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

1. 25 Mar 2026·Parliament·Damian Hinds

   Proposed Visitor Levy

   The hon. Gentleman is a wise man, and he anticipates a point I will come to very shortly. Under the previous Government, candidly, there were increases to air passenger duty, rises in visa charges, the introduction of the electronic travel authorisation at a price of £10, and of course the loss of VAT-free shopping for tourists. The new Government are not just carrying on with those things, but adding cumulatively to those costs at a significantly greater rate. They are doubling the price of the ETA, which will now be £80 for a family of four. In fact, ETAs and visas are now both considerably above European price levels—considerably so, in the case of visas. On ETAs, unlike others, we do not give even a discount, let alone an exemption, for children or for people over 70. The Government have also cut the marketing budget for VisitBritain by 41%. On top of all that, they now propose to bring in a bed tax. What is that bed tax? We do not know. It could be many things. It could be per room or per person. It could be a fixed percentage of the room rate, a fixed amount or tiered fixed amount. If it is a tiered or fixed amount, what amount? In truth, however, whatever amount is set initially is probably pretty irrelevant. Let us not forget that air passenger duty started at a rate of £5 and £10 and now ranges between £15 and well over £200. Will children be discounted or exempt? The consultation talks about giving powers to a mayor; what about places that do not have a mayor? What will the scope be? Will it include sleeping in a tent? Will it include holiday camps, static caravans, scout camps, school trips, pilgrimages, hostels, homestays or sleeper trains? We do not know the answers to any of these questions right now.

   Hansard source
2. 25 Mar 2026·Parliament·Damian Hinds

   Proposed Visitor Levy

   The hon. Gentleman knows the answer!

   Hansard source
3. 25 Mar 2026·Parliament·Damian Hinds

   Proposed Visitor Levy

   That was my next sentence!

   Hansard source
4. 25 Mar 2026·Parliament·Damian Hinds

   Proposed Visitor Levy

   Mr Efford, that really was my next sentence, because there are questions about short-term lets, and about second homes in Cornwall and so on. On the short lets issue—whether rents are being pushed up is sometimes another concern with short lets—this levy is not going to solve that problem. The Government will need to do something structurally different if they want to address those short lets questions.

   Hansard source
5. 25 Mar 2026·Parliament·Damian Hinds

   Proposed Visitor Levy

   I do agree. My right hon. Friend and I have been in multiple debates in the main Chamber talking about exactly those issues, both for tourism and for the wider hospitality sector. There are some arguments in favour of an overnight visitor levy, some of which have come up already. The main one is summed up in the sentence, “Visitor levies provide local government with a financial incentive to grow the visitor economy.” That has truth to it, and there is definitely an argument for making hospitality more hospitable through more investment in the visitor economy—in facilities, events, policing and so on. The sector needs more money going into sales and marketing if we are to realise our potential, so there might be an argument for this measure if the money were truly ringfenced—if it were only being spent on truly incremental items. Even then, we would still get the problem where hotels over quite a wide area pay it but the events, attractions, extra policing and so on all take place somewhere else. That might apply in Hartlepool, for example, as has been mentioned. It will certainly be the case in London—a hotel in Brent Cross is not going to feel the benefit of some extra things being put on in theatreland in the west end. Of course, though, the money will not be ringfenced. Even if it is nominally ringfenced in year one, do we honestly believe that in year five it will still be ringfenced? Of course it will not.

   Hansard source
6. 25 Mar 2026·Parliament·Damian Hinds

   Proposed Visitor Levy

   I certainly do. On the issue of incrementality—I suspect other colleagues will make this point during the debate—there is only one way to guarantee that the money will truly be ringfenced and used for incremental activity, sales and marketing spend, which is to write it into primary legislation. In these debates, people often have a list of five or six questions to put to the Minister. I do not have five or six questions; my one question is whether she will write into primary legislation that the money must be ringfenced. For the avoidance of doubt, I am arguing against this levy in principle. I think we should be making it more attractive to come to this country. However, if it is to happen, will the Government write into primary legislation the thing that I am sure they will say verbally to a lot of colleagues, including Labour MPs in seaside towns and parts of the country that need inward investment? I am sure they will say, “This will all be for extra stuff.” Let us see that in a piece of legislation before this Parliament. In the absence of that, I am sure that what will happen—maybe not in year one, but in year three or five—is that central Government allocations of funding to local authorities will be made on the basis that they could have implemented an overnight visitor levy. In practice, it will become impossible for a mayor in any one area to say, “I’m not going to impose that levy,” because the budget will assume it. I now turn to the arguments against the levy, some of which we have heard already from colleagues from multiple parties. This is a sector already dealing with big cost increases from national insurance contributions. For businesses that rely heavily on flexible labour, dealing with the Employment Rights Act 2025 is genuinely difficult—and then there are business rates, which we have not yet talked about. Yes, there has been a reprieve for pubs, but there are two things we need to know about that: first, it is only for pubs, and secondly, it is only a temporary reprieve. It does not help cafés, restaurants or many other parts of the hospitality sector; in particular, it does not help hotels. As you know, Mr Efford, there has been a change in the structure of business rates with the higher multiplier level. The Government keep describing this higher multiplier as a way of ensuring that online retailers are helping to pay for lower rates bills for other businesses. To keep us within the bounds of parliamentary language, let us call that “creative framing”. According to my calculation—by the way, it is very difficult to get an answer out of the Treasury—some 91% of the businesses and buildings that are subject to that higher multiplier for business rates are not to do with online retailing. Many hotels are among them; again by my own estimation, 1,100 hotels will be paying that higher multiplier for business rates. The levy applies to everybody but, turning to the additional costs of international travel, air passenger duty is already the world’s highest departure tax. ETAs are a new cost for tourism in this country. In fact, after—strangely—Bhutan, the UK is in the highest category for total cost when we look at all the taxes, charges and policy costs imposed on tourists. That means that although we score very highly on international comparisons of attractiveness, we score 113th out of 119 for price competitiveness for tourists. Some will say—some have said already—“All these other countries have a bed tax.” Yes, they do, but they do not have a VAT rate of 20%, which is the crucial point. Typically, VAT rates are about 10% across European countries. Amsterdam is the exception: it has just put up its VAT rate on hotels to 21%, but it seems that it is trying to reduce the number of tourists coming in, so that is not an example we want to follow. The one thing that has kept us just about competitive is not having a bed tax on top of all those other taxes. To conclude—as you will be pleased to hear, Mr Efford—the levy is a bad idea from the point of view of the cost of living; it would add over £100 to a typical holiday for a family of four. It hits a sector that has already been hammered by national insurance contributions and business rates—a sector that is absolutely vital for employment, particularly for tackling youth unemployment, that is all about small business and that is important for seaside communities. I ask the Minister, and the Government, to think of the growth opportunity and about what international tourism can do for us. It is a growing global market that is largely AI-proof and plays to our strengths. The Government say that they want economic growth, and this is a sector that can deliver it. I estimate that keeping on the path of the world growth rate for tourism rather than being below it would be worth between 0.2 and 0.3 percentage points extra in our economic growth every year. We have the capacity: it is true that some places, and certainly some individual attractions, are very busy, but it is not true for the country as a whole. Even in London, our biggest market, hotel penetration—the ratio of hotel rooms to the resident population—is still below that of Rome, Amsterdam or Madrid, for example. We score highly on cultural aspects, but low on value, which means that we are losing share to countries that take tourism very seriously and are actively trying to grow it. We can reverse that position—but not if we price ourselves out of contention.

   Hansard source
7. 25 Mar 2026·Parliament·Damian Hinds

   Proposed Visitor Levy

   They are focus articles.

   Hansard source
8. 25 Mar 2026·Parliament·Damian Hinds

   Proposed Visitor Levy

   Thank you very much, Mr Efford, for presiding over proceedings. I thank everybody who has taken part in what I think has been a very good discussion in this two-part debate, and I thank the Minister for her considered response. Broadly, there are three main objections to this new tax. The first concerns the cost of living, the second concerns adding costs to a sector that has already withstood a lot of costs, and the third concerns international competitiveness. I say gently to a couple of colleagues who spoke that they cannot just wish away the law of the elasticity of demand. Yes, it is true that the Norfolk broads are unique, but on the international market, there is also the Loire valley and the Black Forest. Yes, London is unique, but for people who want to come and do high-end shopping and go to cultural things, there is also Paris and Milan. I have only two asks. First, I ask the Minister to talk to colleagues and other Ministers, as she said she would, to consider the growth opportunity from this sector, and to calculate how many people would have to be deterred from visiting for the new tax to be value destructive, just in terms of the tax take from the VAT on hotel stays, food and beverages, attractions and everything else, quite apart from the overall effect on the wider economy and job creation. My second ask is to everybody else, especially Labour MPs. We will all be told repeatedly that this tax will be ringfenced, earmarked and reinvested into the visitor economy, so that it will bring more people in and create more jobs. Just hold the Government to that. To the Minister, for whom I have the highest regard, I also say this: the only way she can guarantee that is to see it in black and white on a Bill that becomes an Act of Parliament. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the proposed visitor levy in England.

   Hansard source
9. 25 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

   Engagements

   Q9. The Prime Minister says that he is concerned about the cost of living, so can he explain why he allowed his Local Government Minister to give permission to Reform-led Worcestershire county council to inflict that 9% council tax hike on my constituents?

   Hansard source
10. 25 Mar 2026·Parliament·Charlie Dewhirst

    Points of Order

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This House passed the Humble Address so that there is full transparency on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador to the United States. That includes the due diligence undertaken by the Cabinet Office’s propriety and ethics team. Yet, in an answer to a written question, Cabinet Office Ministers have now admitted that the people advising on what is to be redacted or deemed in scope are the very same propriety and ethics team that undertook the due diligence. Is that not a massive conflict of interest? What advice can you provide to Ministers on mitigating those conflicts of interest in responding to the House, given that the advice on such matters would normally be provided by the very same propriety and ethics team?

    Hansard source
11. 25 Mar 2026·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

    Points of Order

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy. I seek your advice. You and the rest of the House will be aware of the deployment of HMS Dragon to the eastern Mediterranean to deal with the conflict in Iran. Most people might not know, though, that HMS Dragon was removed from the Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 commitment to be retasked to go to the eastern Mediterranean. I have asked several questions of the Defence team. Most recently, on 9 March, I asked the Defence Secretary whether he could guarantee that we would be able to fulfil that NATO commitment and whether a British ship would deploy on those Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 commitments. He assured me that we will “fulfil our NATO commitments”. However, today it has been reported that the German frigate Sachsen will replace HMS Dragon on that NATO Maritime Group 1 tasking. I seek your advice on whether we can establish that the Defence Secretary comes back to the House to inform us exactly when that decision was taken and whether he inadvertently misled the House.

    Hansard source
12. 25 Mar 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

    The Secretary of State says that there is no such thing as vexatious prosecutions. I think that he would do well to remember the cases of Phil Shiner. In 1991, the SAS shot and killed three members of the IRA’s East Tyrone Brigade in Coagh. The coroner originally found that the soldier’s use of force was reasonable and proportionate, and that the IRA men in question had the intent to murder. A judicial review was brought against these findings, but in October last year it was thrown out by the High Court in Belfast, with the judge saying that the case was “ludicrous” and “utterly divorced from the reality”. Depressingly, this morning we hear that that case is to continue 35 years after the incident and after the soldier in question has been investigated for years. How can the Secretary of State think that is right?

    Hansard source
13. 25 Mar 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

    Does not this case absolutely exemplify why the Government’s solution is entirely wrong? It reopens the door to vexatious litigation, which allows our veterans to be dragged through the courts, even when the courts themselves say that the case is ludicrous. It also exposes the absurdity of the fact that legal aid is paying for these challenges against our veterans—we are all literally paying for lawyers to bring vexatious litigation against our troops. The Government seem rightly to have paused their Bill. Will they please use this opportunity to think again and take a new approach that guarantees genuine protections for those who serve?

    Hansard source
14. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    Household Energy Bills

    21. What steps his Department is taking to help reduce household energy bills.

    Hansard source
15. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    Household Energy Bills

    The Prime Minister stood on the steps of Downing Street and promised families that energy bills would fall by £300, yet, since the general election, bills have already gone up by £73 and are forecast to go up more. It is hardly surprising that my constituents do not believe a word that they hear from the Government. Will the Minister explain to me when families in my constituency will actually see that £300 saving delivered?

    Hansard source
16. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Tom Tugendhat

    Water Supply and Housing Targets: West Kent

    I beg to move, That this House has considered water supply and housing targets in west Kent. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John—not for the first time or, I certainly hope, the last. What is less pleasurable is having no water coming out of your taps. Sadly, that could be the reality for more than 13,000 new homes in Tonbridge and Malling if the Government get their way. Planning decisions in the community are, I think we would all agree, best left to local councillors. After all, it is right that those elected at the most local level have responsibility for shaping the place they live in and represent. However, this Government’s planning policies are taking us away from that principle. Since the general election, we have seen mandatory housing targets reintroduced and increased enormously. They are up by 34% in Tonbridge and Malling and by 63% in Sevenoaks district. Then, of course, there is the grey-belt policy. I have been getting used to Green party and Labour MPs going through the voting Lobbies and making things easier for development to merge towns and villages and create one single, homogeneous, blended whole and for development on previously protected grey-belt land. However, water seems not to have been considered. There are many aspects of water locally that I could focus on, including the excellent work done in Edenbridge on water quality by NEDRA—the New Edenbridge District Residents’ Association—but in the interests of time, I will focus my comments today on water supply only. This is now a very salient issue for those of us in west Kent. Although Tunbridge Wells has been the worst affected, towns and villages such as Tonbridge, Edenbridge and across the north downs have lost water supply this winter and last winter. Why is that? It is because there is not enough water in the system to supply houses in our area. I am aware that the Water Industry Act 1991 in effect places a legal requirement on water suppliers to ensure that running water appears when the tap is turned on. Although South East Water is not very good at doing that right now, we also need to focus on the future. That means asking fundamental questions. Where is the water—now and in the future? Do housing targets accurately reflect the water infrastructure in west Kent? I will focus on two authorities in the area that I represent: Tonbridge and Malling borough council and Sevenoaks district council. I emphasise to the Minister that they are two of the very best run councils in the whole country and have been for a number of years. We are very lucky to have brilliant people at both councils, and both are trying to do the right thing for future development and adopt a local plan. In both cases, however, that has been delayed from 2024 because of the Government changing planning policy. It is not the fault of either council that they do not have an adopted local plan; that is because of tinkering and meddling by the Government and, historically, the Planning Inspectorate.

    Hansard source
17. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Tom Tugendhat

    Water Supply and Housing Targets: West Kent

    It is no surprise to me that this issue applies across the whole of the United Kingdom. I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. One thing that the Government have not changed, but ought to change, is the position of water companies in planning. Somewhat strangely, water companies are statutory consultees on the local plan process, but not on planning applications. I invite the Minister in her response to explain whether she agrees that this is peculiar. There are four water supply companies across Sevenoaks district. Two cover the area that I am privileged to represent: SES Water in and around Edenbridge, and South East Water elsewhere. In advance of this debate, I asked the new leader of Sevenoaks district council, Kevin Maskell, to outline what engagement on local plan and infrastructure delivery matters the council has received from water companies. The answer was that only two of the four water companies had even replied, and the replies received were very limited. Indeed, the experience from Sevenoaks is that water companies see their role as not being a priority. There is no detailed modelling for housing projections against water resources management plans, especially for site allocations. All infrastructure planning is deferred to the planning application stage, where the water companies are not even a statutory consultee. That makes it impossible to plan for the cumulative impact of developments on the water network. How is that good for planning? Well, it isn’t. If the situation with water suppliers is a problem in Sevenoaks district, however, it is critically urgent and potentially disastrous in Tonbridge and Malling. For the benefit of the Minister, I will explain what has happened in recent months. Tonbridge and Malling borough council agreed to its regulation 18 local plan consultation in the autumn. It received unanimous cross-party support, which was a huge vote of confidence in the leadership of Matt Boughton and the work of Mike Taylor, the cabinet member for planning. Both of them have contributed enormously to the life of our community. The TMBC cabinet member for infrastructure, Adem Mehmet, approached infrastructure providers for consultation responses, including South East Water, which is the drinking water supplier for almost all of the borough—and the whole of the part that I am lucky enough to represent. I have a copy of the response here, dated 17 December 2025. In it, South East Water tells Tonbridge and Malling borough council that the maximum number of additional homes it can supply between now and 2042 is 6,318. The Government housing target for the council is 19,620. What is Tonbridge and Malling borough council expected to do? Is it supposed to allocate sites for 13,302 new homes, despite having been told that there is no infrastructure for water to be supplied to those properties? I am sure that the Minister agrees that this would not be appropriate or wise. Having received the response, and being the excellent councillor he is, Adem Mehmet wrote to South East Water on 15 January this year, which happened to be in the middle of the water outages we were facing. South East Water responded on 3 February. Three simple questions were put to South East Water. First, does South East Water agree that it cannot provide sufficient water to cope with a significant increase in housing targets? South East Water agrees that it cannot. Secondly, do the current targets mean that there will be more water shortages? Again, South East Water agrees that the probability of water outages is higher. Thirdly, would the planned increases identified in the water resources management plan allow South East Water to cope with the Government housing targets for Tonbridge and Malling? South East Water says that the increases will not be sufficient to meet the Government housing targets.

    Hansard source
18. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Tom Tugendhat

    Water Supply and Housing Targets: West Kent

    I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her comments, which I completely agree with. I am sure that they have generated enormous response to her current petition, which is at signhelenspetition.com, should you wish to sign it, Sir John. I understand that it will be increasingly popular at this time, and rightly so, given how badly areas of east Maidstone were affected during the water outages a few weeks ago. What I and my hon. Friend have said will be no doubt familiar to the Minister, who has been aware of this for a number of weeks. She received a letter from Tonbridge and Malling borough council leader Matt Boughton on 16 January, and another on 11 February—I have both of them here. There was one reply received on 12 February from Baroness Taylor in the Minister’s Department, which frankly does not answer the question and does not mention South East Water’s comments at all. The council has chased for a proper reply, but is still waiting. I am sure that the Minister will update me on where that is. I have been told that officials in the Minister’s Department have met with the planning department from the council, but again there has been no progress. It is that lack of urgency that motivated me to apply for this debate, because, frankly, this cannot go on. I have all the evidence of the council being proactive in raising this issue, and it clearly wants the same as the Department: a local plan. However, the Department is not giving this the attention it needs. I request that the Minister and her officials meet me and senior representatives from the council to resolve this issue urgently. Why so soon? It is quite obvious that there is not enough water to cope with the current housing targets. The Minister has told the council to submit a local plan for the new high housing targets this year. The applications are coming in—ask residents in Hadlow and Wateringbury, or Edenbridge in Sevenoaks district—but I have been told that Tonbridge and Malling now cannot determine planning applications for new development because of these water issues, even on sites it wants to develop. Right now, there is effectively a moratorium on development in Tonbridge and Malling because of the Minister’s Department. How does that help the Government meet their ambition for 1.5 million homes a year? The Government clearly need to sort this out for our community now, and make changes to prevent this from happening elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Why did the Government not take account of the water resources management plans when determining housing targets for our councils in 2024? Why are water resources management plans not developed using up-to-date housing targets? It is pretty absurd that the 2007 housing target is used to inform the 2024 plan for water infrastructure in our community. It is no wonder that there is deep opposition to housing targets and deeper distrust of water companies. Why can Sevenoaks not get any meaningful engagement with water providers on the local plan? Why has Tonbridge and Malling been placed in this position by a completely unrealistic Government policy? The Government are telling them that they must meet their housing targets, and they have no choice, yet the housing target has 13,000 more homes than the water supplier has the ability to cater for. It is not even close to being realistic either way. What is the solution? There are only two possibilities: one is to get more water into the system, and the other is to reduce the housing target. The water resources management plan 2024 identifies a lot of schemes: new pumping stations, upgrading waste water treatment works, a new pipeline in Tonbridge and new drinking water storage tanks. We could do all the above and we would still be 13,000 homes away. The question remains: where is the water coming from to fill the extra capacity in the water network? A new reservoir would help, but where would that be in our community, given our proximity to Bewl Water and Bough Beech? The truth is that there simply cannot be enough water for the scale of development that the Government are insisting be accommodated in our area. That means that there is only one way out of the issue: the Government must urgently and immediately reduce the housing target for Tonbridge and Malling borough council, and do the same for other councils in South East Water’s area, including Sevenoaks district council. It would be completely irresponsible for the Government to proceed with the current housing targets for both councils while this issue remains unresolved. The Minister knows that I agree that we need more homes; in my community, we particularly need homes for people to live as families with their relatives. Our community should not only take its fair share but be part of that opportunity. However, new homes must be built only if we can actually supply them with water, and at the moment we cannot. I urge the Minister to consider the points I have raised and, on the Tonbridge and Malling issue, agree to meet Matt Boughton and me as a matter of urgency.

    Hansard source
19. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Tom Tugendhat

    Water Supply and Housing Targets: West Kent

    I understand that the Minister is talking about very short-term interventions, but this is about 13,000 homes over a period running up to 2042. I was not going to be partisan about it, but this has come about because of the removal of planning requirements from cities such as London and their imposition on areas such as west Kent. That is a Government decision, and they have a mandate to execute it. They and the Green party voted through the change of green belt into this imaginary grey belt—again, they have the mandate to do that—but let us not pretend that it is not a political choice. The political choice that her Government have made has resulted in increased pressure on water companies, which did not exist before. We can play political games if she wishes, but the reality is that this is a very clear political reallocation from the need in London to the need in rural areas.

    Hansard source
20. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Tom Tugendhat

    Oil and Gas

    There seems to be a complete failure to understand how the gas market works. It works on piped gas, on local markets and on an integrated supply and consumption system, yet the Minister is addressing it as though it involves shipped oil. It is not the same market, yet he is dealing with it as though it is. Could he please begin to address the fact that this is a very different market?

    Hansard source
21. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Stuart Anderson

    Topical Questions

    T4. Over half of South Shropshire residents rely on heating oil or other solutions, such as liquified petroleum gas, to heat their homes. The recent Government support does very little for the majority of my constituents, and the best price today for heating oil is more than double what it was five weeks ago. There is blatant profiteering. What are the Government going to do to seriously address the issue?

    Hansard source
22. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Stuart Anderson

    Defence

    It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher). I do not think that I have heard anyone call for 20% of spending on defence, but I like it. I am not sure how we would maintain the reversal of the two-child cap if 20% of spending went to defence, but he made a very good speech. I will set out a few key points on what we are looking at, where the world is today, where we have been, and what we must do to deal with the threat. As I have said many times—colleagues are probably getting sick of me saying it—there is a challenge to the world order as we know it. I do not believe that anybody alive has experienced such a significant change. We face the ultimate volatility, like the fall of the Berlin wall or 9/11. Given the current position of the US Government—on Venezuela, in what they said about Greenland, and in the attack on Iran—everything has been thrown in the air. Many people expect life to fall back to where it was and to continue, but there is a challenge to the world order between China and the US, and there is a commodities race over oil and rare earth metals. How do we get global supply chains working and moving forward? Rare earth metals are not actually rare, but it can take 15 to 17 years to get them out of the ground once they have been found. Most of the electronics that we have on us, including wearables, require such metals. At the moment, about 90% of those resources are controlled and processed by China, and there is a huge push to change that. The US is moving to change it, and our policy seeks to shift around that. When AI and quantum come together, defence technologies—including drone and autonomous warfare—will take a huge leap forward. If we do not get this stage right, we will be so far behind. The second world war was about who could produce the most tanks, planes and troops at scale, with the right strategy. Now, technology can shift the dial exceptionally quickly. I know that the Minister has spoken about the drone passion, autonomy and things like that. That is the right direction. It is not either/or; there is a whole plethora of things that we need to. The defence investment plan unlocks the next phase of where we can go.

    Hansard source
23. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Stuart Anderson

    Defence

    I thank my hon. Friend for that important point. How warfare is fought is catching people by surprise—we are seeing that played out in the middle east at the moment—and we have to be prepared. We have stood with our head and shoulders high on the world stage, and I want to see us continue to do that. I want to throw out some numbers. We say that the Great British Army has always been the best army of its size. In 1981, we had 333,000 troops. In 1997, the number went down to 210,000, and it went down to 174,000 in 2010. It is currently about 138,000. With the use of technology, it is not just about mass, although I would always be happy to have a larger military. We need to make sure that we are able to work in a changing environment and that we have the operations to do that. The world as we know it is changing, and we must pick that up very quickly.

    Hansard source
24. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Stuart Anderson

    Defence

    I definitely do. I have had the reserves deployed with me when I have been on operations, and they were a great asset. Scaling up the reserves is vital. We have the article 3 NATO commitment, and we need to ensure that we can fulfil that. It is not just about the reserves staying here and the regulars flying overseas. Integration is key, and I would be keen to see that. Let us look at how the rearming of the world has changed. After the illegal invasion of Russia into Ukraine, the world sat up. At that stage, defence spending was at 2.1%. I will be clear: as soon as I was elected, with hon. Members from across the House, I called for 3%. I felt that even 3% was not enough during the previous Government, and I said that all the way through. The Defence Committee was united. We did procurement reports right the way through 20 or 30 years of procurement failings. I am not just saying this to make a point now. I still believe that if defence spending is not at least 3% of GDP today, we do not have the ability to put the plan in place on the scale we need. From 2021 to now, we have gone from 2.1% to 2.4%, but the problem is that the NATO average is currently 2.76%. In that short space of time, we have gone from being roughly the third highest defence spender according to percentage of GDP to being the ninth or 12th, depending on which table we look at. It is good that, as the Government say, we have made the biggest increase since the cold war, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) said, we need to look at what it was like post war. We are not moving as fast as all the other peer nations. We had a great start, but that has now started to deplete over decades of a peace dividend. We need to take this seriously as an urgent priority and invest on the necessary scale. The delay on the DIP is having an impact. I know that if Ministers had a choice, they would have the DIP here today. We have to get this right. It has gone past the time when we expected the DIP to be produced. I have spoken to so many in the industry and so many serving personnel who are screaming out for it. I have struggled to find anybody who thinks we have the time for this. I hope the Minister will take away the importance of the DIP being produced—I am positive that he wants it today—to unlock the next phase. There are many areas where there is consensus in this House on how we should move forward and prepare this country for war. We are losing standing on the world stage because of our current capability, which has seen getting on for 30 years of under-investment. We do not have the ability today to project power on the scale that we did 10, 20 or 30 years ago.

    Hansard source
25. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Stuart Anderson

    Defence

    The hon. Member is right on that. How we work with our partners is important, but we have to invest and have a clear plan to hold our head high on the world stage. I will finish on this point. We are told that the Department is working at pace on the DIP. I probably know about pace better than anybody in this House. I was proud to be a member of the Royal Green Jackets, which had the fastest pace in the British Army at 140 paces per minute, and the double-off was 180—unmatched by any regiment in the British Army. We need this pace now. We need the defence investment plan to be delivered to unlock the next phase of doing what is best for the British people.

    Hansard source
26. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Steve Barclay

    Defence

    Does my hon. Friend agree that one way to respond to a crisis and to deliver mass quickly would be to scale up the reserves during this Parliament? Does he find it surprising, as I do, that the relatively small cost—in a £60 billion budget—of scaling up the reserves would help to deliver some of that response?

    Hansard source
27. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir Mel Stride

    Middle East: Economic Update

    I thank the Chancellor for advance sight of her statement. The right hon. Lady comes to the House with an economy in tatters. She would have us believe that she has delivered the stability and resilience that can weather the storm ahead, but she has done nothing of the kind. When she came to office, she ramped up borrowing and spending and hiked taxes to record levels. She was warned at the time, by the Office for Budget Responsibility and others, that her policies would mean higher inflation, higher borrowing costs and higher interest rates, and that she would destroy jobs. All of that has come to pass. Her mismanagement and foolish choices have given us the highest inflation in the G7, the highest borrowing costs in any major advanced economy—with gilt yields higher than those of Greece and Morocco—fragile fiscal headroom, the highest unemployment since the pandemic and rising, and GDP per capita falling. Under this Government we are getting poorer, and our economy is increasingly fragile and far from secure and resilient. Despite what the right hon. Lady has said about tiebacks, nothing exemplifies this Government’s economic folly more than their approach to oil and gas. The utterly misguided net zero obsessions of the Energy Secretary have led to the absurdity of reduced extraction, while we see jobs destroyed, tax revenues forgone, and energy security smashed. The greatest tragedy of all is that in Jackdaw and Rosebank we have fields ready to go. In just months, they could be pumping vital relief to millions. Jackdaw alone has enough gas to supply more than 1.5 million homes, yet the right hon. Lady has nothing to say on that matter. Less oil and gas extraction means greater dependency and less security: this road leads to ruin. On energy, on the cost of living, on jobs, on growth, on public finances, on every measure that matters, the Chancellor has left us weak, weak, weak, and in the face of this energy shock, millions are about to suffer as a result. With respect to her statement, may I ask the right hon. Lady the following questions? How many fuel retailers have yet to engage with the new fuel finder service, and can she comment on the widespread reports of technical glitches and out-of-date price information? She mentioned the small modular reactor planned for Wylfa, but given the need, can she explain why she has chosen not to go ahead with the large-scale nuclear site that was signed off by the last Conservative Government? On the specific subject of energy cost support, may I ask what fiscal capacity she believes she has to support those in need, and what plan she has to ensure that any targeted approach truly reaches all of them? In her statement, the Chancellor criticised the last Conservative Government’s support package for not being targeted, but what she failed to mention was the fact that the present Prime Minister was then urging for support to be universal. Indeed, he said at that time that Labour’s approach would ensure “that no household would pay a penny more on their bills.”—[Official Report, 8 September 2022; Vol. 719, c. 404.] We have had no consistency from the right hon. Lady. How is she going to ensure that support for people depending on heating oil reaches those who need it most? Of course, that support, under this Government, will be funded through the taxes of hard-working people. Indeed, the reduction to energy bills this April is simply being taken from bills and dumped on to the shoulders of hard-pressed taxpayers. It does not need to be this way. Is not the critical question this: where is the control of public spending? Where is the renewed resolve to grasp the welfare bill to get people off benefits and into work? I will tell you, Mr Speaker: it is nowhere, because the right hon. Lady is a captive of her own Back Benchers and has brought our economy one step from its knees. She knows it, the country knows it, and now we must all brace ourselves for what is to come—not from a position of strength, as the right hon. Lady is so desperate to have us believe, but from a position of weakness of her own making.

    Hansard source
28. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Defence

    rose—

    Hansard source
29. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Defence

    It is very kind of my hon. Friend to give way on the point of making his peroration. He mentioned the tension between the MOD and its Ministers, and the Treasury. We could sympathise with the MOD Ministers if they did not keep adopting a line that is self-defeating. They keep coming out with this propaganda line that they have increased defence spending by a greater amount than at any time since the end of the cold war, and each time, I boringly point out to them—and I am going to do it again today—that they should not be comparing what we are spending now, in a much deteriorated situation, with the peace dividend years that followed the cold war; they should compare it with what we used to spend on defence during the cold war, which was regularly between 4.5% and 5%. If that seems a lot, just remember that when a country is involved in a full-scale war, we are talking not about 4% but about 40%.

    Hansard source
30. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Defence

    Will the Minister give way?

    Hansard source
31. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Defence

    Can I share a little secret with the House? For slightly longer than the duration of the second world war, I was a shadow Defence Minister, but in 2010, I found myself back on the Back Benches because the Liberal Defence spokesman was appointed Minister for the Armed Forces. I was told that the reason for this was that the powers that be knew that I would never have gone along with the cuts that were made in October 2010 by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition. I think the hon. Gentlemen’s amnesia is therefore somewhat selective.

    Hansard source
32. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Defence

    I am concerned about one problem that may arise. We have now got to a stage where the Government have given permission for the Americans to strike back against, for example, missile batteries launching at targets that might include our own bases. I am not clear what would happen—and I hope it never has to come to this—if our bases were successfully attacked and damaged. Are the Government still saying that only the Americans should retaliate against those batteries, or should the RAF have a role as well? I am not anxious to escalate, but I do not see where the logic lies in America being able to retaliate, when our own armed forces cannot, following an attack that has successfully damaged one of our own bases.

    Hansard source
33. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

    Sudden Unexplained Death in Childhood

    Order. Given the seriousness of the subject and of the hon. Lady’s intervention, I let that go, but interventions should generally be slightly more pithy.

    Hansard source
34. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

    Sudden Unexplained Death in Childhood

    I remind Members to bob—and I can see that they are doing so. A number have indicated that they desire to speak. Given the seriousness and sensitivity of the subject, I want to be able to get them all in. Please bear that in mind when you contribute.

    Hansard source
35. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

    Sudden Unexplained Death in Childhood

    Jim, why don’t you bring your remarks to a conclusion?

    Hansard source
36. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

    Sudden Unexplained Death in Childhood

    I call Michelle Welsh. Michelle, I want to start the winding-up speeches at around 10.30 am.

    Hansard source
37. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

    Sudden Unexplained Death in Childhood

    In calling my long-standing friend, Mrs Hodgson, I let hon. Members know that she has agreed to leave a couple of minutes at the end for Mr MacNae to wind-up. In turn, he is about to agree to leave a couple of moments at the end for me to move the motion.

    Hansard source
38. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

    Sudden Unexplained Death in Childhood

    Thank you, Minister. Before I call on Andy to wind up, I echo the thanks to all Members for contributing to this important debate. I also particularly thank all those who have taken time to attend in the Public Gallery. Thank you so much.

    Hansard source
39. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

    Water Supply and Housing Targets: West Kent

    Tom Tugendhat will move the motion and the Minister will respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge and the Minister. I have had notice that one Member will intervene, which is fine. Unfortunately there will not be an opportunity, Tom, to wind up. That is the custom in these short debates.

    Hansard source
40. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

    Points of Order

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for acquired brain injury and to voice my concern about the news that 287 patients in a hospital in Northampton are to be relocated across the country. NHS England has told local health bosses that the hospital is not fit for purpose and so they must relocate those patients, many of whom are brain injured. The hon. Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) is also very concerned, as many of the patients are his constituents. Given that you have probably not had notice of a statement from the Government, how may I draw it to the House’s attention beyond this point of order? How can Ministers be asked to come here to explain what they will do about this woeful situation?

    Hansard source