David Reed MP: speeches

Speeches

• 24 Mar 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. Amendment 8, standing in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends, is a straightforward but important amendment. Its purpose is simple: to place a clear and consistent definition of “due regard” on the face of the Bill. I know that many colleagues will agree with that. At present, due regard sits at the very heart of how relevant authorities will interpret and apply their obligations under the armed forces covenant. It is the mechanism through which the intentions of Parliament will be translated into real decisions on the ground and yet, as the Bill stands, the term itself is not defined. That creates a problem. Where Parliament relies on a concept without defining it, we leave room for inconsistency, uncertainty and, ultimately, uneven delivery. Different authorities may take different views about what due regard requires of them. Some may interpret it robustly and act with care and diligence; others may, perhaps unintentionally, adopt a narrow reading and do the minimum necessary to demonstrate compliance. That cannot be what we want. If the covenant is to mean anything in practice, it must be applied consistently across the country. Service personnel, veterans and their families should not face a postcode lottery in how their needs are considered. The principle of fairness that underpins the covenant demands that we get this right and, I hope, get it right first time.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Looking across the Committee, I see Members who have served in local government, some of whom may have had military experience before doing so. They would have been able to apply their experience, and that of their families, to their work as elected councillors. However, that is not standard across the country, which takes us back to my central point: given the financial pressures and other statutory pressures, we can see why, without a requirement for a clear plan, implementation becomes difficult for a local authority that does not have experience. The lack of comparability limits our ability to identify where approaches are working well and where improvements may be needed. It also makes it harder to share learning among areas. Amendment 13 seeks to address those points in a proportionate and practical way. It would not impose a detailed or overly prescriptive model, as it is not bureaucratic in nature, and it would not remove flexibility from local authorities; authorities that want to do a lot more could do so, which would perhaps be fed back into central Government. Instead, it would establish a clear expectation that each authority take a structured approach to delivering its covenant responsibilities. It is important to be clear about what the amendment would not do. It would not impose a complex or resource-intensive new burden. Many local authorities are already undertaking elements of this work; the amendment would simply bring that activity into a clearer and more consistent framework. It would require local authorities to produce an armed forces covenant action plan, which I am sure would be developed in conjunction with the Ministry of Defence, bringing together experience from where it is being done well in local government. That plan would set out in clear terms the steps that the authority intends to take to meet its obligations. It would provide a more coherent framework for delivery, bringing together activity that might otherwise be spread across different services. Importantly, amendment 13 would also require authorities to assess the level and nature of the need within their local armed forces community. This key element would ensure that planning is informed by evidence, rather than assumptions. It would also encourage engagement with those directly affected, including service personnel, veterans and their families, as well as the organisations that support them. In addition, the amendment would require authorities to set out how resources would be allocated to meet that identified need, helping to create a clearer link between assessment and delivery. It would support more transparent decision making and would help to ensure that commitments are reflected in practice. The requirement to report on progress is another important part of the amendment. It would introduce greater transparency, allowing central Government, local partners and the armed forces community to understand how the covenant is being delivered in particular areas. That transparency would support activity and accountability; allow local authorities to demonstrate the work that they are undertaking, including where progress has been made and where further development is needed; and provide a basis for identifying effective approaches and sharing good practice. I will wrap up, because I am conscious of time. Amendment 13 is an important amendment. It would give local authorities a framework to work with central Government to carry out their new statutory duties, while managing their workload across competing priorities.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 2, page 3, line 19, at end insert— “‘due regard’ means that specified bodies should think about and place an appropriate amount of weight on the principles of the Armed Forces Covenant when they consider all the key factors relevant to how they carry out their functions.” This amendment defines due regard for the purposes of interpreting section 2 of the Armed Forces Bill.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I would rather have it in the legislation from the outset. We could take a position where we hope that local authorities will sit down and read through the legislation but, as we have seen over the last few years, that has not been applied in the current understanding of the covenant. I would rather the definition be explicit for local authorities. That would also provide a nice feedback loop, because if it is not working, it can go straight back to the Ministry of Defence and we can work on making amendments to the overall legislation.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Given the strength of the argument this morning, I would like to test the will of the Committee and press amendment 8 to a vote. Question put, That the amendment be made .

• 24 Mar 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Promises, promises.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Student Loans · Hansard source

  More

  I say to Labour Members that we all want to get this issue sorted out. When I spoke to the Chancellor during the spring statement, she said that the way that she was going to control student loan interest rates was by controlling inflation, but we all know what is happening in the middle east at the moment. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that policy is wishful thinking and that we need to think about the issue properly in order to change the system?

• 18 Mar 2026 · Student Loans · Hansard source

  More

  We have heard the argument repeatedly that it was the Conservatives and the coalition Government that brought in these changes. I am someone with a plan 2 loan. I was in the generation that Blair told to go to university, and at no point did anyone in that Blair Government talk about how the jobs market would take on so many graduates or, most importantly, who would pay for those people to go to university. Does the Minister agree that the 50% of school leavers who went to university should be paid for by the 50% that did not?

• 18 Mar 2026 · Royal Mail: Performance · Hansard source

  More

  That is a serious point. We can talk about the Royal Mail service for our constituents, but the posties themselves are experiencing significant trouble at the moment. I am sure we have all heard about it in our inboxes recently. I will come to the issue later in my speech, and I am sure other Members will raise it, but I do agree with the hon. Member. Royal Mail has failed to meet both those delivery targets for three consecutive years, and I have very little confidence in when a letter would arrive if I sent one today. If anyone could give me an insight into that, I would be very happy to hear it. Furthermore, Royal Mail offers economy access mail, a non-priority service for bulk non-time-critical letters that provides savings compared with first and second-class services. It typically delivers within four working days, often arriving alongside other post, but it can take up to five days or more. The fact that companies or organisations such as banks and the NHS use that product helps to explain the correspondence in our inboxes and the conversations we have in our constituencies, in which people ask why their post seems to disappear for weeks only to arrive all at once. That crucial point has not been communicated to the public in any meaningful way. Set against the backdrop that competitors can offer reliable same-day or next-day parcel delivery, it is easy to understand why public confidence in Royal Mail has declined. At the same time, as the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) alluded to, our local posties are under significant pressure, working in an increasingly demanding environment in what I am sure can feel to them like a thankless job. Members will, like me, have received emails from local postal workers asking for support and for their concerns to be heard. It is right that we give them a voice in this conversation. I have no doubt that Members will set out a wide range of issues that they and their constituents have experienced. I want to leave ample time for those contributions, but I do want to share one example of poor delivery service that I have experienced with Royal Mail. It reflects what many of my constituents have been dealing with for some time; it is clear that the problems are not isolated, but getting a straight answer about them is far harder than it should be. In my case, public money was involved: every Member knows that they can produce a non-partisan, publicly funded annual report to communicate with constituents, yet in parts of my constituency that report simply was not delivered. I pressed Royal Mail on what went wrong and did not receive a proper answer. I am still waiting to receive one. When public money is used, there should be clear accountability, but that has not happened here. The same applies to those paying out of their own pockets. Our constituents are paying increasing amounts for stamps and not getting the service they have paid for. Again, there is little accountability. I am sure we will hear similar experiences from colleagues today. If Royal Mail cannot provide an answer to a Member of Parliament about delivery failures—I gave it ample opportunity to do so, on many occasions—it raises serious questions about what an ordinary member of the public can expect to experience when they ask the same questions. This is the United Kingdom, not Russia or North Korea. When people pay for a service, they rightly expect it to be delivered well. When it is not, they expect, at the very least, a clear explanation and reassurance that the problem will not happen again.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Royal Mail: Performance · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady makes a serious point, and I hope the Minister will address it. Bear in mind that Royal Mail is a private company. Many organisations choose the deferred mail option—the economy of economies option—because it is the cheapest. Why would they not? But because they choose that option, people do not receive their post for a long time. Many of my constituents are fairly elderly and rely on letters for NHS appointments or bank statements. If they receive nothing for two weeks and then get it all at once, they find that difficult to understand. It has not been communicated meaningfully, so Royal Mail needs to do that very quickly. I was grateful to sit down with the Royal Mail leadership last week. We broke bread and discussed the serious challenges that the organisation faces, as well as the shortcomings in the services that many of our constituents experience. From my conversations, I believe there is a genuine desire to improve and an acknowledgement of the scale of the challenge ahead. However, given the volume of correspondence that flows into Members’ offices on this issue, it is vital that we convey our constituents’ strength of feeling. The message must be heard loud and clear: people are not satisfied, and they expect the service to improve quickly. My message to Royal Mail is this. You are not just a company; you are a British national institution. Do not wait to be criticised in the press, complained about by customers across the country or summoned before Select Committees or the Secretary of State. Be proactive. Communicate clearly what you are doing to improve the service. Most importantly, begin an honest national conversation with the British public about what they can expect. Only then can trust begin to be rebuilt.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Royal Mail: Performance · Hansard source

  More

  I have been looking at the numbers over the last few years, and Royal Mail has gone from significant losses of about £400 million three years ago, to £200 million losses, to making a £14 million profit last year. Because it is a privately owned company—we will come on to that—it has cut a lot of fat away, but it has also cut away muscle. Prices have increased, but the service has gone down. That is completely unacceptable, and it is probably the reason why we are all here today.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Royal Mail: Performance · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the performance of Royal Mail. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I want to ask everyone to go along with me for a few seconds by closing their eyes and visualising what the Royal Mail means to them. I picture the intrepid and hardy postie battling through snow, hills, rain and fog to ensure that our post is delivered. I picture the regular encounters with my postie wherever I have lived, and the kind, warm and friendly conversations we have had on the doorstep. Members will be happy to know that I am not going to go round the room asking what they visualised, but I imagine it was fairly similar to what I just described. If there was one word to sum it all up, it would be “trust”—trust in the Royal Mail service and in an institution that has been a constant in British life for over 500 years. But we all know that that trust is waning. We feel it ourselves, and we hear it from our constituents, families and friends. The institution that so many of us have known, valued and trusted is changing, and something must be done by us in this House to stop the decline. Before I turn to some of the issues and recommendations, I want to address the elephant in the room: Royal Mail is facing significant external pressures—we all know that. Modern technology such as email and online messaging has gradually sidelined traditional letter mail. Royal Mail itself often says that it used to be a letters organisation that delivered parcels, and now it is a parcels organisation that still delivers letters. This challenge is not unique to the United Kingdom. Our friends in Denmark, for example, saw their state postal operator, PostNord, deliver its final traditional letter in December 2025, ending more than 400 years of national letter delivery. From 2026 onwards, PostNord will focus solely on parcel delivery, after letter volumes fell by around 90% since 2000. We have faced a similar trend here in the UK. For all of us here, that raises a broader question for our country: in this increasingly digital world, do we still value physical letters? My answer—I imagine it is the same as that of everyone else here today—is a resounding yes. There is something secure about a letter passing through trusted hands on its journey to its destination. As we all know, digital systems can fail or be hacked or manipulated. At a time of growing international uncertainty and environmental disruption, it is imperative that we maintain a strong and resilient network of physical mail delivery. In this new era, with Royal Mail now operating as a privately owned company with overseas ownership, we must work with the company to ensure that the universal service obligation is fit for purpose and, crucially—this is the key point—understood by the British public. I am sure this will come up in many Members’ speeches, but the failure to meet delivery targets is a significant problem. Under the current USO, Royal Mail is required to deliver 93% of first-class letters the next working day and 98.5% of second-class letters within three working days.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Royal Mail: Performance · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Speaker’s Office for granting this important and timely debate. Most importantly, I thank right hon. and hon. Members for turning up this morning and making their constituent’s voices heard. A number of wide-ranging issues have been brought forward. It has been a productive debate, and it is clear that we all want to retain a letter postal delivery service in the UK. However, as many Members have said, there are structural issues across the service, and we are going through a period of unprecedented technological change. Those changes are affecting people up and down the country. People are not receiving post such as NHS letters or important legal documents. These issues are affecting posties’ morale, they are affecting recruitment and retention, and they are affecting our democracy and the use of public money. I thank the Minister for his speech and the points that he raised. I know that he and his team are working very hard with the Secretary of State to make Royal Mail accountable for a lot of those issues. I hope that the Business and Trade Committee can bring forward an inquiry to look into this issue in a granular way and report those findings back to the House. Looking across Westminster Hall today, it is clear that there is cross-party support to improve the situation, and this has been a productive conversation. I say to Royal Mail, “We are getting on the job; we are going to improve this service, and we will enforce the USO and make sure that it is fit for purpose, because we all deserve this service that we are paying for.” I look forward to working with colleagues across the House to make sure that that happens. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the performance of Royal Mail.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Royal Mail: Performance · Hansard source

  More

  At no point have I laid any blame at the posties’ feet; this is a structural issue. The point that I am making—this is important, because it is affects all of us in this House—is that Royal Mail underpins a large part of our democracy. At the time of elections, we all expect election leaflets to be delivered. That is part of our democracy; it is an obligation that Royal Mail has to us, and we expect it to be upheld. I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman that these are structural problems. I want Royal Mail to meet the union and have those conversations. It is no fault of the posties, who work very hard—as does everyone in this House.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Isles of Scilly: Transport · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate the hon. Gentleman bringing this important debate to the Chamber. Exeter airport, which is one of the key transport nodes for the Isles of Scilly, is based in my constituency. My grandparents and great-grandparents on my dad’s side really enjoyed going down there on holiday, adding to that tourism economy. I have seen the price of travel to the Scilly Isles increase in recent years, which means fewer people are able to enjoy that. I would like to offer my support to the hon. Gentleman; if there is any way I can add in Exeter airport and work with him on some of these problems, I would be very happy to do so.

• 16 Mar 2026 · Strait of Hormuz · Hansard source

  More

  It is a known known that the Iranian regime will close down the strait of Hormuz in a period of conflict. Back in June 2025, I asked the former Foreign Secretary, now the Deputy Prime Minister, what contingencies we had in place to offset against that happening. He responded: “I assure the hon. Member that these issues are of course under consideration,” and that—this is the key part— “All contingencies are in place.” —[ Official Report , 23 June 2025; Vol. 769, c. 842.] I have listened to the Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary and the FCDO Minister, and those remarks just do not add up. What has changed?

• 16 Mar 2026 · Middle East: UK Armed Forces Personnel · Hansard source

  More

  British personnel in Cyprus, Bahrain, Iraq and across the middle east have been attacked by Iran and its proxies. In such circumstances, we must act quickly to protect our people and interests. Having served on Royal Navy vessels, I know it takes time to ready a ship, yet nearly two weeks passed before the Government sent a single destroyer— HMS Dragon—to help defend our forces in Cyprus. Why was that decision not taken sooner, and given that the Royal Navy had advised deploying assets earlier, which Minister took the decision not to act on that point?

• 16 Mar 2026 · Middle East: UK Armed Forces Personnel · Hansard source

  More

  This is an important point and, given the volatility of the international system, we must learn from our mistakes. In a written answer on 9 March, the Minister for the Armed Forces confirmed that discussions took place before the decision to deploy HMS Dragon. We know those conversations happened and that the Royal Navy put forward recommendations. When British personnel are under threat, those delays carry consequences. I ask again: will the Secretary of State tell the House which Minister chose not to act on that advice sooner, and, crucially, why?

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I echo the initial comments of the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), in thanking the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), a fellow former Royal Marine, for bringing this debate to the House today. This is a massively important subject, and I am glad that we have the opportunity to discuss it. I hope that we will continue to discuss it because the area will only increase in importance. We all know that the High North is no longer a distant theatre of academic interest or a place for explorers’ delight. It is fast becoming the new frontier of great power competition. As the ice retreats through climate change—we have heard about that from many Members today—strategic rivalry advances. Sea routes are opening, undersea infrastructure is exposed and military activity is increasing. The Arctic is no longer insulated by geography or climate, and it is becoming a central arena in the contest between major powers. The decisions that we take now will shape the security of the north Atlantic for decades. The hon. Member for Halesowen outlined that very clearly in his opening remarks. Russia views the Arctic as a core strategic bastion. Its northern fleet operates from heavily defended bases in the region, protecting its nuclear deterrent and projecting power into the north Atlantic. Moscow treats Arctic territory and resources as central to its long-term security and economic resilience. On the other hand, the United States sees the Arctic as integral to homeland defence and the security of the transatlantic alliance. Greenland, which we have heard about today, and the wider north Atlantic have returned to prominence in American strategic thinking, as reinforcement routes and early warning systems regain importance. Lastly, China, although not an Arctic state—it claims to be a near-Arctic state, whatever that means—has steadily expanded its presence through research, commercial investments and polar shipping, signalling long-term interests in Arctic trade routes and resources. That will only increase as climate change reduces the ice. The Arctic is a theatre where Russian militarisation, American strategic recalibration and Chinese expansion intersect, as many Members have set out clearly. That is why NATO now treats the defence of the High North as a strategic imperative. The accession of Finland and Sweden has transformed the strategic geometry of the region, as the hon. Member for Halesowen rightly said. We have seen over recent years that NATO’s northern flank is stronger and more coherent. The GIUK gap and the north-Atlantic sea lanes—the arteries through which reinforcements would flow in a crisis—have regained their cold war significance. NATO’s launch of Arctic Sentry earlier this year reflects that reality, and I am glad that has happened. It signals a recognition that deterrence in the High North must be persistent, co-ordinated and credible. The United Kingdom says that it understands the shift. Under the last Government, the 2023 “Looking North” policy framework set out a whole-of-Government approach across security, science and the environment. Fast-forwarding to this Government, the strategic defence review acknowledged that developments in the High North have direct consequences for the Euro-Atlantic and the United Kingdom’s place within it. Ministers have also highlighted the Royal Navy’s approach to Atlantic Bastion, which is intended to secure the north Atlantic through a networked mix of warships, aircraft and autonomous systems. Important steps have been taken. The United Kingdom is strengthening co-operation with Norway through the Lunna House agreement and the JEF, to counter undersea threats and protect NATO’s northern flank. The Royal Marines—my old outfit, and the hon. Member for Halesowen’s—continue to train in Norway, including through exercises such as Cold Response and our training presence at Camp Viking, which is set to expand. I put on the record my thanks to the Royal Marines delegation that recently came to Parliament, under Brigadier Jaimie Norman, to educate us on the High North. It was a fantastic day that left a lasting impression on us all. The UK will contribute to NATO’s Arctic Sentry mission, with the carrier strike group deploying to the north Atlantic later this year under Operation Firecrest. I hope the Minister will expand on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty). The actions I have mentioned demonstrate intent, but the House must distinguish between intent and delivery. The Government have chosen not to publish a refreshed stand-alone High North defence strategy; instead, Arctic policy has been folded into broader defence frameworks. I am sure there is a good reason for that and look forward to hearing the Minister’s rationale for it, but the Opposition, if we are playing a good friend to the policy, think it risks diluting focus. If the High North is truly the new frontier of great power competition, the United Kingdom’s objectives there should be clearly defined. Are we primarily focused on securing reinforcement routes across the north Atlantic, or on protecting critical undersea infrastructure, which the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) referred to? We need a much better strategy across all our partners. I think that is being developed, but the question is whether it is being developed fast enough. It has been made quite clear in the debate that the United Kingdom does not currently maintain capabilities dedicated specifically to Arctic operations. Without additional capacity, Arctic ambition risks becoming a competition for scarce assets rather than a sustained strategic commitment, as I think would be acknowledged by anyone who sees themselves as our adversaries. The Royal Marines are a good microcosm through which to see the challenge clearly. They are being asked to pivot towards High North operations—they are specialists in that environment—while continuing special operation roles and global deployments. I want to put on the record, as the hon. Member for Halesowen did, that I never spent any time in the Arctic, even though I am a former Royal Marine, and it is said that until someone has spent time in Norway, they are not a proper bootneck. Given that the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) has spent five more days in the High North than me, I defer to her more recent knowledge. Before the debate started, the Minister offered to join me back up again; I am still unsure whether that was a threat or some sort of treat; given that the hon. Member for Strangford also wants to join the Royal Marines, maybe we can do it together. Cold weather warfare cannot simply be improvised, as the hon. Member for Halesowen will know, having been deployed up in that area, nor can credible specialist capability exist without, as he said, the lift, logistics and sustainment that enable it. In the undersea domain, the stakes are even higher. The North Atlantic seabed carries the cables and energy links that underpin our economy and communications; the hon. Member for Strangford talked about the economic security that we all rely on. Deterrence in the High North will increasingly be measured below the surface, in the submarines tracked, cables monitored and infrastructure protected. The Lunna House agreement with Norway, which includes co-operation on anti-submarine warfare and the protection of undersea infrastructure, is strategically sound, but the interoperability on paper must translate into persistent operational presence at sea. That means modern anti-submarine capabilities, sufficient hulls available for deployment, and the crews required to sustain them. The strategic defence review acknowledged that the Arctic is a region of increasing competition in the United Kingdom’s wider neighbourhood, yet it did not outline specific capability adjustments tailored to the theatre. If the High North is becoming central to NATO deterrence, treating it simply as an adjunct to other priorities will not suffice. To go back again to the overriding point that we keep hearing, I really hope there is clear detail in the defence investment plan, whenever it is released, and that the Minister can give a clearer view on when that will be. The House of Lords has also raised concerns that the United Kingdom risks aspiring to a meaningful security presence in the High North without the resources to sustain it. Those concerns have not yet been fully answered. Recent events elsewhere underline the importance of readiness. When crises escalate, forces held at high readiness must deploy rapidly. Air and missile defence must be integrated, munition stockpiles must sustain operations over time, and the growing cost imbalance between high-end interceptors and low-cost threats cannot be ignored. These challenges go to the heart of credibility. NATO deterrence in the High North depends on the confidence that allies can reinforce Europe across the Atlantic, defend sea lanes and protect the northern flank under pressure. If we speak of Atlantic Bastion, we must demonstrate the ships, aircraft and trained crews required to make it real. Let me be clear: the Opposition support a strong NATO presence in the High North, and we want to work with the Government to strengthen it wherever we can, but we cannot support some of the plans without being a critical friend. We will therefore ask the Government to define clearly the objectives of the United Kingdom’s contribution to Arctic Sentry. We will ask how Atlantic Bastion is being resourced and crewed, how the expansion at Camp Viking will be sustained alongside global commitments, and how the protection of undersea infrastructure is being operationalised in practice. The High North is becoming the northern gateway to the United Kingdom’s security. It is the corridor through which allied reinforcements would flow, and it is where deterrence will increasingly be tested below the surface. If this is the new frontier of great power competition, we must treat it with the seriousness that such a frontier demands. The strategy must be clear, the capability must be credible, and the resources must match the ambition.

• 3 Mar 2026 · Spring Forecast · Hansard source

  More

  Blairite policies told 50% of my generation to go to university. Looking back at those conversations, we see that rarely did anyone ever talk about who would pay for those students to go to university, or how the jobs market would then take on that amount of graduates. It is clear that the student finance system does not work, and the goalposts keep shifting with Government policies. I think there is a cross-party view that something needs to be done. Does the Chancellor view it as a serious issue, and what does she plan to do about it?

• 2 Mar 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  I think we can all agree that international law has an important role to play, but the world is changing and we must adapt to protect our national security. Given that international law is broad in nature and open to interpretation—we have seen that in the differing views of the Attorney General and the shadow Attorney General—for public accountability, and given the seriousness of this situation, can the Prime Minister tell us how many and which international lawyers he consulted before he made his decisions over recent days?

• 26 Feb 2026 · Maccabi Tel Aviv Fan Ban · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend for the work she and her Committee have done on this report. To my knowledge, this is the first time artificial intelligence has hallucinated and given a response that has been used by a public body to make a decision. To my right hon. Friend’s understanding, has West Midlands police learned from this mistake and removed this type of sloppy analysis from its decision-making process?

• 26 Feb 2026 · Gibraltar Treaty · Hansard source

  More

  As a former Royal Marine, Gibraltar has a special place in my heart—we have “Gibraltar” emblazoned above our globe and laurel crest for the valiant efforts of former bootnecks in 1704. Having transferred seamlessly through Gibraltar on previous operations, I know how important it is to be able to transfer kit and equipment. The agreement seems to indicate that Gibraltar will be subject to Spanish export controls relating to defence equipment and dual-use technologies. Prior to agreeing the text, did the Minister consult the armed forces leadership in Gibraltar to ensure that service personnel can still carry on their duties, with kit not subject to Spanish export controls?

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

  More

  I think the vast majority of Members of this House can agree that the arguments for giving away our Chagos islands have been threadbare at best, which leads one to believe that there must be sensitive elements to the deal. It was, then, interesting to read what the former FCDO special adviser Ben Judah wrote: “Once you’ve been briefed, even partially, on what it”— that is, the base on Diego Garcia— “does the information gives you vertigo. Both now, and in government, communicating the details to the public would be violating the Official Secrets Acts.” Given that this deal is going to cost the British taxpayer billions of pounds, does the Minister not believe that it should be incumbent on the Government to declassify some of the information so that we here in Parliament and the British public know what we are paying for?

• 2 Feb 2026 · Military Independence from US · Hansard source

  More

  The Government now admit that they cannot ratify the Chagos treaty without first amending the UK-US agreement on Diego Garcia. Currently, that binding agreement requires Chagos to remain under UK sovereignty until at least 2036. Can the Minister confirm that if the United States does not agree to amend that agreement, the UK would be in breach of international law? More importantly, does this not mean that the Chagos giveaway deal is now dead in the water?