The Westminster lensArchive · §02 Speeches · 767 contributions

Speeches by Rigby.

Every Hansard contribution by Lucy Rigby this parliament, most recent first. Back to the MP page for the headline figures and analysed positions.

Showing 4160 of 767 contributions · most-recent first

← PreviousPage 3 of 39Next →
DateDebate & contributionWords
8 Jul 2026Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 16)

No, they are not unforeseen. However, the nature of the threat that we are facing is increasing and increasing rapidly. I think we are doing absolutely the right thing by significantly increasing defence spending. Do we need to significantly increase it further? Yes. I will passionately make the case, both in and outsi

74
8 Jul 2026Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 16)

As I said, John Healey’s resignation letter is public. On a personal and professional level, I was extremely sorry to see him leave his post. As we have said, the DIP is a significant increase in funding. I will not go through it again, but I very firmly believe that we have to significantly increase defence spending.

104
8 Jul 2026Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 16)

I can talk to what the DIP does. For the reasons I have set out, it would be for a Government led by the next Prime Minister to make decisions about tax.

32
8 Jul 2026Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 16)

Well, I will read that.

5
8 Jul 2026Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 16)

These are decisions for the future Government to make, not just in relation to taxation, but in relation to reprioritisation.

20
8 Jul 2026Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 16)

To deliver the 3.5%?

4
8 Jul 2026Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 16)

There are additional things that are covered within the defence investment plan. That is absolutely right.

16
8 Jul 2026Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 16)

You are absolutely right to refer to the previous Defence Secretary. His resignation letter is in the public domain, and he said what he said, but the DIP that has been delivered is different, and it contains a different capability.

40
8 Jul 2026Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 16)

It was important that over 60% of the additional cash for the purposes of the DIP is RDEL. An even higher proportion for the purposes of the uplift this year, close to 75%, is RDEL, which, as the Minister has set out, is important for the purposes of readiness.

49
8 Jul 2026Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 16)

“Good confidence” is the short answer, but let me unpick that. A review was announced at Budget 2025 for the purposes of asset sales. You are absolutely right that what is set out is over three years. There is no provision for 2026-27, but these asset sales will be scored at the next fiscal event later this year. We ha

100
8 Jul 2026Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 16)

Forgive me; I do not want to avoid the question, but I have been in this role since May. Clearly, these discussions—

22
8 Jul 2026Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 16)

In answer to Mr Glen’s question, I was seeking to make clear that the Prime Minister has said that we will meet that 3% target at some point in the next Parliament. I understand why people are asking exactly when that target will be met, but it will depend on the next spending review and how money is allocated.

59
8 Jul 2026Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 16)

It is certainly not smoke and mirrors. You are right in the sense that roughly two thirds of the £15 billion in the DIP has been identified. However, it is certainly not uncommon for Governments of any colour to announce things outside a fiscal event, as the DIP was, and to say, “And this money will be identified at th

139
8 Jul 2026Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 16)

No. A proportion does. You will have seen the funding table breakdown. One penny of every pound in Departments’ capital budgets gets you to this top slice; I am picking now the £10.3 billion, as opposed to the £4.7 billion. But then, as you rightly refer to, there is an additional amount that is coming from DFT: £800 m

59
8 Jul 2026Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 16)

As you know, there was a long period of negotiation. The £15 billion figure in the DIP is what was alighted on by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Defence to fund all the capability detailed in this document. As I said, it is key to make it clear that the £15 billion additional in the D

74
8 Jul 2026Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 16)

I don’t think I said that it was very normal. I said it was not uncommon, and I referred to a couple of examples—the £20.5 billion in 2018 and then our SEND reforms. Because of the legislative timetable, as was the case with our SEND reforms, or indeed the fact of having the Ankara NATO summit, it is sometimes just not

83
8 Jul 2026Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 16)

Mr Smewing will correct me if the detail is wrong, but the majority of that £2.4 billion comes from risk transfer, which MOD was holding.

25
8 Jul 2026Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 16)

Treasury is instead taking on that risk.

7
8 Jul 2026Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 16)

It is very important, to me and to the Chancellor, that a key distinction between the economic policy of this Government and the last is capital spending. A figure often talked about is the £120 billion in extra capital spending that we are making relative to the last Government. Importantly, that £120 billion is not c

95
8 Jul 2026Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 16)

Efficiencies in the broadest sense are a key part of what we will be looking at for the purposes of the next Budget and spending review. The process around the DIP has been unique for getting it to this point.

40
← PreviousPage 3 of 39 · click a debate to open the transcript with this MP’s speeches highlightedNext →
Sources
SourceHansard · official report
MethodEach row is one contribution (intervention or speech). Word count from the official text.