Jack Rankin
MP for Windsor · Conservative · United Kingdom
“It is a disgrace that hundreds of prisoners have been released in error under this Government, but more concerning are the thousands it will have been an error to release early. The Secretary of State did not answer the previous question, so let’s try another.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the Minister for introducing the debate. His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition will support the regulations.”
“Q5. The first duty of His Majesty’s Government, and indeed the Prime Minister’s first duty, is the defence of the realm. The Prime Minister is not responsible for the worsening geopolitical situation, but he is responsible for this country’s reaction to it.”
“Just as we must stop unnecessarily pushing young people into courses that offer minimal face-to-face teaching, in return for huge debt and little prospect of employment at the end, we must ensure that new modular courses and training opportunities deliver the highest-quality provision possible.”
“I would like to press the Minister on the importance of face-to-face teaching time. If we want to tackle low-quality provision and ensure that the lifelong learning entitlement lives up to our hopes, we must ensure that learners receive the highest-quality teaching possible.”
“Secondly, given that providers will occur familiarisation and administrative costs as the changes are implemented, and in the light of the wider financial pressures facing the higher education sector, what support will be available to help minimise those burdens? The Opposition support the regulations.”
The complete record
Every one of 539 lines we hold for Jack Rankin, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 11.
“I believe that review will vindicate me in many of the concerns I have raised today and provide a future Government with the opportunity to address or, indeed, repeal those aspects of the Bill that prove most unworkable—not that I believe this Bill will get that far. It will not survive a change in Government, which will happen at the next opportunity afforded to the Great British people.”
“Any such steps will simply exacerbate the growth of the black market and the decline in duties collected. Smoking rates are falling naturally, but this Bill may well reverse that trend, as it limits access to quit aids. It will likely mean less revenue for the Treasury as the black market grows, and it will cost our high street businesses billions. The amendment process has done little to address, or even acknowledge, those concerns. However, I will end on a more positive note by saying that I welcome Lords amendment 80, which requires a review of the Bill within four to seven years of its implementation.”
“Those amendments would have gone some way towards reassuring pubs and venues that the Government are not completely set on destroying them. Again, those amendments were rejected—or am I to understand that the Government have U-turned on that? Before I conclude, I will briefly raise one further concern regarding the powers granted to Ministers to prohibit cigarette filters in future. The justification for this measure remains unclear, and it is yet another example of the broad and—I would argue—excessive powers that this Bill contains, including the host of Henry VIII powers it grants. Through this Bill, the Government have teed themselves up to bring in further puritan measures in the coming years without needing to consult this House.”
“That sector is so important to the economy in Windsor, and it is already struggling: since the 2024 Budget, job losses in the sector have made up around 50% of job losses overall. UKHospitality has said that many businesses have no capacity to absorb additional costs. Labour has hiked alcohol duty, is banning smoking and is considering health warnings on alcohol. Labour hates fun—it is no wonder that landlords are barring MPs from their pubs. Amendments tabled in the other place by Lord Sharpe of Epsom would have protected our beer gardens from being designated as smokefree and allowed the advertising of products that do not contain tobacco in age-gated venues, in a similar way to the amendments that I tabled in the Commons.”
“Tobacco receipts are down by £414 million, or 10%, in the last six months alone, and have fallen nearly 30% over the past decade, far outpacing the decline in smoking rates. More than one in four cigarettes consumed in Britain are now illicit, amounting to about 2 billion cigarettes each year, and the international evidence, including from Australia, should serve as a warning. Members who are sceptical should spend time with their local trading standards office to see the reality for themselves. That is why hundreds of retailers backed an amendment, tabled by Lord Murray of Blidworth, that would have replaced the generational ban with a minimum age of sale of 21. That would have been more enforceable and less costly. Naturally, that amendment was rejected. Hospitality businesses have voiced real concerns about provisions in the Bill.”
“This is not a response to the demand for vapes, so we should ask whether fraud, money laundering or organised crime are taking place. We already have much evidence to say that they are. During a mystery shopper exercise in Windsor and Sunninghill, I witnessed the sale of illicit tobacco in three shops—it was alarmingly easy to obtain. The price difference explains why: a pack of illicit cigarettes can cost as little as £3.50, compared with £16.75 at retail. If such activity is taking place openly today, that raises the question of what else might be happening behind the scenes, and where this activity will go under the Bill. The Bill risks turbocharging an already thriving black market.”
“I am not suggesting that at all, sir. I am suggesting that the generational smoking ban that applies to smoking adults—I have never met a smoking adult who did not know that smoking was bad for them—is an illiberal policy that will create two tiers of adults. There is absolutely nothing wrong with people making decisions that we individually might think are bad for them. The evidence suggests the same, but people should be perfectly able to make those decisions should they choose to do so. As legitimate businesses struggle, less scrupulous operators will inevitably fill the gap. The rapid growth of seemingly dodgy vape shops is a real concern for my constituents in Windsor, and it will be a concern for the constituents of Members right across the House. On the high street in Windsor, there are eight such shops.”
“The hon. Member is right that the Bill, if it does apply, should apply to the whole United Kingdom, of which Northern Ireland is an integral part. Under the Windsor framework—the sell-out that is disgracefully named after my constituency—Northern Ireland is subject to the tobacco products directive, is it not? Is it possible, then, for the Bill to apply equally to Northern Ireland?”
“I thank the Minister for her implied compliment to the Leader of the Opposition, who voted against this Bill on Second Reading when the previous Prime Minister brought it forward. She voted against it because the Bill does not respect the proper relationship between the state and the individual, and does not deliver equality under the law, so we will take that as a compliment in the new Conservative party, which is being refreshed in an authentically conservative direction.”
“For many of them are already decided. With parents they agree and with their views they’ve sided. For now is the time to ban phones from school proper. Guidance alone means schools still come a cropper. Despite their best efforts, it’s hard to stop-per. So come on now Red team—stop delaying and do! And while we’re at it, ban social media for under-16s too. There’s votes just next week; it isn’t too late To do the right thing ’stead of making us wait. I thank Honourable Friends for their patience and time. I’ve enjoyed all the speeches, although none others rhymed. But isn’t that the wonder of novels and stories It matter not whether Lib Dem, Labour or Tories— There’s one thing on which we can all agree On World Book Day we can be one and not three!”
“When the Blue team were boss back in two thousand and twelve Just 58% of six-year-olds reached the standards we delved By the time we had gone and up to the now, The figure has soared to 80% Wow—oh wow—wow! Primary aged bookworms in England are best, Now the best of the best—oh, yes—in the West. Of Europe at least, and on this I don’t jest! The best little readers of the rest in the West! The Blue team are glad that the Red team agreed In their Curriculum Review our reforms they still need For phonics are king when it comes to learning How to decode the letters and for stories yearning. In the Lorax, Seuss taught us to love trees a lot and said: “Unless someone likes you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It’s not.” So now comes the time for my ask of the Reds. Don’t worry or wobble—there’s nothing to dread.”
“Rest your sleepy heads down,” For a tale before bed will melt any frown. It needn’t be complex or long as a Tolkien, A Tolstoy or Dickens, James Joyce, and be hulking; Few words here and there—what a difference they make To children’s vocabularies and the brain cells they shake. For Maths chaps like me who like numbers, not words Books we still need for fractions like thirds Whether green eggs and ham or bears from Peru, Scientists can still marvel at brave Cindy Lou Who. If kids 10 to 16 read for fun, not by force They’ll get better jobs in the future workforce. It has much more effect than if Mum or Dad went to uni, So pick up that book and make your OWN dreams come true-ni!”
“Glasgow West told of how Heidi inspired As well as how books during conflict required Too many speeches—I can’t do them all But all of them wonderful in Westminster Hall. I’m not quite yet done with my Dr-Seuss speech There’s more—yes, some more—’fore the exits you reach. For I haven’t yet shared my own greatest tale Of two little boys from near Sunningdale. A hop and a skip to the next village along Are two little boys who love books, deep and strong. The older loves space, rockets and sky The littler one dinosaurs who roar as they fly. By accident or luck did it happen? It did not! For many things quickly take the top spot! Grown-ups are tired and they work all day through So easy it is to forget what is true. But the truth is that after another long day, The thing I love most when I’m tired is say, “Sit on my lap, boys.”
“Here comes a test for my rhyming wordplay For a brief jot in time while I quickly relay The wisdom and pearls of Honourable Friends here today I’ve made up on the spot in the Seussian way. If it’s “Reading for fun and going all in”, Grab that book off the shelf—take your mind off for a spin. Each little child with a token and smile Turns books into grammar, spelling and maths improved style. From Strangford, we heard about Andy McNab His strong love for reading shows in his gift of the gab We thank all the libraries that open their doors Not just to the building but lands on strange shores. Like Isle of Wight West where Dickens and Tennyson called home But not, to my knowledge, did Jerome K Jerome. From Bracknell we heard about Fox Hill primary’s new library, Something we want in every secondary and primary.”
“It’s a pleasure to serve ’neath your chair’ship today, And I hope you’ll forgive if today—just today— I do not speak In the usual way. For today—yes, today!—is World Book Day, they say. A day made for books and bright words at their play. I thank my Honourable Friend with a cheer and a grin, The Member for Dulwich and West Norwood—who let the debate on reading begin! And today—yes, today!—on this most Bookish of days, I won’t stick to the script in much-loved Erskine May. No dry phrases today in the proper array— I’ll try it instead in a Seussian way! So today—yes, today!—we can happily spend Time on good stories from beginning to end. With a flip and a flourish, a swish and a sway, For books are the best thing to brighten the day!”
“6. What assessment she has made of the adequacy of the compliance of the Palestinian Authority’s school curriculum with the UK- Palestinian memorandum of understanding.”
“The Palestinian Authority have given the British Government repeated assurances that textbooks are being reformed, which one would have thought would be a minimum requirement for the recognition of a Palestinian state. However, in my office, I have an Arabic-language textbook, currently in use on the west bank, that describes Arab fighters using “explosive belts” to “turn their bodies into fire burning the Zionist tank”. That is accompanied by an image of a gunman shooting Jews riding a tank. The book is aimed at 14-year-olds. Is the Minister aware that this is going on, and does he have any faith that the Palestinian Authority can change their ways?”
“T4. It has been 31 days since I wrote to the Secretary of State calling on her to reimburse the royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead for costs—some £350,000—incurred during three state visits last year. While this may be a rounding error to the Government, it is not to the ratepayers of Windsor. We are proud to host such visits, but these are properly national costs. Will the Secretary of State do the right thing and sort this, please?”
“The Secretary of State has bent over backwards to avoid backing a ban on mobile phones in schools. Her Back Benchers are making their views clear, so can she confirm whether she will be whipping them next week to vote against our amendment to ban phones in schools? We look forward to the Government’s 17th U-turn in as many months—the 18th if the one on Iran counts—but if a U-turn is not coming, why does she continue to stand in the way of parents, heads and her own Back Benchers, who simply want classrooms free from disruption?”
“On “Newsnight” on 23 February, the Minister for School Standards acknowledged that the student loan system is not perfect, but justified no change by saying the Government face huge pressure and must make tough choices. Given spending choices made since this Government came to power, is not the truth that the political choices that the Minister’s colleagues are talking about include balancing their “Benefits Street” Budget on the back of aspirational graduates?”
“When I visit primary and first schools, teachers tell me that when given a book, more and more children starting school are swiping it, rather than knowing how to turn the page. If the Secretary of State is serious about raising phonics standards at key stage 1, will she act now to empower parents and get screens out of classrooms, and back a ban on social media for under-16s to create the right habits early? Or will she continue to drag her feet, given that it has already taken six weeks to even launch a consultation that we all know the answer to?”
“Although I did not agree with everything in his remarks, I think he has broad support across the House that the system as currently designed is not working. This issue affects a huge proportion of young people, given that over 50% of them now go to university. Combine that with a 30-year lifespan, and it becomes a generational problem. Perhaps by coincidence, rather than design, this debate coincides with the announcement made by His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition of a new deal for young people. I acknowledge that it is partly responsive, but it has helped to bring the issue to the top of the news agenda. This debate could not be timelier. For young people, particularly those on plan 2 loans, there is not a moment to lose.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) for securing this important debate and highlighting one of the major challenges facing many young people in this country today: student loan repayments. Despite my youthful looks, I can clarify that I am on the last year of plan 1 loans, so this issue does not directly affect me. I have many contemporaries in that situation, though, and I think I understand it well. When growing numbers of graduates are leaving university with mountains of debt and graduate recruitment is at a record low, there is an urgent need to address a system that is failing graduates. The hon. Member for Ilford South asked for broad agreement on that point.”
“We have to be careful about whether it is progressive to send working-class children on university courses that will laden them with debt, but not provide them with the economic outcomes that they might need. There is a balance there to tread. My hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) talked about the nuance here, between the oppressive interest rates and the 30-year repayment threshold.”
“I am aware that many a Conservative ex-Minister has stood at the shadow Dispatch Box and criticised the Government for things they themselves were doing in the recent past, so I say this with some self-awareness, but I say to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) that the Liberal Democrats have to be careful on this issue—the faces on the Government Benches when the Liberal Democrats made some of their remarks were quite the picture. The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), who I believe is the Chair of the Education Committee, made a fair point about the balance in education between economic outcomes and the broader social good of education. I agree with her that the case for education is broader than just economic, but I suggest that there is a balance.”
“Members for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) and for York Central (Rachael Maskell), who I do not think are in their places anymore, made similar contributions from a left-wing point of view. I gently suggest that the mechanisms for mass debt cancellations, or even more, what they call “progressive taxation”, is not where we need to be. I am afraid I consider that to be the politics of the magic money tree. When we look at what is happening, one of the things that graduates are upset about is the unreasonable marginal rates of tax that they face as graduates when the student loan is included. More so-called “progressive” marginal rates of income tax would be part of the problem, not part of the solution.”
“I do not want to talk about each plan individually, but this does need to be looked at in the round, as the hon. Lady is quite right to say. Returning to the hon. Member for Ilford South, I am glad that he recognised—which some of his colleagues did not—that the beneficiaries of student loans should be asked to contribute. He called for fairness. I agree with him that, as it stands, the balance is not quite right. To my mind—the hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) spoke to this—the main issue that we have seen is the breach of the promise on thresholds being frozen and on interest rates being increased. I acknowledge that we did that in government, but it has happened most recently in the recent Budgets. That is morally indefensible. The hon.”
“I am not sure that I recognise that statement. At the risk of pointing out the obvious, I was not born in the parliamentary seat of Windsor. I grew up in Ashton-under-Lyne and was the kind of child the hon. Member probably has in mind. My passion at school was history but I did maths and physics at university. That was partly an economic choice that gave me opportunities that my parents and people I went to school with could not have dreamed of. That was a sensible decision I made for me and my family. Dismissing that as a relevant factor is not progressive.”
“That money could go towards a deposit, starting a business or building a family. Together with our plan to scrap stamp duty, that will help young people achieve home ownership and financial independence. Taken together, it represents the most ambitious policy package for young people in years and would re-enfranchise the lost generation. Fixing the voting system should be a priority for this Government. It is about fairness, repairing the intergenerational compact and ensuring that young people who play by the rules are rewarded for their aspiration and not taxed on it. I look forward to the Minister’s response.”
“The first is to reform the unfair student loans system. We would abolish real interest on plan 2 loans, ensuring that balances never rise faster than inflation. That responds to many of the criticisms in this debate. The second pillar is more controversial. The fact is that university is not for everyone, nor should it be. One of the best ways to escape the debt pile is to avoid it. A university degree in today’s economy no longer guarantees work, sadly evidenced by the 700,000 graduates currently on benefits. That is why we would lift the funding cap for apprenticeships from 18 to 21-year-olds. The third pillar is that we would make work pay through our new jobs bonus, where the first £5,000 of national insurance paid by any British citizen starting their first job would be placed in a personal savings account in their name.”
“The freezing of repayment thresholds from April 2027 will cost the average graduate a further £300 a year by 2030, in an environment where rents are through the roof, job opportunities are few and the tax burden is at an all-time high. I gently say to the Minister that although we do have to balance the system so it is fiscally sustainable, this was done not to pay for education but to balance the books more broadly, which is unfair. As I acknowledged earlier, it is unfair to change the rules post the fact for students who entered into the loan system in good faith when they were 18. Many graduates regard that as the behaviour of a loan shark rather than what they want to see from Government. This week the Conservative party announced a new deal for young people, which rests on three pillars.”
“I agree, but would gently say that we want to ensure that people take the highest-quality creative courses imaginable, which we can honestly say will have economic benefits for them. That is the nuance and balance. Because of the time, I will move on to my substantive remarks, though hon. Members having two minutes and 90 seconds to contribute does not do justice to the strength of feeling across the House. There is obviously broad unhappiness from those of all political colours and world views, and I wonder whether more time could be found to debate the matter on the Floor of the House. The measures announced by the Chancellor in the autumn Budget are the most punitive yet for threshold and interest freezes.”
“Local authorities should also consider whether a child has ever been subject to care proceedings, even where those proceedings did not result in a care order, as tragically was the case with Sara. If the Bill is to honour its stated purpose, it must focus relentlessly on protecting children at genuine risk, not on sweeping up responsible families into an overly prescriptive system. Getting this right matters; as we have heard today, children’s lives depend on it.”
“I have received numerous representations from constituents concerned that the proposals would place excessive and unnecessary burdens on responsible home-educating families. The requirement to detail exact hours of education, on pain of breaking the law, is particularly intrusive and fails to reflect the reality of flexible home-based learning. Safeguarding measures must be proportionate and focused on identifying genuine risk, not on creating layers of bureaucracy that stigmatise families who are doing the right thing. I urge the Government to go further in tightening the conditions under which a local authority may withhold consent for elective home education. Government amendment 120 to the Bill, which would apply where a child has been on a child protection plan within the past five years, does not go far enough.”
“As drafted, the Bill would not fully address the specific safeguarding loopholes identified in Sara’s case. Baroness Barran is doing excellent work in the Lords to close those gaps, and I hope that the Government will think again on some of those issues. I welcome the Government’s introduction of unique child identification, as we previously called for. More broadly, the principle of a register of children not in school, as raised by the hon. Member for Woking, has long enjoyed cross-party support. I would be interested in the Minister’s comments on that. Education matters and school attendance should be the norm, but parental choice also matters. Elective home education is a legitimate option for many families. As it stands, the Bill does not strike the right balance.”
“Where services are well led, outcomes can and do improve under the existing framework; where they struggle, the causes are often leadership, capability and delivery on the ground, not the absence of legislative powers. That is why we should be careful and cautious about assuming that more legislation on its own will necessarily lead to better outcomes for children. I wish to talk briefly about the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which continues its passage in the other place. I welcome the Government’s acceptance of several amendments responding to the recommendations from the Sara Sharif review, particularly proposals to pilot meetings with parents before deregistration from school, and the option of a visit within 15 days of a child starting home education. However, there remain serious concerns.”
“As well as Surrey, in my constituency I also deal with children’s services delivered by the royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead and by Slough borough council—I do not know whether I am unique in having three different children’s services. Ofsted rated the royal borough’s services as good in October 2024. By contrast, Slough has been inadequate since early 2023, although subsequent focus visits, including in July 2024, found that children in need and those on child protection plans were receiving timely and appropriate services. These neighbouring authorities illustrate a simple but uncomfortable truth: children’s services remain a postcode lottery.”
“I have a great deal of personal confidence in him, and he recognises the scale of change required in this area. I was heartened to see that a motion calling for an independent expert review of the improvements made at Surrey county council following Sara’s death was passed unanimously by the council last month, with cross-party support. That independent scrutiny is essential to providing confidence that reforms are effective, lasting and properly focused. I will be watching closely for its outcomes, as I know the hon. Member for Woking will be, and I hope that we can all embrace the cross-party approach of our county colleagues across Surrey and within the council to drive sustained improvement.”
“The council has committed to implementing all the local recommendations in full. I share some of his concerns about the culture in that team and the need for joined-up services, so that children do not fall between the cracks. Encouragingly, Ofsted’s most recent inspection, in 2025, highlighted some improvements at the front door of services. Inspectors noted that referrals to the children’s single point of access received “timely and proportionate” responses, and that there was effective partnership working with the police, particularly in cases of domestic abuse and missing children. Multi-agency strategy meetings were found to be “timely and well attended” leading to considered decisions. Those are vital steps forward and I welcome them. I have met the new lead member, Councillor Jonathan Hulley, to discuss this matter.”
“Under the previous Conservative Government, the proportion of local authority children’s services rated good or outstanding rose from 24% in 2015 to 60% in 2024, according to the Institute for Government. That progress matters, but it is equally true that around a third of local authorities still require improvement or are judged inadequate. This is about children’s safety. Having listened to hon. Members from across the political spectrum, I hope I speak for many in saying that we all want the Government to succeed in this area. Getting children’s services right underpins so many outcomes and, most importantly, helps prevent tragedies like Sara’s from ever happening again. The hon. Member for Woking may know that part of my constituency is in the Surrey county council area.”
“According to the Local Government Association, the number of children in care is 18% higher than a decade ago. Councils now carry out more than 600 child protection investigations every single day. But despite increased budgeted spending, councils have been overspending on children’s social care by an average of 14% each year, and planned budgets for 2025-26 show a further 10% rise in costs. At the heart of this lies a fundamental problem: a shortage of high-quality placements for looked-after children. Demand continues to outstrip supply, driving up costs and putting intense pressure on social care, SEND services and care leaver support.”
“It is not about statistics, but about lives—and, in the case of Sara Sharif, a life lost. Sara was living in Woking when she was murdered by her father and stepmother. The hon. Member for Woking has rightly been a passionate advocate for change, particularly since the publication of the local child safeguarding practice review. I commend him for that work. Nine of the 15 recommendations in the review were wholly or partially local, and I echo the call for Surrey county council to implement them swiftly but thoroughly. It is our responsibility in this place to ensure that where national recommendations are made, children’s services are properly equipped to meet their statutory duties. I welcome the work that has begun, but there is more to do. Nationally, the scale of pressures on children’s services is clear.”
“I associate His Majesty’s loyal Opposition with those themes and, in particular, with Members’ tributes to frontline staff. There may be systemic issues, but we know that frontline staff do their best under difficult constraints. They are overworked and underpaid, and deserve all of our support. I think the nature of need in the country is shocking. Local authorities in England are supporting around 400,000 children in need. That is roughly one in 30 children. As of the end of March last year, around 49,000 children were subject to child protection plans, and more than 80,000 were in local authority care. Those figures should give us pause; one in 30 children is the equivalent of a child in every classroom. But this debate is not about numbers; it is about children—the most vulnerable, at-risk children in our communities.”
“It is heartening to hear that services in his Devon constituency are improving. There were calls for joined-up thinking from right across the House, led by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell). The hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) supported the hon. Member for Woking by raising concerns on behalf of her constituents regarding the quality of care from Surrey county council. I was particularly moved by the personal commitment to looked-after children by the hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby), who brought his experience to bear. Themes we have heard from right across the House include support for kinship carers, the need for long-term funding, the lack of places, and the fact that we need processes in order to learn the vital lessons of the past.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I thank the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) for securing this important debate, and for his powerful and thoughtful contribution, particularly in relation to the tragic case of Sara Sharif. We have heard thoughtful contributions from right across the House this morning. The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) spoke passionately about her city, about sharing best practice and about the importance of the first 1,001 days of a child’s life, which are critical. The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) talked about the variation in children’s services around the country and how it is a postcode lottery, and in particular about the difference between London and the south-west.”
“If we continue to play by imaginary rules while our enemies, and sometimes even our allies, are playing a different game altogether, we are destined to lose, with disastrous consequences for our country and for our children. Sadly, many of those old assumptions are embedded and entrenched in our financial services industry, universities and politics. In turn, that is having a deeply damaging effect on British defence companies and ultimately on our ability to defend ourselves.”
“I beg to move, That this House has considered the impact of environmental, social and governance requirements on the defence industry. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank the Minister and hon. Members for making time to attend what I hope will be a consequential debate. Last week, we all heard the Canadian Prime Minister speaking at Davos. He is not quite my flavour of politics, but he spoke a truth: we live in a much more dangerous world and we cannot rely on the international rules-based order to protect us. We are quickly learning an ancient truth that hard power is the most material reality.”
“The importance of private investment was recognised in the strategic defence review, but we are not properly utilising it. Right now, British defence companies are deprived of much of that potential investment because funds of various descriptions prioritise sustainable investment or environmental social governance —ESG—regardless of return. Sometimes those funds actively rule out defence, explicitly or implicitly, in the rules they set.”
“The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point about Leonard, which builds helicopters in his constituency, and I am sure the Minister has heard his pointed remarks. Parties of both colours have pledged to increase defence spending. This Labour Government have committed to an uplift of 3% in the next Parliament, but when will we see it? What proportion of it will simply make up historical military pensions? How much is actually going to cutting-edge research and development? Currently, only 4% of defence spending goes to small and medium-sized enterprises, which often lead the way on innovation. What if I told the Minister that there is billions of pounds in funding waiting to be unlocked that would cost the taxpayer nothing, be a huge boost to the economy and improve our national security? It is sitting in the private sector.”
“Sadly, only the Scottish Conservatives supported the reception, while all others steered clear. What message does that send to those in the industry, those hard-working constituents of Members of the Scottish Parliament, when their representatives have no time for them and effectively shun them. Mr Malcolm also talked to the Committee about how a company he represented was vandalised, reducing its capacity by 75%. How will that business remain viable? We can think of careers fairs at universities being shut down, and damaging the attractiveness of defence as a sector to work in; it is a sector that keeps us safe, but it is often not one that employees feel safe to work in.”