Katie Lam
MP for Weald of Kent · Conservative · United Kingdom
“The Government confirmed that twice in November 2025, yet the very next month announced that elections in some parts of the country would be pushed back as far as 2028. Two weeks later, again in the run-up to Christmas, the then local government Minister invited another wave of postponements.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The real-world results of this endless delay are plain to see. People across the country are left without any sense of which council will be providing services in the year and years to come, while councillors and council officials have spent millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money planning and preparing for new authorities that might never…”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In September, following updated and privileged legal advice, the current Secretary of State withdrew decisions for Essex, Hampshire, Norfolk and Suffolk, and paused plans in most of the rest of the country. What a complete joke!”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister talks of allowing the process to “run its course” and of giving “full and proper consideration” to each decision, but can he set out what will be taken into consideration? What role have party political objectives played in determining new local government boundaries?”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It gives me no pleasure whatsoever to say that from start to finish, this Government’s approach to local government reorganisation has been nothing short of a farce. The Government first promised to publish their English devolution White Paper in November 2024.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In March, there was another set of announcements and another set of legal challenges. In June, it was revealed in a pre-action letter issued by the Department that Ministers had ignored official advice over reorganisation plans. In July, just days before the right hon.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
638 held · 625 searchable for Katie Lam. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“In exchange for a deal with India, this Government have chosen to sell out skilled British workers who have worked hard to get where they are by allowing Indian firms to undercut them. We will see highly skilled British workers in cutting-edge fields, such as engineering, priced out by Indian workers. Given the relative markets and educational systems in the UK and India, we should not expect that always to be a like-for-like swap in terms of talent. We have already seen this model take hold in the United States. There, Indian consultancy firms lease their workers to American companies, who are then able to pay an Indian worker far less than they would need to pay an American. The result has been a massive expansion in the number of lower-cost Indian workers at the expense of American workers.”
House of Commons9 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is an important point because, as I am about to talk about, we have double contribution conventions with other countries, but not with other countries with economies like India’s where so many people—well north of a billion people—would be happy to do these jobs for much lower salaries than our workers at home would expect. As I say, it is true that we have double contribution conventions with other countries. These aim to simplify intracompany transfers for international businesses. However, these agreements are usually struck with countries that have compatible economies, similar educational outcomes and comparable social security systems, such as Japan or Canada. India stands alone as by far the largest and least wealthy country on the list.”
House of Commons9 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“But it does, of course, now fall to this Government to address them. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us whether the Government have any plans to exempt defence firms from existing ESG regulations or to make changes to those regulations for all companies. I hope she will also be able to offer us some insight into whether the Government have engaged with the FCA about the classification of defence firms for ESG purposes ahead of the consultation deadline on 31 March.”
House of Commons28 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As recently as 2013, this country’s defence industry was second in the world in the export of military equipment when measured by total value of new orders. Today, partly thanks to the growth of the regulatory burden on defence firms, we have fallen to seventh. That is bad for our own military, which must now choose between importing its equipment from abroad or paying over the odds for equipment produced in this country, and it is bad for our interests overseas. After all, militaries around the world will always need new equipment. I would much rather they were able to buy British than from competitors in Russia or China. It is clearly true that the problems the British defence industry now faces did not begin under this Government, or even under the previous Government.”
House of Commons28 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The status quo is bad for our armed forces and bad for the British taxpayer. The answer, of course, is to reject this dichotomy entirely. We should unleash the natural strength of the British defence industry, including by scrapping those ESG requirements that make life more difficult for British defence firms. It would be remiss of me not to mention that, as heavy manufacturing firms, British defence companies are also likely to be disproportionately damaged by the energy policy that the Government are pursuing, which has produced the highest industrial energy prices in the developed world. We know that our defence industry has the capability to be one of the best, if not the best, in the world.”
House of Commons28 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“While ESG requirements continue to stifle the British defence industry, we are forced into choosing one of two options, neither of them good. We could pay over the odds for equipment produced in this country. The compliance costs created by ESG rules and the disincentives to private investment created by the ESG ratings regime could force many defence firms to put up their prices, meaning higher costs for the British taxpayer, should we wish to rely on military equipment produced here. This situation also makes our kit more expensive and therefore less desirable to our allies; having fewer customers will drive up prices even further. Alternatively, we will have to rely on equipment from overseas, leaving us dependent on other countries. Neither of those outcomes is acceptable.”
House of Commons28 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Just last year, some of the country’s largest investors, including the National Employment Savings Trust, which is the workplace pension scheme set up by the Government, reiterated their determination to refuse to invest in defence stocks, in the name of “ethics”. What exactly is ethical about shunning those companies that dedicate themselves to equipping our defence forces and protecting our freedom? As the FCA moves to standardise rules for ESG ratings providers, we still have no clear indication about how it intends to treat defence companies for the purpose of ESG ratings. In pursuit of secondary aims, we are making life more difficult for British defence companies and, in turn, for the armed forces that we expect to keep us safe. One way or another, our armed forces will need to procure the equipment they need to do their jobs.”
House of Commons28 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If they wish to sell their equipment to the British Government, they must comply with the rules set out under the Ministry of Defence’s climate change and sustainability strategic approach. That includes the publication of a carbon reduction plan and compliance with rules designed to minimise environmental impact. If the firms wish to be publicly listed, they must wrangle the Financial Conduct Authority’s rules on ESG ratings. Generally, defence companies are not considered to be an ethical investment, meaning that they are often scored badly for the purposes of ESG ratings, as my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and several other hon. Members have already said. Given that the FCA has consistently pushed funds to focus on ESG-compliant investments, that is clearly a significant cause for concern.”
House of Commons28 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Where women want to jobs that have historically been filled by men—where they can do them; many roles in the armed forces have physical requirements that cannot be compromised—there should be no barrier to them doing so. I applaud those women, as I applaud the men who are willing to risk their lives for our freedom. However, to abandon our defence of the skies in the name of diversity quotas is completely and utterly mad. The RAF has since apologised for its decision, but I mention it today because it is crucial in the context of this debate. It shows the climate in which British companies that want to supply equipment to our military must operate. As has already been said by many hon. Members, in order to trade in the UK, defence companies must comply with the general ESG regulations set out under the Companies Act 2006.”
House of Commons28 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“However, for that to mean anything, defending our nation must take priority over other aims. Yet far too often we have seen our armed forces and the companies that supply them being forced to put social value requirements ahead of their existential duty to keep us safe. As crazy as that sounds, it is no exaggeration or hypothetical concern. In 2022, the Royal Air Force paused recruitment of white men to try to raise its proportion of women and ethnic minorities. The RAF quite literally and explicitly would rather have hired nobody to defend this country from the air than hire a white guy. That is lunacy. Cruel or unpleasant behaviour towards women is repulsive and clearly should have no place in our armed forces, their suppliers, or indeed any workforce.”
House of Commons28 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure, Ms McVey, to serve with you in the Chair this afternoon, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) for securing this important debate. It is often said—including by my hon. Friend in his opening speech today—that we are living in an ever more dangerous world. In fact, it is the most dangerous world in my lifetime or that of my hon. Friend, although he never tires of reminding me that he is a year younger than me. The Government’s own 2025 strategic defence review stated: “The threats we now face are more serious and less predictable than at any time since the Cold War”. Clearly, therefore, we should do everything in our power to ensure that our armed forces are well-staffed and well-equipped. The defence of the realm is the first duty of any Government.”
House of Commons28 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is right that the health service prioritises British-trained doctors. It is also right that, across every area of the public sector, we reward talent, effort and merit.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I hope the Government will change their mind and amid their other good changes accept the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), to which I have added my name, to ensure that training places are, in future, allocated on the basis of merit. If the Bill aims to provide certainty to British-trained doctors that they will be able to build a career in this country, which is a noble aim, it should also recognise that the current system of randomly allocating training places is one of the biggest causes of uncertainty in our system. It would be far better for doctors and patients to have a system that instead prized excellence, providing a clear basis on which medical trainees could be allocated and creating a system that rewarded the most talented graduate doctors.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“He is clearly an outstanding student and will make an incredible doctor. In any sane system, he would have been placed immediately and been able to choose his location and specialism to keep him incentivised and happy within the NHS and to make the most of his obviously considerable talents. Instead, because of the mismanagement of places and the lottery system, he was not placed at all in the first round of allocations. He was not placed in the second, the third or even the fourth round. With fewer than four weeks to go, he still had no placement and no sense of where he would spend the next few years of his life, including whether he might be able to live close to his partner, who was also a doctor and graduating with him. That is an insane way to treat our most brilliant graduates.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Yet we must be honest about the fact that relying on overseas recruits instead of training more medical professionals in this country is not always a like-for-like swap. Both medical trainees and patients would benefit from a system that trains more doctors here and ensures that those British-trained doctors are given a reasonable chance at moving quickly into an NHS training post. The system should also reward ability and allocate training posts based on merit. The current system of random allocation not only fails to reward our most talented medical graduates but creates profound uncertainty for those at the start of their careers. Last summer, one of my constituents qualified as a doctor. He graduated with one of the very highest marks in the year—he was in the top three—from one of the most competitive medical schools in the country.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“However, the NHS’s focus on overseas recruitment meant that those British-trained doctors were also forced to compete with another 25,257 overseas trainees. It is clearly absurd that the British Government should restrict the number of training places offered, while also increasing demand for those places through a policy of overseas recruitment, having spent hundreds of thousands of pounds to train each medical student in this country. That is particularly true when we know that doctors trained overseas are two-and-a-half times more likely to be referred to the GMC by their employer than doctors trained here. Many overseas recruits are hard-working and well-meaning, and many are excellent at the work that they do.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is welcome to see this legislation before us, which rightly gives priority to British-trained doctors for NHS training posts, particularly at the early stages of their career. Those who decide to practise medicine in this country should have reasonable confidence that, if they wish to do so, they can build a career here. The Bill goes some way towards addressing the current situation in which British-trained doctors are being squeezed out of the system in favour of overseas recruits, despite the Government’s control of both the supply of new British graduates and the number of training places. In 2025, 15,723 British-trained doctors were set to compete for 12,833 NHS training posts. This is already a competitive environment.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The NHS has a deeply unusual set-up when it comes to its workforce. The Government set the rules for who can qualify as a medical professional, decide how many medical training places to offer and control the flow of medical graduates into the NHS. They decide how much to charge medical students and under what conditions and since the NHS is by far the country’s primary employer of medical professionals, the Government also have effective control over the pay and conditions of those who qualify, and are responsible for deciding where medical trainees go and when. As a result, the health service workforce is not subject to the same labour market conditions as other organisations. The Government control both the supply of and the demand for its own workforce.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Tens of thousands of people across Kent and Sussex were without running water last week. While the response of South East Water was shambolic, the Staplehurst emergency help team got a bottled water supplier, set up a collection station and delivered water to vulnerable people. Using only volunteers, they supported local people, businesses, farms and care homes with 20,000 bottles of water. Does the Prime Minister think, as I do, that South East Water should be ashamed to be schooled in crisis response by the volunteers of the Staplehurst emergency help team? Has he, like many of my constituents and many of our colleagues, lost confidence in South East Water’s chief executive?”
House of Commons21 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This Government’s handover of the Chagos islands is nothing short of a disgrace. British taxpayers are being asked to stump up billions of pounds to pay for the privilege of giving away something we own—a strategically vital territory—to a close ally of the Chinese Communist party. And why? All because of an entirely advisory opinion issued by politicised judges in the International Court of Justice. People across the country are rightly asking why on earth any British Government would agree to a deal that diminishes our strategic capabilities and costs us billions in the process, particularly when the Government are already putting the squeeze on people’s finances in so many ways. The Government’s arguments for doing so were already thin, and they become even thinner when we consider the amendments before us today.”
House of Commons20 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If the Government ever want the British people to believe that they are motivated by anything other than deep shame about our history, they would do well to accept the amendments before us today or—far better—to scrap this deal entirely. The British people are owed a Government who stand up for their interests today, not punish them for the imagined sins of our ancestors.”
House of Commons20 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“However, the Government’s position on the amendments lays bare the truth: they simply do not agree. Instead, they believe that it is their responsibility to go around the world flagellating themselves and righting imagined wrongs on behalf of and at the expense of the British taxpayer. To their minds, this country is indelibly stained by the actions of those who came before us. The Chagos surrender is one such example, but it is not the only one, and I fear it will not be the last. To attempt to right the wrongs, real or imagined, of the distant past by squeezing the taxpayers of today is divisive madness.”
House of Commons20 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Of course, when Britain has done something seriously wrong, we should be honest about that, but in the case of the Chagos islands, there was no original British sin. Mauritius never had sovereignty over the Chagos islands, and practically no Mauritians have ever lived there. The islands have been under British sovereignty since 1814, before which they were occupied by the French. Before that, they were uninhabited. This is no decolonisation; it is a surrender. Our history is complex. It contains cruelties, yes, but also enormous contributions to human health, wealth and flourishing around the world. The darkest moments in our history were hardly unique, yet many of the most virtuous moments in that history were truly exceptional. I believe that we should be proud of the contributions that our country has made to the world.”
House of Commons20 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We have already heard that the Government will not support Lords amendments 2 and 3, but if, as the Government claim, the costs of the deal are proportionate, why not support Lords amendments 5 and 6, which would provide much-needed transparency about why taxpayers are being asked to stump up so much for the privilege of handing away territory? We hear no such support for those amendments, so the Chagos handover cannot really be about our security, the Chagossians or self-determination. So what is it about? The truth is that this so-called deal is motivated entirely by ideology. We have heard from the Government’s Attorney General that “almost every aspect” of the British empire was “deeply racist”, echoing the language used by the Mauritians at the International Court of Justice.”
House of Commons20 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The question that we are voting on today is the deal that the Government have agreed to. It is an appalling deal, and it should be opposed. The Government’s arguments for putting the deal forward become even thinner when we look at the amendments and how the Government have responded to them both here and in the other place. If, as the Government claim, the deal will make us safer, why not support Lords amendment 1, which would ensure that payments are made to the Mauritian Government only if our armed forces retain access to the Diego Garcia base?”
House of Commons20 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Then there are rules on labelling and marketing, on mandatory written contracts on milk sales to regulate pricing, and on manure spreading and waste management. If farmers want to adapt their buildings or extend them, they need to navigate the labyrinth of our planning system. Then and only then are they allowed to sell their milk, butter or cheese, and the price in the shops will need to reflect all the costs I have just mentioned if they want to keep the farm running.”
House of Commons15 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“They must test for certain bacteria and must be prepared for unannounced inspections by the Food Standards Agency. If farmers want to sell milk, they must comply with the Drinking Milk (England) Regulations 2008, which define the appropriate fat content for different sorts of milk and sets out specific rules on pasteurisation. If they want to turn the milk into cheese, they must comply with certain compositional standards, including rules on protected designations for specific regional varieties. If they want to turn the milk into butter, they must comply with the Spreadable Fats (Marketing Standards) and the Milk Products (Protection of Designations) (England) Regulations 2008, including rules on additives and fat percentage.”
House of Commons15 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If they want to turn some of their milk into cheese or butter, they must also get a separate approval as a food business establishment. Cows must be kept according to regulations set out under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007, which include rules on space, housing and veterinary care. The herd must be regularly tested by the Animal and Plant Health Agency for tuberculosis and brucellosis. They must be specifically protected to minimise contact with badgers, with the construction of specific fences and feeding facilities. Farmers must also create and implement a hazard analysis and critical contact point plan identifying all potential contamination hazards and setting out plans to minimise them.”
House of Commons15 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If the Government increase the supply of money, say, or keep interest rates too low, people will be more likely to spend, reducing the relative value of the pound in their pocket and, again, causing prices to rise. If we talk to anybody involved in producing food in this country, we will hear a lot about the second cause. Costs are rising and prices are rising with them. As I mentioned, that is due partly to energy costs, but also partly to the vast sums food producers must spend to comply with the regulations they need to navigate if they ever want to sell their products. Let us take dairy farms as just one example. What hurdles must a dairy farmer in Kent, in my constituency, clear if they want to sell milk, cheese or butter? To even begin the process, all dairy farmers must register with the Food Standards Agency as a dairy producer.”
House of Commons15 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The supply of Ukrainian wheat fell, demand stayed the same and global food prices rose. Secondly, prices can rise because it becomes more expensive to produce goods in the first place. To keep earning enough to survive, the people who produce those goods will need to increase their prices to cover their growing costs. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) mentioned, we see that today, as this Government’s energy policies create the highest industrial energy prices in the developed world. Higher energy prices for businesses mean higher production costs, causing prices to rise. The same is true of higher taxes or greater regulatory costs, both of which this Government have imposed on businesses of all kinds. Thirdly, prices can rise because of external factors, which can also be in response to Government policy.”
House of Commons15 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As ever, it is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I thank the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) for securing the debate. For many people across the country, rising food prices are one of the most concrete ways in which the cost of living crisis impacts their lives. Thanks to rising costs, many families simply do not have enough money left at the end of the month to save for a home, plan a holiday or even send their children on a school trip. In general, prices rise because of three things. First, they can rise because too many people want too few goods. If the demand for something grows faster than the supply, the price will of course rise. We saw that in the immediate aftermath of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.”
House of Commons15 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Thanks to farmers’ hard work, we are able to enjoy some of the finest dairy products anywhere in the world. Given the difficulties they face, we should not be making their lives harder by forcing them to navigate mountains of paperwork and endless regulatory compliance. It is bad for them and bad for those who want to buy their products at an affordable price.”
House of Commons15 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“What is important here, and what I am trying to set out, is how many costs farmers have to meet even just to get their produce out of the door. When we talk about food prices, it is inevitable that we will talk about why those prices rise, what the costs are and how they might be going up. Many of my farmers work incredibly hard to put food on people’s tables, and my aim is to talk through the costs they face even just to be able legally to sell their produce. It is important for constituents who are listening to this debate to understand what goes into the pint of milk that they buy. Dairy farmers live an extremely difficult lifestyle. They work long hours and can never afford to take a day off—the cows will, after all, always need milking.”
House of Commons15 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“He would happily sell them to local schools at cost price or lower, but the tangled bureaucracy of procurement makes that impossible. Addressing that issue would be a win for everyone. It would mean healthier food being provided cheaply for local children, supporting our farmers, tackling food waste, and preventing orchards from having to be grubbed up, which releases a lot of carbon into the atmosphere. Will the Minister please set out any plans she might have to make it easier for local farmers to sell their produce to state institutions nearby?”
House of Commons15 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am so sorry; I am running out of time. The same is true across every other type of farming or food production, from vegetables to vineyards. For the sake of those who put food on our plates and of families working hard to make ends meet, will the Minister—who I notice is wearing our favourite suit jacket again today, as am I—please explain what steps the Government are taking to reduce costs for food producers and, in turn, for producers across this country? Finally, those Government hurdles are due not just to legislation. Peter Hall at Little Mill Farm in Marden in my constituency does incredible work with the Felix Project. He gives away thousands of apples and pears from his orchards to be eaten by children who would otherwise not be able to eat them.”
House of Commons15 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“What other country would treat its former service personnel with such disregard? Ajax does not tell the whole story, but it is one recent and important example. How the Government choose to proceed from here will send a signal to those who are serving, and those who might serve in the future, about whether their Government intend to uphold their side of the bargain. Regardless of political party, we should all want our armed forces to know that we support them, not just with words, but materially. I hope the Minister will provide some clarity on when we can expect a final verdict on Ajax, and what steps the Government are taking to ensure that future procurement is faster, more cost-effective and safer for those who are serving. That is the very least that our armed forces deserve.”
House of Commons14 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Ministry of Defence has said it believes we will need to spend an additional £28 billion to meet its costs over the next four years—yet at the Budget just two months ago, defence spending rose by £500 million less than was projected in the summer. The Government have not just failed in supplying our armed forces with the tools they need to keep us safe. In repealing the protections put in place by the previous Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, for example, they are opening the door to another wave of prosecutions against those who have previously served. How can all of that be the right way to treat those who have risked their lives to keep us safe? What message does it send to those who might consider enlisting in the future?”
House of Commons14 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The programme has a budget of £6.3 billion, enough to pay for the running of every court in England and Wales for two years. It is £6.3 billion of people’s hard-earned money. These vehicles do not work, and I would like my money back. If Ajax was the only failure, that would still not be acceptable, but it might at least be written off as an aberration. However, the pattern of the British Government failing their duty to the armed forces is, sadly, far more widespread. In March 2024, a former armed forces Minister told the House of Commons that the British Army’s ammunition stockpile would be exhausted in just 10 days of warfare.”
House of Commons14 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The programme’s consistent failure sends a clear signal to those who have committed their lives to serving our country that, while they may be doing their duty to this country, the British Government are not performing their duty to them. How else are our armed forces personnel supposed to interpret a programme that has been repeatedly delayed, has racked up enormous costs and, as we heard last year, poses a direct risk to soldiers? When we ask people to put their lives on the line to protect our freedoms, the very least we can do is provide them with functional equipment, on time, that does more harm to the enemy than to our own troops. The Ajax programme does an appalling disservice, not just to Britain’s armed forces—although that is awful—but for British taxpayers.”
House of Commons14 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart. I thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) for securing this debate today. As has already been laid out, the Ajax programme has been a disaster. It has been repeatedly delayed and enormously expensive. We have known for years about problems with noise and vibration. It is mystifying how these vehicles were signed off as safe, despite so obviously not being so. British soldiers have been permanently injured as a result. Clearly the problems with Ajax did not begin under this Government; the vehicles were expected to be combat ready by mid-2019. However, the decision about what to do with the programme now does fall to this Government. Whatever they decide, this debacle cannot be allowed to continue.”
House of Commons14 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My constituent Hilary’s daughter Phoebe took her own life at the University of Newcastle, aged just 20. Does the hon. Member agree that the level of pastoral care that universities do and do not provide is an important factor, not just for students but for their parents, in the choice where to go to university? Universities should be transparent and honest about the level of support that they do and do not provide.”
House of Commons13 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Secretary of State mentions a countrywide problem, but numbers of housing starts in London are particularly pitiful. There were only about 370 new starts for every month of last year, which is the lowest level for almost any region for any year that I have been alive. There are nearly six times as many starts in the south-east, even though the housing crisis there is exported from London. It would be good to hear a little more about exactly what the plan involves, what number of starts the Secretary of State expects to see this year, and, if that target is missed, what will happen next.”
House of Commons12 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I was very sorry to hear about the Minister’s father. Thousands of my constituents over the weekend in Headcorn, Staplehurst, Coxheath and the surrounding villages had no running water. It is vital in these situations that we are able to share accurate and timely information, but South East Water had no idea what was going on; there was supposed to be a bottled water station in Headcorn, and yet for the entirety of Saturday, nobody from South East Water could tell me if there was even any water there. We were given multiple conflicting pieces of information, most of which turned out to be inaccurate, and the only way my team and I could establish whether anything was provided was to go there ourselves. Does the Minister agree that this is unacceptable and that it makes a bad situation so much worse?”
House of Commons12 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is becoming increasingly apparent that West Midlands police retrospectively created a rationale and, according to remarkable investigative work by The Sunday Times , false evidence to justify their predetermined decision to ban fans from the world’s only Jewish state from going to a football match in Britain’s second city. Does the Minister think that the chief constable of such a force can possibly be overseeing effective community policing? How can he continue in his role?”
House of Commons5 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Family farms and family businesses across the Weald of Kent have been through appalling emotional turmoil in trying to work out how to avoid leaving their children unaffordable, crippling tax bills when they die. They are operating on razor-thin margins and small profits, and many of them have been forced to shell out thousands of pounds on professional services advice on this issue, which is now worthless. What does the Minister have to say to them?”
House of Commons5 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The relentless and malicious lawfare to which our brave Northern Ireland veterans have been subjected has exposed the fact that, in Britain, human rights laws can be used to attack those who have risked their lives for this country, not to protect them. The conditions in which soldiers and veterans are forced to live, even if they are accused with no evidence and no credibility, are inhumane. What will the Minister do about the situation, and if it cannot be resolved through the European Court of Human Rights and the Human Rights Act, will he call for them to be, respectively, left and repealed?”
House of Commons5 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“11. What assessment her Department has made of the potential impact of agricultural property relief and business property relief on food prices.”
House of Commons18 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker. The cost of food in this country increased by 4.2% year on year last month, yet farming profitability is on the floor and has been hit repeatedly by this Government, whether that is in national insurance contribution increases, the family farm tax or energy taxes. Will the Government consider easing their terrible tax burden on farmers to solve both the cost of living crisis for food and the farming profitability crisis at the same time?”
House of Commons18 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“So finally, will the Minister please join me in affirming that whoever you are, wherever you may have come from, wherever your family may have come from, and whatever may have happened to you, if you are a woman in Britain, your body belongs to no one but yourself?”
House of Commons18 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Just this week, an article published in the British Medical Association’s academic journal highlighted how differing cultural attitudes towards women can influence behaviour. That piece, on the apparent “harms” of the global campaign against female genital mutilation, argued that in many cultures, women’s bodies “may be perceived as belonging to a larger group…rather than being subject to individual choices and preferences.” It went on to argue that an emphasis on women’s bodily autonomy can therefore be “traumatic” to those of other cultures. This is wrong. Individual autonomy is the bedrock of our laws, our culture and our country, as I am sure all of us in this House will agree.”
House of Commons18 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗