James MacCleary MP: speeches

Speeches

• 30 Jun 2026 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  indicated dissent .

• 30 Jun 2026 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, albeit 14 months late and one Defence Secretary later. The Liberal Democrats welcome investment in the technologies reshaping warfare in Ukraine and beyond. Our armed forces must be more agile and better equipped to deal with the threats we face. However, let us be clear: this defence investment plan is too little, too late. After years of Conservative neglect, Britain needed a Government willing to match the scale of the challenge. Instead, we have had months of delay, and we now have a plan that still appears to have a significant gap between the ambition and the resources required. In particular, it is hugely concerning to see how little is allocated to air defence. It is hundreds of millions short of what was recommended in the strategic defence review, and inadequate to protect our islands and, indeed, our allies. The Prime Minister himself has warned that Russia could pose a direct threat to NATO by 2030, yet the architects of the strategic defence review, General Sir Richard Barrons and former Labour Defence Secretary and NATO Secretary-General Lord Robertson, have both made it clear that the current funding is not enough. Just weeks ago, the Defence Secretary resigned because he believed the funding settlement on offer was not sufficient to keep Britain safe. The new settlement does not bridge that gap, yet the new Defence Secretary claims it is enough. Were both the experts and the former Defence Secretary wrong about this, or does the Defence Secretary truly believe this is enough funding to keep Britain safe? The Liberal Democrats have welcomed plans to sort out the sorry state of forces housing, so it is concerning to hear reports that funding is being found by raiding existing defence budgets, including for military housing. If that is true, what message does the Secretary of State have for serving personnel and their families still living in mouldy homes? Is this genuinely new investment or simply moving money from one overstretched budget to another? The last thing our armed forces and defence industry need is more uncertainty. Between delays to the DIP, a change of Defence Ministers and now a new Prime Minister incoming, they have already dealt with a lot. It is reported that the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), who looks certain to become Prime Minister in the coming weeks, is sympathetic to the Liberal Democrat plan for defence bonds. Despite the Prime Minister appearing to rule it out in his speech today, can the Secretary of State confirm whether defence bonds are at least under consideration to provide the injection of funding our armed forces so desperately need?

• 17 Jun 2026 · Rural Pubs: Fiscal Support · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mrs Hobhouse. I congratulate the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) on securing this timely and important debate. Pubs are not just places to grab a drink, as anyone who has grown up in a rural town or village knows. They are where we meet our neighbours, where people check in on us when we are having a rough time, and where a young person gets their first job and learns how to show up for work. They are woven into the fabric of this country, so when I say that the pressure on rural pubs is serious, I do not mean it lightly. A constituent whose family runs a rural pub recently got in touch to tell me that they are on the precipice when it comes to staying afloat as a business. They are not complaining about thin margins or a bad few months; they are talking about whether they have a future at all. Rising costs, business rates, national insurance and wages—it is coming from every direction at once. Viv has run the Lansdown Arms on Station Street in Lewes for 23 years. A few months back I invited her to Parliament to meet the Hospitality Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden). Viv told us straight out that she does not know how much longer she can keep her business going. Her rateable value has gone up by £22,250, meaning roughly an additional £1,600 that she has to find every month. So many pubs in my constituency of Lewes are in similar positions. Those crippling policies are the difference between keeping staff on or cutting their hours, and between fixing the kitchen or leaving it and hoping for the best. We all know that, once a rural pub closes, it almost never comes back. In 2020 there were 75 pubs in my constituency; that number was down from 95 in 2011, or a 21% decrease in under 10 years. At that rate, 50 years from now there will be no pubs at all left in Lewes constituency. We are seeing that situation play out in the village of Plumpton right now. Local people are trying to buy the Fountain Inn themselves. Stuart Wallis and the Fountain Inn Community Benefit Society have pulled together nearly £300,000 in pledges. Her Majesty the Queen, who grew up nearby, has thrown her support behind the campaign—but, honestly, should people have to crowdfund to save one of the last pubs in their area? That should not be where we are. There are bright spots; the Steamworks at Glynde station is a great example. It is in an old station building, which I was proud to play a very small part in turning into a proper local hub as well as a pub, and it shows what is possible when people are given a bit of support and a bit of breathing room. Today I will meet with the famous Harvey’s Brewery, which is based in the heart of my constituency, in the town of Lewes. It is a family brewery that has been part of our county of Sussex for generations, quietly underpinning pubs, jobs and local identity in a way that is rarely talked about. From the Long Man Inn in Wilmington just down the road to the Eight Bells in Jevington, which won best pub in Sussex in the 2026 BRAVO—Brighton Restaurant Awards Vote Online—awards, the overall picture is worrying, and the Government need to take it seriously. The Liberal Democrats are calling for an emergency VAT cut for hospitality—pubs, restaurants and venues—until April 2027. On business rates, the promised reform has not worked for a lot of pubs. In some cases it has made things worse. We need proper relief to be maintained for retail and hospitality while a genuinely fair system is designed, not a rushed patch that leaves pubs worse off than before. On national insurance, we cannot automate a pub. We cannot replace the person behind the bar, the chef out the back, or the young person doing their first shift on a Friday night with an app or a machine. Hospitality is people-powered, and the rise in employer national insurance has landed hardest on exactly the kind of small local businesses that deserve support, not another squeeze. Pubs are also often stuck in an expensive tie that does not give them the flexibility to be competitive in the modern market. I am not asking for anything complicated. I am asking the Government to listen—to Viv at the Lansdown Arms and to the locals, and indeed Her Majesty the Queen, trying to save the Fountain Inn in Plumpton. These places have served their communities for generations. It is time the Government returned the favour.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Russian Shadow Fleet · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, and I join others in welcoming him to his new role. May I start by associating myself with colleagues’ remarks in thanking our Royal Marines? Through their bravery and skill, they have denied Vladimir Putin the fossil fuel profits that he depends on—profits which, without their intervention, would have gone straight to Russia’s frontline against Ukraine. Their courageous action has already had a chilling effect on other shadow fleet vessels, with reports suggesting that at least six ships altered course following the interdiction of the Smyrtos. Now that we have taken this step—albeit several months after the Prime Minister initially promised—will the Secretary of State commit to stopping more shadow fleet vessels and ensure that this is not just a one-off? The Liberal Democrats believe that we should not just be stopping these vessels but ensuring that the seizure of their cargo can be used to fund Ukraine’s defence. We have already called for the £30 billion of frozen Russian assets across Britain to be used to support Kyiv’s war effort. We need to do the same with shadow fleet fuel. Will the Secretary of State commit to seizing and selling the sanctioned oil transported by the Smyrtos and selling the resulting funds to Ukraine, and will he do the same for any future interdictions? The next critical step must be to close legitimate routes to market for all Russian fossil fuels. Spearheaded by our leader in the other place, Lord Purvis, the Liberal Democrats won an important concession last week on this issue, securing a commitment from the Government to an end-date for their waiver on sanctions for the import of diesel and fuel products refined by Russian crude. This gaping loophole should never have come into force in the first place. The Government must now go further. Will the Secretary of State work with colleagues across Government to ban all UK maritime services for the export of Russian oil, gas and coal? We must end once and for all the scandal of UK plc helping to fund Putin’s war machine.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  With the defence investment plan now nine months overdue, I hear almost daily from small and medium-sized defence enterprises that face a funding precipice. Many are warning that without certainty from Government, they will be unable to invest, hire, or—in some cases—continue operating. Will the Minister tell the House what assessment has been made of the financial impact on the UK defence industry of the continued delay to the defence investment plan? The Government’s national security adviser has said that our armed forces need a minimum of £18 billion extra—and likely a lot more. Given that his former colleagues resigned on principle over the Government’s failure to fund defence properly, will the Minister resign if he fails to secure at least that minimum allocation? In the spirit of constructive opposition, may I suggest a way for him to avoid that fate entirely? Will he consider backing Lib Dem defence bonds, which would raise £20 billion over two years and give our armed forces the immediate injection of funding they need for certainty?

• 8 Jun 2026 · Water Companies · Hansard source

  More

  Villagers in Rodmell in my constituency have been without water or had low water pressure for weeks—including during the recent heatwave—with little or no communication from South East Water. Just up the road in Ringmer, residents are really concerned about large-scale house building plans, with little account being taken of the need for additional water infrastructure despite pre-existing problems. Can the Minister tell me what action she is taking to press water companies to communicate properly with customers during outages. May I also press her again on water companies being statutory consultees in the planning system?

• 2 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend raises questions for the Minister to answer in closing the debate, but recruitment and retention are key concerns and have been a sort of crisis in the armed forces for many years. In the context of authorising the maximum numbers of service personnel, it is reasonable that Parliament should be told how the Government plan to treat those people in service. New clause 9 would require publication of a retention strategy alongside the authorisation. It is a modest proposal, and the case for it is straightforward; recruitment alone solves nothing, if the conditions of service drive people back out of the door. We can invest in advertising, outreach and processing, and still find ourselves filling a vessel that will not hold. The problems that cause people to leave are well known: inadequate housing, unsupported families, opaque career structures and a sense that the institution does not value them as individuals. New clause 10 would require an independent review to examine precisely those factors, including diversity, inclusion, the medical discharge process and the state of defence housing, not because these are peripheral concerns, but because they are operational ones.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The continuous attitude survey is a survey of service personnel, but a review is quite different, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman appreciates. We are talking about an independent review, which is not the same thing. On housing, I want to be specific. The Government’s commitment to improving service family accommodation is welcome, but new clause 13 exists because single living accommodation has for too long been treated as a secondary concern. For a significant proportion of serving personnel, that accommodation is not temporary—it is their home. It is where they recover after deployment, where they live between postings and where they begin and end each working day. If it falls below a reasonable standard, that is not merely a welfare issue; it is a retention issue. We cannot speak of our people as our greatest asset while declining to apply that in principle to where they sleep.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As I am sure the hon. Member is aware, this was a recommendation of the Atherton report, and there was good reason for it. That inquiry took a lot of evidence on this subject, and the view was that this change would increase confidence. Serving personnel bringing complaints against senior officers may feel pressure to keep their complaint within the service, and so may not receive the justice they need. We have looked at the findings of the Atherton report and agree with them, so we have included that recommendation in the amendments that we tabled to the Bill. We ask the Government to go one step further and convert general commitments into specific duties, and provide the structures, standards and oversight that will determine whether those duties are genuinely met. Our armed forces are held to the highest standards in everything they do; it is not unreasonable to expect the same of the legislation that governs how we treat them. I hope that the Government and this Committee will take these amendments in the constructive spirit in which they are meant, and will support them.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, will the Minister give way?

• 2 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. The suicide rate among young men in this country is already high, and the numbers relating to people discharged from the armed forces are deeply troubling. We have passed motions, published strategies and made commitments, but we have not created proper, sustained oversight. As my hon. Friend mentions, a veterans’ mental health oversight officer with a statutory remit to monitor provision, assess compliance with covenant duties and report annually to Parliament would begin that change. The covenant should not be a postcode lottery; its outcomes should be measurable, consistent and accountable. I also acknowledge the amendments tabled by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) on pension communications, the transfer of medical assessments, the reserve forces estate and the treatment of domestic abuse offences. In each case, they address the same underlying problem—that service personnel, veterans and their families are too often disadvantaged, not by malice, but by systems that do not speak to one another, and processes that were never designed with them in mind. That brings me to the covenant. New clause 14 would place national standards around the extended covenant duty, requiring statutory guidance, minimum requirements for public bodies, proper training and a framework for monitoring reporting. New clause 15 would require the annual covenant report to assess compliance against those standards, analyse outcomes and make recommendations. The objection to such measures is rarely principled. Almost no one opposes the covenant; the difficulty has always been with the consistency of delivery. One local authority may understand its obligations well, but another may not. One health body may have invested in this, but another may have done the minimum. One veteran may receive good support, but another with identical needs in a different part of the country may be left to navigate the system alone. These new clauses would make the covenant something more than just a statement of good faith. They would make it a standard that could be measured and enforced. Finally, amendment 90 would require that allegations of sexual offences and domestic abuse occurring in the United Kingdom be referred immediately to the civilian police, and those offences would be prosecuted through the civilian justice system. Let me be clear: this amendment is recognition that when serious crimes are committed by someone in service—crimes that would, in any other context, be investigated by the police, and would be cases heard in a Crown court—the victims are entitled to the same confidence in the justice system as any other civilian. The Bill introduces new protections for victims of domestic abuse, stalking and sexual harm within the service justice system. Those changes are very welcome, but they do not fully answer the question of whether victims have sufficient confidence that a system embedded in a single institution can handle the most serious offences against them with complete independence. Sexual offences and domestic abuse are not matters of military discipline; they are serious criminal matters. When they occur in the United Kingdom, there is no compelling reason why investigation and prosecution should default to a separate system. Amendment 90 would remove that ambiguity, give victims clarity, and demonstrate that justice for individuals takes precedence over institutional processes.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I understand exactly what the right hon. and gallant Member is saying, but failures in the civilian justice system—which, as he rightly observes, has a big backlog of cases—should not be a reason for reducing people’s confidence about coming forward with complaints. We know from the continuous attitude survey, to which he has referred, that the main reasons given by personnel for not making a written, formal complaint continue to be not believing that anything will be done with the complaint, and believing that it might adversely affect their career. It would encourage more people to come forward if they knew that the complaint would be dealt with in the civilian system. The amendments I have spoken to do not unpick the Bill, nor do they reverse its intentions.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  There is much in the Bill that deserves support. It renews the statutory basis for our armed forces, extends the armed forces covenant duty, introduces a defence housing service and reforms certain aspects of the service justice system. Those are genuine steps forward, and we acknowledge them as such. However, good intentions are not the same as good outcomes, and our amendments seek to close the gap between the two. Let me begin with the question of people—specifically, how we recruit them, retain them and treat them when they leave. The Government will shortly ask Parliament to authorise maximum numbers of service personnel across each branch of the armed forces.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Defence Procurement · Hansard source

  More

  I regularly meet defence SMEs, and they all tell me the same thing: without a defence investment plan, investment decisions are being delayed, expansion plans are being put on hold, and opportunities risk being lost overseas. British firms stand ready to grow, hire, and strengthen our national resilience, but continued Government delays are creating damaging uncertainty across the sector. Can the Minister tell me whether the MOD, or indeed any other Department, has conducted an economic assessment of the impact that the delayed publication of the defence investment plan is having on British businesses? If not, will he commit to publishing one?

• 1 Jun 2026 · Russia: Level of Threat · Hansard source

  More

  Last night, I returned from a week in Ukraine. I visited villages in Kherson, just tens of kilometres from the frontline, and saw the total devastation wrought by Russian forces. Every morning, we woke to reports that hundreds of drones had been destroyed overnight by the Ukrainian military. Ukraine is innovating under Russian fire. What steps are the Government taking to accelerate defence co-operation with Ukraine, so that our armed forces can rapidly learn from, develop and deploy the counter-drone capabilities needed for the wars of today and tomorrow, not yesterday?

• 20 May 2026 · Defence Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  Learning from Ukraine has been very important. To be fair, the Government have made some steps in that direction, but we can always do more to learn from our friends who are testing this technology in the field day in, day out. Defence takes time. Industry needs a demand signal, our allies need confidence and our adversaries need to see resolve. That is why the Liberal Democrats call on the Government to commit to spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2030 at the latest. That is not a slogan or a press release, but a serious plan to make Britain safer. We must also understand that Britain’s defence does not begin and end at our border. That is why forcing a choice between spending on defence and international development is entirely false. Just yesterday, former senior British officers wrote in The Times about the danger that cuts to development pose to our security and described aid as the “first line of defence” for the UK. The Government must urgently reverse course on the cuts, which only undermine this country’s security and soft power around the world. Last year’s strategic defence review highlighted the need for an urgent injection of cash into our armed forces. That is why the Liberal Democrats call for the immediate launch of defence bonds, which would raise £20 billion over two years to support immediate, capital-intensive defence investment.

• 20 May 2026 · Defence Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  The Liberal Democrats have reaffirmed our commitment to our nuclear deterrent repeatedly, and we will continue to do so. The defence investment plan is still not published. Industry is still waiting for certainty, and our allies are still waiting for clarity. Our armed forces are still waiting for the investment that they need, so it was deeply disappointing that the promised defence readiness Bill was not included in the King’s Speech. It speaks volumes that the Government’s own Bill on readiness is itself delayed. That matters, because defence cannot be switched on overnight. We cannot rebuild capacity in industry at the flick of a switch. We cannot train personnel, repair readiness, modernise equipment, strengthen supply chains and restore deterrents with vague promises or “working at pace”.

• 20 May 2026 · Defence Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Member enjoys raising the coalition quite a lot. You are talking about the nuclear submarines, aren’t you? That is what you asked about.

• 20 May 2026 · Defence Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  If His Majesty’s most Gracious Speech was meant to show that this Government have grasped the scale of the danger facing Britain, it fell a long way short. We live in a more dangerous world than at any point since the end of the cold war. Vladimir Putin is waging war in Europe, and Ukraine is fighting not just for its very survival, but for the security of our entire continent. Across Europe, we are seeing sabotage, cyber-attacks, disinformation, intimidation and hybrid warfare. Further afield, the world order is being tested by the rise of China, by instability in the middle east and by authoritarian regimes that are watching very carefully to see whether democracies still have the resolve to defend ourselves. At the same time, we can no longer assume that old certainties will hold. The United States remains a vital ally, but President Trump has shown just how quickly long-standing alliances can be weakened, questioned or taken for granted. That is the reality facing Britain. This should have been a King’s Speech that had national security at its heart. It should have been a moment of seriousness, urgency and ambition. Instead, once again, we got more delay and more warm words that are not backed up by action. We all know that the Conservatives hollowed out our armed forces, but this Labour Government cannot simply point to the failures of the past and pretend that is enough. They now have the responsibility to act, but so far they are moving far too slowly.

• 20 May 2026 · Defence Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  As has been pointed out, defence spending has been reduced by successive Governments over a very long period of time, so focusing on the Liberal Democrats’ record alone is somewhat unfair, to say the least.

• 20 May 2026 · Defence Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is quite right that defence bonds, as with all bonds, would be borrowing. We have spoken before about the need to increase defence spending through cross-party talks, and a reversal in aid spending would be part of an overall package of how we would budget in the future. One way of doing that, which we have looked at and will propose later today, is rejoining a customs union with the European Union, which would generate increased spending. Those bonds would help to modernise our armed forces, strengthen our sovereign capabilities and support British defence firms, including the small and medium-sized businesses that are so often at the cutting edge of innovation. That would also give the public a direct stake in the defence and security of our country. This is about spending better, not simply spending more. For too long, defence procurement has been slow, bureaucratic and wasteful. Too many programmes have been delayed and too many costs have spiralled, and too often British industry has been left without the certainty it needs to invest, hire, train and grow. If we are serious about national security, we must also be serious about industrial security. That means backing British manufacturing, investing in research and development and supporting apprenticeships and skilled jobs. It means ensuring that defence spending strengthens communities across this country, not just the balance sheets of a handful of prime contractors. It means recognising that in the modern world, defence is not just about the number of tanks, ships and aircraft that we possess, important though they are; it is about cyber, space, drones, AI, secure supply chains, energy resilience and the ability to move quickly when threats change. Climate change is causing global instability. Melting ice opens up new flashpoints in the Arctic, and stress on food and water resources drives displacement and conflict. Our armed forces need the tools to fight the wars of the future, not just to patch up the gaps left by the past, but Britain cannot do this alone. If the last century has taught us anything—and if recent years have taught us anything—it is that our security is bound up with that of our allies. That is why we must be unwavering in our continued support for Ukraine. We must strengthen NATO, deepen co-operation with Commonwealth allies such as Canada and Australia, and rebuild a serious defence relationship with Europe. The Liberal Democrats have called for a new European rearmament bank and for UK participation in the Security Action for Europe rearmament programme. That would allow Britain and our allies to mobilise investment at the scale required to ensure that our defence industries lead the next generation of technology, while also generating the economies of scale needed to reduce costs over the long term. This is not about choosing between Britain and Europe; it is about recognising the obvious truth that Britain is safer when Europe is stronger, and Europe is stronger when Britain leads. National security should not be subject to short-term political games. That is why we have called on the Government to urgently convene cross-party talks on how we reach 3% by 2030. Our adversaries are not waiting for us to get our act together, and our armed forces should not have to wait either. Defence requires all of society to be involved. Being ready to defend our nation means also building our national resilience. The Government must move faster and show far more ambition to involve the public in defence and security. Should the worst ever happen, having 70 million of us ready to come to our nation’s defence would be the most powerful weapon of all, but that requires leadership from Government, which has so far been absent, despite promises of a national conversation. That means learning from our friends in the Baltic and elsewhere about how we can harness the talents of the British people to become a more resilient and prepared country. The best way to prevent a war is to prepare for it. The choice before us is clear: we can continue with managed decline, delayed plans and underpowered commitments, or we can choose seriousness. We can publish the defence investment plan and the defence readiness Bill, commit to 3% by 2030, launch defence bonds, back British industry, rebuild our armed forces and strengthen our alliances. We can send a clear and unambiguous message to Putin and to every other authoritarian regime watching us that Britain will defend itself, its allies, its values and its way of life. That is the ambition that the King’s Speech should have shown and the action that this country needs, and that is why Liberal Democrats will continue fighting for it.

• 29 Apr 2026 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. It seems that the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) was very busy yesterday, as alarmed residents in the town of Seaford in my constituency reported sighting him too. He was apparently there campaigning to support the Reform candidate for Seaford North, who is set to lose his seat to the Liberal Democrats. I understand that it is a common courtesy in this place for Members to inform one another of official visits to their constituencies, but on this occasion, that did not happen. Could you advise me on this issue?

• 29 Apr 2026 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 27 Apr 2026 · State Pension Age Changes: Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman has recommended compensation for millions of WASPI women. In 99% of cases, PHSO recommendations are complied with, so does the Minister accept that singling out this group by not complying amounts to discrimination on the basis of sex and age? If not, what possible justification can the Minister offer?

• 27 Apr 2026 · State Pension Age Changes: Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  1. What recent assessment he has made of the potential merits of compensating 1950s-born women impacted by the maladministration of state pension age changes.