Derek Twigg MP: speeches

128 published records · newest first.

Speeches

13 Apr 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source
More
I thank the Prime Minister for all his efforts, not least over the past few days. Although many of us have a difference of opinion with President Trump about the way he talks and the actions he is taking in terms of Iran—those are obviously things that we on the Labour Benches do not agree with—I am a little concerned that we should not get his views mixed up with what those in Congress and the Senate in the United States of America think, where there is significant and overwhelming support for NATO and Europe. It is important that we remember that, because our relationship with America is very important, not least in terms of NATO. I hope the Prime Minister will comment on that.
23 Mar 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source
More
The Secretary of State is right to draw to attention to the fact that when he became Secretary of State, our armed forces were underfunded and very stretched. He and his team and the Government have done much to improve that, including bringing about additional funding for the armed forces. However, I am concerned that this further commitment, because of what is happening in Iran, will put a lot of strain on our already overstretched armed forces, and I am concerned about the sustainability of our continuing investment there. What discussions are taking place in Government to accelerate expenditure to at least 3% in this Parliament and as quickly as possible?
18 Mar 2026 · Domestic Abuse Survivors: Government Support · Hansard source
More
I remind hon. Members that they may make a speech only with the prior permission of the Member in charge and the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
18 Mar 2026 · Royal Mail: Performance · Hansard source
More
I think that the Member has finished speaking.
18 Mar 2026 · Royal Mail: Performance · Hansard source
More
Order. Unfortunately, we are now going to have to move to a time limit of a minute and a half. I am still trying to get everybody in.
18 Mar 2026 · Royal Mail: Performance · Hansard source
More
Order. Members can see that the debate is heavily subscribed, so it will be difficult to get every Member in. I am going to impose a two-minute limit to start. It is not in my gift to stop this, but if Members take interventions, that may further restrict the time that people have to speak. That is in your gift.
18 Mar 2026 · Royal Mail: Performance · Hansard source
More
Order.
18 Mar 2026 · Royal Mail: Performance · Hansard source
More
Order. I reiterate that there is a strict two-minute time limit on speeches.
18 Mar 2026 · Royal Mail: Performance · Hansard source
More
Order.
16 Mar 2026 · Defence: UK Allies · Hansard source
More
Given the present focus on the war in the middle east, there is concern that we should not lose focus on what is going on in Ukraine. On developing and strengthening our relationships with our allies, what are the Minister and his fellow Ministers doing to ensure that Putin does not take advantage of the current situation in the middle east, and that we ensure that Ukraine continues to get the full support, weapons and assets that it needs?
4 Mar 2026 · Ministry of Defence · Hansard source
More
I congratulate the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee on his well-thought-out speech. I know the good work that his Committee is doing on defence expenditure. It is a real privilege and pleasure to see so many of my colleagues from the Defence Committee in the Chamber. They all do an excellent job—particularly the new members—in holding the Ministry of Defence to account. The most important factor in this debate is our people. The defence and security of our country is paramount for any Government and Parliament, but to deliver that, we need to have the people, and our armed forces have some of the finest people in the world. The professionalism, courage and commitment that they show on a daily basis is absolutely unparalleled. I put on the record my appreciation for their work, not least as we enter yet another dangerous period in this world with what is happening in Iran, when, again, they are being asked to do things on behalf of our country. Given the time available, I do not want to repeat the things said by my hon. Friend the Chair of the Defence Committee, but I will focus on a couple of things before I come to the matter of overall defence expenditure. The defence investment plan has been mentioned, which is important because, apart from it telling us what we are spending money on, the previous Government did not produce an equipment plan after about 2023, so we could not scrutinise the Ministry of Defence or hold it to account. We are in the same position now because of the continued delay in the defence investment plan. I urge the Minister to do whatever he can to bring that plan to fruition very quickly, because the Defence Committee has been denied the ability to scrutinise MOD expenditure for several years now. We have heard a lot today about capabilities, the changing world, how war is fought, technology, the defence industrial base and how we have to change the way the MOD works and its culture. Clearly, the new ministerial team appointed after the election has made great strides in reforming the Ministry of Defence and has made a number of significant changes. I am sure that that is starting to bear fruit, but there is still a long way to go. I know, too, that other things will need to get done. If we are to spend our money better—that is what we are talking about today—we need to make sure that the system in the MOD addresses the needs of civilians and the military, has the ability to spend money wisely and achieves the greatest efficiency. As my hon. Friend the Chair of the Defence Committee said, Treasury sources often cite those things as reasons not to give more money to the Ministry of Defence. The current ministerial team clearly has that in mind and its work will change that. I shall come back to the actual amount of money that we should be spending. To put it bluntly, we are in a perilous situation. This country would have difficulty defending itself for any period of time, or sending out and sustaining any sort of sizeable armed force on the European continent given the Department’s current supply of resource. That is what we need to address. We need the ability to produce mass both in terms of service personnel and of equipment. We need to be able to generate drones, armoured vehicles, ships, aircraft and so on. We have lacked that ability to generate mass for some time. We are now in a situation where we may well have to do that, but we do not have the systems in place to be able to deliver it. That is something that I am particularly concerned about. We live in a perilous and fragile world, and it has just been made even more fragile by the events of the last few days in Iran. When it comes to Britain, we already have great commitments. We are committed to helping Ukraine, and we have our NATO commitments, which we are already failing on. We have been failing for many years when it comes to our ability to deliver the capabilities that we should be providing to NATO, and that is a real worry given that we are putting our NATO policy first. We have just seen the resources that we needed to be able to send naval ships to Cyprus. It is a real worry that we struggle to do that. Technology is advancing rapidly. That applies not just to drones but to cyber and the grey zone. Again, we need to move forward more quickly, more intelligently and in a more agile way. I believe we are still struggling in that area. A week or so ago I met two Ukrainian officers who told me that they were concerned about the ability of the British armed forces when it comes to how we use and produce drones and how they are managed on the battlefield. That is really important to understand, because we have trained Ukrainian service personnel and we need to utilise their knowledge and depth to ensure that our personnel are also trained to that level. They must have the ability to use and manage drones in the battlefield. We need those skills as widely as possible within the armed forces. I am concerned about that as well. There are some key messages that we need to give our armed forces. The first is that if we are going to send them in harm’s way, we will make sure that they are fully resourced and have the capabilities, protection and support that they need—not just from the Government and Parliament, but from the country as a whole. That leads me to another point that I would stress: we need a whole-of-society approach to the dangerous situation that we now face in this world, and we need to work out how we can get that message across to society. This is about not just the individual on the street, and the households in this country, but how our financial sector, Government Departments and education system are set up, and how quickly our industry—not just the defence industrial base but our wider industrial base—can be turned to producing the defensive equipment and assets that we need. I have concerns about all those things, and they need to be addressed. Let me turn to defence spending. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker), a fellow member of the Defence Committee, will go into more detail about private finance and defence, as it is not just about the Government putting in public money. The Chair of the Defence Committee mentioned 3% defence spending. I have been saying for some time that we need to start spending 3% now, but that does not mean just saying, “Let’s spend 3%”, as has been outlined by others; it is about spending the money well and intelligently, and doing so in a different way than we have previously. The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) knows the Defence Committee’s report on procurement. I think that report was welcomed, and it was on the ball in raising the issues that need to be addressed and the ways in which we can move forward. As to whether lessons have yet been learned, we shall see, but we clearly have to get procurement right and move it forward, and the report sets out a template for us to start doing that; it is another big area that we have got to sort out. When it comes to spending the extra money, we have to get our procurement system right. We have to make sure that we produce the right assets—the ones that will give the most capability to our armed forces—and really take account of the modern battlefield today, as well as the pressures and threats we will face without those assets. We cannot wait. We face a serious threat to our national security. We see it all the time across Europe in cyber and the grey zone, whether it is Russian drones in Polish airspace, Russian jets flying into Estonian airspace, attacks and sabotage on factories and railway lines, the use of criminal gangs by states to destabilise other countries, or disinformation and so forth. We really have to wake up to the fact that these threats are real, and that Russia considers itself—certainly, Putin considers himself—already at war with the west. I urge that we get a move on. We cannot waste any more time if we are to secure the protection and security of this country. Whether in industry or finance, and obviously in the military, we have amazing people, who, working together, can take this country forward and deliver the defence needed for its protection. We need to utilise that ability, but time is running out. I recently co-authored a paper produced by Civitas called “Understanding the UK’s Transition to Warfighting Readiness” with the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) and the renowned defence expert Chris Donnelly. I hope that hon. Members get a chance to read it. It is not perfect or an absolute blueprint for moving to war-readiness, but it is a start. That is the debate that we have got to have today; and we have to move on today.
25 Feb 2026 · Minister for Men and Boys · Hansard source
More
Before I call the Minister, I remind her to leave a minute or two at the end for Dr Evans to wind up.
25 Feb 2026 · Minister for Men and Boys · Hansard source
More
Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called. If speeches are kept to around seven minutes, we will get everyone in.
25 Feb 2026 · Minister for Men and Boys · Hansard source
More
Order. Members should not speak about live court cases.
25 Feb 2026 · UK-German Relations · Hansard source
More
I remind the Minister to allow a minute or so at the end for Sir Mark to wind up.
25 Feb 2026 · UK-German Relations · Hansard source
More
I am going to call the Front Benchers no later than 5.10 pm, so could Members keep their speeches to around five minutes?
25 Feb 2026 · UK-German Relations · Hansard source
More
The two Opposition spokespeople have about five minutes each.
4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source
More
Can I give an assurance that we in the ISC are very confident that we can do an effective job on this? It is worth pointing out that we cannot be told what we can and cannot publish. That will be a matter and a decision for us. May I ask for an assurance, following on from what the Minister has just said, that there will be no block whatsoever on the documents that the ISC should be getting?
4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source
More
It is disappointing that neither the Opposition nor the Government have referenced the important role that the ISC could have here. As a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee—I have spoken to its Chair, the Lord Beamish, and we heard earlier from its deputy Chair—we feel that the Committee should be involved to help this process on behalf of Parliament, and I urge my right hon. Friend to speak to No.10 to ensure we get that, and that it happens quickly.
20 Jan 2026 · Chinese Embassy · Hansard source
More
I place on the record that I support completely what the deputy Chair of the ISC, of which I am also a member, just said. The process issue needs looking at urgently, and the deputy Chair was clear about the problems we faced. An important letter today from the GCHQ and MI5 heads to the Foreign and Home Secretaries says clearly: “the collective work across UK intelligence agencies and HMG departments to formulate a package of national security mitigations for the site has been, in our view, expert, professional and proportionate.” Would the Minister like to comment on that?
14 Jan 2026 · Science and Discovery Centres · Hansard source
More
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) on securing the debate and on making such a brilliant case for science and discovery centres. I am not sure many of us could add much more to the core case he made, other than to talk about our own areas. I am very pleased to speak about this issue today and its importance to our communities and, more widely, to the UK’s proud history as a world-leading pioneer in science and technology, which we should not forget. My hometown of Widnes is somewhat different from Devon; it was a very industrialised area in the ’60s and ’70s, when I was growing up, and it was dominated by the chemical industry. It was once a rural village on the northern banks of the River Mersey, and in 1801 it had a population of just 1,063, most of whom were engaged in farming and fishing. By the end of the 19th century, it had become a town of more than 28,000 people. The cause of that remarkable transformation was the creation of the chemical works on the banks of the Mersey. Progress was made possible thanks to the superb infrastructure, with the likes of the Sankey navigation canal, railway links from the river to St Helens and a dock created at the southern end of the town. Immigration from Ireland and eastern Europe brought workers, while industrial entrepreneurs such as John Hutchinson, Sir John Brunner, Henry Deacon and Holbrook Gaskell helped to turn Widnes into the heart of the modern chemical industry. There were not many people without a family member who worked in the chemical industry when I was growing up, not least in Imperial Chemical Industries, which also dominated the town. The legacy is reflected in the prosperity of many local businesses. That chemical industry is now gone, but we still have many really good prosperous, local businesses—a fact reflected recently when the Prime Minister came to Hutchinson Engineering in my constituency to launch GB Energy, heralding a new chapter in our national industrial history. That rich, local legacy leads me on to today’s debate. John Hutchinson’s original administrative building is now the grade II listed Catalyst Science Discovery Centre. It is situated on the River Mersey, with amazing views, including of three huge bridges—the Railway bridge, the Silver Jubilee road bridge and the huge new billion-pound Mersey Gateway bridge, and looking across to Runcorn. That brilliant institution is a hub for research, development and learning. Generations of people from our region have benefited from the pioneering work done at the centre and its outstanding STEM education. It is a point of pride that my constituency serves as its home. The centre plays a very important role generally in bringing science, technology and engineering to young people, including in disadvantaged areas such as mine in Widnes and Halewood. We cannot overestimate the importance of these science and discovery centres in doing that and enthusing young people to want to get involved. I am very grateful that Catalyst continues to raise awareness and belief among the local population, making them aware that science is relevant to them, their lives and their future careers. Other Members today, as we have heard already, will have similar appreciation for the science and discovery centres in their own communities. We therefore share the same concerns that the hubs are now at real risk. Financial pressures threaten not just individual centres, but a network of technological heritage, research and development that has made an important contribution to our national development. The Government are well aware of a petition signed by more than 3,000 scientists and leading figures urging us to work with the sector to find an urgent solution. As we have already heard, increased financial costs are having a major impact, so I ask the Minister to consider carefully every feasible option to support these centres. The Government are right to take such an ambitious approach to their green energy plan, but without the skills pipeline and a framework to help young people—our future scientists and engineers—to engage with that future, our targets will be far more difficult to meet. The Catalyst centre receives no public funding of any kind and operates as an independent charity. Its trustees tell me that they spend a huge amount of time fundraising because of the rising operational and salary costs and the ageing capital and building, as we have heard from previous speakers. The catalyst building, I must add, is stunning. It dates back to the beginnings of the chemical industry and overlooks the Mersey but, again, it is an old building that needs a lot of maintenance and support. Centres including Catalyst do truly remarkable work every day to preserve our heritage and work towards a better, greener future. I pay tribute to all those who contribute to this vital sector, and I hope we can demonstrate that we recognise their support and invaluable work. There are a lot of people who work very hard at Catalyst, but I want to point to a couple of people: Dr Diana Leitch MBE, who is a trustee director of Catalyst, and Chris Lewis, who has been involved in Friends of Catalyst for as long as I can remember. They keep these centres going. I do not believe that anyone who has ever visited the Catalyst has gone away disappointed; I urge the Minister to come and visit the as soon as he possibly can.
17 Dec 2025 · Neurodiversity in the Workplace · Hansard source
More
I will call Sarah Hall to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with the prior permission of both the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.
17 Dec 2025 · Membership-based Charity Organisations · Hansard source
More
Order. It is an intervention on the Member, not the Minister.
17 Dec 2025 · Membership-based Charity Organisations · Hansard source
More
I call the Lib Dem spokesman.
17 Dec 2025 · Housing Development: Cumulative Impacts · Hansard source
More
Before I call the last two Back Benchers, let me say that I will be calling the Lib Dem spokesman no later than 3.30 pm.

Published records only — not a full account of an MP’s work. How we work →