Ben Obese-Jecty MP: speeches

Speeches

• 17 Dec 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Where’s the defence investment plan?

• 16 Dec 2025 · Chagossians: Trust Fund and Resettlement · Hansard source

  More

  Last month, after a three-month wait for an answer, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry informed me in a written answer that the Government Actuary’s Department’s figure for the cost of the Chagos deal of £34.7 billion is inaccurate. I struggle to believe that the Government Actuary’s Department would have published the figure in error in August. It was widely reported at the time, and the Department has never publicly corrected the figure. Will the Minister confirm that the Government Actuary’s Department figure of £34.7 billion over the length of the deal is correct and that the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry is misinformed?

• 15 Dec 2025 · NATO: European Security · Hansard source

  More

  Last week, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry told me: “There are no other platforms within the Army’s armoured fleet which can fulfil the armoured reconnaissance role; Ajax has been specifically designed for this purpose.” Our commitment to NATO includes two divisions. The first includes three manoeuvre brigades, with armoured and mechanised capabilities. With Ajax undeployable, we have no formation reconnaissance capability and therefore no deployable armoured brigade, thus we are not currently meeting our NATO obligation. Will the Minister clarify whether we still meet his NATO test without Ajax, whether we meet our NATO obligation more broadly, and, if he thinks we do, how?

• 8 Dec 2025 · Ajax Armoured Vehicle · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister knows that, as a former armoured infanteer, I have a keen interest in this topic, but I want to touch on the wider issue of Ajax as it relates to 3rd (UK) Division. If Ajax cannot be fixed, then potentially we will not have a formation recce capability. As it stands, we do not have one, because the vehicle is not deployable. If it cannot be fixed later on, that will be a longer-term issue, particularly as Scimitar is now out of service. Warrior goes out of service in 2027, and Bulldog goes out of service in 2030, with no replacement identified. The Ares platform is fundamentally not an infantry fighting vehicle, and although the Minister has assured us before that he is restoring the armoured infantry capability to 3rd (UK) Division, it is not a like-for-like replacement. Will the Minister look at the current ORBAT—order of battle—for an armoured infantry battalion and how the Ares cannot replace Warrior? A non-stabilised .50 calibre machine gun does not replace a 30 mm cannon. This urgently needs to be looked at, because the Army seems to be chopping and changing its mind and not to know what it wants from its armoured capability.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  I wholeheartedly agree. I have spent the last year talking to small businesses in my constituency that have been crippled by the measures in the last Budget. When this year’s measures come in as well, some of those businesses will struggle desperately to keep on lower earners, particularly young people. My first job as a 16-year-old was working in a supermarket, and I am sure many Members had a similar experience. Those opportunities are going to disappear for young people as a result of these measures. What this Labour Government have not taken into account is that every above-inflation wage increase leads to higher business costs, lower investment and fewer opportunities for those we represent. Many businesses that want to employ people will now find themselves unable to take on staff or to take the risks that the Chancellor mentioned, meaning that businesses cannot grow. We are very likely to see the wage compression effect, whereby the gap between those on the minimum wage and those in more skilled or experienced roles becomes smaller. That, yet again, leads to a lack of incentive to develop skills and opportunities for those with them. The Government must address that, as it will curtail opportunities for young people and lower earners. Unemployment is now set to peak at 5% and the number of economically inactive people will also rise. The pay-per-mile tax on electric vehicles will surely disincentivise the switch to EVs before the ban on new petrol and diesel vehicles kicks in, and the OBR estimates that there will be 440,000 fewer EV sales over the next five years because of the tax. How much tax revenue will be lost because those sales never happen? Then there is the plethora of other taxes that are part of the smorgasbord: the tourism tax, the NI raid on pension contributions, the reduction in the tax-free cash ISA allowance and even a milkshake tax. We have not even touched on the absence of the commitment to 3% of GDP on defence anywhere in the Budget. There is not a single reference to it and I do not understand how. We saw today that the service chiefs will write to the Defence Secretary to tell him that it will not be possible to deliver the strategic defence review. I would love to hear from the Minister how Labour will facilitate defence in this day and age. The OBR has stated that not a single measure contained in the Budget will improve growth, which has, in fact, been downgraded from the figure forecast in the summer. Taxes on working people have been increased by stealth to pay for welfare. That will be Rachel Reeves’s legacy, and this is quite possibly her last Budget—

• 27 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  Tax increases of £26 billion and the tax burden rising to an all-time high of 38% of national income—this is a traditional, good old-fashioned high-tax, high-spend Labour Budget. It is a Budget that locks in a debt ratio of 100% and an economy with little or no growth. It effectively ends Labour’s pledge to grow the economy and raise living standards. The growth in real disposable incomes over this Parliament is now expected to be the second worst since records began in the 1950s. This is a Budget to appease the left of the parliamentary Labour party rather than the general public. It is a Budget to shore up the Chancellor’s weak position and that of the Prime Minister. We will see how successful that has been come May. Since Labour came to power, the Chancellor has raised taxes by £66 billion, which is more than any Government in the last 50 years. When the Chancellor proudly announced that growth had increased by 0.5%, there were cheers from the Government Benches, but she did not mention that that figure was a downgrade from the 1.9% forecast earlier in the year, nor did she make reference to the downgraded projections for the rest of the decade. The Office for Budget Responsibility has downgraded its growth forecasts for real household disposable income per person over the next five years. The OBR’s “Economic financial outlook” report states that growth will slump to an average of 0.25% a year over the forecast, “well below the last decade’s average growth of 1% a year”. The average household will be £850 poorer at the end of this Parliament than when Labour took office. The Chancellor said: “today £1 in every £10 the Government spend is on debt interest—not on paying down that debt, but just on paying the interest”. —[ Official Report , 26 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 389.] Some £113.7 billion is currently being spent on servicing that debt, and by the end of this Parliament that figure will reach £140 billion. For a working person on average earnings, the tax threshold is frozen and will be for the rest of the decade. Pensioners will be dragged into the basic rate of income tax for the first time; 780,000 people are going to be dragged into being a basic rate taxpayer, and nearly a million will become higher rate taxpayers. For people on benefits, those benefits are not frozen; they are index- linked to inflation. The OBR has forecast that over the next five years, welfare spending will rise by £73.2 billion to £406.2 billion. The U-turn on lifting the two-child benefit cap beggars belief. For it to go from a policy that saw seven Labour MPs lose the Whip, and that was effectively the catalyst for the creation of an entirely new political party on the left, to a totemic Labour policy is transparently a move to both appease the Labour Benches and shut the door on the surge in support for a Zack Polanski-inspired resurgent Green party and the stuttering Your party. By the end of this Parliament, lifting the cap will cost £3 billion a year. That is more than the total spend on fire and rescue services in England. The heavily trailed high value council tax surcharge is lacking crucial detail on how it will be implemented. Doing it properly will require a revaluation of every property in the country by the valuation office by April 2028 in order to understand which houses are in scope. What will the criteria for that be? How will the value of the house be decided if it has not been sold in recent years? Moreover, the revenue will go to central Government, not the local authority. It will disappear into general taxation, and those paying the tax will likely never see any local benefit from it. The decision to raise the minimum wage looks good at first glance.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall draw to a close. It comes to something when the Chancellor can stand at the Dispatch Box to deliver her Budget, make a boob joke and that not be the most offensive thing she says.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State talks about trying to ensure that cars available under the Motability scheme are made in the UK. I looked at the Motability website yesterday and some of the changes have already been implemented, but there are an awful lot of Chinese cars listed. Yesterday, Omoda and Jaecoo, two of the Chinese companies on that list, announced that they would be implementing a 20,000 mile rebate to individuals to pay for the electric vehicle tax introduced in the Budget. That will allow China to get an even greater foothold in the UK economy. Those cars are built with Chinese IP that sends information straight back to the state, allowing it to track where those vehicles are. What will the Government do to address the impact of the growing number of Chinese vehicles and about the fact that the Budget is, perhaps unwittingly, encouraging the use of Chinese cars in this market?

• 27 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 25 Nov 2025 · G20 and Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate that this statement might be being outpaced by events outside this Chamber, but negotiating this peace deal with Russia seems to be at odds with nearly four years of steadfast military support. The overriding message is that the rules-based order means nothing, that we will acquiesce to countries that breach sovereign borders, and that actions no longer have consequences. The Prime Minister may as well be waving a piece of paper at Heston aerodrome. The message this sends to our adversaries, and specifically to China, is that the west will be too weak to take action if China invades Taiwan. The Prime Minister mentioned earlier that Russia will face consequences if it invades again. When he talks about a just and lasting peace, what consequences will Russia face for its current actions, or can it act with impunity?

• 24 Nov 2025 · Funding for Deprived Areas · Hansard source

  More

  Cambridgeshire fire and rescue service is funded through a formula that relies on population density and sparsity figures from the 2001 census. Since 2001, Cambridgeshire has grown by over 150,000 people and 30,000 new homes, making the service one of the leanest per head in the country. We have effectively built a city the size of Cambridge in Cambridgeshire and given it no further funding. Over-reliance on council tax to bridge funding gaps undermines the core principle of risk-based resource allocation, so what assurances can the Minister give me that the fairer funding review 2.0 will not require the difference to be made up by simply increasing the council tax precept by the maximum?

• 20 Nov 2025 · Russian Ship Yantar · Hansard source

  More

  Everyone in this House should be concerned by the increase in Russian sub-threshold activity, and this certainly is not the first time we have found ourselves in this House discussing the Yantar specifically. The use of lasers against an operational P-8 very much pushes the boundaries of what we could consider to be sub-threshold activity. I want to ask the Minister a question that is very much within his bailiwick. I do not expect him to be able to comment on whether we have deployed any elements of the Fleet Contingency Troop to HMS Somerset, which is tracking the Yantar, but under what circumstances and geographically whereabouts within our waters would the Yantar need to be in order for us to apply some maritime interdiction via the Fleet Contingency Troop?

• 19 Nov 2025 · Local Government Reform: Huntingdonshire · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you. Option D literally saddles half of Huntingdonshire with an enormous debt burden, while allowing the rest of Huntingdonshire and Cambridgeshire to ride off into the sunset. The net investment income and debt financing costs for Greater Peterborough are £38.3 million. Compare that with option E: Huntingdonshire unitary’s costs are just £10.5 million, the lowest of any unitary in any of the five options. When looking at the reserves analysis, we see a similar story. Option D provides a significantly lower level of reserves, leaving it more vulnerable to shocks. The reserves of Greater Peterborough are comfortably the lowest at just 16%, which is again deemed high-risk. By comparison, Huntingdonshire would be 42%. On employment, we need look no further than the percentage of universal credit claimants in the local authority. In Huntingdonshire, it is 2.8%, while in Peterborough is 8%, far and away the highest—it has the highest unemployment rate in Cambridgeshire. Moving to Greater Peterborough would immediately increase Huntingdonshire’s unemployment from 3.2% to 5%. On improving children’s services, option D states: “Authorities with higher prevalence of need (e.g. those containing Peterborough and Fenland) will face greater demand and cost pressures, potentially straining resources and impacting service delivery”. On adult social care and healthcare, and the impact for frontline staff, it states: “Teams currently set up on the geographical footprint of Huntingdonshire would need to be split leading to instability for front line and direct care workers”. On special educational needs and disabilities, it states: “The authority containing Peterborough is projected to see the highest growth in SEND demand, leading to disproportionate pressure on resources and budgets…Increased risk of uneven access to SEND support, with some authorities potentially struggling to meet rising demand or maintain quality”. Greater Peterborough is also projected to have the highest prevalence of education, health and care plans and the greatest risk of SEND deficit escalation. At present, Huntingdonshire has the second lowest rate of EHCP prevalence in Cambridgeshire. This analysis strongly suggests that the system would all but immediately collapse. Greater Peterborough will have the highest spend per resident for adult social care and for children’s social care, more than double that of the other two unitaries, as well as the highest SEND costs and the highest percentage of homeless households, nearly double that of Greater Cambridge. It is akin to the Berlin wall being put up overnight, condemning one half of Huntingdonshire to eking out an existence in the bleak Peterborough democratic republic, while the southern half enjoys the trappings of a slightly better existence in the people’s republic of south Cambridgeshire. I stress the words “slightly better”, because anybody involved in discussions about local government reorganisation in Cambridgeshire is well aware of what Cambridge city actually wants. From the very start, Cambridge city has made it clear that it only wants an option that couples it with south Cambridgeshire. Option C would add Huntingdonshire into that mix and, although I am told that throuples are all the rage in the more liberal parts of Cambridgeshire, we would clearly be an awkward third wheel in such a relationship. Cambridge city has no interest in Huntingdonshire. To wilfully pursue an unrequited interest in being linked with it makes no sense for any Huntingdonshire district councillor. Do any of our councillors honestly think that Cambridge city is interested in investing in Sawtry, Warboys or Somersham? Cambridgeshire county council voted for option A, but again that was a vote gerrymandered by the ruling party. The Liberal Democrats, who now control the county council, whipped their councillors to vote for option A—and we should bear in mind that that was not a vote in which councillors were given a choice of all five options; they were simply given the choice of voting for or against option A. In what way is that a truly representative vote? The county council claims that its phase 2 engagement reinforces support for option A, showing: “clear patterns of support for option A.” Support from whom? The county council goes on to say: “The lowest levels of support for this option were from Fenland (26%) and Huntingdonshire (20%)”. How can there be “clear” levels of support for an option that 80% of people in Huntingdonshire do not want? The Liberal Democrats voted for option A without ever having seen a business case; indeed, one has never been written. How irresponsible is it to vote for such a huge change to local governance that has never been financially scrutinised? Although I freely accept that St Neots and St Ives, with their direct bus route to the city of Cambridge, see themselves as pointing south-east rather than north-west to Peterborough, it is clear that Huntingdonshire would be the poor relation in any unitary authority that had it aligned to the exclusive Cambridge city. One of the biggest fears about option A and option C is that in aligning with either Peterborough or Cambridge, Huntingdonshire will end up on the periphery, likely to be cast aside as a sleepy backwater and a place to dump housing targets. We all know that investment from either council will honeypot around the cities. What does that mean not only for our market towns, but for our villages? How much capital investment will be spent in Sawtry or Ramsey by a Cambridge city council focused on option C? How much interest does a Peterborough city-led council have in Kimbolton, Earith or Great Gransden? Local government reorganisation is potentially one of the most important changes in our region in a generation. Huntingdonshire is uniquely placed as the delivery engine for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, aligning with the Government’s goal for growth. Option E clearly meets the Government’s six criteria. Indeed, when all the options are scored against the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s criteria for local government reorganisation, option E easily surpasses option D and inclusion in greater Peterborough, and it only narrowly loses out to options A and C—and that is before factoring in the practical aspects of being governed by a Peterborough-centric or Cambridge-centric council. Place identity should not be overlooked. Huntingdonshire, more than any other part of Cambridgeshire, retains the distinct and proud identity of a historical county. Consequently, the prospect of Huntingdonshire going it alone has been warmly received by local residents when I have had conversations with them about it. For those concerned that a Huntingdonshire unitary authority would lack the necessary population size, the 2040 population projection sees its population grow to approximately 300,000. A central unitary authority based around Huntingdonshire could form the key link between a north-eastern Peterborough-focused unitary authority aligned with the strategic plan of Homes England, and therefore with Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority’s housing and infrastructure objectives, and a south-western-focused unitary authority aligned with the national industrial strategy priorities around life sciences, AI and food production. A central unitary authority focused on Huntingdonshire could then be fully linked into the region by accommodating a boundary change to deliver about 40,000 homes just south of St Neots at Tempsford new town. That could plug Huntingdonshire directly into the Oxford-Cambridge arc via East West rail and turbocharge delivery. As things stand, Tempsford will be split between three local authorities. Moving it to Huntingdonshire to become, in effect, Greater St Neots would make logical sense, and I would welcome the Minister’s view on this proposal. Huntingdonshire is set to benefit hugely from the north Huntingdonshire opportunity zone, with defence a key component of the zone’s potential growth. Defence features prominently in both the Huntingdonshire local plan and Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority’s local growth plan, in addition to featuring, by name, as one of the 12 high growth potential frontier industry clusters in the Government’s recently published defence industrial strategy. I have talked many times before about the defence opportunity that exists in Huntingdonshire. Project Fairfax is a potential game changer for the region, not only for defence-specific firms, but for dual-use civilian firms that have military applications for their projects. Both fields are illustrated by the existence of Cambridge Precision, a small arms component manufacturer, by the forthcoming move of Marshall Land Systems to the constituency and, from a civilian perspective, by a company such as Paragraph, which has grown from a small Cambridge University spin-out to a cutting-edge tech company whose graphene technology potentially has military applications. The potential to create a defence technology cluster is already clearly understood and has already been recognised. The Ministry of Defence announced Project Fairfax only last month. That followed months of work, during which time the potential to deliver the project was recognised by everyone up to and including the Prime Minister, who on 26 June reassured my constituents that “this increased defence spend will bring yield to Huntingdon in the defence-specific sectors and in the supply chains.” —[ Official Report , 26 June 2025; Vol. 769, c. 1279.] Arguably, Huntingdonshire is already the most important location for defence intelligence in western Europe, with the Ministry of Defence currently uplifting the capability at RAF Wyton, where the National Centre for Geospatial Intelligence is based, alongside the development of the proposed tech cluster, and the fact that only a few miles down the road the US Government are investing heavily in their own capability at RAF Molesworth with a new joint intelligence analytics centre, costing in excess of $556 million, for nearly 2,000 personnel. The joint intelligence analytics centre and joint intelligence command AFRICOM—the US Africa command—both sit at Molesworth, alongside the NATO Intelligence Fusion Centre, providing the Supreme Allied Commander Europe and Allied Command Operations with timely, relevant and accurate intelligence to support planning and execution of NATO operations. This is clearly a huge and permanent commitment. In the current febrile geopolitical climate, Huntingdonshire is arguably—not to overstate it—the linchpin of how we meet hostile foreign threats head on. As a senior officer once described it to me, “World leaders make decisions on the information that comes out of these bases.” I therefore ask the Minister how confident she is, should option E not be selected, that a new unitary authority, be that Peterborough or Cambridge-based, will prioritise defence, given that neither appears to be fully aware of the responsibility that they will hold, let alone the opportunity, for a part of the region that sits firmly on the periphery of their geography and their thinking. If the Government are serious about delivering on their defence priorities, and I assume that they are, given that they have greenlit such an ambitious project, they surely would not then risk its delivery by removing the key stakeholders responsible for driving its delivery, and handing such a crucial project to a newly formed local authority that has had no involvement in the genesis of the project and not even enough interest to mention it in its business cases. In going with an alternative option there is a significant and real danger that delivery of these projects stalls, goes into hiatus and loses the momentum crucial to their timely delivery. Huntingdonshire district council has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to deliver and move at pace and shown the necessary delivery expertise to get this across the line. Huntingdonshire is the location of a significant proportion of the region’s development and infrastructure pipeline projects. Local government reorganisation in Cambridgeshire is balanced on a knife edge as far as Huntingdonshire is concerned. Although the Government will not make a decision on what the structure of unitaries in Cambridgeshire looks like until next July, Huntingdonshire district council will have its one and only opportunity to make its voice heard at the vote this evening. This is a unique, once-in-a generation opportunity to set Huntingdonshire up for success, or condemn it to a future over which it will have no control. The historic identity of Huntingdonshire is a strength. It is an identity that local people do not wish to lose through being split or absorbed. We know what incredible opportunities exist for the region and how much potential it has. I would ask any Huntingdonshire district councillor, ahead of this vote, to ask themselves why they should vote for anything other than option E. Do they back Huntingdonshire or not? A vote for any other option this evening—in the hope that Cambridge might take note when it has made it clear that it has no interest in partnering with us, or in the hope that Peterborough might take note when it clearly wishes to do nothing more than split Huntingdonshire in two and effectively asset-strip the northern half—could be catastrophic for the region. To vote for anything other than option E is to vote against Huntingdonshire; it is to vote for it to be split or absorbed, but not for it to have control over its own future. That would be unforgivable, and the electorate will not forget in the local elections next May. I am sure that these councillors, whether they consider themselves to be a faithful or a traitor, would not wish their last action of note as a Huntingdonshire district councillor to be throwing Huntingdonshire under the guided bus.

• 19 Nov 2025 · Local Government Reform: Huntingdonshire · Hansard source

  More

  I was not aware that we had to inform individuals who are not Members of Parliament.

• 19 Nov 2025 · Local Government Reform: Huntingdonshire · Hansard source

  More

  On putting councils on a good financial footing, there are huge concerns across Cambridgeshire about being partnered with Peterborough city council, because its finances are in such a grave state. Peterborough is already a unitary council. Would the Government consider excluding it from the rest of Cambridgeshire, working out how to do the unitary authorities elsewhere and then taking action at a national level to shore up Peterborough’s dire financial position?

• 19 Nov 2025 · Local Government Reform: Huntingdonshire · Hansard source

  More

  I apologise, Ms Harris; this sets the context for my later questions and the benefits of option E. Of course, the title of the debate is “The impact of local government reform in Huntingdonshire”, and that is the context I am trying to set.

• 19 Nov 2025 · Local Government Reform: Huntingdonshire · Hansard source

  More

  I wholeheartedly agree. I will come on in detail to explain why the financial implications are so grave. I hope we would heed the warnings from those who have been through this process before, to ensure that the same mistakes are not made again. Dr Shabina Qayyum, leader of Labour’s city council, was quoted by the BBC as saying that claims that option D was being pursued for political purposes were “insulting”. Given that she and her Labour group were whipped by Labour to vote for it, I suggest that the lady doth protest too much. It will be interesting to see how Labour members vote this evening. Option D rips Huntingdonshire in half, creating east and west Huntingdonshire. There is a significant risk in attempting to disaggregate Huntingdonshire district council. There is a lack of precedent and absence of lessons learned, not to mention the destruction of local identity in Huntingdonshire, already stronger than identities elsewhere in Cambridgeshire, particularly in separating Huntingdon and St Ives. Disaggregating Huntingdonshire district council would come with greater transition costs and affect service delivery. It makes no sense to place Huntingdon and Godmanchester, separated only by a narrow stretch of the River Great Ouse, into completely different unitaries. Brampton and Buckden will be split apart; Kimbolton and Great Staughton will be in different unitaries. Those village pairings currently sit within shared county divisions, upon which the wards of the new unitaries in Cambridgeshire will be based. To split them in two means that those divisions will need to be redrawn. The local government boundary commission for England can redraw them only once the unitary exists, and even then those divisions are unlikely to be at the top of the list for redesigning. The option D business case states: “Option D is grounded in a deep commitment to the unique identities, diversity and aspirations of each of the proposed unitaries.” That simply is not true. There is no consensus anywhere in Huntingdonshire to suggest that splitting it in two is the preferred option for residents in my constituency. If Labour was not whipping its councillors to vote for it, it would not have any support at all. Several of Huntingdonshire’s Labour councillors have either announced that they will not be standing or may not be here after next May. I ask those Labour councillors why they would wish for their legacy as a councillor to be that they voted to rip up Huntingdonshire. Defy the whip! The Labour apparatchiks whipping option D will not be the ones who have to live with the consequences of being part of a failing authority that they voted for. With the best will in the world, they are not going to remove the whip from any Labour councillor in Huntingdonshire. Politically, they cannot afford to. Fenland district councillors like option D because it gets them out of being lumped with Peterborough: “Peterborough’s ability to expand is constrained by current boundaries. By aligning with north-west Huntingdonshire, the area opens up to the south and west, creating space for new communities, business investment and international companies”. Tell me they are planning to use the north of Huntingdonshire as a dumping ground for their housing targets without telling me! Be under no illusion, Mrs Harris: Peterborough is a basket case. It is estimated that 11% of Peterborough’s budget is needed simply to service its own debts, with 80% needed to fulfil its statutory adult and children’s social care obligations. How on earth does it plan to run all the other existing county and district functions on a 9% budget? Peterborough council’s debt gearing is 91%, against the national benchmark of just 50%. Under the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy’s local authority financial resilience index analysis, Peterborough is rated as high-risk for its overall level of reserves, its unallocated reserves, its earmarked reserves, its interest payable or net revenue expenditure, its gross external debt, its fees and charges to service expenditure ratio, its council tax requirement or net revenue expenditure and its growth above baseline. Huntingdonshire is not deemed to be high-risk in a single one of those categories. Looking at the debt analysis based on the modelled options, Greater Peterborough is the single worst option for debt financing cost as a percentage of funding; it sits at 11%, which is the only debt financing cost deemed to be high-risk, and we should bear it in mind that the other two unitaries in this option each come in at 4%.

• 19 Nov 2025 · Local Government Reform: Huntingdonshire · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the impact of local government reform in Huntingdonshire. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. This debate comes at a timely juncture, as later today Huntingdonshire district council will vote for its preferred option for local government reorganisation in Cambridgeshire. For the avoidance of doubt, and for the benefit of any Huntingdonshire district councillors watching this prior to casting their vote, my preference is for option E: a Huntingdonshire unitary authority. I have already stated my preference publicly, but today, ahead of that vote, I wish to reiterate the point and warn of the dangers of voting for anything else. I am alarmed by reports that several councillors have opted to vote for option C, not because they passionately believe in the business case, but because they have apparently input option C and option E into ChatGPT and based their vote on the rationale it has provided, sharing it in WhatsApp groups with other councillors and influencing their decisions. If true, that is a hugely embarrassing way to decide on the future of Huntingdonshire. Although option C is debatably the least worst other option, if Huntingdon district councillors are not prepared to vote for option E and back Huntingdonshire, why should the Government? By voting against a Huntingdonshire unitary authority, those councillors are voting against Huntingdonshire. If they vote against Huntingdonshire, they are effectively saying they are prepared to see it broken up, which is exactly what Labour wants to do. Option D first surfaced supposedly as a proposal from two of Cambridgeshire’s Labour MPs. It was ostensibly pitched as their proposal, but we now know that it did not actually come from them. I have been reliably informed that option D emanated from the Labour east regional office and that Labour MPs were simply happy to put their names to it. Option D is clearly Labour’s attempt to pork-barrel the local government reorganisation of Cambridgeshire. Last week, Peterborough city council, the council responsible for the appalling management of the local authority, voted for option D. Without any consultation with the people of Huntingdonshire, it voted, purely out of self-interest, to conduct a land grab of Huntingdonshire in order to shore up the council’s terrible financial position and have somewhere to build its houses. I have read option D in detail, and nowhere does it articulate or explain what the benefit of splitting Huntingdonshire would be. I would be interested to see the engagement survey results and to know how many people across the whole of Huntingdonshire even knew that was a possibility. I suspect that the first that many people in my constituency will hear of it is when I post this speech on my social media.

• 18 Nov 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Whereabouts in the Bill does it say what the Secretary of State said about the victims and survivors group? If it does not say what he told us, will he amend it to ensure that it does?

• 18 Nov 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 18 Nov 2025 · China Espionage: Government Security Response · Hansard source

  More

  Madam Deputy Speaker, “The hon. Gentleman knows the answer: we are looking carefully at whether other countries should be added to the enhanced tier, but we will take that decision in due course and bring it forward in the normal way.” —[ Official Report , 20 October 2025; Vol. 773, c. 638.] That is what the Security Minister said when I asked him for the fourth time last month why China is not included within the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. So I will ask the Minister for the fifth time in as many months, and I am hoping he will offer some clarity this time. Given the range of measures he has just announced, what would it take for the Government to deem China to be a threat, and when will he assess whether China should be added to the enhanced tier?

• 17 Nov 2025 · Asylum Policy · Hansard source

  More

  In February, at Second Reading of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, I raised the issue of the generous financial and accommodation package that is advertised on the Government’s own website under “Asylum support: What you’ll get”, which outlines the provision of an asylum support enablement—ASPEN—card with £49.18 of cash loaded on to it each week, on top of free accommodation, even if someone has been refused asylum. The cards can be used for gambling and have been over 6,000 times, according to a freedom of information request. In May, I raised this issue again when I asked the previous Home Secretary what she planned to do to address the pull factors of free cash and a free home. Can this Home Secretary now commit to address my previous calls that these pull factors must be mitigated to create a deterrent, and will those on section 4 or section 95 support have the benefit withdrawn under these measures?

• 17 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Last week, the Minister for Policing and Crime told me: “the funding allocation will be made in the usual way before the end of the year…there is more money going into policing this year and we will ensure that it is given to where it is needed.” —[ Official Report , 13 November 2025; Vol. 775, c. 344.] Irrespective of the fact that more money is going into policing, can the Minister clarify for my constituents whether the Government will update the police allocation formula this year to give Cambridgeshire its fair share? The neighbourhood policing guarantee means nothing if our local police forces are underfunded in comparison with neighbouring forces.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Police Reform · Hansard source

  More

  The train attack that took place in my Huntingdon constituency on 1 November was mercifully prevented from being far worse by the swift actions of Cambridgeshire constabulary in neutralising the threat and placing the suspect in custody within eight minutes of the 999 call being placed. However, the Government are lucky that that was the outcome. Cambridgeshire is the fourth worst funded police force in England and Wales, and it does not receive the south-east allowance. The current police allocation formula uses data from as far back as 2001. I know that our current PCC, Darryl Preston, and the current mayor, Paul Bristow, share my concern that our police are not adequately resourced, and we went through this last year with the Policing Minister’s predecessor. What commitment can the new Policing Minister offer me that she will completely overhaul the formula as part of the forthcoming police funding settlement, and give Cambridgeshire the fairer funding it needs?

• 12 Nov 2025 · Typhoon Fighter Sovereign Capability · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I welcome Turkey’s order for 20 Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft. I appreciate that it is good news for the UK, good news for the workers at Warton and Samlesbury and good news for BAE and the future production of GCAP. The Government have confirmed that the Turkish jets are tranche 4 aircraft, with the first of the order due to be delivered to the Turkish air force in 2030. The Government refuse to disclose the number of aircraft that will be delivered each year, but have confirmed that it will not impact our ability to conduct the RAF Typhoon phase 4 enhancement programme or, at the back end of that process, the manufacturing of GCAP. I recently asked the Government what estimate the MOD has made of the contribution of Typhoon jets to GDP. The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry told me: “The biggest contribution of defence to GDP is peace and security.” While in abstract I share that sentiment, it was not really the answer that I was looking for. Typhoon has been one of the UK’s most successful defence export programmes in recent years, with £1.4 billion in export contributions annually and over £30 billion of value to the UK economy, which is more than double the £12 billion initially invested. The programme contributes around £1.6 billion to the UK economy and helps to preserve our sovereign fighter jet manufacturing capability. Under the NATO Eurofighter and Tornado Management Agency, the industrial subsystem production and workshare agreements across the partner nations arrangements dictate that the UK leads on manufacturing the front and rear fuselage, windscreen and canopy, fin and rudder, engine bay doors, foreplane and a range of major avionics systems, which make up 37% of each Typhoon aircraft. For both UK aircraft and UK-led export orders, final assembly takes place at Warton, where the major equipment components, which have been manufactured in Samlesbury by BAE Systems, are ultimately assembled. To that end, it would be good to know how much the order of 20 Turkish jets will create, given the satellite industries that orbit the final assembly and certification processes. Including the Turkish order, there are 154 Eurofighter Typhoons awaiting delivery across the partner nations of Germany, Italy, Spain and Kuwait. How many of those planes will receive final assembly at Warton? What is the plan to ensure that there is no skill fade in the intervening years? While it would be nice to imagine a Kanban-style lean manufacturing process that sees Typhoons rolling off a production line every few days, these jets take several years to construct. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that those responsible for airworthiness testing and certification are kept current and competent between now and 2029, when the first Turkish jets will be approaching completion? Beyond the order, it is worth addressing what assurances the Turkish have been given about the longevity of the jets. The Turkish air force will not receive the last of the jets until 2035, but the out-of-service date for the RAF is 2040. How will the jets be upgraded after we retire them? How will upgrades be delivered at the Warton and Samlesbury plants when they are focused solely on GCAP? The Typhoon is scheduled to remain in service with air forces across Europe and the middle east until the 2060s. Our four remaining tranche 1 aircraft are based at the Mount Pleasant complex in the Falkland Islands, and I had the pleasure of visiting No. 1435 Flight earlier in the year to better understand their role in air defence and quick reaction alert for the south Atlantic islands. However, the handful of remaining tranche 1 Typhoons have an out-of-service date of 2027. Can the Minster confirm whether these will be replaced with tranche 2 or tranche 3 aircraft? If so, which other squadron will lose a flight? As I mentioned, the current Typhoon fleet—our 67 tranche 2 and 40 tranche 3 planes—has an out-of-service date of 2040, but in a written answer to me on 24 September, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry stated: “Typhoon will continue to serve as the backbone of the UK’s Combat Air Force until at least the 2040s.” Can the Minister confirm whether the out-of-service date of Typhoon is 2040 or well beyond that? I recently asked the Government about the scope of the planned upgrades for Typhoon, specifically with regard to the mark 2 European common radar system, defensive aid suites, avionics and weapons. The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry confirmed that those would be outlined in the forthcoming defence investment plan, which it is rumoured will not be published until December. The upgrade programme is due to take place over the next 15 years—coincidentally, the same as the aircraft’s remaining lifespan. The Minister has previously informed me that the phase 4 enhancement—P4E—upgrade programme is in the system definition de-risking phase of activity, following the system definition contract last year. The full scope of the P4E capability package has not yet been agreed, and without that agreement the programme cannot progress on to the design, development and demonstration phase. With that in mind, it appears unlikely that the P4E programme can be accurately outlined in detail in the defence investment plan. With the best will in the world, we know the Government are not about to pull the trigger on a domestic Typhoon order. We cannot afford them, and they clearly do not fit into the combat air succession plan. Having read the strategic defence review, it is clear to me that Typhoon is seen as an integral part—the backbone, in fact—of our combat air capability, but the MOD clearly wishes to pursue exquisite capability, irrespective of the opportunity cost. The current plan sees a mixed fleet of Typhoon and F-35B. I stress the “B” because, frankly, the announcement on the F-35A is a red herring. We are yet to receive the remaining F-35Bs of the current tranche. The remainder are set to be delivered by March 2026, taking our total to 47, with one written off having fallen into the sea. The mooted 12 F-35As are a straight swap for 12 F-35Bs from the next tranche. Those F-35As were pitched as dual-capable aircraft, and would therefore form part of the NATO nuclear mission. If that is the case, why will the F-35As be assigned to 207 Squadron’s operational conversion unit? Using the planes as a training fleet workhorse does not scream nuclear readiness. How many of the jets will be held at readiness?