Lee Dillon MP: speeches

Speeches

• 10 Sept 2026 · Social Housing Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I put it on record that I am a passionate advocate for social housing. I have lived in it and I have worked in it. For the 14 years before I entered this House, I worked for a social housing provider in customer service, community development and housing management—my wife still does. I have seen the passion of staff who deliver those services every day, and I saw the frustration of customers who relied on them. I know how good the sector can be, and I know where it can sometimes fall short. As MPs, we see casework where tenants demand and deserve more, whether on housing allocation, repair issues or antisocial behaviour. I am happy to put it on record that this Government have helped, not hindered social housing since coming to power. We have had rent convergence and long-term rent settlements, and they have listened to the sector about phasing in additional safety checks. Those things are real, and I welcome them, and they deserve recognition from those on the Opposition Benches. I welcome the Government bringing forward more necessary changes, but I have to be honest that I am disappointed that the Bill is limited in scope, and I genuinely ask the Government to reflect on that. In particular, will they reflect on the report from the Regulatory Policy Committee on the Bill? On 24 July, the RPC rated the Bill’s impact assessment as “not fit for purpose”, based on its scrutiny of the evidence and the analysis put forward to justify the case for regulation. That is not a technicality; it is a warning that the case for what this Bill does and does not do has not been properly made. If we are to legislate on something as important as the future of social housing, the evidence base should be beyond question. I will briefly address the four main areas of the Bill. On right to buy, I support increasing the minimum tenancy requirements and reforming discounts so that they start at 5% of property value and go up to a maximum of 15%. Exempting newly built social and affordable homes for 35 years will have a real impact, despite what the official Opposition say about house building. I will move on to disposals, where I feel the protections are not adequate to empower local communities. I note that the National Housing Federation believes that the new requirement strikes the appropriate balance, but I have to disagree. In constituencies like mine, large-scale voluntary transfers of stock were the reason that providers got the stock that they did. In west Berkshire, the main registered provider has been created from an LSVT, and that stock must be protected. It is not enough for the local council to be notified; we must be told the reason for the sale and how, when and where the council will replace the stock within the local authority area. If that is not possible, a financial contribution must be made to a section 106 pot, following the practice of local authorities keeping right-to-buy receipts. As my constituency has many rural areas, I welcome exempting rural properties from the scheme, but I also think that we should consider exemptions for much-needed larger homes, such as those with four or five bedrooms, so that they are not lost forever from the social housing stock. Of course, I support the protections for victims of domestic abuse. I have live casework on this very issue, so my constituents will be relieved that the Government have acted. The housing sector will be supportive of greater powers to help those who need it. I have no major concerns about the repealing of unused legislation, but there are other areas where the Bill is completely silent, from protecting existing stock and empowering existing tenants and young people to have a stronger voice, to helping make homes safer by supporting housing associations to gain access for safety work.

• 10 Sept 2026 · Ukraine and Russia · Hansard source

  More

  I want to welcome the Secretary of State to his place, and to say how pleased I am that the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) remains a member of the Defence team. On 19 March last year, I asked the former Prime Minister about seizing Russian assets. There is reportedly £185 billion-worth of Russian assets in Europe, £30 billion of it in the UK. The Prime Minister responded, “it is complicated—it is not straightforward—but we are working with others to see what is possible.” —[ Official Report , 19 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 347.] Will the new Administration now act, as they have done on Gaza, which the Government previously said was too complicated? [ Interruption. ]

• 9 Sept 2026 · Youth Parliament: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  We have some alumni of the Youth Parliament in this Chamber today. As a young person, I was on the steering committee that set it up. It is great to see so many former MYPs taking a seat in this Chamber, although sadly not so many on my side of the aisle. Does the hon. Member agree that the UK Youth Parliament plays a crucial role, but that young people who are less confident and more disadvantaged or who simply feel that politics has nothing to do with them might not engage through it? This is an opportunity for the Government to encourage more engagement across youth politics, not just among those who want to take elected roles.

• 9 Sept 2026 · Pharmacies: Government Funding · Hansard source

  More

  Lambourn pharmacy, which I mentioned earlier, worked out that about 90% of its profit came from serving the NHS and only 10% came from shampoo and other things, so it wonders whether the Government could pro rata those NI and other costs, meaning that they are paid only on the 10%. Would the hon. Gentleman welcome that type of approach?

• 9 Sept 2026 · Pharmacies: Government Funding · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. I thank the hon. Member for Leicester East (Shivani Raja) for securing this important debate. I declare an interest as a vice-chair of the APPG on pharmacy, my colleague on which, the hon. Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan), I am happy to follow. For many residents in rural constituencies such as mine, local pharmacies are the first, and often only, point of contact with the NHS. Longer distances to travel, limited public transport and patchy digital connectivity mean that the trusted and timely in-person service that they provide for our communities is vital. However, access is thin on the ground. Analysis by the National Pharmacy Association has described west Berkshire as England’s “pharmacy desert”, with the lowest number of pharmacies per head of any council area. To put that in context, the UK average is about one pharmacy to every 4,600 patients; in my constituency, it is one to every 7,200. Twelve pharmacies still open their doors to residents across Newbury and west Berkshire, and they do essential, extraordinary work. They dispense more than 111,000 prescriptions every month and deliver enough consultations through Pharmacy First to save more than 8,000 GP appointments, all while acting as a specialist and friendly front door to our NHS. Like many here, I welcome the Government’s recent investment in the sector. We have heard the cash figures, but the 10.3% uplift for 2026-27 is the largest increase anywhere in primary care this year, and the move to expand prescribing rights is a vital step in the right direction. However, a positive uplift does not in isolation deliver the sustainable settlements that pharmacies desperately need. Pharmacies cannot plan their workforce or their services throughout the year when settlements are negotiated and have to be fought for year by year. Nationally, we have lost over 1,300 pharmacies since 2016, and this year’s uplift will not plug the underlying funding gap, which now stands at over £2 billion. It is no wonder that Community Pharmacy England accepted this year’s deal on the condition of further reform, stating clearly: “Accepting this deal does not mean we think it is enough”. With budgets stretched, that instability is compounded by broken medicine supply chains and a framework that leaves many pharmacies in the impossible position of dispensing medicines at a loss. On visits to Lambourn pharmacy and MedWell chemist in Newbury, staff told me that current funding would quickly be absorbed by rocketing drug prices, with some pharmacies paying 14 to 15 times more for prescription medicine than at the start of the year. In rural areas, where proximity to provision is already paramount, older residents in particular cannot afford to lose access to their prescription because their pharmacy down the road has been priced out of existence. Despite those challenges, pharmacies are doing incredible work, and I know how much residents across Newbury and West Berkshire value their expertise and care. In September 2024, the Government commissioned the Lord Darzi report, which rightly acknowledged the huge potential of pharmacies within the NHS. Two years on, with a workforce eager to do all it can, that potential remains unfulfilled—not for a lack of experience and care, but because of a lack of investment from the centre. The 10-year health plan’s ambition to shift care from hospitals into communities is absolutely the right one, and pharmacies are the linchpin of that push. As their responsibilities continue to rise, so must the Government’s backing. Pharmacies have spent the last 10 years being squeezed to near breaking point; the next 10 and beyond must be different. I therefore ask the Minister to launch a strategic review of medicine supply, including reforms needed to build domestic manufacturing capability, and to commit to an above-inflation multi-year funding settlement that allows pharmacies to continue to serve my constituents and millions of patients across the country for decades to come.

• 9 Sept 2026 · Tackling Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  6. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help tackle violence against women and girls.

• 9 Sept 2026 · Tackling Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  Tomorrow is World Suicide Prevention Day. Given the well-established links between domestic abuse, coercive control and suicide, does the Minister agree that organisations such as Project Salama in my constituency, which provides joined-up support to victims of DA, are important? How will the Government ensure that domestic abuse services, mental health services and the suicide prevention strategy work together?

• 13 Jul 2026 · High Streets Organised Crime Unit · Hansard source

  More

  High streets are already under pressure, as I have seen with our local fight to keep the Thatcham and Hungerford post offices open, and retail crime and antisocial behaviour make that pressure worse. Can the Secretary of State expand on how the high streets organised crime unit remit will extend to smaller market towns such as Hungerford, Thatcham and Newbury and villages such as Lambourn?

• 18 May 2026 · Youth Justice · Hansard source

  More

  The White Paper contains many announcements that we, as Liberal Democrats, can support, so I gently ask the Deputy Prime Minister what evidence the Government have that the potential threat of a prison sentence will be an effective mechanism for compliance with a parenting order. Have the Government done an impact assessment, and how can he guarantee that the use of stricter punishment will not adversely affect the outcomes for the child involved?

• 27 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I worked at McDonald’s throughout my GCSEs and A-levels and while at university—it is a good employer for those who are studying. Newbury Soup Kitchen is a local charity that is supporting a constituent of mine, spending many hours on the phone to universal credit staff. However, they do not consistently accept the authority to discuss, demanded an in-person meeting despite the resident being wheelchair dependent, and offered a Teams meeting only for the resident to find out that Berkshire does not offer Teams meetings. Will a Minister meet me to discuss the case and the process failures?

• 27 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response Update · Hansard source

  More

  How does the Prime Minister’s promise of delivering honesty, integrity and accountability reconcile with the potential blocking of a motion to the Committee of Privileges? If the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister is not willing to comment on the Government’s voting intentions tomorrow, will he commit to accountability by ensuring that he votes in favour for it being referred to the Committee?

• 21 Apr 2026 · Middle East: Economic Update · Hansard source

  More

  In her statement, the Chancellor outlined a plan for tomorrow, but no help for today. The residents of Newbury—the small businesses and farmers—want to know how high the Chancellor will allow the prices of petrol, red diesel and fertiliser to go before she decides to take positive action and reduce the impact of the cost of living crisis on those people. How high do those prices have to go, Chancellor?

• 21 Apr 2026 · Gulf Conflict · Hansard source

  More

  19. What assessment she has made of the potential implications for her policies of the situation in the strait of Hormuz.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Gulf Conflict · Hansard source

  More

  Given President Trump’s latest threats to destroy bridges and power plants—attacks that would be against international law—has the Foreign Secretary made representations to her US counterpart that threatening war crimes is not the way to achieve peace or to open the strait? More importantly, if Trump does start to attack civilian infrastructure, will she withdraw US access to British bases?

• 13 Apr 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  The Lebanese Health Ministry confirmed earlier today that 2,055 civilians have been killed since the start of this latest crisis, including 167 since Friday alone, so I join the Prime Minister in calling for the urgent ceasefire to include Lebanon. Since this crisis started, the Treasury has received over £200 million in additional VAT from fuel. Will the Prime Minister commit to using those funds in the UK to mitigate the cost of living crisis that the middle east crisis is causing?

• 25 Mar 2026 · Road Safety of Horses and Riders · Hansard source

  More

  Having tabled an early-day motion, presented a Bill and hosted a Westminster Hall debate on equine road safety, I am now pleased to be able to submit this petition on horse and rider road safety. The petition states: The petition of residents of the United Kingdom, Declares that horses and riders face significant risks on UK roads due to inadequate enforcement of passing distances and limited driver education. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to introduce legislation to make the minimum passing speeds and distances for horses in the Highway Code a legal requirement, to require equestrian safety to feature in all driving theory tests, and to introduce standards for the teaching of equestrian safety in driver education. And the petitioners remain, etc . [P003174]

• 11 Mar 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member agree that the way the Government have approached this has hurt their main aim of economic growth, because farmers have delayed ordering and, because of the new rules, there is now no incentive to grow their farms over that £2.5 million threshold?

• 4 Mar 2026 · Ministry of Defence · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend may have been coming to it, but how much would it cost to get to his vision compared with what we have in budgets today?

• 4 Mar 2026 · Ministry of Defence · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the Chair of the Defence Committee on securing the debate; I also thank the Backbench Business Committee, of which I am a member. As the Chair of the Select Committee said, the first duty of any Government is to ensure the safety and security of their citizens, but as we speak, smoke continues to rise in the middle east, leaving destruction across at least nine countries in the region. In this volatile era, we must work in lockstep with our European partners, restart talks to join the EU’s Security Action for Europe—SAFE—fund and take greater responsibility for our continent’s security. We require bold action, and I welcome the Government’s decision to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, but we need urgent cross-party talks on how we can get this to 3% as soon as possible and keep pace with NATO spending, on which we are falling behind. At this critical juncture, we must ensure that those figures translate into steely capacity both at home and abroad. In June last year, the strategic defence review set out a compelling vision: the establishment of a new cyber-command, cutting-edge warships and a landmark shift to warfighting readiness, but the defence investment plan, which should turn that strategy into fully costed delivery, is yet to be seen. We must see the DIP published as soon as possible. Without it, industry lacks certainty, long-term procurement decisions are delayed and jobs remain in jeopardy. Our small and medium-sized enterprise defence sector is ready and willing to step up to the challenge of supporting the SDR and the 20-40-40 strategy. In my constituency, Airborne UK plays an active role in strengthening the UK’s sovereign capabilities in the unmanned aerial vehicle and defence sector as a trusted composite scaling partner. While based just over the border in Berkshire, it is obviously keen to work with the Swindon cluster. Companies like this will benefit from the additional £1.1 billion investment in R&D, but I have also heard from SME companies that changes made under the previous Government—tax credit uplifts were cut from 130% to 65%—have led to SMEs working with more foreign Governments rather than our own. Of course, we deeply want them to work with us, so I urge the Government to look at these rates to supplement the increases in spending in R&D. To create overmatch, we need to work faster and more flexibly. We need to have better procurement and rebuild trust with the Treasury so that, with accountability, funding is scaled up. Just two months ago, the head of the armed forces said that the UK was “not as ready as we need to be for the kind of full-scale conflict we might face”. That warning should focus minds in this House. If the UK is to lead within Europe, we need pace and clarity, but we also need the personnel to deliver it. The Army’s training strength now stands at around 73,000—its smallest size in generations. Because of the operational demands and lack of resources, we have seen service personnel joining the field Army with formal training deficits recorded against them because they have not been able to fire all types of ammunition in training. I welcome the Government’s £9 billion investment in the defence housing strategy. For our brave men and women who serve the country, decent accommodation is the very least they deserve, and it is a stain on the previous Government’s record that military family homes were left in such a mess. We are in a fragmented and predatory era. We cannot afford to dither. We must move faster, strengthen our European partnerships, rebuild our armed forces and ensure that every pound approved by this House bolsters our security at home and abroad. We need to do that so that we can create a whole-society approach to defence, one that can become a reality, including improving public engagement on the threats we face, where we have gaps and what trade-offs will be needed to ensure that we are safe at home and strong when we go abroad.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Leasehold Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for his response and welcome the support being given to leaseholders; however, many of the problems they face could be addressed through stronger regulation of managing agents. Persistent failings by companies such as FirstPort continue to fill my inbox. In Newbury, we have a block of flats where a lift has been out of order for two years, and one constituent told me that, because it was broken, her son had to carry her husband down the stairs when he moved into a care home. No family should ever have to face that. Will the Secretary of State outline what steps the Government have taken to strengthen the regulation of managing agents and ensure that they are properly accountable to residents, who pay for their services?

• 23 Feb 2026 · Leasehold Reform · Hansard source

  More

  22. What steps he is taking to support leaseholders.

• 9 Feb 2026 · Procedure committee · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Member and will pass on his thanks to the Committee. We genuinely took into wider consideration the multiple aspects that would have to change if call lists were brought into effect.

• 9 Feb 2026 · Procedure committee · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his comment. We agree—spontaneity is such an important aspect of how we operate in this place.

• 9 Feb 2026 · Procedure committee · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to speak on behalf of the Procedure Committee about our fourth report of the Session, which looks at the idea of introducing call lists. I am happy to stand in for the Chair of the Procedure Committee, the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith), on this occasion. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving us time today, and my colleagues on the Procedure Committee for the thoughtful and constructive way in which they have approached this work. We launched this inquiry because Members from all sides of the House raised concerns with us. Some colleagues told us that they wanted more certainty in the sitting day, and others spoke about the challenges they face because of disabilities, long-term health conditions or caring responsibilities. Colleagues from smaller parties explained how difficult it can be to know whether they will be called at all in a debate. For many of them, call lists seemed like a straightforward answer. We also heard the opposite view, which is strongly and sincerely held. Some Members were worried that call lists could change the very character of debate in this Chamber. They feared that we would lose the spontaneity, energy and genuine back and forth that makes this place what it is. Our task was to look at all of this in a balanced and evidence-based way. We took written and oral evidence from a wide range of people, including the former Deputy Speakers Nigel Evans, Baroness Laing and Baroness Winterton, smaller parties, the Hansard Society, Centenary Action and the presiding officers of the devolved legislatures. Their insights were incredibly helpful, and we are grateful to all of them. After weighing everything carefully, the Committee concluded that call lists should not be introduced. This was not a decision that we reached quickly or casually, so I want to explain the main reasons behind it. First, we found that there is not a single, clearly defined problem that call lists would solve. The concerns raised with us were varied; they included accessibility, work-life balance, speaking opportunities, and the general flow of business. Call lists might help with some of those issues, but not all, and certainly not in a consistent or fair way. They are simply too blunt an instrument to deal with such a wide range of issues. Secondly, we heard real worries about what call lists would do to debates themselves. Many Members reflected on the pandemic period, in which call lists were used out of necessity. Those arrangements were right for that moment, but they undeniably reduced spontaneity—interventions were limited or banned, and the Chamber felt flatter. The natural rhythm of debate was lost. That experience made clear that call lists can change the atmosphere of this place in ways that we might not want to repeat. Thirdly, we looked at how other legislatures use call lists. It was a useful exercise, but in truth, those legislatures’ systems operate in a very different procedural environment. Many of them allocate speaking rights proportionately between parties; that is not how this House works. We cannot simply lift one feature from another Parliament and drop it into ours without considering the procedural ecosystem around it. Fourthly, we examined how call lists would fit in with the way time is currently managed in this House. Our existing system strikes a careful balance between certainty and flexibility; we know when the day starts and ends, and we know how long different types of business can run, but we also have the ability to respond quickly to events through urgent questions and statements. That flexibility is essential to the House’s role in holding the Government to account. Introducing call lists would disrupt that balance, and would require a much wider rethink of how the parliamentary day is structured. Finally, we considered the role of the Speaker and Deputy Speakers. Their discretion in calling Members is fundamental to how debates are managed. They are elected by the House, they are impartial, and they are trusted to use their judgment fairly. Call lists would inevitably limit that discretion. We did not find a strong enough case to justify restricting the Chair’s ability to steward debates effectively, and we note that informal mechanisms are already in place to support Members who have genuine health or accessibility needs, and that the Speaker’s Office handles these with care and sensitivity. Our report also suggests that the Modernisation Committee should set out how it intends to approach its upcoming work on the use of time in the Chamber. That broader perspective will help the House to think about these issues in the round, rather than in isolation. We fully understand why some colleagues may be disappointed by our conclusions. We listened carefully to all the views put to us and took them seriously, but our recommendation is based on detailed evidence and a clear view that call lists are not the right solution to the concerns raised. They would change some of the fundamental features of how this Chamber operates, and not necessarily for the better. This report is not the end of the conversation; what it does is give the House a structured foundation on which those conversations can continue. With that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend this report to the House.