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

1. 15 Jan 2026·Parliament·Greg Smith

   Digital ID

   The Minister has been consistent this morning both in his defence of the indefensible and in avoiding putting a price on this scheme. He did not answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson), who asked whether the Government dispute the £1.8 billion figure from the OBR. If he will not give an overall ballpark figure of what the Treasury has sanctioned for this scheme, will he at least tell us what the consultation he is hiding behind will cost?

   Hansard source
2. 15 Jan 2026·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

   New Towns

   The hon. Lady is correct that I am familiar with the site in her constituency that is proposed as one of the new towns. I acknowledge, accept and support her argument that the DLR infrastructure would stimulate the regeneration of Thamesmead. Is it therefore a cause of regret that that site is not included in the three new towns that are scheduled to begin work before 2029?

   Hansard source
3. 15 Jan 2026·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

   New Towns

   I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this important debate, and to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) for bringing it forward. I have been rehearsing the name of her constituency in my head for quite some time, and I have made a mess of pronouncing it right from the outset, so I apologise to her. I also thank the 16 hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. It seems that every time I return to this place, the Government have fallen further and further away from justifying their increasingly mistaken belief that they can deliver on their 1.5 million homes target. No one believes they are going to reach such a lofty, albeit much- needed, figure. We have pointed out that the Government’s efforts to reach that unrealistic target appear geared towards removing as much local input into decision making as possible, and towards shifting development from brownfield sites in cities and urban areas, where demand and infrastructure exists, to rural areas, where demand is often lower and infrastructure is far less well provided or even non-existent. That brings me to the Government’s new towns policy, about which, as it is currently framed, we have significant concerns, which I will touch on shortly. At the Labour party conference at the end of September last year, the Secretary of State pledged that the Government would go ahead with work on new towns in at least 12 locations. Since then, it has emerged that only three of those new towns will begin before the end of this Parliament, with the rest to be built after 2029. The three new towns that we will supposedly see begun before 2029 are Tempsford in Bedfordshire, Leeds South Bank, and Crews Hill and Chase Park in the London borough of Enfield. While His Majesty’s Opposition recognise the need to build new homes, we hope that the Government will work harder to listen to and address the concerns of local people living near these three sites than they have done with the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca), whose constituency includes one of the other nine lower-priority new town sites. He highlighted some of the Opposition’s key concerns when he presented a petition to the House on 17 December last year about plans for the Adlington new town, and he did so again in his excellent speech earlier today. The concerns he outlined were about the adverse impact on the green belt and on agricultural land, strains on local infrastructure and services, and the adverse impact on local communities. We are sympathetic to those concerns, which are not restricted to Adlington. One of the first new towns earmarked for building is in the London borough of Enfield, which has 37.3% green belt and 47.6% open space. According to the CPRE, the green space of Enfield, much of which is based on the borders of the Enfield Chase heritage area of special character, gives large parts of Enfield a rural character that is comparable to Richmond park or Hampstead heath, which are areas of significant local and historical value. The site of the proposed new town currently comprises commercial horticultural nurseries, garden centres, a golf course, working farms and greenfield land. The local businesses employ around 1,000 people, and all of this is threatened by the proposal. These are not vast swathes of undeveloped potential, but important green spaces that help as much as urban centres to define an area’s character and community. Tempsford in Bedfordshire is much the same, and has been chosen as an area for a whole new stand-alone town. My hon. Friend the Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) highlighted, on behalf of his constituents, some of his concerns as the local Member of Parliament. It is vital that the Government work to fully and properly consult a local community like Tempsford—an area currently made up of small villages—rather than continue their top-down crusade against the countryside. That is why we Conservatives have repeatedly sought assurances from the Government about their plans for full and proper consultation with local people and communities. I hope the Minister will commit to that today. The impact of new towns does not stop at the boundaries of the local authority area in which they are developed. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) has highlighted that the proposed Crews Hill development in the London borough of Enfield will be closer to the village of Goffs Oak in his constituency than to Enfield town hall. The imposition of a new town of 21,000 properties on the border of his constituency cannot avoid having a direct impact on his constituents. Will the Minister therefore commit to proper consultation of communities and councils adjacent to the local authority in which the proposed new town may be built? He is a decent man, and I hope that he will. The Opposition recognise that the country is in desperate need of not just more housing, but more housing in the right places with the right infrastructure to support it. The hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare) made precisely that point in her speech. Identifying where places have the right infrastructure, brownfield or urban capacity, and where new homes are most wanted, is a key factor. The Government must get serious about their failure to improve house building during their first 18 months in power. They must stop making excuses and blaming everybody else, and instead look at how to get the country building in the right places. That is why the Opposition have called for a brownfield-first approach to be properly actioned, not just paid lip service to, as it is by the Government. According to the CPRE, in a large number of local authorities there is enough brownfield land with planning permission to meet the targets set by the Government’s standard method for calculating housing need for at least the next five years. The same report shows that England’s brownfield sites increased in number, land area and minimum net dwellings by up to 54%, 6% and 34%, respectively, between 2018 and 2024. The Government will no doubt point to their brownfield passport policy in response to that criticism, but it should be noted that this policy, if actioned, is not without risk. It could result in bypassing crucial local input, minimising local community power in their own local neighbourhoods and rushing through developments despite legitimate local objections, which will do nothing for people’s faith in democracy. Even if that proves to be a misplaced concern, brownfield passports do not deal with some of the deep-seated causes of brownfield delays. After all, we know that there are already hundreds of thousands of planning permissions on sites that have not yet been built, and it is a lazy generalisation and an inadequate explanation simply to blame all of that on the land banking of greedy developers, because the causes are more complex. Funding, complexity, increasing regulatory burdens, delays and other factors all play their part. If the Government do nothing to address those factors, all they will succeed in is achieving more undeveloped planning permissions. As we all know, people need real buildings to live in, not unexecuted planning permissions.

   Hansard source
4. 15 Jan 2026·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

   New Towns

   I agree. It would be a great tragedy if the Government push on with their new towns policy and simply think that their brownfield passport will solve everything, because by having fewer developments on brownfield sites and some developments on greenfield sites, we will end up losing the precious green belt and still not delivering the amount of housing we need. That would be an own goal from the Government, so I hope they will take this point away and do something about it. The Government need to look further and faster at the proper development of brownfield land, rather than ripping up the green belt and steamrolling over local democracy, local voices and local communities. Recent history shows that this approach works. If the Government want to see urban regeneration or densification done right, they can follow Conservative examples and pursue brownfield first, not greenfield first, as the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), highlighted at the Conservative party conference. The Government need look no further than the Olympic Park in east London—a brownfield site transformed into a superbly connected hub of housing, business, retail and leisure that was completed under Boris Johnson as the Conservative Mayor of London. It was the same with Canary Wharf under Margaret Thatcher and Michael Heseltine, when the old, dilapidated docks were completely regenerated, revitalised and reborn. Finally, as the Opposition mentioned in the final stages of the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, the Government should add to their growing pile of U-turns and reverse the damaging blows the Chancellor and the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), dealt to the housing market and the construction market through their unholy trinity of economic decline, tax hikes and cuts to demand-side housing policies. Only through a genuine brownfield-first approach and a reversal of the damage inflicted by No. 11 and the former Secretary of State will the Government succeed in protecting our countryside and get on to building real homes properly connected with the right facilities that people actually want.

   Hansard source
5. 15 Jan 2026·Parliament·Esther McVey

   Covid-19: Financial Support

   I thank the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) for securing the debate and the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. There is no doubt that the hardship affecting families, businesses and communities as a result of covid-19 policies is ongoing. The depth of suffering is hard to read about. People have been pushed to their limits, mentally and financially, and have had to endure indignity and injustice through no fault of their own. I hope that we can now all agree that it should never have happened. It is something that we never want to see happen again. The various Government financial support schemes that were set up helped many people, but for the forgotten businesses and individuals who, for one bureaucratic reason or another, were deemed ineligible, the situation was patently unfair and unjust. Some 3.8 million UK taxpayers were excluded from support, while the rest of the working population were paid to stay at home. Why were they excluded? The reasons were arbitrary. Financial support was not forthcoming if a person was newly self-employed, a PAYE freelancer, a director paid in dividends, starting a new job—the list goes on. The rules were random and confusing, and they pushed so many people into desperate situations. Sadly, we should not have been surprised that that happened. Although some marvelled at the speedy roll-out of the Government’s schemes, the reality was that they were patchy, poorly thought out and full of gaps—of course they were. How could we ever expect to shut down our society and economy and be able to cover the gigantic financial cost of doing so while ensuring that every person was properly looked after? It was unrealistic —an unprecedented state intervention that was doomed to fail. I totally agree with Members present who are pushing for assurances that that will never happen again, but if we cannot look back with honesty and clarity about what was done, we are doomed to make the same mistakes again. Lockdown was the mistake from which all that injustice and suffering flowed. It was an unknown and unevidenced imposition that should never have been inflicted upon the British people. Many experts predicted from the start that it would cause misery and, horrifically, cost hundreds of thousands of lives through unintended but very real collateral damage.

   Hansard source
6. 15 Jan 2026·Parliament·Esther McVey

   Covid-19: Financial Support

   I do not believe the evidence proves that. We can look to other parts of the world where that was not the case. This policy had unwavering and enthusiastic support from across the House, with just a few of us in this House —too few—raising valid concerns, but we were shut down. It should be obvious that some people cannot be damaged in the name of protecting others with interventions such as lockdowns that we do not even know will work. The moral mathematics never added up. And now we must live with the consequences of what we did. We spent in the region of £400 billion on the covid-19 response—a vast sum that will be clawed back through increased taxation and hardship for generations to come. Of course, the Conservative party had to put up taxes to pay for that £400 billion, and it was voted for by pretty much every Member in the House. For me, such a statist, socialist intervention would never work, and that is proving to be the case. Those businesses that did manage to survive after everything that was thrown at them in the name of covid are now having to face more gloom and doom from this socialist Government in charge of our country, with their two tax-rising Budgets and their removal of business rates relief without understanding it—

   Hansard source
7. 15 Jan 2026·Parliament·Esther McVey

   Covid-19: Financial Support

   Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I added on that sentence because I felt it was very relevant that those who did manage to survive the pandemic are now not surviving, because of the extra taxes that are being put upon them and the removal of business rates relief that was introduced during covid, and it seems that the Chancellor does not even know how that works. Those businesses are suffering twofold, because some of that covid benefit is now being removed. It is no wonder Labour MPs are being banned from pubs, as we see mass closures of pubs. I simply ask that we examine the bigger picture. Those 3.8 million people who were excluded from financial support suffered a terrible injustice, but so too did those who received support, because lockdown took from everyone: children denied education; mothers forced to give birth alone; people suffering heart attacks, strokes and sepsis but too frightened to burden the NHS; bereaved families unable to mourn the dead—the list of injustices goes on and on. None of it should ever have happened. The costs were always going to be too high, and worse, there appears to be no evidence that lockdown prevented covid infections. The covid inquiry recently made two incredible assertions. One was that lockdowns were harmful but should have started earlier, and the other was that the modelling should not have been used to justify major policy but simultaneously proved that 23,000 lives could have been saved. Finally, lockdown was, as Professor Sunetra Gupta from the University of Oxford said—

   Hansard source
8. 15 Jan 2026·Parliament·Esther McVey

   Covid-19: Financial Support

   I am concluding my remarks. I am pleased to have been able to speak today as one of a handful of 650 MPs who stood by “the Forgotten Ltd” and by many of our constituents whose businesses went out of business. I was one of the few in the House who stood up for them. Finally, as Professor Sunetra Gupta said, this was like taking a hammer to a fly on a pane of glass: you might or might not kill the fly, but you definitely shatter the window. It will take us a long time to pick up the pieces. Next time we face a similar crisis, let us not panic and reach for the hammer.

   Hansard source
9. 15 Jan 2026·Parliament·Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

   Digital ID

   Many of my constituents will be watching these proceedings agog, because this is just another example of the chaotic approach to policymaking by this Government. Given the contentious nature of this issue, why did the Government not consult before announcing the proposals, and why did they not consult before then reversing on the policy in the next instance?

   Hansard source
10. 15 Jan 2026·Parliament·Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

    Prisons: Illegal Drugs

    Does the hon. Gentleman share my deep disappointment and concern about the position that the Ministry of Justice finds itself in? The research and development phase for counter-drone activity has not been strengthened, and we have frequent episodes of drones bypassing prison security.

    Hansard source
11. 15 Jan 2026·Parliament·David Mundell

    Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise Sector

    To obtain funding, most small organisations require a bank account. Is the Secretary of State aware that many organisations are struggling to get a bank account? Some banks do not offer those services to small and voluntary organisations, or a huge amount of bureaucracy needs to be entered into in order to get an account. Will the Secretary of State speak with her colleagues in the Treasury to get to the bottom of why it is so difficult for small and voluntary organisations to get a bank account?

    Hansard source
12. 15 Jan 2026·Parliament·David Mundell

    Business of the House

    May I add my congratulations to my long-time Scottish Conservative and Unionist colleague, Lord Forsyth, on his election as Lord Speaker? In the pre-recess debate, I highlighted the exciting prospects for the redevelopment of the Chapelcross nuclear power station site in my constituency. For that redevelopment to go ahead, it will require an additional extensive connection to the grid, but at the moment the National Energy System Operator, which is in charge of managing the electricity network, is conducting a review, and no large-scale connections are going ahead. Could the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero to make a statement on when NESO’s review will be concluded and these important connections can proceed?

    Hansard source
13. 15 Jan 2026·Parliament·Dame Caroline Dinenage

    Creative Industries: AI

    When it comes to AI, as with so many other things, this Government are all smoke and mirrors. In response to the Grok AI outrage this week, the Secretary of State for Science and Tech announced with a flourish that she would be banning intimate image abuse with immediate effect. In reality, this meant triggering legislation that had to be forced through by Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge against the Government’s will and that received Royal Assent last summer. Imagine how many women could have had their trauma prevented if the Government had just got a grip. Every day, our creative industries are having their work scraped. Intellectual property is being stolen every day, and still the Government sit on their hands, promising the world and delivering nothing. When will we see the AI Bill promised in the last King’s Speech, and when is that legislation likely to be brought forward?

    Hansard source
14. 15 Jan 2026·Parliament·Charlie Dewhirst

    Topical Questions

    T4. My local county football association has contacted me, deeply concerned about plans to remove Sport England as a statutory consultee on planning, a point raised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston). I am not entirely sure that he got a full response, so in the spirit of charity may I ask once again what protections will be put in place to ensure that we do not lose our sports facilities?

    Hansard source
15. 15 Jan 2026·Parliament·Charlie Dewhirst

    Digital ID

    I must congratulate the Minister on doing an excellent job as a human shield for the Prime Minister. He says that this scheme will bring down the number of people crossing the channel on boats, but that is clearly a farce. You have just said that you will be able to access—

    Hansard source
16. 15 Jan 2026·Parliament·Charlie Dewhirst

    Digital ID

    My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister has just said that once he has rolled out this digital ID scheme, we will be able to access certain things that we cannot currently access. Can he list exactly what services we will be able to access?

    Hansard source
17. 15 Jan 2026·Parliament·Charlie Dewhirst

    Business of the House

    Local rugby clubs such as Bridlington, Driffield and Hornsea do an enormous amount to engage young men and women in sport, and 2026 is Driffield rugby club’s centenary. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Driffield on its first 100 years? Can I tempt him to don his kit when the Commons and Lords rugby team play Driffield in a charity match for the Injured Players Foundation at Twickenham in March?

    Hansard source
18. 15 Jan 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Covid-19: Financial Support

    Order. In the region of 10 Members wish to speak. If they restrict themselves to about five minutes each, I will probably get everybody in.

    Hansard source
19. 15 Jan 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Covid-19: Financial Support

    Order. The subject of the debate is financial support specifically during the covid pandemic. The right hon. Lady might want to make sure she stays within scope of that.

    Hansard source
20. 15 Jan 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Covid-19: Financial Support

    Order. The debate is not about lockdown; it is about financial support. I hope the right hon. Lady is concluding her remarks.

    Hansard source
21. 15 Jan 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Covid-19: Financial Support

    There will now be a formal four-minute time limit.

    Hansard source
22. 15 Jan 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Covid-19: Financial Support

    Order. I call Iqbal Mohamed.

    Hansard source
23. 15 Jan 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Covid-19: Financial Support

    Order. We do not refer to the Prime Minister by his name, but as the Prime Minister.

    Hansard source
24. 15 Jan 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Covid-19: Financial Support

    Order. I call Olly Glover.

    Hansard source
25. 15 Jan 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Covid-19: Financial Support

    That brings us to the Front-Benchers’ speeches. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

    Hansard source
26. 15 Jan 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Covid-19: Financial Support

    Order. I appreciate that the hon. Lady is referring to the self-employed and small businesses who were impacted by covid-19 financial support, but I am not convinced that Making Tax Digital and the Employment Rights Bill fall within the scope of this debate.

    Hansard source
27. 15 Jan 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Covid-19: Financial Support

    I call the shadow Minister.

    Hansard source
28. 15 Jan 2026·Parliament·Bob Blackman

    Business of the House

    I join the Leader of the House in congratulating Lord Forsyth on his election in the other place. In addition to the business that the Leader of the House has announced, next Thursday there will be a Select Committee statement from the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee on its report, “Tackling the energy cost crisis.” On Thursday 29 January, there will be a Select Committee statement from the Health and Social Care Committee on the first 1,000 days of life. In Westminster Hall next Tuesday, there will be a debate on the role of the NHS in preventing domestic homicides and domestic abuse-related deaths. On Thursday 22 January, there will be a debate on transport connectivity in the midlands and north Wales, followed by a debate on the International Day of Education. On 27 January, there will be a debate in Westminster Hall on UK bus manufacturing. On 29 January, there will be a debate on non-recognition of Russian occupied territories of Ukraine, followed by a debate on protecting and restoring river habitats. I advise the Leader of the House that a large number of time-sensitive debates have been requested for both February and March, so early warning of what dates we will get would be helpful for us to allocate those debates accordingly. At the pre-recess Adjournment debate, I raised the situation in Bangladesh, and the Leader of the House quite rightly wrote to the Foreign Secretary about the disastrous situation there. Hindu men are being murdered on the streets; their houses are being burned; the temples are being burned; and other religious minorities are suffering similar fates. Next month, there are due to be so-called free and fair elections. The Awami League, which is a major political party in Bangladesh, is banned from competing in those elections, despite its commanding about 30% in the opinion polls. Equally, the Islamic extremists have called for a referendum which would change the constitution of Bangladesh forever. Could we have a statement from the Foreign Secretary next week on what action the Government will take to ensure that there are free, fair and inclusive elections and that minorities are protected?

    Hansard source
29. 15 Jan 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Topical Questions

    Will the Secretary of State support Conservative calls for funding for the listed places of worship scheme to be restored? That would give places of worship such as All Saints in Shillington in Mid Bedfordshire the certainty they need to protect our heritage and continue serving all our communities.

    Hansard source
30. 15 Jan 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Digital ID

    When the Prime Minister first announced digital ID, it was to stop illegal working. It took most of us about a minute to work out that that was total nonsense. Flapping in the wind, the Government are now desperately trying to sell the benefits of limiting liberty and freedom for all our constituents. One thing the Government have failed to tell us is how much this will cost. Nothing in life is free; there is a cost to this. Do the Government dispute the £1.8 billion estimate that has been provided by the Office for Budget Responsibility?

    Hansard source
31. 15 Jan 2026·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

    Digital ID

    The Minister talks about mandatory right-to-work checks in a way that implies it is always the worker who is the bad faith actor in the relationship. Will he explain how mandatory right-to-work checks will be used to check employers, who are often the guilty party for employing people illegally? Will he outline what other agencies will have access to the database in a passive way—that is, without having been asked to provide an individual’s ID—to work out what is going on?

    Hansard source
32. 15 Jan 2026·Parliament·Andrew Rosindell

    Persecuted Christians Abroad

    3. What steps the Church of England is taking to help tackle the persecution of Christians in other countries.

    Hansard source
33. 15 Jan 2026·Parliament·Andrew Rosindell

    Persecuted Christians Abroad

    I thank the hon. Member for her answer, but she will be aware that in past decades over 50,000 Christians have been inhumanely slaughtered in Nigeria by murderous Islamist groups, namely Boko Haram and Fulani herdsmen. These attacks have only intensified in recent months, targeting vulnerable groups such as Christian schools and missionaries. This is a tragedy of mammoth proportions. What action is the Church of England taking to prioritise the issue of Christian persecution and support the Anglican Church in Nigeria?

    Hansard source
34. 15 Jan 2026·Parliament·Andrew Rosindell

    Digital ID

    This has been a costly shambles, and my constituents see it as an attack on their fundamental freedoms and privacy, so I am glad that the Government have done another U-turn. Will the Minister guarantee, however, that this so-called voluntary scheme is not suddenly going to turn into a mandatory scheme at a later date? Will he absolutely guarantee the British people that that will not happen in the future?

    Hansard source
35. 15 Jan 2026·Parliament·Andrew Rosindell

    Business of the House

    The Leader of the House needs to be aware that London Councils is considering scrapping the older persons’ freedom pass, which has left my constituents shocked, angry and dismayed. The freedom pass is a lifeline for many, providing access to free transport and enabling older people to live active lives. He will be aware that I recently presented the Transport for London (Extension of Concessions) Bill to the House, which would protect the freedom pass for all areas served by Transport for London, including Havering and beyond. That is clearly more important than ever. Will the Leader of the House provide Government time for the Second Reading of my Bill, so that we can protect, defend and extend the freedom pass for our senior citizens across the entire Transport for London region?

    Hansard source
36. 15 Jan 2026·Parliament·Alicia Kearns

    Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme

    In Rutland, Stamford and the Harborough villages, we are fortunate to have one of the highest numbers of listed places of worship in the country, from Teigh to Tixover to All Saints’ in Stamford. Does the Church Commissioner agree that we cannot allow these amazing places to fall into collapse or to lose them? Once they are lost to our communities, our communities really are the ones who lose out.

    Hansard source
37. 15 Jan 2026·Parliament·Alicia Kearns

    Digital ID

    This Government seem intent on fundamentally changing the relationship between the state and its citizens without our consent, from jury trials to digital ID. Although there was some relief at first, I fear that once it is introduced the Labour Government will make it mandatory at a later stage or do so surreptitiously. I gently point out to the Minister that there is no such thing as “free”. Taxpayers are already paying for this policy; indeed, they are also paying for a new Minister to deliver it. Can he please confirm that no foreign companies, particularly Chinese companies, will have any access to our data and that this will involve British companies delivering a so-called digital card for British people? When will his constituents and mine have a chance to tell the British Government that they do not want this?

    Hansard source
38. 14 Jan 2026·Parliament·Stuart Anderson

    Ajax Programme

    I thank my hon. Friend for initiating this important debate. Does he agree with me that it is important for the Minister to set out that in 2022 I and colleagues on the Defence Committee went to Merthyr Tydfil, did a review and clearly stated that IOC was nowhere near deliverable in the timeframes proposed? Does my hon. Friend think it is worth the Minister setting out what checks against the Defence Committee report were done when looking at IOC?

    Hansard source
39. 14 Jan 2026·Parliament·Stuart Anderson

    Ajax Programme

    I do not want to steal my right hon. Friend’s thunder, but when we were on that visit, I was absolutely shocked that the team building Ajax said that no two hulls had ever left the factory that were the same. They were all slightly different, and that was a flaw in the whole building project.

    Hansard source
40. 14 Jan 2026·Parliament·Stuart Anderson

    Ajax Programme

    When or if trials resume, what assurances will we get that no future British troops will be put in harm’s way by testing Ajax?

    Hansard source