Matt Western MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 3 Sept 2026 · Global Biodiversity and Ecosystems: National Security · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) on securing the debate. Nature is screaming at us. I spoke to farmers last week who told me just how alarmed they are at the situation. We have seen the wildfires, the droughts, the suffering of disease and the rupturing of glaciers, but as a society we are guilty of ignoring the environmental degradation around us. We live in the belief that the environment can somehow absorb these changes. I think it was 60 years ago that James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis came up with the Gaia theory. Most of us realise that the fact that we are losing species is contributing to the breakdown of our ecosystems. If it was an economic supply chain, we would be acting immediately. Locally, about the equivalent of an Olympic-sized swimming pool of construction waste is dumped into Whitnash Brook every day. We cannot allow this kind of degradation to continue. As Chair of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, I know that raising the matter of general resilience is crucial, and I look forward to the report from the National Resilience Committee in the Lords later this year. The report produced by the Joint Intelligence Committee is significant. I believe it is as significant as the Stern report 20 years ago—it is a stand-out piece of work. It is critical that we listen and act for our environment, our economy, our food security and our health. Environmental resilience guarantees human resilience, and we must ensure that we restore and preserve our planet.

• 15 Jul 2026 · Waste Management Sites · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. She may be aware that we have had a plastics recycling facility in my constituency for several years. Only when it opened did we suffer an awful fly infestation across the town, as well as a horrendous odour. It is on a normal industrial estate, but it is immediately next to a residential area. Surely the Environment Agency should have had some sort of involvement in the decision to allow it to open.

• 9 Jul 2026 · Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 9 Jul 2026 · Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban · Hansard source

  More

  Will my hon. Friend give way?

• 9 Jul 2026 · Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 9 Jul 2026 · Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend, while he is still in post. Very briefly, he will be aware of the mockery that is the situation with dual-use goods between Israel and the Palestinian territories. Surely we can have some sort of ban on the products we are supplying that are essentially enabling civilisational erasure in Palestine?

• 2 Jul 2026 · Commonhold and Leasehold Reform: Managing Agents · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend talks about leaseholders being treated with contempt. I have an estate in my constituency, Bishops Gate, where it took three years for FirstPort to respond to residents’ requests, and even when the council got involved, FirstPort refused its request. Given all the service charges they had paid in, the homeowners believed that there would be £230,000 in the account; in fact, there is zero, and they are told that there is £60,000 of debt. That is the sort of scam that is going on.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Israel: E1 Zone Expansion · Hansard source

  More

  (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if she will make a statement on Israel’s planned illegal expansion in the E1 zone in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Israel: E1 Zone Expansion · Hansard source

  More

  Just yesterday, the Israel Land Authority published new dates for the tender for the construction of the proposed E1 settlement zone in the west bank. The bidding period for the tender ends in October, and once the contracts have been awarded, it will become impossible to stop E1. Why is E1 so critical? It is because the proposed settlement would absolutely and permanently destroy any prospect of a true two-state solution. It is a large area of land that would split the west bank from north to south, severing connections between Palestinian communities and East Jerusalem, while forcibly transferring 7,000 Palestinians—itself a war crime under the Rome statute. A few of us visited just four weeks ago. We saw at first hand the accelerated pace at which Israel is expanding its illegal settlements. A massive 2,000 housing units have been approved since that visit alone according to the United Kingdom chargé d’affaires at the UN on Monday. It is clear that Israel is systematically and deliberately doing all it can to make a two-state solution impossible, and its impunity must end. Will the Minister make categorically clear today that any businesses or organisations, including financial and insurance institutions, or individuals that participate in or facilitate the construction of the E1 zone, will be sanctioned and not allowed to trade and do business with the UK, and will the Government legislate accordingly as a matter of urgency? Secondly, alongside 139 parliamentary colleagues, I have urged the Minister to end all trading with illegal Israeli settlements. Can I once again urge the Minister to implement a full ban and suspend the free trade agreement with Israel, based on its continued violations of human rights and the prospect of this development? Palestine is fracturing before our eyes. Our intelligence can see this. The international community must stop E1.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. This is fantastic news for my constituents, my farmers and my businesses. Does she welcome the statement from the End Fuel Poverty Coalition, which said that increasing the rates of approved mileage allowance payments is absolutely the right thing to do right now?

• 1 Jul 2026 · MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition · Hansard source

  More

  Before I call Richard Burgon, I would like to make a point to Members contributing to this morning’s debate. I remind Members to be careful if they choose to refer to other Members in this debate. If you wish to refer to a specific Member, you should have given them notice, and I would appreciate it if you mentioned this in your remarks. Please also ensure that your comments are, as always, appropriate.

• 1 Jul 2026 · MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition · Hansard source

  More

  Order. Can I just remind Members about their choice of language? It is okay to use certain vocabulary in general—in non-specific terms—but when they are speaking about particular Members, I ask Members to be very careful about the use of language such as “grifting”.

• 1 Jul 2026 · MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition · Hansard source

  More

  I remind Members that direct criticism can be made only on a substantive motion. The particular language or assertion was perhaps not appropriate.

• 1 Jul 2026 · MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition · Hansard source

  More

  Order. With immediate effect, there will be a five-minute limit on speeches.

• 1 Jul 2026 · MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition · Hansard source

  More

  With immediate effect, I ask Members to keep their speeches to around five minutes.

• 1 Jul 2026 · MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition · Hansard source

  More

  I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. After the next speech, I will be reducing speeches to five minutes.

• 1 Jul 2026 · MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition · Hansard source

  More

  Order. Can I ask the hon. Gentleman to speak a little bit more loudly? We seem to be having a few issues with the audio today.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend for the statement. As he said, this is a welcome shot in the arm for our defence and security sector. He talked about the defence export funding that would be available. That is extremely important because so many nations around the world really rate our kit and our expertise in these sectors. I am slightly concerned about what he said on home defence. Will he say a few more words about where he thinks we are on future funding and the importance of the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank?

• 29 Jun 2026 · Cabinet Office · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is absolutely right. The nature of our security is so multifaceted now in a way that it would not have been 30 years ago. Globally, we are beginning to get our heads around—I am sure the Government recognise this—how we need to pivot and reset ourselves into a very different defence and security posture, because our defence is as much on our mobile phone and our laptops, and to our way of life and our democracy, as it is at our borders, and that is crucial. My Committee was encouraged to hear from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that the Government believe that they are on track to hit the target of 1.5% of GDP on security and resilience by 2035 by 2027—well ahead of time. But they have also been evasive on exactly what the spend will entail. Like any target, there is a risk of money being merely shuffled from one pot to another—an administrative exercise rather than genuine additional funding. My Committee recommended that the spending is prioritised on investment in systems that can help build long-term resilience, in addition to spending on maintenance of basic civil infrastructure. When we questioned the Minister, we sought to clarify what new resilience projects and capabilities the 1.5% would entail. We were given, I am afraid to say, only vague answers. Disappointingly, the Government’s response to our report on the national security strategy failed to elucidate much further. We recognise that there are reasons for being protective about certain information and not disclosing too much detail, but we seek more specificity in exactly how the Government are making critical infrastructure in the UK more resilient through this spending. In fact, I recently met the high commissioner of Canada who explained that they are investing hundreds of millions in large-scale infrastructure projects in their part of the High North, be it railways, road networks or deep sea ports. They are all planned to boost resilience across the nation.

• 29 Jun 2026 · Cabinet Office · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate, which could not be more timely given the crucial NATO summit next week in Ankara. I was hoping that we would be inundated with contributions from across the House, but sadly it looks as though we might be limited to one or two. Keeping the country safe is the first responsibility of any Government. The Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, which I chair, has undertaken a huge amount of work during this Parliament to examine the Government’s approach to protecting the UK’s national security interests. From critical national infrastructure to the defence of our very democracy, our Committee has been working hard to highlight areas in need of vital improvement. There is no one “National Security Department”, of course, but the Cabinet Office co-ordinates the Government’s approach to national security and is the home of the national security secretariat. The Cabinet Office’s main estimate states that it plans to spend about £1.1 billion on day-to-day running costs and £600 million on investment projects, of which around £200 million in day-to-day costs and £25 million in investment will go towards keeping the country safe. However, national security is, at its core, a whole-of-Government responsibility, and it is therefore often difficult to get a handle on how much is being spent on the UK’s security and resilience—a point that I made to the Backbench Business Committee. In an era of unprecedented uncertainty and hybrid warfare, the case for increased spending on security and resilience could not be stronger. We see a proliferation of threats not just from hostile state actors, but from organised proxy groups and radicalised individuals. Take the cyber-attack on Jaguar Land Rover in August 2025. The New York Times now reports that it was Russian in origin, and the evidence suggests that the Kremlin was either directly responsible for it or responsible for facilitating it through proxy actors. The impact was severe: it cost the British economy £2.5 billion, directly cost Jaguar Land Rover £485 million in the quarter and affected more than 5,000 firms. It was so significant that it impacted our quarterly growth figures. Threats are increasingly facilitated through the weaponisation of emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence and quantum. Those who would seek to destabilise our democracy, our safety and our way of life have more opportunities than ever before to do so, and they know that. Meanwhile, the Government and NATO allies have already acknowledged this reality with their commitment to spend 5% of GDP on defence by 2035, with 1.5% of that being earmarked for security and resilience.

• 29 Jun 2026 · Cabinet Office · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have not been to Canada in recent decades, but I am hearing that its approach should be of real interest to us, including how it is prioritising certain sectors and has identified certain capabilities. Although people are protective about what those capabilities might be, I would certainly welcome conversations behind closed doors with Ministers about what we are looking to do in a similar vein. It is striking that the Canadians are outlining their major projects and how they will spend their money, but they are also focusing on their capabilities. Here we have suffered from a lack of long-term commitment to investing in national security and preparedness. Our Government must also clearly outline what additional capabilities they are committed to developing through the target spend, prior to the start of the NATO summit next week. We need a national conversation about our nation’s defence and security. Over the last 18 months my Committee has heard repeatedly about the need to get the public on board when it comes to increased spending on defence, resilience and security. With the public purse under such strain, our constituents must understand why spending on such areas must be prioritised.

• 29 Jun 2026 · Cabinet Office · Hansard source

  More

  I will keep it brief, as requested. I thank all Members from across the Chamber for making time to contribute to this debate, which underlines the importance and urgency of the challenge that we face in the wider security and resilience landscape. That includes health, energy, water supplies, climate, our economy and our democracy. Even the Electoral Commission has suffered a cyber-attack. We face so many challenges and threats, and there are states that wish to exploit our weaknesses. That is why this debate is so important. The Backbench Business Committee recognises the number, scale and diversity of the attacks that we are now facing. Members have made points about the Canadian system and spoken about corruption. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) talked about financial impropriety, and others spoke of the attacks on the Prime Minister. It is vital that we get our heads around the urgency of this issue, because the attacks that we face are growing exponentially and becoming more and more creative and inventive. Once again, I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate, and thank Members for their contributions. Question deferred until tomorrow at Seven o’clock (Standing Order No. 54).

• 29 Jun 2026 · Cabinet Office · Hansard source

  More

  As if on cue, the hon. Member’s point is one I am just about to develop. The strategic defence review called for a national conversation, and during our inquiry on societal resilience we heard much about how our allies are engaging their citizens with that essential work. The UK is, I am afraid, a little behind the curve. Beyond the Baltic and Scandinavian nations, whose security and resilience is well documented, other nations are also moving up a gear. Their Governments engage significant numbers of military reserves, volunteers, firefighters, private defence organisations and NGOs in that conversation. In certain countries, everyone between the ages of 18 and 65 has a role in resilience—every single person. Some countries conduct wargame exercises on civilian defence, to identify weaknesses in their systems. Less obvious countries such as the Netherlands and Canada are making painful choices that are necessary to ensure that societal resilience can be strengthened. The situation warrants a reset of our whole approach to resilience and security, but to do that we must bring the public with us through a national conversation.

• 29 Jun 2026 · Cabinet Office · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member, who I would also call a friend, not just for his kind words, but for his valuable contributions to the Committee over the past 18 months or so. Yes, it is vital that we engage the public, and it is incumbent on our media to start spelling some of this stuff out—not fearmongering, but explaining some of the harsh realities of what we face. There are certain nations who wish us absolute harm—we are their public enemy No. 1. We need to be much more open about that in our discourse with the public, not so as they become overly alarmed—as I may have been as a kid growing up—but so that they recognise the sorts of pressures that we face economically, socially and militarily. The situation demands that we bring the public along with us. The Committee has discussed how we develop that nationwide conversation, possibly including an education programme, by being more honest with the public about the threats that the UK faces. The pandemic highlighted huge gaps in our country and society’s resilience. Are we ready for the next crisis that might be heading our way? We must not fearmonger, but the Government must learn all they can from our allies who are further ahead of us with spending on resilience and preparedness. I want to stress that the situation was obvious to the last Government too. It is increasingly clear that for too long the UK has outsourced its security and resilience needs elsewhere, and is now entirely dependent on others for critical elements of its infrastructure. It is only through increasing the scale of investment in its sovereign capabilities, particularly in the realm of emerging technologies, that we can wean ourselves off these dependencies. The defence investment plan is crucial. It is essential in guiding businesses and investors. Direction is needed, as well as dynamism and agility. At a time when UK firms need certainty, we still lack clarity on exactly how investment will be allocated. As we highlighted in our report on the national security strategy, the longer businesses lack an adequate signal from Government about what investment might be on the way, the more vulnerable they are to acquisition by foreign investors and the more difficult it becomes to achieve our sovereignty goals. The Government have made steps in the right direction through investments as part of the AI opportunities action plan and the work of the sovereign AI unit. Those are to be commended. The UK has a strong base of talent in those technologies, but the Government need to go further and faster to secure our advantage in the long term. Now is the time to secure the investment, the jobs and economic security we need through a proper digital sovereignty strategy. As we saw last week in the series of cyber-attacks, economic security is national security. The Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy will continue to fulfil its role and to press the Government on all these points and more in a constructive and collaborative way, as it has done these past 18 months. It is only through robust challenge and scrutiny that we can ensure the Government are doing all they can to keep the people, businesses and critical systems of the UK safe and secure. As Lord Robertson of Port Ellen told the Committee earlier this year, “it is much better to pay for deterrence than to pay for war.” It is also, ultimately, less costly. I urge the Government to take heed.

• 29 Jun 2026 · Cabinet Office · Hansard source

  More

  That is such an important point, and I do not think that we as a Chamber have given it enough airtime. If we think about what would happen if any other premier of any other country was attacked like that—their home attacked and their car set on fire—the reaction from the media was quite muted. Now that it has become more obvious what happened, despite all the nonsense that circulated on social media at the time, it is important that that conversation happens. We are at a crucial juncture, as the hon. Member suggested. We are running out of time to ensure that we are prepared for a worst-case scenario of increasing Russian aggression, both conventional and hybrid. At a time when the United States’ security presence in Europe is being questioned, the threat from China looms ever larger, and the UK finds itself in a difficult position as a middle power in the midst of global strategic competition between the United States and China. As such, it is imperative that the Government are robustly held to account in delivering their spending commitments on defence, security and resilience.