal a note of caution, which links to my comments earlier about composure. I am acutely aware of the very strong feelings that the conflict in Gaza has elicited. It is probably the most polarising foreign policy issue of our time, which has played out on the streets of our country, on our university campuses and in our politics, even forming the entire basis for some candidates in the general election, who are now with us in the House of Commons.

We must remember that this remains an incredibly complex issue. The questions and challenges around resolving the current conflict and achieving the two-state solution that we all want to see are profoundly difficult. We have a responsibility to set a sensible and respectful tone in the many debates we will continue to have, and to make clear that there is no room in our democracy for threats of violence and intimidation. We require serious solutions and long-term measured policies, not performative politics or short-term symbolic proclamations. We should certainly recognise the state of Palestine, but it must be at the right time, as part of an overall solution. To do so prematurely could send a signal that terror pays. I urge the Government to resist the siren calls of those who wish to demonise the state of Israel, and who draw a moral equivalence between the Hamas leadership and the democratically elected Government of Israel in a bid to isolate and delegitimise it.

While we are all appalled at the dreadful loss of life in Gaza, we must never forget the horror unleashed by Hamas on Israel on 7 October—the deadliest terrorist attack in Israel’s history, to which the Defence Secretary rightly referred. The Conservative party stands four-square behind Israel’s right to defend itself—but it must be in accordance with international humanitarian law. We must not lose sight of the fact that this is, at its heart, a tale of two just causes, of two peoples’ legitimate aspirations for national sovereignty, security and dignity.

There are other crises around the world that must also preoccupy the Government. I refer particularly to the crisis that has engulfed Sudan—now the worst displacement of people anywhere in the world. We are seeing clear evidence of ethnic cleansing once again in Darfur. We urge the Government to continue our efforts to pressure the warring parties in Sudan to cease hostilities, and to push hard for humanitarian support to reach those desperate people, including those I saw on the border with Chad earlier this year.

The Government must also continue to hold to account the regimes around the world committing appalling acts, whether that is Iran, Myanmar, North Korea or Russia, where we must push for the immediate release of Vladimir Kara-Murza. Finally, I know that the Foreign Secretary will want to work closely with the Governments of Gibraltar and Spain, and take a hands-on approach to securing a good deal for the Rock’s future prosperity. We will also be following closely the very important negotiations over the future of Diego Garcia.

I turn briefly and directly to the Gracious Speech. In spite of their legitimate desire for yet another defence review, I think the Government have made a mistake in not honouring immediately our commitment to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2030. My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), the shadow Defence Secretary, will say more about the matter later, but I would say now that this gives the wrong signal to our allies and adversaries about our determination to confront the multitude of dangers the world faces. In 2014, the Conservative Government made the commitment to spend 2% of GDP on defence. The UK led the way and many NATO allies have followed, and we have now led the way with our commitment to move to 2.5% of GDP by 2030. The Government should be in no doubt, either, that we will place under the microscope any decisions that they may make on our nuclear deterrent.

On the subject of Europe, we welcome the closest possible partnership with our friends and neighbours, subject to respecting the results of the referendum and the will of our constituents over Brexit. Today’s most important summit at Blenheim, served up oven-ready by my right hon. Friend the former Prime Minister, is a chance to underline the effective way in which the UK has worked with our European partners in response to the invasion of Ukraine and shown that, although we are outside the EU, we can indeed work together effectively.

The upcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, which I am delighted was referenced in the Gracious Speech, will be an opportunity to show real ambition for the Commonwealth. In government, we offered strong support for Samoa’s hosting of CHOGM and its desire to use this platform to enhance Commonwealth countries’ resilience to global challenges. I urge the new Government to continue working closely with Samoa to make the most of this CHOGM and to mobilise action across the Commonwealth, including to boost trade and investment and enhance access to climate finance.

I wish to conclude by addressing an issue that is very close to my heart and the hearts of many others across the House, but which in many ways links all these themes together. I was privileged to return to government as the Minister for international development, a brief I held previously in 2010 as Secretary of State. For many in their darkest moments after flood, earthquake and disaster, Britain has been a beacon of hope and light. Now, 70 million people are falling back into poverty, millions of girls are out of school, famines stalk the lands of east Africa and children are starving to death. The anger and frustration of the global south is palpable. I made no secret of my dismay that the overseas aid budget was cut and that the Department for International Development was merged into the Foreign Office. My job as Deputy Foreign Secretary was to look forward, to try to make the merger work after a tumultuous start and to set out a pathway to return to 0.7%.

However, development is about much more than money. Our recent White Paper crafted new approaches that reflect the changing world around us. We formulated creative ways of mobilising new and additional funds to ensure that the sustainable development goals can get back on track. I am proud of the leadership that our former Prime Minister has shown on the green climate fund and the Global Fund, where Britain was right at the forefront of ensuring that those funds improved and were fully replenished. I hope that the new Government will do the same with the International Development Association World Bank replenishment and with Gavi.

We made the case that international development must be owned by the British people. I submit that that is not a Conservative, Labour or Liberal policy but a British policy, and we must all unite behind the goal of bringing the British people behind the agenda set out so clearly in the White Paper. All British development money is spent in our national interest, because it helps heal the grotesque discrepancies of opportunity and wealth that disfigure our world. We will continue to stand up for the world’s poorest and most vulnerable, calling for the continued reform of the international financial system to free up funding for climate finance, debt relief and achieving the SDGs. We will continue to stand up for women and girls with the same vigour that we exhibited in government, whether in relation to female genital mutilation, women’s rights or LGBTQ rights, and we will press for a bolstering of the coping mechanisms of countries on the frontline of climate shocks.

Finally, we will be keeping a close eye on whether the “D” in FCDO falls silent once more. Development is only as effective as the structures and expertise behind it. I tried hard in office to strengthen the development silo in the Foreign Office, with some, but frankly not enough success. I stress in the strongest terms that development cannot be a sideshow, as people’s lives depend upon it, but the Foreign Office system is built around diplomacy, with a panoply of resources focused on the Foreign Secretary’s priorities. I hope that the Government keep that in mind. Development deserves the attention and energy afforded to diplomacy. With the right strategic adjustments, development and diplomacy could make for a mighty partnership, but it will require proactive leadership. If, despite best efforts, that cannot be achieved under the merger—that will become clearer sooner rather than later during this Parliament—I will urge the Government to move swiftly and decisively to plan B.

It is easy to despair at the state of the world, so I hope to end on a more sanguine note. I am long enough in the tooth to have lived through the ebbs and flows of different eras, conflicts and crises. I have witnessed the worst in humanity, but also the best. I have learned that the bleakest moments offer the greatest opportunities. However, history teaches us that most things do not come to an end, but are brought to an end. We have the power to change things for the better and to build a safer and more prosperous world, but we cannot do it alone. Only international co-operation can deliver the progress we seek. I sincerely hope that the new Government will succeed. The future of us all depends on that success.

I call Deirdre Costigan to make her maiden speech.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make my maiden remarks on this historic King’s Speech, which puts into concrete action the first steps of this Labour Government of national renewal. I thank the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) for their wide-ranging remarks.

As the new Member for Ealing Southall, I stand in the shadow of Virendra Sharma, who was our MP for 17 years. With more than 50 years of public service in total, including as a local councillor and mayor of Ealing, Virendra is a towering figure in west London politics. Always dressed impeccably in a suit, and sometimes sporting sunglasses, he often has the air of a mafia don, until he gives you that wonderful Sharma smile. Virendra is well known for his work on global maternal health. He has been a tireless defender of human rights and of the underdog all his political life. I thank him personally for his support and wisdom, and I pay tribute to his wife Nirmala and all the family for their years of service to Ealing Southall.

The House can probably tell from my still-intact Dublin accent that I was not born here. I came to this country in the 1990s to finish my education, but like so many Irish people before me, I fell in love with the diversity of this country, and I never went back. That is the story of my constituency, Ealing Southall, where 53% of people were, like me, born abroad. Whether from India, Pakistan, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Ireland or so many other places, we all came here for a better life, but we did not always find it easy to achieve that better life. Many of my constituents have faced barriers in the workplace and on the streets, but they have always stood up to them.

Ealing Southall has a strong tradition of anti-racism, and of trade unionism. In the 1960s, low-paid exploited Punjabi workers at the Woolf rubber factory joined the Transport and General Workers’ Union and famously took seven weeks’ successful strike action, despite attempts by management to create sectarian division. In the 1970s, residents took to the streets of Southall to defend it from the far right in the aftermath of the racist murder of Gurdip Singh Chaggar.

Until my election, I worked for the country’s biggest and of course best trade union, Unison. Starting as a shop steward, I went on to become national officer for disability equality. I intend to continue Ealing Southall’s proud tradition of trade unionism and fighting for workers’ rights, so I welcome Labour’s new deal for working people, and the much-needed laws that we will bring forward to ensure that black, Asian and disabled workers have the right to equal pay.

I am enormously thankful to the people of Ealing Southall for placing their trust in me. Since the creation of the seat, Labour has won 23 times in a row, but this is the first time in 23 elections that Ealing Southall will be represented by a woman. I intend to support this Labour Government’s plans to create flexible workplaces that fit with women’s lives. Ealing Southall is home to a dizzying array of places of worship, and I was delighted to visit Shree Ram mandir, Shri Guru Ravidass gurdwara, Baitul Mukarram mosque and Christ the Redeemer church during my campaign. I know that for many of us coming to this country from abroad, it was the mandirs, the gurdwaras, the mosques and the churches that provided the help and support that we needed to settle into a new country. I will always support all the diverse communities in Ealing Southall.

I am lucky to have not one but three town centres in Ealing Southall. West Ealing, Hanwell, and Southall are all filled with shops, bars and cafés. Southall is a busy shopping hub for wedding finery, famous the world over, but local businesses are not as busy as they once were, which is why they strongly back Labour’s plans to review business rates and stamp out late payments to help revitalise our high streets.

Fly-tipping is a blight on town centres across London. I commend the work of the amazing LAGER Can litter picking volunteers who do so much to keep Ealing clean. As the former deputy leader of Ealing council, I hope to work with our new Labour Government to find ways of giving councils more powers to levy and enforce fines that will act as a real deterrent against that criminal behaviour.

Ealing hospital sits in the centre of my constituency, but it is badly in need of love. Ten years ago, I had a stroke while I was—of all places—at the Labour party conference. I recovered, but I am sad to say that I did miss the leader’s speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) that year as a result. I am afraid to say that I missed his statement this morning as well, having unexpectedly been encouraged, shall we say, to make my maiden speech.

When I had my stroke, the care that I received from an Irish neurologist working for NHS North West London was fantastic, so I applaud the investment that Labour is making in reducing NHS waiting lists and doubling scanners for quicker diagnoses. I am not sure that I would be here today if it was not for our NHS. We must again ensure that it is the best health service in the world.

Finally, until recently, I was Ealing’s cabinet member for climate action. I know that many people in my constituency worry about air pollution, nature breakdown and flood risk. I am excited about Labour’s plan to set up Great British Energy, a clean new energy company that should cut carbon emissions, create jobs and help reduce household bills.

Ealing Southall has always been a place that has welcomed new arrivals. I thank this House for channelling the spirit of Ealing Southall today by similarly welcoming my arrival. I look forward to serving all my constituents, and I will start by backing the much-needed change that they voted for that is set out in the King’s Speech.

May I start by warmly congratulating the new the hon. Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan)? For a time I lived in Acton, close to her constituency, and when she spoke about the diversity and warmth of the area, I certainly recognised that. I have no doubt that she will be an enormous asset to this place. Many congratulations, and welcome.

I also welcome the Secretary of State for Defence and his team to their places, and the Foreign Secretary and his team to theirs. They include my fellow Oxford MP, the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds); it is wonderful to see her there. I also welcome the shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), and, in particular, the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), whose promotion I hope we can all agree is long overdue.

Under boundary changes, Oxford West and Abingdon has taken in Dalton barracks and Shippon, so I am now also the MP for a number of armed forces families. I pay tribute to them, and to all our armed forces and their families who so willingly give their lives over to service to this country.

I am very pleased that foreign affairs and defence has been chosen as the theme for the second day of the debate. We are living in a world that feels so much less stable and less secure than it has ever felt, certainly in my lifetime. Only a few days ago, we saw the horrific attempted assassination of an American presidential candidate; Putin continues to wage war in Ukraine; Xi Jinping continues his muscular foreign policy aims, threatening Taiwan and continuing to oppress people in Hong Kong and Xinjiang; and as has been mentioned, a rising tide of populism is sweeping across Europe.

The Liberal Democrats support many of the priorities set out in the King’s Speech. Support for NATO, support for Ukraine and resetting our relationship with the European Union are all vital to achieving security and stability. We aim to work constructively with anyone in government who seeks to return Britain to its position as a leading light on the international stage, in particular in the area of development, on which I associate my remarks with those of the shadow Foreign Secretary. We agree that there is a huge opportunity. We want a return to spending 0.7% on development, and we think that a new Department is the way to ensure the muscle that is needed to give that oomph. Nevertheless, we wish all the Ministers well in their endeavour to find a place for development in the Foreign Office.

I was especially pleased to hear mention of the middle east and the two-state solution. For reasons that I am sure are obvious, that is what I will focus my remarks on. It has been nearly 300 days since the horrific Hamas attack on 7 October. Since then, hostages have still not returned home. The death toll in Gaza has reached 38,000. The vast majority of the dead are women and children. There are, of course, thousands more under the rubble who are left out of the statistics. Scientists fear that the death toll will soar. A letter in the medical journal The Lancet predicted that if we take into account indirect casualties of war—people who die of malnutrition, a lack of medication and unsanitary living conditions—the total number of deaths could climb as high as 186,000.

The children of Gaza have suffered the unimaginable. Alexandra Saieh, the head of humanitarian policy and advocacy at Save the Children International, said:

“They are being dismembered. They have been burnt alive in tents. They have been killed due to crashing apartment building blocks. They have been also killed by preventable diseases and illnesses and denied medical assistance. Children in Gaza are just suffering horrifically.”

In the first three months of this conflict alone, 1,000 children had one or both legs amputated; that meant more than 10 children lost one or both legs every single day. We need that immediate ceasefire. We needed it six months ago.

There is only one way to end the killing, to get those hostages safely home and to get that humanitarian aid in. None of that can happen until the ceasefire is achieved, but we must also understand that a ceasefire is not enough for peace. Peace is not just the absence of war. It is hope that is shared—hope for a future in which Palestinians and Israelis live in security and dignity. That is what we mean by a two-state solution. That is the real prize.

I have been relieved to be a Liberal Democrat during the last few months. In all seriousness, when my family were under siege in that church in Gaza, the professional and the personal collided completely. I got the devastating news in November that I had lost a family member; my cousins texted me to tell me, and all they asked for was that ceasefire. That is what the Liberal Democrats have consistently argued for, because when it comes to foreign policy, we ground our approach in liberal principles of human rights and the international rules-based order.

I congratulate the hon. Member on a powerful speech. I agree with her call for an immediate ceasefire. Does she believe that we should also halt arms supplies to Israel, which are being used to bomb Gaza and make us and the United States complicit in the killing of so many people in Gaza?

I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. I will come to exactly those points and will expand on them.

An approach based on the international rules-based order and humanitarian law led to our being on the right side of the argument on apartheid in South Africa, on Hong Kong, and indeed on the war in Iraq. It guides our approach now. I am pleased—delighted, even—that the Government have included reference to the all-important two-state solution in the King’s Speech, and I am very much heartened by the their change in tone. But words are meaningless without concrete action. It is vital that we start to think about what we need to do the day after that ceasefire is secured, because at some point it will be—we all know that. Hamas are extremes in this debate, but so is Netanyahu. Neither wants peace. It is in neither of their interests. It is the framing of one versus the other that has proved to be so insidious in this debate.

There are plenty of voices in Israel, Palestine and beyond who are partners in peace and are actively calling for it. Protest in Israel is growing, with demonstrations held in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, clamouring for a deal to be done to bring those hostages home. They often link that to a ceasefire, and the release of Palestinian political prisoners such as Marwan Barghouti. That wider movement for peace is growing.

I want to tell the House about two friends of mine, Maoz and Magen Inon. They lost their parents on 7 October when Hamas targeted their house with a close-range missile. I have been twice to Netiv HaAsara—once before and once since—and I saw their house and their burnt out car. It was heartbreaking. But rather than turn to hatred, they chose instead to spend their whole lives talking about peace, because they do not want this to happen to anyone else’s family. There is only one way to guarantee that: peace and a shared future. In them and in all those Israeli peace activists—a growing movement—I see that shared future.

This Chamber and this Government need to understand that people like Maoz and Magen are embers in a nascent fire. They need the oxygen of political support to survive and grow. The same is true for Palestinian peace activists Hamze and Ahmed, who I recently shared a panel with—all of us children of the Nakba, but all of us willing to devote our futures to stopping the endless taking of lives to avenge a past we no longer want to keep resurrecting over and over again. These are the voices that deserve to be amplified, and this is the kind of rhetoric that I hope we can all follow—bringing people together, not seeking to divide. I say that with some disappointment, because in the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition in response to the King’s Speech yesterday, he did not mention Palestine at all, only Israel. We cannot do that. We must understand that we cannot have security and freedom for Israel without security and freedom for Palestine. That is why the mention of the two-state solution is so vital.

Let us start with the basics: a two-state solution needs two states. That is why we must recognise the state of Palestine, along 1967 borders, immediately without preconditions. I have laid a Bill in every parliamentary Session since I was elected, and I will do so again. Some 140 countries have already taken this step, including Ireland, Spain and Norway just this May. If the UK were to join them, it would send a powerful message to the Israeli Government that we are serious about two states—something that Netanyahu has rejected. It would also send a message to the Palestinian people, who are desperate for hope that the international community—in particular the UK with our long-standing historical obligations to the region—will help them achieve that future.

Many will say—and they are right—that recognition is not enough. One of the biggest barriers to peace are the illegal Israeli settlements in the west bank. In 2024, Israel illegally seized 23.7 sq km of Palestinian land in the occupied west bank. That is more than all the land it has taken over the past 20 years combined. These settlements are illegal under international law. They exacerbate tension and they undermine the viability of that previous two-state solution. We have called for individual violent settlers who breach international law to be sanctioned. I was pleased that the then Conservative Government took some small steps and sanctioned individual settlers, but I urge the Government to go further. The Liberal Democrats have called for sanctions to include Ministers Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, and the connected entities that provide support or enable those extremist individuals. Since 2021, we have also called for the UK to ban trade with illegal settlements, because if they are illegal under international law, we should put a firm marker in the sand.

To come to the point made by the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), the trade of British weapons needs to be handled with great care. Our policy is not to single out Israel—that is important. Our policy is built on ensuring that no British-made arms are sold to any countries that are in potential breach of human rights law. That is why we believe that we should look at our arms export trade with Israel. Despite repeated calls, the Government never released their own legal advice on potential breaches of international law in this conflict, but given that there is a case to answer at the ICJ and the ICC, the British public deserve to know whether the Government are breaching their own arms export regime. The Foreign Secretary, when he was shadow Foreign Secretary, asked for that legal advice to be released; I am curious to see whether he will make good on that promise.

While we are on the subject of courts, it is vital that the UK Government give their full-throated support to the ICC and the ICJ in their investigations and judgments. The UK Government must support them and their processes and outcomes without fear or favour. That goes beyond this conflict, as there are international ramifications if we undermine those courts that are the bedrock of our international rules-based order. When in government, the Conservatives undermined those processes, but I had hoped for better from Labour, and I still do. In January, the now Foreign Secretary said that his party believed that if an arrest warrant were issued for Netanyahu, they would honour it. Since then, Karim Khan at the ICC has issued one for Hamas leaders and Netanyahu, but we understand from the media that the block by the UK, which should be removed, may have remained in place. It would helpful for the Foreign Secretary to come to the House and explain the position.

As ever, the hon. Lady is a powerful advocate on injustices all over the world. The particular point she raises on the international rules-based order is very powerful. It and the international legal system must provide equal protection to all people, and they must be free from double standards. The minute those two things do not apply, the very nature of the rules-based order is under threat.

I could not agree more. It has really concerned me how people perceive a double standard between what is happening in this conflict and what is happening between Ukraine and Russa. They are very different conflicts. As politicians, we have to bolster that international rules-based order so that people have faith that injustices anywhere in the world will be put through a proper process and determined. I am afraid to say that we are at risk—not just this country but the US—of undermining that system. I urge the Government to take a different approach.

I will simply end by saying that I urge the Government to go further and faster on a two-state solution. I would love to see a plan for what they mean by leading. I would offer my services with pleasure, because we need that two-state solution, with Israelis and Palestinians living side by side in dignity and security. It is going to take much more than a change in tone to get there. It is vital to what we need to achieve peace, not just in Israel-Palestine but in the middle east and the region as a whole.

I call Lee Pitcher to make his maiden speech.

I thank the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran).

Like many of us, I found myself standing on the Terrace here in Parliament on my first day, with my back to the stunning Palace of Westminster and the splendour of Big Ben, and the London Eye majestically circling with the buzz, excitement and energy of the visitors here in this great capital city. There I was, looking out across the very still River Thames towards the east end of London, home to the world’s greatest football team, West Ham United, who, I remind everyone, did bring home some European silverware quite recently. But in truth, I was not thinking about the London Stadium at the time; I was looking towards the place where I was born and spent my early years.

I recalled the 14-year-old in his first year of his GCSEs who slept on a double mattress on the floor, alone with just his mum and his sister; a little lad who had nothing left to his name and who was regularly bullied at school for the length of his trousers. I can tell the House that there is nothing more stark, more devastating and more heartbreaking than seeing your mum’s face—a very proud lady whose primary focus in life was to look after her babies—as she found herself working tirelessly but still losing the home that we lived in. Those times were rough, but I was so fortunate to have the very best and most inspiring women role models around me: my mum and my sister. They showed me that strength of character, resilience, and the importance of kindness regardless of the situation is what will carry you through.

At that time, what we had were many friends and families in the community who rallied round to give us support and a roof over our heads. That told me that there were people out there who cared—people who would give you hope, and hope is what we needed. That experience absolutely changed my life and set a direction of travel for me to work hard, to do well and to never ever want to see anyone in that position again. And here I am today on 18 July, my 47th birthday—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Thank you! I stand here in the shadows of the greats in this country that I love with my every being, having been given the chance to make sure I deliver that promise to myself and to my constituents that my situation will never happen to another child.

Today is a super special day, as was 5 July, when I became first ever Member of Parliament for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme. Let me take this opportunity to acknowledge the hard work of Andrew Percy, who residents spoke of so fondly on the doorstep as a great constituency MP, and of Nick Fletcher in Don Valley, whose work promoting mental health in men is very dear to my heart, having lost a cousin a few years ago. Nick also campaigned for Doncaster airport, which is a key priority of mine too. I will not stop working closely with the Mayor of Doncaster, the South Yorkshire Mayor, officers and others to see planes flying over the skies of Doncaster again.

It really isn’t hard to see why we all cared so much for my beautiful constituency, and I will tell you a little bit about why I adore it. Thirty years ago I met my best friend, my wife, who is from the constituency. She introduced me to Yorkshire, and I fell in love with the place in the same way that I fell in love with her at 18 years of age. She has been by my side ever since. Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme is my home. My family have grown up in the constituency, my children have gone to school there and, alongside work, I have volunteered with wonderful organisations.

There are many unsung heroes in the area who, over many, many years, have given back to our community. I have seen the work of great places such as the Doncaster Lions, whose motto could not align any more to our own values: “We serve”. They tirelessly walk the streets at Christmas every single year with Santa and his sleigh to bring smiles to children who otherwise would not be able to afford to go and see him in his grotto. I also have first-hand experience of the impact of Thorne’s local community radio station, TMCR, which brings a ray of sunshine through music to residents across the airwaves, easing loneliness and creating a sense of family. As a school governor at Travis St Lawrence school for several years, I have seen how the monumental effort of staff and teachers gives children the very best start in life.

Community spirit can be found in every single pocket of the new constituency, from the urban, proud former mining areas and charming towns of Doncaster East, to the fertile, agricultural farming areas, quaint towns and villages of the Isle of Axholme in north Lincolnshire, through to the thriving local independent businesses and attractions, such as Yorkshire wildlife park—I give a big shout out to Rocco the baby rhino who I met last weekend. Like Rocco, I see what I have in Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme as something rare and special that must be looked after, because mine is an area where heritage and tradition have shaped the towns and villages. I am keen to ensure that the unique identities of the different areas are respected, embraced and enjoyed for generations to come.

The Isle of Axholme was once an inland island, surrounded by streams, rivers and meres until it was drained in the 1600s. It has amazing historic architecture—you really need to come and see it—such as Normanby Hall and the Old Rectory in Epworth, which was home to John Wesley, the founder of Methodism. It is also home to the Haxey hood. Has anyone heard of that? It is a tradition that dates back to the 14th century. Lady de Mowbray was riding towards Westwoodside, when her silk hat flew off her head in the wind and 13 local farmworkers ran after it. Eventually, one of them caught it but was too shy to give it back. He handed it to another gentleman who passed it back to her. The whole thing caused such amusement that she dedicated 13 acres of land so that it could be re-enacted every single year. So I say why don’t we, after Prime Minister’s questions, get together in a rugby scrum, as they do every year, and see if we can push the hood back to where it needs to be!

We also have Keadby, home to the power stations; the Stainforth and Keadby canal; Crowle, with its quaint square and Gothic revival market hall; and lovely rural villages such as Luddington, Ealand, West Butterwick, Garthorpe and Fockerby. In Eastoft, I recently met a couple of farmers who told me that we have the best growing land in the world. Doncaster East comprises wonderful market towns such as Bawtry, a 12th century port, and Thorne, mentioned in the Domesday Book; mining settlements such as Dunscroft, Moorends and Rossington; Hatfield, the place where Northumbrian King Edwin was killed in the battle of Hatfield Chase; Woodhouse, the birthplace of Corporal William J Harper, a local hero who won a Victoria Cross in world war two; and Dunsville, Lindholme, Bessacarr, Branton, Finningley, Austerfield and Auckley, which all have their own enticing charm.

For all the greatness in my home constituency, my team and I have real challenges ahead. The King’s Speech paves the way for policies and legislation to facilitate change in a lot of areas. For the mum who came to the constituency pregnant five years ago and still has not got her child an NHS dental appointment, I say that there are 700,000 new appointments to come. For the dad I spoke to while he was getting his children ready to visit their grandma—his wife was upstairs in bed; she had had a delay in her chemotherapy treatment and wanted to not see that happen to others because of the anxiety it caused—I say that there will be 40,000 new appointments per week and a huge reduction in NHS waiting times. For the grandad who endured young adults trying to break into his home repeatedly—pretty much every day—and threatening him with knives, I say that there will be 13,000 more police officers.

For the children I spoke to at the New College hustings, who wanted new industries and new jobs to excite them, I say that there will be a clean energy company, with science, technology, engineering and maths jobs for a future generation. For the parent with the child with special educational needs who got no mental health support or diagnosis for several years, I say that there is a commitment to massively increase mental health provision. For the school leaver who can never envisage having a home for the future or the ability to buy one, I say that there is a commitment to jobs and a commitment to build 1.5 million homes. For my mum, waiting for a bus that is delayed or never turns up, I say that powers will be devolved to regional mayors to take buses back into public control. For the children who go to school hungry and do not have clothes on their backs—there are plenty in my constituency, where the relative poverty rate is 19.7%, according to the House of Commons Library—I say that there are breakfast clubs for all. Energy costs will be reduced by GB Energy, there will be economic stability and growth as a result of projects such as a national wealth fund, and planning reform will create roles and jobs.

What I do from now on will require personal, role-model, visionary leadership, but it will also require a team effort. When I started my career as a sewer baiter, lifting manholes and putting down bait to kill rats, I was given some advice by the CEO of a company, who said, “Lee, to be successful you need to build the best team around you, and to do that you need to focus on brains. Do not focus on race, religion, age or sexual preference; focus on getting the best brains around you, and you will be successful.” Over the years, I have learned about the need to supplement that with passion in the heart, for those with the right passion and the right brains are bound to be successful.

I will work tirelessly across the private, public and voluntary sectors, with my wonderful volunteering team and with residents, to bring a better today and an even better tomorrow for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme. No family should do go to bed at night and have nightmares about what tomorrow might bring; they should sleep well, dream big, and wake up to opportunities galore. I do not underestimate the challenge that lies ahead, but I can tell the House that that 14-year-old without a home never did so either, and let me bear witness to that as I stand here today. I say to every single resident of Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme, “Thank you for putting your trust in me. I am your voice here in Westminster, I am your voice in the constituency, and together we will make a difference.”

It is a real pleasure to follow the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher). It is also a great pleasure to have another Yorkshire Hammer in the House, but let me give him some friendly advice: he might not want to have my neighbour, the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), sitting behind him next time. If the hon. Gentleman does give him any trouble, he should just ask to compare their teams’ European cabinets.

As the current leader of the UK delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, I want to say something about defence in an ever-changing world. I hope there is not too much of a pause in the defence reviews that have already taken place, and there has been some debate about that. I understand why a new defence review is taking place under a new Government, but I think it worth noting that we have moved to a 360° view of NATO and the threats that it faces.

We may well see a change of Administration in the United States, and with any change of Administration it takes time to work out the direction that the new Administration want to take. I do not feel as fearful as some about President Trump returning to the White House, because during his last tenure he invested heavily in NATO and did not undermine it. We know that while his habit is to create great upset and make big statements, the reality turns out to be somewhat different, and he works towards building on that. Nevertheless, this is something that will have to be considered. What Trump did succeed in doing was getting European allies to build their defence strategies and budgets, and we cannot escape the fact that the demands on the defence of Europe are growing and growing, not just on land but at sea.

We know that Russia has mapped the bed of the North sea. It has mapped the fuel pipelines and the data cables, and obviously the surface platforms are at risk. We know that the Royal Navy and our allies spend a great deal of time counteracting that, and I am proud that the Conservative Government established a huge shipbuilding programme the likes of which had not been seen for very many years. It provides long-term contracts that allow the shipyards and the companies to invest, and, crucially, allow the Royal Navy to be the capable force that it needs to be. That must be key not just to the maintaining of a maritime nation, but to where the maritime interests lie in the world.

Climate change has already been mentioned today. An undeniable fact in that connection is the opening up of the High North and the north-east passage. Another undeniable fact is that the Russians have been rebuilding and revamping bases along their northern shoreline, and yet another undeniable fact is that the Ukraine war that Vladimir Putin illegally started, thinking he would be able to walk in and dominate that country in a very short space of time, has decimated his economy in the long run. Going to war will always decimate an economy, but this war has decimated Russia’s military, costing it a huge number of military personnel, and has made Putin reliant on other countries, such as China. It is notable that before the Ukraine war Chinese vessels never really went into the High North, but they do now because Russia lets them in.

Tension will build in the High North, and we have to be ready for it. I think we are ready for it—we have taken part in vital exercises in the area—but that just goes to show how vital the Royal Navy is. It is, of course, also vital that we have a functioning air force, and that we continue with the procurement of F-35s. Russian jets try to violate our airspace—certainly NATO airspace—on, I think, a daily basis, and they need to be met with confrontation. NATO is a deterrent rather than an aggressive force, but deterrence can only happen if those concerned feel the consequences of the balance of power. I believe that NATO is strong enough at the moment. No other combined maritime force in the world constantly has at least 36 ships patrolling the sea; that is what NATO is able to bring together. However, it is vital that when we carry out the strategic defence review, we analyse not just what we need in maritime terms today, but what will come in the future; not just how we patrol the airspace today, but what will come in the future.

We must also address the position of the Army, which has been under discussion for decades. It is all very well to talk about hollowing out the armed forces and going for the lowest number of personnel. This was, in many ways, the post-cold war dividend, and that dividend has gone, as a number of us warned that it would before the conflict in Ukraine, and it will not come back. That leads to some tough choices. There has to be honesty in the conversation about how much of our GDP we should be spending, because it will add up to 100%, and that means that the budget must be cut somewhere else. I am proud that we have the track to get to 2.5%, but, as I was trying to ask in my intervention on the Secretary of State, if this review adds up to more than 2.5%—if it says, “This is what we need to be able to defend a changing arena”—will the Government spend that money? We cannot on one the hand say that we aim to get to 2.5%, rather than giving a specific date, and on the other hand say, “We are going to have a strategic defence review, but what if it costs 3%?” Will this actually be achieved? That is an important question.

The right hon. Member is making a most interesting speech. Does he agree that the present size of the British Army is militating against recruitment? A great many people who might be good in the Army and have considered it as a career option are saying, “Actually, if I could get another job I might do better,” and that is very, very dangerous.

Recruitment has become a big problem in the armed forces, especially now that unemployment is at historically low levels. One of my colleagues said to me recently that it was not officers but the ranks who were difficult to recruit. I do not have an immediate answer on how we can change that, but I can say this. In my short tenure as the procurement Minister at the MOD, it became blatantly obvious within 24 hours from looking at the letters and written questions on my desk that accommodation is one of the biggest issues facing the services. I make no criticism of any of my successors or predecessors in that role for trying to handle the issue of accommodation, because I quickly discovered just how difficult it is. I wanted to make front-loading the capital expenditure budget a priority in order to sort out accommodation, but there are so many legal hurdles in the deals that have been done in the past that it becomes difficult.

I want to put on the record that I see service accommodation as a defence capability, and it should be treated like all other defence capabilities. If we are asking our service personnel to go to war, do we want the last thing they hear before they go on to the battlefield to be that their family are moving out and going somewhere else because they cannot live in such conditions any more? Do we want the last thing our personnel on Trident hear before disappearing for four months to be, “I’m leaving; I’m going back to my family home with the kids. We can’t live like this”? That means it has become an issue of operational capability. We need our highly trained and highly professional personnel to know that they are being looked after, which starts with accommodation.

I wish the Government all success in trying to grasp this issue and take it forward, because it is exceptionally complex. I am looking at the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), who was one of my successors. I know that he personally tried very hard to sort this issue out and carry it forward. I know there is a body of work taking place, but this is a priority and needs to be sorted. I hope that the new Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), makes good on the 50 written questions he submitted on 23 and 24 May this year about accommodation, and on the several questions tabled by the now Secretary of State. They obviously recognise that it is a huge concern, and we look forward to finding out how they will approach that as soon as possible.

I will move on to foreign affairs. Without a shadow of a doubt, one of the most contentious issues in the previous Parliament, as well as outside and during the general election, was the war between Israel and Gaza, which has inflamed passions on all sides. I fear that the general election campaign showed that some of the militant pro-Palestinian protesters are stepping over the mark. That does not apply to all pro-Palestinian protesters—there are very different sets of people—but I am talking about the militant pro-Palestinian protesters who seek to use fear and intimidation to try to achieve their objectives.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I have not given notice to the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips) about what I am about to say, but it is not a criticism, so I hope she will accept it. As she pointed out in her acceptance speech, it was one of the most horrific campaigns she had ever been through. Nobody putting themselves forward in a democracy, let alone for public service, should have to experience what not just she but several other people experienced. Do you know what most of them had in common, Mr Deputy Speaker? They were women. Female candidates in the election, especially Labour female candidates, had the most horrific, misogynistic abuse hurled at them over the issue of Gaza and Israel, and we have to call that out.

Everybody elected to this place is here as a parliamentarian to speak up for the things they passionately believe in, and no one should ever dismiss someone’s passionate views about a particular subject, even if we ferociously disagree with them. However, it is incumbent on all of us to call it out when we see, in what should be a fair democracy, people having their tyres slashed, being screamed at and being intimidated, which happens to women especially. If we want to have a strong democracy, we have to make sure that this House says with one voice that everybody who wants to stand for Parliament, whatever their views, has the right to campaign safely and put their views across. As a country, we have fallen a long way behind that. Whatever anybody’s view, we have to call that out.

I am a strong defender and supporter of Israel. I believe that Israel has a right to exist, and a right to defend itself. I believe that a close eye must be kept on whether international humanitarian law is being broken. If it is, the people who are responsible must be brought before the courts and prosecuted.

The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) made a very powerful speech, and I listened intently to every word she said. Her personal experiences bring value to this House, as she is able to talk about what the Israel-Gaza conflict means to her, given that her family are on the ground. Who in this House does not want to see a ceasefire? We all want to see a ceasefire, but there are two sides to the coin. It is still Hamas’s objective to wipe out the state of Israel, which we have to address. We have to keep a balance. As the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), said, a pogrom was launched on 7 October, and we must make absolutely sure that what happened on that day cannot happen again.

This House has always pushed for a two-state solution, but it cannot be down to Israel alone to make the ceasefire happen. I will carry on defending Israel’s right to defend itself and maintain its security. I will also carry on defending international law and making sure it is abided by. If it is not, I will hold people to account. But the call for a ceasefire cannot just be on one side. Hamas have to release the hostages and give up their objective of wiping out Israel, and then we may be able to move things forward.

I call Joe Powell to make his maiden speech.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke), and the excellent maiden speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) and for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher).

It gives me great delight to address this House as the new Member of Parliament for Kensington and Bayswater. I doubt that, for any of us, the last seven weeks have been easy. I know that many hon. Members will still be catching up on their sleep after the campaign trail, but having our twins born in the first week of the general election campaign took things to another level. If timing is everything in politics, that is certainly not a combination I would recommend anyone repeat—but my children will obviously have a great story to tell when they are older.

I want to take a moment to thank the team at Queen Charlotte’s hospital and across the Imperial College NHS trust for their incredible care. Our NHS staff deserve our utmost respect and support, and I hope that in the future St Mary’s, Hammersmith and Charing Cross hospitals will finally get what they need to become the first-class premises that patients and staff in our community deserve, including the delivering of plans for a brand-new St Mary’s hospital.

I pay tribute to my two predecessors in this new constituency. Felicity Buchan worked hard for the residents of Kensington over the past five years, and I particularly commend her for her work on the Homes for Ukraine programme. Some issues are central to our national and international security, which transcends party politics, and supporting the struggle for a free Ukraine is one of them. I am grateful for her work on this issue. In Kensington and Bayswater, we have a Ukrainian cultural centre, the Ukraine embassy and a substantial Ukrainian population. Having personally worked to support democracy and anti-corruption in Ukraine for many years, I will make sure that our Ukrainian community continues to have a strong advocate in Parliament.

I was also fortunate enough to inherit part of Dame Karen Buck’s former constituency of Westminster North. Under previous boundaries, she represented north Kensington for many years. I know from experience that tens of thousands of residents have been directly assisted by Karen and her staff with expertise and empathy. I hope I can emulate even a small part of her unwavering focus on tackling poverty and our housing crisis, whether that is by holding our social housing landlords to account, by protecting private renters, including by abolishing section 21 no-fault evictions, or by finally ending the outdated feudal leasehold system. Karen did a monumental amount of work to advance those causes, and I am sure she was absolutely delighted with their inclusion in the King’s Speech. She has always exemplified public service over self-interest. I will do my best, along with my other colleagues who are inheriting her constituency, to live up to her legacy. I know how grateful we are for her 27 years of service in this House.

Kensington and Bayswater is an incredible part of London, as many hon. Members will already know—indeed, I canvassed many of them during the campaign and have already been picking up casework in the corridors. We are an amazing community, with fantastic campaigners and organisations, businesses, entrepreneurs, charities, heritage, music, parks and schools. There is so much going for it, but there is also a deep inequality that has widened in recent years.

There is now a 19-year gap in life expectancy between a woman born in Notting Dale in North Kensington and one born in Holland Park, only a third of a mile away. That gap has increased by five years in the past decade alone. Over 6,000 children are living in poverty and over 3,000 families are on a growing housing waiting list. We are rightly proud of our contribution to the nation’s economy in terms of growth, talent, innovation and finance in so many different industries, and we celebrate the tourists who come to visit our museums, Portobello Road and our parks, but we must also tackle the underlying causes of the inequality that prevents too many people in my constituency from reaching their full potential, whether they are housing, education or employment opportunities.

I know from the thousands of people I have met across our constituency that far too many feel like government is not working for them. They see too many politicians putting political party before country and self-interest before community. I know that trust in government and politicians has plummeted as a result, but it does not have to be this way. I have spent my career working to make democracy work better in dozens of countries around the world by supporting reformers in government to work with civil society to be more transparent, more inclusive and more accountable and to deliver for people on the priorities that they care about. In Kensington and Bayswater, that means, for example, getting a grip on the dirty money in luxury property that still stains our community.

Despite recent progress in legislation, and despite the leadership that Baroness Hodge, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and many others have shown on this topic, we still have in our constituency one of the highest numbers of anonymously owned properties registered in tax havens, with loopholes allowing autocrats and kleptocrats to continue shielding their ownership. Many of those properties sit empty, hurting our local businesses and schools and hollowing out our sense of community. I agree that those that are frozen under sanctions should be utilised as soon as possible, so I am determined to build on our Kensington Against Dirty Money campaign and continue advocating for London to end its reputation as the dirty money capital of the world, and instead become the anti-corruption capital of the world.

There is no worse example of what happens when government stops listening to people and when transparency and accountability are discarded than what happened at Grenfell Tower over seven years ago. Seventy-two people lost their life in an entirely preventable tragedy, yet we still do not have truth, justice and change for the bereaved, survivors and affected community. These are people whose lives were changed forever on 14 June 2017 and who have had to wait far too long for justice and for those responsible to be held to account. In the coming weeks, the second phase of the public inquiry will report. I know that hon. Members here will join me in looking to those recommendations to ensure that a tragedy like Grenfell can never happen again.

I warmly welcome the inclusion in the King’s Speech of the duty of candour law for public servants. I applaud the effective campaigning of those affected by Grenfell, Hillsborough, infected blood and Windrush, and of others who have suffered because of an unacceptable defensive culture across many of our public institutions. I hope we can look at further measures to ensure robust oversight of the implementation of the recommendations from those inquiries.

Kensington and Bayswater is a special place making a huge contribution to our national life in so many ways. My hope is that, under this Labour Government, we will become a fairer place too, building on our strengths and addressing the inequalities that have held us back. It will not be easy and it will not happen overnight—as a QPR fan, I have learned over many years to be realistic—but we have an opportunity now to restore faith and trust in government and democracy, and to restore our reputation internationally too.

Order. Before I call the next speaker, may I say that demand to participate in this debate will exceed supply if we carry on at such length? I do not believe in regulation; I prefer self-regulation, so my advice is that if Members stick to about six minutes each from now on, we will not have to impose a time limit.

What a pleasure to have heard three such effective maiden speeches! I commend the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) for surviving not only the election, but the birth of twins. I wish his family well. I wish the hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) a happy birthday. I do not think that making a speech in the House of Commons on future birthdays will have the same allure, somehow.

I regarded Virendra Sharma as a great friend in the House of Commons. I never quite saw him as a mafia don, but I did see him as a very effective operator. All new MPs, and indeed returning MPs, could learn a lot from Virendra about how to get things done in Parliament.

I commend the new teams at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Ministry of Defence. I am particularly pleased to see the noble Lord Collins of Highbury becoming an Under-Secretary in the Department. I have worked closely with him on development-related issues over the past five years, particularly as his co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on nutrition for development. Lord Collins championed those issues in opposition; I am confident that he will now do so within the FCDO, along with the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), whom I congratulate on her appointment.

I want to concentrate on international development, although I note that there was no specific mention of it—nor any ambition to return to spending 0.7% on it—in the King’s Speech. I commend my long-standing right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) for his efforts in the previous Government. Not only did he bring his usual vigour and drive to his time as Minister for International Development, but he stabilised what all the evidence presented to the Select Committee on International Development showed had been a chaotically managed merger of the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the thinking behind the merger, we cannot pretend that it was well executed, or that the randomness of some of the decisions and the scale of the funding cuts were not seriously damaging to frontline programmes and the UK’s reputation as a reliable development partner.

Thank to my right hon. Friend, that is behind us. I listen to his warning about the need for a plan B, although the last thing those delivering aid on the frontline need is the distraction and disruption of further organisational change in the FCDO. However, I am sure that they want to know this Government’s criteria and anticipated timescale for returning to 0.7%. In opposition, Labour Members rightly highlighted the cuts to the aid budget, and the impact on that budget of spending on refugees in the UK, but in government they need to put their money where their mouth is, so I look forward to hearing some detail on that spending in the Minister’s winding-up speech.

If we are to make meaningful progress on achieving the sustainable development goals by 2030, the Government should embrace the White Paper published by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield. It was well received across the development community in the UK and internationally. Although it is understandable that a new Government might want to put their own bells and whistles on it, I hope the core objectives of ending extreme poverty and tackling climate change will remain, along with the framework for doing so.

I assure my right hon. Friend that there are bells and whistles from across the House in the international development White Paper.

Indeed, and I see the White Paper as an important part of building a new consensus on development, and of re-engaging the wider public with that agenda. A cross-party approach is the best way to build public support for development and confidence that funding is being spent effectively, which is a legitimate concern of our constituents.

All of us in this place who care about development should set ourselves the objective of increasing public engagement in the UK, as should those who work in the sector. In recent years, too many non-governmental organisations have gone down an overtly corporate route and lost touch with their members and supporters, who are often the most powerful advocates for aid in their communities.

Having listened to Mr Deputy Speaker’s guidance, I think I do not have time to go into detail on what I think the specific priorities should be, but having co-chaired the all-party parliamentary groups on HIV/AIDS and nutrition for development, I am absolutely clear that those must be at the heart of the Government’s approach to international development.

The Economist has highlighted this week that spending on nutrition delivers the best outcomes for the money spent. As the Government move forward on delivering the sustainable development goals, which we seem far from achieving by 2030, I hope that nutrition will be at the heart of the agenda, and that the Government will take the opportunity of the forthcoming Nutrition for Growth conference in Paris to restate their commitment not just to nutrition, but to international development.

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell). It is also a pleasure to finally sit on the Government Benches with my Labour colleagues. The view is so much better from here.

It is an honour to have heard such incredibly powerful maiden speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan), for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher), and for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell). They have raised the bar. It will be difficult for us to match them.

In my acceptance speech on election night, I spoke about how the Conservative austerity agenda had so badly damaged this nation over 14 years. That agenda’s destruction of our public services and people’s incomes devastated communities like mine, so it is incredibly welcome to hear the King’s Speech of a Labour Government who will immediately begin to address those matters.

I am particularly pleased to welcome the employment rights Bill. In 2021, as shadow Secretary of State for Employment Rights and Protections, I was honoured to accept the invitation of the then Leader of the Opposition, now Prime Minister, to chair a taskforce that ultimately led to Labour’s Green Paper heralding the new deal for working people. For their hard work and dedication, I must thank Labour’s affiliated trade unions, the non-affiliated unions, the TUC and the then Leader of the Opposition’s office. I must also mention the expertise of my noble Friend Lord John Hendy and the Institute of Employment Rights, who worked on this agenda over many years, and my staff, Karl Hansen and Eli Machover.

It is right for us to take action to ban exploitative zero-hour contracts and to end the scourge of fire and rehire. While we are at it, we should pay attention to P&O’s “fire and replace”; it sacked 800 workers over Zoom. Those concerned have to be held responsible for their despicable acts.

I was pleased to import from New Zealand the concept of fair pay agreements. I am delighted to see my right hon. and hon. Friends engross the proposal, starting with the introduction of FPAs in the social care sector. Hopefully, that will mark the full restoration of sectoral collective bargaining. Over 25 years ago, 80% of our economy was represented by collective bargaining, but now it is less than 25%. That must be corrected.

There is a great deal of work to do, but the introduction of a single status of “worker” will be transformative for the millions of workers in precarious and fragile employment, who currently struggle to make ends meet and have no hope of planning their future. All of that changes with the new deal. As we update trade union legislation, we look forward to the repeal of the unworkable and ill-advised Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 and the Trade Union Act 2016.

Elsewhere in the King’s Speech, I very much welcome the two railway Bills and the better buses Bill. Having produced, as shadow Transport Secretary, the White Paper setting out Labour’s plan for a nationally integrated, publicly owned railway, I am delighted that the Secretary of State for Transport has been so quick off the mark in tabling the necessary Bills.

I place on record my heartfelt thanks to the incredible Dr Ian Taylor, formerly of Transport for Quality of Life, for his great expertise and sheer hard work in progressing the agenda on rail reconfiguration and the re-regulation of buses. It is right that we get on with establishing Great British Railways under public ownership. I welcome Lord Peter Hendy—I mentioned his brother—to the role of railways Minister, which is undoubtedly an excellent appointment.

I cannot fail to mention that in my Middlesbrough and Thornaby East constituency we have some of the worst child poverty in Britain. The Prime Minister is right to say that the abolition of the two-child cap is merely one lever for tackling the abomination of child poverty, as all Labour Governments are destined to do, but the cap is undoubtedly the most cruel and draconian measure to be visited on low income households by the party in opposition. I hope that my colleagues on the Front Bench will pull that lever as a priority, and abolish this grotesquely punishing measure at the earliest opportunity.

We need a serious approach to public sector pay restoration and outsourcing. I very much welcome the Chancellor’s commitment to the largest programme of insourcing in British history, as well as the Health Secretary’s intervention; he is doing what his predecessor did not do: meet junior doctors in an attempt to bring the dispute to an end.

We need to grow our economy, but we cannot shy away from the fact that our taxation system is grossly unfair. I trust that the glaring anomalies will be addressed early on. I welcome the focus on devolution. There are powers that we want to take away from this place and give to our nations and regions, but my goodness, that has to come with accountability, transparency and openness. Sadly, too often that has been lacking, and that must be addressed.

Finally, on foreign affairs, it is perhaps a statement of the obvious, but our foreign policy must be based on human rights and adherence to international humanitarian law. On Gaza, I welcome the Foreign Secretary this week calling for an immediate ceasefire, for hostages to be released and for aid to reach the people of Gaza, but the question is how we will apply pressure to achieve these goals. We must have clarity in a number of areas.

First, I urge the Government to set out how they will use all the necessary levers to achieve the ceasefire, including the end of arms export licensing. Secondly, I trust that this Government can provide the House with early confirmation of the re-establishing of direct funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency.

Thirdly, I ask the Government to clarify that they support the processes that will prosecute war crimes, and that the UK accepts the International Criminal Court jurisdiction over Israel and has no truck with the nonsensical legal argument that Israel is exempt from international law. We have seen that time and again. I do not think that anybody in this House was not shaken to the core by the vision of that young man with Down’s syndrome who, having been attacked by IDF soldiers, was savaged by dogs and then bled to death. We have seen such scenes over and over, and the justification that it is okay to kill 110 people—innocent children, women and men—in the pursuit of a military target is an abomination. I hope the Foreign Secretary will quickly clarify the new Government’s approach to the early recognition of the state of Palestine. We need equality and fairness to resolve this crisis, and it will not be resolved without the recognition of Palestine.

There is so much in this King’s Speech. We have an awful lot to be happy about, and a lot of optimism pours from it. There is much to do, but we are indeed up and running.

I call Carla Denyer to make her maiden speech.

I am most grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in today’s debate.

Good afternoon, colleagues. My name is Carla Denyer. My pronouns are she/her, and I am very much looking forward to getting to know you all. I congratulate the hon. Members for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan), for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher), and for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) on their interesting maiden speeches. I also want to take a moment to honour the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for her very compelling speech about the route to peace in Gaza and Israel.

I look forward to working with all the newly elected MPs, and, in fact, everybody in this place, in pursuit of a better future for our constituents. I will return to the shape of that future shortly, but first I want to look back for a moment and to thank the people of Bristol Central for making history and electing me as the first Green MP for the city and also, as far as I am aware, the first bisexual MP for the constituency. We are, as a city, rightly proud of our firsts. In 1371—do not worry, I will not be doing every year—the town of Bristol was the first in England to be given the status of a county. In 1739, John Wesley founded the very first Methodist chapel, The New Room, in what is now the very heart of my constituency.

In 2015, the city became the first in the UK to be given the European Green Capital award. In 2016, the city elected Marvin Rees, and thus became the first major European city to elect a mayor of black African heritage. And what is widely agreed to be Banksy’s first large stencil mural—The Mild Mild West—was painted in 1999, in Stokes Croft in my constituency. In fact, it is on a wall just around the corner from where I first met a member of the Green party—a meeting that rather changed the course of my life.

Unfortunately, the history of Bristol cannot, and must not, be disentangled from the UK’s shameful and immoral history of colonialism and slavery. A 1499 voyage, led by merchant William Weston of Bristol, was the first expedition commanded by an Englishman to North America. And rich Bristol merchants financed more than 2,000 slaving voyages between 1698 and 1807. Those ships carried over 500,000 enslaved Africans from Africa to slave labour in the Americas.

A blue plaque on the Seven Stars Inn on Thomas Lane in the city centre marks how Thomas Clarkson, an anti-slavery activist, together with the Seven Stars’ landlord, collected testimonies from sailors in 1787 that were used as evidence here in Parliament. These statements played a role in the passing of the 1807 Slave Trade Act, which eventually led to the historic end of the transatlantic trade in enslaved Africans. Bristol Central’s hugely successful M Shed museum highlights the anti-slavery movement, alongside its exhibition about modern public protests, including the Bristol bus boycott, and it holds the infamous, now-toppled Colston statue. The exhibition points to the abolition campaign as the start of a British tradition of society campaigning for change. Today, the city that I have proudly called home for 15 years, and part of which I am now immensely proud to represent here in Parliament, is beginning to take responsibility for its history, and continuing to lead the way when it comes to demanding change.

Like most of the other esteemed Members making their maiden speeches, I got the Library note advising me that my remarks should not be politically contentious or critical. I admit to having struggled a little with how to define that, given that I am here first and foremost to demand and create change on behalf of my constituents. In 1943, a slightly different-shaped version of Bristol Central elected its first woman MP. I can applaud that landmark moment, though not Lady Apsley’s reported radical right-wing conservatism, imperialist, racist and antisemitic views, or the fact that she apparently considered women first and foremost as wives and mothers. She made her maiden speech to the Commons from her wheelchair and, it is widely reported, defied convention by making a passionate appeal for the better treatment of disabled people. That is one thing on which I can agree with her, though I do not think that championing disabled rights should ever be considered controversial. I hope that in this Parliament it never will be.

Nor do I think that a voting system that makes every vote count is an especially controversial proposition, so I agree strongly with another of my predecessors: Stephen Williams, the first Liberal Democrat ever to represent what was then Bristol West. He used his maiden speech to call for, as he put it, radical electoral reform and for first past the post to be swept away and replaced with a system of fair votes. Now is a good moment to recognise the contribution to Parliament made by my immediate predecessor, Thangam Debbonaire, including as shadow Leader of the House. I pay tribute to her work on behalf of Bristolians, particularly in support of the city’s amazing creative industries as shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, and her groundbreaking move to hold what is believed to have been the first-ever constituency surgery for people on the autistic spectrum. Thank you, Thangam, for your service to the city.

What unites all these threads is the idea of speaking up for what we believe in regardless of whether others might find it contentious, or whether we are swimming against the popular tide. As an MP, I am determined to fully honour Bristol Central’s history of doing exactly that: using my voice as a force for good, for real change and for real hope, to create a brighter future for my constituents and for us all—the kind of future that the King’s Speech represents an opportunity to build. That bright future depends on the Government taking bold action to tackle inequality and poverty through measures such as lifting the two-child benefit cap, a mass council-house building programme, and giving councils the power to keep private rents under control. Private rents in Bristol have increased by 52% over the last decade, while wages have not even increased by a quarter. This is an untenable situation, but one that around half my constituents find themselves in as private renters.

The bright future that I talked about depends on defending and restoring our public services, from hospitals to dentists, schools and youth services, and it means looking to restore the UK’s reputation on the world stage. This is a reputation that has been sorely damaged by Brexit. I know that I speak for the majority of Bristol Central when I say that we must be open and active in our efforts to rebuild stronger links with Europe and work eventually towards a future where the UK can rejoin the EU. It is a reputation too that has been compromised by our Government’s refusal to clearly condemn the Israeli Government’s disproportionate response to the horrific terrorist attacks of 7 October, and in particular by the UK’s continuing arms sales for use against Palestinians, in persistent breach of international law. I am clear that that must stop, and I am clear too that demanding it should not be controversial.

Finally, it is a reputation that has been seriously eroded in relation to climate action. As a councillor I was responsible for proposing the UK’s first climate emergency motion in autumn 2018—another first for Bristol. I know what the climate science requires that we get done in the lifetime of this Parliament, as this critical decade for the climate marches on. The brighter future we all want for our constituents and our country demands that we urgently secure a liveable future. Our warming planet has just passed another milestone. For the first time, global temperatures were above the crucial 1.5°C limit for an entire year. I hope this House will agree that that is one first that we all have a responsibility to try to ensure is also a last.

The last Government sought to break the climate consensus, to weaponise culture wars and to spread lies and misinformation about what a net zero future will be like. This Government must reverse the damage and have the courage to show genuine climate leadership at this critical time in our planet’s history. I will stand with the Government if they do that, but I will not be afraid to speak up where I think they might need to go a little faster. We have heard in the King’s Speech a commitment to a cleaner energy transition and public ownership of public transport, and I hope more will be forthcoming across the weeks and months ahead of us.

I stand ready to work across party lines to help to secure the ambitious changes we need for our climate and our natural world and to make the UK a fairer place. In fact I have already begun that cross-party work, so I say a big thank you to the hon. Members of other parties and none who have signed my amendment to the Loyal Address already, and well done to those MPs whose amendments and motions I have in turn supported. The challenges that we face together, and that our constituents face daily, are too important for us to fall victim to political tribalism. As Bristol Central’s many firsts illustrate, all our choices today will become part of history. As a Green MP, I feel that responsibility on my shoulders. I will do everything I can to carry it responsibly and repay the enormous trust put in me by the people of Bristol Central.

I congratulate all the hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches. I grew up in Bristol, so I wish the new hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) well in her parliamentary career. Her predecessor was a good friend of mine, and I wish her well as well. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan), who I know will be very successful in delivering for her constituency. Her predecessor was a very good friend of mine—I talk about him in the past tense, but I should not, because he continues to be a very good friend of mine! My hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) and for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) also made excellent speeches. I remember making my maiden speech in 2020 and how unnerving it was, so I congratulate them all.

There were a lot of positive announcements in the King's Speech—in fact all the announcements in the King’s Speech are positive. I am so glad after that after my four and a half to five years on the Opposition Benches, Labour has transitioned to the Government Benches. I congratulate the Secretary of State for Defence, now that he has taken office, and I echo his remarks about serving personnel, and non-uniformed personnel, who serve Britain both within our borders and abroad. They make an enormous contribution and everyone should recognise that.

I am grateful to the people of Stockport for re-electing me as their Labour Member of Parliament. The constituency boundaries were slightly different, with Reddish coming in and the Manor ward going into the Hazel Grove constituency. I place on record my thanks to all Labour activists, members and supporters for their commitment during the campaign and for returning me to the House of Commons.

The topic I want to start with is housing, which continues to be the single biggest issue that people contact me about. Sadly, Stockport council is not part of the Greater Manchester spatial framework, because the Liberal Democrat councillors in Stockport aligned with the Conservatives and voted together in December 2020 against Labour’s proposal to join the framework. That means that the borough of Stockport is massively behind on housing targets. When Stockport withdrew from the Greater Manchester spatial framework, the borough needed to build 793 homes per year. In September 2022, Place North West estimated that that figure had risen to almost 1,200 homes per year. The council is on schedule to fall short of its target by 6,000 homes.

We are in a housing emergency. I welcome the Labour Government’s commitment to building 1.5 million homes and decent, affordable housing for everyone. In my view, Stockport does not need any more developments for investors; it needs housing for families and young people so that they can get on the housing ladder and have the dignity and respect of safe housing. People are desperate for secure, safe and affordable homes. Far too many face homelessness or being placed outside Stockport, far from their families, support networks and schools. I am familiar with a case that came through my office last week. A person experiencing homelessness was offered a place to live in Birmingham, which is almost 100 miles from Stockport—that is simply not acceptable. Many private landlords in Stockport and across the UK have ensured that renting is unaffordable for many. There are bidding wars for properties. It is vital that rents are controlled and rent caps implemented. I urge the Government to go further.

On healthcare, it is fantastic that the new Health Secretary has met the British Dental Association. NHS dentistry is in crisis. So many people in Stockport and across Greater Manchester simply cannot even register with an NHS dentist, let alone get an appointment. One of the first steps that the Health Secretary took was to meet the British Dental Association, which has a long track record of campaigning for proper funding for NHS dentistry to ensure that people can access high-quality dental care regardless of their circumstances.

Let me mention the case of someone who contacted my office. My paperwork states:

“A young mother was unable to find an NHS dentist when pregnant. She is distressed that she cannot access NHS dentistry for her now six-month-old daughter, for when she gets her first teeth, as she is on the waiting list for heart surgery at Alder Hey hospital. Her daughter should be checked by a dentist prior to surgery due to an increased risk of infection of the heart. Children with heart conditions need proactive dental care and many parents are simply unable to pay for private dental care.”

NHS dentistry is in crisis. I am so pleased that the new Health Secretary and the team at the Department for Health and Social Care are making efforts to address that serious issue.

Stepping Hill hospital serves the borough of Stockport, although it is not in my constituency but just over the border in Cheadle. I raised the state of that hospital with the former Prime Minister just a few months ago. The buildings are in desperate need of refurbishment and capital investment. Again, I thank the new Secretary of State for his Department’s announcement of funding for local hospitals, including Stepping Hill—an example of Labour in government making a real difference to people’s lives.

I will not take up too much of the House’s time, but I wish to mention two issues quickly. On railways, I thank the Friends of Reddish South Station for meeting me on several occasions. I will campaign to restore proper rail services to Reddish South station, which has one service a week—that is simply not acceptable. I also want to see disabled access at all train stations, starting of course in my constituency. Brinnington, Heaton Chapel, Reddish North and Reddish South stations all need proper disabled access.

We must also invest in Stockport station, which is quite old and worn out. It is a wonderful asset, offering services to London, Birmingham, Wales and across England. In 2022-23, passengers entered and exited Stockport station a total of 3.2 million times. It is vital that our regional and national rail infrastructure is protected and invested in. The station is dated, the lifts are often faulty and it is a poor experience for passengers and for the staff working there.

The commitment to Great British Railways in the Labour party manifesto and from the new Secretary of State for Transport is welcome. Anyone who has travelled with Avanti will be familiar with the service that it offers, and everyone—employees as well as passengers—is unhappy with it. The ticket prices are too expensive, the services are unreliable, and it is just a negative experience overall. Avanti is holding back regional growth for Greater Manchester—it is holding people back from making the commute for business reasons, or to meet family or friends. Labour’s plan for a simplified and unified governance structure places passengers at the heart of the railway. The new Government will bring train operators under public ownership and control, which I welcome.

The final point I will make is on the employment rights Bill. We have far too many employers exploiting people and paying them poverty wages; we need to make sure that people get respectable wages, so that they can bring up their family with pride and have the dignity of work. The Bill announced in the King’s Speech will address that issue, and I welcome it.

I call Jim Allister to make his maiden speech.

The other new Members who have spoken today have set a very high bar with their maiden speeches, and I commend them on their delivery and the very cogent construction of their speeches.

I come to this place representing the constituency of North Antrim. Therefore, my first privilege is to thank the electors of North Antrim for placing their confidence in me—and, of course, I commend their wisdom. The North Antrim constituency is a magnificent blend of urban and rural. We have the county town of Ballymena; we have other main towns, such as Ballymoney and Ballycastle; and we have a great patchwork of villages and small towns, including Bushmills, whose famous products some in this House may be familiar with. Others in that patchwork of villages have excelled in national competitions—Britain in Bloom and all of that—such as Broughshane, Ahoghill and Cullybackey.

It is a wonderful place to represent; it is also a place of fantastic scenery, because we have the world-famous north coast. The crowning glory of that, of course, is the Giant’s Causeway, as well as Carrick-a-Rede bridge and all those magnificent places. We also have iconic inland tourist attractions such as the Dark Hedges, so I say to Members of this House, “If you’ve never been to North Antrim, it’s time to put that right. What’s been keeping you?”

What was keeping me from representing North Antrim in this House was a 54-year dynasty of family and party. From June 1970, North Antrim was represented in this House by Ian Paisley, father and son. Today, I want to pay tribute to my predecessor for the considerable work that he did for his constituents in North Antrim, but it is a new era—it is a new start—and I am here with a very distinctive and particular message in regard to the future of Northern Ireland. There was not much in the King’s Speech about Northern Ireland, apart from a couple of fleeting references. It was a disappointment to me that there was nothing to address the disenfranchising of the people of Northern Ireland.

Let me explain. Those Members who come from England, Scotland or Wales come to this House as a Parliament that, in tandem with devolved institutions—if they have them—can collectively legislate for all the laws that govern their constituents. Sadly, we cannot say that about my constituents or any constituent in Northern Ireland, because in 300 areas of law, sovereignty over making those laws has been surrendered to a foreign Parliament. We are now subject to the last Government’s protocol and Windsor framework arrangements—subject to laws governing our trade, our agrifood industry, much of our economy and much of our environment that this House cannot make and that Stormont cannot make. Those laws are made in a foreign Parliament and then, colony-like, are imposed on Northern Ireland.

The Labour movement has a very proud history of opposition to colonialism, but this Government inherit a position whereby they are presiding over a colonial situation of a foreign jurisdiction administering laws, and decreeing and legislating laws, in part of this kingdom. That is something that this Government need to address, and I am not talking about trifling incidental laws. I am talking about many laws that cut to the very heart of what it means to be a United Kingdom and to be a part of that United Kingdom. I refer to just one, but Members will find the 300 listed, if they are interested, in annex 2 to the protocol that was foisted upon us.

I refer to only one, which is the subjection of Northern Ireland to the EU’s customs code. What that means in practice is that when Great Britain sends goods—and it is our main source of supply—to our manufacturing industries in Northern Ireland, it is sending them, according to the EU customs code, from a foreign country, because Northern Ireland is decreed to be EU territory. That is an unbearable constitutional and economic affront, and that is something I say to this Government. The Secretary of State talked today about democracy, and the Foreign Secretary will go around the world advancing the cause of democracy, yet in Northern Ireland we have a situation where there are laws governing so many vital aspects that we cannot make and cannot change. That has to change, and it has to be changed by this House.

That is the fundamental message that I bring from my constituents, and that is why I am here—because my constituents will not, cannot, should not put up with it, just as the constituents of any Member of this House would not put up with it.

It is an honour to speak on the second day of this very important debate, and I thank all those who have made their maiden speeches today. We have heard some excellent contributions from around the House, particularly from my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan). There was much on which her predecessor and I agreed, and sometimes we even disagreed, but one thing on which we very much agreed was that the curry in Bradford is far superior to that in Ealing Southall. [Interruption.] That is perhaps contentious—Birmingham is third. My hon. Friend used a really key word as the theme throughout her speech, which I think we could all do with reflecting much more on and using much more, and that was “diversity” and the celebration of diversity. So let me welcome all our new hon. Members across the House who have joined us in what is perhaps one of the most diverse Parliaments. I look forward to working with all of them.

It was my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher)—I did not know there was an island next to Doncaster East, but we are always learning something new—who said something we should all take great note of. In ending his speech, he said—perhaps not in these words, but it will be in Hansard—that he would stay true to the people of his constituency. If I could offer one word of advice to new hon. Members, that would be it, because tragically, this place can consume us—where it has its positives, it also has its negatives. Sometimes speaking truth to power is one of the most difficult things we can do, especially, I remember, as a new Member, but I have always believed and championed the idea that one should be free to speak. We can agree to disagree, but we are here to represent our constituents. Westminster did not send me to Bradford. The people of Bradford sent me here, and I will make sure that the people of Bradford are always heard. I would also say, as a word of caution, that this is not necessarily a blueprint to success; by saying all the right things, sometimes one does not succeed in the same way, but I believe that we should continue to be true to ourselves in this place.

Sticking with diversity, I represent the beautiful city of Bradford. I am so grateful to the people of Bradford for trusting me and sending me back down to Parliament as their representative. Bradford is a diverse place, and people from many different backgrounds have come together to call it their home. That is what gives the place its strength. My own grandparents came to this country in the ’60s, working long hours seven days a week in the textile mills, sometimes with 10 people sleeping in a room that could barely accommodate three or four. The journeys we have made from then are remarkable. May God bless the soul of my grandad. May God give him the highest station in paradise. If he was here today and saw the achievements that we have made, he would be very proud. All of us have to do that job here—to represent our constituents and those journeys.

Equally, Bradford is a place that has suffered. In the last 14 years, the poverty and deprivation that I have seen on the streets of Bradford has been unprecedented. The reality remains that the last Tory Government spent 14 years crippling our economy, creating a crisis in our NHS, allowing crime to rise, polluting our rivers, breaking our housing market, letting wages stagnate and persecuting minorities; so for families in my constituency, there is a lot in this King’s Speech to feel positive about.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), who is no longer in his place, said, with the implementation of our transformative new deal for working people to strengthen people’s rights at work, boost wages and tackle bad employers, we can make work pay after years of Tory pay stagnation. With the establishment of Great British Energy to cut household energy bills and the plans to boost wealth creation in our communities, we can tackle the cost of living crisis that so many families continue to face. With the return of rail operators to public ownership and plans to bring buses under public control, we can ensure that public transport serves passengers, not private company shareholders. With investment in proper neighbourhood policing and named officers for every community—something that I have long championed—we can cut crime, tackle antisocial behaviour and keep our streets safe. And with the delivery of more healthcare in our communities and improvements to our NHS, we can tackle the stark health inequalities that continue to blight communities in Bradford and in constituencies up and down the country.

Yet the King’s Speech should have gone much further. Failing to scrap the two-child limit, which affects three in five households in Bradford, means that it will not tackle rampant child poverty. The Government yesterday launched a taskforce to work on a new child poverty strategy, but that taskforce is guaranteed to reach at least one conclusion and make at least one recommendation: that child poverty is entrenched by the two-child limit, and that that limit must be scrapped. I urge Ministers not to kick the can down the road to a time when they will have to scrap the limit anyway. Instead, they should stop the delay, scrap the limit now and lift children out of poverty today, and not in six months or a year.

After the last Tory Government stood by as clear violations of international law were carried out, re-emphasising in the King’s Speech the Government’s commitment to human rights and the rule of law is an important step. However, if we want the UK to regain its global leadership on these issues, we cannot do so without upholding our responsibilities under international law. That includes fulfilling obligations to abide by and protect the independence of the International Criminal Court, as well as supporting the International Court of Justice and upholding numerous charters, treaties, conventions and resolutions. The Government must therefore immediately drop the baseless legal challenge over the ICC’s jurisdiction and the arrest warrants sought by the chief prosecutor for Benjamin Netanyahu and others, and they must reject all attempts to impede the ICC’s work.

As the Foreign Secretary knows, I recently visited the ICC in The Hague with my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) to meet human rights organisations and to present to the chief prosecutor’s team evidence of Israeli war crimes gathered over months of meetings with witnesses and experts. What was clear was just how concerned those organisations were over the lack of UK involvement in such an important case. I again urge the Government to back the ICC’s efforts to secure justice for all victims of war crimes. If the Government do not get that right—if they stray from upholding international law—it puts the whole international rules-based order at risk, and it perpetuates double standards that effectively mean one life is not always valued the same as another. The UK has an absolute duty to challenge those double standards, to make it clear that everyone is afforded the same protections and to prove that international law institutions and UN resolutions actually mean something. The Government must do that in Palestine, but also in such places as Kashmir, where they must uphold UN resolutions that sit gathering dust after more than seven decades and grant the sons and daughters of Kashmir their birthright of self-determination.

Finally, it is important that the Government declare that the UK will play its part in trying to secure long-term peace in the middle east. As a number of Members have mentioned, with such death and destruction, a few lines about trying for peace are frankly not enough. Close to 40,000 men, women and children have been killed, while countless more have been injured. Homes, schools, mosques and hospitals have been levelled and reduced to rubble. Almost 2 million Palestinians have been displaced from their homes and forced to flee for their lives. Gaza remains under siege with insufficient food, water, medicine or fuel reaching those in need. The Israeli military continue to bomb, shoot and kill Palestinian civilians in direct violation of international law. A catastrophic humanitarian nightmare is taking place in Gaza.

The Foreign Secretary may call for an immediate ceasefire, but mistrust and uncertainty means that the King’s Speech should have made it an iron-clad commitment. The King’s Speech should have redoubled efforts to deliver desperately needed humanitarian aid to Gaza. It should have made it clear that the sale of arms to the Israeli military will end, in line with international law. It should have made clear the UK’s opposition to the collective punishment of the Palestinians and demanded an end to the siege of Gaza. Instead of just recommitting to the two-state solution, the King’s Speech should have set out the immediate recognition of a viable state of Palestine. That is what we needed to see in the King’s Speech yesterday, and that is why I tabled an amendment with my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) to set out that position clearly.

After 14 years of the Tories, the King’s Speech is a strong start to undo the damage they caused, and it has my support, but there is much work to be done. I will continue to press the Government to get the best results for my constituents, because it is my constituents who sent me down here, and their voice will be heard.

Order. Before I call the next speaker, can I express my disappointment that self-regulation does not seem to have worked? One of the consequences of self-regulation not working is that we get the situation of collective punishment to which the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) was referring. Can I make one more plea that we try to self-regulate and perhaps limit ourselves to four or five minutes for the rest of the debate? I call Cameron Thomas to make his maiden speech.

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) and his impassioned words. If I may address him directly—if you will oblige me, Mr Deputy Speaker—as well as other Members staking their claim to Britain’s best curry, it would be an honour on behalf of the people of Tewkesbury to join them in sampling great curry and determining a champion.

On a more sombre note, I am grateful that during the King’s Speech there was a commitment to a strategic defence review. I remind the House that in 2018 the Russian President deployed a chemical weapon on the streets of Salisbury. The lives of Sergei and Yulia Skripal were changed forever, as was the life of a courageous police officer, and a young mother lost her life. Today, in 2024, the Russian war machine again deploys chemicals on the battlefields of Europe. I hope that the strategic defence review will give due impetus to countering the renewed chemical threat.

I once held the honour of leading a parade at the Menin Gate ceremony in Ypres, commemorating those who gave their lives in some of the most vicious battles of world war one. I have had the honour to call the salute at the national Cenotaph here in Westminster. It is an honour in equal standing to deliver my maiden speech to the House on behalf of the people of Tewkesbury. I follow a proud lineage of armed forces service, which includes my two brothers and my great-grandfather, Petty Officer Supply Charles Trenchard, who gave his life aboard HMS Illustrious in world war two.

I first moved to Tewkesbury 16 years into my own military career with the Royal Air Force assignment at Imjin barracks, so named after the battle of the Imjin river fought by the Glorious Glosters in 1951 while outnumbered 18:1. Tewkesbury’s quaint Cotswold villages and towns, crowned by our beautiful abbey, now make for an idyllic environment to raise my darling daughter. Should any Member of the House wish to don armour and join me at Europe’s largest annual medieval festival, they would be very welcome.

I pay tribute to my predecessor, the honourable Laurence Robertson, a Lancastrian who made north Gloucestershire his home and represented Tewkesbury for 27 years, winning at seven consecutive general elections. My defeat of that particular Lancastrian, I must say, was not in keeping with the traditions set in 1471 by the Yorkists at the battle of Tewkesbury; it was an altogether more peaceful affair, and I found Laurence to be dignified and humble as the result became clear. Indeed, the closest thing to weaponry on show that morning were the daggers being stared at me by one member of his entourage, which I must admit I thoroughly enjoyed. In defeating my predecessor, I became the first non-Conservative Member of Parliament in Tewkesbury since 1885. The weight of history bears heavily, yet pales alongside the responsibility.

The only other time I have been elected in any capacity was by my fellow officer cadets on initial officer training course 60 at RAF College Cranwell, to represent them to the College Commandant, a one-star officer. Immediately following that vote, my squadron leader Craig Gaul brought me to his office, swore that I was his man, but practically force-fed me his Debrett’s guide to etiquette and begged me not to end his career. Six years on, he is no longer in the RAF, though I am unaware of any connection. For my own part, I also had to hand in my uniform once it became clear that the changes so desperately needed by our most courageous and selfless public servants must take place within this House.

Our country finds itself at a crossroads. The climate emergency presents an existential threat to humankind and to the ecosystems that support life on this planet. We must collectively and decisively turn to face the threat now and export bold leadership to our neighbours across the world. The future is in the hands of our young people. We must equip them today so that they can apply their energy to the challenges of tomorrow, but we cannot expect young people to engage in their political future when the curriculum does not enable them to do so and while an imbalanced education system denies so many the opportunities of the privileged few. Neurodiverse children are let down by a neurotypical education system built by neurotypical people for neurotypical people. If we are to unlock the challenges of tomorrow with diversity of thought, we must harness the opportunity of neurodiversity.

Finally, trust in politics has never been more fragile. It is the responsibility of us all to restore public faith in our political institutions. I invite fellow Members in the Chamber to renew UK politics through respectful discourse, regardless of our differences, and by dedicating this parliamentary term to public service. Voters will engage with politics only if they feel that their vote has value. We must transition to an electoral system of proportional representation. On behalf of the people of Tewkesbury, thank you.

I call Kirsty McNeill to make her maiden speech.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Let me start by congratulating my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan), for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher), and for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell), and the hon. Members for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) and for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) on their maiden speeches. It was an honour to be in the Chamber to hear from our new Defence Secretary and the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who I have worked with on the cause of internationalism for many years.

I am conscious of the honour and privilege that being a Member of Parliament represents. Recent events in the United States of America remind us that we must never let violence or the threat of it undermine our politics. That I am speaking today in a Chamber bearing the coats of arms of Sir David Amess and our beloved friend Jo Cox is a reminder of the nobility and fragility of our democracy. I will always endeavour to fulfil my duties with the same open heart that they both displayed.

Hon. Members will know that I have many distinguished predecessors as Midlothian’s representative, not least William Ewart Gladstone. His Midlothian campaign is remembered as the first truly modern political campaign. I hope that we continued that tradition somewhat in recent weeks, although I do not think that any of the Midlothian candidates could claim to have inspired the same hysteria at our public meetings; at his, people were passed over the heads of the crowd, as if dead, having fainted. The Midlothian campaign is also remembered as a moment when choices were made about the obligations of international solidarity. In Penicuik, we have a memorial to the prisoners of war who died there during the Napoleonic wars, bearing the inscription “All men are brethren”—something that I hope we can hold on to as we seek to make the UK a force for good in the world.

It was only two weeks ago today that I was elected Member of Parliament for Midlothian. In that time, I have had cause to reflect deeply on the spirit of public service that animates the staff in Midlothian council who administered our election, the officials at the Scotland Office where I am now privileged to serve, and the parliamentary staff who have welcomed us with such professionalism. It was that spirit, too, that called my predecessor, Owen Thompson, to public life, first as a Midlothian councillor, then as our Member of Parliament, and latterly as a Privy Counsellor serving the whole nation. His support for constituents and for our many wonderful community groups will never be forgotten. I sincerely hope that I can be of assistance as he continues his work advocating for veterans and miners.

It is impossible to be the Member of Parliament for Midlothian and fail to remind the House of that proud mining heritage. I hope that fellow trade unionists in this House will watch the inspiring footage of civil rights hero and actor Paul Robeson visiting Midlothian and singing “Joe Hill” for our miners. I hope, too, to welcome many fellow Members to Midlothian to visit our many mining memorials, including the newest one in Dalkeith, bearing the unforgettable description, “They spent their lives in the dark so that others might have light”. Mineworkers from Midlothian and across our coalfields powered this country. I am delighted that our Labour manifesto committed to ending the injustice of the mineworkers’ pension scheme and to a proper investigation of events at Orgreave.

Some months ago I hosted an event in Midlothian, and I asked participants what had inspired their activism. One man, Bill, said that he was there because when he was growing up in Newtongrange they had a mine, and now they have a mining museum. This was said in a spirit of reflection, not nostalgia. People in Midlothian are looking to the future, seeking the industries and sectors that can play the progressive role in the next century that mining played in the last.

In particular, let me commend all the world-leading scientists working in Midlothian at the Roslin Institute and associated organisations. I am sure that they would acknowledge, whatever their individual brilliance, that none of them would be where they are without the science teachers whose inspiration first lit a spark in their young mind. We are all of us products of the investments made in us as children. It is to Midlothian’s children and young people that I want to make my most solemn undertakings. If you have disabilities or additional needs, you are among my most precious constituents. If you are care-experienced, you will always have a friend and champion in me. If you find that your life chances are diminished by poverty or discrimination, then it is by my contribution to helping you realise your limitless potential that I wish my time as your MP to be judged.

As colleagues may know, I have spent much of my time working with and advocating for children. I would often say that good and bad childhoods follow people around forever. I know this to be true because of my mother’s experiences of the care system, which inspired her adult commitment to the Children’s Panel and fierce advocacy for families in crisis. She taught me so much about fighting for fairness. More than anything, however, both she and my father taught me about disagreeing well. While we have been on different sides of the constitutional divide, our family, I humbly suggest, holds something of a lesson for Scotland as a whole. It is possible—indeed, it is necessary—to approach disagreement with a spirit of curiosity and care. The birthplace of the enlightenment deserves nothing less.

I call Ellie Chowns to make her maiden speech.

Order. We are slightly running out of time now, so I am going to ensure that our two remaining maiden speakers get in. There will obviously be no time limit on them, but I urge them to think of other colleagues. I will try to get in as many people as possible, but I am afraid we are slightly running out of time because there have been some quite long speeches. I call Martin McCluskey to make his maiden speech.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity speak in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns), who spoke with such passion, and the many other hon. Members who have spoken this afternoon.

Like many in this Chamber, I am a Member for a new constituency. Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West stretches along the Clyde coast and takes in the coastal communities of Inverkip, Wemyss Bay, Gourock, Greenock and Port Glasgow, before moving inland to the villages of Kilmacolm, Quarrier’s, Bridge of Weir, and Houston, as well as Crosslee and Craigends. My constituency has a proud history of looking outward around the world, from producing the ships that contributed to our maritime defence to providing the base for the free French navy during world war two. More recently, it has continued with the idea of giving people refuge by contributing to the Ukrainian refugee and resettlement programme.

It is also—people will not be surprised to hear me say this—a beautiful part of the world. I know it is a bit of a tradition for Members to say that their constituency is the most beautiful in the country, and I do not intend to disappoint this afternoon, so Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West is the most beautiful constituency in the country. But it is not the beauty of our surroundings that I am most proud of; it is the resilience, the kindness and the determination of our people.

I have the privilege of representing the place where I was born and raised, and where I continue to live. I see every day what people achieve together for the benefit of the community. In Gourock, which I also have the pleasure of representing on Inverclyde council, the “Bowl and a Blether” group at St John’s church grew out of the cost of living crisis, but is now a regular event where people from all walks of life can come together for a chat and a warm meal. In Port Glasgow, Parklea Branching Out provides opportunities for people to develop their skills and talents through horticulture. It has gone from strength to strength since it opened in 1997, and earlier this year I had the pleasure of seeing how it was investing to expand its work. In Greenock, the Inverclyde Shed has redeveloped an old industrial building to create a space for people, in its words, to meet, make, grow and share. In Bridge of Weir just last weekend, I visited the Bridge community centre. It was set up with the simple purpose of providing a post office for the village, but now provides a shop and a community space right on the high street.

Our people bring our communities to life. They look out for each other, and they rarely ask for anything in return. The Prime Minister has spoken about a Government of service, and it is the people of my constituency who I look to as the best example of what service really means.

In the last Parliament, these wonderful people and places were represented by two Members: Ronnie Cowan for Inverclyde and Gavin Newlands for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, which covered the villages of Bridge of Weir and Houston. Both of them served their constituents with distinction. I want to pay particular tribute to Ronnie Cowan, who was my opponent in three elections. He will be remembered fondly in Inverclyde for his important campaigning in the last Parliament to improve treatment and support for people affected by drug addiction—a problem that emerges from the hopelessness that so many people feel today.

That hopelessness has its roots in decisions made decades ago that still scar many of our communities. Today, we live with the consequences of the loss of much of our shipbuilding industry and the failure to find a sustainable replacement for those jobs. In his maiden speech in 1983, one of my predecessors, Norman Godman, described shipbuilding and engineering as

“the economic backbone of Greenock and Port Glasgow.”—[Official Report, 24 June 1983; Vol. 44, c. 283.]

But today, only about 7% of those at work in my constituency are employed in a manufacturing business. That issue was raised by another of my predecessors, Iain McKenzie, who led a debate on manufacturing in this place almost a decade ago. It is therefore disappointing that under the last Government we did not see the progress that was called for.

The measures announced yesterday will begin the work of changing that. GB Energy and the Government’s plans for a national wealth fund are as important for reducing our dependence on foreign energy reserves as they are for providing opportunities here at home. I welcome the ambition of the Government’s plans. They are putting the brakes on the approach that says that decline is inevitable. For my constituency, Government working in partnership with energy companies, with shipyards and with advanced manufacturers, including in the defence sector, can bring prosperity back to the Clyde. I was encouraged to hear the Secretary of State laying out how defence and the defence industries will be central to the Government’s agenda for growth.

Industries such as shipbuilding did not just provide people with a source of employment and income. They gave them strong relationships, dignity, pride and a sense that the future offered promise and opportunity rather than decline and despair. As a boy, I learned this from my grandfather, who was the union treasurer at Scotts shipyard in Greenock. Work and the trade union movement provided him with a route out of poverty, the ability to provide for his family and the chance to ensure that his children and grandchildren could see their living standards increase, generation after generation. That is what good work does for people and for communities, and that is why investing in the jobs of the future must go hand in hand with ensuring people’s rights at work. The new deal for working people will provide the certainty of well-paid work, underpinned by strong rights and protections.

Across Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West, there are already examples of manufacturing businesses, trading internationally, that are offering high-quality, unionised jobs. Bridge of Weir Leather, which produces the leather for these Benches, is a family-run business that trades around the world from my constituency. James Walker Devol, an engineering firm with a decades-long history in Inverclyde, produces advanced plastics for the oil and gas industry and the renewables sector from its factory in Gourock.

The Chancellor has set out her ambition for sustainable growth that includes every part of the country. She knows what every Labour Chancellor and every Labour Government have understood, which is that economic growth in every part of Britain and a strong economy allow us to pay for the services that our communities so desperately need.

I spoke earlier about my family, and about my grandparents’ ambition that their children should do better than they did. I close by saying something about the people who taught me the values that led me here, and about those who encouraged me to put those values in the service of my community through politics.

My grandmother was born in 1914, and in the early 1930s she made her first trip to London to enter domestic service for the man who then owned Tottenham Hotspur football club. She sent the money she made back home to help her mother raise 12 children in a two-room flat on Rue End Street in Greenock. Within two generations, her grandson has found his own way to London to sit in the House of Commons.

Like all new Members, I did not achieve this alone. My family and community taught me the values that led me into public service. Unfortunately, neither of my parents lived long enough to see this, but they gave me the start in life that I want to see for every child. And I was lucky to know two Members of this House who demonstrated to me the best of what public service has to offer.

The first was the former Member for Glasgow East, Margaret Curran, who has had a lifelong commitment to public service and taught me the cut and thrust of Scottish politics—for anyone who has not realised, there is a lot of cut and thrust in Scottish politics. The second was the former Member for Inverclyde, David Cairns, who I know was loved by many in this House. David was a model MP who worked hard for all his constituents and who built his reputation on delivering for people in our community. As a gay man in politics 20 years ago, he showed me that who you love should not be a barrier to holding elected office. It is often said that, “You can’t be what you can’t see.” If not for David Cairns and the model he set, I know I would not be standing here today with my soon-to-be husband watching from the Gallery above.

In everything I do in this place, I will work to live up to their example and to the values of the people and community that raised me.

I call John Cooper to make his maiden speech.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey) on his excellent maiden speech, which is difficult to follow. I gently say that it is marred only by the fact that he did not reference two of his most famous constituents: William Kidd, the pirate, and my mother, who was born in Houston.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to take part in this important debate at the dawn of this new Parliament. I also thank my colleagues for their wise counsel and help as I take my first steps here in the cockpit of democracy.

Defence is the No. 1 task of any Government, as we have heard, and I am proud that my constituency, Dumfries and Galloway, has many fine young men and women currently in our armed forces, and many gallant veterans who have served on air, sea and land. Of course, like every constituency, Dumfries and Galloway has many people working in the UK’s world-class defence industry, which deserves our support.

I worry about using the expression “punching above our weight” in relation to our armed forces. A British major general who served with distinction in Afghanistan, and who knows a lot more about conflict and boxing than I do, told me, “That’s a recipe for getting knocked out as soon as the bell rings.”

I pay tribute to my predecessor, Alister Jack. I make it clear that, although such praise is customary on these occasions, I offer tribute not out of duty but out of genuine respect and admiration. As a special adviser, I had a front-row seat for Alister’s tour-de-force performance as Secretary of State for Scotland. Under his leadership, the Scotland Office, small but perfectly formed—not unlike myself—was a bantamweight bazooka, bang on target for the people of Scotland on issues including equality, the independence debate and the benighted A75 and A77 roads that are so crucial to Dumfries and Galloway. I hope I can apply the lessons learned at the feet of the master for the betterment of Dumfries and Galloway. I got the finest start possible there and I want to make sure others get the same chances.

Only through marrying the talent and aspiration that abound in the south-west of Scotland with opportunities can we defeat that blight on all rural areas: depopulation. We need the three J’s: jobs, jobs, jobs. We have much work to do to make ours a go-to destination, not a go-through destination. Blessed with a balmy climate, we are home to some of the country’s finest dairy herds. Our unspoiled landscape is a tourism dream. The terrain, for instance around Newton Stewart and Minnigaff, is ideal for cycling. The Merrick, Cairnsmore of Fleet and the Galloway hills are a delight for hikers. Stroll on the beach at Killantringan—I will help Hansard with the spelling later—on the rugged Rhins peninsula, and you will probably have the golden strand all to yourself, and you will see our Northern Irish friends in this great Union just 14 miles distant.

Dumfries itself, astride the mighty Nith, is rightly lauded as the “Queen of the South”. Erudite Wigtown is Scotland’s national book town, and there I picked up a copy of “If”, arguably the finest work by Rudyard Kipling. His lines,

“If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster

And treat those two impostors just the same”,

resonate now on the Government Benches, where Labour Members are having a moment in the sun, but also on the Opposition Benches, where the blue flame of Conservativism gutters in the storm, burns low, but does not go out.

Many suppose “If” to be about Kipling’s son, John, who was tragically killed serving with the Irish Guards in the great war. In fact, it was inspired by Leander Starr Jameson, who grew up in my home town of Stranraer, after his father took editorship of the Wigtownshire Free Press. That venerable newspaper is still in circulation, and I got my first and last journalism jobs there, as a trainee reporter and latterly as editor. Jameson led a daring raid against the South African Republic in 1896.

Perhaps there is something in the pristine waters of south-west Scotland that instils a resilience and self-reliance in its people, for John Paul Jones, father of the United States navy, was also a native Gallovidian. Jones unfortunately went pirate on us in the American revolution. Locked in mortal combat with the Royal Navy off Flamborough Head in 1779, he is reputed to have said:

“Surrender? I have not yet begun to fight!”

I am proud, then, to have been elected to represent the redoubtable people of Dumfries and Galloway, inheritors of Jameson’s alacrity and Jones’s never-say-die attitude, both vital in today’s febrile times. In conclusion, Bonnie Gallowa’ has a storied past and, I am determined, a bright future. I shall endeavour, as Kipling didn’t quite put it, to keep the heid.

I intend to call the wind-ups shortly after 4.30 pm, so there should be some very short speeches now to try to get everybody in. Remember, the short speeches are the best—the Gettysburg address was only four minutes. Richard Burgon, I know, will set an example.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) on his maiden speech, as well as every single Member who has made a maiden speech today, particularly my Labour colleagues who join us in government. It is a great pleasure to give this speech on the second day of the King’s Speech debate, welcoming the first King’s Speech under a Labour Government for so long. It makes me reflect on the opportunity we now have to deliver the change that people in our communities not only need but deserve, after 14 years of Conservative misrule.

We gather in this House after a period of nearly 15 years that ended with more food banks in this country than branches of McDonald’s, record numbers on NHS waiting lists, 4 million children living in poverty in the sixth richest economy on earth, rivers literally full of sewage and real wages lower than they were back in 2008. All that is before we get on to the shameful history of corrupt crony contracts and MPs lining their pockets with second, third, fourth and fifth jobs. I am glad that our Government will make progress on that very shortly, by making an announcement about second jobs for MPs.

There are 40 Bills in the King’s Speech that could initiate a decade of national renewal. As a former trade union lawyer, I particularly welcome the new deal for working people. For too long, we have seen workers in this country being treated as if they do not matter. We all saw what happened at P&O, when decent, hardworking people were marched off their ferry by trained security guards in balaclavas and treated like dirt by that very wealthy company.

Then we have the exciting announcements on how we will bring rail back into public ownership and how we will give local councils greater powers to develop their own bus services. Those measures are so important for our communities. If there is one thing that runs through the history of our party it is the fact that we deliver best when we recognise that there are some things in life that are more important than the pursuit of profit, and they are the good of people and the good of public services. That is what helped us to found our national health service—our party’s proudest achievement in government. We need to rise to the challenge now of securing a great future for it under this Labour Government.

As I have said, I was pleased to see new measures to ban MPs’ second jobs. Indeed, I drafted a Bill in the previous Parliament to do just that. Funnily enough, the Conservative Government rejected that Bill again and again. I do wonder why that was!

We have a real opportunity now to deliver the change that people need and deserve. I could not have been prouder to have been re-elected to represent my community of Leeds East in this Parliament for the fourth time. I was particularly pleased to welcome into the new enlarged constituency the proud communities of Garforth, Swillington and Little Preston. It is great to be working with people locally to improve public services under a Labour Government and to deliver the change that people need.

Before I conclude this curtailed speech, I want to raise two other issues. First, I very much welcome the Government’s announcement yesterday of a child poverty taskforce. That is an important step forward. What we need now is a long-term strategy, given that 4 million children are living in poverty in the sixth richest country on earth. However, implementing a strategy does not mean that we cannot take immediate action now. Every child poverty expert says that scrapping the two-child benefit cap is a key measure, and I encourage our Government to get on with that. That is why I support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson).

Secondly, I wish to raise respect for international law and the question of arms sales. I was one of the sponsors of the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana). As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) mentioned in his speech, he and I went to the International Criminal Court at The Hague and delivered to the team of the chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, evidence of Israeli war crimes that we had gathered through parliamentary meetings. It is so important that we uphold both the integrity and independence of the International Criminal Court and the integrity of the international rules-based order. I regret to say that I believe that the previous Government flouted international law, and I look forward to our Labour Government doing something very different. That is why I backed the amendment to end arms sales to Israel.

We have talked about the legal case, and of course there is a legal case, but it is the moral case that burns in the hearts of so many people in our country and around the world when they see the horrific scenes from Gaza of the slaughter of men, women and children. We have debated it so many times in this Chamber that we have almost got used to it. People out there want our Government—and I hope that our Government will do this—to take a clear moral stand by, yes, calling for an immediate ceasefire and upholding international law, but also by stopping arms sales to Israel to put pressure on Netanyahu. We do not want to see arms licensed in this country going to maim and kill men, women and children in Gaza. It is completely unconscionable and it must stop, in my opinion.

I thank my constituents for re-electing me with an increased majority. I will work night and day for you to ensure the best deal under this new Government that you can get, because you deserve change after nearly 15 years of Conservative misrule. You deserve an increase in your living standards. You deserve an end to child poverty. You deserve an NHS that we can be proud of once again.

Under the last Labour Government, satisfaction levels with our NHS were at record highs. While it was the Welsh trade unionist and socialist Aneurin Bevan, who was briefly expelled from the Labour party and came back in, who created our national health service, the Conservatives voted against the creation of a national health service over 20 times. That is one of the reasons they could not be trusted with the NHS—[Interruption.] Well, history is important, and had the Conservatives learned from history there would not be just a handful of them on the Opposition Benches after getting the worst election result in their history—an election result that I am delighted to say they thoroughly deserved. Let us get on with making the change under a Labour Government that people really need, however much Conservative Members resent it and try to stop it.

I join many others in congratulating Members on their maiden speeches—they were so much better than my own—but as we are short of time, let me move back to the topic of this debate, which is defence and foreign affairs. While I congratulate the incoming Government on their success, and we wish them well in the spirit of national service, there are serious concerns arising already from the Gracious Speech, and the disconnect between the words of the Government and their actions, particularly in relation to defence and foreign affairs.

Let us look first at the defence budget. We are told by the Government that the world is more dangerous than it has been in living memory. We are told that there is cast-iron support for increasing the defence budget to 2.5% of GDP, but where are the actions? Stability in terms of the defence budget would be to increase it to 2.5%. That was the decision already communicated by the Conservative Government. That means £75 billion of increased defence spending between now and 2031. Where is the stability, in a more dangerous world, in effectively reducing defence spending between now and 2030—particularly in an environment where defence procurement needs long-term reliability from which to plan? There seems to be a disconnect there.

The second area is veterans. We are told by the Labour Government that they are focused on the defence family, and that the defence process should be about people. Quite right too, but what about the veterans Minister? Under the last Government, the veterans Minister was a Cabinet member. He had the ability to look right across Government. What was said in the debate down in Plymouth Moor View a few weeks ago between the two gallant candidates? Did Labour stand on a programme that said, “We’re going to reduce the importance of the veterans Minister. We’re going to make them a junior Minister who will be subsumed within the Ministry of Defence”? I doubt that was the message that the residents of Plymouth voted on, but that is what the Government are planning to do. I ask the Government to think again about that.

Finally, let us look at the overseas development aid budget. Back in the dark days of 2021, when our economy was struggling from the fallout from covid—this massive global pandemic—the Conservative Government took the very difficult decision to reduce ODA from 0.7% of GNI to 0.5%, with an ambition to reverse that as the economic conditions allowed. At the time, Labour was furious and outraged by that, saying that even in the economic situation that existed in 2021 it was the wrong decision. The then shadow Minister for International Development, the hon. Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), said:

“Britain and the world deserve better than a Foreign Secretary who has allowed the aid budget to be slashed, leaving our global reputation lying in tatters”.—[Official Report, 26 November 2020; Vol. 684, c. 1021.]

The now Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that

“to choose to break this promise to the world’s poorest people is unforgivable”.—[Official Report, 26 November 2020; Vol. 684, c. 1028.]

But what is Labour doing now? The economy has improved significantly since those dark days, yet Labour’s action is to keep the figure at 0.5%.

Labour tells us that we need to increase trust in politicians, and that trust must be restored. Well, the way to do that is to act in government in the way that they said they would act when in opposition. I intend to hold this new Government to account.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have sat through this important debate and it has been an absolute pleasure. What a galaxy of maiden speeches we have heard all around us—and that, of course, is democracy. Everyone can take great encouragement from what they have seen today.

The only problem is that I do not know all these new faces, so can I issue a blanket apology in advance to all those on the Labour Benches if I come up to them and say, “I’m so pleased you are a new Lib Dem MP”? I do not mean anything by it. If I say to Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches, “Well done on getting elected on a Labour ticket”, I am terribly sorry about that. You can take comfort, Mr Deputy Speaker, in the fact that I visited an old folks’ home recently and a lovely old lady thought I was Jeremy Thorpe. At least it was the right party.

I am on my feet today because my party’s defence spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), is ill with covid. I am sure we all wish him a speedy recovery. However, I did five years as my party’s defence spokesperson. That leads me to my main theme, which I will touch on by simply saying that we will build relationships with those on the Government Front Bench and the shadow Front Bench—that is how we work.

I will always remember Ben Wallace arranging for me and the present Secretary of State to be helicoptered to Belvoir castle for a meeting of the joint expeditionary force Foreign Ministers. I have never forgotten that, because it was just two days before Putin’s tanks rolled across the border. I remember going in the car from the MOD to board our military helicopter, and the civil servant asking me and the present Secretary of State, “What do you think will happen?” I think we both said, “He’ll probably invade.”

I also remember Ben Wallace saying, during the dinner with the Foreign Secretaries, “I am doing this because Governments change and it’s as well you are prepared, although you may belong to other parties, and that you know as much as you can about the defence brief.” I want to go on the record as thanking Ben Wallace for his very generous attitude to keeping me briefed on intelligence, and I thank the present Secretary of State for his generous offer to see that my colleague, my party’s defence spokesperson, is similarly briefed. That is very good news indeed.

I want to congratulate, through reasons of friendship, those on the Government Front Bench on their appointments; it is very good to see them in their places—and indeed, I am bound to say, it is good to see those on the Opposition Front Bench in their places. The shadow Foreign Secretary was quite correct to remind us of what is going on in Sudan. It is not just about Russia and Ukraine or the middle east; there are all sorts of terrible things happening in the world. I liked too the Secretary of State’s saying that Britain is “democracy’s most reliable ally”. We ought to remember that on a day like today, when all these new faces exemplify democracy in its good, healthy, working form.

I do not have much time, but I want to touch on two points, one of which I think those on both Front Benches know I care passionately about. I served for a short spell of time as a private soldier in the Territorial Army, and one of my children served in the forces until recently. The size of our forces matters an enormous amount to my party, and I think we all understand that we are very far stretched at the moment—hence my intervention earlier in the debate about the present size of the British Army being not exactly helpful to recruitment.

One other thing that I think is desperately important, based on when we met with the joint expeditionary force Foreign Ministers, is that—as all hon. Members have said—we must work across borders, we must work with the European community, and we must work with friends. Only by co-operation, by standing together, can we take on the Russian bear and see it off. As has quite correctly been said, if Ukraine falls, what is next?

Finally, in defence debates during my years in this place, I have always thought the atmosphere of consensus across party boundaries very important. I know from my own family that it was encouraging to our servicewomen and servicemen to know that politicians were speaking as one. From what I have heard this afternoon, I have no reason to worry that that will not go on in future. I think that we can work together for the defence of our nation, which we love so well.

I call the Opposition spokesperson.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone)—although I must say that I have never confused him with Jeremy Thorpe—and to see you in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I respond to the Gracious Speech debate.

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have made speeches today, but I pay particular tribute to all those who made maiden speeches. The time limit means that I cannot go through those contributions in as much detail as I would like, but I will briefly congratulate all those hon. Members. The hon. Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) spoke passionately about diversity, and adds to it with her strong Irish heritage. The hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) is surely the first ever MP to have worked as a sewer baiter. My twins had their 10th birthday during the election campaign, so I know how the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) feels. It is painful, but it gets better—don’t worry. I wish him and his family well.

The hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) made a point of order earlier about energy infrastructure. Pylons have also been proposed in Suffolk, and I agree with her that there are other options; we are saying to the Government that we want to see them. I am grateful for her very passionate maiden speech. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) will, I am sure it is fair to say, be a doughty champion for his constituents.

It is brilliant to have, in the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas), a former member of the Royal Air Force in Parliament, especially in the current context. I was passionate about the global combat air programme when I was Minister for Defence Procurement—it shows the importance of our maintaining combat air competitiveness. I hope that he will contribute to the debate next Wednesday.

I was grateful to hear the cut and thrust of Scottish colleagues, including the hon. Members for Midlothian (Kirsty McNeill) and for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey), and, of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), who certainly punched above his weight in his maiden speech.

Arguably, we did not hear enough about rural matters in the King’s Speech, but the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) certainly made up for that. She will clearly be a passionate advocate for farming and the environment in her constituency. I am grateful for all those maiden speeches, and I hope that we will hear much more from those colleagues in future.

Turning to defence matters, may I welcome the new foreign affairs and defence ministerial teams to their positions? As the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), said, we will work with them where it is in the national interest—especially on supporting Ukraine for as long as it takes—as they did when they were in opposition. We welcome the cross-party spirit in which the Secretary of State for Defence set out his plans for a strategic defence review. We look forward to working with Lord Robertson, for whom I have the greatest respect, in a constructive and collaborative manner.

May I thank the Secretary of State for paying tribute to the two previous Secretaries of State, Ben Wallace and Grant Shapps, both of whom I had the privilege to work with as Minister for Defence Procurement? They can both be rightly proud of the enormous contribution that they made in supporting Ukraine, but they had something else in common: they were not afraid to make the unambiguous case for higher defence spending, and most importantly, they were successful. It helped that they had a Prime Minister who, as Chancellor, oversaw the largest spending review increase for defence since the cold war, and ensured that we went into the general election with a credible and fully funded plan to increase our defence budget to 2.5% of GDP by 2030.

Although I welcome the fact that the Labour Government have said that they are committed to 2.5%, we have nothing but uncertainty over their timetable. Indeed, this morning I was interviewed by Kay Burley of Sky News. She put it to me that the Government’s timetable is to reach 2.5% by the end of the Parliament—so 2028 or 2029. I said that that was not what I understood the public position to be, but she told me that she had been informed privately by the Government that that was the timetable, so I would be grateful if they confirmed now, in Parliament, what exactly the position is on this matter of great sensitivity.

Let me explain why the timetable for 2.5% really matters. When the previous Prime Minister announced that we would commit to 2.5%, he stated that his top priority was to replenish our munitions. That 2.5% figure enabled us to commit £10 billion of extra funding over 10 years to fund munitions, and it is a fact—I know this—that without a clear pathway to 2.5%, the Ministry of Defence would have had to make substantial cuts or deferments to programmes in order to afford that necessary replenishment of our munitions. That is why it is so significant, and why we need to know exactly what the position is. Is Kay Burley correct that the Government have told Sky News that they have a timetable for reaching 2.5% by 2028 or 2029? If not—if there is no timetable for 2.5%—how is the MOD going to fund its munitions strategy? Will those orders for shells and missiles for the Army, Navy and Air Force actually be placed this year? If not, what will be the impact on our world-leading defence sector, and above all, what will be the impact on our warfighting capability as a nation?

Without a clear pathway to 2.5%, what will be the immediate impact on the Department’s finances? Will the MOD continue to invest in cutting-edge capability such as directed energy weapons and hypersonics? That 2.5% would also have stabilised our two biggest defence programmes in light of the inflationary funding pressures that followed Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. This is all open and in the public domain—the Public Accounts Committee was talking about it in the lead-up to the general election. I am talking about the nuclear deterrent and the global combat air programme, our absolutely essential sixth-generation fighter programme. I am delighted that we now have consensus between the Government and ourselves on both the nuclear deterrent and GCAP, but can the Government confirm that delaying 2.5% will have no impact on the funding elements of either of those two major programmes? Can the Secretary of State or the Minister responding also confirm that the Secretary of State’s strategic defence review will conclude entirely before the next spending review commences, so that that review is threat-based, rather than forced on to the financial back foot by Treasury considerations?

Of course, if the Government’s public position is that there is no timetable to 2.5%, they will inevitably point to the old chestnut of the public finances being worse than feared, justifying the inevitable cuts or deferments of programmes that follow. I have the greatest respect for the Secretary of State, but we did hear some of that in his opening remarks. I am afraid that that excuse will not wash, though. Inflation is at 2% and on target; the economy is growing at a healthy rate and ahead of our competitors; wages are rising; unemployment is almost half what it was in 2010, when we took power; and the deficit is forecast to fall to just over 1% of GDP by the end of the current forecast period. [Interruption.] Labour Members chunter. They talk about missions; when we came to power, our mission was to save this country from bankruptcy, because once again, the socialists had run out of other people’s money.

The forecast deficit in 2010 was heading well north of 10%, so we did the right thing: we had to take difficult decisions, and we restored our public finances. Because of that, when the pandemic struck and the energy support had to be put in place, we could afford that enormous support. We are proud of that—proud of furlough, of saving those jobs and those businesses in every constituency. We did it because of those difficult decisions after the mess Labour left us in 2010. [Interruption.] Labour Members talk about the previous Prime Minister but one, but our strong economic legacy cannot be used to pray in aid a cover for cuts and deferments. [Interruption.] They quibble when we talk about a strong economic legacy. How else can we describe low unemployment, inflation at 2%, a low and falling deficit—half what it was when we took over from them—or the highest growth in the G7? That is a fantastic inheritance. Far from being an excuse for the cuts that the Government will have to come to, those are the features of the very improvement in economic conditions that made our pre-election commitment to 2.5% financially credible and deliverable.

We strongly welcome the Prime Minister’s staunch support for NATO, as evidenced in Washington, and we want him to succeed on his pledges to strengthen Britain’s defence. That is in our national interest, but it is actions that matter and by which the Government will be judged, and deferring and delaying 2.5% offers nothing but uncertainty to our armed forces at the worst possible time. If the Government have a private timetable to reach 2.5%, they need to share it; if there is not one, I urge the Secretary of State to persuade the Prime Minister and his Treasury colleagues to think again, because in this more dangerous world, higher defence spending is a matter of the utmost urgency for Britain.

It is an honour to close such a well informed and at times passionate debate, and I will endeavour to respond to as many points as I can get through in the time available. As my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary said at the beginning of this debate, the Foreign Secretary is extremely disappointed that he was not able to participate today, and I know that he will want to update the House shortly on his recent international engagement.

It is an enormous privilege for me to speak in this Chamber for the first time as the Minister of State for Development, as the Minister for Women and Equalities, and as part of a new Government who are proud to serve our country and are working to reconnect Britain with the world. I welcome the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) to his new place on the Opposition Front Bench, and of course the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), to whom I am personally very grateful for reaching out to me on my appointment. I note that both the previous incumbent in my role and the Defence Secretary said at the very beginning of the debate that this is a time when we need to respect others’ points of view. I think that has largely held, although perhaps we had a slight change of approach in the speech by the hon. Member for South Suffolk.

Overall, I think we heard throughout this debate a definite determination to focus on bringing people together when we can as part of a national mission of renewal. We heard so many excellent maiden speeches today—really terrific introductions to the House from many new colleagues—but it is particularly pertinent that my new hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Kirsty McNeill) made reference to the need to recognise that so often, we have more in common than divides us. We need to bear that approach in mind locally, nationally and globally in these often dangerous times.

It is clear that the British people have given this new Government a mandate for change in order to deliver our progressive vision for a shared future—a vision rooted in cool-headed realism about the world as it is, and guided by hope for what it can be. As I say, we are already working to reconnect Britain to the world after 14 years during which there has, at times, been disengagement and isolationism. In so doing, we are turbocharging our mission for growth, to bring investment and jobs to every part of our country.

In these often dangerous and divided times, the UK’s security is our first priority, as my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary made clear. We will stand up for our interests and for our values. We will create a new relationship with the EU, we will deepen our engagement with the global south, we will reclaim leadership on tackling the climate crisis, and we will champion human rights and international law. We will work in partnership with our friends and allies to reduce global poverty and the drivers of conflict and instability, and we will also empower women and girls. In that connection, I congratulate my new hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) on his heartwarming maiden speech, and particularly his reference to the women in his life. Indeed, many new Members have made reference to their partners and families in their maiden speeches.

As the Minister for Development and for Women and Equalities, I know that delivering a truly effective and modern approach to development has never been so urgent or so important. On that, I concur with the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell). Partnership, not paternalism, is required to deliver the change that is so desperately needed. Next week, I will go to the G20 development ministerial meeting in Brazil to reconnect with allies and partner countries in the global south. Together, we must reform the international financial system to tackle unsustainable debt, accelerate growth and unlock climate finance. Together, we must enhance our ability to prevent conflict, and together we must restore our development reputation to deliver both for our international partners and for the British people—and it does need restoring.

The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield rightly referred to the critical role for development for the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people, for our stability, for security and for global prosperity. The commitment to development has always been fundamental for my party. So many powerful champions from this House are household names: Barbara Castle, Clare Short, Gordon Brown, and of course my predecessor who held this brief in opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), to whom I pay tribute.

The shadow Foreign Secretary has often been critical of damage done under Conservative Governments to development and our country’s reputation. He referred to the fact that previous Conservative Governments had “literally removed” food

“from the plates of starving children.”—[Official Report, 6 July 2022; Vol. 717, c. 922.]

He also said that previous Conservative Governments had “trashed” our international reputation. I appreciate his honesty, but now is the time for reflection on a fact that he did not mention today: the damage done by the uncontrolled growth in the previous Government’s spending from the development budget on accommodation. That spending was classified as overseas development aid, but it led to cuts in programmes for some of the neediest people in the world. In a spirit of openness, we must surely acknowledge today that that has done tremendous damage to our reputation.

We are wasting no time in seeking to restore our development reputation by increasing support for those most affected by Hurricane Beryl, and by ensuring that the Foreign Secretary visits our closest allies.

I have listened carefully to the Minister. As she knows, not least from what I said today, I have been critical of earlier decisions, but can she tell the House today whether she has yet thought through when we might see the 0.7% return?

That is absolutely something that this Government take incredibly seriously. Under previous Labour Governments, the 0.7% commitment helped to build our reputation across the world. We have been clear that we are determined to get back to 0.7% as fiscal circumstances allow, but we will also be clear about situations in which the percentage of our gross national income that can go to development has been compromised because of uncontrolled costs, such as those incurred under the previous Government. Surely the shadow Foreign Secretary must acknowledge that damage and what has happened to programmes for some of the poorest people around the world under his party’s watch.

As I stated, we have sought to restore our development reputation by increasing support for those affected by Hurricane Beryl, and by immediately taking action to reconnect with our allies, with the Foreign Secretary visiting Germany, Poland and Sweden in his first 48 hours in his role, and the Defence Secretary, of course, visiting Ukraine. The Defence Secretary was crystal clear: Ukraine and its people have no firmer friend than the UK in their fight against Putin. The Ukrainians are defending our shared security and prosperity, and we stand with them now and always. The right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) rightly referred to their bravery as well as that of the UK’s armed forces, to whom I pay tribute. It was a pleasure to hear from new Members who have services experience, including in the maiden speech of the new hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas), and the new hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) talked about the noble military history of his constituency.

We are clear that under the new Government, the UK will pledge £3 billion in military aid to Ukraine every year. We are speeding up delivery, including of a new package of military equipment, and will aim to play a leading role in supporting a clear, irreversible road for Ukraine to full NATO membership. That commitment from the UK to ensuring that Ukraine can proceed to NATO is unshakeable. As has been mentioned, we will also set out a clear and credible path to spending 2.5% of UK GDP on defence, as we call on others to step up. I would gently point out to the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) that there was no credible plan from the previous Government.

Will the Minister give way?

No, I will not; I will make progress. We are undertaking the unglamorous, hard work of putting that plan in place, rather than engaging in the wishful thinking we saw from the previous Conservative Government on this issue and so many others.

As this debate has indicated, there is deep concern in our country and globally about the death and destruction in Gaza. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), referred to it, as she has often done so powerfully; she has both a professional understanding of the issue and, sadly, personal experience of it. Before the Foreign Secretary’s first fortnight in the job was up, this priority was clear from his application to visit the region. He went to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories to progress diplomatic engagement, as we play our part in efforts towards long-term peace and security in the middle east. It is clear that the situation in Gaza is untenable and intolerable. We need a ceasefire not tomorrow or next week, but today. We need the immediate release of all hostages, unfettered and rapid access to humanitarian aid into Gaza, and action to enable British nationals and their families still trapped there to leave.

My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) inquired about the new Government’s position on UNRWA. We recognise the vital role that UNRWA plays in saving lives in Gaza, providing basic services and promoting stability in the west bank and the wider region. We are closely considering funding to UNRWA and will ensure that we keep Parliament informed.

The Foreign Secretary made the case clearly in the region for an urgent, credible and irreversible pathway towards a two-state solution, an end to illegal Israeli settlements and rising settler violence in the west bank, and a reformed and empowered Palestinian Authority. This Government are clear that the world needs a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state.

Sudan was rightly mentioned by the shadow Foreign Secretary. I was determined to be fully briefed on that situation, as well as the situation in Gaza, on coming into my role. In my first week in office, I announced new lifesaving support for up to 150,000 refugees in Libya who are fleeing escalating violence in Darfur. We must do all we can in this area. The Government are accelerating work on rebuilding that connection with the rest of the world. We are making real the rights that we all hold in common. I was particularly pleased to hear Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra), referring to the rights of disabled people in this debate, and the new hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) spoke about disabled people in her maiden speech.

We are also accelerating work on tackling corruption and money laundering, which was rightly referred to by my new hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell), and we are making sure that the voice of working people is heard. I was pleased to hear the new hon. Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) refer to the importance of the trade union movement, perhaps from a slightly unexpected angle.

We are taking a strong, consistent and long-term approach to China and convening a new clean power alliance. We are clear that Britain is stronger when we work with others. That point was made by so many speakers, including my new hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) in her powerful remarks and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain). Together, we need to turn towards the project for national renewal, and Britain’s enormous potential in the world. Together, as the new hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) said, we can achieve and do so much. Together, we can work towards a liveable planet that is free from poverty. The work towards that starts now.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Christian Wakeford.)

Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Business of the House (Today)

Ordered,

That at today’s sitting the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Lucy Powell relating to Sittings of the House (Friday 19 and 26 July) not later than one hour after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; proceedings on that Motion may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Lucy Powell.)