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 11 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,942 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
I thank my hon. Friend for his strong representation on behalf of his constituency and the important refining industry. I have seen the letter to the Chancellor that has been sent by colleagues and I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend and other interested Members.
I regret to inform the hon. Gentleman that that policy was implemented by his Government—[Interruption.] It was in 2023 that HMRC wrote to businesses that were not paying the VAT, unlike some others that were, and began the enforcement action—it started under his Government. However, I recognise the challenges that these rules are causing, so today I confirm that the Government will soon bring forward a new approach, consisting of either changes to the VAT rules or a reimbursement scheme. The changes will be effective for donations of medicines made on or after today.
I would of course meet the hon. Member.
I thank the hon. Member for the representations she makes on behalf of the businesses in her constituency. This Government are taking every step we can—within the tight fiscal constraints that we inherited from the previous Government—to reform, and invest in, our business rates system so that we can raise revenue in a fair and sustainable way. I am sure that the Chancellor and colleagues across Government will continue to listen to representations and consider what further changes we can make at the Budget to support businesses.
My right hon. Friend is right to highlight those challenges. Throughout the 10-year equipment plan, there was always a £14 billion deficit that never seemed to go away. It is great that we are seeing more investment, but could the Chancellor update the House on what conversations she or her Ministers are having with Governments in Europe and with Canada about the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank and the multilateral defence mechanism for funding and procuring defence across NATO?
I thank the Minister for giving way. She is giving a really passionate speech and talking about her personal experience of being in the armed forces. It is important that the Conservative party hear again the figures she quoted in respect of the number of armed forces personnel at the start of her time in the forces and the number at the time she left, and the difference in the amount of officers. Will she also talk about what the Labour Government are doing to support our armed forces personnel and to increase morale, which is hugely important?
What is the Minister’s assessment of the unemployment issues for graduates? Will he and the Treasury team pledge to consider carefully the evidence that the cross-party Treasury Committee took from thousands of graduates, and come up with a fairer system that equalises plans, so that the year in which graduates enrolled in university does not matter, and graduates pay more or less the same for their graduate loan?
12. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to support industry.
I welcome the decisions taken by the Chancellor and Government colleagues to revise the electric vehicle targets for 2030, following representations from the industry, unions and MPs. Targets are really great, but they need to match capabilities and market realities. What assessment has she made of how the change will safeguard jobs in the automotive supply chain in my constituency of Stourbridge and across the UK?
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall. Apatura has submitted a planning application to Falkirk council for a 300-MW AI data centre just 500 metres from Forth Valley Royal hospital, 20 metres from a care home and next to a densely populated residential area. From the outset, it is worth noting that the council has received nearly 1,800 objections from local people. It is no wonder that the strength of feeling against this big tech project is so strong: the proposed site, which covers about 55 acres of land, is being labelled as “sustainable”, which is frankly insulting to my constituents. An environmental impact assessment shows that the proposed data centre would emit pollution that would rank it among the worst 10 polluters in Scotland. The data centre requires its own electricity substation and 200 diesel generators as back-up. Even if they are never run for operational purposes, the generators will have to come online as part of a regular maintenance programme. As we are here in Westminster Hall today in sweltering temperatures in the middle of a heatwave, let us also ponder the scale of the low-grade waste heat that the AI data centre would produce. The direct thermal exhaust creates hot air, which needs to be dispersed into the atmosphere. AI chips created by the big tech company Nvidia get so hot that they need liquid cooling, creating a warm liquid that must then be piped out. That intense thermal exhaust can raise temperatures by up to 9°. Surface warming can impact areas up to six miles away. As I said, the proposed site is just 20 metres from a care home, 500 metres from a hospital that serves approximately 300,000 people and is in a residential area full of families with children. The proposal is outrageous. The noise being produced by the data centre will be constant. It will include infrasonic noise, the long wavelengths of which travel vast distances and can penetrate walls and glass, even defeating ear protectors. That pollution can cause serious physical and psychological harm and distress. Surely there will be consensus in this Chamber when I say that technology should not come with a health warning to people, families and communities. I would like to think that legislators at every level of government consider that to be the baseline for any of their decisions. Of course, technology will play an increasing role in our society, but proposed developments like the one in Larbert rightly have people worried. Its proximity to the hospital, care home and many houses shows that people are right to be concerned. It is shameful that tech companies do not seem to be bothered about that. Technology cannot and must not be an industry that exploits people, communities and our environment for profit.
I give my thanks and gratitude, alongside those of hon. and right hon. Members, to those who serve and have served. In opening the debate, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) talked about putting politics to one side, but everything is a political choice. Decisions are based on ideology, priorities and one’s belief of what is the right course of action. I accept that my contribution to the debate will be an isolated one, but it is based on my personal ideology, priorities and beliefs. The bare minimum in any debate should be honesty. It is therefore important that, straight away, we address with honesty that any movement from the self-imposed strait jacket of the fiscal rules through an increase in defence spending will have to mean a cut to other areas. The Opposition has framed this debate specifically with welfare as the target. With that in mind, I will talk a little about welfare. Just under a fortnight ago, with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), I organised an evidence-gathering session in Grangemouth for the Right to Food UK Commission, which has toured the country investigating the state of food insecurity and poverty. In Grangemouth, we heard from fantastic local organisations that provide food to individuals and families who are living in such a dire, precarious position that they are reliant on the generosity of others. Those organisations laid out the stark reality: the reason that people are in that situation is low wages that have not kept pace with inflation all the way through the Conservative Governments from 2010 onwards. And let us not forget the Liberal Democrats’ part in the early days of the austerity coalition that created a new strata of society—that of the in-work poor. In 2010, 30,000 people used food banks. More than 3 million people use food banks today. It was not as if the Conservative Government of the day were investing in defence—quite the opposite. During those austerity years, the state gradually withdrew itself every year, cut by cut, until we were left with a social security system that is no longer a genuine safety net. People are falling through it; they will never escape poverty. Does no one here in this Chamber question why we have a national minimum wage, a living wage and a real living wage? Is it not absolutely absurd that we have three different figures that are deemed acceptable but are all, in all honesty, so low that they are nowhere near enough for people to live on? For heaven’s sake, we are one of the biggest economies in the world, yet we have 14% of our children going hungry, workers needing food banks to survive, low wages, decimated public services, poverty, inequality, and communities that have been asset-stripped for decades. If we want to talk about national security, let us acknowledge that all those things are killing our people right now. What kind of country do we live in when we allow that kind of poverty? What are we actually supposed to be defending here? National security is about more than defence spending. It is about creating a healthy, well-educated nation and about people having good, well-paid, secure jobs and adequate housing. As I say, it is always about political choices and about priorities, and I make no apology for those being mine.
I apologise, Sir Alec.
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this very important debate. Many big tech companies are a cause of concern, but a particular one is Palantir, which holds Government contracts worth more than £900 million, spanning 10 Departments. Does he agree that more concerning than its dominance is the fact that we do not know what data it holds and has access to? Numerous groups warn that patient data in the NHS federated data platform could be accessible by US authorities under the American CLOUD—Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data—Act, so does he agree that the Government must exercise the February 2027 break clause until those questions are property and publicly answered?
I thank the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) for bringing forward this important debate. It comes at a pertinent time, as we discuss the impact of social media on our children, the way we use AI, and the influence of big tech companies, including on our lives. As I pointed out earlier, a growing number of voices—doctors, nurses, civil society organisations and Members across this House—are sounding the alarm about the unchecked expansion of one company: Palantir Technologies. The concern seems to centre around two issues. The first is the sheer scale of Palantir’s involvement in our public infrastructure. It holds at least 34 current and past Government contracts across at least 10 Departments, totalling a minimum of £900 million. The true figure is likely higher, since several contracts remain unacknowledged or heavily redacted. Palantir’s largest single contract is the NHS federated data platform, which is worth £330 million over seven years. My inbox has been rammed with constituents calling for the Government to trigger Palantir’s February 2027 break clause. I support that call, and I hope the Minister will say whether the Government do, too.
That is why I was so pleased the right hon. Member called the debate. I hope he agrees that once a contractor has failed for one Department, it should not be given a contract for another Department. I hope the Minister will speak to that. I hugely support my constituents’ call for the Government to use that February 2027 break clause with Palantir. I hope the Minister will tell us more about whether they intend to act on that. Some will say that Palantir’s expanding portfolio simply proves that it is the best company for the job. That may be true for some places—I doubt it—but it is not a reason to dismiss concerns. We should be worried about one company having this much dominance across so many pillars of our society, and particularly a foreign corporation that may not have the UK’s best interests at heart. I say that with confidence, because Palantir’s founder, Peter Thiel, has accused us of having Stockholm syndrome over our affection for the NHS and said that we need to “rip the whole thing from the ground and start over”. His broader political views are just as concerning, and I encourage Members to look into them. The current CEO of Palantir UK is Oswald Mosley’s grandson. I do not wish to judge a man solely by his grandfather’s sins, but that gets harder when the views on display are not entirely dissimilar. Nor can we ignore Peter Mandelson’s role in arranging the Prime Minister’s undeclared 2025 visit to Palantir’s headquarters—a meeting where no minutes were taken and that raised transparency questions that are still unanswered. The second concern is data. Palantir built its reputation as a surveillance and intelligence tool for the US military; it is not a healthcare company, but a data aggregation company with software designed to link datasets across systems. This is no longer a hypothetical risk: NHS England has confirmed that Palantir staff can access identifiable patient data on the federated data platform through a new admin role on the national data integration tenant. The British Medical Association, Medacs, the Good Law Project, Privacy International and Amnesty International have all warned that that data could become accessible to other departments, or to US authorities under the American Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act 2018, regardless of what any contract says. Some 50,000 patients have written to their NHS trust boards to urge them not to adopt the platform. I am not suggesting that every Palantir contract should be cancelled tomorrow, but we are sleepwalking into a dependency on this company that we will come to deeply regret.
My hon. Friend is talking about peatlands; she will know that Indonesia had a huge, deep burn of its peatlands in 2019, with 31,000 sq km of land burned. In the UK, when we had a terrible peatland fire on Saddleworth moor in 2018, just the year before, an estimated 4.5 million people suffered from the particulate matter—the smoke that went into their lungs—and the health conditions caused by that. Keeping those peatlands moist, damp and wetted in Indonesia is so important. My hon. Friend rightly talked about the population of Indonesia being so large; it is so concentrated that it can be desperately affected by that health risk.
This is an essential point. My hon. Friend will remember the words of Pak Ja Martin, who was in charge of the project that we went to see. He said, “You can’t talk conservation to people who are hungry.” Therefore, local indigenous people, who for centuries have protected and conserved their environment, must be involved. That was a key aspect of what we went to look at.
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Does she agree that, as part of that consultation, many of us would like the Government to consider that this should not just be a matter of legality, but of actual deforestation? She will know of cases where other countries have passed similar legislation; in Brazil, its then President changed the law to make sure that the companies that were deforesting were able to comply with our legislation, and therefore to continue the trade. There is a loophole here. Does my hon. Friend agree that the consultation would do well to close it?
My hon. Friend has been very generous in taking interventions. On the animals that had diseases—she is right, it was an affecting sight that depressed us all; it is great that the islands are being built—is she aware that at a recent lecture, Nadine, who we met in Oxford, confirmed that when orangutans are captured for translocation, they will now be tested for TB? That will enable scientists to study the epidemiology of the disease in the wild population. Of course, if it transpires that TB is already in the wild population, it could be safe to release them back into the wild.
My hon. Friend speaks knowledgeably about the threats to biodiversity in Sumatra in particular. It is not just the sixth largest island in the world; it also has 1,300 different tree species. Sumatra’s forest cover has been staggeringly depleted, with about 20% of its lowland forest remaining. My hon. Friend is right to speak of the orangutan; the delegation that went to Indonesia looked at its conservation programmes. He will know that the Sumatran tiger and the Sumatran elephant are also desperately endangered, and that 132 bird species, including helmeted hornbills and crested firebacks, are threatened there. It is a biodiversity hotspot, and the threats that he has identified are very real and must be avoided.
If the hon. Member wants to know the specifics of how to do that, they get a jar of liquid honey and squeeze it up the tree. You then have to follow it up with your tongue. I do not recommend that for anywhere near the Whips Office.
My hon. Friend will recognise that where there is such degradation, huge amounts of biodiversity are lost. Indonesia is one of the most biodiverse countries in the world, and I am grateful to the Indonesian Government for the work that they have been focused on in this regard. My hon. Friend will also know that forests in Indonesia are home not only to flora and fauna, but to people as well. The Indonesian Government agreed to a visit from the UN Human Rights Commissioner six years ago—that visit has not happened yet. I hope that the UK Government can keep pushing on that. Does she agree that protection for flora and fauna, which she is talking about so eloquently, has to go alongside protection for people as well?
My hon. Friend is making another important speech after that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy). Does he agree that it is concerning to hear from reports of eyewitnesses that around 40 indigenous people have been killed over the last couple of months, and that drones and booby traps are increasingly being used against indigenous people?
In Armed Forces Week, will my hon. Friend join me in thanking the brave men and women, the staff and the recruits of HMS Raleigh, the local community that keep them going and especially the reservists, who are such unsung heroes in this important week?
It is a privilege to follow the right hon. and gallant Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who gave an incredibly authoritative speech. I also commend the hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), who spoke powerfully. I have not served, but whenever I speak on this subject, I say that this House is richer because of the service of people on both sides, including the former Minister for the Armed Forces—my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns)—and our exceptional Minister for the Armed Forces. It is Armed Forces Week, so I thank everybody in this country who has served and continues to serve. I particularly thank Stuart Mendelson, who set up an initiative in Hertfordshire called the Muster Point. It has a simple premise: to bring veterans together to meet, to socialise and to build networks and connections. He has had great success in doing that in Stevenage, working with my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia), and we are in the process of extending it to Welwyn Hatfield. I want to put on the record my thanks to Stuart. This is also the first time that I have had the opportunity to address the Chamber since the Prime Minister announced his resignation. It is a moment of regret for me, and I want to put on the record my thanks to him for all his service to my party and the country, and also for the fact that when he leaves office, most likely in a few weeks’ time, defence spending will be higher than it was at any point during the terms of the five previous Prime Ministers. The tone of the House has changed somewhat since the initial speech by the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), but I will re-inject a bit of politics, because I think it is important on Opposition day that we assess whether the rhetoric of one party matches its record in office. I want to go back to 2014, to the moment when Crimea was annexed by Putin—the moment, as people on all sides of politics would agree, when we should have realised the depth of the threats that we faced in Europe. At that time, defence spending was 2.2%. I had a look at what defence spending was in 2022, the moment when the full-scale invasion of Ukraine began. Defence spending in that eight-year period fell to just under 2.1%. I am afraid that when the Conservative party was in office, it did not heed those warnings.
I am pleased that the hon. Member takes my point, but I am saying that the circumstances had changed. [Interruption.] I will make the point: that is why I intentionally picked those two dates—2014, the annexation of Crimea, and 2022, the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Those two points are indelibly linked, and our failure to act was a decisive moment in history.
Is the hon. Member therefore excusing the lack of investment between 2014 and 2022? That is what I am not sure of, because there are Opposition Members who have been clear and consistent—they did not serve in the Conservative Government and they thought it was wrong that defence spending fell. I appreciate that he was not here at that time—neither was I—but I do not know if that was his position.
I will make a bit of progress and then I will let other people in. This might really upset some Opposition Members, so they should brace themselves: this is also the 10-year anniversary of Brexit. It is the case that most Opposition Members present supported Brexit, and I raise it in the context of public spending choices, because it has now been emphatically proven that the decision to leave the European Union has cost our economy tens of billions of pounds. The estimate ranges between 4% and 6% of GDP, which equates to nearly £100 billion. In a scenario where we had remained members of the European Union and had a stronger economy, whoever was making the choices on defence would have been in a far better place to invest.
Does the right hon. Lady not agree?
I am pleased that we were on the same side in 2016, and maybe we will be at some point again in the future. Let me fast-forward to 2024, because that was an important moment for the country.
I am not sure that I would agree with the characterisation of sacrificing Ukraine, but I am also not saying that the European Union is blameless. I am saying that we had a period of history after Crimea where much of the west was not investing sufficiently in defence, and it is also the case that the Conservative party was in government at that point in time. The point about 2024 is an important one—we had an important general election for the country. We hear now about the Conservatives prioritising defence, so I looked back at their record and their manifesto. What was their offer to the country on the eve of the general election? It was a big cut in national insurance—a cut that would have cost £10 billion a year. Again, when faced with the decision, two years into the Ukraine war, “Are you going to prioritise defence spending?”, that was not the choice they made, was it?
But the Prime Minister at the time had the full support of the then Leader of the Opposition and now Prime Minister, so we were united as a House on that. I agree with the hon. Member that Boris Johnson at that moment made the right judgment, but he had the full support of our Prime Minister today.
I will make some progress and talk about the record of this Government. [Interruption.] I know Opposition Members are enjoying it. It is important that we reflect on the progress and the investment we have made. The aid-to-defence spending switch was not a policy that was universally welcomed on this side of the House, but I believe it was a necessary decision and the right decision to make. We have the Type 26 frigate deal, the Typhoon deal with Turkey, 13 new sites for munitions and factories, which are so important for our rearmament, and the armed forces pay rise—the most generous and urgently overdue pay rise for 20 years, which again was delivered by this Government. We have had some authoritative interventions about the changing nature of warfare, and I have much to learn from other colleagues. It is to be applauded that this Government are investing in drone warfare. My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon North (Will Stone) has been a champion for investing in drone factories in his constituency. In just the last week, we have learned about the development of long-range missiles that the UK and Ukraine are working on together without the need for US components. That is a significant and welcome step forward. While I admire many people on the Opposition side of the House, I regret to have to say that at every opportunity to increase investment in defence spending, the last Government did not take that option. I am afraid that the enduring image that has been left with the public is of the last Conservative Prime Minister leaving the beaches on D-Day early. It was a picture that told a thousand words. In politics, parties need to be judged by their record, not just their rhetoric.
I am going to come to a conclusion. I recognise that this Government have lots more work to do, but under this Prime Minister’s watch, defence spending is up—it is higher than at any point in the last 14 years or under the last five Conservative Prime Ministers—and whoever is the next leader of the Labour party will have my support in increasing it further.
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) for securing the debate and for her excellent speech outlining all the issues our residents face with fly-tipping. Nothing makes me more fed up and deflated than walking round the community where I raise my kids and seeing litter and piles of rubbish everywhere. Fly-tipping is a blight on my city. Portsmouth is a beautiful place, yet a few lazy and selfish criminals can cause enormous damage and make my city look a mess. I have been contacted by countless residents about illegal waste dumping across my constituency. Commercial waste has been dumped behind businesses in North End, attracting rats and harming legitimate local shops and the work they do to serve the community. This is not just a low-level or cosmetic issue; it is serious because fly-tipping puts my constituents at risk. These piles of rubbish create environmental hazards, increase fire risks and endanger public health. Unfortunately, the problem has been made worse by the failure of Liberal Democrat-run Portsmouth city council to act effectively and use all the levers available to it, be that swifter collections, the use of CCTV or drones, number plate recognition or the crushing of vehicles. They must take some ownership and some accountability, instead of sloping their shoulders and saying it is “not on our land”. I will give some examples. Outside the charity bins near Cosham high street, piles of rubbish bags and mattresses regularly accumulate. The council puts up notices saying it is aware of the problem and will remove the waste as soon as possible, yet fines are rarely enforced and offenders rarely identified. It is little surprise that people continue to use this site as their own personal tip, because there are no consequences. I have also dealt with cases where mattresses have been dumped beside the motorway, where responsibility is shared between National Highways and the council. Even when number plates have been captured on camera, enforcement action has not followed. This is not good enough. Near my office in Copnor, forecourts are regularly used as dumping grounds. The council often acts only after repeated reports, even when the waste presents a real fire hazard. One constituent, Tracey, outlined to me her frustrations: “I often wonder why I pay my council tax when all I walk past is rubbish, fly tipping and dirty toiletries on my dog walks.” That is not what anyone wants to see when they leave their home. Every pile of rubbish sends a message that nobody cares and leaves residents feeling angry, frustrated and disheartened. I join my hon. Friends in thanking those volunteers and groups who help to clear up our streets: the litter pickers, the shoreline cleaners and the generally brilliant, hard-working people across my city. I hope that Portsmouth city council listens to this debate and understands the impact that failing to tackle fly-tipping is having on ordinary residents. It is time to raise the game. The council must remove waste more quickly so that sites do not attract further dumping, and it must properly investigate and penalise offenders. It must also look to support initiatives that enable people to dump their larger items swiftly and cheaply. I am proud to be part of a Labour Government who have launched the toughest ever crackdown on waste crime, and I am pleased to see that Labour’s waste crime action plan will require fly-tippers to join clean-up squads on the streets they have trashed, because they should take responsibility. The Government will also look to put penalty points on driving licences, and repeat offenders could lose their vehicles. That sends a clear message to the people doing this: “You mess up our streets and you will clean up our streets. There are consequences for your time and your money.” It is not just about individuals. We are targeting the organised criminal gangs behind illegal waste sites through £45 million of new investment for the Environment Agency. This job of cleaning up and taking pride in our streets has started, but there is much more to be done. I am proud that this Government are taking it seriously and are leading by example and using every available power to crack down on waste crime. I hope that Portsmouth city council takes notes and gives this daily nuisance the attention it deserves, so that residents can once again value and have pride in their neighbourhoods.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. We have heard some meaningful contributions so far, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) for giving us the opportunity to praise our communities for the extremely hard work they are putting into our areas, but also to call out the situation that has got us here. In my constituency of North West Leicestershire, I am proud to have some incredibly dedicated litter picking groups. Their commitment to keeping our towns and surrounding areas clean is amazing, but it should not be necessary. I want to thank a number of them today, including the locally known Belton Sam, Coalville CAN for its recent litter pick of Coalville, and the regular litter pickers, including those in Hugglescote and Market Street in Ashby-de-la-Zouch. There are so many more who help from a much wider area and who travel to litter pick across Leicestershire, including my good friends Gibbo and Bob. They tell me that they are reporting an increasing number of fly-tips and have seen an increase in the amount of litter dropped in their local communities. For this speech, I reached out to Carly Hosker, a constituent and member of Castle Donington Litter Wombles. Carly said: “Fly-tipping affects everyone who lives nearby. It’s an eyesore, can attract even more rubbish, is a danger to wildlife and often leaves local people feeling ignored and very frustrated when nothing gets done about it. For me, it’s disheartening to see areas that should be enjoyed by residents, walkers, cyclists and families covered in waste.” I have been a regular litter picker over the years and have to agree with Carly’s words. As our constituents’ representatives, it is now our job to back those words with action. Does the Minister agree that those responsible for these issues should be able to deal with those who commit acts of fly-tipping, rather than dealing with the communities forced to clean up after them? I welcome the measures already announced in the waste crime action plan, because the scale of this issue is significant. Across the east midlands alone, there were around 96,000 fly-tipping incidents in a single year. My own council, North West Leicestershire, has dealt with about 700, or two every single day. Nationally, the picture is worsening, with over 1.2 million incidents recorded across England in 2024-25—a 9% increase in just one year. Those figures do not even include the waste dumped on private land, with landowners often shouldering the costs themselves. I worked for a housing association for many years, and fly-tipping was a huge financial burden on it. There is also the frustration about the highway, where there is often confusion about who is responsible: is it the district, the county or National Highways? We have hotspots all over North West Leicestershire, including the A42 and the A453, to name just two. They are gateways into my constituency, but they are too dangerous for volunteers, and we have to question why it should be left to volunteers to clean them up. There is often no clear approach led by authorities. Could the Minister please outline the cross-authority work that has been done so that the gateways to our communities—our highways—are not forgotten as “somebody else’s responsibility”. In this House, we owe it to Carly, Litter Wombles across the country and every community volunteer to match their commitment to action.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments, and I agree with him. My father said that the biggest mistake in the late ’30s was that we had our head in the sand. The right hon. Gentleman has been here for a long time—[Interruption.] Sorry. When the Labour Government left office in 2010, they were spending 2.5% of GDP on defence. If we had kept spending that, £90 billion more would have been invested in defence by now. Does he accept that that is the case, and that what happened is a great shame?
Does my hon. Friend agree that this debate has sadly lacked some praise for the Prime Minister and the Government for their investment in defence, including the new submarine reactors that have been made in my constituency of Paisley and Renfrewshire North?
I was also delighted to see today that that announcement has been made. Is my hon. Friend aware that the five-year delay in passing the regulations has meant that imports totalling 54,000 hectares of tropical forests have happened? That is an area the size of Leeds.