Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023
Was the Irish Deputy Prime Minister Simon Harris wrong when he said that there were no new protections for veterans in the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill?
Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,750 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Suicide: Reducing the Stigma
indicated assent.
- Hansard source
Suicide: Reducing the Stigma
I want to start by finishing where I left off in the main Chamber in the debate during Suicide Prevention Month. I talked about a TikTok meme that was going around about where men go, and who they turn to, when they are at their lowest. The answers in that video are all “no one”: “No one cares”; “There’s no one”; “It’ll be used against me.” I want to speak to the people in that video, because after I mentioned it, I received literally hundreds of messages, first to thank me for raising it, secondly to thank me for raging, because people are not listening, and thirdly to say, “Well, people don’t care.” Actually, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and the Members from across the parties in the Chamber today do care. This is an ongoing conversation that we are having, and action has been taken by previous Governments and is being taken by this Government. We must get out the message that things are happening and that people are talking about it and are interested in it. This is being looked at and discussed at the highest possible level to bring in changes to make the world a little bit better. It is thanks to the pressure that we apply in this place that such changes are made, and I think it is important to get that on the record. When it comes to men’s health, I am very keen to point out that this is not an “or” issue—it is not about women or men, but about women and men. That is particularly the case for mental health and mental wellbeing because woman partners often spot the issue first. Women are the advocates we all need when we are having this discussion, and it is important to make sure that is on the record too. The last Government brought forward the women’s health strategy, and we now have an allied men’s health strategy. They are not in competition, but work in conjunction, which I think is important. I followed up September’s debate on suicide prevention with a letter to the Ministers to raise a few points, and I think it would be prudent for me to use my time to press them home a bit further. The first point was about the £10 million suicide prevention grant fund, which was brought in to deliver specific support for 79 organisations between August 2023 and March 2025. The fund has now run out, and after that was raised, the Minister for Care responded in answer to a written question: “There are currently no plans to run another grant fund.” However, in April he followed up by saying: “We will be evaluating the impact of the fund, and the services that have been provided by the grant-funded organisations. Learning from this evaluation will help to inform the delivery of the Government’s mission to reduce the lives lost to suicide.” In my letter, I asked whether we could have “some details on the basis behind this decision” as well as “what alternate provision…is being provided” and when we would hear about the evaluation. I was lucky enough to get a response on 13 November from the Minister in the other place who has responsibility for mental health. She addressed that point, but she simply said: “As previously stated, the Department is evaluating the impact of the Suicide Prevention Grant Fund from 2023 to 2025, and the services that have been provided by the grant-funded organisations. The evaluation will be completed in due course and learnings from that evaluation will help to inform the delivery of the Government’s mission to reduce the lives lost to suicide.” That is welcome news, but we have now gone from April to November, and I would like to understand when the evaluation will come, because it will be imperative in deciding how we take forward these services. In that light, I welcome the men’s health strategy, particularly its emphasis on suicide. However, as my Liberal Democrat colleague, the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), pointed out, the £10 million over two years seems to dwarf the £3.6 million across three years. That is a concern for the Opposition, especially when we look at how it is likely to be delivered, which is through the charity sector, as the national insurance changes have already taken a massive toll. For example, Mind has said that that tax increase will cost it £250,000, so its £1 million across a year suddenly starts to be whittled away. I am keen to understand how the Government will square that circle. That leads me to my last point, which we have raised in the House before—I have certainly raised it both with the last Government and now with this one—on the issue of representation for men and boys. Before the election, the last Government were looking at having a men’s health ambassador. In my letter, I asked whether any consideration was being given to bringing in such an ambassador or about having a Minister for men and boys. I am open to suggestions about how that could work or would not work, but it strikes me that in the current climate, we have a Minister for Women, but not one for men and boys. That leads me full circle back to where I started, which is that this is not an “or” issue, but an “and” issue. If we believe that women consult differently on their health, by definition men must do so too, so we need different pathways. The strategy is a good stepping stone from the Government, and I welcome it, but I just hope they use it as a springboard, rather than simply as a plank across a river. We have talked a lot about the stigma, which is probably the most important thing, and heard a lot about how it is important to talk, but if we think about what the people in that TikTok video are really saying when they talk about how they feel there is no one, we as a society and this House have to not only listen, but show that we care, we have to make people believe that we care, and we have to follow that up with actions to allow people, in particular men, to get the help they need to help themselves. That is really important.
- Hansard source
Suicide: Reducing the Stigma
It is great to hear about the Together Against Suicide partnership with the Premier League, but will the Minister explain how it works? Having looked at the details, it appears to be run in conjunction with the Samaritans. Is extra funding coming from the Premier League or from the Government to run the scheme? If the Samaritans provide the signposting, how are they being supported? In essence, it looks like an area to people together. Is that correct?
- Hansard source
Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
I try to take a positive outlook. The one thing the pandemic did was shine a spotlight on the likes of long covid and ME, and I know from my medical career how difficult that can be. I would like to thank Sajid Javid, who in 2022 announced the plan for ME, and I congratulate the Minister because she brought it to fruition on 22 July 2025. There are some similarities between the NHS 10-year plan and the ME plan: the ME delivery plan is fantastic, and a lot of people agree with it, but, importantly, there has been a lack of delivery. Action for ME has said: “The Plan also lacks clear accountability structures with no mechanisms to measure impact or deadlines to hit. We are concerned that despite this well-meaning Plan being published, it will have no material impact on the historically stigmatised and ignored ME community. Action for ME wants to work with MPs, Ministers and Officials to improve its implementation.” It went on to say that the delivery plan on ME/CFS fails to include a “strategic approach” to ME research. However, that was not the only group to say so; the ME Association said: “There is no clear ambition or strategy to drive consistent implementation of the NICE guideline recommendations” across ICBs. It went on to say: “Severe and very severe ME receives minimal attention, despite known risks during hospital admissions”. It also said: “Several of the Plan’s own deadlines have already passed, and it is unclear what progress has been made.” In the short time that I have, I want to focus my questions on two areas: action and accountability. The first concerns the questions that those living with ME will have, particularly when it comes to the changes around the Department for Work and Pensions and what that will look like in the light of the imminent Timms review. I would be grateful to understand what plans the Government have for both Departments to discuss what this will look like, given the scale of the problems facing the 400,000-plus people with ME/CFS in this country. Secondly, turning to the actual plan, we need to look at what actions will be delivered. I am keen to look at the section called “After publication of the FDP”, because it goes on to say that “we will monitor the actions included in it. The DHSC secretariat will continue to engage with the Task and Finish Group in an appropriate form as required”. Given the debate today, is that required, and what form will it take? The document also goes on to say that a “sub-group will be created to focus on improving care for those with ME/CFS.” Has that group been created, and how many times has it met? It further states: “We recognise the needs of those with ME/CFS and we remain dedicated to developing our approach as new research emerges and as we seek further engagement.” Could I press the Minister on what that engagement is? Who is it with, and what does it look like? At the end of the day, there is a plan here and we do agree with it, but it is the actions and accountability within it that are truly going to make a difference. ME may challenge the body, but it never diminishes a person’s worth or their hope that they carry. That is critical. When we have such a great plan, it is the action that is going to take it forward.
- Hansard source
Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
The Minister attended the task and finish group, as did I. Will it meet again to consider that?
- Hansard source
Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
Given that NHS England is due to be abolished, who will take that on?
- Hansard source
Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill [Lords]
I am pleased to speak again on behalf of the Opposition as we carry forward the constructive debate that we had on Second Reading. Let me restate from the outset our support for the Bill, which represents a careful, modest step in the right direction, and preserves the inherent flexibility of the common law while giving just enough statutory certainty to ensure that businesses, innovators and courts know the ground beneath their feet. That balance is vital. If we over-prescribed in statute, we would risk freezing progress. If we left matters entirely to the interpretation of the courts, we would risk fragmentation and delay. The Bill avoids both extremes. Importantly, this legislation was not born overnight. It is the product of the rigorous work of the Law Commission—work commissioned by the last Conservative Government, who recognised early the need for clarity in this space if the UK was to stay competitive internationally. The commission’s conclusion was clear: certain digital assets simply do not fit neatly into the centuries-old categories of things in possession or things in action. Without intervention, the risk grew that uncertainty would hold back investment, undermine commercial transactions and frustrate innovators and consumers. The Bill answers that challenge in the right way. It does not attempt to define every kind of digital asset that might emerge. Nobody in this Chamber—or indeed beyond it—can predict the full scope of the technologies that will shape our financial and commercial future in the coming decades. Instead, the Bill does something both restrained and profound: it confirms that digital things are not excluded from attracting property rights merely because they fall outside the old categories. Beyond that, it gives our common law the space it needs to continue doing what it has done for centuries: develop sensibly, case by case, guided by principle rather than by prescription. That is not to say that the state has been inactive in related causes. Since 2023, cryptoasset promotion has been subject to the Financial Conduct Authority rules, the money laundering regulations have been amended for the new cryptocurrency class, and the Government have consulted on bring crypto-trading platforms and custody services within the broader perimeter of financial regulation. The Bank of England and the FCA are exploring robust frameworks for stablecoins and custody. However, none of this works unless the foundational question, “What is the legal status of these assets?”, is clearly answered. That is exactly what the Bill provides. Let me end by reiterating what I said on Second Reading: the UK must remain at the forefront of global legal innovation. When technological change accelerates, the temptation can be either to rush into rigid regulation or to do nothing at all. The Bill avoids both pitfalls. It is proportionate, it is principled, and it is rooted in the understanding—championed strongly by the previous Conservative Government—that legal certainty is a foundation for growth, investment and innovation in this area. For all those reasons, the Opposition will continue to support the Bill, and we look forward to working constructively to ensure that it delivers the clarity that our courts, consumers and businesses need.
- Hansard source
Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill [Lords]
I rise simply to put on the record my thanks, particularly to the Bill Committee and to the Law Commission for its diligence. Yet again we see the great benefit that our state machinery and apparatus as whole derive from having the Law Commission. I have nothing further to add.
- Hansard source
Community Groups: Northern Ireland and Great Britain
Does the Minister agree that reported attempts to extend European Parliament observer status to politicians in Northern Ireland are bound to inflame tensions between communities in Northern Ireland and between communities in Northern Ireland and Great Britain? Will he say that the UK Government will have absolutely nothing to do with this attempt to break up our United Kingdom?
- Hansard source
Suicide: Reducing the Stigma
Order. If we stick to about seven minutes each, everybody can get in.
- Hansard source
Access to Healthcare: Bracknell Forest
But primarily in Bracknell Forest.
- Hansard source
Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called. It is clear that we need a three-minute time limit if we are to get everybody in, but I cannot guarantee that we will.
- Hansard source
Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
With apologies to other Members who wished to speak, I now call the Lib Dem spokesperson.
- Hansard source
Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
Order. I should say that interventions on the spokespeople will not lead to them having any additional time.
- Hansard source
Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
Tessa Munt, you have one minute to wind up the debate.
- Hansard source
Engagements
The Prime Minister knows that, last week, nine four-star generals made it plain that yesterday’s Northern Ireland Troubles Bill is doing harm to the British Army already. The most acute damage is being felt by the Special Air Service. It is already affecting its recruitment, retention, morale and operational effectiveness. As a result, lawyers acting for the SAS Regimental Association have sent a letter before action to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I know of no precedent for this in the entire history of the British Army, and this reflects—because it is so important—how important it is, so may I make a plea to the Prime Minister? Will he involve himself personally to ensure that 60, 70 and 80-year-old soldiers, who have carried out actions that most of us would view as heroic, are not persecuted in the coming years, because now it is a matter not of national security, but of national honour?
- Hansard source
Flooding: Monmouthshire
On behalf of residents in flood-prone West Worcestershire who approached Storm Claudia with trepidation, I convey our sympathies to people in Monmouthshire. Experiencing a flood like that is one of the most terrible things that can happen a community. Could I ask the Minister to ask the Minister for Water and Flooding, who is beside her on the Front Bench, to follow up with the Environment Agency on two projects it is working on in West Worcestershire—in Severn Stoke and Tenbury Wells—to improve flood resilience? I would love it if the Minister could give the Environment Agency a nudge to complete that work.
- Hansard source
Local Government Reform: Huntingdonshire
I beg to move, That this House has considered the impact of local government reform in Huntingdonshire. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. This debate comes at a timely juncture, as later today Huntingdonshire district council will vote for its preferred option for local government reorganisation in Cambridgeshire. For the avoidance of doubt, and for the benefit of any Huntingdonshire district councillors watching this prior to casting their vote, my preference is for option E: a Huntingdonshire unitary authority. I have already stated my preference publicly, but today, ahead of that vote, I wish to reiterate the point and warn of the dangers of voting for anything else. I am alarmed by reports that several councillors have opted to vote for option C, not because they passionately believe in the business case, but because they have apparently input option C and option E into ChatGPT and based their vote on the rationale it has provided, sharing it in WhatsApp groups with other councillors and influencing their decisions. If true, that is a hugely embarrassing way to decide on the future of Huntingdonshire. Although option C is debatably the least worst other option, if Huntingdon district councillors are not prepared to vote for option E and back Huntingdonshire, why should the Government? By voting against a Huntingdonshire unitary authority, those councillors are voting against Huntingdonshire. If they vote against Huntingdonshire, they are effectively saying they are prepared to see it broken up, which is exactly what Labour wants to do. Option D first surfaced supposedly as a proposal from two of Cambridgeshire’s Labour MPs. It was ostensibly pitched as their proposal, but we now know that it did not actually come from them. I have been reliably informed that option D emanated from the Labour east regional office and that Labour MPs were simply happy to put their names to it. Option D is clearly Labour’s attempt to pork-barrel the local government reorganisation of Cambridgeshire. Last week, Peterborough city council, the council responsible for the appalling management of the local authority, voted for option D. Without any consultation with the people of Huntingdonshire, it voted, purely out of self-interest, to conduct a land grab of Huntingdonshire in order to shore up the council’s terrible financial position and have somewhere to build its houses. I have read option D in detail, and nowhere does it articulate or explain what the benefit of splitting Huntingdonshire would be. I would be interested to see the engagement survey results and to know how many people across the whole of Huntingdonshire even knew that was a possibility. I suspect that the first that many people in my constituency will hear of it is when I post this speech on my social media.
- Hansard source
Local Government Reform: Huntingdonshire
I wholeheartedly agree. I will come on in detail to explain why the financial implications are so grave. I hope we would heed the warnings from those who have been through this process before, to ensure that the same mistakes are not made again. Dr Shabina Qayyum, leader of Labour’s city council, was quoted by the BBC as saying that claims that option D was being pursued for political purposes were “insulting”. Given that she and her Labour group were whipped by Labour to vote for it, I suggest that the lady doth protest too much. It will be interesting to see how Labour members vote this evening. Option D rips Huntingdonshire in half, creating east and west Huntingdonshire. There is a significant risk in attempting to disaggregate Huntingdonshire district council. There is a lack of precedent and absence of lessons learned, not to mention the destruction of local identity in Huntingdonshire, already stronger than identities elsewhere in Cambridgeshire, particularly in separating Huntingdon and St Ives. Disaggregating Huntingdonshire district council would come with greater transition costs and affect service delivery. It makes no sense to place Huntingdon and Godmanchester, separated only by a narrow stretch of the River Great Ouse, into completely different unitaries. Brampton and Buckden will be split apart; Kimbolton and Great Staughton will be in different unitaries. Those village pairings currently sit within shared county divisions, upon which the wards of the new unitaries in Cambridgeshire will be based. To split them in two means that those divisions will need to be redrawn. The local government boundary commission for England can redraw them only once the unitary exists, and even then those divisions are unlikely to be at the top of the list for redesigning. The option D business case states: “Option D is grounded in a deep commitment to the unique identities, diversity and aspirations of each of the proposed unitaries.” That simply is not true. There is no consensus anywhere in Huntingdonshire to suggest that splitting it in two is the preferred option for residents in my constituency. If Labour was not whipping its councillors to vote for it, it would not have any support at all. Several of Huntingdonshire’s Labour councillors have either announced that they will not be standing or may not be here after next May. I ask those Labour councillors why they would wish for their legacy as a councillor to be that they voted to rip up Huntingdonshire. Defy the whip! The Labour apparatchiks whipping option D will not be the ones who have to live with the consequences of being part of a failing authority that they voted for. With the best will in the world, they are not going to remove the whip from any Labour councillor in Huntingdonshire. Politically, they cannot afford to. Fenland district councillors like option D because it gets them out of being lumped with Peterborough: “Peterborough’s ability to expand is constrained by current boundaries. By aligning with north-west Huntingdonshire, the area opens up to the south and west, creating space for new communities, business investment and international companies”. Tell me they are planning to use the north of Huntingdonshire as a dumping ground for their housing targets without telling me! Be under no illusion, Mrs Harris: Peterborough is a basket case. It is estimated that 11% of Peterborough’s budget is needed simply to service its own debts, with 80% needed to fulfil its statutory adult and children’s social care obligations. How on earth does it plan to run all the other existing county and district functions on a 9% budget? Peterborough council’s debt gearing is 91%, against the national benchmark of just 50%. Under the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy’s local authority financial resilience index analysis, Peterborough is rated as high-risk for its overall level of reserves, its unallocated reserves, its earmarked reserves, its interest payable or net revenue expenditure, its gross external debt, its fees and charges to service expenditure ratio, its council tax requirement or net revenue expenditure and its growth above baseline. Huntingdonshire is not deemed to be high-risk in a single one of those categories. Looking at the debt analysis based on the modelled options, Greater Peterborough is the single worst option for debt financing cost as a percentage of funding; it sits at 11%, which is the only debt financing cost deemed to be high-risk, and we should bear it in mind that the other two unitaries in this option each come in at 4%.
- Hansard source
Local Government Reform: Huntingdonshire
I apologise, Ms Harris; this sets the context for my later questions and the benefits of option E. Of course, the title of the debate is “The impact of local government reform in Huntingdonshire”, and that is the context I am trying to set.
- Hansard source
Local Government Reform: Huntingdonshire
I was not aware that we had to inform individuals who are not Members of Parliament.
- Hansard source
Local Government Reform: Huntingdonshire
Thank you. Option D literally saddles half of Huntingdonshire with an enormous debt burden, while allowing the rest of Huntingdonshire and Cambridgeshire to ride off into the sunset. The net investment income and debt financing costs for Greater Peterborough are £38.3 million. Compare that with option E: Huntingdonshire unitary’s costs are just £10.5 million, the lowest of any unitary in any of the five options. When looking at the reserves analysis, we see a similar story. Option D provides a significantly lower level of reserves, leaving it more vulnerable to shocks. The reserves of Greater Peterborough are comfortably the lowest at just 16%, which is again deemed high-risk. By comparison, Huntingdonshire would be 42%. On employment, we need look no further than the percentage of universal credit claimants in the local authority. In Huntingdonshire, it is 2.8%, while in Peterborough is 8%, far and away the highest—it has the highest unemployment rate in Cambridgeshire. Moving to Greater Peterborough would immediately increase Huntingdonshire’s unemployment from 3.2% to 5%. On improving children’s services, option D states: “Authorities with higher prevalence of need (e.g. those containing Peterborough and Fenland) will face greater demand and cost pressures, potentially straining resources and impacting service delivery”. On adult social care and healthcare, and the impact for frontline staff, it states: “Teams currently set up on the geographical footprint of Huntingdonshire would need to be split leading to instability for front line and direct care workers”. On special educational needs and disabilities, it states: “The authority containing Peterborough is projected to see the highest growth in SEND demand, leading to disproportionate pressure on resources and budgets…Increased risk of uneven access to SEND support, with some authorities potentially struggling to meet rising demand or maintain quality”. Greater Peterborough is also projected to have the highest prevalence of education, health and care plans and the greatest risk of SEND deficit escalation. At present, Huntingdonshire has the second lowest rate of EHCP prevalence in Cambridgeshire. This analysis strongly suggests that the system would all but immediately collapse. Greater Peterborough will have the highest spend per resident for adult social care and for children’s social care, more than double that of the other two unitaries, as well as the highest SEND costs and the highest percentage of homeless households, nearly double that of Greater Cambridge. It is akin to the Berlin wall being put up overnight, condemning one half of Huntingdonshire to eking out an existence in the bleak Peterborough democratic republic, while the southern half enjoys the trappings of a slightly better existence in the people’s republic of south Cambridgeshire. I stress the words “slightly better”, because anybody involved in discussions about local government reorganisation in Cambridgeshire is well aware of what Cambridge city actually wants. From the very start, Cambridge city has made it clear that it only wants an option that couples it with south Cambridgeshire. Option C would add Huntingdonshire into that mix and, although I am told that throuples are all the rage in the more liberal parts of Cambridgeshire, we would clearly be an awkward third wheel in such a relationship. Cambridge city has no interest in Huntingdonshire. To wilfully pursue an unrequited interest in being linked with it makes no sense for any Huntingdonshire district councillor. Do any of our councillors honestly think that Cambridge city is interested in investing in Sawtry, Warboys or Somersham? Cambridgeshire county council voted for option A, but again that was a vote gerrymandered by the ruling party. The Liberal Democrats, who now control the county council, whipped their councillors to vote for option A—and we should bear in mind that that was not a vote in which councillors were given a choice of all five options; they were simply given the choice of voting for or against option A. In what way is that a truly representative vote? The county council claims that its phase 2 engagement reinforces support for option A, showing: “clear patterns of support for option A.” Support from whom? The county council goes on to say: “The lowest levels of support for this option were from Fenland (26%) and Huntingdonshire (20%)”. How can there be “clear” levels of support for an option that 80% of people in Huntingdonshire do not want? The Liberal Democrats voted for option A without ever having seen a business case; indeed, one has never been written. How irresponsible is it to vote for such a huge change to local governance that has never been financially scrutinised? Although I freely accept that St Neots and St Ives, with their direct bus route to the city of Cambridge, see themselves as pointing south-east rather than north-west to Peterborough, it is clear that Huntingdonshire would be the poor relation in any unitary authority that had it aligned to the exclusive Cambridge city. One of the biggest fears about option A and option C is that in aligning with either Peterborough or Cambridge, Huntingdonshire will end up on the periphery, likely to be cast aside as a sleepy backwater and a place to dump housing targets. We all know that investment from either council will honeypot around the cities. What does that mean not only for our market towns, but for our villages? How much capital investment will be spent in Sawtry or Ramsey by a Cambridge city council focused on option C? How much interest does a Peterborough city-led council have in Kimbolton, Earith or Great Gransden? Local government reorganisation is potentially one of the most important changes in our region in a generation. Huntingdonshire is uniquely placed as the delivery engine for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, aligning with the Government’s goal for growth. Option E clearly meets the Government’s six criteria. Indeed, when all the options are scored against the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s criteria for local government reorganisation, option E easily surpasses option D and inclusion in greater Peterborough, and it only narrowly loses out to options A and C—and that is before factoring in the practical aspects of being governed by a Peterborough-centric or Cambridge-centric council. Place identity should not be overlooked. Huntingdonshire, more than any other part of Cambridgeshire, retains the distinct and proud identity of a historical county. Consequently, the prospect of Huntingdonshire going it alone has been warmly received by local residents when I have had conversations with them about it. For those concerned that a Huntingdonshire unitary authority would lack the necessary population size, the 2040 population projection sees its population grow to approximately 300,000. A central unitary authority based around Huntingdonshire could form the key link between a north-eastern Peterborough-focused unitary authority aligned with the strategic plan of Homes England, and therefore with Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority’s housing and infrastructure objectives, and a south-western-focused unitary authority aligned with the national industrial strategy priorities around life sciences, AI and food production. A central unitary authority focused on Huntingdonshire could then be fully linked into the region by accommodating a boundary change to deliver about 40,000 homes just south of St Neots at Tempsford new town. That could plug Huntingdonshire directly into the Oxford-Cambridge arc via East West rail and turbocharge delivery. As things stand, Tempsford will be split between three local authorities. Moving it to Huntingdonshire to become, in effect, Greater St Neots would make logical sense, and I would welcome the Minister’s view on this proposal. Huntingdonshire is set to benefit hugely from the north Huntingdonshire opportunity zone, with defence a key component of the zone’s potential growth. Defence features prominently in both the Huntingdonshire local plan and Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority’s local growth plan, in addition to featuring, by name, as one of the 12 high growth potential frontier industry clusters in the Government’s recently published defence industrial strategy. I have talked many times before about the defence opportunity that exists in Huntingdonshire. Project Fairfax is a potential game changer for the region, not only for defence-specific firms, but for dual-use civilian firms that have military applications for their projects. Both fields are illustrated by the existence of Cambridge Precision, a small arms component manufacturer, by the forthcoming move of Marshall Land Systems to the constituency and, from a civilian perspective, by a company such as Paragraph, which has grown from a small Cambridge University spin-out to a cutting-edge tech company whose graphene technology potentially has military applications. The potential to create a defence technology cluster is already clearly understood and has already been recognised. The Ministry of Defence announced Project Fairfax only last month. That followed months of work, during which time the potential to deliver the project was recognised by everyone up to and including the Prime Minister, who on 26 June reassured my constituents that “this increased defence spend will bring yield to Huntingdon in the defence-specific sectors and in the supply chains.” —[Official Report, 26 June 2025; Vol. 769, c. 1279.] Arguably, Huntingdonshire is already the most important location for defence intelligence in western Europe, with the Ministry of Defence currently uplifting the capability at RAF Wyton, where the National Centre for Geospatial Intelligence is based, alongside the development of the proposed tech cluster, and the fact that only a few miles down the road the US Government are investing heavily in their own capability at RAF Molesworth with a new joint intelligence analytics centre, costing in excess of $556 million, for nearly 2,000 personnel. The joint intelligence analytics centre and joint intelligence command AFRICOM—the US Africa command—both sit at Molesworth, alongside the NATO Intelligence Fusion Centre, providing the Supreme Allied Commander Europe and Allied Command Operations with timely, relevant and accurate intelligence to support planning and execution of NATO operations. This is clearly a huge and permanent commitment. In the current febrile geopolitical climate, Huntingdonshire is arguably—not to overstate it—the linchpin of how we meet hostile foreign threats head on. As a senior officer once described it to me, “World leaders make decisions on the information that comes out of these bases.” I therefore ask the Minister how confident she is, should option E not be selected, that a new unitary authority, be that Peterborough or Cambridge-based, will prioritise defence, given that neither appears to be fully aware of the responsibility that they will hold, let alone the opportunity, for a part of the region that sits firmly on the periphery of their geography and their thinking. If the Government are serious about delivering on their defence priorities, and I assume that they are, given that they have greenlit such an ambitious project, they surely would not then risk its delivery by removing the key stakeholders responsible for driving its delivery, and handing such a crucial project to a newly formed local authority that has had no involvement in the genesis of the project and not even enough interest to mention it in its business cases. In going with an alternative option there is a significant and real danger that delivery of these projects stalls, goes into hiatus and loses the momentum crucial to their timely delivery. Huntingdonshire district council has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to deliver and move at pace and shown the necessary delivery expertise to get this across the line. Huntingdonshire is the location of a significant proportion of the region’s development and infrastructure pipeline projects. Local government reorganisation in Cambridgeshire is balanced on a knife edge as far as Huntingdonshire is concerned. Although the Government will not make a decision on what the structure of unitaries in Cambridgeshire looks like until next July, Huntingdonshire district council will have its one and only opportunity to make its voice heard at the vote this evening. This is a unique, once-in-a generation opportunity to set Huntingdonshire up for success, or condemn it to a future over which it will have no control. The historic identity of Huntingdonshire is a strength. It is an identity that local people do not wish to lose through being split or absorbed. We know what incredible opportunities exist for the region and how much potential it has. I would ask any Huntingdonshire district councillor, ahead of this vote, to ask themselves why they should vote for anything other than option E. Do they back Huntingdonshire or not? A vote for any other option this evening—in the hope that Cambridge might take note when it has made it clear that it has no interest in partnering with us, or in the hope that Peterborough might take note when it clearly wishes to do nothing more than split Huntingdonshire in two and effectively asset-strip the northern half—could be catastrophic for the region. To vote for anything other than option E is to vote against Huntingdonshire; it is to vote for it to be split or absorbed, but not for it to have control over its own future. That would be unforgivable, and the electorate will not forget in the local elections next May. I am sure that these councillors, whether they consider themselves to be a faithful or a traitor, would not wish their last action of note as a Huntingdonshire district councillor to be throwing Huntingdonshire under the guided bus.
- Hansard source
Local Government Reform: Huntingdonshire
On putting councils on a good financial footing, there are huge concerns across Cambridgeshire about being partnered with Peterborough city council, because its finances are in such a grave state. Peterborough is already a unitary council. Would the Government consider excluding it from the rest of Cambridgeshire, working out how to do the unitary authorities elsewhere and then taking action at a national level to shore up Peterborough’s dire financial position?
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023
On 15 August 1998 in Omagh, the Real IRA murdered 29 people, including a woman who was pregnant with twins. It was the deadliest attack of the troubles, and the most wicked. Following the 2021 recommendation of Mr Justice Horner, the last Conservative Government launched the Omagh inquiry into whether UK state authorities could have done anything to prevent the bombing. However, the bombers planned and launched their attack from the Republic of Ireland, which is why Mr Justice Horner also said that an independent inquiry was needed in the Republic to ask whether Irish state authorities could have done anything. Given that the UK inquiry was announced three years ago, did the Secretary of State raise the question of an inquiry in the south with his counterparts on his recent trip to Dublin?
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023
I thank the Secretary of State for his answer, and I am aware that the Republic is sharing the information with our inquiry, but he will be aware that the Omagh inquiry is only capable of answering questions about what UK state authorities did and did not do. Four years ago, Mr Justice Horner said that there needed to be a parallel inquiry in the south. The victims and families recognise that; does the Secretary of State recognise it?
- Hansard source
Land Use Change: Food Security
I beg to move, That this House has considered the impact of land use change on food security. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I am grateful for the chance to raise this issue, which goes to the heart of our national interest. When I submitted my bid for the debate, little did I know that it would take place on a day on which there were members of the farming community out on Parliament Square with their tractors, with what we called a muck spreader where I was brought up, on a farm, but others might call a slurry tanker, and even with livestock. That is testament to the determination of the farming community to make sure their voice continues to be heard in this place. In simple terms, this debate is about what we choose to do with the land beneath our feet. If we keep tarmacking and concreting over our fields, we should not be surprised if one day we find ourselves asking a basic question: “Where is our food going to come from?” We must not become a country that produces some of the finest produce in the world, to the highest standard, and yet becomes dependent on imports of lower grade, substandard produce. Domestic food security is national security, and it must be protected. It is one of the principal duties of any Government to ensure that their people have access to sufficient safe, affordable and nutritious food. As Baroness Manningham-Buller, the former director general of MI5, has said, food security is national security. If we cannot feed ourselves, we are vulnerable—economically, strategically and in the choices available to us as a country. I sought this debate because of what is happening in my constituency, which I believe is a small version of what is happening right across the country. We face proposals for major development on open green spaces and on our farms—land that local people quite reasonably understand to be green belt, farmland and open countryside. These are not blank spaces on a map; they are working fields, grazing land and green buffers between communities. They prevent urban sprawl and prevent areas such as mine from simply being swallowed up into a suburb of a greater Birmingham. I want to look at three things: the effect on domestic food production; the environmental consequences, especially flooding; and the Government’s policy direction, which is pushing us down the wrong path, through the treatment of the green belt, the invention of so-called grey belt, and tax proposals that will make it harder for family farms to survive. In recent years, households across Britain have seen food prices spiral. We see it every time we go into the supermarket; we seem to put less in the trolley but pay more at the checkout. Of course, that is driven by global shocks, the war in Ukraine and supply chain pressures. At its peak, food inflation reached 20%, and people saw it in the basic cost of goods. Global instability, import prices, exchange rates, skyrocketing input costs and continued pressure from the war in Ukraine meant that between January 2021 and April 2025, UK food prices increased by 36%, over three times more than in the previous decade. At the same time, the UK’s capacity to produce its own food has steadily declined. We now produce roughly 60% of the food we consume by calories; in the 1980s, we were close to 78%. That is a huge shift in one working lifetime, and it is a worrying downward trend. The picture by sector is even starker. We grow just over half the vegetables that we eat and only around 15% of the tomatoes that we consume, and fresh fruit production stands at just around 16%. Those numbers should start to ring alarm bells if they are not doing so already. While that has been happening, we have lost hundreds of thousands of hectares of farmland to development and long-term environmental land use change. These are not temporary changes. Once productive farmland is built on or turned over to schemes that cannot be reversed, it rarely comes back; when it’s gone, it’s gone. We all accept that homes are needed, but it should worry us that so many have been placed on productive land when large brownfield areas remain underused. There is enough previously developed land in England to take well over 1 million homes, yet the easier, cheaper option of edge-of-town, green-belt development continues to be both developers’ and the Government’s preference. This is where food security starts being undermined not by global events, but by our own planning choices. Against that backdrop, the last thing we should be doing is making it harder for farming families to stay on their land, yet that is exactly what this Government’s changes to agricultural inheritance—now widely referred to as the family farm tax—would do. Most farms in this country are family businesses. They are part of the local economy, of the landscape and of the food supply chain. The Government’s proposals would pull most of them into new inheritance tax rules. That is not a small technical tweak; it creates a financial hit at the very moment a family is trying to pass the farm on. If a family has to sell land, or even the whole farm, simply to cover a tax bill under the new rules, there is no safeguard that the land will remain agricultural. More often than not, it is snapped up by developers, meaning that previously productive farms become speculative housing sites.
- Hansard source
Land Use Change: Food Security
That is exactly the point. Many farming families—often the hill farmers, in particular, but the arable farmers too—struggle. The last couple of years have been really difficult for many farmers. If they have one bad year, it is very hard for them to recover the next year. They are working against so many factors over which they have no control, weather being one of them. It is really important that, in all our deliberations, we recognise that.
- Hansard source
Land Use Change: Food Security
The hon. Lady makes a really important point, setting out yet again the challenges that farmers face. I am a farmer’s daughter; my dad was a farm worker for many years. We lived on a farm; we grew up in a tied cottage. That sort of farm is often very different from the massive farms in parts of the country where there is more arable land rather than land for hill farmers. Every farm is unique—every farm is different—but many of the challenges that farms face are very similar. All of this comes at a time when family farm businesses are under unprecedented pressure. We have talked about the costs, but input costs have risen by more than 40% since 2015. Fertiliser is up by nearly 40%, feed by over a quarter and energy by more than a third. National Farmers’ Union surveys show confidence among farmers at its lowest recorded level. Two thirds expect profits to fall, and nearly half plan to reduce investment.
- Hansard source
Land Use Change: Food Security
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. Sadly, suicide is very high among the farming community, which is another indicator of the many pressures that our farms are facing. I return to the point that I do not think that we appreciate our farms, farmers or farming communities enough in this place. That is the backdrop that some of us are fighting against. To introduce a new tax burden at this moment risks accelerating the loss of domestic production. If we are serious about food security, it is exactly the wrong time to treat a farm as if it were simply an asset to be broken up. I will return to what is happening locally. At Stonnall Road in Aldridge, there is an outline planning application for around 355 houses on a site that we have always understood to be green belt—a vital green buffer for the village. Hundreds of residents have already backed my petition against the development. They are not opposed to housing, but they struggle to see why that productive land—well-used green space—has suddenly become the soft target, when brownfield sites exist in Walsall and, indeed, Birmingham city centre. Surely that is where we should be doing much more regeneration work.
- Hansard source
Land Use Change: Food Security
As the hon. Gentleman said, there are some things that we agree on and others that we do not. However, I have long campaigned against building on the green belt—on our green fields. Even during our time in government, there were certain aspects of planning that I spoke out about—those who were here at the time of the last Government will probably remember that—and, believe me, I will continue to do so, because I feel so passionately about it. Over on Chester Road in Streetly, another eight or nine hectares in my constituency—again, green belt and on the edge of the built-up area—are now being described as grey belt and suggested for the local plan. It raises the same concerns: what happens to our fields? What happens to local food production? What happens to roads, GP access and school places? What does it mean when this pattern is repeated across the country? Chipping away at the edges of green space means altering the balance between built land and productive land, and once that balance tips, it is very difficult to recover. The green belt is not perfect, but it has achieved two essential things: it constrains sprawl around major urban areas, and it provides a degree of protection for farmland and green spaces. To many communities, the introduction of grey belt feels like an attempt to weaken those protections by stealth, because once land is marked as “grey” rather than “green”, the presumption shifts, and with it, the likelihood of development.
- Hansard source
Land Use Change: Food Security
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We talk about a brownfield-first approach, and it can work. We saw examples of it in the west midlands under the leadership of the former mayor, Andy Street. Developments such as those on the Caparo and Harvestime sites show that it can be done, but it needs funding to help level the playing field, so that brownfield is as attractive to developers as greenfield sites. It can be done, but it requires the Government to put money into brownfield remediation and to properly focus it. Local authorities feel huge pressure at the moment, but brownfield sites, some of them derelict for decades, remain untouched. It is crazy. No one is arguing that the green belt can never change, but there must be a high bar, genuine scrutiny and clear honesty about what is being sacrificed. Above all, we should start with a genuine, not rhetorical, commitment to brownfield first. Farmers also tell me that they face conflicting pressures from all sides. Tree-planting targets, rewetting proposals, biodiversity applications—none of those aims is wrong, but when piled on top of housing allocations and complicated tax changes, they steadily squeeze the land available for food production.
- Hansard source
Land Use Change: Food Security
I do. The hon. Gentleman talks a lot of sense. There are so many areas where we should be putting solar panels. I despair when I drive down the M40 around the west midlands and see field after field full of solar panels. I can understand why a farmer may want to go down the diversification route—because it helps to balance the books—but there are surely better sites such as rooftops and garage tops. Why are we not being a little more creative in what we are doing?
- Hansard source
Land Use Change: Food Security
I appreciate a bit of knowledge in Westminster Hall, but the point remains that we still need to be more creative in where we put our solar panels. Maybe they could be put on larger rooftop spaces, and we often talk about brownfield and urban sites; to go straight for productive green fields is just total madness. There are real concerns about proposals that would give Natural England sweeping compulsory purchase powers that could see productive farmland acquired for environmental offsetting. If that goes ahead, the loss of farmland could become permanent and unchallengeable. I hope that the Minister will look very carefully at those proposals. Flooding is another consequence that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs cannot and must not ignore. Fields at Stonnall Road in my constituency and elsewhere do not only grow crops or support livestock; they also absorb water. They drain slowly and hold back surface run-off. If we replace them with bricks, concrete, tarmac and driveways there will be nowhere for the water to go. We saw this recently with the heavy rain this weekend causing flooding more quickly because the natural buffers have been reduced. Every time it happens, local people ask the same question: why were those fields built on? Natural flood management relies on soil, hedgerows, woodlands and wetlands, yet that is rarely at the forefront of planning decisions. If we are serious about preventing flooding, we must consider the cumulative impact of losing those natural soakaways. How is DEFRA working with the Environment Agency and local planning authorities to ensure that the flood risk from losing open land is properly accounted for before permissions are given? I do not wish to challenge your timings, Dr Murrison, so I will start to draw this all together. First, food production must be treated as a strategic priority. Departments should not be signing off major land use decisions without asking the basic question: what does this mean for our ability to grow food and feed our nation? The NFU is absolutely right to call for food security impact assessments on all relevant policies. We have impact tests for almost everything else, and it is extraordinary that food security is not one of them. Secondly, we need a firm and practical brownfield first approach. That may require investment to remediate sites, improve infrastructure or bring land back into productive use, but the alternative is the steady, irreversible erosion of farmland. Thirdly, the Government should revisit the family farm tax that introduces a new burden and risks forcing families to break up their farms and sell them to developers, which is surely directly at odds with any credible food security strategy. Fourthly, Ministers must halt the weakening of green-belt protections, including through the grey belt. Our communities need confidence that national policy is not quietly tilting the scales against them. In view of today’s ministerial written statement, my communities want to feel they and our councils still have a voice in planning decisions. Finally, we need a coherent national land use framework that recognises how housing, farming, environment, energy and flood management overlap. We cannot allow one Department to encourage woodland creation on productive fields, while another encourages development on the next field. Joined-up thinking is not a slogan; it is a necessity. To return to where I began, land use is about choices. In Aldridge-Brownhills, those choices can be seen from our front doors. We know that when farmland disappears, it does not return. We know that if we keep building over productive land, we will become more reliant on food imports and more exposed to global shocks. Food security is not an abstract concept; it is about whether this country can feed itself at a price that people can afford. If we care about that—and we should—we must take seriously the land that makes that possible. I hope the Minister will recognise the strength of feeling in my constituency and many others. Protecting farmland, resisting unnecessary encroachment on the green belt and supporting farming families are not about nostalgia—far from it; they are practical steps towards a secure and resilient food system. If we get those choices and decisions right, we can deliver the homes we need and safeguard our ability to produce food. If we get them wrong, the consequences will be felt for generations. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
- Hansard source
Land Use Change: Food Security
I could not resist intervening on the hon. Gentleman about the rationale for this debate. I spoke about food security in the last Parliament, and I gently say that his interpretation of this debate does not resonate with mine.
- Hansard source
Land Use Change: Food Security
On the point about the Budget, I hope that the Chancellor is listening to this debate. She has made several speculative announcements and some U-turns on various tax and financial policy decisions in the last 16 months. Does my hon. Friend agree that she still has the opportunity, if she so wishes, to change her mind?
- Hansard source
Land Use Change: Food Security
I am genuinely interested in what the Minister is saying about food and food systems, but how does she see the connection between that and our farmers? We do not want anybody to be reliant on a food parcel, but what is her Department doing to ensure that the food in a kitchen, in a parcel or on our shelves is produced by British farmers? That is at the heart of this debate: British food security.
- Hansard source
Land Use Change: Food Security
I must respectfully disagree with the right hon. Lady—
- Hansard source
Land Use Change: Food Security
I beg your pardon—the hon. Lady. Maybe one day! It is one thing to see a few sheep grazing under a solar panel, but my point is about agricultural arable land that grows crops. I have yet to see a solar panel in an arable field because I do not think that is possible.
- Hansard source
Land Use Change: Food Security
The hon. Lady gets my point.