Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Harriet Cross

   Clean Energy Transition: Supporting People in Work

   This Government are not supporting workers in the oil and gas sector in north-east Scotland and Aberdeen; they are supporting workers in the oil and gas sectors of Norway, Qatar, America and even now Russia. The recent energy transition survey from the Aberdeen and Grampian chamber of commerce showed that 37% of respondents had seen staff or colleagues move abroad. What will it take for this Government to see the damage they are doing and end their ban on new licences, end the energy profits levy, permit Rosebank and Jackdaw, and get Britain drilling again?

   Hansard source
2. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Greg Smith

   Household Energy Bills

   Labour came to office with bold promises to cut energy bills, but in the real world we have seen bills go up, up and up again. In answer to the first question, the Secretary of State said that he wanted to do all he could to cut energy bills, so here are some ideas for how he could do so. He could scrap carbon taxes, he could remove VAT from energy for three years, and he could scrap legacy renewable subsidies—that would save people £200. It is called the Conservatives’ cheap energy plan and, in the national interest, we do not mind if he steals it. Will he?

   Hansard source
3. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Greg Smith

   Milburn Review: Interim Report

   I listened carefully to the Minister’s answers to Conservative Members on national insurance, business rates and the Employment Rights Act, but I fear the Minister has been, at best, attempting to dance on the head of a pin. If he wants to come to Mid Buckinghamshire, I can take him to business after business that desperately want to take on new apprentices and young people, and would love to use the incentives of the national insurance provisions for under-21s, but cannot because of the overall impact of taxation from this Government, not least national insurance rises on employment. Can he at least accept that it is the overall impact and not the incentive that is the problem?

   Hansard source
4. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Graham Stuart

   Climate-related Transition Plan

   The people of Skidby, Little Weighton and Walkington are not opposed to the clean energy transition, yet 90% of them are opposing the 2,500-acre clean air solar farm that is swamping that area, in conjunction with other such farms. They are against multiple large-scale solar developments industrialising productive farmland, including grade 2 and 3a land, undermining food security, and permanently altering rural communities. Will the Minister give the House an undertaking that, if the Secretary of State will stop chuntering, he will look at the issue with an open mind and listen, properly, to the people of that area?

   Hansard source
5. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

   Community Pharmacies

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine, and I thank the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) for securing this important debate. It is important that we discuss community pharmacies, given their place not only in the health landscape but in the hearts of many of my constituents and people across the nation. I, too, have visited multiple pharmacies, both in my shadow role and as an MP, and I, too, went to my local pharmacy for my flu jab, back in Newbold Verdon. I am very grateful to them because I found the system very easy to use and to get into. It is really important to see that system change that makes it more accessible and easier for people to make the choice to improve their own health and protect others. There are positives in this debate that we must celebrate. Community pharmacies are one of the most accessible parts of our health service. For millions of patients, particularly older ones, those with long-term conditions or those living in rural communities, the local pharmacy is often the front door to the NHS. They provide expert advice, dispense vital medicines, support prevention and increasingly deliver clinical services that help to reduce pressure on GPs and hospitals—as a former GP, I am very grateful for that—and that is why this debate is so important. Ministers want community pharmacies to do more, but I worry that, at the same time, they are actually making it harder for pharmacies to survive. This debate is timely, given that the Government agreed the community pharmacy contractual framework for 2026-27 last Friday. I expect that the Minister will reference that, but I will let Community Pharmacy England’s response speak for itself: “Accepting this deal does not mean we think it is enough—for this year or the future.” It went on to say: “It means the opposite…the sector is in a critical position, and that we now need urgent work on a sustainable long-term solution, including reform of the contract, funding and reimbursement model.” Given the Government’s enthusiasm for reviews and long-term plans, I would be grateful if the Minister updated us on what meetings he will have to work on the framework and the wider funding model, along with what changes we can expect and in what kind of time. The reality is that pharmacies continue to face mounting financial pressures, many related to the Government’s tax rises. Over the last two years, the Government have made a conscious choice not to exempt community pharmacies from their taxes and have even voted against that. In the first year of this Labour Government, pharmacies faced higher employer national insurance contributions alongside increases in the national living wage. In the second year, they have lost the temporary business rates support that they relied on, with the replacement not matching the rise in their costs. The sector is clear that much of the additional funding announced through the new framework will simply be absorbed by those rising costs. The headline findings from Community Pharmacy England’s latest “Pharmacy Pressures” survey, due to be published later this month, show that 100% of pharmacies report that costs are higher than at this time last year and that three quarters are losing money, while 86% say that it is taking longer to procure medicines and 76% say that patients are already being directly impacted by the pressures on their businesses. The National Pharmacy Association put it plainly last Friday when it said it was concerned that much of the funding increase will need to be spent on increased costs, including national living wage contributions, inflation and business rates rises, “rather than addressing chronic under-funding”. Those figures tell a simple story. The Government are asking pharmacies to do more while making it more expensive for them to keep their doors open. What discussions has the Minister had with the Chancellor regarding business rates for community pharmacies? Has he even raised the sector’s concerns with the Chancellor, and if so, what response did he receive? Will he press for a package of support similar to that made available to other sectors such as pubs, to help with those pressures? The rising costs also cast a shadow over the Government’s plan to expand independent prescribing through community pharmacy. We can all see that independent prescribing has enormous potential. It could improve patient access to care, make better use of pharmacists’ clinical expertise and help to deliver the Government’s ambition of shifting care from hospitals into the community. But the sector itself is not convinced that the necessary investment is in place. Community Pharmacy England has said: “we are not persuaded that sufficient investment is being made to enable the full and effective introduction of IP…given the workload, enhanced clinical responsibility, clinical governance and infrastructure requirements that it will entail.” It went on to warn that “the addition of IP to the CPCF risked being set up to fail.” That should concern us all in this Chamber. If pharmacies are expected to become a cornerstone of neighbourhood healthcare, as set out in the NHS 10-year plan, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that the necessary workforce, governance and infrastructure are in place to support that ambition? What response does the Minister have to those concerns, and what steps will he take to ensure that independent prescribing is the success we all want it to be? Alongside the financial pressures, pharmacies continue to face significant challenges in the medicine supply chain. Analysis by the National Pharmacy Association earlier this year highlighted rising prices for a number of cancer medicines and concerns about the impact on availability. At the same time, the number of medicine price concessions has reached record levels. There were 204 concessions agreed in April, surpassing the previous record set only a month earlier. Community Pharmacy England has now confirmed a new record of 219 concessions for May, with further requests still under negotiation. Behind those numbers are real patients facing delays, uncertainties and difficulties accessing the medicines that they need. Community Pharmacy England has warned that those figures reflect the continuing fragility of medicine supplies in the supply chain and that the wider instability from the middle east crisis is adding pressure. Of course, I cannot hold the Government responsible for that, but it is their duty to look at that volatility and to reassure patients and the sector that resilience is being put in place and measures are being looked at. I would be grateful for an update from the Minister on what that looks like. Before I conclude, I will raise an important point that is affecting dispensing practices. We have not talked about those today, but they are part of the real fabric of the community network. Dispensing GPs provide essential primary care medicine supplies to 10 million patients in remote, rural and coastal communities, where access to a community pharmacy is limited. For many patients, they are the primary point of access to medicines. Earlier this year, dispensing practices were informed that the central NHS England funding for the EMIS web dispensing module would cease and that the costs would instead be passed directly to the practices. The proposal generated significant concern among dispensing practices, the British Medical Association and the Dispensing Doctors’ Association. Concerns centred on the lack of consultation, the timing of the changes and the potential impact on the sustainability of dispensing services. Following representations from the sector, implementation has now been paused and central funding has continued. I welcome that decision. However, the uncertainty created caused understandable concerns for practices, their patients and the planning of future services, particularly for those in rural communities. When I wrote to the Minister to raise that issue, he responded that an assessment will take place this year of the long-term provision of dispensing modules and that NHS England will consult relevant bodies such as the Dispensing Doctors’ Association as part of that. Will the Minister provide further details on that assessment today? What criteria will be used? Who else is being consulted? If NHS England is going, who will take that work on? When can dispensing practices expect greater certainty about future arrangements? I would also be grateful if the Minister addressed concerns about the discount abatement—what is called the clawback system. Dispensing practices continue to argue that the current arrangement creates inequalities for them compared with community pharmacies. Equally, community pharmacies are upset about the clawback, so there is an obvious tension. Given that the Government are looking at the long-term structure, I would be grateful if the Minister took that away and considered how we can modernise that aspect to ensure that there is equity in the system as well as an understanding from both sides. Ministers have made it clear that they want pharmacies to play a greater role in prevention and neighbourhood healthcare and in reducing pressures elsewhere in the NHS. We in the Opposition agree, yet throughout this debate we have heard concerns from across the sector about rising costs, medicine supplies, independent prescribing and dispensing services. The question is whether Government policy is keeping pace with the expectations being placed on pharmacies, or whether Ministers are making it harder for the sector to deliver the growth and innovation they say they want to see. Community pharmacies have repeatedly demonstrated their value to patients in the wider health service. I therefore look forward to hearing from the Minister how he intends to address those concerns and provide greater confidence to a sector that remains vital to communities up and down this land.

   Hansard source
6. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

   Community Pharmacies

   The Minister points to the important partnership between community pharmacies and dispensing GPs. There are concerns about the change in the EMIS module and the future for dispensing practices. If the Minister does not have the answers here, will he write to me about what is happening with EMIS and where he is looking to take dispensing practices in the future?

   Hansard source
7. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

   Murder of Henry Nowak

   “I’ve been stabbed” versus “He racially abused me.” How are the Government going to rebuild public confidence in our culture and in institutions that have attempted to rank people according to perceived oppression, rather than judging each person on their actions and on reality?

   Hansard source
8. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

   Deep Geothermal Energy

   2. What steps he is taking to help support the development of deep geothermal energy.

   Hansard source
9. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

   Deep Geothermal Energy

   Deep geothermal has great potential for left-behind communities in this country, and it is a first-class transition industry for our oil and gas workforce. I welcome the Minister’s comments and the positive engagement with the Minister in the other place, who is a huge champion of deep geothermal, but the message from industry is that that is not enough, and that the funds that the Minister mentions are not doing the job. A deep geothermal strategy, giving the Government’s vote of confidence in deep geothermal, could go a long way, and would not necessarily cost very much. Industry tells us that that in itself would drive growth. Will the Government consider a strategy for deep geothermal?

   Hansard source
10. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

    Preparedness for National Emergencies

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) on securing this important debate. Given the number of hon. Members here, we could have had a three-hour debate on his wide-ranging speech. I will be brief so colleagues can get in. In Runnymede and Weybridge, we have flooding incidents almost every year. Thankfully, they are often not huge, but sometimes they very much are. The local resilience forum exists to deal with the really big emergencies, but we often have what I call sub-acute flooding events—where there is enough flooding to cause risk to properties and people, but not enough to trigger an LRF major response. The problem for people facing flooding incidents is that Floodline operates as a telephone directory. The roads are dealt with by the county council. The Environment Agency deals with the direct response. The fire service deals with emergency rescue. The local authorities, Runnymede borough council or Elmbridge borough council, deal with different responses. We have Affinity Water, which is for direct freshwater coming to people’s homes, and we have Thames Water, which deals with the drainage. Each is responsible for a different bit. We have the county council, which leads on overall flood preparedness. It is too disjointed. What we need locally, and also nationally, are flood control centres that can bring all these different organisations together to co-ordinate a flood response. A few years ago, during the last big flood that we had while I have been an MP, my team and I ended up dealing with a lot of the flood response and communicating directly with people. I am very happy to do that, but we need a flood control centre to be able to do so. I think that would help our national resilience. MPs, broadly speaking, have a role in being embedded in our communities. We usually know what is happening at all different levels and we have key contacts on the ground. On that basis, for the local resilience response, does the Minister agree that MPs should have direct access to local resilience forum chairs, both before and during an emergency event?

    Hansard source
11. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

    Preparedness for National Emergencies

    Will the Minister give way?

    Hansard source
12. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

    Topical Questions

    T2. Why does the Secretary of State think that Tony Blair is so critical of his policies?

    Hansard source
13. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Armed Forces Bill

    I am sure the Minister will like to pay tribute to Alabaré, which does great work for service veterans in and around my constituency. However, will he ensure that we do not give the false impression that all veterans are homeless and have mental health problems? Nothing could be further from the truth. Happily, the great majority of people leaving our armed forces are well sorted in their life, and in robust mental health. That is important, since we need to attract people to join our armed forces and our reserve forces, not deter them or put them off.

    Hansard source
14. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Armed Forces Bill

    One area that will blight the lives of many of my right hon. Friend’s constituents as it does mine is, of course, primary care dentistry. People can move from one end of the country to another into a dental desert—Wiltshire is one of those. Does he think that there is a case for putting a duty on integrated care boards to translate people’s position with an NHS dentist—where they are lucky enough to find one—to their new area? I am thinking particularly of Wiltshire and the shortage of places, especially for service children and the partners of service personnel.

    Hansard source
15. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Armed Forces Bill

    I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way; he is being very indulgent. I agree with him and—with respect—not with the Minister, because my recollection from being the Minister at the time was that there was a shortage of officers to populate court martial boards. When in office, we ensured that the process was service agnostic, which gave a bigger pool from which to draw. Would it be a compromise to allow retired officers of a certain seniority or length of time out of service, since that would maintain the currency that clearly is troubling the Minister? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Minister is right to require OR-7s, as well as warrant officers, to serve on court martial boards since that would expand the pool of people available?

    Hansard source
16. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Armed Forces Bill

    I am concerned by the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. We have the continuous attitude survey, which does its work every year and delivers to Ministers a clear account of what is keeping people in and what is driving them away. Is he seriously proposing another set of reviews, which would add very little to what we already know?

    Hansard source
17. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Armed Forces Bill

    The question is surely whether victims are given a choice. At the moment, they are. The prosecutors’ protocol usually means that these cases are tried through the civilian criminal justice system. That is fine, but does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that justice delayed is justice denied? Through the service justice system, these cases are brought to a conclusion far more rapidly than they currently are in our civilian criminal justice system.

    Hansard source
18. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Armed Forces Bill

    I am privileged to be called in this debate. I start by declaring my interests as a reservist and as the author of a book called “Tommy This an’ Tommy That: The military covenant”—which is sadly no longer in print, but is available, I am told, from good charity shops. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois). said, the covenant is not about advantaging the men and women of our armed forces, but about not disadvantaging them. It is important to make that clear. Servicemen and servicewomen do not expect to be given anything particularly; they are usually the greatest pragmatists going and do not expect that at all. However, they do expect not to be messed around, if that can be avoided. Much of what is in the Bill, as is always the case now with armed forces Bills, is trying to mitigate some of the disadvantages that they necessarily have to put up with by virtue of the unique circumstances that they find themselves in.

    Hansard source
19. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Armed Forces Bill

    Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to look at the report published by techUK, which represents a lot of small and medium-sized companies in the defence tech sector, and seen what it has to say, objectively, about the number of jobs that are being lost in the sector, the lack of investment in the sector, the pressure that its members are coming under and the sector’s lack of viability given this continued, unbearable delay? It needs certainty. When are we going to have it?

    Hansard source
20. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·David Reed

    Milburn Review: Interim Report

    The social contract that we all had growing up was, “Work hard and you get ahead.” Now artificial intelligence is ripping that apart, and young people do not understand what their relationship is with the state. How would the Minister describe the new deal with young people?

    Hansard source
21. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Damian Hinds

    Milburn Review: Interim Report

    This is an important piece of work from Alan Milburn, but what principles will underpin the Government’s approach? Does the Minister think that, other things being equal, if we increase the cost of employing people, then that will come at the expense of jobs? Does he think that, with slack in the labour market, if we do things such as reducing probation periods at a time when the cost of employing younger people without experience is going up anyway, that will mean that those young people are less likely to be given the opportunities and the vacancies that exist?

    Hansard source
22. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Claire Coutinho

    Transition from Fossil Fuels: Progress

    I have a very simple question. Everybody in this House knows we will need gas for decades to come, so for once, can the Minister give a straight answer? Which is better for the environment: going to a country 1,000 miles away, fracking the gas, freezing the gas, shipping it and reheating it, or just piping it in straight from the North sea?

    Hansard source
23. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Claire Coutinho

    Topical Questions

    I would like to offer my condolences to the Secretary of State on the death of his mother. It is clear that she was a remarkable woman, clearly much loved by her family. I have a yes-or-no question for the Secretary of State: can he guarantee that not a single solar panel put on a British primary school by his Government has been produced by Chinese slave labour?

    Hansard source
24. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Claire Coutinho

    Topical Questions

    Well, there were words there, but there was no guarantee, so let me just remind the House that the Secretary of State has sold his entire agenda as being one of providing moral leadership to the rest of the world, but there is no moral leadership in sending British children to schools powered by Chinese slaves. On 2 May, our electricity grid almost breached its frequency limit. That has the potential to cause nationwide blackouts. The Secretary of State’s plans are making it harder and harder to balance the grid—there is no denying that—so can he confirm who is legally accountable if we have a blackout, thanks to grid instability, and what repercussions would that person face?

    Hansard source
25. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Chris Philp

    Murder of Henry Nowak

    I thank the Home Secretary, and you, Mr Speaker, for ensuring that the Government came to the House today. The murder of Henry Nowak is devastating for his family. He was an innocent young man on the way home when he was brutally killed. Henry’s family have suffered an unimaginable loss, and I know the thoughts of the whole House will be with them all. The evil murderer Vickrum Digwa lied from start to finish, including in a false allegation of racism. On arriving at the scene, the police appeared more concerned with the accusation of racism, and even the possibility that Digwa was injured, than with helping Henry. Henry told the police that he could not breathe nine times. He told them that he had been stabbed four times. The response from the officer, which we have all heard, was, “I don’t think you have, mate.” Henry was handcuffed and dragged across the ground as he lay dying. Can you imagine what he must have felt as he cried out for help and was ignored—as the officers who should have worked to save him instead handcuffed him and inquired after the welfare of his killer, standing just inches away? Henry’s dad Mark said: “Henry did not die with dignity. He did not die with the care he deserved. He lost consciousness before anyone believed him.” We need the IOPC to urgently and transparently report on how it was that the police attending were more concerned with the accusation of racism than with helping a dying man. We cannot tolerate a situation in which false allegations of racism by criminals are believed. We cannot allow the colour of someone’s skin to be a consideration in how the police or other public services treat people, yet that has happened. Just recently, we learned that Valdo Calocane, who murdered three people in Nottingham, was not sectioned by mental health professionals because they thought there was “an over-representation of young black males in mental health detention”. The consequent failure to section Valdo Calocane, in part because he was black, led directly to the murder of three innocent people. The headteacher of Axel Rudakubana was accused of racist stereotyping when she described Rudakubana as a threat to safety, and the risk assessment was watered down. Rudakubana, of course, went on to stab and murder three young girls at a Southport dance class. This has not happened by accident; it is enshrined in the police’s own policy documents. The police anti-racism commitment, published in March 2025 by the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing, urges police forces to reverse-engineer arrest rates for ethnic groups so that those rates are the same, even though the offending rates are different, by treating different ethnic groups differently. Let that sink in for a moment: an official police document actually says that people should be treated differently based on the colour of their skin. I have said before at this Dispatch Box—at least twice—that that document should be withdrawn. The dangerous ideology of so-called anti-racism, which allows people to be treated differently based on race, must end. Extreme activists have hijacked the policymaking process, and this is where that has led. It has no place in policing; it has no place anywhere. Does the Home Secretary agree that the so-called police anti-racism commitment must urgently be withdrawn? It is morally wrong and dangerous. Police forces must focus on catching criminals and keeping the public safe. They must simply treat everyone exactly the same. I will finish with the words yesterday of Mark Nowak, Henry’s father. He said: “Henry was 18. He was kind, ambitious, loved and full of promise. He had his whole life ahead of him. That future was stolen from him, and no verdict or sentence will ever give it back.” It is true that nothing can bring Henry back, but let us ensure that no one ever again experiences what Henry did in his last tragic moments.

    Hansard source
26. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Armed Forces Bill

    Order. May I reiterate the comments made by the Chairman of Ways and Means earlier? The point that the hon. Lady and others have raised is not in the scope of this Bill, so perhaps it is best if we move on.

    Hansard source
27. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Armed Forces Bill

    I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

    Hansard source
28. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Armed Forces Bill

    I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

    Hansard source
29. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Chinese-manufactured Solar Panels

    13. What assessment he has made of the potential implications for his policies of the use of Chinese-manufactured solar panels by Great British Energy.

    Hansard source
30. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Chinese-manufactured Solar Panels

    The Xinjiang Uyghur region of China is estimated to provide 45% of the world’s solar-grade polysilicon. An estimated 68% of UK panels come from China, and two thirds of NHS trusts are dependent on Chinese solar. The Government have said that GB Energy is committed to having a supply chain free from slave labour by spring 2025, but a Politico investigation has revealed that five out of seven of the contracts that GB Energy has provided for schools cannot guarantee that they are free from forced labour. The GB solar stewardship initiative pledges to ensure that there is no slave labour, but there is no guarantee of 100% elimination of slave labour from the supply chain. What will the Government do to reduce slave labour in supply chains and wean the UK off Chinese-made infrastructure?

    Hansard source
31. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Milburn Review: Interim Report

    Last week I met Sophie and Matt, two young entrepreneurs aged 24 and 19 who have bucked the trend and opened Toploaf Bakery, but they are already terrified about the long-term viability of their business. I hear this time and again from entrepreneurs who say they have nothing left in the tank—pressure put on them by this Government means that they are at risk of closing their business. When are the Government going to start listening to those who actually employ people?

    Hansard source
32. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Bob Blackman

    Milburn Review: Interim Report

    The Minister must understand that to create the jobs that we need, we must encourage the private sector to invest. In my constituency, every single hospitality venue has halved the number of staff it employs. When I ask why, the answers are national insurance, non-domestic rates and the new Employment Rights Act. Extending the national insurance holiday, as it were, from age 21 to 24 would enable people who leave school to get a job, enable those who leave university to get a job, and de-risk taking on young people for employers.

    Hansard source
33. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

    Topical Questions

    By now, the Secretary of State will be well aware of my opposition to the 1,900 acre East Park Energy solar farm in my constituency. We are now at the business end of the planning process; the application is before the Planning Inspectorate, ahead of a decision by the Secretary of State later this year. Will he outline roughly when he expects to have to take a decision on the application? Ahead of that, will he meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) to discuss our concern that it is not the right solution for our area and our constituents?

    Hansard source
34. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

    Armed Forces Bill

    I welcome the introduction of the strategic reserve in the Bill, but I would like clarity on how it will be paid for. Will it be via separate funding or will it come from the money already allocated to pay for the active reserve in the MOD budget?

    Hansard source
35. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

    Armed Forces Bill

    The other day I had the opportunity to meet the Ministry of Defence Police and their chief constable at RAF Wyton in my constituency. I was impressed by the counter-drone capability that they are now equipped with; it is vastly in excess of what Home Office policing teams now have, and it is a simple solution to provide the counter-drone capability that we should have at all our bases. I urge the hon. Gentleman to put pressure on the Minister to roll out those new CPM-Wilson and CPM-Watson counter-drone weapons to all our bases, to ensure that that capability is as widespread as possible.

    Hansard source
36. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

    Armed Forces Bill

    I wish to speak to new clause 5, which I tabled. I start by thanking all Opposition Members—both in my party and across four other parties—who have supported this amendment. Let the record show that not one person on the Labour Benches supported it. We often speak in this House about veterans, our shared respect for those who have served and how best to support veterans in their post-military life, be it with careers, housing, mental health or simply the frailty of growing old. With that shared sense of society repaying our collective debt to those who have served must come the moral courage to do the right thing that we expect those who have served to show. During my Army career, I had the privilege to serve alongside and command soldiers from all over the Commonwealth—Australians and Canadians, South Africans and Jamaicans. As a support weapons platoon commander, a quarter of my anti-tank platoon was Fijian. As hon. Members may expect from a fine rugby playing regiment such as the Duke of Wellington’s, it was unbelievably competitive to get a spot on the wing. I therefore know well the courage and the sacrifice shown by our Commonwealth personnel not only today, but alongside me on operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and during operations across the globe long preceding that. We owe those men and women the right to make a life in the country they have risked theirs to defend. Over four years ago, in April 2022, the previous Government implemented a visa fee waiver for those who have served in the UK armed forces. That waiver also applied to eligible veterans who were yet to regularise their immigration status. Having campaigned for that long before I became an MP, it was hugely welcome to see the playing field levelled somewhat for Commonwealth veterans. While that was a welcome first step, I personally felt that it was not enough. We in this Chamber often recognise the sacrifice and the challenges of those families left behind when service personnel deploy. Being a military spouse or child is not easy. This situation is made even harder for the family of a Commonwealth service member, because while we waived the fees for serving personnel in 2022, we did not extend the right to the immediate family and dependants of that service member. That means many Commonwealth veterans are saddled with significant visa fees if they wish to stay in the UK as a family after leaving the armed forces. From 8 April this year, when the cost increased once again, the base fee for applying for indefinite leave to remain is £3,226 per person. To put into context the speed of that increase, when we waived fees for service members just four years ago, it was £2,389 per person—a near £1,000 increase. That is just for indefinite leave to remain, not citizenship. In the US armed forces, a non-US citizen can achieve full US citizenship upon discharge for the price of the admin fee—just a few dollars. A service member, their spouse and two children now potentially face a cost of just shy of £10,000 for the right to live in the country they have risked their life to defend. I defy anybody to tell me that that is fair. It is not until the 12-year point that personnel become entitled to a resettlement grant of £15,047. The purpose of the resettlement grant is to do precisely what it says: to give people a head start, be it through a trade course, a deposit for a house or the funds to set up an entrepreneurial new business. None of those options is available to those who need to spend the majority of the grant on just obtaining the right to live in the country. What on earth are we doing? Why are we fleecing those who have served this country, saddling them with a five-figure burden? The Royal British Legion and Poppyscotland lead the charge on this campaign. They have pushed for these changes consistently. They highlight that in delivering this manifesto pledge, the Government would fulfil their obligations under the armed forces covenant by removing those disadvantages and barriers to family life. Going into the 2024 general election, the Conservative manifesto looked to correct this issue. As part of our pledge to veterans, we announced that a Conservative Government would: “extend the visa fees waiver introduced to cover Commonwealth personnel, to include their direct dependants.” The Labour manifesto, too, made that pledge, stating: “We will also scrap visa fees for non-UK veterans who have served for four or more years, and their dependents.” So where are we with that? I have raised the question on a number of occasions. In November 2024, I asked the then Veterans Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), what the timetable was for delivering that manifesto pledge. I was told: “We are working on that. It is in the manifesto, and it will come out in due course.”—[Official Report, 18 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 22.] In June 2025, during the Armed Forces Day debate, I asked the then Armed Forces Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), if he could provide an update “on the work being done to waive visa fees for families and dependants of our Commonwealth personnel”. He told me: “We have a manifesto commitment to deliver that. The Defence Secretary has spoken to the Home Secretory about this, and our officials are in dialogue about it. I hope that the Minister for Veterans and People, who looks after this area, will be able to announce progress in due course. The hon. Member and I share a strong sense that there is a wrong to be righted here, and those people who serve our country for a good period of time should be able to settle here. I think progress will be made, but I recognise his interest in that happening.”—[Official Report, 26 June 2025; Vol. 769, c. 1290-1291.] That was a year ago. On 5 January 2026, the new Veterans Minister told me in a written answer that the Government are “working closely with the Home Office to deliver this commitment”. She went on to state: “it is not possible at this stage to provide an implementation date”. In April, she informed me: “This Government is committed to waiving visa fees for non-UK veterans”. In total, I have asked the Government for an update on the progress of the implementation of their manifesto pledge seven times and we are no closer to an implementation date after nearly two years than we were when the Government came to power. I am not seeking to apportion individual blame here. Having spoken to Ministers individually, including the two on the Front Bench today, I do not doubt that the Defence Front Bench wishes to implement this policy, but there is clearly something that is causing it to stall, be that the Home Office or the machinery of government. There is an opportunity here to drive this policy forward. We should bear in mind that the Ministry of Defence does not even collate the information regarding the number of ILR applications submitted by family members of service personnel. It has literally no idea of the impact the failure to deliver this policy is having. After two years with no timetable for implementation on the horizon, I have little confidence this is a priority on the MOD’s to-do list. I appreciate that the Government measure working flat-out in months, but this could be measured in continental drift. It simply does not appear to be a priority for the Government. However, my greater fear is that rather than do the right thing today, the Government will churlishly and spitefully vote against new clause 5, “because politics”. Not one Labour MP signed the new clause, despite every single one being asked twice. The Government have whipped their MPs not to support it, just as they will whip their MPs to vote against it. A vote against new clause 5 is not just a vote against the Labour manifesto that each Labour MP stood on. It is a vote against our veterans. It is a vote against those who have risked their lives to defend this great nation. It is a vote that tells Commonwealth personnel that this Government do not have their back, that joining our armed forces will still see them treated as second-class citizens, with limited options post service. Those Labour MPs with a military presence in their constituencies should ask themselves how they will spin it to the service member who has to pay £10,000 to live here with their family, instead of putting down a deposit on a house or launching a business. They should ask themselves whether, for the sake of playing politics this evening, it is worth holding somebody else back.

    Hansard source
37. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

    Armed Forces Bill

    I do not disagree. I recognise the point that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is making and his passion for delivering what he describes. I am a member of said all-party parliamentary group, and I am happy to push in order to try and get this across the line. I also recognise the politics of this. Although I am not sure his party will welcome him apparently somewhat throwing the Home Office under the bus in this instance, I recognise that there are complexities around the ability to deliver from a Home Office perspective. I know that is something that the Conservatives encountered when we were in government, and I imagine it is very much the same situation for the Government now. I insist that new clause 5 is still a good new clause. It would come in the right place within the Armed Forces Bill. I recognise that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is trying to give the Government some wiggle room to get out of voting for the new clause this evening, but I am convinced that it should be voted on, and that we should push it forward in order to put some pressure on the Home Office.

    Hansard source
38. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

    Armed Forces Bill

    I agree that it is a broader topic than simply covering Commonwealth veterans and their family members from those same Commonwealth countries. There are a number of personnel living here are UK personnel but have spouses and children who may be from overseas, and the same rules apply to them. I do not disagree with the hon. Member; I think we are very much on the same page on a number of issues—it is literally just the technicality of politics that is getting in the way. We are squeamish when it comes to discussing immigration. No party has yet demonstrated that they have the right answer, but on this specific element of the debate, it is very simple: no matter how high a bar we set for the right to live in this country—whether that is for key workers or high net worth individuals—those who have risked their lives to defend the freedoms that we enjoy deserve to settle here with their families without penalty. That should always be above that high bar. At the heart of our security are the men and women who serve and risk their lives for this country. That is in the Labour manifesto. I urge Government Members to do the right thing today and support new clause 5.

    Hansard source
39. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

    Armed Forces Bill

    I recognise that the Minister wants to deliver this manifesto commitment as much as I do. However, after two years we have made little progress, mostly due to the machinery of government within the Home Office. This new clause was tabled some time ago, and the Government have had ample opportunity to refine the detail of it in order to make it acceptable to be voted on this evening and passed by the Government. Why have the Government taken no steps to work with me to get this measure across the line, given that it is a manifesto pledge of the Government? Can he also give some indication of when the pledge will be delivered, if the Government choose wrongfully to vote against my new clause this evening?

    Hansard source
40. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Andrew Bowie

    Draft Energy Prices Act 2022 (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026

    It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Sir Alec. The regulations, as already mentioned, extend the period for the Northern Ireland Department for the Economy to exercise existing powers under the Energy Prices Act 2022 from 26 months to six years. In itself, that is not controversial; no new powers are created through this instrument and we do not intend to obstruct its passing today. The Minister has explained the reasoning for the extension: to empower the Northern Ireland Executive to parallel the British Government’s autumn Budget commitments. The Minister referred to the transfer of 75% of the renewables obligation scheme costs attributable to domestic energy supply, which will instead be funded through general taxation. As a result of that transfer, from April, only 25% of the renewables obligation cost is being recovered from consumers—but moving costs from energy bills to tax bills is a sleight of hand. Let us also not forget the recipients of this taxpayer money: those extraordinary subsidies now flowing from households are giving wind farm owners three times the market price for their electrons. The Secretary of State’s auction process has locked this country, including Northern Ireland, into paying extortionate prices for wind power for the next 20 years—an extraordinary cost—and it is taxpayers who are now footing that bill. The Minister espouses a commitment to lowering household energy bills, as per the Government’s manifesto pledge to reduce bills by £300, yet we have seen bills go up since they took office. A month ago, the Government adopted our policy to remove one of the carbon taxes on electricity generation—the carbon price support. While the Labour Government transfer renewables subsidies on to taxation, the Conservative party has set out our cheap power plan to reduce the cost of energy and bring down bills by £200. Before moving to my questions on that point, I want to follow up on the question asked by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim. Why is it that, as laid out in the explanatory notes: “Schedule 5 to the EPA sets out the time periods in which certain powers under that Act are exercisable” and that these powers will “cease to be exercisable after a period of 26 months during which both the First Minister and deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland held office (currently 3 April 2026)”? I have never seen such a measure in an amendment or a Bill before the House in the nine years that I have been here. It seems a remarkable paragraph. It is very strange to time limit the measures to the time in office of those two individuals. If the Minister could explain why that is the case, I would be very grateful—it is a genuine question on my part. If the Minister is keen to see households relieved of the burden imposed by the renewables obligation, will the Government adopt our cheap power plan and scrap the subsidy altogether? And might I ask the Minister when we will see the elusive £300 off all our bills?

    Hansard source