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 6180 of 767 contributions · most-recent first

← PreviousPage 4 of 39Next →
DateDebate & contributionWords
8 Jul 2026Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 16)

No, I do not see it as a drain.

9
8 Jul 2026Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 16)

We are doing things differently though, by virtue of what is in the DIP. I am telling you that I personally see this as part of my job description, to be working with Minister Pollard and others at the MOD. I guess at the root of your question is: what is different this time? Given the nature of the increasing threat t

164
8 Jul 2026Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 16)

I do not accept that it makes it impossible, no. I understand why people are asking that question—indeed, if I was in the defence industry, I might well be asking that question too. But it is worth acknowledging and making the point that these are difficult decisions. The DIP is about an additional £15 billion, outside

79
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)

As I said, I can talk to the DIP, which does not involve greater levels of taxation.

17
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)

No is the short answer. Obviously, we do not know when the next Budget will be exactly. As we said, the next spending review has to be in ’27—

29
8 Jul 2026Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 16)

All the normal discussions that you would expect to have in advance of fiscal events I am absolutely sure will be had, but I cannot talk to the content of meetings that I have not had.

36
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)

We have said that in the next Parliament we will get to 3%. I understand that the question is being asked, “When in the next Parliament?”, and I come back to the fact that the Prime Minister has said that defence will be the number one priority at the next spending review. The Ministry of Defence’s budget is already gr

94
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)

Yes.

1
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)

It is an additional way in which MOD’s spending power is increased.

12
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)

I don’t, I am afraid. Can I turn to my official? I want to give you another chance.

18
8 Jul 2026Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 16)

Well, it is the reprioritisation of capital spending between Departments, which, as you know, is really important, and £15 billion is a significant amount of money.

26
← PreviousPage 4 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.