What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 6 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
it is because there has been a complete loss of confidence in the process. If the right hon. Gentleman is saying, “We will accept ‘new and compelling’ but we do not want certification,” let us have that debate, but that is not what he is saying. He is saying that he wants “essential”, which is understood by legal authorities to be a very low bar—
The right hon. Gentleman says no from a sedentary position, but that is not the case. We have received legal advice that “essential” is no bar at all. For the reasons I have already set out, it will be very easily stepped over, whereas “new and compelling”, as we know from the overseas operations Act, is a more significant legal test. “New and compelling” provides certainty in three ways. First, it is a filter test: no engagement with veterans unless there is new and compelling evidence. Secondly, it is a term already applied by the courts, so we have one system and equality of treatment. Thirdly, it is not subjective like “essential”: the evidence must be new and must be a matter of fact, and it must be compelling, meaning that it will impact the outcome. The test of new evidence only would be meaningless as there is no threshold. Finally, I turn to new clause 7 in my name. It would require annual reporting on recruitment and retention within the armed forces. We have all seen repeated reports that our special forces are under threat because of the demoralising effects of lawfare, both present and historical. In October, we were warned by the SAS Regimental Association that lawfare was “eroding the will to fight”. In November, we were warned by eight retired generals and one chief marshal that “recruitment, retention and morale” were all suffering. In December, seven former senior SAS officers spoke of the dangerous operational consequences of lawfare. This morning, Brigadier Ed Butler, former commanding officer of 22 SAS, said in stark terms that “continued lawfare” was affecting recruitment and retention. When leaders with such experience issue such warnings, I think we all have a duty to listen and to take them seriously.
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that that is absolutely not the point I am making or, indeed, a point I have ever made. The simple point I am making is that vexatious repeat-and-rinse investigations are hugely demoralising to people who once served and people who still serve. That is very different to what he has just alleged.
My right hon. Friend puts it better than I ever could. This House deserves to be reassured that the tip of the spear is not being blunted. Although details of special forces are necessarily restricted, it would be a huge dereliction of function if we did not ask for these issues to be monitored. For that process to have confidence, it should, as our amendment sets out, be conducted by an independent figure. I know that Governments hate to accept such amendments, but I would really value the Secretary of State’s considered response on how this House can be reassured that one of our most prized national assets—the special forces—is not being allowed to wither. I know that he will say that recruitment is up generally, but I am making a specific point about special forces and the consequences of rinse and repeat. I return to where I started: there are some things with which we can agree today, but the fundamentals are still problematic. I very much hope that the Government will take the opportunity now and in the Lords to put them right.
I understand the Secretary of State is not going to support our amendment. However, I hope that he will appreciate what I said in my remarks about the significance of there being pressure on special forces. Can he give a Dispatch Box commitment that he will establish a process whereby, for example, the Intelligence and Security Committee can be given regular updates on recruitment and retention within special forces? This is extraordinarily important. It is germane to the debates we have been having—[Interruption.] He shakes his head, but I would like to understand why he will not make this small concession.
I refer the right hon. Gentleman to all the remarks that have been made in the press over the past year by senior generals and senior former members of the special forces. He is not arguing against me; he is arguing against them, and I strongly encourage him to reconsider.
It has been a privilege to be part of this debate over the past two days, and to hear some fantastic contributions from Members on both sides of the House, and on all sides of the argument. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for the moving story that he just told about one of his friends. We could rerun the overriding arguments that we have been debating for two years, but I do not want to do that. I think the House knows how the Conservative party feels about the Bill, but I want to try to take things forward. To do that, I want to take us back to what the last Government tried to do in 2022 with the legacy Act, which set up the ICRIR, with the intention of enabling people to come forward and give information that would bring some solace to victims and their families. Some of those victims were soldiers; most of them were obviously members of the public—people from all communities. At the same time, we tried to draw a line under the troubles inquests and civil cases and so on. When this Government won the election and came to power in 2024, it was in their manifesto that they wanted to address the concerns with the legislation relating to the European convention on human rights, and wanted to get public confidence in the ICRIR. I am not asking the Labour party to move its position on the ECHR—I know what its positions are, and I know that it will put the amendments in question through. What I would say is that here in 2026, it is clear that the ICRIR as constituted by the Conservative party is working. I was very pleased that the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), yesterday quoted from the first report that the ICRIR published about the murder of Rory O’Kelly. His daughter, on receiving and reading that report, said in incredibly moving and, indeed, poetic terms that it had moved the family “into a space of serenity and light, all anger taken away.” That is what I am proud to say the institution established by the last Government has managed to do. I am pleased to say that now, in 2026, there are 277 cases before the ICRIR and 123 investigations under way. We believe that it is working. There are two issues that I hope the Government will consider as this Bill moves into the Lords, and the Secretary of State has touched on them. The first is about the bar to entry. We have a difference of opinion on “essential” and “new and compelling”. It is very clear from the legal evidence that we have seen that “essential” is not the bar that he intends it to be. As has been said to us by leading legal advisers and King’s counsel, any lawyer worth their salt can find new evidence, so there is no “essential” bar, and the “essential” in the legislation is not defined there, so that will be expanded on and contested. The term “new and compelling”, however, does exactly what it promises. It is a filter test that is already applied in the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021. It is a legal term that has certainty. It is not subjective. The evidence must be new as a matter of fact, and it must be compelling, in a way that will impact the outcome. I encourage the Government, as we move into the Lords, to consider this matter again, because I think we are trying to achieve the same thing, but obviously we believe that “new and compelling” will be much more effective. The second issue is what the Secretary of State has termed rinse and repeat. He says that he wants to see an end to rinse and repeat investigations, and we would dearly like him to succeed in that. The veterans groups who have been analysing and scrutinising this Bill do not feel that the legislation will achieve that, and we agree with them. At the moment there are no veterans groups that support the Bill as it stands. As the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley (Chris Coghlan) said, Loughgall, which was discussed so eloquently by my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), is the embodiment of rinse and repeat. It was investigated in 1987, 1988, 1995 and 2001, and because of this Government’s decision, it will go before an inquest again. That is rinse and repeat. There is a way of doing this differently, which was discussed by the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who I am pleased to see in his position, and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington, and that is to put the inquests into the legacy commission, so that everything is going down the same route. The Secretary of State rightly said that he does not want an imbalance, but the inconsistency is an imbalance. That imbalance was drawn out powerfully by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), who said that when we compare what is happening with Omagh to what will happen with Loughgall, we see a discrepancy that we have to call out. I raise both those overriding issues because there is still time to improve the legislation. It will get thorough and detailed scrutiny in the House of Lords. Although we would rather the Government were not undertaking this Bill, we believe that if they make the changes that were set out not just by the Conservative party but by colleagues throughout the Unionist communities in Northern Ireland, by the Liberal Democrats and, indeed, from within the Labour party, this Bill can be made stronger on its own terms.
4. What recent assessment she has made of the effectiveness of primary care provision.
Vital NHS services, including scans and X-rays, have been removed from Oak Park clinic, which serves every resident in the Havant constituency. Will the Minister meet me and support my campaign to restore those vital services so that my constituents do not have to travel to Portsmouth or further afield?
T3. Five years ago this month, Emsworth medical practice’s new building opened, thanks to funding from the last Conservative Government. Will the Minister commit to providing funding for the expansion of more GP surgeries in the Havant constituency?
Before I begin my answer, I pay tribute to Major Paul Wilks, who was sadly killed in a road traffic accident in Ukraine last month. I know the whole House will join me in sending heartfelt thoughts and condolences to all his family, friends and colleagues, particularly his wife and children. There has never been a better or more important time to join defence. I am determined to ensure that we give people from all backgrounds opportunities to succeed, while creating the skills and talent that keep our country safe. As part of the defence industrial strategy, we are investing £182 million to improve science, technology, engineering and maths skills for young people and increase capacity in the education system, as well as backing defence technical excellence colleges in England with £50 million, with the ambition and intention to see that expand to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We have got to strengthen our defence industrial skills base to provide opportunities for the next generation; this Government, with this investment, will certainly do that.
I thank my hon. Friend for championing Bournemouth University and the work that has been undertaken to develop the cyber competence centre that she opened last month. As part of our defence strategic priorities grant competition, we are investing over £2.8 million to boost the work at Bournemouth University, including establishing new undergraduate courses in cyber-defence and autonomous systems, increasing skills development for students and collaborating with employers. We would like to see that approach—of Government, industry and our innovation and science base working together—power the future of defence.
Recently, I chaired an industry roundtable with Alan Milburn, who is leading work for the Government in that area. I strongly believe that with the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war, we can not only strengthen our national defence but ensure that we have a country that is worth fighting for by investing here in Britain: backing Britain, buying British, investing in the next generation and tackling the scourge of the 1 million or so young people who are not in education, employment or training. I am delighted that the defence industry has responded to calls to help us.
I would certainly like to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency at the first available opportunity. With our investment in two defence technical excellence colleges, we will be able to widen the availability of skills, jobs and opportunities across Scotland. We would like to work with the Scottish Government to achieve that, which is why I welcome the fact that, albeit belatedly, the Scottish Government have finally decided to match fund the initiative, which has been available to them since March this year.
First, training and exercises are taking place for the remainder of this year. What I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that when I arrived at the Ministry of Defence, there was an in-year overspend that would have seen us over-committed by the end of the year. As I did at the Department of Health and Social Care, I have sent a very strong message, very early on, and I make absolutely no apology for that. Although this Government are delivering the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war, I expect my Department and our armed forces to live within their means. I think that message has been received loud and clear and will help me to tackle the historical problems that we have had at the Ministry of Defence: routine overspending, and challenges with value for money and productivity. [Interruption.] If Conservative Members want to heckle on those points, they should explain why they under-invested in defence for more than a decade.
We are determined to spend more across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; the £50 million growth deal will help in that regard. My hon. Friend the Minister for Veterans and People will be visiting this Thursday. As I identified when appearing before the House of Lords Select Committee last week, we can be proud of the contribution that defence makes in every corner of the country—whether it is the north-east of England or Northern Ireland. There are some parts of the country where we can and will do more.
First, I welcome the shadow Minister to the Dispatch Box for the first time. I place on the record my respect for his service to our country and the expertise that he brings to the role. On behalf of the Government, I conveyed support to Minister McGuinty following the terrible incident in Canada overnight; I am sure that our Canadian friends will welcome the support across the House. As I said, further training is to take place throughout the rest of this year, including major exercises that we have taken part in. I restate, however, that we have to live within our means. That has required some reprioritisation, including of training. We have to focus on the right things and make sure that we are ready to fight the next war, not the last one. It has not been a popular decision, but I absolutely stand by the decisions that I have taken to make sure that the culture in my Department is one that lives within its means and delivers value for the taxpayer.
Terms such as “hybrid threats” and “grey zone” fail to convey adequately the seriousness of Russia’s widespread campaign of what I prefer to call state-sponsored terrorism, which it is inflicting across our continent. We expect it to continue probing and testing Britain and her allies, including through military posturing and reckless military activity. We are not at war with Russia, nor do we seek confrontation, but Russia should be in no doubt that we are ready to defend every inch of NATO territory and that we will not be deterred in our unwavering support for Ukraine.
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon Friend. At the next meeting of the Ukraine defence contact group, I will be continuing to mobilise practical support from our allies. When I was in Washington last week, I made our view very clear that Ukraine’s frontline is the frontline for freedom and democracy everywhere, and that we need to stand together to increase the cost of this war to Putin, because only Putin has the means to end this war. If Ukraine were to cease fire tomorrow while Russia continued, it would pay a heavy price in casualties and in the very freedom that the United Kingdom and all our allies seek to defend.
There is no doubt that Russia presents a threat and is an adversary of the United States as well as of the United Kingdom. We see that with the company that Russia chooses to keep and with the risk that Russia poses to US interests and US personnel as well as our own in the way that it conducts itself. The United States has not been alone in buying fuel from Russia. We have had similar challenges here on the European continent in relation to Russian gas. The more that Putin’s war machine is funded, the longer this war goes on and the higher the price for everyone. That price is being paid most of all by the Ukrainians, who did not start this war and who lack the means to end it. Only Putin can do that. He could stop the war tomorrow; he chooses not to do so.
However the shadow Minister phrases his question, he is not going to tempt me to comment on operational deployments. He understands perfectly well why we choose not to do that. Secondly, I point him to recent exercises we have conducted in the North sea and to our leadership of the joint expeditionary force. To go to the heart of his question about our armed forces and their readiness, perhaps the next time he or his party want to get to their feet to lecture us about the state of our armed forces, they might begin with an apology for underfunding them for more than a decade.
The hon. Gentleman will understand why I will not comment on that during a live procurement. The matter is still under consideration. To be clear, we take sovereign capability and control very seriously. It is also worth pointing out, after what was unquestionably a challenging week for relations between the United States and Ukraine, that the United States has provided and will continue to provide vital support to Ukraine, whether that is through intelligence sharing, the work we do on procurement with and through the United States, or the diplomatic track. It is worth reporting to the House that Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, my US counterpart, was keen to thank the United Kingdom for our leadership on Ukraine. That suggests to me that the United States does know which side it is on.
The strategic defence review published last year set out that defence must play a stronger role in protecting our homeland. The Ministry of Defence is taking a whole-of-Government approach, working closely with the Cabinet Office and particularly the Home Office. We are bringing together industry, civil society, emergency services and the public to help build a whole-of-society approach to resilience and preparedness. We are refreshing our homeland defence plans, we will introduce a defence readiness Bill, and we are strengthening critical national infrastructure resilience. I look forward to keeping the House updated, including on the actions that Members can take and ways they can support their constituents, and to supporting the national conversation that is under way.
The Prime Minister has announced threat briefings for CEOs from sensitive sectors, including defence and critical national infrastructure operators, to strengthen their understanding of the threats we face and improve our collective resilience. The Government have announced a national resilience public awareness campaign and a wider national conversation on defence and resilience to improve public preparedness. Individuals can play their part by following the preparedness advice on gov.uk, and we will all have a role to play in getting those messages across. Finally, we should be clear that those threats do not come just from overseas and that the aggressive targeting of defence industry leaders by protesters here at home is not acceptable. We will not tolerate the intimidation of people who are doing a job for our country.
I wholeheartedly endorse the comments made by the Chief of the General Staff, which were widely reported over the weekend. Our armed forces chiefs are some of the most credible message carriers, and the ones the public will trust most. That is not to cast aspersions on Members across the House, but given that our popularity as politicians sits somewhere beneath traffic wardens and estate agents, we should lean in to—[Interruption.] I am not sure the Liberal Democrats want to go there this week. Let me take seriously the hon. Gentleman’s point about the need to work together on a cross-party basis. I am proud that on issues like Ukraine we speak with one voice and there is total unity, and there is enormous consensus across the House about the nature of the threat we face, the need to invest more, and the type of capabilities we need. That will be reassuring to both the public and our allies, and I would be delighted to work together in that spirit.
I thank my hon. Friend for the work that he does in this House, as reflected in his question, to champion the great service that the United States’ personnel give to our collective security. Their presence here in the United Kingdom makes us safer and they are always welcome. The current US force posture at RAF Fairford is what we would expect to see outside of major combat operations. However, given the threat to RAF Fairford—respecting that there is still an ongoing investigation, I will be limited in what I say—we need to take base security seriously, and off-base support for UK and US personnel and those of our allies equally seriously. We have committed half a billion pounds of additional investment, and strengthened security technology and infrastructure across military sites. The challenges that we face here in the UK are challenges that are facing all our allies, and one issue that I discussed with Secretary Hegseth last week was about what more we could do together to strengthen our collective security across the alliance.
We certainly support our reservists—they have an important part to play in our national defence. I will take the hon. Member’s question as yet another supportive submission to the Budget process on behalf of the Ministry of Defence. I can say confidently to the House that those Budget representations fall on very sympathetic ears with this Chancellor.
Diego Garcia is a key strategic military asset for the United Kingdom and the United States. As I said in the US last week, our priority is to secure the long-term operation of the base and protect UK national security. To that end, we are working closely with Mauritius and the United States to secure an agreement that can command the support of all parties involved. Any arrangement must be acceptable to all of us, including President Trump, and that will be our focus in the coming months.
As a matter of policy, we obviously do not talk about the storage of nuclear weapons. Suffice it to say that however much people want to try to find another way around this, I can only assure the House that, having looked at this issue with a fresh pair of eyes, I have reached the same conclusion as every Prime Minister since Boris Johnson, including this one. That conclusion is that the capabilities provided by the Diego Garcia base make it extremely unwise—and a risk not worth taking—to have legal uncertainty, which is why efforts to negotiate a treaty continue. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may disagree now. If they do, they should explain why Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, and the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) were all trying to achieve the same outcome.
Last week in Washington, I met my US counterpart in person for the first time to discuss a range of issues including Ukraine, Russian aggression and Iran’s state-sponsored terrorism. In recent weeks, we have seen threats to our airbases here at home and deadly attacks on civilians in Saudi Arabia. The first responsibility of any Government is to defend the nation, and this Government are stepping up to meet the challenge with the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war. We are building a country ready to fight and a Britain worth fighting for.
It is simply irresponsible, not to mention inaccurate, to suggest that the UK is incapable of defending the Falkland Islands. We are perfectly capable of doing so, and we had a very visible demonstration of that only recently. Maybe if Reform had a defence spokesperson, they might have noticed.
Absolutely. My answer is the same as it was before, and the reason I could give that answer so confidently in my first week in office was because this Government are already delivering the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war. The Chancellor resigned from the previous Government on a matter of principle. He is committed to invest more at the Budget, and he will set out the path to 3% and 3.5% at next year’s spending review. I trust the Chancellor a hell of a lot more than I trust the record of the previous Government, who under-invested in defence for more than a decade.
This is what happens when the shadow Secretary of State writes his question before listening to the answer to his first question. The Chancellor has been very clear. I do not think repetition is a crime in the Commons, so I will repeat what I said just a moment ago: at next year’s spending review, the Chancellor will set out the path to 3% and 3.5%.
We support the diplomatic track that is being promoted by the Americans, which aims to bring together the Ukrainians and negotiators from Russia to bring an end to the war. Our position is clear, and I relayed this directly in Washington last week: there can be no decision about the Ukrainians without the Ukrainians; the peace would have to be acceptable to them. We will back Ukraine to the hilt.
Notwithstanding the challenges posed by the fact that Ukraine continues to be subject to bombardment by Russia, which is targeting its energy facilities, we are working closely with our Ukrainian friends on this, delivering £17 million to support repairs to the site. We want those repairs to be undertaken as quickly and safely as possible, while recognising the challenging planning environment in which we are operating.
I recognise the challenge raised by the right hon. Member. That is something I am looking at.
I would be delighted to visit, diary permitting, at the first available opportunity. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that investing in the UK’s defence and in Ukraine’s defence can also have a positive impact on jobs and growth here in the United Kingdom. We are determined to deliver that benefit for our country.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to page 11 of “The Defence Investment Plan”. I also urge him to understand why, after the catastrophic misconduct of the Government of Liz Truss, we take a rather more prudent approach to the management of the public finances, and do not set out spending commitments without showing how we will pay for them.
I can give my hon. Friend that commitment. Indeed, in front of the House of Lords Industry and Regulators Committee last week, I highlighted my dissatisfaction with investment in the north-east. The Government have already taken steps since the general election to increase defence spending in the north-east, as the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry reported, but we can and will do more, including through the employment pledge.
Can I just say gently to the hon. Member that I think it is both inaccurate and irresponsible to suggest that Scotland’s coast is undefended? In the same spirit, I underscore that I am very willing to work with the Scottish Government in defence of the United Kingdom, regardless of our constitutional differences. It is important that we work together, and I hope we can do so, in the spirit in which I answered her question.