Ben Lake MP: speeches

Speeches

• 23 Feb 2026 · Firearms Licensing · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for opening the debate in such an effective and measured way. Some 292 of my constituents signed the petition, and I thank all those who have contacted me in recent weeks to relay and explain their concerns about the proposed merger of the section 1 and section 2 firearms licences. A number of hon. Members have already outlined those concerns, so I will try not to repeat them, other than to summarise them. The proposed changes, although perhaps well intentioned, are disproportionate and will not realise the Government’s stated objective. I will begin with the concerns about the proportionality of the changes. Many of my constituents pointed out that many of the safety checks in the current regime are similar for both section 1 and section 2 applications, including medical and background checks. There are very good reasons for those checks. Every constituent who has written to me or visited me in surgeries recently has said that they support tight gun controls. They are proud of the fact that this country has a very good record on firearms regulation, but they do have questions of the Government about the proposed changes, which I shall relay to the Minister. As far as they can see it, the changes and the proposed merger would not improve safety by much for the public, not least because the suitability test—the core tenet of both section 1 and 2 applications—is already robust. My constituents also wanted me to convey that, even if we were to agree that the proposed merger would enhance public safety, whether or not it would realise that objective would depend on the efficacy and resourcing of the system. They have been clear to me that the current system is already creaking under great pressure. Across England and Wales, there are 43 different police licensing units, each operating with slightly different standards. The inconsistency in the system has been described to me as a postcode lottery. Surely we can agree that we need a more standardised, nationally consistent approach to processing applications for firearm licences. Perhaps most importantly, the capacity of the existing system would struggle to deal with the proposed changes. At present, I think there are more than 500,000 section 2 certificates. There are concerns that that number would reduce under these proposals, but even if we were to have only 250,000 certificates for what would currently be section 2 licences, it would still be more than double the number of section 1 licences at present. There are severe delays and units under pressure across the country, with significant inconsistencies in processing times—from 12 weeks to, at the worst, more than three years. Even if we were to agree that the merger was a good idea and would enhance public safety, can we be confident that it could be implemented, given the operational difficulties that the current system is shouldering? Like many of my constituents, I argue that instead of the proposed merger of sections 1 and 2, we should look at the system itself. Other hon. Members have already mentioned the need for greater resourcing, which I very much support, but a bolder idea, which was presented by the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) and others, is a centralised national licensing body. It strikes me as eminently sensible that we should have a specialised, centralised body, much like the DVLA for motorists, to realise efficiencies of scale, introduce expertise and ensure a more effective system overall. My other concern, if we proceed with these changes, is that an already overwhelmed system will find itself even more overwhelmed. Firearms applications, which our predecessors correctly deemed to carry more risk because of the greater lethality of the weapons, will inevitably be prioritised, so there are clear risks that what were section 2 applications will fall to the bottom of the pile. That means that many of my constituents—farmers and those involved in pest control—will find that they are facing even longer delays in securing the relevant licences so that they can operate and perform their crucial function in the rural economy.

• 9 Feb 2026 · Russian Influence on UK Politics and Democracy · Hansard source

  More

  I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member’s important intervention. Perhaps we in this country need to wake up to the nature of the threat: it is all-encompassing and comprehensive, so every single tier of government and of society needs to be engaged. Perhaps a national conversation about the seriousness of the threat should be initiated. The findings of the Government’s review may give us a good opportunity to trigger that national conversation. Once the review has issued its findings, we cannot waste any time in bringing forward the measures, whether legislative or budgetary, that need to be undertaken to protect the integrity of our democracy and tackle the scourge of Russian interference in our politics.

• 9 Feb 2026 · Russian Influence on UK Politics and Democracy · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) on so eloquently detailing the importance and urgency of this matter. I also congratulate the petitioners on organising such an important petition. I speak as the Member of Parliament for Ceredigion Preseli, the constituency that—half an hour ago, at least—had secured the highest number of signatories. As the hon. Member outlined, Wales is one of the areas that has secured the highest concentration of signatories across the entirety of the UK. It will come as no surprise to anybody who listened to his excellent speech that the reason for that interest and level of concern in Wales is the antics and treachery of the former leader of Reform UK in Wales, Mr Nathan Gill. As has been mentioned, he has been jailed for 10 and a half years for accepting Russian bribes to the tune of some £40,000 for making pro-Russian statements in the European Parliament and to the media. As I think everybody will agree, the man has committed treachery for £40,000, so we must ask serious questions about his integrity and that of his party, whose members I notice are absent from today’s debate. I want to make two broad points. The first is to explain why it is so important that we waste no time in implementing measures in response to the findings of the review that the Government have rightly called for and initiated. I understand the review will report its findings in March. I plead with the Government Minister to ensure that the findings are acted on as soon as possible, so as to preserve the integrity of our democracy. Sadly, it might not be possible to bring about any legislative changes in time for the elections in Wales and other parts of the UK in May this year. Nevertheless, it is important that we do not waste any time so that further elections are not influenced in any way by the scourge of Russian interference. I also ask the Minister that, as part of the review’s considerations, we look at the egregious loopholes in our current laws that the Russian state was able to exploit by funnelling money through to political actors and traitors in the UK for their own ends. I would like his reassurance that one particular device and mechanism being examined is the creation of Welsh limited partnerships. It is a subject that a whole host of investigative journalists have written about in some detail, and which I would very much like to hear the Government state that they are looking at. Such devices are created in Moscow in Russia and are then used to funnel money into our political discourse and political actors who try to interfere and influence our debates in malign ways that are very difficult for us to spot, or at least not very easy for the Electoral Commission and other authorities to act on effectively. I will end by reflecting on why that is so important. The hon. Member for South Norfolk outlined the host of ways in which the Russian state is trying to target society and democracy in western countries and specifically in the UK. As the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) said in his intervention, we should not be so naive as to think that it is not happening here in the UK. The strategic defence review of June last year concluded that we are under daily attack. When we talk about political interference, whether it is Russian, Iranian or Chinese for that matter, we should place that in the broader context of other hybrid warfare tactics, some of which the hon. Member for South Norfolk referred to. We need to consider that while those countries are perhaps flooding our social media feeds with disinformation generated by armies of bots, or trying directly to bribe some willing fools in our political environment, they are paving the way to undermining and corroding trust in political institutions and authorities such that we are even more vulnerable to the direct attacks they may launch, such as the terrible poisonings in Salisbury back in 2018, the arson attack back in 2024 or indeed the almost constant daily threat that these mysterious Russian research ships pose to our critical subsea infrastructure. By allowing political interference to continue, we risk undermining the public’s trust in all our institutions and, indeed, in the very integrity of our politics.

• 5 Feb 2026 · Sudan · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement today, and particularly for her engagement with the African Union and regional partners. I know that she will be concerned by the possibility of broader destabilisation as a consequence of this conflict. In the light of reports of renewed clashes in Blue Nile state and the mobilisation of armed groups in the southern and western parts of that state, what is the view of Ethiopia and South Sudan on the actions that need to be taken to limit the destabilisation? What role, if any, can the UK Government offer to play to support them?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Postal Services: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for securing this very important debate. He mentions mobile services, from which my constituency benefits greatly. Does he share my concern that the Post Office tasks individual postmasters with an ever greater number of mobile spots? Although we are very grateful for their effort, that leaves the network vulnerable. If a postmaster falls ill or wants to retire, we lose significant coverage.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Business Rates · Hansard source

  More

  Dozens of small businesses across Ceredigion and north Pembrokeshire will have listened to the Minister’s statement with interest. Could he please reassure me that the consequential funding that he has confirmed will go to Welsh Government will be determined and communicated in time—by 1 April—to allow the Welsh Government to allocate additional support to those small businesses?

• 21 Jan 2026 · Minority Language Broadcasting · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister will be aware that Ofcom is consulting on a draft code of practice on the prominence of public service broadcasters on digital platforms. Does she agree that it is essential that S4C is included in any measures that come out of that consultation, so that it is given greater prominence on smart TVs and other digital platforms?

• 20 Jan 2026 · Mobile Phones and Social Media: Use by Children · Hansard source

  More

  I know that parents, grandparents and, indeed, young people across Ceredigion Preseli will welcome action to tackle the harms of social media and mobile phone use. Given that education, which will be so important in implementing these measures, is a devolved responsibility in Wales, will the Secretary of State seek early discussions with the Welsh Government to ensure that any outcomes of the consultation are implemented equally across the United Kingdom?

• 19 Jan 2026 · Arctic Security · Hansard source

  More

  I commend the Government for standing firm with our European allies in supporting the principle that the future of Greenland is a matter for her people and her people alone. I know that the Government will make every diplomatic effort to avoid the imposition of these punitive tariffs, but if they were to be imposed upon us, will it be the policy of the Government to pursue a co-ordinated approach with our European allies in any countermeasures that may prove necessary?

• 14 Jan 2026 · UK-France Relations · Hansard source

  More

  I am loath to interrupt such an excellent speech, but does the hon. Member agree that, as Members of Parliament, we all have a role to play in forging those relationships with our contemporaries in the Assemblée Nationale? I also congratulate him, in that vein, on becoming a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group.

• 12 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I commend the hon. Member on her leadership of the Welsh Affairs Committee. She rightly said that the Committee did stellar work on reviewing the potential impact of the proposals on agriculture in Wales. Further to her point about the unique nature and structure of the agriculture industry in Wales, does she agree that, regardless of the changes that the Treasury has introduced, it would do well to undertake a specific Wales-wide impact assessment of these changes?

• 6 Jan 2026 · Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to speak on Second Reading of the Bill. I am very pleased to say that I support the Government’s introduction of the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill and welcome it as a very important first step in strengthening the protections of the UK’s critical national infrastructure and because it addresses many of the gaps that have been identified in numerous implementation reviews in recent years. Other right hon. and hon. Members have made the point that the risk and harm inflicted by cyber-attacks are significant and very real. Others have cited their impact on a whole host of businesses and industrial sectors and on society. We have heard about the harm inflicted on NHS services, for example, and many Members have referred to the attacks on JLR, the Co-op and Marks & Spencer. The impact that the attacks had on not only those businesses, but the wider supply chains and local economies, is significant. As the Minister said when he opened the debate, it is estimated that some £14.7 billion is lost to the UK economy annually due to cyber-attacks, which is the equivalent of 0.5% of GDP, so it is right that the Government act to address these risks and harms. In doing so, the Government comply with one of the calls of the strategic defence review, which stated that the world has changed and, in listing the other, more conventional threats that the country faces, specified that daily cyber-attacks at home are something we need to take very seriously. The Government are right to bring forward the Bill. As other Members have made very clear, the nature of cyber-crime and cyber-attacks and the threat that they pose are ever evolving, so I have a great deal of sympathy with the Government as they endeavour to keep up with what is a very rapidly developing industry and nature of threat. Although I support the Bill and look forward to working with Ministers as it passes through the House, there are two points on which I would welcome clarity or further consideration by Ministers. A few Members have mentioned the importance of looking at our cyber-resilience in a more holistic manner. Although technical security and safety are very important, and the Bill goes a long way to addressing those matters, it could perhaps be strengthened by looking at our digital sovereignty. Other Members have made the important point that we need to consider supplier concentration in this field and domestic capability. If we fail to do so, we risk long-term dependency. There are a few examples that I could draw on, but I will use that of Microsoft deciding to suspend the use of some of its services for justices in the International Criminal Court. I am not saying that Microsoft is going to threaten the UK Government or any of our services, but that example illustrates the risk that if we, or aspects of our economy or businesses, are overly dependent on certain suppliers, we are vulnerable. It is right that the Government have a way of preparing contingency plans for that or, at the very least, that they consider the potential impact of over-dependence on certain suppliers. I wonder whether that consideration could be included as part of the statement of strategic priorities that part 3 of the Bill stipulates will be made by Ministers. The statement could then look not only at technical security as part of its cyber-resilience approach, but at digital sovereignty and domestic capability. In that regard, it would be not too dissimilar to some of the efforts we are starting to see from European partners. France and Germany are starting to undertake similar strategies and reviews of their domestic capability and potential over-reliance on certain suppliers. My second and final point is to seek clarity from the Minister when he sums up on the directions to certain bodies and persons for national security purposes in part 4 of the Bill. If we accept that the nature of the cyber-threat and the risk to cyber-security are ever evolving, it will be impossible for any one piece of legislation to encompass all the possible dangers we may face. In order to try to future-proof the Bill, especially against national emergencies or crises, I wonder whether Ministers should consider even further last-resort powers, particularly to enable them to direct the shutdown of any domestic data centres or AI systems in the event of a security or operational emergency. I ask that because I am not entirely clear whether the powers already listed in the Bill allow Ministers to do that. If they do not, I ask the Government to consider such powers, so that they are able to intervene appropriately in the event of a future national crisis or emergency caused by AI systems in particular data centres. Such events could cause large-scale harm to the public, especially in the very rare but hopefully unlikely scenario in which the designated persons who are otherwise responsible for those systems refuse to co-operate with the Government. Having raised those two points, I wish to underline my support for the Government’s efforts in this regard. I very much welcome the Bill and its Second Reading.

• 5 Jan 2026 · Venezuela · Hansard source

  More

  Like the Foreign Secretary, I shed no tears for the fall of the Maduro regime. However, I have fears about the precedent set by President Trump’s actions over the weekend. What is the Foreign Secretary’s assessment for global stability if dictators and despots across the world take a very simple lesson from the US’s actions this weekend—that might is right?

• 5 Jan 2026 · Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Treasury subscribe to the general commitment that the Government have made to ensure that all policymaking considers the impact of decisions on rural areas? If it does subscribe to that rural-proofing commitment, will the Minister elaborate on how he will ensure that it is abided by in future so that rural communities, such as those in Ceredigion Preseli, are not subjected to yet another ordeal such as we have just endured?

• 16 Dec 2025 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased to speak in this debate on the Finance (No. 2) Bill. I have now spoken in most of the Finance Bill debates since I was first elected to represent the people of Ceredigion in 2017, and subsequently, since last year, I now also represent the good people of Preseli, in north Pembrokeshire. In advance of all Finance Bill debates I make the effort to consult widely with my communities, in particular with the small businesses that form such an important part of the economy in my constituency. In all the years that I have served as a Member of Parliament, never has the sense of fear, the lack of confidence and the uncertainty been so palpable when I have met businesses in my constituency. If I reflect briefly on the structure of the economy of the constituency, it is perhaps no surprise that they should be so worried about the measures in this Budget. As of March this year, there were some 5,500 businesses registered in Ceredigion Preseli—that number may well be slightly lower by next March—and 81% of them are classified as small businesses, with fewer than 50 employees, which makes Ceredigion Preseli the small business capital of Wales. It is a rural and coastal constituency, so the industries of agriculture and hospitality are key pillars of our economy. Indeed, 35% of all businesses are classified as being in the agricultural, forestry or fishing sector. Much has already been said in the debate about the changes to the agricultural property relief and the business property relief, and the concerns that these changes have caused for small businesses and small family farms across the United Kingdom. We have heard other Members, particularly the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), eloquently speak on this matter. As he mentioned, we have already seen how these proposals have changed the way in which our small businesses, particularly farm businesses, operate. Some 55% of small businesses and 49% of farm businesses have already cancelled proposed investment projects in anticipation of the changes. Family Business UK estimates that in my constituency these changes alone will lead to the loss of some 250 jobs and deliver a £13 million hit to my constituency’s gross value added. There is a real danger with these changes that the Government will deliver incredibly long-lasting harm to small businesses across the country, especially in rural areas. It is particularly disappointing that the Government have refused to pause, at least, these changes so that they can properly understand the impact that they will have on rural areas. Many figures and statistics have been bandied about in the many debates that we have had in the past months about the prevailing facts of these changes, but the Government have not undertaken a full impact assessment, as follows most policy decisions that they take.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I very much agree; that takes me neatly to my next point. The Government have failed in their Budget to acknowledge the many increasing and cumulative pressures on hospitality and pub businesses in particular. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) referred to significant increases in the rateable value of a pub in her constituency, and I have also been contacted in recent days by hospitality businesses, such as a pub that has just been informed of a 131% increase in its rateable value. The pub is now waiting to understand what exactly that means for its business rates bill, but the fear that it will find itself having to pay a great deal more in the coming years than it previously did is very much well-founded. That is on top of the higher employment costs generated by this Government’s decisions on employer’s national insurance and all the other inflationary costs in terms of energy and goods. The Valuation Office Agency will come under HMRC from next April, if I have understood things correctly. I very much hope that the Government and HMRC will avail themselves of the opportunity to ensure greater consistency and clarity—and, dare I say, transparency—in the way that the VOA works and these valuations are calculated. It is a very technical, complicated and murky way of addressing and calculating business rates. There is such a discrepancy in Wales that I must finish my remarks by bringing it to the attention of the House. The town council of Aberystwyth has done a lot of work in recent months on trying to find out why so many retail premises on the high street have been vacated and are empty. Time after time, businesses say that the business rates are just too high, so it did some research and found that on average, a business paying the zone A rates levied on retail properties in Aberystwyth town centre would expect to pay £525 per square metre. The town council then looked at other towns and cities in Wales and found that a retail business on St Mary Street in Cardiff would be paying £460 per square metre for zone A rates, and a premises on the Kingsway in Swansea would be paying £180 per square metre. One does not need to be an expert on Wales to understand that as wonderful as Aberystwyth is, it is not quite the same sort of hotspot as St Mary Street in Cardiff, or Swansea for that matter. If the Government and HMRC will be taking ownership of, and responsibility for, the VOA from next April, I very much hope that one of the first things they will do is look at some of those inconsistencies. At the moment, as I say, some of these decisions are so disconnected from reality that we might as well be living on the moon.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I very much agree with the right hon. Member. That is a point of real bemusement and confusion for many of my constituents. The Government have not looked for or sought compromise or engaged with the alternative proposals presented by the NFU and the Farmers Union of Wales. Some consensus is to be found, if only the Government would budge and were willing to compromise ever so slightly, so that they can achieve the objectives they so eloquently pointed out are the intention of the policy without sacrificing hundreds if not thousands of family farms and businesses across rural Britain, particularly in my constituency. That probably underlines a growing sense that I have had. Although my constituency is only 170-odd miles from Westminster and Whitehall, where many of these decisions are dreamt up and subsequently implemented on us, we may as well live on the moon, such is the disconnect between the policies that are sometimes made here and the impact that they have on the ground. There is a lack of effort to try to understand why so many businesses and people in my communities are so fearful about the impact that these proposals will have on their lives. Let me add that some 15% of all jobs in my constituency are in hospitality. There was a missed opportunity in this Budget for the Government to look again at the VAT for hospitality. That would have done a world of good and given much-needed confidence to an industry and sector that are suffering dreadfully at the moment with the cumulative impact of different price increases as well as new taxes. A VAT cut on hospitality would have been very much welcome.

• 15 Dec 2025 · Sudan: Humanitarian Situation · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased to hear the Minister confirm that the Government are supporting the work of the International Criminal Court’s investigations of the commanders implicated in the atrocities. Will he reassure us that the Government will waste no time in bringing further sanctions against individuals when charges are brought, and encourage international partners to do likewise?

• 10 Dec 2025 · AI Safety · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) for securing this very important debate, and for outlining so impressively both the real benefits that have already been realised by narrow AI systems and the potential benefits, but also, perhaps most importantly, the real risks to human safety and security that more advanced systems pose. I should like to make one very simple point in my remarks: while we need to recognise the benefits of AI and the development of various models, we should adopt a safety-first approach, especially when it comes to the development of more advanced AI systems. I am very concerned that the apparent arms race we are witnessing—with various big AI and tech companies heading towards superintelligence and other advanced AI models—means that we do not have that democratic control, as the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) so eloquently put it, over things that could have real impact on the lives of our constituents, our society, and indeed civilisation more broadly. As the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley outlined in his speech, we have already found some advanced models deploying techniques to try to avoid human control. Apollo Research found examples of one of OpenAI’s models trying to deceive users to accomplish its goals and, perhaps most worryingly, to disable monitoring mechanisms and guardrails. Those are real risks to the development of AI and things that we should take seriously. It is no wonder that leading AI experts Geoffrey Hinton and Yoshua Bengio have called for a prohibition on research and development of superintelligence until there is a broad scientific consensus that it can be done safely and with some degree of human and democratic control. To be effective, however, such a prohibition must be global. We must have the buy-in of the big AI powers: not just the EU, but the United States and China. In that regard, I wish to lay a challenge before the Minister. The UK Government can lead in those efforts by using their unique convening power—as was demonstrated in 2023—to bring those AI superpowers together for an AI safety summit. I appreciate that following the 2023 Bletchley Park summit there have been subsequent summits, including one in Paris, and that there is one coming up in Delhi. I would urge caution, though, that those summits seem to prioritise the potential economic benefits of AI and prioritise growth. I think we have the growth side of things sorted, but we need to focus again on the safety. A global consensus and a prohibition on superintelligence until we can understand and control it would be a great benefit to society.

• 19 Nov 2025 · Flooding: Monmouthshire · Hansard source

  More

  I also associate myself with the Minister’s comments. My thoughts are very much with the people of Monmouthshire as they try to get their lives back on track. She rightly mentioned the increasing frequency of severe weather events. Further to the very wise words of the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis), in addition to collaboration between the two Governments, in light of the increasing frequency of severe weather events, I wonder whether it is time for us to consider a central resilience fund to provide the additional emergency support that is sadly becoming far too routine?

• 18 Nov 2025 · Gaza and Sudan · Hansard source

  More

  I echo the Foreign Secretary’s horror at the slaughter in El Fasher, and I share her concern that further atrocities will take place unless the international community can secure decisive intervention. With that in mind, what response has there been to Friday’s resolution from the warring parties? How do the Government, in conjunction with their international partners, intend to apply pressure on the parties to comply with not only the resolution, but international law?

• 11 Nov 2025 · BBC Leadership · Hansard source

  More

  I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State confirm that the nations and regions will form a very important part of the BBC charter review. To that end, she will know that over 90% of S4C’s funding is derived from the BBC licence fee. In the process of the BBC charter review, will the financial stability of S4C be a key consideration for the Government?

• 29 Oct 2025 · Gaza and Hamas · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister has rightly emphasised the importance of securing the swift and urgent supply of aid to all those in need in Gaza, but he has also mentioned that some of the crossings remain disrupted or fully closed. What reasons have been given for the continued delay in reopening all the crossings?

• 27 Oct 2025 · Regulation and Inspection of Funeral Services · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 27 Oct 2025 · Regulation and Inspection of Funeral Services · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my friend the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) for bringing forward this important debate. I agree wholeheartedly with the arguments that he has made, as do many of the funeral directors in my constituency. I impress on him and the Minister that those funeral directors want a licensing regime. As the hon. Member has explained so eloquently, the trade bodies can only do so much, but a licensing regime would ensure a minimum standard, and we could all hope that the rest would try to excel and become members of the trade bodies in due course.