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

1. 26 Jan 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

   Armed Forces Bill

   May I take the Secretary of State back to the earlier exchange about Northern Ireland veterans? I have some good news and some bad news for him. The good news is that I strongly suspect that, at the end of all the raked-up trials held against Northern Ireland veterans, none will be convicted. The bad news is that that is not the purpose of doing all this; the purpose is to put them through a nightmarish ordeal that allows republican terrorists to rewrite history. He should not be quite so satisfied with the state of the Government’s legislation regarding Northern Ireland veterans. It is a disgrace, and it is tearing up something that was working and that could have worked, according to four professors of law who gave testimony to a previous Defence Committee.

   Hansard source
2. 26 Jan 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

   Armed Forces Bill

   It is all well and good to say that defence spending has increased since it was realised that the peace dividend is inappropriate for a post-Ukraine invasion situation, but the fact is that during the 1980s, when we were in the grip of the cold war, we were not talking about spending 5% in 10 years’ time or 3.5% in four years’ time; we were spending between 4.5% and 5% of GDP every single year.

   Hansard source
3. 26 Jan 2026·Parliament·Sir Iain Duncan Smith

   Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

   Is it not clear that the Minister, who is normally very benign, is now rather tetchy? If he was so sure of what he says, why did he not make a statement rather than be dragged to the Floor of the House by the Opposition? When the previous Foreign Secretary made the clear statement that, if the US says no, this deal is off, was he referring to the 1966 arrangements or was he just doing it off the cuff?

   Hansard source
4. 26 Jan 2026·Parliament·Sir Bernard Jenkin

   Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

   When did the Minister first learn that the United States could effectively veto this agreement with Mauritius?

   Hansard source
5. 26 Jan 2026·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

   Youth Hubs

   I wish the Secretary of State well with this initiative, but does he share my concern that as his Department seeks to reduce youth unemployment, the Chancellor is doing everything she can to increase it, with her jobs tax increasing unemployment? Of the 170,000 payroll jobs lost since the election, until November 2025, some 45% involved young people. This Government have cost young people 150 jobs per day since they came into office. How does his scheme cope with that?

   Hansard source
6. 26 Jan 2026·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

   Police Reform White Paper

   My constituents are already concerned that Avon and Somerset constabulary is dominated by Bristol and that far too few resources are devoted to Somerset’s smaller towns and villages. How will the Home Secretary ensure that her new, larger regional forces police our rural communities properly?

   Hansard source
7. 26 Jan 2026·Parliament·Sir Andrew Mitchell

   Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

   The Minister, who is normally a reasonable fellow, always makes the point that the last Conservative Government started the negotiations. Does he now understand that, first, we were unable to conclude them and that, secondly, we would never have agreed or concluded the very one-sided deal that he and his colleagues have so naively and mistakenly agreed?

   Hansard source
8. 26 Jan 2026·Parliament·Sir Andrew Mitchell

   Police Reform White Paper

   It must be right to look at this White Paper with an open mind, and I commend the Home Secretary’s willingness to listen. I will make two points for her to consider. First, in Royal Sutton Coldfield we are most concerned that neighbourhood policing—community policing—should be accountable, dependable, reliable and accessible. We know that all policing is, above all, local. Secondly, will she bear in mind that strong leadership is the key to policing? We need to find ways of bringing in fresh blood at senior levels. Will she make it easier for that to happen? In particular, there should be a way of encouraging senior officers in the armed forces to look at transferring to senior positions within the police.

   Hansard source
9. 26 Jan 2026·Parliament·Sir Alec Shelbrooke

   Animal Rescue Centres

   Order. I remind hon. Members that they should bob if they wish to catch my eye, and that if they wish to be called to speak they must have been present at the start of the debate. It may help Members and those viewing the proceedings to know that I shall call the Front-Bench spokespeople by 7 pm. Not many people are in for this debate, so I am sure that all the points that Members want to make can be explored.

   Hansard source
10. 26 Jan 2026·Parliament·Sir Alec Shelbrooke

    Police Reform White Paper

    It will not take much of a Hansard search for Members to see that many years ago I asked Baroness May, who was then Home Secretary, to do something very similar to this, but the devil will always be in the detail. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, West and South Yorkshire are far more densely populated than North Yorkshire, which is now a big chunk of my constituency. May I ask the Home Secretary who will be involved in the consultation on the smaller policing areas, and how much credence those people will be given—because this very much has to come down to local level and local councils—and may I also ask what scrutiny we, as local Members of Parliament, will be able to give that consultation? Ultimately, that is what it will all hinge on.

    Hansard source
11. 26 Jan 2026·Parliament·Sarah Bool

    Police Reform White Paper

    My concern is about the regional and local levels. In South Northamptonshire, my villages already really struggle to get attention because it always goes to Northampton, Kettering and Corby. The regional system may make that worse, so how will the local areas actually work in practice? If they stick to existing sizes, I will have 96 parishes who still will not get attention, unless we exclude the major towns. Has the Home Secretary given thought to that?

    Hansard source
12. 26 Jan 2026·Parliament·Saqib Bhatti

    Key Stage 1 Curriculum

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker, and to take part in this debate on play in the key stage 1 curriculum. First, I thank the 106,082 signatories of this petition, including the 200 signatories from my constituency. I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for her opening remarks, and I also wish the son of the hon. Member for St Helens North (David Baines) a very happy birthday, on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. I am sure that is all he ever wanted. I praise the contributions from all hon. Members. It has been a thoughtful debate, which covered a whole array of issues. We may not agree on all aspects, I found it very fruitful to consider the different points of view. In particular, I commend my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), who made an excellent contribution, highlighting the need for consistency; I echo her question for the Minister on that point. Having heard hon. Members at length today, it is quite clear that we all accept that play has an important role in children’s cognitive and social development, particularly in their early years. There is strong evidence to suggest that play is an important factor in a child’s development. It teaches young people resilience, problem solving and social skills, enhances cognitive development and so much more. Dr David Whitebread of the University of Cambridge argues: “Play in all its rich variety is one of the highest achievements of the human species, alongside language, culture and technology. Indeed, without play, none of these other achievements would be possible.” That is why the early years foundation stage statutory framework includes play in delivering learning and development. The official Opposition support that framework, which sets out this responsibility for early years education providers. As a father of two young children, I recognise the importance of play. I know that key stage 1 is a crucial time in a child’s learning and development, when children are set up for future academic success based on the foundation of knowledge and learning skills they receive when they first start school. It is thanks to the knowledge-rich curriculum, underpinned by phonics, introduced by the last Government under the excellent leadership of Lord Gove and Sir Nick Gibb, that primary school children in England are now the best readers in the western world, with 80% of six-year-olds now reaching the expected reading standard, compared with only 58% in 2012. Millions more children are in good or outstanding schools, with tougher exams, better teaching standards, a rigorous curriculum and thousands of new academies. I say that because, having heard the debate, it is important to be clear about what we are discussing. While play should certainly be part of that delivery, we believe that schools are best placed to decide how the curriculum is delivered to their pupils, and it is important that precious time in the classroom is not missed out on. I know that many hon. Members have pointed out that that is not what they are talking about, but there must be clarity about how play is delivered, because we all agree that we are preparing our children for the future. That desire for freedom is why the official Opposition strongly oppose parts of the Government’s Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill that restrict academy freedoms and seek to impose a one-size-fits-all approach on our education system. Why does the Education Secretary think that centralising decision making in Whitehall is more effective than empowering school leaders? The transfer of power from headteachers to unelected officials at the Department will be deeply damaging for children, and will see their education suffer as a result. It is not just the Conservatives who believe this. It was Sir Tony Blair whose Government championed the initial academisation of schools. I know he is greatly concerned about this, because it is a reversal of 30 years of consensus around academic achievement and development. Although we also welcome the curriculum review, I have worries. It was a relief that the Government chose not to follow the example of their counterparts in Labour-run Wales by dropping phonics from the curriculum. However, as the Opposition have stated at the Dispatch Box, if everything is a priority, nothing is. If the Government want more play, they need to make clear which part of the curriculum has to be pushed to the side, and will stand to suffer, as a result. If the Government truly want to give children the freedom to learn and grow through play, they should confirm that they are committed to ensuring that the core skills of reading, writing and numeracy, which children need to succeed, will be part of that. If more play is needed for children, there is another way of achieving that. I would like to talk about the use of screens by children. According to Ofcom, 25% of children—

    Hansard source
13. 26 Jan 2026·Parliament·Saqib Bhatti

    Key Stage 1 Curriculum

    Absolutely, Mrs Barker. The point that I was going to make was that if children are not using social media, that will free up more time for play. That is why that issue is really important. We all want to achieve the same things: more resilience and more capability. Hopefully the Minister will confirm whether the Government agree with us that the use of screens at such a young age can have a detrimental effect, and confirm whether they will progress with the evidence. I accept that many parents are simply trying to do their best, and they want to have the best opportunities for their children. That is why I implore the Government to take a deep, hard look at the official Opposition’s approach to the use of screens and social media, and to the use of phones in schools. We have called for the use of phones in schools to be officially banned to allow for greater standards in schools. We are worried about the fact that children now spend more time online. Just last week I read reports that some young people try to swipe, and even tap, on books because they use digital devices.

    Hansard source
14. 26 Jan 2026·Parliament·Saqib Bhatti

    Key Stage 1 Curriculum

    I made that very clear. We support the education statutory framework as it is, but I think that the questions around social media and the use of phones are really pertinent. That is what parents are writing to us, as Members of Parliament—

    Hansard source
15. 26 Jan 2026·Parliament·Saqib Bhatti

    Key Stage 1 Curriculum

    I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, and those people who signed the petition. The Opposition recognise the importance of play, which is why we challenge the Government to give further clarity on the development of the curriculum review, and what will be part of it. If everything is a priority, nothing is, so what will be part of that debate? I also challenge the Government to give more clarity about the freedom of schools, as asked for by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon.

    Hansard source
16. 26 Jan 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

    Key Stage 1 Curriculum

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mrs Barker, and I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for presenting this petition on behalf of the petitioners. Hopefully, I will not take four minutes to speak, because I am no expert on this topic. I am here today because 389 of my constituents signed the petition, which means that South West Devon had the fifth-highest response rate in the country. As a Member of Parliament, I always feel that when we are sent that little table telling us how many of our constituents have signed a petition, it is great, where it is possible to do so, to come and represent their views. I have also heard from two or three parents directly about this topic. In addition, teachers have contacted me, including Cari Dyson. I have to say that if not for Cari, I probably would not be here this afternoon. She is a key stage 1 teacher who uses a play-based approach in her classroom. She told me that this petition “is not asking for KS1 to reduce essential academic content”. Instead, it aims to ensure that core knowledge can be taught using “purposeful learning through play; structured enabling environments; and skilled adult interaction.” Cari is one of the signatories to the petition who does not agree with the Government response to it, and perhaps she will not agree either with the official Opposition response, but I want to express her views this afternoon. I am certainly very grateful to her for sharing her expertise and experience. I draw attention to one school in my constituency, which I had the privilege of visiting towards the end of last year. Sparkwell All Saints primary is a very small rural school, and such schools can deliver this programme, which larger inner-city schools might struggle with. I put on record how impressed I was with what Sparkwell All Saints provided. The school starts with the Montessori-style nursery and continues that through into key stage 1. If I had children and I lived in the village, I would be queueing at the door to get my kids into the school, which is delightful to visit. Mr Cole, the headteacher, is inspirational, and the value of the play-based, hands-on teaching method that nurtures children from my constituency is clear to see. I understand the arguments for play, but we have to ensure that any increased emphasis on it does not hinder the teaching of a rigorous, knowledge-based curriculum, because, at the end of the day, we are preparing children to go through other key stages. However, as a non-expert in the room, I will say that I absolutely see both sides of the coin. One thing that will come up in the course of this debate—I think it was highlighted by the Chair of the Education Committee, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes)—is that often the schools that offer play are particularly beneficial for children with additional needs or special educational needs. One question I have for the Minister is: how do we ensure that, when this approach is used in local primary schools, we are creating a fair playing field? We do not want a situation where a few schools deliver an amazing, creative environment for children who might struggle in more academic mainstream schools, but on the other side, negatively impact SEND provision more broadly across the community. I absolutely recognise the value of play, but a school could potentially become known as being particularly good for SEND children and end up with a higher-than-average cohort of children who meet those criteria. Ultimately, I am completely compelled by what I have heard this afternoon. I hear all the arguments and I have seen the value of play for myself. I am slightly cautious and sceptical, given my past role as a governor in a primary school in a more urban setting that had a more traditional curriculum; none the less, it is important that we have been able to debate this topic this afternoon. Is it the Government’s view that a one-size-fits-all approach is right, or is it right to have differences in the school system? The new Labour Government want to halt the progress of free schools, which could provide this alternative form of education within the state system, and they are not keen on multi-academy trusts, which perhaps also offer a different way of teaching. I am interested to know the Minister’s thoughts on that one-size-fits-all approach, or whether there should be space in our state education system for different ways of teaching and learning.

    Hansard source
17. 26 Jan 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

    Youth Hubs

    It strikes me as odd that rather than extolling the virtues of the Government’s flagship youth guarantee, we have had a number of Labour MPs asking about youth hubs. Is that because it is easier to defend the setting up of some youth hubs than feeding back on the roll-out of the youth guarantee? Since the Labour Government came into power, businesses have stopped hiring young people in roles where they could be paying someone more experienced the same amount of money. That has meant that youth employment has gone up since July 2024, with the most recent figures showing a 103,000 increase in unemployed young people. Does the Secretary of State agree that rather than Back Bench-pleasing schemes tinkering around the edges of the youth unemployment crisis, what we need is a strong economy with confident businesses actively seeking to employ the hundreds of thousands of talented yet unemployed young people across the country?

    Hansard source
18. 26 Jan 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Paul

    Police Reform White Paper

    I am concerned that a merger of Surrey police with neighbouring forces will divert resources away from communities in Surrey. On a busy Saturday night, Reigate will inevitably lose out to Reading. What reassurance can the Secretary of State provide to my constituents?

    Hansard source
19. 26 Jan 2026·Parliament·Priti Patel

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if she will make a statement on the Government’s plans for the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill.

    Hansard source
20. 26 Jan 2026·Parliament·Priti Patel

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    Labour’s Chagos surrender humiliation continues. Today the Government were hoping to force through their surrender Bill in the House of Lords—giving away territory, handing over £35 billion to a foreign Government allied to China, and betraying the Chagossians. But after the Conservatives pointed out how their surrender would violate our existing international obligations and challenged the Government, the Government pulled the Bill from the House of Lords Order Paper to avoid being defeated. In its rush to appease left-wing lawyer friends, Labour overlooked the 1966 treaty between the UK and the US. I have a copy in front of me for the Minister to read. It states that the British Indian Ocean Territory “shall remain under the United Kingdom’s sovereignty.” Does the Minister accept that the Bill and the treaty with Mauritius violate the 1966 treaty with the US? Following the US President saying that the UK is giving away the Chagos Islands “FOR NO REASON WHATSOVER…There is no doubt that China and Russia have noticed this act of total weakness…The UK giving away extremely important land is an act of GREAT STUPIDITY”, can the Minister tell us what discussions have taken place with the US Administration in the last few days and whether they have communicated that they are now reviewing the deal? Britain’s weak Prime Minister seemed to suggest in the House last week that he was being bullied by the President, which is quite a personal statement. Has the Prime Minister had a direct discussion with the President about Chagos in the last week, and can the Minister confirm that any changes to our 1966 treaty with the US will undergo parliamentary scrutiny under the 21-day Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 process, with time given for debates and votes? Does he accept that it would be logical for this House to consider amendments to the 1996 treaty with the US before proceeding with the Bill? Can the Minister confirm that upon appointment as the British Indian Ocean Territory envoy and before becoming National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell, a friend of China, accelerated the negotiations with Mauritius to surrender the Chagos Islands? It is time Labour saw sense, scrapped this treaty and stood up for Britain.

    Hansard source
21. 26 Jan 2026·Parliament·Mr Richard Holden

    Animal Rescue Centres

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Alec. It is also a pleasure to hear from the Petitions Committee, and I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for outlining the petitioners views. There were almost 110,000 of them across the country. Some of them are here today in the Public Gallery. Led by Paul and the other campaigners, they have driven so hard to get us to where we are today—not just this debate in Parliament or with the private Member’s Bill that I introduced, but in actually seeing that consultation brought forward by the Government, which is very much to be welcomed. I begin by thanking hon. Members from across the Chamber: the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock); the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones); the hon. Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba); the chair of the APPG on cats, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter), and the hon. Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) contributed in a really valuable way to this debate. It is without doubt that the breadth and strength of those contributions have demonstrated why this issue of licensed animal shelters and rescue centres matters so deeply to communities right across the country. Now, it might be highly unusual to have the shadow Transport Secretary speaking in a debate on a subject for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but I requested this one personally, given the fact that an incident that has been referred to, and that sparked off this position, happened in my own constituency at Crays Hill. Many Members will be aware of that and have made a reference to that horrible and tragic case—the appalling discovery of dozens of animals found dead at a property which was presenting itself as a rehoming centre. Some animals were taken back alive. Yet even when they were taken alive some had to have the most horrendous operations done to them, including one having to have its eyes removed because it was so badly maltreated. I was inundated with correspondence from my own constituents and people across the country who are determined to see high standards brought in for this sector and proper, meaningful oversight delivered. I thank those 2,600 of my constituents who responded to this petition—more than any other constituency in the country. They are the reason that we are where we are today and the reason I brought forward my private Member’s Bill for establishing a licensing regime for animal shelters. Only by setting clear standards, and, crucially, as Members have said, by having them properly enforced, can we actually protect animals. That is why I am determined that, hopefully, with the Government’s consultation coming forward soon, we arrive at a licensing regime that puts animal welfare at its heart—and I look forward to hearing a few more details from the Minister in her response and very much welcome the proposal’s inclusion in the animal welfare strategy. That licensing regime must be one that clamps down on malpractice and bad actors while protecting and supporting the many kind-hearted individuals and organisations—from small individuals right through to some of our largest national charities—which provide safe, caring and responsible environments for animals and often animals in real need. We have heard passionate speeches from right across the House in support of those small, often individual institutions in Member’s constituencies. I am heartened by the depth of experience and expertise that exists in the sector to help us get this licensing regime right as well. I place on record my thanks to the RSPCA, Dogs Trust, Cats Protection, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, the Association of Dogs and Cats Homes, Farplace Animal Rescue and so many others for their outstanding work and leadership in this area. I obviously also have to pay tribute to Paul Watkinson. His dogged determination to protect animal welfare and ensure that high standards are there across the board also deserves recognition in this House, as do local campaigners in my constituency. As the hon. Member for Southend East and Rochford said, the problem, as has become painfully clear, is that anyone, regardless of their experience or their intention, can put up a sign and declare that they have an animal rescue shelter or rehoming centre. They will not face routine inspection, be subject to monitoring or be required to apply for any form of licence. That gap in oversight has led to consequences that are as clear as they are troubling: it has undermined public confidence in the integrity of the sector; placed intolerable pressure on reputable charities that are trying to get on with their meaningful work and that already face additional costs; and most importantly, it has resulted in animals suffering—not only dogs and cats but horses and the other animals that have been mentioned. We know that it does not have to be this way. As we have heard, in Scotland, a licensing regime provided a clear bulwark against malpractice and has been in place since 2021. As was mentioned, in Wales, the Government have made plain their intention to move in the same direction. It is therefore vital that England, which is currently an outlier, moves in the same direction. To continue as we are at the moment is clearly not sustainable, and there is a clear advantage to addressing this issue now. As we set about fixing the problem, we are not starting from scratch. As hon. Members have mentioned, we can draw directly from the experiences of those who have gone before us to get it right. I have spoken to many animal welfare charities based in Scotland that are adapting to the legislation and want to see updates. We can help get it right. We can get it even better here than those charities have managed. That is why it is so important that we act now. It is important to recognise that many rescue and rehoming centres already operate to the highest of standards. A significant number are subscribed to the Association of Dogs and Cats Homes voluntary code. That framework is the gold standard and was developed over many years with considerable care, expertise and sector-wide input. I am sure that the Minister will look closely at the voluntary code and work constructively with the association and the wider sector to ensure that the policy is delivered properly. At its best, the sector shows us what good looks like. The task before us is to ensure that those standards are applied fairly and right across the board, so that wherever they are, animals get gold-standard treatment. The hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock and the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South mentioned the fact that, for licensing to succeed, it must be proportionate and, crucially, properly enforced. One message I have heard repeatedly from across the sector is that regulation without enforcement is no regulation at all. Clear standards must be matched by trained inspectors, adequate local authority resourcing and a system that allows concerns to be acted on before situations deteriorate into crisis, as clearly happened in my constituency. Any effective system must reflect the realities of modern rescue and rehoming, including foster-based rescues and online rehoming operations, as well as reflecting the work of organisations facilitating rehoming more broadly. The ADCH standards are excellent and many responsible rescue centres have rightly adopted them, but a voluntary system alone will always leave gaps, as rogue operators can simply opt out. That is why I welcome the Government’s commitment to consult on a licensing regime for rehoming organisations, but that consultation must be followed by real clarity. The sector has been has been ready to engage for many years. What it needs now is a timetable and a clear scope, and there must also be reassurance that wildlife rescue centres will not be left outside of any framework and that there will be support for smaller organisations during any transition. What happened in my constituency last year is not just deeply disturbing; it is a crime, and the man who was arrested for it has recently pleaded guilty and is now awaiting sentencing. I am glad that he will be brought to justice. The situation has galvanised campaigners, charities and Members from across the House to work together to ensure that this issue receives the attention it deserves. There is a clearly a broad consensus across Parliament, the sector and the devolved Administrations. The case for licensing is well made, but what is now required is genuine action. Animals entering rescue and rehoming centres are, by definition, already the most vulnerable. Many have been abandoned, neglected or mistreated before. The very least we owe them is a system that keeps them safe and properly cared for, and we must hold those whose care they are put into to clear and enforceable standards. I urge the Government to ensure that England embarks on a structured roll-out of a licensing regime that is proportionate, inclusive and centred on animal welfare, regardless of the size of the organisation involved, at the earliest opportunity to ensure that the dogs at Crays Hill did not die in vain and we can prevent other tragedies in future.

    Hansard source
22. 26 Jan 2026·Parliament·Mr Peter Bedford

    Support into Work: Health Conditions

    As a result of this Government’s economic vandalism, unemployment continues to rise, particularly among young people and those with disabilities. Now more than ever, it is crucial that we support people back into work, but the Access to Work scheme is overly bureaucratic and faces significant delays. Indeed, at the weekend, one of my constituents told me they had been asked by a Department official to fill in a fraudulent timesheet in order to be paid on time. What is the Minister doing to get this programme back on track so that disabled people have the support they deserve and are contributing to the broader economy?

    Hansard source
23. 26 Jan 2026·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    Armed Forces Bill

    Does the Secretary of State agree that we have a good turnout in the House tonight to debate the Armed Forces Bill, which affects the quality of life and the service of the brave people who keep us safe? Yet again when we debate this vital subject, not a single Reform Member of Parliament is in the Chamber. Is it not wrong that these people wrap themselves in the flag, but never come along to defend the people who actually protect that flag?

    Hansard source
24. 26 Jan 2026·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    Armed Forces Bill

    The Secretary of State mentions such a wide spread, but when we debated the remedial order last Wednesday, over 100 Labour MPs abstained, including the Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary, the Armed Forces Minister and two thirds of the Cabinet. If it is such a good idea, why did the Secretary of State not come here and vote for it?

    Hansard source
25. 26 Jan 2026·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    Armed Forces Bill

    On that point, there are rumours that Reform is going to announce a shadow Cabinet. Constitutionally, there is only one shadow Cabinet, which belongs to the Opposition—even the Lib Dems do not have one. Instead, we are going to call it the drinks cabinet, because Nigel likes a drink, and so does Lee. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that drinks cabinet should have a defence spokesman in it?

    Hansard source
26. 26 Jan 2026·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    Armed Forces Bill

    As the Minister who oversaw Operation Gritrock, when RFA Argus was deployed to Freetown as part of Britain’s relief effort to fight Ebola in Sierra Leone, may I endorse everything that the hon. Lady has said and pay a personal tribute to the wonderful work that the RFA did to help combat that wicked virus?

    Hansard source
27. 26 Jan 2026·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    Armed Forces Bill

    It is a pleasure to follow my fellow Essex MP, the hon. Member for Colchester (Pam Cox), not least as she has the privilege of representing Merville barracks, which I have visited a number of times down the years and which is the home of our elite unit, the 16 Air Assault Brigade. I have to be careful in saying that, because I have a former royal marine, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), sitting on the Benches behind me. I thank the Minister for the helpful briefing on the Bill that he arranged for me at the Ministry of Defence last week. I am prepared to admit to the House that there was a slight communications mix-up. When I was originally invited into the Department, I left my phone in my office, thinking I was going into a briefing about events in Iran. I was both surprised and delighted when I was ushered into one of the historical rooms at the MOD to be pleasantly confronted by the entire team of officials responsible for the Bill. I am grateful to them for their subsequent briefing, which was extremely helpful. The Armed Forces Bill is a very necessary piece of legislation that has to be passed by Parliament at least every five years. By tradition, this quinquennial Bill is relatively non-controversial. In that spirit, as the shadow Defence Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), said, just as we did with the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025, the Opposition see our role as that of a critical friend to the Bill by engaging in debate with an aim to improving it where possible—although we do, of course, reserve the right to hold the Government to account on a variety of matters. I may take the liberty of returning to two such matters in particular. Although the Bill’s 55 clauses and seven schedules cover a variety of topics, with everything from drones—a particular hot button for the Minister, and indeed for my line manager—to powers of commanding officers, the Bill mainly encompasses four principal areas: reserves in clauses 31 to 37; defence housing and other property in a lengthy clause 3; the armed forces covenant in an equally lengthy clause 2; and potential changes to the service justice system, which is covered in several clauses, but principally clauses 5 to 16 and 20 to 26. I should like to say a little about each of those areas in turn. Before I do, though, I place on the record that in this debate on the Armed Forces Bill—a very important piece of legislation regarding the future and welfare of His Majesty’s armed forces—not a single Reform MP has been present in the Chamber, let alone made a speech. If these people want to wrap themselves in the flag, they should at least take the trouble to turn up to support those who actually defend it, both in this country and around the globe. Reform Members have been too busy today spreading misinformation about my party’s attitude to Northern Ireland veterans—another reason, I suspect, that they did not want to come into the Chamber and face the music.

    Hansard source
28. 26 Jan 2026·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    Armed Forces Bill

    My right hon. Friend is right. There is an old saying in politics that the world is run by those who turn up. Well, Reform did not turn up. On the reserves, I should first declare an interest. I served as a Territorial Army infantry officer in the 1980s in the 5th Battalion of the Royal Anglian Regiment, a NATO-roled battalion that formed part of the 49th Infantry Brigade, which in turn was part of the 2nd Infantry Division, whose core mission was essentially to reinforce what was then the British Army of the Rhine, or BAOR, in the event of world war three. Including service in the Officers’ Training Corps prior to joining 5 Royal Anglian, I did some seven years in total. I was on Exercise Lionheart in 1984 as an officer cadet and also exercised in Cyprus and West Berlin as a junior officer. Nevertheless, I was at no time deployed on active service and so, unlike the Minister, I have no medals at all, because I never did anything that merited one. Despite that, I am still proud to carry the late Queen’s Commission, and I like to believe that had the balloon gone up, our battalion would have done our best to defend the bridge over the Leine river, which was our wartime task.

    Hansard source
29. 26 Jan 2026·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    Armed Forces Bill

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind intervention. It is true that we have sparred in this Chamber—famously, on one occasion—but I utterly agree with the spirit of his intervention, which I am sure carries the support of the entire House tonight. There are a number of measures in the Bill to improve reserve service, which was mentioned by multiple Members, including the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), and the hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome). The measures cover the potential transition to war and the regularising of call-up liabilities across all three services. We think that the proposals largely make sense—though I have to confess that I recently turned 60, and seeing that the Minister wants to extend the call-up liability to 65, I had best dust off my old set of webbing at the back of the garage somewhere just in case.

    Hansard source
30. 26 Jan 2026·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    Armed Forces Bill

    I want to make a bit of progress, but perhaps later if I have time. Turning to housing, I should declare a different interest, as this was an area I cared about very much when I served as an MOD Minister. When I left ministerial office in 2016, the then Prime Minister Theresa May commissioned me and a small team to write a report about military recruitment, including terms of service such as service housing. We eventually entitled it “Filling the Ranks”, and it was submitted to the Prime Minister, with a copy to the Defence Secretary, in 2017. The report made 20 recommendations for improving recruitment, ranging from better advertising and further expansion of cadet units through to taking a more realistic approach to minor medical ailments such as mild eczema and temporary childhood asthma. Nineteen of the recommendations were accepted and actioned, to varying degrees, but unfortunately the one that was not was to consider sacking Capita—or according to Private Eye “Crapita”. Unfortunately, I never managed to persuade our Ministers to do that, despite the company’s truly awful record on Army recruitment. The peer review of “Filling the Ranks” was positive. However, as we were making visits to military establishments and interviewing everyone from privates to very senior officers, including on many of the issues contained in the Bill, in nearly every case within 15 minutes of talking about recruitment, we found ourselves involved in a related conversation about retention. In simple terms, we learned very quickly that there was no point widening the aperture of the recruitment tap if we could not put a retention plug in the sink. We were, therefore, delighted to be recommissioned to undertake a second report specifically into retention, which we subsequently entitled “Stick or Twist?”, as we thought that that encapsulated the serviceman’s dilemma, and which was eventually submitted to the new Prime Minister—one Boris Johnson—in February 2020, a month before the country went into lockdown. This report touched on a number of facets of the armed forces covenant, which are also part of the Bill. I have copies of both reports here with me. Quite a few of the recommendations in “Stick or Twist?” were adopted, and the then Defence Secretary Ben Wallace used it to persuade the Treasury to provide some extra tens of millions of pounds to improve childcare facilities at a number of bases around the country. It was worth doing the report if only for that. I should like to pay tribute to the small team that helped me to compile the two reports: Colonel—now Brigadier—Simon Goldstein, himself a former distinguished reservist; and my two researchers Mrs Sophie Doward-Jones and Mr Rory Boden, who worked tirelessly to produce two documents written in a Select Committee style, with all the work that that entails, for the attention of the Prime Minister and Defence Secretary. Again, however, the most controversial suggestion in “Stick or Twist?” was not adopted. It was a proposal to form a forces housing association and thus bring in expertise from the registered social landlord sector to better manage service families accommodation—SFA. Frankly, at the time this was simply too much for the vested interests in the MOD’s Defence Infrastructure Organisation to accept. Nevertheless, I was delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), the shadow Defence Secretary, announced a few months ago our intention to introduce such a body if we return to government. The Armed Forces Bill has much to say on this topic—as indeed have many Members this evening—especially in clause 3, which heralds the creation of a defence housing service. This is conceptually similar in some ways to what was first recommended in “Stick or Twist?” six years ago, but with some important differences. I genuinely look forward to debating the respective merits of the two approaches with the Minister in Committee. The Bill also touches on the issue of the armed forces covenant, which is a matter that we have discussed in this House on many occasions. In essence, the intention is to spread the authority of the covenant to cover other Government Departments, including Education and the NHS. We have a number of suggestions for how this process might be improved—for instance, in special needs education, which we hope to explore in Committee. I would like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) for what she said about the Queen Elizabeth hospital in Birmingham. I had the privilege of visiting the military unit there on two occasions—once in the company of His Royal Highness, the then Prince of Wales, now His Majesty the King—and I echo everything she said about the excellence of that department at that hospital in caring for those who have served their country. The Bill goes into some detail about potential improvements in the service justice system. This touches in part on a number of quite sensitive areas, not least those highlighted by my former Defence Committee colleague Sarah Atherton in what became known as the Atherton report. We shall again attempt to explore the merits and details of those proposals in Committee. Before I conclude, I want to refer to the remarks of President Trump about the brave soldiers who fought alongside the United States and other allies in Afghanistan. Would that he had not said such things, especially as our troops also fought with the Americans in Iraq and in the caves of Bora Bora in 2001 after the United States invoked article 5 after 9/11—the only nation ever to do that. We traditionally avoid discussing royal matters in this House, but if it is true that President Trump’s volte face on this was in some way due to royal intervention, all I can say is: God save the King. We should endeavour to take a broadly positive attitude to the Bill, but I must caution that there are two areas where the traditional consensus might struggle. First, the Government claim to be fully committed to the two principles of the armed forces covenant—namely, that no members of the wider armed forces family, be they regulars, reservists, veterans or their loved ones, should suffer any disadvantage as a result of their military service, and that special treatment may in some cases be appropriate, especially for the wounded or bereaved. All that rings hollow, however, when we see what the Government are currently doing to our brave Northern Ireland veterans—a matter we were debating in the House just last Wednesday evening over Labour’s remedial order to undermine the Conservative legacy Act, which protects our veterans. Over 100 Labour MPs failed to back that order on the night, including, interestingly, the Prime Minister himself, who abstained, as did over half the Cabinet, including the Defence Secretary and even the Armed Forces Minister. The Government have performed 13 U-turns in the past few months alone, and we very much hope for a 14th U-turn over two-tier justice and facilitating lawfare, especially against our own vital special forces, allowing our brave Northern Ireland veterans to live out their lives in peace instead.

    Hansard source
31. 26 Jan 2026·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    Armed Forces Bill

    No. Secondly, with regard to readiness, as the international skies darken, we fail to see how we can improve our deterrence posture through the Government’s imposing £2.6 billion of in-year spending cuts in the MOD’s operating budget this year, thus reducing training exercises, sea days and flying hours, all in the name of short-term cash control. The Government constantly claim that they are increasing defence spending while concurrently slashing our own armed forces’ operational spending and also stalling on the defence investment plan, which we were faithfully promised last autumn. Similarly, we have been promised a defence readiness Bill, which is not ready yet. It is like a serious defence strategy turning into “Waiting for Godot”. With those two important provisos, we welcome the Bill. I genuinely look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply, including on why he abstained last Wednesday.

    Hansard source
32. 26 Jan 2026·Parliament·Mr Gagan Mohindra

    PIP: Number of Claimants

    8. What assessment he has made of the potential implications for his policies of trends in the number of claimants of the personal independence payment.

    Hansard source
33. 26 Jan 2026·Parliament·Mr Gagan Mohindra

    PIP: Number of Claimants

    One of my constituents in Abbots Langley, Darren, suffers from a very complicated congenital heart condition, which, alongside his hyperthyroidism and obstructive sleep apnoea, significantly restricts his ability to perform everyday tasks including work. Despite that, Darren has recently had his entitlement to personal independence payment withdrawn. As Darren now awaits a heart transplant, can the Minister outline what steps his Department will take to ensure that Darren and his family receive the necessary financial support during this stressful time?

    Hansard source
34. 26 Jan 2026·Parliament·Mike Wood

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    The Minister did not answer the question that the shadow Foreign Secretary asked, but it is inconceivable that Foreign Office Ministers will not have had discussions with their American counterparts about this issue over the last week. Can the Minister tell us whether it is still the Government’s position that US opposition to the treaty is purely about Greenland?

    Hansard source
35. 26 Jan 2026·Parliament·Martin Vickers

    Police Reform White Paper

    The Humberside force that polices my Brigg and Immingham constituency covers four local authorities and two separate mayoral authorities. Exactly what proportion of police funding is likely to come from the police precept, and how will it be divided up?

    Hansard source
36. 26 Jan 2026·Parliament·Mark Pritchard

    Police Reform White Paper

    We all want to see more effective and efficient policing, but I am not quite sure whether this White Paper will deliver it. Clearly, the devil will be in the detail. The Home Secretary will know that West Mercia police, covering Shropshire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire, is a high-performing police force. Can she reassure my constituents that she understands the difference between, for example, West Midlands urban policing—she obviously oversees it, but she also lives in that jurisdiction—and the rural and semi-rural policing of forces such as West Mercia police? In my experience, regional counter-terrorism policing works very well in the West Midlands, which oversees that for West Mercia police as well, and so does the National Crime Agency under its excellent leadership. Finally on the reforms, can I ask the Home Secretary to review the effectiveness and efficiency of the 101 service, and as the Official Secrets Act covers some police officers, but not all, is this not an opportunity to ensure that all police officers are covered by a duty of confidentiality and secrecy?

    Hansard source
37. 26 Jan 2026·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    State Pension Age Changes: Compensation

    Thank you, Mr Speaker—I had better add my sympathies for your poor leg to those of the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince). The Labour party has performed, frankly, a spectacular U-turn on its support for WASPI women, but now it finds itself bogged down in judicial reviews and accusations of incompetence. If the Government cannot even deliver literally nothing for the WASPI women without messing up, what hope is there for them delivering wider welfare reforms?

    Hansard source
38. 26 Jan 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    Last time I checked, there were 404 Labour MPs. Why does the Minister think that his Whips could not come up with a single Back Bencher to come to the Chamber and support his position today?

    Hansard source
39. 26 Jan 2026·Parliament·James Cartlidge

    Armed Forces Bill

    It is a privilege to open for the Opposition on Second Reading of the Armed Forces Bill, given the global circumstances in which we find ourselves, and the sense that the ability of our armed forces to stand up to renewed threats has not been at issue to this degree for many years. Before turning to the Bill, I want to take this opportunity to place on record my thanks, and those of the Opposition, to a particularly special group of people: those members of the British armed forces who served in Afghanistan, in the cause of freedom and in the wake of the horrific 9/11 attack on our closest ally, the United States of America. The 9/11 attack was not just an attack against the US mainland; it was also an attack on ourselves, and not only because of the 67 British lives that were lost when the twin towers were hit, but because our western way of life seemed to be under direct attack. So I am glad that President Trump followed his wholly inaccurate and misjudged remarks about the service of our personnel in Afghanistan with praise for our military, but their contribution should never have been in doubt. Given the immense pain that his words will have caused the loved ones of those who were lost in Afghanistan, we send a message to those families today that theirs was far from a loss in vain; it was a just cause, where British soldiers played as much a part as anyone else, and one for which we will be forever grateful.

    Hansard source
40. 26 Jan 2026·Parliament·James Cartlidge

    Armed Forces Bill

    I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his service in Afghanistan, and that of other colleagues present in the Chamber. He is absolutely right. When we debated the President’s remarks about Greenland, I made the point on the media round that Denmark had the highest per capita losses in Afghanistan, and the other nations all suffered. We all fought together because it was a common cause.

    Hansard source