The Southport inquiry report is truly harrowing, and I cannot imagine the pain that it will cause the families of all those affected. We will make the changes needed to honour the victims, the injured and the families, and our thoughts remain with the loved ones of Elsie, Bebe and Alice, and with all those impacted.
Today marks 37 years since the Hillsborough disaster, when 97 men, women and children went to a football match and never returned. My promise remains that, working with families, we will deliver a Hillsborough law to end the injustice that they have suffered and ensure that the state will always act for the people it serves.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
The Prime Minister was right to resist us being drawn into an ill-conceived war in the middle east with apparently no clear plan for how it may end. Despite the welcome cost of living support that he referenced in his statement on Monday, we are all rightly angry that our constituents will feel the impact of this war in their pockets and in their daily lives. Will he outline what steps he is taking both to support our armed forces and plan for all future contingencies? We all hope for a swift resolution and progress at the summit later this week, but we must be prepared for all potential scenarios.
I thank my hon. Friend, the Royal Engineers in her constituency, and all those serving our country at home and abroad. We are proud to be investing a record £9 billion to deliver the quality homes that they deserve. We are turning around Army recruitment after the Conservatives missed targets for 14 years, but the foremost responsibility to our armed forces is in the decisions we take on military actions. My principles are clear. That is a sharp contrast with the Leader of the Opposition, who wanted to jump into the war with both feet without thinking through the consequences.
I call the Leader of the Opposition.
That was a very interesting answer from the Prime Minister. Lord Robertson, who authored the Government’s strategic defence review, has said that the Prime Minister has a “corrosive complacency” when it comes to defence. Why did he say that?
Let me start by saying that I respect Lord Robertson, and I thank him again for carrying out the strategic review. My responsibility is to keep the British people safe, and that is a duty I take seriously. That is why I do not agree with his comments.
Last February—seven months after taking office—I took the decision to increase defence spending from 2.3% to 2.6%, which was paid for by a difficult decision on overseas aid. Last June at the NATO summit, I committed to raising core defence spending to 3.5%. Last November, the Budget committed record funding to defence. I reaffirm those commitments now.
The strategic defence review is a 10-year blueprint for national security. The defence investment plan will put that into effect, and it will be published as soon as possible. We need to get it right. We inherited plans that were uncosted and undeliverable, and we are not going to repeat those mistakes.
The Prime Minister says that he does not agree with Lord Robertson. Lord Robertson is a former Labour Defence Secretary and a former NATO Secretary-General. He also said:
“We are underprepared. We are underinsured. We are under attack.”
He said—[Interruption.]
Order. I do not think it looks good to shout somebody down at the Dispatch Box.
Lord Robertson’s criticisms were of the Prime Minister, and he said that Britain’s national security is “in peril”. Our armed forces are at the end of their tether, waiting for this Government to fund the strategic defence review. There are still two weeks of the parliamentary Session left, so why will the Prime Minister not publish the defence investment plan before the Session ends?
I remind the House that we have put in place the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war. Let me spell that out: that means we are spending £270 billion over this Parliament. That is £5 billion more this year, with defence funding increasing every year. These are record amounts—decisions of a Labour Prime Minister, a Labour Chancellor and a Labour Government.
What a contrast: when the Conservatives came into office, defence spending was 2.5%; when they left, it was 2.3%. When they came into office, the Army numbered 100,000; when they left, it was 72,000. They cut frigates and destroyers by 25%. They cut minehunters by 50%. The Leader of the Opposition said at the weekend that our defence is the “weakest in 400 years.” That is what they left behind.
The Prime Minister is talking about the biggest sustained increase. Talking about an increase is not the same as giving an increase. The military and the defence industry want to hear about what he is going to do, not hear him prosecuting past Governments. He promised that the defence investment plan would be published last autumn. I asked him at Prime Minister’s questions six weeks ago when it would be published—he had no idea. It is now the middle of April. What is the hold-up?
I have set out my position. The defence investment plan is the first line-by-line review of defence budgets for 18 years. The Leader of the Opposition talks about talking; if you are going to support your country and make it safe, you have to make the right calls on the big issues. She called for us to jump into the war. The Conservatives can pretend otherwise, but I remember walking into this Chamber, standing at the Dispatch Box for the first time on the matter and saying that we would not get drawn into the war and would not join the offensive, and they all shouted, “Shame!” They remember it. I remember it. They are just embarrassed by it now.
A week later, when the Leader of the Opposition realised that she had made a massive error of judgment, she attempted the mother of all U-turns. That did not work, so this weekend, she said that when she said we should jump into the war, she was talking about “verbal support”—
Order. Prime Minister, it is Prime Minister’s questions. We have got to concentrate. I call Kemi Badenoch.
The Prime Minister loves to misrepresent my position on Iran. Let us stop talking about what I did not say. Let us start talking about what he is not doing. Mr Speaker, you will recall that on Monday, I offered to work with the Prime Minister to identify the welfare savings we need. What did he say? “No thanks.” Now that Lord Robertson has said,
“We cannot defend Britain with an ever-expanding welfare budget”,
will the Prime Minister think again and work with us to find savings to fund defence?
The Leader of the Opposition was clear in what she was saying. She said we should give “verbal support”; I suppose that is standing on the sidelines and saying, “Get in there. Good luck, mate. You’ve got this.” That is her approach. We are reforming welfare and spending more on defence; the Conservatives did neither. The welfare bill rose by £88 billion on their watch. It soared by £33 billion on the shadow Chancellor’s watch. We are fixing it—what did the Conservatives do? They voted against it. They voted to keep the broken system. Taking advice from the Conservative party on reforming welfare and defence spending is like asking Liz Truss how to keep your mortgage down.
This is so poor from the Prime Minister—[Laughter.] Labour MPs are laughing, but this is a moment of profound national seriousness. And what are they doing? They are promoting sex toys in Parliament. It gives a whole new meaning to fiddling while Rome burns. [Interruption.] That is what they are doing, Mr Speaker.
Let us get back to the issue of the defence investment plan and defence spending. It is being reported that the Treasury is asking the Ministry of Defence to make £3.5 billion of cuts this year. The Prime Minister will not fund our military, because he wants to fund more welfare. That is why he has a welfare plan to 2031, but no defence investment plan at all. Now that the Chagos surrender deal is dead, will the Prime Minister put the billions saved from ditching Chagos into defence, or is that going into welfare as well?
We are spending more on defence—record amounts—with £270 billion in this Parliament, and £5 billion extra. The Leader of the Opposition talks about the Chancellor. It is because of the decisions of this Chancellor that we have the biggest boost to defence spending since the cold war. We have also got the biggest pay rise for our armed forces for over 20 years. We have also got the biggest investment in military housing for more than half a century. What did the Conservatives do at the Budget? They voted against all of that.
It sounds like the Prime Minister does not want to spend the Chagos money on defence. Labour MPs will know Lord Robertson, a former Defence Secretary and a former NATO Secretary-General. He is Labour through and through. They all need to think about why he stuck his head above the parapet. I went through the strategic defence review with Lord Robertson last year. The Lib Dems and Reform refused to meet him. No other party is taking this seriously.
I want to ask the Prime Minister a very specific question. In January 2024, the Conservatives approved an upgrade of destroyers, like HMS Dragon, so that they can better intercept ballistic missiles. In July 2024, the Prime Minister paused that plan. Will he immediately approve and fund that critical upgrade now?
HMS Dragon was commissioned by a Labour Government, as it happens. The Leader of the Opposition stands there and says, “Please forget the fact that we hollowed out the armed forces. Please clear up our mess.” I went to the Gulf last week and thanked our armed forces for protecting British lives. She said that we should have jumped into the war, without thinking about the consequences, and then said the next week, “Oh no, we shouldn’t be in the war.” [Interruption.] Now she says, “What I meant was that we should give verbal support”—
Order. I expect those on the Front Bench to be quiet. It is the same people: if this carries on, I suspect that next week you will not be at Prime Minister’s questions.
In addition to the Leader of the Opposition saying that her position is that we should just say to the Americans, “Get in there”, she insulted our armed forces, saying that they were just “hanging around”. These are pilots who within two hours of this conflict starting were up, risking their lives, taking missiles out of the sky. She insulted them and she has never apologised for that. She said a few weeks ago:
“Serious times call for serious people.”
She is not one of them.
I know that—as my hon. Friend has just said—he himself was at Hillsborough, and I thank him for his decades of campaigning for justice. I am personally committed to working with the families to get this Bill right. It is integral that their views are heard. We are discussing this precise issue with them, and I will ensure that my hon. Friend is fully updated. I reaffirm my commitment to delivering the legislation, and to ensuring that the duty of candour applies to all public servants.
I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.
I echo the Prime Minister’s words about the Southport inquiry, and also about the 37th anniversary of the Hillsborough tragedy. Our thoughts are with all the families affected and with the survivors, and I hope that the Prime Minister will deliver on the Hillsborough law. Today also marks the third anniversary of the start of the devastating civil war in Sudan, and I hope that the Prime Minister will recommit himself to real action in the face of the world’s greatest humanitarian catastrophe.
In a phone call with Sky News last night, President Trump threatened to rip up his trade deal with the UK as a punishment for our not joining his idiotic war in Iran. This must be the last straw. Surely the Prime Minister cannot send our King to meet a man who treats our country like a Mafia boss running a protection racket.
I join the right hon. Gentleman in his comments about Sudan. We often overlook the fact that that is the greatest humanitarian crisis facing the world at the moment.
My position on the Iran war has been clear from the start. We are not going to get dragged into this war. It is not our war. A lot of pressure has been applied to me to take a different course, and that pressure includes what happened last night. I am not going to change my mind. I am not going to yield. It is not in our national interest to join this war, and we will not do so. I know where I stand.
The purpose of the King’s visit is to mark the 250th anniversary of relations with and the independence of the United States. The monarchy is an important reminder of the long-standing bonds and the enduring relationship between our two countries, which are far greater than anyone who occupies any particular office at any particular time.
President Trump is one of the most unpredictable people we have seen on the world stage, and I hope that he does not embarrass our monarch.
Moving on, last year the Prime Minister claimed that he had done some special deal so that Brits would be able to “sail through” e-gates at EU airports, but that was not the experience of families returning from holiday this week. Long queues at borders and passport controls are the latest symbol of the Brexit disaster, but they are also a symbol of this Government’s failure to repair that damage. Will the Prime Minister apologise for misleading British travellers, and can he tell them when they will be able to “sail through” passport control?
I have made it very clear that I think our national interest lies in close relations with the EU on defence, security, energy and the economy. I was very pleased that at last year’s summit we did negotiate an agreement on e-gates, and we are pushing hard on that. We have another summit this year, where I intend not just to make good on what we have already agreed, but to go closer to the EU in the relations that we have.
I thank my hon. Friend for her dedicated campaigning on this important issue. I have met Michael Thomas and heard his experiences, and I share her concern about young, predominantly working-class people being exploited. I do want to make progress as quickly as possible: I have asked the Chief Secretary to meet the V11 group to discuss what further steps the Government can take to support those affected, and I will ensure that that is reported back to my hon. Friend so that she is fully updated on what is going on.
Two years ago, people voted for change, but what have they got? More of the same. But it is not they who have let down their end of the bargain. My constituents are working themselves to the bone, and let us be absolutely clear: they are working and still having to claim benefits. Whether it is farmers, care workers or students—you name it—there is not a single section of society that has not been let down, and I do not want that to be the case. We need to show that this House works for them, because actors will step into that space—people who would love nothing more than for our democracy to be toppled because we cannot show our people a better way of life. We used to say to people, “If you work hard, you’ll get on in life.” That has not been the case for years. Will this Government change economic and fiscal course and deliver for people in the worst cost of living crisis?
Wages have gone up more in the first year of this Labour Government than they did in 10 years of the Conservative party being in power. We took the decision at the Budget to cut energy bills across the country. As the hon. Lady knows, I was in Northern Ireland just a few weeks ago to make the announcement about heating oil, which is obviously of huge concern in Northern Ireland. I heard what people had to say, and we have put in place £53 million. The authorities in Northern Ireland will administer that, but we are looking more widely at what we can do.
Let me be clear: violence against our NHS staff is despicable, and we are introducing a new offence to protect emergency workers from harassment. I congratulate and thank all our NHS staff for their hard work. They have delivered 5 million extra appointments in our first year in government.
We are going further. This week, we have announced 36 new and expanded community diagnostic centres across the country, including expanded services in Nuneaton. That is the difference a Labour Government make.
I know that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and all of those in Northern Ireland are concerned about the impact that the war in Iran is having on them. I was in Northern Ireland just a few weeks ago, where I spoke directly to party leaders and we announced what we are doing on heating oil. Obviously, fuel duty is frozen until September and energy bills have been reduced. We have also made it clear that we will not tolerate profiteering or unfair practices, which was a particular concern raised with me when I was over in Northern Ireland. The most important thing we can do is to de-escalate the conflict and get the strait of Hormuz open, and that is why I am co-hosting the summit on Friday in order to make progress on both those fronts.
Having sat with my hon. Friend and the families of those impacted in Southport in his constituency a number of times, I thank him for everything that he did and is continuing to do in response to that awful attack. I agree with him wholeheartedly that Southport cannot be defined by what happened in that awful, tragic incident; he is right to have pride in his community. I am delighted we are investing in reopening the iconic Southport pier. We are investing £5.8 billion through our Pride in Place fund to put power and resources into the hands of nearly 300 communities. Only a Labour Government will deliver that kind of change.
I tell them that they were let down very badly by the last Government for 14 years, and we are clearing up the mess.
My hon. Friend is a tenacious campaigner on this issue, and I thank her for that. We launched a major programme of reform of the UK’s product safety regulation. This will help tackle unsafe products being sold online, including non-compliant e-bikes and the batteries that power them. We are also giving the police new powers to take unsafe e-bikes off the roads and destroy them without issuing a warning beforehand.
I thank the hon. Member. We are providing the West of England combined authority with over £750 million to invest in its priorities. That could include improving services and station facilities at Yate, and I know she will make her voice heard in relation to that. I am pleased that construction is already under way at new stations at Charfield and North Filton, and we have upgraded the Filton bank line as well, enabling more frequent, reliable services in the region.
I wish my hon. Friend a speedy recovery. He obviously speaks with great authority and experience on our NHS, and he is right to point out that waiting lists are at their lowest for three years, A&E waiting times are the best for four years and ambulance response times are the fastest for five years. That is because of the investment that we put in and the Conservatives opposed. I wonder how much my hon. Friend would have been charged if he had arrived at a Reform hospital under an insurance-based scheme. That would turn the clock back. The NHS is on the road to recovery: do not risk it with Reform.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
It seems like every day a fresh revelation about the parlous state of our military spending comes to light. After yesterday’s intervention from Lord Robertson, there are reports today that the Chancellor is unwilling to put any more than an extra £10 billion into defence over the next four years, and that the Ministry of Defence is seeking £3.5 billion in cuts. Just this morning, I met a major defence prime that outlined again how the Government’s failure to publish the defence investment plan is undermining investment in security in this country.
Unpublished plans will not keep the country safe. As Trump tears up the global order and Putin continues to brutalise Ukraine, the Government can no longer delay. Will the Minister immediately take forward Liberal Democrat plans for a £20 billion defence bonds programme, enabling a rapid cash injection into capital-intensive projects outlined in the SDR? Even the Conservative leader is now belatedly backing our call for cross-party talks, so will the Government finally stop dragging their feet and convene them as a priority, so that we can create consensus on how to reach 3% of GDP being spent on defence?
I thank the hon. Member for his questions. I was robust with the Conservatives about the record they left, but it is also worth noting that when the Liberal Democrats were last in power, they cut defence spending, despite the invasion of Ukraine by Russia in 2014. I understand his seriousness and where he is coming from, but I hope he has some humility about his record.
The hon. Member is absolutely right, though, that we need to increase defence spending, and that is exactly what we are doing. We will hit 2.5% of GDP on core defence spending in April 2027; 3% in the next Parliament; and 3.5%—the NATO standard—in 2035, but we are not waiting for the DIP to get contracts announced. Only a month ago, I announced a £1 billion helicopter deal with Leonardo in Yeovil, which will support jobs there—I recognise that sitting behind the hon. Member is the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance)—and across the supply chain. We are improving on a deal that we inherited from the Conservatives. Under that deal, there was insufficient UK content in helicopter exports, there was no security guarantee that autonomy would be based in Yeovil, and Yeovil was not a centre for helicopter exports. This is Labour delivering—and making the Lib Dem hon. Member for Yeovil quite happy in the process.
I genuinely respect my friend the shadow Minister, but seriously, defence was hollowed out in his party’s time in government. Our safety is the primary responsibility of any Government, and more must be spent on our defence. However, that should not come at the expense of pensioners and people with disabilities receiving welfare. There are always other ways, such as scrapping digital identification, looking at some of our net zero policies, and rethinking some of the fiscal rules. Will the Minister confirm that all future funding options are being seriously considered?
My hon. Friend is right that we need to increase defence spending, and that is exactly what the Government are doing. We have £5 billion extra in our budget this year, which we are using to address the hollowing out and underfunding of our armed forces that we inherited. We have used part of that to give our armed forces the biggest pay rise in 20 years. That is helping to address the below-inflation “pay rises”, if we can call them that, introduced by the Conservatives when they were in government.
I recognise the case that my hon. Friend makes about the importance of defence spending. I encourage colleagues to still make that case, because we need to increase defence spending—we are increasing it. I would welcome a national conversation about the threats we face, and how we match those threats with increased capability. Indeed, it was a recommendation of the SDR that we have that debate.
On 6 March, the Minister kindly allowed the Defence Committee into the Ministry of Defence for a secret briefing. I would obviously never refer to the information that we received in that briefing, but it is telling that later that day, the Labour-dominated Defence Committee insisted on issuing a statement saying that we should go to 3% of GDP in this Parliament. That is the Conservative party’s policy, the Liberal Democrat party’s policy, and the Defence Committee’s recommendation. Will he tell us clearly why he is resisting it?
There is a marked change in the approach that this Government are taking to the Ministry of Defence: we want to do more with the Defence Committee, bring it into decision making even more, and give it an understanding of situations, including by providing more secret briefings; they previously might not have been available in the number that we are now providing. I want to continue doing that, so I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has to say. I recognise the case for increased defence spending; I am glad he said what he did about it, especially as the Conservatives hollowed out and underfunded our forces for 14 years. I entirely understand that he is having a change of heart about his party’s record in government, and wants to increase that spending. We will continue to increase defence spending, as we have set out.
Will my hon. Friend assure me that this Government’s increased investment in our armed forces and the defence investment plan will offer huge opportunities for the defence sector in Scotland, not least at the Methil yard in my constituency, which was saved from closure by Labour Ministers? That will build on the huge successes of the sector in Scotland, including the £10 billion deal with Norway, which secures 2,000 jobs on the Clyde for the long term.
I thank my hon. Friend for his advocacy for the Methil yard. He and I meet often to discuss that, and it is good to see the investment that Navantia is putting into it. In Scotland, we are building the Type 26 frigates in Glasgow and the Type 31 frigates in Rosyth, where I was pleased to be only a few weeks ago for the steel cut on HMS Bulldog and the roll-out of HMS Active. As a result of work that we have commissioned—the first fleet solid support ship is being built by Navantia, and I was present to see the steel cut in Appledore in North Devon at the end of last year—there is a bright future ahead for shipbuilding in Scotland. I am happy to continue my conversations with my hon. Friend about Methil.
I have every sympathy with patriotic Defence Ministers who are being sent out to try to put a brave face on the fact that they are being undermined by their own Chancellor of the Exchequer. Is it not a fact that someone as collegiate, experienced and patriotic as Lord Robertson would never have spoken out as he did if he did not recognise that his party’s Defence team was being undermined in this way? If the threat from Russia is so great that NATO has moved to 3.5% of GDP as its target, why do the Government think that waiting another nine years to achieve it is an appropriate way to deal with the killer in the Kremlin?
The right hon. Gentleman is right; we have agreed the NATO target of 3.5% on core defence and 1.5% on national security by 2035. We have agreed that—an important part of it. He will also know what the Defence Secretary revealed last week about covert Russian activities. It is precisely because we can see more threats from Russia and other adversaries, and not just against our undersea cables, that we are increasing defence spending and trying to renew our armed forces. We are dealing with the hollowing out. As a patriotic Back Bencher, he shares many of my views about the last Government’s effect on our armed forces, and their hollowing out under the Conservatives. I am very happy to continue my conversation with him about how we can make the case for further defence investment.
Does the Minister agree that we must understand that we inherited an MOD procurement system in disarray, unfunded defence programmes, an Air Force without enough aircraft or helicopters, a Navy without enough ships, and an Army with a low—Napoleonic—number of troops? We face wars in the middle east and Ukraine. We are working with an exceptionally challenging situation, and we must get this right. Please do not allow the Opposition to rewrite history.
I thank my hon. Friend for his service to the country. The fact that he has served gives renewed credibility to what he has said. I certainly find it curious that many of the people who delighted in cutting our armed forces over the last 14 years now say, without a hint of humility, that they want to increase defence spending. I would have much more respect for the Conservatives’ argument if they apologised—first, for their cuts to our armed forces, and secondly, for their leader, who described our brave pilots in the middle east as “just hanging around”. I think our forces deserve better than the Conservatives, and they have it with this Labour Government.
In the words of Lord Robertson, we are underprepared, underinsured and under attack. We are not safe. Britain’s national security and safety is in peril. I have asked over six times when the defence investment plan will be published. I now know the answer: “We are working flat out”. Will the Minister give me a timeframe? What is “working flat out”, and how long does it take?
As a Devon neighbour, I know the hon. Gentleman’s passion for our armed forces, and it is good to see him wearing his Royal College of Defence Studies tie—an institution of which I am also proud to be a graduate. He knows that we are working flat out to deliver the defence investment plan, and we will publish it when it is ready. I would much prefer to get it right than to publish a document that is not right, and that is what we will do.
I remember defence “investment” under the last Government; I was serving when our pay was cut, our defence housing was ruined, and equipment projects were cancelled and underfunded. In fact, it was under the Conservative Government that our Navy warships were cut by 25%, our amphibious ships were mothballed and our Army fell to its smallest size for 200 years. Will the Minister tell us about the projects that we are undertaking to increase pay and improve housing, and the effect that they are having on recruitment and retention of our armed forces, so that we can rebuild their numbers, after they were hollowed out under the last Government?
I thank my hon. Friend for his service to our country. It is interesting that he mentioned recruitment, because the shadow Minister, who sat on the Government Benches during the last Parliament, was scathing about his own Government’s record on recruitment, scathing about their performance, and scathing about their lack of action against the contractor they brought in. I am pleased to report that under a Labour Government, inflow is up and outflow is down. We have replaced the contractor, and not only are we delivering the biggest pay rise for our armed forces in 20 years—a second above-inflation pay rise—but we have ended the privatisation of military homes, and the military homes scandal that we inherited. Nine in 10 military homes are being refitted in the next decade. We are also putting effort into valuing our people by legislating for a new armed forces commissioner, so our forces and their families can raise concerns outside the chain of command with someone independent. This is a Government who are delivering for those who serve in uniform.
It is deeply unedifying to hear the Minister and others playing political games on a matter of national security. We can all look at the past; I can tell the Minister about the body armour that I had to give to somebody else for the invasion of Iraq because we did not have enough in 2003. I can point to the underfunding of helicopters; friends of mine were killed on operations in Afghanistan because of that underfunding. That was under Governments before his, but yes, they wore the same colour tie as this Government do. The question for him is not what happened in the past, but what he will do about these things in the future. The defence investment plan, the Minister says, is not urgently needed because he is spending anyway. Well, why is he wasting his time producing the damn thing? He could spare those civil servants to actually get contracts delivered, instead of messing around with games, or put his heart into the fight with the Treasury that needs to be had right now, as his friend Lord Robertson has made clear.
I really like the right hon. Gentleman—he is a very jovial chap—and he raises some good points. The defence investment plan is needed. It is being worked on by our Department. We will deliver it when it is ready, but we are not waiting for the defence investment plan to make announcements. I have spoken about the £879 million contract I announced this morning in Andover for our Apache and Chinook fleets. I also point to the announcement we made on Friday about a multimillion-pound deal with the veteran-led start-up Cambridge Aerospace to provide new missiles to intercept drones, not just for our forces but for our allies in the middle east. The right hon. Gentleman says that we should look to the future; we are doing exactly that. The defence investment plan will set out the kit and capabilities that we need and will buy for the next 10 years, but also the upgrades that we are making to the kit that we have, to give our fighting forces the edge. Importantly, it also talks about how we value our people; for far too long, that has not been spoken about enough in defence. That is something else that we are addressing.
I am on the Armed Forces Bill Committee. We have heard terrible testimony about the state of military housing, but we have also heard that it is already improving. Does the Minister agree that the £9 billion investment that we are making in military housing to deal with the botched privatisation can only be a good thing, and will raise the morale of our troops?
I thank my hon. Friend for her work, and not just on the armed forces housing issues that she raises; she is also a thorough champion for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. Many of its ships are in her Truro and Falmouth constituency. She is right to talk about the £9 billion commitment that we have made to deliver an improvement in armed forces housing. I see that Opposition Front Benchers are chattering. They had an option to deal with that when in power. They could have dealt with the black mould—[Interruption.]
Order. Please! I am trying to hear, and the noise is not helpful.
Relevant Ministers are happy to discuss with the hon. Member the specific site she mentions in greater depth, and I can reassure her that we are committed to protecting our countryside. Our land use framework balances restoring nature with meeting the demands of homes and energy. We have just announced £60 million—a record amount—to support nature and threatened species.
May I start by congratulating Luton Town on winning at Wembley—having been coached, of course, by Jack Wilshere, a great ex-Arsenal star? I am delighted that my hon. Friend’s constituency is benefiting from a new youth hub, one of the 80 additional hubs that we are launching across the country. That is in stark contrast to what we inherited: over 1,000 youth centres were closed under the Tories and spending on youth services was slashed by 73%. Labour is bringing youth clubs back, and we are proud to do so, building a better future for our young people.
I am concerned to hear about those examples. We have put in place support for small businesses and I will ensure that it is available to the hon. Gentleman to pass on to his constituents.
My hon. Friend is a great champion for his constituents, and it is shocking that they have been waiting for over a decade for that practice. I agree with him, but sadly Reform’s leadership in Staffordshire is an absolute mess. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) says “Rubbish.” Reform has had three leaders in three months, one of whom was forced to step down for appalling racist comments, and they are simply not getting on with the job. He is obviously proud of that. All that we can count on from Reform is chaos and division.
I do not know the particular details of the hon. Gentleman’s hospital, but I will ensure that they are looked into. We have put record investment into the NHS, but now that he has raised it, I will ensure we look into the specific case he has raised here in this House.