What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,868 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
I thank my hon. Friend for her tireless work in this area. She is absolutely right that we must stand united against those who seek to divide us. Our social cohesion action plan sets out how we will tackle extremism, bring communities together and restore national pride, and we are providing local communities with up to £1.7 million to insulate them against the threats to social cohesion.
Did the hon. Member just refer to the nuclear deterrent as “ordinary”?
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
I am pleased to have been a signatory to the application for this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) on securing it. [Laughter.] Therein is a lesson. The subject of the debate—rearmament and readiness—could hardly be of greater importance to our constituents, our military and the future security of our nation. I thank Members of all parties who have contributed to a compelling discussion, and I welcome the opportunity to respond to some of the points that have been raised. You can enjoy the confusion of my moving between my speech and the notes I have taken. I will attempt to explain how the Ministry of Defence is working to get our armed forces warfighting ready as an urgent priority. However, I will start by responding to the principal criticism of the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) that there is no new money. I emphasise that £300 billion is new money; £15 billion is new money. I will never, ever let you forget the cold water that I endured in the messes of the bases on which I served—
The removal of funding specifically in 2010 resulted in the removal of Nimrod and the reduction of our shipyards and boatyards, which has led to the risks that are manifesting today. The Opposition cannot deny that is the reason that we are in the position we are in now.
In time. Two years ago, this Government inherited a defence programme that was overcommitted, underfunded and fundamentally unsuited to countering the very real threats we now face. Since then, we have published a strategic defence review, the defence industrial strategy and, most recently, the defence investment plan. We are building a far more modern and lethal military, through massive increases in defence spending, radical reform of the armed forces and close collaboration with our NATO partners to protect Europe’s and Britain’s borders, showing Putin that the alliance remains as strong as ever. As technology reshapes warfare at the fastest pace in history, and as the world becomes increasingly dangerous, our overwhelming focus at the Ministry of Defence is to get warfighting ready as fast as possible, and that was the critical tilt in the change between the two Defence Secretary’s DIPs. This DIP is a defining moment in that journey, committing, as I said, £298 billion for our armed forces over the next four years, ensuring that they have the kit and weapons they need. That is £15 billion more—more than significant—and £1.5 billion more than was announced just a few weeks ago. The DIP means that UK defence spending will rise in real terms by 27% between 2023-24 and 2029-30—the largest sustained increase since the cold war. Indeed, the Ministry of Defence budget will grow faster over this Parliament than the budget of any other major Department. The £74 billion allocated next year—2027-28—is £20 billion more for our armed forces than the last year of the previous Government, and the budget will continue to grow in real terms for the rest of this Parliament.
Twenty four years of serving this great nation means that I am acutely aware of the risks that the Opposition presented me and manifested during my time in service. That is why I am resolute in addressing these challenges and why I am backing the defence investment plan. Let me make one point crystal clear: Britain has always met its NATO spending obligations in the past, and under this Government we always will. That begins with the early delivery of our first commitment to raise defence investment to 2.7% of GDP next year, compared with just 2.3%, which was missing from the Opposition’s analysis of the decline in our defence spending.
My hon. Friend has advocated for the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank and alternative finance methods for the past two years. It was pleasing to see the DSR Bank announcement from Canada over the last couple of days alongside the multilateral defence mechanism announcement from our Government, which, significantly, was joined by Poland. I hope that we will see the DSR and the MDM aligned as we go forward.
Not at the moment. Let us jump forward to tech. It is not about how much we spend but about how we spend it, as we heard repeatedly in the debate. It is about how we rearm and get to warfighting readiness. The DIP will energise the transformation of our armed forces and target resources to reflect how war is waged today. We will sequence the delivery of a NATO-first transformed and integrated force powered by modern technology. Through the DIP, AI autonomy and uncrewed systems will receive the sustained increase in support that reflects their strategic importance. I will pivot to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells about the hybrid Navy. The DIP speeds up the transition to the hybrid Navy. I have a great deal of respect for him, but it is incoherent to talk about future manned flight but talk down an autonomous fleet. On my visit to Portsmouth only last week, a member of our Royal Navy said “Never again” as we walked past a Type 45, and made it clear that the work on the Type 83 had stopped a significant time ago—it is an incoherent conversation. For the Type 23, every refurbishment takes two to three years and costs us £100 million, while £115 million has given our nation the autonomous capability that we are rolling out in the middle east. That is how incoherent the hon. Member’s argument is.
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I agree that this will be testing, but we must take up the challenge, and we need people like him on the Defence Committee to ensure that we are held to account while we proceed with delivery. The DIP also speeds up the transition to: a digitally enabled Army that is 10 times more lethal; the next generation of combat air, including a potent mix of crewed and uncrewed air power; a new uncrewed systems taskforce to rapidly develop and deliver field autonomous capabilities; and Europe’s biggest drone testing site in Swindon. I remind those who do down our nation and say, “We aren’t building enough” that at the moment we are providing 150,000 drones a year to Ukraine.
I thank the right hon. Member for his question. Perhaps we should have a discussion about it outside, because of its ambiguity—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member and I will speak afterwards. The programme of rapid rearmament mentioned in the motion of this debate has not only begun; we are well on our way to delivering it, with significant and further increases in funding to come. That means an unprecedented investment in new technologies, new munitions, new factories and new jobs. It means creating a path to 3% and then 3.5% of GDP, and having honest public conversations about the very serious threats we face. As a fellow veteran, I know how committed the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells is to strengthening UK defence. I hope we get behind this national endeavour, which represents an historic upturn in support for our military and for our brilliant service personnel who keep Britain safe in an increasingly uncertain world.
As an MP who represents a constituency at the heart of the golden triangle, with one in five of my constituents working in logistics, this issue comes up regularly, including most recently with Steve Deveraux from BSI Transport, who explained to me the costs and the red tape that the current entry system creates. Will the Minister set out what assessment his office has made about the economic impact of the new system on HGV drivers and hauliers, and what measures the Department will take to support that sector going forward?
May I congratulate the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) on securing a debate on this important topic? I thank him for all his engagement on this and many other issues, and for his leadership on the energy transition. In the rising noise in and outside this place against facts on the climate crisis in front of us today, it is genuinely a relief to have conversations with him about what we can do about the reality. On that, he makes a hugely important contribution to the House. In all my engagements with him, I come away having learned something new; I thank him for that. I will start where the hon. Gentleman started: by recognising that we cannot put off our response to the climate crisis to tomorrow. We are now living through extremely hot weather caused in part by the action that we did not take to tackle the climate crisis. While this is one of the hottest summers that we have lived through, it is almost certainly one of the coldest summers that we will live through, so every single step we can take to tackle this crisis should be taken. We absolutely need greenhouse gas removal technologies to reach net zero and to tackle the climate crisis. Such technologies give us a not just a huge opportunity to balance the residual emissions from hard-to-decarbonise sectors, but—as we have said throughout all of the work the Government are doing on the clean power mission and beyond—an exciting opportunity to grow our economy and secure new investment into the UK. When I say that, I mean all parts of the UK, including Northern Ireland, which the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) rightly always challenges me on. This is not just the Government’s view; it is firmly the view of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and our own independent Climate Change Committee. That is why we are looking ahead and investing in these technologies. Last year, in our carbon budget and growth delivery plan, we set out how the UK will continue to reduce emissions in a way that lowers bills and secures good jobs, including developing and deploying GGRs at scale. We forecast 0.7 megatonnes of engineered GGRs deployed in 2030, with that figure increasing exponentially to 21.8 megatonnes by 2035. We are laying the groundwork now to support the massive growth that we expect to see in the 2030s, because, as exciting as these technologies are, they are new, and it will take a comprehensive and holistic policy framework to get us to where we need to be. I will set out six steps, many of which will respond to the points made by the hon. Gentleman. The first is providing support to incentivise private investment through a contractual revenue support mechanism. That is the GGR business model, designed to stimulate private investment in GGRs by providing revenue support under a contract for difference mechanism. It aims to capitalise on growing demand for high integrity GGRs in the voluntary carbon market and, in the longer term, in the UK emissions trading scheme, designed to enable the deployment of GGR projects at scale in the UK while ensuring at all times value for money for taxpayers. We are employing similar approaches to support energy from waste, with carbon capture and storage through the waste industrial carbon capture business model and large-scale bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, or BECCS, through our power BECCS business model. We are also exploring the case for financing GGR technologies not reliant on CO2 transport and storage infrastructure, such as enhanced rock weathering and CO2 mineralisation in building materials, as we recognise that there are a number of benefits to a diverse portfolio of GGR technologies. No decisions have been made on the particular intervention or mechanism. I want to reference the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised with me before and he raised today as well on the British carbon bank, or the idea of some kind of revolving fund. It is a serious idea that we will look at carefully, because we recognise that there is a real benefit to having that portfolio in place. We have already invested money, as I will come on to, but looking at interventions like that is important. We will continue to engage with him and the wider sector on how that could work. Secondly, we are introducing a new standard to ensure that investors and the public have confidence in these technologies. To complement the business models, we have commissioned the British Standards Institution to develop methodologies under an official UK GGR standard, and that is expected to be published next year. This is about making sure that carbon removals are genuine and verifiable, and having a standard in place so that we can objectively assess the viability and suitability of projects applying to the business model. The BSI development process generates high-integrity standards and benchmarks, bringing together industry specialists, academics and policymakers from across relevant sectors to produce a consensus-based final product. It is an example of a strong point made by the hon. Gentleman: everything we need to make this work is already here in Britain. The academics, the industry specialists, the skills and the capabilities are all here, and we just need to look at how we capitalise on those resources as quickly as possible. Thirdly, we know that carbon capture, usage and storage infrastructure is critical for enabling some of these technologies, and we have been committed to deploying CCUS at scale. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) about the need to capitalise on investment that we have already made, and to continue down that path by investing in these projects. In October 2024, just a few months after we took office, we made a significant funding commitment of up to £21.7 billion over 25 years to kick-start the CCUS industry here in Britain. GGR projects have been able to apply to the expansion of the HyNet and East Coast clusters through the HyNet Track-1 expansion process, the Teesside selection process and the non-pipeline transport pathfinder process—all very catchy names. I can already confirm that the HyNet Track-1 expansion includes two GGR projects that are in the negotiation phase of that process. Fourthly, we are investing in innovation. For many of these technologies, there is research that still needs to be undertaken and there are breakthroughs that are waiting to be made. We have already invested over £80 million through the direct air capture and greenhouse gas removal innovation programme and the UK Research and Innovation funded greenhouse gas removal demonstrator programme and its co-ordinating hub. The carbon budget and growth delivery plan committed to launching a series of cleantech innovation challenges that target mission-critical innovation. These will set specific, measurable, time-bound goals for innovation, co-owned with industry, which will mobilise public and private sector investment and focus policy efforts on creating the necessary market pull for new technologies and, in the process, de-risking those investments into new innovations. That leads me to the fifth point about how we stimulate market demand. We want to engineer GGR projects to generate high-quality carbon credits that can be sold on high-integrity negative emissions markets, and so we will maximise the opportunity for the voluntary carbon markets to channel private finance into those GGR projects. At COP29, we launched six principles for voluntary carbon and nature market integrity to guide organisations into taking voluntary action towards nature-positive and net zero goals. When we consulted on those principles with stakeholders, they highlighted that, in order to unlock the full potential of the voluntary carbon market, there is a need for greater clarity on the definition of high-quality carbon credits and how credits could be used in corporate net zero claims. Alongside the Governments of Singapore and Kenya, we are leading development of the Coalition to Grow Carbon Markets to strengthen corporate demand for high-integrity carbon credits, and anyone and everyone is welcome to join that coalition. Our long-term ambition is for a competitive negative emissions market, underpinned by demand in the carbon market and the UK emissions trading scheme. We have signalled our intention to include GGRs in the UK ETS. Last summer, the ETS authority published a response to the consultation on the inclusion of GGRs in the ETS, setting out further details on how we will do this. Finally, we are considering the findings of the independent review into GGRs that we commissioned last year under my noble Friend and all-round GGR and general energy expert and nerd, Lord Whitehead, who did fantastic work. I can assure the hon. Member for West Dorset and the House that that review is certainly not gathering dust on my desk; I have been flicking through it far too much for it to be gathering dust. I can say to the hon. Gentleman that the review includes many interesting and useful conclusions. We are taking time to go through them in detail, but we aim to publish the response this month. I am sorry that that is not quite an exact date, but I hope it is close enough. I hope that the steps that I have outlined today will reassure the House that this Government take the future of GGRs extremely seriously. We know that these technologies will be essential to reducing our emissions while growing the economy on the road to net zero by 2050, and that is why we are acting now. I want to conclude by coming back to the point where the hon. Gentleman started. It is absolutely critical that we rebuild, where we can, the consensus on acting on the most existential crisis that this planet faces. The climate crisis is not some future threat that we can have a theoretical debate about now and worry about later; it is a very real and pressing threat, and GGRs will play a really important part in addressing it. The Government are determined to make that happen, and there is an economic opportunity if we get this right as well. I absolutely commit to working with the wider industry, with the hon. Gentleman and with everyone else who has an interest in this fascinating subject in order to make this work.
I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation (Establishment) Order 2026. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Huq. The order was laid before the House on 4 June. It will establish a centrally led urban development corporation in greater Cambridge, pursuant to the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, which provides that the Secretary of State may designate an urban development area only when they are of the opinion that it is expedient and in the national interest, and following a public consultation. As the Committee will be aware, the economic growth of Cambridge over recent years has been a phenomenal success. It now has arguably the most intensive and innovative science and technology cluster in the world, with more than 5,000 knowledge-intensive firms based in and around the city, employing tens of thousands of skilled workers and generating in excess of £18 billion in annual turnover. However, the supply-side constraints that are evident across the Oxford-Cambridge corridor, from infrastructure deficiencies to housing affordability, are particularly acute in greater Cambridge. Its continued position as a world-leading centre of innovation, its ability to make an even greater contribution to the UK economy, and the quality of life experienced by its existing residents are all dependent on removing those constraints. Local institutions and leaders have worked hard to support the rapid growth of greater Cambridge over recent years. Over the past two years, the Government have intervened alongside local authorities and the greater Cambridge shared planning service to address pressing constraints such as water scarcity. Such action has helped to unlock more than 9,000 homes, 500,000 square feet of commercial space, and a new cancer research hospital. It is widely accepted, however, that delivering development at the scale and pace necessary to realise the full potential of greater Cambridge is beyond the capacity and powers of existing institutions. It was for that reason that, between 4 February and 1 April this year, we consulted on proposals to establish the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation—a centrally led urban development corporation with the legislative powers, focus and resources to unlock the area’s full potential. I once again thank all the organisations and individuals who took the time to engage with the process. The prevailing theme among responses was that infrastructure delivery in greater Cambridge has been slow and piecemeal, or has failed to keep pace with historical population and employment growth, and that that was having a detrimental impact on residents’ quality of life, constraining the region’s ability to scale its globally significant innovation economy, and reducing business and investor confidence. Individuals and organisations widely reported that greater Cambridge has lacked a strategic, co-ordinated and long-term approach to the rapid delivery of primary infrastructure. Complex governance, fragmented decision making and uncertain long-term funding were identified as obstacles to delivering at the scale and pace required. While fully acknowledging the strong local efforts that have been made and the excellent performance of the greater Cambridge shared planning service, the consultation confirmed the Government’s belief that the scale and complexity of the development challenges faced by greater Cambridge required a bold and long-term approach, and a genuine step change in how infrastructure is planned, co-ordinated and delivered; and that the establishment of a centrally led development corporation, combining responsiveness to local priorities with national leadership and influence, would be the most effective way to unlock nationally significant growth at the pace and scale required. The development corporation established by the order will unleash ambitious and high-quality sustainable growth in greater Cambridge to the benefit of its existing communities and the country as a whole. Once established, the corporation’s boundary will align with the current combined administrative areas of Cambridge city council and South Cambridgeshire district council. This broad development area will underpin the corporation’s ability to deliver its objectives and make effective use of its powers, enabling the scale of growth necessary to deliver on both local and national interests.
That is a very good question. In short, although I am more than happy to expand on this response, the development corporation’s boundary does not pre-empt or prejudice the outcome of the recent consultation on local government reorganisation. The Government would, of course, consider, through due process, any changes to the development area that are deemed necessary as a result of any local government reorganisation but, as I say, that does not pre-empt or prejudice what we are taking through by dint of this order. The Government have worked hard to sustain a constructive relationship with local leaders and key partners. We want the development corporation to be a joint national and local endeavour that combines local insight and input from local democratically elected representatives with national leadership powers and investment. As such, the democratically elected leaders of Cambridge city council, South Cambridgeshire district council and Cambridgeshire county council, as well as the democratically elected Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, will be invited to join the board. The Government also recognise that input from residents and communities will be integral to the success of the development corporation. That is why it will be asked to create exemplary engagement structures to enable broader community participation, including from residents, community representatives, and town and parish councillors. The order will establish the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation as an independent corporate entity, allowing it to be granted infrastructure, financial and land assembly powers in due course. The powers and functions order, which my officials are preparing for consideration later this year, will equip the development corporation with planning powers, including the ability to determine planning applications above a minimum threshold of 250 homes, and non-residential applications above 5,000 square metres. Our intention is that the development corporation will eventually take on plan-making powers. However, we believe the optimal way to kick-start growth in the plan-led system is to take a phased approach. As such, the development corporation will exercise plan-making powers only once the draft local plan has been adopted. The Government are clear that adoption of the draft local plan should not limit or delay future ambition for growth and, subject to its adoption, successor plans will be expected to build positively on the draft local plan’s foundations to support continued growth. The development corporation will also be granted development management powers for strategic sites within its boundary. Only applications for sites of strategic importance will be determined by the development corporation. The vast majority of planning applications will continue to be determined by the greater Cambridge shared planning service. The Government recognise and accept that almost all strategic residential developments will be of over 1,000 houses, flats, or houses and flats. However, to account for the possibility of residential development prejudicing the delivery of sites of strategic importance, residential thresholds will be set at a minimum of 250 houses, flats, or houses and flats. Any application that is determined by the development corporation will still be considered against national and local policy, and subject to public consultation as normal. That combination of powers will provide the development corporation with the tools, certainty and investment needed for sustainable infrastructure-first growth. The model will form an exemplar for integrated powers and funding, and set the standard for housing development elsewhere in the country. The order will establish the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation as an entity accountable to the Secretary of State and set out the geographical boundary in which it may operate. The Greater Cambridge Development Corporation will focus on the delivery of strategic, nationally significant growth within its boundary. It will work collaboratively with local authorities both within and bordering its development area, as well as with transport bodies and utility providers, to unlock development opportunities and boost economic growth. I extend my sincere thanks to local leaders and their officers in greater Cambridge for their hard work and ongoing constructive collaboration in pursuit of our shared objective of supporting ambitious and high-quality sustainable growth in Cambridge and its environs. I also thank Peter Freeman for his continued leadership of the Cambridge Growth Company and commend the CGC for everything it has done to date to help to facilitate the delivery of new homes, infrastructure, and commercial and laboratory space. I hope that hon. Members agree on the value of establishing the development corporation. I commend the order to the Committee.
That was a long list of perfectly reasonable and fair questions, which I will seek to answer in turn. If I miss any, hon. Members are more than welcome to intervene on me. I will begin with the questions from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. The order establishes, as a corporate body, a centrally led urban development corporation, not a mayoral development corporation. The sitting Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough will have representation, with a seat on the board, but the mayor and his area will not be controlling this development corporation; it is very different from the mayoral development corporation model. I think the Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough has designs on a mayoral development corporation for Peterborough, but that would be a delivery vehicle very different from the one we are establishing here. The mayor will, however, have representation on the board along with other local authority leaders. The shadow Minister asked me about the planning committee modernisation statutory instrument that we voted on today. That will apply to local authority committees in the ways we discussed when we considered that instrument in Committee. As I said in my opening remarks, we expect the vast majority of planning applications still to be determined by the greater Cambridge shared planning service. I will come on to why we have taken the development management powers we propose to in the functions order that will follow in the months to come, and why we have chosen the 250-home threshold, but planning committees are a local planning authority designation. The development corporation, as an entity and delivery vehicle in itself, will take particular development management powers to determine specific sites, which I will come on to in a moment. The same goes for conditions that would be associated with a planning permission. We think those development management powers are important to accelerate strategic growth in an integrated and co-ordinated way. The decision to grant development management powers to the development corporation for strategic sites reflects the need to balance local and national planning merits to facilitate nationally significant growth in the area. I bring us back to the objective of the development corporation to facilitate nationally significant growth, which local leaders—they have made great efforts over recent years—are quite clear that they are not able to do. When it comes to some very serious constraints—the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire mentioned water scarcity—local leaders have not been able on their own to remove some of these barriers. That is what the development corporation is for. Development management powers will be granted for sites of strategic importance. We will define what “strategic importance” means at a later date, but as a proxy for a definition of strategic sites, the development corporation will use the minimum thresholds that we outlined in the Government response to the consultation on 3 June. We gave a flavour in the consultation of the type of sites we have in mind. I think we listed seven sites, which are major sites already identified in the local plan. I hope that gives the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire a sense of the type of strategic sites that we are talking about. We need the threshold because the development corporation can delegate decision making to the greater Cambridge shared planning service, but that service is unable to reverse-delegate the determination of planning applications to the development corporation. As such, we judge that if the threshold for residential development were set at a level higher than 250 homes, the development corporation would be unable to exercise development management powers for any application that fell below that threshold, even if the application could prejudice the delivery of a strategic site. That is the central objective of the 250-home threshold. We do need the development corporation to have the ability to move in and determine an application on a site that might impact the delivery of a strategic site. As I said to the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire and the Committee, we will come back and define a “strategic site” in more detail as we take forward the functions order later this year. To reassure him, that functions order will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure; we will have a chance to debate and vote on it in the House. [Official Report, 8 July 2026; Vol. 789, c. 422.] (Correction.) The shadow Minister raised a point about boundaries. Again, this is all outlined in the 3 June Government response to the consultation: 42% of respondents to the consultation agreed with our proposed boundaries—the Cambridge city council and South Cambridgeshire district council administrative areas—23% felt they were too small, and 33% felt they were too wide. We recognise that there is a wide range of views about what the precise boundaries should be, but we judge that the boundaries as consulted on are a broad development area that will allow and underpin the development corporation’s ability to deliver its objectives and make effective use of its powers, enabling the scale of growth that is necessary to deliver on both local and national interests. As set out in the consultation, the proposed boundary encompasses the land required to support strategic infrastructure, providing a sufficiently broad geography to maximise funding opportunities and enable land value capture to support social and environmental projects. Aligning the boundaries with those of Cambridge city council and South Cambridgeshire district council will simplify the governance arrangements in this area—that has been a real source of challenge over recent years—and enable the development corporation to support the delivery of the draft local plan. I am glad that the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire mentioned the draft local plan. We are working very closely with the shared planning service and democratically elected local leaders. We want to see that draft plan adopted. On the Secretary of State’s powers as they apply to the development corporation and its ability to take planning powers in the future, we do want it to have those powers; we think that is absolutely necessary to set out a spatial plan for the years to come. This development corporation will exist for at least 25 years, perhaps longer, but we want to see that local plan in place in the first instance, and the Government are doing what we can to support that process and help the authority get the plan in place. On local government reorganisation, to add briefly to what I said in response to the intervention from the hon. Member for Broxbourne, proposals for reorganisation in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough were received in November 2025 and recently went out to consultation. As I said, the development corporation’s boundary, established by this order, does not pre-empt or prejudice the outcome of LGR in that regard. I push back quite strongly on the challenge from the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire that we have not outlined in any way the objectives of the development corporation. If he reads the Government response to the consultation, published on 3 June, he will see exhaustive explanations of why we think the development corporation is necessary and the sort of capacity, powers and ability it can leverage in on private finance, land assembly and all these matters to meet the shared objectives for the area. We will build on that with the functions order—we will detail precisely how the planning powers and the development management powers will come through—but to assure him, the development corporation will have powers to directly plan, fund and deliver essential infrastructure to support regeneration, including utilities such as water. Targets for the development corporation’s objectives will be set across the development corporation’s corporate plan, framework document and development plan, and in individual business plans for all projects. We will have a chance to scrutinise those documents, among others. I hope that I have responded to all the points raised by hon. Members. I think this is a fairly straightforward and simple instrument, which establishes the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation as a legal body and sets the geographical boundaries in which that development corporation will operate. I commend the order to the Committee. Question put.
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to correct an inadvertent error I made earlier today. During the Ninth Delegated Legislation Committee debate on the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation (Establishment) Order 2026, I inadvertently stated that a relevant powers and functions order would fall under the affirmative procedure, when it will actually be made under the negative procedure. [Official Report, Ninth Delegated Legislation Committee, 8 July 2026; c. 10.]
I take every opportunity to champion Northern Ireland’s brilliant manufacturing sector, and whether it is Denroy, Airbus or Thales, or even Harland & Wolff, which has just announced that it is bidding for a major UK-Dutch shipbuilding deal, there is a lot to champion.
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend; many opportunities are arising from the defence growth deal, on which I have worked closely. Many businesses, small and large, across Northern Ireland have dual-servicing capability and they have a real opportunity here. We are supporting them every step of the way.
I worry that the hon. and learned Member is in danger of talking down Northern Ireland and its incredible business opportunities. We are here to champion it. If issues arise from the Brexit that he and others championed, we do our very best to ensure that trades flow smoothly.
My hon. Friend is a powerful campaigner on this issue. The Secretary of State and I recognise the importance of fishing industries across the United Kingdom, and the Secretary of State visited Kilkeel earlier this year with Minister Muir, where this topic was raised. Immigration changes are designed to ensure that our domestic workforce has access to good jobs, and the Secretary of State has written to the Home Secretary about the issue.
As I have said, we have written to the Home Secretary about these issues, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will be making her case very powerfully as well. It is our duty to work with businesses across the UK to ensure that they are ready for these changes. We want our fishing industry to thrive, and we want people here to benefit from those good jobs.
As the hon. Gentleman will know, we totally support our fishing sector, and I am interested to hear more about that proposal. If the Immigration Minister is speaking with the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby, I will, of course, try to be part of those meetings to hear whatever I can hear.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) for securing this important debate. The previous Government wreaked havoc on the NHS, with waiting times at an all-time high even before covid-19 hit a bruised and battered system. Under-investment and undelivered promises saw corridor care become commonplace, with its subsequent indignity and risk. It is a clear visual demonstration of a system on its knees. This Labour Government are determined to act. The urgent and emergency care plan for 2025-26 provided more than £450 million of investment in urgent and emergency care. Additional millions of pounds of capital investment, reaching £1.9 billion over the next four years, will help to deliver it. Links between hospitals and social care are clear and critical, which is why the Government are working to implement a national care service and initiatives such as the first-ever fair pay agreement for adult social care staff. Watford general hospital in my constituency is on the new hospitals programme, but it was previously delayed endlessly under the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition Government and subsequent Conservative Governments. However, under this Labour Government, it is seeing tangible action in preparation for the rebuild. West Hertfordshire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust has worked incredibly hard in my constituency to deal with corridor care, and I am delighted to say that corridor care has been eradicated altogether at Watford general hospital. It has not had a single incident of corridor care for six months. How has it managed that remarkable achievement? First, the hospital has taken a whole-hospital approach to flow, making it everybody’s business and therefore everybody’s concern. The trust states: “The simple rule is we don’t accept corridor care in our wards. We find other solutions.” Secondly, the hospital has embraced data, embedding it into everything that it does to manage the flow of patients. It has real-time data tools such as electronic bed management, e-whiteboards and a digital command centre. Six key measures have been identified, which staff are using and which are easy to understand. Thirdly, the trust has engaged in partnership working—it could not tackle corridor care in A&E alone. There is a care co-ordination centre to reduce the number of ambulances coming into A&E for those who do not need emergency treatment; a multidisciplinary team to advise paramedics on where people should be treated; and close working with social care, treating people away from hospital, as is included in the NHS 10-year plan. In conclusion, I place on record my thanks and admiration for the staff at the trust. Their hard work has paid off, and it demonstrates what can be achieved when working together as a team to deliver for their patients and population.
It is important to recognise this wider legacy. In my area of Reading, we are waiting for a new hospital to be built. One was promised by the last Government, but no funding was provided, and there are very real-world implications of continuing with old buildings in such a state, like our A&E. I appreciate my hon. Friend raising this matter, and I look forward to the Minister providing further details.
I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Batteries (Placing on the Market) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I have immediately availed myself of your generous offer to take some clothes off; it is always a good way to start the afternoon. If anyone has had the scampi and chips in the Members’ Tea Room, that will keep us powering through. These draft regulations were laid before the House on 4 June. In 2023, the European Union replaced its 2006 batteries directive with a new batteries regulation, which introduced updated “placing on the market” requirements for batteries, including design, information and labelling specifications. The EU regulation achieves several objectives. By introducing new requirements relating to carbon footprint, performance, durability and recycled content, and by updating the requirements for the removability and replaceability of batteries from containing devices, it addresses the environmental and safety performance of batteries. The EU regulation introduces specific safety requirements for stationary battery energy storage systems and updates information requirements, including on batteries’ state of health and expected lifetime. The EU regulation introduces a digital battery passport and supply chain due diligence policies for larger businesses that are placing batteries on the market. Previous requirements relating to the restriction of certain substances in batteries are also carried forward. The EU regulation introduces conformity assessments with the CE mark to demonstrate compliance with the requirements that I have just listed. Those changes reflect the rapid growth in sectors such as electric vehicles—including cars, vans and e-bikes—portable electronics and energy storage, alongside the increasing volume and complexity of batteries now in circulation. Those requirements apply directly in Northern Ireland, as they do in EU member states. They phase in over time, meaning that some requirements are already in force, and others are due to come into force on future dates specified by the EU regulation.
I am not aware of any research, but there is work going on through our circular economy strategy, which we have co-designed with industry. As part of that, we have looked at transport and waste electricals, and I am certain that there are transport experts in those working groups. We have to get to a circular economy, not just for batteries but for tyres, which also have a habit of miraculously catching fire after being collected. We need to consider that as part of our circular economy work, but I am happy to take a note and write further to the right hon. Gentleman on that. It is mostly a matter for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, but as I said, the complexity and location of batteries are changing, and we do not want to end up with contaminants and pollutants.
I will undertake to do that. If I cannot do it myself, I will pass it on to my DESNZ colleagues.
I will make a little progress, if I may. The changes will apply directly in Northern Ireland and will phase in over time. They apply in Northern Ireland under the Windsor framework. As an EU regulation, the obligations within it apply directly, without the need for transposition. The draft instrument, in a reserved policy area, is the domestic legislation required to enable effective enforcement of these obligations in Northern Ireland. Implementing the measures helps Northern Ireland to maintain its dual market access. It does so by establishing a proportionate enforcement, offences and penalties regime in Northern Ireland for the EU regulation. Offences are put in one of three penalty groups: summary-only offences, such as those subject to a fine, which can be unlimited; either-way offences; or imprisonment for up to 12 months and/or an unlimited fine for the most serious indictable-only offences. Offences include failure to keep appropriate due-diligence documentation; failure of a supplier of battery cells and modules to provide documentation to manufacturers; and failure by an importer to comply with certain battery safety-related obligations. Those fall into penalty groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively. The Office for Product Safety and Standards enforces the existing “placing on the market” requirement across the UK and will act as the market surveillance and enforcement authority for “placing on the market” matters set out in this draft instrument in Northern Ireland. The SI also includes supplementary measures arising from the EU regulation, relating to conformity assessment. That includes a requirement for the NI indication to accompany the CE mark in certain circumstances, making the Secretary of State the designated authority for notified bodies and putting in place an appeals process for decisions made by notified bodies. The draft SI also consequentially amends the Batteries and Accumulators (Placing on the Market) Regulations 2008 by revoking them in respect of Northern Ireland, so that they now apply only in Great Britain. To be clear, the instrument does not introduce new policy objectives or regulatory standards beyond those arising from the EU batteries regulation. The batteries regulation required the penalty regime to be in place by 18 August 2025. Further parts of the EU regulation remain to be implemented in Northern Ireland, after that 18 August 2025 date. They include changes to waste and to extended producer responsibility requirements. Those matters are not covered here. I will now respond to the submission noted by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee regarding the impact on the UK internal market and the costs arising from the draft instrument. The UK has had an integrated UK-wide approach to batteries and waste batteries for many years. Let me be clear that we will take any steps necessary to continue to meet the Government’s commitment to protect the UK’s internal market. That is why we will consult in the autumn on an aligned regime in Great Britain that is consistent with the EU’s 2023 batteries regulation. The consultation will be UK-wide and conducted with the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland and with the other devolved Governments as a four-nation approach. Such an approach will avoid duplicative administrative burdens and provide a unified framework across the UK and EU for batteries. Crucially, it will also deliver against our environmental objectives. Battery manufacturing is a highly sophisticated global sector, and major manufacturers are already adjusting to the new standards. A unified approach is what businesses are asking for, so the autumn consultation will seek views not only on the application of the “placing on the market” regulations in Great Britain, but on the outstanding waste and producer responsibility provisions. We believe that pursuing this approach provides the best outcome for the UK. I welcome the collaborative approach taken in the development of this draft SI, which has drawn constructively on expertise in industry and the relevant Departments. The provisions set out on enforcement in this SI meaningfully strengthen the application of the EU batteries regulation in Northern Ireland, where it has been law since its publication in 2023. By improving compliance in key areas such as battery safety, hazardous substances and environmental performance, I expect positive environmental and human outcomes through the reduced risk of unsafe or environmentally harmful batteries being placed on the market. I am also reassured by the de minimis assessment undertaken in respect of this draft instrument. Given that the associated costs are minimal, and that the draft instrument introduces no contentious or disproportionate impacts, the approach is both reasonable and appropriate. I am satisfied that the instrument falls within the scope of the parent Act and represents an appropriate use of those powers. For that reason, I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
What a peach of a debate! On the one hand, the Conservative party gave us gentle encouragement and asked questions about how the policy has been enforced in the interim. Once again, I was questioned about the previous Government’s inaction and inability to take any steps to bring in this law before they left office. On the other hand, two parliamentarians from the Democratic Unionist party reopened the debates on Brexit—
No, I will not give way; I am replying to the debate. They reopened the debates on Brexit, which detained this House from 2016 until I left in 2019 and much beyond. When the former leader of the Conservatives said that we should “Get Brexit done” in 2019, little did he know that Brexit would never be done. This issue is the perfect example of why Brexit will never be done and of the difficulties it brought to this Parliament and Northern Ireland, with its unique protected status under the Windsor framework. It demonstrates the difficulties and the bureaucracy faced by every single business and householder trying to do the right thing and stay safe. We have had a long and abstract debate about laws and who votes for them. This Committee is our chance to scrutinise the law—I feel scrutinised—and our chance to vote. We will vote later.
Let me tell the hon. and learned Gentleman a little about what Northern Ireland thinks. I am going to make my point, and then I hope we can get into a much longer debate. Translink in Northern Ireland bans e-batteries, e-bikes and e-scooters from its networks because of the risk of fire. Antrim and Newtownabbey borough council has a “Buy Safe, Be Safe” campaign because of the risks of electric batteries. Waste management organisations all the way across Northern Ireland, including Newtownards, have all made complaints about the proliferating risk of batteries, battery waste and illegal batteries. I want to talk about a couple of my constituents, Karlo Bogdan and Natasha Johnson-Mall. Karlo was 24 and Natasha was 27 when they died in a fire caused by an unsafe e-battery in my Coventry East constituency. That is not an uncommon occurrence because lithium battery fires spread incredibly quickly, and those two hard-working young people, lost their lives unnecessarily in part because these regulations and protections—which we are bringing in, yes, first in Northern Ireland, but later in our own country—were not in place to protect them from the dodgy salespeople and resellers on Amazon and all the dumping that has happened as a result of the great Brexit deal. I am very happy to give way if the hon. and learned Gentleman wants to come back on any of that.
Let me begin by apologising to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I understand that he is a member of Traditional Unionist Voice. I did know that, but I forgot it in the heat. We are in the process of doing exactly what he is exhorting us to do, which is to make sure that we have a complete internal market across the United Kingdom while also protecting Northern Ireland’s unique protected status under the Windsor framework. I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that it is a model. Brexit has not delivered the freedoms it was supposed to deliver. In the end, the e-bikes, e-cars and e-batteries we buy are not made in Great Britain; most are made by Bosch in Germany and elsewhere in Europe. As the hon. and learned Gentleman says, the regulation applies in Northern Ireland, and there is what I would consider a halo effect because most people placing batteries on the market are abiding by it. What we are doing today is beginning a clampdown on rogue merchants who may be competing unfairly and whose products may not meet that new European standard. I wanted to put my constituents’ deaths on the record, because while we talk about the abstract principles and ideals of subsidiarity and sovereignty, sovereignty was not able to save their lives. My mission is to save lives, not least the lives of waste transfer station staff—the most invisible and neglected sector in our country—who are dealing with batteries on a weekly basis, especially in temperatures such as those we are enduring at the moment. On interim enforcement, as the hon. Member for Epping Forest asked—it is not on me to defend him from attacks by other Members, but I have some sympathy, because it is a totally reasonable question to ask. The Office for Product Safety and Standards tried to enforce the pre-2023 EU battery regulation on a UK-wide basis, including in Northern Ireland, but of course it does not apply here. The OPSS is not set up as the enforcement authority until this mechanism goes through, so it cannot enforce it. That is the simple answer, and it is why we are here today. On why we did not introduce the regulations sooner, we brought forward the legislation to support “placing on the market” requirements as soon as was reasonably practicable, taking into account the need for stakeholder engagement. We have consulted stakeholders and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke mentioned, we wrote to all the trade associations and got one reply back. Most businesses are already doing this because they are placing products on the European Union market, and this is just stuff we are doing. The right hon. Member for East Antrim says the cost is £30,000, but that is the total cost across all those businesses, not for one. It is the cost of a couple of hours of someone’s time to familiarise themselves with the new regulations. It is not the cost for each business, so my understanding is that it does not affect small and medium-sized enterprises in that way—I gently correct him on that. We engaged with stakeholders, we appointed a market surveillance authority and we did quite a lot of complex policy work on what this means for our existing regulation. We will do a wider review of the existing battery producer responsibility regulations. We hope to bring that in on a GB and UK-wide basis. On the figure of £35,017, that is across all affected businesses. Another question was, how does this affect the UK internal market? In a limited way—the majority of batteries are manufactured to meet Northern Ireland and EU standards already, whether they are physically placed on the market in Europe, Northern Ireland or GB. That is the halo effect I was talking about—they have raised their standards, and we are passive beneficiaries. Batteries meeting Northern Ireland requirements can be placed on the GB market, so there is no border down the Irish sea, which was of great concern to everyone here. This autumn, we will consult on an aligned regime across the whole UK that is consistent and will provide a unified regulatory framework across the UK and the EU. The draft regulations do not introduce new policy, nor does it impose any significant new regulatory burdens on businesses. Without them, we would have rules but no means to uphold them, which is the point made by the hon. Member for Epping Forest. That is not an acceptable position to be in, so the instrument provides clarity, certainty and, crucially, enforceability. It equips the enforcement authorities with the powers they need to make sure that batteries placed on the NI market meet required standards. On the divergence questions, the reality is that most of these batteries are standardised right across the EU. As I said, this is not the end; we are consulting on an aligned regime, but this is the essential first step to ensure that existing “placing on the market” requirements are properly enforced and support compliance with our Windsor framework obligations while broader work continues. This is a very low-cost and proportionate measure. It did not require an impact assessment, because it was way under the de minimis requirement of a £10 million extra burden on businesses. It does not change the underlying requirements that businesses must meet and it imposes nominal familiarisation costs, so compliant businesses will not see any change in their day-to-day operations. To come back to the issue of battery safety, we already have some of the strongest consumer product safety protections in the world, requiring that only safe products, including batteries, are placed on the market. These draft regulations help to ensure that unsafe batteries are identified and removed from the market by more effectively enabling enforcement of safety, labelling and performance requirements. Through our Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025, we retain the ability to go further, if needed, to strengthen protections for consumers throughout the UK. As I said, we are not complacent, and those two young people who lost their lives in Coventry are very much front and centre of my mind. We recognise the real risks to life and limb posed by faulty or non-compliant products. That is why we are taking action across the board with regulators and industry to understand and address the causes of battery-related fires. It does not matter how small the battery is, whether it is a tiny battery in a hearing aid or a vape battery, it must go back to a battery WEEE—waste electrical and electronic equipment—provider. Every store that sells a vape, including the regular high street supermarkets, has a vape take-back scheme. Batteries, when compressed and baled, become incredibly heated and really dangerous. We could end up taking out our municipal recycling facilities in extremely dangerous and complex fires if we do not dispose of batteries properly, so we have already acted to reduce one major source of battery-related fire risk by banning the use of single-use vapes in 2025, and by supporting their collection and recycling through a dedicated WEEE category. Before we introduced that category, vapes were classed as toys. That is what was done—they were classed as toys under the regulations, which is absolutely incredible. The early signs are encouraging, because 8 million vapes were sold in 2023-24, but the figures for ’24-25 show that it has already gone down to 6 million, which is accounted for by the regulations coming into effect in June ’25—so that is only a half-year reduction. I am therefore optimistic that sales will come down even lower from that 8 million.[Official Report 13 July 2026, Vol. 789, C. 10WC.] (Correction). We are working with industry and standards bodies to improve the safety of e-bike and personal electric vehicles through the development of a new publicly available specification. DEFRA has strengthened its capability by bringing in specialist expertise from industry to help ensure that the work to tackle these risks is informed by real-world experience and, crucially, technical knowledge. The draft instrument supports environmental protection, ensuring standards on hazardous substances are upheld—to go back to the question of the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold about batteries, hazardous substances and forever chemicals. These measures have been developed across Governments and with industry, and concerns have simply not been raised by stakeholders. I hear the comments and concerns of the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim and the right hon. Member for East Antrim, but this is a practical, proportionate and necessary instrument. It will ensure that the law operates as intended and that our obligations are met as Members who were sent to this place to protect the life and limb of the people we represent, while facilitating consumer, business and environmental protection and our obligations under the Windsor framework. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That the Committee has considered the draft Batteries (Placing on the Market) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026.
3. What discussions he has had with the Northern Ireland Executive on community cohesion in Northern Ireland.
The scenes we witnessed in Belfast last month were truly horrific. The knife attack was an abhorrent act, and I pay tribute to the courage of those who intervened to help, but what followed in the days afterwards was equally disturbing. Innocent people were targeted because of the colour of their skin, families were literally burned out of their homes, and businesses were attacked. Does the Secretary of State agree that overt racism and violence has no place on the streets of Belfast or anywhere in our society, and that those in positions of authority and influence should stop inflaming tensions and legitimising racism and prejudice?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship once again, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for securing this timely debate, and for his comprehensive report on his visit to Gibraltar. His experiences there closely match my own. On that note, I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. In June last year, I had the pleasure of going to Gibraltar at the invitation of the Government of Gibraltar. While I was there, Guy Dumas, an employee of the Government of Gibraltar, showed us around, and he and I got on so well that I ended up recruiting him as my parliamentary assistant. He has provided enormous assistance with my speech for the debate, for which I am very grateful. He is flying back to Gibraltar in just over a week’s time to marry the love of his life, Holly, and I am sure we all wish them well in their marriage. There has been one cloud—the levanter cloud, as it is known in Gibraltar—hanging over the Rock since 2016. As has already been mentioned, Gibraltar did not vote for Brexit; 96% of Gibraltarians voted to remain in the EU, but they have had to deal with the consequences. And rightly so, because they are part of the British family. After a decade of uncertainty since the referendum, a positive future is finally beginning to shine through those clouds. Much of the focus in the lead-up to the agreement was on the key issue of sovereignty, which is completely understandable. Gibraltarians are proudly British. They have reaffirmed that in two referendums, in which 99% voted to remain part of the United Kingdom. Thankfully, as has already been stated, article 2 of the draft agreement says that the agreement is “without prejudice to” the legal positions of the UK and Spain regarding sovereignty over Gibraltar. The House of Commons Library notes that the agreement includes that term and that the Government of Gibraltar have obtained legal opinions confirming that the agreement makes no concessions over the issue of sovereignty. From an entirely legal perspective, an important box has been ticked. I will focus my remarks on a different principle: Gibraltar’s right to self-determination and the democratic will of its people and its elected Government. My visit to Gibraltar last year began with an unexpected detour. As anyone who has visited will know, the mile-long runway, combined with the strong winds across it, means that planes often cannot land and have to take a detour to Málaga. That was my experience, too. That meant I had to enter Gibraltar via the land border, which is a routine experience for everybody living on the Rock and the surrounding area. Thankfully, I did not experience a particularly long queue to cross from Spain into Gibraltar, but I know that is not always the case. There are over 15,000 cross-frontier workers in Gibraltar, and that border is the only land entry point into Gibraltar. Delays of minutes can quickly become hours, and those hours are taken away from time with family or time at work. With this agreement, the routine passport checks that have caused those queues will come to an end. The agreement is intended to ensure that the free circulation of people and goods continues, and it removes those physical barriers at the border. As a Labour MP, I welcome any agreement that improves the lives of working people. During my visit, I met Gibraltarian Government Ministers, the chamber of commerce and the Federation of Small Businesses. I spoke with businesses, just as the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham described, and with many others. At that point, the agreement had not been announced—it was announced a few days later—but they all spoke about the implications of any potential agreement. They also spoke about Gibraltar’s turbulent history, with Spain being a factor. Their feelings were definitely mixed. There was a mix of hope and anxiety, and there was an acceptance of the reality facing them. There was anxiety among the business community about the effects that new tax arrangements might have on their businesses. The controlled border, while frustrating in the way I described, provided a sense of security, and some worried that removing those routine checks could affect crime on what is a very peaceful peninsula. They also acknowledged that the alternative to the agreement is a hard border. Some of the people I spoke to had lived through the closed frontier years of 1969 to 1985. They did not have to imagine what a no-deal outcome would look like, because they had already lived through it, and they were cautioning me and the people I was with against it. What struck me was that there is both a passion for their home and a practical approach to the reality they face. I remember speaking to one of our drivers during the visit. We discussed the agreement, and although he had concerns—the ones I have set out—he was very practical. He told me that he crosses into Spain every single weekend and that if the agreement would make that easier and save him hours of queuing, then he was all for it. Gibraltarians are a thoughtful and politically minded people. I know that because I am pleased to be a member—a secret member—of the “Speak Freely” Facebook group. I hope they do not kick me out after that declaration, especially as I am not a resident of Gibraltar, but it has been wonderful to follow the political discussions. I have no doubt that some of that political awareness comes as a result of years of vigilance with a neighbour that claims sovereignty over their Rock. The visit left me in no doubt that while Westminster scrutiny is absolutely valid and welcome, and while we have to ratify treaties here, it should not override the wishes of the people of Gibraltar. The UK, the EU, Spain and Gibraltar announced the political agreement days after my visit, and the draft agreement was published this February. Gibraltar’s Parliament subsequently passed a motion supporting ratification. Every single one of its 17 Members voted in favour of ratification—that is the kind of consensus we can only dream of in this place. There can be no doubt that the agreement has democratic legitimacy from the Government of Gibraltar. I recognise the desire of Members, who no doubt have the interests of the Gibraltarian people in mind, to scrutinise the agreement to the fullest. The UK has a constitutional duty towards Gibraltar, even though Gibraltar is almost entirely self-governing, but if the agreement commands the support of Gibraltar’s elected Government and every single Member of its Parliament, we must give considerable weight to that democratic judgment. Our Parliament can and should scrutinise, but it should not substitute its own judgment for the democratic will of Gibraltar, particularly when the agreement protects sovereignty and military autonomy. I want to say a word on military autonomy. Gibraltar continues to play a key strategic military role. Defence is one of the United Kingdom’s reserved constitutional responsibilities, so I fully understand why Parliament must carefully scrutinise that aspect of any agreement, but here, too, a very important box has been ticked. The UK military base is not affected by the agreement, and those are not my words; they are the words of the outgoing commander of the British forces in Gibraltar, Commodore Tom Guy, who said that the agreement is positive from a military perspective because it protects the key principle of “military autonomy”, and our armed forces will “continue to operate to, through and from Gibraltar unhindered”. Under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, treaties must be laid before Parliament before ratification, but the political principle, I hope, is clear: the power to decide Gibraltar’s future should rest with the people of Gibraltar. Our Government and Parliament should respect their wishes. I have only two questions for the Minister, who I know is very highly regarded on the Rock. Can he confirm to the House and to the Gibraltarian people that there will be a legally binding mechanism to ensure that no UK Government will be able to withdraw from the agreement without Gibraltar’s consent? In a similar vein, can he confirm that no future UK Government will be able to block Gibraltar from withdrawing from the agreement if it is the democratically expressed will of the Gibraltarian people? That would be the strongest way to ensure that Gibraltar continues to control its own future. Next week, the levanter cloud over the Rock may finally begin to lift. Gibraltar may feel different, but British sovereignty has been protected, and military autonomy is completely unchanged. Now it should be the Gibraltarians who determine their future in accordance with the principle of self-determination.
The Minister talks about the price reductions for the three countries. By my maths, that is a 70% reduction in the price of sending SMS texts, which is incredibly welcome, although I am not sure who sends those any more. Is he working on similar agreements with other countries not covered by the changes that we are making today?
The Teesside region has the potential to bring nationally significant investment in new AI data centre infrastructure. We welcome that investment and we are open for business, but will the Minister commit to meet colleagues at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that the governance arrangements around the Teesworks site attract business, rather than deter it?
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that creating industrial clusters is the best route to bringing in some of the new companies that look to scale up and invest? I recently met UnionDAC, which is looking to invest in Teesside. That is partly because of the huge amount of investment that is coming to the east coast cluster carbon capture, utilisation and storage project, which is creating 3,000 construction jobs as we speak. Does he therefore agree that the Government must continue to maintain the momentum for those clusters and new ones in next year’s spending review to create skilled jobs across the UK?
Yesterday, I was proud to host members of Basingstoke’s Nepalese community here in Parliament, including a number of Gurkha veterans. One of the issues we discussed was Gurkha pensions, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker) for all her work on that—I have been proud to work alongside her. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that it is time to resolve the long-standing issue of Gurkha pensions, recognising the service and sacrifice of Gurkha veterans to our country?