Al Pinkerton MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 15 Apr 2026 · Strategic Defence Review: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  My question follows on perfectly from that of the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts). Lord Robertson said that we are ill prepared for the threats of today, never mind tomorrow. While Britain may not be under daily attack from missiles and tanks—not yet, anyway—we are under daily assault by misinformation and disinformation from hostile actors who are targeting our institutions, democracy and social cohesion. The Minister has referred to the investments and operational changes that have been put into cyber and electromagnetic security. Given the foundational nature of the challenge to our democracy, is he convinced that the Chancellor is convinced of the urgent need to make huge investments in this area? This is a challenge we have never experienced before—a challenge that collapses the traditional idea of the frontline with the home front.

• 13 Apr 2026 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I genuinely thank the Minister for his statement, for advance sight of it, and for his long engagement with me on these issues. The process for negotiating this treaty has been, I am sorry to say, utterly shambolic, from its beginning under the previous Government to its demise under this one. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, an hon. and gallant Gentleman says, “Why did we finish it?” I am sorry to tell him that they did not. There is no evidence at all that this statement was finished by the previous Government. As this Government shelve the legislation, they must now reckon with the litany of failures that have plagued the process, specifically their inability to secure fundamental legal guarantees from the US through the necessary exchange of letters; their reluctance to adopt measures that would enable genuine parliamentary scrutiny over the planned vast sums of money that would be sent to the Government of Mauritius; and their wilful reluctance to work with or to secure the rights of Chagossians, including but not limited to the right of return to the Chagos islands. Aside from the Government’s apparent ignorance of the legal prerequisites for the passage of the treaty, the most objectionable aspect of the process has been the woeful engagement with the Chagossian community. The British state has long denied Chagossians a meaningful say in their own future. The provisions of this treaty, shamefully, failed again to affirm those rights, so if the treaty ever does return to this House, the Government would do well to observe and understand the amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats in the other place to secure genuine rights for Chagossians and help to buck the historical trend of that community being left out of decisions about its own future. I have one very simple question for the Minister. Given that the Government have now abandoned their proposed deal with Mauritius over the Chagos islands, can the Foreign Secretary set out what this means in practice for the long-promised right of return for Chagossians? Will the Government now commit to supporting resettlement under continued UK sovereignty? If so, how does the Minister assess the implications of that return for the evidential and legal basis underpinning the 2019 International Court of Justice advisory opinion? In conclusion, British citizens physically located on the islands would constitute a resident population who would be—

• 13 Apr 2026 · SEND Provision and Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for calling this important debate. Like him, my inbox has overflowed since I was elected last year, with concerned parents writing to me about the state of special educational needs provision. They recognise that the system is broken, but also that the system that they experience in Surrey is perhaps more broken that almost anywhere else. I will start with one bit of good news and an acknowledgment: I thank the Department for confirming funding for the new Frimley Oak academy, which will open in my constituency in the near future and will cater to 170 people. It represents an important step forward in addressing a vital local need for children with special educational needs. The sad reality is that for too long, so many parents and children in my constituency have been failed, I am sorry to say, by Surrey county council. Surrey has had the highest recorded number of SEND tribunal appeals anywhere in the country for three consecutive years. That statistic is a symptom of systemic dysfunction and failure. Behind every one of those appeals are human stories. A constituent of mine recently wrote to me. Her opening words were simply: “Our life is crumbling right now.” Others described their children being stripped of their childhood, families being physically and mentally broken, and their finances being pushed to the brink. At a constituency surgery that I held recently, a parent described the process of navigating the SEND system as being like walking the yellow brick road, with every trial and tribulation thrown in their way, and then finally getting to the emerald city that might represent something a little better, only to pull back the curtain and find that there is nothing there—an EHCP with the wrong name, describing the wrong child, offering an inappropriate package of support. Sitting at the top of all this in Surrey are the senior leaders, who say that there is no problem with special educational needs in Surrey at all, just parents who are too articulate. They claim, outrageously, that there is not a problem; there are just parents who have too inflated an idea of their children’s wants. It is absolutely atrocious.

• 13 Apr 2026 · SEND Provision and Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I agree that with local government reorganisation there is an opportunity to get the processes right, but I recognise that there are enormous risks, particularly in Surrey, where the new unitary authority is likely to start its life with £4 billion of debt and an annual shortfall of £150 million in its operational budget. It could be a council in section 114 special economic measures from the moment of its creation. Given the level of need that I see described in my inbox, I am incredibly concerned that more parents and more generations of children will be let down. I think right hon. and hon. Members across Surrey will feel the same. I congratulate the Minister and the Government on their plans, which I think have the correct intention, but I am incredibly concerned that the necessary financial foundations may not be in place to ensure that children are looked after properly. Ultimately, this debate comes down to one simple question: will the Government’s proposed SEND reforms deliver meaningful change, or will they simply repackage a system that continues to fail families? Judging from the state of my inbox, we cannot allow any more families to be failed.

• 13 Apr 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister is right to suggest that the tremors provoked by this conflict will reverberate long after the kinetic fighting has finished. There is perhaps no better example of that than Cyprus, where Government officials, all the way up to the level of the Prime Minister, have questioned Britain’s continuing sovereignty over our sovereign base areas there. May I ask the Prime Minister what he has done to reassure the Cypriots and the Cypriot Government that Britain is a trusted and reliable neighbour and partner, and that our continuing sovereignty is immutable?

• 23 Mar 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  From the first moments that the attempted rocket launches towards Diego Garcia were reported over the weekend there has been growing speculation, fuelled mainly by Israel, that Iran’s strike capacity now stretches far beyond what we previously conceived, and far beyond the Gulf region. Given what the Secretary of State said today when he confirmed that they were Iranian rockets—that goes beyond the NATO Secretary General yesterday—can he confirm how close those rockets or missiles came to Diego Garcia? What is now the MOD’s assessment about the effective strike range of Iran’s missile capacity? Does it stretch deep into Europe, and is the UK even now at risk?

• 17 Mar 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  It is abundantly clear to any fair-minded geopolitical observer that the US-Israeli actions in Iran were commenced without the cover of law and without a plan to follow the initial impulse of kinetic violence. But it is equally clear that the United Kingdom was caught short in our responsiveness and preparedness, particularly in relation to the island of Cyprus. Following the drone attack on that particular hangar, the Cypriot Government expressed disappointment in the UK, and the Cypriot Foreign Secretary has openly speculated about the future of our sovereign base areas. What work has the Foreign Secretary or her ministerial colleagues done to repair the damage with Cyprus, which is, after all, an incredibly valuable diplomatic and defence ally?

• 16 Mar 2026 · Strait of Hormuz · Hansard source

  More

  Given the vital role of Lloyd’s of London in underwriting global trade and providing war risk cover to vessels currently stuck in the Persian gulf, what conversations has the Minister had—or what conversations is he aware of—with Lloyd’s to ensure that its extraordinary expertise in this area is factored into the Government’s developing thinking? What conversations have been had across Government to protect and defend the reputation of Lloyd’s against shameful attacks from the MAGA movement in the United States?

• 16 Mar 2026 · Defence: UK Allies · Hansard source

  More

  Following the drone attack at RAF Akrotiri earlier this month, there has been growing disquiet within Cyprus and the Cypriot community about the continuing existence of the sovereign base areas. Given the absolute necessity of this defence relationship between the United Kingdom and Cyprus, will the Minister update the House on the Secretary of State’s visit to Cyprus earlier this month? Could he also say what reassurance the Cypriot Government need from us to ensure not only that the base is safe but that the future security of Cyprus is ensured?

• 12 Mar 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Frimley Park hospital in my constituency is due to be rebuilt as part of the Government’s new hospital programme, but it has recently transpired that the cost of upgrading vital local transport infrastructure has been neither costed nor budgeted for. The National Audit Office shares my concerns about escalating costs and slipping delivery times. I was told that the costs would have to come from a contingency fund for the scheme. Given that the scheme needs to be credible and command public support, can we have an urgent debate on this issue so that errors are not hardcoded into the process?

• 12 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Yesterday I met representatives of the British Chambers of Commerce, who relayed the profound concerns of the UK automative industry that it might be excluded from the European Union’s proposed industrial accelerator Act. Nissan and Honda have already broken cover to say that their futures may be uncertain unless they are included in the “made in Europe” rules. What is the Secretary of State doing, with his Front-Bench team and across Government, to ensure that the UK automotive sector is not placed at a competitive disadvantage as a consequence of those measures?

• 12 Mar 2026 · Defending Democracy Taskforce · Hansard source

  More

  In 2019, an attempt was made to physically attack me during the general election campaign, when a beer glass was thrown at my head. That was intimidating, but I recognise that it was nothing compared with the experience of those who are commemorated on the walls of this House, or of many of the women who sit in this Chamber. I am very sorry to say that, less than 12 hours ago, the Conservative party put out social media posts that placed the Prime Minister’s face on the body of a slug, a worm or a snake on a £5 note. Several months ago, the Conservative party in Surrey Heath put out a tweet about me that suggested that I somehow supported rape gangs because I could not support the Conservatives’ reasoned amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. Does the Security Minister think that those social media acts elevate our politics and conform to the values that we are speaking about today?

• 10 Mar 2026 · Technology Sovereignty · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady mentions Britain’s extraordinary human capital. In my role as my party’s Europe spokesperson, of late I have been speaking to very large international defence firms, which thrive in the UK intellectual environment. They have great links with universities, but they say to me that they are increasingly looking to move some of the start-ups that have been created in the UK into Europe, so that they can assemble rapidly the kinds of teams that they need to take those initial ideas and scale them up. Does she agree that having a closer working relationship with our European partners and colleagues, allowing that freedom of movement to return, could be an enormous benefit—counterintuitively perhaps—to our sovereign capacity?

• 10 Mar 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation: South-east · Hansard source

  More

  I feel every sympathy with my hon. Friend’s campaign for two unitary authorities; I was very supportive of there being three unitary authorities for Surrey, and we were sadly denied that. That would have delivered the much more local accountability to which my hon. Friend refers. I wish her good luck in her campaign for two unitary authorities, and for the local accountability which, as she recognises, is so important for her constituents. There is also a wider concern that I hear frequently from the voluntary and charitable sector. Many charities organise themselves around existing local authority boundaries. They rely on those relationships for funding, partnerships and the delivery of services. Local government reorganisation risks sweeping away that social infrastructure —boundaries change, funding streams shift and relationships built up over years can disappear overnight—but this is happening at precisely the moment that charities may be more important than ever, helping communities to pick up the pieces during a period of institutional upheaval and ensuring that vulnerable people do not fall through the gaps that inevitably appear during major restructuring. Against that backdrop, local government reorganisation is creating substantial additional workload for councils and their staff, many of whom are already working under tight financial constraints and significant workforce pressures. Local government reform should strengthen local institutions, not weaken them. It should produce councils that are financially stable, democratically accountable and close enough to the communities they serve to understand their needs. Those are the standards that fundamentally matter, and the ones against which people across Surrey and the south east will judge the outcome of this process.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation: South-east · Hansard source

  More

  As ever, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his thoughtful, sagacious intervention. He will discover, if he is able to stay for the rest of my speech, that I will cover those fundamental topics: the funding of the transitional moment, and the certainty that joining two authorities together does produce long-term savings and the modelling that those assumptions rely on. In late 2024, Surrey was placed on a fast-tracked path towards local government reorganisation. That process was triggered when the leadership of Surrey county council requested that the Government cancel the local elections that were scheduled for May 2025. That request was granted, and the result is that councillors elected in 2021 will now remain in office until April 2027, two years beyond their original mandate, and oversee one of the most significant and consequential restructurings of local government in our county’s history. The idea of cancelling elections has, more recently, fallen out of favour with both the Government and, as I understand it, the Conservative party. Sadly, for those of us in Surrey, that realisation came only after the Surrey Conservatives pulled the trigger on the policy that the Government had placed before them. Whatever one’s view of reorganisation, it is difficult to argue that such a profound change should proceed without giving residents the opportunity to pass judgment on those leading it. Local government reform should be carried out with democratic consent, not in its absence. Alongside those democratic concerns sit serious financial questions. Over the past decade, several councils across Surrey pursued large-scale commercial property investments in an attempt to generate income as central Government funding declined. In some cases, those strategies have left councils carrying extremely substantial debt. The six councils that could form the proposed West Surrey council—Woking, Spelthorne, Guildford, Runnymede, Surrey Heath and Waverley—collectively carry around £4.5 billion-worth of debt. In my constituency, the then Conservative-led Surrey Heath borough council speculated wildly on commercial property between 2016 and 2019. It spent £113 million on a shopping centre with a knackered roof and a former department store riddled with asbestos. At the time, those purchases were described by the council’s then chief executive as “investments” that would help to secure the council’s long-term financial viability as Government funding declined. In practice, it amounted to a Conservative-run borough council borrowing heavily on the financial markets and through the public works loan board in the hope of defying the gravity of the cuts coming from Conservative central Government. Today, those assets are estimated to be worth around £30 million—not the original £113 million. They are operationally loss-making and together risk bankrupting my borough before we even reach unitarisation next year. Surrey Heath cannot afford to keep them but cannot afford to sell them because selling would crystallise the losses it has incurred.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation: South-east · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. I will come on to talk about a systemic failure, as I see it, in the power that section 151 officers of borough councils have in effectively signing off the ability of a council to repay debts when accumulated. That is a power that I think may be far in excess of the skills that they have. After all, there is no separate mechanism to determine—from the Treasury or from the PWLB, for example—the ability of a council to fulfil its obligations. It is therefore entirely reasonable that residents ask a simple question: why should communities that played no role in accumulating that debt now be expected to inherit its consequences through a newly-created local authority? If reorganisation is intended to create a stable future for local government, it would be deeply concerning for any new authority to begin life already burdened with billions of pounds in inherited liabilities. I ask the Minister what assurances the Government can provide that any future West Surrey authority will begin life next year on a financially sustainable footing? It cannot be right that my residents face the realistic prospect of their new unitary authority being bankrupt or effectively bankrupt on day one of its existence, given the critical services that councils are expected to provide. The scale of borrowing in Surrey also raises wider questions about financial oversight in local government—this is where I will answer the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb). Local authorities rely on statutory finance officers—section 151 officers—to ensure financial prudence, yet the scale of borrowing undertaken by some councils suggests that existing safeguards have not always been sufficient to prevent high-risk commercial strategies. This debate is often framed in terms of protecting section 151 officers from excessive political pressure, and that may well be necessary, but it is also true that section 151 officers hold significant authority within council structures and must themselves be subject to proper scrutiny and accountability—something that is often lacking. Councillors very often perceive that they are not allowed to overly scrutinise 151 officers because of members’ codes of conduct. Will the Government therefore consider whether additional safeguards or oversight mechanisms are needed to prevent similar situations arising again in the future, particularly as councils become larger, their finances become more complex and the risks become even greater. There are also important questions about the size and structure of the authorities now being proposed. Under current proposals, the new West Surrey council would serve approximately 657,000 residents. By comparison, the average non-metropolitan unitary authority in England serves around 265,000 residents, with most serving fewer than 300,000. Authorities of the scale we are talking about today risk weakening democratic accountability, diluting local knowledge and making decision-making feel more distant from the communities they are meant to serve. Ministers have suggested that having larger authorities will deliver financial efficiencies. In support of that argument, the Government have relied on modelling produced by the County Councils Network, which happens to be chaired by the very same leader of Surrey county council who locked Surrey into this fast-track pathway in the first place. Despite several Parliamentary questions seeking clarification, it remains unclear what independent modelling the Government have undertaken to substantiate those claimed savings. I ask the Minister again: have the Government undertaken their own economic modelling of the projected financial benefits of local government reorganisation in Surrey? If so, will that modelling now be published publicly? Finally, we should recognise that all of this is unfolding while councils continue to deliver vital services under considerable strain. In my constituency, the concerns most frequently raised with me relate to special educational needs and disabilities provision. Hundreds of families contact me about problems with education, health and care plans—incorrect names, incorrect details, long delays and support packages—that simply do not meet the needs of the children concerned. For the past three years, Surrey has recorded the highest number of SEND tribunal appeals nationally. At the same time, residents regularly contact me about deteriorating road surfaces, potholes causing vehicle damage and wider infrastructural pressures. These are not abstract policy debates; they are real challenges affecting families who rely on local government services every single day.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation: South-east · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for the seriousness with which she has addressed many of the points raised today. I also thank everyone who has spoken; we had excellent interventions from my hon. Friends the Members for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) and for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett), and from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). The hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) gave a really excellent speech. Like me, he questioned the financial underpinnings and assumptions that sit underneath this process altogether. He also raised important points about urban-rural tension. I slightly agree with the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds): I think the reorganisation will place greater pressure on rural communities than on urban ones, but we will see. The point is that nobody has certainty and there are fears in both directions. My hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) spoke powerfully about transitional funding arrangements, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin). My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster), my constituency neighbour, spoke knowledgeably and passionately about inherited debt—reckless borrowing from the past—but also about the important point of personal responsibility and indeed culpability. I would absolutely support him, and indeed the Minister, in taking that point still further forward. Lastly, I thank the spokesperson for the Conservative party, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), as well as the Minister once again. Thank you all. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the impact of local government reorganisation in the South East.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation: South-east · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the impact of local government reorganisation in the South East. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Vickers. I am grateful to the hon. and right hon. Members from across the House who will be contributing to this debate. Local government is the tier of government that is most closely woven into people’s everyday lives. It is where national decisions become local realities: the roads we drive on, the services that support vulnerable families, the planning decisions that shape our towns and the community spaces that bring people together. It is for that reason that I support the principle of devolution. Decisions should, wherever possible, be taken by those closest to the communities they directly affect. But as is so often the case in public policy, the difficulty is not the principle, it is the implementation. In Surrey, implementation is already raising serious concerns about scale, financial sustainability and a process that has moved forward with a troubling democratic deficit. This debate concerns the south-east of England more generally, but colleagues from across the region will speak about how reorganisation is affecting their own counties and communities. My perspective naturally comes from Surrey, where those concerns are already becoming clear. Size, remoteness and financial fragility are among them, and we must add to that mix the glaring democratic deficit.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation: South-east · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. Labour may not have broken the local government system in Surrey but there is now an obligation to ensure that people who live in Surrey are not faced with the bankruptcy of their new unitary authorities on day one of those authorities’ existence, especially given the vital services that they will be delivering. In neighbouring Woking—where there was another Conservative-run council in those fateful years—the gravitational denialism was even wilder. During the same period, Woking borough council accumulated debts that now stand at approximately £2.1 billion. It is said that that debt is so large that it directly impacts the Government’s borrowing capacity in international markets. Versions of that story are repeated across much of west Surrey: it is a pattern of behaviour that has, frankly, never been properly investigated. Its impact has been compounded by systemic failures in the auditing of local government accounts.

• 9 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  My constituent Michael, who is autistic, lost his personal independence payment in January when he was moved to employment and support allowance without explanation. He is attempting to appeal that decision. Given warnings from the National Autistic Society about barriers that autistic people face in navigating the benefits system, what steps is the Department taking to improve communication and staff training to better support neurodiverse claimants?

• 4 Mar 2026 · NATO and the High Arctic · Hansard source

  More

  As ever, Dr Huq, it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I thank the hon. and gallant Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) for securing this geostrategically important debate and drawing this issue to the attention of the House. At a moment when the world’s attention is understandably distracted and drawn to other parts of the world—whether to the brutal war in eastern Europe or the escalating tensions in the middle east—it would be all too easy to park an issue such as this and see it, perhaps, as something for the future rather than as something for immediate attention. I contend, however, that that would be an enormous strategic error; history, after all, has a terrible habit of punishing those who overlook the vital importance of geography. The opening up of the Arctic is undoubtedly one of the most consequential geopolitical shifts of the 21st century. As we know, climate change is transforming the region at extraordinary speed. Retreating sea ice is opening new maritime routes and increasing access to energy resources and critical minerals, drawing renewed strategic interest from major powers. At the same time, the co-operative governance structures that once defined the Arctic are under strain. For much of the post-cold war period, the region was described as “High North, low tension”. That description no longer holds. The era of Arctic exceptionalism seems to be over. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has fractured the Arctic Council and accelerated the wider geopolitical tensions that now shape the region. Strategic competition is returning to the High North—not as a distant possibility, but as a clear and present reality. Although the United Kingdom is not an Arctic coastal state, we are undeniably a near-Arctic nation. We are geographically proximate, strategically exposed and directly affected by developments in the High North. Instability in the Arctic affects our maritime approaches, north Atlantic shipping lanes, subsea cables, offshore energy infrastructure, and ultimately the deterrent posture of the Royal Navy. For the United Kingdom, the Arctic is not a remote frontier; it is part of our immediate strategic environment. A few weeks ago, I had the enormous privilege of visiting Greenland and Denmark, alongside my Liberal Democrat colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller). I can report that in Nuuk, Greenland’s capital, life often appears outwardly calm. The harbour is busy and the cafés are full. The rhythms of daily life continue, despite the long Arctic winter and the limited daylight available in February, when I was there. However, anyone spending any time talking to Greenlanders will hear something quite different: a persistent and gnawing anxiety about what might be coming down the tracks from not Moscow or Beijing—nobody realistically thinks that either Russia or China pose an immediate threat to Greenland—but, extraordinarily, from Washington.

• 4 Mar 2026 · NATO and the High Arctic · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for his intervention; the President of the United States is perhaps more Teddy Roosevelt than Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He seems to be living every day under the impression that his mission should be to expand US territory and to plant the US flag, no matter how loyal and allied the country in question has been in the past. I clearly recall the deeply offensive remarks that the President of the United States made about both Britain and Denmark’s past military contributions to US international adventurism. I remember watching a film called “Armadillo” about the extraordinary work that Danish troops did on the frontline in Afghanistan. I agree with my hon. Friend’s comments wholeheartedly. For Greenlanders, this is not a recent experience; they have been living with the threats of Donald Trump for the best part of 12 months. Over the past year, he has repeatedly suggested that the United States should “acquire” Greenland, presenting the idea as a matter of American national security. Sitting here in Westminster, it may be tempting to dismiss such remarks as rhetorical theatre, but in Nuuk they are experienced profoundly differently. Greenland is a self-governing Arctic society of 56,000 people. When the world’s most powerful country repeatedly discusses one’s homeland as though it were a strategic asset to be acquired, the effect is not abstract. During my visit, we heard accounts of families stockpiling supplies. Some described moving savings abroad in case of financial disruption to their homeland and their lives. Others spoke of delaying vital, essential medical treatment in Denmark—treatment that many Greenlanders rely on—because they feared that further escalation would mean that they would not be able to return to their homeland afterwards. Greenlandic commentators have described the psychological effect of the campaign from the United States as a form of “mental terror”. It is a striking phrase, but it captures an important truth: security in the Arctic is not solely about missiles, submarines and military installations; it is also about trust, stability and the ability of societies to live without fear. There is also a profound strategic irony here. The United States already enjoys extensive rights in Greenland under the 1951 US-Denmark defence agreement, including the operation of the Pituffik space base—formerly, the Thule air base—and any other base that it may wish to re-establish in the present moment. Greenland sits inside NATO’s security architecture through Denmark and benefits from the protections of article 5. The idea that Greenland must somehow be owned to be defended simply does not withstand any scrutiny. What it challenges, however, is something far more fundamental: the principle that people are not property and that sovereignty cannot be negotiated away for strategic convenience. Across Greenlandic politics, the response has therefore been consistent and unequivocal: Greenland is not for sale. For liberal democracies, that principle should not be negotiable. If western democracies cannot defend the idea that territories cannot be simply acquired by powerful states, then the rules-based order that we claim to uphold begins to look increasingly selective and fragile. Nowhere are those principles more important than in the wider strategic geography of the North Atlantic. At the heart of that geography lies the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap: the naval corridor between Greenland, Iceland and the United Kingdom. During the cold war, NATO prioritised that corridor to detect and constrain the submarines of the Soviet northern fleet departing the Kola peninsula into the Atlantic. Today, it has again become central to NATO’s strategy. Russia’s northern fleet must transit through or around the GIUK gap to reach the north Atlantic. Monitoring the corridor remains essential to tracking submarine activity and protecting the integrity of the north Atlantic. The corridor also safeguards the sealines of communication between North America and Europe. In any NATO contingency, the transatlantic reinforcement route would pass directly through those waters. If the GIUK gap were compromised, the United Kingdom’s western maritime flank would be exposed. Control and surveillance of the space are therefore fundamental to preventing adversaries from projecting power into the north Atlantic or threatening western Europe and North America. Within the strategic geography, Greenland’s importance cannot be overstated. Its location makes it pivotal for missile early-warning systems, Arctic sea routes, access to the north Atlantic, and space-based infrastructure. Destabilising Greenland or undermining Danish sovereignty would fracture NATO cohesion, complicate security in the GIUK gap and weaken Arctic governance structures at precisely the moment when unity is most needed. The Liberal Democrats are therefore clear: sovereignty and international law are not negotiable principles. I am deeply concerned that the Prime Minister has yet to state unequivocally that British soil, British bases and British facilities would never be used to propel American troops on to Greenlandic territory by force. The Government must put that matter beyond doubt. Any suggestion that one NATO ally could coerce another would erode alliance cohesion, weaken deterrence and play directly into the hands of President Putin. Fragmentation in the Arctic theatre would directly benefit Russia’s northern fleet posture and its wider Arctic military strategy. Again, this is not about abstract diplomacy; it is about the credibility of collective defence. The UK must therefore deepen its commitment to Arctic security and north Atlantic resilience. That means strengthening anti-submarine warfare and maritime domain awareness, investing further in north Atlantic patrol and surveillance capabilities, and reinforcing defence co-operation with our Nordic and Baltic partners. Crucially, the Government should invest further in the Joint Expeditionary Force, and convene a summit of JEF leaders here in the United Kingdom to address the rapidly evolving security environment in the High North. The reality is simple: the Arctic is no longer a peripheral concern; it is at the frontline of strategic competition, alliance solidarity and international law. I leave the Minister with three questions. First, what concrete steps have the Government taken to ensure that the UK is prepared for the reality that I have just outlined? How is the UK strengthening defence co-operation with our Arctic allies, including considering enhanced diplomatic presence in Greenland and perhaps the establishment of a permanent consulate in Nuuk? Finally, the strategic defence review mentions the High North as a space of geopolitical and geostrategic interest, but does not offer a defence strategy per se. Do the Government intend to bring one forward? How does the Government’s future procurement reflect that strategic concern?

• 2 Mar 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  Since we came to the Chamber, a senior Iranian commander has said that they would seek to bomb Cyprus to force out US aircraft from our sovereign bases. As a guarantor of Cyprus’s security and as a sovereign presence on the island of Cyprus, what concrete military devices and measures do we have in place in Cyprus to ensure that no further successful drone attacks can happen on the airfield? What assurances can the Prime Minister offer to Cyprus that no attacks will take place in Cyprus as a whole as a result of our presence there?

• 25 Feb 2026 · Diego Garcia and British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  I am acutely aware that this urgent question comes in the aftermath of the attempt by the hon. Member for Clacton to land on the Chagos archipelago last week, and although I might admire the hon. Member’s audacity, I am deeply concerned that his actions trivialise what is indeed a deeply serious situation and potentially render the genuine grievances and injustices felt by the Chagossians as a political backdrop to his social media feed. However, I must also acknowledge that the hon. Member’s platform has been created only because of the vacuum created by this Government, because the wheels have undoubtedly fallen off their negotiations. They have failed to secure the support and consent of Chagossians, and they now seem to have lost the support of the President of the United States too. While either one of those things might be considered unfortunate, the combination of the two looks deeply careless. What is the status of the negotiations right now? What is the latest position of the United States? Will the Government also take on our very long-standing concerns about the rights of Chagossians? There is clearly not widespread consent here. Will they take on the points that we have made in amendment after amendment and recognise that Chagossians have the right to self-determine their own future? Will he also accept our concerns about the finances to ensure that Britain is not left as a leaseholder of these islands if a deal goes ahead without a sitting tenant?

• 25 Feb 2026 · UK-German Relations · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick) for securing this important and timely debate. The Liberal Democrats believe that we are stronger, safer and more prosperous when we build serious, long-term partnerships with our European allies and colleagues. UK-German relations are a litmus test of our wider relationship with Europe. In an age of instability, we face an unpredictable US Administration, as we have already heard, and we have seen rising interference from the likes of China and continued Russian aggression. In that environment, defence and economic security become even more inseparable than they already were. That is why a closer and more pragmatic, productive and co-operative relationship with Germany is strategically imperative to us all. Germany is Europe’s largest economy and one of the EU’s most influential states. Trade between the UK and Germany accounts for about 8.5% of UK trade, and supports nearly half a million jobs. I am lucky to have the UK headquarters of multiple offshoots of German companies in my Surrey Heath constituency, such as Stihl, the German manufacturer of chainsaws. My wife’s job is one of those nearly half a million jobs that I mentioned, working as she does for BMW in the neighbouring constituency of North East Hampshire. That is not intended to be a declaration of interest—it is merely a statement of fact—but I am very grateful to BMW for the electric Mini, which I am lucky enough to occasionally be allowed to drive. The Kensington treaty, signed in July 2025, established a comprehensive framework for UK-German co-operation across defence, trade, climate, education and science, and that is undoubtedly the right direction of travel. However, a treaty is only as meaningful as its delivery. Let me first turn to defence. At the Munich security conference, the Prime Minister called for deeper economic and security co-operation between the UK and the EU, and for a stronger expression of European hard power. At a time of heightened geopolitical tension, nobody can doubt that strengthening co-operation with Europe is firmly in Britain’s national interest. Securing full participation in the EU’s Security Action for Europe fund would undoubtedly support UK defence manufacturers and strengthen collective rearmament. Our partnership with Germany should support Ukraine’s recovery and deepen collaboration through the Trinity House agreement, with joint exercises, industrial co-ordination and capability development. If Britain wants influence over Europe’s defence architecture, it must be present where capability priorities are shaped. On the economy, in 2015 the UK was Germany’s fifth largest trading partner, but by 2022 we had sadly fallen to 11th, reflecting the growing trade frictions between our two economies. In 2025, the Financial Times reported that German car manufacturer BMW had paused its £600 million investment in electric vehicles in Oxford. When advanced manufacturing decisions are finely balanced, as they so often are, added trade friction and regulatory divergence make the United Kingdom a less certain destination for investment. The British Chamber of Commerce in Germany echoed those sentiments by warning that post-Brexit paperwork and border delays are pushing UK firms away from their largest export markets, with some customers turning to EU-based suppliers instead. If we are serious about restoring competitiveness, we must build trust and reduce those trade barriers. A bespoke EU-UK customs union might just stand a chance of easing some of those rules of origin burdens, lowering border costs and providing manufacturers with the certainty that they need. Finally on cultural exchange—a topic that has frequently been raised in this debate—the Kensington treaty recognises that relationships are built not only by Governments but by young people and communities. The right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) mentioned town twinning. Not wanting to be left out of the excitement, I am very pleased to say that my Surrey Heath constituency is twinned with Bietigheim-Bissingen in Germany, and that our main popular shopping street is named Bietigheim Way, in reference to the historical connections between our two parts of the world. A UK-Germany youth summit and cross-border volunteering partnerships are absolutely critical, but so many of these programmes are vital for building long-term trust between our communities. Three quarters of 18 to 24-year-olds voted to remain in the European Union in 2016, yet they are bearing many of the mobility costs that Brexit has imposed. They lost the freedom to study and work easily across Europe, including by participating in Erasmus, so we fundamentally welcome the UK rejoining the Erasmus scheme as a step towards rebuilding educational co-operation with Germany and across the rest of the EU. We are also calling for negotiations on a reciprocal EU youth mobility scheme with an age limit of 35, no visa fees and visas extended to three years to further and deepen that co-operation. I again thank the hon. Member for Preston and other hon. Members for invoking the spirit of the UK-German relationship so effectively. We fundamentally believe that a closer relationship with Germany will strengthen our defence, support our economy and deepen cultural exchange.