Ben Obese-Jecty MP: speeches

Speeches

• 6 May 2025 · Victory in Europe and Victory over Japan: 80th Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  Like many of my generation, I have a grandfather who served in the second world war. Though I was never old enough to ask him about it before he passed away, I was always very proud to have a relative who had taken part. I was proud that he had served in the Desert Rats during the north African campaign, and I was honoured to follow in his footsteps when I served in the 7th Armoured Brigade, the Desert Rats, during operations in Iraq 65 years later. The second world war left an indelible mark on our nation. Its impact ripples throughout so much of our culture, heritage and identity. I am certain that it had a huge influence on my interest in the military, which led to my own desire to serve. My former regiment, the Duke of Wellington’s, saw action in France, Tunisia, Italy, India and Burma, and battle honours at Anzio in the Italian campaign and at Sittang bridge in Burma, operating as Chindits behind Japanese lines at Imphal and Kohima. These campaigns played a crucial role in securing victory over Nazi Germany and imperial Japan. My Huntingdon constituency played a key role throughout the war. RAF Molesworth opened in 1941, with the royal Australian air force’s 460 Squadron operating Wellington bombers. After 460 departed, the United States army air force soon arrived and is most closely linked with the 303rd Bomb Group, popularly known as “Hell’s Angels”, arriving with B-17s in September 1942. It launched the first US army air force bombing raid over Nazi-occupied Europe later that year. The US air force remains at RAF Molesworth to this day and is still embedded in the local community across Huntingdon. RAF Wyton was also a key player as the home of the Pathfinder Force from 1942. The Pathfinder Force was an elite unit, tasked with leading RAF Bomber Command’s night-time raids deep into the skies over Germany and locating the target at a time when night-time bombing was suffering from poor results, with targets being missed. That role was not without risk. From 1942 to 1945, the Pathfinder Force flew a total of 50,490 sorties against some 3,440 targets, and at least 3,727 members were killed on operations. The activity at RAF Molesworth and RAF Wyton is a significant reminder of the vital role the RAF played but also of the sacrifice and work of our allies and US personnel throughout the war. To conclude, I pay tribute to all those who did so much so that we can live freely. They were normal people asked to do things that nobody should have to —make incredible sacrifices, endure terrible suffering and experience tragic losses. The second world war was a defining moment in our nation’s history, more so than any event in living memory. As those who experienced it pass and the first-hand memories are lost, it is easy to forget what was done by so many, but we must never forget, and we will remember them.

• 1 May 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I echo the Leader of the House’s comments earlier regarding cancer. I recently visited Malcolm’s Retreat, a lakeside lodge in a peaceful location, tucked away at Rookery Waters in my constituency. This is a new initiative by local charity the Malcolm Whales Foundation. The retreat offers respite care to those suffering with cancer and free wellbeing breaks for the medical staff who work in providing cancer care. I spoke to Damien, whose father the retreat and charity are named after, and he explained the charity’s wider fundraising efforts. Each summer, it holds the Dorset walk, a trek along the Jurassic coast for 500 children, which will take place this year between 11 and 13 July. Will the Leader of the House congratulate Damien on the success of the charity, highlight the importance of resources such as Malcolm’s Retreat in providing support for those affected by cancer and, if she so wishes, volunteer to take part in the walk?

• 1 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Across my constituency in recent weeks we have experienced severe delays to post in those areas served by the Huntingdon delivery office. That follows a recent restructuring of the workforce and changes to delivery routes. Rural communities and businesses, in particular, have been impacted, with missed hospital appointments and several businesses telling me that it is affecting their ability to receive and therefore pay invoices. Will the Minister urgently investigate those ongoing and worsening delays in Huntingdon, and write to me with the outcome of his findings?

• 30 Apr 2025 · UK Airstrike: Houthi Military Facility · Hansard source

  More

  I share the recognition of the RAF’s role in last night’s operation. Given the existing global commitments of our Typhoon squadrons, should the coalition of the willing provide a military contribution to any post-war force in Ukraine, and therefore a combat air patrol or air policing role in Ukraine, in addition to the Baltic and the high north, how will we continue to facilitate direct action, such as the strikes against the Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen, with no plans to purchase a second tranche of F-35Bs?

• 28 Apr 2025 · Scientific and Regulatory Procedures: Use of Dogs · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank the almost 235,000 signatories to this petition, including 670 from my constituency of Huntingdon, and the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for introducing this important debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. The number of signatories to the petition and the speed at which they were collected demonstrate the strength of feeling on the issue. It is just over a year since the previous debates on this topic. At the start of my speech, I must declare an interest as an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on phasing out animal experiments in medical research—and, since we are all pitching for our various hounds, as the owner of the best-looking dog. She is the winner of several “best rescue” rosettes—I think that puts that discussion to bed. The use of dogs and other animals in scientific and regulatory procedures has long been a controversial and emotive topic. It is a topic in which I have a closer interest than I may like, and more of an interest than most Members of this House need to. My constituency of Huntingdon has long been ground zero for much of the conversation around this practice. It has two sites involved in pharmaceutical research and animal testing: Labcorp’s pharmaceutical testing facility and Marshal BioResources’s beagle breeding facility, which is known as MBR Acres. As such, I speak on this subject with some first-hand experience of its sensitivity. Only this weekend, there was a large demonstration of several hundred people outside the MBR Acres beagle breeding facility. I visited LabCorp last summer, so I have seen at first hand the lab conditions, the dogs in their pens and how they are looked after. It is very sanitised, as one might expect. I did not witness any of the experiments taking place, but it is a difficult thing to see the dogs held in those areas, knowing what awaits them in the testing process. While this debate is about dogs, they sit within a hierarchy. Pigs are at the bottom, then come dogs, and above them sit primates. It is notable that no one has spoken about the use of primates in testing, but it is worth mentioning because, having visited that facility, I have seen the macaques that are used for testing above dogs in rarer circumstances, and the way that they come over, climb on the fences and look one in the eyes. The similarity between humans and primates makes it even more difficult to look at them than at the dogs. I would like to make clear that I do not support animal testing for human medication—hence my APPG membership—but recognise that it is, at present, still a crucial milestone that regrettably will have a place in the pre-clinical testing process until there has been sufficient advancement in non-animal methods that such practices are no longer required across the board. I am sure that I echo the sentiments of all Members when I say that we would like to see a world in which animal testing for human medication is no longer needed. That is also the view of many that we have spoken to who are involved in the testing. Animal research in the UK is regulated by the Home Office under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Under that legislation, the use of animals in research is prohibited if there is a non-animal method available that could be used instead. Animals can therefore be used in research only when no alternative methods are available. The Opposition fully support the Act and its full enforcement. The previous Government invested heavily funding for the three Rs: replacement of the use of animals in research where that is not necessary, reduction in the use of animals, and refinement to eliminate or reduce distress to the animals involved. Via the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research, or NC3Rs, the previous Government invested £90 million in research and a further £27 million in contracts through its CRACK IT Challenges innovation scheme for UK and EU-based institutions. Furthermore, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Council supports research that aims to develop and apply innovative methods for studying human and animal physiology, including in-silica approaches, organ on a chip, and organoid and other advanced cell culture systems. Last year, the then Minister of State for Science, Research and Innovation, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), announced a doubling of annual funding to £20 million. He also announced that the then Government had a plan to accelerate the development, validation and uptake of technologies and methods to reduce reliance on the use of animals in science. I wrote to the Secretary of State last year and asked him whether he would publish this plan. I am keen to hear from the Minister what happened to the plan and when the Government’s version can be expected. As we are all well aware, in its election manifesto last year, the Labour party pledged to phase out animal testing. The Government’s starting position is that it is “not yet possible to replace all animal use due to the complexity of biological systems and regulatory requirements for their use.” We share the Government’s ambition to phase out the use of animals in the testing process, but it is simply not realistic to do so with the immediacy that is often clamoured for by those protesting against the process. The medical industry desperately needs further investment to realise new alternatives. Currently, it does not have the resources to stop animal testing with immediate effect in a way that would ensure the sufficient safety of certain medicines, or that would be compliant with many foreign market standards and regulatory frameworks. Global medicines regulators such as the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration require stringent research standards regarding the safety of a potential new medicine to be met before it is used in human clinical trials. In February, I asked the Government what discussions they had had with the Food and Drug Administration, the European Medicines Agency and Swissmedic regarding the regulatory approval of non-animal methods. They responded: “The Government is working to understand the international drivers and challenges to integrating non-animal methods into regulatory safety testing. This includes engaging with government scientists and regulators, including the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, Food Standards Agency and Environment Agency, as well as international medicines and chemicals regulators”. Separately, the Minister has informed me that these methods will need to be incorporated into the international regulatory guidelines that the MHRA adheres to. That is it. That is the Government’s entire approach to crossing the enormous hurdle of international recognition. Regardless of how much money we pour into research, without international recognition of specific non-animal methods for each pharmaceutical product tested via those means, international licensing of those products is simply not feasible, so any talk from the Government about phasing out animal testing is just lip service. In September, I asked the Government what steps they were taking to change the policy of the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use to allow results from non-animal methods of pharmaceutical testing to be used to support drug safety through pre-clinical trials. They responded: “We are engaging with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) who represent the UK at the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use on how to accelerate the acceptance of data generated in non-animal methods for drug safety decision making.” I am aware that MHRA representatives attended a ministerial roundtable on accelerating the adoption of alternatives to using animals for drug development last year. Given that that was more than six months ago, I am keen to hear from the Minister what progress has been made. We need action from the Government in a number of areas if they are to meet their ambition of animal-free testing. We would welcome clarification from the Minister about what has been done and what will be done through conversations with other regulatory bodies and Governments about phasing out animal testing as a priority, when alternatives are available, in a way that does not hinder trade possibilities. As the Government work on trade deals, it is crucial, where medicines are concerned, that this area is looked at closely. The UK can lead the way. Working with partners on this issue is key for our scientific and medical industry, because even where there may be alternatives to testing on animals, some products would not fit the criteria to sell elsewhere under the current rules. In February, I asked the Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms if the Government would publish a timeline for the phasing out of tests via the work of the NC3Rs. He responded: “We are working at pace trying to put together a practicable policy and a strategy which, as I said, we will publish by the end of the year.” —[ Official Report , 12 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 244.] I am aware that the Government have already made clear that they will publish a strategy to support the development, validation and uptake of alternative methods later this year. I do not anticipate that the situation has changed significantly in the 10 weeks since that exchange, but now that we are a third of the way through the year, I would like to hear from the Minister whether any progress has been made. Is a strategy now in place? Furthermore, will the Minister expand on what exact engagement the Department and the Government at large are having with the pharmaceutical industry and regulatory authorities on how to take their commitment forward? The issue of licences for animal testing should also be addressed, although I appreciate that it is not within this Department’s brief. Marshall BioResources in my constituency last received an unannounced inspection from the Animals in Science Regulation Unit in April 2024. Since receiving its establishment licence in October 2017, it has received eight announced and seven unannounced inspections. The outcome of the most recent inspection was that no critical, major or minor findings and no low-level concerns were identified. With that in mind, the Minister has previously informed me that the Government are preparing to conduct an internal review into the duration of project licences for animal research under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The original schedule was for the review’s report to be published by the end of 2025. Could the Minister tell me whether the review has started and whether the report will still be published by year end? To conclude, we want to see clear, pragmatic plans that support the Government’s manifesto pledges, and that must include viable alternative testing methods that are safe and that can sell on the international stage.

• 24 Apr 2025 · Ukraine War: London Talks · Hansard source

  More

  On Tuesday, I asked the Defence Secretary what our red lines would be at yesterday’s peace talks regarding any peace proposal from the US that required Ukraine to cede any of its sovereign territory to Russia. I did not receive an answer. Yesterday, US Vice-President J.D. Vance told reporters: “Now, of course, that means the Ukrainians and the Russians are both going to have to give up some of the territory they currently own.” Can the Minister now state that the Government will not support any US proposal that sees Russia make territorial gains at the expense of Ukraine upon any permanent cessation of hostilities?

• 23 Apr 2025 · Hospitals · Hansard source

  More

  I will focus my speech specifically on Hinchingbrooke hospital, and highlight some key issues that will impact delivery of our new hospital in Huntingdon. During the general election campaign, I pledged to fight for the resources to rebuild Hinchingbrooke, and I will continue to push this Labour Government to ensure that they follow through on the programme they committed to deliver. In May 2023, the then Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), announced that Hinchingbrooke was part of the Government’s new hospital programme. Since that time, I have been concerned that this Government are not acting with enough haste to address the issues faced at Hinchingbrooke. There has been a lack of clarity, particularly regarding the ongoing traffic issues around Hinchingbrooke and the lack of a firm commitment to upgrade the road network as part of the project, which has caused concerns across my constituency. While I welcome the fact that Hinchingbrooke is rightly in wave 1 of the programme, we need clarity on the timeframe. Although this Government are aware of the RAAC issues, they have still not given a detailed timeframe as to when we will get our hospital built; there is a vague start date, but no completion date. Crucially, in September 2024, the Minister for Secondary Care confirmed in a written answer to me that the detailed structural assessment of Hinchingbrooke hospital in 2022 “estimated that the remaining life of the RAAC panels” extended to “approximately 2030”, even after “the installation of fail-safe steelwork.” In February, she stated that this summer, the Government will publish a report “assessing the clinical and operational impacts of the running of the existing hospital beyond the estimated life of the current hospital site”. With the delays already caused by road access and grid access, and the lack of clarity about a start date or a completion date, what assurances can the Minister give that my constituents will not find themselves in a condemned hospital building after 2030, with the DHSC simply owning the risk that it will collapse? If the new hospital is to be completed by 2030, we need plans, action, and focus on making sure that any changes are usable, safe and fit for purpose, with no more delays. In short, the following issues must be addressed in order for Hinchingbrooke to be delivered: the programme business case for the NHP must receive ministerial approval; a hospital 2.0-compliant design must be approved and delivered; a capital envelope of at least £900 million and a realistic contingency must be allocated; and mobilisation of the programme must be quick. It is clear that the 2030 target might now be unreachable, but mobilisation by spring 2026 seems realistic, and I will push the Government and all stakeholders to work towards that target. There also needs to be further work between Hinchingbrooke and the NHP to develop a strategic outline case, and it is crucial that that case is then approved as soon as possible in order to complete the new hospital by as close to 2030 as possible. We also need grid access that is fit for purpose, as the current grid access will not be sufficient for Hinchingbrooke. Currently, the gap between sufficient grid space being approved and meeting that which is required will be a year—that is clearly not appropriate. There are issues regarding a vital new access road to alleviate traffic. Those issues are caused by land owned jointly by Cambridgeshire constabulary and National Highways. The Government must get all stakeholders around the table to reach a solution, given that they are public bodies. To conclude, I reaffirm that I will do all I can to work with the Government, the NHS and others to make sure that my constituents get the new hospital they so desperately need.

• 23 Apr 2025 · Interpersonal Abuse and Violence Against Men and Boys (Strategy) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a strategy for tackling interpersonal abuse and violence against men and boys; and for connected purposes. This Labour Government have pledged to halve instances of violence against women and girls, an intent that I have no doubt those on both sides of this House are fully able to support. The aim of this Bill is to tackle an aspect of the current violence against women and girls strategy—an aspect that makes no sense and that it is essential for the Government to address. The violence against women and girls strategy currently includes male victims of violence against women and girls. The Government still define violence against women and girls, or VAWG, as a category of crimes which disproportionately affect women. Therefore, all victims of crimes such as domestic abuse, rape, sexual assault, digital image abuse, forced marriage and honour-based violence, including men and boys, are considered victims of VAWG. I want to make it clear that this Bill in no way detracts from the work already done and still to be done in tackling violence against women and girls; the Bill simply aims to ensure that male victims of those crimes have a dedicated strategy that reflects the differing nature of their circumstances and ensures that male survivors are recognised and receive appropriate support. The current mis-categorisation forces male victims into spaces and discussions that may more appropriately be reserved for women. At present the Government have no dedicated strategy for tackling interpersonal abuse and violence against men and boys. In 2019, the previous Government published their first ever position statement on male victims, and they followed this in 2022 with an addendum on supporting male victims. The change in Government and a revised strategy on violence against women and girls present a new opportunity to devise a parallel strategy for violence against men and boys in lieu of any direction from the Government regarding the publication of a new, updated position statement. The Minister for Safeguarding, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), is, as I understand it, currently rewriting the violence against women and girls strategy for publication later this spring, and to that end, now is the time to legislate for such a change to be formalised. It should be noted that when the Government state their hope to halve violence against women and girls, the start-state of that data currently includes victims who are men and boys. Victims of gender-based violence face many barriers that prevent them from reporting instances of abuse: the fear of not being believed; the threat that the perpetrator may still pose; or the simple fact of not being aware of the services available to help or being aware and not being able to access them. There are also the complexities around the consequences of disclosure, such as the impact on living arrangements or financial security and how this can, in turn, lead to instances of coercive control. For men and boys, however, there are additional factors: the shame and stigma of not appearing to be masculine, of being vulnerable, of potentially having their sexuality outed, and of being the victim of a crime considered, and officially referred to, as applying to female victims. The majority of men seeking help have coped alone, often for long periods, and are still living with their abusive partners. Men in such circumstances might need help with housing and finances, and, in circumstances involving dependent children, with how they can maintain their role as a father. Safety planning for this group of men must be initiated at the point of disclosure, as the majority of those seeking help do not return to those providing it following first contact. The crime survey for England and Wales for the year ending September 2024 showed that 3% of men aged 16 and over were victims of domestic abuse between September 2023 and September 2024, compared with 6.6% of women. According to Women’s Aid’s 2025 annual audit report, as of May 2024 there were just 50 refuges in England with bed spaces for men. As such, of a total of 63,950 people supported in safe accommodation in that period, only 1,830 were men. There is also a difference in the needs of men who are gay, bisexual or trans. Owing to the complexities of the nature of these relationships and the risk of being outed, of being the victim of prejudice or of being disowned by family members, male victims are less likely to report domestic abuse to statutory services. Carlisle and Withers Green’s 2023 survey highlighted that over 70% of gay, bisexual and trans male victims of domestic abuse had never sought support from a statutory service provider. Their statistics are therefore not recorded in any official figures and as a result these victims find themselves further isolated, increasing their vulnerability to abuse. Sexual abuse against men is a vastly under-reported crime: one in four adults sexually assaulted in the UK each year is a man; one in 10 rapes and one in seven sexual assaults have male victims according to the Office for National Statistics; 3.5% of boys become victims of child sexual abuse before they turn 16; one in four victims of child sexual abuse are men; and over 70% of child sex abusers are people known to their victims. Shame, stigma, homophobia and emasculation are all factors in preventing sexual abuse from being reported. It often takes years for a male victim to report a sexual assault to the police. Male sexual assault survivors are three times more likely to tell a family member, friend or colleague than they are to report an incident to the police. Data from the Office for National Statistics suggests that fewer than a third of male victims of sexual assault have ever disclosed what they have experienced. For straight men, there can also be a hesitancy to disclose abuse owing to the misconception that men should be physically strong enough to prevent an assault. Male victims of abuse who have been forced to penetrate by a partner can struggle to identify their experiences as abuse because it caused them to be aroused. Rape and sexual abuse should never be minimised because a perpetrator is female. The law currently states that while males and females can be the victim of rape, only males can realistically commit the act of rape. The introduction of a “forced to penetrate” sexual offence could therefore address that. Honour-based violence is another factor that is poorly understood and catered for. Victims of honour-based violence are at greater risk of repeat victimisation and are often at risk from multiple perpetrators. However, no discrete crime of so-called honour-based violence or abuse is defined in our legislation, so in most instances male victims would be classified by police as victims of violence without injury or stalking and harassment. Data from the Crown Prosecution Service suggests that around 30% of prosecutions for honour-based violence involve male victims. Additionally, the forced marriage unit has consistently seen that 20% of forced marriage victims are male. That often includes men from overseas who are forced to marry UK citizens and can find themselves forced into domestic servitude, thus also becoming victims of modern slavery. This time last year, Professor Nicola Graham-Kevan of the University of Lancashire undertook research and published data on how male survivors feel about being categorised as victims of violence against women and girls: 89% stated that it made it harder to seek help; 89% stated that they experienced distress; 88% stated that the Government do not care; 80% stated that it was minimising their experiences; 75% stated that it was not taken seriously; and 73% stated that it was not recognised by society. It is clear that the damaging impact of including male victims within a strategy that caters for violence against women and girls means that male survivors cannot identify with that labelling. Organisations such as We Are Survivors, the Men & Boys Coalition and the ManKind Initiative have been instrumental in providing support to male victims and advocating for a solution, and I thank them for their work to highlight this inequality. Last November, the Victims’ Commissioner Baroness Helen Newlove wrote to the Safeguarding Minister outlining many of the same concerns that I have highlighted. The concerns are not unique; they are shared by the male survivor community. The view of the Victims’ Commissioner should not go unheeded, nor that of her predecessor Dame Vera Baird KC, who expressed similar views. The purpose of the Bill is echoed in Baroness Newlove’s words: “I believe it is beyond time for a dedicated men and boys’ strategy, with specific policies, strategic milestones, and accompanying funding. A tailored approach for male victims of interpersonal violence is essential to developing their rights and ensuring the availability of appropriate support services. I urge you to seize this opportunity to create both a robust, cross-governmental VAWG strategy and a separate, comprehensive strategy for men and boys, with clear policies, strategic targets, milestones, and sustainable funding arrangements.” Six months later, and with nothing further heard on implementing such a strategy, this Bill is required to push the Safeguarding Minister to act. My hope is that male survivors of such traumatic violence and abuse can finally be given the focus their plight deserves. I also hope that Members on both sides of the House feel they can support what the Bill sets out to achieve, and I thank them all for listening. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Sir Iain Duncan Smith, Sir Roger Gale, Sir Ashley Fox, Charlie Dewhirst, Wendy Morton, David Simmonds, Paul Holmes, Rebecca Smith, Bob Blackman, Alison Griffiths, Mr Richard Holden and Ben Obese-Jecty present the Bill. Ben Obese-Jecty accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 May, and to be printed (Bill 224 ).

• 22 Apr 2025 · Ukraine Update · Hansard source

  More

  Media reports and statements from representatives of the US Administration in recent days have suggested various options for Ukraine’s post-war borders, many of which would see the ceding of Ukrainian sovereign territory. I appreciate that the Defence Secretary will not want to comment on media speculation, but given his commitment to a just and lasting peace in Ukraine, ahead of the talks tomorrow, will he say what the Government’s red lines are regarding any peace proposal from the US’s mediator that recognises occupied Ukrainian territory as Russian? I include Crimea in that scope.

• 22 Apr 2025 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On Thursday 10 April, the Home Secretary visited my constituency with the Prime Minister. While the Prime Minister had the courtesy to inform me three hours ahead of his visit, the Home Secretary did not. This was not an isolated incident; last month, I raised a point of order regarding the Environment Secretary and the farming Minister, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), not informing me of their visit. Several hours after that visit, the Home Secretary’s team contacted me to say that they were informing me in accordance with paragraph 10.10 of the “Ministerial Code”. Paragraph 10.10 clearly states that a Minister “must inform in advance, and in good time, the MPs whose constituencies are to be included within the itinerary.” The Home Secretary’s notification was neither in advance nor in good time. Could you please advise me whether, in this instance, the Home Secretary has broken the ministerial code?

• 8 Apr 2025 · Armed Forces Covenant · Hansard source

  More

  Only last week, I spoke to a serving constituent who highlighted the issues he had had regarding the selective application of the armed forces covenant by universities. There are universities that have signed the covenant but offer no additional dispensation regarding study breaks for service personnel who are undertaking a course but are subsequently deployed. Deployments are often for 26 weeks, not including pre-deployment training or post-tour leave, whereas the maximum study break is around 16 weeks, in two terms of eight weeks. This may lead to the service person dropping out of the course and the forfeiture of their enhanced learning credits, through no fault of their own. Can I ask the Select Committee member, or indeed the Minister, to take this into account in order to facilitate the resettlement that service personnel depend on?

• 7 Apr 2025 · Zero Emission Vehicle Mandate · Hansard source

  More

  One of the major issues holding back wider EV ownership is the complete lack of EV charging infrastructure in towns such as Huntingdon and St Ives in my constituency. What assessment have the Government made of the grid capacity required to facilitate a significant uplift in EV charging infrastructure, and how much will the upgrade cost? At what point will current grid capacity be unable to provide adequate charging? Separately, what is the plan for a significant increase in EV battery disposal and to address the prohibitive cost of new batteries for older electric vehicles?

• 3 Apr 2025 · Waste Incinerators · Hansard source

  More

  Can the hon. Gentleman clarify whether the parliamentary position of the Liberal Democrats is pro-incinerator? Can he tell me how many incinerators there are in Liberal Democrat constituencies?

• 3 Apr 2025 · Waste Incinerators · Hansard source

  More

  I am listening to the Minister’s comments about capacity. I appreciate that she may not have the specific details in front of her, but I would be interested to know whether Cambridgeshire sits within one of the undercapacity regions, and whether that is why so many incinerators are being built in those constituencies. My other point—I appreciate this is slightly tangential—is that residents of the village of Pidley in my constituency will find themselves equidistant from two incinerators if both are approved. Is there a minimum distance that a village can expect to be from an incinerator? If so, what is it?

• 3 Apr 2025 · Waste Incinerators · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I commend the hon. Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) on securing this important debate. Huntingdon could be impacted by two waste incinerators just four miles apart from each other, and I rise to express my opposition to them once again. Warboys incinerator was first proposed in 2022, put on hold in 2023, and then revamped in October 2023. The plant would operate 24/7 and process 87,500 tonnes of waste per year. I commend Councillor Ross Martin in my constituency for campaigning against it. There are many concerns about the significant impact on local residents in Warboys and nearby Pidley of not just the Warboys site but of being slap-bang in the middle of two sites of this scale. Just four miles away, another plant in Huntingdon has already been approved, known as Envar. I have met the local campaign group POWI—People Opposing Woodhurst Incinerator—and have heard their opposition to the plans that would blight our land with a 26-metre-high chimney, create even more congestion and raise concerns about health risks. There are also concerns about the increase in vehicles, particularly given the proximity to the dangerous Wheatsheaf junction, which still has not been repaired. The incinerator was originally rejected by both Conservative and Labour councillors—the Lib Dem councillors, who did not live locally, voted in favour of it. The rejection was overturned on appeal, and the Labour Government then approved it. On 30 July last year I was concerned that, in the Deputy Prime Minister’s response at the Dispatch Box to my question about her approving the site despite the council rejecting the initial application, she claimed not to have dealt with that decision, deferring responsibility to the Minister of State, and ignored my request for her to meet the people impacted by the decision. That request was further ignored in a letter from a Minister on 13 September. The Government have updated the national policy statement in order to meet their ideological aims, and I feel strongly that the Government are doing their utmost to silence the opposition of people in Huntingdon to railroad through their plans. Residents across Woodhurst, Old Hurst, Pidley, Somersham, Colne, Bluntisham, Needingworth and the market town of St Ives will likely be impacted by Envar, with residents of Pidley and Warboys being impacted by both the Envar and Warboys incinerators. St Ives is the second largest town in my constituency, and the incinerator is right on its doorstep. The Deputy Prime Minister did not consider the scheme to be in accordance with the Huntingdonshire local plan, and my constituents need clarification on precisely why the decision was deemed beneficial above and beyond the local plan. Local job creation was given significant weighting in the decision-making process, even though only 22 additional jobs would be created at the site. My constituents want to know the reason for that weighting, given that so few jobs would be created. The NHS 2023 clinical waste strategy outlines the need to reduce waste incineration, and that the development of in-house capability should be viewed as a strategic priority, so I am at a loss to see how the approval of a privately owned healthcare waste recovery facility can be justified. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain that. I asked the Government the current medical waste incineration capacity in the county, and they did not know, so I do not see how they can know that the additional capacity is required. I want to hear why the Government seem to be rewriting rules to fit their aims without doing my constituents the courtesy of listening to them. I want clarity about why things such as the creation of just over 20 jobs outweigh the raft of concerns from the affected local residents. Finally, I extend my invitation, for the third time, to the Deputy Prime Minister or any of the ministerial team: I want them to sit down and explain the process to the people of Pidley, Woodhurst, Old Hurst, Somersham, Colne, Bluntisham, Needingworth and St Ives, and explain why the Government have thus far ignored their voices and those of their elected councillors.

• 3 Apr 2025 · Grassroots Sports · Hansard source

  More

  Rugby union is sadly a sport on its knees in this country, propped up solely by the six nations, with top-flight clubs going to the wall despite a ringfenced premiership cartel. Mismanagement of the game has become endemic. The Rugby Football Union sustained losses of £38 million last year, yet still found the cash to provide a total remuneration package of £1.1 million to Bill Sweeney, who has presided over the current shambles. Although he survived a vote of no confidence at a special general meeting of the RFU at Twickenham last week, forced by the Whole Game Union, the RFU is desperately trying to restore credibility with the grassroots game. What oversight are the Government providing of the management of rugby union in England, the implementation of the forthcoming modernisation programme and the six-point plan for community rugby? What support can they give to beleaguered grassroots clubs that are the lifeblood of the game and create our future internationals—

• 3 Apr 2025 · Grassroots Sports · Hansard source

  More

  16. What steps is she taking to support grassroots sports venues.

• 3 Apr 2025 · Grassroots Sports · Hansard source

  More

  Players like George Furbank, who started his career at Huntingdon Stags?

• 3 Apr 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  On Tuesday 25 March at Windsor castle, His Majesty the King honoured George Kelly, making him an MBE in recognition of his dedication to the Royal British Legion. A former president of the Royal British Legion’s St Ives branch, George joined the legion in 1982 after an incredible 42-year career as an RAF navigator. He was shot down during the second world war aged 21, and went on to take part in the Berlin airlift and the Suez crisis. At a sprightly 101 years old, he is known locally as the poppy man. Can I ask the Leader of the House and all Members to join me in congratulating George on his achievement and his incredible life of dedication and service, and will she make time in the parliamentary schedule to give thanks to all those who dedicate their lives to volunteering for charity organisations and to the help of others?

• 3 Apr 2025 · UK-US Trade and Tariffs · Hansard source

  More

  For all the carefully choreographed bonhomie in the Oval Office last November, the Prime Minister failed to secure a US military backstop for his coalition. Despite No. 10 briefing a narrative about productive discussions at the weekend, the Prime Minister has admitted to business leaders that there will be an economic impact from the decisions that the US has taken. On Times Radio this morning, the Business Secretary said that he would roll up his sleeves to try to remove the impact on businesses entirely. That is a bold claim, given the circumstances and the impact that the Chancellor’s Budget is already having. What timeframe does he envisage for an economic deal with the US? What will he be doing until 1 May while waiting for the views of UK shareholders?

• 2 Apr 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister made reference to the UK having full control over Diego Garcia, but earlier this month I received this response from him: “The right to operate and maintain the naval support facility Diego Garcia is held by the Government of the United States. This includes functions as are necessary for the development, use, maintenance, operation and security of the facility.” Will he explain what control we would have over Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia in the event that US and UK defence priorities do not align, and at what level the control over the base lies?

• 2 Apr 2025 · Onshore Wind and Solar Generation · Hansard source

  More

  I reiterate my opposition to the measures that this Government wish to impose. The slew of nationally significant infrastructure projects approved by this Government since July is the vanguard of many more. In Huntington, the proposed East Park solar farm is set to be bigger than Gatwick airport, at 1,900 acres spanning 6 miles. Nearly 75% of the agricultural land involved is graded as our best and most versatile land. Though the Energy Minister has previously stated to me that “no nationally significant infrastructure projects have been consented which will use greater than 50% best and most versatile agricultural land”, this Government’s track record and ideological zealotry on this point strongly indicates that there is no upper limit on the quantity of agricultural land they are willing to develop. Last week, during consideration of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, the Deputy Prime Minister said that she would protect our high-quality agricultural land. I would be interested to hear from the Government how exactly they plan to do that, given their track record of building on it. I regularly speak to constituents who feel voiceless and ignored. The Secretary of State has shown himself to prioritise ideology over listening to valid concerns, let alone pragmatic details. The Government are willing to move the goalposts to reach their aims, and it is my constituents who are paying the price without being heard. They are receiving nothing in the way of direct compensation, and no firm commitment to cheaper energy bills or to ensuring that community benefit funds appropriately compensate local communities. Clause 5 of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill even removes the requirement to consult category 3 people who can make a claim under the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965. Instead, they will be informed that their land will be taken only at the acceptance stage. My online petition of residents in the villages surrounding the solar farm received more than 1,100 signatures. That was the only time those residents feel they have been able to make their voices heard. I urge the Government to listen to these people and thousands of others like them across our rural heartlands. The Government take pride in announcing with this statutory instrument that the solar NSIP threshold has been raised from 50 MW to 100 MW. The average megawatt output of a solar farm application in 2010 was 3.8 MW. The average solar NSIP application approved since this Government came to power is 488 MW, to refer to my previous question to the Minister. By keeping the threshold artificially low, the Government open the door to huge numbers of solar farms becoming NSIP by the back door. I would welcome a review on setting that NSIP threshold at a much higher level, given the scale of current nationally significant infrastructure projects. I have previously asked the Minister about the quality of photovoltaic panels and the fact that they will create more and more energy going forwards. We must also look at where the panels will be sourced. The Energy Minister has previously confirmed to me that the Government are “determined to eradicate forced labour in global supply chains, including in the manufacture of solar panels”, yet they whipped Government Members against a Conservative motion that would have prevented Great British Energy from buying solar panels when there is evidence of modern slavery in the supply process. The Government are more interested in scoring political points than in taking the steps to eradicate forced labour. The Government have repeatedly demonstrated that they are prepared to ride roughshod over local wishes in pursuit of their ideological goals. With their manipulation of the system to force through tens of thousands of acres of solar panels, much of them on our best and most versatile agricultural land, and by making rolling changes to national policy statements while keeping the solar NSIP threshold artificially low, the Government show once again their contempt for our embattled rural communities.

• 2 Apr 2025 · Onshore Wind and Solar Generation · Hansard source

  More

  I will leave my decision until we have a vote on that Bill, but I will look at it in more detail.

• 2 Apr 2025 · Onshore Wind and Solar Generation · Hansard source

  More

  We are talking about increasing the threshold from 50 MW to 100 MW. I wonder whether the Minister is aware of the average size of NSIP projects approved by the Government since last July. If so, why has the threshold been kept artificially low at 100 MW and not raised significantly higher? Otherwise, we will see huge numbers of smaller projects coming through and being classified as NSIPs, such as those approved by the Minister so far, rather than larger projects.

• 2 Apr 2025 · Onshore Wind and Solar Generation · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is, like me, a Cambridgeshire MP. Cambridgeshire has already had Sunnica, one of the largest solar farms in the country at 2,400 acres, approved. We have another 1,900 acre project in my constituency, as she well knows, and others are in the planning process. Does she agree that Cambridgeshire residents should not have to bear the brunt of these projects? I know that she is a staunch advocate for the move towards solar, but would she, like me, stand up for her residents if someone was looking to build a nationally significant infrastructure project of that scale in her constituency?