David Reed
MP for Exmouth and Exeter East · Conservative · United Kingdom
“Air ambulance charities like Devon Air Ambulance are vital to easing pressure on ambulance trusts and A&E, yet they receive no direct Government funding and rely almost entirely on public donations. Their operational costs are rising—fuel duty alone adds over £200,000 a year to what they will now need to find.”
“In Devon, local government reorganisation is taking up a great deal of bandwidth and detracting from what councils should be doing. My constituents want to know whether the announcement on Thursday will hold beyond the week. The Minister has avoided this question from multiple Members today: does the right hon.”
“As the House will know, the Home Office does not routinely publish figures on the number of small boat arrivals who abscond or whose whereabouts subsequently becomes unknown.”
“In Exmouth and Exeter East, the local coastguard rescue team covers the Exe estuary, mudflats, tidal waters and busy open coastline. It is called on when local people or visitors are cut off by the tide, trapped in mud, in difficulty in the water, or at risk of self-harm.”
“At the very moment we need the sector to be creating opportunities for young people, businesses within it face mounting pressures: rising wage bills, higher national insurance contributions and business rates, and the burden of excessive red tape. Those are all compounded by unsustainably high energy costs, as my right hon.”
“Most hon. Members would agree that I have a beautiful constituency. That fact is no secret. Many people visit our corner of Devon, and catering for that tourism means that seasonal work is vital to our local economy. Last year, I visited Devon Cliffs and Ladram Bay, which are two of the largest and most popular holiday parks in the area.”
The complete record
Every one of 546 lines we hold for David Reed, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 11.
“We have roughly 55,000 MOD civil servants, yet we recently struggled to deploy a single, partially functional destroyer to protect our sovereign base area in Cyprus, a point expanded on by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells. There are many fantastic civil servants in the MOD—I have personally had the privilege to work alongside a number of them—but I cannot believe I am alone in seeing the imbalance in that equation. Lastly, I turn to our service personnel and veterans. At every UK training establishment, the law of armed conflict is rigorously instilled into every recruit and officer cadet. That legal framework underpins a service person’s conduct throughout their career and on operations. I speak with the lived experience as a former Royal Marine.”
“For many of the areas where we most want to excel, true sovereignty is a myth. The best AI needs the best chips, and we do not own the means of production. Our options are either our American allies or China. I know which one I choose. The Government talk a good game on drones, but most small aerial drone systems depend on neodymium magnets and China controls over 90% of global supply. That is not a supply chain problem; it is a strategic vulnerability. What is truly in our national interest is to identify these dependencies—a point reinforced by the Chair of the Defence Committee, whose Committee is looking at this—and swiftly partner with allies who can help to address them. I do not see that joined-up work happening across the Government. That leads me to the structure of our public defence establishment.”
“For the large prime contractors, those too big to fail, the calculation is simple: they leverage their workforce and industrial base to force the Government’s hand. But for smaller companies in the supply chain, the picture is far bleaker. With a meagre number of contracts being awarded, they are being starved of work. If they have not already gone out of business, many are reaching the same conclusion: if you want to grow, you have to go. And go they will. The United States and European defence markets are rising to the moment. Companies and finance will follow the business. The Government’s indecision and delay is placing British defence at the back of the queue at precisely the moment when the queue has never mattered more. That leaves me to challenge a phrase used too freely by Defence Ministers: sovereign capability.”
“Friends the Members for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) and for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith). There were many more contributions—too many to mention, Madam Deputy Speaker—but it was great to see so many of my constituency neighbours from the south-west. As the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry has championed repeatedly, it is a region that will play a decisive role in our defence readiness going forward. Like many in this House, I am utterly tired, if not bored, of asking when the defence investment plan will be published, and I am not even going to bother asking about the planned defence readiness Bill. The Government set their own deadline last autumn and 10 months on it is still nowhere to be seen.”
“She called out some of the supply chains that she is seeing in her work with Italy around the Global Combat Air Programme and pointed out the Government’s dither regarding the slow release of the defence investment plan. We also had strong contributions from the hon. Members for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) and for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba), my right hon. Friends the Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) and for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), the hon. Members for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor), for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss), for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) and for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie), and my hon.”
“Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) is no longer in his place, but it was quite intimidating to see the Streetonian praetorian guard out in full force. He articulated the weighty issues we face as a country and I seriously hope that defence issues are front and centre of his coup d’état attempts. My right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) illustrated lessons from world war two, and what we need to learn and act on without delay, points that were reinforced by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis). I think we can all agree that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) is doing a fantastic job as trade envoy to Italy.”
“Where politics legitimately begins is in the harder questions about where the money comes from and how and what we choose to spend it on. Turning to the speeches, opening the batting was the Chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), and I think we can all agree that he made quite a brave and powerful speech. He laid bare the holes in the Government’s approach to defence in a constructive way, as I have seen him do repeatedly in his work as Chair of his Committee. It was also good to see him wearing his Royal College of Defence Studies tie. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) made an excellent speech, as is to be expected. He touched on the supply chain issues and reliance on China, and I will come back to those points later. The right hon.”
“While it is encouraging that so many Members are engaging with this epoch-defining issue, it is equally clear that there is a “corrosive complacency” at the heart of this Government. Those are not my words; they belong to Lord Robertson, a former Labour Defence Secretary and a former NATO Secretary-General and one of the most distinguished voices in this country’s defence establishment. He did not use them lightly, and he directed them squarely at this Prime Minister and this Chancellor. When a man of that stature speaks in those terms about his own party’s Government, this House would do well to listen. More than that, there should be no politics in acknowledging the reality that stares us plainly in the face.”
“It is an honour to wind up the final day of debate on the King’s Speech for His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. We have heard many sterling speeches from Members across this House, and I will turn to some of them shortly. First, however, I want to pose once more the central question of this debate, and ask every Member to answer it honestly: is our national defence truly ready? My honest assessment is no, it is not. War is no longer a matter of history. The international order we have all lived under is fracturing. War has broken out across multiple continents, and rapid technological advancement and the accelerating consequences of climate change are compounding an already dangerous volatility. The world is not as it was, and we cannot afford to govern as though it is.”
“I welcome the Minister to her new role. On the criteria, I have pushed for a banking hub in Budleigh Salterton for a great deal of time, but it was pushed back because there is a post office in the town. The post office was closed for 10 weeks last year, and the surrounding rural villages—places such as East Budleigh, Otterton and Colaton Raleigh—were starved of cash. Will the Minister meet with me to look at the criteria that Link has put in place around the post office’s suitability to see if we can get that overturned?”
“The hon. Gentleman is making an impassioned speech. One of my big concerns, about which we need to be talking far more, is that jobs for young people in the 18 to 24 category are being replaced by automation and artificial intelligence. That is especially true for young people who are in the age category coming out of university: they are shackled with tens of thousands of pounds of debt and the graduate jobs that they had hoped to get are now being automated. What does he think that the Government can do to ensure that the cohort coming out of university and coming into the workplace have good career pathways in front of them?”
“I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this important topic to the Chamber. We have had a great deal of development in my constituency, and we are seeing these issues play out in places like Cranbrook, Pinhoe and Lympstone. In Cranbrook, no grit bins were provided during the cold weather at the end of last year because the roads were unadopted. Local councillors were sloping their shoulders and the developers would not do anything. Local people were falling over and injuring themselves. In more extreme cases—this has been alluded to already, but I will not name the developments—people have not been able to sell their houses because the utility companies, councils and local people cannot agree on where things need to go. What more can be done to make the various groups accountable? What in today’s King’s Speech does the hon.”
“Like many other Members, I am exhausted by dealing with the Liberal Democrats on East Devon district council and Devon county council. They seem completely unaccountable, so can I ask the Ministers directly what can be done to make local government more accountable for the adoptions of roads?”
“The Minister says that 300 documents have now been shared with the ISC, but how many are left to be processed? More importantly, what has the process been in ascertaining a document’s relevance, and who decides whether a document is important?”
“The Prime Minister has chosen to blame his officials for this debacle, so can he confirm that he knows the names of the FCDO civil servants who made the decision to override UKSV on 29 January 2025—yes or no? Has he made the decision to suspend them all from duty, pending a full independent inquiry—yes or no?”
“Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford made a number of points about mental health, but there are smaller, practical points that the new clause would address. Having a physical copy of our military records within one month would be really valuable, so I look forward to supporting the hon. Member for North Devon on the new clause.”
“Thank you, Mr Efford; I appreciate that. I think new clause 3 is very sensible. I know from personal experience that life in the military is fast. A person may deploy somewhere and get a number of different inoculations, and they do not necessarily think about what they were getting before being deployed. When people come out of the armed forces—I have definitely found this myself—and go travelling, knowing what they have had is really important. For someone to have to go back to the Ministry of Defence to try to get their medical records and pass them to their GPs is, as anyone who has tried to move information through GPs or NHS trusts will know, extremely difficult. As the Minister has said, moving that information between the MOD and the NHS is an even bigger burden. My right hon.”
“However, having spoken to colleagues who were on the recent transport Bill, I know that similar questions were put to Ministers in that Committee. We have had no support, and this issue has ended up in my casework. Having spoken to other Members of Parliament who have veteran populations in their constituencies—”
“I declare an interest: I am also a proud holder of a veterans railcard, as are many of my constituents. The new clause is modest in scope. It does not create new schemes. Both HM forces railcards and the veterans railcard are already in place. The purpose of the new clause is simply to give a clear statutory basis to ensure that they continue to operate on a national footing with transparent eligibility criteria and proper parliamentary oversight before any future changes are made. That is not an onerous demand on the Government, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford has already laid out. It is a straightforward safeguard for those who the schemes are intended to support. The Minister suggested that legislation is unnecessary because there is no intention to withdraw these railcards.”
“The position is hard to justify when set alongside other concessions in the rail system: discounts for younger passengers, older people and disabled travellers are already underpinned by legislation. The reasoning for that approach is clear and sensible. It is therefore difficult to see why the same principle should not apply to those who are serving, or have served, in the armed forces. If the argument rests on trusted Ministers—I look across at the Minister and he is extremely trustful—that is not a standard applied consistently elsewhere, nor is it one that we should be asked to rely on. The new clause is carefully framed and constitutionally sound. It ensures that any future changes are subject to parliamentary scrutiny, which is exactly where decisions belong.”
“The hon. Member has a Royal Marines base and a large veteran community in his constituency. This has been an issue, and I want it to be quashed as quickly as possible. If Ministers in the Department for Transport have not been able to confirm it, I really hope that the Minister in this Committee can stand up and say that there is no issue around these points and that the veterans railcard will continue to be in play. Hopefully, we can give it more support through the passage of this Bill so that it has a statutory footing. Without a statutory foundation, Parliament would have no formal role in protecting the veterans railcard; that is the point I am raising.”
“From the wooden walls of a sailing ship to the silent deterrent of nuclear submarines, each generation has embraced innovation to protect our shores and project stability beyond them. We now stand at the threshold of another transformation. Being so close to Plymouth, with the history of that dockyard which has been there for more than 500 years, this new wave of automation coming in and bringing back that cultural heritage is fascinating to see.”
“New clause 11 would provide that by ensuring regular reporting to Parliament. If the current framework is effective, the review would confirm that. If it is not, Parliament would be informed and the Government would be expected to respond. That would be a realistic expectation and one that supported both our defence capability and our industrial base. New clause 14 would give the Secretary of State the power to designate uncrewed maritime systems as warships under domestic law. This is a necessary and forward-looking measure, and one that reflects the pace of technological change and the realities of modern defence. The Royal Navy has long been defined by its ability to adapt.”
“If it does not, companies will either fall behind or choose to develop their technologies elsewhere. We refer back to the point that if you want to grow, you have to go. We need to get out of that mindset as quickly as possible and improve things in this country. For that reason, a requirement to assess developments in allied regulatory frameworks would be particularly important. It would ensure transparency and enable meaningful comparison. Parliament would be able to see clearly whether the United Kingdom was keeping up with its partners, rather than relying on general assurances of progress. The Government have recognised the importance of this agenda, and the creation of a new uncrewed systems centre of excellence is a positive step. However, co-ordination alone is not sufficient. There must also be accountability.”
“The United States is integrating uncrewed systems across its armed forces at scale, supported by a regulatory environment that enables rather than restricts innovation. If we look at the geography and topology of the United States, it has much more airspace and access to a larger maritime area, and I understand that it would be an easier process for the United States to be able to designate an area and do testing. We need to find a similar way to do that here in the UK. NATO partners are developing standards that will shape future interoperability. The United Kingdom has strong advantages, including a world-class defence technology base and a long maritime tradition, but those strengths will translate into success only if our regulatory framework keeps pace.”
“The consequence is a loss of both innovation and industrial capacity. Small and medium-sized enterprises are at the forefront of innovation in this sector. They are agile, willing to take risks and often responsible for the most promising developments. However, they are also the most vulnerable to regulatory delay. Unlike larger firms, they do not have the extensive legal resources or the financial resilience to withstand prolonged uncertainty. When delays erode limited funding, companies fail. New clause 11 would recognise that reality by requiring any review to assess the impact on SMEs directly. There is also a clear international dimension. Key allies are moving very quickly.”
“Responsibility is spread across several Departments, including the Ministry of Defence, the Department for Transport and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. Oversight is further divided among bodies such as the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, the Civil Aviation Authority, the Military Aviation Authority and Ofcom. Each operates within its own remit, but no single authority is responsible for ensuring that the overall framework supports the development and testing of systems required for defence. In practice, that creates a patchwork that acts as a brake on progress. This issue has already been acknowledged by Ministers. For smaller firms, it is not a minor inconvenience. If a company cannot test its system, it cannot demonstrate its capability, and without that, it cannot secure contracts.”
“I have now heard it said repeatedly that if you want to grow, you have to go. We should not be in that position. We have some of the smartest people in this country. We have brilliant research universities. We should be in a position to offer our defence industry access to those people and give them the opportunity to grow in that space. This new clause is straightforward. It would simply require an annual review of the regulatory framework, with findings reported to Parliament. Given the speed at which the technology is advancing and the rate at which both our allies and potential adversaries are deploying it, that would be a reasonable and proportionate step. The need for such a review is clear. At present, regulation in this area is fragmented.”
“The Government have taken important steps to strengthen counter-drone capability and protect onshore sites through this Bill. New clause 10 is the logical offshore extension of that work. I now move to new clause 11. The regulatory barriers facing uncrewed systems across the maritime and land domains are significant. They are already harming British industry and slowing the adoption of technologies that our armed forces urgently require. I recently travelled down to Plymouth to meet representatives of a company called MSubs. They have working for them really innovative people—very smart people. They are able to raise funding to grow their company, yet they cannot actually test the equipment that they are trying to build, so they are looking for opportunities to move abroad.”
“The current regulation deals with aircraft or maritime devices that are human-operated, so dealing with automation adds extra layers of complication, but it is one of those knotty problems we need to work out. New clause 10 would ensure proper co-ordination and protect both aviation and maritime safety. The ability to impose conditions on operations in designated areas would add a further layer of control. It may be argued that existing maritime or airspace regulations already offer sufficient flexibility, but that is not the case—I refer back to my point about automation. The current framework was not designed with defence unmanned aircraft operations in mind, and the absence of a clear statutory basis creates a gap that could offer areas to be exploited.”
“There is a clear requirement for consultation with the Civil Aviation Authority, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and other relevant maritime bodies before any designation is made. I have spoken to a few of those agencies throughout the passage of this Bill, and they are fully aware that regulation needs to be tightened up. On a separate matter, it does not seem to be applied evenly across the space. I have done a small amount of paramotoring before coming into Parliament, and doing it in British airspace is almost unregulated, yet we seem to be in a really contested environment for drones, which definitely needs to be opened up. To raise an extra point, I understand the limitations. We are bringing in autonomous systems, and we are not always completely sure how they will behave in the airspace.”
“Naval exercises, offshore patrols, protection of undersea infrastructure, amphibious operations and a wide range of authorised unmanned aircraft activities all take place in the maritime environment, where there is currently no equivalent legal mechanism for Defence to designate and manage operational airspace. That gap represents a real vulnerability. Legal uncertainty slows decision making, and delay in the operational environment carries risk. Commanders should not be left in any doubt about their authority to protect personnel and missions when operating offshore. New clause 10 would provide that clarity. It is also important to be clear about safeguards. These are not broad or unchecked powers. Only individuals formally authorised by the Secretary of State may designate such areas.”
“That matters because the context is clear. The Bill already addresses the threat posed by rogue drones to onshore defence sites, and that is welcome. We have seen the facts and figures throughout this Committee: reported incidents near military bases more than doubled last year, rising from 126 incidents in 2024 to 266 in 2025, which is a significant jump. That is a concerning trend, and the provisions in the Bill to allow authorised personnel to respond without waiting for police assistance are both sensible and necessary. However, the threat does not end at the shoreline. Defence activity at sea faces growing exposure.”
“Effective defence requires practice, experimentation and confidence, built through regular and lawful training. Without that foundation, operational effectiveness cannot be sustained. New clause 10 would introduce a practical and long overdue measure. It would enable authorised defence personnel, whether members of the armed forces or civilian Ministry of Defence staff, designated by the Secretary of State, to designate areas of sea and associated airspace as defence drone offshore areas for authorised unmanned aircraft operations. It would also require that, before any such designation is made, the authorised person must consult the Civil Aviation Authority, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and any other relevant maritime authority. In addition, it would allow conditions to be imposed on unmanned aircraft operations in those areas.”
“The new clause is deliberately focused. It would apply to routine activities such as training and testing. It does not extend to wider operational use, nor does it seek to. There is an interesting point to add here about working with the Home Office and police departments, if the Ministry of Defence is not already. Having gone out recently with the Exeter drone units in Devon and Cornwall police, I see that they are going through the same operational issues we are trying to tackle in the defence space. The purpose of new clause 9 is to ensure that the essential groundwork for capability development takes place on a clear and secure legal basis. There is a wider point: legislation must evolve alongside capability. The Bill recognises the changing nature of the threat, and the new clause recognises that our response must also adapt.”
“They work hard on these issues because they have engaged with cutting-edge companies that want to go to tests and want to provide for UK defence, our allies and the export market, but are being hampered by regulation on the ability to train their devices. I have experienced that myself in the air. As a former wingsuit skydiver who has seen things from an aerial perspective, I realise how constrained our aerial environment is and how difficult it is to test aerial drones. There needs to be a clearer statutory framework for authorised drone use, which would support closer collaboration between industry and the armed forces. It would signal that the United Kingdom is serious about creating a regulatory environment that keeps pace with innovation and supports the development of advanced defence technologies.”
“On Second Reading, concerns were raised about limited access to testing environments for small and medium-sized defence enterprises operating in the field. Many of those firms are producing highly effective systems and are contributing directly to allied capability, yet some are questioning whether the United Kingdom offers the right environment to grow and scale. I have seen Members from across the House of Commons raise that issue—namely the hon. Member for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas) and my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), whose constituencies cover the national centre for maritime autonomy.”
“It would provide a structured basis for activities that are, in reality, already a routine and essential part of modern defence. As we all know, drone capability is no longer a niche area; we see it all around us. It sits at the centre of contemporary warfare. Recent operations in Ukraine have demonstrated how uncrewed systems now shape reconnaissance, strike capability, logistics and force protection. Our armed forces must be able to train continuously with those systems, adapt their tactics and develop their doctrine in step with rapid technological change. At present, the legal footing for such activity lacks clarity, but the new clause would address that. There is also an important industrial dimension.”
“The Secretary of State could designate authorised individuals within both the armed forces and the Ministry of Defence civilian workforce. Those individuals could then approve drone use for defined defence purposes, namely testing, evaluation, training and capability development. Authorisations would have to be set out in writing, except in urgent situations where verbal approval would have to be confirmed in writing as soon as possible. Authorisations would be time limited to a maximum of six months and would be granted in line with the established principles of necessity and proportionality. That is a balanced approach. It would ensure accountability through a clear chain of authority and defined limits, without creating unnecessary bureaucracy or introducing sweeping new powers.”
“New clause 9 would provide a clear framework for an authorised person to approve the use of drones for routine testing, evaluation, training and capability development. The Committee has already considered the counter-drone provisions in the Bill, and we have had a good debate on that. The powers to detect, deter and, where necessary, disable unmanned aircraft that threaten defence sites are welcome and they have our support, but there is an obvious counterpart that has not yet been addressed. If our forces are to counter hostile drone activity effectively, they must also be able to train with, test and refine their own systems without legal uncertainty. That is the gap that the new clause would fill, and it would do so in a proportionate and practical way. It would establish a delegated authorisation process.”
“The Minister has a great deal of experience in this space, and defence is working hard to unblock some of these issues. The point I raised in my speech was that it is almost impossible to work through the split responsibilities across so many different Departments and regulatory bodies. As we have had regulations built on top of one another, we end up in a quagmire. Across all these different Departments and agencies, who is the accountable head who co-ordinates to make sure that regulation is fit for purpose?”
“I thank the Minister for his response. He has a great deal of experience in this area, and I know that there will be no one else in Parliament who is pushing for progress in it as hard as him. However, there is a systemic issue across the Government that they need to sort out. Having spent a lot of time with the defence industry, which is producing these technologies, and knowing the rate of change that companies in the industry are going through, we need to send a strong demand signal to them that we are trying to change regulation so that we can actually allow them to develop in this country, and to grow, scale up and export. Despite those answers from the Minister, I want to try and push the new clauses as much as possible, so I will seek Divisions on them. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.”
“I raise this point because it has happened in recent history. In the aftermath of 9/11, the Government at the time derogated from article 5 of the ECHR, enacting part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, which authorised the indefinite detention of foreign national terrorism suspects.”
“This is not an acceptance of the status quo; it is a recognition of the conditions in which decisions are currently made. Our forces operate in dangerous, fast-moving and legally complex environments. They should not be constrained by frameworks designed for peacetime while Ministers fail to even consider whether the convention’s emergency provisions should be engaged when circumstances clearly demand it. Failing to do so is not leadership; it is a refusal to confront responsibility. A Government committed to the rule of law should also be committed to using the law as it is intended. Where a significant overseas operation is under way, the Secretary of State should be required to address the straightforward question: is derogation appropriate in these circumstances? That is a responsible approach.”
“I will speak in support of new clauses 13 and 15. My right hon. Friend has laid out quite a scary case study of what happens when international legal frameworks are used to affect our service personnel. New clause 13 deserves support because it reflects a clear and honest understanding of the legal position. While our long-term view is that the United Kingdom should not remain bound by the European convention on human rights, the reality is that the convention still applies today. Until that changes, the Government have a duty to use every lawful tool available to protect our armed forces, safeguard the national interest and uphold the integrity of operations overseas. The new clause would do that by requiring Ministers to consider derogation when significant overseas operations make it appropriate.”
“I have spent my entire adult life serving my country, and I view being in this House as an extension of that service. For the hon. Member for North Durham even to hint that I am aligned in that way is absolutely atrocious, and I hope he will withdraw his remark.”
“Bear in mind that we are a tolerant country with a good legal system. I have no doubt that a lot of these laws would be reproduced. We need to be in a position to give our forces the legal confidence that they can operate in those environments and that we have the jurisdiction here in the UK to be able to carry out that legal framework. I very much support the new clauses, and I hope the Committee will consider them.”
“I will not digress too much—in fact, I will not digress at all, Mr Efford—but this is an important point. The structures of the ECHR, designed in the 1950s by the people that experienced world war two, were all just and morally sound, and we can all accept that point. But the world has moved on rapidly in the years since the 1950s. Since the ECHR is broad in scope, we have had a number of different lawyers see interpretations—and able to move things—that may be outside of our national interest. My hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire raised the interesting point that this is not just a problem for us in the UK—it is also a problem for a number of our allies across Europe who are considering either derogating or leaving the convention because it is not serving their national interest.”
“I also support new clause 15, which seeks to provide exemption from the European convention on human rights for members of our reserve forces when they are deployed under the Act. The intention behind that proposal is both practical and just. Our reservists serve alongside regular personnel in demanding and often perilous conditions. They shoulder the same responsibilities, face the same threats and act under the same operational pressures. It is therefore right that they should be safeguarded under the same legal framework that recognises the realities of military deployments. In recent years, some interpretations of the convention have become stretched and detached from the practical realities it was designed to address. The world that we face today is very different from the world of the 1950s.”
“They need to know that the Government stand firmly behind them, not that they will face legal challenges long after the events. New clause 13 would move us towards that clarity. If we are serious about restoring control over our legal framework, we should not pretend that the current arrangements are working in Britain’s interests. Ministers are at least required to consider derogation when our forces are engaged in demanding and hostile conditions. The new clause is a practical and measured step. It does not claim to resolve every difficulty, but it does establish the simple and necessary principle that Ministers must take responsibility, make considered decisions and put the interests of the country and those who served it at the forefront.”