James MacCleary MP: speeches

Speeches

• 26 Jan 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Our British armed forces represent the very best of us—courage, selflessness, and an unwavering commitment to protect our freedoms and our way of life—and they deserve nothing less than our unwavering commitment in return. The Liberal Democrats welcome significant elements of the Bill. The full enshrinement of the armed forces covenant in law, extending it across central Government, devolved Administrations and local authorities, aligns with our long-standing policy to strengthen the covenant by placing a legal duty on Government Departments. For too long, the covenant has been a promise without proper teeth. The Bill gives it the force of law that it has always deserved, and we look forward to supporting that as the legislation progresses. We welcome the establishment of the Defence Housing Service and the £9 billion defence housing strategy. Our service personnel and their families should not have to endure substandard accommodation while serving their country. The commitment to upgrade nine in 10 military homes is progress, although I must stress that it is the bare minimum that we owe those people who put themselves in harm’s way for us. That said, what will matter is pace, transparency and accountability. Given the Ministry of Defence’s long and unhappy track record of wasting public money on failed programmes, the House deserves clarity on how this strategy will be delivered in practice. I hope that the Minister, in summing up the debate, will respond to the following questions. Who precisely will oversee the new body, what will be its relationship with the Department, and where will ultimate accountability lie if targets are missed or standards slip? Without clear governance and rigorous scrutiny, there is a real risk that warm words and large sums of money will once again fail to translate into decent homes for service families. The reforms of the service justice system are long overdue, particularly the strengthened protections for victims of domestic abuse, sexual violence and harassment. Every person who serves in uniform deserves to do so in safety and dignity. However, the Bill comes against a backdrop of multiple deeply troubling scandals involving abuse within our armed forces, particularly the treatment of women. I do not doubt the commitment of any of the Ministers to combating it, but it is striking that the Bill contains no specific or targeted measures to address the systemic cultural failures that have allowed such abuse to persist. Without a clear attempt to confront these issues head-on, there is a risk that structural reform will fall short of meaningful change.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Fishing Industry · Hansard source

  More

  I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am an unpaid director of the Newhaven Fishing community interest company. As such, I see at first hand what is happening to our local fishing industry, and I rise to talk specifically about the impact on our town. In Newhaven, we have a small but long-standing fleet, and our fishing heritage is under threat. We have between 15 and 20 active vessels working out of Newhaven, catching sole, plaice, brill, turbot and other bits and pieces off our Sussex coast. Much of that fish goes elsewhere for processing, to all corners of the UK and beyond, before it ends up coming back to our plates. We are exporting those jobs, increasing emissions and missing the chance to build our local economy and invest in a small part of the Government’s growth agenda. I believe that has to change. We want our fish processed locally, and jobs created in coastal communities, rather than fish being shipped abroad and coming back again—and sometimes then going back abroad and back here once more. The recent plans to bring processing back to Newhaven are exactly what we should be doing nationwide, but that needs long-term commitment from the Government, if it is to stick. In the meantime, we are losing our fishing community. The charter boat fleet that historically brought customers to Newhaven’s tackle shops, pubs and restaurants all year around has almost completely disappeared. A constituent of mine runs the last charter company in Newhaven. During recent works at the port, he was forced to relocate temporarily, but was promised that he could return. Now he has been told that he cannot come back, despite Government funding for a new pontoon, supposedly for the fishing fleet. That is the kind of bureaucratic nonsense that puts marginal businesses into receivership and brings generational businesses, like his and many others in our town, to an end, in some cases after decades or even hundreds of years of operation. When we invest in coastal infrastructure, it should support the entire fishing community, including commercial vessels and charter boats that bring economic activity to our towns. Both are vital to a thriving coastal economy. We have been successful in attracting Government investment to support the local fishing industry in Newhaven, with some £12 million for new landing stages, and for processing and other facilities in the town. My thanks go to Lewes district council and my predecessor, Maria Caulfield, who supported the bid for that funding, which has been essential to giving our fishing industry in Newhaven a chance—just a chance—of surviving and thriving in the future. However, we need to do far more to support our fishing businesses if they are to be sustainable in the long term. Here is what is really at stake. Without new people entering the industry, small independent businesses will disappear. They will be replaced by massive multinational companies and EU mega-trawlers that disrupt our wildlife, deplete our fish stocks and send their catches to distant markets. In our case, many are flagged to the Netherlands. We will lose local jobs and an industry on which communities like ours depend. Our local fishing businesses are largely family affairs, with one generation taking on the business from another. It is a tough and sometimes very dangerous job. In November 2020, our community was shocked to wake up to the news that the Joanna C trawler had sunk off Newhaven, tragically taking the lives of two fishermen. It was a reminder of the risks that our fishing boats taking every day in unpredictable seas. I should take a moment to pay tribute to our local Royal National Lifeboat Institution crews, based out of Newhaven, and the volunteers at our local Coastwatch who do incredible work trying to keep our fishermen and other sailors safe. The Government must acknowledge that support for small fishing businesses to encourage more young people to see fishing as an attractive career choice is essential for the future vibrancy of the industry. There is a real danger that we will continue to fund an industry that simply does not have the people to continue it, and it will end up withering on the vine. We want a different future for the industry. We need to slash the red tape that is strangling our fishing industry and invest in coastal infrastructure—not just by building pontoons, although that is important for our town, but by ensuring that our infrastructure serves the communities that it is meant to support. We need to give coastal towns the power and resources to develop their fishing economies and attract young workers, working in concert with local schools and colleges to build a skills base for the future, not just for our fishing industry but in many of our deprived coastal communities, where a skills base is lacking. They could take advantage of some of the opportunities being created by investments in our local fishing industry and others. We must put sustainability at the heart of everything we do. We need to work hand in glove with the fishing industry to look carefully at the impact on marine protected areas and ensure that protections for sustainability do not cause catastrophic harm for the businesses that we seek to support. We must rebuild depleted fish stocks. In the distance, we can often see massive Dutch trawlers operating off our coast. They hoover fish out of the sea and deplete stocks, meaning that our own fishermen—predominantly line-and-pole fishermen—cannot catch anything when they go out to fish. That is soul-destroying for people who are already in a very challenging industry. We must ensure that fishing stock negotiations after 2026 get proper democratic scrutiny, as several hon. Members have mentioned. That is because the Conservatives’ Brexit threw our industry into chaos. Unfortunately, the Government let that happen again when they extended fishing rights to the EU for 10 more years—and for what? Nothing but some general commitments to negotiate further down the line. Newhaven has fished its waters since the 1580s. Some fishing families have worked there for over 200 years; indeed, some of their names are known to pretty much everybody in the town. It is a close-knit community. We have local fish shops, plans for new restaurants and a community that wants to buy local catch, but right now we have a local fleet that is struggling even to stay in business. My coastal communities are not an afterthought. They are the frontline of our food security, our environmental stewardship and our cultural heritage. We must deliver a fair deal for fishers, with real investment and sustainable practices, working with Government. I would be remiss not to take the opportunity to extend the Minister an invitation to come down to Sussex by the sea and visit our fleet in Newhaven. Too often, very small fleets like ours can be overlooked in discussions about the fishing industry. In his excellent introductory speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) mentioned how fishing is sometimes treated as a homogeneous industry in which all areas are the same. Our small fishing fleet is as worthy of protection as any other, but it can be easily overlooked in wider discussions about the larger industry. I want communities like Newhaven’s to have the power to control their own future, with a thriving fishing industry at its heart.

• 14 Jan 2026 · Ajax Programme · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is a committed advocate for his constituents in Yeovil and has raised this on a number of occasions. I absolutely agree: we run a real risk of not only losing the ability to build our own—

• 14 Jan 2026 · Ajax Programme · Hansard source

  More

  I do; it is an extraordinary response. All we can conclude is that the Ministry means, “Yes, bonuses have been awarded—some of them quite substantial—but we would rather not tell you exactly how much people have been rewarded for presiding over this disaster.” The senior responsible officer for Ajax earns a salary in excess of £160,000—nearly as much as the Prime Minister—with the potential for bonuses of 25% to 30% on top, so we have people earning £200,000 or more while delivering a programme that has been stopped for a fifth of its existence and is now under multiple safety investigations. This is not merely incompetence; it is systemic failure. The 2023 review of the programme exposed precisely that—systemic and institutional problems. We need to know what progress has been made in fixing these issues, and we need to know what safeguards are in place to prevent further delays, cost overruns and, most importantly, threats to our soldiers’ safety. I ask the Minister directly: is the Ministry of Defence considering an internal investigation into how the programme could have progressed so far without those major issues being identified? Someone, somewhere, has been signing off on milestones and accepting deliverables when the fundamental problems are still unresolved. The Liberal Democrats have long argued for a fundamental reform of defence procurement, and Ajax demonstrates precisely why such reform is so desperately needed. We would tackle these long-standing problems by replacing the current system of defence reviews with a more flexible system of continuous review of security threats and evolution of defence plans. As has been dramatically demonstrated in recent weeks, the world does not wait for our periodic review cycles, and neither should our procurement system. We would ensure that defence procurement is part of a comprehensive industrial strategy, securing a reliable long-term pipeline of equipment procurement. Industry needs certainty, as do our armed forces, but the current approach provides certainty for neither, especially with the continued delay in releasing the defence investment plan. We would collaborate properly with our European and NATO partners on the development of new defence technologies, equipment, systems and training. We would make capital spending allocations more flexible to reduce what is called annuality, and focus instead on meeting the required in-service dates. We would invest properly in recruiting, retaining and training staff with specialist skills at the Ministry of Defence, reducing its dependency and expenditure on external consultants. The concerns about Ajax should raise alarm bells about the continuing poor state of procurement at a time when Britian must be rearming rapidly. The geopolitical situation demands that we get this right, and Ukraine has shown us what modern warfare requires. Our adversaries are not standing still, and we simply cannot afford these failures. The fact that the Army has paused the use of Ajax vehicles raises serious questions about the operational readiness of the units that rely on them. How does this disruption affect deployment plans at a time when our armed forces need to be fully prepared? What is the impact on training schedules? What message does it send to our personnel about how we value their safety? The Ministry of Defence has launched a safety investigation, citing an “abundance of caution”, but the public and this House deserve clarity. What exactly is being investigated, who is involved, and when will the inquiry conclude? The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry said: “It will be conducted at pace, but it will not be rushed.” Which is it? The armed forces deserve transparency and reassurance, and they deserve it now. This all sends a worrying signal to our adversaries, which is why it is vital that the Government outline how they will move quickly to resolve the issues and adopt our proposals for a wider overhaul of the procurement system. We cannot afford to lumber on with a broken system while the world around us becomes more dangerous. Difficult decisions lie ahead. The Defence Secretary has indicated that scrapping the programme in its entirety is possible. Given what we know—given the years of delays and billions spent, and given that soldiers are still falling ill in these vehicles—it is right to seriously consider that option. The mythological Ajax died of shame; one hopes that those responsible for this modern Ajax programme might feel at least some measure of that emotion. More than shame, we need action. The Ajax programme must not be allowed to fail in silence—too much is at stake. The most important thing of all is the safety and wellbeing of those who serve and being able to depend on them absolutely.

• 14 Jan 2026 · Ajax Programme · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Stuart. I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) on securing this timely and important debate. Ajax takes its name from the “Iliad”. In that great epic, there are in fact two Ajaxes—Ajax the Great, the famous hero of Greek mythology, and Ajax the Lesser. I think it is pretty clear, from what we have heard today, which of them this project most resembles. Ajax stands as perhaps the starkest illustration of everything that has gone wrong with defence procurement in this country.

• 14 Jan 2026 · Ajax Programme · Hansard source

  More

  Indeed. Let me be clear from the outset: the possible collapse of this multi-decade, £6.2 billion programme is deeply alarming. It demands answers, it demands accountability and, most importantly, it demands urgent action. The facts are stark and troubling. Just weeks ago on Salisbury plain, during what should have been a routine training exercise, more than 30 of our soldiers fell ill. They were not injured in combat or facing down an enemy on some distant battlefield; they were training on British soil in British vehicles built with British taxpayers’ money. They were vomiting, and they were shaking uncontrollably. Some spent 10 to 15 hours in these vehicles and emerged requiring urgent medical care. That is not the first time we have heard such reports. Indeed, the Ajax programme has been plagued by issues of noise and vibration since mid-2020. A stop notice was issued in June 2021 and all dynamic movement was halted. The programme underwent what was termed “a significant reset”. Training resumed in 2023, only to be paused again in 2025. Astonishingly, this programme has been on pause for 20% of its entire life—20%. What was the response from those in charge? In November, just before the latest incident, we were told that Ajax had achieved “Initial Operating Capability”. The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry visited the General Dynamics factory in south Wales and declared that the issues were “firmly in the past.” He told us that he had been “reassured from the top of the Army” that the vehicle was safe. Indeed, the programme was apparently so successful that the MOD announced in November that it had just won an international award for mega-project of the year. Three weeks later, the Minister had to return to the House to confess that he had been misled—misled by the Chief of the General Staff and the then acting National Armaments Director. These are not junior officials; they are the most senior figures in our defence establishment providing assurances about safety that have proven to be utterly unfounded. I must ask, what kind of system allows this to happen? What kind of institutional culture permits such a fundamental failure of honesty and accountability? What does it say about the state of our armed forces that senior officials and officers declared initial operating capability when long-standing problems had merely been mitigated with new seats and earplugs in some cases, rather than actually fixed? The Minister must now be absolutely clear about what the Government’s contingency plans are if Ajax is deemed unsafe. Moreover, he must explain what the impact will be on our NATO commitments if Ajax is further delayed due to required upgrades or scrapped altogether. Our allies are watching, and our adversaries are watching, and what they see is chaos. This is not simply about one troubled programme, catastrophic though Ajax’s failures have been; this programme illustrates the deep-seated problems with defence procurement that have plagued our armed forces for years. They deserve better than the endless delays, cost overruns and capability gaps that have become the hallmark of how we equip those who defend us. Let us consider the litany of failures. Ajax was ordered in 2014. It was supposed to be fully in service by 2019. Here we are in 2026, and not only is it not in service, but we are now investigating whether it is fundamentally unsafe. The vehicle was originally designed for weights of up to 26 tonnes. Through what defence analysts politely call “scope creep”—the Army loading the programme with 1,200 separate capability requirements—the weight ballooned to over 43 tonnes. A single vehicle can now cost well over £10 million in its most expensive form, and what have we got for this money? We have vehicles that make our soldiers sick. We have a programme that has consumed vast resources and delivered nothing but embarrassment. We have General Dynamics winning awards for project controls while producing vehicles that cannot be safely operated. I note with interest that when asked whether performance bonuses relating to Ajax had been paid to officials over the last three years, the Ministry responded: “This information is not held centrally and therefore can not be provided without incurring disproportionate costs.”

• 14 Jan 2026 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the time for this debate on Ukraine today, as we meet at a key moment. American peace proposals welcomed by the Kremlin suggested demilitarised zones and buffer areas. Those phrases sound technical, but their consequences could be catastrophic. The Ukrainian people see such proposals for what they are: a ruse to circumvent Ukraine’s defences and continue the invasion later. Russia’s relentless assault in the east has intensified, despite it passing the grim milestone of a million Russian troops killed or injured on the frontline. Zaporizhzhia, a city of 670,000 people, is now under serious threat. Russian drones are striking the city. The emergency services have prepared a plan to evacuate a third of the population if fighting damages the nearby nuclear power station. That is the reality of Putin’s war. President Trump is unreliable, unpredictable and disdainful of the rule of law—one need only look at his actions in Venezuela. Britain must take an active role in ensuring that Ukraine’s interests remain at the heart of all future negotiations, reinforcing collective deterrence and signalling that European security and Ukraine’s sovereignty remain non-negotiable. That also requires honesty about the United States. What concrete security guarantees have actually been secured, and can the Government seriously assure this House that those guarantees would endure beyond the next conversation between President Trump and Vladimir Putin? The United Kingdom and France have committed to the potential deployment of troops in Ukraine, should a peace deal be agreed. Any discussion of UK or French troops on the ground must be about deterrence, not escalation, and limited in scope, tied to a political settlement and never an open-ended deployment. It is right that the Prime Minister has committed to putting any deployment of British forces to Ukraine to a vote in this place, but any such commitment must be credible. That means having the personnel, the equipment, the logistics and the funding in place not just to deploy, but to sustain a force over time. Serious questions remain about our current ability to do that. Will the Minister set out in clear terms how the Government intend to ensure that any future deployment to Ukraine will be fully resourced, properly equipped and sustainably funded, and not announced before the means to deliver it exist? The Government must increase the size of our armed forces, plug gaps in military capability and fix the broken procurement processes. The lack of a clear defence investment plan for our military undermines the credibility of announcements of overseas deployments. Alongside military deterrence, we must also apply maximum economic pressure. Yesterday morning, residents in my constituency were surprised to wake up to find various fruits and vegetables and cans of milk distributed across our beaches in Seaford and Newhaven. A container ship passing through the channel had shed some containers in the past few weeks, and those have now washed up. Another day, my residents could find their beaches covered in oil leaked from a sanctioned Russian tanker from the Russian shadow fleet also passing through the channel. That is why we must take every action possible to restrict the shadow fleet, not just to prevent the flow of money into Russia, but because it presents an active threat to this country’s economic, military and environmental security. We therefore welcome the Government’s announcement of a ban on UK companies providing services such as insurance or maintenance to ships carrying Russian liquefied natural gas. That is a big step in the right direction and we genuinely welcome it. Carriers owned or insured by the UK have transported £45 billion-worth of Russian products since 2022. We must do more. The Government’s recent oil price cap reduction is insufficient. Liberal Democrats believe that the cap should be lowered at least to $30 dollars a barrel, with stricter enforcement to ensure that no UK money supports Russia’s war effort. The Government should also be giving serious consideration to a total ban on Russian oil and gas exports. I think that many people would share my astonishment at the news that the UK still imports £1.7 billion-worth of goods and services from Russia, and that the figure actually increased in 2025. The most impactful contribution that the Government could make is pushing for allied action to unlock frozen Russian assets. My hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) has introduced a Bill to enable billions in frozen Russian assets to be seized and the proceeds to be directed to Ukraine’s defence and reconstruction. It is also welcome that the Government are threatening legal action to secure £2.5 billion from Roman Abramovich’s Chelsea sale. Liberal Democrats have called for that for over a year. It should never have taken as long, but we welcome forward movement. Putin must be punished, not rewarded, and it was deeply disappointing to see the European Union fail to agree on a reparations loan using Russian assets. Britain must show greater resolve and make Putin pay—literally—for his invasion. We are all appalled by the abduction of tens of thousands of Ukrainian children. That is a war crime. We support the Bring Kids Back initiative and the Yale School of Public Health’s humanitarian research lab, but those initiatives are in danger because President Trump has cut their funding. Again, frozen Russian assets could be used to fund the shortfall. Support for Ukraine also means doing right by Ukrainians here in the UK: Ministers must provide certainty on length of leave to remain and urgently resolve the status of young Ukrainians studying at our universities and colleges, who cannot be left in prolonged legal limbo. Russia continues to pose a profound strategic threat through its invasion, cyber-attacks and energy coercion. That threat extends far beyond Ukraine, to the Baltic states in particular, and deterrence must therefore be pan-European if it is to be credible. It would be wholly inappropriate to contemplate restoring Russia’s G7 membership, and the UK must oppose its readmission. The UK must also step up its contribution to European defence through NATO, the Joint Expeditionary Force and deeper co-operation with our European allies, and must be unequivocal in defending the sovereignty of all NATO partners in areas including the High North and Greenland. Aggression and violations of sovereignty will not be rewarded. As we debate in comfort, Ukrainian soldiers man defensive positions in freezing conditions. Ukrainian civilians flee their homes; Ukrainian families live with the daily terror of drone and missile strikes. They are fighting for freedom, sovereignty, and their very existence. They are fighting for principles that we claim to hold dear: democracy, the rule of law and self-determination. Will we stand with them for as long as it takes, or will we allow fatigue and the bullying of autocrats to erode our resolve? Liberal Democrats are clear: we will not look away; we will not accept an unjust peace; we will push for the maximum economic pressure, for seizing frozen Russian assets, for proper support for Ukraine’s defence, and for democratic oversight of any British military involvement. The unity of this House, with one party a small but notable exception, reflects the strength of the British people’s commitment to our Ukrainian friends. They must be tired, but we must never tire of talking about them in this place. They are fighting for all our futures, and we must continue to stand by their side for as long as it takes.

• 12 Jan 2026 · New Medium Helicopter Contract · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) for securing this important urgent question on behalf of his constituents. The UK has retired Puma early, leaving a medium-lift helicopter capability gap. At the very moment our allies are accelerating procurement because the threat picture has worsened, the Government are still dithering on the replacement of that critical sovereign capability. Ministers keep hiding behind the forever-delayed DIP—the defence investment plan—but if they do not get on with it, they will be dealing with two more dips: a big dip in employment and investment in Yeovil and across the UK when Leonardo leaves because of Government inaction, and a dip in the capability of our armed forces, which will be left without a modern medium helicopter to call upon. Once an end-to-end helicopter-manufacturing workforce has drained away, we cannot magic up a new one when another crisis hits. Does the Minister recognise that if Yeovil is not sustained, we will lose those skills for a generation? Given that Leonardo is the only remaining bidder, will the Government stop dithering and get on with it now? Will the Minister commit to a new contract today?

• 7 Jan 2026 · Ukraine and Wider Operational Update · Hansard source

  More

  We all hope for peace in Ukraine. Years of brutal conflict, caused and perpetuated by Russia, have taken a terrible toll. There is therefore much to welcome in the announcement that the United Kingdom and France are prepared, alongside partners, to deploy forces to Ukraine after a ceasefire. That is not about escalation but about deterrence, reassurance and making peace durable rather than temporary. We have been clear that Ukrainians are fighting not just for their own freedom but for all of Europe. In return, we should be prepared to secure a fair peace deal and make it durable. We should be clear about the purpose: any deployment must be focused on defending Ukraine, strengthening deterrence and supporting Ukrainian forces—not fighting a new war but preventing the old one from restarting. It must sit firmly within the bounds of international law, with clear rules, oversight and the consent of this House. That matters even more at a time when trust in American guarantees is under strain, rhetoric about the annexation of Greenland is escalating, and international law is treated as optional. Europe has a responsibility to step up in defence of the principles that underpin our security. Does the Secretary of State accept that this announcement and other global events intensify the urgent need to increase defence spending to 2.5% and beyond? The Paris declaration states that the force would be deployed only after a credible cessation of hostilities. Can he give some detail on what that means in practice? If it refers merely to a ceasefire, would British troops be expected to conduct combat operations if hostilities were suddenly to resume? Today’s US operation to seize a Russian-flagged tanker, supported by the UK, reminds us of the deep and enduring security partnership that our two nations have built. That is important and worth defending, but not at the cost of our values and principles. The shadow fleet is one of the primary ways in which Russia funds its war in Ukraine. Legal action to diminish that fleet is welcome, and stands in contrast to US actions in Venezuela, which represent a blatant breach of international law. Does the Secretary of State recognise that distinction, and is he prepared to guarantee that UK bases will not, in any circumstances, be used to facilitate operations that breach international law, including any attempt to invade or annex Greenland?

• 5 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill: Armed Forces Recruitment and Retention · Hansard source

  More

  The Liberal Democrats are clear that the Conservatives’ Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 failed victims, survivors and veterans alike by removing legal avenues to justice and eroding public trust. Elements of the Government’s new Bill are welcome, particularly the desire to move towards reconciliation and information recovery, but those aims cannot come at the expense of justice and fairness, or the rights of those who served. Our concern is not to shield wrongdoing; it is to ensure fairness for those who acted within the law as it stood at the time. Veterans must not be left exposed to uncertainty or retrospective judgment, and without clear legal protection. Recruitment and retention is already an acknowledged challenge for our armed forces. Given the flaws in the Bill, an impact in this area could only further the case against it. What steps is the Minister taking to protect personnel who served during the troubles who followed the laws of the day? Given the extreme concern across the armed forces community about the impact that this legislation could have, will he consider halting the Bill, and replacing it with one that puts veterans at its heart?

• 5 Jan 2026 · Venezuela · Hansard source

  More

  There has been widespread speculation in recent days and hours about a possible US operation to seize a tanker that previously operated in Venezuela, which the United States has been pursuing and is now off the Irish coast. Any such operation would very likely involve UK air bases. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that any deployments of US forces from UK bases, whether in relation to this tanker or other targets that it may define in Europe, are in full compliance with international law?

• 5 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T7. Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), does the Home Secretary not appreciate how worrying it is to hear about the numbers of young people leaving this country? These people are literally the future of this country. What measures is her Department taking to disincentivise young people from emigrating? Does she agree that a youth mobility scheme with the European Union that allowed young people to work in Europe without needing to take the drastic step of leaving altogether would help?

• 15 Dec 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  In light of the United States’ new national security strategy, which fundamentally alters its global defence positioning, does the Secretary of State accept that relying on US-owned nuclear weapons for the recently announced new F-35A jets compromises British operational security, given that the UK will require explicit US authorisation to use them? Given that the Public Accounts Committee is concerned that the Ministry of Defence does not know the full cost of the F-35A programme—effectively, it is a blank cheque—how can this represent value for money if the United States could deny UK use of this capability in a crisis? Will the Government publish their assessment of that risk?

• 15 Dec 2025 · Defence Spending: Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Secretary of State agree that now, at a time of war, is precisely the moment for the UK to work with our European allies, even as Putin tries to divide us? If so, can he confirm that the UK rejected access to the €150 billion EU SAFE—Security Action for Europe—defence fund, at a proposed cost of about £2 billion, which is the same amount that the previous Government paid for access to the Horizon fund? Can he set out whether that is the correct figure, and explain whether his Department has estimated how much investment and industrial benefit could have flowed to the UK defence sector through our participation, boosting both our growth and our security, and that of our closest neighbours?

• 11 Dec 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T3. A local restaurateur who operates in the village of Alfriston in my constituency recently came to see me at an advice surgery to talk about the challenges he faces, including increased national insurance costs, the minimum wage, sky-high business rates and rent, and ever increasing energy and utility costs. Most months he struggles to turn a profit at all. I recently heard a similar story from the landlords at the Elephant & Castle pub. Does the Minister understand that these Government policies are making it impossible for small businesses such as those to succeed, and will she meet hospitality businesses in my constituency to learn more?

• 11 Dec 2025 · US National Security Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  The United States’ new national security strategy was smuggled out in the middle of the night, which is fitting for such a bleak and dystopian vision of the world. It contains some very sharp criticism of European allies, including of our internal democratic processes, and a prioritisation of future interference in European democratic processes to promote a specific ideology and world view. What are the Government going to do to protect the integrity of British democratic processes from a President who has a track record of denying democratic outcomes in his own country?

• 11 Dec 2025 · Foreign Interference · Hansard source

  More

  It just falls to me to thank everybody who has spoken in the debate. I found many of the contributions very compelling and interesting. We are in a changing global environment that is moving very quickly in the security context. Security is a shared priority for everybody in this House and everybody in this country, and it is important that we name these threats and talk about them in this space, so that we are doing our duty as parliamentarians to talk about the specific threats that are coming down the line. I thank the hon. Members for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), for Dundee Central (Chris Law), for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) and for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns), who spoke so well. Some fantastic themes came out from their contributions: the ongoing threats from Russia and China; the role of social media in the disinformation space in particular, which is being driven by those countries and others; the use of crypto—it is extremely welcome to hear from the Minister that action will be taken on donations in crypto format; and the clear lines of exploration, shall we say, that Russia, China and others are making to reach British parliamentarians, British influencers and British policymakers on a constant basis. It is important that we talk about that here. The final theme, of course, is the connections between Reform UK and Russia. It is unfortunate that no Reform MPs are here today to answer those specific concerns, but it is significant that almost every speaker in the debate has raised them; those concerns are profoundly important. Finally, I thank my party’s spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst), and the Minister for taking the time today, and thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the impact of foreign interference on security, trade and democracy.

• 11 Dec 2025 · Foreign Interference · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the impact of foreign interference on security, trade and democracy. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate, and my co-sponsors for their support. Since I submitted my application for the debate, the profound and urgent national importance of this matter has only increased. Foreign interference now strikes at the very core of Britain’s democratic institutions, our economy and our national security. This debate takes place against an extraordinary backdrop. Just last week, the United States released a national security strategy that represents nothing less than the wholesale rejection of the values and alliances that have underpinned British security for 80 years. That serves as a warning signal, threading through everything that I will say today. The world order that we built, and the certainty that we have relied on, are no longer guaranteed. Let me be clear about what we are witnessing and what it means for the United Kingdom. The post-war settlement that Britain helped to forge, and the post-cold war structures that we helped to build, are eroding simultaneously. International institutions—the United Nations, where we hold a permanent Security Council seat; the World Trade Organisation, where we championed free trade; and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe—are receding in influence at precisely the moment when Britain needs them most. Their weakening leaves us—a medium-sized power that has always punched above its weight through alliances and institutions—dangerously exposed. We live in a fractured world in which authoritarian states test boundaries with impunity, and Britain is squarely in their crosshairs. Russia’s war with Ukraine is not simply a regional conflict; it is on our doorstep, and it threatens the security architecture that has kept Britain safe. China has already made a grab for British infrastructure, from our nuclear power stations to our telecommunications networks. The United States’ new doctrine explicitly criticises European allies more harshly than it does adversaries, with senior officials accusing Britain and our European partners of “civilisational suicide”. Europe is the most liberal, free and democratic continent on earth. That makes us a prime target. Sweden’s chief of defence put it starkly last month, when he said: “Political polarisation in many countries in the west is…a candy shop for a hybrid-warfare warrior to exploit”. Britain’s own political polarisation—the Brexit divisions are still raw, and trust in institutions is declining—creates exactly the type of vulnerabilities that our adversaries seek to exploit. The rejection of value-based alliances outlined in the national security strategy and espoused in Beijing and Moscow underscores precisely why Britain must now step forward as the champion of liberal democratic values. That is not merely idealism; it is in the national interest. Britain’s prosperity depends on the rules-based international order. We are a trading nation—an island that lives by global commerce. We are a financial hub that requires stable international law. Britain’s power is at its greatest when multiplied through alliances and institutions. Liberal international institutions brought peace and prosperity on an unprecedented scale—and Britain was their architect. From the Atlantic charter to the United Nations, and from NATO to the Bretton Woods institutions, British statesmanship created the frameworks that defeated fascism, contained Soviet communism and enabled decades of prosperity.

• 11 Dec 2025 · Foreign Interference · Hansard source

  More

  I will come to Georgia later in my speech, but on the European aspect, the context of the national security strategy has, if anything, made it more urgent to work more closely with our European friends. The SAFE—Security Action for Europe—fund negotiations seem to have broken down. It would be good to get more clarity from the Government on exactly what assessment they have made of the benefit to British industry of the SAFE fund, in the light of the amount for which the European Union has asked for entry into that fund. Clearly, there is an urgent need to work more closely with our European friends on rearmament. The institutions that I mentioned must adapt and evolve, but retreating into transactional geopolitics—treating alliances as protection rackets and viewing international law as optional—leads to disaster for a country of our size and position. Cyber-attacks, disinformation and economic coercion are now as potent as tanks and missiles. The Defence Committee reports rising numbers of cyber-incidents targeting British infrastructure, Government systems and private companies, but the threat is not merely digital. In July 2024, a parcel exploded in a logistics centre in Birmingham. The explosion would have been powerful enough to bring down a cargo plane, had the parcel detonated on board. Security services traced the plot to Russian-directed saboteurs. Their plan’s next stage? Attacking flights to the United States, using British territory as the launching pad for an attack that would cause more disruption than any terrorist attack since 9/11. In March 2024, a warehouse in east London was set ablaze by Dylan Earl, a 21-year-old recruited online by Russia’s Wagner Group and paid in cryptocurrency. He was convicted after a video of him starting the fire was found on his phone, alongside a Russian flag and £34,000-worth of cocaine. His Wagner handler told him to watch the television series “The Americans” for tradecraft tips. The arson was meant as an audition. Earl wrote to contacts afterwards: “They have a warehouse in Czech Republic to burn for 35 thousand”. This is hybrid warfare, and Britain is on the frontline. As Chatham House observes, what is publicly understood is just the tip of the iceberg. There is far more happening that the Government have chosen not to disclose, often for good reason. These attacks seek to destabilise British democracy internally, rather than defeat us militarily. They exploit our openness, our freedoms and our legal systems. Young men recruited on Telegram carry out sabotage, often unaware that their paymaster sits in Moscow. When caught, they are released by the courts, which lack sufficient evidence. This is not so much le Carré or Bond; it is espionage delivered via the gig economy. We must also see China’s systematic penetration of British infrastructure as more than just a financial investment—it is strategic positioning. Huawei’s involvement in our telecommunications network sparked years of debate before partial restrictions were imposed. China General Nuclear’s 33% stake in Hinkley Point C nuclear power station gives Beijing influence over critical national infrastructure. Chinese ownership of British Steel, of swathes of student accommodation near sensitive facilities and of port infrastructure, and a potential new mega-embassy, all represent potential leverage. The United States’ new national security strategy explicitly threatens economic warfare, even against its friends. Washington now imposes tariffs on its allies. The Trump Administration have already placed such measures on Britain. That should be viewed in combination with our botched post-Brexit trade position. Having left the EU single market, Britain faces economic pressure from multiple directions. We cannot and must not separate economic security from national security. Every foreign investment, every supply chain and every trading relationship carries potential for coercion if not handled with the utmost care. Let me offer two international examples of the corrosive effect of foreign interference that should worry, if not terrify, British policymakers, because they show what happens when western resolve weakens. Georgia stands as a clear example of hybrid interference and democratic backsliding. A country that aspired to Euro-Atlantic integration and sent troops to fight alongside British forces in Afghanistan and Iraq has been pulled increasingly into Russia’s orbit through economic pressure, political interference and an ever-present military threat. Young Georgians take to the streets of Tbilisi, desperately protesting to protect their European future, while their leaders respond with water cannon and arrests on trumped-up charges. In Sudan, we see foreign interference layered upon state collapse. British interests in the Red sea—through which 12% of global trade flows, including vital supplies to Britain—are directly threatened, yet we did nothing to prevent state failure or ensure early stabilisation. At the very moment when sustained UK engagement was most needed, this Government cut our overseas aid budget and hollowed out the very conflict prevention and stabilisation tools designed to prevent crises like this. Exacerbated by interference from the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and others, we face regional instability and a humanitarian catastrophe, the scale and horror of which are hard to comprehend. Russia’s influence on operations in eastern Europe is unmistakable. Across the Balkans most recently, and also in Moldova and Romania, Russian interference has been both brazen and routine. Ahead of Moldova’s most recent elections, the BBC reported voters flying in from Russia carrying thousands of euros in cash, which was allegedly handed out in exchange for people backing Moscow’s preferred candidate. These are not distant problems; they are British problems. Georgia’s struggle warns us what happens when we fail to support democratic allies and to counter foreign interference, and the tragedy in Sudan demonstrates the cost of inaction. Both show that Britain, having retreated from global engagement, now reaps the consequences. That is why we must stand up with our allies, and continue to live and promote our values, both at home and around the world. One key way we can promote and protect those values is through our alliances. For 20 years, one of Vladimir Putin’s top objectives has been to undermine and break up NATO. The alliance is the cornerstone of British security, which makes reckless comments by individuals, including the new leader of the Green party about leaving the alliance, music to the Russian dictator’s ears. Russia has interfered in our domestic politics for years. Russia interfered in the Brexit referendum. The Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report documented credible open-source commentary suggesting Russian interference, but the Government of the time shamefully refused to investigate properly. As a result, we still do not know the full extent of Russian influence on the most consequential vote in modern British history. Even more starkly, Russia has murdered British citizens on British soil. Alexander Litvinenko was poisoned with polonium in London. Sergei and Yulia Skripal were attacked with Novichok in Salisbury, tragically leading to the death of Dawn Sturgess, too. Not only were those assassinations carried out on British soil, but we now know that they were messages. They demonstrated that Russia would violate British sovereignty with impunity. That makes it even more critical that our politics is free from Russian influence. Unfortunately, the recent trial of the former leader of Reform UK in Wales has exposed bribery in UK political movements. Until we have seen a thorough investigation of Reform UK’s wider funding, question marks will remain about that party’s links to the Kremlin. This is not a minor issue. Russia is working every day to infiltrate and undermine our politics and our infrastructure. British train lines are surveilled. British infrastructure is mapped for sabotage. British political discourse is poisoned by disinformation, and British resolve is tested constantly. We are up to the test—our security services are among the world’s very best—but we must root out corruption and foreign interference with energy, resolve and openness. That makes the language of the new American national security strategy all the more alarming. The document’s bleak, even dystopian, worldview, echoed in recent days by the US President, should alarm us all. It trashes the values underpinning alliances that have guaranteed British security since the war. It seeks to interfere directly in European politics, and to fuel instability by calling for a cultivation of resistance to mainstream European political discourse. Essentially, it is endorsing nationalist populist parties such as Alternative für Deutschland, Le Pen’s Rassemblement National in France, and the Reform party here in Britain. It emboldens Russia and China to push further against British interests. Most alarmingly, the NSS reserves its harshest criticism not for its adversaries but for allies. Christopher Landau, the US Deputy Secretary of State, posted that America can no longer “pretend that we are partners” with European countries, Britain included, that are pursuing policies “utterly adverse” to American interests. He listed climate policy, tech regulation, and alleged “censorship” as justifications. Russia’s reaction tells us everything. Putin’s spokesman praised the NSS, and Russians close to Putin endorsed Trump’s attacks on European allies. They sense an opportunity, and we must respond. The UK must therefore take foreign interference more seriously than it has done in decades. We cannot rely on an America drifting towards transactional nationalism. We must prepare for a world where Britain and Europe stand together to succeed in a transformed global political and security landscape. That is why I was particularly disappointed by the Government’s recent decision to withdraw from negotiations on UK access to the EU Security Access for Europe fund, and I hope we can revisit that at a later time. Britain must act with urgency on multiple fronts. We must strengthen our democratic resilience, implement the Russia report’s recommendations that the Government ignored, expose foreign interference wherever it exists, protect electoral integrity, and expose attempts by foreigners to bribe British officials. We must bolster our economic security, enhance our cyber defences and rebuild our conventional military capabilities. We must be out front in defending free trade, democratic integrity, and international institutions, even when our closest ally wavers. Britain shaped the world order. Britain championed the rules. Britain built the alliances. If we will not defend them, they will collapse and we will suffer first, and worst. The world is entering an era defined by hybrid threats, authoritarian ambition and weak multilateralism. This Parliament must confront foreign interference with cross-party seriousness and honesty. The threats are real and the vulnerabilities are known: already British citizens have died, British sovereignty has been violated and British democracy has been attacked. The UK built a global system of rules to reject the notion that might is right. As Putin, Xi and now Trump attempt to reassert that very notion, it falls to us to stand firmly by our values to secure a fair, peaceful future at home and abroad.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Ajax Armoured Vehicle · Hansard source

  More

  I associate myself with the comments of the Minister and the shadow Secretary of State regarding the service personnel injured in the recent training incident involving the Ajax vehicles. The recent revelations about the Ajax programme raise questions that go far beyond this single family of vehicles—they go to the heart of how the Ministry of Defence manages major defence projects, our ability to meet our NATO obligations, and the safety of the men and women who serve so bravely. Meant to enter service in 2017, the Ajax is now getting on for nine years behind schedule, and after more than £6 billion has been spent, the Minister still cannot give a cast-iron guarantee that Ajax is safe to operate. Will he confirm whether the Department has prepared any contingency plan should the Ajax ultimately be deemed unsafe or unviable? If further delays or design overhauls are needed, what assessment has been made of the impact on our NATO commitments, particularly our contribution to the UK’s armoured capability? Our allies will be watching closely, as will our enemies. Finally, given that this programme has been allowed to drift for so many years at eye-watering cost, is the MOD considering an internal investigation into how these failings were able to progress this far without detection? If that investigation were to be undertaken, could it be expanded further to touch on the issues already raised by the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), about the Boxer tank, the Boeing E-7 reconnaissance plane, and other MOD acquisition failures over recent years? Taxpayers deserve answers and value for money, and our armed forces deserve equipment they can trust.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Venezuela: US Military · Hansard source

  More

  Nicolás Maduro’s presidency clearly has no legitimacy after he was so roundly defeated in last year’s elections; he has continued to refuse to release any evidence to show that he was victorious, as he claims. However, does the Minister agree that the presidency of Venezuela is a decision for the Venezuelan people to make in a peaceful, democratic way, supported by the international community—not a decision for the US President to make, under threat of military force?

• 26 Nov 2025 · Driving Test Availability: South-east · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mrs Harris. I heartily congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) on securing this debate, which is particularly valuable because it primarily affects a cohort of people who are not directly represented in this place. For the vast majority of MPs, including me, passing our driving tests is far in the rear-view mirror. With hindsight, many of us perhaps take for granted how easy it was to take our test or, in my case, take it for a second time, as I did when I passed at Brighton Marina test centre nearly 20 years ago. Not only has that test centre now shut down, but there is no practical test centre whatsoever in Brighton and Hove, a city and much wider area of over 250,000 people that includes my constituency of Lewes. This lack of availability across the country is made even more acute by the lack of local test centres, as highlighted by the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow). When I submitted a freedom of information request to the DVSA last year, I was told that the three open test centres nearest to my constituency in Sussex have a combined waiting list of 7,500 people—let that figure sink in for a moment. I simply booked my test, turned up and failed, and then booked another test, turned up and passed. There are 7,500 primarily young people waiting for tests in our corner of Sussex alone, trapped in an administrative limbo that is holding back their lives. Like other colleagues, I will share a few examples of what this means in human terms for my constituents. One constituent, a mother, contacted me because she has found it utterly impossible to book a practical test for her son. She explained to me that slots are released on Monday mornings at 6 am, as many Members have mentioned. She sets her alarm, logs on, waits in the digital queue, and by the time she reaches the front, every single appointment has vanished. Week after week, it is the same story. Her son has passed his theory test, which is valid for only two years, and she now fears that he will have to sit it all over again through no fault of his own. Another constituent told me that her daughter failed her practical test back in April. It is a disappointing moment that I have been through myself, but it should lead to another attempt within a reasonable timeframe. When I failed my first test, I remember the retake simply being taken for granted, “We’ll just book it for a few weeks’ time. When is convenient for you?” For this constituent, however, the earliest available slot she could find was six months later—in Scotland. We live on the south coast of England, as far south as we could be—if we went any further south, we would be in the sea, and then we would be in France. Scotland is quite far from us. It is extraordinary to expect somebody to wait six months and then travel hundreds of miles to the north of this country—beautiful as it is—to take their test. Is it really acceptable that someone should have to travel that kind of distance simply to have a second attempt at their driving test? A third case is perhaps the most dispiriting of all. A mother and daughter tried three times a day, day after day, to secure a booking, and still they could not get through. The daughter’s theory certificate expired, and she was forced to re-sit the entire examination, paying and studying again, all because the system had completely failed her. As a number of Members have mentioned, what makes the situation even more troubling is that the shortage has created a market for exploitation. Unofficial booking websites have sprung up, hoovering up appointments and reselling them at inflated prices. The DVSA warns that such sites pose a risk to personal data and charge unnecessary fees. I welcome the Government’s announcement this month, but I would be grateful if the Minister could outline a timeframe in which he anticipates we will start to see results from the Government’s action to tackle the bots that are exploiting people all over the country. Of course, the backlog has its roots in the pandemic, when testing was suspended entirely, but we are now four years on and the queue has not been cleared. People have been locked out of jobs that require them to drive, and they have been isolated from education and social opportunities, as well as from the independence that a driving licence represents—particularly in rural areas like mine, where public transport is sparse or non-existent. It is simply not good enough, and we need action. We must keep vital test centres open, especially in rural communities. We must crack down on those predatory bots and third-party sites, and I welcome the news from the Government on those issues. We must expand the number of driving examiners, as has also been touched on, and offer more tests outside standard hours to eat into the backlog. We must require the DVSA to set out proper contingency plans so that bad weather or disruptions do not add further delays to an already failing system. Learning to drive is a rite of passage for millions of young people across this country, and for many in my constituency of Lewes it is the key that unlocks employment, education and independence. The current state of affairs is failing them badly, and I urge the Government to act.

• 24 Nov 2025 · East Sussex County Council: Elections · Hansard source

  More

  3. Whether East Sussex county council elections will take place in 2026.

• 24 Nov 2025 · East Sussex County Council: Elections · Hansard source

  More

  Cuts to adult social care, collapsing support for children with special educational needs and disabilities, roads full of potholes—the list goes on. The Conservatives have failed East Sussex for too long and should be held to account. Another delay would mean that the current administration will have their term extended to six years. Can the Secretary of State give me and residents across East Sussex a clear answer on when we will know if we will have the chance to vote this May?

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

  More

  Yes, that is an important point, because European countries working together will be critical in future. We can look at past examples of joint projects; for example, the Sea Viper system used on our ships was developed jointly with other European countries and has been very successful. Europe would be missing a trick if we were in any way excluded from a scheme, given the size of the British military-industrial complex, and the contribution that we can make through not just our primes but our start-ups and our medium-sized businesses, and the expertise that our military brings. It would be quite short-sighted of the French Government, or indeed any other Government, to put obstacles in the way of future collaboration, particularly at a time of such threat from the east. To truly honour our armed forces personnel, we must uphold the principles they serve by protecting our country with the same dedication and resolve that they have shown in its defence. There are 1.8 million veterans in England and Wales, plus 150,000 full-time serving personnel and their families. They are our neighbours, our colleagues, our friends and our family members. Britain’s armed forces are the finest in the world, but they need to be given the capabilities to meet the threats we face. They need decent housing, comprehensive healthcare, proper mental health support, fair compensation and genuine respect. Defence is not an optional extra, but the foundation of everything else we hold dear. On this Remembrance Day, let us do more than remember. Let us resolve to act. Let us commit to providing everything that our armed forces community deserves, and let us prove ourselves worthy of the sacrifice made by those who gave everything so that we can live in freedom and security. They stood for us; now we must stand for them. That is the essence of remembrance. That is the measure of our patriotism. That is our duty, and that is our obligation to those who serve. Lest we forget.