David Reed MP: speeches

Speeches

• 16 Jun 2025 · Iran-Israel Conflict · Hansard source

  More

  Does our closest ally, the United States, agree with this position on the situation? If not, what do we differ on?

• 20 May 2025 · UK-EU Summit · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister states that a new security and defence partnership will pave the way for British defence firms to access the new European defence fund, which I am sure we can collectively agree will allow our continent to defend ourselves against Putin’s autocratic regime. How long does the Prime Minister think access to this fund will take—weeks, months or years?

• 19 May 2025 · Legal Aid Agency: Cyber-security Incident · Hansard source

  More

  In recent months, the UK has experienced a number of very high-profile cyber-attacks right across the public and private sectors. Does the Minister agree that now is the time to update the Computer Misuse Act 1990 to enhance cyber-resilience through strengthened legal protections for cyber-security researchers? If her answer is yes, which Department is responsible for bringing about that change?

• 19 May 2025 · National Security Act 2023: Charges · Hansard source

  More

  Can the Home Secretary explain why the British envoy in Tehran was summoned by the Iranian authorities at the weekend? More importantly, does this not signal a complete disconnect from reality on the part of the Iranian state?

• 13 May 2025 · US Policy on Iran · Hansard source

  More

  Our United Kingdom and the United States are aligned in the view that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a serious threat to global stability. With nuclear negotiations currently under way between the US and Iran, can the Secretary of State inform the House what outcome his Department would consider to be a success from a British perspective? Crucially, does he have a contingency plan if those talks fail to produce an acceptable result?

• 13 May 2025 · US Policy on Iran · Hansard source

  More

  10. What discussions he has had with his US counterpart on the policy of the US Administration on Iran.

• 6 May 2025 · Victory in Europe and Victory over Japan: 80th Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  At the outbreak of the second world war, the National Service (Armed Forces) Act 1939 introduced conscription for all men aged between 18 and 41. Like so many of his generation, my grandfather Harry Fry Davis Reed, born in Plymouth in 1913, received his call-up papers. On 20 June 1940, he reported for duty in Exeter. He joined the newly formed 12th Battalion of the Devonshire Regiment, or the Devons. It was a battalion largely made up of conscripts serving for the duration of the war. Just one month later, the Nazi bombing of Plymouth began, and the city he called home, where he had grown up, lived and worked, came under relentless attack. Friends, neighbours and fellow Plymothians were killed. Streets were destroyed, and entire communities were changed forever. In the early years of the war, my grandfather helped defend the coastal areas of what is now my constituency of Exmouth and Exeter East. That knowledge speaks to me when I walk along local beaches at home. I often reflect on what it must have felt like to guard those shores under the threat of invasion, not knowing what would come next, only that you had to stand your ground. By 1943, the 12th Battalion had been redesignated as a glider-borne infantry unit within the 6th Airborne Division. Their mission was to fly into combat aboard Horsa gliders, which were unarmoured, fragile aircraft made from wood and canvas. The thought of falling from the sky into enemy territory under fire in such vulnerable aircraft is almost unimaginable, but that is exactly what they did. In 1944, my grandfather deployed to France for D-day. He left behind his young wife—my grandmother—and their two-year-old son, my father. While he went to war, his family remained under the shadow of the Luftwaffe as the bombing of Plymouth continued. Thousands more Plymothians would lose their lives. When Harry returned, it was to a city transformed by devastation and to a community that had endured untold suffering. But the war was far from over. In March 1945, his battalion took part in Operation Varsity—the airborne crossing of the Rhine. To this day, it remains the largest airborne operation ever conducted on a single day in one location. In the final weeks of the war they reached northern Germany, just south of Wismar. There they maintained their kit, kept sharp and waited, not knowing what horrors lay ahead. Victory in Europe was declared on 8 May 1945. The Devons were granted leave, and many attended a thanksgiving service in a nearby village. Relief no doubt filled the air, but the war’s final chapter was still to be written. In the days that followed, they came face to face with the unimaginable: the atrocities of the Nazi concentration camps. Those images would no doubt remain etched in their minds forever. I never had the chance to meet my grandfather, as he died many years before I was born, but I am deeply proud of him. His story, while personal, is not unique. That is exactly why I share it. Up and down our United Kingdom, families carry stories just like this—stories of ordinary people thrust into extraordinary circumstances, and stories of courage, endurance, loss and love. These stories are not rare; they are woven into the fabric of our nation. Though I have served in the Royal Marines and experienced war myself, I still find it hard to truly comprehend what that generation went through. Their sacrifice, on a scale that few of us today can fully grasp, was made in the name of freedom, in defence of democracy, and in defiance of tyranny. It was a burden carried for all of us. To that generation—our greatest generation—we owe a debt that can never truly be repaid. But we can remember, and we can honour, and we can ensure that their legacy lives on. Because of their courage, we have lived in peace. For that, I will always be grateful. We will remember them.

• 6 May 2025 · Counter Terrorism Policing: Arrests · Hansard source

  More

  It is clear that the issues we see from Iran and its proxies are shared across many European countries. The Minister raised the recent Government sanctions on the Foxtrot network. However, the EU has just rejected the PM’s bid to access the bloc’s crime and migration database. Does the Minister see that as an issue that would stop us thwarting future threats from Iran and its proxies?

• 30 Apr 2025 · Energy Grid Resilience · Hansard source

  More

  Recent events in Spain and Portugal highlight the wide range of challenges facing power grids, and we have heard many in previous questions. Those incidents show the complexity of effective reporting and the ability to respond rapidly, and the skills required span multiple Departments, including the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, DSIT, the National Cyber Security Centre and the Met Office, which is based in my constituency. This raises an important question: who is responsible for co-ordinating reporting for similar incidents in the UK? More importantly, does the Minister’s Department have the right skillsets to respond?

• 22 Apr 2025 · British Steel · Hansard source

  More

  There is consensus across this House that producing steel in the UK is completely necessary—that is undeniable. However, to produce steel we need coking coal. The US has given us a supply line for the next couple of weeks to keep our blast furnaces alive, and I know that the Minister is speaking to Australia and Sweden as well, but we need the ability to produce coking coal, so will the Minister please breathe fire into producing coking coal here in the UK?

• 22 Apr 2025 · Birmingham: Waste Collection · Hansard source

  More

  Could the Minister—or the Pied Piper, as he is quickly becoming known—clear up the record, please? In his opening statement, he said that the military offered its support to clear up this mess. Did it offer, or was it ordered by his Department to provide support, because his Government cannot stand up to the unions?

• 8 Apr 2025 · Armed Forces Covenant · Hansard source

  More

  I want to put on the record my thanks to the hon. and gallant Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) for bringing the report to the Chamber today. The Government must urgently reconsider the proposed changes to the application of inheritance tax on certain armed forces death-in-service payments. The Forces Pension Society has described that as “a direct breach of the Armed Forces Covenant”, warning that it will have a “corrosive” impact on serving personnel and undermine trust in Government. Does the hon. Member agree with that, and what steps does he think the Government need to take to rectify the situation as quickly as possible?

• 7 Apr 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency of Exmouth and Exeter East, the Lib Dem local council is proposing to build tens of thousands of new homes with little thought for corresponding infrastructure. I have spoken to local councillors, and they believe they have no agency in this process and central Government are telling them what to do. What more can be done to ensure that local authorities are held accountable for their decisions?

• 2 Apr 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  As we come to the end of this urgent question, I am still no clearer on the substance of this disastrous deal, so the House must now make assumptions. Given that the Minister is sat next to the Minister for the Armed Forces, can we assume that this deal will be coming out from the Ministry of Defence?

• 26 Mar 2025 · Spring Statement · Hansard source

  More

  Given that the Chancellor chose not to mention Chagos in her statement, and that she chose not to answer the shadow Chancellor’s question on Chagos, can the House assume that this disastrous deal will not be going ahead, and that, more importantly, the UK taxpayer will not be footing the bill?

• 20 Mar 2025 · Agricultural and Business Property Reliefs · Hansard source

  More

  3. What estimate he has made of the number of farmers affected by changes to agricultural and business property reliefs.

• 20 Mar 2025 · Agricultural and Business Property Reliefs · Hansard source

  More

  I am starting to feel like DEFRA Ministers are purposefully ignoring me and Devon’s farming community. I have given the Secretary of State since early December to answer my letters and my invitations to meet with Devon’s farming community, in order to explain how changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief are going to affect them. At the last DEFRA questions, I called out the Secretary of State for not replying to any of my requests. The Minister for food, farming and fisheries replied from the Dispatch Box that “I would love to meet farmers in Devon, so I am happy to add him to the list for my grand tour across the country to reassure people that there is a strong plan to ensure that farmers have a viable future”. —[ Official Report , 6 February 2025; Vol. 761, c. 909.] So far, those platitudes have gone unrealised. With less than a month until these changes take effect, Devon’s farmers are still in the dark about how the changes are going to affect them. If this is how Ministers treat fellow MPs, is it any wonder that farmers up and down the country feel completely abandoned by this Labour Government?

• 13 Mar 2025 · Hospitality Industry · Hansard source

  More

  15. What steps he is taking to support the hospitality industry.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Hospitality Industry · Hansard source

  More

  The Crusty Cob bakery has been a constant in east Devon for the past 55 years, but last week the family-run business closed the doors on all nine of its shops, making over 100 local people redundant. The owners stated a panoply of issues, from manufacturing costs to reduced high street footfall and energy prices, but the kicker is the decision that this Business Secretary’s party has made to slam companies with increases to the national living wage and employer national insurance contributions. The effects of this Labour Government’s decisions are setting in and literally destroying working family businesses. Will the Business Secretary and the Minister please give a message to the Crusty Cob team who have just lost their jobs?

• 12 Mar 2025 · Housing Development Planning: Water Companies · Hansard source

  More

  I too want to hear from the Minister what plans he has to make sure that infrastructure keeps pace with development. The community infrastructure levy is another funding mechanism, but CIL revenue is stretched across multiple infrastructure needs, and not all funds go towards water and the sewerage system. The local plans allow local councils such as mine, East Devon district council, to set policies to ensure sustainable development. However, the policies depend on voluntary co-operation from water companies and developers. If a water company refuses to engage early, the council lacks the full picture when making planning decisions. Developers can also challenge infrastructure requirements if they increase costs, which leads to weak enforcement. Given these issues, I argue, as other Members have, that water companies must become statutory consultees in planning applications. That would mean that developments could not proceed unless water companies confirm that infrastructure is in place to support them. The case of Cranbrook in my home area demonstrates the consequences of failing to integrate water infrastructure planning with house building. If we do nothing, we will see similar issues arise across the country, with more communities left to suffer the consequences of inadequate water and sewerage systems.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Housing Development Planning: Water Companies · Hansard source

  More

  I hear the points that the Minister has made. Will he confirm that his Department is not going to make water companies statutory consultees in the planning process?

• 12 Mar 2025 · Housing Development Planning: Water Companies · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Lewell-Buck. I thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing this important debate. This is an issue on which I hope we can find cross-party consensus and bring about the meaningful and effective change that we and our constituents badly want to see in the water industry. I start with a case study from my constituency that illustrates the problematic nature of how the current planning framework operates in relation to water companies. Cranbrook is a rapidly growing new town in east Devon: the 2021 census recorded just 6,700 people, but the local council is proposing to grow the town to 8,000 homes, which will accommodate around 20,000 people. During the planning phase for the town, our local water company, South West Water, promised a dedicated sewage pumping station to treat waste locally and prevent the overloading of existing infrastructure. However, South West Water has since scrapped the proposed pumping station, and instead redirects Cranbrook’s waste six miles away to the Countess Wear sewage treatment works in Exeter. Countess Wear is already under pressure and suffers regular sewage spills into our beautiful River Exe. It does not take big brains to work out that, at Cranbrook’s projected growth rates, the current plan is unsustainable at best and dangerous at worst. If local politicians and pressure groups had known at the time that South West Water would not make good on its promise or be held accountable, I should imagine that objections to the town being built would have been louder and more persistent. As we all know, this Labour Government have committed to building 1.5 million new homes in this Parliament, yet they have not adequately explained how they will ensure that infrastructure will keep pace with development. With multiple proposals for new housing in my constituency, as well as proposals for a new town—in addition to Cranbrook—I fear that the same avoidable mistake will happen to my home twice. For the record, I am not against house building, but I am against house building that is delivered without the corresponding infrastructure. The issue of water infrastructure planning has long been overlooked, yet it is crucial to ensuring that new housing developments do not lead to avoidable environmental and public health disasters. As we have heard, water companies are not statutory consultees in the planning process. Their role is limited to local plan development, meaning that they often engage far too late, once planning applications are well under way. This lack of early involvement leads to delays, unco-ordinated infrastructure and, ultimately, a failure of accountability when things go wrong. To offset that flaw in planning law, local councils are resorting to other mechanisms to force compliant behaviour from water companies. We have heard about Grampian conditions, which are designed to prevent development from proceeding until certain infrastructure requirements are met. However, they do not force water companies to deliver the necessary infrastructure. If a water company delays investment, a development can be stalled indefinitely —or, worse, proceed without proper infrastructure, leading to sewage overflows and environmental damage. We have heard about section 106 agreements, which are legally binding and require developers to fund infrastructure projects. However, water companies are not legally required to use these funds for local improvements, meaning that money intended for vital infrastructure could be diverted elsewhere.

• 3 Mar 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  Credit where credit is due: I commend the Prime Minister for the leadership that he has shown over the past week. Many Members across the House will understand the range of emotions that are felt before a deployment on global operations. Will the Prime Minister send a message to the brave men and women across our armed forces who are mentally preparing to deploy to Ukraine?

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. and gallant Member not think that her constituents have a right to know how much this deal is going to cost them before it is negotiated and finished?

• 12 Feb 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q5. Last week, the Prime Minister gave yet another threadbare excuse for why he and his north London lawyer friends are giving away the Chagos islands. This is his decision, and he must own it. More importantly, he cannot tell us, British taxpayers, how much this is going to cost. Is it £9 billion? Is it £18 billion? Is it £52 billion? The Times has called this botched deal “insane”, members of his own Cabinet reportedly think it is impossible to understand, and one of his own MPs thinks it is the worst thing that the Labour party has ever done. Can the Prime Minister tell us which word he thinks best describes this deal?