James MacCleary MP: speeches

Speeches

• 15 Apr 2026 · Strategic Defence Review: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  It seems like every day a fresh revelation about the parlous state of our military spending comes to light. After yesterday’s intervention from Lord Robertson, there are reports today that the Chancellor is unwilling to put any more than an extra £10 billion into defence over the next four years, and that the Ministry of Defence is seeking £3.5 billion in cuts. Just this morning, I met a major defence prime that outlined again how the Government’s failure to publish the defence investment plan is undermining investment in security in this country. Unpublished plans will not keep the country safe. As Trump tears up the global order and Putin continues to brutalise Ukraine, the Government can no longer delay. Will the Minister immediately take forward Liberal Democrat plans for a £20 billion defence bonds programme, enabling a rapid cash injection into capital-intensive projects outlined in the SDR? Even the Conservative leader is now belatedly backing our call for cross-party talks, so will the Government finally stop dragging their feet and convene them as a priority, so that we can create consensus on how to reach 3% of GDP being spent on defence?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Defence · Hansard source

  More

  I was actually going to talk about something completely different, but the question is a good one. I find it very disappointing that the Conservatives have so little faith in the ingenuity and industry of this country to produce its own independent deterrent. This is a multi-decade project. We understand that the Conservatives do not grasp fiscal responsibility—we saw that from the state they left our economy in—but a multi-decade project requires a serious commitment. In the short term, we should be looking to bring servicing and maintenance of the missiles into the UK to reduce our reliance on others. [ Interruption. ] Hon. Members are asking where. We will develop the capability. I understand that the Conservatives do not like investing in Britain’s skills, but we can develop the skills. I have complete confidence that we can do so. The defining challenge for our nation is how to meet the unprecedented threat posed by an imperial Kremlin and an unreliable White House. It requires thinking about defence in a new way, because to stand up for values that we cherish, we must be strong enough to defend them. That means, at its core, rearming Britain. Meeting this challenge requires more than military hardware. It means a whole-of-society approach to national resilience. It means energy security, investing in renewables so that we are not dependent on fossil fuels from the very dictators we are standing up to. The Conservatives’ plan to raid investment in renewable energy investment undermines one element of UK security for another—it is robbing Peter to pay Paul. It means food security too. Biodiversity underpins our ability to feed ourselves. Declining ecosystems mean declining food production, and that is a national security risk that we ignore at our peril. It also means the defence readiness Bill, which is currently held up by the Government’s own delays on the defence investment plan. We cannot afford this drift; there can be no delay in beginning that work. That is why the Liberal Democrats have argued that the defence investment plan must be accompanied by an immediate cash injection to support vital capital investment in our forces. We have detailed what this programme could look like, raising £20 billion in defence bonds over two years. [Hon. Members: “Yay!”] I am pleased that Conservative Members are so excited about the bonds idea—perhaps they have come around to it at last. [ Interruption. ] It would be a fixed-term issuance, legally hypothecated to capital defence spending. The programme would be a secure way for people to invest their savings while helping to strengthen Britain’s national defence.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Defence · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his intervention. I agree; it is extremely hard to derive exactly what the Conservatives would be doing were they in government right now—God forbid—but I think inconsistency would definitely be the name of the game. Meanwhile, Putin prosecutes his barbaric war in Ukraine, harbours wider ambitions beyond it and expands his campaign of sabotage across Europe. But here is what makes Britain’s position even more precarious: at this very moment we are committed to acquiring F-35A jets capable of carrying nuclear weapons, but they are equipped to carry only American gravity bombs, use of which would require sign-off from the US President. At a time when we cannot trust the White House, we are deepening our dependence on it. Britain should be strengthening sovereign capability, not locking itself into systems that could be denied to us by presidential whim. Trump and Putin want to turn world politics into a system where might is right.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Defence · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his intervention. It would be a chance to back our armed forces, our security and Britain. We know that properly funding our nation’s security is critical to meeting the threats of this new and unprecedented era, and we also need to ensure that defence funding can generate wider growth in our economy. That is exactly what those bonds would deliver, supporting jobs and an expansion of our defence industrial base across Britain. Do not just take my word for it; we need to listen to the voice of British industry, academics and financial institutions. In the Institute for Fiscal Studies’ September 2025 green budget, it was clear that borrowing for defence could lead to higher growth, particularly when that additional defence spending is investment heavy. We also need to recognise that the long-term regeneration of our armed forces will require even higher and sustained increases to defence spending—up to 3%. The Liberal Democrats have called on the Government to commit to cross-party talks to agree a shared approach to achieve that. I hope that the Minister will be open-minded about those talks. We must look to secure and expand the UK’s involvement with financial instruments that offer cheap, new access to defence finance. That is why the Government must re-examine the negotiations to enter the Security Action for Europe fund. I hope that the Prime Minister will take a direct role in getting British access to that. Will the Minister update us on negotiations for access to that fund?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Defence · Hansard source

  More

  Perhaps the shadow Minister has one in his pocket.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Defence · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with my hon. Friend. The SAFE fund is a good illustration of what it means to be outside the club. The Conservatives hollowed out our armed forces for a decade; now they want struggling families to pay for the repairs. What we need is a serious plan. The Government must publish a defence investment plan, back it with defence bonds and commit to spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2030. Our armed forces have been let down for too long by Conservative cuts, by Government delays and by a failure of political will. They deserve better.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Defence · Hansard source

  More

  I hope that Ministers have heard my hon. Friend’s comments and will perhaps review that decision in future. Reducing certainty for British defence companies is not what we need to be doing right now, which is why we need a defence investment plan. We are eroding our sovereign capability, weakening the supply chains, putting skilled jobs at risk, and ultimately undermining our national security. There must be no more hesitation and no more delay. Will the Minister commit to publishing the defence investment plan before the end of this Session? The Minister should need no reminding of the need for urgency, given the collection of threats that we face. Trump has cast doubt on NATO’s article 5 and trampled on international law, with illegal attacks in Venezuela and Iran—attacks that the Conservatives and Reform have backed uncritically.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Defence · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his valuable contribution, and I support the point he makes. All the cuts he mentions were damaging. Probably the most damaging thing of all was how the Conservatives failed our serving troops, in particular with their accommodation and the deal they gave our veterans over some time.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Defence · Hansard source

  More

  It is astonishing, Madam Deputy Speaker. You would not think that they had been in majority government for 10 years since the coalition. All the crimes that have been committed in history were committed by a minority partner in a coalition more than a decade ago. I make speeches at universities where some of the students were not even born when these things happened. It is extraordinary. We need a serious plan to reverse the damage.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Defence · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention; that was very informative. We saw our surface fleet reduced to its smallest size since the English civil war while the Conservatives were at the helm, and a crisis of recruitment, retention and morale across the armed forces ushered in by their incompetence. We should not be surprised by the disastrous impact that years of Conservative mismanagement have had on our military. What is the Conservatives’ answer now? After hollowing out our armed forces in government, their motion shows that they have learned nothing. They want struggling families to foot the bill. It is the same old Tory formula: break the country first, then ask the most vulnerable to pay for the repairs. What is needed now is a serious plan to reverse their damage

• 24 Mar 2026 · Defence · Hansard source

  More

  I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin). [ Interruption. ]

• 24 Mar 2026 · Defence · Hansard source

  More

  Earlier this year, the head of the armed forces, Sir Richard Knighton, issued a stark warning. In describing the current state of our military, Sir Richard said that the UK is “not as ready as we need to be for the kind of full-scale conflict that we might face.” We should remind ourselves of the context in which Sir Richard made those remarks. For years, the Conservatives oversaw the hollowing out of our military, with troop numbers cut by 10,000 on their watch. [ Interruption. ] Now, this motion proposes 20,000 more troops. Let us be clear what that actually means. After cutting 10,000 troops in government, the Conservatives are really proposing a net increase of only 10,000 now. When Liberal Democrats called for a reversal of Tory troop cuts, they scoffed. How would they pay for even that increase? It would be by reinstating the two-child benefit cap and punishing struggling families. Our surface fleet has been reduced to its smallest size since the English civil war. [ Interruption. ] Sorry, I just heard shouting; I did not realise hon. Members were trying to intervene.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Defence · Hansard source

  More

  We welcomed the Government’s efforts to try to reverse that damage last year, with their commitment to increase defence spending to 2.6% of GDP. But the Government’s persistent failure to publish the defence investment plan is inexcusable Promised last summer, the plan was meant to turn the strategic defence review from warm words into hard action. We have been waiting for almost a year. All the time, Ministers have been working flat out, we are told, which must be exhausting. That delay matters. At the very moment Europe is rearming, Britain is hesitating, and hesitation sends signals—signals to our armed forces, signals to industry, signals to our allies and signals to our adversaries.

• 23 Mar 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. We are four weeks on from the start of President Trump’s illegal assault on Iran, and still there is no plan and no end in sight. It is not Trump or his partner in this ill-conceived war, Netanyahu, who is paying the price, but hard-pressed British families who are seeing it in their energy bills and at the petrol pump, billions around the world who are suffering the economic fallout, and more than 100 little girls who will never be coming home from school. Rather than de-escalating the crisis, Trump is just making more threats; instead of accepting responsibility, he is pointing fingers at allies, including Britain. There is much that I hope the House can agree on at this critical moment—most importantly, that Britain’s interests are served only by rapid de-escalation of hostilities. Liberal Democrats have not wavered from this view, which in many ways reflects the broadly responsible approach that this Government, including the Defence Secretary, have taken to the war, emphasising the need for multilateral diplomacy while protecting our personnel and citizens under immediate threat in the region. None the less, the Government’s decision over the weekend to expand the use of UK bases for US strikes is grave and risks dragging Britain down the slope of Trump’s war. It appears to be a significant shift in the Government’s position. I therefore wish to ask the Secretary of State three questions. First, does he agree that the Government’s definition of “defensive” is different today from when the House last sat? Secondly, will he commit to releasing in full the legal advice that the Government have received about this latest expansion of the rights of US planes to use UK bases? Thirdly, will he support Liberal Democrat-proposed legislation to ensure proper monitoring of US sorties conducted from UK bases, to ensure that they are truly defensive in nature?

• 16 Mar 2026 · Defence Jobs: Wales · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare (Gerald Jones) knows better than most that the Ajax programme is not only a national defence procurement issue, but specifically a Welsh one; around 400 workers in Merthyr Tydfil are connected to the Ajax factory. Workers have been hospitalised, troops have been put at risk and £6 billion of taxpayers’ money has already been sunk into the programme. While Ministers deliberate, those workers are left completely in the dark about the future of the project and their jobs. I cannot imagine how that must feel for them and their families. Will the Minister tell us when a final decision will be made on Ajax and what he has to say to the workers in Merthyr Tydfil who are waiting for clarity about their families’ futures?

• 16 Mar 2026 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  Liberal Democrats share concerns about the whereabouts of the defence investment plan, and urge the Government to come forward with its publication. Last year’s strategic defence review also promised a defence readiness Bill, which would give Governments the power to mobilise industry and reserves in a crisis, and would require proper reporting on our warfighting readiness, so that the House and the country were not in the dark. At a time when senior military figures have warned repeatedly that Britain is not ready for war, my question is this: if the threat is urgent, why is the legislation not? If the Secretary of State cannot tell us when he will publish the defence investment plan, can he tell us when he will introduce the defence readiness Bill?

• 9 Mar 2026 · Middle East: Defence · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, and echo his praise for the bravery and professionalism of our armed forces in putting their lives on the line for us all. The Liberal Democrats continue to have grave concerns about the UK being dragged into Trump’s illegal war. However, it is fair to say that the situation has evolved very quickly. Given that it is commonplace for UK personnel to serve aboard US navy ships, including aircraft carriers such as those currently engaged in attacks on Iran, can the Secretary of State provide an assurance to this House that no UK personnel are currently serving aboard US navy ships engaged in offensive operations in the middle east? Furthermore, there have been serious questions raised about the use of UK bases for US airstrikes. Will the Secretary of State reassure the House on what monitoring is in place to ensure that US actions from UK bases remain purely defensive? Will the Government ensure that any intelligence relating to US strikes conducted from UK bases is provided to the Intelligence and Security Committee for review? If UK bases were used or were proposed to be used for offensive action beyond the Government’s authority, would the Government withdraw permission immediately? Securing those guarantees is essential to ensuring that the UK does not become complicit in Trump’s unilateral and illegal war. Finally, even the limited defensive actions being asked of our armed forces have exposed how stretched resources really are. I must press the Secretary of State to give a clear timeframe for the release of the defence investment plan to start the urgent task of plugging those gaps. We must make sure that UK forces are given all the tools they need to do the jobs we ask of them, both now and in the future.

• 4 Mar 2026 · Ministry of Defence · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; it is important that that question is answered. It is starting to look less like a plan and more like a convenient excuse for delay. The Liberal Democrats call on the Government today to commit to a firm publication date, not a vague promise but an actual date. Parliament and industry cannot plan without it. My party has put forward concrete proposals to accelerate defence investment, in particular through defence bonds. We have called on the Government to issue publicly available defence bonds, raising up to £20 billion for capital investment over two years, giving members of the public the direct opportunity to invest in Britain’s security, fixed- term, legally ringfenced to capital defence spending and capped at £20 billion. It is a tried and tested mechanism for mobilising public capital behind a national purpose. We keep hearing how urgent it is to invest, but there is no action.

• 4 Mar 2026 · Ministry of Defence · Hansard source

  More

  As the hon. Member says, he has asked me that question before. I have done my homework, and we have published the full background. This sits within the Government’s fiscal rules, and is actually a relatively small cost to the Government. Let me now ask the hon. Member—he may wish to answer during his own speech—how his party would invest quickly in defence spending. This is a credible proposal, and I should like to hear credible proposals from others too. We should like the Minister to announce defence bonds, with no further delay. With conflict in the middle east, it is easy to lose focus on the war much closer to home, in Ukraine. The United Kingdom has so far committed £10.8 billion in military support between February 2022 and March 2026, drawn from the Treasury reserve. The £3 billion annual pledge and the G7 loan facility are welcome commitments, but we can and should go further. The UK holds an estimated £25 billion in frozen Russian assets. My party has tabled the Russian Frozen Assets (Seizure and Aid to Ukraine) Bill to direct those funds to Ukraine’s military, reconstruction, and humanitarian defence, and we are calling for that today. National security is the first duty of any Government. The spring statement contains real increases in defence spending, and I do not dismiss that, but it also contains a £9 billion accounting adjustment with no explanation, a defence investment plan that remains unpublished, and a 3% target that is still under vague consideration. British forces are currently engaged in defensive combat operations to protect our bases and citizens in the middle east and eastern Mediterranean. We must focus on not just new kit but existing kit, and it is conspicuous that so many of our vessels are not currently available to the Navy. The Liberal Democrats have been clear about what is needed. We have proposed pragmatic, realistic steps to make our nation safer now and in the future.

• 4 Mar 2026 · Ministry of Defence · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Backbench Business Committee for selecting this topic and the Chair of the Defence Committee for securing this debate. The UK spent £62.2 billion on defence this year. The Government plan to raise that to £73.5 billion by 2028-29. It is a significant sum. But let us be honest about what that actually shows because some of the detail deserves a great deal more explanation than the Government have so far provided. Take the day-to-day spending figures. Investment spending has increased by £10.8 billion, a rise of nearly 23%. That sounds like a lot, but the single largest driver of that increase is a £9 billion jump in depreciation and impairment costs, described only as a “non-routine accounting adjustment.” That £9 billion is the largest single movement in the MOD budget, and the Government have provided no detail whatever on what that really is. I am afraid that is not good enough. When the Minister responds, I hope that he will shed some light on what that adjustment actually represents, because the public, and this House, deserve to know. On capital spending, the increase is a more modest 0.3%, just £63.7 million. Yet within that is a reduction in funding for single-use military equipment. At a time when Ukraine has taught us the vital importance of munitions stockpiles and consumable kit, cutting that line is a curious choice, so I would again welcome a clarification from the Minister. We also keep hearing, as we have several times today, about the defence investment plan—the document that was meant to be published last autumn. Autumn came and went. We are now in March 2026, and it is still nowhere to be seen. The Government have made the plan the centrepiece of their defence modernisation narrative, and every time we ask hard questions about procurement, capability gaps or industrial strategy, we are told to wait for the DIP. But the DIP never arrives. I sometimes wonder if the DIP was part of some mass hallucination that we all had last year.

• 2 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Although I fear that this Bill may be remembered as a Bill of missed opportunities, I want to start with the substantial positives that I see in it. For decades, the Liberal Democrats have fought—sometimes alone, sometimes against the odds—for votes at 16. It is a progressive, pragmatic move whose time has come, and I warmly congratulate the Government on bringing it forward. I hope it will also be accompanied by stronger elements of the curriculum in democratic and civic education to support these measures, and I look forward to the Government’s proposals. Automatic voter registration is also really important. Nearly 8 million people are not correctly registered to vote in this country. No matter how we look at it, that is just wrong and needs to be addressed, so I strongly welcome that measure too. I would also like to talk about protections not just for candidates, but for hard-working council staff. I have previously led a district council, and I have seen up close not only the dedication and hard work of the staff in our council, but the risks they are exposed to in an increasingly polarised environment. It is fantastic that they have been included in this Bill as well. These provisions are genuinely welcome, but let me be blunt: this Bill does not go far enough. The truth, as every person in this country knows, is that our democracy is experiencing a crisis of public confidence, and we need real transformation. The measures on “know your donor” are steps in the right direction. Closing the loopholes for overseas donors and preventing the influence of people such as Musk and the Russian oligarchs matter. We cannot allow foreign money to buy British democracy, but the Bill does not go far enough in this regard. We need a donations cap—a hard limit on what any individual or company can give to political parties. Right now, billionaires can write cheques that dwarf the modest contributions from ordinary working people. Cryptocurrency has been mentioned a number of times this evening, but the Bill is silent on it. While other countries wake up to the risks of crypto and its opacity, we are leaving the door wide open for cryptocurrency to become the new dark money. We need an explicit ban on cryptocurrency donations. Donations are only part of the picture, however. We still have first past the post—a voting system so distorted that it allows Governments with 36% of the vote to govern alone for up to five years. We see millions of votes cast that elect no one, yet the Government have proposed no reforms to introduce proportional representation, a system where every vote counts equally and every community gets a representative that reflects them. Democracy may seem more fragile than it has felt in a generation, but it is by no means dead. It is a rare thing and it must be fought for, renewed and expanded with every generation. As a Liberal Democrat, I will not stop fighting for it until we have a system that gives every elector a real voice and kicks dirty money out of our politics.

• 2 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Plumpton college in my constituency is celebrating 100 years of land-based education. It has gone from 17 students in 1926 to a nationally recognised centre for agriculture, viticulture and environmental studies, with more than 1,200 full and part-time students today. Farming and land-based producers are vital to our food security, rural economy and environmental stewardship. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating Plumpton college on its centenary and set out how the Government will ensure that specialist agricultural colleges have the funding, certainty and support that they need for the next century?

• 2 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  Four years ago yesterday, Vladimir Putin launched his deadly full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Four years on, we face a solemn reminder of the death and destruction that has ensued. An estimated 1.8 million soldiers have been killed or wounded, or have gone missing, on both sides. Up to 325,000 Russian troops and as many as 140,000 Ukrainians have been killed. The United Nations has recorded at least 15,000 civilian deaths and more than 40,000 people injured, including at least 763 children, but it says that the toll is likely much higher. That is why the Liberal Democrats are absolutely clear in their support for Ukraine. In the face of Putin’s aggression and Donald Trump’s unreliability, Europe must send an unambiguous signal: national sovereignty is not negotiable, and we will not stand idly by at this time. We will not accept that might is right. We will not allow Ukraine to be sacrificed on the altar of appeasement. We all want peace and a just and lasting settlement, but we must be clear that Vladimir Putin has no interest in peace; he remains hellbent on the subjugation of Ukraine. Although we welcome diplomatic efforts, we remain deeply concerned about the specifics of any American security guarantees. The unfortunate truth is that President Trump is unreliable, unpredictable and, to be frank, disdainful of the rule of law. That means that Europe must step up. The UK and France have committed to a potential military deployment to Ukraine, should a peace deal be agreed. The Liberal Democrats support that commitment in principle, but Parliament must have a vote on any deployment of UK personnel—I welcomed the Prime Minister’s very clear statement on that—because democratic oversight is essential. The Government must also be transparent about timescales and ensure that our armed forces have the resources to support such a mission. It is great to hear from the Secretary of State today about the £200 million of funding that he has accelerated for that purpose. Crucially, we must have clarity at the right time about the terms of engagement for those forces, if and when that deployment takes place. Supporting Ukraine long term is not just about political will; it is about practical capability. Any peace settlement must focus on defending Ukraine, strengthening deterrence and creating sustainable conditions for a lasting peace. It must not be a deal that effectively rewards Russian aggression. The UK must ensure that Ukraine’s interests—not Putin’s territorial ambitions nor Donald Trump’s desire for a grubby carve-up—remain at the heart of negotiations. We must remain absolutely focused on cutting off the resources that fuel Putin’s war machine. Too many of those who comment on this conflict fail fully to understand its historical and cultural context. To speak of it as a conflict that Putin will just stop on fair terms is a failure to grasp the fact that his war in Ukraine is now central to sustaining his mafia state and his role as its kingpin. To speak of major territorial concessions by Ukraine is to ask it to give into a bullying neighbour that has spent not 12 but hundreds of years repeatedly attempting to control it and deny its right to exist as a nation. Any agreement requires a deep understanding of those countries that has been entirely absent from the rhetoric in the United States and is too often absent from commentary in this country. We are keen to support the practical steps taken by our Government. The decision to ban UK maritime services for Russian liquefied natural gas was particularly welcome. The Liberal Democrats had been calling for that for some months, so it was great to finally see it come to fruition, but the implementation has been slow. Since 2022, UK-owned or insured LNG carriers have transported £45 billion-worth of Russian products. No British money should be supporting Russia’s war. The Government must move at pace to enforce the ban, and it must go further—I welcome any updates on that from Ministers. We have also called for the oil price cap to be lowered to $30 per barrel, with stricter enforcement. We must confront the reality that Russia is actively circumventing sanctions through third countries. Georgia has increasingly been used as a back-door route for sanctioned goods and financial flows into Russia’s economy, undermining the pressure we and our allies are trying to apply. The UK should be prepared to sanction those facilitating that evasion, starting with Bidzina Ivanishvili, Georgia’s oligarchic de facto leader, whose influence has steered the country away from its Euro-Atlantic path and towards Moscow’s orbit. We must also proscribe Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in full. The IRGC is not only destabilising the middle east; it is directly supporting Putin’s war machine, including through the provision and production of drones used to terrorise Ukrainian cities. It was also revealed to the Defence Committee that “Russia can only maintain this war because China is…bankrolling it”, and that some sources suggest that up to 60% of the funding comes from China. The Government must increase pressure on Beijing to stop funding Putin’s deadly war. Then there is the £2.5 billion pounds from Roman Abramovich’s sale of Chelsea football club. That money should have helped suffering Ukrainian civilians over a year ago, and could have supported efforts to rescue at least some of the 20,000 children abducted by Russian forces. The Liberal Democrats called urgently for those funds to be delivered. We welcome the fact that the Government are now threatening legal action, but it should not have taken this long. It seems that everyone now agrees that we must urgently unlock frozen Russian assets. The UK has frozen £30 billion-worth under our sanctions regime, but it sits idle in British accounts while Ukraine desperately needs $120 billion next year alone to resist Russia. So what exactly is blocking it? The legal frameworks exist, but the political will—so far, at least—is lacking. The Prime Minister must personally step in to drive that forward, because we are watching Ukraine’s defences being stretched to breaking point while we sit on the very resources that could help it. The Ukrainian people are fighting for us; the least we can do is unlock the money to help them win. My hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) has introduced a Bill to seize those frozen assets and direct the proceeds to Ukraine’s defence and reconstruction. Putin must be punished, not rewarded. A recent Government report showed that UK imports from Russia had reached £1.7 billion by June last year, up 21% on the previous year. Perhaps Ministers can tell us what steps the Government are taking to restrict this profitable trade for the Kremlin. The international community, including this Government and the previous Government, have rightly condemned Russia on the international stage. Through its illegal invasion, cyber-attacks, energy coercion and interference in democratic processes, the Kremlin has demonstrated consistent disregard for international law. The UK Government must maintain an unequivocal position opposing Russia’s readmission to the G7, and must work with allies to ensure that this stance is upheld across all multilateral bodies. I want to return to the human cost. Over 20,000 Ukrainian children have been abducted since the full-scale invasion began. As a parent with two small children at home, I find it very hard not to put myself in the place of those Ukrainian families, torn apart by concern for their missing children who have been cruelly snatched away as part of Putin’s wider agenda of extinguishing Ukrainian culture and identity. These mass abductions constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity, and any update from Ministers on what we are doing to help recover those children would be very welcome. I really welcome the award given to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter); she has been a dogged campaigner on this issue, and I cannot think of anybody more worthy of that recognition. President Putin must be held accountable, and the outstanding International Criminal Court arrest warrant against him must be implemented. This country and the Government must pick up the mantle of tracking down and rescuing those children, to bring them home to their families where they belong. Reports from Russia paint a sobering picture of what four years of war has meant. For Russia, it has meant a fundamentally deformed economy, legal system and society. Courts clear soldiers of murder and rape because they have signed military contracts, recruiting has become desperately difficult despite enormous spending, and an entire generation of young Russian men has been wiped out by this war to fulfil Putin’s ambitions. For Ukraine, these four years have meant something else entirely. They have meant extraordinary courage in the face of impossible odds; they have meant soldiers who began fighting in muddy trenches with artillery now finding themselves in a war dominated by drones, a conflict that has evolved faster than anyone imagined; and they have meant watching Russia systematically destroy the very things that keep people alive through the winter. Just last month, Russian missiles tore through power stations across the country, and hundreds of thousands of people in Dnipropetrovsk and Zaporizhzhia woke up to find themselves without electricity or heating as temperatures dropped to minus 20°C. This is the coldest winter Ukraine has seen in a decade, and Putin’s strategy is clear: if his army cannot break Ukraine’s will, he will try to freeze its people into submission. Because of the courage of the Ukrainian people—and, I am very proud to say, the support of allies such as Britain—Russia no longer poses a risk of conquering Kyiv. Ukraine pushed the Russians back in Kharkiv and Kherson, against an adversary with much greater resources, although Russia remains on the frontline. Ukraine should not have to face Putin’s aggression alone; Britain must continue to lead in Europe, standing shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine in not just words but deeds, and with enforceable security guarantees rather than empty promises. That means cutting off Putin’s revenue streams completely and seizing frozen assets. It means democratic oversight of troop deployments; it means ensuring that Ukraine’s territorial integrity is non-negotiable in any peace settlement; and it means doing everything we possibly can to get those stolen children back to their families. Four years on, the protection of Ukraine’s sovereignty must remain central to Britain’s priorities, because if we fail Ukraine, we fail the international order, and if we fail the international order, we invite aggression everywhere.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Rural Mobile Connectivity · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) on securing this really important debate. One of the issues that appears most often in my constituency mailbag is digital connectivity, as it affects thousands of my constituents. It has become as essential to modern life as electricity or roads. The issue is absolutely fundamental to the future viability of rural communities, not just in my constituency but across the whole country. I will share some examples from constituents who have been in touch with me recently—real people facing real problems in their daily lives. There is a woman living in Deanland Wood Park, a park home site in my constituency, who can only use her mobile phone when she is out and about. Let me be clear about what that means: in her own home—the place where she should feel most comfortable, secure and connected—her phone is essentially useless to her. There are a couple living in the village of Berwick. One is with Tesco Mobile, and the other is with Vodafone. Neither of them can receive calls when they are at home. This is not merely an inconvenience; it has a huge impact on their work. He has had to completely change how he communicates with clients, and relies entirely on email and WhatsApp because he simply cannot depend on phone calls. What truly concerns me is that her father is in a care home, and he does not always get through when he calls. Hon. Members can imagine the stress it causes when an elderly man tries to reach his daughter and the technology simply fails both of them. Their phones work perfectly well when they leave Berwick; there is purely a problem of coverage in the village itself. I recently heard from a couple who have moved to my constituency from rural Staffordshire. They were genuinely shocked to discover that they have no signal whatsoever in their new home in East Dean. They have moved from one rural area to another, and somehow our connectivity is even worse than what they left behind. At one of my advice surgeries, I spoke to a farmer from the same village who is dealing with the same problem, and this is where it becomes really serious. What happens if someone on his farm needs to call the emergency services? What if there is an accident, a medical emergency or a fire? Every second counts in those situations, and it is not just about emergencies. Try doing online banking or running a business without mobile connectivity. Try doing any of the things that we are all expected to do online these days, and which those of us in towns and cities can largely take for granted. A gentleman in the village of Upper Dicker regularly has to drive to his son’s house just to use his phone, because the signal at home is so poor. Every time a website needs to text him a verification code—something that happens more and more these days—he is stuck. He cannot access his bank account or log into Government services. He cannot do any of the things that we are increasingly required to do online. According to research published last year, the UK has the worst average 5G download speeds of all G7 countries. We are not slightly behind; we are dead last. When one looks at rural coverage specifically, the picture is even more concerning. Only 69% of rural areas in the UK are said to receive 4G coverage through the four major mobile network providers—not 5G but 4G, which is technology that is already years old, and we are at just 69%. So much of what we are told is 3G, 4G or 5G is actually mislabelled. The signal bars on phones can be deeply misleading. There might be full bars and the assumption is that everything is fine, but when trying to make a call or load a webpage, suddenly you realise that those bars do not mean what you thought they meant. In rural areas, poor connectivity is fundamentally undermining the viability of our communities. It is not just annoying; it is existential. Young families cannot move to rural areas or stay there, because they cannot work from home. Businesses cannot operate effectively, and elderly residents cannot stay in touch with family or access online health services. Farmers cannot use modern agricultural technology, and students cannot do their homework. The digital divide is no longer just about cities versus countryside; it is about whether rural communities can survive and thrive in the 21st century. The inequality of provision as the 5G network is rolled out is deeply concerning. It is simply wrong that people should be disadvantaged because of where they live. Someone’s postcode should not determine whether they can fully participate in a modern society. We must ensure that improving broadband and mobile connectivity starts with the hardest-to-reach areas first—not as an afterthought and not eventually, but first. I recently met Vodafone, which is responsible for the roll-out in our part of Sussex, to press that point. The Government must also prioritise major investment in broadband for underserved communities, and here there is an economic argument. Investment in these areas will help unlock the vast potential of our rural communities. Research has demonstrated that ubiquitous 5G could add £159 billion to the UK economy by 2035. That means not just money for telecoms companies, but businesses in our rural communities operating more effectively. I am asking on behalf of my constituents for the Government to live up to their promises to invest properly in rural connectivity and ensure that companies such as Openreach and Vodafone communicate clearly with residents and meet their commitments. The woman in Deanland Wood Park deserves to use her phone in her own home, the couple in Berwick deserve to do their jobs and stay in touch with their elderly parents without constant stress, the farmer in East Dean deserves to know that he can call for help if there is an emergency, and the gentleman in Upper Dicker deserves to log into his bank account without driving across my constituency. My constituents deserve better and rural constituencies across the country deserve better, too.