James MacCleary MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

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

  More

  Remembrance Day is when our nation pauses to honour those who have served, those who continue to serve and, most especially, those who made the ultimate sacrifice in defence of our freedoms. Indeed, just this morning I was in Polegate, in my constituency, to lay a wreath alongside representatives of the local Royal British Legion, councillors, and local clubs and societies, and I had the honour of laying wreaths in Ringmer and Lewes on Sunday. We MPs have the unique honour of standing alongside people from across our communities—particularly young people; there was a huge turnout of young people at all our remembrance events—as we lay wreaths to remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice for us. During the second world war, our corner of Sussex saw convoy after convoy of troops and provisions pass through our small villages and country lanes. Indeed, some of those country lanes still bear the scars of tank tracks that damaged kerbs and other infrastructure. In 1942, Operation Jubilee, otherwise known as the Dieppe raid, was launched from Newhaven in my constituency, to test plans for the full-scale invasion of the Normandy coast. The cost was high: in the operation, nearly 4,000 Canadian and British troops were killed, wounded or taken prisoner. Every year, we remember those brave soldiers in ceremonies in Newhaven and Dieppe. Today, in my constituency of Lewes, more than 3,600 households contain at least one veteran. Remembrance Day is an event that brings us together. It is a time of unity and pride, as well as solemnity and reflection. Yet remembrance without action is merely sentiment. True remembrance demands that we translate our gratitude into tangible support for those who have served. It demands that we look honestly at how we treat our veterans and serving personnel today, not just how we commemorate those of yesterday. When we do so with clear eyes, we must acknowledge an uncomfortable truth: that we can do better. That is why I really welcome the publication of the Government’s new veterans strategy this week. Britain’s armed forces are the finest in the world. Our servicemen and servicewomen possess unparalleled skill, courage and dedication, and that is the legacy we must uphold. The men and women who wear our uniform today stand in an unbroken line stretching back through centuries, as we have heard from the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois). They carry forward the same spirit that saw their predecessors stand firm against wannabe despots, from Napoleon to Hitler. But excellence requires investment. Defence is not simply another Department competing for resources but the fundamental obligation of the state—the bedrock on which all our other freedoms depend. Without security, there can be no prosperity, and without defence, there can be no democracy. The world today is more dangerous than at any time since the end of the cold war. Modern warfare is no longer confined to tanks, ships and planes; it is also fought with drones, in cyber-space and in our data networks. That is why we must be able to move quickly, adapt rapidly, and learn from our Ukrainian allies, who are innovating on the battlefield every day. Britain must be ready to absorb and integrate these lessons and ensure that our own armed forces are ready. This is not the time for retreat or for isolationism; this is the time for Britain to lead in Europe, to stand firm alongside our allies, and to ensure that our armed forces have everything they need to defend our nation and our values. The Government’s commitment to boosting defence spending to 2.5% of GDP is welcome, but it is not enough. We need cross-party talks to agree on a rapid path towards 3%, and I would welcome the Minister’s views on how we can work together to achieve just that. Let us be under no illusion: we have the most capable military in Europe, so as the US continues to withdraw forces from across our continent—it recently withdrew a division from Romania—it will be the UK that will be looked to, to step up and lead. We need sustained, long-term investment in our armed forces, not reactive gestures driven by electoral cycles. As we have seen in the strategic defence review, investment will need to be sustained over a long period. On this Remembrance Day, as we honour those who served before, we must also stand beside those serving today. Recruitment and retention are in crisis; more people leave our armed forces than join. The Haythornthwaite report identified family impact as the most common reason for departure, and one third of military spouses say that they would be happier if their partner left the service. We have failed to provide decent housing and failed to support military families adequately. Three quarters of all personnel live in service accommodation, yet barely half remain satisfied with service accommodation conditions. I welcome the Government’s announcement of £9 billion for military housing, but we must be clear that that is not generosity; it is catching up on the years of neglect. The housing crisis for veterans extends beyond their time in the service. Thousands of households containing someone who served in our armed forces are assessed as being homeless each year, and, shamefully, that figure is rising. Having veterans on our streets in 2025 is a profound dereliction of duty. I was pleased to hear the Chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), mention the treatment of women in our armed forces, which I am sure is a major concern for us all. We are all familiar with the terrible case of Gunner Jaysley Beck, who took her own life at Larkhill in Wiltshire, and the bungled handling of that case by the Army, which has subsequently come to light. They did not listen to her —nobody listened to her—and the inquest found that the failure to take appropriate action was a direct contributor to her death. The Atherton report revealed the scale of the crisis: the majority of women who responded to its survey reported experiencing bullying, discrimination, harassment or sexual assault during their service, sometimes at the hands of senior officers. The Ministry of Defence has introduced reforms, but they are not having the impact on the ground that was hoped for. We must implement every recommendation of the Atherton report. We must ensure that the new independent Armed Forces Commissioner has responsibility for handling serious complaints. We must do more to improve conviction rates for sexual assaults within the armed forces. How can we expect women to put their lives on the line to keep us safe when their voices are still not being heard within their own ranks? Mental health is another critical area in which we have fallen short. More than half our veterans report having experienced mental health problems, yet when veterans seek help, they face long waiting times, inadequate provision and services that fail to understand their specific needs. We must provide comprehensive, easy-to-access, professional mental health support. We must offer regular mental health assessments at key transition points. We must fight the stigma surrounding mental ill health, so that asking for help is seen not as a weakness, but as a strength. The global security landscape is more volatile and unpredictable than it has been in a generation. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has shattered the relative peace that we have enjoyed on our continent for decades. An emboldened Kremlin seeks to undermine western democracies through disinformation, cyber-attacks and attempts to influence our political processes. We have seen evidence of Russian interference in elections across Europe, attempts to sow discord through social media manipulation, and sustained efforts to weaken NATO from within. China expands its military capabilities and asserts increasingly aggressive territorial claims. Instability spreads across the middle east, Africa and beyond. Authoritarian regimes grow bolder, while democracies appear hesitant and, at times, divided. Our commitment to NATO must therefore remain the cornerstone of our security. Only a few weeks ago, Portsmouth-based HMS Duncan was deployed under NATO command to shadow the Russian destroyer Vice-Admiral Kulakov through the channel. It was a striking image of an alliance in action: British, French and Dutch forces working together to protect our shared waters. The ageing Russian vessel, limping westward, stood in stark contrast to the cutting-edge capability of the Royal Navy’s Type 45 destroyer. It is proof that our strength lies not in isolation, but in standing together with our allies, at sea and beyond.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of her statement. I warmly welcome the announcement of fresh sanctions aimed at cutting Putin’s oil and gas profits. It is vital that we make use of all the tools at our disposal to undermine his war machine, and we know that oil and gas revenues are primarily used to fund it. These measures are a further step in the right direction, but I encourage the Government to go even further. Analysis by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air think-tank shows that UK-owned or insured liquefied natural gas carriers have facilitated the transport of £45 billion of Russian gas since the start of the full-scale invasion. That means that 76% of the total export value of Russian LNG was carried on UK-owned or insured vessels. It is unconscionable that UK businesses are still contributing to Putin’s coffers, so will the Foreign Secretary commit to banning the provision of maritime services, including transport and insurance, for Russian gas? Will she engage directly with the maritime insurance sector, a large proportion of which is based in the UK, to find practical ways to implement such a ban? I was very pleased to hear of the Foreign Secretary’s ambition to progress plans to use the full value of frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine’s war effort. That is a measure that the Liberal Democrats have been pushing for action on for some months. The Government need to move at pace as Ukraine continues to face Putin’s relentless assault, so can the Foreign Secretary confirm the timetable she is looking at for new funds becoming available from frozen assets? Can she outline how those funds will be allocated, and if barriers to seizing those assets are put in place internationally, can she commit to the UK Government acting unilaterally when it comes to seizing the assets held in the UK? It is more than three years since Roman Abramovich sold Chelsea football club. In June, the then Foreign Secretary said that the Government were ready and willing to take legal action to finally secure the £2.5 billion generated from the sale that is earmarked for additional support for Ukraine. It appears, however, that the Government’s bark has been worse than their bite so far, as we have heard no more about how the Government intend to pursue those assets. What concrete action have the Government taken since June to secure them? We all hope to see a just peace in Ukraine. When we do, thoughts will switch to reconstruction. Can the Secretary of State commit to provide full UK backing, including funding, to the Council of Europe’s register of damage for Ukraine?

• 16 Sept 2025 · International Day of Democracy · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, I did see that story, and it is absolutely shocking. Anyone who purports to care about free speech and accountability, then bans journalists from attending meetings for no good reason, does not respect that at all. We cannot pick and choose who provides that scrutiny. I have not spoken at length here about the media, but it performs a fundamental role. We have spoken today about the iniquitous role of some social media, and that has shown the transition in the way that people consume information about democracy. We must protect and support local government reporters, which the hon. Member mentioned, who are absolutely essential to the democratic process in this country. That is an important point. I was just about to say that globally, records show declines in press freedom on every continent. Rule of law is slipping. One in five nations saw a deterioration in freedom of expression, economic equality and access to justice. Hong Kong activists face intimidation, even on British soil, with Chinese Communist party-linked bounties pinned to lamp posts, even in our own towns. In Iran, the Revolutionary Guard exports terror and targets women demanding freedom. In Russia, Vladimir Putin claimed an 87% “victory” in a sham election while jailing and killing rivals. These regimes do not simply repress at home; they meddle abroad, launder their money through London and seek to divide our alliances. Crucially, Britain’s credibility must start at home. Many people feel that democracy is not working for them in this country. They feel detached and distanced from this place, and look to those who offer easy answers. Our politics is realigning, and our system of democracy must realign with it. That means real electoral reform; a system of proportional representation that reflects what people actually voted for. There is a real danger that at the next election the distorted first-past-the-post system, which both the Conservative and Labour parties have done so much to protect, will sweep them away. The time for change is now. Democracy is something precious that we must all work to protect, but it is not certain, and it is not inevitable. Too many people who claim to cherish our democracy now spend time subverting it—deliberately or not—by undermining our judiciary, discrediting serious media outlets and attacking the integrity of election results that do not suit them. The Liberal Democrats’ answer is clear: we must restore Britain’s moral authority by defending rights robustly, here and abroad; champion a proportional electoral system, so that every vote counts and political monopolies cannot fester; enshrine the ministerial code in law; uphold the Human Rights Act 1998 against those who would dilute it; impose Magnitsky-style sanctions on those who persecute in Hong Kong, Georgia, Serbia and elsewhere; and fund development and diplomacy properly by reversing aid cuts that leave vacuums for autocrats to exploit. Democracy is not merely a ballot box. It is a citizen in Tbilisi protesting without fear; a journalist in Belgrade exposing corruption without a midnight knock at the door; a student in Hong Kong refusing to be silenced by Beijing; a Ukrainian citizen voting for their future under Russian fire; and a voter in Lewes knowing that their vote will really count. Authoritarianism spreads when democracy grows timid, and we Liberal Democrats will not be timid. We will stand with the people of Georgia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbia, with Hong Kong’s exiles and Ukraine’s heroic defenders, and with every community fighting to have their voice heard. Britain must be known as a country that does not just lecture on democracy, but lives it, defends it and invests in it.

• 16 Sept 2025 · International Day of Democracy · Hansard source

  More

  It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) for securing this really interesting debate. I echo your words, Sir John—it has been really valuable. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions, many of which I agreed with very strongly and some of which I did not agree with quite so much, but it has been an excellent illustration of what a functioning democracy looks like on this International Day of Democracy. It is often said these days that we face a crisis in democracy. Authoritarian regimes in Beijing and Moscow become bolder, while long-standing democracies in Europe and the USA appear to struggle in the face of populism. It has never been more important for us as British parliamentarians to stand against those who would erode and diminish our hard-fought democratic freedoms, both here and abroad. I will speak today about this crisis, but also about the opportunities that the response to it presents both here in the UK and around the world. It starts with respecting the building blocks of any successful democracy—the rule of law, free and fair elections, rights and freedoms, and accountability and transparency. In some countries, the erosion of these building blocks is worrying. In Georgia, for instance, the stakes could not be higher. Last November the Georgian Government suspended EU accession talks, a choice that outraged a nation where polls consistently show overwhelming support for integration with Europe. Since then, protesters have filled Rustaveli Avenue almost daily, braving batons and water cannons to say, “Our future is ours”. Over the summer, the Georgian Dream Government started arresting opposition leaders. Just weeks ago, I was informed that my friend Giorgi Vashadze, a leading opposition figure, had been arrested and sentenced to eight months in prison. Just yesterday another, Elene Khoshtaria, was arrested. The heinous crime of which she is accused? Damage to the mayor of Tbilisi’s election posters. How we respond to these challenges to democracy defines us as much as it defines those countries who are seeing their rights diminished. Another example is Bosnia and Herzegovina, where the Dayton peace agreement is being undermined by Milorad Dodik and his breakaway Republika Srpska. Less than a week ago, Dodik was hosted by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Moscow. The decision under the last Government to withdraw British troops from the EUFOR peacekeeping force in 2020 was a strategic blunder. The Liberal Democrats have called on the Government to recommit to the EUFOR mission, to support the civic groups painstakingly building bridges between communities and to reinforce Britain’s commitment to democracy and peace in the Balkans. That also holds true in Serbia, where anger over corruption, negligence and brutality erupted after the Novi Sad railway station disaster last November. What began as mourning for victims became a nationwide anti-corruption movement, drawing hundreds of thousands on to the street. Rather than listening, President Vučić smeared protesters as foreign agents and invited Russian backing, while riot police fired stun grenades and tear gas. There were five nights of unrest and party offices in flames, but still there has been no meaningful reform. The UK must send an unmistakable message: the Balkans cannot become a playground for Moscow’s interference. That means fair and transparent elections where the results are respected. Those of us in positions of responsibility and power must uphold those standards. If we do not, the consequences can be violent, as we saw in January 2021 when the US Congress was stormed by those who agreed with the current US President that the election result, in which he had been clearly defeated, was illegitimate and sought to overturn it. Across Europe and around the world, we find democracy under pressure. From Tbilisi to Hong Kong, hard-won freedoms are being eroded, legislatures hollowed out and the voices of citizens silenced. The Liberal Democrats understand that democracy is more than just a mechanism for simply choosing Governments; it is a covenant between people and power—between rights and responsibility. It is how ordinary citizens hold the mighty to account. These crises are a symptom of a broader malaise.

• 15 Sept 2025 · Children with SEND: Assessments and Support · Hansard source

  More

  For families in my constituency of Lewes, this is not an abstract policy debate but their daily reality. That includes the 229 constituents who responded to this petition, to whom I am very grateful. The failures of the SEND system are in my inbox every week. Take the little boy in my constituency who travels 56 miles every day just to attend a school in Hastings, because there simply is not a suitable place closer to home. It is not fair on him or his parents, and it is not sustainable for the system. Or take the children whose parents wrote to me, as they still did not know—even as September loomed—where or if their children would be starting school. For families, that limbo is agonising. It is not just individual cases; the system as a whole is failing. In East Sussex, almost 5,000 pupils have EHCPs, yet time and again parents are forced to take the council to tribunal to secure the support to which their children are legally entitled. Between 2020 and this summer, over 92% of those cases were decided in favour of the parents. That is not evidence of pushy families gaming the system; it is proof that councils are getting it wrong at huge cost to the taxpayer and enormous stress to families. What is more, tribunals are becoming ever more expensive. East Sussex county council has gone from spending a few hundred pounds on SEND tribunals in 2020 to well over £100,000 in the past year. Every pound wasted fighting parents is a pound not spent on children. Meanwhile, special schools in my constituency, Bowden House and Cuckmere House, which I visited recently, are oversubscribed. Families are increasingly turning to independent special schools, such as Northease Manor school, which do extraordinary work, but are now facing VAT changes that will hit parents and local authorities hard. That is the picture across the south-east. Families in Newhaven, Seaford, Lewes, Polegate and across our local villages are not asking for the earth. Until this Government show that they are willing to act with urgency and ambition, families will continue to be failed by a system that is meant to serve them.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Day in, day out, I hear from people across my constituency—from Polegate to Plumpton—who want to use the bus but simply cannot do so. People must be at the heart of transport policy, so let me begin with one example from my constituency. I recently heard from a woman in Wilmington village who wants to get to her job in Lewes by bus but cannot do so at present. To do so, she must travel in the wrong direction to Polegate, wait, then take a slow service through multiple villages. What would be a 15-minute drive becomes an hour or more on the bus, so she drives. That is not a lifestyle choice; it is a failure of network design. This Bill could give us the tools to put that right, if we use them properly. The A27 in my constituency desperately needs a direct service between Eastbourne and Lewes, and we must make that happen. The stops are on the road; there is just no bus to serve them. That is exactly why I support amendment 2, on socially necessary routes, so that journeys to work, schools and health services are guaranteed, even when the market will not deliver. Franchising powers in the Bill mean that our local transport authority could finally design services around what people need, not what happens to be commercially convenient. The new duty to provide socially necessary routes must make that real. Our amendments would ensure that if the market will not deliver, the authority must step in and be properly funded to do so. The A27 express should be at the top of that list. I recently heard from a young lady in Stone Cross in my constituency who tries to get to college. Buses fail to appear—one recently sailed by her when she was waiting—and that means lost education time. The powers in the Bill on performance, data and enforcement must bite. We must publish stop-level reliability and give local transport authorities the lever to withhold payment for no-shows and require operator recovery plans. We must also back our “headphone dodgers” amendment, so that authorities can make byelaws against sustained antisocial noise. Safe, civil journeys retain passengers. Much like the case in Stone Cross, I see the same story repeated in the village of Ringmer. An 85-year-old constituent depends on the bus to reach the Tesco in Lewes, yet sometimes it never arrives, and at other times the driver simply drives on by. That is not a public service; it is a gamble. If people are to use these services, they must be able to rely on them. That is why I back amendment 11, on accessible stopping places and reliability. We must ensure that information is clear, that drivers are trained and that passengers are not left stranded. Rural villages across my constituency send the same message: they have gaps, long waits, and first and last buses that do not work for people’s real lives. Community transport services are a lifeline in rural areas where commercial routes do not run. In my constituency, volunteer-led Cuckmere Buses and CTLA keep people connected. The Sussex Art Shuttle, run by Cuckmere Buses, shows how small, community-driven transport projects can open up access and enrich local lives. These schemes run on tight budgets and good will, yet they deliver where the market will not. Amendment 9 would recognise their value and ensure that funding streams work for them, not against them. There is also the Flexibus scheme, a forward-thinking initiative from East Sussex county council showing how a local authority can take control and fill the gaps left by traditional services. With booking available by app or phone, it is a practical, people-centred service that makes rural transport work for many. New clause 8, on VAT rules for demand-responsive services, would make it easier for such schemes, allowing councils to innovate locally and deliver real solutions for communities. Sadly, in Lewes we have lost our bus station. Years of campaigning could not save it. The result is an interchange tacked on to the Phoenix Causeway bridge—busy, exposed and in the wrong place. It is not possible to grow ridership while dismantling the places where people change buses. We should give local transport authorities explicit powers, duties and funding to safeguard and replace our interchanges as part of franchising schemes. That is why new clause 5, on accessibility reports so that bus stations and interchanges are explicitly safeguarded and properly planned, is so important. The upcoming Budget must unlock much-needed funding for major roads that are congested and therefore delay bus service. I have raised the A259 in my constituency directly with the Prime Minister in this place. It is a vicious cycle: congestion holds back buses, people turn back to cars, and traffic gets worse. Better buses mean fewer cars, and a transition to a zero emissions fleet must be central to how we plan for the future. Affordability underpins all of this. The Liberal Democrats’ new clause 1 would restore the £2 fare cap, which worked well; it put money back in pockets and passengers back on seats. Lifting it is a bus tax on work, study and care. Our new clause would restore the cap and require a formal assessment of the impact of hikes. We go further: new clause 9 would provide free travel for those on carer’s allowance, and new clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), would remove time restrictions for disabled concessionary passes. This Bill will be judged not by what it promises on paper, but whether it delivers for people who wait at the bus stop, and I hope this Government will deliver that.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend may be aware that in East Sussex, where I am lucky enough to be an MP, the county council has already removed the restriction on timings. Indeed, he has met my former Liberal Democrat council colleague Sean Macleod to discuss that. Does my hon. Friend agree that that creates a postcode lottery across the country, where some people are fortunate to live in places that have removed the restriction and others are not so lucky?

• 10 Sept 2025 · Russian Drones: Violation of Polish Airspace · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister was quite right to describe this violation of Polish airspace as unprecedented, but I am sure he would agree that it is not isolated; in fact, it represents the latest escalation in Russia’s campaign of attacks on central and eastern European NATO allies. Just last year, shopping centres in Vilnius and Warsaw were set on fire, and the leaders of those countries pointed the finger firmly at Russian military intelligence. Just last week, a jet carrying the President of the European Commission suffered a cyber-attack that was initiated by Russia. Russia is clearly not deterred by the current measures in place. Will the Minister outline what we can do as a leading military power in Europe and in NATO to enhance and reinforce the capabilities of our NATO allies who are on the frontline of the confrontation with Russia?

• 4 Sept 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T5. I recently spoke to David, who farms near the village of Berwick in my constituency. He told me that he has recently given up raising livestock altogether due to the lack of local abattoirs—his nearest option is well over an hour away. What action are the Government taking to support new and existing abattoirs, so that farmers across the country who are in a similar situation to David do not stop raising livestock too?

• 4 Sept 2025 · Early Education and Childcare · Hansard source

  More

  As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for early education and childcare, I speak frequently to representatives of the private and voluntary childcare sector, who tell me that they are in crisis. Staffing shortages and an unsustainable funding model mean that they do not know how they will deliver the very laudable aims outlined in the Government’s statement. Does the Minister understand that those aims are unachievable without the support of the private and voluntary sector? Will he agree to attend a meeting of our APPG to hear directly from key voices in the sector?

• 3 Sept 2025 · Pavement Parking · Hansard source

  More

  Some see pavement parking as merely a nuisance, but in some parts of my constituency it is far more serious, affecting businesses and residents every day. Due to the time restriction, I will talk about just one community—the town of Polegate—where the crisis has become particularly acute. People tell me every day that cars are parked on pavements in the town, forcing parents with prams into the road, leaving wheelchair users stuck and making the high street harder to use for everyone. Some businesses are even struggling to keep going due to parking. What makes it even worse is patchy enforcement. In Polegate and other communities in the Wealden district part of my constituency, parking has never been decriminalised. That means responsibility still sits with the police, who understandably have other priorities, so offences simply go unchecked. It is a bizarre situation that leaves residents with no effective recourse. I am pressing for urgent action so that parking can finally be enforced and my constituents are not left abandoned. Meanwhile, there has been action in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and I believe there are preparations for action in Wales, too. Yet in England—outside London, at least—we are still stuck in limbo. Local councils want to tackle it and residents demand change, but the Government have left them with a clunky, expensive process that can take months or years to achieve little. We must give councils the powers and clarity they need and back communities like Polegate that are demanding safer streets because, every week it drags on, more families are pushed into the road, more vulnerable people are shut out, and more of our pavements are broken up. It is now time to act.

• 2 Sept 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Bill brands itself as “devolution by default”, but in practice it could be seen as centralisation by stealth. Real devolution shifts power out of Westminster and Whitehall to the people in local communities, but the Bill risks doing the opposite. For instance, clause 4 lets Ministers draw and redraw local maps in order for areas to have a mayor. Clause 50 lets them bolt on new functions by regulation with minimal scrutiny, and clause 9 creates seven unelected commissioners answerable only to a mayor. It also fails to explain how it will all be paid for. Let us be clear, local government is in serious financial difficulty. East Sussex county council is on course to exhaust its reserves by 2029. Councils across East Sussex carry £500 million-worth of debt. Our inboxes are full of cases that should be handled by councils that no longer have the staff or the funding. Reshuffling deck chairs on a sinking ship will not save it. Without a sustainable settlement for social care and children’s services, structural changes will fail. Some powers are welcome, if they are funded. Bus franchising can reconnect towns and villages but not on an empty budget. Requiring key route networks and local growth plans adds duties but at the moment without giving resources. A new local audit office could help clear the audit backlog, but it cannot be both regulator and auditor—no one should mark their own homework. I was particularly alarmed to read clause 55; this issue has affected my community particularly heavily. The clause enables forced mergers into new unitary councils. In my area, Brighton and Hove city council has launched a surprise consultation to push its boundary east to absorb Newhaven, Kingston and nearby villages in my constituency. Newhaven is a distinct port town 10 miles from Brighton. Kingston, Iford, Rodmell and Southease are rural communities in the South Downs national park. I have already written to a Minister on this subject. They are not Brighton neighbourhoods, and residents do not want decisions made for them at Hove town hall. The Government say that they want pace. The East Sussex proposal, supported by the county council and all five districts and boroughs, keeps the county boundary intact and lets East Sussex move forward together. Brighton’s farcical counter-proposal risks delay and confusion, not least by proposing to cut across the boundaries of two county divisions and a parliamentary constituency. Its consultation does not even consider a westward expansion where the urban area of Brighton and Hove naturally continues; it goes straight into cutting up East Sussex. Here is the test for the Bill overall: does it move power and resources to people and places, or does it pull more strings into the Secretary of State’s hands? Does it strengthen scrutiny or sidestep it? Does it fix the finances or dodge them? At the moment, it falls short on all these counts. I hope the Minister can explain the answers to those challenges. Devolution should feel like power in people’s hands, not something being done to them.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I was pleased to read that the Government are finally taking steps to rejoin the Erasmus+ programme—something for which the Liberal Democrats have been calling for some time. Will the Minister now set out a timetable mandate and expected terms for UK reassociation with that programme?