5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 20 May 2026·Parliament·Mark Pritchard

   Defence Readiness

   One of the defining features of this country’s support for Ukraine has been the cross-party support, but I think it is right for His Majesty’s Opposition to call out the Government where we think they have got it wrong. Over the last 24 hours, I think the Government have got it both right and wrong. I support the Government in the new sanctions regime around third countries. Where I do not support the Government is in allowing temporary licences for the import of Russian jet fuel and diesel. Today in Ukraine, the bombs and missiles are falling. This country should have no part in funding any part of Putin’s war machine.

   Hansard source
2. 20 May 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

   Defence Readiness

   I heard something this morning that I could scarcely believe. I heard that neither the Armed Forces Minister nor the Veterans Minister—notably, the two military veterans on the MOD’s ministerial team—have actually seen the defence investment plan. If he can, will the Secretary of State confirm or deny whether that is the case?

   Hansard source
3. 20 May 2026·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

   Draft Hampshire and the Solent Combined County Authority Regulations 2026

   Will the Minister set out the evidence for her statement that unitary councils perform better?

   Hansard source
4. 20 May 2026·Parliament·Kit Malthouse

   Engagements

   In five weeks’ time, the Government will be introducing penal tariffs on steel imports into the UK and, at the same time, massively reducing tariff-free quotas. This will cause enormous damage to the UK’s manufacturing base in the absence of adequate steelmaking capacity in the UK. Furthermore, the way the tariffs are drawn means that Stannah Lifts, a world-beating company based in Andover in my constituency, will face tariffs when importing steel into the UK to manufacture its products, but a competitor’s imported finished product, made from the same steel, will not attract tariffs. This situation cannot be allowed to persist. Will the Prime Minister please arrange for his Secretary of State to focus on this issue and get it sorted out?

   Hansard source
5. 20 May 2026·Parliament·Julia Lopez

   Topical Questions

   I was born in Harlow, would you believe it, Mr Speaker? Can the Secretary of State guarantee that under Labour’s EU reset, Britain will not align with any EU tech rules, including the AI Act?

   Hansard source
6. 20 May 2026·Parliament·Julia Lopez

   Topical Questions

   There was no clear answer from the Secretary of State. It sounds like Labour is about to trade away our Brexit freedoms on tech regulation, yet tech Ministers have been briefing behind the scenes that we must not lose Britain’s Brexit freedoms on tech when it comes to AI, data and agritech. Will she now publicly admit what her Ministers have been briefing behind closed doors: Brexit was not some exercise in nostalgia pushed on us by uninformed thickos? It has given Britain a competitive advantage in the industries of the future.

   Hansard source
7. 20 May 2026·Parliament·John Cooper

   Processed Russian Oil Products: Sanctions

   I had constituents in the Gallery today, and they will be aghast to find out that their flight back to Scotland is potentially using Russian fuel. Surely, regardless of whether that was the case before, we need to grip that issue. We also need to grip the reality of the North sea. We keep hearing that North sea oil is a declining asset, but the Norwegians do not see it that way; they are expanding their exploration of the North sea. We have untapped resources, west of Shetland. Surely we need to look again at domestic supply.

   Hansard source
8. 20 May 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

   Banking Hubs

   We are talking about the rules. We know that the banks have withdrawn from our communities. My market towns of Fakenham and Aylsham have had all the banks go apart from one Nationwide. They say their answer to that is Link, and yet the rules seem to say that market towns, with that huge hinterland they also serve, are not sufficient to allow for banking services to be provided via hubs. Does the hon. Member agree that if those are the rules, those rules need to change?

   Hansard source
9. 20 May 2026·Parliament·James Cartlidge

   Defence Readiness

   I beg to move amendment (o), at the end of the Question to add: “but respectfully regret the absence of a Defence Readiness Bill from the Gracious Speech, and the 10 month delay to the publication of the Defence Investment Plan; call on the Government to bring forward both as a matter of urgency; further call on the Government to raise defence spending to 3% of GDP by the end of this Parliament; further regret that the Gracious Speech commits to re-starting inquests into Northern Ireland veterans; and also call on the Government not to progress with the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill and the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (Remedial) Order 2025 to protect veterans and improve the morale of all who serve in the armed forces.” It is an honour to open the final day of debate on the King’s Speech on behalf of the Opposition. Today’s debate is on defence readiness. May I begin by expressing how saddened I was to hear of the death of Lance Bombardier Ciara Sullivan from the King’s Troop Royal Horse Artillery? My condolences, and those of the whole Opposition, to her family, both personal and regimental. Before turning to the defence-related matters that were or were not included in the Government’s programme for the next legislative Session, I pay tribute to the men and women serving in our armed forces right now across the globe, whether they are on board our nuclear submarines, which provide a continuous at-sea deterrent, or deployed in the middle east to defend our overseas bases. I thank them for their service and unwavering professionalism. I also pay tribute to our brave Ukrainian allies, who continue to defy those original expectations of an early Russian victory. When we take steps to publicly show our sympathy for Ukraine’s heroic struggle—for example, by wearing badges, as I have done every day since the invasion, or by flying the Ukraine flag from local and national Government buildings, we do so not just to show solidarity with a democratic nation under brutal attack by a dictatorship, but because it is firmly in our national interest to assist Ukraine in keeping Putin’s military in check. When newly elected councils make it their first priority, on entering office, to pull down the Ukrainian flag, we are entitled to ask if the party in question cares about the fate of its people, and understands the implications for our national security of Russia triumphing. Finally, I pay tribute to all those who served our country in the past: our brave veterans. That brings me to Labour’s plans, as set out in the King’s Speech. Of all Britain’s military capabilities, few are more important to our defence or more widely admired, particularly by the United States, than our special forces, yet at a time of war on two fronts, Labour is ploughing on with a Bill that will reopen vexatious legal actions. That not only threatens our veterans, but would undermine the morale of all who serve today, particularly in the special forces. Those special forces include the Special Air Service, and those in the regiment that was on duty in Loughgall in 1987, and who shot IRA terrorists who were driving a digger with a bomb in its bucket towards a police station, and firing machine guns into the building as they approached. I believe that those soldiers were acting to defend our society from terrorists intent on mass murder. Whatever one’s view, surely going back almost 40 years to events that took place in a split second makes no sense. Crucially, in October 2023, coroner Justice McAlinden declined to list a new inquest into Loughgall precisely because of the cut-off date set by our legacy Act, which therefore did its job of halting such cases and genuinely protecting our veterans from endless litigation. However, in his comments, Justice McAlinden added that preparatory work for the inquest should continue, because there would be a general election the following year, and that might affect how the legislation was implemented. He had a point, did he not? Fast-forward three years, and with war now facing us, not just in Ukraine but in the middle east, the Government of today remain intent on repealing the protections that we put in place for veterans. It goes without saying that Labour’s plans will harm our veterans, once again keeping them awake at night with the fear that they will be hauled before our courts.

   Hansard source
10. 20 May 2026·Parliament·James Cartlidge

    Defence Readiness

    I am always grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his very good interventions. He has hit the nail on the head. This is not just about veterans, as important as they are; it is about the wider impact on recruitment. Indeed, hon. Members do not have to take my word for it, or his. In November last year, nine former four-star generals wrote: “This lawfare is a direct threat to national security…The Troubles Bill achieves nothing—and ongoing lawfare risks everything.” I say this to Labour MPs: when considering the troubles Bill and the issue of lawfare, surely the overriding factor to consider is the threat that we face as a nation, and the impact of the legislation on our ability to defend ourselves. Do they really think, in their heart of hearts, that this is what they should be prioritising, when we need our soldiers more than ever? I put this challenge to all those who intend to stand in Labour’s leadership contest. Will those candidates seeking to become our next Prime Minister recognise that the first duty of any leader is defence of the realm, and that it is therefore in the national interest to scrap the troubles Bill and back our brave veterans?

    Hansard source
11. 20 May 2026·Parliament·James Cartlidge

    Defence Readiness

    I respect the hon. Lady, and I respect the strength of her view on this matter, but we have to deal with what is certain. In my view, it is extremely unlikely that any new cases would lead to prosecutions. It is, however, certain that were this process to recommence, it would damage the morale of our armed forces at a time of war on two fronts, and that would not be in the national interest.

    Hansard source
12. 20 May 2026·Parliament·James Cartlidge

    Defence Readiness

    I do not need to add a great deal to that, because my right hon. Friend served in Operation Banner and speaks with great authority. He has always been passionate on this issue, and he hits the nail on the head. As so many veterans have said to me, it is the process of the lawfare itself that is so punishing. It is so damaging, it is not in the national interest and it will damage the British armed forces.

    Hansard source
13. 20 May 2026·Parliament·James Cartlidge

    Defence Readiness

    My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and he is absolutely correct. Our legacy Act was based on what happened in South Africa. We may not like it, but if we want peace and reconciliation, any changes in the law that favour those who may have been guilty have to apply to both sides. It is simply a statement of fact. As I think I just showed with Loughgall, our Act of Parliament—the legacy Act—did indeed stop an inquest that would have been damaging to the armed forces but which I do not believe would have led to any prosecutions. Turning to what was not in the King’s Speech, the strategic defence review promised that: “A new Defence Readiness Bill should provide the Government with powers in reserve to mobilise Reserves and industry should crisis escalate into conflict.” With war on two fronts, surely such legislation should be the absolute top priority of this Government, but alas, there is no defence readiness Bill in the King’s Speech. Why not? The defence readiness Bill is not ready. What else is not ready? The defence investment plan is not ready, of course. We know that the Government are working flat out—[Hon. Members: “At pace!”]—and at pace, but the Secretary of State promised from the Dispatch Box almost a year ago that the defence investment plan would be published last autumn. It is now 10 months late, so when the Minister responds, can he tell us exactly when we are going to get the defence investment plan? Most importantly, we are bound to ask why we still have no defence investment plan. The DIP is meant to set out the detailed procurement decisions intended to implement Labour’s strategic defence review, so what do the authors of Labour’s SDR, appointed by the Prime Minister, think about the failure to publish the DIP and the impact of that on delivering the SDR? Each of the three key authors—Dr Fiona Hill, General Sir Richard Barrons and Lord Robertson—has absolutely slammed the Government for their failure to deliver. Lord Robertson, a former Labour Defence Secretary and former Secretary-General of NATO, stated: “We cannot defend Britain with an ever-expanding welfare budget.” We agree 100%. The fact is, the current Prime Minister bottled it on welfare reform, U-turning repeatedly despite a majority of more than 160, and failing to make even modest changes to working-age benefits while removing the two-child benefit cap.

    Hansard source
14. 20 May 2026·Parliament·James Cartlidge

    Defence Readiness

    My hon. Friend has remarkable foresight, because I will be coming to the Chagos issue. This is the key point: had the Prime Minister held his nerve and reformed the benefits system, toughening the rules for working-age benefits and keeping the two-child limit, as was his previous position, he could have found the billions to fund defence rather than entrenching welfare dependency even further. Given this total failure of nerve from the Prime Minister, he had some brass neck to use his response to the King’s Speech last Wednesday to accuse us of “defence austerity”. Let me remind the House that last year the Government insisted on £2.6 billion-worth of reductions to the Ministry of Defence budget. This year, they are insisting on a further £3.5 billion of cuts. They will say that they were the last Government to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence, in 2010, but they always omit the caveat that when that same Labour Government came to power in 1997, they inherited defence spending from us at 3%. Indeed, in talking about so-called austerity, this Government also conveniently forget that the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that, had Labour won the election in 2010, it was planning to cut 25% from the defence budget. At least their Chief Secretary to the Treasury at the time had the good grace to leave a note confessing that there was no money left, once again relying on us to clear up the mess of a Labour Government who had run out of other people’s money, not for the first time in history. The worst thing about Labour’s resorting to history is that it is completely irrelevant. I have repeatedly accepted that defence spending fell under successive Governments since the end of the cold war. That is irrefutable, but it was because the world we lived in was one where we thought peace would last. Today, however, the threat is completely transformed and, instead of looking back, the public want us to confront the challenges we face right now, to be ready for battle and above all to be honest about the choices needed to find the cash for defence. That is why we have started to set out fully funded steps towards spending 3% of GDP on defence, as was last achieved under a Conservative Government. Let us take the example of Chagos, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) did in his very good intervention. Labour Members may delude themselves that, like the parrot in the Monty Python sketch, their Chagos deal is merely resting, and pining for the archipelago, but we know that the deal is dead. It is an ex-treaty. Even if they disagree, with no treaty legislation in the King’s Speech, it must be clear even to them that the hundreds of millions of pounds due to be sent to Mauritius during this Parliament, primarily from the Ministry of Defence budget, must now be available to be spent elsewhere. That is why, earlier this month in Portsmouth, the Leader of the Opposition and I set out that we would use Labour’s Chagos cash for a better purpose: accelerating the construction of the 13 frigates being made in Scotland that we ordered when we were in government. The fact is, there is no other way to address the serious shortage of surface ships in the short term than by accelerating the build of those 13 fantastic new warships. Indeed, just a few days after we set out our policy to do exactly that, lo and behold, HMS Iron Duke was withdrawn from service, confirming the urgent need to act on defence readiness and to be willing to divert cash from elsewhere.

    Hansard source
15. 20 May 2026·Parliament·James Cartlidge

    Defence Readiness

    I think the hon. Lady would be better focusing on the Type 45 destroyers. The former Labour Government were meant to order 12 Type 45s, but they slashed that order in half to just six. Worse than that, in an act of genius they inserted an engine that did not even work and we had to spend years trying to replace it through the power improvement project. On the issue of welfare and defence funding, we have been the first party to explicitly set out how we would reduce benefit expenditure to increase defence spending, with confirmation that we would restore the two-child benefit cap and use the savings for our military. We have also set out plans to move £2 billion a year of research and development funds from other Government Departments to fund drones and drone tech across the board. However, if we are to become the world leader in uncrewed warfare that I still believe we can be, not least after our extraordinary support for Ukraine, we do not just need our services to have the cash to test and train; we also need to invest billions into transforming our defence industrial base.

    Hansard source
16. 20 May 2026·Parliament·James Cartlidge

    Defence Readiness

    I give way to my right hon. Friend, who is an expert on the industrial base.

    Hansard source
17. 20 May 2026·Parliament·James Cartlidge

    Defence Readiness

    I am aware that timelines are an issue on a couple of dimensions in the Chamber at the moment, so I will come to my conclusion shortly. My right hon. Friend asks a fundamental question about the Royal Navy when we know we have shortages of surface ships. I hope the Minister will set out exactly how many Type 26s we will order irrespective of the Norway deal. I support the Norway export deal. How many will we be ordering in addition to that? The written answer he gave me was very ambiguous. We need to get that extra money into the industrial base, which is why our alternative King’s Speech has a sovereign defence fund Bill. There is one other important Bill in our alternative King’s Speech: our promise to repeal Labour’s terrible Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. It is not enough to oppose Labour’s lawfare; we would restore full legal protections for our veterans, boosting morale and sending a signal that we will always have the back of those who serve. The public know that it is madness at a time of war for the UK Government to be prioritising putting our soldiers back in the dock for serving their country. That is why our motion today calls on this House to reject Labour’s plans and scrap the troubles Bill. We will always defend those who defended us.

    Hansard source
18. 20 May 2026·Parliament·James Cartlidge

    Defence Readiness

    The hon. Gentleman is always very generous in giving way. He says that the Liberal Democrats would issue war bonds for the extra defence spending, which is just other borrowing. He has also said that he would maintain aid spending at 0.7%, which is a huge increase in spending. How would that be funded?

    Hansard source
19. 20 May 2026·Parliament·James Cartlidge

    Defence Readiness

    One of the most critical issues in defence at the moment is the munitions position. Obviously, we did not publish it; we were not allowed to as it is a highly sensitive document. I cannot state what the figures were. We had a general election and we became the Opposition. However—[Interruption.] Madam Deputy Speaker, I am being intervened on as I intervene. To be clear on the 14 years point—I hope that those on the Government Benches agree with this—we gave a vast amount of munitions to Ukraine. We did that to protect Europe so that we did not end up with a situation where Russia conquered Ukraine early. It was the right thing to do, but it left massive gaps in the inventory that we were filling. If we had become the Government, we had a plan ready to go and it was funded by cutting the civil service. That is why Labour Members did not like it. The way that we were going to pay for it is something that no Labour party could agree with.

    Hansard source
20. 20 May 2026·Parliament·Graham Stuart

    Banking Hubs

    The banking and cash hubs in Hornsea, Withernsea and now Hedon in my constituency are fantastic and really work well, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that Lloyds is the only major bank that does not allow the deposit of cheques at post offices and cash and banking hubs, and that that is damaging to the most vulnerable in our society and to the bank’s customers. Will he join me in calling on Lloyds to look at that again, to ensure that people can deposit those cheques? Apps and other approaches do not always meet people’s needs, particularly those of elderly people.

    Hansard source
21. 20 May 2026·Parliament·Esther McVey

    Engagements

    Q11. For the purpose of clarity, does the Prime Minister agree with Andy Burnham when he says we should rejoin the European Union, or does he agree with Andy Burnham when he says we should not rejoin the European Union?

    Hansard source
22. 20 May 2026·Parliament·Esther McVey

    Processed Russian Oil Products: Sanctions

    Can the Minister explain why the Government see fit to ban new licences to drill for oil and gas in the North sea—which would have provided the UK with energy security, affordability, reliability and tax revenue—while buying oil from Russia, which is a betrayal of UK citizens and Ukrainian citizens, and playing into Putin’s hands?

    Hansard source
23. 20 May 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Defence Readiness

    To be charitable to the Government, there is actually £34 billion that could be spent in defence, given that they had another U-turn on the Chagos deal. Maybe there is a delay in the plan because they are trying to decide how to spend that money, or can my hon. Friend think of another reason?

    Hansard source
24. 20 May 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Defence Readiness

    I posed this question to the Minister’s colleague, the Minister for the Armed Forces, when he was last at the Dispatch Box: where is the DIP stuck? He seemed to point the finger at the Treasury, but can I get an update on where the DIP is actually stuck?

    Hansard source
25. 20 May 2026·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

    Child Protection Online

    Does the Secretary of State regret having been forced into a ban on social media for under-16s during proceedings on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026, rather than having committed to a ban the first place, or introducing a Bill in the King’s Speech?

    Hansard source
26. 20 May 2026·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

    Banking Hubs

    It is really interesting hearing about these rural-urban splits. My constituency is very much on the urban fringe, yet we are really struggling. We have been trying to get branches in Chertsey and Addlestone, and we had one in Cobham that recently closed down. This sounds like an issue that affects people everywhere, irrespective of rurality, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for taking forward this debate.

    Hansard source
27. 20 May 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Defence Readiness

    I follow the Minister’s words, as always, with much interest. Has he had a conversation with the former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), who last Thursday spoke of dither and delay, and does he relate that to the extraordinary delay in the defence investment plan?

    Hansard source
28. 20 May 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Defence Readiness

    Will the hon. Gentleman remind the House which party it was that insisted we delay the replacement of the continuous at sea deterrent by two full years as a condition of the coalition?

    Hansard source
29. 20 May 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Defence Readiness

    May I genuinely congratulate the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) on a remarkable speech and wish him well in his future ambitions? His speech and its content were, I am afraid, not as germane as the contribution of the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), who chairs the Defence Committee. I agree with everything that he had to say; I only regret that I could not put it as elegantly as him. The resignation letter of the right hon. Member for Ilford North is worth reading, and I am sure that Members on the Treasury Bench will have read it closely. He wrote on Thursday that “where we need vision, we have a vacuum. Where we need direction, we have drift”, and that should worry the Government. I agree with him, and I am thinking in particular of the defence investment plan, which we have not seen. I am conscious that the defence readiness Bill, which we were expecting in this King’s Speech, has yet to materialise, and that is of deep and profound concern. In the 1930s, we arguably faced a similar situation to what we are up against now, and the Government of the day decided about five years in advance of the outbreak of the second world war that they must gear up our defence industrial base for the future. They created things such as shadow factories, initially with opposition from industry. Those were centred largely, at least initially, on the automotive industry and the production of aircraft, but went on to extend much further than that. It was a truly co-operative venture that led eventually to this country being able to turn out more aircraft in those early years than Germany could. I would have thought that this Government would have learned those lessons and now be bringing forward, as a matter of urgency, its own defence readiness Bill. The Government have missed an opportunity, and I am sorry about that, because there is no shadow of a doubt that industry is being held back, as has already been mentioned this afternoon, in its ambition to partner with the Ministry of Defence and with Ministers to get things going, whether that is reprovisioning what we have rightly sent to Ukraine or fitting our armed forces for the future. Some have already mentioned hollowing out. It is worth saying that in 1989, every country in the western world was taking a peace dividend. It would have been extraordinary had they not, and they would have been punished by the voters, but that was then. The big lesson I have learned from what has happened in the years since 1989 is that Governments can afford to titrate what they provide in order to defend this country against the threats facing it—although that is never popular electorally—but they must do nothing to reduce the armed forces below an irreducible minimum, so that armed forces can regrow rapidly, as happened in the years immediately preceding 1914 and 1939. Governments must also do nothing that will damage long-term projects, because procurement is not something that can be turned on and off like a tap—procurement takes decades. I think we have learned from that mistake. One of the mistakes that the previous Government made was delaying the Dreadnought class. That was because, as I referred to in the intervention that the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) generously allowed me to make, of pressure from our then partner in the coalition Government. Right now we are facing the prospect of our principal ally, the United States, backing off in terms of its support for us and our European allies. We can no longer entirely rely on that on which we previously relied heavily. If, as seems likely, the United States proceeds with this particular course of action, we will be the only provider of a nuclear deterrent declared to NATO, and it is therefore important that in the defence readiness Bill—when we see it—we have a reaffirmed commitment to reprovisioning the continuous at-sea deterrent apace. Much work has been done in respect of infrastructure and at the Atomic Weapons Establishment, but we are still facing a rundown Vanguard class that is obliged to go on patrol for upwards of 200 days, with a consequent impact on the men and, now, women who man the submarine service. Of all the pinch point trades in our armed forces, it is those in the submarine service that should keep us awake at night. It is imperative that we accelerate that programme. I also ask Ministers to look at the F-35A provision, and to agree with me that providing 12 airframes is hardly sufficient given the threat that we now face. I need to know, I should like to know, and I am sure the whole House would like to know when the F-35As will be operational, as opposed to the provision of training airframes. Is it the intention of the Government to expedite that programme? Is it the intention of the Government to exploit the option that they have kept open to have more than 12 of those airframes, and will Ministers confirm that they will be nuclear-enabled? I strongly urge Ministers to consider the sovereign defence fund Bill in the alternative King’s Speech, which would repurpose the National Wealth Fund to overhaul our vital defence industrial base. Governing is about difficult decisions, and it seems to me that defence is a more urgent priority right now than using the fund—in the words of the Government—to help tackle climate change, and, indeed, a more urgent priority than ramping up welfare, as Lord Robertson has made very clear. The defence industrial base will be pretty useless if it is not populated by men and women with the skills that are necessary to deliver what is needed in order to keep this country safe. The youth opportunity Bill, which also features in the alternative King’s Speech, has the kind of imaginative content that I would have expected from an incoming Government who had 14 years to think about these matters. Unfortunately not: all that we had from the Prime Minister on young people on Wednesday was a load of waffle. Time and again, it is as if he is a passive observer rather than an active participant. The youth opportunity Bill explains how genuine investment in our young people will power and grow the economy, delivering a virtuous circle from which everyone benefits. It will cap state funding for pointless, work-irrelevant, badly taught degrees from third-rate institutions that are perpetrating a fraud on a generation, and will grow well-focused apprenticeships such as those offered by Wiltshire College in my constituency. Let me now say a few words about special forces. We must approach these issues with a great deal of care. I am extremely concerned by the messaging that has gone out from this Government in relation to the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill—not so much the case that has been put before the House by the Northern Ireland Office and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland as the way in which it has been received. The Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who is sitting next to the Secretary of State for Defence, will know very well—because his contacts are probably better than mine—that this messaging has caused a degree of disquiet, particularly among units that are crucial to this country’s defence and security. They will perceive that, in years to come, a future Government may decide that what is happening now, and what is acceptable now, is no longer acceptable.

    Hansard source
30. 20 May 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Defence Readiness

    My right hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I absolutely agree with him. This is about more than Northern Ireland, because Northern Ireland has a read-across to a number of theatres where our men and women are actively engaged or could be in the future. The exodus from some of these units will cause irretrievable and irrecoverable damage to our ability to protect the men and women of this country. I have no doubt that Ministers are acting with the best of intentions, but I urge them to look at the messaging that is being given to the men and women of our armed forces, many of whom I have the honour and privilege to represent, and to decide what they can do to address this legislation. I would say “Scrap it and start again”, but if they cannot do that, I ask them to consider what they can do to prevent the idea from gaining penetrance among those units that the Government are simply not on their side, and in any event even if they were, that Governments in the future might, by the standards of the day, decide that what is being done at the moment in the name of the state and in the King’s name was no longer acceptable. Lawfare is a real and present danger to the men and women of our armed forces, and, knowing him as I do, I feel certain that the Secretary of State is cognisant of the threat that it poses. Conscious of the frog in your throat, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall end my remarks there.

    Hansard source
31. 20 May 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Defence Readiness

    I am following the hon. Member’s remarks with a great deal of interest. He mentioned the reserves, and I am a reservist. Would you give the Government credit where it is due for carrying over the Armed Forces Bill, which will advance the age of retirement for reserves to 65, and agree with me that we can probably go further in looking at people, especially the reserves, who are skilled in particular areas and may be able to help us address the challenges of the future, rather than those of the past?

    Hansard source
32. 20 May 2026·Parliament·David Simmonds

    Draft Hampshire and the Solent Combined County Authority Regulations 2026

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. It is also a pleasure to see the Minister in her place. The explanatory note was written in the name of the former Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh). I am sure that the Minister would give the Committee the same assurances as the former Under-Secretary of State about the provisions meeting the relevant standard. The Opposition do not propose to divide the Committee on this delegated legislation. We recognise that this is one of a number of such decisions brought forward, at the invitation of the Government, as local authorities have sought to take advantage of what is the only game in town for them to secure the additional powers and scope that a combined county authority will bring. For the record, we remain sceptical about whether a directly elected mayor is the optimal type of political leadership for all parts of England that currently do not have that arrangement—we acknowledge in particular the diverse geography of the area that we are debating—and whether a single elected individual will be in a position to make effective decisions that enjoy democratic support, which is a significant challenge. Although we do not oppose the regulations, we remain concerned about that. Members will be conscious that a series of local elections took place that will change the political dynamics of the authorities that are set out as party to this agreement, and that those authorities will be subject to boundary changes in future. The Minister will have heard the impassioned pleas, particularly from Members for the New Forest constituencies, to reconsider the impact that those proposed local government boundary changes will have on their local areas and communities. It would be helpful for her to set out for the Committee whether the impact of those changes on subsequent authorities has been considered by the Ministry in its decision-making process. In the regulations, the proposed date for the new mayoral elections is 2028. Only a short time ago, those mayoral elections were due to take place this year. Across the country, political parties selected mayoral candidates and campaigned, but then we saw the frankly incredible shambles of elections being cancelled and then uncancelled as a result of judicial reviews, with mayoral campaigns being stood up and then stood down, all of which has undermined the confidence of those involved in the process about whether the end point is realistic and deliverable. The new unitary authorities within the geographical area to which the regulations relate are due to have elections in 2027. Although I am sure that the Minister is not minded to amend the regulations, I would be grateful if she told the Committee whether she will consider amending the legislation so that, instead of having two separate, dissonant sets of elections, the elections that take place under the new arrangements all take place at the same time in 2027. That would ensure a smooth transition from the powers that are about to be removed—such as those of the office of the police and crime commissioner—to the new arrangements that the mayor will bring in, rather than having a 12-month hiatus in the process. It would also give residents the opportunity, within those democratic processes, to give their judgment on the mayoral proposals and the new unitary authorities, which would come into being at the same time. That would save taxpayer money and result in a smoother and more efficient transition. Finally, the provisions of the 2026 Act include specific prohibitions for those who hold mayoral office from becoming Members of Parliament and vice versa. Will the Minister set out how those provisions will apply to the regulations?

    Hansard source
33. 20 May 2026·Parliament·David Simmonds

    Draft Hampshire and the Solent Combined County Authority Regulations 2026

    Let me pick on the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne made about the evidence on performance. People might feel a certain way about such local authorities, but following reorganisation, Cheshire West and Chester council and Cheshire East council, which the Minister just mentioned, both suffered significant problems with Ofsted inspections and Care Quality Commission inspections of children’s and adults’ social care, requiring significant intervention. It was clear that the disruption inherent in reorganisation had been a major factor in the emergence of those problems. The same was true in Somerset, in Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole, and in a number of other authorities. It would be helpful if the Minister set out the evidence for the performance improvement that she cited.

    Hansard source
34. 20 May 2026·Parliament·David Reed

    Defence Readiness

    It is an honour to wind up the final day of debate on the King’s Speech for His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. We have heard many sterling speeches from Members across this House, and I will turn to some of them shortly. First, however, I want to pose once more the central question of this debate, and ask every Member to answer it honestly: is our national defence truly ready? My honest assessment is no, it is not. War is no longer a matter of history. The international order we have all lived under is fracturing. War has broken out across multiple continents, and rapid technological advancement and the accelerating consequences of climate change are compounding an already dangerous volatility. The world is not as it was, and we cannot afford to govern as though it is. While it is encouraging that so many Members are engaging with this epoch-defining issue, it is equally clear that there is a “corrosive complacency” at the heart of this Government. Those are not my words; they belong to Lord Robertson, a former Labour Defence Secretary and a former NATO Secretary-General and one of the most distinguished voices in this country’s defence establishment. He did not use them lightly, and he directed them squarely at this Prime Minister and this Chancellor. When a man of that stature speaks in those terms about his own party’s Government, this House would do well to listen. More than that, there should be no politics in acknowledging the reality that stares us plainly in the face. Where politics legitimately begins is in the harder questions about where the money comes from and how and what we choose to spend it on. Turning to the speeches, opening the batting was the Chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), and I think we can all agree that he made quite a brave and powerful speech. He laid bare the holes in the Government’s approach to defence in a constructive way, as I have seen him do repeatedly in his work as Chair of his Committee. It was also good to see him wearing his Royal College of Defence Studies tie. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) made an excellent speech, as is to be expected. He touched on the supply chain issues and reliance on China, and I will come back to those points later. The right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) is no longer in his place, but it was quite intimidating to see the Streetonian praetorian guard out in full force. He articulated the weighty issues we face as a country and I seriously hope that defence issues are front and centre of his coup d’état attempts. My right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) illustrated lessons from world war two, and what we need to learn and act on without delay, points that were reinforced by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis). I think we can all agree that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) is doing a fantastic job as trade envoy to Italy. She called out some of the supply chains that she is seeing in her work with Italy around the Global Combat Air Programme and pointed out the Government’s dither regarding the slow release of the defence investment plan. We also had strong contributions from the hon. Members for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) and for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba), my right hon. Friends the Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) and for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), the hon. Members for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor), for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss), for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) and for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie), and my hon. Friends the Members for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) and for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith). There were many more contributions—too many to mention, Madam Deputy Speaker—but it was great to see so many of my constituency neighbours from the south-west. As the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry has championed repeatedly, it is a region that will play a decisive role in our defence readiness going forward. Like many in this House, I am utterly tired, if not bored, of asking when the defence investment plan will be published, and I am not even going to bother asking about the planned defence readiness Bill. The Government set their own deadline last autumn and 10 months on it is still nowhere to be seen. For the large prime contractors, those too big to fail, the calculation is simple: they leverage their workforce and industrial base to force the Government’s hand. But for smaller companies in the supply chain, the picture is far bleaker. With a meagre number of contracts being awarded, they are being starved of work. If they have not already gone out of business, many are reaching the same conclusion: if you want to grow, you have to go. And go they will. The United States and European defence markets are rising to the moment. Companies and finance will follow the business. The Government’s indecision and delay is placing British defence at the back of the queue at precisely the moment when the queue has never mattered more. That leaves me to challenge a phrase used too freely by Defence Ministers: sovereign capability. For many of the areas where we most want to excel, true sovereignty is a myth. The best AI needs the best chips, and we do not own the means of production. Our options are either our American allies or China. I know which one I choose. The Government talk a good game on drones, but most small aerial drone systems depend on neodymium magnets and China controls over 90% of global supply. That is not a supply chain problem; it is a strategic vulnerability. What is truly in our national interest is to identify these dependencies—a point reinforced by the Chair of the Defence Committee, whose Committee is looking at this—and swiftly partner with allies who can help to address them. I do not see that joined-up work happening across the Government. That leads me to the structure of our public defence establishment. We have roughly 55,000 MOD civil servants, yet we recently struggled to deploy a single, partially functional destroyer to protect our sovereign base area in Cyprus, a point expanded on by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells. There are many fantastic civil servants in the MOD—I have personally had the privilege to work alongside a number of them—but I cannot believe I am alone in seeing the imbalance in that equation. Lastly, I turn to our service personnel and veterans. At every UK training establishment, the law of armed conflict is rigorously instilled into every recruit and officer cadet. That legal framework underpins a service person’s conduct throughout their career and on operations. I speak with the lived experience as a former Royal Marine. Where someone transgresses from those rules, they are investigated and if found guilty the full weight of the law is brought to bear, and rightly so. However, the Government must confront an uncomfortable truth. By dragging veterans through the courts decades after the event, as will likely occur under the Government’s Northern Ireland troubles legislation, the process becomes the punishment. Indefinite legal jeopardy, with no discernible end, causes profound and lasting mental anguish. Apply that logic to serving personnel operating in unimaginably violent environments: hesitation in the heat of battle, borne of legal fear rather than military judgments, can cost lives. For most of us in this House, it is impossible to truly comprehend what that means, but we must try. We owe it to the people who place themselves in harm’s way on our behalf to give them the assurance that this House has their back. I want to extend a hand of co-operation to the Government—an olive branch offered by the Leader of the Opposition and carelessly dismissed by the Prime Minister. In this new era of geopolitical instability, we want to support the Government in delivering the defence readiness that this country deserves. The shadow Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), has set out the Conservatives’ proposals clearly. We will continue to work on them, and I hope the Government will receive them in the spirit in which they are intended. Our country needs politicians who can rise to the moment. This is that moment. With that, I wish the Government Godspeed in this new Session, for it is not their party’s fortune that depends on it but our nation’s security.

    Hansard source
35. 20 May 2026·Parliament·David Reed

    Banking Hubs

    I welcome the Minister to her new role. On the criteria, I have pushed for a banking hub in Budleigh Salterton for a great deal of time, but it was pushed back because there is a post office in the town. The post office was closed for 10 weeks last year, and the surrounding rural villages—places such as East Budleigh, Otterton and Colaton Raleigh—were starved of cash. Will the Minister meet with me to look at the criteria that Link has put in place around the post office’s suitability to see if we can get that overturned?

    Hansard source
36. 20 May 2026·Parliament·Dame Caroline Dinenage

    Defence Readiness

    When is the plan going to happen? I represent the constituency with the highest proportion of veterans in the UK. They take a keen interest in what goes on in our armed forces. We look across Portsmouth harbour to ships that are sat stationary, not going anywhere, and see a defence industry that is being undermined at every step. When will the Government actually put their words into action?

    Hansard source
37. 20 May 2026·Parliament·Dame Caroline Dinenage

    Defence Readiness

    You will almost be bored with hearing me say, Madam Deputy Speaker—as will the Secretary of State—that I represent Gosport, which has one of the highest proportions of veterans in the UK, but we also have fantastic servicemen and women at sites such as HMS Collingwood, HMS Sultan, the Institute of Naval Medicine and, across the harbour, Portsmouth naval base, as well as thousands more who work in the defence industry. Although we have such a proud history of serving the nation, many of my constituents already feel deeply disillusioned and let down by this Government. Why? Quite simply, because of their failure to deliver. Inaction could be their strapline. There is a total disparity between what is said and what is done, and defence is a perfect example of that. The Government talk of defence spending, but the Secretary of State knows that, as we speak, every single corner of our armed forces is being asked to find cuts—and where is the defence investment plan, the clear signal that defence companies in my constituency need in order to make spending decisions to protect jobs and livelihoods? It is nowhere to be seen. This theme of over-promising and under-delivering extends to a range of other sectors. Because I chair the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, I want to say a little about that sector, which contributes 16 times more to the UK economy than defence manufacturing. Formula 1, for example, is a global British brand that is worth £12 billion to the UK economy. However, our world-class major events sector is being held back by gaps in legislation—and what do the Government do? They come forward with the Sporting Events Bill announced in the King’s Speech, which was a brilliant idea, but the Bill has very limited scope. It does nothing to address the wider needs of the major events industry, which is so valuable to the British economy. In particular, cultural and business events are vital to our economy, our communities and our international standing. All words, no action. Then there is the lack of ambition in relation to ticket touts. The ticket tout ban Bill was announced in November. The Government promised a “ready to go” Bill that would put fans first, but they have relegated that promise to a mere draft Bill, kicking the can into the next parliamentary Session at the very earliest. The longer it takes for the Government to act, the longer touts will be able to rinse fans in my constituency and throughout the country to the tune of approximately £145 million, most of which goes to overseas operators. All words, no action. Then there is touring in the EU. In the ongoing psychodrama gripping the Labour party, I note that the subject of Brexit is back on the agenda and is a hot topic, but there is so much that the Government could do for our creative industries without reopening that can of worms and starting to renegotiate Brexit. They could revisit their decision to cut orchestral tax relief for EU touring. They could ensure that A1 forms are processed without delay, so that artists do not have to make double social security contributions. They could help with the cost of ATA carnets, which the Association of British Orchestras says adds about £10,000 to an orchestra’s budget. All words, no action. Let us look at school and community sport. The King’s Speech contained absolutely no new measures to improve physical activity. There has been no resolution of the stand-off between the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Education and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport over cuts to physical education funding. If we are serious about getting our country more active, we need action, not words. That needs to begin with legislative changes to increase participation, to increase investment in the facilities on which communities rely, and to require schools to prioritise physical education alongside academic attainment. The case is clear: a more active nation is healthier, more productive and, ultimately, more prosperous. Once again: all words, no action. There is nothing in the King’s Speech for young people. The Culture Secretary has made her national youth strategy her stated legacy in the Department, but as far as I can see, all the Government have done is rip up the National Citizen Service. They have overseen the exodus of youth workers from the third sector and replaced them with nothing but a slogan. The Culture Secretary says that young people want “somewhere to go, something to do and someone who cares”, but it is all words. There is no action. Do this Government care at all? They must begin to back up words with deeds. The King’s Speech does not even begin to provide the ambition necessary to maximise the potential of our culture, media and sport, or to back our veterans and those who work so hard in constituencies like mine in the service of our nation. Meanwhile, the British economy, people’s livelihoods and jobs are suffering.

    Hansard source
38. 20 May 2026·Parliament·Charlie Dewhirst

    EU Regulatory Alignment: Science and Technology

    2. What discussions she has had with the science and technology sector on closer regulatory alignment with the EU.

    Hansard source
39. 20 May 2026·Parliament·Charlie Dewhirst

    EU Regulatory Alignment: Science and Technology

    European tech leaders in some member states are concerned that the EU’s approach to digital regulation is strangling their ability to compete. Will the Minister rule out binding the UK tech industry to a legal framework that could stifle growth in this vital area of the economy?

    Hansard source
40. 20 May 2026·Parliament·Charlie Dewhirst

    Bridlington Care Unit

    The proposed rushed closure of the care unit at Bridlington hospital in my constituency is deeply concerning and must not go ahead. The unit provides vital short-stay rehabilitation close to home, especially for elderly residents, avoiding unnecessary travel to Scarborough or York for care or for relatives’ visits. Some 5,784 local residents have signed my petition in-person and online against the closure, in the light of Bridlington’s rapidly growing population, especially the over-65s. The petition states: “The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to urgently instruct both NHS Humber and North Yorkshire Integrated Care Board and York and Scarborough Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust not to close the Bridlington Care Unit; and further to urge the Government to work with the various health providers and the Bridlington Health Forum to in fact actively expand the range of services available at Bridlington.” Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of East Yorkshire, Declares that the proposed closure of the Bridlington Care Unit is deeply concerning and must not go ahead; further declares that Bridlington Hospital has successfully achieved accreditation as an elective surgical hub and has potential to increase the number of operations delivered on site, as it did during Covid; further declares that York and Scarborough are already at capacity with patients; and further declares that redeploying staff from Bridlington to other NHS facilities in Scarborough and York will extra incur costs to the trust. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to urgently instruct both NHS Humber and North Yorkshire Integrated Care Board and York and Scarborough Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust not to close the Bridlington Care Unit; and further to urge the Government to work with the various health providers and the Bridlington Health Forum to in fact actively expand the range of services available at Bridlington. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003202]

    Hansard source