Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
I have heard a lot of legal analysis from the Prime Minister but nothing on what he thinks is morally right. Is not the biggest risk to international law when leaders hide behind legal advice to avoid taking responsibility for their decisions?
It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), who has spoken passionately about the risks of democratic interference. I know this is something that she has thought about in great detail. She may be aware that during the passage of the Data Protection Act 2018 we had an amendment to help to facilitate digital watermarking, which in this space would help not only with the copyright AI issue but particularly with the risk of democratic interference. Authenticity in communications is so important. In my contribution to this debate, I want to talk about votes at 16. It is an incredible privilege to live in the United Kingdom and to be a citizen of the UK. One of our privileges is that we have a long-established history of free and fair elections, and many of our ancestors fought pretty hard and made great sacrifices to get the voter franchise that we have at the moment. Voting is really important. It is important as an adult act for a citizen of our country. Voting matters. That impact matters. Voting is part of the contractual relationship that we have with the state. As citizens of our country, we have a right to vote and to influence the decisions made on our behalf by our representatives, whether that is at local or parliamentary level. I am concerned that taking away the adultness of voting, by saying that children—people below the age of 18—now have that expanded voter franchise, will diminish the status of voting in our country. It will take voting away from being an act where someone has to pass an age barrier to be recognised as an adult in our society.
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but I think there is a difference between representing people and people having the ability to vote for us. If we were to take that argument to its ultimate conclusion, it would expand the voter franchise not only to every single age but to non-citizens. I do not know if people agree with that—[Interruption.] It will be interesting to hear if that debate expands. I am sure that many people under the age of 18 have the decision-making capacity, maturity and ability to vote, but this debate is not about that. It is not about someone’s ability to vote; it is about whether they should vote and the status we afford to voting enfranchisement.
One of those criteria should be that one is an adult, because voting is an adult act, and the other criterion should be citizenship. We do not have time for a debate today on how we approach citizenship in the UK and what that actually means, but if we start trying to unravel—
I am not making any sort of comment on that. My point is very simple: it is citizenship and age. If we are to apportion the respect to voting that we absolutely should—I think all of us in this House think voting is a critical thing to do—giving it the status of being an adult decision, as opposed to one made by children, is also important. To not do so is fundamentally anti-democratic. It diminishes what people have to go through in terms of the status of voting compared with other decisions. Voting is more important than being able to buy a beer, have a driving licence or join the cadets. Voting is absolutely critical, and that is why it is so important that it should be seen as an adult act, not an act that is within the scope of being a child.
The point the hon. Member makes illustrates exactly why we have to use an adult citizenship criteria, not one based on capability or ability, because the moment we start to do that, all sorts of awful things risk happening. People should get the right to vote in the UK if they are a citizen and if they are an adult, and that is it. We should never put at risk someone’s right to vote because of considerations about their cognitive ability, and that goes in both directions. People should be careful what they wish for in making arguments to remove adult status and citizenship from voter enfranchisement. They may not like where they end up.
The Prime Minister happily says that he has learned the lessons of Iraq, a misadventure that his party is responsible for. Does he agree that the lesson of Iraq is not to use lethal force unless there is good evidence to do so and, in particular, unless there is a threat to the interests of this country, which there was not? Will he compare and contrast that with the situation that applies to what has happened over the weekend, when our friends and allies took pre-emptive action against a feral state that had enriched uranium to 60% and that posed a clear and present danger to ourselves, our interests and our allies?
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Mundell, at a time when Parliament is very active in the world of local government, which shows how much it matters. We heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) about his local government experience and the diversity of services that local authorities provide; over 800 different services are provided by each council on average. That reflects the level of interest that all Governments and parties have in ensuring that the organisation and structure are correct. As the Opposition, we have approached the issue of local government reorganisation with the seriousness with which we treated the same issue when we were in government. Where we are this evening, in looking at this petition, and where we have been in recent weeks, is fairly and squarely a mess of this Government’s making. We must reflect that, when in government, we undertook, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford described, a number of reorganisations of local authorities, in each case committing that elections would never be deferred for more than a 12-month period—and they never were. There are good grounds for saying to our constituents, “Why spend millions of taxpayers’ money electing councillors to an authority that is about to be abolished? Better instead to have elections for the successor authorities.” At the outset of this process—the former Minister, the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), is well recorded in Hansard—there was a very clear devolution priority programme in which councils were told, “You are going to be abolished. The Government will bring forward that legislation. Elections will go ahead for new unitary authorities or new mayors in your local area, so democracy will not be denied. You are engaging with this process in good faith. The voters will have their say. But what we are not going to do is elect people to councils that are about to be abolished.” We are in this position today because the Government have signally failed to deliver on their devolution priority programme. Just one of those local authority areas, Surrey, has achieved the status of getting its new unitary authorities approved by Parliament—18 months into a process that the Government have described as a flagship programme. Let us reflect on the process that Parliament followed. At the outset, the former Minister brought proposals to a Delegated Legislation Committee in March 2025 to postpone the elections in all the devolution priority programme areas. Members of the Conservative party on that Committee voted against those proposals, because we were not convinced by what the Minister was setting out about the deliverability of the underlying devolution priority programme. We have been proved correct. In a situation where the Government were clear that the authorities were going to be abolished but had yet to bring forward any clear programme for the creation of the new mayors, and had yet to pass the legislation in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill that would set up the framework for that, we made the argument that cancelling elections was not a responsible thing to do. Nonetheless, the Government pressed ahead, despite those warnings from the Conservative Opposition. Following that, of course, there was a reshuffle in Government. At this point, it will be of value to reflect on the Gould principles, which underlie decision-making and state that, when cancellations of this nature occur, a minimum of six months’ notice is normally provided. Clearly, putting elections off for 12 months in authorities that, at the end of that period, would simply be 12 months closer to abolition creates huge uncertainty for local voters. When we look at the frequent urgent questions, the opportunities we have used in Hansard through departmental questions and Opposition day debates to raise this issue, it is clear that we have sought to hold the Government to account. I reflect, for example, that I was told in response to an urgent question in December that, to quote from Hansard, “the Government’s intention is that all the elections scheduled for next May will go ahead next May.”—[Official Report, 24 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 5.] The following day, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government told the House that those mayoral elections scheduled for this May in those devolution areas were being cancelled after all. It is abundantly clear that there has been chaos in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government —a complete lack of direction—and it has left local government leaders across the country, who have been seeking to act in good faith and with an eye to the good use of taxpayers’ money and maintaining democracy in their areas, in an incredibly difficult position. The fact that we have seen Ministers, literally 24 hours later, reversing the position that they had been telling Parliament, has been characteristic of that entire process. Let us reflect on the decisions that led to the most recent hokey cokey, the Government having made it clear that they were minded to press ahead with cancelling those elections. We know that the feedback from local government leaders around the country is that they were placed under enormous pressure by the Department and Ministers to say that they wanted the cancellation to go ahead, to the extent that drafts of letters were sent back to council leaders asking them to say in more clear and serious terms what the impact would be on devolution if the elections were to go ahead according to schedule; to their credit, many of those leaders and local authorities resisted the pressure that they were put under. But that resulted in the Secretary of State making the announcement that he would be bringing forward proposals to cancel elections in those 31 local authority areas, with Pendle being added 24 hours after the announcement was made—again, characteristic of the chaotic approach that the Government have adopted. What is curious about the whole process—and this is the nub of the questions that I put to the Minister—is that although we have heard a lot from Reform Members about the judicial review, we need to be clear that Reform did not win a judicial review against the Government. The Government surrendered without a shot being fired; they essentially offered no defence. The Secretary of State, with the judicial review coming into view, decided to reverse his decision. Had he brought forward legislation to Parliament to cancel or postpone these elections, that would have been beyond the scope of a judicial review, as parliamentary proceedings are—as was the case when he dealt with exactly the same set of questions on the basis of legal advice that the Department had been provided with, roughly 12 months beforehand. The key question is: what had changed? What was different that made something advised to be unambiguously lawful, dealt with through the delegated legislation process —with a clear robust defence from Ministers that it was the right thing to do and entirely in accordance with the measures in the Local Government Act 2000—become unlawful eight or nine months later? There is very little that legal advisers have brought to the Opposition’s attention that suggests that, had the Secretary of State pressed ahead with his decision, placed that decision before Parliament and had Parliament voted for the elections to be cancelled, that would be subject to challenge. It is clear, however, that in defending a judicial review the Government would have had to set out the correspondence and discussions that they had with all the local authorities that they were putting under such acute pressure to seek the cancellation of the elections. The Opposition are going to be pushing hard to understand what it was that led the Secretary of State to delegate the decision to a different Minister, rather than make it himself as the legislation envisages, and to instead reverse at the last minute, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford noted. That decision was taken at huge cost and had a huge impact on local authorities, many of which, on the basis of the Government’s assurances, had released the polling stations, told schools that they would now be open on polling day, and had stood down the polling clerks and staff who were not going to be needed because the Government had cancelled the elections. Many had told the police that they could stand down their planned patrols ensuring that those elections could go ahead, because the Government were cancelling. The police now have to put that operation back together at incredibly short notice. I know that the Minister’s answer to the question of what changed is likely to be that the Government do not discuss the basis of their legal advice. That is a principle that Governments of all parties have stuck to for many years. However, the legal context of the decision made in March 2025—I remind the House that we, as an Opposition, voted against the decision—was that it was lawful and in accordance with custom and practice for the Government to postpone the local elections. What was different when the Secretary of State came to put this decision before Parliament nearly 12 months later? What had changed—other than the grave concern of many Labour council leaders that they were facing a drubbing at the polls—to lead the Secretary of State to decide not to press forward with asking Parliament to agree, through the legislative process, that election cancellation, as he had indicated, in his own judgment, that he would? I finish with these points: in response to the understandable fury of many local leaders at the mess with which they had been left, the Secretary of State rather hastily announced £63 million of additional—as it was described—“capacity” grant. It would be helpful if the Minister set out, for the benefit of the House, what guidance has been given for the use of that capacity grant. It sounds rather like the amount that would be required to set the elections back up again at very short notice, expensive as that would be. I reflect on the words of one of the Minister’s predecessors, the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton. He spoke in Parliament in a debate on an urgent question. He described himself as “blunt” and said: “Local leaders across the political spectrum have worked in good faith.” I agree. He—a former Minister of this Government—said: “They have put aside self-interest and differences, and they did everything asked of them to secure a better settlement for the people they represent.” He concluded, regarding this Government’s actions, that “we need to be better than this.”—[Official Report, 4 December 2025; Vol. 776, c. 1166-1167.] Does this Minister agree?
This has been a wide-ranging debate, some of which has focused on the generalities of our electoral system. Some Members may have forgotten that we had a referendum on the alternative voting system not so long ago, and the British people delivered a very clear verdict in favour of the existing system. Let me be clear: the official Opposition will seek to work constructively with the Government, because although we recognise that the Bill contains significant deficiencies and areas of contention, we all acknowledge that our democracy is under a degree of pressure. A number of Members from across the House gave clear examples of foreign interference, for example. Our security services have presented clear evidence of its impact on political discourse in our country. On a day like today, when the Prime Minister has made a statement about events in Iran, and we acknowledge the history and the evidence of Iran’s interference in our democracy, it is particularly important that we are united in seeking to ensure the integrity of our electoral system. Let me set out briefly the shortcomings that we will seek to address by working closely with the Government in Committee. We will do so following a period that has, to a degree, undermined voter confidence that the Government have their backs when it comes to ensuring that local authority elections go ahead. For example, I spent part of my evening in Westminster Hall, opposite the Minister for Local Government and Homelessness, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Alison McGovern), dealing with a debate about the cancellation of elections. The first key point relates to the Government’s inconsistent position on the age of majority. Members from across the House offered evidence on why the ages of 16 or 18 were appropriate, but the Government recently voted within their own internal party processes to determine that an officer of a Labour local association must be at least 18—a measure supported and championed by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner). We acknowledge in that small way, and in much larger ones mentioned by Members, that there must be a degree of consistency about the process, so that—[Interruption.] Members talk about being a taxpayer. People pay taxes in this country from birth, if they have sufficient income to pay it. It is not something that happens only when they turn 16 and gain their national insurance number. We take all kinds of different decisions as we reach different ages of maturity. This Government—and indeed previous ones—have tended to err on the side of caution, given the risks that we have identified. We must ensure consistency, so that the age of majority means something in our country. A number of Members from across the House mentioned dark money and its influence on elections. I very much acknowledge those points, particularly in relation to cryptocurrency. Those who know about electoral history will recall the famous KGB gold that funded the Communist Party of Great Britain during the cold war. We know that there needs to be an acknowledgment that the world has changed. As well as potential economic benefits, crypto offers an opportunity for undue, inappropriate and potentially unlawful influence on our democracy. The Bill currently says nothing about that risk, but we must have appropriate and robust defences in place against it. Let me touch a little more on the issue of foreign interference more generally. A number of Members referred to the situation with Iran. We remain concerned that the Government have still not added China to the foreign influence registration scheme—FIRS—despite the fact that the Electoral Commission’s recent report described how China-linked organisations had hacked the UK electoral roll, which could have enabled them to influence our electoral processes on a large scale. We hope that amendments tabled in Committee—either by the Government or by the Opposition—will address that concern. We remain concerned about failings in the Bill arising from a lack of consultation. When Governments have sought to change electoral law or to introduce new guidance, there has been a high level of engagement among political parties, parliamentary authorities and other stakeholders whose direct experience and international research can feed into processes that make the integrity of our electoral system greater. Clearly, this legislation has landed without that level of due consultation. In particular, the Government appear not to have consulted the Venice Commission, the international body that provides advice on electoral practice, which was certainly an organisation that we consulted on matters such as the use of electoral ID when in government. Given the importance that this Government place on international law, I would have expected that they would at least have engaged with that organisation and sought its advice before bringing some of these measures forward. On the debate about the impact of auto-enrolment, we know from the experience in Wales, where this was piloted, that following the audits of that—the door-to-door canvassing of real voters—more than 16,000 people had to be taken off that electoral register because they had been incorrectly placed on it. Clearly, to fulfil the expectation of Members across this House, we need to ensure that we have a canvass of the voters that is accurate and that contains the names of people who are entitled to take part under our laws in our democracy, but that does not open the door to interference of any kind that would undermine the confidence that people should have. The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) raised the important question of how people who are homeless can have the opportunity to participate in our democracy, which also has the corollary question of how we can ensure that people are exercising their democratic vote once, and that the law contains appropriate measures to manage those risks. Finally, on the point that the Government have made about the use of bank cards as a means of identification, we remain very concerned that there are many banks and organisations offering a no-ID account—all of us will have seen them on the local transport networks—and the ability to get a bank card without any identification requirement at all, specifically marketed at people who do not have the ability to demonstrate their connections to the UK. While that is useful in terms of the ability to pay bills and pay to access public transport, given that we place such a high value on the integrity of our electoral system, we must have appropriate measures in place to ensure that those who are voting have the right to do so.
I can hear voices challenging that, asking, “So a little bit of crime is okay?” We need to recognise a point similar to those made by Members across the Chamber about crypto. The world is changing. We have very significant and onerous duties for opening a UK bank account and proving our identity, but we live in a world where more organisations are coming to the market and saying, “We can provide you with that document, but without the need to meet any of those standards,” in exactly the same way as people are using crypto to transfer money around without the audit trail that we see with other forms of financial transactions. We need to make sure that our electoral system meets the test and that we can identify those exercising their vote in that way. In conclusion, we have heard from across the Chamber a variety of different examples of improvements that could be made to the Bill. Some of those we as the Opposition will agree with, and some of them we will not, but I hope that Ministers will heed the calls from Members across the House, and particularly those of their own Back Benchers. I was struck by the observations and criticisms of the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) and the hon. Members for Stockport (Navendu Mishra), for Rushcliffe (James Naish) and for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), all of whom set out ways in which this Bill falls short of the minimum expectations that we would have for an appropriately modern and secure piece of electoral legislation. We will approach the Bill Committee in that constructive spirit, but I have to say that at the moment it certainly feels that a number of the measures are in this Bill specifically for the objective of the Government’s own electoral advantage.
I think we can all agree that international law has an important role to play, but the world is changing and we must adapt to protect our national security. Given that international law is broad in nature and open to interpretation—we have seen that in the differing views of the Attorney General and the shadow Attorney General—for public accountability, and given the seriousness of this situation, can the Prime Minister tell us how many and which international lawyers he consulted before he made his decisions over recent days?
The Houthis in Yemen have declared their support for Iran but have so far taken no pre-emptive action. Given that the UK has previously been willing to take action against the Houthis, would we be willing to do so again if they become involved?
I represent a seaside town, Bridlington, to which five million visitors come every year. It has a fantastic, successful seasonal economy that creates a large number of jobs for young people in the town every summer. Is there not a danger that the significant increases in the minimum wage for 16 to 18-year-olds and 18 to 20-year-olds will disincentivise local employers from giving young people opportunities to get on that first rung on the jobs ladder?
Order. Can I please urge Members to make their questions significantly shorter? There is still a huge number of Members seeking to catch my eye. I know we are going to have an exemplary performance from Mark Pritchard, with a very short question, please.
Can I respectfully suggest to colleagues that by the time they get on to page 2 of their question, that question is too long?
I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order. I assume that she also informed the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) of her intention to refer to him.
As the hon. Member will know, Members themselves are responsible for the accuracy of their words in the Chamber. If a correction is needed, I am sure that one will be forthcoming. For now, she has placed her own view on the record.
The reasoned amendment in the name of the official Opposition has been selected.
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
3. What steps she is taking to help tackle the education, health and care plan backlog in Cambridgeshire.
The EHCP backlog in Cambridgeshire is a significant challenge. I appreciate what the Minister said about the help that is currently in place. Having read the SEND White Paper, I am struggling to see where the immediate impact will come. I had a letter from a constituent at the weekend who thanked me for helping her child get an EHCP after 74 weeks, and I can give examples that stretch up to nearly two years from an EHCP needs assessment being signed off. I am due to meet Cambridgeshire county council on Friday to discuss this issue in more detail. What advice can the Minister give it on how the SEND White Paper will help it to get on top of the EHCP backlog?
I would like to come back to the drone attack on RAF Akrotiri and the alarming ease with which the Iranian regime was able to penetrate our defences and strike the airfield. That very much suggests that it has little by way of counter-uncrewed aerial systems capability and nothing by way of No. 2 Counter UAS Wing squadrons to deter such attacks. Will the Prime Minister confirm what type of drone struck the airfield? Will he also confirm the origin of that drone? Did it fly from Iran all the way across Israeli airspace to strike Cyprus, or did it come from Hezbollah in Lebanon? Given that we have been attacking Daesh targets this year via Operation Shader, will he strike back at Hezbollah if it proves that the drone came from Lebanon?
It is no surprise that drones have become a central element of Iran’s response. The Shahed drones that it deploys are relatively inexpensive, easy to mass-produce, and capable of causing significant damage. However, the interceptors that we use to bring them down are substantially more expensive. Given the rate at which Iran is deploying these drones against UK assets and our partners, and the scale at which they can be manufactured, that cost imbalance is a growing concern. What steps is the Ministry of Defence taking to develop effective but more cost-efficient countermeasures to address these challenges, and will the Prime Minister now look again at bringing forward the timescale for increasing our defence spending?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I wish the Minister all the very best; she has already demonstrated that she is an effective performer on behalf of her constituents. In your time, Mr Stringer, you will have seen many Ministers pushed out to defend the indefensible, but very rarely are they caught in the action of passing a statutory instrument while, in real time, the Treasury is peddling and briefing stories of a U-turn—before the ink is even dry, before the vote has been taken and before the regulations have been agreed to. Why is that? I think colleagues across the House, who want the best for our country and for young people, recognise that there is a growing crisis of young people being unable to access the work market. The latest figures show that 957,000 young people are not in education, employment or training. Although the Government inherited that number, they are actually making it worse—and that is before the impact of the regulations and the unemployment Bill, with which the Minister is deeply acquainted. If we look at the overall level of young people who wish to find work—those who are formally looking for work—we see that the figure for youth unemployment is 16.1% for young people between the ages of 16 and 24, the very young people in respect of whom the above-inflation rate changes make up the largest part of the regulations before us. Why would any of us in this Committee be passive or neutral about passing measures that every economist and business group that has looked at them believes are likely to discourage firms from taking a chance on those young people? I often find myself in common cause with the Federation of Small Businesses. It does wonderful work and represents the smallest and most fragile businesses across all our constituencies, which we all want to see succeed on our high streets and grow. They are where growth comes from. The same is true of the British Chambers of Commerce, which also has concerns about the approach the Government are taking to the wage rates for 16 to 20-year-olds—people getting their very first chance at work. It is far less often that I find myself in common cause with the Tony Blair Institute or the Resolution Foundation, which have both, in the last 48 hours alone, reiterated their concern about the changes that the Minister advocates we vote for and pass today. This is not some Tufton Street think-tank expressing concern but the Resolution Foundation: the finishing school for aspirant young Labour Ministers—sadly, some of the talent that sits elsewhere on the Labour Benches is overlooked—and the ideological heart of the modern Labour party. The Resolution Foundation has said that this change is the wrong direction to go in and called for a moratorium. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members would not dream of taking out their phones under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, but if they did so right now and looked at the Financial Times, they would see that Treasury sources are briefing that the Department will be scaling this measure back. That would be part of what I think is U-turn No. 16, although it is very hard to tell—being a bear of little brain, I cannot always keep up with the number of U-turns the Government have made. My final words come from the author of this strategy herself: the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), who was my interlocutor throughout the passage of the 300-page, 1970s, red tape, job-destroying unemployment Bill. Recently, albeit after she had left Government and perhaps moved beyond the influence of those on the Treasury Bench, she spoke about the overall challenge of employment for our wider economy—the coastal, seasonal and hospitality businesses on the frontline, where so many young people, whom we are all here to represent in a non-partisan fashion, had their very first shot at a job, as I did myself. The right hon. Lady said: “I think we’ve got to recognise, it’s not even a double whammy, it’s not even a triple whammy. I talk about the challenges on business rates, the challenges on VAT, the challenges of the minimum wage going up and the living wage going up”. Will the Minister update us on the Chancellor’s latest thinking on this measure? What does she think about the difficult challenge for young people having their first shot at life and opportunity?
Putting aside for a moment the rights and wrongs of the Prime Minister’s decision on Saturday morning, the BBC is in a unique position: running BBC Persian language broadcasting into Iran. Given that and given President Trump’s wishes for the Iranian people themselves to take control, will the Prime Minister put on the record whether he will work with the BBC over the coming days to ensure that there is more Government funding, wherever necessary, to broadcast what is required to the Iranian people?
I am grateful to the Minister for bringing this statement to the House and for allowing me to have advance sight of it, but let me be clear: Parliament is reacting to events, rather than being respected as part of the process. For weeks, detailed provisions of the treaty have circulated in the press before Members of this place have been permitted to see any legal text. That is not how serious constitutional business should be conducted. Now that we have the text, proper scrutiny must follow in this place and in Gibraltar. As we have consistently said, this must be a deal that the Government, the Parliament and, above all, the people of Gibraltar are comfortable with. It is right that the democratically elected Government of Gibraltar have led negotiations and prioritised a free-flowing border, but trade-offs come with that, and it is our duty to examine them carefully. The sovereignty clause states that nothing in the treaty alters the respective legal positions of the UK or Spain, but sovereignty is not simply about words; it is about how arrangements operate in practice. What recourse does the United Kingdom have if there is an operational overreach by Spain, including in the exercise of border control powers within Gibraltar’s port and airport? Will British citizens be subject to the 90-day Schengen rule in Gibraltar? What is the reciprocal position for Spanish citizens, and what protections exist for British nationals with long-standing ties to Gibraltar who do not hold Gibraltar ID cards? What mechanisms are in place to resolve disputes when asymmetric decisions are taken at the border? On customs, processing at EU-designated points in Spain and Portugal raises practical and constitutional questions. What oversight will the UK have, and what recourse exists if those arrangements fail to operate effectively? What protections are there for imports of British goods and for Gibraltar’s distinct economic model, particularly its financial services sector? Have the Government’s impact assessments fully examined UK-Gibraltar trade flows and potential adverse effects? We must also address dynamic alignment. The treaty does not merely apply a fixed list of EU laws; it provides for future EU Acts listed in the annexes to be adopted and implemented, with serious consequences if they are not. Can the Minister explain clearly how this mechanism will operate, and how Gibraltar and the UK will avoid becoming subject to ongoing EU rule-taking without meaningful political control? The treaty requires consistent interpretation of applicable Union law in line with case law of the European Court of Justice. In which precise areas will EU law bind Gibraltar’s domestic arrangements? What assessment has been made of the implications of future rulings for Britain’s national interest? I must also draw attention to article 25 and its reference to the European convention on human rights. Will the Minister clarify how that provision operates within the treaty framework, and does adherence to the ECHR form a continuing condition of the agreement? No international agreement should pre-empt or constrain the sovereign right of this Parliament to determine the UK’s constitutional arrangements. Will the Minister confirm that under this treaty an EU national may have access to Gibraltar through the land border without restrictions, but a British national travelling from the UK could be banned from entering at the airport, including on the say of those carrying out Spanish border checks? More broadly, what domestic legislation will be required to give effect to the treaty, and will Parliament have the opportunity to amend it in the normal way? On national security, Gibraltar’s naval base is of immense strategic importance. Will the Minister give an absolute assurance from the Dispatch Box that nothing in this agreement—now or through future implementation —can directly or indirectly impact the operations, freedom of action, access arrangements or security of the UK’s naval base in any way whatsoever? Finally, process matters. Given the scale of the agreement, it is not possible to cover all its implications in this short exchange today. There are serious questions about the operation of the border and dual checks, the role of Spanish authorities at the airport, customs and taxation arrangements, business impacts, the adoption of future EU Acts listed in the annexes, ECJ interpretation and the domestic legislation required to implement the treaty. The Minister has said that it is a draft, so when does he expect it to be finalised? When will the CRaG process begin? There has been talk of early implementation, with Gibraltar suggesting 10 April. Can the Minister please clarify that? There must be time for the CRaG process, and it must be meaningful. Provisional application on 10 April must not reduce parliamentary scrutiny to merely a rubber stamp. Gibraltar has stood resolutely British since 1713, and its people have repeatedly affirmed that choice. Any treaty must be examined line by line by this Parliament.
T2. My hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) has drawn our attention to the fact that Sport England is losing its consultee status. This is at a time when sports clubs are facing business rate increases of as much as 46%. Are Ministers alive to the prospect of sporting facilities becoming increasingly attractive grey-belt building propositions?
I appreciate the solution that the hon. Gentleman is presenting for faith-based schools, but does he accept that any tax on education is wrong in principle? Would he support my party’s policy of reversing the burden of VAT for all independent schools?
The justification for this tax given in the Labour party manifesto was to raise revenue to employ more teachers in the state sector, yet we now know that in November 2025, there were 1,400 fewer teachers than 12 months previously. Can the Minister tell us where the money has gone?
Bridgwater is the home of carnival. At nearly 180 years old, ours is the oldest carnival in the UK. This fantastic cultural event promotes an active lifestyle among the whole community. However, every year the cost of complying with legislation makes it that little bit harder to continue. Will the Minister meet with me and members of the carnival to discuss what support might be available so that this fantastic spectacle continues for another 180 years?
During the recent floods in Somerset, the Minister for Water and Flooding said that “the Environment Agency has committed to reviewing the issues around water level management in Somerset”—[Official Report, 11 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 890.] and that it will consider “when pumps should be activated, whether the current trigger points are right, and whether installing permanent pumps in certain locations could offer better value for money in the long term.”—[Official Report, 11 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 890.] Given the agency’s decision to withdraw from main river maintenance, I ask the Leader of the House for a debate in Government time so that we can discuss these issues and the Environment Agency’s effectiveness at preventing flooding.
I was honoured to represent Gibraltar during my 10 years as a Member of the European Parliament, so I know how important their British identity is to our fellow citizens living there. I am pleased that the treaty was negotiated with and agreed by His Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar, but can the Minister confirm that Gibraltar’s Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise the treaty and that we will have the opportunity to know that Parliament’s views before we vote in this House?
No, but you should be addressing the Chair.
Order. The word “you” has crept into a couple of speeches today. I am not responsible for any decisions, so please, let us not use it. I give everyone a timely reminder that we do not use the word “you”.
I hope the Minister will forgive me for not having read the tome that he has next to him. I want to probe him further on dispute resolution. A lot of hassle—criminality, really—happens in the Gibraltar seas. What co-operation may be in place between the Spanish Government and the Gibraltarian Government if resolutions cannot be found on the laws of the sea for some of the things that happen? The Minister spoke about resolutions in the treaty between Spain and Britain, but what will be the processes if the Gibraltarian Government do not feel that criminality is being acted on with appropriate speed?
I have raised concerns about Jew hatred in this country several times in the House. As I have said previously, I give credit to the Prime Minister for driving out the antisemitism in his party, in which, between 2015 and 2019, antisemitism and Jew hatred were given a safe space. May I make reference to another political party in this House, Madam Deputy Speaker? I am sure that you were as shocked as I was to read in a Sunday newspaper that there is effectively Jew hunting taking place in this country. In that context, we must be sure that our Jewish communities and our Jewish constituents can have faith in the authorities and the police. May I ask my right hon. Friend whether she found evidence of antisemitism specifically playing a part in these decisions?
Richmond, North Yorkshire, is home to brilliant cultural assets like Richmond castle, the Georgian Theatre Royal, the Station and the Green Howards Museum. It has a unique place in our national story, with a history stretching back to Norman times and a record of successfully putting on community events, like MayFest. This gateway to the dales is also the UK’s most copied place name: it is the original Richmond but there are more than 100 across the world, from America to India. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating Richmond Yorkshire Community Interest Company, which is putting a great bid together to be the UK’s town of culture?
As mentioned by the Secretary of State, this week’s BAFTA awards—a great celebration of British creativity—were marred by the unnecessary airing of involuntary comments by Tourette’s campaigner John Davidson. It appears a microphone was placed close to John, and some offensive comments were aired, despite a two-hour delay. This no doubt well-intended attempt at inclusivity has caused great anxiety to John and great offence to many others. Does the Secretary of State agree that the BBC and BAFTA must not only investigate this matter but apologise?
I thank the Secretary of State for that response. When the Labour Government cut the budget for the listed places of worship scheme, it was suggested that we should not worry because it never runs out of money. Well, it has now run out of money. As the details for a new scheme have not yet been announced, uncertainty is growing, and vital repair work is being postponed or cancelled altogether. Will the Government follow the Conservative lead and commit to fully restoring the budget for the listed places of worship scheme and to releasing information about the new scheme as a matter of urgency?
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee and her team for their work. I agree with all of their conclusions. On her last point, about who knew what when, does she agree that it is now very clear that the Government were not co-ordinating effectively, that they seemed to be asleep at the wheel, and that Ministers and/or officials at the Home Office and DCMS were clearly not co-ordinating with each other on what is transparently a very sensitive issue, because they knew about the possibility of the ban weeks before the decision was made and appear to have done absolutely nothing?