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 10 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
12,868 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
I thank the hon. Member for raising this issue, but I do not recognise the idea that we have cut the funding. We still intend to expand the cadet forces by 40,000 cadets, and that target will be met by 2035. The details he mentions are in the cadet action plan.
I thank my hon. Friend for raising those issues, and for highlighting the absence of water in Staffordshire—[Laughter.] Sea water, that is. I would direct her to the cadet action plan, and I will meet her to discuss these issues.
I thank the hon. Member for raising such an important issue, and I thank Clint and Carol for their service. Our blast injury support is world leading. We have invested £3.65 million in cutting-edge scanning technology, and we collaborate internationally to drive forward research on blast-induced and traumatic brain injuries. Our work on traumatic brain injuries complements wider efforts to ensure that no veteran falls through the cracks. We have invested more than £25 million in Op Courage since the election so that veterans in England can continue to access specialist mental health and wellbeing services.
I thank my hon. Friend for raising such an important question. She is a doughty champion of our servicepeople and we are very grateful for her support. As someone who has four children who were all raised in the service, I understand the pressures of service life. While service personnel are not covered by statutory paternity entitlements, the armed forces occupational paternity leave scheme provides equivalent arrangements. I am happy to engage with my hon. Friend on this matter to continue exploring further support, raising awareness across defence of the available options and working with the families federations to inform future policy decisions.
I thank the hon. and gallant Member for that excellent idea. While we were away with the Defence Committee, he will have seen similar shows of support for our veteran communities by Ministers. I will look to take on those ideas and the one that he has raised.
Let me first say how deeply grateful we are to those who participated in the UK nuclear testing programme—and to my hon. Friend for championing them for so long. We recognise their service and the huge contribution they have made to the UK’s security. Since taking office, I have worked hard to listen to and meet the veterans. I am aiming to disclose the document to which my hon. Friend referred as soon as possible, with the principle, set out by my predecessor, that officials should look into this as a matter of urgency.
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the Veterans Hub in his constituency. I very much look forward to visiting it in due course.
I should declare that I am very close to some of the families who lost family members on that Chinook, as the hon. Lady well knows. I am sympathetic to the point that she makes. We are looking at this matter at the moment. I have to be very careful about my involvement, but I will make sure that the questions she raised are answered, and I agree to meet her.
1. What assessment he has made of the level of threat from Russia.
I associate myself with the comments about George Howarth, whom I knew before I came to this place. He was a brilliant man. As we saw only too clearly this weekend, the threat from Russia rears its head at all levels; it ranges from physical aggression, which we know about all too well, to mastering the art of operating in the grey zone through proxies, election interference and psychological warfare. I thank the Secretary of State for his important work leading the defending democracy taskforce, and I welcome the defence investment plan. Will he set out the role that the plan will play in our defending our country against threats that are not solely physical?
I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Electricity Capacity (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. Laid before the House on 14 May, this statutory instrument seeks to make technical improvements and changes to the capacity market, which is the Government’s main tool for ensuring security of electricity supply in Great Britain. Before outlining the specific provisions in the instrument, I will briefly provide some context. The capacity market was introduced in 2014 and is designed to maintain the security of electricity supply by ensuring that sufficient capacity is available to meet future demand predictions. Through auctions held one year and four years ahead of delivery, the capacity needed to meet future peak demand under a range of scenarios is secured, based on advice from the National Energy System Operator. Through those auctions, participants secure agreements requiring them to make capacity available at times of system stress. It is a technology-neutral scheme that pays providers for making capacity available when needed, covering generation, storage, consumer-led flexibility and interconnection. Since its introduction, the capacity market has contributed to investment in about 20 GW of new capacity needed to replace older and less efficient plants as we transition towards the clean power 2030 target. To ensure that the capacity market continues to function effectively, we regularly amend the implementing legislation, based on what is required to best ensure continued security of supply. Let me now turn to the detail of this instrument. It amends 11 regulations in, and introduces one new regulation into, the Electricity Capacity Regulations 2014, it amends two regulations in the Electricity Capacity (Supplier Payment etc.) Regulations 2014, and it revokes one chapter of the Electricity Capacity (No. 1) Regulations 2019. First, this instrument will ensure that assets awarded a contract for difference following a direction from the Secretary of State will be allowed to participate in the capacity market until the start of the asset’s CfD support. That will better align the capacity market with the clean power ambition and ensure a smooth transition from payments under the capacity market to a CfD. Secondly, the instrument will strengthen delivery assurance by increasing termination fees and credit cover to restore their value broadly in line with 2016 levels in real terms. Thirdly, it makes several amendments and a revocation to ensure that the legislation delivers on the policy intent. It gives the Secretary of State and NESO the powers to extend the prequalification deadline for an auction following a major IT outage. It will align the capacity market timetable with the ongoing market-wide half-hourly settlement reforms, and it will remove obsolete provisions. Two public consultations in relation to the measures in this instrument were conducted towards the end of 2025. Respondents were broadly supportive of the measures that clarified regulations or enabled participants with a direct-award CfD to manage their transition off the capacity market. Responses to the delivery assurance reforms were more mixed. Having carefully considered those responses, the Government have proceeded on the basis that these increases are necessary to realign delivery incentives and strengthen delivery assurance. The changes are proportionate, aligning fees with their real-terms-equivalent values in 2016, and will apply only to participants entering the scheme after the instrument comes into force. We have also made several technical amendments to the capacity market rules, which support the regulations. The Capacity Market (Amendment) (No. 2) Rules 2026, which were laid before the House on 14 May, alongside these regulations, and the Capacity Market (Amendment) (No. 4) Rules 2026, which will be laid in due course, will come into force alongside this instrument. In conclusion, the instrument enables the continued efficient operation of the capacity market so that it can deliver on its objectives. It will improve delivery assurance and ensure that the legislation is as clear as possible for all participants. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
For the third time, let me welcome the hon. Member for Aberdeen South—although I think he was in a Delegated Legislation Committee in his first week in this place. I am not sure whether his SNP predecessor was ever in a Delegated Legislation Committee in all his years in this place, so the hon. Gentleman is already making progress on Stephen Flynn in that respect. First, I welcome the support for the capacity market, which was introduced by the previous Conservative Government. It has served the country well, and it continues to play an important role in bringing forward the investment needed to ensure the security of supply in the future. I want to make a couple of points clear. The T-4 auction for delivery in 2029-30 secured 40 GW of capacity at £21 per KW per year, which is above the target capacity that we set out. We work towards a range of future scenarios, which is why we have both the four-year-ahead auction and the one-year-ahead auction. As we get closer to those dates, we have a much more accurate sense of what demand will be, and we therefore procure additional capacity in the one-year-ahead auction. I would gently challenge a number of the points made by the shadow Minister. First, we are moving towards a low-carbon power system because that is what will get us off the volatility of fossil fuels. Gas will play a strategic reserve role in the system, as was highlighted in the clean action plan, which set out that 95% of our generation will come from clean sources, with the remainder coming from gas and other sources. I would also say that this is not just about gas and renewables; new technology is coming in all the time. We just saw investment into long-duration energy storage in this country for the first time in 40 years, which involves some really world-leading battery projects that will give us that additional capacity. Consumer-led flex is not about forcing consumers to do anything; it is about giving them the power to make choices that can bring down their bills, if they use technology in different ways, and it also helps the system. Consumer-led flex is a win for both consumers and the system. It is bizarre that the Opposition see it as some sort of enemy of the people, even for their race to the bottom on future technology. On the point about blackouts, I have genuinely seen an increase in the number of people from both the Conservative party and Reform peddling nonsense about blackouts in this country. We should be very careful about nonsense scaremongering that is not based in fact whatsoever. The draft regulations are about improving the already strong capacity market so that it can continue to deliver our energy security, now and into the future. It has made Britian’s energy system one of the most resilient in the world, which will continue to be the case in future with a mix of technologies. The draft regulations help to achieve that, and I commend them to the Committee. Question put and agreed to.
I have heard from dozens of my constituents across the City of Durham who have been impacted by either delayed or missing pension payments, and the number grows every day. A recent disturbing case centres around a chap who, sadly, has been diagnosed with early-onset Alzheimer’s at just 46 years old. Ill health retirees should never be left without the vital support they need at the most difficult moment of their lives. Will the Minister please reassure the House that Capita will clear the existing backlog as a matter of urgency, prioritising those with ill health, bereaved families and those facing financial hardship?
I beg to move, That the draft Environmental Permitting (Waste Controlling or Transporting) and Relevant Functions of Primary Authorities (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2026, which were laid before this House on 20 May, be approved. It is a pleasure to be here on this hot and sultry evening. Despite our late nights or early mornings—whatever we decided to do in order to get over the football—I hope I can entertain the House with this vital piece of new legislation. I would like to acknowledge the important work of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in its review of this statutory instrument. Its scrutiny is a vital part of our legislative process, ensuring that the policy intentions behind our secondary legislation are clear and well founded. As Members across the House will know from their inboxes and will have seen for themselves, waste crime blights our constituencies. Criminals who dump waste illegally in our streets, our fields and our woodlands show contempt for our communities and for us, creating eyesores that damage our environment. Under the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989, a light-touch registration system was set up for those who transport and deal in waste. It has remained pretty much untouched since then. As a result, it has been exploited by waste criminals, leaving the public with a huge clean-up bill. Enforcement, sadly, is only reactive. The system is not fit for purpose, with anyone or anything—a dead dog called Oscar, a fish, or even a cow called Beau Vine—being able to register on the system. That stops today. This Labour Government are scrapping the broken waste system that the Conservatives left behind. Today we are introducing stricter checks and requirements, closing the loopholes long exploited by illegal operators, and the objective of this Government’s waste crime action plan, published in March, is to stop waste crime at its source and to bring pride back to our communities. We are cracking down on the waste criminals, dragging the regime into the modern age and improving waste traceability. These regulations bring those in England who control and transport waste within the scope of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016. They repeal the current carriers, brokers and dealers registration, which is now over: finished, kaput, no more. These regulations introduce tougher checks for waste controllers and transporters. Permitting will now be required for those who control and transport waste, bringing the system in line with site-based waste activities. Those who apply for permits will undergo strict background checks, including tax checks, identity checks and criminal records checks. They will need to demonstrate that they are technically competent to do the job. The Environment Agency will be responsible for managing applications for, and ensuring compliance with, this new permitting system. The fees introduced for permits will also mean that the Environment Agency will be effectively resourced for its compliance work.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We inherited a bit of a “pass the parcel” system: “Who is the landowner? Who is the local authority? What is the size of the dump? Is it permitted or not?” That means that waste criminals can fall between the cracks and that there is effectively impunity. We have introduced a digital waste system, but under the current system, enforcement can only be reactive, not proactive. For that reason, we are introducing identity checks, to find out the answers to questions like, “Does this person actually exist, or is it a dog or a cow?”, “Do they have a criminal record?” and “Are they fit and competent to manage the waste?” All those things matter. As my hon. Friend described, we are talking about dangerous materials. We do not want to see them piled high and not moved on, and then, sadly, a fire coming along—whether deliberate or accidental. In all these environmental crimes, including dumping and burning, the profits are privatised, but the costs, and the social and environmental consequences, are socialised.
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. The idea that we can send Environment Agency officials to deal—in some cases—with serious organised crime groups is simply for the birds. People say, “There aren’t prosecutions” or “The penalties are too light”, but the waste is often one part of a multifaceted criminal enterprise—it is just another wing of a business empire. We need to get better at looking upstream, looking at tax checks and looking at the web of companies behind the business, and basically doing the Al Capone method—getting them on tax evasion—and prosecuting them under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. There is a wider point here: we cannot expect council officials who have been denuded and stripped of funds over the last 14 years to suddenly become waste crime enforcers. There may be only one or two trading standards and compliance officers in post in a local council, but this sort of sophisticated crime requires a lot of multi-agency work. Someone from the National Police Chiefs’ Council is now tasked with doing that work; we are doing a review, particularly of local authority competence in this area.
We need to take action at every level. For example, the person who does a weekend job for their friend, transporting half a skip of old kitchen waste that suddenly ends up on a lay-by, in a farmer’s field or blocking a lane, will now face up to nine penalty points on their licence; that should make them think twice before doing that job for their friend. They may only be on the periphery of the criminality, but in order to stop it, we have to look right the way along the chain. Anecdotally, I often hear that when these small-time crooks are apprehended, they are only too pleased to pay the fixed penalty notices to the council and to be let away with it, because they can be the front end of a much, much larger serious and organised crime group. So what does this all mean? The Environment Agency is finally going to be effectively resourced to undertake the compliance work. The move to permitting means that the agency can suspend and ultimate revoke permits where conditions are breached. It can also prosecute, and those found guilty will face fines or up to five years’ imprisonment. The regulations will mean that the public should have more trust in the people they hand their waste to. We will require waste controllers and transporters to include their permit number on advertising, whether that is a Facebook ad or a branded van.
My hon. Friend is right. We are acutely conscious of the issue that farmers face. There is innovative work being done with drones, and I met one farmer who told me that his neighbour turned up with a tractor to block the lane as the criminals were trying to make their exit; they caught them in a trap and then called the police. That was a happy outcome in Hertfordshire, but we cannot have eyes on the ground in every field and back lane, so we are working with insurers to see what we can do to ensure that this type of crime is properly covered under farmers’ business insurance. The regulations will mean that the public should have more trust in the people to whom they hand their waste. The public will be able to look up operators and ensure they have a valid permit. This reform is one of a number outlined in the waste crime action plan. It is nothing new: it was first announced eight years ago by the Conservative party, in the 2018 resource and waste strategy. It was consulted on back in 2022 and the Government gave their response in 2023, but it is this Government that have delivered it. We have introduced digital waste tracking, replacing outdated paper-based methods for monitoring waste movements. We will be tightening the waste permit exemption system by getting rid of exemptions abused by those dealing with end-of-life vehicles, tyres and scrap metal. We will be enabling the Environment Agency to tighten up on exemptions abused in other parts of the waste sector, including the use of waste in construction, preparatory treatments, the treatment of waste wood, manual treatment, burning of vegetation at the place of production, storage in containers and storage in a secure place. Taken together, these measures strengthen the regulatory framework and the Environment Agency’s ability to prevent, detect and tackle waste criminals.
Under the current system, checking the paperwork is all that the Environment Agency can do; that is the problem. Under the managing public money rules, the Environment Agency is not funded by legitimate operators to go and seek out criminals. We consulted on that during discussions about digital waste tracking. There is an issue with saying to legitimate operators, “We will add a tenner on to your licence so that we can go after the criminals”, because that is not allowed under Treasury rules. There is a chicken-and-egg situation, and I have heard the same anecdotes as the hon. Member. The bottom line is that if someone is controlling or transporting waste, they should be registered, the registration should be clear for all to see, and we should be able to check that they are a true person on the system and that there is nothing in their background that would make us hesitate about whether to issue a licence. To come back to the issue of a multi-agency response, we have an action plan and we are working with the Environment Agency, the national lead for waste crime, alongside His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which is going after the tax, the Home Office, which is covering the issue of vulnerable workers and exploitation, local police forces and local authorities. We are undertaking co-ordinated cross-Government action. We will monitor the effectiveness and improve metrics so that we get a much better multi-agency waste crime response.
The right hon. Gentleman tempts me, but it is a bit too early to say. These prosecutions often take a long time to piece together. We have all seen the pattern where a company goes bust, owing HMRC a vast amount of money—sometimes in the tens of millions of pounds. I do not want to get into saying, “One, three, five or seven,” and setting out those targets; I do not think we are at a stage to talk about that. However, I can reassure the House that my risk appetite for not granting permits to people who may be questionable is very high, and I am very happy to be taken to court by people who think they may have unjustly been denied a waste permit. So far, there have been no cases against us or the Environment Agency for refusing a licence. We are tightening up all the way along the system, but I do not want to get into metrics. We know the sites where we have problems and we see new ones appearing, and the thing is to stop the proliferation of those sites, many of which are simply illegal and are not permitted in any way, shape or form. That is where our difficulty comes in.
I am responsible for many things, from forests and international biodiversity to peat and trees; I am afraid the courts are slightly outwith my jurisdiction, but I will pass that point on. We are working with our colleagues on issues around sentencing. On the metrics, the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) knows, as a former Environment Secretary, that we have a risk-based, intelligence-led approach that directs the greatest effort towards the highest harm illegal operators. By strengthening the regulatory framework and their abilities, alongside these reforms, we are providing those in the joint unit for waste crime, who are responsible for tackling it, with the tools that they need to stamp it out. I was very disappointed to read The Times’s leader today on fly-tipping; I thought it was a little unfair. This Government have doubled the Environmental Agency’s waste crime enforcement budget by committing an additional £45 million over the next three financial years. I believe the budget in 2024-25 was £10 million. We have added £5 million on this year, and then we will add an extra £15 million. Essentially doubling that budget means more boots on the ground and more drones in the air to expand enforcement activities and track down waste criminals. Since March, I believe we have had 18 waste crime prosecutions. I acknowledge the strength of support in the legitimate waste industry for this reform, and its patience over the years as that reform has been developed under the watch of the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire and others. These regulations are a significant change. They level the playing field for all operators and will protect communities and the environment from waste criminals. As I said, this is a really important part of our plan to stop waste crime. These regulations also bring the Environment Act 2021 within the scope of the primary authority scheme by adding it to schedule 3 to the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008. For those unfamiliar with it, the primary authority scheme allows businesses with operations in more than one area to work with a single local authority that provides consistent, tailored advice on meeting their legal obligations, which can cover areas such as environmental health, trading standards and fire safety. Extending the scheme to include the Environment Act is important, because it will enable primary authorities to support retailers in understanding and meeting their responsibilities under the forthcoming deposit return scheme, which launches next year. That will help to ensure a more consistent and effective approach across the country. I recommend this statutory instrument to the House.
I will be brief and try not to detain the House for too long, but what a rich and insightful debate we have had. Let me begin by addressing the question of costs, which was raised by the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), who speaks for the Conservative party. Legitimate waste businesses are highly supportive of these regulations, as they raise standards and level the playing field across the industry. There is a tiered approach to the new permitting regime, which will ensure that those carrying large amounts of the most at-risk types of waste will be distinctly identified and charged accordingly. If we do the maths—I stopped doing maths when I finished O-levels, which was quite a long time ago—we are providing £186 million over the 11-year appraisal period, which will be offset against businesses incurring costs from increased tax. In other words, they will be brought into compliance and begin paying tax—£183 million. So yes, they will have to pay more. The ones that do not pay anything at the moment are going to be paying their tax. One of the reasons they have moved into this space is that they can take mixed household waste and charge people £125 for landfill, then move it on to somewhere else and say, “It’s only soil.” They are making £120 profit on every tonne that they take. Let us do the maths: if we have 300,000 tonnes here and 100,000 tonnes there, pretty soon we are talking about tens of millions of pounds from one illegitimate landfill site. I am not crying any tears about that and I think that, outside this place, our constituents will be cheering and clapping. As I have said, legitimate companies know that they are being undercut by the rogues and the criminals—and why should they not have to learn how to do this? We have heard about vapes, industrial waste and all sorts of stuff turning up in landfill sites, and at the moment we are saying that it is absolutely fine—that anyone with a pair of gloves and a van can just come along and take the waste. No, that was the old way. We want to protect the environment and protect people as well, and we are also interested in protecting businesses. The impact assessment for the regulations says that businesses will “benefit from reduced waste crime”, to the tune of £159 million, so I hope that most businesses will be better off. There are exemptions for charities, but we do not exempt small businesses and microbusinesses from complying based on their size; we have heard about all the small businesses and microbusinesses in this space, and exempting them would undermine the policy and our risk-based approach. Some of these businesses pose a significant waste crime risk, so we will be rolling this out. The hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury asked about monitoring and review. We have an independent resources and waste policy programme evaluation, which will assess the impact of the major reforms that we are bringing in. That will report in March 2029, but as with anything, if stuff is not working, we will listen and take action. I turn to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett). I know his neck of the woods very well, having served as one of the four MPs for Wakefield until 2019, and he is right to say that our constituents have the right to the peaceful enjoyment of their home. I was really saddened by the story of his constituent who was unable to celebrate his birthday with his family in his own home because he was ashamed of where he lived. I was also saddened to hear of constituents waking up with migraines and tasting the smell, and of kids feeling sick at school. It is absolutely disgusting. Mineral processing at the site has significantly exceeded its permitted waste volumes, which has resulted in approximately 320,000 tonnes of misdescribed inert waste containing biodegradable fines—the little bits that are chipped down. The site permit has been revoked but the waste remains, and we have heard the persistent and worsening concerns about the odour. We have had warmer weather recently, and there were 18 reports over 24 hours on 24 and 25 June. There is increasingly dissatisfaction with the persistent impact, so the EA is monitoring the site, and it has installed an additional air quality and odour monitoring facility to provide further data. The EA is carrying out proactive odour monitoring in the area, requiring the operator to submit an odour management plan to address odour pollution. It is studying air quality impacts by using mobile monitoring facilities installed in the area and handheld gas analysers, and it is continuing to inspect the site and record permit breaches when it finds them. The EA is also monitoring the water quality in Frickley beck, because we do not want persistent and potentially organic pollutants to end up in our water supply, only for taxpayers and bill payers to be responsible for the clean-up further down the river. We are acting on intelligence received about vehicle movements at the site and are working closely with partners, including colleagues at the UK Health Security Agency and Wakefield council. The site permit has been revoked, and the site is no longer operational. Members have asked questions about how we prosecute people for the misdescription of waste. The first thing we have to do is bring them into this regime, so that we are not reacting when there has been an accidental overloading and breach of permit conditions—I do not want to say it is a crime, because I would not want to prejudge anything. I have had a long and very interesting conversation with my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) about the issue of the landfill gases at the Seletia sites at Hespin Wood and Flusco. As I say, these are horrible gases, and it too, with the same model, has breached the permitted waste, with massive over-dumping at those sites. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) told the story of his constituent, who was aghast at being dragged into this, and potentially criminalised by an innocent act of trying to do the right thing and get her waste dealt with properly. I thank everyone for their valuable contributions to the debate. I have issued statutory guidance to councils on how to use their powers to seize and crush vehicles, because we are aware that, although they have the powers, they may not feel confident about using them. We are also working with CrimeStoppers to get the public to be part of the army of people tackling waste crime. If people do see something suspicious, I would ask them please to report it on 0800 555 111—I say that from memory, but I think it is the correct number. These regulations are vital if we are to tackle waste crime. This change is long overdue for those moving and controlling waste. I thank all my departmental officials in the Box—James Cruddas, David Read and Freya Ballard—and Leena Hardy from my private office. The regulations are widely supported by our stakeholders and highly anticipated by our constituents. I thank all those working at the Environment Agency and in police forces across the country on tackling waste criminals and this new form of organised crime. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That the draft Environmental Permitting (Waste Controlling or Transporting) and Relevant Functions of Primary Authorities (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2026, which were laid before this House on 20 May, be approved.
I very much welcome the Minister’s statement today and the incorporation of the Rycroft review recommendations. I also welcome the changes to the “know your donor” rules, particularly in respect of location; political parties must be forced to include location in their considerations before accepting a donation. I was going to submit that as an amendment to the Representation of the People Bill, so job done on that. Does the Minister agree that political parties should also be forced to consider politically exposed people and the source of the wealth being donated before accepting donations?
Can I place on record my thanks to the pensions recovery taskforce that the Minister deployed? They have been working with my team in my constituency to resolve at least one of my constituents’ cases, so I am grateful for that. I am now being contacted by civil servants who are due to retire but are really worried that they will be swept up in this too. What reassurances can he give them?
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.] The Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton and Clyde Valley (Imogen Walker), is making a strange gesture at me, suggesting that perhaps I do not have 60 minutes in which to contribute. I can reassure her and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I intend to speak only very briefly. When I contributed on Second Reading, during the consideration of amendments and on Third Reading, I was convinced by the Government’s argument that the Bill as drafted already contained an exemption that NGOs and humanitarian organisations could take advantage of. I therefore came to the House today keen to listen to the Minister explain the reasoning behind the Government accepting these amendments. I also wanted to hear the reasoning from my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), who has contributed throughout the passage of the Bill and had thoughts on why that exemption was not enough. Having listened to the reasoning, I am convinced of the need to accept the amendments—they absolutely make sense—but I have some thoughts and follow-up questions for the Minister, which I will go through now. Lords amendments 1 and 2 are about creating exemptions for humanitarian support, NGOs and the like. They directly affect the part of the Bill that is concerned with assisting designated threats. Assisting a designated state threat should bring with it grave consequences, but at the same time we should not do anything that risks legitimate NGOs stopping their engagement, their involvement and their important work in some of the most difficult regions in the world. It is clear that there needs to be space for them to operate—but, but, but. We know that nefarious state actors will seek to exploit any loophole or advantage to inflict harm on this country. Does the Minister think that amendments 1 and 2 are slightly too loose, or is she confident that designated state threats could not take advantage of the amendments to continue to carry out their actions through other bodies? I have fewer concerns about Lords amendments 3 to 6. It is right that there should be an exemption for humanitarian bodies to share information with designated state threats when that information relates to, say, the clearance of a minefield. That makes sense and, of course, that exemption should exist. One of the reasons I am so keen to accept the amendments and see the Bill receive Royal Assent is that it is absolutely essential that we designate the IRGC as the threat that it is to this country. I am under no illusions about Government policy—no announcement will be made at the Dispatch Box today, and rightly so—but I want to take this opportunity to spell out that the IRGC is a threat to the British Jewish community in the UK. If we do not take action to proscribe it now—or, in this case, designate it now—we are risking the safety of our fellow citizens. Let us accept these amendments, pass this Bill and protect our communities.
The defence investment plan sets out plans for a more lethal and larger Royal Navy, based on the hybrid model. Despite a lack of investment in docks and late ordering of ships under the previous Government, I can confirm that the Royal Navy continues to meet operational and NATO commitments. This Government are ordering more ships and securing British shipbuilding, and we are serious about delivering the world’s first hybrid Navy of crewed, uncrewed and autonomous vessels.
As the Member of Parliament for Devonport, where we not only base-port but refit Type 23s, I know that many of those ships that have given decades of service are no longer able to provide the capabilities we need. That is why we are accelerating the out-of-service dates for a number of those platforms while still investing in accelerating shipbuilding on the Clyde, where we are building the Type 26s, and investing in the hybrid Navy. We are delivering more uncrewed vessels, which will be especially active in the anti-submarine warfare era. The right hon. Gentleman will understand that we have set out the defence investment plan, with an increase in defence spending, and we will be using that to support our Royal Navy to be more lethal and larger.
I say seriously to the House that my hon. Friend has been an incredible advocate for Rosyth. I have met him on a large number of occasions, and he has been absolutely determined to talk not just about the potential of Rosyth, but about the professionalism of the men and women who work there and the opportunity for young people to have a career in shipbuilding. The common combat vessel is a huge opportunity for us to expand the number of our hulls in the Royal Navy and build the latest capabilities not just in air defence, but as a mothership for our hybrid Navy opportunities. I would be happy to meet him to discuss the matter further.
It is unlike the SNP to be so positive about defence, isn’t it? The Type 83 and Type 32 were PowerPoints—there was no budget attached to them. That is why in the defence investment plan we set out a plan for a common combat vessel and a hybrid Navy to fulfil the opportunities that the retirement of the Type 45 presents for us. I hope the hon. Gentleman will take back a message to the Scottish Government that we can work in partnership to commonly fund the two defence technical excellence colleges that will provide the skills to allow the work on the Clyde and at Rosyth to continue. I hope that he and I can be together on that, but let us keep going. We want to see more shipbuilding in Scotland, and that is what this DIP delivers.
My hon. Friend really is the Member of Parliament for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, as she is determined to champion it so frequently. She will have seen in the defence investment plan our commitment to the new generation of fleet solid support ships, and she will have seen the work that this Government have undertaken since 2024 to address concerns raised with us about the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. The workforce is making substantial improvements on rig, training and welfare. There is one more item that I want to get over the line, but she can see a shipbuilding pipeline and a bright future ahead for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary with this Labour Government.
After the last Government tied up HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, never planning to send them to sea again, this Labour Government are bringing back amphibious ships. We are working with the Netherlands to develop a joint capability, and our ambition—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker, if it takes three of them to take on one of me, keep it coming. We are working with the Netherlands to develop a joint capability, and our ambition is for the first ship to enter service in the 2030s.
The defence investment plan clearly sets out our intention to buy up to 12 SSN-AUKUS submarines. Their delivery is conditional on the improvements in productivity that we are working with BAE Systems to deliver at Barrow, not just in workforce but in production shipyard facilities. We plan to buy up to 12 SSN-AUKUS submarines.
We inherited a situation where the north-east was the region with the lowest Ministry of Defence spend in the country and we have made it a mission to increase defence spending in the north-east. We have an incredible talent pool in the north-east, with brilliant defence companies both large and small doing brilliant work. We are determined, now that we have an uplift in defence spending, that more of it will be spent with British firms, and I want to see more of that spend in the north-east as well.
If the right hon. Gentleman is talking about a salary of up to £1 billion, he is cosplaying as the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), isn’t he? Seriously, we are the third-largest cash spender in NATO. At the spending review next year, we will be setting out an increase in defence spending. That is what every Defence Minister wants to see and, I imagine, what those on all sides of the House want to see. It is not just what we spend on defence that is important; it is how we spend it and on what capabilities. As can be seen from the DIP, we are transforming our armed forces to be more capable, more lethal and better able to defend the UK and our allies.
The hon. Member will know that the Labour Government were elected on a manifesto containing a triple lock for our nuclear deterrent—not only maintaining the continuous at-sea deterrent and the new submarines, but providing all the upgrades that are required. We will make sure that the Defence Nuclear Enterprise provides value for money, increased deterrence against threats, and more job creation for people up and down the country.
Harlow was centre of my thinking when it came to increasing defence spending. My hon. Friend and I have recently spent time talking about the brilliant defence companies that are based in his constituency. Having growth in defence spending and a clear focus on British companies is an opportunity for graduates and apprentices to have a career in defence.
The Prime Minister asked all Departments to step up to support the cross-Government mission to close asylum hotels. The Ministry of Defence has done so, making available a number of sites that we no longer use for military purposes. I am very happy to arrange a meeting with my colleague, the Minister for Asylum, to discuss this further.
I can confirm that it is a 10-year plan. One reason that we set out the first four years in detail is that we can see the technologies that we are purchasing in those years. We know that we will be making spends in drone technologies and a number of other areas, but we do not know precisely which platform due to the fast iteration of these technologies. We will continue to increase defence spending, delivering 3.5% of GDP by 2035.
We are increasing defence spending—that is what the Labour party is doing in government. Look at what Reform has been doing: one of its politicians was accepting bribes from Russia. I do not accept what the hon. Lady is saying. We are increasing defence spending.