David Reed MP: speeches

Speeches

• 28 Jan 2026 · Defence Industry: Environmental, Social and Governance Requirements · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. We all know the world is becoming more dangerous. We talk about it all the time. We have these conversations in Parliament. We have them at home with constituents, family and friends, but we all know that words and conversations alone will not protect us. We need to make the hard choices now to ensure that the state fulfils its most fundamental role: protecting its citizens and its borders. Failing to do so puts the rest of our country at risk: our NHS, our education system, our markets and our way of life. That is why this debate is so important. I am genuinely thankful to my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) for securing it, because it goes to the heart of a culture that must change rapidly if we are to stay safe. We must ensure that those countries that pose a threat to our democratic way of life are not inadvertently enabled by structures we have imposed on ourselves. There have been a number of fantastic contributions. My hon. Friend set the tone for the whole debate. The world is becoming more dangerous, and the system of international law that we have lived under, as well as the processes that underpin it, are disappearing rapidly, and we need to change to keep pace. He talked about challenging the culture and the need for the House to push that cultural change, so that money is flowing into the defence industry. He made a number of points about how ESG is being used in different ways, from university campuses to pushing back defence industries from job fairs. I think we can all agree that that needs to change. The hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) has deep knowledge of this issue. He has worked at the coalface of the industry to understand how these contracts are formulated across Government and industry. He talked about the distinction between funding for things that go bang—hard, single-effect capabilities—and for dual-use technologies. I thank him and the hon. Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker) for their work on the “Rewiring British Defence Financing” report. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about how that is impacting the work on the defence investment plan. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) adds to defence discussions in the House on almost a daily basis. He spoke again about Northern Ireland and about companies, such as Thales and Harland & Wolff, which are at the heart of shipbuilding and aerospace defence. He spoke about how ESG is being used by those companies to ensure that they stay on Government frameworks. I would love to speak to him afterwards to understand how those policies may be impacting their business outputs. The hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) spoke powerfully about deterrence and about investing in defence now to keep us all safe. I think we can all agree that no one wants to go back to war. A number of the Members who have spoken in this debate are veterans who have experienced war, and they know that we do not want that for our country. To ensure deterrence, we must allocate capital to put ourselves in a strong position for the future. My hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) talked specifically about how ESG was used in the RAF to socially engineer certain outcomes, for which the RAF apologised. It should always be a meritocracy of the best man or woman for that job and nothing else should get in the way. She went into the nuance of the national legislation, the FCA and the red tape wrapped around companies. Lastly, I completely agree with the points raised by the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), about the need for the Government to give defence companies a firm contractual push so they know what is coming down the track. I would like to hear more about the bonds idea, which was raised in the Chamber two nights ago on Second Reading of the Armed Forces Bill. When we asked where the money would come from and what budgets would need to be cut to repay two to three-year bonds, we did not get a clear answer, so I would like to hear more. Organisations that have a role to play in our collective national defence must recognise that investing in defence is both patriotic and necessary. Anything that prevents them from doing so should be stripped away. I truly believe that that cultural shift must begin in earnest in this place. The three pillars of ESG examine how a company treats the environment, manages relationships with stakeholders, and governs itself. At first glance, that all makes sense. It is easy to see why those pillars send a signal to the markets about an organisation’s priorities, but here is the problem: the framework has evolved in a way that increasingly treats national defence as a negative, somehow signalling a bad actor. Defence-focused investments have been lumped together with industries such as tobacco and gambling. The hon. Member for North Durham added pornography to the list. How did we reach a position where we have forgotten that spending on defence and providing deterrence is the foundation on which everything else we value in society rests? I often speak about this with my dad, who was born in 1942 in Plymouth, a city that was bombed heavily during the blitz. Some of his earliest memories are of being under the stairs listening to the drone of Luftwaffe bombs overhead. His generation was the last in this country to experience borders and national security as fragile and uncertain, but as was raised a few times today, if we fast forward a few generations, for young people, the idea that they might have to fight for what they love is an abstract concept at best. We have lost our emotive memory of war, which puts us in a precarious position. I also fear that we draw the wrong lessons from history. When we mobilised during the first and second world wars, we did so with an existing industrial base. Factories could be repurposed quickly and critical resources were within reach. Closer to home, the lessons from covid further muddied the water. A debilitating pandemic was high on the national risk register, yet it was not given the seriousness it deserved. What followed was denial followed by urgency. Companies such as Dyson switched to producing ventilators and we scrambled internationally to source protective equipment for our NHS. In great British fashion, we muddled through. With the risk of international conflict rising by the day, however, I do not want us to have to muddle through again. We all have a responsibility to ensure that the state fulfils its primary duty: keeping our countrymen and women safe. Everything else is secondary. I do not want to wait until we are punched in the face before we react. That is why this debate matters. It is about the practical steps, such as where the money for increased defence comes from and how we cut the red tape that is holding back our defence industry. We also need to look hard at how we better align the capital allocation industry with defence. The Chief of the Defence Staff warned of the £28 billion gap between our current resources and our defence ambitions, so we must get serious. Concerns have been raised that only a small fraction of recent defence contracts have gone towards weapons and armour, fuelling fear in the defence industry of an effective procurement freeze at precisely the moment we should be accelerating rearmament. The private sector and private capital are not a silver bullet, but they are a major part of the answer. The Government are reported to be exploring public-private partnerships, but those will not progress while markets continue to view defence as unethical or constrained by ESG stipulations. That must change through Government contracts removing such prohibitive clauses and the Government being seen as a reliable partner where returns can be guaranteed. That means having defence spending that matches the rhetoric, and contracts awarded at the scale required to meet the growing threats. It is encouraging to see parts of the defence investment space already working to shift that culture. The UK Private Capital trade association has had a defence working group for nearly a year to educate the capital allocation industry about what national deterrence, both defensive and offensive, really means—a point raised by the hon. Member for York Outer—and why investment must include hard capabilities that keep us safe, not just dual-use technologies at the edges. We must also be honest about the barriers that remain. Societal pressures and perceptions around defence, particularly under the S pillar of ESG, have led to real reticence. Many high-street financing providers maintain restrictive policies towards defence firms, often requiring higher levels of due diligence. Increasingly, investment funds are developing ESG policies that exclude defence under blanket terminology around weapons or nuclear and extend deep into the supply chain, rather than acting in a targeted way. These unregulated exclusions are inhibiting defence investment at exactly the wrong time. I acknowledge that work is in progress to address that. As referred to by the hon. Members for York Outer, for Strangford and for North Durham, industry has developed initiatives such as the UK defence ESG charter and the HM Treasury and ADS trade body joint taskforce. However, I believe that more parliamentary support is needed to help investors understand the realities of the sector and encourage responsible investments. The Government must provide clear demand signals for both industry and finance. The outcomes of the defence industrial strategy and the strategic defence review will be crucial in setting the tone for where, what and how the UK intends to spend with the defence sector. I do not want to fall into the trap of opposing the Government for opposition’s sake. I want Labour to do well. I want the Defence Ministers to do well. If they do well, the UK does well, and we should all be on team UK. That is why I offer the following comments constructively. I hope the Minister receives them in that spirit. My party has done some hard work over the last 18 months. We have set out clear plans to boost defence spending through a sovereign defence fund of up to £50 billion, funded by reallocating existing expenditure currently directed towards costly environmental projects. That would enable the procurement of drones and new technologies at a far greater pace and scale, transforming the capability and lethality of the British armed forces. Crucially, it would help to deliver the industrial capacity we need here at home. To enable that ramp-up in domestic production, the sovereign defence fund would mobilise billions in public and private funding to overhaul the defence industrial base. There are practical steps we can take: taking stakes in UK defence start-ups, investing in dual-use companies, and building resilient supply chains to reduce reliance on hostile states such as China. This is a fully funded plan based on repurposing existing Government expenditure towards this national priority. It comprises three elements. First, £6 billion would be reallocated from the research and development budget in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to the Ministry of Defence. As we all know, and has been touched on today, defence innovation has spillover benefits to other sectors, from communications to transport. Secondly, £11 billion would be ringfenced from the National Wealth Fund to become the national defence and resilience bank. That funding is currently allocated to a number of non-vital eco-projects; the remainder would stay focused on national resilience such as water and transport. Thirdly, approximately £33 billion would be mobilised from private finance through the same model already used by the National Wealth Fund, unlocking billions more in investment. We all know that other countries are doing this. Countries such as the United States and Germany are already allocating huge funds for defence and bolstering their domestic manufacturing and technological bases. We must do the same, because if we do not we will become prey to those who do not value our way of life. The Government must act with urgency, match words with action and help to drive the cultural shift that will allow our country to be properly defended. That is why this debate matters so much. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor again for securing it. I look forward to working with colleagues across the House to progress this agenda.

• 26 Jan 2026 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The former Foreign Secretary said very explicitly last year that if the United States does not like this deal, it will not go ahead. The US does not like this deal; it has been very explicit on that. Can the Minister tell us whether the now Deputy Prime Minister was telling the truth when he made those comments?

• 21 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation · Hansard source

  More

  That is exactly what it is.

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

  More

  I am so happy that the Government are finally waking up to this issue and how serious it is, and that there is a cross-party consensus on the need to ban social media for under-16s. Social media platforms are designed to be addictive; we all know that. Most adults cannot control themselves, so how can we expect our children to? Enforcement will be the key issue, so would the Secretary of State please give her views on what she thinks enforcement could look like and on what she has already learned from our Australian friends, who are leading the charge on this with legislation?

• 19 Jan 2026 · Business Rates: Retail, Hospitality and Leisure · Hansard source

  More

  I have heard from many struggling businesses across my constituency about the increasing pressures that they are facing. To give just one example, under the Government’s original plan, a small independent shop in Exmouth would have seen its rateable value rise by about 50%, wiping out the benefits of the lower small business multiplier, stripping it of eligibility for relief and leaving it facing extra costs of around £600 a month. Does the Minister understand how damaging that is for business confidence and viability, and will he please set out a timeline for when those types of small businesses can expect to receive support?

• 19 Jan 2026 · Iran: Protests · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister’s Department assess that the Iranian regime can come back from this and move into a position of strength? If so, does he assess that the sanctions packages being put forward are enough to limit that happening?

• 19 Jan 2026 · Local Elections: Cancellation · Hansard source

  More

  The good people of Exeter want their elections to go ahead as planned in May, yet the Labour super-majorities both on Exeter city council and here in Westminster leave no realistic prospect of fighting the decision. Does the Minister agree that Exeter city council is quickly losing its democratic mandate and is moving to some form of local tinpot autocracy?

• 14 Jan 2026 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  To start, I reiterate the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) made in his opening speech: we are at a major crossroads in this conflict and the stakes could not be higher. On the line is Ukraine’s sovereignty, the freedom of its people and the wider security of Europe—in truth, the security of all of us. It can be easy in this House to speak in abstractions, such as the rules-based order, hybrid threats or deterrence, but the reality is brutally concrete. When Russia is allowed to advance by force, the consequences do not remain on the eastern flank; they spill into energy markets, cyber-attacks, disinformation and sabotage. Most importantly, they shape the calculations of every hostile actor watching to see what the west will tolerate. We all know that Russia is waging a sustained and hostile campaign against all of us and we must therefore be prepared for long-term tension. The outcome of the war in Ukraine remains central to dealing a decisive blow to that wider threat. I will touch on a number of the points that we have heard from right hon. and hon. Members across the House today, kicking off with the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. The right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) spoke powerfully about the lion heart and resolve of the Ukrainian people, talking about their day-to-day life and how they have been attacked repeatedly by the brutal regime in Russia. She talked about energy and the barbaric nature of Putin’s regime and what it is forcing on the Ukrainian people, which needs to stop. She also raised a number of points about the shadow fleet, which I will comment on later. The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary), raised an important question about deployments of British troops to Ukraine. I am looking forward to hearing the Minister’s response. The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) spoke of an almost unified position across the House, with the exception of a few parties. I really hope that the parties that do not support that unified approach take a long, hard look in the mirror and work out whose side they are actually on. I want to align myself with the hon. Gentleman’s words about former Defence Secretary Sir Ben Wallace, who played a decisive role in the early few years of the Ukrainian war. The Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), made the point that Ukraine’s fight is our fight—a point that we mainly agree on. We cannot consider giving Putin territory that he has failed to capture over the past four years. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) talked powerfully about the 20,000 stolen Ukrainian children. To put that into context, that is 20 schools-worth of children who have been taken over the Russian border. It is a disgusting and almost inconceivable practice, and we must not allow the world to forget what Putin’s regime has done. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) has raised the issue of Ukraine numerous times over the past few years; I think we can all agree that when he speaks, everyone listens. He raised the diplomatic efforts that Russia is now trying to push along, which are so intense because, I think, it has worked out that militarily it cannot win. We know that is the rule of the game now, so we must increase pressure on the Russians and play them at their own game. The chair of the Ukraine APPG, the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), talked about the pressure that the Ukrainians are currently under, again referring to heat and energy. I thank him for the work he has done to connect Ukrainian MPs with Members across this Parliament. I know how cold it gets in Arbroath, so when the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) talks about it getting down to minus 20° in Kyiv and says that it is a bit nippy, I know that he speaks from experience. The hon. Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) made a number of important points about the fact that we all want peace, but that it cannot be peace at any cost. That is a point that we must continue to discuss. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson), who is a former soldier and a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, raised really important questions about the nuts and bolts of the politics. I will discuss troop deployments later in my speech. There were valuable insights and contributions from the hon. Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker); from my constituency neighbour, albeit separated by an estuary, the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley); from the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes); from my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), who has done a great deal for Ukraine over the years; and from the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger). My hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) talked about the generosity of her constituents who had welcomed Ukrainians into their homes—a story we have heard across all our constituencies—and the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), who is also my constituency neighbour and a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, talked powerfully about Russian intent. We all thank the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley (Chris Coghlan) very much for his service and his willingness to deploy if there is a deployment to Ukraine. Lastly, the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) talked about war crimes. We need to remember that and enforce the law once there is peace. We all want this war to end, but we have seen delay, obfuscation and maximalist demands from Putin when it comes to peace—a familiar strategy designed to divide allies and buy time. So I say to Ministers: pursue diplomacy, of course, but do so with your eyes wide open. As Churchill warned, “You cannot negotiate with a tiger when your head is in its mouth.” It is important to state that if a weak settlement is reached, it simply starts the clock on rearmament. Putin will not stop. As has always been the case, it is for Ukraine to decide its own future, and any settlement must involve Ukraine, to secure a just and lasting peace under its terms. What matters most is that Putin cannot emerge strengthened. Conceding territory rewards aggression and sets a dangerous precedent far beyond Europe. Nor should Putin’s regime be welcomed back into the international fold, as if this was some sort of misunderstanding. This is a war of choice, an imperial project, and Putin has not abandoned his ambition to subjugate Ukraine. That brings me to sanctions, assets and energy, where rhetoric must now become action. Although we welcome the £2.26 billion loan to Ukraine taken from profits from immobilised Russian sovereign assets, I believe we need to go further—a number of points were made on that today. Several points were made about the Russian shadow fleet, and I welcome the reports that the Government are exploring a clearer legal basis to detain stateless vessels. But what matters now is resolve. Sanctions that are not enforced are not sanctions at all; they are merely suggestions. As the Minister for the Armed Forces and I know all too well, Britain has world-class maritime forces in both the Royal Marines and special forces, with near unrivalled experience in complex boarding operations. We should be working with allies to deter, disrupt and degrade the Russian fleet. A number of unfolding situations are linked to Ukraine. The regime that is currently in power in Iran has been funding the Ukrainian war. Will the Minister say a few words on the unfolding situation in Iran and on UK troops being taken out of middle-eastern bases? I visited the United States shortly before Christmas, and a congressman made a point to me that should land in every European capital: Americans cannot care more about European security than Europeans care about their own security. The gap between ambition and readiness cannot be closed by speeches. We have heard comments today from the Chief of the General Staff about the separation between the strategic defence review and the need to increase defence spending. We must now match moral clarity with seriousness. Putin will not stop because we ask; he will stop when he is made to stop. This is the moment to get real and do the right thing. We stand with Ukraine and we will ensure that Ukraine wins the peace as well as the war.

• 13 Jan 2026 · Chinese Embassy · Hansard source

  More

  Making the same mistake repeatedly is a form of stupidity. As a country, we keep doing the same thing. If we cast our minds back to the debacle with Huawei, we will remember that we let the Chinese Communist party essentially into our 5G network. We did not listen to our national security advice, but we stopped and pulled back, and we have done the exact same thing with civil nuclear. The Minister has responsibility for this matter; he can step in and pull the plug. At what point will Ministers wake up and realise that we are making the same mistake again?

• 13 Jan 2026 · Storm Goretti · Hansard source

  More

  I place on record my thanks to the Met Office, which is based in my constituency, for its sterling work throughout Storm Goretti and all year round. It has international expertise and is a real asset to our country. One of the main issues that comes up when we have big storms such as Goretti is rail in the south-west. Our main line from Paddington was cut off, and many constituents from across the south-west were unable to get home. There are practical solutions to put in place, such as a passing loop on the Waterloo line. I have raised that directly with the Rail Minister and the Prime Minister, and although I get warm words, no action seems to be taken. From a Cabinet Office perspective, what more can be done to add resilience to our train infrastructure?

• 13 Jan 2026 · Iran · Hansard source

  More

  What assessment has the Foreign Office made of the Iranian regime employing foreign militias from countries such as Iraq and Lebanon to crush internal dissent? If that is happening, what is the international community doing to limit this activity?

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

  More

  Will the Minister give way on that point?

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

  More

  We talk about sovereign capability, but how can we have fully sovereign capability when we do not own the means of production of most advanced chips?

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

  More

  I very much welcome the opportunity to speak on Second Reading. The Bill addresses one of the most defining national security challenges of our age and we have heard many valuable contributions from right hon. and hon. Members across the House. Before entering Parliament, I spent several years working to protect our country from cyber-risks. My background in software engineering gave me a rare view under the bonnet of the systems that now underpin almost every aspect of our daily lives. I saw first-hand how our digital infrastructure works and just how vulnerable much of it remains. I really loved that work, and I am proud to say that as a country we are genuine world leaders, but I would be dishonest if I said that it did not leave me deeply worried at times. That is not because of any single threat or actor, but because of the sheer scale, complexity and relentlessness of the cyber-risks we face. Those risks are only accelerating with advances in artificial intelligence, automation and the advent of quantum computing. Those technologies will, as we have heard today, revolutionise our lives in ways that we are only just beginning to understand. We must adapt alongside them if we are to remain a serious technological and economic power. Our lives are now dependent on digital systems at every level. From water treatment plants and electricity networks, to transport, financial markets, healthcare and the wider economy, it is fair to say that we are no longer merely supported by digital infrastructure, but built upon it. And when those systems fail, the consequences are not abstract. They are immediate, they are human and they can be devastating. We have already seen that reality play out in this country. If we cast our minds back to May 2017, the WannaCry ransomware attack tore through the national health service. Tens of thousands of computers were infected, and staff were locked out of patient records, diagnostic systems and telephony. Ambulances were diverted, and thousands of appointments and operations were cancelled, including urgent cancer referrals. The estimated cost to the NHS was £92 million, but the human cost—the stress, disruption and loss of confidence—cannot be measured in pounds and pence. The crucial point, which we have heard made in contributions today, is that while the attack was not targeted at the NHS, it was particularly vulnerable, because it was reliant on outdated and unpatched systems, and on the fragmented digital assets it owned. It was a warning shot that should never be forgotten. More recently, the private sector has faced similarly sobering lessons. Capita was recently fined £14 million following a cyber-attack that compromised the data of more than 6 million people. British Airways and Marriott International suffered major breaches affecting hundreds of thousands of customers, resulting in substantial penalties and lasting reputational damage. These are not small firms, but sophisticated organisations with scale, expertise and resources, yet still they were exposed. That is why the Bill matters and why I want to work constructively with the Government to ensure that we get it right first time. Crucially, we must build the ability to adapt and update the framework as technology and threats continue to evolve, while—I refer to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden)—not making that burdensome on businesses and organisations. As the UK’s first piece of legislation to include the words “Cyber Security” in its title, the Bill represents an important step forward. It modernises the network and information systems framework; brings new sectors into scope, including data centres, managed service providers and critical suppliers; strengthens incident reporting requirements; enhances enforcement powers; and allows Government to act decisively—I hope—where national security is at risk. I welcome those objectives and, in particular, the recognition that managed service providers and supply chains are now critical attack vectors. That is absolutely correct. Cyber-threats do not respect organisational boundaries, and our regulatory framework must reflect that reality. However, the Bill must not be treated as some sort of elixir. Cyber-security is not solved by regulation alone. The Bill strengthens protections for critical national infrastructure but leaves significant questions unanswered—questions that we must address if we are serious about national resilience. One of the most pressing concerns raised by industry is the growing complexity of incident reporting. Organisations already face overlapping obligations under data protection law, sector-specific regulation and, soon, economy-wide ransomware reporting requirements. Add to that multiple voluntary reporting channels, and the landscape becomes fragmented and very confusing. Having been a small business owner, I know that, when dealing with marketing, advertising and payments to staff, having extra layers of complexity, with reporting added on, is a difficult position to be in. The first hours of a cyber-incident are chaotic: systems are down, decisions are time-critical and staff are under immense pressure. Forcing organisations to navigate multiple reporting regimes in that moment risks distracting them from the most important task, which, as we all know, is containing the attack and restoring services. A unified reporting framework with a single point of contact and aligned timelines would reduce burdens on businesses, while improving the quality of information available to Government. The Bill should move us closer to that outcome, not further away from it. I look forward to working with the Government at the next stage of the Bill to ensure that happens. We must be honest about the limits of sector-based regulation—the Minister referred to this in his opening remarks. The Bill focuses, rightly, on critical national infrastructure, but many of the most damaging attacks in recent years have occurred outside its scope. Manufacturing, retail and consumer services have been heavily targeted. The attack on Jaguar Land Rover, which many right hon. and hon. Members have referred to today, is estimated to have caused up to £2 billion in economic damage across the company and its supply chain. That is a stark example. I want to put on the record my deep concern about the precedent being set: the British taxpayer is effectively being required to act as insurer of last resort for major companies that have failed to adequately defend themselves. For large firms that are critical to our economy, the expectation that the public will step in cannot become the norm. Responsibility must sit squarely with the boards and executives to invest properly in cyber-security resilience or face the consequences. I am glad to see that the Government have taken the initial steps to have that conversation with industry. At the same time, small and medium-sized enterprises, which make up the vast majority of our economy, are particularly exposed. They often lack the skills, budgets and capacity to implement proportionate cyber-defences, yet they sit deep within critical supply chains. A single weak link can have cascading consequences far beyond the organisation directly attacked. If cyber-security is economic security—I think we all agree that it is—we need a whole-of-economy approach. That means combining regulation with incentives, and support and standards that uplift resilience across UK plc, not just at the very top. That should include stronger, secure-by-design requirements for technology products, embedded through procurement and standards, and practical, accessible support for smaller businesses, potentially including consideration of a national first responder model to help small firms recover quickly from cyber-attacks. We must also address the skills challenge head-on, as cyber skills shortages are already undermining resilience and compliance. If we are to give them more investigatory powers, the regulators themselves will need additional technical and enforcement capacity to deliver the expanded responsibilities set out in the Bill. That capacity cannot be assumed; it must be planned for, funded and developed far in advance. Finally, I want to raise the issue of cyber-crime law. The Computer Misuse Act 1990 dates from a time when fewer than 1% of the population had access to the internet. Its blanket prohibition on unauthorised access fails to distinguish between malicious attackers and legitimate cyber-security professionals acting in the public interest. That matters: vulnerability research and threat intelligence are essential to defending our systems, yet many professionals in the industry operate in a legal grey area when carrying out work that ultimately strengthens our national security. Updating that framework, including by introducing protections for reasonable research, would modernise the law without weakening it. In conclusion, the Bill is an important foundation. It strengthens protections for critical services and sends a clear signal that cyber-security is a core responsibility of the modern state. However, legislation alone will not deliver that resilience; it requires co-ordination, clarity, capability and sustained investment, as well as an honest understanding of where the Bill must be strengthened as it moves through Parliament. Cyber-threats do not stand still, and neither can we. I support the direction of travel set out in the Bill and urge the Government to engage constructively as it progresses so that we can deliver a framework that provides real, lasting protections for our country, our economy and the British citizens.

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

  More

  We have talked about the regulators having new powers to designate critical national infrastructure in regard to cyber-security threats, but who actually has accountability? The Bill refers to “regulations made by the Secretary of State.” Which Secretary of State is that, given that this is a cross-departmental and cross-Government approach?

• 5 Jan 2026 · Venezuela · Hansard source

  More

  I have listened to the Foreign Secretary for the last hour and a half and the Government’s foreign policy position on Venezuela is still completely unclear to me, so I will ask a more direct question: does the Foreign Secretary agree with the United States’ Donroe doctrine?

• 15 Dec 2025 · Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 15 Dec 2025 · Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister. Just on a point of clarification—I am sure that this will be hammered out in Committee—we have heard about the assistance that the Government have given over the past 15 months to UK Steel, Jaguar Land Rover and others, but it is important to talk about the significant cyber element. Jaguar Land Rover was hit by a big cyber-attack, and we saw a step change when the Government stepped in and essentially made British taxpayers the insurance company. Does the Minister see any risk in the Bill, and what message does it send to adversaries such as Russia, which he just mentioned?

• 15 Dec 2025 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  The NATO Secretary-General, our service chiefs and intelligence leaders have warned repeatedly about the growing risk of conflict with Russia, yet the recent Budget did not reflect that reality. In fact, the MOD is cutting £2.6 billion in-year, and we have discovered this week that it is cutting overseas training just to try to balance the books. When the Minister speaks to service chiefs about the defence investment plan, does he ask them to plan for credible deterrents, or simply to accept that there is no cash behind the Government’s rhetoric?

• 15 Dec 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  When I look to the other House, across the political divide I see captains of industry—people who have led businesses small and large. Does the hon. Member see any merit in their arguments?

• 26 Nov 2025 · 1994 RAF Chinook Crash · Hansard source

  More

  Twice.

• 26 Nov 2025 · 1994 RAF Chinook Crash · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) for securing this important debate and giving us the chance to revisit what more can be done for those involved in the Chinook Justice Campaign. We have already heard in detail the circumstances surrounding the fatal crash of the RAF Chinook on the Mull of Kintyre on 2 June 1994. Like others, I begin by paying tribute to the 29 people who lost their lives that day in what remains one of the worst tragedies in the history of the RAF. Many of the passengers were members of the Northern Ireland security and intelligence community. Their deaths were not only a serious loss to this country’s security but, above all, a profound personal tragedy for each of the 29 families who lost loved ones that day. It is deeply saddening that, 31 years on, those families still feel that their fight for truth and justice—we have heard those two words repeatedly today—is unfinished. I am genuinely honoured to respond to this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. Like many others here, I remember watching the BBC documentary series on this tragedy when it aired early in 2024. It laid bare the lasting impact of that horrific day, the grief carried by the families and the distress caused by the RAF board of inquiry’s now-discredited findings, which placed blame on the pilots. Long, determined campaigns have followed to clear their names, and I pay tribute to the families for those efforts. We can all agree that those documentaries were deeply sad to watch. For those who remember the event itself, it was a horrible mark on this country’s history in Northern Ireland. I do not believe that anyone who saw the documentary could fail to feel disappointed, or indeed frustrated, at the wholly unnecessary suffering that these families have endured. It took a 16-year fight, and a determined campaign by these families, for a formal acceptance that an injustice was done—that is a long time to have to live with that. In 2010, it was right that the Government at the time listened to the families and the repeated concerns raised by various Committees across both Houses, and commissioned the independent inquiry that finally set aside the findings of gross negligence against the pilots. Lord Philip’s conclusions cleared the pilots’ names, and formal apologies were issued to the families for the distress that they had carried for so many years. Many of today’s contributions have outlined what action Members would like to see from the Government, and I believe that there is cross-party consensus on our asks. The hon. Member for North Down reiterated the two aspects of truth and justice, and he laid out a practical approach to getting answers, as well as the mechanisms needed to find out what really happened. I completely agree with him that the families deserve truth, and I align myself with a key point that he made: we need to provide justice for the dead and—from what we have seen recently—restore faith among the living. Ultimately, we are all asking for this because no one wants to see such a thing happen ever again. The hon. Member laid out the three parts of the argument—the moral, the constitutional and the practical—and I think we can all agree that they are very compelling. I also put on record my apologies to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for missing him out in my last wind-up speech. He brings a great deal of experience to this House and contributes to many debates. He is also a veteran and speaks up for the people of Northern Ireland repeatedly. I completely align myself with his approach. The time and the energy that the bereaved families have had to put into the campaign to get basic answers is a stain on multiple Governments, and I really hope that answers can be found. I am glad that the Minister and the Government have agreed to meet the victims’ families before Christmas. That is important, and I look forward to hearing the findings. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) said that an indelible mark has been left on so many lives across Northern Ireland. She lives and breathes that every day, and I know she fights for her constituents. She highlighted the loss to our intelligence and security community; losing such key personnel at a time of increased instability will have had a massive impact on operations in Northern Ireland. She talked about the need for openness and trustworthiness. It is right that the families and those who are interested in this matter find out what happened. We have heard several times today that there were significant inconsistencies in the multiple investigations over 31 years. She rounded off by saying something that the families would agree on: they are not seeking to blame anyone; they just want to find out what happened. The hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) talked about the impact that the crash had on his constituency. I have watched the documentary and seen the interviews with the families, but it is difficult to put myself in the shoes of the local people who were just going about their daily businesses when such a horrific crash was inflicted on their community. It has had a lasting impact across multiple generations. He spoke about the previous investigations, many of which have been discredited. I am glad to see the effort he put in to get together the 51,000 names to be presented to the Prime Minister in a petition, and I heard his calls for a judge-led inquiry. The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), my neighbour in Devon, talked about the years of uncertainty. He looks into matters of intelligence and security in this House and brings weight to this conversation. He talked about the inconsistencies between multiple investigations, and about the six inquiries over the years, which have not produced an acceptable response to the families. This issue is personal to me. I spent much of my career in the Royal Marines, and I relied on Chinooks. After a long night’s work in a hostile country, the moment that we heard one coming over the hill was the moment that we allowed ourselves to breathe. We trusted the aircraft and, of course, we trusted the people flying it even more. I know how highly trained and highly skilled the men and women who fly these aircraft are. They are utterly committed to their jobs. Having had the pleasure of being transported by special forces Chinook pilots, I can personally attest to their consummate professionalism. We knew that they would do everything in their power to keep us safe and get us where we needed to go. That is why the original finding of gross negligence was so hard to accept, given the complete lack of evidence. It ran directly against the RAF’s rule that deceased aircrew should be found negligent only when there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever. Aircrew deserve the assurance that when something goes wrong every other explanation will be examined and, unless clear evidence points to fault, they will be given the benefit of the doubt. In this case, as we have heard multiple times across the investigations, there was a great deal of doubt, yet two of the RAF’s finest special forces pilots, unable to defend themselves or explain what happened, were held responsible. That decision ignored the uncertainty and the RAF’s own regulations. For those of us who have placed our lives in the hands of aircrew, I can understand why that feels like a breach of the trust that every service person must have in those responsible for bringing them home. We also know that there were persistent concerns that the aircraft itself may have suffered a malfunction—we heard that again from right hon. and hon. Members today. As has already been acknowledged, Boscombe Down, the military aircraft testing site, had repeatedly raised worries about the airworthiness of the Chinook HC2 variant. In the period leading up to the accident, those concerns became significant enough that Boscombe Down stopped flying the HC2 altogether. This is a very important point: if test pilots—people whose job is to push aircraft to their limits—decline to fly something because of safety concerns, that cannot be overlooked. Despite those warnings, the aircraft were still brought into operational service. I have waited for Chinooks in some of the most dangerous moments of my life. The Minister probably has similar experiences. I cannot imagine being sent an aircraft that was even suspected of being unsafe. If we ask people to risk their lives for our country, we must ensure that the equipment they depend on and the decisions taken on their behalf meet the highest possible standard. I very much hope that lessons are learned from this incident so that nothing like it ever happens again. With that in mind, I again offer the families, some of whom are here today, my deepest sympathies that the full facts of what happened on that day remain largely unknown. I can only imagine the anguish that brings. I understand entirely why the families are asking for the 100-year closure to be lifted. When the Chinook Justice Campaign approached my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, he wrote to the Armed Forces Minister seeking an explanation for that decision. I understand that the Government’s answer pointed towards GDPR restrictions and the assumption of a 100-year lifetime for sensitive material. I hope the Minister might expand on that. Personal information must be protected, but a century-long closure is a substantial barrier. Surely there is some way to provide the families with at least some sense or measure of clarity. Under the current approach, they will never see the information in their lifetimes. That is deeply sad for anyone who has lost someone and wants to find out what happened. I ask the Minister to reflect on the inconsistencies of the wider Government position. One of the main arguments that we have heard time and again over recent months in support of repealing the Northern Ireland legacy Act is that the victims’ families have a right to know what happened, but that principle does not seem to apply in this case. I hope that changes when the Minister meets with families. It is difficult to reconcile. The Ministry of Defence has said that the 100-year closure will be reviewed in 2029. Although I appreciate that that is part of a regular cycle, it must feel very far away for families who have spent decades searching for answers. I am willing to work with the Minister and the defence team to see what can be done. I ask the Minister to work closely with the Chinook Justice Campaign in the meantime and to provide whatever information can be safely shared.

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

  More

  It is a real privilege to close this debate on remembrance and the contribution of the armed forces for His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. I think we can all agree that it is even more special for falling on Armistice Day. I place on record my thanks, and the thanks of Conservative Members, to the Royal British Legion, our armed forces personnel and their families. Over this remembrance weekend, they stood in the cold and rain—something I think we all endured this weekend—organised parades, supported services in every community, and ensured that people across the country could remember with dignity and pride. We are grateful for their service—not only this weekend, but every day. One hundred and seven years ago today, the guns finally fell silent on the western front. The first world war, which was said to be the war to end all wars, came to an end. The cost was unimaginable: millions of men and women never returned, and millions more came home forever changed. Families were torn apart, futures were rewritten, and a generation carried grief that shaped the century that followed. Remembrance is our solemn promise to that sacrifice that we will never forget it. But remembrance is not exclusive. It belongs to all of us. Today, we honour those who served in our armed forces in the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth from every nation, every faith and every background. We honour the families who bore the silent burden of fear and separation. In the past 18 months, we have marked significant milestones in our national history, including the 80th anniversary of D-day, and we once again heard from the extraordinary men and women who served in the second world war, but we all know that that living link to history is fading, and as it fades, our responsibility to carry their stories forward only grows stronger. We do not remember to glorify war; we remember to understand its cost. We remember so that future generations understand why peace matters, and why it must be protected with everything we have. We all know that the world is becoming more volatile, more unpredictable and more dangerous. History teaches us something simple and profound: when nations forget the true price of conflict, they become far more vulnerable to repeating it. We have heard many strong and heartfelt contributions from Members from across the House, starting with the Chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), who talked about how our armed forces personnel are deployed globally every day of the year, and how they truly represent the best of British. The hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) raised an issue relating to the Falklands campaign and the Sir Galahad faced by her constituents from the Welsh Guards. I hope that the Minister, in her closing remarks, can shed some light for the hon. Lady. My right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) talked about the bravery of one of his former units, the special forces, which saved lives in Iraq and other conflicts around the world, and the dangers of lawfare for morale. We heard from the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Michelle Scrogham), whose constituency has been the foundry and beating heart of defence. I pay tribute to her constituents, who really are at the forefront of keeping us safe. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) spoke powerfully about his time in Afghanistan on Herrick 11. It was heart-wrenching to hear the young ages of his fellow soldiers who lost their lives on that battleground. We heard from the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) about the 85-foot granite tower that provides a constant and visible reminder to his constituents of the cost of war. The hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome) raised the important point that this time in November, around Remembrance Day, is one of the only times in the calendar that civil society gets the chance to look at the members of our armed forces, and it is imperative that we strengthen the link to the armed forces wherever we can. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor) talked about military personnel transitioning into civilian life; I hope that this Parliament can ease that transition as much as possible. I think we all know that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) was decorated in multiple wars. He is an experienced soldier and officer, and I really hope that the Government will listen to his words. We heard brilliant contributions from the hon. Members for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane), for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) and for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia). We also heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), who, as we all know, is an expert on security and defence matters, and who really enriches debates when he talks about those issues. We heard contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) and for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune), and from the hon. Members for St Helens North (David Baines), for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) and for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew). The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), who is an experienced aviator from the RAF, raised the salient point that remembrance belongs to all of us. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) highlighted the significant contribution of her countrymen and countrywomen from Northern Ireland. I align myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Colchester (Pam Cox) about our formidable Gurkha force. We heard contributions from the hon. Members for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella), for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi), for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas), for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) and for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos). I align myself with the comments of the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) —a fellow south-west MP—who said that defence can be a real engine for growth, and I look forward to working with her on that in this Parliament. Finally, we had contributions from the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) and the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger). I want to take the last few minutes to raise an important aspect of remembrance that I believe this House must confront more openly. Remembrance must not be limited to the conflicts that are easy to talk about— the ones where history gives us a clean narrative and a clean moral outcome. When we talk about the second world war, the story is instinctively understood: it is democracy and freedom prevailing over fascism and tyranny. Although the human cost was unbearable, the outcome was unambiguous. It is a conflict we can speak about with pride and respect. The challenge for our country going forwards is how we remember with the same respect and dignity conflicts in which the outcome was less clear. I rarely speak publicly about my service, but now that I am in this House, I feel a responsibility to speak up for my generation of soldiers—friends who were sent to war as a result of decisions made in this House. I believe that the British state needs to talk more openly about the recent conflicts we have asked our young men and women to serve in, including but not limited to Northern Ireland, Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. These are conflicts without victory parades, without neat endings, and without a universally agreed narrative, and because they are complex, we sometimes avoid speaking about them altogether. That silence has consequences. There is a growing feeling in parts of the veteran community that I hear when I meet former Royal Marines who served in places such as Northern Ireland and when I speak with those I served alongside in Afghanistan. The feeling can be summed up in two painful questions: “What was it all for?” and “Does my country still have my back?” As someone who served in Afghanistan during a period that is now under intense legal scrutiny, I cannot pretend that those questions do not sting. I served my country, and I have pride in the way in which we conducted ourselves, yet sometimes it feels as though the country I served now wants to paint me and others like me as something we are not. We risk creating a culture in which those who served feel judged rather than honoured and where stereotypes replace understanding and assumptions replace gratitude. There is a deep and genuine fear among veterans that the nation no longer stands behind them. I know that the Minister responding also served, and I hope that she will take these comments in the constructive spirit in which they are offered—from one veteran to another. I will not turn this remembrance debate into a debate on current politics, but as has been mentioned by many right hon. and hon. Members, a letter was written yesterday by nine four-star generals warning about lawfare and its impact on our armed forces. That should be a wake-up call to the Government. Legislation affecting those who served deserves full and open debate in this House. Most people who join our armed forces do so out of service to our country. We must remember that. Let us be clear that the courage shown in recent conflicts is equal to the courage shown in any war in our national history. The sacrifice is the same. The cost to families is the same. These young men and women went there because this House sent them. They answered the call of Parliament. They put on the uniform knowing the risks. Some returned with life-changing injuries. Too many did not return at all. We must not allow the complexities of a conflict to diminish the honour of those who served. Their courage is defined not by the outcome of a war but by the character they showed when our country asked them to go.

• 3 Nov 2025 · Defence Industrial Base · Hansard source

  More

  I associate Conservative Members with the Secretary of State’s remarks about the appalling attack in Huntingdon over the weekend. We all know that the Government cannot deliver a strong defence industrial base without seriously boosting defence spending, yet multiple media outlets have very recently reported that the Secretary of State’s Department is asking the armed forces to make cuts of £2.6 billion this financial year. Very simply, can he tell us what will be cut to find the money?

• 30 Oct 2025 · Property Service Charges · Hansard source

  More

  I have one minute left and I will make my final points. The Act aimed to bring mandatory transparency, through standardised billing, greater rights to challenge charges, and easier routes to taking over management, but those reforms are not yet implemented. Why is that? I hope that the Minister, in his closing remarks, will set out a course for when those measures will be implemented, and will say what new legislation will be brought in to ensure that people are protected. I finish on a point on which I think we all agree: residents who are on these schemes do not need more consultations; they need action, and this Parliament must deliver.