Graeme Downie MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

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

  More

  Q To pick up on an item raised by Mr Greenwood, we have heard the Government talking about how this is the first legislation of its kind in the world. What impact do the other members of the panel feel it will have on the global market for SAF, and for airlines more generally? Rob Griggs: One of the key reasons why we support the RCM and see it as necessary is that we have a mandate that—unlike the EU mandate, for example—has an advanced subsection. We therefore require advanced SAF. At the moment, something like 85% of all the SAFs produced in the world are first-generation HEFA—hydro-processed esters and fatty acids. That is used cooking oil-type SAF; it is perfectly legitimate, but it is ultimately feedstock-constrained. The world will be drawing on more and more SAF, and at some point we will be likely to reach what people are calling a HEFA tipping point, where there just will not be enough of it. The UK, through its policies, is focusing on second-generation advanced SAFs, which are technically more challenging and more expensive, but also more scalable. As airlines, the absolute worst-case scenario that we are trying to avoid, and that we think the RCM is really important in helping us avoid, is a situation whereby in 2030 the suppliers who are the mandated party simply cannot access through the market the advanced SAF they need to fulfil their mandate obligations. It is not being made anywhere at the moment. A lot of HEFA is being made, but not advanced SAF. We need advanced SAF here in the UK. The US is making some advanced SAFs, but they have feedstocks that are not for our mandate—they are often crop-based. Without the RCM driving the production of advanced SAFs, we are concerned that we simply will not be able to access it. If that happens, the buy-out price kicks in for the suppliers, which is likely to be passed on to airlines. The worst case scenario is that, in 2030, the mandate essentially fails because there is high buy-out, all the cost gets passed on to airlines, there are no SAFs, which means no decarbonisation, and then we are unable to claim our SAF against the emissions trading scheme obligations, for example. To be clear, we do not think that the RCM should cover all mandated volumes of advanced SAF; there needs to be competition. It should be there to get those first plants built, and to provide a quantity of that mandate—potentially a substantial quantity, but part, not all, of it. If we can get a competitive scheme, where the market for advanced SAF is becoming competitive, and the RCM helps to get some of those first difficult plants built, the UK could be in an advantage position, because the global market for SAF, at some point, will need to expand into the advanced SAF area, and the UK could have got a head start on that through our approach. That is the upside of what we are doing, notwithstanding the challenges of getting it right. Gaynor Hartnell: The question was about the impact on global supply. I think Rob is absolutely right that the UK’s policy is unique. It is very much envied. I have been at many conferences where the greenhouse gas basis, versus it being volumetric, was lauded. The existence of the RCM is envied by SAF developers in other jurisdictions. It is already having an influence globally by being visible in doing this special seeking-out of waste-based SAFs, which are incredibly challenging to develop. These projects are very complicated, which is why the RCM is totally necessary; I disagree with Paul Greenwood about that. Paul Greenwood: Let me build on the question of necessity. To be clear, I know that everyone is trying to do the right thing here, but the reason this is being called for, for entities in the marketplace, is because it is very difficult to manufacture things in the UK, and that is because energy costs, carbon dioxide costs and labour costs are incredibly high. It is very difficult. Not very long ago, we used to have six refineries in the UK; one of them was shut down for operations and another has gone insolvent. There are four refineries left, so it is very difficult to manufacture things effectively in the UK at a profitable level. What the Bill does is say, “Because of that problem, we’re going to incur more costs in a niche, new business, and we’re going to input that cost on to the existing fuel suppliers, which are already struggling to survive.” We need to be clear about what problem we are trying to solve. Effectively, I think this is a distraction. We need to look at the core fundamentals that are impacting our manufacturing base in the UK, because that is the primary struggle that we have.

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

  More

  Q You alluded to this earlier, but have you done any work with your customers—either passenger or freight—on how much they care about SAF specifically, or sustainability more generally? If you were not working towards the kind of targets that you are, do you think that would impact customer choice? Do you see this as a competitive advantage between yourselves, or globally as well? Also, to pick up on something that Jonathon mentioned earlier, do you think there is enough in this legislation on what needs to happen after, if it is passed, to encourage the necessary investments, particularly in third-generation SAF and beyond that? Jonathon Counsell: On the customer perspective, we did a lot of surveying of our customers, and it is no surprise that there was a bit of scepticism about offsets and all the history with those. When it comes to SAF, I think there is general recognition and support: people think, “You burn a lot of fuel, so it just makes sense that you are trying to find a lower carbon fuel.” There is a lot more acceptance of that. We have always offered voluntary schemes for our customers to offset their emissions. We provide offsets, carbon removals and SAF. The uptake is very low, but SAF is proving quite popular, so I think there is greater acceptance of SAF as a solution for aviation than some of the others. What I will say is that corporates have gone gangbusters—if I can use that technical term—on SAF, and we do something called SAF Scope 3. A lot of the big corporates set very ambitious net zero targets by 2030, particularly professional services firms such as consulting firms, banks and law firms. When they do their carbon footprinting, a huge proportion is from their flying activity, so they come to us and say, “I want to address my carbon emissions”, and we can offer them SAF. We can sell the carbon attributes as what they call a Scope 3, and that has literally taken off. Most of the SAF that we bought last year came with a SAF Scope 3 deal from a corporate. That is fantastic, because we can use that revenue to reinvest and buy more SAF. From a corporate market, there is definitely very good acceptance of the power of SAF to reduce our emissions.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Again, I understand from my helpful conversations with the Minister that this is taking existing guidance and applying it to law, but I understand the hon. Member’s concern. My final point is to ask the Minister to keep this issue under active review. If any new evidence comes to light to show that the primary legislation is acting as a barrier to the Government’s position being reflected in reality, I hope he will consider opportunities to correct that in due course. We all hope that the Government’s clear intention that people with Parkinson’s and other conditions are in no way—

• 9 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As my hon. Friend will know, my amendment specifically mentions MS, and she and I have had shared friends who have suffered with that condition. We must ensure that there is a clear understanding of the reality of such conditions on the ground, so that when these provisions are delivered in reality by assessors, people are able to access the additional support that they need. Welfare reform is undoubtedly needed after the mess of a system that we were left by the previous Government, but wherever possible we must ensure that the wording of the Bill is as clear as possible. We must ensure that those affected are in no doubt about what our intent is, so that that is indisputable and we truly give effect to the intentions behind the Bill. I again thank the Minister for his incredibly helpful intervention, but we will ensure that the reality reflects the Government’s excellent intentions.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I know that the thoughts of Members across the House are with my hon. Friend and his family. I know what a challenging time it has been, and the fact that he has been able to carry on his duties extensively, representing his constituents, is to his credit and something that his family will be incredibly proud of. As I said, the Minister has been generous with his time, and I do not believe for a moment that his intention is to restrict access to the severe conditions criteria for those with Parkinson’s. Those words from the Dispatch Box are incredibly helpful, but I ask him to ensure that he keeps a close eye on the situation.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will speak to amendment 17, which I tabled with the support of 62 Members from across the House. It would ensure that if a person has a fluctuating condition such as Parkinson’s or multiple sclerosis, that is a factor in considering whether they meet the severe conditions claimant criteria. I have been working with Parkinson’s UK, and as the new chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Parkinson’s, I have heard concerns from those living with the condition, and their carers and families, about the problems they already face in accessing support through the welfare system, because of fundamental misunderstandings about the fluctuating nature of the condition. Those concerns have been exacerbated by the Bill, particularly paragraph 6 of schedule 1, which states that in order to meet the severe conditions claimant criteria, “at least one of the descriptors…constantly applies.” Someone with Parkinson’s, MS, ME or other similar conditions may be able to carry out one of the activities in the descriptors such as walking for 50 metres or pressing a button in the morning, but then not be able to do so by the afternoon. Under my initial reading of the Bill, that means that someone with Parkinson’s could never be a severe conditions criteria claimant because they would not meet the descriptor “constantly”. I thank the Minister and his team for their extensive engagement with me on this matter, but the language used in the Bill has caused concern and fear for those with Parkinson’s. As the Minister has helpfully said, and as he explained to me prior to the debate, much of the explanation that I have received centres around existing guidance that a person must be able to undertake the activity in the descriptor “repeatedly, reliably and safely”. If they cannot, the criteria will count as applying constantly and they will be considered a severe conditions criteria claimant.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I very much thank the Minister for his intervention, which I think will provide extensive reassurance to those with Parkinson’s and other conditions. I will keep a watching brief on this measure as it progresses, and I am aware that Parkinson’s UK has today received its own legal advice, which indicates that the application of the measure might not be quite as clear as the Minister intends. My other concern is about the perhaps undue burden that the measure places on the guidance, as well as the perhaps unfair position in which it puts an assessor, which could lead to an inconsistent application of the guidance.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am happy to take one final intervention.

• 2 Jul 2025 · Spending Review 2025: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the impact of the Spending Review 2025 on Scotland. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. On behalf of the Scottish contingent, I would like to thank the weather for finally breaking slightly, so that we can enjoy these much more suitable conditions—something else delivered by a Labour Government. It is a privilege to discuss today the implications of the recent UK Government spending review for Scotland—a review that marks a pivotal moment for our country, offering both opportunities and challenges that we must confront with clarity and resolve. Let me begin by acknowledging some of the significant investments that were announced in the spending review and associated announcements. The allocation of £25 million for the Forth green freeport, which includes Rosyth in my constituency, is a welcome development and an investment that has the potential to transform the local economy, create jobs and position Scotland at the forefront of green innovation. I commend the Government for recognising the strategic importance of that initiative. In addition, the provision of £234 million in local funds to bring investment to communities across Scotland is a vital step forward.

• 2 Jul 2025 · Spending Review 2025: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 2 Jul 2025 · Spending Review 2025: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  Just to clarify, there was a ferry from Rosyth to Europe when the SNP was in power. The SNP failed to support it previously, and has taken no action to investigate the legal issues around border control, which are believed by many to be a problem that the Scottish Government could solve. Once again, they have been content to blame the UK Government, without even investigating the problem themselves, when in fact they could have worked constructively either with the previous Conservative Government or with this Government to overcome it.

• 2 Jul 2025 · Spending Review 2025: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  As others have said, Sir John, I thank you very much for your patience this morning. After a previous, similar Westminster Hall debate a number of months ago, a colleague said that chairing it was like being a stranger walking in and trying to moderate a fight at a Scottish wedding. I suspect that is how someone sitting in that Chair feels when these debates happen. I thank everyone for their participation this morning; it has been quite an encouraging debate, and there were even, occasionally, moments of agreement—something that in my experience rarely happens at a Scottish wedding. Occasionally, they agree on “I do”, and not very much more. I will respond briefly to some of the contributions that were made. I have heard the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) describe the maternity services in his constituency a number of times, and I hope he continues to do so until we finally see a solution there. It is utterly unacceptable that women find themselves in that very dangerous position, and I hope that there is good feeling and good will from the Scottish Government to solve those real problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) discussed Glasgow’s potential. As someone who was born in Edinburgh and now lives in Fife, I have to say that the east coast obviously has much greater potential, but I am happy for Glasgow to come a close second. As ever, it was good to hear the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins), whom I have known for a number of years. It is always interesting to listen to him, and it was good to hear the latest stump speech for his campaign in Dundee next year. My hon. Friends the Members for Livingston (Gregor Poynton) and for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) highlighted problems around GP surgeries—again, a failure of the SNP. As I mentioned in my speech, we have seen the same in Kincardine in my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor) shared an interest in the potential of aviation to create economic growth. I was delighted to hear from the Minister that more will be done on the defence growth deal. I ask her in particular to consider the potential of Fife in those discussions, so that we are providing opportunities for young people around skills, which Fife can provide in defence and related sectors, such as renewable energy and other technical skills. Again, the Scottish Government have not really established their credentials on providing the right technical skills, which people in many of our communities want in order to fulfil their potential. Finally, I was particularly pleased to hear about the meeting that could take place as soon as next week about the Rosyth to Dunkirk ferry. I genuinely believe that there is good will to find a solution. It is frustrating that it has taken so long and that previous Governments were unable to get together; that harks back to the need to reset the relationship. We can build solutions, and there should not be barriers. I thank everyone for participating, and thank you again, Sir John. Question put and agreed to. Resolved , That this House has considered the impact of the Spending Review 2025 on Scotland.

• 2 Jul 2025 · Spending Review 2025: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  I think the Government are already moving towards a focus on outcomes for budgeting, and I would like to see more of that. As my constituency contains a large number of former coalfields, I have been working closely with colleagues on the replacement of the shared prosperity fund and how we can ensure that it delivers skills and investment for young people and opportunities in all parts of the United Kingdom. I can assure the Minister that I will be working with local stakeholders in Dunfermline and Dollar to ensure that our area secures a fair share of the funding that has been allocated for the many great projects that stand to deliver real benefits to my constituents. Over the next three years, this Labour Government will provide the Scottish Government with an additional £9.1 billion for Scottish public services. That is the largest settlement in real terms since devolution began, and a historic opportunity for the Scottish Government to invest in the NHS, police, housing and schools—services that are the bedrock of our society, yet are the root cause of much of the correspondence I receive from constituents who are being failed by the current Scottish Government in Holyrood. One year on from a housing emergency being declared, house building is down in Scotland, and 10,000 children remain in temporary accommodation, with no home to call their own. Indeed, as a former Fife councillor, I know that Fife council is still in the unenviable position of knowing that it breaks the law every single day when it comes to housing, because of the salami-slicing of local government budgets by the Scottish Government. That the SNP Scottish Government knowingly preside over such a situation is unfathomable, having taken their eye off multiple balls during their disastrous time in power. I must also express my concern that, no matter how much funding is made available, the Government in Holyrood continue to fall back on a familiar pattern of whingeing and wasting. We have seen this time and again, from the mismanagement of ferry contracts to the establishment of overseas embassies that serve little practical purpose beyond a vanity project and a residence for the Minister to have a very nice time on holidays funded by the public purse. This morning I looked over the caseload in my office, and a third of cases received are from people with problems relating to devolved policy areas. So fed up are the people of Dunfermline and Dollar by the myriad failures of the SNP that they know the best place to come for help is Scottish Labour MPs and a UK Labour Government. This morning, we learned that more Scottish public money will be spent on defending the former chief executive of the SNP in a court case about a caravan found in my constituency. In England, the UK Labour Government have recruited more than 1,500 GPs since 1 October thanks to Government action and the digitisation of the health service in England progressing more quickly. Meanwhile, in this place I have had to raise issues including access for little boys to timely medical help for Duchenne muscular dystrophy, a lack of local dentists, and care and support for those with Parkinson’s. I am also aware of the case of Vicki Tocher, a constituent of mine who has been battling for almost a year to get her eight-year-old son, Issac, in front of doctors after he suffered a traumatic brain injury while at school. In Scotland we see delays to national treatment centres. One in six Scots is on an NHS waiting list, there are 50,000 fewer operations than before the pandemic, and a record number have been forced to turn to private healthcare. In February, the Royal College of Emergency Medicine said that the number of patients waiting more than 12 hours in A&E in Scotland is 99 times higher than it was 14 years ago.

• 2 Jul 2025 · Spending Review 2025: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  Not yet!

• 2 Jul 2025 · Spending Review 2025: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  We have actually seen announcements from the UK Health Secretary about prioritising UK students. In my constituency, a new GP surgery in Kincardine has been promised for well over a decade, but is still awaiting Government funding. That village in the west of my constituency is growing, and its current GP surgery, which is little more than a cottage that used to be a police station, has been there for more than 120 years. On digitisation, there has been better news in Scotland in the past couple of weeks. The NHS Scotland digital app will launch later this year; however, it will work only in dermatology and one NHS board. I am sure I could make jokes about rash decisions and the SNP getting under people’s skin, but these critical issues are having a real impact across the country. There is a real risk that as football clubs across Scotland begin pre-season training, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care might stop visiting hospitals and go back to last season’s failed tactics of being driven to the pub and between football grounds. The spending review, driven by the UK Labour Government, rightly puts faith in our young people and the future. It includes investment in AI and the nuclear and defence sectors, alongside £1.2 billion for training and apprenticeships, designed to equip the next generation with skills and give them the opportunities they deserve. Yet in my constituency, Fife college has warned of cuts to courses and campus closures due to the mismanagement of the Scottish budget by the SNP. That is a betrayal of our young people’s potential, and takes money away from the working class kids of Fife to prop up its own failures in higher and further education elsewhere in the country. While the UK Labour Government are investing in regional transport across England, in Scotland rail fares have increased three times since March 2024 and we have lost 1,400 bus routes since the SNP came to power—something my constituents feel strongly and keenly because of the rural nature of the constituency, including Dollar, Muckhart and the west Fife villages. That is not progress but regression, and is particularly challenging for the rural parts of my constituency. Moreover, the ideological objection in Scotland to nuclear power and the refusal to embrace new small modular reactors will cost Scotland dearly. We are losing out on jobs, investment and the opportunity to secure our energy future. That is not just short-sighted but a dereliction of duty.

• 2 Jul 2025 · Spending Review 2025: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Sir John. I will of course take that on board. You will glad to hear what I am coming to next. Economically, however, we have seen the SNP’s failure to take responsibility for the Scottish economy, as confirmed by the Scottish Fiscal Commission. That has cost the country about £1 billion and left it unable to keep pace with UK economic growth. Yet all we hear, after 19 years in power, is that it is someone else’s fault. We have also seen the proposed closure of Alexander Dennis in Larbert and Camelon, with the potential loss of 400 jobs. The chief executive stated: “the Scottish Government has little regard for domestic bus manufacturing jobs in Scotland”. I now turn to the actions that I believe the UK Government can take, following the spending review, to support economic growth and other aspects in Scotland. As an island nation, we depend on maritime and aviation infrastructure. There are promising opportunities in Fife for the development of sustainable aviation fuels and their maritime equivalent. Those sectors were a priority in the spending review, so money was set aside to support them, and legislation on this matter is currently passing through the House. I urge the Government to support investment in those key sectors. The spending review also stated that aviation infrastructure must be improved. One practical step that we can take is to finalise a US visa pre-agreement clearance at Edinburgh airport, where I understand there have been negotiations between the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the US State Department. Will the Minister prioritise that issue and do everything she can to make it a reality? While on the subject of transport I must raise again the matter of a direct passenger ferry route between Rosyth and Dunkirk. Despite the genuine best efforts of my SNP predecessor, who worked incredibly hard on this issue, progress has been stymied by legal complications regarding border control posts. However, it is estimated that such a route could carry 79,000 passengers annually and bring an additional £11.5 million to the Scottish economy, and on the freight side remove 8.2 million km of freight traffic from UK roads, significantly reducing carbon emissions. To meet the target of launching the service by spring 2026, we must resolve the legal issues swiftly. There are strong indications that the Scottish Government can act in the short term, but I think there is genuine legal confusion. I have written to the Secretary of State just this week to ask if he will work with Scottish Ministers on a legal assurance letter that would guarantee the issue will be investigated in time to solve the problem for 2026. Will the Minister pursue that with the Secretary of State as a matter of urgency? Finally, I turn to defence. The spending review confirmed that defence spending will rise to 2.6% of GDP from 2027, with an ambition to reach 3% in the next Parliament. We have seen announcements this week around the NATO summit that defence spending will rise even more, which I fully support. This aligns with the strategic defence review and underscores the Government’s commitment to national security. Scotland viewed on a globe rather than a flat map is a frontline nation in defence of NATO’s northern flank. From the high north, Russian ships and submarines pose a threat to NATO merchant shipping and critical underwater cables in the Atlantic. Both the strategic defence review and the spending review rightly highlight the need to strengthen NATO’s deterrence in northern Europe and the high north. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has also emphasised the importance of an expanded role for NATO in that region. It is a source of great pride for me that Scotland’s highly skilled defence workforce is at the forefront of meeting the UK’s defence needs, including building and launching new Type 31 frigates from Rosyth in my constituency. The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry, the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle), has confirmed the importance of export orders for this ship. Can the Minister to assist me in any way possible to support the workforce and secure orders for both export and the Royal Navy of this versatile ship? Thankfully, defence is mainly reserved to Westminster. However, the total failure of the Scottish Government on devolved matters such as skills and infrastructure has directly impacted the defence sector, our armed forces and the ability of the spending review to meet its goals, along with the strategic defence review. We have the farcical position that senior people in the SNP say that it is party policy that public money should not be spent on military equipment, denying young people the chance to become welders—a skill much sought after across a range of sectors. Even more ridiculously, the SNP has responded to a request for medical aid from Ukraine by dictating that aid could not be used on military casualties—a preposterous view that is utterly detached from reality. Millions of pounds are wasted on embassies, but the SNP cannot even handle a simple request from an ally. The spending review has unlocked the start of long-term plans in other Departments, which can also support the wider defence industry in Scotland, securing jobs and investment. This week, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade spoke about the prospect of a defence growth fund in Scotland. What discussions has the Minister had with her colleagues about that fund? How is she ensuring that it will include a broad partnership in Scotland, including in areas such as skills, so that young people in my constituency can benefit from the necessary increase in defence spending? The UK Government’s spending review offers Scotland a path forward—one of investment, opportunity and renewal. To realise this potential, we must first confront the failures of the SNP Government and demand better for our constituents. We must ensure that every pound allocated is spent wisely, that every opportunity is seized and that every Scot has the opportunity to thrive in future.

• 2 Jul 2025 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I was very happy to serve on the Committee for the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill while it was proceeding through this place. As the Minister knows, there was a large amount of consensus about the need for that process to conclude as quickly as possible, and I recently wrote an article with my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) about the need to give our armed forces the reassurance that this Government are taking action to support them and their families. Does the Minister agree that it really is time to get on with this? We have a consensus in this House that the Armed Forces Commissioner should be able to begin work as quickly as possible.

• 30 Jun 2025 · Welfare Reform · Hansard source

  More

  This morning I met Parkinson’s UK, which is very concerned about the changes to both PIP and universal credit, and in particular that they will not take account of those with variable conditions. Will the Secretary of State make a commitment that Parkinson’s UK will be involved in the co-design of the changes to PIP, universal credit and other welfare benefits, and that any welfare change will fully consider those with Parkinson’s and other variable conditions?

• 30 Jun 2025 · Shipbuilding Supply Line · Hansard source

  More

  9. What steps he is taking to ensure an “always on” approach to the shipbuilding supply line.

• 30 Jun 2025 · Shipbuilding Supply Line · Hansard source

  More

  As the Minister says, the SDR spoke of the need for an “always on” supply of shipbuilding, with the Royal Navy continuing to move towards a more powerful but cheaper and simpler fleet. The Minister has visited my constituency and seen the construction of the Type 31 frigates by Babcock at Rosyth, with the first ship, HMS Venturer, recently floated off. Other ships of the initial five ordered by the Royal Navy are progressing well. When can we expect to see announcements to guarantee the continued always-on supply of shipbuilding, and will she give an update on the need for more Type 31 frigates for the Royal Navy to reflect the flexibility of that platform, as well as the lower cost and faster production achieved by the incredible workforce at Rosyth in my constituency?

• 25 Jun 2025 · National Armaments Director · Hansard source

  More

  It is welcome that this debate focusing on the remit of the national armaments director comes, as the hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) said, as the Prime Minister attends the NATO summit, where we are likely to see greater focus and action on the need to increase defence spending. However, as this Government have said, this is not all about numbers on a spreadsheet or a press release, and the national armaments director will allow the UK to focus on how defence money is being spent to increase the lethality of our armed forces and ensure that the deterrent effect of the combined UK armed forces is sufficient to prevent a war that no one in this Chamber wants to see. The position shows that our Government are delivering the change we promised: greater coherence and a strategic focus on our procurement and industrial planning, cracking down on waste and boosting Britain’s defence industry. I want what I am sure others in this House want, which is for us to move as quickly as possible, because only by doing so can we make sure our adversaries know that we are committed to our own defence. I want to raise three specific issues, and ask the Minister to provide clarification and assure me that these will be among the first priorities for the armaments director and, indeed, the Ministry of Defence. First, looking at a globe rather than a flat map shows the strategic reality the UK faces as well as the importance of Scotland’s position. From the High North, Russian ships and submarines can threaten NATO, merchant shipping and, crucially, underwater cables in the Atlantic. The strategic defence review highlighted the need for “improving NATO’s deterrence…in Northern Europe and the High North.” Recently, NATO Secretary-General, Mark Rutte, emphasised “a larger role for NATO in the High North.” This very much makes the UK, and Scotland in particular, a frontline nation in combating Russian aggression. To do that, the SDR spoke of the need for: “An ‘always on’ supply line for shipbuilding”, with the Royal Navy continuing to move towards “a more powerful but cheaper and simpler fleet”. The Type 31 frigates being built by Babcock at the Rosyth dockyard in my constituency would seem to fit the bill for that kind of move, along with providing the requirement for an “always on” supply of shipbuilding. The first Type 31, HMS Venturer, was recently floated off, and the other ships of the initial five ordered by the Royal Navy are progressing well. I will take this opportunity to once again thank the workforce at Rosyth for the incredible contribution they make to our nation’s defence in the construction of the Type 31, as well as the other incredible work they do for us and our American allies. Can the Minister confirm that the armaments director will urgently consider the need for more Type 31 frigates to reflect the flexibility of this platform as well as the lower cost and faster production that the incredible workforce at Rosyth have been able to deliver? Secondly, there have been many discussions in this place, particularly those led by the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), on the need to improve the UK’s air defence capability. This has been a key theme of the ongoing Sky News podcast “The Wargame”, created by a range of defence experts and advisers. I have certainly been listening to it over the last couple of weeks, although I think I am a few episodes behind at the moment. Improving that capability will require a number of solutions in collaboration with NATO and other allies, but it has been suggested that the future air dominance system and Britain’s next-generation Type 83 programme could be part of countering the emerging threat from hypersonic missiles. With the increased prominence of this type of threat visible in both Ukraine and recent conflicts in the middle east, can the Minister please provide an update on those programmes and on how the armaments director is likely to prioritise this important work? Finally, as part of our increased defence spending, it is vital that we make defence an engine for growth, boosting prosperity, jobs and growth in every corner of the UK. We are strengthening the UK’s industrial base to better deter our adversaries, and to make the UK secure at home and strong abroad. That means engaging all parts of society and business, including the growing network of high-tech small and medium-sized enterprises and skilled manufacturers in my constituency, in Fife, and across Scotland and the rest of the UK. This week, we heard from the Secretary of State for Business and Trade about the exciting prospect of a defence growth fund, which could bring together different bodies to deliver on their combined objectives of economic investment and improved defence. In my area, that could include opportunities for Fife council and Fife college, both of which could play a much larger role in delivering on defence and providing the skills and training that our young people need and deserve. I have raised this topic numerous times in this place. We have seen the total failure of the SNP Scottish Government on devolved matters such as skills and infrastructure spending. We have the farcical position that senior people in the SNP say that it is party policy that public money should not be spent on military equipment; and even more ridiculously, the SNP responded to a request for medical aid from the Ukrainian Government by dictating that the aid could not be used on military casualties, a preposterous view that is utterly detached from reality. That position puts Scotland’s security at risk, and reduces opportunities for young people in my constituency. Will the Minister provide an update on her discussions with the Department for Business and Trade on the defence growth fund and how it will benefit people in Scotland—something that the SNP has failed to do so far? This Government have responded brilliantly to the global threats that the UK faces, building alliances and partnerships across the world, creating the national armaments director, and undertaking the reorganisation that we have heard about today and in previous statements. I just hope that we can accelerate down that path as much as possible, to ensure that we deal with those threats, as the British public expect us to.

• 23 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T2. My constituent, Nicola Smith, works for NHS Fife. Like many people across the country, she is not paid on the same date each month. This leads to incorrect calculations for her husband Steven’s universal credit, often leaving the family without a payment or being sanctioned before the system catches up the following month, and I am aware of thousands of others in a similar position. What reassurance can the Minister provide that he is addressing these issues, ensuring smooth and fair payment for NHS workers and their families on universal credit, and will he meet me to discuss this issue in more detail?

• 19 Jun 2025 · Public Sector Pensions: McCloud Remedy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. I have had a number of cases come into my office as well. My constituent Gavin Templeton, who served 25 years of dedicated service in the Fife constabulary, was forced to return to work because his incorrect pension was so low. Does she agree that it is time we did much more to support hard-working public servants like Gavin to receive the full pensions they worked so hard for?

• 12 Jun 2025 · Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy · Hansard source

  More

  Like my hon. Friend, I have a constituent, Jamie Tierney, who, sadly, suffers with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Recently, he has been able to begin treatment, as have other patients in Scotland, but it took a lot of work and in some cases intervention by lawyers to get that. Jamie’s family tell me that “Time is muscle”. Does my hon. Friend agree that the sooner we make givinostat available across all parts of the UK, the better it will be for those people?

• 11 Jun 2025 · Spending Review 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for putting her faith in young people and the future with investments in the AI, nuclear and defence opportunities that young people in Scotland deserve, alongside £1.2 billion for training and apprenticeships. Meanwhile, in my constituency, Fife college has recently warned about course cuts and campus closures, thanks to the mismanagement of the Scottish budget by the SNP. Does she agree that the best way to get young people the opportunities they deserve in defence, nuclear and other industries is with a Scottish Labour Government and Anas Sarwar as First Minister?