Ben Obese-Jecty MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  I bow to the hon. Gentleman’s expertise in this field, being the decorated RAF pilot that he is. However, I also take that as Government confirmation that the OCU instructors will potentially form the backbone of our NATO dual-capable nuclear readiness force. Can the Minister confirm that when he sums up? I know this is a trick question, as the Minister probably does not know what the nuclear readiness plan is, and I do not think the RAF knows either, given there is currently no timeline for gaining nuclear certification. At this point, it is worth noting that, in February, the US Marine Corps—by far the biggest user of the F-35B—changed its programme of record to more than double its order of the carrier variant, F-35C, while reducing its F-35B order by the same amount. Our carriers are not equipped with cats and traps, so the F-35C variant is a non-starter, but we should note the direction of travel of the US Marine Corps, given the combined arms nature of its brand of expeditionary warfare. The Government have stated that the introduction of the F-35A variant will support the stand-up of a third frontline F-35B squadron, but the F-35A variants will not enter service until the 2030s—we have not even ordered them yet—and that is quite aside from the certification of nuclear capability. When will we achieve initial, and then full, operating capability for the F-35A with nuclear certification? Crucially, our F-35s are not capable of conducting missions alone. It is not often discussed, although we have already mentioned it here, but the F-35 cannot yet carry the Meteor missile, MBDA’s beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile. The Government have previously confirmed to me that the current estimated timeline for the Meteor’s in-service capability is the early 2030s. Our top-of-the-range jet fighter currently has no stand-off air-to-air missile capability. It is effectively unarmed in the face of a near-peer aerial adversary against which we cannot expect to have day one air superiority. In July, the previous Minister for Defence Procurement, the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle), told me: “Block 4 modernisation will include the integration of UK-unique weapons and upgrades to air-to-surface and air-to-air weaponry.” That would appear to be an aspiration, not a guarantee. Options for future Meteor development are still under consideration by the Meteor partner nations of France, Germany, Spain, Italy and Sweden, and the aim is to have reached consensus by the end of the year. Can the Minister provide an update on the progress made at the recent working-level discussions in September and October? This issue was also recently identified by the Public Accounts Committee in its excoriating report, “The UK’s F-35 stealth fighter capability”, which highlighted: “The Joint Programme Office…has invited the UK…to include a UK weapon in its so-called digital accelerator which it hopes will speed up delivery. In the meantime, the Department told us that as part of its Defence Investment Plan it is considering buying other weapons that are already available and integrated.” In his response, can the Minister outline what off-the-shelf weapons the Government are currently considering buying as an interim solution to this problem? How do they intend to integrate an interim stopgap weapon? At present, the solution is actually Typhoon. Yes, in order to use our very expensive, top-of-the-range, invisible-to-radar, fifth-generation F-35s, we have to fly them alongside our not-very-invisible-to-radar, fourth-generation Typhoons, because only they can carry the payload to defend them in air-to-air combat. I am not sure this is exactly what was intended by the hybrid airwing outlined in the strategic defence review. That is before we point out that an independent carrier strike group is irrelevant if we need a land-based plane to support our carrier-based capability, and that for the F-35B to be in range of a target, the carrier would have to be in range of hostile ballistic missiles that we cannot feasibly protect them against. The future air dominance system, which will be its primary air defence shield, comes in the form of the Type 83 destroyer, for which the final business case is not due to be submitted to the Treasury until 2028—the 2035 initial operating capability for Type 83 already looks ambitious. I digress, and discussions on the limitations of designing our military strategy around our capability, rather than the other way around, are for another day. The F-35’s out-of-service date is 2069, by which point some of our 138 airframes will be over 50 years old—older than any combat jet the RAF has ever had in service. What will be the final fatigue index of those airframes by then? Given the rapid development of uncrewed platforms, are we really going to rely on an ageing crewed jet as the backbone of our combat air capability in 2069? Having covered a fair amount of ground, I close by reiterating that the recent Typhoon deal with Turkey is a good thing, but I fear there are an awful lot of unanswered capability questions regarding our air power. While the answers to all these questions are for the next month, when they will be published in the defence investment plan, the Minister knows well that I will circle back on every single one of those points—he probably suspects I have a tracker monitoring their status. With that in mind, we need a clear and concise air power strategy, because talk of autonomous collaborative platforms and hybrid air wings is premature. It should be noted that the Chief of Defence Staff, in his previous role as Chief of the Air Staff, stated this summer that the RAF has “no major equipment programmes planned for the next 15 years. We have what we have for the near and medium term.” The question is not when the defence investment plan will be published, but whether it will have anything in it when it is.

• 11 Nov 2025 · Remembrance Day: Armed Forces · Hansard source

  More

  This is a short story about war. It is a story about what war looks like from the ground. It is not so much my story, but I was there and I was part of it. It is the story of Operation Herrick 11. More specifically, it is the story of 3 Rifles Battlegroup in Sangin, a small Afghan town of just a few square kilometres. The casualties sustained by 3 Rifles Battlegroup between October and March over the winter 2009-10 remain the heaviest casualties sustained by a British Army battlegroup since the Korean war. Sangin is where a third of all British soldiers who died in Afghanistan lost their lives. Staff Sergeant Olaf “Oz” Schmid, George Cross, 30, was killed defusing multiple improvised explosive devices on 31 October 2009. Serjeant Phillip Scott, 30, was killed by an improvised explosive device during a patrol on 5 November. Rifleman Philip Allen, 20, was killed by an IED during a patrol on 7 November. Rifleman Samuel Bassett, 20, died in hospital from his injuries from an IED on 8 November. Rifleman Andrew Fentiman, 29, was killed by small arms fire during a foot patrol on the morning of 15 November. Rifleman James Brown, 18, died of his injuries from a suicide IED on 15 December. Lance Corporal David Kirkness, 24, was also killed by the suicide IED on 15 December. Lance Corporal Michael Pritchard, 22, was shot and killed by friendly fire from a British sniper on 20 December. Lance Corporal Tommy Brown was killed by an IED on 22 December. Lance Corporal Christopher Roney, 23, died of his wounds from a friendly fire Apache helicopter attack on 22 December. Sapper David Watson, 23, was caught in an IED detonation and died in the operating theatre on new year’s eve. Corporal Lee Brownson, Conspicuous Gallantry Cross, 30, was killed by an IED on 15 January 2010. Rifleman Luke Farmer, 19, was killed by the same IED as Corporal Brownson on 15 January. Rifleman Peter Aldridge, 19, was caught by an IED, and he died en route to Camp Bastion on 22 January. Lance Corporal Daniel Cooper, 21, was killed by an IED on 24 January. Corporal John Moore, 22, and Private Sean McDonald, 26, were both killed by an IED on 7 February. Rifleman Mark Marshall, 29, was killed by an IED during a routine foot patrol on Valentine’s day, 14 February. Rifleman Martin Kinggett, 19, was shot and killed on 25 February. Rifleman Carlo Apolis, 28, was killed by a single gunshot wound on 1 March. Corporal Richard Green, 23, was killed by a single sniper round on 2 March. Rifleman Jonathon Allott, 19, was killed by a command wire IED on 5 March. Corporal Stephen Thompson, 31, was killed by an IED during a patrol on 7 March. Lance Corporal Tom Keogh, 24, died of a single gunshot wound on 7 March. Serjeant Steven “Stevie” Campbell, 30, was killed by a command wire IED hidden underwater on 22 March. Rifleman Daniel Holkham, 19, was killed by a vehicle-borne suicide IED, weeks short of the end of his tour, on 27 March. Thirty soldiers died in Sangin in those six months, and another 80-plus suffered combat injuries, including amputations. I apologise if there are those whom I have missed, but there is no definitive list that we can check to read their stories. I pay tribute to those who made the ultimate sacrifice, some of whom I knew and many of whom I did not. We ask young men and women, some of them still teenagers, to close with and kill the enemy through dismounted close combat to win the fight in those last 100 yards, and that ask comes with a cost. So in this period of remembrance, I ask those in this House to remember their names, and should any of us have to make that fateful decision to commit soldiers to harm’s way, to remember above everything else that that decision will come with more names.

• 11 Nov 2025 · Prisoner Releases in Error · Hansard source

  More

  Between 5 July and the end of the reporting period in March, this Government oversaw the accidental release of 193 prisoners. That is five prisoners every week. We now know that there have been a further 91 accidental prison releases since 1 April, so there have been 284 in total. What assurances can the Secretary of State give my constituents that no prisoners have been accidentally released from HMP Littlehey in my constituency since Labour took office?

• 5 Nov 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  In June I asked the Government to consider my private Member’s Bill calling for them to publish a strategy to tackle interpersonal abuse and violence against men and boys. The strategy would ensure that male survivors of crimes that are considered to be violence against women and girls—such as rape, sexual assault, domestic abuse, forced marriage and honour-based violence—were given dedicated support, and would also prevent male survivors from having to be in spaces that should be for women. On 1 September, the Minister told me that the strategy “will be published early in the autumn.” We are now well past that. What is causing the delay in the publication of the revised VAWG strategy, and can the Minister assure me that it will specifically address male survivors of crimes that are considered to be violence against women and girls?

• 5 Nov 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  12. Whether she has had recent discussions with Cabinet colleagues on reviewing the strategy entitled “Tackling violence against women and girls.”

• 4 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  In the past few weeks, I have visited two incredible local businesses: Saragusta Spirits, a local gin distillery, and Williams Family Wines, an award-winning winery. However, such entrepreneurial success is being hampered by small producer relief adding significant additional duty cost and preventing businesses from growing. With English viticulture and wines enjoying a surge in popularity, will the Chancellor consider extending small producer relief to drinks above 8.5% ABV, and if not, why not?

• 3 Nov 2025 · Defence Sector Innovation · Hansard source

  More

  May I first associate myself with the Secretary of State’s remarks about the attack on the train at the weekend? Last week the Ministry of Defence announced the launch of Project Fairfax, which will see a defence technology cluster established alongside RAF Wyton in my constituency. I thank the Minister for his support in bringing the project forward; it has been warmly received not only by industry but, crucially, by my constituents, who are excited about the opportunity presented by specialist defence careers and increasing regional growth that will be delivered best via option E of local government reform. What steps could he take in giving Huntingdonshire the opportunity to create a wider defence ecosystem to meet the eligibility criteria for consideration for funding from the Defence and Security Accelerator?

• 3 Nov 2025 · Huntingdon Train Attack · Hansard source

  More

  This has been a difficult and challenging weekend for Huntingdon. My thoughts are with the victims of this terrible tragedy; with the LNER crew member whose heroic and selfless actions, placing himself in harm’s way, saved lives at the cost of his own safety, and who remains in a critical but stable condition; with the other four victims who remain in hospital with stab wounds; and with the four who were discharged yesterday, as well as those who bore witness to the attacks and will still be processing their own experiences. I would like to place on the record my praise for the emergency services’ response: to Cambridgeshire constabulary, whose unarmed response officers and firearms officers were able to place Anthony Williams in custody within eight minutes of receiving the 999 call; and to Cambridgeshire fire and rescue service, our air ambulance services, and the East of England ambulance trust for their incident response and for getting the casualties to Addenbrooke’s hospital. I also praise the train driver, Andrew Johnson, and the signalling staff, whose speed of thought in moving the train on to the suburban line from the high-speed line meant that the train could make the unscheduled stop at Huntingdon—a decision that curtailed the attack by several crucial minutes, that allowed the police to apprehend the suspect and that undoubtedly saved lives. The swift action of all those involved prevented a horrific attack from being far, far worse. I am sure that the Home Secretary, and indeed the whole House, would wish to share in my sympathies for those impacted by this horrific attack, and in my pride in the conduct, leadership and professionalism of the responders and railway staff.

• 30 Oct 2025 · Land Value Capture · Hansard source

  More

  The cut to London’s affordable housing target has a direct knock-on effect on constituencies like mine in Huntingdon, where we are being forced to deliver thousands of new homes, creating an urban sprawl that could destroy the individual character and charm of many of our villages. In a Sky News interview last week, Sadiq Khan was challenged on how he has been reporting the figures for years by counting housing starts that have had no building work done and no spades in the ground, with no increases to London’s affordable housing stock. At least 2,000 houses that he counted as started in 2023 before his re-election have still not been started today. In Ealing alone, almost 1,000 homes that he claimed have been started simply have not. Will the Committee investigate and scrutinise the manipulation of housing stock figures by the Mayor of London?

• 30 Oct 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

• 30 Oct 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  On Tuesday, the Ministry of Defence announced the launch of Project Fairfax, which will see a defence technology cluster established on surplus MOD land at RAF Wyton in Huntingdon. This is a hugely exciting opportunity for both Huntingdon and the MOD, as we seek to create a defence ecosystem in sites we have identified across Huntingdonshire. With a decision yet to be made about identifying investible sites, and regarding the £600 million fund available through the strategic sites accelerator programme, will the Secretary of State meet me and the chief executive of my local council to discuss the inclusion of potential defence sites in Huntingdon?

• 29 Oct 2025 · UK-Türkiye Typhoon Export Deal · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased to hear the announcement of the order for 20 Typhoons from Turkey. Having met with representatives from the workforce at Warton in Parliament earlier in the year, I recognise that maintaining those crucial skills was balanced on a knife edge. I want to ask today about the European Common Radar System Mark 2, which is forecast to achieve an initial operating capability on our Tranche 3 Typhoon aircraft by the end of the decade. Given the Turkish Typhoon order will be Tranche 3 or 4, we can assume it will be specified with the ECRS MK2 and the wider Phase 4 Enhancement programme. Given that we are looking at the same staff, what impact will the Turkish order have on the timeline for the enhancement programme of our Typhoon fleet?

• 29 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister recognise, from his written response to me, that every single one of those 2,405 prison places was authorised by the previous Conservative Government and that the 14,000 prison places he planned to build will not be delivered because the firm that was due to build them has gone into administration?

• 27 Oct 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Alan Marnes is a constituent of mine in Southoe who has staunchly campaigned since 2002 on the issue of the lack of indexation for pre-1997 pension rights, having been one of 140,000 people who lost their occupational pension. I wrote to the Secretary of State more than two months ago asking whether the newly revived Pensions Commission will address the issue of failed pension funds and I have still not received a response. Will the Secretary of State agree to meet me and Alan to provide some much-needed clarity on such a long-standing issue?

• 23 Oct 2025 · Alleged Spying Case: Role of Attorney General’s Office · Hansard source

  More

  The Attorney General has a duty to superintend prosecution agencies. The Government have previously defined superintendence as, inter alia, “a right for the Attorney General to be consulted and informed about difficult, sensitive and high-profile cases”, of which this is clearly one. Given that the Attorney General is responsible by statute for the superintendence of the Crown Prosecution Service and overall super- intendency of the DPP, and additionally has the requirement for consent to prosecute certain categories of criminal offences such as those relating to official secrets, what action did the Attorney General take once he had been informed of the potential collapse of the China spying trial?

• 22 Oct 2025 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last week I was notified by the Table Office that my Cabinet Office oral question about the £97 billion increase in failing major project spending that this Government have overseen had been selected to be answered by the Government. However, it does not appear on the list of questions to be answered during Cabinet Office oral questions tomorrow. The Cabinet Office has declined to answer, and has removed it from the list of questions, which means that it will not be asked or answered in the Chamber. I have long suspected that the Government have been manipulating the oral question process in their favour. How can the general public have any confidence in the parliamentary process, or the holding of the Government to account, when the Government can avoid scrutiny by picking and choosing only the questions that they wish to answer? I am sure that the Government would not wish me to submit any more written questions, so what guidance can you give, Mr Speaker, on how I can best ensure that my constituents in Huntingdon get the answers that they deserve?

• 21 Oct 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T7. Hinchingbrooke hospital is one of the few hospitals in Cambridgeshire that are yet to have an electronic patient record system, and its current level of digital maturity is at the lowest end of the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society scale. Hospitals within the new hospital programme are required to be at level 5 on the HIMSS scale, in line with the national digital capability framework. What financial assistance will be given to North West Anglia NHS foundation trust to facilitate an investment case, so that the rebuilt Hinchingbrooke hospital has a modern and enterprise-wide electronic patient record system?

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend makes a valid point. I will talk later about whether it is too draconian. The issue here is one of finality. I am sure we have all had close shaves while driving a car, but the fact of the matter is that if a driver has killed somebody—no matter how unlucky that may have been—that is final. The grief of the families I have spoken to and the stories I have heard from other hon. Members show that we cannot overstate how much of an impact that has on not just the lives of the family but on friends and colleagues. There are opportunities that those people will never, ever have. Beyond that unimaginable pain, think how a family might be left feeling if they find that, far from the accident having been unavoidable, the death was caused by the reckless action of somebody who was playing with their phone, speeding, driving like a boy-racer or drunk. Think of the feeling of injustice when the driver is sentenced and receives little more than a slap on the wrist. The driver who killed Mike was given a two-year driving ban. Hazel will never get to see Mike again. They will never have the opportunity to live out the rest of their lives together. Kim said: “The long-term impact on our family is huge. Although my mum has returned to her job at the hospital she is unable to fulfil her role on a rota and shift system and is unable to reduce her working hours. She has therefore been forced into taking early retirement from a job she has been at for nearly 42 years. We never want my dad to be a statistic, and to never be forgotten.” I tabled new clause 6 because of Mike, because of conversations with Hazel and Kim, and because victims like him need justice, which, as things stand, they will not receive. How can we put such an incredibly low tariff on being directly responsible for someone’s death? The option to ban a driver for life is at the court’s disposal, yet it appears not to be the preference of judges. That leniency suggests that life is cheap and that, far from being a tragedy, a death at the hands of someone careless or dangerous elicits little more than a shrug of the shoulders. In the event that somebody with a licensed shotgun killed somebody because they were careless—or, worse still, because they were dangerous—would we allow them to regain their shotgun licence? Why do we so readily return people’s driving licences after they have taken a life? There is an argument that a lifetime ban is too draconian, does not leave room for rehabilitation and will not work as a deterrent. The new clause is not supposed to be a deterrent; it is for the courts to decide whether a conviction should result in a custodial sentence and thus what degree of rehabilitation, and therefore recidivism, should occur thereafter. The new clause is not too draconian; it is robust. It would take drivers who have killed permanently off our roads and mean that those who have already proved themselves to be fatally unsafe behind the wheel would never again be in a position to take another life or destroy any further lives.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I wish to speak to my new clause 6, which calls for the implementation of a lifetime driving ban for those convicted of causing death by dangerous or careless driving. Last year there were 380 convictions for causing death by dangerous or careless driving. Of those convictions, 202 were for causing death by dangerous driving, 150 were for causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving, 23 were for causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs, two were for causing death by driving unlicensed or uninsured, and three were for causing death by driving while disqualified. Fewer than 1% of those convicted of causing death by dangerous driving were given a lifetime driving ban; the figure was just two. Since 2017, there have been 1,348 convictions for causing death by dangerous driving, 1,314 convictions for causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving, 158 convictions for causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs, 17 convictions for causing death by driving unlicensed or uninsured, and 11 convictions for causing death by driving while disqualified. There have been nearly 3,000 convictions for causing a death through negligence or recklessness of the driver. Those are thousands of lives lost—husbands and wives who have lost their partner, children who have lost a parent, and parents who have lost a child. Thousands more lives are impacted tragically, forever changed, shattered.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I totally understand what the hon. Lady is saying about a momentary lapse in concentration, but that lapse has cost somebody their life. Were that anybody sitting in this room, that would be a devastating consequence not just for them but for everyone here and everyone in their family. I recognise what she says about it not feeling proportionate, but there is nothing more final than losing one’s life. To that extent, I believe it is proportionate. Driving is a privilege and not driving is, realistically, only an inconvenience, whereas the repercussions of a family living their life without somebody are vast.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for her contribution, and I wholeheartedly agree. There are so many tales just like that from all our constituencies, and they indicate just how lenient we have been towards those convicted of dangerous driving, particularly those who have caused a fatality. That is precisely why I tabled new clause 6. I believe that families like the one she mentions deserve justice and the closure of knowing that those people will not go on to reoffend. Under section 163 of the sentencing code, any court may impose a driving disqualification for any offence committed after 1 January 1998. The minimum period of disqualification for causing death by careless driving is just 12 months. The sentencing guidelines for a driving disqualification following a conviction for causing death by driving illustrate the leniency that our judiciary applies to these cases. There is something badly wrong with our approach to justice when life is considered as cheap as it is in the current guidelines. The minimum period of disqualification for causing death by dangerous driving is five years. Consider that the threshold for dangerous driving is high, as it covers excessive speeding, drink driving, and dangerous and erratic overtaking manoeuvres—the type of driving that leaves us horrified. Now consider a case in which the outcome of that driving is that someone is killed. The minimum disqualification period is five years—an inconvenience. It speaks to a narrative of, “Whoops, I killed somebody.” The sentencing guidelines include the option for a lifetime disqualification, but reluctance to impose it is currently priced into the guidelines, which state: “Lifetime disqualifications will be rare, in particular because of the increased risk of breach and the possibility of hindering rehabilitation prospects. Lifetime disqualifications will generally be inappropriate unless there is psychiatric evidence and/or evidence of many previous convictions indicating that the offender would be a danger to the public indefinitely if allowed to drive.” Why are we so reticent to permanently remove killer drivers from the road? The guidelines refer to an “increased risk of breach”, but if someone is caught driving while disqualified, having been banned from driving for life after killing someone, perhaps we should send them to prison. Those who know me will know that I am far from anti-motorist. I am no fan of low-traffic neighbourhoods, blanket 20 mph speed limits or terribly designed cycle lanes, but while I have been a car enthusiast for many years, I am also a cyclist, and these days very much a MAMIL—a middle-aged man in Lycra. I have been knocked off my bike twice by cars that “didn’t see” me. I have been doored, and close-passed at 60 mph. I ride with cameras on my bike so that there is evidence of me being knocked off, and some of the driving I could show would deter Jeremy Vine from ever riding a bike in London again—but I have been lucky. Mike Gough was not lucky. Mike was known in Huntingdon for his passionate advocacy for road safety. He too was a keen cyclist, and he often cycled on the country roads around the town—the very same roads I was out on this past weekend. In March last year, as he headed back into Huntingdon along the Brampton Road towards George Street, he was struck by a Ford Transit van attempting to pass him. Paramedics attended the scene and attempted to give CPR, but Mike had been crushed and could not be revived. Mike was pronounced dead at the scene. Along the Brampton Road today, a white ghost bike now marks the site, as a tribute to Mike. The driver received a 12-month sentence—suspended for two years—and a two-year driving ban. As it stands, he will be back on the roads before the next election. Mike’s relatives said that the sentence did not reflect “the seriousness of what has happened or the catastrophic impact on our lives. Michael was the pinnacle of our family and a huge part of the local community. As a family we will never be the same again and our grief is immeasurable.” It is with these events in mind that I have tabled new clause 6.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member makes a valid point. My amendment seeks to remove the chance that those people will reoffend further down the track. The custodial element remains unchanged, so there will still be the possibility of rehabilitation through the prison system to reduce the rate of recidivism. The issue here, as the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) also pointed out, is about giving families closure and the knowledge that those who are guilty of committing these crimes will not be able to go on to reoffend. New clause 6 proposes a lifetime driving ban for death by dangerous or careless driving and related offences—those I covered at the beginning of my speech. Having spoken to Mike’s widow Hazel and his daughter Kim, I can say that it is sobering to listen to somebody recount the story of the day that they had to attend the scene where their husband or father had just been killed. Selfishly, it is sobering to think about how easily it could have been me. I ride the same roads as Mike did. It was not an error, or avoidable on his part. The driver alone was at fault; it was his casual negligence that caused Mike’s death. Mike’s daughter Kim recounts: “On 27 June 2025, the driver, Dennis Roberts, aged 74, pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving. He was banned from driving with immediate effect, given a one-year sentence, suspended for two years, a two-year driving ban, 250 hours unpaid work and has to pay court charges of around £200. The sentence is within the guidelines of the law, but does the law fit the crime? He has lived his life like normal for 18 months, while we have lost our dad, husband, friend, grandad, and lived the last 18 months encompassed in a whirlwind of grief. Even after sentencing he continues to live his life, just with a small inconvenience of not being able to drive and giving up a few hours to work unpaid. How is that justice? In two years’ time he will be able to drive again. Would you give someone who used a gun carelessly and someone was killed their gun licence back after two years? I doubt it. They would most likely have a custodial sentence too.” I would ask all Members in the Chamber to think how they might feel if they were to get a phone call today informing them that their partner, parent or child had been killed in a road traffic accident.

• 20 Oct 2025 · Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban · Hansard source

  More

  The message that this decision sends is that the police will bow to religious pressure, and it legitimises antisemitism. The Secretary of State made reference to the game between Ajax and Maccabi Tel Aviv. The vast majority of fans arrested that evening were Ajax fans. Ajax are playing Chelsea at Stamford Bridge on Wednesday evening, but no one has talked about banning its fans from attending that game. Article 27.04 of the Europa league regulations states that “to ensure that a rescheduled match can be completed, if necessary without spectators, the home club must have access to a back-up stadium”. Given that it is now likely that this fixture will attract bad faith actors to Birmingham who are not fans of either team and who are looking to cause trouble, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of playing the match behind closed doors at a neutral venue, or a venue where the police are prepared to provide security?

• 20 Oct 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  For no apparent reason, and in a crowded field, the Government have chosen the Chagos islands as one of the many hills they wish to die on. The surrender of the sovereignty of the Chagos islands has been a puzzling mis-step for months, with today’s votes the culmination of it. There was a clumsy rush to try to force the deal through, first before the elections in Mauritius and then before the US elections, and there now appears to be an attempt to salvage some dignity, having seemingly surrendered “meekly to a Mauritian shakedown”, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) has put it, while trying to upsell the deal to a US Government that publicly backs it, given that it will not cost them a penny, but privately must have concerns over the impact of allowing Chinese encroachment in the region. With recent developments shifting the focus of US foreign policy to the Indo-Pacific, the Chagos islands deal surely takes on greater significance. The base is now more important to US policy, not less. Last December, the previous Armed Forces Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), who is in his place, announced that the deal “secures the future of the UK-US base on Diego Garcia”, and said that “when everyone looks at the detail of the deal, they will back it”. —[ Official Report , 2 December 2024; Vol. 758, c. 28.] Indeed, the Minister for the Overseas Territories, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) confirmed to me that “There has been no change to the substance of the deal”. —[ Official Report , 5 February 2025; Vol. 761, c. 764.] That is strange, because the new Prime Minister of Mauritius, Navin Ramgoolam, described the deal struck with the previous Mauritian Government as a “sell-out”, stating that the deal should be indexed to inflation, take exchange rates into account and fully recognise Mauritius’s ownership of the islands, which could affect the UK’s unilateral right to renew the lease. That was in mid-January. Less than a fortnight later, the Minister confirmed to me in a written answer that the UK would not have the unilateral ability to extend the agreement at the end of the lease. What changes were made to the original deal during discussions with the Government of Mauritius, and why have the Government gone on record as saying that the deal has not changed, in direct contradiction with the statements of the Prime Minister of Mauritius? Surely the Minister for the Overseas Territories is not suggesting that Prime Minister Ramgoolam is mistaken. In January, when I asked the Prime Minister whether he had ever discussed the Chagos islands with Philippe Sands KC, his answer was a brusque, “No.” Brevity is key when trying not to give too much away. Philippe Sands has represented Mauritius at the International Court of Justice in multiple disputes over the Chagos islands. In 2022, Mr Sands published “The Last Colony: A Tale of Exile, Justice and Britain’s Colonial Legacy” about Chagos. It is worth highlighting that Philippe Sands and the Prime Minister have apparently been very good friends for several years; they even interviewed one another at the Hay festival. Earlier this year, The Telegraph reported that the national security justification for surrendering the Chagos islands used by the Prime Minister came from Philippe Sands, who wrote about it in the 2023 book, “The International Legal Order in the 21st Century”. With Mr Sands apparently no longer representing Mauritius following the change in regime, it does make one wonder if that was the reason why there was such a rush to conclude the deal before the election, after which Mr Sands’ services were no longer required—did the Government lose their in? I would be interested to know how the Government think the International Telecommunication Union would block our use of the electromagnetic spectrum. How would it block communications equipment on Diego Garcia without encroaching on our territory? What active blocking of electromagnetic frequencies is a UN agency capable of doing anyway? What steps would the ITU have taken to block the US military’s use of the electromagnetic spectrum had we not progressed this deal? The national security argument simply does not stack up. New clause 6 would require the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on the impact of UNCLOS on the operation of the treaty. The Government have previously stated that it is ITLOS that would pose the greatest threat to the operation of Diego Garcia. It was cited specifically by the Defence Secretary for the first—and only—time on 22 May, when he said: “There are a range of international legal challenges and rulings against us. The most proximate, and the most potentially serious, is the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.” —[ Official Report , 22 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 1291.] In July, the Minister for the Overseas Territories referred to ITLOS for the first time since he was a shadow Minister for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, when, in December 2022, he had stated that the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea “did not have competence on territorial disputes”, going on to say: “It is a fact that China has made increasing encroachments into the territorial waters of its neighbours and vast claims in the South China sea while ignoring judgments against itself. That has been matched by a growing assertiveness, and even belligerence, towards some of our allies and partners in the region”. —[ Official Report, 7 December 2022; Vol. 724, c. 162WH.] He asked for assurances then. Now, nearly three years later, with a belligerent China flexing its naval muscle in the region and adopting a robust posture towards us over the delay to the decision on its London embassy and the obvious ongoing spy debacle, what assurances can the Government give the Committee that this opportunity will not be exploited by the Chinese Communist party? As recently as August, the Mauritian Government referred to “The strategic role of Mauritius as an investment gateway to Africa and a trusted partner for Chinese enterprises seeking to expand their footprint therein”. Mauritius is committed to working closely with China—far closer, it would appear, than it is to working with us. Why are the Government prepared to embolden Chinese ambition in the Pacific? Why are they prepared to embolden Chinese spying in Parliament? Why are they prepared to allow the Chinese to build an embassy in London without absolute clarity on its structural plans? With all that in mind, why will the Government not include China in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme? The shadow of Jonathan Powell looms large over this deal, as it has over every aspect of the Government’s dealings with the Chinese Communist party. Across the globe, we are seeing changes in the rules-based order. We must navigate this better. My fear, which is shared by all on the Conservative Benches, is that this capitulation shows no understanding of the changes we are facing. We need to ensure that this great nation stands up for safety, freedom and security across an increasingly dangerous world, and this opaque and furtive deal puts that at unacceptable risk.

• 20 Oct 2025 · Alleged Spying Case: Home Office Involvement · Hansard source

  More

  I have now asked the Government why China is not included in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme three times. On 9 June, I was told “that particular report is coming forward in due course.” —[ Official Report , 9 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 613.] On 15 September, I was told “no doubt we will have more to say about it in due course.” —[ Official Report , 15 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 1194.] And on 13 October, I was told “any decisions about the enhanced tier will be brought forward in the normal way.” —[ Official Report , 13 October 2025; Vol. 773, c. 85.] The Government are now panicked about the Chinese embassy decision, they are desperately trying to deflect from attention on the Chagos deal that the National Security Adviser negotiated on, and they appear to be decriminalising spying for China. What is the Government’s rationale for not including China within the enhanced tier? Given the threat, when will it be added?