Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,750 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
Given the importance of the Chagos islands to our defence, has the hon. Gentleman’s Committee thought about even doing a review into the Chagos islands and what this would look like? That way, such questions could be addressed directly in a decent period of time—we only have four or five hours tonight—and he could spend several weeks looking into the matter. Is that something he and his Committee would consider?
The hon. Member is making a powerful point. We heard an impassioned defence not to bring the Falkland Islands or other British overseas territories into this, but Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands have self-determination, voted for by their people. Is it his thesis that that will apply for the Chagossians, and therefore they would make the determination whether to be British or, indeed, go to the Mauritians on that basis?
I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way and using his legal background. It is more secure legally for those 99 years but, more definitively, at that 99-year point, if the Mauritians decide not to have a base there, categorically that is their decision. Therefore, by proxy, it is actually more unsafe, just in 100 years’ time.
On that basis, there were 17 rounds of formal negotiations for the Falkland Islands between ’65 and ’82. What would the outcome be under the hon. Gentleman’s way forward?
Will the hon. Member give way?
Will the hon. Member give way?
Is this not the point that we have heard time and again from Government Members? This deal runs out in 99 years, and at that point Mauritius can simply close the base or hand it on to the biggest offer. We get first rights on it, but if the Chinese decide to invest hundreds of billions, we may not be able to match that. We are over a barrel. In 100 years’ time, people will be in this place having this exact debate saying, “How do we solve this problem?” Is the hon. Member as concerned about that as I am?
May I say how much of an honour it is to follow the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn)? Although we do not necessarily agree on a lot of policy, I am always struck by the fact that he puts people at the heart of his speeches. That has never been the case more than during his long campaign on this issue, on which he spoke eloquently. He is putting Chagossians right at the heart of any decision making. He deserves a lot of acclaim for that. He is right to call out some of the rhetoric in this debate, because, at the end of the day, those people really matter. I thank him for putting his points on the record. There are three broad areas that I would like to cover: sovereignty, costs and some of the scariest parts of the Bill. I listened to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), and I must admit that I am not nearly as learned or experienced as him; I bow to his legal analysis. I am a mere doctor, so I look for an evidence base when trying to understand the process. To that end, I thought it would be useful to write to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, which I duly did. I received a letter on 28 July 2025 from the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who I see will kindly respond, and is sat in his place. Much to my surprise and pleasure, a lot of what is in the letter was in the Minister’s speech. This debate allows me to walk through some of the letter and pose the questions that hit me as I looked into this case. I must admit that when I stepped into this House in 2019, this was not a topic that I knew a huge deal about—I think many Members on both sides would say the same—but it very quickly became a topic that I realised we should look into understanding, especially as it deals with security. The letter states: “We had to act now because the base was under threat.” That implies urgency, but the letter is loose on who was under threat, where and how. There is legal uncertainty but, as we have heard, we do not know which court is involved or why. It goes on to say: “The courts have already made decisions which undermine our position.” Courts, plural. We know that the ICJ is involved, but as has been stated, its opinion was non-binding, and there is a carve-out relating to the Commonwealth. The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), said, after being pushed to speak on the matter multiple times, that the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea was the area of concern, but he will know that back in 2015, under annex VII, the tribunal agreed with the UK that sovereignty could not be determined by UNCLOS. This was a marine protection issue. Britons were trying to protect the area, and Mauritius wanted to open it up to farm it, and we were found against, under that treaty, in that court. This raises an important side issue: what protections are there in the Bill for the environment? They seem scant, or just not there. The letter goes further, stating that “in 2021…a Special Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea…ruled that Mauritius’ sovereignty was inferred from ICJ”. So the Government themselves point that out. The letter goes on to say: “The UK was not party to this case”. Well, obviously, it would not be, but that means that we have not had our day in court to explain why we do not think that the judgment should apply. Mauritius’ sovereignty was inferred from that non-binding, political judgment. The letter goes on: “If Mauritius were to take us to court again, the UK’s longstanding legal view is that we would not have a realistic prospect of successfully defending its legal position on sovereignty in such litigation.” Well, which court? If this advice is so long-standing, why do we not know about it? How have we got this far, going for year upon year with no agreement, without any urgency? It seems sensible and appropriate to release the advice on this. At the start of that quote, the letter said “If Mauritius”. It states later that it is “highly likely that further wide-ranging litigation would be brought quickly by Mauritius against the UK.” What evidence do the Government have to back that up? What is it that they say Mauritius will act so quickly on? We certainly have not seen it, if it was from 2021. The dates 2023 and 2024 have been mentioned, and we are now in 2025. I would be interested to see the Government release the evidence base for their claim about how quickly litigation would come forward, because as they rightly point out, there have been 11 rounds of negotiations, so there has clearly been time to sort things out. Before someone jumps in and says, “Well, you opened the negotiations”, I would point out that we did that for the Falkland Islands as well. I find it amazing that we have trade unionists who built their whole careers on negotiating suddenly chastising the Conservatives for listening to the other side of a disagreement. That seems bizarre to me, because we want to respect each other and exchange ideas, but not have an agreement. It is rightly pointed out by Conservative Members that the agreement was not there; we did not take it. On the cost of the deal, there is no cost, because we did not have a deal to sign off. The very next sentence in the letter says: “This might, for example, include further arbitral proceedings against the UK under Annex VII of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. A judgment from such a tribunal would be legally binding on the UK.”
It is. It is true about the legally binding aspect within the area that the tribunal covers, but that does not cover sovereignty, as we learned in 2015 when the tribunal sided with the British Government. Here we have the farcical situation of a House of policy and law shining light on one side and another, but never on the truth. This is where my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam is exactly right. If the Government were to come forward and say exactly which court, where and why, they might get more sympathy from Opposition, but we have been through an entire five-hour debate and we still do not have answers to those questions. Another court that is often cited is the International Telecommunication Union covering spectre, radio and radar. Article 48.1 states “Member States retain their entire freedom with regard to military radio installations,” and the Government know that. Even the written answer from the Minister—it has been hinted at before—states: “Individual countries have the sovereign right to manage and use the radio spectrum, within their borders, the way they wish, subject to not causing interference with other countries. This right is recognised in the Radio Regulations. The Radio Regulations are the international framework for the use of spectrum by radiocommunication services, defined and managed by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU). Individual countries, not the ITU, make their own sovereign spectrum assignments in accordance with the Radio Regulations. The ITU has no legal authority over these assignments regardless of the country’s civilian or military classification of spectrum. The ITU cannot challenge the UK’s use of civilian or military spectrum.” It is clear here—the Government know it in their own answers—that the ITU has no role in sovereignty. It all boils down to where one believes British overseas territories stand. Now we must talk about the cost, which has been much debated. There have been three figures in the debate: £3.4 billion, £10 billion and £34 billion. The £3.4 billion is the net present value using social time preference rate. The £10 billion is inflation adjusted, and the £34 billion is the nominal value by the Government Actuary’s Department. The question is, why use net present value? I put it earlier in the debate that there is no other precedent in the world for NPV being used in sovereignty matters. The Minister at the time asked whether the Conservatives want to do away with using NPV—of course not.
Absolutely, the Minister says it is within the Green Book. Absolutely not, because it has a perfect place in domestic use for commercial practicalities, not for international sovereignty issues. No other country has looked, or would look, at this because it does not make sense. The House of Commons Library said when asked that “this methodology is regularly used in government accounting, but its main use is for cost-benefit analyses. It is unusual to see it used in this situation like this, where only the cost is being assessed and it is not being compared to any benefit”. On that basis, and listening to the House of Commons Library, what cost-benefit analysis has actually been done in this case, and would it be put in front of the House so we might be able to see it? At the end of the day, NPV is highly political because it assumes a discount rate, and what is the discount rate that one should choose? In the details, it talks about 3.5%, but the US will use 3.5% or 7%, which would vastly differentiate the figures. It goes on further, for the social time preference rate is 3.5%, but for 30 years. This deal is for 99 years, so how can the Government respond in a written parliamentary question that this “represents good value for UK taxpayers”? On what basis are they comparing that if there is no international comparison? We are talking only about domestic uses and for an accounting point. As I come to my conclusions, possibly the scariest thing to me—I have tried to highlight it throughout the debate—which does seem to be falling on deaf ears, is article 13. I believe this treaty is legally bomb-proof. It looks sensible, and I am no legal expert as I have attested to, but it seems to stand the test of time. That means when article 13 says explicitly that in 99 years Mauritius can say no and just take control, that is a big worry. We have heard from many Government MPs how it secures the long-term aspirations of this country for a period of 99 years. When I mentioned that, several Government MPs scoffed. But is it not the duty of this House to provide not only for the next generation, but the rest of time for our country, in the best interests of our country? After listening to all the arguments that have been made about how essential the base is, the very fact that Mauritius could pull the base is a very scary prospect. There is, of course, a caveat: the right of first refusal. But if China decides to do a deal with Mauritius at exorbitant cost, we are over a barrel and the British taxpayer must fork out yet again to guarantee our security. Mauritius has been given a golden ticket, and it knows it. Beyond the sovereignty and cost, my biggest concern is that we are outsourcing decision -making for our children and our children’s children. That is the modus operandi of this Government—we need only look at the borrowing in the Budget to see how they borrow on the backs of future children. Pushing this decision out for 99 years is not security for now; it will help, but it creates a far bigger problem in 100 years’ time. If the Government want to give away our islands, they should be open and transparent about how and why. The biggest thing is that we have not even had our day in court. That is what most troubles the British public. I think that the British public would be reasonable if a court found against us—they would happily say, “We follow the rule of law”—but the Government will not even try that. They say that there is a risk. As has been said, this has been going on for years, and still we are looking at a treaty to sign it off. That inevitably poses final questions about what happens with Gibraltar, the Falklands and Cyprus. The Minister is correct to point out that there are differences, but the biggest fundamental problem that the Government have in arguing to the British people and the people of the Falklands is about understanding. If this House cannot understand the legal concepts of the places where we are likely to fight these causes, how can we expect the public to do so? When it comes to delivering comms to the UK public, that is what they need to understand.
The Minister seems to be arguing about exactly how much it will cost. My constituents just see that he is giving away British territory and paying rent for it, which is completely unacceptable to them. He talks about how it is good for the global south, because they agree with it; good for other countries, because they agree with it; and good for Mauritius, because it is getting extra money. What about the British people that he, as a British Minister, is here to represent? What are they getting for this deal? They are losing territory and it is costing them money.
Is my right hon. Friend aware of any of our allies who think that the insecure and expensive leasehold deal that we have now is better than the freehold sovereignty and security that we had before?
My right hon. Friend is making a great speech. She says that this is a reckless giving away of British money. Unlike many of the other things we have had to watch Labour do, such as take the winter fuel allowance away from old people and heavily tax charities, hospices and others, this cannot be undone. Once the money is given away to a foreign country, there is nothing that any future Government can do to claim it back easily.
11. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of increases in employer national insurance contributions on businesses.
I am not particularly interested in who the Minister is backing in the deputy leadership contest, but I welcome him to his place. Lebanese Please is a fantastic restaurant in Weybridge, but like many hospitality companies, it is struggling with the impact of national insurance increases. If the partly new Treasury Front-Bench team are considering going for a team lunch, I recommend the warm hospitality of Runnymede and Weybridge, where they can see for themselves the impact that this horrid, harmful tax is having on local businesses across the country.
Will the Minister give way?
I congratulate the Minister on his promotion, but must say how sorry I am that his first outing has been to defend this load of nonsense. What does he say to the UK Statistics Authority and to the Government Actuary’s Department, which appear to have a very different view of the costing of this to the one that he has just outlined? Is it not the case that what he has said represents a load of accounting double-speak and is dubious, to put it politely and in parliamentary terms?
On that point, will the Minister give way?
The Minister is being extremely generous with his time. He was pressed earlier, but I would like to press him again on the social time discounting method. He should be able to give examples of big projects to which his Government have applied this method. Could he now do that and say why, for example, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) did not use that method when she was calculating the cost of the 10-year affordable housing programme?
The Government are clearly not going to take any lessons from us, but I wonder whether they would listen to one of their own. Lord West of Spithead was a Security Minister under the previous Labour Administration and then First Sea Lord and Chief of the Naval Staff, so he knows a thing or two. He has said very clearly that in his expert opinion, this deal is “irresponsible” and that it will damage our strategic interests. Who are we to believe: the Labour party or my old boss, Lord West?
My right hon. Friend is making a powerful case. The answer is none, because Mauritius has no navy and practically no coastguard. With which means will Mauritius defend a territory that is hundreds of kilometres away? It cannot possibly do so.
22. If she will meet with representatives of the farming industry to discuss the potential impact of changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief on that sector.
Given the Prime Minister’s clear commitment to growth that benefits every community in every corner of the UK, his Ministers will no doubt be disturbed at polling showing that four fifths of farmers have postponed or delayed investment since the Budget. Is it not time for a rethink of this policy—if not on grounds of fairness, then on grounds of investment, productivity and economic growth?
I congratulate the hon. Member for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg) on securing this important urgent question. I welcome the Minister to his new role, although I will never be able to rival his literary quotations. This attack on Jaguar Land Rover is extremely concerning. The impact on that world-leading business, and on its suppliers and workers, has been significant. I hope that the whole House agrees that we must use the full force of the state to crack down on cyber-criminals. I appreciate that the Minister is constrained in what he can say, but when were the Government and the National Cyber Security Centre informed of the attack? What kind of support are the Government and law enforcement agencies able to offer Jaguar Land Rover? How much longer do the Government expect the disruption, which is impacting on the supply of vehicles, to continue? The attack is just another in a series against British brands and iconic institutions—the Minister says that 40% of our businesses have been affected—including the attack earlier this year on Marks & Spencer. Will he elaborate on what the Government are doing to prevent future attacks? Has he identified who is responsible for the attack? Can he rule out its being a state-sponsored attack? If the group responsible for the attacks on Jaguar Land Rover and Marks & Spencer are linked, what progress have law enforcement agencies made in pursuing them?
indicated dissent.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. Does he agree that another problem with the lack of four-day county cricket during the August period is that it is pushed to the margins, which impacts on batting development for future test players, as they are playing in the colder conditions of the early season, and inhibits the development of spin bowlers, who struggle at that time of year? We are perhaps inhibiting some player development in both batting and bowling for our future test stars.
Does the hon. Member agree that it is now 20 years since the last televised Test series—the greatest Test series of all time—and that since then participation has gradually declined? Is that not clearly an indication that fewer people are being exposed to the joys of this fantastic game?
Order. We do not refer to Members by name, but by constituency.
I call Paul Holmes.
Order. Before we move on to the next speaker, I remind right hon. and hon. Members that it is not in order to impute false or unavowed motives to any other individual hon. Members in this place.
Order. I wasn’t anywhere, and I have forgotten nothing. Will Members please be careful about the language they use in the Chamber?
Order. This debate has to be fair on both sides. I will not have Members referring to the Prime Minister by name.
There have been some fantastic speeches from Opposition Members standing up for British interests, so I will not go on at length, but I wish to make a few points. This surrender Bill is madness. The Government have decided, against the security and financial interests of the United Kingdom, to surrender territory to which there was no claim to a country that has no historical or cultural connection to it. They are doing so because, in the words of the Prime Minister, “If Mauritius takes us to court again, the UK’s long-standing legal view is that we would not have a realistic prospect of success.” Let us be clear: there is no legal or moral obligation to surrender the Chagos islands to Mauritius. Labour is the worst negotiator, spending tens of billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money to surrender the Chagos islands, bunging billions to its unionised paymasters on day one of forming a Government, and showing a lack of will on tackling welfare dependency. Whatever Labour touches, the costs to the taxpayer go up and the benefits diminish. This spectacularly bad deal will leave Britain less secure while British taxpayers stump up tens of billions of pounds for tax cuts in a foreign country—equivalent to 4% of the Mauritian budget and to £50 million for every constituency represented in this House. The staggering £35 billion cost is 10 times more than was originally claimed because of the Government’s creative accounting—even the UK Statistics Authority does not endorse the figure. It was arrived at by applying an assumed annual inflation rate of 2.3% over the 99-year lease period, despite inflation running at almost 4%. The total was then lowered again by between 2.5% and 3.5% per year through a Treasury practice called the social time preference rate, which reflects the fact that people value benefits received immediately more highly. It converts future costs and benefits into their present-day value rather than allowing for a more accurate valuation of future costs. The Government are happy to apply that rate in the case of their surrender deal, but will not use the same methodology to cost their affordable homes programme. What is worse is that the Government have refused to allow Parliament a separate vote on the financial obligations under this terrible deal—they could have done, but chose not to. That £35 billion could have been spent on new hospitals or schools or, in the case of my constituency, on infrastructure to support the thousands of new houses that the Government want to build. It could have been spent on tax cuts to stimulate the economy or even to plug Labour’s own financial black hole. Labour is cutting tax for Mauritians off the back of hard-pressed UK taxpayers. Then we get to the national security risks. Diego Garcia, located on the Chagos islands, is the UK’s most important military base in the Indian ocean. The geopolitical significance of the base cannot be overstated in a world in which China seeks to undermine us. We know that China thinks in a multigenerational capacity. It is a dictatorship that does not share our values, and this is the blink of an eye in terms of how it plans its future. China has made no secret of its intent to deepen its relationship with Mauritius. It is an increasingly hostile state towards the UK, and it knows too well that Mauritius is key to supporting its long-term strategic goals. Furthermore, Mauritius has signalled that it is working more closely with Russia on research and development, and with Iran on developing closer relations. Mauritius has gone on public record stating that it is grateful to the Chinese for playing a critical role in its pursuit of international recognition of Mauritian sovereignty over these islands.
I will not. While the Government and the Prime Minister are trying to paint this as a good deal, they know that Beijing, Moscow and Tehran have watched closely and have all taken note. Finally, it is not just this country’s taxpayers who recognise that this is a bad deal. Lord West of Spithead, former First Sea Lord, Chief of the Naval Staff, and Labour Security Minister, said that ceding the Chagos islands to Mauritius would be “irresponsible”, risk our strategic interests, and undermine the fundamental principles of international law. Why do the Government prioritise any interests other than Britain’s, and foreign sovereignty over that of the UK? The Bill will leave Britain poorer, weaker and exposed. It is a betrayal not just of UK interests but also of British Chagossians, and it does not deserve a Second Reading.
At the start of this Parliament, I could not have imagined that we would be asked to consider a Bill that is so uniquely detrimental to our national security, the British taxpayer, the British Chagossian people and the environment. Not only are we ceding sovereignty of a critical overseas territory, but we are paying a huge financial cost for the privilege of doing so. We have heard much today about the cost of this deal—a cost that the Government claim is £3.4 billion over 99 years, but in reality it is many times greater. This deal is unique: it will leave the UK strategically weaker in one of the most contested regions of the world, which is likely to shape the future direction of geopolitics, at a time when the world is more volatile than ever, with 2024 seeing the greatest number of conflicts around the globe since the second world war. Allow me to start with the finances of the deal. It took a freedom of information request for this Government to level with the British people that this deal would in fact cost £35 billion, with some analysis even suggesting it could be as much as £47 billion. It would have been far better for the Government to have come clean over the true cost of the Chagos deal, rather than trying accountancy tricks to pull the wool over our eyes. I would like to put into context the sheer scale of £35 billion of taxpayers’ money: it could be used to pay for 10 Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers; it is over half the annual schools budget; it is the estimated cost of the entire Hinckley Point C nuclear reactor project; it would pay for 70 hospitals, or a 5% cut on income tax—the list could go on and on. We knew this anyway, but it is worth reiterating that when the Prime Minister negotiates, Britain loses. The hard-working people of Chester South and Eddisbury deserve a better return for the tax they pay, and they ought not to have to watch as this Government sign away British sovereign territory. Adding to that, the omission from the Bill of a money authorisation clause, removing Parliament’s ability to vote on sending billions of pounds to Mauritius, is completely wrong. That leads me to the strategic implications of the Bill. The Diego Garcia base is one of seven permanent points of presence within the Indo-Pacific region. Owing to its position in the middle of the Indian ocean and proximity to shipping lanes, it is vital for our national security and regional influence. It is a key base from which our armed forces can protect us from hostile states and non-state actors and activity. From a security standpoint, it is deeply concerning that we are losing sovereignty over this base and the influence that we could exert from it. According to the treaty, the UK is compelled to notify the Mauritian Government on certain aspects of military activity in and around the base. This does not make us safer. Think back to earlier this year when our American allies conducted strikes against Iran. What if the UK were to support our allies in such action? This deal would require, as we have heard, for us to expeditiously inform the Mauritian Government of our actions. I appreciate that the Minister has clarified that no advanced notification is required, although one might ask why we should have to inform Mauritius at all, expeditiously or not. Perhaps the Minister can clarify whether the provisions under annex 1, paragraph 2 also extend to special forces operations, and, if so, what guarantee there would be that highly sensitive security information would not end up in the hands of our adversaries. China, Iran and Russia have all welcomed the deal. As the shadow Minister highlighted, the Chinese ambassador to Mauritius congratulated the Government of Mauritius and the Deputy Prime Minister in a press conference following the deal’s announcement, thanking China for its support throughout the process. China does not do geopolitical favours, so its support should cause the Government to pause and reflect. Iran has also welcomed the deal and we know that it is forging closer ties with Russia, so perhaps in his closing remarks the Minister can share with the House how Ministers have somehow come to a different conclusion and deduced instead that all three of those geopolitical threats are opposed to the deal. But it is not just the huge financial cost or the significant security implications of the deal that are deeply concerning, but that it has ignored the voices of British Chagossians. In June this year, I met people from the Chagossian community who came to Parliament to speak with MPs. Their message was very clear: they feel let down by a lack of transparency and consultation, and are deeply uncertain about their future. It is not surprising that they feel ignored and betrayed, given that the former Foreign Secretary met them only once—once—on a deal that is so significant for them. The Government must put that right and take the opportunity to implement a recommendation put forward by the House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee and International Agreements Committee, outlined in the report that looked at the treaty. They urged the Government to “Enhance Chagossian engagement by establishing a formal consultation mechanism with the Chagossian community to monitor the Agreement’s implementation and ensure their meaningful inclusion in decision-making.” Will the Minister confirm whether that recommendation has been implemented? The deal provides British Chagossians with no guaranteed rights of return to their homeland. I therefore ask the Minister to state clearly whether the Government have negotiated an agreement in which British Chagossians’ rights to visit the Chagos islands are left entirely in the hands of Mauritius, and whether it is feasible that they may be refused the right to return or even visit. That would be wholly unacceptable. Further, the Chagos trust fund, established as part of the UK-Mauritius treaty and financed by the UK, is to be distributed solely under the control of Mauritius, yet the Bill contains no provisions to monitor whether the rights of British Chagossians are upheld or to create any statutory oversight of the trust fund. Have Ministers secured from the Government of Mauritius any firm commitment that British Chagossians will have a formal role in the oversight and decision making regarding the fund? Indeed, why was a model of joint governance not agreed, ensuring that British Chagossians themselves have a voice in how the fund is governed and can benefit directly from it? Added to all this, the deal currently risks leaving a pristine marine environment unprotected. The waters around the Chagos islands are home to 220 species of coral, 855 species of fish and 355 species of molluscs. These waters have been fully protected since 2010 by the UK Government. Although it is welcome that there is a commitment to continue with a marine protected area, we do not know what levels of support Mauritius will put into the MPA. Indeed, there are real concerns that the Mauritian Government do not have the capabilities to monitor, enforce and protect these waters, with no assurance that there will be no fishing and trawling in them. From the eye-watering costs to the grave security risks, the betrayal of British Chagossians and the environmental damage this treaty risks unleashing, this is a uniquely bad deal. It asks us to pay more, risk more and gain nothing in return. For the sake of our national interest and our duty to the Chagossian people, I cannot support this Bill.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. It is also a pleasure to take part in a debate on energy in which there is such a cross-party consensus. It is very rare in debates on energy these days to get such agreement on the way forward and on what we should invest in. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) on securing the debate and the hon. Member for Worcester (Tom Collins) for his very able opening speech. It is also rare that we actually learn something in these debates, but I have learnt quite a lot this morning, which is a surprise. The hon. Member for Worcester talked about the vitally important part played by gas in our energy system both today and moving forward, as well as blending, which is something we need a resolution to in the very near future, as I have heard in my discussions with National Gas and others. I urge the Government to make their decision on what the future might be as quickly as they can. That would be good for everybody. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) spoke about hydrogen buses. He was followed by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) in talking about Wrightbus and the issues around refuelling hydrogen buses. That is something that my constituents know about only too well. The city of Aberdeen was the first city in the United Kingdom to have a fully hydrogen bus fleet. However, it has been off the road since July 2024 because of issues with the refuelling station and the lack of available alternative supply. Although there are significant issues that need to be resolved, the future could and should be very bright indeed for hydrogen-fuelled buses. The hon. Members for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) and Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke about the opportunities across our United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. They are absolutely right: every community, I suspect, has some industry, business or body involved in the development of hydrogen as a technology and energy source of the future. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) raised the important point about ammonia and fertiliser, which is not spoken about enough in these debates. We focus far too often on the energy use of hydrogen and not its added benefits. I often speak about my own experience of the energy industry. Coming from Aberdeenshire, I have been surrounded by those working directly or indirectly in the oil and gas industry—it is inescapable. Where I am from, the importance of supply chains and economic value to local communities is obvious: everybody knows it, sees it in their high streets and hears about it from their family and friends employed in the sector. However, the oil and gas industry has not succeeded in telling that story beyond the north east of Scotland. In reality, 200,000 jobs across the United Kingdom are reliant on the oil and gas sector and supply chains. The industry touches every constituency in the country. All that is to say that the conversation around the significance, impact and resilience of supply chains is vital. The future of hydrogen in this country is central to our decarbonisation is central to our decarbonisation ambitions and sustainable future, as well as our industrial future, but it is also shrouded in uncertainty. The commitment and investment in using hydrogen as a solution in hard-to-abate industries, heavy manufacturing, long-distance transport and high-temperature processes began under the last Government. When we were in government, we kick-started the world-leading hydrogen economy and launched a hydrogen strategy and a 10-point plan. We recognised the significance of hydrogen to decarbonising and the importance to the economy of the supply chain across the country. That supply chain—from utilities to manufacturers, transport, distribution and storage, and from monitoring and control to the fabricators of fuel cell components, end users and decommissioning—plays a vital role in securing a future for hydrogen in the UK and adding value to local economies. We identified attractive opportunities for the UK supply chain on electrolysis package manufacturing, electrical equipment, materials manufacturing and more, with the UK supply chain capable of attaining a market share valued between £4 billion and £5 billion. If the UK aspires to be a world leader in green technology, as I think we in this House agree we should, we must underpin that aspiration with a strategy to bring down industrial prices. The Government—indeed, any Government—should be ambitious for UK industry, as the Government say they are, in order to make industry in the UK great. This cannot be achieved without cheap energy and energy abundance, which can be secured with hydrogen. British industry cannot be competitive with expensive electricity and with businesses and manufacturers suffering under the burden of levies, as they currently are. We should bring down industrial prices, build new nuclear, eliminate levies on manufacturers and embrace energy abundance. Let us all agree to aspire to manufacture, innovate and export technologies that will drive the world closer to global climate solutions. Hydrogen is at the heart of that. From steelmaking to shipping, hydrogen’s versatility makes this fuel an exciting prospect and component of our future energy mix. Yet major uncertainty is hanging over the system when it comes to whether hydrogen will be used for home heating. With a decision not due until 2026, the future of hydrogen remains somewhat in limbo. Regardless of the outcome when it comes to hydrogen for domestic heating, the gas grid remains essential. It could be repurposed to transport hydrogen to industrial clusters, power stations and transport hubs. We cannot and must not abandon this vast, valuable national asset. When it comes to distribution, pipelines, road tankers and even ships will be needed to move hydrogen. The existing gas grid could play a transformative role, if it is repurposed effectively. From production to storage and from distribution to utilisation, hydrogen in the UK heralds a wealth of opportunity. It is incumbent on this Government—and, indeed, on any Government—to create a landscape where the manufacturing industry can thrive and profit and where domestic production capacity can grow. The hydrogen supply chain does not exist in a vacuum; it builds on the legacy of the oil and gas supply chain—the infrastructure, engineering expertise and global logistics that have powered the UK for decades. With the right approach from the Government, it will do so for many decades to come.
I rise to present a petition from 241 residents of South Leicestershire who share my concern about the threat of gross overdevelopment in Lutterworth and its surrounding villages. I declare from the outset, as a proud constituency-based MP, that I live in the affected area. The petition highlights proposals such as the proposed Tarmac quarry near Misterton, which is not in the county council’s mineral plan; plans for large-scale warehousing at Lutterworth East and Gibbet Hill, which is not in Harborough district council’s local plan; a proposed giant battery storage site between Lutterworth and South Kilworth; and the reduction of affordable housing in Lutterworth East. A minimum of 40% the housing was to have been affordable, but that is now changed to a minimum of just 10%. That will deprive hundreds of families of much-needed affordable homes. Those proposals threaten the character of our historic Lutterworth market town and our wonderful Leicestershire villages. Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of the constituency of South Leicestershire: Declares that current proposals such as Tarmac’s proposed sand and gravel quarry near Misterton, which is not an allocated site in Leicestershire County Council’s mineral extraction plan, large-scale warehousing developments at Lutterworth East and near Gibbet Hill, which are not compliant with Harborough District Council’s Local Plan, and the proposed giant battery storage and electrical substation between Lutterworth and South Kilworth, which raises health, safety, and noise concerns, and the reduction of affordable housing at Lutterworth East from a promised minimum of 40% to a minimum of 10%, denying families access to affordable homes, threaten the character of our historic market town and villages. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to intervene if necessary to ensure that relevant county and local planning policies are applied in respect of Tarmac’s proposed sand and gravel quarry near Misterton, the warehousing developments at Lutterworth East and near Gibbet Hill Roundabout, and the proposed giant battery storage and electrical substation between Lutterworth and South Kilworth, and to the proportion of affordable housing in new developments. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003109]
I congratulate the Minister on his promotion. I have just returned from the US with the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, where we reviewed disruptive technology from AI to quantum and saw how it has a chance to change the defence industrial base. What consideration of that fast-moving technology is there in this defence industrial strategy?
The Government said over the summer that the Dreadnought programme was on track, despite the fire last year at Barrow, the challenges of covid and the other Government programmes that are running delayed. However, there is a lot of latitude in saying that the programme will be delivered in the early 2030s. Is the Minister able to clarify in which year the first vessels will be in service? That has significant implications for the length at sea of existing submariners.
The Defence Secretary says that the Chagos giveaway will amount to no more than 0.2% of our defence budget. Does that not suggest the cost of the Chagos giveaway will in fact come out of the defence budget?