Ben Obese-Jecty MP: speeches

Speeches

• 30 Jun 2026 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  RAF Wyton is in my constituency and I have a huge amount of service housing, both in the RAF Wyton and the former RAF Brampton patches, so service housing is extremely important to me. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether he is cutting £300 million from the service family accommodation budget in this Parliament and moving it into the next Parliament?

• 30 Jun 2026 · Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation · Hansard source

  More

  I am hugely concerned about the manner in which SLAPPs are being used to intimidate and harass individuals in public service. In my constituency alone, I have seen two separate instances of parish councillors being bullied out of public office. Both Hemingford and Ellington parish councils have been targeted due to planning concerns—one by a local company and one by a wealthy individual. Such an attempt to stifle democracy is unacceptable. Parish councils are the bedrock of democracy and the brazen attempt to railroad individual parish councillors is unacceptable. What are the Government doing to protect local councillors from being left exposed to SLAPPs, which deters people from participating in democratic representation?

• 22 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate what the hon. Member is saying. I am not putting the Minister under scrutiny here; I am merely highlighting the invidious position that he finds himself in and the situation as we find it. I spoke to the hon. and gallant Member, the Minister, earlier today, so he knows full well that I am going to say this. I very much want to put this front and centre as an issue that needs to be resolved, and to put some heat and light on it to encourage the progress that we are yet to see. The only reason to oppose this new clause is purely political, as the Government choose to play games with people’s lives rather than support our armed forces community and uphold the armed forces covenant. Earlier this year, that same armed forces community was surveyed by the Army Families Federation on the armed forces pathway to settlement in the UK, in response to the 2025 “Restoring Control over the Immigration System” White Paper. It had 1,424 qualifying responses and more comments on reducing the cost of indefinite leave to remain than any other topic. One of those responses stated: “the current level of fees for ILR—and the subsequent cost of citizenship—places a significant financial burden on Armed Forces families. Given the service and sacrifices made by Armed Forces personnel, and the vital role their families play in supporting them, these costs are prohibitively high for many. As a result, families who are committed to remaining in the UK long-term face unnecessary financial hardship simply to secure their lawful status and future.” Another said: “Speaking from experience it’s a struggle to get us and our kids to join our husbands here in the UK. We have to work 2 jobs in order to pay for the visa and travelling expenses. We have to bring our 3 kids over to the UK. Due to the expensive costs we have to apply for loans to cater for the expenses. With the high living standards and tight financial constraints, we have to save up for our ILR fee once our 5 years contract is done. It’s so hard to save, especially for us. Me and my 3 kids have to apply for ILR together as our visa expired the same date, so that’s a total of £12K we have to fork out to pay the fee. Can the home office look into this urgently? Thank you.” Another said: “I have supported my partner’s service to the UK while facing many of the same sacrifices required of military families. This includes frequent relocations, prolonged periods of separation, disrupted employment opportunities, and the emotional and practical challenges that come with military life. For Commonwealth families in particular, these sacrifices are made alongside the added uncertainty of immigration status. Charging ILR and citizenship fees places an unfair financial burden on spouses who have already contributed significantly to the stability and wellbeing of service personnel. Military spouses play a vital role in enabling service members to serve effectively, yet are required to pay substantial fees simply to remain in the country their families serve with loyalty and dedication”. This last one said: “the financial burden of applying for ILR and subsequently citizenship is not proportionate to Armed Forces pay, particularly in the context of the current cost-of-living crisis. Many serving personnel simply do not earn enough to comfortably meet these fees, even though they have complied fully with all rules and requirements. It is difficult to understand why those who have shown long-term commitment, loyalty and service to the United Kingdom must go through one of the longest and most expensive settlement routes, while others are supported through different schemes that include accommodation, financial assistance and fee exemptions. This creates a strong perception of unfairness among service members, who feel they are being penalised for following the rules.” That last one really sticks in the craw. We price our service personnel out of being able to afford to live here as veterans while dishing out ILR to others like confetti, who have done nothing to earn it. There is perhaps no better example of a genuine two-tier system. Before Labour Members go into the voting Lobby and swipe their pass on autopilot, I ask them to think about why they became MPs—specifically Labour MPs—because if the answer was to clamp down on immigration so hard, with the bar so high that we do not even let the children of people who have risked their lives in the service of this nation live here without fleecing them for thousands of pounds, they will get a slow handclap for achieving their political dreams. If, on the other hand, they have the moral courage to do the right thing, they should not go into the No Lobby. What is the worst that is going to happen? How whip-able do we think the parliamentary Labour party actually is right now, just a few hours after the Prime Minister has resigned? I ask Labour Members to have the moral courage to do the right thing, to vote in favour of new clause 4 and to deliver on the promise they made to service families when they stood for election. In a matter of days, they will find themselves jockeying for position in the leadership contest. People who are Whips today might not be Whips tomorrow. Nobody is going to lose the Whip as the Government collapse because they did not vote against this new clause. There may never be a more perfect set of circumstances in which to rebel: a Government with no authority trying to whip Labour MPs to vote against their own manifesto pledge and against the wishes of the Royal British Legion. I dare say there has never been safer, more fertile ground upon which to rebel. If Labour Members cannot vote in favour of the new clause, I beg them not to vote against it. When this issue was voted on three weeks ago, there were 102 abstentions. The Prime Minister has laid out the timetable for his departure. This Administration is in its death throes. How much do those on the Labour Benches feel they really owe the outgoing Administration? They should be asking what the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) would do, because I am not really asking the current Government any more. What is the point? Today, at the start of Armed Forces Week, I ask Labour Members to consider how they will vote tonight. Do they want to vote against service families, against the Royal British Legion campaign and against doing the right thing in order to prop up a Government who have a lifespan we can now measure in hours? This is now about whether the next Government back this change. I ask them to support new clause 4, not to vote against it. Ministers should think very carefully about what they want their legacy to be. They should have the moral courage to do the right thing tonight.

• 19 May 2026 · Open Prisons: Policy on Convicted Paedophiles · Hansard source

  More

  As an MP whose constituency has a category C prison for male sex offenders that is almost at capacity—HMP Littlehey—I welcome the clarity from the Minister regarding paedophiles in the prison estate. We know that the Minister is on the hook to deliver thousands of new category C and D prison places. I want to ask him about the prison places he has made almost no progress on since the election because the contractor ISG went into administration in September 2024. I first highlighted the failure of that project last year. Can he confirm whether, since then, all those 12 prisons have had new contractors appointed? When will those prison places be delivered?

• 27 Apr 2026 · Animal Testing · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and to my role as an officer on the all-party parliamentary group on phasing out animal experiments in medical research. The phasing out of animal testing was an eye-catching pledge in the Government’s last manifesto. Although it has been slow in coming, the strategy, published late last year, is the first milestone towards delivering on that intent. It was a year ago that we last discussed animal testing in Parliament. As the Member of Parliament with, sadly, the most animal testing infrastructure, I welcome the Government’s commitment to achieving their pledge. In my Huntingdon constituency, there are two sites that are directly involved in pre-clinical animal testing: Labcorp and MBR Acres. I visited Labcorp shortly after being elected as the Member of Parliament for Huntingdon. Notably, the issue of animal testing and the prevalence of the sites was never raised during the election campaign, nor during any hustings by any of the candidates; it is almost as if it is not a topic that people are keen to discuss. Following the election, I visited LabCorp to ensure that I understood the nature of the work done there and the challenges of delivering pre-clinical testing for the pharmaceutical industry. I was public about the visit and clearly communicated the experience; I stated that I do not support animal testing but, in order to understand it, I had to meet those who undertake it. I am sure that many of those participating in the debate today or in the Public Gallery will have seen the footage reported in The Mail on Sunday a week ago. I have seen the puppies and macaques in their cages; although they are well looked after, there is an obvious, inevitable outcome, and it is very difficult to watch them—particularly the macaques, with their recognisable human mannerisms, watching Disney cartoons to keep them occupied, coming to the window to have a look at me looking at them—knowing that all those animals will be tested on and will lose their lives. That is the price we currently have to pay the pharmaceutical industry to save life or extend life. Much as we do not like to know where our food comes from, the same could be said for our medicinal drugs. For all the progress made, animal testing is still a key part of the pre-clinical testing process. Although that will remain the case for the foreseeable future, it is incumbent upon the Government to deliver their pledge as quickly as they can. In December, we saw the Government introduce the Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025, specifically to curtail protest activity at key national infrastructure sites around the life sciences sector. In Committee, the Minister for Policing and Crime said: “The legislation will cover infrastructure that primarily facilitates pharmaceutical research or the development or manufacturing of pharmaceutical products, or which is used in connection with activities authorised under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. That will include, for example, pharmaceutical laboratories, medicine and vaccine-manufacturing facilities, suppliers of animals for research, and academic laboratories carrying out research involving animals.” —[ Official Report, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 17 December 2025; c. 3.] It would be extremely naive to believe that that legislation was introduced for any reason other than to address the presence and actions of Camp Beagle. It is unusual that the Government would create a bespoke piece of legislation specifically to target a single protest site, particularly when that legislation is so poorly constructed that it is unenforceable anyway. It is worth mentioning that I voted against that legislation, as did the hon. Members for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell), for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) and for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy); every other Labour MP in this Chamber today voted in favour of it. It is no secret that MBR Acres was just a few days away from closure, owing to the pressure applied by activists, predominantly via their email campaign. The regulations make sending an email to a company simply to lobby it to boycott provision of utilities a criminal offence. They also require the company being lobbied to report that individual to the police for it to be investigated. The police then have to prove the identity of the sender without knowing which force should investigate or whether that person is even in the country. It is a nonsense. Could the Minister clarify how the Government intend to criminalise people for sending emails that are not abusive or threatening and where the sender cannot even be identified? With regards to MBC Acres itself, in response to my written parliamentary question 125326 regarding the outcome of the last announced audit of the site last November, the Government confirmed that the Animals and Science Regulation Unit “identified no critical or major findings, and no low level concerns”, identifying only three minor findings involving “a small amount of rust on a surface, small areas of floor damage in a walkway, and a small portion of loose drain cover”. Given the sheer volume of correspondence I have received on the topic of conditions at MBR Acres, it is not unreasonable to say that the two perspectives do not tally. During the heatwave last summer, there was significant concern regarding the welfare of the dogs, owing to the temperature inside the sheds. Although I appreciate that the Minister will not have this information to hand, could he—or potentially the Security Minister, under whose brief ASRU audits sit—write to me and outline the steps implemented to mitigate those risks, given the likelihood of another hot spell in the coming months? Last November, the Government introduced their policy paper, “Replacing animals in science: A strategy to support the development, validation and uptake of alternative methods”, the long-awaited strategy created to fulfil Labour’s pledge to phase out animal testing. It took a while, but I welcome the publication of the strategy. As one of the few MPs who has actually read it, I have some questions for the Minister that I hope he will able to answer later—I hope that he can take some notes, because I have a lot of questions. Ministers in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology recently confirmed to me that the Government are positioning the UK as a global leader in alternative methods via a variety of initiatives, principally including reform of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and by setting new international benchmarks for the development, assessment and adoption of non-animal methods. Could the Minister confirm what progress the Government have made in scoping multilateral and bilateral opportunities for international engagement? In particular, has his Department been successful in discussions with international regulators regarding harmonisation of standards and establishment of key priorities? Ministers have previously informed me of the publication of a set of key performance indicators covering all elements of the strategy later this year. Is the Minister able to expand on the timeline for the publication of those KPIs and the accompanying dashboard? Likewise, Ministers have previously informed me that work is under way to identify and collate UK Research and Innovation-funded alternative methods for inclusion on the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research’s expansion of its gateway publishing platform. I know that that is due to be in place by the end of the year, but could the Minister provide an update on progress in alternative methods likely to be included? Further to that, UKRI plans to publish areas of research interest for alternative methods and is due to start the work in the first half of the year. When in Q2 is that work due to commence, and has an approach now been agreed between the NC3Rs, the Medical Research Council and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council? The Government have also confirmed that the first ministerial board has been convened to oversee delivery of the governance arrangements for the overall strategy. Can the Minister confirm the frequency of those meetings? Is the investment of £75 million to accelerate the development and adoption of alternative methods separate from, or in addition to, the funding supplied for the three Rs? Is the £20 million of increased funding launched through the pre-clinical translational models hub funding call last month part of that £75 million or in addition to it? Is the £30 million allocated to support the establishment and delivery of the UK centre for the validation of alternative methods also in addition to that? Further to that, reporting on the portfolio of investments in alternative methods is planned to commence this year. Is the Minister able to confirm when that will be published? We are already in quarter 2. The next meeting of the alternative methods strategy delivery group is scheduled for tomorrow; can the Minister share the outcome of the first meeting in February, and what is likely to be discussed in tomorrow’s meeting? The Animals in Science Committee has now published its report, “Strengthening leading practice in the animals in science sector”. Will the Minister outline what progress has been made thus far, or he anticipates being made this year, on the 11 recommendations on strengthening leading practice or further work, particularly regarding the Animals in Science Regulation Unit? On recommendation 11, which applies to the Minister’s Department, what steps have DSIT Ministers taken to consider how funding schemes can support the implementation of leading practice across the whole framework? I appreciate that I have addressed some very specific points, so I would welcome the Minister writing to me to address my questions if he is unable to answer them all today. I am sure his team have been furiously scribbling notes. As I have stated, I welcome the animal welfare strategy. It is a good first step towards a future in which animals no longer play a part in pre-clinical pharmaceutical testing, but that day is still too far away. A date of 2035 sounds like wishful thinking—an expectation that there will be exponential leaps forward in progress with the advent of AI and the rapid intramonth increases we are seeing in compute power. That may be the case, but hope is not a strategy. I hope the Government can continue to push in the right direction on this issue, deliver on the pledges outlined in their strategy, and achieve their pledge to phase animals out of testing processes.

• 13 Apr 2026 · Point of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance about some missing written parliamentary answers that I am trying to track down. The Minister for School Standards, the hon. Member for Queen's Park and Maida Vale (Georgia Gould), is here, so she might be able to help. I have been waiting over four months for a reply to written parliamentary questions 96357, 96475 and 96477 on special educational needs and disabilities reform, as well as to a freedom of education request, which is now several weeks overdue. Will you, Madam Deputy Speaker, encourage the Department for Education to reply to its correspondence in a timely fashion?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Defence · Hansard source

  More

  I will start with a quote: “Your path leads to war. You know that. So war is coming. What will you do when you feel its breath upon your neck?” The answer is: not enough. The defence investment plan was due last autumn, then by Christmas, and then it was to be delivered as soon as the MOD finishes working flat-out. If the MOD spent as much time on the DIP as it has done telling everyone that it is working at pace, maybe it would have been delivered by now. Let us look at the impact of the delay. In the air, we are yet to see investment in the capability that has been committed to. The Chief of the Defence Staff, in his prior role as Chief of the Air Staff, last year confirmed 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”. Given the evolution development cycle of current capability, is that really a tenable position? The F-35B is due to graduate as a Government major projects portfolio programme by the end of this month, but will it? Will we see the delivery of the remaining seven F-35Bs by the end of next month, as scheduled? The Royal Air Force is yet to even place an order for the 12 F-35As that are due to qualify us to join NATO’s dual capable aircraft nuclear mission. That was announced nine months ago, with no orders placed and no progress made. It might as well just be a poster on the Defence Secretary’s bedroom wall. Likewise, the next tranche of F-35Bs has also not yet been ordered from Lockheed Martin. This goes back to my point regarding overstretch. Operation Firecrest will see the carrier strike group deploy with 24 F-35Bs. There are six deployed forward in Akrotiri, seven are awaiting delivery, and one fell in the sea. That leaves us with just 10 planes for training and to cover any other tasks. We are maxed out. Later this year we may be in a position where we have no realistic spare capacity of our only fifth-generation platform, with no current plans to purchase any more—and if/when we do purchase more, they are years away from delivery. But are we actually going to buy any more? Given our limited resources, putting all our chips on the global combat air programme and inevitably short-cutting our way to never truly fleshing out the accompanying system-of-systems does not augur well. We are already struggling to find the funding for the next phase of that project, delaying the signing of the trilateral contract for the next phase from last September because of the delay to the DIP, creating tensions with Japan and Italy and threatening the 2035 timeline that is crucial for Japan. When I challenged the Prime Minister on the delay, he would not commit to when the contract would be signed. On the high seas, Britannia most certainly does not rule the waves. HMS Dragon has finally arrived in the eastern Mediterranean, but it was one of only three Type 45s available. I use the term “available” loosely, as it had to be withdrawn from its NATO Maritime Group One commitment—a commitment that starts in a few weeks and for which we currently have no replacement ship available. The Government have no plan to facilitate that commitment and are presumably hoping that HMS Dragon can be recalled. The Royal Navy has to deliver Type 26 and Type 31, with all ships coming into service, optimistically, within the next nine years. Type 83 will see its outline business case submitted by June, but my understanding is that that programme may not make the cut, which raises serious questions about the future air dominance system. I would be surprised if Type 91 made the cut either, given that it is currently being assessed for feasibility and affordability. Decisions are pending on: the future cruise anti-ship weapons system; batch 1 offshore patrol vessels; the global decision support system, the maritime aviation transformation programme; Project Beehive; and Project Vantage. Charting a course to a much vaunted hybrid Navy looks perilous at best—I hope the Minister has his sextant to hand. On land, despite all that, the Army arguably has the most work to do. The Army has a huge transformation programme that will make it almost unrecognisable by the next Parliament. If there is one capability that we should be throwing the kitchen sink at, it is Project Asgard, which the Chief of the General Staff spoke effusively about last year in his Royal United Services Institute land warfare conference speech. He said: “It’s a project that, through AI-fuelled, software-defined and network enabled capabilities we are confident has made 4 Light Brigade capable of acting 10 times faster and 10 times further than it could last year.”

• 25 Feb 2026 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his contribution. I hope he has not stolen a look at my speech, as I am about to come on to just that point, but I agree with him. There is potentially a trade-off to be made between putting troops on the ground in Ukraine and in the High North. There is a possibility that doing both those things to the sufficient level that we require may prove too much of a challenge. We are committed in Estonia, just as we are to be committed in Ukraine. It has been reported that our commitment to a post-ceasefire force would be around 7,500 troops. That is smaller than our peak commitment in Afghanistan, but that reflects the difference in posture. While 7,500 does not sound like a lot—only circa 10% of the current Army—it does not reflect the fact that three times that number is needed to sustain the deployment. By the time of a second six-month rotation through Ukraine, we would have 7,500 who have just returned from the first tour, the second 7,500 currently doing the job and the next 7,500 training to go. That is 22,000-odd from a field army of, say, 40,000, meaning that over half the Army will be committed to manning the eastern flank deterrence line. It was reported in The Telegraph yesterday that multiple members of the coalition of the willing have privately conceded that their contributions to the post-ceasefire peacekeeping mission depend on permission from Vladimir Putin. Could the Minister in his summing-up confirm whether every country in the coalition of the willing has committed to deploying troops to the peacekeeping mission in Ukraine alongside us? If we include the aforementioned battlegroup in Estonia, that is another 3,000 troops operating on the same cycle. If we factor in ongoing commitments, such as NATO’s Allied Reaction Force special operations component, which we lead for the next year, the Falkland Islands Roulement Infantry Company and the Resident Infantry Battalion in Dhekelia, as well as the process of retraining and rearming for the plethora of planned new capabilities, the number of personnel quickly adds up under the stacked readiness of multiple commitments. With the Prime Minister announcing our commitment to Operation Firecrest this year with the carrier strike group, as well as the expanded Royal Marines commitment in Norway, suddenly our armed forces are on the cusp of looking overstretched, and doubly so in the event that anything else comes into scope or goes hot. I highlight these challenges to draw out the complexity of the broader strategic issue. The only way this level of operational commitment will be feasible is if, like our European allies, we properly fund defence. That is why we have called on the Government to go faster and spend 3% of GDP on defence by the end of this Parliament to ensure that they can deliver the 62 recommendations in the strategic defence review that they have already pledged to deliver. But the defence investment plan itself is six months late, strongly suggesting that the plan as it stands is unaffordable. Can the Minister confirm that the plan will finally be published before the Easter recess? It is imperative that the plan addresses the growing capability gaps as the warfare spiral develops in eastern Europe. In conclusion, “I believe we are on a collision course with a Russia that is on a war footing, that is replenishing its lost equipment and that is re-arming fast… Putin will only take us seriously when he sees our factories producing at wartime rates. And that’s why I believe so strongly in the need to rebuild our own national arsenal and reconnect society with its Armed Forces… The urgency could not be clearer. Just ask yourself: If you knew now that our soldiers would be involved in large-scale combat operations in 2027, what would you be doing differently—and why are you not doing it?” Those are not my words, but the words of the Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Roly Walker. He said them yesterday. As we mark the fourth anniversary of Vladimir Putin’s needless and tragic war, I am sure everyone in this House would agree with me when I say that I hope we are not here to mark a fifth. Slava Ukraini.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Police Grant Report · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with my right hon. Friend, and I hope that that will clarified by the Minister who winds up, or through further clarification of the White Paper. I have read the White Paper, and it currently is not explained. We have also received little explanation about how the independent review of force structures will work; who the independent chair will be; when and how they will be appointed; when the terms of reference will be published; and whether we as Members of Parliament will be included within the scope of the “policing stakeholders” referenced in the White Paper. Some clarity regarding the process behind such seismic and sweeping changes desperately needs to be outlined. There are serious concerns that the new model for policing will not address some of the key resource requirements for rural forces, instead seeing cities and larger towns taking up an ever-growing share of the available resources. Last week I spoke to local National Farmers Union members in my constituency. For the second year running, concerns regarding rural crime, specifically hare coursing, were raised by local farmers. This is a topic that we rarely hear spoken about in this Chamber or by the Government. It is incomprehensible to many that idyllic rural locations could find themselves in the grip of violent and organised crime, but that is the situation that so many find themselves in.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Police Grant Report · Hansard source

  More

  Madam Deputy Speaker, “The current funding system is complex, outdated and the product of legacy decisions rather than strategic design”— not my words but those of the Government in last month’s police reform White Paper. I agree, which is why I do not approve of the “Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2026-27”. The complex and outdated legacy police allocation formula sees Cambridgeshire constabulary down at the bottom of the list of forces for police funding per head, and yet the Government are still using it. Since being elected to the House, I have called on the Government to change this repeatedly, and it continues to be an issue that concerns my constituents. Reliance on a formula based on data from 2001 maintains the existing imbalance in funding that the Government know cannot continue. The Government have already committed to updating the police allocation formula as part of their commitment to restructuring the 43 police forces in England and Wales, but that will not take place for years, and it will be years more before we see any benefit locally. How will current recruitment and resourcing dovetail into the new force structures? What rebalancing will take place, and would it not have made sense to have done the work on future structures first, so that the road map to the new model of policing could be better articulated? The Government are already on the hook to fulfil their neighbourhood policing guarantee. Two weeks ago, the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners released a statement that clearly outlined that “the settlement is only sufficient to fund the increase in personnel promised by the Government under the neighbourhood policing guarantee in part”. With funding for hotspot policing already rolled into the neighbourhood policing grant, where are we with the recruitment of the 13,000 additional police officers, PCSOs and specials? The number of 13,000 additional officers was first announced in February 2023 by the then Home Secretary. In March 2023, the number of full-time officers was 142,145. In March 2024, just before the general election, that figure had reached 147,745—an increase of 5,600. By March 2025, the figure had fallen to 146,442—a 1% decrease year on year. Exactly what progress has been made in recruiting the 13,000 additional officers? What is the baseline figure that this is being benchmarked against? Is it March 2023 when the pledge was made, is it March 2024—the most recent data available when Labour came into government—or is it March 2025, when the funding to recruit these officers actually came on stream? I am happy to take an intervention from the Policing Minister if she would like to clarify exactly what the baseline figure is. No, she does not wish to. As far as I am aware, that baseline figure has never been clarified, and when I asked that question of the previous Policing Minister, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), I received a waffly non-response that did not even attempt to answer the question. So do the Government even know? Nope—nothing from the Front Bench. Let me turn to the point made by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), about the number of police officers per ward. St Ives and Ramsey in my constituency has six officers in total, across police sergeants, PCs and PCSOs, covering 10 wards. In Huntingdon, there are eight officers for 11 wards. That makes 14 officers to cover 21 wards, so we are already seven officers down, and that is assuming that none of those officers ever has a day off, is ever on holiday and is ever sick. I do not see how we are going to gain those additional officers that the Policing Minister implies that we are going to receive under the neighbourhood policing guarantee in order to make up that shortfall. The APCC joint leads on local policing, Chris Nelson and Matt Storey, highlight that, as things stand, the maths simply do not add up, saying: “We want to deliver the increase in neighbourhood policing the Government has pledged, but this can only be done if it is fully funded. Current funding covers the cost of approximately 750 additional officers, so it is unclear how forces will be able to fund the remaining 1,000 neighbourhood officers to which the Government has committed.” Less than a year ago, we saw the Government revise down the neighbourhood policing figures. A staggering 31 of the 43 police forces in England and Wales amended their figures, having overstated them, resulting in a net reduction of 2,611 police officers and PCSOs—a 13% decrease. They had included student officers based in the classroom, not out on patrol, as well as officers double-counted on out-of-date HR systems. West Midlands police force had its true neighbourhood policing figure reduced by 62%, Gloucestershire’s was reduced by 65%, and Wiltshire and Suffolk had their figures reduced by over 50%. Is that 2,611 factored into the 13,000? The Minister referred to an extra 2,400 neighbourhood police officers, but the number of officers is already 2,611 down, resulting in a net negative of 211 officers; she will forgive my scepticism about the accuracy of the Government’s policing plan.

• 9 Feb 2026 · Standards in Public Life · Hansard source

  More

  The Chief Secretary keeps making reference to, “If we had known then what we know now,” with regard to Peter Mandelson’s appointment. The key fact is that we already knew of Peter Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, as the Prime Minister spoke about at PMQs last week, just as the Government knew about Matthew Doyle’s relationship with Sean Morton and still gave him a peerage after the internal investigation. Let me come back to the resignation statement of the chief of staff yesterday. He stated that he “did not oversee the due diligence and vetting process”. Can the Chief Secretary explain who did oversee the due diligence and vetting process?

• 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.

• 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.

• 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?

• 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?

• 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.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  The now former ambassador to the United States has been sacked due to the nature of his relationship with a convicted paedophile—a relationship that has come as no surprise to anybody except the Prime Minister, it would appear. The Prime Minister and the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), knew of Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein, yet his appointment was felt to be worth the risk. That is despite warnings from President Trump’s co-campaign manager Chris LaCivita, who criticised the replacement of the former ambassador, Dame Karen Pierce, as replacing a “professional universally respected ambo with an absolute moron”. Even the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), who was effusive in her praise for Lord Mandelson, asked for him to come before her Committee to “allow my colleagues to hear directly why the Prime Minister has appointed him”. —[ Official Report , 14 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 143.] With her face pressed up against the Cabinet Room window like Tiny Tim out in the cold, I am surprised that she could be heard, but the Minister for the Overseas Territories, who is looking sheepish in his place on the Front Bench, was emphatic. He stated: “We are absolutely convinced that Lord Mandelson will do an excellent job as our representative in Washington”. —[ Official Report , 14 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 143.] Yet that whole time, the Government were aware of the security warnings that Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein crossed the line of what is acceptable and failed to meet the standard expected of what is arguably our most critical ambassadorial appointment. The President of the United States arrives for his second state visit tomorrow, yet we now suffer the embarrassment and indignity of having had to sack our ambassador for his proximity to a man found guilty of soliciting prostitution from a child—a man whose girlfriend was convicted in 2021 of sex trafficking, conspiracy and transportation of a minor for illegal sexual activity. Indeed, an aspect of this matter that remains unclear is the nature of Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Ghislaine Maxwell. The New York Times has described this issue as “a stinging embarrassment” that “casts a shadow over the planned state visit”. How has the Prime Minister allowed this to happen, ignoring the advice from his security assessment to appoint him anyway, embracing the risk then having it blow up in his face? Prior to entering Parliament, I worked for Barclays bank. In 2021, the bank’s CEO Jes Staley resigned amid a regulatory probe into whether he mischaracterised his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. I actually raised a complaint with my managers, which was roundly ignored and never advanced beyond managing director level, such was the squeamishness that surrounded the story. I was furious that Barclays still paid Staley his £2.4 million salary and £120,000 pension contribution while being defenestrated for his relationship with Epstein. That is not privileged information—it was widely reported—yet while the financial world saw fit to wash its hands of Staley, this Labour Government welcomed Lord Mandelson with open arms. Those linked to Jeffrey Epstein who maintained a relationship with him after his conviction and who many times visited his island, where the crimes took place, have long since been deplatformed and deemed too toxic to hold positions of power, yet the hubris of the Prime Minister saw him ride roughshod over such glaringly obvious concerns. Being the Prime Minister is to take the mantle of the UK’s decision-maker-in-chief; it is to own the responsibility of making not just difficult decisions, but the most difficult decisions. Appointing an ambassador to the United States is not the political banana skin that should bring down the Government, yet here we are. The Government are teetering on the brink. Yesterday the Prime Minister gingerly began climbing down over his handling of the Mandelson sacking. When he came to the Chamber last Wednesday, he robustly defended Lord Mandelson and played to the baying crowd. He even had the chutzpah to claim that the Conservative party has a leadership contest going on—was it not interesting to see him in the Smoking Room last night between votes? [Laughter.] Last Wednesday, the Prime Minister stated that “full due process was followed during this appointment”. —[ Official Report , 10 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 859.] He said that twice. If that is true, the Prime Minister knew the full scope of Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. If he did not know and new information subsequently came to light, either the vetting standards of the Government are incompetent or the claim of “full due process” is inaccurate. The Prime Minister also said that “I have confidence in the ambassador”. —[ Official Report , 10 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 860.] He said that twice, too. The Prime Minister’s explanation yesterday stated that there were three reasons for his tergiversation: “The nature and extent of the relationship being far different to what I’d understood to be the position at the point of appointment, the questioning and challenging of the conviction, which…goes to the heart and cuts across what this government is doing on violence against women and girls and the unsatisfactory nature of responses from Peter Mandelson last week to the inquiries made of him by government officials – I took the decision to remove him.” Can the Government lay out precisely what was the full due process that was followed? The Prime Minister claims that he did not learn the content of the Bloomberg emails until after his robust defence at PMQs, so did Lord Mandelson fail to disclose that information during his vetting interview? Was there even a vetting interview, or did Lord Mandelson disclose everything and the Prime Minister is displaying wilful ignorance?

• 8 Sept 2025 · Defence Industrial Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I place on record my excitement at seeing RAF Wyton in my constituency directly mentioned in the defence industrial strategy. Last week, I was at RAF Wyton for a hugely successful discussion on its future as a defence technology cluster, with senior officers from the cyber and specialist operations command, the leadership of Huntingdonshire district council and planners from the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority. I invite the procurement Minister and the Defence Secretary to visit RAF Wyton—I believe they may be due to anyway—not only to see the tremendous work that defence intelligence does, but to see its suitability as the defence, energy and capability resilience centre of excellence. That would address my fears that the land may be sold off for housing by the Defence Infrastructure Organisation by accident in the interim. I also invite them both to the Huntingdonshire defence showcase right here in Parliament next month.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Use of Drones in Defence · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. The nature of warfare has changed. During the last three years of conflict driven by the war in Ukraine and, perhaps controversially, two years of Israel Defence Forces operations in Gaza, we have seen a paradigm shift in the nature of warfare—a tangential move away from the manoeuvre warfare that has shaped military thinking since the blitzkrieg illustrated the potential of speed and firepower. The previous Conservative Government recognised the direction of travel and introduced the UK defence drone strategy prior to the election, in February last year. Backed by an investment of £4.5 billion, the intention was to enable the rapid experimentation, testing and evaluation of uncrewed platforms. The past year has seen the publication of the strategic defence review, which reflects the continued change of focus. It makes much of the need to adopt a high-low mix, combining exquisite capability with attritable capability such as drones—for high-low, read “expensive-cheap”. At the recent Royal United Service Institute land warfare conference, the opening address of General Sir Roly Walker, Chief of the General Staff, directly referred to the change to a high-low mix in the British Army. He said: “I want 20% of our lethality to come from the survivable layer, 40% from the attritable, and 40% from consumable. That does not mean I want 1/5th the number of crewed platforms in the Programme of Record, it’s that I want each one to be five times more lethal, survivable and sustainable…And I want to spend 50% of our money on the 20% of crewed and expensive, and 50% on the remaining 80% of attritable.” We have all seen footage of first-person view drones and how they have been used in the Ukraine-Russia conflict. As a former infanteer, the sight of individual soldiers being stalked slowly by drones hovering just behind them, and menaced and killed at will, strikes fear into my heart for the future of being an infantryman. This is, hopefully, a temporary situation, and in much the same way that the improvised explosive device was in conflict with electronic countermeasures—ECMs—so too will drones find themselves, in time, at the mercy of counter-unmanned aircraft system solutions. Last week, there was an article in The Washington Post about the measures the Ukrainians are taking to combat Russian drone threats, which include going as far as using a biplane with a crew member firing them out of the air with a shotgun. That is the sort of inventive stuff that is currently going on in the east—we would not believe it if we saw it in a movie. We have already seen the RAF and the Army begin to employ agile combat employment such as the penetrative threat of drones, as illustrated by the bold attack by Ukraine on airfields deep inside Russian territory mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune). There is, however, very little in place to prevent a copycat attack against our forces in the UK. If RAF Brize Norton can be breached by civilians on scooters, it can be easily breached by a swarm of drones. What price our air-to-air refuelling or heavy lift capability? That is not easily replaced and fairly easily defeated on the ground. What efforts are the Government making to ensure that we have permanent counter-unmanned aircraft systems capability at all operational flying bases? Agile combat employment will get us only so far and, as we have seen, it takes only a couple of litres of red paint to destroy a jet engine. In Ukraine, we have seen that survivability is key: how we fight a vehicle is as important as how we physically protect it or conceal it. Before any talk about thermal camouflage or, increasingly, multispectral camouflage, we should consider how the age and capability of the kit we have makes it vulnerable to a drone threat it was never designed to encounter. The strategic defence review outlines the British Army’s intention to move to a dynamic high-low capability mix, as I alluded to earlier, of 20-40-40: that is 20% crewed platforms to control 40% attritable—preferably survivable—platforms, and 40% consumables such as shells and missiles, also including attritable one-way effector drones. For such a fundamental doctrinal shift in manoeuvre warfare around which the entire Army would need to be restructured, a single sub-paragraph on page 110 of the SDR does not really cut it. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s view on how he plans to extrapolate such a paucity of strategic intent. At the lowest consumable level, handheld off-the-shelf drones are a plentiful, cheap and effective tool. They are low cost and high volume. Our funding of capability in Ukraine should really be seen as an investment; it is not cynical to suggest that the current conflict is a helpful proving ground for our own future capability. First-person view drones have quickly become a stalwart of the modern battlefield and sit within what the Ministry of Defence considers to be tier 1 and tier 2—those that are consumable or attritable. It is those drones that will see the quickest development, the biggest leaps in capability, and the most effort going into combating them from an anti-personnel perspective. We have already seen the development of a counter-UAS ECM that has led to the impractical horizontal development of fibre-optic drones. The pace of development should force us to ask what the capability will be like by the time British troops are required to use them in anger.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Local Government Reform: Cambridgeshire · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered local government reform in Cambridgeshire. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. Following the publication of the English devolution White Paper in December 2024, on 5 February Cambridgeshire and Peterborough’s district councils were invited to develop proposals for the introduction of unitary authorities within the county, expected to come into effect in April 2028. A detailed collective proposal for what the future unitary authorities in Cambridgeshire should look like is to be submitted to the Government by 28 November. I applied for this debate to outline the sizeable concerns in Huntingdonshire about local government reorganisation. These concerns are potentially echoed across other areas of Cambridgeshire, and I encourage other MPs to whom I have spoken about the proposals also to voice their concerns. Cambridgeshire residents have been presented with just three options on which to give their opinions. Proposal A is referred to as the north-west, south-east option, with Peterborough, Huntingdonshire and Fenland in the north, and Cambridge, East Cambridgeshire and South Cambridgeshire in the south. Proposal B is the north-south option, with Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire together, and then Peterborough combined with everywhere else—Huntingdonshire, Fenland and East Cambridgeshire. Proposal C is east-west, with Peterborough, East Cambridgeshire and Fenland in the west, and Cambridge, Huntingdonshire and South Cambridgeshire in the east. These proposals were apparently narrowed down from six options. However, these have not been published, and it is difficult to know, even as an MP, how they were decided and why the possibility of a breakdown by Westminster constituency, county division or district council ward was ruled out. My own Huntingdonshire district council stated that: “We are taking an evidence-based approach. Inevitably, the different needs and local identities of our areas will have a significant impact on the preference of our own councils, and we must respect that”. However, what evidence is there? The consultation by each of the district councils appears to be little more than a paper exercise. How are residents expected to feed back an informed decision regarding a once-in-a-generation opportunity to shape the future of local government without any actual information on what the impact of expressing their preference might mean? Martin Hassall, the independent councillor for Buckden, Diddington and Southoe, said: “The proposals are complex, poorly communicated, and offer little reassurance that the end result will mean better services or genuine value for money.” In a written answer, the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution, the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), said: “We expect there to be wide engagement with local partners and stakeholders, residents, workforce and their representatives, and businesses on a proposal.” But how can Cambridgeshire’s district councils credibly be expected to develop a robust proposal without realistically understanding the preferences of their residents? The only feedback prior to the final proposal being submitted is an engagement survey that bears little resemblance to the three options that have been put forward. They are in effect situating the estimate, having already decided one of three answers, and will tailor the results to fit. How will the Government ensure that any decision reflects the wants and needs of local residents? Moreover, if the Government overrule the proposals submitted by the council, upon which evidence will they ensure that the voices of local people are considered? The Huntingdonshire district council website says: “All proposals will be assessed against all the criteria in the invitation. Decisions on the most appropriate option for each area will be judgements in the round, having regard to the statutory guidance and the available evidence. That evidence will include information provided by the councils as part of their proposals, representations received during the statutory consultation, and other relevant information available”. A written answer to me on Friday said: “a consultation could be launched in early 2026, likely closing at some point after the May local elections”. Could the Minister clarify whether impacted residents across Cambridgeshire will have their say? If so, is the late May date the first opportunity they will have? If the statutory consultation is not until after next year’s local elections, can we assume that district council elections in Huntingdonshire will definitely go ahead? The Government are in the process of botching this local government reorganisation with their hands-off approach. Every question to the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution has so far been met with a deflection to the relevant local authority, but this has left a situation where local authorities seem unsure of the detail, local residents have endless unanswered questions, and we are on the cusp of making enormous changes that will have a lasting impact on people’s lives, their prospects and their quality of life, all because nobody had bothered to think through the detail. In March, a joint statement from council leaders across Cambridgeshire stated: “We look forward to further discussions with each other and with government, and when the time is right, with residents, Members of Parliament and our partners”. When will Members of Parliament be engaged on the initial proposal? I have not been engaged thus far, and I do not believe any of Cambridgeshire’s other MPs have been officially engaged either. What is the plan? I appreciate that is more of a rhetorical question than one for the Minister, but the point still stands. I am sure this debate will be watched by council leaders, and some of my questions are more for their benefit. Last week, I wrote to each councillor in my Huntingdon constituency to seek their input on the potential impact of the changes, and hon. Members will hear a selection of quotes peppered throughout my speech. I was very pleased to receive a range of responses from across the political spectrum, with Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat and independent councillors highlighting their concerns. Councillor Nathan Hunt, Liberal Democrat, Huntingdon East ward, said: “throughout the process, communication from central government seems to have lacked required detail and has generally been poor”. It is highly notable that, despite our political differences, the responses highlighted the same broad concerns: a rushed process, short timelines, lack of rigour, unclear criteria, poor communication, inadequate information, analysis and evidence, and no clear identification of what is best for residents. The engagement survey currently in flight, led by East Cambridgeshire district council as communications lead, is not clearly signposted or easy to locate. It will be interesting to see once it closes whether there has been significant uptake. There has been no indication from Huntingdonshire district council of whether there is a minimum viable response rate. If sufficient responses are not received, will they be considered at all? Will that extend to the whole of Cambridgeshire and to other district councils? Prior to the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority mayoral election in May, a booklet was sent to every household, so why has a similar effort not been made to engage residents with a posted survey? Most people have no idea that the local government reorganisation is happening, and that is as much the fault of the Government as of the local authority. The engagement survey closes on Sunday 20 July, so in less than two weeks, residents in my constituency and across Cambridgeshire will have had what initially appears to be their only opportunity to influence the process, and it will have passed most of them by. The three shortlisted options were sadly published only as maps and with no additional information, and all local authorities published the same survey at the same time. To what extent will the Government take into account the results of the engagement survey from residents in each district council area? To what extent will the Government take into account the submission from the district councils regarding the preferred option? If the Government decide that they simply do not like the unitary structure proposed by the Cambridgeshire district councils, which criteria will they use to override them and impose their own solution? It is inconceivable that residents are being asked to make a decision on the future structure of Cambridgeshire without any financial information. No information is publicly available that compares the finances of councils, and we have seen no information on council income, expenditure, debt or council tax.