Ben Obese-Jecty
MP for Huntingdon · Conservative · United Kingdom
“The Secretary of State has announced that there will be a delay to the decision in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. Most Cambridgeshire and Peterborough MPs are in the Chamber, but he has not gone into more detail on the reasons for the delay. What specific issues are causing a delay to the decision in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough?”
“Some 40% of roads in Cambridgeshire take up roughly 80% of the highways budget. With the forthcoming announcement about local government reorganisation in Cambridgeshire, what assessment has the Department made of the feasibility of that being deliverable given that most of those roads will end up in the same, much smaller unitary authori…”
“The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. The first four years—the near-term investment period—covers the period until the next election. The second half—the longer-term investment period—covers the next five years, all the way up to 2035.”
“The hon. Member is making a very important speech. I agree that there should be a life extension plan for the Type 45, but we know that there is not one. It is not costed, it is not in the DIP, and the plan is to take them out of service over several years from 2035.”
“Earlier this year I asked the Home Secretary at the Dispatch Box about the case of Fabian Henry, a child rapist who was removed from a deportation flight in 2021 after the Home Secretary herself, then in opposition, signed a letter calling for the removal of people from that flight.”
“The defence investment plan is split into two parts: the near-term investment plan, which covers the four remaining years of this Parliament, and the long-term investment plan, which covers the following five years, up to 2035.”
The complete record
Every one of 601 lines we hold for Ben Obese-Jecty, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 13.
“Last week, the Government voted against my amendment to the Armed Forces Bill, new clause 5, which would have waived visa fees for the spouses and children of armed forces personnel and veterans. That was, of course, a Labour manifesto pledge—as it was a Conservative manifesto pledge— to ensure that the families of those who have fought to defend this country are allowed to reside here without being charged £3,229 per person just to remain in the country following service. I understand that the reason the policy has not been pursued is a Home Office issue, rather than a Defence issue, so will the Minister explain why it has not been progressed in two years? Could he give an update on whether the policy will be amended when the changes come out later this year?”
“By now, the Secretary of State will be well aware of my opposition to the 1,900 acre East Park Energy solar farm in my constituency. We are now at the business end of the planning process; the application is before the Planning Inspectorate, ahead of a decision by the Secretary of State later this year. Will he outline roughly when he expects to have to take a decision on the application? Ahead of that, will he meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) to discuss our concern that it is not the right solution for our area and our constituents?”
“I welcome the introduction of the strategic reserve in the Bill, but I would like clarity on how it will be paid for. Will it be via separate funding or will it come from the money already allocated to pay for the active reserve in the MOD budget?”
“The other day I had the opportunity to meet the Ministry of Defence Police and their chief constable at RAF Wyton in my constituency. I was impressed by the counter-drone capability that they are now equipped with; it is vastly in excess of what Home Office policing teams now have, and it is a simple solution to provide the counter-drone capability that we should have at all our bases. I urge the hon. Gentleman to put pressure on the Minister to roll out those new CPM-Wilson and CPM-Watson counter-drone weapons to all our bases, to ensure that that capability is as widespread as possible.”
“It is a vote that tells Commonwealth personnel that this Government do not have their back, that joining our armed forces will still see them treated as second-class citizens, with limited options post service. Those Labour MPs with a military presence in their constituencies should ask themselves how they will spin it to the service member who has to pay £10,000 to live here with their family, instead of putting down a deposit on a house or launching a business. They should ask themselves whether, for the sake of playing politics this evening, it is worth holding somebody else back.”
“I appreciate that the Government measure working flat-out in months, but this could be measured in continental drift. It simply does not appear to be a priority for the Government. However, my greater fear is that rather than do the right thing today, the Government will churlishly and spitefully vote against new clause 5, “because politics”. Not one Labour MP signed the new clause, despite every single one being asked twice. The Government have whipped their MPs not to support it, just as they will whip their MPs to vote against it. A vote against new clause 5 is not just a vote against the Labour manifesto that each Labour MP stood on. It is a vote against our veterans. It is a vote against those who have risked their lives to defend this great nation.”
“Having spoken to Ministers individually, including the two on the Front Bench today, I do not doubt that the Defence Front Bench wishes to implement this policy, but there is clearly something that is causing it to stall, be that the Home Office or the machinery of government. There is an opportunity here to drive this policy forward. We should bear in mind that the Ministry of Defence does not even collate the information regarding the number of ILR applications submitted by family members of service personnel. It has literally no idea of the impact the failure to deliver this policy is having. After two years with no timetable for implementation on the horizon, I have little confidence this is a priority on the MOD’s to-do list.”
“I think progress will be made, but I recognise his interest in that happening.” —[ Official Report , 26 June 2025; Vol. 769, c. 1290-1291.] That was a year ago. On 5 January 2026, the new Veterans Minister told me in a written answer that the Government are “working closely with the Home Office to deliver this commitment”. She went on to state: “it is not possible at this stage to provide an implementation date”. In April, she informed me: “This Government is committed to waiving visa fees for non-UK veterans”. In total, I have asked the Government for an update on the progress of the implementation of their manifesto pledge seven times and we are no closer to an implementation date after nearly two years than we were when the Government came to power. I am not seeking to apportion individual blame here.”
“757, c. 22.] In June 2025, during the Armed Forces Day debate, I asked the then Armed Forces Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), if he could provide an update “on the work being done to waive visa fees for families and dependants of our Commonwealth personnel”. He told me: “We have a manifesto commitment to deliver that. The Defence Secretary has spoken to the Home Secretory about this, and our officials are in dialogue about it. I hope that the Minister for Veterans and People, who looks after this area, will be able to announce progress in due course. The hon. Member and I share a strong sense that there is a wrong to be righted here, and those people who serve our country for a good period of time should be able to settle here.”
“Going into the 2024 general election, the Conservative manifesto looked to correct this issue. As part of our pledge to veterans, we announced that a Conservative Government would: “extend the visa fees waiver introduced to cover Commonwealth personnel, to include their direct dependants.” The Labour manifesto, too, made that pledge, stating: “We will also scrap visa fees for non-UK veterans who have served for four or more years, and their dependents.” So where are we with that? I have raised the question on a number of occasions. In November 2024, I asked the then Veterans Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), what the timetable was for delivering that manifesto pledge. I was told: “We are working on that. It is in the manifesto, and it will come out in due course.” —[ Official Report , 18 November 2024; Vol.”
“The purpose of the resettlement grant is to do precisely what it says: to give people a head start, be it through a trade course, a deposit for a house or the funds to set up an entrepreneurial new business. None of those options is available to those who need to spend the majority of the grant on just obtaining the right to live in the country. What on earth are we doing? Why are we fleecing those who have served this country, saddling them with a five-figure burden? The Royal British Legion and Poppyscotland lead the charge on this campaign. They have pushed for these changes consistently. They highlight that in delivering this manifesto pledge, the Government would fulfil their obligations under the armed forces covenant by removing those disadvantages and barriers to family life.”
“From 8 April this year, when the cost increased once again, the base fee for applying for indefinite leave to remain is £3,226 per person. To put into context the speed of that increase, when we waived fees for service members just four years ago, it was £2,389 per person—a near £1,000 increase. That is just for indefinite leave to remain, not citizenship. In the US armed forces, a non-US citizen can achieve full US citizenship upon discharge for the price of the admin fee—just a few dollars. A service member, their spouse and two children now potentially face a cost of just shy of £10,000 for the right to live in the country they have risked their life to defend. I defy anybody to tell me that that is fair. It is not until the 12-year point that personnel become entitled to a resettlement grant of £15,047.”
“Having campaigned for that long before I became an MP, it was hugely welcome to see the playing field levelled somewhat for Commonwealth veterans. While that was a welcome first step, I personally felt that it was not enough. We in this Chamber often recognise the sacrifice and the challenges of those families left behind when service personnel deploy. Being a military spouse or child is not easy. This situation is made even harder for the family of a Commonwealth service member, because while we waived the fees for serving personnel in 2022, we did not extend the right to the immediate family and dependants of that service member. That means many Commonwealth veterans are saddled with significant visa fees if they wish to stay in the UK as a family after leaving the armed forces.”
“As a support weapons platoon commander, a quarter of my anti-tank platoon was Fijian. As hon. Members may expect from a fine rugby playing regiment such as the Duke of Wellington’s, it was unbelievably competitive to get a spot on the wing. I therefore know well the courage and the sacrifice shown by our Commonwealth personnel not only today, but alongside me on operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and during operations across the globe long preceding that. We owe those men and women the right to make a life in the country they have risked theirs to defend. Over four years ago, in April 2022, the previous Government implemented a visa fee waiver for those who have served in the UK armed forces. That waiver also applied to eligible veterans who were yet to regularise their immigration status.”
“I wish to speak to new clause 5, which I tabled. I start by thanking all Opposition Members—both in my party and across four other parties—who have supported this amendment. Let the record show that not one person on the Labour Benches supported it. We often speak in this House about veterans, our shared respect for those who have served and how best to support veterans in their post-military life, be it with careers, housing, mental health or simply the frailty of growing old. With that shared sense of society repaying our collective debt to those who have served must come the moral courage to do the right thing that we expect those who have served to show. During my Army career, I had the privilege to serve alongside and command soldiers from all over the Commonwealth—Australians and Canadians, South Africans and Jamaicans.”
“and gallant Gentleman is trying to give the Government some wiggle room to get out of voting for the new clause this evening, but I am convinced that it should be voted on, and that we should push it forward in order to put some pressure on the Home Office.”
“I do not disagree. I recognise the point that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is making and his passion for delivering what he describes. I am a member of said all-party parliamentary group, and I am happy to push in order to try and get this across the line. I also recognise the politics of this. Although I am not sure his party will welcome him apparently somewhat throwing the Home Office under the bus in this instance, I recognise that there are complexities around the ability to deliver from a Home Office perspective. I know that is something that the Conservatives encountered when we were in government, and I imagine it is very much the same situation for the Government now. I insist that new clause 5 is still a good new clause. It would come in the right place within the Armed Forces Bill. I recognise that the hon.”
“No party has yet demonstrated that they have the right answer, but on this specific element of the debate, it is very simple: no matter how high a bar we set for the right to live in this country—whether that is for key workers or high net worth individuals—those who have risked their lives to defend the freedoms that we enjoy deserve to settle here with their families without penalty. That should always be above that high bar. At the heart of our security are the men and women who serve and risk their lives for this country. That is in the Labour manifesto. I urge Government Members to do the right thing today and support new clause 5.”
“I agree that it is a broader topic than simply covering Commonwealth veterans and their family members from those same Commonwealth countries. There are a number of personnel living here are UK personnel but have spouses and children who may be from overseas, and the same rules apply to them. I do not disagree with the hon. Member; I think we are very much on the same page on a number of issues—it is literally just the technicality of politics that is getting in the way. We are squeamish when it comes to discussing immigration.”
“I recognise that the Minister wants to deliver this manifesto commitment as much as I do. However, after two years we have made little progress, mostly due to the machinery of government within the Home Office. This new clause was tabled some time ago, and the Government have had ample opportunity to refine the detail of it in order to make it acceptable to be voted on this evening and passed by the Government. Why have the Government taken no steps to work with me to get this measure across the line, given that it is a manifesto pledge of the Government? Can he also give some indication of when the pledge will be delivered, if the Government choose wrongfully to vote against my new clause this evening?”
“Last month, the Government announced that they had finally taken delivery of the 47th F-35B, thus completing our initial tranche of the order. However, that is not strictly true, because two of those planes, ZM177 and ZM179, are currently stranded in the Azores, where they have been since 9 March, which is nearly three months ago. Can the Minister explain why those planes are stranded there and who holds responsibility for completing their delivery: Lockheed Martin or the Ministry of Defence?”
“I welcome the Secretary of State to his place. Hinchingbrooke hospital in my constituency is one of the new hospitals to be built as part of the new hospital programme—it is in wave zero—but it currently does not have an electronic patient record system, so we have the fragmented patient history that he has just mentioned. It desperately needs to increase its rating on the HIMSS—Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society—scale as a new hospital, but it does not have the funding required to install a patient record system. Will he guarantee that the hospital will receive the funding required to deliver a new electronic patient record system?”
“I want to come back to what the Minister said earlier about the war in Iran. She knows full well that the Leader of the Opposition did not say that she would take us into the conflict, and she knows full well that it was a NOFORN—no foreign nationals—operation and that there was never an opportunity for the UK to be involved. If she does not know that, she should go and speak to the Defence team and get up to date with the details. She has some cheek, considering that the Government have just decided that they are going to row back on the pressure they put on Russia. Given that the Minister did not explain it in her media round this morning, will she now explain exactly why the Government decided to exempt oil and oil products that originate from Russia under commodity codes 2709 and 2710?”
“Back in March, the Chancellor announced the £50 million crisis and resilience fund to help families with the price of heating oil, which is a big issue in rural constituencies such as mine. Does she have any plans to extend or repeat that scheme come the autumn, given that we are likely to have a similar crisis with the strait of Hormuz still shut? To what extent will the Russian oil that will come via a third country under commodity code 2710 form part of the fuel mix?”
“As an MP whose constituency has a category C prison for male sex offenders that is almost at capacity—HMP Littlehey—I welcome the clarity from the Minister regarding paedophiles in the prison estate. We know that the Minister is on the hook to deliver thousands of new category C and D prison places. I want to ask him about the prison places he has made almost no progress on since the election because the contractor ISG went into administration in September 2024. I first highlighted the failure of that project last year. Can he confirm whether, since then, all those 12 prisons have had new contractors appointed? When will those prison places be delivered?”
“I appreciate what the Justice Secretary wants to achieve on reducing the rate of recidivism. He said in his statement that “custody will always be necessary for the most dangerous offences”, but went on to say that there will be “an intention to reduce the use of short custodial sentences.” Will he add some more detail around the length of sentence that he considers to be a “short” custodial sentence? In relation to knife crime, he will know that the minimum sentence for threatening with a knife can be as little as six months. Young people already do not have much fear about being searched for a knife or facing the criminal justice system. If they know that they will not receive a custodial sentence at the end of the process, what deterrent will there be to their carrying or using a knife?”
“The Secretary of State mentions crocodile tears; what would he say to the hospitality businesses in my constituency that have been impacted by the rise in national insurance contributions, the minimum wage rise and the business rates that he just talked so effusively about? What message would he give to them as they struggle to deal with the outcome of the Budget?”
“The Secretary of State says that soldiers who complied with a lawful order have nothing to fear. I did not serve in Northern Ireland but I did serve in Iraq and Afghanistan. I know that if I were hauled before the courts to recount my actions from 20-odd years ago to acquit myself, I would be extremely worried about the pressure that would place on me and on my colleagues. The Secretary of State mentions that there will be changes to the Bill. For those veterans who were not privy to those conversations, will he outline some of the actions that he is prepared to take to address the parts of the Bill that he is not content with, so that they can have a better understanding of how this might change going forward? Members of this House would like to understand what those amendments are likely to be.”
“I want to touch on state threats. I appreciate what the Minister said about the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme as it applies to China. Could he inform the House whether Bill Yuen and Peter Wai were registered on FIRS for their role as Chinese state employees? On Russia, on 5 May the Amur-class repair ship PM-82 was spotted around the Galloper wind farm. What steps is he taking to ensure that our offshore infrastructure is protected from Russian-state threats?”
“The Secretary of State and many of his Front-Bench colleagues keep reiterating that point. He keeps saying that, but I do not believe it is true. Will he explain exactly what he thinks the Leader of the Opposition wanted to do in those circumstances?”
“The laissez-faire attitude to Peter Mandelson’s appointment has illustrated the nonchalance, arrogance and incompetence of the Government under this milquetoast premiership. There is a key question that we come back to once again: why does the Prime Minister think everybody’s actions have consequences except his own? The public must be assured that there has been an investigation into whether the Prime Minister misled the House. The Privileges Committee must investigate the Prime Minister. Labour MPs must vote for the motion, for transparency and truth, not the defence of a Prime Minister who does not deserve their blinkered loyalty.”
“The Prime Minister deliberately directed that information to be withheld from the then Foreign Secretary; I suspect that is not the first time he has done that. Those two men with proximity to convicted paedophiles were both Labour peers and both key figures in the Starmer project—the Government’s cronyism is second only to their nepotism. Given what we know about the role that Peter Mandelson played in the last reshuffle, what confidence can the general public have that Ministers who owe their careers to him will vote honestly in the coming vote? It is not on the Opposition side of the House that we have to worry about whether Peter Mandelson paid for anybody’s wedding.”
“Even more damning in Sir Olly Robbins’ testimony was the Prime Minister’s dogged determination to reward the now Lord Doyle: “I was under strict instruction not to discuss that with the then Foreign Secretary, which was uncomfortable… I found it very hard to think how I would explain to the office what the credentials of Matthew were to be in an important head of mission role, when I was in danger of making very senior, very experienced diplomats leave the office.” The fact is that the Prime Minister put pressure on the FCDO to give Lord Doyle a head of mission role in the diplomatic service in March last year despite his complete lack of qualification for the role. That same individual later had the Labour Whip removed owing to his relationship with Sean Morton, a man subsequently convicted of possessing indecent images of children.”
“Would the US, for example, have given him visibility of TK-level imagery? What assessment have the Government made of the damage this debacle has done to the UK’s relationship with the United States? It is surely no coincidence that the special relationship has soured at the same time that this fiasco has unravelled, quite apart from the other faux pas that the Government have made in recent weeks.”
“Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra)—somewhat conveniently one hour after The Guardian broke its story—stated only that Mandelson had developed vetting upon commencement of his role on 10 February. So when was his STRAP application made, and when was it granted? When I asked the Prime Minister last week, despite his legendary forensic eye for detail, he had no idea. Did the intelligence services also have access to the UKSV vetting report? The wider question is this: what assessment did the US intelligence services make of Peter Mandelson? Did he pass vetting by the US Department of State? As the nexus for all Five Eyes intelligence and US-UK eyes-only intelligence coming from the United States, was Mandelson granted access to all the available intelligence in order to discharge all his responsibilities as ambassador?”
“On 4 February, less than a week before Mandelson started his role, the appointments and interchange officer of the FCDO informed him via email that the role required STRAP-level clearance in addition to DV and that a new STRAP application would need to be made. Sir Oliver Robbins confirmed that it was clear to him that Mandelson had received STRAP clearance from the STRAP authorities. During the urgent question in the Chamber on 16 March, I asked the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister what level of security clearance Mandelson had been granted, notwithstanding the minutiae of whether developed vetting is a clearance level and STRAP is a role-specific access. The reply I received from the Minister for the Indo-Pacific, the hon.”
“A similar pattern was followed, with access to the FCDO granted and access to classified documents, use of unsecured email for communications and question marks over potential foreign influence all confirmed to have taken place prior to his developed vetting within the last few hours by Morgan McSweeney. That was six months prior to the Mandelson farrago. As I said at PMQs last week, playing fast and loose with national security is a key characteristic of the Prime Minister’s chumocracy. The question of Mandelson’s security clearance itself poses a host of further questions. When Peter Mandelson commenced his role, he had already been given developed vetting, although UKSV had highlighted concerns—that is now well established. But if full due process was followed, why was Olly Robbins sacked?”
“The Prime Minister set the conditions for Peter Mandelson to be the UK ambassador to the United States with a devil-may-care attitude with regard to the consequences. The public announcement of his appointment in December 2024, His Majesty the King being informed and the agrément with the United States being secured all before vetting had taken place ensured that the appointment was a fait accompli. Peter Mandelson then being granted access to the FCDO building and higher-classification briefings before he was granted developed vetting reveals a shockingly lax approach to our national security, but it is not without precedent. We saw much of the same laissez-faire attitude with a previous ministerial appointment: that of the Prime Minister’s special envoy to the British Indian Ocean Territory, Jonathan Powell.”
“Madam Deputy Speaker, “Why does the Prime Minister think everybody else’s actions have consequences except his own?” —[ Official Report , 20 April 2022; Vol. 712, c. 155.] That is a question the country would like an answer to. It is, given the appearance of several recently defenestrated senior civil servants, a prescient question. But it is not my question—it is the Prime Minister’s own question from 2022. How hollow those words must feel now. The testimonies from Sir Oliver Robbins last week, and from his predecessor, Sir Philip Barton, and the Prime Minister’s former chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, this morning—all casualties trailing in the wake of a Prime Minister who will stop at nothing to save his own skin—have torpedoed what last vestiges of credibility the Prime Minister is desperately clinging on to.”
“I hope the Government can continue to push in the right direction on this issue, deliver on the pledges outlined in their strategy, and achieve their pledge to phase animals out of testing processes.”
“I appreciate that I have addressed some very specific points, so I would welcome the Minister writing to me to address my questions if he is unable to answer them all today. I am sure his team have been furiously scribbling notes. As I have stated, I welcome the animal welfare strategy. It is a good first step towards a future in which animals no longer play a part in pre-clinical pharmaceutical testing, but that day is still too far away. A date of 2035 sounds like wishful thinking—an expectation that there will be exponential leaps forward in progress with the advent of AI and the rapid intramonth increases we are seeing in compute power. That may be the case, but hope is not a strategy.”
“The next meeting of the alternative methods strategy delivery group is scheduled for tomorrow; can the Minister share the outcome of the first meeting in February, and what is likely to be discussed in tomorrow’s meeting? The Animals in Science Committee has now published its report, “Strengthening leading practice in the animals in science sector”. Will the Minister outline what progress has been made thus far, or he anticipates being made this year, on the 11 recommendations on strengthening leading practice or further work, particularly regarding the Animals in Science Regulation Unit? On recommendation 11, which applies to the Minister’s Department, what steps have DSIT Ministers taken to consider how funding schemes can support the implementation of leading practice across the whole framework?”
“Is the investment of £75 million to accelerate the development and adoption of alternative methods separate from, or in addition to, the funding supplied for the three Rs? Is the £20 million of increased funding launched through the pre-clinical translational models hub funding call last month part of that £75 million or in addition to it? Is the £30 million allocated to support the establishment and delivery of the UK centre for the validation of alternative methods also in addition to that? Further to that, reporting on the portfolio of investments in alternative methods is planned to commence this year. Is the Minister able to confirm when that will be published? We are already in quarter 2.”
“I know that that is due to be in place by the end of the year, but could the Minister provide an update on progress in alternative methods likely to be included? Further to that, UKRI plans to publish areas of research interest for alternative methods and is due to start the work in the first half of the year. When in Q2 is that work due to commence, and has an approach now been agreed between the NC3Rs, the Medical Research Council and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council? The Government have also confirmed that the first ministerial board has been convened to oversee delivery of the governance arrangements for the overall strategy. Can the Minister confirm the frequency of those meetings?”
“In particular, has his Department been successful in discussions with international regulators regarding harmonisation of standards and establishment of key priorities? Ministers have previously informed me of the publication of a set of key performance indicators covering all elements of the strategy later this year. Is the Minister able to expand on the timeline for the publication of those KPIs and the accompanying dashboard? Likewise, Ministers have previously informed me that work is under way to identify and collate UK Research and Innovation-funded alternative methods for inclusion on the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research’s expansion of its gateway publishing platform.”
“As one of the few MPs who has actually read it, I have some questions for the Minister that I hope he will able to answer later—I hope that he can take some notes, because I have a lot of questions. Ministers in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology recently confirmed to me that the Government are positioning the UK as a global leader in alternative methods via a variety of initiatives, principally including reform of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and by setting new international benchmarks for the development, assessment and adoption of non-animal methods. Could the Minister confirm what progress the Government have made in scoping multilateral and bilateral opportunities for international engagement?”
“During the heatwave last summer, there was significant concern regarding the welfare of the dogs, owing to the temperature inside the sheds. Although I appreciate that the Minister will not have this information to hand, could he—or potentially the Security Minister, under whose brief ASRU audits sit—write to me and outline the steps implemented to mitigate those risks, given the likelihood of another hot spell in the coming months? Last November, the Government introduced their policy paper, “Replacing animals in science: A strategy to support the development, validation and uptake of alternative methods”, the long-awaited strategy created to fulfil Labour’s pledge to phase out animal testing. It took a while, but I welcome the publication of the strategy.”
“Could the Minister clarify how the Government intend to criminalise people for sending emails that are not abusive or threatening and where the sender cannot even be identified? With regards to MBC Acres itself, in response to my written parliamentary question 125326 regarding the outcome of the last announced audit of the site last November, the Government confirmed that the Animals and Science Regulation Unit “identified no critical or major findings, and no low level concerns”, identifying only three minor findings involving “a small amount of rust on a surface, small areas of floor damage in a walkway, and a small portion of loose drain cover”. Given the sheer volume of correspondence I have received on the topic of conditions at MBR Acres, it is not unreasonable to say that the two perspectives do not tally.”
“Members for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell), for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) and for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy); every other Labour MP in this Chamber today voted in favour of it. It is no secret that MBR Acres was just a few days away from closure, owing to the pressure applied by activists, predominantly via their email campaign. The regulations make sending an email to a company simply to lobby it to boycott provision of utilities a criminal offence. They also require the company being lobbied to report that individual to the police for it to be investigated. The police then have to prove the identity of the sender without knowing which force should investigate or whether that person is even in the country. It is a nonsense.”
“That will include, for example, pharmaceutical laboratories, medicine and vaccine-manufacturing facilities, suppliers of animals for research, and academic laboratories carrying out research involving animals.” —[ Official Report, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 17 December 2025; c. 3.] It would be extremely naive to believe that that legislation was introduced for any reason other than to address the presence and actions of Camp Beagle. It is unusual that the Government would create a bespoke piece of legislation specifically to target a single protest site, particularly when that legislation is so poorly constructed that it is unenforceable anyway. It is worth mentioning that I voted against that legislation, as did the hon.”