Parliament's party history for this member: Liberal Democrat ( – present).
Register of interests
Every entry the member has in the Register of Members' Financial Interests, as Parliament currently publishes it. The wording and values are the member's own declarations; nothing here has been assessed by this site.
Totals add only the entries that declare an amount received: payments for work, donations, gifts, and funded visits (register categories 1.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5). Ongoing employment is listed but not added, because its figure is a rate rather than a sum received. Each entry is dated by when the benefit happened, not when it was registered, and placed under the party the member sat for on that date. A member who changed party therefore has a separate total for each.
<Question HRSContentId="{1DE7BEF8-8C1D-4E15-8C95-9845FB9EEECB}">T5. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{E878CDDC-3AC1-458D-9DD4-4474DC78E662}"></QuestionText>Recently, I visited Standing Joint Command in Aldershot, which is responsible for co-ordinating military support to the civil power, working through local resilience forums and councils. What conversations has the Secretary of State had with the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of <span id="575" class="column-number" data-column-number="575"></span>Defence to ensure that devolution and local government reorganisation strengthen the country’s resilience rather than weaken it?</Question>
Would the right hon. Member back a national security exemption for regulations such as those he cited whereby, if what is being developed is clearly for our national security, health and safety and other regulations fall away to enable us to get that into the field quickly?
The hon. Member seems to be extolling the benefits of building houses, so can he explain why the Reform party in Tunbridge Wells is campaigning to restrict house building?
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans), and I want to pick up his last theme, which was the defence of our country. Specifically, I want to talk about our readiness to fight a war. The Defence Secretary said just last week that we had to be ready within 1,000 days to fight a war against Russia, so this is really about preparing for the war that is in front of us, rather than for a war.
I want to make a slight digression and pick up on something the Chancellor said today. He said:
“In today’s Budget, I am fully funding the defence investment plan”.
I want to compare the figures in today’s Red Book with the figures laid by the previous Chancellor when the DIP announcements were made on 30 June. For 2027, in the DIP, we see a total budget for the MOD of £73.8 billion. In today’s Red Book we see a figure of £72.8 billion, so there is a gap of £1 billion. It is the same for 2028-29. I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard me, but perhaps the Chancellor would like to clarify his statement, because it does not seem that he is fully funding the DIP, according to the figures that were laid before Parliament.
Going back to readiness, the defence investment plan is, by its very nature, about capital projects. Over the past decade in the MOD, capital expenditure has gone up by about 130%, which is obviously very welcome, but day-to-day expenditure has flatlined in real terms. Looking at the Red Book today, and the RDEL for the MOD in 2027-28, we see that day-to-day expenditure in the MOD is actually being cut by 2%. Day-to-day expenditure in the MOD means spare parts, maintenance, munitions, training and operations.
I chair the all-party parliamentary group on rearmament, and we are currently running an inquiry into the state of the British military. What we are hearing is sobering stuff. We have no submarines that are at sea, which is in part a maintenance problem. We have aircraft that we are unable to disperse around different airfields because we do not have sufficient levels of stocks. We have the Navy cutting training courses for tank commanders. We have not run a submarine course for submarine commanders for many years. We have to send them to other nations to train them. This cut in resource expenditure, in day-to-day expenditure in the MOD, is having a real effect on our ability to be ready for war now, and that has a direct effect on our ability to deter Russia by 2030, which is exactly what the Government tell us we need to be doing.
I always apply the Granny Martin test to these things, which is to look at what people do rather than what they say. The Government seem to be saying that we need to be ready to fight a war by 2030. We have had a whole slew of announcements, with the Defence Secretary and the Security Minister saying that we need to stockpile food. I think we get it: it is a dangerous world and we need to be ready for war by 2030. But then why do we have a defence investment plan in which two thirds of the capital expenditure is after 2030, and that will deliver projects well into the 2030s?
If we really need to be ready for war by 2030, we need to focus on readiness. That means taking some of that MOD capital expenditure and putting it in the day-to-day <span id="390" class="column-number" data-column-number="390"></span>budget, because that means we can train our forces, maintain our equipment, and have stocks, spares and munitions. Without that, our forces will wither, the training of our people will decline, morale will decline, and we will simply not be able to get ships out to sea or planes in the air.
Last week the APPG ran a session on the RAF, and we heard that for just £50 million we could build hardened shelters on our airbases. At the moment, we have exquisitely expensive planes that are sitting out in the open on the airbases. Do these people watch the news? Do they see what the Ukrainians are doing to Russian airframes? For relatively small amounts of money, we could get ready for the war that the Government say we face. That is what we should be focusing on, rather than projects that deliver after 2030.
Businesses, constituents and pets in Tunbridge Wells suffer from destructive and often cruel catapult attacks. It is a problem that many of us across this House have seen in our inboxes. Kent police and Tunbridge Wells borough council are working together to manage the problem, including looking at public space protection orders. Can I ask the Secretary of State whether she has considered restrictions or a ban at a national level in order to strengthen the hand of local police forces and local authorities such as mine in Tunbridge Wells?
Like many right hon. and hon. Members, I have constituents who have not had their pensions paid. In the worst case, a constituent has waited for 11 months without a pension. My question is twofold. First, what compensation will the Minister force Crapita—sorry, Capita—to pay those constituents who have missed out? Secondly, there are tax implications for the sequencing of payments, so payments can fall in different tax years, among other things. Will that all be squared away with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, so that our constituents do not overpay tax?
I thank the hon. Member for giving way, because there is just so much to feast upon there in one intervention. Just to draw out an inconsistency in his speech, he likes experts and history—I like them as well—yet he says that we should have an upper Chamber that is based on the votes at the last election. Presumably, those would be appointed by the parties, so how does he intend to balance those two tensions?
Before I make some brief remarks about a narrow section of the Bill, I pay tribute to right hon. and hon. Members from across the House for the quality of debate we are having. This is an incredibly difficult topic to deal with, and the vast majority of Members, particularly today, have engaged with it in the spirit in which it should be engaged with.