5,779 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Bob Blackman

   Business of the House

   Following the successful seven-year experiment on estimates day debates, the Chairs of the Procedure and Liaison Committees, the hon. Members for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith) and for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), met me yesterday, and we agreed that we would bring forward proposals for changes to the Standing Orders, which I am sure the Leader of the House will look favourably on. In addition to the business that the Leader of the House has announced, there will be a debate on Thursday 10 July in the Chamber on the attainment and engagement of boys in education, followed by a debate on children’s health. In Westminster Hall, there will be a debate on regulatory powers over billing of energy supply to businesses on Tuesday 1 July, and debates on the future of music education and on safeguarding children with allergies at school on Thursday 3 July. There will be a debate on alcohol and cancer on Tuesday 8 July, and debates on state support for victims of terrorism and on London’s contribution to the national economy on Thursday 10 July. Tomorrow, across India, the annual Ratha Yatra festival will take place. In Ahmedabad, the Rath Yatra festival has been held since 1878, and there is a procession through the streets of the deities that Hindus worship. In Harrow, we will celebrate on Sunday, when the annual procession will take place. This year, it will be between Stanmore temple and Kenton temple—a seven-mile route, in 31° heat, taking about four hours to complete. The good news, of course, is that it is downhill this year, and not the uphill route from Kenton to Stanmore. Will the Leader of the House join me in wishing all Hindus celebrating this most important festival Jai Swaminarayan, Jai Shri Krishna and, indeed, Jai Jagannath?

   Hansard source
2. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

   G7 and NATO Summits

   There is scepticism in my constituency that the increase in defence spending might create good local jobs there. As I have already pitched to the Chancellor and the Defence Secretary, and earlier this month to the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry, alongside my local authority CEOs, I know that Huntingdon is recognised as the home of UK defence intelligence capability and of US operations in Europe as well as NATO’s. Given that 10% of the equipment budget is now pledged for developing new technology, along with the £400 million defence innovation fund, will the Prime Minister back my commitment to leveraging the designation of RAF Wyton as a Ministry of Defence trailblazer site to build a defence technology cluster that will create highly technical local jobs and build new defence capability from Huntingdon?

   Hansard source
3. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

   Armed Forces Day

   On the selling off of military homes and the buying back of them by the Labour Government, will the Minister acknowledge that the negotiations for that deal started in May 2024 under the Conservative Government and were completed by the Labour Government?

   Hansard source
4. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

   Armed Forces Day

   I appreciate that the Government are working on this issue, but could the Minister update us on the work being done to waive visa fees for families and dependants of our Commonwealth service personnel?

   Hansard source
5. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

   Armed Forces Day

   I want to speak in the debate today to recognise the contribution of all those who serve in our armed forces and those who stand beside them in support. It is Armed Forces Week, and I will be attending the Huntington Armed Forces Day on Saturday at Sapley playing fields. I pass on my appreciation to Anna Dutton for her efforts in organising the day from a standing start. I also thank Andy Phipps of Cambridgeshire army cadet force for his efforts. For a region with strong links to the armed forces, it is wonderful that our armed forces personnel and families, both British and American, will have the opportunity to participate locally. I say that as an MP who is very proud to have military bases in his constituency, whether they are British with RAF Wyton, the home of UK defence intelligence, or RAF Molesworth and RAF Alconbury, which are both run by the US air force. We have an extraordinary number of US personnel in and around our villages, which always takes people by surprise when they hear those American accents. Armed Forces Day is about the recognition and celebration of those young men and women who give up the best years of their lives to serve their nation in a uniform. It is also about those who stand behind them, who sacrifice their time, their careers and their ability to make a home in order to support their partners, mothers and fathers to realise their career ambitions. I spent the best part of a decade in the Army. Although I rarely, if ever, mention it, it was one of the greatest experiences of my life, particularly now that, through the passage of time, I have all but forgotten how bad some of it actually was. But I did love it, and I do miss it. The camaraderie, the experiences and the opportunities are all unique elements that make being a part of the armed forces so special. You forge bonds with those who serve alongside you, and the unspoken shared experiences allow you to meet a fellow veteran and bond over a shared love of spinning dits. Sadly, it would be inappropriate in this place to recount most of those dits, if not all. I served in the armed forces during the highest tempo of kinetic operations since the Korean war. It placed a strain on our armed forces, the likes of which we have not seen since. I know that those on the Labour Benches often like to recall that the last time we spent 2.5% of GDP on defence was under the last Labour Government, and the PM even mentioned it in his statement earlier today. What they do not often mention is that that operational tempo just about broke the Army. I echo the words of the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire): in my experience of serving during the same period, we went through kit and equipment very quickly. With the pace of change that we currently see on operations and in warfare, we would do well to remember—I know the Minister is listening—that we cycled through different types of body armour. In a four-year period, I think we had three different types of body armour and three different types of helmet. We changed our entire camouflage pattern, and we had to bring in urgent operational requests to have vehicles that could withstand roadside bombs. We went from patrolling in berets and enhanced combat body armour in Iraq to patrolling in helmets, and with metal detectors, in Afghanistan only a couple of years later. The pace of change is something that we must consider.

   Hansard source
6. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

   Armed Forces Day

   I concur. Although I do not know anything about the detail of that steel and the armour it provided, it is worth bearing in mind the pace of change and our ability to react. We have heard a lot of talk in recent weeks about the capability that we intend to buy, but we have to remember the old adage, which is so true: no plan ever survives first contact with the enemy. That is probably truer now than it has been for many a year. We take our armed forces for granted. Although the jingoistic applause, the veterans’ discounts and the “Thank you for your service” is not for us—it is too gauche; we are, after all, British—the flip side is that there is certainly some middle ground to be occupied. We need greater societal recognition of the value of serving and an inculcation that service to one’s nation is something to be proud of, something to aspire to, and something that benefits not just the country, but the individual. We too often look to our armed forces as a default civil emergency force and the first port of call. If there is flooding, we ask them to deliver sandbags. If it is snowing, we ask them to clear the runway at Heathrow. If firefighters go on strike, we ask our armed forces to man the fire trucks. We also ask them to provide security at the Olympics. Even the bin strikes saw the Army brought in to help. Although I appreciate that there is a specific process by which the help of the armed forces is enlisted, I wince whenever I see it activated. We should not need to rely upon a force of barely 100,000 or so available service personnel to cover everything. They should not be the default bailout for Government or local government ineffectiveness. Our armed forces deserve better. They deserve to be paid properly, so that they do not have to take a pay cut when they are deployed on operations, as was recently explained to me by some of the personnel on NATO operations in Poland; to be housed properly, so that defence contractors do not paint over the mould on the walls because treating it is not on the contractors’ checklist, as I have been informed is happening in service family accommodation in my constituency at the moment; to be posted sympathetically, so that families do not end up split apart if both parents are serving personnel, as I have seen happen to my good friends who are still serving; and to be supported and granted stability, so that service personnel’s children can receive a stable home and education. I could go on, but the point I am making is that the treatment of our service personnel is not good enough. Frankly, it was not good enough when I served, it was not good enough under the last Government, and I do not think it is good enough now. While I do not doubt the Government’s sentiment, I retain little confidence that the situation will drastically improve, despite the promises. We in this House often stand in this Chamber and wax lyrical about our armed forces, recounting stories of their bravery, courage, commitment and sacrifice. But they are more than just a backdrop for an announcement, and I encourage those of us in this House to remember that. I will make one light-hearted final point. As we Members of Parliament return to our constituencies this weekend to participate dutifully on Saturday and attend the events and parades, spare a thought for those young men and women. As much as I am sure that they value and appreciate the recognition—I remember this well from my own Army experience—the irony is that the best way we could show how much we value them is by not making them work on a sunny Saturday afternoon in June.

   Hansard source
7. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

   Floating Solar Panels

   I must declare that I share an office with my hon. and gallant Friend, so I know an awful lot about floating solar because he is so passionate about it. As a result, I would point out that Grafham water in my Huntingdon constituency is the eighth largest reservoir in the country by volume and the third biggest by area. It is also a raised reservoir, but, ironically, it is surrounded by solar panels to generate electricity that we can see from the ground. He obviously agrees with me that it would be a fantastic idea to use that enormous stretch of water for some floating solar.

   Hansard source
8. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

   Floating Solar Panels

   We have already heard about Grafham Water, which is a large reservoir in my constituency. Just to the north of my constituency, in North East Cambridgeshire, we are about to start building the Fens reservoir, which is, as I am sure the Minister is aware, a joint project between Cambridge Water and Anglian Water. It will be 50 million cubic metres, and the development consent order is expected to go in in 2026, with actual construction starting in 2029. Does the Minister agree that this is a fantastic opportunity to try out this nascent technology on a large project, which could generate so much energy in the Cambridgeshire area?

   Hansard source
9. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Aphra Brandreth

   Topical Questions

   My constituent Paul cycles more than 1,000 km a month all across the country, but he tells me that Cheshire’s roads are among the worst. Poor roads are dangerous for all road users, so does the Minister agree that national guidance for pothole repair policy must properly reflect the needs of cyclists alongside motorists? We must urgently improve road conditions for everyone.

   Hansard source
10. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Andrew Rosindell

    BBC World Service Funding

    I commend the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) for securing this important debate and thank him for his powerful words supporting the BBC World Service. I think he speaks for most hon. Members of the House—in fact, I am struck by how many speeches I have heard that we all agree with. There is a consensus in this Chamber that the BBC World Service is such an important tool for soft power. I know that everyone has spoken with passion, and it is important that we ensure that it not only survives, but thrives and continues to play an important role around the world, because so many people depend on the BBC World Service. As its name suggests, the World Service is not merely a broadcaster that serves the United Kingdom’s purposes; to some, it is a lifeline. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) mentioned Terry Waite. That was an example when the BBC World Service was a lifeline to someone who was in a very difficult position. Many people around the world depend on that voice of truth, reason and liberty, and that is what the BBC World Service provides, away from so many state-controlled media organisations that promote propaganda and misinformation, which are sadly on the rise today. It is said that power falls into three categories: military power, economic power and soft power. It is British soft power—our cultural influence, our values and our institutions, not least our monarchy, which the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket mentioned —that has long distinguished the United Kingdom on the global stage. The vehicle at the heart of that soft power and influence is the British Broadcasting Corporation World Service. In 2011, when I was a relatively new member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, we stated unequivocally that the World Service is a key component of Britain’s soft power. The FAC recognised its invaluable work in “providing a widely respected and trusted news service in combination with high-quality journalism” to many countries. We said then, as I will say now, that its value far outweighs its “relatively small cost”. As we have heard, the service reaches an audience of more than 320 million people each week. It broadcasts in 42 languages and has a profound impact on some of the world’s most repressive regimes. In Iran, 13.5 million rely on the BBC World Service; in Afghanistan, it is 4.9 million; and in Russia, it is more than 2 million. Yet today, this institution is under increasing financial strain. This year alone, the BBC World Service has announced 130 job losses, seeking to save just £6 million—a tiny sum, measured against the service’s global influence. Meanwhile, its total deficit is expected to rise to nearly £500 million next year. There is a serious risk that the core language services, such as those that serve Iran, Sudan and Myanmar, could face cuts or be scaled back when they are most needed, so we must ensure that does not happen. Indeed, the Foreign Affairs Committee heard clear evidence only in November that cuts to the BBC Arabic and Persian radio services have created dangerous vacuums, which are being filled by hostile, state-backed propaganda, including Russian-backed media in places such as Lebanon. What assessment have the Government made of the consequences of the cuts, and how do they intend to respond to the risk of allowing trusted UK-backed voices to go silent in those critical regions? To address those issues, the BBC has called for the Government to fund the rise to £200 million as part of a three-year settlement. In the longer term, it is proposed that the Government assume nearly all of the £400 million budget after 2027. The Foreign Affairs Committee, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and the International Development Committee have echoed the calls for long-term financial certainty. Lord Collins has indicated that a decision will be taken as part of the Government’s 2025 spending review. However, the FCDO’s own efficiency plans, published alongside this month’s review, exclude the BBC World Service from projected savings, citing uncertainty around the transition of the ODA budget to 0.3% of GNI by 2027. The Minister needs to address that concern in her remarks. I therefore say to her: have the Government set any efficiency targets for the World Service? Can she clarify what scale of reduction in direct grant funding is being considered as part of this transition? I often discuss the wider debate about the BBC’s domestic funding with my constituents in Romford, and I am sure all hon. Members have similar discussions. I would welcome having that discussion in this House too, but the World Service is different; it stands apart. It is not a domestic broadcaster—it reaches all parts of the world—so it cannot be lumped together with the BBC’s domestic broadcasting. The World Service needs clarity and certainty if it is to continue its vital work across the globe. One proposal raised during the FAC’s oral evidence session is for a clearer funding distinction. English-language services should continue under the licence fee, while language services should receive dedicated Government grant in aid. Do the Government support that proposal? If so, would the Minister consider, as suggested by the former director of the World Service, Jamie Angus, allowing parliamentarians to oversee and scrutinise the work of the BBC World Service? The previous Conservative Government rightly recognised the strategic importance of the BBC World Service and took meaningful steps to support it. The £20 million boost announced in the 2023 integrated review helped to safeguard all 42 language services through to the end of 2025. That followed earlier, targeted injections of £4.1 million in 2022 and £8 million in 2021, designed to counter disinformation and expand digital engagement. Those were timely and effective interventions, which strengthened the World Service when it was most needed, but what is now required is a long-term, sustainable funding settlement that builds on that solid foundation. Funding is not the only challenge. Modernisation must go hand in hand with financial stability to ensure that the product is viable for the future. Is the BBC doing enough to engage younger, digitally native audiences across the world? Can it continue to evolve while maintaining the editorial depth and credibility for which it is rightly respected? Do the Government have confidence that the current digital strategy is sufficiently robust to meet the demands of this new age? On the other hand, radio remains vital in many regions, particularly where internet access is limited or non-existent. Do the Government acknowledge the ongoing strategic value of traditional radio services, and will they ensure that they are not sacrificed prematurely in the rush towards digital-only broadcasting? There is also the question of political neutrality, which is one of the BBC World Service’s greatest strengths—I hope; it is not always the case in the UK, but I hope it is the case with the BBC World Service. Its global reputation rests on its independence. It must never speak for any Government, but it should, proudly and without hesitation, reflect the values, culture and identity of the United Kingdom. That does not mean becoming a mouthpiece for Westminster, but neither should it shy away from showcasing our constitutional monarchy, our democratic institutions or our national symbols—the Union flag or the national anthem. There is a balance to be struck, and I ask the Minister what representations the Government are making to the current BBC leadership to ensure that balance is struck. Alarmingly, the 2025 global soft power index shows that the UK has fallen to third place, behind China for the first time. Following the announcement of the Soft Power Council by the Foreign Secretary and the Culture, Media and Sport Secretary earlier this year, will the Minister tell us what role the council sees for the World Service in its work? What progress has been made to date, or has the initiative been quietly set aside? The British Isles, Great Britain, England, the United Kingdom—however the world sees us—have always been more than just a geographical place on the map. We have been an idea, forged through sacrifice and struggle, to uphold something unparalleled: a set of values, rich in customs, traditions and ceremony; a way of life that millions admire across the globe. The BBC World Service projects that very idea further and more effectively than any embassy, high commission, foreign aid programme or Minister ever could. If we allow the World Service to become a casualty of bureaucratic inertia or short-term budget trimming, it will be not Britain’s voice that falls silent, but the voice of reason, truth and liberty, in places where those things are in short supply. As the former UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, once stated, the BBC World Service is “possibly Britain’s greatest gift to the world”. That gift has never been more needed. On behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, I urge the Government to ensure that it remains the gift that keeps on giving to peoples around the world, in every continent, who look to Britain as a beacon of freedom, a nation that always upholds liberty, and one that will stop at nothing to defend the right of free speech.

    Hansard source
11. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Andrew Rosindell

    Business of the House

    Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating my excellent local schools in Romford and Hornchurch—Ardleigh Green infant school, Dame Tipping Church of England primary school, Hornchurch high school, Parklands primary school, Squirrels Heath junior school, St Edward’s Church of England primary school, the Frances Bardsley academy for girls, and Towers infants school—for their superb Ofsted reports, both good and excellent? Will she join me in promoting, as my local schools do, more British values, more patriotism, singing the national anthem at assembly, and flying the Union Jack outside every school across our country?

    Hansard source
12. 25 Jun 2025·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    Department for Transport

    I agree with the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) on one thing, which is the importance of transport for connecting communities. I then diverge from her a little, because if this Government are serious about unlocking and delivering economic growth, particularly across the west midlands, they would be serious about funding transport. This Government’s commitment to £10.2 billion for rail enhancement is welcome, but, as ever with the Government, it lacks detail and leaves unanswered questions. Take the example of the midlands rail hub, for which the previous Government not only committed to the initial £123 million, but pledged £1.7 billion to deliver the hub in full under Network North. However, today, through the spending review and responses to my written questions, it has become clear that the hub is funded not to delivery, but only to the next stage. I hope that, in his summing up, the Minister will clarify once and for all whether the new Government are committed to fully funding the delivery of this project. If so, when will it be completed? It is critical to the infrastructure of the west midlands and beyond. Staying on the topic of trains, I cannot let this debate go without mentioning Aldridge train station. The city region sustainable transport settlements are also covered in these estimates. It was thanks to the hard work of the previous mayor, Andy Street, working with the then Conservative Government that we secured and set out a fully funded CRSTS programme. That included £30 million to deliver Aldridge train station in my constituency. The funding for the delivery of the station was earmarked for 2027, providing rail connectivity for the first time since the 1960s. Sadly, it was the decision of the Transport Secretary, together with the Chancellor, to approve Mayor Parker’s decision to convert the capital funding to revenue. The funding had been ringfenced for our station, but it has now been moved away from Aldridge train station—I suspect that it has been moved to fund the mayor’s vanity bus project. The 2025 spending review also confirmed £15.6 billion in funding to provide transport for city region settlements for nine mayoral authorities, including £2.4 billion for the west midlands. The mayor could have chosen to get Aldridge station back on track, but no, he has chosen to keep it in the sidings. This is despite the Chief Secretary to the Treasury indicating in this House on 4 June that the mayor had not spent all his money, and even encouraging colleagues to lobby him on how he might wish to spend the rest. Suffice it to say, the Mayor of the West Midlands knows my views and he knows my ask, and I will continue asking. Let me turn now to bus services, which are key to connectivity and to opportunity, particularly for communities such as mine which find themselves still without a train station. We have seen in the estimates that the national bus fare cap, which was increased from £2.50 to £3 in January 2025, is being extended to March 2027. That is fine, but the Transport Secretary claims that this is a measure to reduce the cost of everyday journeys for working people, yet for those of us in the west midlands, it is yet another hit on top of what we have already seen from the mayor, who has hiked fares and monthly and annual bus passes by more than 8%. In the debate on the Bus Services (No, 2) Bill earlier this month, I asked the Transport Secretary about how the so-called “socially necessary” services referenced in the Bill would be protected and how they would be defined. She told me that it is down to individual local authorities to define what is socially necessary, but gave no assurances about how they would be supported to continue to provide these vital services. As we saw, £750 million per year announced in the spending review is to maintain and improve bus services. It would be really helpful to understand what allocation from the spending review will go to fund these services in the west midlands.

    Hansard source
13. 25 Jun 2025·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    Department for Transport

    My hon. Friend makes an interesting point on franchising. He is right to highlight the potential impact and the challenge for smaller authorities, but there are also challenges for the bigger authorities. My constituency is part of the West Midlands combined authority, and also part of Walsall metropolitan borough, but I am equally concerned about how this new model that our mayor is pushing will be sustainable. I fear that, in the future, my residents might find either a reduction in services, or increases in cost. For constituencies on the edge of a large combined authority, there is always that feeling that services are sucked into the centre and that we are left out on the periphery. Transport is vital to people and communities, and it is vital in accessing employment and opportunity. From the Government’s plans, it is quite clear that they have simply used reviews to move money around to their pet projects, and they are not joining up communities—simply another missed opportunity. For as long as my constituents continue to raise with me the question of Aldridge station, I assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will continue to raise it in this place.

    Hansard source
14. 25 Jun 2025·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    Department for Transport

    Although some projects in the Network North plan have been transferred over and continued, Aldridge train station was not one of them. It was funded through the city region sustainable transport settlement, so does my hon. Friend share my disappointment for my communities that it has been scrapped by Mayor Parker in the West Midlands?

    Hansard source
15. 25 Jun 2025·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    Department for Transport

    While the Minister is still talking about rail services, I just want to ask about Aldridge station to be absolutely clear about the situation. When the money for the station was allocated, it was ringfenced. It was his Government who decided to move the money from capital to revenue, so it is simply unfair to blame it all on Andy Street; it is not right.

    Hansard source
16. 25 Jun 2025·Parliament·Stuart Anderson

    Access to Banking Hubs: Hertfordshire

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) for securing the debate. Banking hubs are really important in his constituency, as they are in rural constituencies across the country, including mine. My constituency is 700 square miles of the most beautiful towns and villages, which are a delight. With that beauty and tranquillity come remoteness and lack of connectivity for many people, who can feel isolated. We have seen the decline of the high street bank over years. Some services that we took for granted are no longer available, though they are still of huge importance to local communities. We recently lost Lloyds banks in Bridgnorth and Ludlow, which is seen as a major loss to both towns. I was quick to launch a survey to find out what residents thought. They were overwhelmingly upset, because they still require face-to-face services and access to cash. We were fortunate that Dudley Building Society came to Bridgnorth recently, opening a branch just opposite my office, but it does not offer the full service of traditional banks, and setting up banking hubs, which is hard to do, is not viable at the moment. I wrote to many organisations to see what support we could get on our high street. Link came back to me and said it had conducted an assessment—as many Members have said—but it did not recommend any additional services in any of my rural towns. It believed that there was adequate access to cash and banking services for local residents in all those areas. I disagree with that. Bridgnorth is served by Nationwide and HSBC, while Ludlow has NatWest and Nationwide. However, if people are not with those banks, they are stuck. They might have been with Lloyds for years, only to find that they have to travel to Wolverhampton—or, if they are in Ludlow, to Hereford, which is probably 40 minutes away. That is not suitable for everyone. This is a reactive approach, just watching the decline of our high street. We should change the regulation so that we can be proactive and allow Link to put services into the high street. I do not want to wait for every bank to close before we can get a banking hub. That is not the right approach.

    Hansard source
17. 25 Jun 2025·Parliament·Stuart Anderson

    Access to Banking Hubs: Hertfordshire

    The hon. Member is right; I said that people have to go 40 minutes from Ludlow to Hereford, but some might take 20 minutes to get to Ludlow. Given the inaccessibility of remote areas and rural towns, the system is not working. When the Minister sums up the debate, I would appreciate it if she could address the issue of how Link assesses access to banking hubs and the criteria used, and if she could tell me what support she can provide to get more banking hubs in South Shropshire.

    Hansard source
18. 25 Jun 2025·Parliament·Sir Oliver Dowden

    Engagements

    Q7. It is a pleasure to be asking the right hon. Lady another question at Prime Minister’s questions, although just the one this time. There has been a proliferation of houses in multiple occupation in my constituency, in places such as Potters Bar and Borehamwood. Quiet residential streets such as Tiverton Road and Organ Hall Road are being blighted by family houses being converted into houses in multiple occupation, leading to a surge in antisocial behaviour and parking problems. May I therefore urge the right hon. Lady to look at enhancing the powers of local councils to stop these kinds of developments where they are not wanted?

    Hansard source
19. 25 Jun 2025·Parliament·Sir Mel Stride

    Engagements

    Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to stand opposite the right hon. Lady. Despite what many may think, we have a great deal in common, not least that we both viscerally disagree with the Chancellor’s tax policies. It is also great to see the right hon. Lady standing in temporarily for the Prime Minister for the second week running—although I know that many sitting behind her wish that this was a permanent arrangement. Indeed, we will find many of their names among the 122 who have signed up to oppose the Government’s welfare Bill. They say that the Bill is dangerously rushed and ill-thought-through. Will the right hon. Lady explain why she thinks that she is right and 122 of her colleagues are wrong?

    Hansard source
20. 25 Jun 2025·Parliament·Sir Mel Stride

    Engagements

    The right hon. Lady completely sidestepped my question. She cannot even defend her own Government’s policy. Can she at least assure the House that the vote on Tuesday will actually go ahead?

    Hansard source
21. 25 Jun 2025·Parliament·Sir Mel Stride

    Engagements

    There you have it: there will be a vote in this House on Tuesday on the welfare Bill, although many on the Back Benches could be forgiven for thinking that they have heard this before with the winter fuel payment, where they were marched up the hill, and we all know where that story ended. On the Conservative side of the House, we are absolutely clear that we will help the right hon. Lady get their Bill through if the Government can commit to actually reducing the welfare bill and getting people off benefits and into work. Can she make that commitment right now—yes or no?

    Hansard source
22. 25 Jun 2025·Parliament·Sir Mel Stride

    Engagements

    I am afraid that the right hon. Lady has clearly not read her own legislation. The Bill will see the number of people on welfare rising for every single year going forward. There is no commitment from her to cut the number of people on welfare. Even if the Government manage to deliver these reforms, almost every respected economist now says that tax rises are all but inevitable in the autumn. But after the Budget, the Chancellor said, “I’m not coming back with…more taxes.” British businesses have been hit again and again by Labour’s economic mismanagement. They are desperate for certainty. Can the right hon. Lady give them that certainty now and repeat to the House the Chancellor’s promise not to raise taxes at the Budget?

    Hansard source
23. 25 Jun 2025·Parliament·Sir Mel Stride

    Engagements

    The whole House will have heard that the right hon. Lady did not repeat the Chancellor’s promise not to raise taxes. Britain’s businesses have today been put on notice: tax rises are coming. Specifically, in the right hon. Lady’s own area, despite Labour’s promises to freeze council tax, the Institute for Fiscal Studies says that the spending review will mean the biggest council tax increases in a generation—a £7 billion tax rise. Yet the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have repeatedly claimed that the Government will not raise taxes on working people. Why does the right hon. Lady think that council tax is not paid by working people?

    Hansard source
24. 25 Jun 2025·Parliament·Sir Mel Stride

    Engagements

    When you cut out the blather, is not the reality that this Labour Government have condemned us to higher taxes, more debt, fewer jobs and more pain for businesses up and down our country? Borrowing, unemployment and inflation are up, yet the right hon. Lady tells us that the Government’s plan is working. It is not just me who is not convinced; the Members behind her are not convinced either. Nor are the public. In fact, I am not even sure whether the right hon. Lady herself is convinced. Is she not just a little embarrassed to defend policies that she does not even agree with?

    Hansard source
25. 25 Jun 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Nuclear-certified Aircraft Procurement

    May I encourage the Government not to be at all bashful about the fact that the decision on whether one of these weapons will be used—heaven forbid—will be an American one? There is a long tradition of American nuclear weapons being based in NATO countries, not least the Cruise and Pershing missiles of the 1980s, which helped to end the cold war. Will the Minister confirm that not only does this fill a gap in our deterrence spectrum, but it reasserts the commitment of the United States to the defence of the other NATO countries?

    Hansard source
26. 25 Jun 2025·Parliament·Sir John Whittingdale

    Artificial Intelligence: Legislative Proposals

    Is the Minister aware of the concerns about the proposed creative content exchange, which appeared without consultation in the creative industries sector plan? Will he confirm that any AI legislation will not seek to impose a statutory licensing model, but will instead facilitate a market-led, dynamic licensing model based on robust copyright law and enforceable through meaningful transparency?

    Hansard source
27. 25 Jun 2025·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

    Flags: Public Buildings

    It was in that guise that my hon. Friend came to see me on the subject when I was a Cabinet Office Minister. We had some success in that venture, as he will recall, and subsequently, thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden), we had further success. We worked together to ensure that flags were flown from Government buildings across Whitehall; no doubt my hon. Friend will tell us about that. He deserves great praise for his endurance, perseverance and determination.

    Hansard source
28. 25 Jun 2025·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

    Access to Banking Hubs: Hertfordshire

    My hon. Friend is right that this is a problem felt across Britain, as banks abandon their customers and close branches in my constituency in Crowland, the Deepings, Holbeach, Long Sutton and Sutton Bridge. The key thing about this issue is that it affects those least able to bank online; it also affects all of us who believe that banking should be an experience where people meet other people and personal service counts. I thank my hon. Friend for this debate. I call on the Minister to have more banking hubs, as the Payment Choice Alliance has requested—I hope she will say that when she sums up.

    Hansard source
29. 25 Jun 2025·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

    Access to Banking Hubs: Hertfordshire

    The hon. Lady is making a powerful point and she is right about the number. The Payment Choice Alliance, to which I have already referred, estimates that if every community with a population of 5,000 or more were provided with a banking hub, there would be about 1,200 of them. Ministers want solutions, not just questions, and that is a solution. I invite the Minister to consider that: any community with a population of 5,000 or more that does not have a bank should have a hub. I think that would be reasonable.

    Hansard source
30. 25 Jun 2025·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

    Points of Order

    On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On Monday, the High Court ordered a £60,000 cap on contribution to the Government’s legal fees by campaigners seeking justice for the change in the pension age—the so-called WASPI women. This is a major breakthrough for that campaign, which has had support from across the House, including from the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), who is in his place, the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) and many others. You will recall, Mr Speaker, that the ombudsman highlighted maladministration by the Department for Work and Pensions, and no Government of any party have stepped up to the mark, including this one. Have you had any notice, Mr Speaker, that the Government will make a statement to the House to see whether an appropriate offer can be made to these women to end this injustice?

    Hansard source
31. 25 Jun 2025·Parliament·Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

    Nuclear-certified Aircraft Procurement

    I welcome the Minister for Defence Procurement’s announcement. This is welcome news for our country. Given that in-service dates for key pieces of military equipment are often later than predicted, has she given any thought to training our pilots in advance of delivery, either on a simulator or by embedding them into a unit that operates these planes around the world, so that we are ready to hit the ground running as soon as they are delivered?

    Hansard source
32. 25 Jun 2025·Parliament·Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

    National Armaments Director

    Let me begin by thanking you, Madam Deputy Speaker, Mr Speaker and the Backbench Business Committee for selecting this debate, which, if I may say so, is particularly appropriate in Armed Forces Week. Let me also thank the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), who is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, for being here to listen to my speech. I hope the Minister will answer a few of my questions. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), the Chairman of the Defence Committee, who would have joined me following our joint application for the debate, but his Committee has been away from Parliament on a visit. The defence budget is one of the most important estimates that the House can debate and scrutinise. With war waging in Ukraine, the ongoing Israel-Gaza conflict and with what is now happening in Iran, our world feels increasingly unstable. The Prime Minister has recently returned from the G7 and is now at the NATO summit, ensuring that our interests align with our European, AUKUS and American allies, which is critical. As General Walker, Chief of the General Staff, said last July, we must be ready for war within three years, and the rest of my speech is devoted largely to that theme. I wish first to discuss the figures in the defence budget. I think that most Members are pleased that defence spending is now considered a priority. The strategic defence review announced in early June was welcomed, and confirmed that defence spending would rise from 2% to 2.5% of GDP by April 2027, with an extra 0.1% going towards intelligence and security services contributions. There was a further commitment to increase defence spending to 3% of GDP in the next Parliament, but it has been noted that no date has been set so far. The new announcement by the Prime Minister at the NATO summit suggests that the Government will expect to spend 5% of GDP on national security and defence by the end of the next Parliament or by 2035, which includes 3% spent on core defence spending and 1.5% spent on resilience and security. I ask Members to bear with me while I go through the somewhat complicated figures that this involves. In 2024, 1% of GDP was about £28 billion, according to the House of Commons Library, but hopefully our GDP will increase as the years go by. Members should note critically that a percentage increase in the budget is not the same as an increase in the percentage of GDP, hence the much higher figures that I am about to give. According to the Treasury Red Book, the current Ministry of Defence budget for 2025-26 is £62.2 billion, which is around 2.2% of GDP. For the Government to reach the needed 2.5% of GDP by 2027—setting aside the fact that the MOD budget does not quite align with the NATO-compliant spending—the defence budget must increase to around £70 billion in 2027-28. With the extra 0.1% that I mentioned earlier, the total is £72.8 billion. Therefore, another £9 billion to £11 billion needs to be found in the next two years. If we are to reach 3% of GDP in the next Parliament, the defence budget will need to equate to around £84 billion in current prices. After today’s announcement, the equating figures are 3.5% or £98 billion on core defence and 1.5% or £42 billion on resilience, so the total spending by 2035 will need to be £140 billion. These calculations are dependent on the GDP staying the same and not increasing, in which case the budget will of course increase as well. I simply ask the Minister: where is all this money coming from? It is a huge amount of money. Given the failure to produce the defence investment plan alongside the strategic defence review, the SDR is merely a list of ambitions and aspirations, with few receipts and invoices attached. When he gave the ministerial statement on the SDR, I asked the Secretary of State to confirm when we would be able to scrutinise the figures, but I understand that the defence investment plan is still an unfinished piece of work and is not due to be published until the autumn. That is a long way off. I am Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, which is always looking at how effectively money is spent, whether it could be spent more effectively to give the taxpayer best value for money, and whether spending is feasible. However, the Committee has not been able to fulfil its statutory role of scrutinising defence equipment spending for at least 12 months. The last defence equipment plan was published in November 2022, and it set out a 10-year spending plan for equipment procurement, costing around £305.5 billion. There was a £16.9 billion shortfall compared with the money that was then available. I am pleased that the permanent secretary accepted the invitation to come to our Committee in April to discuss the equipment plan, but he did not come with any proposals as to how and when we might be able to scrutinise the relevant defence expenditure, to see whether the huge aspirations were affordable in the current budget, in the next budget of 3%, or in the following one of 3.5%. It is really important that Parliament has a timetable for when we can do that scrutiny.

    Hansard source
33. 25 Jun 2025·Parliament·Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

    National Armaments Director

    My hon. Friend has made the case eloquently, and I have also made it. The Minister will have heard and, hopefully, she might have something positive to say when she responds to the debate.

    Hansard source
34. 25 Jun 2025·Parliament·Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

    National Armaments Director

    My right hon. Friend must have read my mind; when I come on to submarines, I will mention that very factor of inflation in defence costs. The MOD is being reorganised into four sections: there will be a permanent secretary in charge of the Department; the chief of the defence organisation will be in charge of all personnel matters; there will be a new national armaments director in charge of all matters to do with procurement, digital and research, including all the matters to deal with what is now in the Defence Infrastructure Organisation; and there is of course the Defence Nuclear Organisation. This debate is focused on the national armaments director, whose appointment has been ongoing since it was announced on 17 December 2024. I am hopeful that the Department might soon be in a position to announce who they have selected to do the job, which I have to say is very prestigious and very large, with a very large £400,000 salary attached. As I said, the national armaments director will be responsible for all defence procurement and all of the Defence Infrastructure Organisation, including defence housing, as well as digital and research. This represents a huge part of the defence budget. He will have significantly more control over the acquisition process than hitherto. I hope that some of the Government’s announcements will come to fruition, including that on reducing the time it takes to award a contract to a two-year maximum, which the Department hopes to do by involving industry at a much earlier stage in the process, to help to solve problems. Rather than over-specifying on requirements, this should streamline things and simplify the contracts. It should also allow our defence sector to export more equipment to the international market, which will in turn support even more jobs in the sector. One contract that demonstrates the weaknesses in our procurement strategy was that for the Ajax armoured fighting vehicle programme, which was contracted to General Dynamics. The contract was the subject of many Defence Committee and Public Accounts Committee inquiries and of many urgent questions. It was originally contracted in 2011 for delivery in 2017, then deferred to 2020-21. As we all know, the trials were halted due to safety concerns, and the contract was renegotiated for 2024. Perhaps the Minister could tell us when all 180 vehicles will be in operation? General Dynamics was also awarded the infamous Morpheus battlefield radio system contract, which has cost £828 million so far. Will the Minister confirm that it is currently in the evolve-to-open transition partnership, and when its in-service date is likely to be? It was intended to replace the existing Bowman communications system by 2026, but that will now have to be extended with modifications to at least 2031, and possibly to 2035. That may leave a capability gap in our defence system. I think the whole House would appreciate an update on where we are with our tri-service battlefield communications system, and how it could be accelerated. Another contract that should receive more scrutiny is the E-7 Wedgetail early-warning and control aircraft. Although the SDR says that we will procure further units, and share the costs with our NATO allies, the Pentagon has labelled the E-7 “expensive”, “gold-plated” and “not survivable in the modern battlefield”. Again, we would be grateful for further detail from the Minister on that contract. As I said to the Minister in my question on today’s statement, I welcome the fact that the Government have committed to buying more F-35 aircraft—12 F-35As and 15 F-35Bs. The F-35A capability will be an alternative to our seaborne nuclear capability. Another huge commitment as part of the SDR is the one to invest in up to 12 new SSN-AUKUS nuclear-powered submarines. The submarines are due to be in operation in the 2030s and 2040s, with one being built every 18 months, but there are huge challenges ahead due to it being a new class of submarine and concerns with the lack of capacity at Barrow-in-Furness. No cost per submarine has ever been disclosed, and the programme is likely to take more than 10 years, so we really need to see some of the detail. Is the deal underpinned by the Government’s eventual commitment to increase expenditure to 3% in the next Parliament? We need to be able see whether it is feasible. Speaking of long in-service dates, as I was in respect of the F-35s earlier—and the Minister agreed—we need to see the early work on feasibility and contracts beginning as soon as possible to meet the long tail into the buying, building and commissioning of the submarines. This strategically important contract will, when costs are announced, need leadership from the national armaments director to ensure that it remains on track and on budget, unlike so many others before it. The Public Accounts Committee has asked for an update by the end of June 2026, which will demonstrate how well defence procurement has improved under the first year of the national armaments director group. The renewed focus on nuclear is important when looking at the ever-increasing nuclear enterprise budget. In 2024, the budget was £10.9 billion, which is about 18% of the whole budget. The 10-year defence nuclear enterprise costs have increased by £10 billion from £117.8 billion to £128 billion, and it is not clear whether the extra £15 billion announced in the SDR that has been committed to the warhead is included in that figure. The budget is rising due to various factors, including technical factors, inflation, and the speed of manufacturing at which we now need to build these submarines to meet the timetable that is absolutely necessary for our defence. The budget is one of the few that is left unscrutinised due to the sensitive nature of these contracts, but as Chairman of the PAC, I am constitutionally obliged to see the detail. This needs to be resolved, and I am grateful for the commitment of the Secretary of State in working towards a solution. Sensitive scrutiny has never been more important, due to the context of the figures I announced earlier. Defence personnel is another focus of the defence budget. The budget has had to increase by £14.3 billion to pay for the Treasury’s employer’s national insurance tax rise. The number of people leaving the armed forces is far too high. Last year, for every 100 personnel we recruited to the Army, we lost 130. This is completely unsustainable, especially as the SDR commits to increasing our armed forces to 76,000. The PAC recently held a session on cadet and reserve forces, and the SDR again clarifies that the Government want to increase the number of cadets by 30% and, critically, of reservists by 20%. Again, I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed how much that will cost. We need to make joining the armed forces a much more attractive option than it currently is. Frankly, a prisoner would get better and safer conditions than some of the defence housing I have seen, much of which has mould, rust and leaks. This must change if we want to improve the retention and recruitment of our armed forces by giving them a better package of remuneration and conditions of service. I welcome the £1.5 billion to improve defence housing as part of the SDR and the £6.1 billion spent to repurchase 35,000 homes following the landmark deal with Annington Homes. This will allow the MOD to undertake major improvement schemes. Another recruitment issue is the length of time it takes to enrol service personnel into training. We used to have an armed forces recruitment centre on every high street in the country. People could walk in off the streets, sign up and be wearing a new uniform within two weeks. There are now stories of recruitment taking well over six months, which is simply not good enough. We need to look further afield to ensure that the military has the right skills for the future. Cyber-warfare is becoming an increasing and real threat, and I believe the MOD could do more to recruit those with artificial intelligence and digital skills, but who would not necessarily meet the medical and fitness entry requirements needed for normal military personnel.

    Hansard source
35. 25 Jun 2025·Parliament·Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

    National Armaments Director

    I cannot tell what is on the Government’s mind, but maybe the Minister will be able to tell us. However, given that the SDR makes it perfectly clear that they want to increase the numbers of our armed forces considerably, we have to consider every aspect of recruiting and retaining more. We must make sure that they do not just leave the Army or the armed forces as soon as they get particular skills. My right hon. Friend has raised a really important issue. In conclusion, there is no greater duty on a Government than defending the nation, yet all Members of this House and the general public need to have confidence that our armed forces are properly equipped to do the job. That does not mean we can complacently give in to every demand, and it is the role of PAC members to carefully scrutinise the defence budget. Wasted spending and shortfalls are stopping our armed forces keeping us safe in the most efficient and effective ways. It is therefore imperative that the MOD releases more information on its finances in a timely manner, so that we can thoroughly scrutinise it and thus assure Parliament that our armed forces can do their job in the most effective way, with world-beating equipment.

    Hansard source
36. 25 Jun 2025·Parliament·Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

    National Armaments Director

    I deliberately included a little bit about recruitment and retention in my speech. There will, I think, be a tension between the armaments director and the Chief of the Defence Staff over recruitment versus the budget for equipment. It is not possible to suddenly turn on the tap and recruit more people; it takes time. Can the Minister say anything today about when she will start to ramp up that recruitment?

    Hansard source
37. 25 Jun 2025·Parliament·Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

    National Armaments Director

    I thank the Minister for that positive contribution. Twenty-five years ago, when we sat next to each other in the Public Accounts Committee, passing each other notes and holding the civil service to account, who would have thought that we would be in our respective positions now? I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) for his contribution. In fact, I thank all Members for a very positive debate. We look forward to seeing positive results from all the requests that have been made today, and to working with the Government, while strictly holding them to account for all the promises that they have made. Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54).

    Hansard source
38. 25 Jun 2025·Parliament·Sir Desmond Swayne

    Flags: Public Buildings

    I remind hon. Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge and the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

    Hansard source
39. 25 Jun 2025·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

    GP Funding: South-west England

    My constituents tell me of their difficulty in getting an appointment with their GP. Does the hon. Member share my view that GP practices should get a bigger share of NHS funding, which would enable them to improve the health of our constituents? And does he share my concern that much of the extra money allocated by the Government risks being swallowed by increased national insurance contributions, inflation and pay awards?

    Hansard source
40. 25 Jun 2025·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

    English Wine Production

    One of those many vineyards is the Oatley vineyard in my constituency, run by Ned Awty and his family. Mr Awty raised with me, on a recent, pleasant visit, that small brewers and cider makers benefit from a duty relief scheme to encourage production. Would my hon. Friend join me in asking the Minister to extend that scheme to small vineyards?

    Hansard source