David Reed MP: speeches

Speeches

• 15 Jul 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Mr Maynard, thank you for being with us. In your role within the aviation policy group, have there been any conversations with colleagues from the Ministry of Defence about the Royal Air Force potentially using SAF and the international logistical challenges of getting SAF into the UK? You raised some concerns earlier on. Geoff Maynard: We have had some discussions around the edges with the RAF, if I can put it like that. They recognise the need that, at some point, they perhaps ought to be using SAF. It is certainly possible for them to do so, albeit not necessarily to the same percentage that you can use it in commercial jets, as I understand it, because the engines have not been designed for it. There are some issues to resolve before they can use it in the way that the commercial sector does. Does that answer your question?

• 15 Jul 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q It does. Do you see this developing in the private sector far faster than in military environments? Geoff Maynard: Yes, because the use is much greater. There is a lot more SAF to be used in the commercial sector than there is in the military sector.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q If British money is being spent on British technologies, and if you are leveraging capital to go on those SAF programmes, where is that money coming from? Is the investment attitude right in this country toward green technologies and SAF? Which countries are quite front-footed in their approach to investing in these technologies? Josh Garton: We are most active here in the UK and Europe with sustainable aviation fuel and the investors that are interested. We deal with commercial banks, private equity and other investors, and they are all very enthusiastic about the prospect. Unquestionably, they want to deploy capital into this space, but they will not be throwing out their investment rulebook when it comes to their risk-return profiles and the way that they assess risk. For that reason, we need things like this revenue certainty mechanism in place to provide confidence that investors, when they deploy capital in this space, will get the returns they need to justify their investments, or that lenders providing debt capital into this will get the returns they need within the regulatory frameworks in which they operate.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Professor Maslin, thank you for being with us today. You talked powerfully about the international nature of this technology set. If a country or business is not going through a good time, that technology might not come through the supply chain. From a UK perspective, where are the main weaknesses with the international supply chain? As a follow-on, are any hostile states actively trying to weaponise elements of that supply chain? Professor Maslin : The first thing is that we have to work out a way of being self-sufficient in SAFs. If you want the mandate and the Bill to work, we have to have that self-reliance. The problem that is the quality, quantity and supply of SAFs around the world are highly variable. They are not as good as you think they are. We therefore need to be able to protect our own regulations by having a homegrown community. On weaponisation, no, I have not seen any evidence that hostile states are going after SAFs at the moment, because they are a very small percentage of the aviation mix. At the international level, it would be helpful if the Chicago accords could be renegotiated so that you could tax aviation fuel internationally, even if the tax was small—$1 per tonne, or something like that—to shift the balance away from aviation fuel and towards SAFs being more accountable. I doubt that will be possible in these interesting political times, but that is the problem we have. We are able to tax aviation fuel internally but not internationally. Therefore, at the moment, there is no aviation fuel tax on international flights, which would be a really nice mechanism. Of course, you can see that as weaponising against the fossil fuel industry.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I think it is fair to say that the international supply chain is becoming more constrained and that there is a more protectionist international global economy. Can you give us a flavour of some of the economic and logistical challenges that you would face, importing SAF into the UK? As a follow on, if there is a requirement around energy security to set up shop in the UK, given the known knowns, would you look for subsidies from the current Government to set up production in the UK? Ruben van Grinsven: I am afraid I cannot fully answer that question because it is not the part of the business that I am in. I am not importing SAF to the UK, so I do not know how trade limitations are currently impacting SAF supply. I would have to ask a colleague and come back to that question. It is also hard to predict what the future is going to bring for global trade and how protectionism will impact the global free trade of all types of fuels. If you produce domestic fuels, that is, of course, going to be helpful if you want energy security. I must say, though, that if you look at the volumes that we are talking about today, the energy security element in the early days is going to be limited because of the volume of the fuels involved.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Just a small follow-up, if I can. You are saying that the biggest change is the US pulling back from innovation and production of SAF. Is that in direct response to what the Chinese are doing? Philip New: No. For most global markets that have started to look at SAF, the preferred mechanism has been to impose some form of mandate—even China has put in place the beginnings of a mandate mechanism. None of them are as ambitious as those in Europe and the UK, but that is the normal mechanism. The reason for that is simply that SAF costs more than aviation fuel. Left to its own devices, an airline in a very competitive industry is unlikely to voluntarily buy more SAF than it needs to buy. If it has big corporate clients that want to offset some of their scope 3 emissions and are willing to pay a premium to have their flights decarbonised, that is fine, but there is a real limit to how big, dependable and investable that market will be. That is where America is right now, and it is because of the structure of the other incentives in the American mechanism. A critical part of that was a change in the big, beautiful Bill, in which the premium given to SAF producers was removed completely. They now get no more money than those making diesel for ground transport use, but it costs more money to make SAF. The airlines do not have an incentive to buy SAF because there is no mandate, and the producers do not have an incentive to make SAF because it costs more to make and they get less credit from the American mechanisms in place to support renewable fuels.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q That is a very good answer; I am happy with that, and it is obviously coming from a company’s perspective. In terms of Government engagement, how many conversations have been had with the Cabinet Office and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero around energy security and your production capability? Sophia Haywood: It is not something that we have had great levels of conversation about, particularly when it comes to energy security. It is a really important part of energy security. Coming back to the point about access to locally produced bioethanol, I see it as another great example of something that would be sustainable, affordable and secure, if we are able to take wheat that is produced locally by British farmers, and convert it in local facilities and then at a SAF facility. With all the additional benefits on things such as CO 2 , that is a great opportunity on energy security, but speaking more broadly it has not been a huge part of the interest in SAF. Noaman Al Adhami: I will focus more on scalability. When it comes to scalability, allowing all the routes to SAF and not focusing on one route will potentially enable SAF production to be scaled up. Green hydrogen will also potentially be there in large quantities with an affordable price, and that will contribute. For example, we could utilise green hydrogen to triple production if it were available, but currently it is not. We are also designing our plant to utilise multiple types of feedstocks. It is mainly solid waste to SAF. I would start with a less challenging feedstock to prove the line-up and then explore much more difficult feedstocks, such as MSW. Even sewage sludge, chicken manure and grease, for example, could be used to co-fire the gasifier, so we think the supply chain will potentially build once it sees a home for their waste. We will start with a safe option for the feedstock, but our objective is to explore all other potential feedstock and increase capacity. We have plans for at least phase 2. Our site in Teesside can accommodate phase 2 and we are already planning for that. Hopefully, once we reach FID, we will announce phase 2 of the project.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Following on from the shadow Minister’s questions about scalability and production, Ms Haywood, you talked about the globally distributed nature of this technology sector. With international supply chains becoming more contested and the view that traditional production methods will be scaled down and SAF will be increased, where do you see the biggest blockers to growth and scalability, and how do you balance that against energy security? Sophia Haywood: That is a great question. In terms of the international value chains, as I said before, all eyes are on the UK. For a lot of projects that are developing globally, even if they are being developed in countries significantly further away from here and Europe, we are going to see a lot of opportunity for product to be moved over to the UK, at least until other mandates in other countries are put in place, and then we will start seeing shifts in where this goes. Instead of a blocker, perhaps, I would phrase it more as an opportunity about things that we could maybe do slightly differently. One example that we have just had is a project in Japan that we have done. We had a large amount of funding. It is quite similar to the advanced fuels fund principle, but a lot larger in terms of the quantity of funding that is available, albeit with a smaller number of participants. That has enabled a much larger-scale project in partnership with one of Japan’s largest oil companies to develop a SAF project. This is a transition, and they are going to move at the same pace as one another. As much as we can support investments on existing sites with existing infrastructure, such as both of our projects in Teesside in terms of the regeneration, I think more activities like that could be a great opportunity for the UK. The steps that have been taken so far with Project Willow are a good example of how that could be taken to the next level. The project is looking at opportunities on the site of the former refinery at Grangemouth; maybe this could be a similar example, where you could take it to the next level. However, we will see increasing competition globally. Coming back to the points around planning and electricity connections, anything that could help us to bring investments to the UK, where we have some of the highest energy costs, would be welcome. We saw a commitment in the industrial strategy to reducing electricity costs, which is fantastic. We would welcome greater clarity as to whether SAF can definitely be included in that. I saw that it is an extension to an existing scheme, which is why I am asking that question. These are some of the things that help us to compete better globally.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  To pick up on Mr Greenwood’s point about unintended consequences, at a time of increased international instability, the need to produce things domestically in the coming years has become more and more apparent. Do you think this will impact our traditional ways of producing those fuels that we will probably need in the UK? Paul Greenwood: First, from an energy security point of view, and as Gaynor rightly pointed out, a very significant amount of the road fuels in the UK are imported. They are imported rather than refined here, as it is not economic to refine them here, because of all the cost issues we face in energy, labour and carbon dioxide. That has effectively driven refineries to not invest or expand, and in some places, to go bust. That is the major driver here. If you are prepared to import 70% of your jet fuel now, I do not see why you need to increase local production of SAF. There is a very good reason for doing that—the creation of jobs—but there are unintended consequences in the costs and how you are going to pay for that, which need to be thought through seriously. I do not think this is an energy security issue, given the amount of product that you are importing into the country now. By layering cost on to refiners and fuel suppliers as you are doing now, you actually risk precipitating the decline and demise of the refining sector even more, which will mean importing significantly more fuel across the piece. To my mind, that is a quid pro quo. Gaynor Hartnell: We import about 85% of our road fuels. Lamentably, that figure is going to go up, because existing biofuel and renewable fuel production facilities are falling away. There was a Greenergy announcement last week about the closure of the Immingham plant, and two bioethanol producers are at risk of closure. They are linked into the UK in so many different ways, from CO 2 production to the market for grain that does not meet the required grade for milling, so it has to be used as feed wheat instead. We will suffer the consequences of not taking care of our domestic industry. We need production in the UK. It is not just a question of saying, “We can simply buy it from overseas”. As Rob has pointed out, the SAF mandate creates a specific demand for waste-based SAF that is not specifically encouraged by any other mandate around the world, so we need this. If we are not going to make it, we cannot rely on other people making it, and the airlines and fuel suppliers ultimately rely on pulling that into the UK to avoid paying the buy-out for the mandate. Paying the buy-out for the mandate would be a really bad situation for everybody, so we need to safeguard against that happening. You also asked about the waste hierarchy and what could be done to encourage residual municipal solid waste to find its way to the best carbon outcome, rather than being used to produce electricity, which is already going on to a largely decarbonised grid. Adjusting the waste hierarchy to recognise the carbon benefits of this route for residual solid waste would be really helpful. At the moment, local authorities are in a situation where they have a reliable route through just sending it off to an energy from waste project, against prospects of hopefully SAF projects coming down the line in future, if all else goes well, then RCM comes along and they win contracts. There is a lot more risk involved in choosing the SAF route. That has to be specifically encouraged, and the waste hierarchy would be a way of doing that.

• 14 Jul 2025 · Northern Ireland Veterans: Prosecution · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Secretary of State give way?

• 2 Jul 2025 · Defence · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to raise an important point that has been reported in the media over the last 24 hours about the future of the Royal Marines. As a former Royal Marine and the Member of Parliament who represents the commando training centre in Lympstone, I think this is an issue that we need to discuss now. I hope that the Minister will be able to give some answers. It has been reported that the Royal Marines are moving away from their conventional amphibious operations and that large-scale beach landings and traditional force protections from sea are being replaced with small, flexible teams designed to operate alongside special forces. Let me be clear: adaptability is vital, and I am sure that there are many merits in the direction of travel, but it is important that the Minister tells the House about this and gives us the opportunity to discuss it. I worry that abandoning hard-won capabilities without a clear and credible replacement is not adaptation; it is risk. I would like to put some questions to the Minister. Are the Government removing the United Kingdom’s amphibious warfare capability? If so, what replaces it? What is the long-term plan to project force from sea to land if not through the Royal Marines in their traditional role? We have no delivery dates for the multi-role strike ships that are meant to underpin the new commando force concept. There is also no detailed plan and no answer on whether they will provide genuine operational flexibility or simply be a scaled-back presence. Will the MRSS be able to deploy full commando units at scale in high-threat environments or are they designed purely for small team operations? If it is the latter, is that now the full extent of our national amphibious ambitions? That brings us to special forces support, which I know is not an issue that we can discuss in the Chamber with the Security Minister, who served with the special forces support group, in great detail. However, it has been reported that 40 Commando has been tasked to operate alongside the Special Boat Service in sensitive national missions, including evacuations and hostage rescue. What does that mean for the Royal Marines’ contribution to the special forces support group? Is the SFSG being restructured or reassigned? That speaks to a deeper point regarding our NATO allies. We talk in the strategic defence review about being “NATO first”. NATO has long counted on the UK’s high-end amphibious expertise. It matters to our national resilience in a world where rapid deployment from the sea is often the only option. Above all, it matters to the men and women who serve, and they deserve clarity about their future roles, mission and identity. I therefore urge the Minister to come forward with honest, detailed answers—not slogans or spin, but clarity on capability, posture and intent—because defence policy cannot be made in stealth.

• 2 Jul 2025 · Defence · Hansard source

  More

  What the Minister says raises a more fundamental question. Just like the release of the strategic defence review to trade bodies and to the press before its publication, we are reading about issues in the press but do not have the opportunity to discuss them in Parliament. While I welcome the Minister’s offer to have a conversation with him, why can we not have that conversation in the Chamber now?

• 2 Jul 2025 · Defence · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, will the Minister give way?

• 2 Jul 2025 · Defence · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, will the Minister give way?

• 1 Jul 2025 · Infant Feeding · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for bringing this important issue to the Chamber. My wife and I are expecting our first in the coming weeks, so as hon. Members will expect, this is an important subject in which I am quickly upskilling myself. In my constituency, I have a similar group called Exmouth Bosom Buddies, which does a fantastic job that we know relieves pressure on the NHS. What more does the hon. Member think can be done to allow such groups to grow, thrive and flourish so that they can continue their vital work?

• 30 Jun 2025 · Defence Spending: Cross-party Talks · Hansard source

  More

  On defence spending, is not the truth that Labour’s promise to reach 3% of GDP, let alone 3.5% or 5%, is just smoke and mirrors, because there is no actual plan to pay for it? How can the Government claim that they will properly invest in our defence and keep the country safe when they cannot even deliver the limited savings they have promised on welfare? So I ask the Secretary of State: where is the money coming from?

• 26 Jun 2025 · Local Bus Services · Hansard source

  More

  A blind resident in my constituency, Marilyn, relies on her guide dog and the local bus network to live independently. However, changes under the Government’s £1.7 million active travel grant, including floating bus stops on Rifford Road in my constituency, force her to cross fast, bidirectional cycle lanes just to board a bus. That goes against safety advice from the Guide Dogs organisation and the Royal National Institute of Blind People and is causing real distress. Does the Secretary of State agree that Government-funded infrastructure must be safe and accessible for everyone, and will she commit to reviewing active travel guidance to consider the role of floating bus stops that put blind and visually impaired people at risk?

• 26 Jun 2025 · G7 and NATO Summits · Hansard source

  More

  There has been some recent confusion from Defence Ministers surrounding the purchase of 12 F-35A nuclear-capable fast jets. Can the Prime Minister please inform the House of the proposed in-service date for this important capability?

• 26 Jun 2025 · Armed Forces Day · Hansard source

  More

  It is both a pleasure and a privilege to close today’s excellent debate on Armed Forces Day. I pay tribute to colleagues across the House for their thoughtful and passionate contributions. I rise on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition to express our sincere thanks to all those who serve and have served in our armed forces—regulars, reservists, veterans and cadets—and to the families who support them every step of the way. Armed Forces Week, which began on Monday and culminates this Saturday, 28 June, with Armed Forces Day, is a national moment to say one thing clearly and collectively: thank you. Thank you to those defending the UK and our interests around the world. Our armed forces represent the very best of our country: committed, courageous and professional. They work tirelessly, often in the most challenging conditions, to keep us safe and uphold the values that we share. Today’s debate has been particularly powerful because of the personal reflections shared by so many right hon. and hon. Members. The hon. Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) represents a strong military constituency—one in 20 serves, or has served, in the military. Having watched the hon. Gentleman in defence debates, it is clear to me that he is a passionate advocate for his constituency, with strong military links. He talked about the Royal Military Police, a regiment that plays a vital role that we need to hear more about. I enjoyed hearing about the airborne police officer unit—an interesting skillset that we could potentially see in the Met. He also talked powerfully about his constituents Kate and Rachel, veterans who faced internal adversity because of their gender and sexuality. As he said, rightly, courage does not know any gender or sexuality. The hon. Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) talked strongly about the skills that military people bring to civilian life. Having seen many veterans in my constituency make that transition, I know how many skills they bring. He advocated for more support for them to make that transition, and mentioned the real need for the armed forces covenant to be strengthened. I was glad to hear about the reception he held here recently in support of the covenant, and it would be good to support him in future such endeavours. We must ensure that the sacrifices made by our service personnel are never met with silence, as he says, but with real lasting commitment and action. I agree with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) that gratitude for service is not enough on its own. Only a quarter of veterans believe that service is valued, and I completely agree that that needs to change. He spoke powerfully about Northern Ireland veterans, especially the Special Air Service, a regiment in which he served. He spoke about the injustice that group of special forces soldiers, and others in the military, face from the opening up of domestic legal frameworks. Those veterans were in battles that were fought under orders, under the yellow card legal system and under the view of the Royal Military Police. There were strong legal frameworks surrounding those operations, and my right hon. Friend made the point that those veterans joined up and served our country, but the view is now that they can be prosecuted in later life. That is not right, and I look forward to the issue being debated later this month and, I hope, overturned. The petition on the subject is currently live, and there has been a significant uptick in the numbers signing it in the last few hours. The hon. Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) made remarks about her personal connection to the armed forces, and her husband’s service in the reserves. It was interesting to hear about the 216 Royal Artillery regiment in her constituency and her link to the Royal British Legion. She made a powerful case for greater support for training, and I look forward to the Minister’s response to it. I also echo her support for expanding the cadet programme. I spent many happy years in the air cadets, and I see what value they bring to society and as a pathway for people to join the military. I align myself with her comments. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) was, as ever, a strong advocate and champion for the military units in his constituency. We regularly hear him calling for more support. He served the UK in operations during the global war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq, and he knows first hand the challenges that come from the evolution of war and the need for kit to keep pace with the evolution of threats. As he rightly said, no plan survives first contact with the enemy, and those words remain as true today as they have ever been. It is crucial that we not only learn the lessons of modern conflicts, but ensure that our armed forces retain a broad range of capabilities to meet the demands of the evolving environments that we may be involved with in the coming years. My hon. Friend also made the fair and timely observation that making our armed forces work on a hot Saturday in late June is perhaps not the best way to honour them. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) rightly highlighted the volunteers who work tirelessly behind the scenes to ensure that our armed forces are commemorated properly. They often miss out on enjoying the events themselves, so I hope that they will find time to relax and enjoy some sunshine with their families. We thank all of them and their grassroots groups for their vital support for these commemorations. She also shared a moving story about her great-aunt and mother, which touched many of us in the Chamber. They welcomed Polish servicemen into their home and they became part of their family nearly 50 years ago, demonstrating how service personnel become deeply woven into our communities and lives. As always, I am sure the Red Arrows will deliver a magnificent display over Cleethorpes this weekend. I hope that she manages to enjoy an ice cream—and hopefully a few beers, too—with the Secretary of State when he is in her constituency this weekend. The hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) is the proud mother of serving Royal Navy sailor, Olly, whom she has spoken about many times. She represents a city with a high number of service personnel and veterans—one of the highest in the country—and one of the homes of the Royal Navy. I say that as a Devon MP, and standing opposite the Minister, who represents Devonport. She also raised an interesting point around the protective services BTEC course. I have seen the value of that at first hand in my constituency at Bicton college, and it is interesting to see young people flourish in that environment. Again, just like the cadets, it provides a strong pathway for those who want to go into the military or other protective services. The hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome), again, represents a strong military constituency—4,800 veterans and 11% of households. He has long been a proud advocate for the Royal Marines, with the Commando Logistic Regiment in his constituency. I was impressed to hear about the work he has done with SSAFA, the armed forces charity. It was enjoyable and interesting to go away with him recently on the trip he spoke about to Normandy to see the D-day commemoration. It was particularly poignant to meet the D-day veteran Norman Ashford, who is 100 years old. He was a Royal Marine and, as the hon. Member said, made countless trips up and down on to the beaches that day. I had a great deal of respect for him when I met him and heard his stories. The hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) spoke about the RAF photographic units—tales of derring-do. It is a unit that I have enjoyed learning about as the campaign has been growing, and I look forward to that debate being rescheduled and brought back to the House. He made some interesting points about the contributions of people from all over the world, including the Commonwealth, to our armed forces, and the need to celebrate them this Armed Forces Day. It was interesting to hear about Hardit Malik, the first Indian fighter pilot in world war one with the Royal Flying Corps, fighting against the famous German Red Baron. Lastly, my near neighbour in the south-west, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), has a strong military family, and I have spoken to her many times about her brother’s service. She raises an interesting and important point about the pathway for people who want to join the military. She talked about her constituent trying to join the Intelligence Corps and the waiting time to join being far too long. It would be interesting to discuss whether something can be done to provide concrete start dates. I, too, speak from personal experience. I am proud to have served in the Royal Marines, and after leaving regular service a decade ago, I was fortunate to continue as a Royal Marine reservist with the Royal Navy parachute display team. It was—to say the least—one of the more unconventional side-gigs in public service, giving me a literal bird’s eye view of Armed Forces Day celebrations. Over several years, I had the privilege of parachuting into national Armed Forces Day events in Guildford, Cleethorpes and Llandudno. From thousands of feet above, seeing the crowds gathered to show their support was genuinely humbling. Although I will admit that, at that height, my primary concern was not so much national pride as avoiding crash-landing into someone’s picnic. Those kinds of events are not just pageantry, as Members from across the House have said today; they are powerful tools for engagement and recruitment. I have vivid childhood memories of attending large air shows and other military displays, but one personal favourite, and one that I am sure many hon. Members attended, was the royal tournament at Earl’s Court here in London. The Navy’s high-octane field gun competition and the Royal Signals’ famous White Helmets motorcycle display team made a lasting impression on me, and without doubt helped shape my decision to join the military. As defence spending rises, and as difficult choices are made to support that increase, it will be more important than ever to showcase our armed forces and their capabilities. That visibility ensures public understanding and accountability for where taxpayers’ money is spent. There is also a broader point. As the national security strategy outlined this week, the threats we face are serious. The possibility of a hostile attack on the UK, which for many decades was seen as unimaginable, is now again within the realm of possibility. A time may come when we must once more defend the things that we hold dear. We must therefore forge a renewed relationship with defence—not seeing it just as a line in the Budget, but recognising it as a fundamental pillar of our national security and resilience. Armed Forces Day is about more than capability; it is about morale. It is about recognising the extraordinary service of our sailors, soldiers and aviators. Public support matters, as it lifts spirits, strengthens bonds and reminds those in uniform that their country stands firmly behind them. That support must go further than symbolic gestures, as we have heard repeatedly in today’s debate. The armed forces covenant is a solemn pledge—a year-round commitment from Government, businesses and communities to treat those who serve, and their families, with fairness and respect in everyday life. The message from today’s debate is clear: gratitude must be backed up by action on housing, employment and a dignified transition to civilian life. These are responsibilities we all share. The Government’s strategic defence review rightly proposes a whole-of-society approach to national defence. It is welcome, and it is necessary. Defence is not just the task of our armed forces; it is a shared civic responsibility. True resilience relies not only on military capability, but on strong institutions, cohesive communities and national unity. At the heart of that resilience is trust—a social contract between the nation and those who serve it. We must do all we can to honour that trust, which is why we cannot ignore the serious concerns raised by veterans, especially those who served in Northern Ireland. The strength of feeling in that community is real and justified. My right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington mentioned that in his speech. I place on record my thanks to the Minister for Veterans and People, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), for his principled support for a judicial review of the Clonoe inquest, and I hope his judgment is actively being sought by his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office, especially as they reflect on their plans to repeal the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. Our veterans deserve clarity, compassion and fairness. The strength of the Royal Navy, the British Army and the Royal Air Force lies not just in firepower or training, but in the character of those who serve. Their dedication, discipline and selflessness are a credit to our country. So let us use this Armed Forces Week not only to reflect, but to renew our commitments to serve those who serve us, to honour those who have worn the uniform, and to ensure that future generations understand the debt we owe. We are grateful. We are proud. We will remember them. We will support them. And we will thank them.

• 24 Jun 2025 · China Audit · Hansard source

  More

  On the one hand, the Defence Secretary has told the world that the UK will increase offensive cyber operations against China. On the other hand, the Deputy Prime Minister is pushing for a Chinese super-embassy in London, which will be furnished with secret data cabling. Does the Foreign Secretary see any inconsistencies in his Government’s approach to China?

• 24 Jun 2025 · National Security Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  Labour has repeatedly stated that food security is national security—a point with which I and many of my constituents wholeheartedly agree—yet there remains a clear disconnect between that rhetoric and the substance of current policy. Beyond the announced biosecurity measures, does the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster genuinely believe that the national security strategy goes far enough to address the resilience of domestic food supply chains, the risk posed by climate change to agriculture, and systemic vulnerabilities in our food system?

• 24 Jun 2025 · Chagos Archipelago: Sovereignty · Hansard source

  More

  I had hoped for a more precise answer to my question. Rather than pressing again for exact figures or a departmental breakdown, let me proceed down a related line of inquiry. Is there any mechanism, legal or otherwise, that the Mauritian Government could use to reopen the Chagos negotiations or to request further financial or material assistance in a way that could result in additional cost to the British taxpayer?

• 24 Jun 2025 · Chagos Archipelago: Sovereignty · Hansard source

  More

  14. How much and what proportion of the funding due to be allocated to Mauritius as part of the agreement concerning the Chagos archipelago will come from his Department.

• 23 Jun 2025 · UK Modern Industrial Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I was glad to hear defence running through the Business Secretary’s statement. Will he tell us how much equity the authors of the strategic defence review had in the compilation of the UK modern industrial strategy?

• 23 Jun 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  If Iran chooses to close the straits of Hormuz, which the Iranian Parliament has now voted to do, what contingency options has the Foreign Secretary worked up to protect UK national interests?