Budget Resolutions

Sam Carling Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

The Defence Secretary opened today’s debate by praising the former Prime Minister and former Chancellor. That may come as a surprise to them both, given that earlier this year the Defence Secretary resigned from the Government, saying in his resignation letter that he could not serve alongside them because of the lack of direction and the drift. It is less than a year since Labour Members cheered and waved their Order Papers at the Budget from the right hon. Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves), and it is striking how much continuity there is today with measures that they cheered yesterday, despite being so unhappy with the previous Chancellor.

To illustrate that, I will highlight certain phrases and words we hear from Labour Members on a regular basis, starting with perhaps the most frequent, which is the need to have no austerity. An “end to austerity” is a constant refrain—[Interruption.] I see those on the Front Bench nodding. They might be surprised to see that the OBR report states on pages 21 and 115 that there is an £11 billion shortfall from the year after next for all Departments, other than protected Departments such as Health. The Government have already said that they want to commit to Defence. I do not think the party that stands saying “24 hours to save the NHS” will cut funding to the health service going into an election, but perhaps that is its policy. If not, according to the OBR, Labour will be cutting funding for unprotected Departments by 2.6% in those final three years. There is a paradox about that: only last week, the Defence Secretary came to the House to say that there is urgency in national resilience, yet Departments like the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, which would deliver that national resilience, will be the same unprotected ones facing cuts, so Labour Members are cheering a Budget in which there is austerity baked in—[Interruption.] They shake their heads.

Labour Members may have been told by the Labour Whips, “Do not worry—the spending review will fix that”, but having run a spending review, I know that a spending review allocates the funds but does not decide on the quantum. They may have been told, “Do not worry, there will be a election”—maybe there will—but yesterday the Prime Minister was saying the opposite. Either they believe a Budget that has austerity baked in, they think the spending review will fix it, or they do not believe the Prime Minister and think an election will avoid the issue entirely. But it is an odd position for Members who come to the Chamber talking about an end to austerity to then be cheering a Budget where that austerity is in the Red Book numbers.

The second paradox is that Labour Members talk about breathing space. There are policy areas that show continuity with last year’s Budget: the 2p on property income tax is a repeat of last year’s 2p increase—4p in all—with both measures starting at the same time, in April next year. The OBR makes it clear that that will lead to fewer people entering the rental market, fewer landlords and prices going up. The Budget includes a bank tax, again repeating a trick of the former Chancellor, who thought, “If I tax employers with national insurance, it will not go through into a jobs’ tax”, so we have a bank tax on the basis that that will be more palatable. But do not take my word for it: The Times leader on 16 October said it will be a tax on growth, and one of Labour’s favourite advisers, Lord O’Neill, said it will “hobble” growth.

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

I thank my constituency neighbour for giving way. In the context of the criticism of tax changes for banks, how does he respond to the chief executive of Barclays describing changes along the lines of ones that we have made as “bearable”?

[Steve Barclay]

Of course it will be bearable for the chief executive because he will not take it from his bonus—he will take it by adding it to the mortgage rates and the loan rates that he charges the hon. Member’s constituents. Does the hon. Member honestly believe that the bankers will take that tax from their own bonuses, or does he think they will pass it on to constituents and consumers? That is exactly what The Times, Lord O'Neill and many others have commented: it is a displaced cost that adds to the constraints on businesses. This Government talk about wanting growth in every postcode, but making it harder for businesses to access capital will make it harder for them to expand. As with the measures imposed on landlords, this approach continues that taken by the previous Government.

There is a lack of consistency in the proposals, even measured against those announced in the Labour conference last month. As the Minister pointed out, at the conference the Chancellor talked about how he was aghast at the idea of debt. Well, the OBR document makes it clear that the Budget measures are adding £8 billion of debt this year alone, on top of the £11 billion of additional debt that flows from interest rates and inflation. [Interruption.] Again, a Government who say that they want to reduce debt have a Budget that is adding to debt in a way that will further constrain the growth in every postcode.

Unfortunately I have run out of time, but I suspect that in a few months’ time, as with the last Budget that Labour Members cheered, once the detail becomes more known and they see how it goes against many of the equities that they say that they stand for, we will find this Budget disowned in exactly the same way as the last one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

High energy costs are one of the biggest issues facing both my constituents and the small businesses that our economy needs to thrive, so I am delighted that the Chancellor announced that gas standing charges—which we all know are not fair—will be removed. That comes on top of cost-of-living policies already announced by the Prime Minister, such as removing VAT from electricity—a measure that the Chancellor has now extended—on top of a direct £100 household energy payment eligible for band A to D households. On top of the £150 taken off energy bills at the last Budget, these things add up.

Focusing on energy costs is the progressive thing to do. The poorest 10% of households pay the greatest share of their money on energy, at over 12%. The measures provide support for those most in need: the families, and particularly the children, in poverty in North West Cambridgeshire and across the country. Indeed, the whole Budget reflects progressive principles: 80% of households—all bar the top 20%—will have more money in their pockets from this Budget; the ninth decile breaks about even; and it is only the top 10% that are being asked to pay that little bit more—and it really is only a little more, at 0.1% of their income. That is very much the Labour way.

All the support that we are providing must of course be paid for, and a key part of that will come from delivering growth. And we are delivering growth. Our economy was the joint fastest growing in the G7 in the first half of this year. That comes alongside the news that the IMF forecasts that we are set to deliver a bigger reduction in borrowing over the next few years than any other G20 country. We are one of only two G7 countries to cut our deficit this year, despite all the global headwinds that we face.

In many ways, I feel sorry for the Conservatives, because they have the very difficult job of reading a Red Book full of good news and trying to make it sound bad—[Interruption.] I welcome the discussion in the Budget about lowering business costs, both through business rates relief and freezes. We have heard a lot of criticism that there is nothing in the Budget for hospitality, but about 50% of retail, hospitality and leisure businesses in the east of England will not be paying any business rates at all. The reforms to regulations will be saving businesses up to £5.6 billion a year if we hit our target.

I encourage the Government to ensure that that also applies to our life sciences sector. I have spoken previously in this Chamber about options for reforming clinical trial regulation such that we save business and the NHS time and money and attract more investment—not necessarily by cutting regulation, but by streamlining it and reducing duplicated effort. An awful lot of different regulators look after clinical trials at the moment, and I think there is a lot of potential to streamline some of that down, save a lot of money and bring more investment into that area.

I will turn briefly to another area I would have liked to see more work on, and something I hope the Government might consider taking forward in the spending review, which is gift aid and the tax exemptions given to charities. There is very little scrutiny over that expenditure, which is sizeable, with more than £5 billion of reliefs for charities in the tax year to April 2026. Of course, the vast majority of charities spend that money well and on good causes, and that is to be commended. However, due to fundamental problems in the law, it is far too easy for organisations that provide very little or no benefit to the public—in some cases, they may even cause active harm—to obtain charity status and, in so doing, claim public money through gift aid and tax exemptions. That fact damages the whole sector and those within it who do such good work.

In July 2025, The Guardian reported that the Kasner Charitable Trust transferred £5.7 million to support an illegal settlement in the occupied west bank. In theory, therefore, the UK taxpayer could have funded an illegal settlement by over £1 million in gift aid through that transaction alone. The fact that that was permissible under our current system clearly shows that major reform is needed, including to Treasury rules, and that significant amounts of taxpayer money could be saved, because that is not an isolated example.

There are many similar organisations—taxpayer-funded charities—that are preaching horrendous misogyny, homophobia and other forms of hatred. This is a monumental waste of our constituents’ money, which we could be redirecting both towards our public services and to tackle violence against women and girls at the same time. I know that that is a priority for this Government; they are showing it in the measures in this Budget, such as the £15 million announced to create a misogyny prevention fund, which will have a real impact.

However, such measures are hugely undermined when the taxpayer is also subsidising major organisations like this. Earlier this week, there was a report of a mosque in which preachers were advising husbands that they could hit their wives. Just yesterday, I became aware of a church with awful posts on its website that deny the existence of marital rape, alongside all sorts of other horrendous misogyny. That church had an income of £5 million, £1 million of which could be taxpayer funding. That has to stop, and I implore Treasury Ministers to consider what options they have to ensure that it does.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

I am going to give a slightly different speech today, because I think that what the Government are doing with this Budget shows both a material and moral difference between our two sides. For us on the Labour Benches, it has always been clear—indeed, it is in our founding values—that every single person in this country should be able to live a decent life and that out of that we build prosperity for all. Those on the Opposition Benches believe that only some should be able to afford a decent life—a vision that has made us not just materially poorer but morally poorer.

I have written Budgets in the Treasury and in Somaliland. I have seen really difficult Budgets and, make no mistake, this was a difficult Budget at an incredibly difficult time. We face existential challenges, including an affordability crisis, a burning planet, war in Europe—and all of it coming at the same time. Underneath it all is a question that underlines our politics: will we stand strong together to meet this moment, or will we fall apart divided, weaker and poorer?

We made our choice in this Budget: we will see every single person, family and place do even better than before. Families, workers, business and Government will work in partnership to create prosperity. In this Budget we reduced energy bills so that families can afford the basics, but also because when families have more in their pockets, they spend more down the shops, and that helps their local businesses.

We are helping businesses with the things that they require —roads, skills and investment in energy—and we are cutting rates to give them a bit of breathing space as we go into what we all know will be an incredibly difficult winter. For the Government, it is being able to raise the funds that we need in the fairest way possible and in a way that does not damage prosperity. That is why we have a windfall tax on the banks, who have made huge profits in the past few years, and on oil and gas giants. They are making tens of billions of pounds from Iran and Ukraine, so we are making a choice to use some of that money to help cut bills for people in our constituencies across our country.

We know that this works not just because we have the fastest growing economy in the G7 but because it is what our past tells us. We know that it was Bevin’s alliance of labour and capital that helped win the second world war. We know that Attlee built common prosperity based on common sacrifice, all of it from common endeavour, and Blair and Brown renewed a nation. All that built upon the fundamental ideal that we hold, included on our founding membership card and, indeed, today, that we achieve more by standing together through our common endeavour.

There are those who believe differently from us. They believe that we should allow oil and gas giants and banks to make huge, record windfall profits, leave that there and not try and help every single person in this country. We have also seen that Reform, which supports racist thugs and masked people on our streets, will use those kinds of tactics to distract from the fact that it wants to give its crypto-billionaire mates tax cuts. That is who we stand against and that is the ideal that we stand against on the Labour Benches.

We choose a different path. The British people are better than that—better than the anger and the division, but also better than the penury that leads to. We know, on these Benches, what we have always known and seen throughout our history: that we build prosperity for all; that we stand together when each of us can stand as tall; that a nation is only as strong as each of the people who has a stake in it; and that they have a stake in that nation if life is affordable for all. That is the choice that we have made in our history—in our greatest moments—that was the choice that helped us win a war and rebuild our nation afterwards and it was the same choice that saw us build prosperity in our past and, indeed, prosperity in our present. That is what this Budget represents, that is the choice that we make and every single one of us is so proud of it.

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It has just come to my attention that the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) made a particularly nasty age-related comment during my speech. I wanted to see, first, if that was in order and secondly, if he might like to say that so that his young constituents can hear what he thinks of them.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. I did not hear any comments in the Chamber and it is not a matter for the Chair—I did not hear it.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Sam Carling Excerpts

Wednesday 28th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson]

Of course, any of the big diesel and petrol users would have benefited from greater support from the Government.

On the big challenges that the Government are facing, and which they admit they are facing, there has been very little in this Budget. First, if we are going to get out of many of our economic difficulties, the main issue is to have economic growth. While much has been made today of the micro policies that will affect businesses and encourage entrepreneurs, the fact of the matter is that we are stagnating because we are taxing the life out of businesses. We have the highest tax burden ever, and businesses tell us all the time that the tax on employment stops them recruiting and that the tax on profits stops them investing. If we are going to have economic growth, we must address the issue of the overall burden of taxation, but that has been studiously avoided in this Budget. I am thinking of the farming industry in Northern Ireland. Only yesterday, I met the Ulster Farmers’ Union, which told me that 90% of farmers have now stopped investment plans because of the inheritance tax fears, and I suppose that is true in many other places. With taxation halting people’s investment decisions, that will of course have an impact on economic growth.

Secondly, we have to reduce the debt, yet the Chancellor has told us today that we will actually be borrowing more year on year over the time of this Budget. If we are borrowing more, we are adding to the debt, and if we are adding to the debt, we are adding to the interest we pay on that debt. The Chancellor has even accepted today that £14 billion extra will be required this year just to pay for the increase in the interest we have to pay on the debt. As we continue to borrow, we are not going to get that debt down, and as we do not get that down, we have to tax to pay the interest on it. Again, that has an impact on economic growth, and there does not appear to be a willingness to address it.

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

May I draw the right hon. Member’s attention to page 22 of the Red Book, which states:

“The IMF also forecasts that the UK will deliver the biggest reduction in borrowing in the G20 between 2025 and 2031 and will have the second lowest government debt in the G7 by 2031”?

[Sammy Wilson]

We may be improving in relation to other countries in the G7, but the fact of the matter is that we still have a level of debt that, as the Chancellor has said, is absorbing more and more of our tax revenue to pay—and that is to pay only the interest. We are borrowing more and we are adding to the debt.

Thirdly, we have to reduce energy costs. Today’s announcements mean that we are going to shift some of the burden of the policies that have added to the cost of energy in the United Kingdom.

One of the biggest costs has been the Government’s net zero policy, because it has required investment in wind energy, 25-year commitments to paying premium prices for that energy, and increasing the grid network to bring that energy from dispersed sources, as opposed to the single power stations we used in the past. All of that goes on to energy bills, yet the commitment in the Budget today is to continue with that policy. On the one hand, the Government want to reduce people’s energy bills, but on the other hand they continue with a policy that has increased, will increase and will require infrastructure spending that will further increase energy bills.

The next big issue, of course, is defence spending. What have we got, despite the urgency to increase defence spending? We are going to have the review next year and we are going to have a taskforce, but we are not going to address the issue of spending more now. I understand why, because the Government are not addressing, in the first place, the issue of how we get in more revenue to spend.

The last big issue is the welfare bill, which has been well aired in the debate today, and how it is increasing day on day. As the Chancellor said, the increase in the welfare bill and the way we do welfare is condemning a whole generation to no work—to not working, being on benefits and being reliant on benefits—and it is taxpayers who are having to pay for that. Yet that issue has been pushed aside with the Government saying, “Next year, we’re going to have a White Paper”, etc.

The problem is this. We have a Government who know what the problems are. They talk about the problems in this House and they talk about them to the general public, but despite the fact that we have a Government with a majority of 170, they have still been unwilling to take the hard decisions to address these issues. Unfortunately, it seems that we have a Government who, instead of a backbone, have a wishbone. They wish certain things, but they do not have the courage to take the decisions to sort the problems out.

Defence Readiness

Sam Carling Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

Today’s debate theme is defence readiness, and I am pleased that we heard in His Majesty’s Speech the Government’s clear commitment to a sustained increase in defence spending. I also welcome the announcement of several Bills aimed at boosting national security, notably the tackling state threats Bill, intended to create a tougher operating environment for foreign intelligence services and their proxies. I also welcome the national security Bill to target those inciting terrorism—whether Islamist, linked to another religion, extreme right-wing or in any other form—and extreme violence online. We know that many of those threats are arriving from overseas, and their prevention is a key part of our defence. The establishment of a defence housing service, as laid out in the armed forces Bill, will be of huge benefit to the many military families in my constituency. We have to look after the people who devote their lives to serving our country.

On housing more broadly, I am pleased to see the commonhold and leasehold reform Bill. Leasehold tenancies are a huge problem for so many in my area, and I look forward to a fairer system that limits ground rent as well as protecting my constituents from being exploited by poor managing agents. We need greater transparency over service charges and more powers for residents to challenge them. I have also had constituents approach me who have been victims of domestic abuse and have been unable to remove their abuser from their joint social tenancy due to a gap in legislation. I am therefore delighted that the Government have listened to representations on this and set out plans for the social housing Bill to address that issue. That will be a real change for my constituents who have had to live in fear and uncertainty, and it ties into the Government’s ambitions to tackle violence against women and girls.

On that note, I raised a serious issue during the debate on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill last year around taxis and private hire vehicles. The ability of many private hire vehicles to be licensed in any authority in the country yet operate far away from the authority that licenses them is creating an environment that allows shopping around for lower standards. This is affecting passenger safety and driver security, as well as penalising those drivers who do the right thing and register where they actually work. We have started to tackle this issue through the national minimum standards being brought in through that legislation, and I am pleased to see in this King’s Speech measures to go further. The taxi and private hire vehicle Bill announced in the King’s Speech will specifically deliver on the recommendations of the Casey report on child sexual exploitation and abuse, such as clear licensing requirements and stronger, more consistent enforcement powers. That will be a real positive for both passengers and drivers.

I am going to focus the remainder of my speech on the regulating for growth Bill, which I hope will have significant potential to support British business and innovation and make us much more competitive on the international stage, including in defence. I am pleased that the Government have explicitly referenced this Bill being used to enable better testing of next-generation defence technology. Having a background in life sciences, I am keenly aware of the ever-faster progress our researchers are making in developing new drugs, therapies and medical technologies to fight disease.

British science is often world-leading, and for good reason, but translating conceptual research into clinical trials and eventually into products and services is too difficult. That problem will increase as we move further into the world of personalised medicine, where we are using genetic data to create hyper-specific therapies that will specifically target individual patients’ cancers. This Government laid world-first regulations last July to make access to these therapies easier once approved, allowing them to be manufactured closer to patients so that they can be delivered far faster and save more lives.

The appetite is there, but the regulatory environment needs an overhaul. That is not an attack on our regulators either. In my capacity as chair of the all-party parliamentary group known as the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee—the oldest APPG, set up in 1939—I regularly engage with research scientists and professional bodies, and we had a very well-attended discussion meeting as recently as Monday this week. They often express a lot of support for our life sciences regulators, most of whom get it, fully back our growth agenda and very much want to be facilitators rather than blockers, but there is too much fragmentation for that to work effectively.

To name just a few regulators, we have the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency looking at safety and efficacy; the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence examining cost-effectiveness; the Health and Safety Executive examining hazardous substances and genetically modified organisms; the Human Tissue Authority regulating human tissue use; the Health Research Authority making assessments around ethics; the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, which needs to sign off on some stem cell research projects; and the projects that require animal studies need to go to the Animals in Science Regulation Unit in the Home Office.

That is not an exhaustive list, and I have not even touched on the plethora of NHS bodies that have to give approval for data sharing and usage, should research studies need that, as many do. These bodies all look at different and important features, but this is a crazy number of regulators. It is not that we need to deregulate; rather, we need to bring together regulators to streamline decisions without compromising on standards, and I hope that the Government will use this Bill to do that.

The individual regulators usually have reasonable decision-making timelines, though some are prone to delays, but in totality, having to get so many decisions slows down research and innovation enormously, particularly when researchers have to apply for clearance from them sequentially in most cases, although this Government have taken the first steps to reduce that through a new combined pathway between NICE and the MHRA. Regulators often ask for very similar information in slightly different formats and timetables. That wastes time and money across industry and academia for knowledgeable people who want to be cracking on and actually doing their research.

Why can we not have a single front door for approvals? There could be a unified approvals application process that collects all the relevant information in one go, so that researchers could submit one application and then have the regulators work out which of them needed to make the decisions, ideally doing so in tandem rather than each waiting for the previous one. We could also look to merge some of the regulators, and I would not object to that either, provided we can keep their expertise. I will be closely following how the legislation progresses.

Nuclear Test Veterans

Sam Carling Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

The right hon. Member is spot-on. I often refer to him as my partner in crime on this issue and a number of other issues in this House. It definitely demonstrates Parliament working at its very best when we come together on these injustices and fight for those who have been affected by them. He is spot-on that we need a longer debate in this House on this important issue.

The information I will talk about is a turning point—it is pivotal—and it should spur the Government into taking the necessary action to compensate the victims of this scandal and give them the inquiry they so much deserve. At best, there has been a systemic failure over the years, and at worst, there has been a cover-up, but now is the time to implement a full inquiry and uncover the real truth.

For 70 years, Governments of all colours and successive Administrations, through the Ministry of Defence and the Atomic Weapons Establishment, have maintained the single consistent line that radiation exposure at Christmas Island was negligible; any contamination was minimal, contained and harmless; and those who served there were not placed at any meaningful risk.

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

Would my hon. Friend join me in commemorating the life and legacy of Alan Dowson? Until very recently, he was a councillor in my constituency. He was first elected in 1971, and served as a Labour councillor for most of the intervening years. He was 19 years old when he was on Christmas Island, and he was one of the veterans who observed—he spoke about this several times— how he could see the bones in his hands due to the level of light coming through them. He has campaigned on this issue for so many years, and I just wanted to get his name into the parliamentary record.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I express my full respect for my hon. Friend’s constituent, and I can only imagine what he suffered. Even the tales of people serving on Christmas Island seeing the bones in their hands would have a considerable psychological effect on them for the rest of their life, but it is what these men and their families suffered when they came home that was so brutal and so disturbing.

The men knew that they were exposed to radiation. Studies have shown that they were subjected to the same level of radiation as the clean-up workers at Chernobyl. They suffered cancer after cancer, and many of them died young. Those who were lucky enough to live longer faced miscarriages and a raft of medical problems. Worse, many of their children were born with defects or health issues due to the altered DNA.

Today we know that the claim that these men suffered no risk is wrong. That has been fundamentally undermined, thanks, as I have said, to Susie Boniface’s groundbreaking work. A previously undisclosed 2014 Atomic Weapons Establishment report, which was released only in February this year after months of resistance, reveals that radiation was in fact present across inhabited areas of Christmas Island. It was not just in isolated, uninhabited zones and not just in trace amounts, but in the sea, the fish, the lagoons, near water sources and, crucially, in the main camp where British personnel lived and worked.

Let me be clear about what this means: for decades, the veterans were told that no fallout had been recorded. Families grieving the loss of loved ones—young men such as Sapper Billy Morris, who died from leukaemia at just 18—were told that there was no link. The courts were told the same, Parliament was told the same and the public were told the same, but this data reveals a very different story. It shows elevated radiation levels in fish of up to seven times the background levels by some measures. It shows contamination in the very food that servicemen were eating regularly. It shows that drinking water sources were potentially exposed. It shows that monitoring systems were incomplete, inconsistent and, in some cases, entirely absent. Most damning of all, it shows that many of those living and working in these areas were not even issued with film badges to measure their exposure.

When Ministers stood at the Dispatch Box over the years and reassured the House that doses were indistinguishable from background radiation, what exactly were those reassurances based on, because the data was there? The authors of the 2014 report are unequivocal: the earlier reports from 1990 and 1993—the very documents relied on in court cases and for pension claims—were incomplete and inaccurate. They were incomplete and inaccurate, yet they were used as the very foundation for denying these men and their families justice. This is not just a technical discrepancy or a minor administrative oversight; at best, it is a systemic failure, but at worst, it is a cover-up.

Defence

Sam Carling Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

I, too, will start by agreeing with a member of the Opposition, specifically the former Defence Secretary Ben Wallace. He was quoted as saying that under his own party, our armed forces had been “hollowed out”.

[James Cartlidge]

Under successive Governments!

[Sam Carling]

The shadow Secretary of State says, “Under successive Governments”—that includes his own, for 14 years. It is not often that I agree with Ministers from the last Government, but the former Defence Secretary was absolutely right. The smallest Army since the Napoleonic era, a record 13,000 complaints about defence housing in a single year, and investment grievously cut under austerity—that is the legacy we are looking at, no matter how much the Opposition want us to forget it.

As was recognised by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Michelle Scrogham), the shadow Defence Secretary is criticising delays, but he was the Procurement Minister when 47 out of 49 major programmes were not on time or on budget, so we need to take what he says with a little bit of salt.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

The hon. Gentleman is quoting some figures. Does he have the figures for the percentage of GDP spent on defence in 1991 compared with what it was in 2010, and how many troops there were in 1991 compared with how many there were in 2010?

[Sam Carling]

What I am very happy to say about defence spending is that when we last hit 2.5%, it was under a Labour Government. The right hon. Gentleman’s party failed to do so throughout their time in office. Although it has been quite entertaining in some respects watching old marital woes play out on the Opposition Benches today, it sounds like everyone agrees that bad things happened, but the two former partners—the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats—are evidently more interested in taking chunks out of each other than owning up to leaving the mess.

The motion before us today also calls for some of the Government’s legislation to not proceed on the basis that it is “a threat to morale”. The reference to morale is quite interesting, given that satisfaction with life in the services fell from 60% in 2010 to 40% in 2024. When it comes to satisfaction, one key issue is housing, so I welcomed the Labour Government’s decision to insource a huge number of houses that were wrongly privatised by a previous Conservative Government back into our ownership. Some 431 of those houses are in my constituency, and I hope we will be able to radically improve their condition, particularly through the work we have done to make defence housing subject to the decent homes standard at long last, which I welcome.

Unfortunately, we have a Leader of the Opposition who appears able to shoot from the hip without thinking too much about the consequences, and who has now changed to a very unclear position that none of us seems able to grasp. In contrast, this Government have taken the right decisions at the right time.

[Lincoln Jopp]

Was the hon. Member in the Chamber to hear the Prime Minister make his statement on the war in the middle east, in which he said that British sovereign bases, British troops and British people had been attacked? He said that it was therefore right that we defend ourselves, but that we cannot shoot all the drones out of the air and they have to be attacked on the ground. Does the hon. Member remember the Prime Minister coming to this House and saying that, and would he like to repeat his point that the Prime Minister has been absolutely crystal clear on his position throughout this conflict?

[Sam Carling]

I am not 100% sure what point the hon. Gentleman is trying to make, but he has put it on the record. There is a huge amount of drone activity going on, and a lot of ways in which that needs to be dealt with.

I am heartened by what this Government have done so far, including, to name just a few achievements: the largest pay rise in two decades for armed forces personnel, many of whom are my constituents; the first veterans’ strategy in seven years; the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war, including a pledge to reach 3% of spending on defence by the end of the Parliament; and a £9 billion plan to renew those 36,000 military homes. Again, that last one has been so critical for my constituents working at RAF Wittering. Life in the services has to be made rewarding—a rewarding career and a rewarding life—and I am afraid to say that for too long, that has not been the case. It is no wonder, therefore, that the number of troops plummeted on the previous Government’s watch.

Some comments were made about trying to boost the reserves, which I very much agreed with—we need to do some work in that area. We also need to sort out the ongoing issues with recruitment, which again became significantly worse under the previous Government. I have spoken to a number of people who have tried to join the military and found that the bureaucratic process is incredibly difficult, and we have heard about that on several occasions through the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I hope we will make some progress in tackling those issues soon, because we have a Government who are willing to invest in our forces and improve the quality of life for those serving.

My constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), is in the Chamber, and I notice that his name is on the motion as well. I found some of his criticisms of this Government’s record on defence surprising, given that so much work is going on in our own area of Huntingdonshire around defence. The local council and the Ministry of Defence—represented by the two Ministers who are in the Chamber right now, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones)—visited RAF Wyton in December and signed a statement of intent, committing to work together to support the growth of Project Fairfax and establish Wyton as a nationally significant area for defence intelligence and innovation. With that will come the redevelopment of the North Hunts growth cluster, which will deliver new homes, jobs and investment. That will be brilliant for the local area.

Very briefly, I will respond to something that my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) said about investment in defence being spent on weapons and bombs. Those are not the only things that defence investment goes on—military intelligence is a huge part of the local economy in my area, and ideally it will make up more of our local economy. I think it is useful to recognise that there is a broad spectrum of things that we spend funding on, but of course I respect the points that he made.

I am very glad that the Conservative party has called this debate, as it is a great opportunity to highlight the good work we are doing and remind us all of the many ways in which the Conservatives let our armed forces down for a decade and a half. It is a good thing that they can only comment on policy rather than make it, a fact for which I am sighing in relief.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

Whatever has gone well in defence and whatever has gone wrong in defence in the United Kingdom over the last 50 years, it is the responsibility of the two main parties, one currently in opposition and one currently in government, and the ping-pong back and forth today has been a bit difficult to listen to. I heard the Minister’s plea earlier for us to inject some seriousness into the debate. He directed it over here although he could equally have directed it to those behind him, but I agree with him that this is a serious issue, not just because we have troops deployed but because, as others have pointed out, the first duty of Government is to defend the state and the people. I also agree with him that the motion in the name of His Majesty’s Opposition is a bit of a catch-all. It is a spleen-venting motion, and there is absolutely no way we can agree with it, much as we might agree with some of the priorities that the Opposition wish to be advanced purely on the defence side.

In response to the Opposition’s stated wish to fund their ambitions through the reinstatement of the two-child limit, the Minister referred to the importance of society. We do not invest in the importance and the priority of defence by marginalising people in society. It is essential that our communities have a sense of belonging in defence, and that defence has a sense of belonging in them. I speak from experience in Scotland, where defence has become an increasingly remote activity, as it has in large parts of England as well. I am not making a constitutional point. As defence has contracted into the south-east of England, it has become increasingly irrelevant on the rest of these islands. It is something that happens somewhere else, and there is a price to be paid for that, as people choose other careers and see other political and fiscal priorities as being more important than defence.

[Sam Carling]

The hon. Gentleman has just made a point about the concentration of defence investment in the south-east. Can he remind us where Trident is based?

[Dave Doogan]

I think the hon. Gentleman thinks that he is being smart. I do not need to be reminded where Trident is based, and neither do the people of Scotland. We do not need to be reminded where the bullseye of the target on these islands is based. I do not need to be reminded how many Scots were asked whether they would like the UK’s supposedly independent nuclear deterrent to be based in our waters. I do not need to be reminded of that for one second—and in case the hon. Gentleman is under any illusions, which he apparently is, let me point out that the United Kingdom spends more money on defence in the south-west of England than it spends in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. He might like to reflect on that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sam Carling Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

7. What steps he is taking to improve skills in the defence sector.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Luke Pollard)]

As I will shortly outline to the House, as part of the launch of the defence industrial strategy, this Government will set out an ambitious skills package that will grow, retain and develop the well-paid, high-skilled workforce that the UK requires to boost jobs and make defence an engine for growth in every nation and region of the country.

[Sam Carling]

Last week, I visited RAF Wyton in Huntingdonshire, which employs many of my constituents. Under the new cyber and specialist operations command, Wyton provides a critical part of our defence intelligence, and the plans to expand the work of the base will provide significant career opportunities for my constituents in northern Huntingdonshire. [Interruption.] Yes, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) was there, too.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do not want cross-party relationships broken on account of whose constituency something is in.

[Sam Carling]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does the Minister agree that developing the defence industry in Huntingdonshire will unlock local growth and prosperity? Can he outline how we will support skills development to ensure my constituents can access these opportunities?

[Luke Pollard]

My hon. Friend is a real champion of his constituents who work at RAF Wyton, and all those who could work there through the expanded opportunities, which I have spoken to the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) about. I am glad that there is cross-party support for the investment that this Government could make. There is a real opportunity to use defence as an engine for growth, creating more opportunities for our young people in particular. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) and the hon. Member for Huntingdon to discuss how we can further develop the opportunity at hand, in a spirit of cross-party consensus.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sam Carling Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)]

12. What steps he is taking to support jobs in the defence sector.

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

20. What steps he is taking to support jobs in the defence sector.

[The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry (Maria Eagle)]

This Government are making defence an engine for growth across the UK. Our forthcoming defence industrial strategy will grow a faster, more integrated, more innovative and resilient defence sector. Prioritising UK-based firms for Government investment will drive economic growth, boost British jobs and strengthen national security. We are sending a signal to the market and our adversaries: with a strong UK defence sector, we will make Britain secure at home and strong abroad.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

I do agree with my hon. Friend, because under the previous Government the average time to contract was six years, and only two out of the 49 major projects they oversaw were on time and on budget. Our procurement reforms will speed up and improve delivery to the frontline, and thus boost our defence and security.

[Sam Carling]

To encourage more people to pursue a career in our armed forces, we need to ensure that the whole offer is strong, including accommodation. Concerns have been raised with me about poor performance by managing agents involved in maintaining Ministry of Defence properties in my constituency, often with complex subcontracting arrangements that make it very difficult to hold anyone accountable. I know of cases where people were dealing with a rodent infestation for six weeks due to inaction after it was reported to the managing agents. Can the Minister assure me that we are working to ensure that managing agents are held accountable by the MOD?

[Maria Eagle]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We are delivering for defence by putting people at the heart of our defence plans. The new consumer charter for families in military homes will include improved repairs, a named housing officer for every family, and a better and clearer complaints process. I am aware of the issues he raises about pest control at RAF Wittering. This has been raised with Amey, the contractor that has the maintenance contract there, and I will expect to see an improvement.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sam Carling Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

We have laid out clearly that this Government will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes. That means committing £3 billion a year, as we have done, to make sure that the Ukrainians have the equipment and ammunition they need to stay in the fight, as well as deepening our defence relationships with them. We are taking that across the NATO alliance to all NATO members, and we will continue to stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes.

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

T10. May I commend the Government on their recent decision to bring a large amount of military housing back in house after the disastrous Tory decision to privatise it? It is massively welcome in North West Cambridgeshire, where 431 homes are being repurchased, but a lot of the housing is in a shocking state; what steps will the Government take to address that, to make sure that our military personnel can live in the decent homes that they more than deserve?

[Al Carns]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The defence housing strategy will be a medium to long-term strategy and will be published, in line with the SDR, in the spring.