Alec Shelbrooke MP: speeches

Speeches

• 8 Sept 2026 · Media Green Paper · Hansard source

  More

  On that note, does my hon. Friend also make that link to the licence fee? The reason we have a licence fee, rather than paying through general taxation, is so that the BBC does not fear decisions that Ministers may make. The Government say they want to renew the licence fee, but at the same time are putting in place something that would take away the very reason for a licence fee instead of taxation.

• 8 Sept 2026 · Media Green Paper · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. Universal accessibility is vital in this debate. I agree with much of what has been said so far, but I am concerned about the switch-off of free-to-air as it stands. In the year I was elected, 2010, there were strong proposals to switch off the FM and AM signals. We are now 16 years down the line, and long-wave has just been switched off; the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) about losing the ability to do a long-wave broadcast are important to bear in mind. We keep talking about the technology moving along and about being able to access broadcasts on cables and the internet, but that will never be true for people who live on canal boats, for example. With digital television, these days someone can just stick up a Squarial, point it in roughly the right direction and get their television channels—my wife and I have taken holidays in a canal boat and in a camper van, and we have been able to do that. A camper van is slightly different, because it is probably used more for leisure purposes, but there are people who live on canal boats. How are they going to get an internet connection? Technology may move on, but it worries me that we say, “In order to solve this problem and that problem, you are going to have to buy or rent something, or in some way or another enter into a contract to receive something that you currently get free.” The BBC is one of the most valuable institutions this country has, because it is able to be a public service broadcaster. It loses its way at times, when chasing ratings and saying that it has to be in competition, on some things that only a public service broadcaster can deliver. If we say that people will have to pay something or other to be able to get television, surely that completely destroys a licence fee. People will be not only taxed to watch television, but charged again to actually be able to use the thing that they are paying a tax on. The BBC has to maintain a free-to-air service, however that is delivered. I am not sure that that technology is there yet but, once it is, it will be vital that people are not charged for it. The way forward is having tried and tested technology. A lot of us went out and bought DAB radios when they came out. Most of those DAB radios are now in the bin, because DAB+ was brought out and Classic FM stopped broadcasting on DAB; my previous car did not have DAB+, so I had to go back to FM to listen. I am sure we all have certain digital radio sets that now do not pick up many channels at all. The industry changing what a person can receive on, after they have already invested in new equipment, is also something that must be looked at. My constituency has a lot of people who live on canal boats; I am sure many other constituencies do too. We must give careful consideration to those areas: where there is not a solid land point of contact permanently, how are we going to make sure that people receive the things that they currently get and pay a licence fee for? The licence fee is not a television licence fee; it is a licence fee, because it covers the radio broadcast as well. If it slowly gets to the point where people say, “I am already paying for this, so I am not going to pay for that,” it will remove a whole host of radio, and I think that radio is the most important thing that the BBC does. I very rarely watch television news now, because it is just a second-by-second diatribe as the broadcasters try to fill in a gap all day long, whereas anyone who listens to radio news will actually get the news in half an hour. There is probably more news in the 6 o’clock news on Radio 4 than in two hours on one of the other broadcasters. There are some very sensible programmes; it is a great pity that “The World Tonight” is coming to an end, although replacing it with “Newshour” from the World Service could be very useful. However, there could be some unforeseen circumstances if we are asking people to pay twice. Given the reputation of the television licence, they may stop paying it. Fundamentally, I want to make sure that we do not take away the ability even to receive television, and that we keep considering whether people may be land-based and whether they can get that connection.

• 15 Jul 2026 · Iran · Hansard source

  More

  It has been a fascinating debate so far this afternoon. There is no doubt about the effects of a lot of what the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O'Hara) has just said. This debate therefore has to be set into the context of what we are dealing with now. What is going on in Iran is an example of the importance of some of the tough decisions we have to make. Until November, I am one of the vice-presidents of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. Most of my career in this place has been about dealing with soft power, and that is a soft power body. It has become difficult in recent years to maintain the UK’s reputation among allies, because countries, especially the eastern allies of NATO, are accelerating their spending enormously quickly. They are taking that spending up to serious levels, way beyond what would have been suggested, because they recognise the threat. The hon. Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher), who is not in his place, spoke about how we make people recognise the threat. I do not believe that we always can; indeed, history has shown that we cannot. The hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) and I have often had a discussion over a cup of tea about what happened in the 1930s, and the Cabinet that Ramsay MacDonald had to form as Prime Minister. The difficulty of getting people to recognise the threat is why Winston Churchill went through years of being detested, while he tried to warn of the coming dangers. Neville Chamberlain, often described as an appeaser, recognised that this country was nowhere near ready for war in 1937, and was having to push things back. There is also what is often described as the phoney war from September 1939; people were saying, “Why are we doing this?”, right up until the bombs started to fall. As I said to the hon. Member for Loughborough, people can see things, but they also cannot see things, so how do we get the message across? We hear people say today, “I am not going to fight for my country. Why should I get involved? Why should I defend the Baltic states?” I remind the House that way back in the 1930s, the Oxford Union had a debate on the motion that “This House would not in any circumstances fight for King and Country”. That debate took place—let me get my maths right—some 90-odd years ago. How people regard the defence of their country has never changed, and that is where tough decisions come in. It is the responsibility of Governments to do things that are not popular. I have debated with the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), many times, and I have a great deal of respect for him. I suspect that tucked away in his notes for his winding-up speech there might be a reference to defence spending in the 14 years of Conservative Government, but I think that line does us a disservice. We have to recognise that from roughly 1989 onwards, defence spending was cut and cut. It hovered between around 2.2% and 2.5% of GDP. The Labour party has said that when it left office, defence spending had risen. In blunt terms, that is true, but Labour MPs do not say just how much was coming out of the reserves to fund the wars. A lot of Labour MPs stare at their feet when that is mentioned now. Defence was cut further under the coalition Government, when Danny Alexander was the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. The Liberal Democrats like to speak about what the Conservatives did to defence spending, but they conveniently overlook who the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was who pushed through those defence cuts. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) is, I believe, one of the most experienced men in our party in analysing defence budgets and understanding defence needs. I am sure that when he winds up the debate his words will be worth listening to, as they always are, because he understands, and he understood at the time, that the decisions being made would have a knock-on consequence. I am trying not to make party political comments today. I am making a speech about the threat that is right in front of our nation’s eyes. It is clear that this general debate on Iran, and the cancellation of all the business previously announced, was arranged not because there is an incoming barrage of missiles and we are going to experience a conflagration, but because the Government did not want to call on the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) to come to the House until six weeks from now. That is obvious, but it does not take away the underlying point that we have to accept in this country. Let me return to the subject of defence spending. I have been in the Chamber when the procurement Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), and the new Secretary of State for Defence have been at the Dispatch Box to talk about how much funding they are giving to defence. They say that they are spending record amounts on it. Well, I am spending record amounts on diesel for my car, but that does not mean that I am investing more; it means that my revenue costs have gone up—and the former Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey), said that the Treasury was not supplying the money, or the Government were not willing to spend it. The hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who is no longer in the Chamber, said that there had to be a more hybrid approach to defence, and I think he is right. That does not mean chucking everything else away. I was relieved that the Type 26 and Type 31 programme for the Royal Navy is still in place. However, I am open-minded and, indeed, intrigued: I think there may be a positive outcome to the replacement of the Type 83 with the Type 90s—well, let us just call it a destroyer programme for now, until they have a proper name, but there will be drones attached to them—because we need a flexible workforce. Wars always accelerate innovation. The speed with which drone technology has developed in the Ukraine war is incredible, but we have seen this before. Look at the speed with which we moved from the V1 to the V2 rocket. Look at the speed of our work to develop atomic weapons over the six years of the second world war; we came very close to developing them then, and indeed ultimately did.

• 15 Jul 2026 · Iran · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for clarifying that. I have been speaking to officers who command Ajax tanks. When an officer is interviewed, he has another officer stood behind him, to make sure that he says the right things. When an officer is interviewed on the record, he is not going to say a lot. You have to go to the pub and speak there to the officers who command the tanks; you need to have proper conversation with them. They will tell you that this thing will be useless in a war. The fact that the tanks cannot communicate with each other in real time on the battlefield should send a shiver through us all. The point I am driving at builds on the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee), who talked about Iran supplying technical drones to Russia, how Ukraine has moved ahead of those, how Russia will catch up, and how we have to adapt. We have to accept that some of our programmes are simply not fit for purpose, because we do not have a budget in place for funding the defence investment plan; it is smoke and mirrors. Labour Members will push back on that, but the figures are there. There is £15 billion to be spent, even though the demand was for £28 billion. Some £5 billion has not been identified, and £10 billion comes from savings in the Ministry of Defence, so there is not a penny more for the MOD. The money is just not there, and we should be terrified by that. Those are not my words, but the words of the man who was the Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough. This is not coming from the Opposition; it is coming from a man who was in office, and who has the Labour movement running through him, like the words in a stick of Brighton rock. There is no way that he wanted to criticise his Labour Government, and neither did the noble Lord Robertson, another man who has the Labour party running through his veins, but they have pointed out just how exposed we are. Too many people ask—again, this comes down to education—“Why should we defend the Baltic states if Putin wants to go in?”. I have heard people say, “They’re Russian anyway. They were part of the Russian empire.” I have heard people say, “The Ukrainians started the war with Russia. NATO pushed them into it.” I have heard people say all these things, and do you know what they all have in common? They all started off looking at particular right-wing websites—I do not mean far right; I am not talking about extremism—that push these sorts of things, and the Russians and the Chinese have been watching what they click. They are the ones developing the algorithms, and they feed their lines through algorithms that take people further and further down a particular path. That is about undermining what underpins our society. When sensible people whom I have known for years are parroting back exactly what is coming out of the Kremlin, it is clear that this is having an effect.

• 15 Jul 2026 · Iran · Hansard source

  More

  Is my hon. Friend, in that one sentence, not summing up what the problem with today’s debate has been? The contributions that have been made, including from the Government Front Bench, clearly do not reflect the urgency with which the Leader of the House outlined the change in business yesterday. This debate was clearly scheduled to stop a motion being put to this House to make the new Prime Minister come to this House. It will now be at least a month and a half before any of the questions that my hon. Friend has just asked will be answered.

• 14 Jul 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The Leader of the House was a Whip of long experience, along with the hon. Member for Bridgend (Chris Elmore). I find it hard to understand how the Whips Office has fallen so far that the usual channels did not know what the motions would be tomorrow. Who is the Leader of the House trying to convince? One of those motions would have been to censure the Energy Secretary. The Leader of the House has made it clear that the crisis in the middle east has a direct impact on this country because of the energy crisis, yet we will not be able to censure the Energy Secretary for the tens of thousands of jobs he has seen disappear in the oil and gas industry. Perhaps he might act when there is one job on offer. Will the next Government carry on making statements outside of this House? That is what will happen all summer, basically disregarding this House, for which you, Mr Speaker, have admonished those on the Treasury Bench on several occasions.

• 7 Jul 2026 · Summer Jobs · Hansard source

  More

  Is my hon. Friend not incredulous that the Government’s proposed amendment to the motion “welcomes the Employment Rights Act 2025 and the…Plan to Make Work Pay”? Does he think this is just another example of the Government burying their head in the sand, and that work may pay but there is nothing to work at?