Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
In November I made the first ministerial visit to Yemen in six years. I met the President and the Prime Minister to reaffirm the United Kingdom’s unwavering support for a unified and stable Yemen. We support their commitment to reform, and we continue to focus on delivering humanitarian assistance to all those in need in Yemen and, alongside our international partners, using every diplomatic lever to advance peace. The recent escalation of tensions in southern Yemen threatens to undermine those goals. We therefore welcome the calls by Yemen’s President for a dialogue addressing these issues, and Saudi Arabia’s offer to host a conference. We will continue to support efforts to achieve a swift diplomatic resolution.
Abtisam Mohamed
In the context of what the United Nations special envoy has described as a rapidly worsening humanitarian and economic crisis in Yemen, does the Minister welcome the forthcoming southern dialogue conference, led by Saudi Arabia and supported by the Arab League and the Gulf Co-operation Council? How is the UK, as penholder on Yemen, supporting that process to deliver a tangible road map for a way forward that addresses the aspirations of southern communities?
Mr Falconer
I do welcome Saudi Arabia’s southern dialogue conference. As my hon. Friend has said, it is supported by the Arab League and the GCC, and it is a vital step amid a worsening humanitarian and economic crisis. As UN penholder, the UK is actively supporting the process, through sustained engagement with Saudi leaders, the UN special envoy and regional partners, to help shape a credible road map that reflects southern communities’ aspirations.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
In his statement on 5 January, the Minister referred to the United Arab Emirates’ call then for a ceasefire. What discussions have since taken place with the United Arab Emirates, and is that still its position?
Mr Falconer
We have been in regular dialogue with our allies in the United Arab Emirates, and I understand that its position remains to support a ceasefire. I know that it is taking part in extensive dialogue on these questions, not just with us but with some of its other Gulf partners.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
The humanitarian crisis in Gaza is still dire, because of the winter conditions and a lack of urgently needed aid. Last month we were pleased to learn that UK-funded tents had entered Gaza to provide critical shelter for 12,000 people, and the Government are matching £3 million of donations to the Disasters Emergency Committee’s middle east humanitarian appeal, but far more still needs to be done. We still need much greater access through crossings and the lifting of barriers to aid in order to deal with this humanitarian crisis.
Anna Dixon
We have all witnessed the unfolding catastrophic humanitarian disaster in Gaza, exacerbated by the collapse of the Gazan health system and the suspension of aid delivery. I am therefore shocked that the Israeli Government plan to prohibit some 37 international non-governmental organisations from operating in Gaza and the west bank, including Médecins Sans Frontières, ActionAid and the Norwegian Refugee Council. What steps have the UK Government taken to prevent this, and what more do they intend to do?
Yvette Cooper
I agree with my hon. Friend about how incredibly damaging the deregistration of vital international NGOs is. They do incredible humanitarian work, which includes providing, through thousands of staff, lifesaving services worth hundreds of millions of pounds in Gaza. They simply cannot be removed or replaced, and it is extremely destructive to prevent them from operating. That is why I led a joint statement, on behalf of 10 countries, urging the Israeli Government to allow these essential international NGOs to operate in a sustained and predictable way, and we will pursue this as part of phase 2 of the peace process.
Peter Prinsley
Last year, my surgical colleague Mr Rahbour, of West Suffolk hospital, spent a month at the Nasser hospital in Gaza. When I met him last week, he gave a graphic description of the situation in and around the hospital. He is one of the brave NHS workers of whom we can all be intensely proud. As we have said, access to humanitarian aid is very difficult, and many internationally recognised agencies have lately been banned—as, indeed, I am myself banned. What further representation can we make to resolve this? Surely it is in the interests of all people in Israel and in Palestine for this fragile peace to be preserved.
Yvette Cooper
I agree with my hon. Friend. We need to maintain the fragile ceasefire and to make progress towards peace and, ultimately, the two-state solution that is in the interests of the people of Israel and the people of Palestine. I, too, have heard horrendous stories about medical conditions from some of the brave doctors who were operating there, before the ceasefire, in the most difficult and dangerous of conditions. We are very clear that the humanitarian support that still needs to be surged must include medical supplies and healthcare support. Not only is this an issue that we raise continually with the Israeli Government; we are also raising it as part of phase 2 of the peace process.
Andy McDonald
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her answer. Yesterday the Prime Minister made a welcome statement on the importance of sovereignty and the international rules-based order, yet within the state of Palestine, 37 international NGOs will no longer be allowed to deliver humanitarian aid, on the say-so of Israel. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that the UK Government understand and accept that continued humanitarian access into Palestine must be determined by the Palestinians, and that it cannot be undermined either by Israel or by the board of peace? Can she say what concrete actions the Government intend to take to counter Israeli obstructions and give proper effect to the sovereignty of the state of Palestine?
Yvette Cooper
I agree with my hon. Friend about the destructive impact of deregistering NGOs. Part of the 20-point plan that President Trump set out, which Israel and all countries signed up to, was about substantially increasing humanitarian aid and support in Gaza. Instead, the current situation takes us backwards. It is significant that the Palestinian National Committee for Gaza has now been set up. I have continually pressed, in all the international discussions, that the committee should be able to take responsibility for significantly increasing humanitarian aid.
Yasmin Qureshi
Even during the ceasefire, Israel is blocking humanitarian aid into Gaza while pushing ahead with illegal settlements in the E1 area, which the UK Government have described as a
“flagrant breach of international law”.
Does the Foreign Secretary accept that, by these actions, Israel is essentially trying to bury the idea of a state of Palestine? Apart from good words, what concrete action are we going to take to prevent that from happening?
Yvette Cooper
As my hon. Friend knows, the UK took the historic decision to recognise the state of Palestine in the autumn. We are clear that ensuring there is a two-state solution also means tackling illegal settlement expansion and settler violence. Alongside 26 international partners, we have condemned the E1 settlement plan and the recent steps to further that plan. I urge Israel to listen to the weight of international opinion on this issue, because it needs to be part of delivering the 20-point plan and a just and lasting peace.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Secretary of State will well know that the terrorist group Hamas refuse to disarm—in fact, they have forced their brutal rule on the Palestinian people. Equally, aid trucks that are desperately needed in Gaza are looted by Hamas terrorists. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to make sure that the international aid that we all want to see given to the Palestinians is not looted and diverted to Hamas?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member raises two important issues. We agree that the decommissioning of Hamas weapons is a central and crucial part of the 20-point plan. That is why the three issues that we have continually prioritised are the establishment of the Palestinian National Committee, the increase in humanitarian aid and the establishment of the process for decommissioning Hamas weapons. We have put forward proposals based on our experience in Northern Ireland and our expertise, and I believe that we urgently need to make progress as part of phase 2.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
There are reports that this morning Israeli security forces arrived at the United Nations Relief and Works Agency compound in Sheikh Jarrah, in occupied East Jerusalem. Security guards were forced out of the premises, bulldozers subsequently entered the compound and began to demolish UNRWA buildings, and the demolitions are ongoing. If that is true, it is not only an unprecedented attack against UNRWA and its premises; it also constitutes a serious violation of international law, and of the privileges and immunities of the United Nations. What consequential action will the Foreign Secretary take if these reports are true?
Yvette Cooper
We had issues last month with Israeli authorities entering UNRWA’s compound in East Jerusalem without prior authorisation. UN premises are inviolable under international law, so we have already raised this and condemned it. It is immensely important that everyone recognises the important role that UNRWA plays, and this year the UK has committed £27 million to help it scale up lifesaving aid, including food, water, shelter and medical care.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Pressure on the UK to join the expensive and dodgy-looking Gaza board of peace has been ramped up by President Trump’s messaging overnight. Will the Government politely decline to join the Gaza board of peace while reviewing their position on Chagos, given the US intervention overnight?
Yvette Cooper
That was a slightly contorted question, but the right hon. Member will know that the board of peace proposal was originally in the 20-point Gaza plan. The proposals that have now been put forward are very different from what was previously expected for Gaza, so it is right that further international discussions are under way. All those details are being discussed, and we will see where that ends up. However, I think the critical issue is support for the Palestinian committee, because Gaza should be run by the people of Gaza—by Palestinians—free from Hamas. The crucial thing now is that we need to support it and ensure that Palestinians have not just humanitarian support, but the decommissioning of weapons and support for their long-term future.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
The irony, of course, is that we already have a board of peace, and it is called the UN, but President Trump is undermining it at every step. Five days ago, a group of 22 UN experts deemed the ban on international NGOs to be
“part of a systematic assault on humanitarian operations…and another step in the deliberate dismantling of Gaza’s lifeline”.
Twenty-one children have died of extreme cold in recent days, and 7,000 tents have been swept away due to the weather conditions. We need to do more directly, and if these NGOs cannot do it, what are the Government doing to get tents, shelter and heating into Gaza?
Yvette Cooper
Let us be clear that nothing can replace the UN or its charter. The UN is the bedrock of multilateral co-operation and international law. I met the Secretary-General this weekend, while marking its 80th anniversary, to reaffirm our support for the UN and its work. On the humanitarian issue, over 3,000 people have been affected by a new wave of heavy rains and strong winds across the Gaza strip over the last week, with huge concerns about hyperthermia and collapsing shelter structures. That is why I have also discussed with Tom Fletcher, of the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, what more we can do to ensure that support gets into Gaza, which has to be a priority for phase 2 of the peace process.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
As my right hon. Friend has said, hundreds of thousands of displaced families in Gaza are living in torn tents and roofless homes, being exposed to the rain and freezing temperatures, with further storms due. What further steps will she take to persuade the current Israeli Government to allow in the materials necessary for more robust shelter, particularly—and immediately—for families with young children?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right to raise that important matter. When we see the really flimsy shelters that families are in, despite the terrible flooding and the winter conditions, we know the impact this is having, including in contributing to disease and further displacement. So we are continuing to urge the Israeli Government to change their restrictions to allow better-quality provisions and construction materials into Gaza, and to make sure we meet those basic humanitarian needs. That commitment was made in the 20-point plan not just by Israel, but by all countries, and we need action to support that.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Given the utterly extraordinary news yesterday that Donald Trump has invited Putin and Netanyahu to sit on the board of peace, does the Foreign Secretary recognise that the board of peace is unfit to contribute to the task of peacebuilding? Additionally, it includes no Palestinians and almost no women. Does she recognise that it would be inappropriate for Britain, or indeed Brits, to participate in it, and what does she suggest as an alternative?
Yvette Cooper
The most important organisation or network for the future of Gaza is the Palestinian committee —the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, made up of Palestinians. Gaza should be run by Palestinians. That is crucial, and that is what we should be supporting to take forward. On the wider question, Putin is not a man of peace and does not belong in any organisation with the word “peace” in the name.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The House needs the full facts regarding aid entering Gaza and why the Government are not more engaged with the Civil-Military Co-ordination Centre. What steps is the Foreign Secretary taking to support the disarming of Hamas and secure the immediate release of the remaining hostage? Following White House announcements on the board of peace, including the involvement of Tony Blair, can she confirm what UK input there has been and whether any UK Ministers will be involved, and give a clear assurance that the UK would reject President Putin being on the board, given his illegal invasion of Ukraine and alliance with Iran?
Yvette Cooper
I have actually answered every single one of the right hon. Lady’s points already, if she had listened. We have been one of the leading countries in driving forward proposals for the decommissioning of Hamas weapons. We are working with other countries on that and will continue to do so because we think it is a priority. On the humanitarian work, work has been done by the CMCC, but it goes nowhere near far enough. We are seeing deteriorating conditions in many areas because of the winter conditions, and the removal of non-governmental organisations simply goes backwards. On the board of peace, it is different from what was proposed, and that is why international discussions are under way, and we will see where they end up. But let us be clear that it is the Palestinian committee and the Palestinian people who need to lead the running of Gaza going forward.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The composition of Donald Trump’s board of peace looks increasingly like a rogues’ gallery, with President Putin now having been invited to join. Meanwhile, the Palestinians have been left out of that board entirely, and it is increasingly clear that this is not about peace at all. I have two questions for the Foreign Secretary, which she has not yet answered. Can she tell the House whether Government Ministers have spoken with Tony Blair about his role, and will she categorically condemn these current plans and call instead for the United Nations to lead peacebuilding and reconstruction efforts in Gaza, with Palestinians at the heart of this?
Yvette Cooper
We strongly support the role of the United Nations. Many of these points were set out as part of a UN Security Council resolution, which had widespread support. We think it is important to have the underpinnings of the UN and international law more widely, and to maintain the international consensus that we need to move to the next phase. The proposals that have been put forward are different from what was described, and are not focused on Gaza. The focus now for Gaza has to be on the Palestinian committee and on key practical issues such as the surging of humanitarian aid and the decommissioning of Hamas weapons. Our focus needs to be on the practical next steps, and we will work with everyone to ensure that happens.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
As I set out in the House yesterday, we continue to support the people of Greenland and to make it clear that the future of Greenland is a matter for the Greenlanders and the Danes alone. We are working to increase the support for security across the Arctic region, which is why I visited Norway and Finland this week.
Graham Leadbitter
Yesterday, the Prime Minister attempted to justify the hesitant approach that is being taken to Greenland, the US and the EU as being in the national interest, yet there was nothing in the national interest about Brexit, a false-hope deal that has left us far away from our European friends, desperately clinging to a US Administration who do not care about our national interests. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that the UK is nothing but a cork in the ocean, bobbing around at this moment of international crisis, neither here nor there—and all because of a disastrous, isolationist, self-sabotaging Brexit?
Yvette Cooper
The UK works with our NATO allies, some of whom are part of the EU and some of whom—like us, and like Norway, where some of our closest partnerships are—are not. This is about strengthening our Arctic security, because the Arctic is the gateway through which the Russian northern fleet can threaten the UK, Europe, the US and Canada. Arctic security is a transatlantic security issue.
Callum Anderson
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement yesterday. I welcome the renewed recognition of the Arctic’s strategic importance to Europe’s collective security, and of the need for NATO to develop a more credible deterrence posture. Will she provide a further update to the House on how the Government are using their diplomatic influence in NATO to drive a more coherent, long-term strategy for Arctic security, rather than relying on individual national responses?
Yvette Cooper
I welcome my hon. Friend’s question. We have proposed a stronger role for NATO on Arctic security. Just as NATO has a successful Baltic Sentry and an Eastern Sentry, we are arguing for an Arctic sentry that co-ordinates operations and intelligence for countries right across the Arctic, and also countries like the UK, which are heavily affected by Arctic security, even though we are not part of Arctic security. That is why we are substantially increasing our presence in northern Norway and working with Norway on new, groundbreaking frigates.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
With his threats against Greenland and, now, against her partners, including the UK, Donald Trump has driven a presidential motorcade through NATO and the entire system of post-war security. I am pleased that the Prime Minister yesterday made his objections to Trump clear, but words are not enough. We must show President Trump that his actions have consequences, and that we will act in concert with our allies, as we are much stronger when we stand together. Yesterday, the Prime Minister ruled out the idea of preparing retaliatory tariffs for use only in the event that the President carries out his threats on 1 February. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that we should take no options off the table when dealing with a corrupt bully such as President Trump?
Yvette Cooper
The UK Prime Minister will always act in our national interests. That means pursuing Britain’s security, prosperity and values. That is what he has done at every stage, and it is exactly why he was so firm with the President about our support for the sovereignty of Greenland. We are working continually with our international allies. We are co-operating closely with partners right across Europe to respond in a strong and firm way, in order to prevent a trade war that will cause damage to UK and US industry, and to build instead the collective partnership on security that is in all our interests.
Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Chris Elmore)
There is no place for forced labour in our global economy, especially when the victims are so often women, children and persecuted minority groups. We are working through a range of multilateral bodies, including the G7, the UN and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, to eradicate forced labour from supply chains. We are reviewing the effectiveness of our rules on responsible business conduct to ensure that the UK continues to set the global standard on the elimination of forced labour.
Mr Quigley
I thank the Minister for his response. However, the UK’s Joint Committee on Human Rights has warned that without stronger action, we risk falling behind the EU and the US, and even becoming a dumping ground for goods produced with forced labour. Will the Government commit to introducing legislation that sends a clear and unequivocal message that the UK stands firmly against Uyghur forced labour, and will not allow such products into our market?
Chris Elmore
We are clear that no company in the UK should have forced labour in its supply chain. We are committed to promoting and protecting human rights, including in Xinjiang, and we continue to work with international partners to hold China to account for its human rights violations. The Government’s review of responsible business conduct is considering a range of policy options to tackle forced labour.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
As the Energy Secretary insists that we move as quickly as possible to renewables, may I ask the Minister what steps he has in place to ensure that the materials—90% of them are processed materials—used in renewables are made without slave labour and human rights abuses?
Chris Elmore
We of course support voluntary human rights due diligence by businesses, as recommended in the UN’s “Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights”. As I mentioned in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley), in the Government’s review on responsible business conduct, those will be some of the options that we take forward.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
We work closely with our international partners to deter and disrupt those responsible for malicious cyber-activity. To date, 42 international partners have supported UK activity to expose cyber-threats, and 74 countries are members of the counter ransomware initiative, led by the UK. In addition, 27 counties have publicly endorsed the UK and France’s Pall Mall code of practice, which aims to tackle the proliferation of cyber-intrusion tools.
Uma Kumaran
The Minister will remember that when the Russia-backed cyber-crime network Lockbit was smashed in 2024, it was the direct result of intensive collaboration between the United Kingdom, Europe and the United States. They worked together to defend Europe from Russia’s hybrid attacks, which seek to weaken our role in the world. Is that not a reminder that we are all safer, on both sides of the Atlantic, when we work together, and that we should never forget where the real threats to our national security come from?
Stephen Doughty
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend’s remarks. Indeed, they echo what we heard this morning from the Speaker of the US House of Representatives about working together as close allies and across NATO. It is good to welcome guests in Parliament today from the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, too.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. As is evidenced by the 2024 Lockbit and 2025 Media Land sanctions packages, the UK works closely with key partners, and remains committed to using all available tools to defend against cyber-threats. Our co-ordination with Australia, the United States and other allies demonstrates to adversaries that we will not tolerate assaults on our public and private institutions and our democracies.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive responses. On ransomware and what we are trying to do with technology, Northern Ireland leads the way on cyber-security, as does south-east England, but the technology is always advancing. The Minister has responsibility for ensuring that we are protected, but at the same time, we need to ensure that our technology moves forward, so that we can equal or outdo our enemies. Can the Minister give us an assurance that that will happen, and that Northern Ireland will be part of it?
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Member rightly extols the virtues and skills of the excellent workforce in Northern Ireland and across the UK on these issues. I have had the pleasure of meeting people from a number of cyber-security companies. We are doing all that we can to increase the skills chain, and to ensure that we stay steps ahead of our adversaries. We will not tolerate activity that hits consumers and individuals in the UK and risks our national security. We will work with others to defend this country.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
Iran is a cyber-menace that is committing digital warfare against democracies around the world and its own people. Most recently, it has cut its own citizens off from the internet to hide the scale of its atrocities. Do the Government have any plans to use their cyber-capabilities to take on Tehran in its moment of weakness, and how they will prevent Tehran from evading tariffs by using cryptocurrency?
Stephen Doughty
It was perhaps an unexpected elevation, but I welcome the shadow Minister to his new role, and thank him for his important question on a very serious matter: the threat from our adversaries. He is right to point out Iran, but there are many others who are attempting to damage our national security and hit consumers and individuals in the UK. He will understand that I will not go into operational details on any matter relating to our cyber-defences, but he can be assured that we keep the activities of our adversaries closely in mind, and we are doing all we can to defend this country against all threats, wherever they come from.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
The Chagos archipelago and marine protected area is one of the world’s most important marine environments, and as has rightly been recognised by Members across the House, both the UK and Mauritius are committed to its protection. I can confirm that no commercial fishing will be allowed, but low levels of artisanal fishing will be permitted for the sustenance of Chagossian communities, which is compatible with nature conservation. We are working closely with Mauritius to ensure that adequate patrolling capabilities will be maintained after the marine protected area enters into force.
Blake Stephenson
I thank the Minister for his response. A recent Yale University report ranked Mauritius last out of 131 states for stringency in relation to its marine protected areas, and a woeful 173th out of 180 for the protection of biodiversity. Mauritius has even admitted that it does not have the capacity to patrol the area, and that it is open to commercial fishing. I recognise the response that the Minister gave, but Britain has kept the Chagos marine environment pristine for 50 years. Why do the Government not want to secure that legacy in law?
Stephen Doughty
With the greatest of respect, because I know that the hon. Gentleman raises the issue with sincerity, I was just very clear. It was on 3 November that Mauritius announced the creation of the Chagos archipelago marine protected area, and it has confirmed that no commercial fishing will be allowed in any part of the MPA. We are working very closely with Mauritius on patrolling and protecting the environment. These are important issues, and I assure him that we are absolutely seized of them.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
The Prime Minister said that Five Eyes partners, including the United States, backed the Chagos surrender Bill, but today the American President has publicly opposed it, rightly citing the very concerns that we Conservative Members have raised about the malign influence of China and Russia, and their benefiting directly from the surrender of the Chagos islands. Is President Trump right? Given that Labour’s Chagos surrender Bill will cost £35 billion, compromise our national security and betray the rights of the Chagossian community, when will the Government finally see sense and scrap this shameful treaty?
Stephen Doughty
Again, the right hon. Lady has made wild claims about costs. What she says is simply not the case. We have been absolutely clear that the UK will never compromise our national security. As we have made clear repeatedly, the agreement that we have struck is vital to protecting our national security and that of our allies, and to guaranteeing the long-term future of a base that is crucial for the UK and the United States. Our deal secures the operation of the joint US-UK base on Diego Garcia for generations. It has backing from across the Five Eyes, as well as from other international partners. I remind the right hon. Lady that, in May, the US Secretary of State said,
“The Trump Administration determined that this agreement secures the long-term, stable, and effective operation of the joint US-UK military facility at Diego Garcia.”
We will of course have discussions with the US Administration in coming days to remind them of the strength of this deal, and of how it secures the base, and I am surprised that these comments have been made in the context of difficult conversations about Greenland. The right hon. Lady joins us in standing for its sovereignty and right to self-determination, so I urge her to be a little more reflective in her comments.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
One of the Foreign Office’s most serious and important duties is standing up for British nationals who have been wrongly detained overseas, and supporting the families here at home who are working desperately for their release. We are committed to strengthening our efforts, including through the appointment of a dedicated envoy for complex detention cases. We expect to confirm that appointment in the near future.
Douglas McAllister
Exactly 3,000 days ago, my constituent Jagtar Singh Johal was imprisoned in India, and 3,000 days later, he remains arbitrarily detained. He faces the death penalty on trumped-up charges, having been brutally tortured to make a confession. While in opposition, our Prime Minister rightly recognised my constituent’s detention as arbitrary. We need to do more than just raise his case with Indian counterparts. My constituent was acquitted in March last year of all charges, but now faces essentially eight duplicate cases based on the same evidence. Does the Foreign Secretary or the Minister agree that this is clearly double jeopardy, as recognised under Indian, international and UK law, and will the Government make that clear to Indian counterparts?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for his persistence, and for the force of his advocacy for his constituents. Despite progress in Mr Johal’s legal proceedings, eight of the cases against him remain outstanding, as my hon. Friend said. We continue to raise concerns about Mr Johal’s prolonged detention with the Government of India at every appropriate opportunity, and to emphasise the need for a prompt, full and just resolution of Mr Johal’s cases in India’s independent legal system.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Sadly, Jagtar Singh Johal’s case is not the only instance in the world of human rights violations against British citizens, and one of our biggest allies has just said that peace is no longer a priority for it. Given that the world is such a dangerous place, and given the threat to the human rights of British citizens abroad, does the Minister agree that the time has come to make consular assistance a legal right for British citizens across the globe?
Mr Falconer
We are committed to introducing a right to consular assistance. We will return to this House with more detail about what form that will take.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
We have consistently called on all parties in Palestine to comply with their international humanitarian law obligations. Where this Government have had concerns about Israel’s commitment to those obligations, we have taken decisive action. That has included stopping exports to the Israel Defence Forces that might be used in Gaza, suspending negotiations with Israel on a new free trade agreement, and last month voting in favour of the UN resolution that welcomed the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion on Israel’s obligation to allow lifesaving humanitarian assistance to reach Palestinian civilians.
Ian Lavery
In July 2024, the ICJ ruled that the Israeli occupation and settlements were illegal, and must be ended and dismantled. Then, in September 2024, the UN General Assembly gave Israel 12 months to bring to an end its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territories—a deadline that has now lapsed by more than four months. Why, after a year and a half, have the Government still not published their response to the ICJ advisory opinion? Is there something that we do not know, but perhaps should?
Mr Falconer
In that period, the UK has made a range of significant determinations in relation to our policy in the middle east. Of course, we continue to consider the Court’s advisory opinion on Israel’s occupation carefully. There is lots in that advisory opinion with which we agree, and which is, indeed, already Government policy. We agree that settlements are illegal, and we have already taken strong action against them. Since this Government came into office, we have introduced three packages of sanctions related to violence against communities in the west bank, and we continue to keep these matters under review.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
Since the recent ceasefire came into effect, over 450 Palestinians have been killed by Israel. UNICEF reports that over 100 Palestinian children have been killed in Gaza since 10 October. Israeli airstrikes are ongoing, and the mental and physical torture and violence continue unabated. Will the Minister tell the children still alive in Gaza what action the UK Government will take to force Israel to comply with international law and allow essential humanitarian aid into Gaza, and to make the ceasefire a real one and stop the killing?
Mr Falconer
I know how deeply so many of our constituents and, indeed, Members of this House feel about these issues, and how often they raise them. We will continue to take action in the way that the Foreign Secretary set out this morning. It is vital that the ceasefire holds, and that we make progress in the three areas set out already, and that is the priority for Ministers.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Chris Elmore)
We are committed to international development, but we must modernise our approach to reflect the world we live in and the threats that our country faces, while maintaining economic stability at home. We are committed to meeting the overseas development aid budgets that have been set out, but with less money, we must focus on having greater impact. Every pound must deliver for the UK taxpayer and the people we support. We will sharpen our focus on humanitarian issues, health, climate and nature, and that will be underpinned by a focus on economic development.
Olly Glover
The United States Government have cut funding for research and development on lifesaving health solutions that help the world’s poorest people. In that context, the UK has the opportunity to embrace world-leading scientists who are no longer welcome elsewhere. Will the Government seize the opportunity to both continue progress on life expectancy in the global south and boost the UK’s economy by increasing their spending on global health research and development?
Chris Elmore
I cannot comment on the US’s decision; it is a matter for its Administration. As I have mentioned, one of the focuses of our ODA support will be on health. We have announced to the House additional funding for tackling life-limiting conditions, particularly on the continent of Africa, so the lifesaving work around health carries on.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
The conflict in Sudan is affecting millions of people, including thousands of women affected by horrific sexual violence. I have been hearing from aid workers on the ground who are working with those women. Will the Minister assure the House that, despite aid budget cuts, support for the women victims of sexual violence in the conflict in Sudan will not be cut?
Chris Elmore
I know what a hugely important issue this is to all Members across the House. I can confirm that additional funding has been allocated in relation to the Sudan conflict. We are, of course, calling for the violence to end, particularly the violence that is targeted at women and girls. I assure my hon. Friend that part of this continuing funding is for trying to tackle the extreme levels of sexual violence that women are experiencing in Sudan.
Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
As the Minister will know, part of the official development assistance budget goes to investment in businesses creating employment in the poorest parts of the world, such as British International Investment, which is now undoubtedly the best development finance institution in the world. Will the Minister continue to ensure that BII receives injections of capital so that it can go on doing that brilliant work and earning a decent return for the British taxpayer?
Chris Elmore
I am pleased to say that the international development Minister in the other place, Baroness Chapman, is due to meet the group imminently. We will continue that work, including through my conversations with nations in the ODA context, on how we provide more support for business as one of the changes to ODA moving forward.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
I hate to disagree with the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell), who I respect greatly, but in an era when we have less money I wonder whether we should focus on reaching the poorest people the most. There are other models, including the International Finance Facility for Education and the International Finance Facility for Immunisation, that offer ways to leverage much more money. By putting in a small amount, we can leverage up to four times more. Will Ministers, including a Treasury Minister, meet me to discuss such proposals and consider innovative forms of development finance in an era of less ODA?
Chris Elmore
I am, of course, more than happy to meet my hon. Friend, as diaries allow.
Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
The UK continues to support the Ukrainian people in the face of unrelenting Russian aggression, which includes the targeting of Ukraine’s energy infrastructure and civilians. On Friday, we were proud to mark the anniversary of the 100-year partnership that we agreed with Ukraine last year, and we will continue to provide military and economic support, as well as support for Ukraine’s energy security.
Kirith Entwistle
The Bolton branch of the Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain is situated in my constituency and helps families to settle and keep community ties strong. As the UK marks the first anniversary of the UK-Ukraine 100-year partnership, what more is the Foreign Secretary doing, working across Government, to ensure that Ukrainians in the UK are provided with the support they need to rebuild their lives?
Yvette Cooper
The 100-year partnership is about people-to-people links and the long-term connections between the UK and Ukraine.
If I can just take a personal moment on this, Mr Speaker, I can report that one of the teenagers who came to stay with us in Castleford at the very beginning of the Ukraine war, and who has since returned to Kyiv, has continued her training to be an international-standard ballroom dancer and is back in the UK with her partner this week in the run-up to an international competition. I wish them both the very best.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I am sure the entire House endorses what the Foreign Secretary has just said.
In a week when the Government are sadly letting down Hongkongers in London, Chagossians in exile and Northern Ireland veterans in retirement, can we absolutely rely upon continued support for Ukraine’s gallant resistance to atrocious Russian imperialism?
Yvette Cooper
The right hon. Member should know better than to ask a question like that. As he knows, the UK has been continually strong in our support for Ukraine, for the people of Ukraine and for Ukraine’s continued military resistance. For too long, Russia has underestimated not only the people of Ukraine but Ukraine’s friends. That is why the UK, through the coalition of the willing, has been leading support for Ukraine.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary will have heard President Zelensky’s warnings last week about the supply of air defence missiles—we must heed them. Will the Government make more weapons available, scale up production immediately or broker new military aid packages with our allies to ensure a constant supply of missiles?
Yvette Cooper
The UK is working very closely with our partners, through NATO and also more broadly, to ensure that Ukraine has the military support it needs, including weapons and equipment, and support for its energy infrastructure and intelligence gathering, where the UK plays an important role. We have set forward commitments alongside the French Government, and have that forward lean on the ability to support Ukraine if a peace agreement is reached backed by security guarantees. The UK is very much leading the military and wider support for Ukraine.
Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
In a few weeks’ time, we will reach the fourth anniversary of the Ukraine war. Extreme efforts have been made over recent months to pursue a just and lasting peace, but still we have seen no sign that Russia is willing to make peace. In the early hours of today, Russia attacked Ukraine with 34 missiles and 339 drones. That follows four previous nights in which Russia fired 537 drones at Ukrainian cities, largely targeting energy infrastructure. Ukraine’s energy system is experiencing its most acute crisis of the war, and Kyiv residents are currently receiving three hours of power, followed by 10-hour outages. On 16 January, as we marked the first anniversary of the 100-year partnership, I announced a further £20 million of UK support for vital energy repairs. Our commitment to supporting Ukraine is unwavering.
Dan Carden
I am grateful for that update. The brutal Iranian regime is dying and a new Iran is being born. We can assist that process, in the Iranian people’s interests and ours, by banning the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. If the Foreign Secretary requires a new legislative instrument for a proscription mechanism for state and state-linked bodies, will she bring that to the House? Will the Foreign Office prepare for the day after, convening Opposition parties to cohere them and mobilise expertise to decide on a future democratic—
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend will know that as Home Secretary I commissioned a review of the legislation which recommended changes, because existing legislation is drawn up around terrorism, and we need to be able to deal with state-backed threats. I assure him that both I and the Home Secretary take the threats from Iran extremely seriously.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
The Government have just given planning permission to the new Chinese super-hub embassy—the document is 240 pages; there it is for us to read—while Jimmy Lai, a British national, continues to be imprisoned in appalling conditions on bogus political charges under the disgraceful Hong Kong national security law. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is unacceptable for China to be rewarded with this spy hub in the heart of London while Jimmy languishes in prison?
Yvette Cooper
The shadow Foreign Secretary will know that we have made the strongest of criticisms of the decision on Jimmy Lai. We continue to pursue that issue with the Chinese Government and to stress the urgent need for him to be released immediately on humanitarian grounds. She has raised the issue of the independent planning decision, and she will know the independent planning processes that need to be gone through. I understand that the Security Minister will be making a statement to the House on this topic shortly. All I would point out to her is that diplomatic consent was given by her hero Boris Johnson. She had many years as Home Secretary to pursue any concerns she had.
Priti Patel
In the light of the right hon. Lady’s remarks and the fact that Jimmy Lai’s sentencing is expected soon, does she agree that when the Prime Minister goes to kowtow to Beijing and comes back with no movement on Jimmy Lai’s release, that trip should be regarded as a failure of British diplomacy?
Yvette Cooper
We believe that it is exactly because we have deep concerns about the issues around Jimmy Lai and the need for his urgent humanitarian release, but also because of wider security issues, that we should engage with the Chinese Government. Refusing to engage with the Chinese Government, when we have such serious issues and concerns, would be irresponsible.
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
As the House will be aware, we have supported a number of sick and injured children to leave Gaza. I am very proud of our work in this area. We work closely across Government, including with our colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and with local authorities, to ensure that children and families arriving in the UK receive the help and support they need. In relation to future plans, I am sure I will return to the House in due course.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Mr Falconer
As the Foreign Secretary set out earlier, the board of peace was part of the 20-point plan, which we welcomed, and there was a UN Security Council resolution, which also enshrines the progress made in the talks. Of course we want to see the ceasefire hold in Gaza. We are fully engaged with our American and other counterparts on these questions, but as the Foreign Secretary has set out already, we are discussing the way ahead with our allies.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Yvette Cooper
We are deeply concerned about the escalating settler attacks and the fact that they have reached new heights, with more attacks last year than any year since the United Nations began recording such incidents. We need the Government of Israel to abide by their obligations around settlements and settler violence, but we also need to ensure that we pursue this as part of the broader peace plan process—the 20-point plan process—to build the greatest possible co-ordination around delivering not just peace for Gaza, but a two-state solution.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
Yvette Cooper
This Government are responsible for the biggest increase in defence investment since the cold war, because we recognise the importance of defending our national security. I would also say to the hon. Member that Ukraine’s security is our security. The threat from Russia affects us all.
Jeff Smith (Manchester Withington) (Lab)
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and his continued advocacy on these issues. The 20-point plan clearly outlined the need to open the Rafah crossing, and indeed other crossings. There have been discussions between various partners, but we continue to press the Israelis to open all the crossings now.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
With the greatest respect, the hon. Member knows that this Government have strengthened our relationships with the EU: we have a security and defence partnership; we are securing a sanitary and phytosanitary deal; and we are rejoining Erasmus+. Those are all things that will make a tangible difference for people in Scotland and across the United Kingdom, and we are very proud of them.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
Yvette Cooper
I gather that that sentiment was also expressed by the Speaker of the US House of Representatives, Mike Johnson, who has been with us in Parliament over the last few days. I think there are many people on both sides of the Atlantic, across Europe and north America, who recognise the vital importance of our NATO alliance to keeping all of us safe.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
Mr Falconer
Many across the House will be aware of the fast-moving situation in north-east Syria, which is of concern to the British Government. We are calling for de-escalation, and we want a halt to the advance into the north-east. We continue to focus on the humanitarian situation in Syria. Over 16.5 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance, and we are delivering up to £104 million of assistance this year.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
Mr Falconer
The UK is active in seeking justice and accountability for Sri Lanka’s Tamil community. Indeed, we lead in the UN Human Rights Council on the resolution on Sri Lanka. Last year, we sanctioned Sri Lankans for human rights violations in the civil war, and we have made clear to the Sri Lankan Government the importance of improved human rights for all in Sri Lanka, as well as reconciliation. Let me take the opportunity to wish the Tamil community a happy Thai Pongal.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Despite the Minister’s assertion that the Government are holding the Israeli Government to account, I would like to remind them that a tender has just been issued by the Israeli Government for a further illegal construction of more than 3,000 homes in the E1 project in the west bank, which will completely cut the west bank in half. Will the Government now comply with the ICJ’s opinion that third states like ours have a duty to bring Israel’s illegal occupation to an end by imposing sanctions on Israeli Ministers in their professional capacity and to prohibit UK companies from involvement with illegal settlements?
Mr Falconer
The Foreign Secretary and I have set out the position in relation to settlements over the course of this session, but I want to be clear: we have been the strongest that we can in condemning the increase in both violence by settlers and settlements themselves. I have from this Dispatch Box announced sanctions on Israeli Ministers, including Mr Smotrich and Mr Ben-Gvir.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I proudly declare that I will be visiting the Falkland Islands as a guest of their Government next month. What can the UK Government do to alleviate EU tariffs of between 6% and 18% on their fishing exports, so that the Falklands Government have more money to spend on health, education and their treasured environment?
Mr Falconer
We remain strong defenders of the Falkland Islands as part of our global great British family. I was pleased to speak with the new Legislative Assembly just the other day. It was, of course, the Brexit deal that the previous Government negotiated that left the Falklands out when it comes to tariffs, but we continue to work closely with them on a range of trade and tariff issues and have done so successfully in relation to the United States.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
The Israeli occupation of the west bank has resulted in almost 1,000 deaths over the past year and a half. We have seen the loss of villages, the loss of life and the continued enabling of settler violence against ordinary Palestinian people in their villages, and this morning there are reports that the Israel Defence Forces are now demolishing the United Nations Relief and Works Agency headquarters in Jerusalem. When are the British Government going to do something serious, with sanctions against Israel for its continued illegal occupation of the west bank?
Mr Falconer
I answered the substance of the right hon. Gentleman’s question when I replied to the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam). We are aware of the reports in relation to the UNRWA headquarters in east Jerusalem and, as the Foreign Secretary has set out already, we are taking them very seriously indeed.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Over 900 doctors have been killed by the Iranian regime since 1979. A leading medical union warns that Iran’s state health system is near collapse and medicines are increasingly scarce, leaving children vulnerable for lack of basic care. Does my right hon. Friend agree that urgent international action is needed to hold the regime to account, particularly for the devastating impact on paediatric care?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right to raise the deep humanitarian concerns arising from the lack of adequate healthcare in Iran. Her point comes after what we have seen in recent weeks: the most brutal of killings by the Iranian regime and the deep concern about the safety of protesters. I can report to the House that we have secured a special session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, which will take place on 23 January and will provide an opportunity to raise exactly these issues.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
When President Trump was frustrated with President Zelensky last year, he withdrew intelligence sharing with Ukraine for a short period. Will the Foreign Secretary, who oversees GCHQ and MI6, assure the House and my constituents that should such a threat that intelligence sharing with the United Kingdom be withdrawn, even for a temporary period, develop from the White House at some point, she and her counterparts will remind the US President that the Five Eyes partnership also keeps Americans safe every single day of the week?
Yvette Cooper
I first had visits to Washington about the strength of the Five Eyes partnership, including meetings with the CIA and others, more than 25 years ago. Our Five Eyes partnership runs back many generations; it is deep and important, and it continues to take the threat from Russia in Ukraine incredibly seriously.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
With two out of three FCDO-funded programmes dedicated to disability inclusion coming to an end this year, what targets will the Government set to ensure that their remaining programming will prioritise and can be accessed by disabled people, 80% of whom live in the global south? Will the Minister offer some assurances that there will be sufficient capacity within the FCDO to support disabled people across the globe?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Chris Elmore)
The UK has long promoted global disability rights through our global programme to support disability inclusion in health, education and employment, plus access to innovative assistive technologies. In addition to our work to mainstream disability inclusion across the FCDO’s priorities, the UK is co-chair of the Global Action on Disability Network that strengthens international co-ordination on disability rights and accelerates that progress, including in the global south.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Iranian regime is killing protesters in their thousands, and the communication blackout is enabling abuses to happen away from public view. The Minister said yesterday:
“They must restore internet access.”—[Official Report, 19 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 48.]
What are the Government doing with partners, so that we can hear the voices of those freedom fighters?
Mr Falconer
As I said to the House yesterday, we treat the internet blackout in Iran as a breach of the human rights of the Iranian people. We continue to work on this issue with our partners for the reasons that my ministerial colleagues have set out, but I will not give further commentary on operational business.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
Allies do not threaten each other, either militarily or economically, so the whole House will be troubled by comments made by the Trump Administration in the past couple of days. What is the Foreign Secretary doing to communicate with our NATO allies and the Trump Administration how unacceptable those comments are, and what are we doing to ensure the integrity of our NATO alliance?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member will know that the Prime Minister has spoken to the President and I have spoken to Secretary of State Rubio. As I set out in my statement yesterday, tariff threats are no way to treat allies. It is also important now that we strengthen our international co-operation on issues like Arctic security, while respecting sovereignty and collective security, and that means putting the sovereignty of Greenland at its heart.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
Israel is the only country in the world that automatically and systematically prosecutes children in military courts, trying between 500 and 700 Palestinian children in that way each year. According to Save the Children, those children are at serious risk of contagious disease, hunger and abuse. Can the Minister reassure me that the Government are doing all that they can to put pressure on the Israeli Government to end this practice?
Mr Falconer
We are deeply concerned about the detention of Palestinian children by the Israeli military and by the allegations that my hon. Friend refers to. The UK calls for all reports to be fully investigated. The arrest and detention of children must follow due process, in line with international juvenile justice standards, and we call on all parties to the conflict to grant the International Committee of the Red Cross immediate and unfettered access.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)
Will the Foreign Secretary explain why, if she rightly supports the self-determination of the Greenlandic people as part of the Kingdom of Denmark, she does not support the self-determination of the Chagossian people to remain a British overseas territory?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member likes to call himself a patriot. He has just joined the party that is the weakest on Russia—a country that threatens our country—and led by a leader who has continued to question the role of Russia in beginning the Ukraine war, the role of NATO and even in the Salisbury killings. He should look a little bit inwards before he tries to make points in here.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Given the scale of the planned FCDO budget reductions and significant staffing cuts, what assessment has been made of which policy areas will be deprioritised as a result of those measures? What redundancy mitigation steps are being taken in line with the 2016 civil service protocols and how those changes are expected to impact both UK personnel serving overseas and country-based staff?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend will know that we have been doing extensive work to ensure that the Foreign Office is focused on the key priorities and on delivering for the national interest. She will also know that there was a quite significant expansion in the staffing, including the UK-based staffing, of the Foreign Office over the previous five years. It is right that we ensure the Foreign Office is most focused on the national security issues and prosperity issues as well as many of the issues that she and her Committee are concerned about around international development. We will continue to provide information to her Committee on this matter.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
A 14-year-old child, the son of my constituent Mr Greaves, has been detained by the French state for 440 days. He is a British citizen with no dual nationality. He has received no schooling and, most concerning of all, has not received even a single welfare visit by the British consulate, despite having been chased many times. Will the Foreign Secretary intervene personally in this case and meet with me to be able to secure a welfare visit?
Stephen Doughty
I am happy to meet with the hon. Gentleman to discuss the case.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
Last week, Uganda held elections. There were wide-ranging accounts of people being prevented from going to polling stations and of ballot stuffing. In one polling station, more votes were cast than there were electors. There is now widespread violence, and the son of the so-called President of Uganda has threatened to murder the leader of the opposition, Bobi Wine, who lost the election. What can the Foreign Secretary tell me about the veracity of the elections? What is she doing to protect British citizens in Uganda and to ensure the safety of members of the National Unity Platform?
Chris Elmore
We have consistently advocated for peaceful and credible elections, and we encourage any disputes to be addressed through peaceful and legal means. In relation to the opposition leader, we have engaged across the political spectrum to advocate for peaceful elections, including for the opposition candidates to be able to campaign freely and safely, and we continue to do so, including through our high commission.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
In answer to an earlier question, the Foreign Secretary said that the future of Greenland should be determined by Greenlanders and Danes, yet Members across this House are just finding out that any opportunity to give Chagossians a referendum has been stripped from this afternoon’s discussions on the Chagos Bill. Why does the Foreign Secretary think that the Chagossians do not deserve the same rights that she considers to be so fundamental to Greenlanders?
Stephen Doughty
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are going to be discussing those issues this afternoon; we will have ample time to discuss the amendments down for consideration. He also knows that we have engaged extensively with Chagossian communities.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
Yesterday, the International Criminal Court’s deputy chief prosector said that atrocities in Sudan would be repeated from town to town unless impunity for belligerents ended. What measures have the UK Government been taking to make it clear to the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement North, as well as to the Rapid Support Forces and the Sudanese armed forces, that they must protect civilians and let aid through?
Yvette Cooper
I thank my right hon. Friend for raising this issue, because the continuing humanitarian crisis and horrendous violence in Sudan are deeply troubling, and I worry that they are not getting sufficient international attention. This weekend, I discussed extensively with the UN Secretary-General what further action can be taken and what concerted pressure can be put on any country that has any influence on the warring parties. We urgently need a ceasefire, but we also need an end to the horrendous and brutal violence, particularly the sexual violence towards women.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Through his new folly over Greenland, President Trump is increasingly bringing the UK closer to Europe. At Denmark’s request, would the UK allow European forces to use the UK’s command infrastructure for operations in and around Greenland?
Stephen Doughty
As the hon. Lady knows, we already work very closely with Denmark in NATO. Indeed, the Foreign Secretary has made clear our desire for an Arctic sentry programme, and we work with other partners in the High North through the joint expeditionary force, so we already work very closely together.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
Last week, I met a mother from my constituency who told me a terrible story. In October, her daughters were taken by their father, supposedly for a day out at the fair, but they never came home. It seems he has abducted them and taken them out of the country, either to Afghanistan or to Pakistan. Can the Minister set out what the Government can do about these kinds of abductions, and will he meet me to discuss how we get these little girls home?
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
According to Open Doors’ world watch list, which was released last week, Yemen is now the third most dangerous country in the world to be a Christian. Since January, over 50 Yemeni Christians have been arrested and imprisoned, facing intimidation, interrogation and the risk of torture. Will the Minister explain why freedom of religion and belief has not been made a clear prerequisite for continued UK aid, with robust monitoring on the ground?
Mr Falconer
I am grateful for an opportunity to comment on aid into Yemen. As I am sure the hon. Lady knows, there are significant restrictions on aid into the north of Yemen, where the Houthis are in control. It is rather easier to get aid into the south of Yemen, but given the events referred to earlier, doing so remains complex. We continue to prioritise freedom of religious belief, including through our excellent envoy, who is a Member of this House. I am very happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss these issues further.
Mobile Phones and Social Media: Use by Children
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Liz Kendall)
I would like to make a statement on the next steps this Government will take to keep children safe online and give them the childhood they deserve.
Last week, I said in this House that artificial intelligence and technology have huge potential to create jobs and growth, to diagnose and treat disease, to transform our public services, and so much more besides. However, this Government know that we will only seize this potential if the benefits of technology are felt by all, not just a few at the top, and above all, if people know that they and their children are safe online. We have already made significant progress on this crucial issue; the Online Safety Act 2023 introduced one of the most robust systems globally, with groundbreaking steps to tackle illegal content and activity and to protect children from harmful and age-inappropriate content. We have long known, though, that there is more to do.
My first act as Secretary of State was to make online content that promotes self-harm and suicide a priority offence, so that platforms must take proactive steps to stop users seeing this material in the first place, and swiftly to take it down if it appears. We have also made intimate image abuse and cyber-flashing priority offences. We have introduced an offence in the Crime and Policing Bill to criminalise artificial intelligence models that have been optimised to create child sexual abuse material.
Eight days ago, in response to the abhorrent and illegal spreading of sexualised deepfake images of women and children without their consent by Grok, I said that we would uphold British values and British laws and that we would fast-track legislation, making it an offence to create non-consensual intimate images. I also said that I would make that a priority offence under the Online Safety Act 2023. Since then, I am pleased to say that X has announced it will ban the generation of intimate images of real people. That will be carefully monitored, but I and the Government have welcomed the announcement.
The story does not end there, though. I know that up and down the country, parents are grappling with how much screen time their children should have, when they should give them a phone, what on earth they are seeing online, and the impact all that is having. Yesterday, I met bereaved families who have suffered the most unimaginable tragedy as a result of what their children have experienced online. It was one of the most devastating discussions I have ever taken part in, and I pay tribute to their courage and dignity.
I know that many parents are deeply worried about a whole range of other impacts on their children, such as the consequences for their mental health, their concentration and sleep, their sense of self-esteem, and their ability to learn and to explore the online world without fear. We are determined to help parents, children and young people to deal with these issues with a lasting solution that gives children the childhood they deserve, enhances their wellbeing and prepares them for the future.
Last year, the Government said in response to the Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill—a private Member’s Bill brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), who is now the Minister for Children and Families—that there would have to be further action on these issues. Since I was appointed to this role, I have been urgently considering this matter, because keeping children safe online is a top priority for the Government and for me personally.
Today I can tell the House that we will bring forward a swift three-month consultation on further measures to keep children safe online. That will include the option of banning social media for children under 16 and raising the digital age of consent, to stop companies using children’s data without their or their parents’ consent. The consultation will include a range of other options, too, such as: whether there should be curfews overnight or breaks to stop excessive use or doomscrolling; how we ensure more rigorous enforcement of existing laws around age verification; and action to address concerns about the use of virtual private networks to get around important protections.
We will consult parents, the organisations representing children and bereaved parents, technology companies and, crucially, children and young people themselves, because their views and voices must be heard. We will look closely at the experience in Australia, which, as many people know, has just introduced a ban on social media for under-16s. We will make sure that the consultation is evidence-led, with input from independent experts.
We are prepared to act to deal with the serious concerns that parents, teachers, doctors and others have about children’s screen time in schools and at home. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary announced that for the first time ever we are developing screen time guidance for children under five, which will be available from April. Today, I can confirm that we will also develop evidence-based screen time guidance for parents of children aged five to 16. While we have already been clear that mobile phones have no place in our schools, the Government will take further action as part of our determination to safeguard children and support their wellbeing. Today, we have published updated guidance on the use of mobile phones in schools, and we have asked Ofsted to include that in its inspections, because we want there to be no doubt in the minds of school staff, parents and young people that phones should not be used in schools.
I know these issues are important for Members of Parliament, teachers and the medical profession, many children’s organisations, young people themselves and, above all, parents across the country. Many people, including in this House, are strongly in favour of a ban on social media for the under-16s as the best and clearest way forward to protect children and stop acute and chronic online harms. They want action now, but others take a different view, saying that they worry about letting online platforms off the hook and that a ban would simply push harms further underground and, above all, stop children using the positives of social media, such as connecting with like-minded people, finding those who love in the same way and love the same things, and getting peer support and trusted advice. There are clearly risks in all these different approaches, which is why I believe that a proper consultation and promoting a national conversation, especially with the public, is the right and responsible way forward.
I want to make one thing crystal clear: the question is not about whether the Government will take further action—we will act robustly, as we did with Grok. The question now is about the next steps and acting effectively, together with children and families. That is what our consultation will deliver, because we are determined to ensure that technology enriches children’s lives, rather than harms them. We want to give children the childhood they deserve and prepare them for the future. I commend this statement to the House.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of her statement. What does an ailing Prime Minister do to demonstrate firm and decisive leadership? He launches a consultation, with a variety of options. What does he do when the Conservative party, the House of Lords, trade unions and more than 60 of his own Labour MPs line up against him on a tricky issue? Rather than take a clear position on a social media ban for children and getting phones out of schools, as the Conservative leader has done, this Prime Minister finds an unkempt meadow with some lengthy grass in it, and he boots the tricky issue right in. The House does not just need to take my word for it. One senior Labour MP has said that this consultation will “take too long”. Another said, referring to a social media ban,
“The immediate reaction is that this is just a way of kicking it into the long grass.”
There is a straightforward question that Ministers must answer today: is the Government’s apparent change of heart on a social media ban for real? Is this consultation a way of elegantly managing yet another U-turn, or is it simply a device to get the Prime Minister through the parliamentary week, while the position remains unchanged? If it is progress, it can be celebrated, but let us not forget that until very recently, the Prime Minister said that he was personally opposed to a social media ban for children. In December, the Culture Secretary confirmed that she is against one. The Business Secretary is opposed. The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister said on the media this very morning that the Government do not take a view. In fact, the only senior Labour figure we know who is clearly in favour of a ban is Andy Burnham. That is some leadership.
What is the Secretary of State’s personal view, and what is her message to Labour MPs who would like to vote for a ban this week? Each of those rebel MPs will be asking themselves, “After the Prime Minister has Grand Old Duke of York-ed me up and down so many hills, can I really trust him to see this through?” That is especially so given that this same proposal was tabled previously, and Labour voted it down, just as it voted down our amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill on a phone ban in schools. It is just like when they were told not to support their own colleague, the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), when he had a private Member’s Bill on this issue. Knowing where the Secretary of State personally stands on a ban—not where she stands on a consultation and not what she thinks about having a variety of options—may help ease the minds of Labour MPs.
What of the timeline? Does a three-month consultation mean that legislation to introduce a social media ban will be ready in time for the King’s Speech? If not, and if MPs do not vote for a ban this week, they will not have another chance to do so for 18 months. The opportunity to change things is now. How many on the Government Benches will take that chance?
The Government must have a great deal of the evidence that they need. The Secretary of State’s predecessor commissioned a University of Cambridge review of children’s wellbeing in relation to smartphone use, messaging and social media, which was due to report in December. Can the Secretary of State tell us what the report said? The urgency is obvious. Everyone, especially parents, can see what social media is doing to children. It is not just exposure to extreme or explicit content, although of course that matters. The Online Safety Act 2023, which we introduced, is already addressing illegal material and age-gating, and that work is ongoing. However, the harm goes wider. Social media has created an anxious generation hooked by products designed to be addictive, displacing real-world activity and undermining attention, emotional regulation and mental health. Schools and families deal daily with the consequences: cyber-bullying, social anxiety and fractured concentration.
China’s version of TikTok, Douyin, limits children to an hour a day and promotes educational content, but western platforms do the opposite: engagement loops are optimised for emotional arousal. We welcome scrutiny of those algorithms and steps to stop children’s data being exploited, but there is a simpler option, which is to keep children off these platforms altogether while allowing adults the freedom that follows. Conservatives believe in parental responsibility: we believe in freedom for adults, but we also believe in protecting children. We believe in policing age, not policing speech. It is not to strip parents of their roles and responsibilities to recognise that the online world can be a discombobulating nightmare to supervise. It is not to be a modern-day Mary Whitehouse to worry deeply about children being exposed to images and topics that they are simply not equipped to deal with.
This consultation also includes a rethink on phones in schools. I see that the Education Secretary is present; for months she told us that it was a gimmick and unnecessary, although most secondary school pupils say that phones are still used extensively. By when will phones be banned in schools, and how quickly will Ofsted enforce that? Will it be enforcing against guidance or against the law, because guidance is simply not enough? We must be up front in saying that the challenges of implementing any social media ban are real. We support the Government as they navigate those challenges because we want this to work, but can the Secretary of State make it clear that digital ID will not be a requirement to pass age verification on social media sites?
The truth is that the internet grew as a pioneer society, with consequences that we are all reckoning with. It now needs to be retrofitted with very clear rules for children. They need to be protected. Other countries are taking the approach of a social media ban; will this Government in the UK do the same?
Liz Kendall
The hon. Lady has talked about leadership. May I remind the House that last week, when the Prime Minister and I showed strong and firm leadership on X and Grok, she claimed that the issues were a legal grey area—which they are not—and compared our stance to that of the mullahs of Iran, which would be laughable if it were not so offensive.
The hon. Lady asked whether we had published the research by Professor Orben. Yes, we have: we have published it today, and we are going further with some—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I want to hear the Secretary of State, and this private conversation between the two Front Benches is not helpful.
Liz Kendall
If the hon. Lady does not like hearing me repeat her words back to her, she should not say them.
As I have said, we published that research today, and we have gone further with some short, sharp trials in respect of different interventions and the impact that they may have, because I think that that is very important. The evidence is evolving and we need to move faster in that regard, but it will not cause delay in our action.
The hon. Lady mentioned Ofsted. Perhaps she does not understand that the chief inspector of Ofsted welcomed the new guidance today, which is an important step forward.
Mr Speaker
Order. I want no more of this, and I genuinely mean that, from someone who is meant to be looking after education. I think we all need to set an example.
Liz Kendall
You have taken the words right out of my mouth, Mr Speaker.
Finally, the hon. Lady asked about my personal position. I believe it is right and responsible to act swiftly, but to do so by carrying out a proper consultation. Let me tell the House what my position is: I will act, I will get results, and I will deliver for the British people.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
I welcome the consultation. We know that technology has changed childhood, we believe that it has changed child socialisation and we think that it may have changed brain development, perhaps even motor neurone skills, but there is little concrete evidence beyond the individual terrible stories and, of course, the profits of the big tech platforms. That is why my Committee will soon be launching a digital childhood inquiry to examine these issues, hopefully in time to respond to the consultation.
May I, however, urge the Secretary of State not to assume that a ban will be the answer to the challenges that technology poses? We need to make tech work for all of us now. May I ask her to review her Department’s refusal to accept the recommendations of my Committee’s inquiry into social media and algorithms, particularly with regard to platform responsibility, user control, digital advertising and social media business models?
Liz Kendall
I thank my hon. Friend for that powerful and sensible question, and I welcome her Committee’s review, because those are hugely important matters. We should see this as being not only about social media, but about the use of phones and the issues affecting children in the digital world in which we now live. She will know, because I gave evidence to her Committee, that I am constantly reviewing our position on all the important points that she and the Committee raised in its last report, and that, in particular, the Minister for Digital Government and Data, who is also the Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts, is looking into the impact that advertising, social media and digital platforms can have. That is a firm commitment from the Government.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
Last year, I carried out a “safer screens” tour in my constituency, hearing directly from young people, because the Liberal Democrats consider children and young people to be at the heart of this issue. Teenagers shared concerns about extreme content pushed by algorithms, but also about being glued to their screens alongside their younger siblings. One said, “It’s as addictive as a drug, and I feel the negative impacts every day.” Another pleaded, “Help—I just can’t stop.” Last week, more than 1,700 parents emailed me calling for a social media ban. One mother said that the social media used by her two boys “fills me with dread.” Another highlighted the way in which
“anxiety, reduced attention, online bullying, and exposure to harmful content are becoming common topics among families.”
Parents, teachers, experts and young people themselves are crying out for action, which is why the Liberal Democrats have long raised this as a public health issue. We pushed for the digital age of data consent to be raised to 16, and for the tackling of addictive algorithms. We voted to ban phones in schools, and called for health warnings. Now the Liberal Democrats have tabled an amendment in the other place to ban harmful social media for under-16s, based on film-style age ratings extending to 18. We would reset the default age for social media to 16 now, with strong age assurance, because enough is enough.
This world-pioneering approach brings age-appropriate standards to online safety. We are learning from Australia, and preparing for today’s reality. Our risk-based approach, supported by more than 40 charities and experts including the NSPCC, the Molly Rose Foundation and the Internet Watch Foundation, will stop new platforms slipping through the net while addressing harmful games and AI chatbots, and protecting educational sites such Wikipedia and safe family connections. Crucially, it does not let social media companies off the hook.
We have had age-appropriate safety standards offline, for toys and films, for decades. After 20 years of social media platforms clearly prioritising profit over children, building addictive algorithms that keep children and adults hooked, it is time to take action. We do not need consultation—we need that action now—but at least in this consultation we must look into how, not if, we will implement a ban on harmful social media for under-16s. I urge the Government to consider such a ban, with swift timelines, to address this growing public health crisis, and to act on our proposals now. Our children’s future is not something to be played with.
Liz Kendall
The hon. Lady explains very well the views of children, young people and parents who are grappling with these issues. I disagree with her: I think we need a short, sharp consultation because there are different views, but we definitely want to act. I am very interested in the idea of age classification, and I would be more than happy to talk to her about that. We all see how this issue affects our own children, and we need to help them cope at different ages. I am sure that many hon. Members will raise different options, and I am more than happy to discuss those with them.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I welcome the launch of the consultation and the Government’s commitment to an evidence-based approach. The evidence is clear that mobile phones have no place in schools. Many schools have managed to implement a ban, but those that have not done so, or which have only implemented a less successful version of a ban, often speak about the challenging nature of the dialogue with parents and children as they seek to implement a ban. They say that having a statutory ban, which would require them to ban phones by law, would help. Why is a statutory ban not being announced today, and can the Secretary of State confirm that it is not off the table?
Liz Kendall
My schools say very similar things, and I know the Education Secretary has heard my hon. Friend’s question. Different models are set out in the guidance. For us, the outcome is absolutely clear: there is no place for phones in schools. I am sure that we will hear more views about that, but this is an important next step.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
The evidence will never be perfect on this subject, because this is an effect that is happening right around the world at the same time—there is no control group. Countries are now acting—it is not only Australia; other countries are moving in this direction as well—and I welcome today’s announcement. The Secretary of State will need to make definitional decisions, so it is fair enough to have a consultation to get to the definition of “social media” and to work out what counts as an addictive, compulsive design feature, although I am not sure that that was in her statement. It is fine to have a 12-week consultation, but I am troubled by the possibility that the period after the consultation will stretch, as it sometimes does, in an open-ended way and we will not get the action we need. Will she commit to a deadline after the close of the consultation?
Liz Kendall
I have said before that patience is not my greatest virtue. I do not intend for the period before we publish the consultation or afterwards to be long in any way, shape or form. I want to have a clear position before the summer.
Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
I welcome the leadership that the Secretary of State is showing on this issue. In Bury North, parental appetite for a ban on mobile phones is real, but so are the practical considerations when parents rightly want to track the location of their children, have a form of emergency contact and be able to reach their children safely. Does she agree that the existence of this anxiety is not about the technology itself, but about the design for use? Social media platforms are shaping our children’s childhoods, with excessive screen time and endless feeds absorbing the equivalent of a full-time job’s worth of hours of our young people’s lives every week. Will the Government’s approach focus on shaping healthier digital environments and rewarding first-mover tech companies that lead on safer design, rather than simply leaving the burden on families?
Liz Kendall
We absolutely want to focus on children’s health and wellbeing online, and it is really important that we see more competition in this sector, with different options being available for children and young people. I hope that by having a consultation, we will get the debate going and get that action going, because it is extremely difficult for parents to manage this situation. We all share their worries as Members of Parliament, but also as parents ourselves, and we are determined to get this right and to act swiftly.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
These arguments are very well rehearsed, and this announcement is long overdue. Last year we did a survey in my Gosport constituency, and 80% of parents agreed that social media is making bullying worse for their children. Last week the Culture, Media and Sport Committee took evidence from child psychologists about children’s TV and video content. Among the many things they told us, they explained the learning from Australia: it is critical to plan for whatever gap is created. If we reduce screen time for young people, there must be safe places for them to go and activities on which they can spend their time. What is the Secretary of State doing on a cross-Government basis to make sure that these issues are tackled as well?
Liz Kendall
I will read that evidence—I am sorry that I have not yet done so, but I absolutely will. The hon. Lady is right: if children are going to spend less time online, what will they do in the real world? That is why our new youth strategy involved the biggest ever consultation of young people. They said that they wanted something to do, somewhere to go and someone to care. That is why we are backing a new generation of youth clubs and youth workers, to ensure that young people have the chance for dance, drama, music and sport, both in and out of school, in order find their spark. This is about providing a better future for our children. We can only do that across Government, and that is the action we are taking.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The last time I was in the Chair for a statement on this issue, we ran out of time. It would be really helpful if colleagues ensured that their questions are short.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Organisations such as the Molly Rose Foundation highlight that evidence to support social media bans remains very uncertain and warn that blanket restrictions could unintentionally cause harm by pushing young people towards unregulated platforms, remove trusted online spaces, undermine digital literacy and, indeed, create a cliff edge at the age of 16. Does the Secretary of State agree that we must take a calm, evidence-based approach to this complex issue and ensure that children’s voices are central to the consultation?
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I say this not just as a constituency MP with correspondence from hundreds of parents in my inbox, but as a mum: a review, however short, kicks the can down the road, even though we have the legislative vehicle for change in the other place right now. Will the Secretary of State please talk to our Lords counterparts and ask them to support the Liberal Democrat amendment, which takes a harms-based approach?
Liz Kendall
I have no intention of kicking any can down the road, but I do think that listening to different views is the right and responsible approach. It is perhaps old-fashioned in politics these days to try to find common ground and to listen respectfully to what people have to say. That does not mean that we will not lead and act, but I do think it is vital that those views are heard. I have no intention of dragging this out; I want swift action and next steps. We will have to disagree on the consultation, but I am more than happy to discuss with the hon. Lady and her colleagues any views that they have about the way forward.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. When I trained as a physics teacher, I saw both the enrichment that tech can provide, with easy access to calculators and apps to enhance learning, and the disruption, with endless notifications, distractions and cyber-bullying incidents. How will the Secretary of State ensure that the consultation harnesses the opportunities that tech provides while protecting kids at risk?
Liz Kendall
It is partly about having the consultation, in conjunction with the wider action that we are taking. Next week will be the anniversary of the AI opportunities action plan, and we will set out how much we have already achieved, but the next step is to seize the benefits of those technologies. This country is and should continue to be a world leader in AI and science, and hon. Members will hear more from me about this next week.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
Families in my constituency are deeply concerned about the impact of social media on their children’s wellbeing. Just last week a headteacher told me that schools need the Government to act, and young people themselves describe the real damage that social media is doing to their mental health. The Conservative party has shown leadership by calling for clear age limits, because we recognise that protecting childhood is about setting responsible boundaries. Parents are asking for action now, so why are the Government not making a clear commitment today?
Liz Kendall
We have given clear support through all the steps we have taken on making the encouragement of self-harm and suicide a priority offence, as is cyber-flashing. We have taken action on nudification apps, updated the guidance for school and made sure that Ofsted will carry out inspections on that. I understand that the hon. Lady is strongly of the opinion that we should act now. I believe that a short, sharp consultation is the right way forward, because families and children really need that support. At the weekend, over 40 organisations signed a letter saying why they think a ban is the wrong approach. I think it is right to listen to them, because we have to lead, but we also have to listen and try to bring people with you.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
As one of the Back Benchers pushing the Government in this direction, I feel that the Secretary of State is taking the right approach in looking at the evidence and having a broad consultation to make sure that we get this right. However, what we can do to ensure that the voices of children and young people and parents in Bishop Auckland are included in the consultation?
Liz Kendall
What I will certainly be doing in my Leicester West constituency is holding events in schools with parents and organisations that represent children and families, and we can get cracking on that now and during the consultation. I want to hear Members’ views, so that we can make sure we get the questions in the consultation right and then take that out into the country. About 10 years ago, when I was in opposition and a member of the Science and Technology Committee, we had an inquiry into keeping kids safe online. I did a big thing with my local schools, and it was really interesting because at that time young people said they wanted to be online for some of the benefits, but already saw the problems—the bullying, the harassment and what was happening to younger children. Children are savvy, and this issue has been going on for a long time. We are determined to set the right path for the future, and I am sure my hon. Friend will be helping us get that right.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
We should not underestimate the complexity of this issue or the potential for unintended consequences from a complete ban. There is early evidence that some unintended consequences are already occurring in Australia. Parents are rightly worried and they are demanding action. Does the Secretary of State agree that we need to listen to those parents, young people themselves and the many organisations and individual experts in the field, many of whom oppose a full ban, to reach not only a considered position, but a robust and enforceable one? Does she also agree that enforcement of the Online Safety Act has not been remotely strong enough, and that, notwithstanding this consultation, existing enforcement must be better funded and ramped up?
Liz Kendall
We certainly intend to learn from Australia’s experience and evidence of the ban there—I hope that I and the Minister for online safety, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Kanishka Narayan), will be visiting soon. I do listen to the concerns raised by organisations such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the Internet Watch Foundation and the Molly Rose Foundation about the unintended consequences of a ban, and I intend to look at all those points of view seriously. However, as I have said to the House earlier, the question is not whether we act, but how. On age verification, I am extremely interested in what more we can do to enforce the existing law, and we will be gathering evidence on those points.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for this statement, acknowledging the real harm that social media is causing for children. As a former Schools Minister, I know how welcome these announcements will be for teachers and parents, who are contacting us in droves. However, as she knows, time is of the essence. All the time we spend contemplating is time that children still remain vulnerable to those algorithms and this addiction. Will she give the reassurance today that not only will this consultation be swift, but the delivery of its outcomes will be swift, and—she has just said this—that there will be real action to enforce the regulations already in place that should be protecting children today?
Liz Kendall
I have no desire to hang about, because this is happening to children and young people now—and because my hon. Friend would have my guts for garters if I did not act swiftly.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I realise that the Secretary of State has been sent out to manage a growing political problem—[Interruption]—honestly. She is speaking in stentorian terms to try to inspire some kind of confidence, but if colleagues look at the statement, they will see that there is nothing of substance in it at all. That is disappointing, given that in a private Member’s Bill only last year—I was a sponsor of the Bill brought in by the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), who is now on the Government Front Bench—promises were made that are not even delivered by this statement.
In particular on schools—since I have to ask a question—could the Secretary of State acknowledge an inherent conflict? She says that the Government are clear that mobile phones have no place in schools, but she is going to update the guidance on how they should be used in schools. Could she at the very least confirm that that guidance is going to tighten their use in school, and that there is no possibility of any loosening of the current situation?
Liz Kendall
If the right hon. Member had read the guidance that has been published, he would know that this is about how schools can introduce such a ban effectively. I would say that the statement goes further than the private Member’s Bill he recommends. Last but by no means least, I have been focused on and working on this issue since 2016, as I have said, so if he does not mind, I will diplomatically reject that comment.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
I really welcome the Secretary of State’s leadership and commitment. I run a work experience programme, “Your Voice, Your Future”, which encourages young people to get involved in politics and government. Some of the participants produced a powerful campaign called “Rise above the rumours”, which was all about how the rapid spread of misinformation online is harming young people’s mental health and fuelling division. Can the Secretary of State say how young people in my constituency and across the country can get involved?
Liz Kendall
“Rise above the rumours” is quite a good tagline. My hon. Friend will probably hold events with her schools—primaries and secondaries—and get children to have a full debate, put forward their views and maybe even vote on what they want, and if she does so, I will definitely look at the results.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I have had almost 1,800 emails from constituents urging for something to be done about this. I declare an interest as the mother of four young adults and teenagers. Local headteachers and campaigners tell us repeatedly about the mental health issues and harmful algorithms, but the tech companies must be held to account. If the Secretary of State is serious about urgency and prioritisation, speed is of the essence. Today, the Online Safety Act Network, supported by 42 civil society groups, has asked for urgent amendments to the Online Safety Act 2023. Has she looked at that?
Liz Kendall
Yes, I have, and I am determined to act swiftly, but there are different views on this issue. The hon. Member will feel very strongly, as do those in her constituency who have contacted her, but the truth is that there are different views that must be heard and listened to, but we will act swiftly.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, particularly the action on mobile phones in schools. Harmful interactions can take place in online games and on instant messaging platforms, and we need to be alive to the risk of driving use to less well-regulated spaces and into virtual private networks. I am also concerned that opaque feed algorithms, which reinforce our worst prejudices and recommend harmful content, can have mental health impacts on adults as well as children. Can she assure me that her review will look at this broader issue, and will she ensure that young people’s voices are at the heart of the consultation?
Liz Kendall
I will absolutely look at those issues and make sure that young people’s views and voices are at the heart of this. It is interesting that, when we look at the Australians’ experience, we see that they had to define what social media is and what it covers. That has not been as straightforward as some might have thought, and I think it is really important that we look at it closely. The OSA does not have a definition of social media, so that is one thing we need to consider.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
The Secretary of State has made reference to the interaction of whatever she may consult on with the operation of the current law. Following on from the comments of the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah), will the Secretary of State confirm that even if the Government pursue a ban on social media for the under-16s, they will not seek to dilute the child safety duties under the Online Safety Act?
Liz Kendall
I think it is really important that those duties are upheld and implemented. As I have said, I am very interested in highly effective age assurance measures, which are already required for some of the most serious issues, including pornography, and whether they should be extended to other areas.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I recently met Youthline, a fantastic mental health charity for young people in my constituency, and Berkshire Women’s Aid to talk about the effects of social media on young people’s mental health and their ability to form healthy relationships. Will my right hon. Friend commit to listening to the views of such organisations, as well as to Bracknell parents and children, as she looks at the results of the consultation?
Liz Kendall
Yes, and I urge my hon. Friend to send us details of those opinions so that we can ensure they are heard loud and clear.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Will the Secretary of State confirm to the House that the Government have no intention of introducing criminal sanctions against parents or guardians of children who access social media through parental accounts?
Liz Kendall
The hon. Lady has got this wrong, but her party wants to scrap the Online Safety Act 2023, and that says everything about Reform.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
The Children’s Commissioner spoke to a group of 15 and 16-year-olds in 2024 and found that three quarters of them had been sent a beheading video. It is possible that a great number of children are protecting us from what they see online, instead of us protecting them. Can I emphasise strongly the importance of speaking to a large range of children from different backgrounds about this? Sadly, they do not always feel able to make us aware of everything that they are exposed to online.
Liz Kendall
My hon. Friend raises a really important issue, which is making sure that young people trust us and feel confident in raising these matters. It is our job to make sure that nobody is frightened to say what is happening to them. We will not get this right unless we talk to people of all ages and from all backgrounds, in all parts of the country. Hon. Members know that they have a vital job to play in their constituency. As Secretary of State, I am responsible for the entire United Kingdom, so I urge hon. Members, for all the politics and show in this House, to engage locally, because then we will get this right.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
It is quite clear that social media is causing a health and wellbeing crisis among young people. Parents are absolutely terrified about the content that their children are viewing and the amount of time that they are spending online. Just a couple of months ago, 14 and 15-year-olds in my constituency told me about the profound pressure that they feel to be on social media. They feel a compulsion to use it, but they do not want to. Will the Government get off the pot and announce a ban? Perfection really is the enemy of the good here. The evidence is plain to see. We need action, not words.
Liz Kendall
The hon. Gentleman knows what I think about why we have to do a consultation, so I disagree with him on that, but he is right to say that we should not let perfection be the enemy of the good. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) made a point about the evidence. I discovered 10 years ago, before so much had changed online, that young people know that some of this stuff is bad; they do not want to do it, but they cannot help themselves. If we were all honest with our ourselves, we would know that we behave like that sometimes, too.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
Earlier this month, I hosted in Parliament a performance by students from Kent of “Generation FOMO”, a powerful verbatim play that looks at young people’s real experiences of using social media. It highlighted the impact that social media use can have on mental health, and how it leads to an increase in anxiety and depression. I therefore welcome the consultation. Can it also look into the ability of tech firms to develop loopholes that would destroy the impact of any ban?
Liz Kendall
I want to hear the views and the voices of the good people of Kent on this, whether that means having a separate meeting with my hon. Friend, or his sending me that information, which I am more than happy to look at.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I recently visited the Fulham boys school, which, 18 months ago, introduced a complete ban on smartphones in school. That school and Kingsbridge community college in my constituency both talk about the transformative effect that a ban has had. The most compelling evidence for me is this: where a secondary school completely bans smartphones, children at the feeder primary schools are under less peer pressure to buy phones, so the age at which those children get a phone is rising to 12, 13 or 14. Will the Secretary of State confirm to the House that she has not dismissed the idea of supporting headteachers by banning, through legislation, smartphones in secondary schools in England and Wales?
Liz Kendall
I have set out the Government’s position on this. I know that the hon. Lady wants us to go further, and I hear what she says. This is a really important point. Several friends have told me that their children feel totally left out at school if they do not have a phone, and the peer pressure to have one seeps down to younger siblings and other children, so the hon. Lady is right to talk about the route through. We want to make things as simple as possible for schools, teachers, parents and young people, and to make it clear that there is no place for phones in school.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
I have recently been asking my constituents what they think about a ban on phones in schools, as well as for their thoughts about social media for under-16s. It was clear that, regardless of their politics, they all wanted to have their views heard. They were so grateful to be asked, instead of having something imposed on them. Will the Secretary of State join me in South Derbyshire for the consultation meetings that I hope to have, so that my constituents feel that they are being heard by the decision maker right at the top?
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Last week, as the Secretary of State will recall, some of us were loudly heckled for suggesting that X was beginning to give way on Grok. Now we know that that was true, so events are moving fast. Can the Secretary of State at least assure us that she will immediately—during the consultation and anything that follows on from it—instruct the civil servants who would have to prepare for a practical ban to get on with the task provisionally, so that no time is wasted?
Liz Kendall
Deeds, not words—I have always believed that. I want to prepare for all options, because when we make a decision, we want to implement it as soon as possible.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s consultation on smartphone use and social media. Raising the minimum age is the right step towards protecting our children, as we know that social media has led to devastating consequences. We also know that excessive screen time is linked to myopia and dry eye disease. When the Secretary of State brings forward guidance, will it take account of the risks for sight loss?
Liz Kendall
My right hon. Friend the Education Secretary is leading on the guidance on screen time. I will definitely raise that issue with her. My primary schools are extremely worried about screen time. For children under 5, there are also implications for language development, fine motor skills and communication confidence. All those issues are important, but I will definitely raise the point about the impact on people’s eyes with my right hon. Friend.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
Over the past year, I have spoken to hundreds of children in schools across my constituency as part of my safer screens tour. It has been very distressing to hear from them about the material that they have been exposed to, and to hear that social media companies have not come back to them when they have reported this harmful content. If the Secretary of State agrees that there should be a ban on children accessing harmful social media platforms, will the default age for accessing them be 16?
Liz Kendall
The hon. Gentleman knows that I have set out that we will consult on the age of 16, but I remind the House that the Online Safety Act has very strong provisions against illegal content for people of all ages and harmful content for children. We need to make sure that it is effectively enforced now, whatever decision is made through the consultation.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the announcement of this consultation. Parents and carers, families, schools and children themselves are looking for help and leadership on the issue of keeping children safe in the digital world. Will she assure me that the consultation will cover two things? First, will it cover the concept of misinformation? Claims about misinformation are levelled at social media providers. Secondly, will it consider all options for dealing with the addictive nature of social media, and algorithmically personalised feeds?
Liz Kendall
This is very much about keeping children safe online. I have said that we will look at raising the digital age of consent, the positive impact that could have on how companies use algorithms, and the many related issues. I am of course happy to discuss matters further with my hon. Friend, but the consultation is absolutely focused on children.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Many young people watching us will be thinking that issues of addiction and online harm are not simply age-related. This debate reflects, I fear, many parents’ and carers’ lack of confidence in the ability of the Online Safety Act and Ofcom to deal with rapid technological change. What conversations has the Secretary of State had with Ofcom about the powers and further action that it could take now, in particular on artificial intelligence chatbots?
Liz Kendall
My hon. Friend will know that I have already said that I have looked seriously at the issue of AI chatbots. Those that use live search and those that share user-to-user content are covered by the Online Safety Act, but where the chatbot has an interaction with an individual without live search or user-to-user content, that is not covered by the Act, and I am considering how we fill those gaps. I have said that if further action is needed, we will take it. Ofcom will understand that the expectation—from not just Members but the public—that there will be swift and effective enforcement is paramount.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and place on record my thanks and gratitude to Rosalind McClean and Charlotte Carson from a local campaign group on smartphone-free childhoods. She is right to bring forward a consultation and engage with young people, but my parliamentary colleagues in the other place will tomorrow, if proceedings allow, support an amendment that would lead to a ban for under-16s. In the consultation, is she proposing a social media ban for under-16s, simply asking for views on the age at which a ban should be set, or giving options?
Liz Kendall
We are including the option of a ban for those under 16; that will be clear. We will propose raising the digital age of consent and we will look at the other issues I listed in my statement. I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s party’s approach in the other place. We want the consultation to happen. His party will have strong opinions, but we think that this is the right and responsible way forward. We will do this as swiftly as possible.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
I place on record my appreciation of the Secretary of State for standing up to the richest man in the world. Whether it is standing up and acting, or the statement on online harm made weeks ago by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), this Government are taking the protection of children seriously. In Bolton South and Walkden, parents see the effect of social media on children. Will the Secretary of State stick to her intention to consult fully, especially with children under the age of 16?
Liz Kendall
The Government as a whole are determined to stick up for British values and British law. I am proud that we did that last week, and we will continue to do so. I absolutely commit to ensuring that the views of children and young people in my hon. Friend’s constituency, as well as across the country, are heard loud and clear.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The Secretary of State has demonstrated her commitment and interest in this issue at the Dispatch Box this afternoon, and we thank her for that. However, with the greatest respect, if social media had just arrived in our sitting rooms two weeks ago, a consultation might be necessary, but the canon of evidence about the demonstrable harms being done to our young is now very clear; that is what we have all read in our inboxes in recent days. The consultation will not throw up anything that we do not already know. Still less will it find a unanimity of view. There will always be differences of view on whether to ban. To govern is to choose. Can I urge the Government to choose to act swiftly, and to use the legislative vehicle in the other place to act now, because too many of our young people are on a precipice?
Liz Kendall
To govern is indeed to choose, and we showed our determination to do so last week. We will choose on this issue, but I want people’s views to be heard. Sometimes, we need to try to bring people together. The hon. Gentleman is right that we will never get everyone to agree on anything, but making sure that people are heard is really important. Maybe that is old fashioned, but I believe that it is right. Then we will act, lead and decide.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
I welcome the steps to protect our children on social media platforms. It is very difficult to see how that can be achieved effectively without further detailed checks and balances on users and, essentially, the tech companies themselves. Social media governance is like the wild west; it is like cyber-anarchy at this moment in time, with bots, fake accounts and goodness knows whatever undermining our fantastic society. What will my right hon. Friend do to tackle the problem of digital lawlessness?
Liz Kendall
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We have taken steps; the Online Safety Act is a really important step forward. Ever since that became law we have taken further action on cyber-flashing, nudification apps, and sites that promote self-harm and suicide. I am very interested in looking at highly effective age-assurance measures. They are already in use for most of the serious harms for children, whether pornography, suicide or self-harm. It will be part of the consultation to see what more we can do, because we want to ensure that the laws of this land are upheld.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Just to help Members, I will be calling this statement to an end at 2 o’clock, because we have a lot of business afterwards.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
Anna is a child development doctor in my constituency. Every day, she sees children who have been harmed by excessive screen time. The Secretary of State says that she wishes to come to a clear position before the summer. When we come to that clear position, how urgently will change happen? How long will Anna keep on seeing children damaged by too much screen time?
Liz Kendall
We will act as swiftly as possible. I am extremely keen to hear from medical professionals—I received a letter from the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges on this issue—and we will be engaging with them deeply to ensure we get this right and act as swiftly as possible.
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
I am one of few Members here today, and potentially the only woman, who had social media as a part of their childhood under the age of 16. That is why I am so shocked that the Conservatives can come here today and demand such urgency, when they left my generation to view harmful content for a decade. Social media has defined my life and being literate in it has shaped my career for the good at times, but it also meant that there was a language barrier between me and trusted adults—a language barrier that I fear will only worsen and widen under a blanket ban. I urge colleagues across the House, when talking about an entire generation, to bring them with us and not to send a message that it is simply easier to remove young people from social media than it is to remove the harmful content on it. Will the Secretary of State assure me that my generation and the generation that followed will be at the heart of this consultation?
Liz Kendall
Once again, my hon. Friend shows the courage of her convictions and the experience she brings to this House. I know her life in fashion has been crucially shaped by the online world, which does provide opportunities for young people, so maybe I will ask her whether she can ensure that the Government hear from people like her in her generation, so that we can take their views deeply into account. We want to prevent harms and we will take action to do that, but we need to hear from young people for whom social media has given them a chance and a future.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I have heard from literally hundreds of parents and teachers in the Scottish Borders who want social media to be banned for under-16s. We all know that these apps are addictive and are causing serious mental health challenges for our young people. I am now getting messages from parents who have heard what the Secretary of State has said and fear that she is simply kicking the issue into the long grass. Why will the Government not take action now?
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
My right hon. Friend is taking exactly the right approach. This place is littered with legislation that turns out not to be as good as it should have been, and then it does not get amended—and late amendments are not a good thing either. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) highlighted some of the important health impacts. Will the Secretary of State proactively seek information from health specialists, including psychologists such as Sarah-Jayne Blakemore, who is very expert in the teenage brain?
Liz Kendall
Yes, we absolutely want independent experts to feed in their views. My career started out in the world of public health at the King’s Fund, and thinking about this issue in a public health framework is extremely important.
As the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) just said, people want action. I know that and have said loudly and clearly that I want to hear the views of all parents and families. I will listen to those views, but I also want to take evidence, including from—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman chunters that I do not care. I do not think that my actions over the past 10 years have ever shown that that is the case. [Interruption.] I did not hear what the hon. Member’s actual question was.
As I was saying, I want to hear from all those involved, including from—[Interruption.] There are many chuntering from the Conservative Benches. I have already said that I want every single MP in this House to feed through to us the views of their constituents. I want to hear from those in the medical and other professions, because it is important that we do this properly and get this right.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
I know that parents, grandparents and, indeed, young people across Ceredigion Preseli will welcome action to tackle the harms of social media and mobile phone use. Given that education, which will be so important in implementing these measures, is a devolved responsibility in Wales, will the Secretary of State seek early discussions with the Welsh Government to ensure that any outcomes of the consultation are implemented equally across the United Kingdom?
Liz Kendall
I recognise those points and want to work closely with the Welsh Government on all these issues.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
It is clear that social media harms our children. I am firmly of the belief that when a child is being harmed, it is the Government’s duty to act. I support a ban, but even the most cursory engagement with Hartlepool residents shows me very clearly that there is a range of views among parents on this issue. Can the Secretary of State fathom what possibly could be the objection to listening to parents?
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
We have censorship for films, which is not necessarily for violent or sexual content and sometimes for psychological content. Policing such things could be difficult. Following the consultation, it will take time to put together a report. What concerns us is when and how action could be taken, because the King’s Speech will have passed. If the right hon. Lady concludes that there has to be a social media ban for under-16s, what mechanism could be put in place in such a short time?
Liz Kendall
The right hon. Member knows that the mechanism will depend on the policy that we put forward. I want to do this properly and thoroughly so that when we take a decision, it will work and not have unintended consequences. I want us to have thought through all of that so that we have a policy that lasts. It is really important that we get this right. There are strong, different views across the House. It is good that many hon. Members have their own strong opinions; it is what this place is all about. I am trying to take the country forward and build consensus, but we will never get everybody to agree. Leadership is required, and that is what we will deliver.
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s launching of a national conversation about the impact of screens and tech on our children. As part of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s inquiry into children’s TV and video content, we have heard evidence that not all screen time is equal. Content that is meant for engagement can be beneficial for a child’s development, but content that is designed for attention, such as fast-paced images bombarding children, can be harmful. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the consultation looks at the quality and purpose of the content that our children are consuming on video-sharing platforms such as YouTube and at what more can be done to ensure that platforms support the right type of content for our kids?
Liz Kendall
Absolutely. I was at Braunstone community primary school in my constituency not long ago, where I was shown the incredible power of AI to help teachers with lesson planning. One teacher told me that using it meant that he could free up 30 days a year to be present for his kids in school and his family at home. Teachers were also using AI tutors to help narrow the disadvantage gap between rich and poor kids. We need to look at the quality of screen time, so my hon. Friend’s point is very well made.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
After more than a year of raising the issue in this House, illegal drugs including spice are still being brazenly sold to children online. If that is not harm, I do not know what is. What are the Government doing to ensure that all powers under the Online Safety Act are being used by Ofcom to stop this appalling harm to children? If the legislation we have cannot deal with it, will the Secretary of State consider including in her consultation how we might stop this pernicious trade?
Liz Kendall
The hon. Member raises an extremely important issue. I have put on record my determination for Ofcom to use the powers it has to act swiftly; I have made that very clear in private and publicly. I am more than happy to hear what more the hon. Lady thinks could be done.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
As a signatory to a letter calling for an Australia-style model that places responsibilities on tech firms to block under-16s from social media, I welcome the Government’s consultation. Families in Bedford and Kempston are very clear that platforms are harming our children now. I am pleased that the Secretary of State is committed to a rapid consultation, but will she also commit to a clear timetable for bold action before more young lives are damaged?
Liz Kendall
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I have said repeatedly in this House that we need to do the right and responsible thing, which is to consult. I do not want to hang around. I want to work out the very best and effective way forward, and I want proposals that will hold and last.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
In meaningful consultations, the Government set out what they are minded to do and set out a model. This consultation does not define social media or set out an enforcement model. It does not say anything about how age verification should be done. If they do not set out their model and what they intend to do, how at the end of the consultation will they have a practical guide or model to implement? They will not. If we are to follow this up with another consultation, I fear that parents and grandparents in Beverley and Holderness will be deeply disappointed with the dithering and delay displayed by the Secretary of State today.
Liz Kendall
The right hon. Gentleman knows that this is a statement, not the publication of the consultation. I very much look forward to his views when it is published.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Leading doctors have warned that social media has become a public health emergency that casts long shadows over our children’s minds. From self-harm to sleepless nights, distorted self-images and sexualised images, and the addictive nature of social media, the damage runs deep. Does my right hon. Friend agree that protecting young people’s wellbeing must come before digital profit and convenience? Will she commission research into the long-term side effects of social media, including on cognitive and motor development, in order to shape policy not just now but in 10 years’ time?
Liz Kendall
I think I mentioned earlier the letter I received from the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, which I believe is taking forward further work on this issue. Clinicians gave personal testimony about the horrific cases that they have treated in primary, secondary and community settings. I know that they will want to work closely with us on this. I thank my hon. Friend for her question.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I really welcome this statement. It coincides with the early-day motion published today in my name calling for children under 16 to be banned from social media that is deliberately designed to be addictive and is driven by profit. We have heard from Members across the House about the harms, which I will not repeat. What steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure that any future consultation and subsequent legislation is based on the foundations of health and safety by design, and when can we expect the legislation to come into force?
Liz Kendall
The hon. Member is right; we want to ensure that this is about not only safety but enhancing the wellbeing of children, looking particularly at issues of mental health and anxiety. That will absolutely be at the heart of the consultation and any future proposals.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
It is 20 years since I co-authored the first code of practice on new forms of content on mobile. In the intervening 20 years, we have seen the proliferation of over-the-top services that bypass the network-level filters that we introduced as part of that code of practice. However, social media does not neatly fall into a categorisation of either age-inappropriate or harmful, so will the Secretary of State please commit to working with the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, which is working already to gather evidence on the harm to ensure that our conclusions from this consultation are evidence led?
Several hon. Members rose—
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
I am so happy that the Government are finally waking up to this issue and how serious it is, and that there is a cross-party consensus on the need to ban social media for under-16s. Social media platforms are designed to be addictive; we all know that. Most adults cannot control themselves, so how can we expect our children to? Enforcement will be the key issue, so would the Secretary of State please give her views on what she thinks enforcement could look like and on what she has already learned from our Australian friends, who are leading the charge on this with legislation?
Liz Kendall
I hope that the action we took last week on Grok shows that the enforcement of existing laws is absolutely paramount. We will definitely be learning from the experience in Australia, not just about how the policy was developed and the definition of social media there, but about enforcement. I am more than happy to report back to the House on that.
Many colleagues have been unable to get on this statement, and I am sure that there are others who want to feed in their views. I really do want to hear from colleagues. We will certainly be organising events in the House for colleagues to come together, and they can also contact the Department to put forward the views of their constituents. That is my job: I am a member of this Labour Government but also the Secretary of State for the country. I believe that, when we get this right, it will be a legacy of which we can be proud.
Sarah Pochin
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In response to my perfectly reasonable question, the Secretary of State said I had “got this wrong”. She did not explain in what way exactly I had got it wrong. Does she not agree that all Members in this Chamber—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. When the hon. Lady makes a point of order, she should address it to the Chair, not to the Secretary of State. The issue she has raised is not a point of order and it is not a matter for the Chair. I am sure she can follow it up with the Secretary of State outside the Chamber or in writing.
Chinese Embassy
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
I would like to make a statement on the national security considerations of China’s proposal to build a new embassy at the Royal Mint Court in Tower Hamlets. I know that Members will by now be well aware that the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government has approved China’s planning application. Some right hon. Members have been briefed by my security officials, and some Members will have seen the statement from the Intelligence and Security Committee, as well as the letter from the director general of MI5 and the director of GCHQ.
The decision made by the Secretary of State for Housing was an independent, quasi-judicial planning one. It concludes a process that began in 2018 when the then Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, gave formal diplomatic consent for China to use the Royal Mint site for its new embassy, subject to planning permission, and welcomed it as China’s largest overseas investment. Given the potential for legal proceedings, it would not be appropriate to give a commentary on the grounds for the decision. In its decision, MHCLG notes that
“the package of security measures proposed would be proportionate to the proposed use of the site”
and that
“no bodies with responsibility for national security, including HO and FCDO, have raised concerns or objected to the proposal on the basis of the proximity of the cables or other underground infrastructure.”
I know that some Members have raised concerns regarding the security implications of the new embassy, and it is on that issue that I want to update the House. National security is the first duty of any Government, and that is why the intelligence and security agencies have been absolutely integral to this process. The ISC, which is the Committee entrusted and empowered by this House to scrutinise the Government’s most sensitive information, has today released its judgment on the security implications. I thank it for its work, and I am reassured by the depth of its scrutiny throughout this process. In its statement, the ISC concluded,
“On the basis of the evidence we have received, and having carefully reviewed the nuanced national security considerations, the Committee has concluded that, taken as a whole, the national security concerns that arise can be satisfactorily mitigated.”
I can confirm today that the Home Office has received a letter from the director of GCHQ and director general of MI5 that makes it clear that
“as with any foreign embassy on UK soil, it is not realistic to expect to be able wholly to eliminate each and every potential risk…However, the collective work across UK intelligence agencies and HMG departments to formulate a package of national security mitigations for the site has been, in our view, expert, professional and proportionate.”
They judge that
“the package of mitigations deals acceptably with a wide range of sensitive national security issues, including cabling.”
Indeed, they note that the consolidation has “clear security advantages”.
Our security services have over a century of experience of managing security matters relating to foreign embassies on UK soil. This Government, and the last, have been aware of the potential for a new embassy at this site since the Chinese Government completed the purchase in 2018. The issues that continue to be raised in media reports are not new to the Government or the intelligence community, and an extensive range of measures have been developed to protect national security. We have acted to increase the resilience of cables in the area through an extensive series of measures to protect sensitive data, and I can confirm that, contrary to reporting, the Government had seen the unredacted plans for the embassy and the Government have agreed with China that the publicly accessible forecourt on the embassy grounds will not have diplomatic immunity, managing the risk to the public.
Based on all that, and given our extensive work on this matter, I am content that any risks are being appropriately managed, but let me be clear: the build also brings clear national security advantages. Following extensive negotiations led by this Government, the Chinese Government have agreed to consolidate their seven current sites in London into one site. That is why, following deep scrutiny by security officials, the Government have been able to conclude that we can manage the security concerns related to the embassy.
Although there are those who have, and who will no doubt continue to have, concerns about the embassy, it is a fundamental and normal part of international relations that countries agree to establish embassies in each other’s capitals. While some would stick their heads in the sand and ignore the obvious need to engage, this Government are engaging with China confidently and pragmatically, recognising the complexity of the world as it is and challenging where we need to, because for our security, our economy and our climate, China matters. To be clear, this is not a question of balancing economic and security considerations; we do not trade off security for economic access.
Of course we recognise that China poses a series of threats to UK national security, from cyber-attacks, foreign interference and espionage targeting our democratic institutions to the transnational repression of Hongkongers and China’s support for Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. That is why I announced a package in November to protect our national security, which set out the range of work the Government are taking forward to strengthen the security of our democracy against the threat from foreign interference and espionage. It is also why, for example, in December 2025 the UK sanctioned two China-based companies that have carried out cyber-attacks against the UK and its allies; why we have completed work to remove Chinese-made surveillance equipment from sensitive sites; why the UK has sanctioned 50 Chinese companies under the Russia sanctions regulations as part of our efforts to take action against entities operating in third countries over economic and military support for Russia; and why I will be hosting a closed event in February with vice-chancellors to discuss the risks posed by foreign interference from a range of states and to signpost our plans to further increase the sector’s resilience.
Taking a robust approach to our national security also includes engaging with China. Under the previous Government, engagement with China had ground to a halt. That made us no safer; indeed, it is only through engagement that we can directly challenge China on its malicious activity. By taking tough steps to keep us secure, we enable ourselves to co-operate in other areas, including in pursuit of safe economic opportunities in the UK’s interest, and in areas such as organised immigration crime, narcotics trafficking, and serious and organised crime. This is what our allies do and this is what we are doing: delivering for the public, putting more money in their pockets and keeping them safe through hard-headed, risk-based engagement with the world’s most consequential powers.
I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members for the ongoing attention that they give to protecting the UK’s national security. China has posed, and will continue to pose, threats to our national security. However, following detailed consideration of all possible risks around the new embassy by expert officials across Government, I am assured that the UK’s national security is protected. Let me assure this House and the country: upholding national security is the first duty of Government and we will continue to take all measures necessary to defeat these threats. I commend this statement to the House.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Let us be in no doubt about the threat that China poses: MI5 has warned that Chinese intelligence is actively trying to disrupt our democracy; bounties have been placed on the heads of Hong Kong campaigners; Members of this House have been directly spied on by China; China actively supports Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine; and China is infiltrating universities and businesses to acquire sensitive technology, as well as stealing it directly. Yet this Government have failed again and again to take the action needed.
This Government failed to place China in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. This Government failed to properly support the case against two men accused of spying for China on MPs in this House. And now this Government have shamefully approved plans for a Chinese super-embassy. Despite everything China has done on our soil, China has been rewarded with exactly what it wants: a super-embassy that will be a base for espionage, not just in the UK but likely across Europe as well.
The Government have capitulated to Chinese demands. The Prime Minister himself said to President Xi at the G20 in November 2024,
“You raised the Chinese embassy building in London when we spoke on the telephone and we have since taken action by calling in that application.”
In other words, the Prime Minister did precisely what President Xi told him to do and then he faithfully reported back afterwards.
The decision has serious implications. Last week, The Telegraph published plans showing 208 secret rooms and a hidden chamber just 1 metre from critical data cables. Our economy depends on those cables, so what assurance can the Minister give that those cables will be secure from Chinese interference?
In paragraph 97 of his decision notice, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, who made the decision, admits that he had not even seen unredacted plans before making his decision. How can he possibly have assessed the risk, as the decision maker, without having seen those plans? He also admits in paragraph 13 that he did not follow our suggestion to hold section 321 closed hearings to take evidence. Once again, how can the Secretary of State possibly have taken the decision in an informed way without having personally assessed the risk? It gets worse, because paragraph 8.63 onwards of the inspector’s report admits that China can legally refuse to allow UK authorities to inspect the building during or after construction—so we are going to have no idea what is being built in there in any event.
The Minister referred to the ISC. He said that someone in Government has seen unredacted plans, although we know that that was not the decision maker, the Secretary of State. Has the ISC seen those unredacted plans? It has been suggested to me that it has not. The ISC says that the risks can be mitigated, but mere mitigation is not enough. Mitigation entails only a partial exclusion of risk, and nothing is said about how to manage future developments in China’s capabilities—developments that we cannot anticipate today. The Minister for some reason forgot to quote this, but the ISC also says that the Government process was not robust enough. It says that it lacked clarity on national security, that the key reports lacked the necessary detail and that the Government do not have the “dexterity” required to handle China. Does the Minister accept those elements of the ISC report?
Others share those concerns. A US Government source was recently quoted as saying that the UK had “downplayed” the risks. Last week, the White House was reported to be “deeply concerned”, and the chair of the US House of Representatives China committee says that he opposes the plans on the grounds that Americans’ data may be “at risk”. Does the Minister agree with our American allies?
It is clear that this decision is timed to be shortly before a planned trip by the Prime Minister to China. He apparently intends to seek some kind of economic deal with China to fix the mess he and the Chancellor have created here, with jobs down and unemployment up since the election. From its timing and from President Xi’s clear demands, this planning consent appears to be linked to the Prime Minister’s imminent visit and to the economic deal. It seems clear to me that the Government are trading national security for economic links, and that this is a shameless capitulation to China’s demands.
China is spying on us. It is subverting our democracy, it is repressing people on our soil and it is stealing our technology. Is the truth not this? In those circumstances, giving them what they want is simply the wrong thing to do.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Before I call the Minister, I gently remind shadow Ministers and spokesmen that there is a time limit, which the right hon. Gentleman exceeded somewhat.
Dan Jarvis
I listened carefully to what the shadow Home Secretary had to say. There was a glaring gap in his analysis: he did not seem to want to say anything about the level of challenge that we inherited from the previous Government in the laydown of the diplomatic estate. He did not want to accept that, as with other countries, there is a degree of risk that has to be managed. I explained that very carefully and made sure that he had the opportunity to come in this morning for a briefing. I was also at pains to stress in my opening remarks that although, of course, balanced views have to be taken about these things, there are national security advantages to the proposals that have been agreed. I know that he and other Conservative Members do not want to agree with that, but I think it is important that we debate—
Dan Jarvis
The right hon. Gentleman says it is nonsense. He is entitled to his opinion, as are this Government. I hope that he takes the opportunity to look carefully at what the director general of MI5 and the director of GCHQ have to say. I also say to him and to some, but not all, Conservative Members that this is a moment when I would have hoped we could discuss these things in a sensible and reasonable way. That is how we should approach matters relating to national security.
I do not think it would be such a bad thing to hear a bit of humility from some Conservative Members, not least because the attack that we heard from the shadow Home Secretary and which other hon. Members have already engaged in might have landed a bit fairer and a bit truer if they had not spent 14 years in government flitting between hot and cold, neither consistent nor credible on what is, after all, one of the most complex geopolitical challenges that we face. The Conservatives went from golden age to ice age, and from welcoming China with open arms to choosing to disengage almost entirely with the world’s largest nation, which, along with Hong Kong, is our second-largest trading partner. It is convenient for some Conservative Members to forget that it was Boris Johnson, as Conservative Foreign Secretary in 2018, who granted consent for the Royal Mint site to be used as diplomatic premises. He said he was proud to
“welcome the fact this is China’s largest overseas diplomatic investment.”
That was a Conservative Foreign Secretary. In recent times, we have seen Conservative MPs U-turn on the original position of their Government and take a different approach.
This Government will ensure that the approach we take is underpinned by consistent and pragmatic engagement with China, but we will do so a way that absolutely ensures our national security. The House will have heard the important contributions that have been made by the ISC, and the conclusion that it has drawn. The House and the country will have heard the comments from the directors general. These are important contributions. Nobody should underestimate how seriously the Government have taken this matter. We have engaged with it incredibly closely. The intelligence and security agencies have been involved in the process from the outset. I can give an assurance to those who have doubts that we will, of course, continue to monitor this process carefully, but we believe that this is the right judgment.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I respectfully say to the Minister that that was an incredibly long answer—indeed, longer even than the question. Perhaps questions and responses need to be briefer.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Stepney) (Lab)
Many of my constituents will continue to have serious concerns about the proposed new embassy in my constituency. These include concerns about China’s human rights record, espionage and, in particular, local disruption. A development of this scale would cause significant disruption for local residents, especially those in Royal Mint Court, who now face considerable uncertainty, including privacy concerns and the fear of losing their homes. What assurances can the Government provide to my constituents, particularly those residents, regarding their concerns? Can the Minister also say more about the national security concerns and how they will be satisfactorily mitigated?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend is an assiduous Member of the House and represents her constituents incredibly seriously. She will understand that, for obvious reasons, there are limits to what I can say about the specific measures and mitigations that will be put in place, but I am grateful to her for entirely understandably raising the concerns that some of her constituents have expressed. I assure her that we will want to work closely with her to minimise any disruption to local residents, and of course I would be happy to discuss these matters with her further.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement and for the time his officials took to brief me earlier today.
The Government’s decision to approve plans for the Chinese mega-embassy represents far more than a planning matter. It shows that Ministers have learned very little from the evidence exposed in recent months of Chinese spying efforts to infiltrate British politics and this House. Throughout this stunted process, the Liberal Democrats have consistently called these plans out for what they are: a mistake. The Government know that the decision they have made today will further amplify China’s surveillance efforts here in the UK, endangering the security of our data. Planning conditions are meaningless without proper enforcement. Given the unprecedented security concerns surrounding this site, how will the Government ensure that planning conditions are rigorously monitored and enforced, particularly in regard to the underground cables that the current plans come dangerously close to?
No amount of planning conditions can address the fundamental problem. The embassy does not clean Chinese officials of their human rights abuses. It is shocking that China has placed bounties on the heads of democracy activists from Hong Kong who live in the UK. That type of interference and intimidation in our country is totally unacceptable, so in the light of this decision, will the Government include all Chinese officials, Hong Kong special administrative region officials and Chinese Communist party-linked organisations on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme?
Beyond the security and diplomatic concerns, there are fundamental questions about our democratic freedoms. The previous Conservative Government attacked our fundamental right to protest, and this Labour Government have continued to erode those freedoms. As a democratic society, we must protect the right to protest peacefully, including near embassies and including for Hongkongers living in the UK. Will the Government continue to guarantee the right to protest, even as this embassy moves ahead?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, not least because she came along in good faith this morning and attended the briefing at our invitation. I hope she found it helpful. I am acutely conscious that there are technical details that the House will understand I am not able to get into, and that is why we took the opportunity to brief the hon. Lady and other right hon. Members this morning. I am afraid that I do not agree with her analysis of our understanding of the threat. I referred earlier to the significant number of measures that we have taken in recent times to protect our national security.
The hon. Lady also asked me about the cables, so let me take this opportunity to update her and the House on that specific point. The allegations that have been much discussed in the media are not new to us or to the security agencies. Our intelligence services have scrutinised the plans, and an extensive range of measures have been developed and are being implemented to protect national security, including putting in place additional resilience measures to protect sensitive data—
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
What does that mean?
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Member asks me what that means. I hope he will understand that it would be unwise of me to get into the technical detail of the mitigations that we are seeking to put in place. Surely he understands that the Security Minister is not able to get into the guts and the detail of precisely what we are going to do—[Interruption.] If he is just patient for—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I am simply not going to have this. There is too much chuntering, and indeed yelling, across the Chamber from a sedentary position. The Minister might like to focus on responding to the question that was asked by the Lib Dem spokesperson, not to heckling from the rest of the Chamber.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Opposition Members have made points about transparency, and it is important that I take this opportunity to give as much detail as I can, but it is important for the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) to understand that, as Security Minister, I cannot get into the detail of precisely what we are going to do, for what I thought would have been fairly obvious reasons.
Let me say to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) that the Government have been aware of the potential new embassy proposal since 2018. Our security services have been involved throughout that process, and an extensive range of measures have been developed and are being implemented to protect our national security. I can give her the assurance that she seeks that an extensive range of measures have been developed and are being implemented to protect our national security.
The hon. Lady also—quite unfairly, I have to say—criticised the Government’s belief in the right to protest. I do not think that that is a fair critique. The Government take very seriously the right of people to protest in our country. It is a cornerstone of our democracy and the Government will always ensure that people have the ability to protest in a peaceful way.
The hon. Lady asked, entirely reasonably, about the foreign influence registration scheme. I am waiting for Conservative Members to ask me about that as well. She will know that FIRS is still a new scheme. It came into force relatively recently, on 1 July, and more effectively on 1 October. She will understand that any decision with regard to FIRS will be brought to Parliament in the usual way.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for his statement, which is of course complex and raises significant issues that are shared on both sides of the House. He has referred to the issue of national security, and I fully appreciate that he is unable to talk about the mitigations that have been put in place. I am grateful that he has re-emphasised that point a number of times. As part of the evergreen nature of assessing the risks that we face, both during the building of the embassy, if it continues, and beyond, is he able to assure the House that, wherever possible, he will keep this place updated about any change in the risk assessments and that, if a more detailed analysis is required, the ISC will be fully apprised of that?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend is right to say that these are complex decisions, and right to make the point that there are significant restrictions on what can be said in this Chamber. I can give him the assurances that he seeks. Ultimately, of course, it is for the Intelligence and Security Committee to decide what lines of inquiry it wants to proceed with, but we have given it close assurances of the work being done, and it has had access to material, so that it can take its own view. I make a commitment to him and to the vice-chair of the Committee, the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), that we will continue to engage with the Committee in a constructive way, and that when we feel that it is necessary or appropriate to update the House further, we will of course do that.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
As you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the House would expect, the Intelligence and Security Committee has investigated the security implications of this proposal, and specifically whether the intelligence community had sufficient opportunity to feed in any security concerns, and whether Ministers had the necessary information on which to base a decision. I want to quote directly from our conclusions, which represent the Committee’s unanimous view:
“On the basis of the evidence we have received, and having carefully reviewed the nuanced national security considerations, the Committee has concluded that, taken as a whole, the national security concerns that arise can be satisfactorily mitigated.”
I will say, though, that we have been concerned solely with the national security perspective, not with the other arguments for or against a new embassy.
It has proved more difficult than it should have been to get straightforward answers to our basic questions. The process in Government does not seem to be effectively co-ordinated, or as robust as would have been expected. In particular, there was a lack of clarity about the role that national security considerations play in planning decisions. We will take those matters up further with the Government, as I know the Minister would expect.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and to all members of his Committee. Parliament entrusts the ISC with holding Government to account, and the ISC is able to do that in a way that other right hon. and hon. Members cannot. He made two key points. First, he shared the Committee’s analysis of the concerns expressed about national security. I hope that Members in all parts of the House listen carefully to what he says, and look carefully at the judgment that his Committee arrived at. Secondly, he made an important point about process, which I take seriously. I have no doubt that quite a lot can be learned from the process, and I am happy to talk with him and his Committee to identify the lessons that should be learned, and to ensure that we do things better next time.
Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)
I place on the record that I support completely what the deputy Chair of the ISC, of which I am also a member, just said. The process issue needs looking at urgently, and the deputy Chair was clear about the problems we faced. An important letter today from the GCHQ and MI5 heads to the Foreign and Home Secretaries says clearly:
“the collective work across UK intelligence agencies and HMG departments to formulate a package of national security mitigations for the site has been, in our view, expert, professional and proportionate.”
Would the Minister like to comment on that?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I reiterate the points I made about process. I have a huge amount of respect for the Committee. I had the pleasure—that is how I will describe it—of appearing in front of the Committee not so long ago. I do not think it is a state secret to say that the Committee gave me a pretty tough grilling, and that is absolutely how it should be. The point he made about process is important, as is his point about the letter from the director generals. It is a rare occurrence for the director generals to make public comments. They are both extremely professional, and I have the pleasure of working with them regularly. They are both people of great integrity, and the House and the country should listen very carefully to what they have to say. They have made the point that, collectively, our security services have 100 years of experience in dealing with the challenges from foreign embassies. That is not to be remotely complacent about the nature of the threat that we face, because clearly it is very different from what it was in the past.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I do not think I am breaking the Official Secrets Act if I gently point out that when I used to chair the Intelligence and Security Committee, I repeatedly deprecated the use of the word “mitigation”, because it covers such a wide range of sins, but leaving aside security considerations just this once, does the Minister accept, as he should, that this is a colossal propaganda win for totalitarian, communist China? Is there any argument that was used in favour of China getting this embassy that would not have carried exactly the same weight if totalitarian, imperialist Russia had wanted to buy this building? Would the Government have stopped Russia from doing it, and if they would have done, on what grounds?
Dan Jarvis
I genuinely am, because I respect the wisdom of someone who has served in this House for many years. The right hon. Lady questions my gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman. I can give her an assurance that I have a huge amount of respect—
Dan Jarvis
I am answering the question. I have a huge amount of respect for Members who have served for a long time, and particularly those who have chaired the ISC. We need to find a mechanism to ensure that Members like the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) have access to some of this information, so that they can make informed comments in this House. I take his point, although I do not agree with it, about mitigations. He understands that there are limits to what I can say on the mitigations. On his substantive point, I do not agree with him that this is a win for China, not least because I could not have been clearer about the importance of the consolidation of the estate. The Government have reached an agreement with China that the existing diplomatic footprint in London will be reduced in size from seven diplomatic sites to one. I am not sure that that constitutes a particularly big win in my book—
Dan Jarvis
Well, it is a statement of truth, and I think it undermines the right hon. Gentleman’s argument.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
Even if we accept that the national security concerns about this new embassy have been mitigated, as evidenced by the letters from the security agencies today, and even if we accept that consolidating the seven properties that China owns into one gives us a security advantage, that is still cold comfort to the Hongkongers whom I represent in Leeds South West and Morley. They still have to live with transnational repression. In the case of Chloe Cheung, she still has to live with a £100,000 bounty on her head. Of course, they now have to live in fear that this new embassy might become their prison. What assurances can the Minister give Hongkongers in my constituency and, indeed, the UK that they will be protected from the ever-lengthening arm of the Chinese Communist party?
Dan Jarvis
I do not accept the basis of the argument that my hon. Friend has made. He would be well advised to place more emphasis on the point about consolidation, because I am confident that that will deliver meaningful operational benefits; that has been agreed by the security experts. Let me find what I hope is an important point of consensus: I am absolutely clear about how unacceptable it is for China, or any other nation for that matter, to seek to persecute individuals who are resident in the United Kingdom. The Government take these matters incredibly seriously. That is why the defending democracy taskforce, which I chair, has completed an extensive piece of work looking at transnational repression.
A number of actions have come from that piece of work, which have been routed right across Government. We take this incredibly seriously; I have met a number of people who have been the victim of TNR. It is completely unacceptable for China or anyone else to persecute people in this country. However, I ask my hon. Friend to consider the fact that we are talking about a proposal that will deliver an embassy for China at some point in the future. The Government and I have to deal with the level of threat as it is. Given the point about consolidation, I am confident that this is a proposal that we will be able to make work in the national interests of our country and all the people who live here.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
While I associate myself with the wider security concerns, will the Minister forgive me if I raise a narrow point? He knows what I am going to ask, because I have asked this twice already and not had an answer. The correspondence between the Government and the Chinese reveals that the medieval monastery on the site—an important monastery called Eastminster, rather than Westminster, where we are now—will remain on inviolable Chinese territory. Any UK citizens visiting it will have to be frisked, and will effectively be in China. What reassurance can the Minister give to those who have bounties on their head—the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) mentioned them—or to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who has been sanctioned by the Chinese state? What further reassurances can the Minister give that UK citizens visiting their own heritage will not be in danger when going on to the site?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the Father of the House, who has consistently made this point; this is at least the third time that I have heard him raise it. I hope that he heard the point I made earlier—I looked at him purposefully—about the question that he asks, but let me take this opportunity to say that the bounties are completely unacceptable behaviour, and the Government will not stand for it. The point that he raised is one that I have looked at very carefully, and I responded to it earlier, in my statement.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I have been sceptical about this new embassy, but I take the points made today by Members on the Intelligence and Security Committee, as well as the response from GCHQ and MI5. I have also listened to my constituents, including the Bracknell Forest Hong Kong community, who tell me that they are concerned about the ongoing transnational repression that they are experiencing. My hon. Friend has talked a lot about the work that the Government have already done. Will he commit to continuing to engage with the Hong Kong community, so that we can continue to adapt our response to the emerging threats that they experience?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has consistently raised points on behalf of his constituents, and I can give him the assurances that he seeks. Let me say to him and the House that we condemn the Hong Kong police’s efforts to coerce, intimidate, harass and harm those living in the UK and overseas. These acts of repression will not be tolerated in our country. Along with other ministerial colleagues, I have taken the opportunity to raise these concerns directly with the Chinese authorities, reaffirming that the extraterritorial application of Hong Kong’s national security law is unacceptable and will not be tolerated in the UK. I can give him the assurances that he seeks, and I am very happy to discuss this matter with him further.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
Hongkongers and other Chinese dissidents in the UK will be rightly concerned about this news. I want to make it completely clear that the Liberal Democrats have serious concerns that this project will enhance China’s ability to conduct transnational repression against Britons and Hongkongers on British soil. What is the timeline for closing the seven existing Chinese consulate buildings, once Royal Mint Court is opened? Will the Government publish the 2018 note verbale confirming that the embassy was contingent on planning approval, ensuring that the Government did not prejudge the application? Finally, paragraph 62 of the Secretary of State’s permission letter states that
“lawful embassy use of the site”
would give no cause for worry about interference with the sensitive cabling that runs adjacent to the secret basement rooms. After China’s proven record of unlawful espionage against MPs and British institutions, does the Minister agree that this is a catastrophic misjudgment, and that we have no hope of our laws being observed by the Chinese Communist party?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. When questions run to two pages and take a minute, perhaps Members might think about cutting them down slightly.
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Gentleman has expressed an opinion, and he is entirely within his rights to do that, but I hope he understands that I am also entirely within my rights to point out that his opinion is not backed up by the intelligence services or the security agencies, which have looked incredibly carefully at the detail of the proposal. He states baldly that the proposed embassy site will deliver additional capability to China, but I again make the point about consolidation, and about the security advantages that we think will accrue from this proposal. I hope the hon. Gentleman understands that I will not get into the timeline today, not least because I have to be incredibly careful about what I say, given the likelihood of further legal proceedings, but I am very happy to discuss these matters further with him and his Liberal Democrat colleagues.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I want first to make it clear that I do not agree with this decision. It will have a chilling effect on Tibetans, Hongkongers and Uyghurs, and other Chinese people who merely dissent from the regime in Beijing. I have three questions about the application. First, what guarantees do the Government have that the seven other sites will be closed and disposed of? Will the new site be built by British construction companies hiring workers in the usual way, or by Chinese construction companies bringing in their own labour? What forms of building inspection control will be present during and after the construction?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend has a long and proud track record in this area, and I listen carefully to what he has to say. He will forgive me if I disagree with his analysis of the chilling effect of this decision, not least given the points about consolidation and the security advantage. He has asked about the seven sites. Let me give him and the House an absolute assurance that that is part of the deal agreed with China. The deal is that the seven diplomatic sites forming the existing diplomatic footprint in London will be consolidated in the individual site.
In terms of the precise details about construction and other activities, my hon. Friend will understand that there are agreed procedures for these kinds of activities. I think a point was made earlier about the relationship with the United States and the concerns that they might have expressed—which I do not recognise—but it is useful to note that China built a new embassy in the United States not so long ago, so this is not a particularly uncommon occurrence. However, I give my hon. Friend an assurance that we will keep a close eye on the points he makes.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that I raise these issues as a sanctioned individual. Not only am I sanctioned, but my whole family is sanctioned, I have been trolled by operatives from the security service of China, and I am under constant watch by them, all the way through. On the basis of that, I simply ask him this. When the Secretary of State issued his letter, he said—this was quoted earlier—that the concern about cables should not present a problem for “a lawful embassy use”. Nothing about the Chinese is lawful here in the United Kingdom. Is it lawful for them to attack Hongkongers who have fled here? Is it lawful for pop-up police stations to go on pulling people in? Is it lawful for them to place bounties on people’s heads? Is it lawful for them to be asking British citizens living next door to Hongkongers to bring them into the embassy, so they may collect their bounty? These are all unlawful acts. The truth is that this Chinese embassy, with its 200 extra staff, will increase that. In every place where China has put more people in its embassy, transnational repression has increased. Does the Minister not agree with that?
Dan Jarvis
Try though I might, there was never going to be a scenario where I would be able to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman today in what I have been able to say. He and I have had exchanges on these matters on many occasions. It is completely intolerable and unacceptable that he and members of his family have been sanctioned, and he knows the Government’s position on that.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the issue of law. UK law is sacrosanct, and where anyone—whoever they might be—falls short of it, they will be held to account by this Government. He made a specific point about the potential for an increase in staff. Again, there are clear procedures that rest with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office: where a foreign nation seeks to bring additional staff resource into a country, that all has to go through the normal diplomatic channels and has to be agreed by the Foreign Secretary.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not support these proposals. I understand that he has strong views, which I have a lot of respect for, but I hope he can respect the fact that we have engaged seriously with this proposal. The security services have been involved from the outset. Ultimately, Government have to take a view. We have taken the view that the national security implications can be mitigated. We have also taken the view—and I know that some Opposition Members do not agree with it—that there could well be some security advantages as a consequence of these proposals. I undertake to keep him and other Members up to date, and if he wishes to discuss it outside this Chamber, I would be happy to do that.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
Will the Minister confirm that the UK Government are happy with rewarding and emboldening a nation that has one of the worst human rights records, that conducts espionage on these islands and in our Parliament, that has imprisoned a UK national—Jimmy Lai—on trumped-up charges, that has committed crimes against humanity against the Uyghurs and that is the single most important enabler of Russia’s illegal war machine against Ukraine and its civilian population, which we as parliamentarians have stood united against?
Dan Jarvis
I am sorry to say that I do not agree with the framing of the hon. Gentleman’s question. While he is entirely right to raise specific concerns, this is not about rewarding China.
Dan Jarvis
It is not. It is about the importance of engaging confidently and pragmatically, in a way that will enable us to take opportunities where they present themselves and where it is in our national security. As I made clear in my earlier remarks, that is not just about economic co-operation; there are other areas where we need to co-operate with China. I referenced three in my opening comments: organised immigration crime, serious organised crime and narcotics trafficking. Those are important areas where we need to work with China. Ultimately, the most important thing is that we safeguard our national security. That is why we have worked incredibly hard to look carefully at the detail of this proposal and to make sure we have the right mitigations in place.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Will the Minister explain how, by giving China the embassy it wants, the Government are demonstrating that they are holding China responsible for—in his words—“unacceptable behaviour” that they will not stand for?
Dan Jarvis
In part, it is because of the reduction in the diplomatic estate from seven sites to one.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
So the Chinese communist regime sanctions Members of this House, spies on Members of this House and carries out more cyber-attacks than any other country. The Minister admits that they are a national security threat, yet the Government think it is a good idea to kowtow to the Beijing bullies and allow this mega-embassy. If the decision is in the national economic interest, could the Minister confirm that some British steel might be used in this Chinese embassy? Can he guarantee that it is in the national security interests of British citizens?
Dan Jarvis
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on getting the clip that he no doubt will be posting on social media in the not-too-distant future; that is up to him. He seems to operate in a world that is quite selective in the decisions it seeks to make. I looked over to him earlier when I referenced the requirement for co-operation on areas such as organised immigration crime. I do not know whether he thinks that is a good thing. I do not know whether he or his party have a policy about whether, given the concerns that are shared across this House, we should be engaging with China on matters relating to immigration. He will understand, I hope, that as part of the work to stop the small boat crossings in the channel, it is necessary to engage with our near neighbours, but it is also necessary to engage internationally. I am not clear whether he thinks that is a good thing, and I am not clear whether he thinks we should engage with China on those matters.
What I am clear about is that this Government will engage pragmatically, do the right thing and secure the economic opportunities, but fundamentally, we will always make sure that we underpin our national security. The hon. Gentleman’s point about British steel is a fair one. This Government will always want to support UK-based manufacturers and UK-based industry. To end on a point of consensus, let us always look for opportunities to buy British.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I am hopeful that we can find consensus that questions and answers need to be shorter. I intend to keep the Minister here until all Members have been satisfied this afternoon, but we do need to speed up.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
There is a pattern of behaviour here: the failure to act meaningfully over Jimmy Lai, the mysterious collapse of the Chinese spy case and now this abject national humiliation. Let’s call this what it is: this is appeasement of communist China for economic gain. We tried that in the 1930s, and look where it got us. Why are this Labour Government kowtowing to China—a communist regime that imprisons 1 million Uyghur Muslims in concentration camps for having the temerity to believe in God?
Dan Jarvis
In one sense, I can agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there is a pattern of behaviour; he is right about that. The pattern of behaviour is doing the right thing and making sure that we safeguard our national security.
Dan Jarvis
The right hon. Gentleman might roll his eyes, but he was a Minister in the previous Government, and he has served in this House for a number of years. He knows that under his Conservative Government there was a complete lack of consistency with regard to our policy on China. This is a significant geostrategic challenge. In the end, Government have to make decisions and have a clear-eyed policy. Anyone who thinks that we should not be engaging with China is naive.
Dan Jarvis
The right hon. Gentleman uses language that I think is inappropriate, unhelpful and inaccurate. I have made the point about consolidation, about the national security advantages and about this Government’s commitment to securing our national interests. Let me say one final thing. He is right to raise the case of Jimmy Lai. He knows the Government’s clear commitment that Jimmy Lai should be released immediately.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Does the Minister believe that the approval of this Chinese mega-embassy makes the British people safer?
Dan Jarvis
The right hon. Gentleman is very experienced from his own time in government, and he will know that difficult decisions have to be made. It is my judgment that, ultimately, this is the right way to proceed and that we have to engage with China for the reasons I have explained. Ultimately, nothing—nothing—will prevent this Government from ensuring our national security. That is why we have progressed this proposal incredibly carefully and made sure we have the right mitigations in place.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Last week, I made it clear that any hostile intelligence service would struggle to find a better location for espionage than the now approved Chinese mega-embassy. What assessment has been made of the risk that this site could be used for surveillance, intimidation or coercion of critics of the oppressive communist regime who are living in the UK? How do Government justify a decision that is both shameful and reckless in its disregard for national security?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful for the points the hon. Lady has made, but of course, we are already dealing with those challenges. Some Members seem to think that we do not have to mitigate and manage those risks at the moment. We do. There are those who think—and it is an entirely reasonable position if people want to take it—that the situation could get worse with the agreement of this embassy. As I have tried to explain, because of the mitigations we have put in place and the consolidation of the diplomatic estate, there are clear national security advantages as a consequence of this proposal. She does not perhaps agree now, but I hope she understands that the Government take these matters incredibly seriously and will do everything they can to safeguard our national security.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
China is notoriously transactional in its international relations, so what do we get in return?
Dan Jarvis
I always listen carefully to the right hon. Gentleman, not least because I seem to remember that he was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the then Prime Minister, Lord Cameron, whose Government had quite a different relationship with China from the one we have now. He will remember that very well, as do I. While I am grateful for his advice, I hope he has borne in mind the points I made about the consistency of the previous Government, including the one he served in.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
In the light of what you have said, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope that you see this as short question and I hope that I get a short answer.
Does the Minister know if the security services have any concerns at all about the proposed new Chinese super-embassy—yes or no?
Dan Jarvis
The right hon. Lady has seen the letter that has been published today by the director general—
Dan Jarvis
I do not know how much time the right hon. Lady spends thinking about matters relating to national security or understands the nature of the—
Dan Jarvis
Not at all—I am seeking to explain to her that this Government, like the last Government, manage a range of national security risks. That would be the case whatever decision was taken around this proposal.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I am going to ask again: does this make the British public safer—yes or no?
Dan Jarvis
Fundamentally, Government are there to make the British people safer. For the reasons that I have explained, I am confident that this is the right decision from a national security perspective.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Is not the plain truth that this was a predetermined political decision from the moment that the political decision was taken to call it in, when the Government were faced with due process because the council had refused the planning application? After all that has gone on, does this not simply bring the whole planning process into disrepute? London’s Labour group has condemned the decision, so is not one of its members right when he says:
“wrong embassy, in the wrong place, at the wrong time”?
Dan Jarvis
I do not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman’s analysis. I have been crystal clear that people are entitled to their opinions and will have different views. What sensible members of the public will be interested in is what the security professionals—the security agencies, the intelligence services, those people who really understand the nature of the risk and the threat—have said and what they think, and I have been clear about what they think and about the way in which we have approached the process, which I believe will deliver national security benefits for our country.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Let me point out that when the previous Conservative Government proclaimed a “golden era” of relations with China—when David Cameron welcomed President Xi for a state visit in 2015, as Theresa May was championing Huawei for our 5G infrastructure—the security services supported their then Prime Minister; or they were brought into line, which I expect is what happens under these circumstances. Can we ensure that we are not using the security services for propaganda purposes? I predict that in the fullness of history, we will look back at this decision with great regret.
Dan Jarvis
I know that the hon. Gentleman gives a lot of thought and dedication to these matters. He reflected on the engagement that had taken place under the previous Government, under former Prime Minister David Cameron. The hon. Gentleman will understand, because he thinks about these things very carefully, that there is obviously a need to engage with China. President Trump will be visiting China in the next couple of months. President Macron has been, I think, three times over the past years. Prime Minister Carney has been there recently. Serious, grown-up people understand the need to have engagement and to work closely with countries like China. Sensible people will get that and will also understand that sometimes that involves tough choices. This Government do not shy away from making the tough choices. I accept the challenge that the hon. Gentleman offers—that the decision will be judged over the long term—but I think that this is the right thing to do and I am pleased that the security services agree.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
The Minister says that China continues to pose a risk, and yet the Government today welcome this Trojan horse of an embassy into the heart of our capital. Consolidation helps China, not us, and planning conditions deal with the establishment but not the actual, real use inside the building in years to come. This has been asked many times before, but I ask again: are the British people safer as a result of this embassy—yes or no?
Dan Jarvis
I do not agree with the hon. Lady’s analysis with regard to consolidation. This Government will always work to ensure that the British public are safer—that is our job, our abiding mission and the first responsibility of Government. I am confident that the decision that has been taken, with the mitigations in place, will deliver good national security outcomes for our country.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Government’s decision to approve China’s spy embassy is utterly wrong and puts national security at risk. Now that the embassy has been approved, if—or rather when—we get evidence that China is using the embassy for surveillance, torture or other inappropriate means, will the Government guarantee to close that embassy?
Dan Jarvis
As with any embassy, either in this country or around the world—let us not be naive about the fact that Britain has embassies right around the world—the Vienna convention lays down the way in which different Governments should behave with regard to the conduct of their diplomatic presences. We take our responsibilities under the Vienna convention very seriously, and we expect every other country, including China, to do the same.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Minister will be pleased to know that I am not going to ask him about the FIRS, but he quoted extensively from the weighty tome of the planning approval letter. It says that the Secretary of State
“notes that no bodies with responsibility for national security, including HO and FCDO, have raised concerns”,
but he did not mention that it goes on to say that the Secretary of State
“considers that the lack of objection from these bodies on this issue carries significant weight”.
Given that extensive measures had to be put in place to protect sensitive data, will he explain why neither the Home Office not the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office put in any objections to the proximity of the data cables and their vulnerabilities? On the issue of the consolidation of the consular buildings, last week the Government informed me that they had no record of how many properties within London or within the UK are owned by the Chinese state, so how will they keep track on other buildings that are used unofficially by the Chinese state?
Dan Jarvis
I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman has not asked me about the FIRS—I have a very good response for him that I will not be able to give now. He is not quite right to say that I quoted extensively from the planning document. I did not—I referenced it only very fleetingly and then explained why that was the case. His key point is about the points that have been brought forward by the Home Office and the Foreign Office. No specific objections were raised by both those Departments because they had both satisfied themselves that the mitigations could be put in place to safeguard against the risk that might be faced. That is the reason.
Point of Order
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In written parliamentary question 99967, I asked the Department of Health and Social Care to publish training modules and guidance related to first cousin marriage and genetic risk. The Minister replied that these materials existed, but would not be published to this House or more widely. In written parliamentary question 102870, I asked the Minister if he would place those training modules in the Library of the House of Commons, and the Minister said there were no plans to do so. This is astonishing since that answer came after a freedom of information request to NHS England, which had already placed those very documents in the public domain. Can you advise me, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how a Minister might come to this House and explain why, yet again, Parliament has been denied information that was in fact releasable, as you have warned against on many occasions?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for advance notice of his point of order. He will know that, as Chair, I am not responsible for the answers that Ministers give to written parliamentary questions, although he might also know that the Procedure Committee is currently holding an inquiry into this very issue. I encourage him to provide evidence and to raise his concerns with that Committee.
Glaucoma Care (England)
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the detection, treatment and monitoring of glaucoma by optometrists in England; to make provision about the full integration of optometry and ophthalmology services for the purpose of glaucoma care in England; and for connected purposes.
I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I am a practising NHS optometrist. I also thank the Minister for Care for coming to the Chamber for this valuable debate.
As a practising optometrist of many years, one of the heartaches of the role is this: during a routine examination, I can detect a condition that will forever change the life of the person who is sitting in my chair, and the patient is blissfully unaware of it. That is exactly what glaucoma does—it changes lives quietly, and often without warning. Glaucoma is known as the thief of sight, and for a very good reason. It damages the optic nerve at the back of the eye, with each nerve fibre representing a different point in the visual field. Because the loss begins in the peripheral vision, people often do not realise that anything is wrong until it is too late.
If Members would like a glimpse of what an advanced glaucoma sufferer sees, may I ask them to cover one eye completely and, with the other eye, to look through an aperture created by their hands and touch their fingertips to their palms? As the condition progresses, the aperture gets smaller and smaller and smaller, until eventually nothing is left. Imagine trying to navigate a busy high street, to cross a road or simply to move safely around one’s own home.
This is not simply theoretical; let me give the House two brief but very real examples from my experience. I saw a woman who on two separate occasions was hit by a car from the side while driving her own car, before she finally came in for an eye test. She was unaware that there was a problem, because she could see number plates and road signs perfectly. What she could not see was the side of her vision eroding.
Another heartbreaking experience when a pensioner came to me with a handbag packed with what looked like her life savings. Cash in hand, she explained that she would spend whatever it took if I could just give her a pair of glasses that would allow her to see her two loves: her love of painting and her grandchildren. Unfortunately, no amount of money would be able to restore her sight, because glaucoma, as well as being silent, is usually irreversible.
Glaucoma is the leading cause of preventable blindness in the UK. Over 700,000 people are affected by it, and, even more concerningly, more than half of them are undiagnosed. That is 350,000 people walking and driving around, not knowing. It could be any one of us, or someone we love or work with. Indeed, a former Liberal Democrat Member of this House, Paul Tyler, was not diagnosed until a routine eye test.
In its early stages, glaucoma rarely has symptoms, and there are rarely any warning signs—just a silent, slow theft. By the time it is noticed, the damage is usually permanent, and the loss has far-reaching consequences. People lose not only their sight, but their independence and their ability to drive, read, cook and even leave their house. Falls increase and isolation grows, and then come the emotional and mental health impacts: fear, depression and the loss of identity.
Furthermore, with an ageing population, we face a growing crisis. Glaucoma cases are expected to rise dramatically in the coming decades, with a growth rate that outstrips the ageing population. A study from 2017 suggests that over the next 20 years, glaucoma cases will rise by 44%. That is hundreds of thousands more people who will need care, follow-up and support, and I fear that data will prove to be an underestimate.
Let me be blunt. Patients are losing their sight not because care does not exist, but because the pathway is broken and the follow-up is delayed. I recently saw a patient who was referred to the hospital and diagnosed with glaucoma. That bit was absolutely fine—the initial appointment happened—but the follow-up was postponed and then they missed an appointment. This meant that, by the time they came to see me again a year later, they had lost a significant amount of their visual field, to such an extent that even their central vision—their acuity—was affected. That anecdotal example corroborates the findings of major chains such as Specsavers. The problem is that current waiting list data provides a measure only of first appointments, not of the ongoing care that is vital to chronic conditions like glaucoma. We need published data on follow-up waiting times, because that is where sight is being lost.
Here is the reality. Hospital ophthalmology is one of the largest out-patient specialities in the NHS, with 8.9 million appointments a year in England between 2023 and 2024. It is estimated that glaucoma care accounts for about 20% of all hospital eye service appointments, with around 1 million visits annually across England alone. In 2024-25, it was reported that 600,000 people were on a hospital waiting list for an ophthalmology appointment. However, the ongoing care, such as the need for regular planned follow-ups for glaucoma patients, is often overlooked, with the numbers not hitting the headlines like those waiting for an initial assessment or surgery. NHS hospitals cannot carry this load alone.
Thankfully, this is where the Government’s own NHS 10-year plan—in particular its ambition to shift care out of hospitals and into the community, and its focus on prevention, not sickness—closely aligns with the transformation needed in glaucoma care. There are over 14,000 qualified optometrists in England, providing more than 13 million NHS-funded eye tests. They are trained, regulated and ready to help. Community glaucoma services, led by appropriately qualified optometrists with the approved equipment, have already demonstrated the ability to reduce hospital appointment referrals by up to 71%. If implemented nationally alongside an optometry-based glaucoma monitoring service, it may be possible to release 300,000 hospital appointments every year. That is not a one-time saving; glaucoma is a chronic condition, and these are recurring appointments for people who are living with the condition, not cured of it. Making full use of the skills and capacity already in primary care takes significant pressure off hospital services, enabling them to focus on tasks that can be managed only in a hospital. This could save the NHS an estimated £12 million annually.
At present, 10 integrated care boards have no glaucoma case-finding or referral management services. Many patients in those areas who are referred to hospital could instead be retained in primary care optometry with appropriate commissioning, rather than being added to the existing waiting lists. Even more concerningly, 21 ICBs—half of them—do not commission a glaucoma monitoring service in the community and rely simply on the hospital eye service to follow up glaucoma patients for the rest of their lives. That is where the sight loss occurs, as the hospitals simply do not have the required capacity. This is a postcode lottery that punishes the vulnerable, especially when people from black and Asian communities are up to four times more likely to develop glaucoma and often have the least access to timely care.
Unlike in Wales and Scotland, where a “shared care” service for glaucoma is commissioned by every health board, optometry-led and properly integrated between primary care optometry and ophthalmology, often the approach of NHS commissioners in England is hospital-led. The recent draft “Getting It Right First Time” model, developed with minimal input from primary care optometry, risks reinforcing England’s hospital-led approach and undermining the Government’s own ambition to shift care from hospitals to the community.
We also see worrying behaviour at ICB level, with several ICBs removing the limited community glaucoma services that they had in place to make short-term savings. That is extremely myopic. Given the ongoing financial pressures on ICBs, we do not expect individual ICBs to make significant progress in commissioning optometry-led glaucoma pathways that fully integrate optometry and ophthalmology without clear direction from the Government.
The total cost of visual impairment in the UK is estimated to be £26.5 billion, and it is set to rise to £33.5 billion by 2032. Glaucoma alone accounts for £750 million. That is not just a cost to the NHS, but a cost of lost productivity, informal care and diminished quality of life. This is a silent epidemic, but it is not inevitable.
What am I asking for? What can be done to begin to tackle this silent epidemic? Fundamentally, I am asking for a national direction from the Department of Health and Social Care to ICBs that they should commission a uniform primary care glaucoma service that utilises qualified high street optician practices. Only by doing so will we end the postcode lottery in glaucoma care.
We already know what works, we already have the workforce, and we already have the technology. We now need clear direction and political will.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Shockat Adam, Marsha De Cordova, Jim Shannon, Brian Leishman, Jeremy Corbyn, Ayoub Khan, Iqbal Mohamed, Mr Adnan Hussain, Paulette Hamilton, Mark Pritchard and Adrian Ramsay present the Bill.
Shockat Adam accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 March, and to be printed (Bill 369).
Sentencing Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Sentencing Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 16 September 2025 (Sentencing Bill: Programme):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement.
(2) The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order: 7, 1 to 6 and 8 to 15.
Subsequent stages
(3) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(4) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Stephen Morgan.)
Question agreed to.
Sentencing Bill
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:12 - The House divided: - Ayes: 319 / Noes: 127 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I inform the House that nothing in the Lords amendments engages Commons financial privilege.
After Clause 19
Court transcripts of sentencing remarks
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 7.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendment 7.
Lords amendments 1 to 6 and 8 to 15.
Jake Richards
I begin by putting on record the Government’s welcoming of the new shadow Justice Secretary, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), to his job. We look forward to working with him; he is somebody of some intellectual heft, and in any event, he is in the lucky position of having extraordinarily small shoes to fill. Of course there will be policy disagreements, as there should be, but my hope is that the new shadow Justice Secretary treads more carefully on issues relating to the independence of our judiciary and respecting our legal profession—perhaps there will be fewer vitriolic social media videos and more thoughtful analysis.
As for the former shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick)—or, as he likes to call himself, the “new sheriff in town”—we welcome that the inevitable has now happened, confirming the fact that Reform is little more than a backwater for failed Tory politicians with an ego. I spent five minutes—five minutes that I will never get back—reading the memo that the former shadow Justice Secretary left lying about. It says,
“Use humour—one of your best skills—don’t be afraid to be self-effacing or have a laugh.”
It certainly got us laughing. His memo also contains the memorable line,
“Don't ‘think’. You ‘know’ things to be true! Get out of the habit of saying ‘think’”.
I happen to think that he should get into the habit of thinking a little more.
The right hon. Member for Newark says that he has joined Reform to be “part of a team”. We are still unclear whether he will remain speaking on justice issues, and he is not in his new place today. Over the weekend, it was said that there would be a mini-reshuffle at Reform—a rather depressing game of musical chairs. Whether its justice spokesperson remains the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin), or whether the right hon. Member for Newark takes over, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) has a go, or the hon. Members for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) or for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) join in, the story is the same: failed former Tories who cannot be trusted with our justice system, let alone our country.
The Sentencing Bill will make sure that we are never again in the position that this Government inherited, with prisons at risk of running out of places entirely, leaving us with nowhere to put dangerous offenders; police without the capacity to make arrests; courts unable to hold trials; and a breakdown of law and order unlike anything we have seen in modern times. That is why this Bill is vital. It does not kick the can down the road, and it does not shy away from making tough decisions to keep the public safe. Instead, it will end the cycle of crisis once and for all.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister is making a powerful speech. He will recognise that the Bill is of huge concern to residents in my constituency, because many victims of crime who are waiting for justice to be served are waiting years for the person responsible to face trial. Does the Minister agree that it is really important that this Government get on top of the backlog and get people in front of courts as quickly as possible?
Jake Richards
Absolutely. My hon. Friend is a fine champion of this agenda and for his constituents in Harlow, and as he knows, the Bill does more than just fix the crisis we inherited; it will confront reoffending and keep our communities safe.
As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister set out during the very first debate on the Bill in this House, it takes us back to the fundamental purpose of sentencing, which is punishment that works. Punishment must work for victims, who deserve to see perpetrators face retribution; it must work for society, which wants criminals to return less dangerous, not more; and it must work to prevent crime. We want better citizens, not better criminals—that is what will deliver safer streets and protection from crime. The Bill will restore victims’ confidence in the criminal justice system. I reiterate that nothing is worse for victims than prisons running out of places and crimes going without punishment, which is the situation we inherited when we came into government in the summer of 2024.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister has outlined very clearly what the Government, and he in particular, are trying to achieve. There is a perception among the general public—this is certainly indicated in the press and the media—that the Government are going to be a bit soft on those who carry out crimes, but I am very much in favour of rehabilitation, as I think is the Minister. Can he please outline what will be done to enable those who leave prison to be rehabilitated and to ensure that they do not reoffend? The rising number of those who reoffend is incredibly worrying.
Jake Richards
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. Over the course of this speech, I will set out what the Government are doing more generally to increase rehabilitation and crack down on reoffending. The hon. Gentleman states that there is a suggestion that this Bill is somehow soft on crime. I say gently to him that by the end of this Parliament, there will be more offenders in prison than ever before, so I completely reject that assertion.
I want to briefly pay tribute to the campaigners who have informed large parts of this piece of legislation and the amendments we are discussing. We are introducing tough restriction zones that limit the movement of offenders instead of the movement of victims. The new restriction zones, which will be given to the most serious offenders on licence and can be imposed by a court, will pin any offender down to a specific location to ensure that victims can move freely elsewhere. This was campaigned for by Diana Parkes and Hetti Barkworth-Nanton, the founders of the Joanna Simpson Foundation. Once again, I pay tribute to them and all those who have campaigned for this crucial change.
Clause 6 introduces a new judicial finding of domestic abuse in sentencing, which will enable probation services to identify abusers early, track patterns of behaviour and put safeguards in place. I must pay tribute to the Liberal Democrats, and in particular to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) for his tireless campaigning and willingness to work across parties to deliver this crucial change, which I know all Opposition parties support.
More generally, it is worth remembering that this legislation was carefully drafted as a result of the independent sentencing review led by the former Conservative Justice Secretary, David Gauke. [Hon. Members: “Great man.”] “Great man”, the Conservatives say, but they are voting against every single one of his proposals. I take this opportunity to thank him again for all his work—it was a thorough, comprehensive and excellent piece of work.
We are determined to ensure that the Bill receives Royal Assent as soon as possible—there is an urgency to this process. I remind the House that alongside this legislation, the Government are building prison places at a faster rate than ever before. In our first year, we opened nearly 2,500 new places, and we are on track to add 14,000 by 2031. In the next four years alone, we will spend £4.7 billion on prison building, but we cannot simply build our way out of the crisis we inherited from the Conservatives. The pressures on the system demand that we reform sentencing, but I remind the House that nothing in the Bill changes sentences for prisoners convicted of the most serious, heinous crimes who are serving extended determinate sentences or life sentences.
The Bill delivers vital reforms to our probation services. We are rebuilding the service that the last Government decimated, increasing investment by up to £700 million by 2028-29—a 45% increase. We are also recruiting; in our first year, we hired 1,000 trainee probation officers, and we are on track to hire 1,300 more this year. At this point, I want to pay tribute to all the hard-working probation officers in our country. They deserve full credit for what they do, and it has been important for us to find the extra resources to put into this service, to grow the numbers and the support available.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
In government, the Conservative party oversaw a disastrous privatisation of probation, which ended in a £500 million bail-out by taxpayers. Our Probation Service plays a critical role in the rehabilitation of offenders and in keeping our communities safe, so can the Minister further set out how the Bill will ensure that our probation systems are strengthened and fit for purpose?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Can the Minister perhaps restrict himself to the amendments?
Jake Richards
I welcome the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson). I will come on to the issue that she raises shortly.
While we cannot support Lords amendment 7 as drafted, we fully support the intention behind it of promoting transparency and improving the experience of victims. We agree that robust processes are required to ensure the accuracy of transcripts, but placing a statutory duty on the judiciary to approve the release of all Crown court transcripts could significantly increase workload and undermine efforts to drive down the Crown court backlog.
However, I am delighted to say that we have tabled a Government amendment that will expand the provision of Crown court sentencing remarks. They will be provided to all victims who request them, free of charge. This new clause puts victims firmly at the centre of the process. The new clause delivers a major step forward for transparency, enabling victims to digest sentencing remarks outside the pressures of a courtroom setting, and without charge.
The details on timeframes and processes will be set out in due course, but I can confirm to the House that our intention is to specify that transcripts will be provided within 14 days of a request being made. That timeframe will support applications made under the unduly lenient sentence scheme, and I can assure the House that we are considering the Opposition’s amendments to the Victims and Courts Bill, which would extend that deadline to 56 days, extremely carefully.
I am grateful to Members for their engagement on this issue. This change represents a profound step forward for victims, and for transparency in our justice system. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and my hon. Friends the Members for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) and for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) have been campaigning on this issue for some time. They deserve great credit, particularly the hon. Member for Richmond Park. For the first time, every victim whose case is heard in the Crown court will have this important right of access, free of charge.
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
A comment often made to me and my colleagues when I was policing was that as soon as I left the police station in full uniform, I was a sitting target, every single day. Does the Minister agree that the proposal for mandatory whole life sentences for those who murder police officers, prison officers and probation officers sends a clear and unequivocal message that those offenders will be met with the harshest and most serious penalties on offer to the courts?
Jake Richards
Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for his service, his contribution, and his support for Lords amendment 1. As I said when I had the great privilege of meeting Lenny’s parents last week with the shadow Justice Minister and Lord Timpson in the other place, this is not just about the technical mischief that the amendment solves; thankfully, these cases are few and far between. This is about sending the signal to the brilliant prison and probation officers that the work they do is respected by people in this place and the country at large. I hope that this small change goes some way to doing that. Indeed, since we have announced this change, I have met prison officers who have intimated their gratitude to Lenny Scott’s parents, and to this place for hopefully making this change, and that is welcome.
Lords amendments 2 to 5 relate to the Sentencing Council. Through the amendments, we have sought to clarify what is expected from the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice when they are considering any requests from the Sentencing Council for approval of its business plans and sentencing guidelines. Broadly speaking, the amendments do three things. First, if the Lord Chancellor decided not to approve a business plan, amendment 2 would require them to notify the council. It also requires them to lay a document before Parliament as soon as is practicable, stating the reasons for that decision. Amendments 3 and 4 make similar provisions under different guises.
Secondly, we want to make it clear that a very high bar must be met for any guidelines to be rejected, so amendments 4 and 5 provide that guidelines can be rejected only when that is necessary to maintain public confidence in the justice system. Finally, we have set out in the Bill that any approval requests from the council are to be considered as soon as practicable. Taken together, the amendments represent a significant step by the Government to ensure that these approval processes are surrounded by clear safeguards, transparency and accountability.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
While the Lords have endeavoured to amend the Bill in a number of areas, part 4, which allows foreign national offenders to be deported at any time during their sentence, are important to Northern Ireland. Because of article 2 of the Windsor framework, an assessment has been made that there is a risk that these offenders will not be removed in Northern Ireland, leaving us with a two-tier system in which foreign criminals in Northern Ireland benefit from additional EU-derived human rights protections, rather than being sent home. Will the Minister meet me and a number of my colleagues to discuss this important issue to Northern Ireland?
Jake Richards
This issue was raised, I think on Second Reading and on Report, by one of the hon. Member’s colleagues. The legal advice we have received simply states that there is no discrepancy in Northern Ireland. I am happy to have a conversation with her and any other colleagues on that. It is clearly only right that these provisions apply to Northern Ireland, too.
The Government are committed to greater transparency on prison and probation capacity, and to current and future Governments being held to account. We have demonstrated that by publishing the first annual statement on prison capacity, in December 2024; the 2025 edition will follow shortly. Lords amendment 6 delivers on that promise by making it a statutory requirement to lay a statement on prison capacity before Parliament each year. Legislating on this duty ensures transparency in the long term, and delivers on the Government’s commitment to do so. Never again will we be in the position that this Government inherited after the previous Government overlooked prison capacity for 14 years, leading to the crisis with which we had to deal.
The Government have also accepted Lords amendment 12, which removes the clause that would have introduced a power to publish the names and photographs of those subject to an unpaid work requirement. The purpose of the clause was to increase the visibility of community pay-back, and to ensure that the public could clearly see justice being delivered. We remain committed to ensuring that local communities can see the benefits of community pay-back in their area. However, we have listened carefully to those in both Houses who have raised issues relating to this measure, and, perhaps more important, to the concerns raised by our brilliant probation and prison staff on the ground, and following careful consideration we do not think it appropriate to proceed any further. We are confident that unpaid work, bolstered by wider provisions in the Bill, will continue to be tough and visible without the addition of this measure.
We are pleased to have made further progress on sentences of imprisonment for public protection. We want to do everything we can to enable those who are still serving such sentences to progress to the end of them, but we are not willing to undermine public protection. The amendments made in the Bill strike that careful balance. The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 made significant changes to the IPP licence period: the qualifying period for referral to the Parole Board for consideration of licence termination was reduced from 10 years after first release to three years for those serving IPP sentences, and two years for those serving detention for public protection sentences who were convicted when they were under 18.
It is over a year since the first of those measures came into force. The licences of 1,700 people were terminated automatically on 1 November 2024, and a further 600 became eligible for referral to the Parole Board on 1 February last year. We have now gone further by giving those serving IPP sentences an earlier opportunity for licence termination, and providing an additional opportunity for license termination to those serving IPP and DPP sentences thereafter. Those serving IPP sentences will be considered for licence termination two years after release, rather than the current three years. That provides suitable time for support and rehabilitation in the community, while ensuring that our communities are best protected from harm.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
I welcome the amendments that deal with IPP sentences. This is a matter of concern to many Members on both sides of the House. Can the Minister assure us that following the changes to IPP licence termination, these sentences will continue to provide for community rehabilitation, while protecting communities from harm? Will the Minister also commit to continuing to work to resolve the remaining challenges relating to such sentences?
Jake Richards
My hon. Friend, a member of the Justice Committee, always makes thoughtful contributions on justice issues, but in particular on IPP. A balance must be struck between public safety and ensuring rehabilitation. The Government think that the Bill has gone some way to doing that, but there is always room for further review and assessment as we proceed, and Lord Timpson, who is leading on this piece of work for the Government, will continue to engage with the Justice Committee on the issue.
I am very grateful for the improvements that have been made to the Bill during its passage in the House of Lords. I hope, particularly given the undertakings that I have given on the provision of sentencing transcripts, that all parties will be able to support the Government’s amendments in lieu of Lords amendment 7. They represent a major step forward for transparency and for victims.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
There is no doubt that our justice system faces significant challenges. I have always acknowledged that, and during recent debates on a wide range of issues, from sentencing to prison capacity to probation to jury trials, there has been cross-party acknowledgement that for decades, under a number of Governments of different colours, not enough investment or political priority has been given to our justice system. That, however, should not and must not serve as an excuse for this Government to make changes to our justice system that damage it and fail to address the challenges before us. There are alterations that elements of the Ministry of Justice have always wanted to make. We should not let them use the excuse of the current challenges to finally slip them through the net. That is what we see happening in the Bill, in relation to the proposals on jury trials and, even more clearly, in relation to measures that are to the detriment of victims.
I welcome elements of this Bill, and I will discuss some examples. The Minister mentioned the restriction zones and the domestic abuse markers, but these measures are overwhelmingly outweighed by the fact that at the heart of the Bill is a catastrophic blow to victims’ search for justice: it will let thousands of rapists, paedophiles and serious violent offenders out of prison earlier. The Minister mentioned the independent sentencing review; I remind Members that it gave absolutely no consideration whatsoever to what victims and the public think of the proposals on sentencing. The report is an insult to victims and their families, as many have told me directly.
During the Commons stages of the Bill, every party other than Labour joined the Conservatives in voting against these dangerous proposals, including the Liberal Democrats. In fact, a number of Labour MPs bravely abstained. It should be a matter of deep shame for Liberal Democrat Members that they have since joined Labour in voting to let rapists, paedophiles and serious violent offenders out of prison earlier, especially as they have previously articulated why this is wrong. It is a complete betrayal of victims of serious crime and their families.
This is likely to be my final opportunity to say that I am confident that Labour MPs will come to regret these elements of the Bill, and will find it difficult to explain themselves when victims see perpetrators of crimes such as rape, child sex offences and child grooming leave prison—sometimes having served only a third of their sentence—because of MPs’ support for these measures. I will do whatever I can to ensure that victims know who made those choices, although so many alternatives were available to them. However, I have to accept that this Government’s majority, with the help of the Liberal Democrats, has for now ended the campaign against this change, so we should consider the Lords amendments that are before the House today.
As I know that the public greatly value constructive cross-party working, I will begin with an important issue on which we were able to secure Government support. Lords amendment 1 would ensure that when a police officer, prison officer or probation officer, including a former officer, is murdered because of their service, a whole life order is the starting point for sentencing. This proposal originated from the Opposition, and I am grateful to the Government for accepting the principle, following my meetings and campaigning with Paula and Neil Scott, whose son Lenny, a former prison officer, was murdered because he refused a bribe from an inmate.
Parliament has long been clear that those putting themselves in direct danger by confronting and standing up to the most dangerous people in our society should have the greatest possible protection from our law: a whole life order. We had previously legislated to that effect through the introduction of a mandatory whole life order for those who murder police and prison officers who are undertaking their duties, but the case of Lenny Scott highlighted a gap in the law. Lenny was brutally murdered, years after his service as a prison officer, in revenge for handing in a phone that he found in a prison cell search. He had moved into a new phase of his life, and was enjoying work, the gym, and time with his children and the rest of his family, but he was shot in a car park late at night, simply for doing his job. Lenny’s mum told me that she knew something was wrong when Lenny did not come home that evening. She even went out in the middle of the night to look for him, only to have the police arrive at her door at 1 am with the devastating news.
It has been a true privilege to work with Paula, and with Lenny’s dad, Neil. I extend my sincere thanks to Lord Timpson in the other place, and to the Minister, for taking the time to meet them both, and for agreeing to work with them further to see what else we might do to improve protections for our prison officers. I am sure that the Minister will agree that it was clear from the meeting what decent, moral people they are, which explains the sort of person that Lenny was. I am also very grateful to Lord Timpson for bringing fresh thinking to this area by including probation officers in the measure. They too must work closely with dangerous, violent offenders, and sometimes stand up to them to protect the public. They face the same dangers, so they should get the same protections.
Although our wider focus must always be on preventing crime and protecting the public, it is right that clear gaps in the law should be addressed when they arise. The Opposition therefore support Lords amendment 1 in lieu of our amendment, and I know that Lenny’s parents, family and friends have been delighted to see its progress in the House. In my time working with victims on campaigns, I have learned the pitfalls of naming a law after an individual case—there are always others who might warrant the remembrance of their experiences in the naming of a law—but Lenny’s family have every right to call this measure “Lenny’s Law”.
I will now consider amendments that attempt to deliver much-needed reform, but which are simply insufficient. Lords amendments 2 to 5 all concern the relationship between the Lord Chancellor and the Sentencing Council. Between them, they provide guidelines for specific scenarios in which the Lord Chancellor does not approve the Sentencing Council’s business plan; conditions for withdrawing consent to the Sentencing Council’s issuing of sentencing guidelines; and conditions for withholding consent to a request from the Sentencing Council to issue allocation guidelines, if it is necessary withhold that consent in order to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system. We saw in the debacle of two-tier sentencing just how far the Sentencing Council has strayed, and these measures will not fundamentally correct that. The official Opposition have made it clear—I will restate it—that our firm policy position is that we would abolish the Sentencing Council, restore power to elected Ministers who are directly accountable to the public, and give Parliament a role when it comes to sentencing guidelines.
The functions of the Sentencing Council in delivering consistency through sentencing are well recognised, and it is not our intention to do away with the functions that will be restored to the Lord Chancellor’s Office, but we believe it is for the Justice Secretary to be responsible for our sentencing guidelines, not a group of unelected individuals with no direct accountability to the public and limited accountability of any kind. Consultation with the public is not the same as accountability to the public, and we are clear that Parliament should have the power to act. Therefore, while these amendments are not a point of contention in the Bill’s progress and we will not divide the House on them, I raise them to point out that they would not be part of a Bill introduced by a Conservative Government, as we would abolish the Sentencing Council entirely and fully restore accountability.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
This Bill delivers the long-term, joined-up, sustainable reform that our criminal justice system desperately needs. I will comment on amendments 1 to 7 and 14, which will strengthen the Bill. We inherited a system on the brink, with prisons close to running out of places, courts paralysed by backlogs, police forced to operate with one hand tied behind their backs, trust broken and fear raised—a breakdown of law and order that left communities such as mine in Portsmouth paying the price.
In Portsmouth and across the country, the justice system is struggling under the weight of an unprecedented backlog. Crown courts in England and Wales now have between 77,000 and 78,000 outstanding cases waiting to be heard. Ten of thousands are open for a year or more, and some defendants are waiting for up to four years before trial dates are even available. Those delays mean that victims in my city and beyond are denied timely justice, eroding confidence in our courts. The Sentencing Bill and wider reforms are a crucial step towards tackling the backlogs, speeding up justice and ensuring that offences are addressed without further delay.
The Conservatives talk tough on crime, but their record tells a very different story. They increased sentencing lengths without building the capacity to support them, and in 14 years added just 500 prison places. When the system finally broke, they released tens of thousands—[Interruption.] They released 10,000 offenders early, largely in secret, shattering public confidence in justice. This Government are working hard to fix their mess. We believe in prisons. Many offenders must go there and some for a very long time. We have already opened 2,500 places and we are on track for achieving 4,000 by 2031—the biggest expansion since Victorian times.
We also have to be honest about the challenge. We cannot just build our way out of a Tory prison crisis. We owe it to the British public to reduce crime and the number of victims. That is why the Bill reforms sentencing, so that punishments can cut crime and rehabilitation can help reduce crime and the number of victims. That includes tough, credible and visible punishments in our community. Offenders will be closely monitored through tagging, restrictions on where they can go, and strict conditions that curb their freedom. Courts will be able to impose no-go zones, banning offenders from entering specific areas such as town centres, retail zones, building sites or industrial estates where they have previously offended. Those are not soft options. They are enforceable restrictions backed by modern technology with real consequences if they are breached. This approach is vital for crimes that devastate working people.
I would particularly like to mention the horrendous, life-changing crime of tool theft. In Portsmouth and across the country, tradespeople have told me this story time and time again. When tools are stolen, it is not just about the property they lose; it is about income lost, jobs cancelled, damage to reputation and families pushed into financial stress overnight. In some cases, it has led to our tradespeople taking their own lives. I have campaigned relentlessly on this issue, working closely with tradespeople, industry bodies, police, insurers and retailers. Together, we made the case that tool theft must be treated as a serious and repeated crime. As a result of that work, the Bill and these amendments will deliver real change for victims. Repeat tool offenders will now face tougher sentences in court and in our communities.
Amanda Martin
We are clearing up the mess left by the Tories. People are still waiting for their day in court. It is not okay for a crime to be committed and for there not even to be a sentence for four or five years. If the shadow Minister would like to intervene again, I will give way.
Amanda Martin
They will be serving longer than under the Conservatives, who did not care about tradespeople or construction crime. Repeat tool theft offenders will now face tougher sentencing because of a Labour Government, including tagging on release, strict movement restrictions, robust unpaid work and no-go areas that stop them returning to the places where they targeted working people. This is about disrupting criminal behaviour, protecting livelihoods and showing that Labour is the only party that stands squarely with those who work hard and play by the rules.
Chris Vince
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for her personal work to tackle the huge issue of tool theft, which has had a huge impact on tradespeople in my constituency of Harlow. Does she agree with me that, as she said, it is not just about the person themselves but their family and their livelihood? Being a victim of such crimes also has a huge impact on mental health, so I thank her for her work.
Amanda Martin
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words and for the work that he has done in Harlow. I repeat that to my knowledge there was not a Government before us who even cared about tradespeople.
In addition, we are investing up to £700 million more in community punishment and increasing probation funding by 45%. That means better supervision, faster enforcement, and a system that is credible both to offenders and the public, and looks to reduce repeated crimes for victims.
I welcome a number of Government amendments that further strengthen the Bill. As the daughter of a retired police officer—I note my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan) is also in his place; his dad was a retired probation officer—I have family and friends still serving in the force and as prison officers. I welcome Lords amendments 1 and 14, which broaden whole-life orders. Murder is the most heinous crime a person can commit, and the amendments ensure that those who murder police officers, prison officers or probation officers, including where the crime is motivated by their current or former duties, face the full force of the law. These crimes strike at the very heart of the rule of law and it is right that sentencing reflects that.
I also welcome Lords amendments 2, 3, 4 and 5, which strengthen transparency and accountability around the Sentencing Council. The amendments set a very high bar for rejecting sentencing guidance, ensuring Parliament is informed where decisions are taken, and helping to maintain public confidence in the justice system. Crucially, they sit alongside the reforms that reflect legislation I fought for in my Theft of Tools of Trade (Sentencing) Bill, to ensure that sentencing properly takes account of the full circumstances and the impact on victims. That principle is vital: justice must never lose sight of the harm done to victims and communities when crimes are committed.
Lords amendment 6 is another important step forward. By placing a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on prison capacity, the Government are ending the culture of secrecy we inherited and ensuring proper accountability to Parliament and the public.
I strongly welcome the Government’s amendments in lieu to Lords amendment 7, which will ensure victims can access transcripts of sentencing remarks free of charge. This is a meaningful improvement for victims, an important move towards a more transparent and humane justice system, and another step in the right direction of putting victims at the heart of our justice system.
The Bill ends the chaos we inherited. It restores confidence in justice and it delivers punishment that works for communities such as Portsmouth now and into the future. I am proud to have worked hard on developing the Bill and I am proud to support it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I thank Members of both Chambers for their contribution and their continued work, in particular the prisons Minister for engaging collaboratively with Liberal Democrats in the other place and for making concessions both in the legislation and at the Dispatch Box.
We are pleased to see Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendment 7, which introduce the provision of free transcripts of sentencing remarks to victims. It has been a long-standing campaign of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) to see the provision of all court transcripts, and victims gaining access to an improved level of transparency and accountability is a great first step.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I just want to take this opportunity to say my personal thanks to the Minister and everybody involved in bringing the legislation to this stage. I pay tribute once again to my constituent Juliana Terlizzi, who came to see me when she was charged £7,000 for the transcript of the trial that saw her rapist sent to prison. The amendment in lieu is a huge step forward for victims of all kinds, and I am really pleased to see it in the legislation. I want to put on record my huge thanks to everyone for that.
Jess Brown-Fuller
I thank my hon. Friend for reminding us that the heart of this amendment are victims and their ability to understand what has come in the sentencing remarks. So much happens in a court trial, whether it means reliving past trauma or confronting a perpetrator, and listening to proceedings can feel like a foreign language for many. Others, who choose not to attend the sentencing hearing, have no knowledge of what was said. That is why having consistent free access to transcripts is vital. It provides an opportunity to process the events of court proceedings afterwards or to read them for the first time. For many, this can provide closure and an opportunity to move on, but it is also the route for appealing a sentence if they believe it to have been unduly lenient.
Providing victims with court transcripts free of charge would markedly improve experiences for victims and survivors, but I do have some questions regarding the Government’s amendment in lieu. Could the Minister provide some clarity as to whether the term “victim” is applied as per the definition used by the victims code and whether, in the case that a victim is unable to personally request sentencing remarks—such as victims without capacity or victims who are children—immediate family members of victims are included within the provision?
Jess Brown-Fuller
The victims code lays out that if a victim is deceased, the immediate family—parents or siblings—would be included. That is why I asked that question of the Minister.
Subsection (3)(c) of the amendment in lieu allows the Secretary of State to provide exceptions to the requirement to provide a transcript of sentencing remarks. What sort of exceptions do the Government anticipate, and as per subsection (3)(d), what sort of information may be omitted from a transcript? If the Secretary of State does not plan to use sweeping powers to except or omit, why are such provisions included in the amendment? The previous Government ran a very limited pilot of free court transcripts. Will this Government publish a detailed review of that pilot?
We believe that this provision could and should go much further, and as per the campaign by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park and Baroness Brinton in the other place, we have tabled an amendment to the Victims and Courts Bill that would mean that all transcripts are provided free of charge, including judicial summaries and bail decisions.
The Lady Chief Justice recently spoke to the Justice Committee about a pilot with HM Courts and Tribunals Service on the use of AI for transcripts, especially in the asylum and immigration courts. She described it as a “great success”, so I would be keen to understand if the Government will work with the Liberal Democrats to progress this work. We do appreciate the growing cross-party support on this issue and the work of all in the other place to achieve this important first step today.
We also welcome the Government committing to a statutory annual report into the state of prison capacity and, importantly, the Probation Service. This is an important mechanism for oversight that will improve long-term assessments of the health of our justice system. We were very happy to see the Government accept our amendment to remove clause 35 from the Bill, which did nothing to address the crisis in our justice system and was totally at odds with the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. We welcome the amendments tabled by the Government to strengthen protections in relation to the Lord Chancellor’s approval of sentencing guidelines.
We have been supportive of many of the provisions in the Bill aimed at addressing some of the key failings in our crumbling justice system. Our courts, prisons and the Probation Service are all at breaking point, and without urgent intervention they are at risk of failing completely. The Bill offered an opportunity to ease some of the pressures our system faces, where currently the needs of victims, offenders and the system more widely are too often ignored. We also need to ensure that our prison system is one of rehabilitation—one that ends the cycle of reoffending and reduces long-term pressures. All of the Liberal Democrats’ work on this Bill has been in that vein, in order to get the legislation into a better place to achieve those aims.
To conclude, we realise the mess that our justice system finds itself in. We have always aimed to work collaboratively and productively in a cross-party way to ensure that we can begin to turn the tide on this crisis, and we will continue to do so. We need a sustainable solution, which includes cutting reoffending, tackling the court backlog to reduce the number of people in prison on remand, and properly resourcing our Probation Service, which will no doubt feel the impact of this legislation most acutely. The Bill contains a number of proposals that Lib Dems have campaigned for as part of the wider package of reform, but it still could go much further to ensure that it is fit for purpose to protect victims and safeguard our justice system for the future.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am pleased that the Bill will deliver long-term and sustainable reform to our criminal justice system and make sure that we never again end up in the position where dangerous offenders are not being locked up, the police do not have the capacity to make arrests and courts are not able to hold trials. It was a breakdown in law and order like nothing we have seen in modern times, because the last Government increased sentence lengths without reckoning with the consequences of doing so, adding just 500 places during their time in office. That was a dereliction of duty beyond comprehension and something that must not be forgotten in the context of this Bill.
Our prisons were brought to the point of crisis; frankly, they only survived until the 2024 general election because, on the quiet, the last Government released 10,000 offenders early, completely undermining public confidence in our justice system. [Interruption.] Well, it’s true. The shadow Justice Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), is shaking his head. I was working in the Prison Service—I know what went down. I know exactly what happened. While the Bill was born out of necessity, it includes absolutely transformational reforms that Governments of all colours should have introduced in years past.
It is not that we are not being tough on crime—in fact, it is quite the opposite, because as the Minister has laid out, there will be more people in prison at the end of this Parliament than ever before—but, as has been outlined today, anyone who thinks we can simply build our way out of this crisis is not living in the real world and is not serious about public policy. It is welcome that we are deporting more foreign national offenders and bearing down on the court backlog to reduce remand prisoners. All of that is necessary but not sufficient, which is why this Bill is very welcome.
I want to speak specifically about amendments 1 and 14 and the broadening of whole-life orders. When I was a prison officer, I found it incredibly frustrating how little acknowledgment was given by wider society to the serious assaults and injuries that staff often had to suffer. I will take this issue up with the Minister another time, as I know it does not relate directly to the amendments, but I do think it is important that there is public recognition of how dangerous the job can be, including for probation officers. I pay tribute to Lenny Scott’s family, who have worked tirelessly to advocate for this welcome change. I hope that every Member of Parliament from across the House will support those amendments, which send the clear message that this House backs our police, probation and prison staff, given the particular dangers they face, and that we support them today and every day.
Although the Bill may have been born out of necessity—and, frankly, emergency—at the start of this Government’s time in office, I am proud that it is a Labour Government who are introducing the reform that our justice system has long needed. I am proud to support the Government amendments today.
Jake Richards
Today is a pivotal day. Subject to agreement from this House and from the other place, the Bill will complete all its stages and shortly become law. I want to take this opportunity to thank my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin). Although I was the Minister to take the Bill through the House, his painstaking work in developing the policy was fundamental and he deserves great credit.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin); at every opportunity, including this debate, she rightly raises her campaign to clamp down on tool theft and she is a fine champion for her constituents. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson). She brings huge experience to debates on these issues. We are taking measures to give prison staff further protections, but I am happy to speak with her about what more the Government can do.
We have aired the debate on the Sentencing Council before. The Conservative position was developed by the former shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick).
Jake Richards
The hon. Member says, “It was a team effort.” I am not sure about that. The Conservatives’ position is an example of real constitutional vandalism. It has never been the case that this Bill would threaten the independence of the judiciary. Our amendments, and the proposal set out in this legislation, ensure that there is a democratic lock around sentencing and that there is a role for this place, but that the Sentencing Council remains independent. That is absolutely the right thing to do.
I welcome the degree of consensus on transcripts. The Conservative position on this amendment, at the back end of last week and then early this week, seems to have changed a few times. Our amendment in lieu strikes the right balance. If anyone could seek a free transcript of sentencing remarks, we might be in the position where our court staff, who have a big job in getting a grip of the backlog, spend all their time issuing transcripts.
Let me turn to the issues raised by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller). We have to look into the question of what happens with transcripts when victims are either children, deceased or where there is a lack of capacity. It may be that the victims code does that already for us, but we have to get it right and we will ensure we do so as the policy is developed. She mentioned her concerns about exceptions and omissions and asked me to ponder on examples when those exceptions could be engaged. Of course, this may be relevant when there are issues of national security or public safety, but one would hope that such circumstances would be extremely exceptional. It is important, though, that those provisions are in the Bill.
We believe that our amendments will allow for more openness. They are ambitious but also realistic, considering where the technology is at the moment and the pressures on our court system. Do we want to go further when we can? Absolutely. We believe in the fundamental principle of transparency and openness in our justice system, and where we can, we will.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
I apologise that I was not here for the Minister’s opening speech; I was chairing the Justice Committee. I do not think that matters, though, because I agree with him on the amendments. They strengthen the Bill considerably. They bring more openness and transparency, and we welcome all the recommendations here, whether in relation to the Sentencing Council, to the prison capacity report, to the transcripts through the amendments in lieu, or to IPP prisoners. They are all welcome improvements on the Bill. We think that they need to go further in some areas, particularly in relation to IPP prisoners, but this is a good step along the way.
Jake Richards
I always welcome an intervention from the Chair of the Justice Committee. As I said following an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Pam Cox), the work on IPPs is an ongoing process led by Lord Timpson in the other place. I know that he is always happy to engage with hon. Members from the Select Committee.
I conclude my remarks by stating firmly that the Bill will solve the mess that this Government inherited and begin to make sure that our prison system is fit for the future. I once again thank all hon. and right hon. Members who have engaged with the Bill throughout its passage. Their expertise strengthens it in many important respects.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 7.
Sally Jameson
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to apologise for inadvertently making an error. At the start of my speech on the Sentencing Bill, I forgot to declare that I remain a member of the Prison Officers Association, following my time in the Prison Service. I hope that the record can be corrected.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the hon. Member for her point of order. Her comments are now on the record and the record is corrected.
Holocaust Memorial Bill (Allocation of Time)
Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Holocaust Memorial Bill:
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
(2) Paragraphs (2) to (7) of Standing Order No. 83F (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (1) of this Order.
Subsequent stages
(3) (a) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(b) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed.
(4) Paragraphs (2) to (5) of Standing Order No. 83G (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on further messages from the Lords) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (3) of this Order.
Reasons Committee
(5) Paragraphs (2) to (6) of Standing Order No. 83H (Programme orders: reasons committee) apply in relation to any committee to be appointed to draw up reasons after proceedings have been brought to a conclusion in accordance with this Order.
Miscellaneous
(6) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill.
(7) (a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.
(b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(8) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.—(Christian Wakeford.)
Holocaust Memorial Bill
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I inform the House that the Lords amendment does not engage Commons financial privilege.
After Clause 2
Learning Centre purpose
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
I am grateful to Members of both the Commons and the Lords who have so diligently scrutinised the Bill throughout its passage. I thank the noble Lord Khan of Burnley for taking the Bill through the other place and for being so thorough in his approach.
Before I address the Lords amendment, I would like to take a moment to remind the House why we introduced the Bill in the first place. There is a long-standing cross- party commitment to establish a new national Holocaust memorial and learning centre. We do this to mark a profound and dark moment in our history, to remember the sheer loss of humanity and to continue to learn the lessons day after day, generation after generation. This simple three-clause Bill was introduced in February 2023 to enable us to make progress in delivering that.
The Bill does two things: first, it authorises expenditure on the construction, operation, maintenance or improvement of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre; and secondly, it seeks to remove a statutory obstacle to its being built next door in Victoria Tower Gardens, should it receive planning consent. The Bill does not provide the Government with planning powers to build the memorial and learning centre; those are being sought through the separate statutory planning process.
On the face of it, Lords amendment 1 looks uncontroversial, and I have no doubt that it is well intentioned. However, the Government cannot accept the amendment. In short, the amendment seeks to deal with matters that are not part of this Bill and are more properly dealt with elsewhere. Following debates in the other place, there have been constructive discussions with those leading support for the amendment to consider how best to proceed. In the light of those discussions, I want to assure this House that the Government’s aim in establishing a national Holocaust memorial and learning centre, in line with the cross-party consensus since 2015, is to increase understanding of the Holocaust and of antisemitism. There must be no question of the learning centre deviating from that purpose.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I declare a sort of interest, in that many members of my family were murdered in the Holocaust. I understand the meaning of the term “Holocaust” to be the Nazis’ mass extermination of the Jews during their period in power, both in their own country and in the countries they occupied. I have not followed the progress of the Bill as closely as I should have done, but I get the impression that there is some move away from keeping it specific to that terrible crime, towards widening it to cover massacres in general and other terrible racial crimes. I think the intention behind the Bill and the museum was that it should be about the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis and their associates. Can the Minister confirm that that is still the situation?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I can confirm that that is the case, and I will be very clear and explicit about both the intention and what we will do to enshrine that intention.
The learning centre will provide a solid, clear historical account of the Holocaust, leaving no visitors in any doubt about the unprecedented crimes perpetrated against Jewish people. The content for the learning centre is being developed by a leading curator, supported by Martin Winstone, the Holocaust historian and educator, and by an academic advisory group. With their help, we will ensure that the content is robust, truthful and fearless. It will stand as a vital rebuttal to Holocaust denial and distortion in all its forms.
Delivery of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre is being supported by the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation. We value the work of the foundation, which has been steadfast in its determination to build the memorial and to create a learning centre in which the story of the Holocaust is told powerfully, unflinchingly and honestly. We aim to make sure that the body responsible for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre has the independence and permanence that the Holocaust Commission sought. We will provide the operating body with governing documents that are clear and specific, leaving no doubt that the learning centre has been established to provide education about the Holocaust and about antisemitism.
We will also ensure that there are appropriate processes for the appointment of governing body members, and provide support so that they have a clear understanding of their role. The governing body will be permitted to hold fundraising and commemorative events and public lectures, as long as they are appropriate to the intent and purpose of the learning centre. It will be for the trustees to determine what activities are consistent with the aims of the memorial and learning centre.
I hope that I have shown that there is no disagreement between the Government and those who wish to ensure that the learning centre focuses very clearly on the history of the Holocaust. No additional clauses are needed in the Bill to achieve what we all want to see. Moreover, there are inevitable risks in seeking to prescribe too narrowly what the learning centre is permitted to do.
The better way to proceed is to put in place clear and robust governance arrangements for the learning centre, and to place on the trustees the responsibility for ensuring that the facts of the Holocaust and the long history of antisemitism are explained clearly and honestly, for this and future generations. Our aim must now be to pass this Bill and to move ahead as quickly as possible to establish the national Holocaust memorial and learning centre.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
The Bill returns to the House at an important time of year. Next week, we mark Holocaust Memorial Day, when communities across the country will pause to remember the 6 million Jewish men, women and children who were murdered during the Holocaust.
As a former Home Secretary, I have seen at first hand the strength and dignity with which Jewish communities have preserved the memory of the Holocaust. When I was Foreign Secretary, I saw that also in Israel and in other countries. The people who preserve that memory do so not only to honour those who were murdered, but to educate future generations. That act of remembrance is a service to the whole country, and it shows that education is essential if the memory of the Holocaust is to endure, and if we are to confront antisemitism wherever and whenever it appears.
This Bill has taken much longer to progress than any of us would have wished. I am therefore pleased that the Government have chosen to take it forward. The primary purpose of the Bill is clear and narrow in scope. It is about the Holocaust, ensuring that the lessons of the Holocaust are learned and that history is preserved for future generations. On that point, there is strong and genuine cross-party agreement in both Houses. I thank the Minister for meeting me and listening carefully to the concerns raised by the Conservatives. Those discussions have been constructive, and I welcome the seriousness with which they have been approached.
There has been contention during the passage of this Bill. Strong views have been expressed about the location, the security and the design of the memorial. Those debates reflect the importance of this project and the desire to ensure that it is done properly. However, the issue before us today is the purpose of the learning centre. Conservative and Cross-Bench peers have been clear in expressing their concern. They have sought assurance that the learning centre will exist for one purpose only: to provide education about the Holocaust and about antisemitism.
I welcome the assurances that the Government have now provided, in particular the commitment that the learning centre will be focused exclusively on the Holocaust and on antisemitism, and that there must be no question of its drifting from that mission or that purpose in future years. I also welcome the commitment that the governing documents of the future operations body will make that purpose clear.
Those assurances matter. This memorial is intended to last for generations, and it must have a clear mission that future trustees and future Governments cannot dilute or reinterpret. In the light of those assurances, we will not press this matter to a Division. That reflects the progress that has been made through constructive discussions in both this House and the other place.
Let me make one final point clear. Those assurances must be carried through, and the good faith of those who have entered into the conversations needs to be rewarded. I recognise that concerns about the design have been raised throughout the passage of the Bill both directly with me and with the Government. While those matters fall outside the scope of the legislation before us, I hope that Ministers have listened to those concerns and will ensure that they are communicated more widely to those involved in the construction of the education centre.
If this House is to create a lasting national Holocaust memorial, it must be clear in its purpose and faithful to its promise.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister and the shadow Secretary of State for their speeches in opening this important debate. I absolutely welcome this Bill and its aim to create a lasting memorial to the 6 million people who lost their lives in what was probably the most devastating event in recent history, to those who survived and carry the scars with them, and to their families. I recognise what my hon. Friend the Minister has said about the Bill and Lords amendment 1, and in particular about the need to move the Bill forward at pace.
I am attending a Holocaust Memorial Day event in Harlow at the weekend. The theme for Holocaust Memorial Day 2026 is “Bridging Generations”. The reason why this Bill is so important is that we need to recognise that the responsibility of remembrance cannot just end with survivors. When we came together in this House last year to recognise the 80th anniversary of the end of the second world war, we all recognised that it would be one of the last significant anniversaries for which veterans of that terrible conflict would be with us.
We must recognise that, as we move forward, those who survived the terrible events of the Holocaust will no longer be with us, but we must carry their flame and continue to remember. We must build a bridge between memory and action, between history and hope for the future, and education about the Holocaust and antisemitism is hugely important for that reason. Like many right hon. and hon. Members across the House, I have visited Auschwitz and seen the horrors of the Holocaust, but what we perhaps do not see so often are the events that led to it; I think about Kristallnacht and the ghettos.
It has been a real pleasure to meet on a fairly regular basis with my local rabbi in Harlow, Rabbi Irit, to talk about how the Jewish community in Harlow is doing. I am pleased to hear that the Jewish community in my constituency has not experienced antisemitism, but we must always be mindful. I pay particular tribute to Rabbi Irit for the work that she has done with faith groups from across my constituency. For personal reasons, I was sadly unable to attend this year’s interfaith service that she ran at Harlow synagogue, but I look forward to attending it next year.
It is an opportunity for the Christian, Muslim and Hindu communities to come together and show that we are as one in fighting the scourge of antisemitism and other forms of racism. I look forward to standing with Rabbi Irit and other religious leaders in Harlow at the weekend to recognise Holocaust Memorial Day. We must never forget the evils of the Holocaust, and I am really pleased that this Government are taking that mission very seriously. This Bill is a huge part of that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
As the Holocaust begins to fade from living memory, it becomes ever more vital that the next generations continue to be properly educated about it, and that the victims are commemorated with dignity and care. The theme of this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day, “Bridging Generations”, reminds us that remembrance of the Holocaust does not end with the survivors; the responsibility now passes to all of us. We must engage with the past, so that its lessons are not lost in the future. The work of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust encourages us to honour the legacy of all who were murdered in genocides, including those who have no family left to remember them. We remember them not through bloodlines, but through education and memorial. A Holocaust memorial and education centre in the heart of London would be a powerful, permanent commitment to that responsibility.
Six million Jews, along with millions of others—Roma, disabled people and LGBTQ+ individuals—were murdered in the Holocaust. That shows where hatred can lead. The genocides since show that we have not learned enough. Last year, hate crimes increased across our country, fuelled by political extremism. When we say, “Never again”, it cannot be empty words; it must be our commitment to stand united against hatred.
Alongside my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) and my hon. Friends the Members for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) and for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), I have met the Board of Deputies, the Jewish Leadership Council, the Community Security Trust and the Antisemitism Policy Trust to discuss the alarming rise in antisemitism and how we must respond to it. The Liberal Democrats believe that no one should feel scared or anxious when going to their place of worship. That is why, in our manifesto, we pledged funding for protective security measures for places that are vulnerable to hate crimes and terror attacks. While we are devastated that this is necessary, we are pleased that the Government have increased protections for synagogues, and ask that they continue to work hand in hand with those organisations for the safety and security of all Jews in the United Kingdom.
This memorial presents a vital opportunity to challenge antisemitism through education. We recognise the work that the House of Lords has done to safeguard its educational purpose, but we must ensure that robust security measures are in place, so that people can visit the memorial safely and without fear. It is also key that we deliver the memorial in a timely manner. The Conservative Government committed to this project following the findings of the Holocaust Commission in 2015; it is unacceptable that 11 years later, construction has yet to begin. In 2023, Holocaust survivor Manfred Goldberg said,
“I was 84 when Prime Minister David Cameron first promised us survivors a national Holocaust Memorial in close proximity to the Houses of Parliament.”
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
One of my constituents, Kitty Hart-Moxon, helped to set up the Holocaust Educational Trust. She will be 100 this year. My hon. Friend has spoken about bridging the gap; Kitty is handing over that work to Peter and Moira in her family, who will keep that going. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be a wonderful tribute to her to ensure that she can see this memorial and how important it is to the people of Great Britain?
Marie Goldman
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend.
Manfred Goldberg went on to say,
“Last month I celebrated my 93rd birthday and I pray to be able to attend the opening of this important project.”
Tragically, Manfred passed away on 6 November last year, at the age of 95. My thoughts are with his family. He was an extraordinary man who gave so much to Holocaust remembrance and education in the United Kingdom. As a nation, we must continue that legacy and ensure that this memorial and education centre are built through proper process, with careful planning, strong security and quick delivery. In doing so, we will be commemorating the 6 million Jewish people murdered in the Holocaust, honouring survivors, and creating a space that truly educates future generations, and that stands as a lasting commitment to remembrance.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
There is universal recognition of the gravity of the Holocaust. It is widely and wisely regarded as the greatest crime in human history, which is precisely why this memorial should proceed only on the basis of broad consensus. No one wishes to create division around Holocaust commemoration, yet there is demonstrably no consensus in the Jewish and local community about the learning centre, or how it should be used. That was evidenced by the 2018 letter in The Times, signed by eight Jewish peers, expressing deep reservations about the current proposal.
The decision to site the memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens was made with good intentions—the proximity to Parliament was in recognition of the importance of the Holocaust—but it was taken without prior consultation or proper investigation, and it was opposed by the local council. Subsequent scrutiny has revealed serious flaws in the choice of site, and we cannot have a discussion of what the learning centre will be used for without understanding that. I have taken part in several debates on the subject, including the previous one, in which Sir Peter Bottomley, the former Father of the House, spoke. That was on the day the general election was called. No satisfactory answers have ever been given.
The plans are for a substantial underground structure on ancient marshland beside the Thames. The water table is known to rise sharply after heavy rainfall. Significant flooding occurred on the site within recent memory. Do we want to have to wet vac our Holocaust memorial every few years? We have had no answers on that point. Victoria Tower Gardens is a public park, protected by statute. It is maintained by the Royal Parks, which has never supported a memorial on the site. The chairman of the Royal Parks warned that it risked damaging one of the area’s few open green spaces and set a dangerous precedent. Statutory protections dating back to a 1900 Act of Parliament are being undermined with little debate.
The park can realistically accommodate only a modest memorial without destroying its character. The current design would fundamentally alter the park. There would be an 80-metre ramp and a wide moat dividing the space, and large areas of grass would be replaced with paving. Rightly, the intention is for large numbers of visitors, particularly schoolchildren, to attend the national Holocaust memorial. No credible plans exist to manage coach traffic, drop-off points or parking, so the pressures on Millbank would be compounded. Local opposition is well documented, including from the Thorney Island Society. For residents and regular users, the park would largely cease to function as a neighbourhood green space; ordinary activities would become inappropriate in such a situation. Victoria Tower Gardens may also be needed to support the ongoing restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster. Reducing flexibility now risks increasing costs and constraining future options.
Let us talk about the purpose of this memorial. I have been to Holocaust memorials. The most impactful Holocaust memorial internationally is the Washington model, which I visited. That Holocaust Memorial Museum is immensely successful, because it prioritises education through a dedicated museum that confronts the scale and the reality of the crimes. The most meaningful memorial we can offer is sustained education, to ensure that young people understand the Holocaust fully, and that its memory is never diminished. Had the learning centre been established years ago at the Imperial War Museum, as we have constantly suggested, and as the Imperial War Museum wants, hundreds of thousands of visitors could already have benefited from it, and there would have been no delay.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Edward Leigh
I will finish, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.
The House of Lords has wisely passed an amendment clarifying that
“The sole purpose of any Learning Centre must be the provision of education about the Holocaust and antisemitism.”
It is a mystery to me why the Government oppose that, and why they have imposed strict time limits on debate. This much-desired memorial should be the result of clear consensus, not imposed in a way that stifles discussion. I am suspicious of why the Government are opposing this wise amendment from the House of Lords.
One of the reasons why an underground learning centre is inappropriate is that it is not a proper museum. I have been to the memorials in Israel and in Washington. They are huge structures, where people are taken through the whole process. We cannot understand the Holocaust unless we understand its beginnings, and how people came to be filled with such horrible hatred. This is basically just a bunker. It is totally inappropriate. It is also a security risk: there will have to be armed guards and railings. Just imagine the terrible nature of any appalling atrocity, perhaps a terrorist atrocity, that might be committed there. It is simply an inappropriate location. I do not know, but I suspect that the reason why the Government are resisting the amendment is that they are worried that this bunker—this totally inappropriate underground structure, which is not a proper museum—might become a target.
Dr Arthur
It is not that the Government are not giving way. The Government are showing leadership by negotiating with other parties to find consensus in this Chamber, and that is something we should celebrate. I am ashamed that, 81 years after the end of the second world war, we still do not have a national memorial. The Father of the House is talking about more debate, more time-wasting, and more Holocaust survivors dying before we even start work. Does he not recognise the need for this memorial? It makes absolute sense to place it next to the home of democracy in the UK, to celebrate what we did well during the war in terms of protecting the Jews, but also to mark what we got wrong.
Sir Edward Leigh
The point is that we—it is not just me, by the way, but a large part of the Jewish community—want a proper museum of the type that exists in Washington, and this, I am afraid, is not a proper museum. It is a small underground structure in an inappropriate place, difficult to secure. If this Government and the previous Government had proceeded with consensus, and had wanted to build an aesthetic memorial that paid proper tribute to the people who died, this could all have been passed years ago. The whole debate has been about the underground learning centre, not the memorial. Everyone accepts that there should be a memorial. Everyone wants a proper museum, but this is not a proper museum, and I am curious about why the Government are resisting the perfectly sensible amendment from the House of Lords. There is a real danger that in order to allay security concerns, the whole purpose of this learning centre may drift from the Holocaust, which would be extremely regrettable. I am sorry if I have irritated the hon. Gentleman, but this is a debate, and we are all entitled to express a point of view.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
I welcome the spirit of the amendment; I welcome the Bill, of course; I welcome the assurances that the Minister gave; and notwithstanding some differences of opinion, I welcome the civility of the debate, which is exactly what is needed when discussing such a sensitive issue.
I speak today not only to the House, but to those who will be gathering back home in Eastbourne on Holocaust Memorial Day 2026, 27 January. On behalf of our town —and those far beyond it—I pay huge tribute to a remarkable Eastbourne resident and Holocaust survivor, Dorit Oliver-Wolff, whose tireless Holocaust education work ensures that future generations never forget. She is a leading light, whether she is facilitating events such as Holocaust Memorial Day in Eastbourne, making school visits, or sharing her experiences through her book, “Yellow Star to Pop Star”—she is a published author. She also shared her story with masses of Channel 4 viewers when she appeared on “First Dates” in 2021, and told us more about her experiences. We thank Dorit so much for her advocacy, her service and her fabulousness.
Dorit’s example serves as a testament to the need for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre that is the subject of this Bill. Education is our most powerful defence against hatred’s return, and the theme of this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day—“For a Better Future”—carries such profound weight. In that spirit, we remember the 6 million Jewish lives stolen and all victims of Nazi persecution. We honour their memory by confronting hatred wherever it emerges, including in the face of genocide in our world today, but sadly that confrontation requires vigilance.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
Since the horrific attacks of 7 October 2023, we have seen a sharp and sustained increase in antisemitic abuse in Britain. Last year, a report commissioned by the Board of Deputies of British Jews found widespread failures to address anti-Jewish discrimination across public life, including in the NHS, education, the arts and policing. This matters today and is not a problem of the past. The Community Security Trust recorded over 3,500 antisemitic incidents in the UK in 2024—one of the highest totals on record.
I understand that some will try to tie what is happening here in the UK to Israel’s actions in Gaza. People may hold strong views about that conflict, but we must be absolutely clear: British Jews are not responsible for the actions of any Government overseas. They are simply trying to live their lives, regardless of their faith or community identity. They should never be blamed, targeted or held accountable for events beyond their control. That is why remembrance must go hand in hand with education. Holocaust survivors are fewer each year, as we have heard, and we cannot rely on living testimony alone. We need strong, honest education about the Holocaust, about antisemitism, and about how quickly lies and conspiracy theories can spread, especially online.
The truth is that hatred is often fuelled by misinformation and a lack of understanding. Today conspiracy theories travel faster than ever, amplified by social media and algorithms that drive people towards ever more extreme content. Given the ease with which hate can spread online, a memorial linked to a learning centre—one that helps people to understand the Holocaust and confront antisemitism—has real value.
As we approach Holocaust Memorial Day, I hope the House can send a clear message: we remember, we educate, and we will stand against antisemitism and prejudice, in all its forms, wherever it is found.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I rise briefly because I agree with both the tenor of the debate and the tone in which colleagues across the House have quite rightly highlighted the sheer horror of the Holocaust, the importance of remembering its sheer scale and the challenges particularly, as the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) highlighted, in the context of rising antisemitism, and as the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) mentioned, in having fewer survivors with lived experience here to share their stories.
I want to address two points raised by the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). First, he raised a point that I surmise was on security, and I say to him that I simply do not know where the best site would be from a security perspective. It may be that somewhere between Parliament, which is obviously heavily secured, and MI5 would be an appropriate location for a site that will always carry security risks. It may be that other sites are better, and I defer to those with far more expertise than me.
I note that the current Father of the House—like the previous Father of the House— has spoken about his concerns with the design of the memorial, which I think reflects the fact that he is a former Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, but I always have a slight concern. We obviously all agree on the principle, because it is important, and as the Member for Chelmsford said, after 11 years there is a need to make progress. I am not calling for delay—I certainly am not—because this is important, and we need to get on with it and to deliver it. However, it is fair to say that when the House is agreed on an issue, there is a danger that that issue is not sufficiently scrutinised.
As I have said, the current Father of the House, like the previous Father of the House, has raised concerns. He speaks as a former Chair of the PAC; I currently chair the Finance Committee. The Finance Committee is not responsible for restoration and renewal—the House will come on to debate that—but I have already seen very serious concerns emerging around the challenges of the programme. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, have huge experience of the programme. Indeed, the programme has been repeatedly delayed and seen significant cost overruns. The design before us includes a significant proportion of construction underground in a very constrained site. I think the Minister opened the debate extremely well and I agreed with much of what she said, but it seemed to me that she is giving the trustees quite a lot of discretion, so I simply want to say how important it is, on this programme, that there is very real transparency about some of the challenges that I fear will emerge with the design, the construction, the risk of cost overruns, the constraints and the compromises.
Can I bring that alive with one example? This site was constrained, and Parliament, as is its right, chose to vote to remove that constraint. On the R and R programme, I am told that the children’s education centre has to move because of an identical constraint. I suspect that the interaction of this programme with the R and R programme will come before the House in due course and raise some challenges. Indeed, the House has not even decided about such matters as what will happen to the education centre under the R and R programme.
The importance of remembering the unbelievable horror of the Holocaust cannot be overstated—
Steve Barclay
If the hon. Member will let me, I would like to finish.
When all in the House agree on something, the question is whether the designs have been sufficiently scrutinised. Therefore, my plea to the Minister is to make a commitment to transparency and to communicating the pressures, which I foresee will emerge, in a very timely way.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
With the leave of the House, I rise to thank hon. Members of all parties for their contribution to this important debate. I appreciate that although the Government’s commitment to establish a new national Holocaust memorial and learning centre has cross-party support, there are strongly held views in many quarters about how that vision is made a reality, and we are committed to listening and to engaging as we move forward.
I would like to start by thanking the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly) for the work that his party did to initiate this important scheme and the Bill, and for maintaining cross-party consensus and working constructively with us to find solutions to move forward. He was right to focus our minds on the purpose of the Bill and the key mission of the learning centre.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) was right to remind us of the need for pace and urgency. This process was initiated in 2015; it has taken far too long to get to this point. As he pointed out, as we delay and take time, the hope and ambition that the last survivors could see the construction of this memorial and learning centre moves further out of sight. We are determined to move at pace with construction, should we get the support of the House, to conclude it while the last remaining survivors are still here.
The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) gave a powerful contribution highlighting the reason for the Bill and the need constantly to remember, so that “never again” is not a hollow slogan or empty words. She was right that we are having this debate in the context of a rising tide of hate and division across our country. The collective task before us is to make sure that we move, deliver, remember and learn for this generation and future generations.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
It is timely to remind us all that if we held a minute’s silence for every person killed in the Holocaust, we would be silent for 11 and a half years. It is right and proper that we have a national memorial. Can the Minister reassure the House? Antisemitism is not confined to history; it is happening daily. Whether it be attacks at football matches or in our streets, around us our Jewish friends face hostility simply for being Jews. As this centre remembers the Holocaust, will it also deal with the antisemitism prevalent in our society today? Will those Jewish friends feel confident that they will not be attacked when they go to the centre?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The hon. Member is absolutely right. We are seeing increased antisemitism. We see case after case in all our communities. I spend a lot of time talking to the Jewish community and our faith leaders. I hear the fear, anxiety and worry. The Government are absolutely committed to responding to that and to making sure that we take action so that our Jewish friends in this country feel safe and feel that they can live their lives without fear of attack or prejudice. That is a collective ambition across the House, and one that we have to work day in and day out to deliver. Remembering, and remembering where this can take us, is part of that journey, which is why the Bill and the memorial centre are absolutely key.
I thank the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) for paying tribute to his constituent Dorit Oliver-Wolff, her legacy and her impact. There are so many survivors who have made such a huge contribution and have continued to give and continued to remind us. I hope that, collectively, we deliver this Bill for them and deliver the construction of this site.
The Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), is right to point out that there have been issues about the location. There have been large debates about this. I gently point out that there has been extensive consultation throughout the planning process; 4,500 responses were submitted to the planning application and a planning inquiry was held publicly. We have consulted, and we have heard and listened. The issue of the location is increasingly settled, but we will continue to work with the community and the council to get the design right. Critically, we will protect the garden, as the site will take up only 7.5% of the area of Victoria Tower Gardens. We will do a huge amount of work to make sure that the memorial centre is aligned and consistent with that public park. Critically, we are doing work to enhance the park, including the playground.
Let me end by reflecting on the contribution from the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) and his plea for transparency, which we hear. There is consensus and we want to maintain that consensus. That requires us to continue listening and engaging, and to keep the House updated. Any construction has difficulties going through planning but also delivery. Our commitment is that, because all Members have worked together to get to this point, we will continue to update the House.
I close by underlining the Government’s determination to ensure that the learning centre remains firmly focused on education about the Holocaust and antisemitism. We will ensure that that determination is embedded in the future governance arrangements for the memorial and learning centre, so that there can be no dilution of or digression from that intent. We do that, as Members across the House have highlighted eloquently and passionately, to ensure that we remember that dark moment and learn the lessons of history so that it can never happen again. I hope we can now move ahead as quickly as possible to establish the Holocaust memorial and learning centre with the consent and the support of Members across the House.
Lords amendment 1 disagreed to.
Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing with their amendment 1;
That Miatta Fahnbulleh, Deirdre Costigan, Laura Kyrke-Smith, Mark Sewards, Peter Prinsley, Sir James Cleverly and Zöe Franklin be members of the Committee;
That Miatta Fahnbulleh be the Chair of the Committee;
That three be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 9 September 2025 (Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill: Programme):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on the Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement.
(2) The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 4.
Subsequent stages
(3) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(4) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)
Question agreed to.
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:11 - The House divided: - Ayes: 344 / Noes: 182 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:26 - The House divided: - Ayes: 347 / Noes: 185 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:38 - The House divided: - Ayes: 347 / Noes: 184 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Before we move to consideration of the Lords amendments, I can confirm that Lords amendments 2, 3 and 6 engage Commons financial privilege. Having given careful consideration to Lords amendments 2 and 3, Mr Speaker is satisfied that they would impose a charge on the public revenue that has not been authorised by this House. In accordance with paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 78, the amendments will therefore be deemed to be disagreed to and are not subject to debate.
Lords amendments 2 and 3 deemed to be disagreed to (Standing Order No. 78(3)).
Clause 1
Commencement of Treaty and main provisions of this Act
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Lords amendment 5, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 6, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 4.
Stephen Doughty
National security must always be the first priority of any Government, and that is all the more important during these uncertain times. This Government have always and will always act to ensure the safety and security of the British people. That is precisely why we have agreed the Diego Garcia military base deal and why we need to pass the Bill, so the treaty can come into effect. The deal secures the vital military asset for future generations. It allows the base to continue to operate as it has done for decades to come, protecting UK national security and regional stability, and that of our allies.
As part of this agreement, the Government have negotiated robust and extensive provisions to protect the base that will categorically prevent our adversaries from compromising the base or interfering with the vital protection the base gives to both the United Kingdom and the United States.
Several hon. Members rose—
Stephen Doughty
I will make progress and then I will take some interventions—certainly from the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell).
The UK will never compromise on our national security, and as we have repeatedly made clear, the agreement we struck is vital for protecting it; it guarantees the long-term future of a base that is vital for the United Kingdom and the United States and our allies, and which had been under threat. Crucially, the deal secures the operations of the joint US-UK base on Diego Garcia for generations. It has been publicly welcomed by key allies, including our Five Eyes partners, and key international partners including India, Japan and South Korea.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Throughout the passage of this Bill, the Minister has prayed in aid the support of the United States of America and the wider Five Eyes community. This morning the President of the United States dropped what could be described as a depth charge on that and made very clear what he thinks. What are the House and the Government to read of what the Minister says was the American position on the Bill and what it appears that its commander-in-chief is saying today?
Stephen Doughty
We engage with the United States—our closest defence and security partner—on a range of issues, including this one, every single day, and we continue to do so. The hon. Member asks an important question. The United States and President Trump welcomed this deal in the spring, and when we discussed in detail why the agreement was needed, the strong protections that it includes and the vital security it provides for Diego Garcia, the Administration endorsed the agreement as a “monumental achievement” following a thorough inter-agency process in the United States. The hon. Member will know how serious that is.
In May the United States Secretary of State said,
“The Trump Administration determined that this agreement secures the long-term, stable, and effective operation of the joint US-UK military facility at Diego Garcia”.
We will of course have discussions with the Administration in the coming days to remind them of the strength of this deal and how it secures the base for the United Kingdom and the United States. We will continue those discussions on many levels.
Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
Following the excellent point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), does the Minister realise that the President of the United States, following his perspicacious comments last night, has had a chance to examine the deal in full? Does he therefore understand why the last Conservative Government, of which I was a part—indeed, doing the job the Minister is doing now—would never ever have got this deal?
Stephen Doughty
As I have said in this House many times, the last Government—the right hon. Gentleman knows this, as he was part of that Government—started this deal because they recognised that there was a serious challenge to the operation of the base, which is critical for our national security. [Interruption.] No, we have heard that claim made multiple times, but it is clear from the record of the Government of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), that they continued those negotiations right into the run-up to the general election in 2024. They engaged in 11 rounds of negotiations because they recognised, as did we, the very serious risks to the operation of that base.
Several hon. Members rose—
Stephen Doughty
I will happily give way to the former Cabinet Office Minister.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
The Minister makes an important point. The key thing about the negotiations is that they were predicated on the United States’ concern about the continuing operation of the base in the context of concerns around international law. The position set out by the President of the United States last night is that he is not concerned about this—in fact, he is concerned about the deal the other way around. Moreover, I do not think that any of us would think that there is a concern around international law vis-à-vis the President of the United States. We are talking about two material changes. Surely in the face of these material changes, now is the time to pause and reconsider the implementation of the treaty. The circumstances have changed.
Stephen Doughty
The circumstances have not changed. Again, we see this collective amnesia on behalf of former Cabinet Ministers on the other side, who, I remind the right hon. Member, engaged in 11 rounds of negotiations. They did that because they knew of the very serious security and operational reasons affecting the base. I refer him to the Secretary of War, who said at the time:
“Diego Garcia is a vital military base for the US. The UK’s very important deal with Mauritius secures the operational capabilities of the base and key US national security interests in the region. We are confident that the base is protected for many years ahead.”
Several hon. Members rose—
Stephen Doughty
I have taken a number of interventions, so I will move on.
The deal had to be done because the base was under threat. Courts had already begun making decisions that weakened our position, and without the deal, as I have said many times, we faced the prospect of further wide-ranging litigation that could have rendered the base inoperable. Let me be clear, as I have been on many occasions: this is not just about the legal position; it is about the operation of the base.
Without a treaty and a secure footing, legally binding provisional measures could have been imposed within weeks that would have undermined base operations. Our ability to protect the electromagnetic spectrum from interference, to ensure access to the base by air and sea and to patrol the area around the base would have been eroded, and everything from overflight clearances to securing contractors could have been affected. That would have driven costs through the roof, deterred future investment and degraded the facility, and our adversaries would have jumped at the chance to disrupt the base—for example, by establishing outposts on the outer islands—with a guise of legality on their side. It is for all those reasons that the previous Government, many of whose former Cabinet Ministers are sitting on the Opposition Benches, undertook 11 rounds of detailed negotiations. It is also why they made critical concessions on the principles of sovereignty and direct payment.
Several hon. Members rose—
Stephen Doughty
I have taken a number of interventions, so I would like to make some progress. I will happily take further interventions later.
Graham Stringer
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I have heard him in this Chamber a number of times say that the United States supported this deal. The President of the United States clearly does not support it any more. I would have thought that that was the case for a pause, but I would also have thought that something else that has changed was the case for a pause: the resolution of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has also asked for the Bill not to go forward. Does the Minister not think that those two things together mean that we should pause?
Stephen Doughty
We will not pause in defending our national security interests and those of our allies. We will do the right things to keep our national security and the operations of the base working as they have done for many decades. Despite the claims from the Opposition Benches, I reiterate that it is a matter of public record that, on February 2024, the former Prime Minister spoke with his Mauritian counterpart to confirm his commitment to negotiations, which continued until the general election. It was simply not credible to try to hang on, hope for the best and endanger an asset that is vital to our national security. The reality is that the previous Government failed to secure a deal. They failed to secure protections for the outer islands, for example. When it came to a matter of critical security, they did not deliver, so I am proud that we have secured a deal that is able to do those very things.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I thank the Minister for giving way; every time he comes to the House, he is most courteous. He mentioned the example of the former Prime Minister, but the former Prime Minister stated very clearly that the negotiations had to result in a “mutually beneficial” agreement. That did not happen, and therefore the Government ended those negotiations. Today, this Government are expecting us to vote on Third Reading for a deal that our greatest ally—an ally that the Minister has advocated for through this whole process—has turned its back on. How can he expect the House to do that when the circumstances have fundamentally changed?
Stephen Doughty
I have explained the comments of the US Secretary of State, the Secretary of War and the US Government, as well as the President’s previous comments. This is about our Five Eyes partners as well; it is about Canada, Australia, New Zealand and our other key partners. They all understand the critical national security capabilities that the base provides. It is also about Japan and the Republic of Korea. The deal has also been welcomed by a number of our other overseas territories. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would discount their views, but we are not willing to do that. We are willing to deliver national security and the capabilities that our Five Eyes partners need.
Let me turn to the issue referenced in the Lords amendments. I want to answer the many genuine questions that have been asked by a number of hon. and right hon. Members on behalf of the Chagossians. We have secured a deal that protects the interests of the Chagossians. I know that there are a number of Members of this House who rightly care deeply about this issue and have done so for many years, but I am afraid to say that there are others who have picked up the mantle for pure political game playing and who fail to recognise that there is a genuine range of opinions within Chagossian communities; there are some who oppose this deal and there are many who support it, and that simply has not been recognised by many. We deeply regret—I reiterate this—the way in which Chagossians have been treated by successive Governments in the past. That is why we are committed to a future relationship that is built on trust.
The treaty provides the only viable path to resettlement on the outer islands of the archipelago. We know that that is a matter of critical importance to many Chagossians. Following the Government’s efforts, Mauritius has confirmed that all Chagossians who were born on the archipelago and their children will be eligible for Mauritian citizenship and for participation in a future resettlement programme, regardless of where they live. The Bill also preserves current British and British overseas territory citizenship, and the pathway to British citizenship for Chagossians, meaning that they will be able to hold both British nationality and Mauritian citizenship. In fact, as of April 2025, 94% of Chagossians with British nationality also have Mauritian citizenship.
Stephen Doughty
I give way on this issue to the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes).
Sir John Hayes
On that point, the Minister will be aware that the matter was debated at length in the Lords. Indeed, one of the amendments that we are considering deals precisely with the entitlements of the Chagossians. They were not involved in the negotiations at any stage, and they have made that clear. Why on earth would the Minister reject the Lords amendment, which simply says that they should have a defining say in their own future?
Stephen Doughty
With respect—Madam Deputy Speaker, you can correct me if I am wrong—it is a decision in relation to the engagement of financial privilege and the Standing Orders that means that those amendments are not for debate and will be disagreed with. That has been made clear by the Chair.
Working with Mauritius, we have also agreed the parameters for the operation of a Chagossian trust fund. On 12 December, the Mauritian Government approved legislation to establish the trust fund. That confirms, again, in response to many reasonable opinions expressed both in the other place and by those on the Opposition Benches—
Sir John Hayes
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Chair made it clear at the outset that the amendments that deal with matters of finance were inappropriate to be considered here, for obvious reasons. I understood, however, that the amendments that we were debating, including those that reference the Chagossians, do not concern finance in particular. Can you clarify the matter?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The Deputy Speaker who was in the Chair before me read out the statement, and I will do so again for clarity. Having given careful consideration to Lords amendments 2 and 3, Mr Speaker is satisfied that they would impose a charge on the public revenue that has not yet been authorised by this House. In accordance with paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 78, the amendments will therefore be deemed to be disagreed to and are not subject to debate.
We cannot keep having the same discussion again and again. This is a very substantial debate and many people hope to speak, so let us proceed as fast as we can.
Stephen Doughty
Thank you for clarifying that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
In parallel with the other measures, we have established a contact group to give Chagossians a greater say in UK Government support to their communities and we are in the process of enhancing that group, as Baroness Chapman committed to do in the other place. Thanks to the work we have done and the reasonable concerns raised across the House, the Chagossian trust fund will be operated for Chagossians by Chagossians. There will be a Chagossian majority on the board, which will include a UK-based representative and a Chagossian chair. Those reasonable concerns have been raised in the course of the debates and we are trying to address them.
Stephen Doughty
I need to make progress, as Madam Deputy Speaker has asked me to be conscious of time. I will come back for further interventions.
Before moving on to discuss the specific amendments, I express my thanks to the noble Lords for their tireless efforts and to the many noble peers who scrutinised and supported the Bill. Lords amendment 4 was tabled by the Government, and I thank Lord Lansley for his helpful conversation and collaboration on the topic. The amendment will change the parliamentary procedure applicable to the delegated power in clause 6. With that amendment, all instruments made using that power will be subject to the negative procedure. Previously, no parliamentary procedure applied unless the power was used to amend, repeal or revoke Acts of Parliament or statutory instruments made under them. The amendment makes it clear that the Government are prepared to work with those who engage in genuine, constructive dialogue, rather than those who rely on political point scoring, to achieve meaningful compromise.
Turning to the other amendments made in the other place, I make it clear that the Government are thankful for all the scrutiny and are willing to engage with challenge. However, the other amendments are either already provided for or not necessary, or they simply make political points and play games with our national security, so we cannot accept them.
Lords amendment 1 would amend clause 1 to prevent the Bill and the treaty from entering into force until the Government had sought to renegotiate the termination clauses to include the base becoming unusable due to environmental degradation. That is unnecessary and I shall set out why. First, limiting the circumstances in which the treaty can be terminated protects the UK’s interests and those of the United States, which has invested heavily in the base. In line with the United States’ wishes, the previous Conservative Government agreed to limit termination to two grounds, both of which are in UK control, and this Government have secured that—
Graham Stuart
The Minister mentions the United States’ wishes, and he appears to be presenting the case that the United States remains in the position that it was in previously, despite what President Trump said last night. The Deputy Prime Minister said in February:
“If President Trump doesn’t like the deal, the deal will not go forward”.
Last night, President Trump said that he did not like the deal. Is it still going forward, or is the Minister suggesting that President Trump did not mean what he said last night?
Stephen Doughty
I have already answered that point. As I said, discussions will continue with the US Administration in the coming days, as they have done throughout the process. We will remind them of the strength of this deal, allay concerns and, of course, emphasise how it secures the base for both the United Kingdom and the United States. We work together on these matters. As the Speaker of the House of Representatives set out this morning, it is important that we work together on all matters of national security.
Stephen Doughty
Let me make some progress on the issue of termination.
As I have said, limiting the circumstances in which the treaty can be terminated protects the UK’s interests and those of the US. The Government have secured that procedure.
Secondly, I reassure the House that, given the importance of the base, we are taking necessary steps to protect it from environmental damage. Working with the United States, again in partnership, we already have extensive measures in place, such as the coastal erosion programme, and scientific studies show that natural land loss over the past 50 years has been less than 1%. That said, we recognise the concerns of Lord Craig and Lord Houghton, and I would like to reassure them and Members of this House that the international law of treaties allows for the termination of a treaty when it becomes impossible for a treaty to be performed as a result of
“the permanent disappearance or destruction of an object indispensable for the execution of the treaty”.
Baroness Chapman set out the legal position clearly in the other place.
For further reassurance, since that debate we have consulted Mauritius to verify that it shares our assessment. I am happy to update the House that this has been confirmed in writing to the Government. Mauritius is clear on the point, both as a matter of international law and in its domestic law. We welcome that confirmation by Mauritius and trust that it will assure Members in this House and in the other place who share this concern that such an amendment is unnecessary.
Stephen Doughty
I give way to the former Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee.
Sir Julian Lewis
The Minister seems to be putting an awful lot of faith in the good intent and reliability of the Mauritian Government. They are a close ally of China, which, he might remember, gave us cast-iron guarantees about the future of the Hongkongers once the lease on Hong Kong was given up. I gently remind him that the 2024 Labour manifesto, entitled “Change”, stated:
“Defending our security also means protecting the British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies, including the Falklands and Gibraltar. Labour will always defend their sovereignty and right to self-determination.”
Can he look the Chagossians in the Gallery in the eye and tell them that that is what the Government are now doing?
Stephen Doughty
I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman and his role, and we have had many good conversations, but it is extremely unhelpful to, and unwanted by, residents in Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands that this false comparison keeps being made—
Stephen Doughty
Absolutely, and we stand by that commitment to defend the Falklands and Gibraltar. That is exactly what we have been doing and will continue to do. I gently say that I fully recognise and respect the fact that there are many Chagossian groups who disagree with this deal as well as many who agree with it. Unfortunately, some of the comments in this place have represented only one side of that argument. It is our duty as a Government to listen to all those groups and to engage appropriately with them.
Lords Amendments 5 and 6 both relate to the costs of the treaty—
Stephen Doughty
I am not going to take any more interventions at the moment. I need to make some progress.
Lords amendment 5 would require the Secretary of State to publish the total real-terms costs of payments made under the treaty, including the methodology used by the Government Actuary’s Department and the Treasury. I confess that it brings me some satisfaction to learn that the Opposition have eventually accepted the importance of quoting financial figures for a 99-year treaty in real terms. They have always known that it is misleading to ignore the impact of inflation—a pound today is not worth the same as a pound in 99 years’ time—and now at long last they seem to have seen the light. Let us see whether, in today’s debate, we can do away with the deliberately and misleadingly inflated figures that have been bandied about again by the shadow Foreign Secretary during questions today, and start discussing the financial elements of the treaty with accuracy and transparency.
Several hon. Members rose—
Stephen Doughty
I will carry on, and then I will take the intervention from the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), who has raised these issues before.
For all the good intentions, I am afraid that Lords amendment 5 is unnecessary. We have been clear about the costs of the deal from the moment of signature. We published full details of the financial arrangements the very same day the treaty was signed, including in the financial exchange of letters and the explanatory memorandum laid before Parliament. If Opposition Members are having difficulty finding where that is, it is on pages 9 and 10 of the explanatory memorandum. The documents set out the payment schedule and the confirmed amounts at that time.
The methodology is clear: the average annual payment has been calculated using forecast inflation figures from the Office for Budget Responsibility. We used the forecast GDP deflator, which is published regularly. That generated the real value of the payments, which is the valueusb adjusted for inflation to create a fair comparison with other costs. Members will recall that this equates to less than a quarter of 1% of the Defence budget and compares favourably to the cost of comparable overseas facilities. I have mentioned the facility that France pays for in Djibouti. This is an immensely more valuable facility. It is priceless for our defence capabilities and those of our allies.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
Can the Minister confirm that the deal provides certainty and full operational use of the base for 99 years?
Stephen Doughty
Absolutely, I can confirm that the deal secures the base for us and our allies. It secures the crucial capabilities that benefit ourselves, the United States and, indeed, all our allies.
I am happy to further canter through the calculations. The net present value was established by discounting the real value of the sums due to be paid over the duration of the treaty using the social time preference rate, as set out in the Green Book. That adjusts for social time preference, which is a reflection of the value society attaches to present, as opposed to future, consumption. That has been used in the UK by Governments of all flavours since 2003.
Members will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced a review of the social time preference rate shortly before Christmas. That follows a review of the Green Book last year. I do not know how that review will conclude, but I know that the Government used the correct methodology when the figures were published, and were clear and transparent in doing so, and we will continue to do so whichever way the review comes out.
Esther McVey
This evening, the Minister is trying to convince us to vote for this Chagos deal. The President of the United States says that the Government are handing over the island “FOR NO REASON WHATSOEVER”, so can he give us some reasons?
Stephen Doughty
With the greatest of respect to the right hon. Lady, I do not think she has been present in many of the other debates on this issue—she popped up here today to make these points. I have been clear and answered the question already, so I will not do so again.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I thank the Minister for giving way and for his detailed explanation of how the calculations have been made. The Government Actuary’s Department clearly stated that this deal would cost £34.7 billion. That figure was then confirmed by his colleague, the Minister for the Middle East, who said that all the figures had been ratified by the Government Actuary’s Department, but his colleague sitting next to him, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, told me that that figure was inaccurate. Will the Minister therefore clarify how much this deal costs?
Stephen Doughty
We set out the costs clearly at the time, as I have done for the hon. Gentleman in the Chamber a number of times. What I will confirm is that they have been verified by the Government Actuary’s Department. The House of Commons Library has been through them and reached the same conclusion. The Office for Statistics Regulation has welcomed the Government’s approach and said that it is in line with intelligent transparency, and the Office for Budget Responsibility also confirmed separately to it that the discount rates were correct. I have given the hon. Gentleman four good reasons and the costs. However much Opposition Members bandy about the costs, it is simply unhelpful.
I will move on to the other amendments. Lords amendment 6 would introduce an ongoing estimates and supply scrutiny process for expenditure under the treaty, including parliamentary approval for future payments and supplementary estimates. The agreement has undergone intense scrutiny, and the treaty provides robust mechanisms for dispute resolution under article 14. It is normal practice for payments under treaties to be made under the prerogative power and charged on the Consolidated Fund under the authority of the Supply Acts. Furthermore, the amendment would infringe on the financial privilege of the Commons and affect the Commons’ arrangements for authorising expenditure. These are long-standing practices that members of the former Government will know. The same applied under them, and it applies under this Government, too.
Finally, subsection (4) would infringe on the prerogative power to make and unmake treaties. It is not wise to impose any immovable requirements about a hypothetical set of circumstances that might arise in the future. This provision risks requiring the Government to breach the UK’s obligations under a treaty. It is clearly preferable for all options to be open to a future Government, so that they can deal with whatever the future may bring and act in the UK’s best interests, taking into account all the circumstances.
I am conscious of your exhortations about time, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I know that a number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak. The previous Government recognised that there was a problem. They engaged in 11 rounds of negotiations, but failed to reach a deal that was in our interests and those of the United States. We secured this deal. It protects the base, and the interests of the United States and our Five Eyes partners.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Before I call the shadow Foreign Secretary, for the benefit of the House, and to provide a fuller response to the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), it is Lords amendments 2 and 3, which relate to the referendum, that will be disagreed to under Standing Order No. 78(3). The expenditure necessary for a referendum has not been authorised by this House. Lords amendments 5 and 6 are within the scope of the debate. Although amendment 6 engages the financial privilege of this House, it does not in itself involve any expenditure. I hope that helps colleagues.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I only want to clarify that point slightly. Those amendments are mentioned on the Order Paper, but cannot be voted on because of financial privilege, yet they are on the Order Paper, so surely they can be debated and discussed, without us having a vote at the end. Otherwise, they should not have been put on the Order Paper.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The advice I am getting from the Clerk is that that is incorrect because the amendments were disagreed to in the Lords, so we must continue with the debate in hand, as on the Order Paper.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Labour’s Chagos surrender Bill is back, and this House has its last chance to act in the national interest, defend the rights of the Chagossian community and protect the money of hard-pressed British taxpayers, who are being expected to foot a colossal bill of £35 billion, which is being given to a foreign Government to—guess what?—cut their taxes, while our taxes rise.
I put on record the thanks of Conservative Members to the other place for their scrutiny, and their diligence in once again holding this Government to account. When Labour plotted to deny this House a debate and a vote on the surrender treaty during the 21-day process under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, it was Conservatives in the House of Lords who forced a debate and a vote. When Labour limited the time for this House to give the Bill the line-by-line scrutiny it needed, it was the House of Lords that stepped in and made time available. When this Labour Government ignored and neglected the views of the Chagossian community, it was the House of Lords and the International Relations and Defence Committee that came to the rescue and organised a survey, giving important insights into Chagossians’ concerns about the Government of Mauritius and the future of their ancestral home. When Labour refused to accept any amendments to modify and improve this £35 billion surrender Bill, it was the House of Lords that made important changes, which we are debating today.
Let me be clear: this is a Bill that the Conservatives have fought against at every single stage. We will not accept this deal to surrender British sovereignty; it is a deal that we will continue to oppose and challenge Ministers on. Every vote today is a vote to kill this Bill. We will keep on voting against this Bill and opposing it until the Government—and, one would hope, the Prime Minister—see sense, withdraw it and tear up the treaty. We are not the only ones vociferously opposing this, because we now know that the President of the United States is against it; he says that it is being done “for no reason whatsoever”, and that China and Russia will
“have noticed this act of total weakness.”
Esther McVey
I asked the Minister what the reasons were for the Government signing away the Chagos islands. He could not give any reasons. The President of the United States says that the Government are giving the islands away “for no reason whatsoever”, so can my right hon. Friend give us any reason to sign off this deal today?
Priti Patel
Let me remind my right hon. Friend exactly what the President of the United States said. He has said that this is being done “for no reason whatsoever”, and that
“There is no doubt that China and Russia have noticed this act of total weakness.”
The previous Foreign Secretary, now the Deputy Prime Minister, is on the record as saying:
“If President Trump doesn’t like the deal, the deal will not go forward… they’ve got to be happy with the deal or there is no deal”,
so why has Labour continued to press this Bill?
In the light of the President’s comments, can the Minister tell us what will happen to the status of the 1966 exchange of notes between the UK and the United States, which states clearly that the British Indian Ocean Territory
“shall remain under United Kingdom sovereignty”?
What is the impact on that agreement? Is it being changed?
Simon Hoare
When I and other colleagues intervened on the Minister, we seemed to get a rather la-la land answer about the Government’s response to what the President of the United States has said. In terms, the Minister said, “I’ll go and have a word with him and put him straight.” Well, good luck with that! The Government, having prayed in aid for so long the unalloyed support of the United States, have now lost it. Is my right hon. Friend as confused as I am to see that they are pretending that the incident never happened? It is like the “Bobby in the shower” moment in “Dallas”.
Priti Patel
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. The Opposition are completely against this deal, and the President of the United States has said that it is going ahead “for no reason whatsoever”. It seems to me that the Government are still on hold to the President of the United States.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I am too young to have seen that scene in “Dallas”, so that went slightly over my head. Does the right hon. Member agree that we cannot read too much into a social media post? After all, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) has said about the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick):
“Jenrick is a fraud. I’ve always thought so”,
and
“Don’t believe a word that he says”.
Is it not true that we cannot always stick with the same mindset on social media?
Priti Patel
Let me say, for the benefit of everyone in this House, that the United States of America is our strongest ally when it comes to the national security of our country, and rightly so. When the President of the United States raises concerns, we should listen to them, and I would like to think that this Government will act on them.
Let me turn to the details of Lords amendment 5, which would introduce new provisions on transparency about the costs that British taxpayers are being forced to pay. It is vital that this House sees the full costs, as Labour has never acknowledged or accepted the financial costs and burdens of this Bill for the taxpayer. As the House knows, the Conservative party had to force the information out of the Government through freedom of information requests. Labour Ministers have had the bare-faced cheek to come here and give us their valuation of £3.5 billion, whereas the Government Actuary’s Department tells us that it is £35 billion.
In most areas of Government spending, Labour likes to brag about how much is being spent—welfare is a familiar theme that it likes to go on about—but on this issue, it is using a valuation technique to downplay the amount. We have heard the Prime Minister claim that this is
“how the OBR counts the cost”.
However, the Office for Budget Responsibility has said:
“The OBR does not hold any information on the costs or financial impacts of the specific treaty over the future sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago. We can confirm that we have not been contacted by HM Treasury, MoD or the Governments Actuary’s Department”,
so what is the truth? This amendment would help to bring about more openness and transparency on the costs.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the shadow Minister and the Conservative party on this amendment, which is crucial. The key is whether the British Government have fully briefed the US about the risks to the Pelindaba treaty that will result from Diego Garcia becoming sovereign to Mauritius, because if they have, President Trump will be very glad to comment on that. Does she agree that the thing to do now might be to contact President Trump?
Priti Patel
The hon. Gentleman is right that that treaty relates to nuclear weapons coming on to the base at Diego Garcia. That is why our emphasis must be on the strength of the relationship between our two countries when it comes to our national security—this House will not disagree on that—but it is deeply concerning that the President of the United States has explicitly expressed his disapproval of this entire process and this giveaway. To address the hon. Member’s point about the nuclear treaty, we should absolutely be engaging with our closest ally, the United States of America.
Stuart Anderson
It is not as if the President of the United States has not expressed disapproval; he says it is an “act of great stupidity” to do this deal. Does my right hon. Friend think that it is ironic that the Secretary of State for Defence made the first statement to the House on the subject last May, but with less than 12 hours to go until what could have been the final stage of the Bill, the President has absolutely trashed the deal?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is right, and what he says speaks to it being complete nonsense for the Government to have proceeded with the Bill. It is an act of gross self-harm and, to quote the President of the United Sates, an “act of great stupidity” that will have significant consequences for this Government.
Sir Julian Lewis
Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the Minister, who is, shall we say, a flexible friend in the cause of the Government’s policies, has been relying on the fact that, in the past, other Members of Donald Trump’s Government in America have been saying supportive things about the Bill? Would she like to cast a wager with the Minister, as I would, that 24 hours after Donald Trump changed his tune, the Government will change their tune in exactly the same direction?
Priti Patel
If the Government wish to U-turn and scrap the Bill, we would welcome that and support it; there is no question about that.
I turn to amendment 1. It is not just when it comes to money, which is addressed in amendment 5, that the Government’s claims lack any credibility; amendment 1, which deals with the surrender of British sovereignty, leaves us weaker and, as we have heard from my right hon. and hon. Friends, will compromise the long-term operations of the base.
We are required to give notice to the Government of Mauritius about a range of activities taking place on the base. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out, Mauritius is a signatory to the Pelindaba treaty, and if that applies to Diego Garcia, it would prohibit the stationing and storage of nuclear weapons there. This is very serious. While the Prime Minister has claimed that China, Russia and Iran oppose the surrender, we know that they back it; they publicly endorse it, and they will seek to gain from this lack of sovereignty.
These points are all relevant to amendment 1, as it requires the Government to renegotiate article 11 of the treaty, so that payments cease should the use of the base for military purposes became impossible. Obviously, we hope that that scenario does not materialise, as we believe that Diego Garcia is a vital cornerstone of our national security and defence, and should remain so. However, as the treaty stands, if we stop using the base, the UK is still bound to make pretty significant payments over the 99-year lease period; it is a huge cost. Amendment 1 is therefore a vital point of contingency.
We would like the whole agreement binned, but we believe that it is reasonable and practical for the Government to accept this change. When he sums up, will the Minister explain why he is not prepared to consider the amendment, and to renegotiate parts of the treaty?
Graham Stuart
Does my right hon. Friend, like me, feel some sympathy for the Minister? He has rested his whole case on the support of the United States of America. The Deputy Prime Minister said that the Bill would not go ahead if the American President did not support it. We all remember the great mystery about who shot J.R., but there is no mystery about who shot the Minister’s fox—it was the President of the United States last night, and the Minister’s whole case has crumbled.
Priti Patel
My right hon. Friend is spot on. This is the critical moment when the Government should tear up the Bill and scrap this disaster. It should not proceed at all.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Has my right hon. Friend noticed, like me, that all the military veterans in the Government and on the Labour Benches—with one notable exception—seem to have abandoned their post today? I have counted about nine veterans on our Benches. If more veterans had been on the Labour Benches, perhaps they could have told the Front Benchers about the forlorn hope. The forlorn hope were the people who were sent out either to defend the indefensible or to go on suicidal attack missions. They were in search of either promotion or pardons for sins of the past. Does she agree that the Front Benchers have been sent out here to defend the indefensible?
Stephen Doughty
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I correct the record? The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) says that there are not any veterans. I have served this country as an Army reservist, and I am very proud to have done so. We have many other Labour Members who have served and are veterans; they absolutely defend the national security of this country and have done so at many different stages. That comment is not accurate and needs to be corrected.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I thank—[Interruption.] Order. I can make a decision; I do not need any help. That was not exactly a point of order, Minister. It was much more of an intervention, which may have been taken by the Member who was about to rise to her feet. However, the Minister has got his point on the record. We need to move at a pace; otherwise, we will not get speakers in.
Priti Patel
Although Lords amendments 2 and 3 have not been selected, I will briefly comment on them for members of the Chagossian community watching this debate. Owing to the actions of the Conservatives in the House of Lords, the Government were forced to slow down the ratification process for a brief moment while a survey was undertaken in the other place by the International Relations and Defence Committee. That was very important, because something like 3,000 respondents gave a view. They gave a very clear statement as to the direction of travel on the Chagos Islands—their ancestral home—and they want them to remain British.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Priti Patel
I will very briefly give way—this will be the last intervention I take.
David Simmonds
If this is such a good deal, why does my right hon. Friend think that one of my local authorities is having to house hundreds of Chagossians who are fleeing to the UK to escape its consequences?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am aware that his local authority is under a range of pressures from Chagossians who are basically fleeing to the United Kingdom. They have raised many serious concerns about the Government of Mauritius and expressed a clear wish for the Chagossian community to be respected, engaged, stood up for absolutely and to have their voices listened to.
The Chagossian community has been treated appallingly. There is a sense of betrayal of the community, and that is absolutely wrong. Although we cannot vote on Lords amendments 2 and 3 today, it is still in the gift of the Government to see sense and take action to facilitate the Chagossians’ right of self-determination. That is absolutely vital.
This entire surrender Bill is wrong, which is why we on the Conservative Benches will keep on opposing it. I have said this before, and I will say it again: to all the Labour MPs who have been whipped and commanded to enter the Division Lobby to back the surrender Bill and support the Government’s plan to remove the Lords amendments, I say, “You are being used to service the interests of your Prime Minister, rather than your country and your constituents. You are being forced to vote through paying billions to a foreign Government who are allied with our enemies and growing closer to them, while your councils and schools see their budgets squeezed and cut. You are being forced to be complicit in the betrayal of the Chagossian community, but tonight you have the chance to do the right thing and join us in the Division Lobby.”
The Conservative party will continue to stand up for our national interest, British taxpayers and the Chagossian community. That is why we will keep opposing Labour’s £35 billion Chagos surrender Bill.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Back-Bench Members are on a five-minute speaking limit. That will drop further as the debate continues.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
In answer to the intervention by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), there is more than one veteran on the Labour Benches. I wonder what the veterans from the Conservative party who went through 11 rounds of negotiations under the previous Government were saying; they clearly supported this decision at that point, and there were clear reasons for doing so.
This is not an exercise in process; it is about whether this House chooses to protect on firm, enforceable terms an overseas base that is fundamental to British security and our closest alliances. Diego Garcia is a critical asset for the UK and our allies. It supports counter-terrorism, monitors hostile state activity, and enables the rapid deployment of UK and US forces across regions that matter deeply to our national interest. Those opposing the Bill need to be clear about what they are opposing. They are opposing a treaty that secures the base for 99 years with full operational freedom, one that is backed by our allies and was negotiated substantially under the previous Government.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman be supporting Lords amendment 1, given that he has just specified that the base needs to be used for military purposes? If that use becomes impossible, because the islands go under water, for example—which is a real risk—would he want to carry on paying for the deal?
Alex Ballinger
I will not be supporting Lords amendment 1, because it would require renegotiation. We already have a joint commission to deal with issues that arise, and international treaty law would provide routes to termination if we were in that sort of situation, so the amendment is not necessary at all. I will come back to this question later in my speech.
If we refused to comply, others—international organisations and partners—would not ignore any provisional measures that were put in place, undermining the practical operation of the base. That is the same reason that negotiations were started under the last Government, and the treaty contains safeguards that are not decorative, but operationally vital. The UK will control installations and the electromagnetic spectrum; we will control a buffer zone of 24 nautical miles, within which nothing can be built without UK consent; and there will be a strict ban on any foreign military or security presence on the outer islands. Those are precisely the kinds of protections that make the base secure, usable and resilient against interference.
As we are in the Chamber today to consider the Lords amendments, I will go through each in turn. Lords amendment 1 would require renegotiation so that the UK can stop payments if it cannot use the base. On the surface, as others have mentioned, this may sound prudent, but it is a recipe for uncertainty and delay at the very moment that we need clarity. The treaty already establishes a joint commission to deal with issues as they arise, and international treaty law provides routes to termination if an indispensable object for execution permanently disappears. The amendment adds risk, not security, undermining confidence in the treaty framework that we need to keep the base operational.
Lords amendments 2 and 3 were rejected by Mr Speaker. Lords amendment 4 deals with the procedure for orders under clause 6 of the Bill. It is a Government amendment; responding to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, it provides appropriate parliamentary procedure. It strengthens scrutiny and is a sensible refinement to how the Bill operates, and this House should support it.
Lords amendment 5, which deals with the publication of the total costs and methodology, is duplicative. The Government published full details of the financial arrangements on the day that the treaty was signed, including the relevant explanatory material. The methodology is clear: it uses the Office for Budget Responsibility’s inflation forecasts to calculate the average annual figures, and those figures have been verified by the Government Actuary’s Department. The House of Commons Library reached the same conclusion, and the Office for Statistics Regulation has welcomed this approach. The amendment is not about transparency; it is about rerunning an argument we have had time and again in this House, including through I do not know how many urgent questions.
Lords amendment 6 deals with Commons votes to cease payments if Mauritius breaches the treaty. This would require additional parliamentary steps on anticipated expenditure.
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman is talking about the costs of the deal. Can he just set them out for the House? I do not think anyone has done so in today’s debate so far, and he is speaking with such expertise. It would be great to hear from him exactly what this deal is costing.
Alex Ballinger
I will happily outline that to the House. The Minister has already outlined it: it is approximately 0.25% of the defence budget, which is tiny in comparison to the base in Djibouti that the French operate. If we compare it with the operation of an aircraft carrier or something of that size, it is very good value for money.
Lords amendment 6 would cut across long-standing constitutional practice on treaty payments, and would infringe Commons financial privilege and established arrangements for authorising expenditure. More importantly, it would send a damaging signal that the UK is building an exit ramp into primary legislation, weakening our hand and injecting instability into the very agreement designed to secure the base. The treaty already contains robust dispute resolution mechanisms, which is the right way to deal with such issues.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Oh, stop giving him extra time! He is not going to trouble the scorer, is he?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Would the hon. Gentleman like to continue?
Alex Ballinger
Yes, I will continue.
The strategic logic is straightforward. Diego Garcia’s location, infrastructure and operational utility are indispensable.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
On the security of the base, does my hon. Friend recall the visit to Washington DC that I think we both went on last year as members of the Foreign Affairs Committee? We spoke to many American interlocutors, including State Department officials. Over the course of an entire week in the US capital, not a single US interlocutor disagreed with or opposed the deal before us.
Alex Ballinger
My hon. Friend makes a good point. This treaty has been through the interagency process in America and has support across the system. Colleagues may have mentioned the President changing his position, but the US system is much wider than that, and I do not think we should we should base our long-term strategic and security interests on Truth Social posts.
This House should reject Lords amendments 1, 5 and 6, support the Government’s sensible procedural amendment 4, and pass this Bill in a way that protects national security, rather than gambling with it.
Simon Hoare
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—never has a point of order been greeted with such joy from the Chair—you have rightly pointed out, as has Mr Speaker, the Lords amendments that engage Commons financial privilege. We guard that privilege jealously and exercise it with caution. How is the House supposed to exercise that financial privilege in an informed way when, despite several probes to the Minister to come up with a figure for what this deal will cost the public purse, those right hon. and hon Members attending the debate this afternoon have not been given that figure? We have had a lot of theory about how a figure had been arrived at, but no figure. How do we exercise—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Mr Hoare, I am worried that the longer you speak, the longer you will disappoint other colleagues who are hoping to contribute later in the debate, and I would not want to ruin your reputation on that front. This feels like a continuation of the debate. The Minister may or may not wish to respond to that point during his closing speech, but my job is to make sure that as many Members as possible who have sat through this debate get to put their voice on the record.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
Please forgive my slightly croaky tones today, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Dr Pinkerton
I will do my best, having received that cue from you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
This Bill returns to us from the other place with amendments that raise serious questions about the governance, cost and durability of the treaty concerning the future of Diego Garcia and the wider Chagos archipelago. For decades, decisions about the Chagos islands were taken without the consent of the Chagossian people. That was the defining feature of the injustice that they have experienced. My concern, shared by many across this House and others in this place, is that unless the Government properly consider the Lords amendments, Parliament risks giving statutory effect to a framework that lacks the safeguards necessary for accountability, legitimacy and long-term sustainability. That is precisely what the Lords amendments seek to address.
In the things that they have proposed, the Government have acknowledged the historic wrongdoing to the Chagossian people. They have recognised the right of return in principle and proposed a £40 million trust fund to address the harms caused by forced displacement. The framework before us today provides limited assurance, however, that the Chagossian people will have any meaningful agency over the decisions and structures that will shape their future. That matters, because legitimacy is not derived from intergovernmental agreement alone. It rests on whether those affected can participate meaningfully in decisions taken about their homeland.
At the core of the United Nations charter lies the principle of self-determination. Article 1.2 could not be clearer. One of the purposes of the United Nations is:
“To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and the self-determination of peoples”.
We reasonably expected to have the opportunity to vote to reaffirm our commitment to the UN charter and, crucially, our commitment to the right of Chagossians as a distinct, albeit displaced people to self-determine their future. It is therefore deeply regrettable that Members across this House have been denied that opportunity today.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I am very sorry about his throat. I suspect that he, like me, is keen for Greenlanders to have the right of self-determination. Time and again, we have sat through the speeches of Ministers who have harped on about the need to defend their right to a say in what happens to them. Will the hon. Gentleman compare and contrast that with the situation faced by the Chagossians, and explain why the Danes can put into law the right for their people to have a say in their future but we are about to rule it out for people to whom we owe a duty of care?
Dr Pinkerton
If the right hon. Gentleman will bear with me for two minutes, I will get to precisely that point.
It is shameful that a meaningful referendum was not the starting point of this Government’s approach, which left Opposition parties to insist on it through amendments. It is equally shameful that this principle has today been rejected on the grounds of cost. What price do the Government place on self-determination? Among Chagossians, this will be received for what it is: justice layered upon injustice.
This Government, and Governments before them, have routinely defended our overseas territories in the international arena on the basis of the self-determining rights of their citizens. Today, this Government rightly defend Greenland on that same basis, asserting the right of Greenlanders to determine their own future. It is therefore with deep regret that I speak in support of that right and of that principle as expressed through Lords amendments 2 and 3, knowing that we will have no opportunity to vote in favour of those amendments when a Division is called.
In respect of accountability and oversight, Lords amendments 5 and 6 would reinforce Parliament’s role in scrutinising the financial commitments of this agreement. They would ensure that the House is not asked to authorise long-term expenditure without clarity on its scale, duration and assumptions. The amendments would require transparency in the way in which costs are calculated, and ensure that Parliament retains control over future payments. That is not obstruction; it is a proper exercise of parliamentary responsibility, and one owed to future Administrations and to the public. The amendments would also give the Government a mechanism to terminate the deal and all future payments to Mauritius should Mauritius fail to honour its obligations.
In May, the Prime Minister said that the deal would cost up to £3.4 billion over 99 years. However, freedom of information disclosures suggest an initial estimate closer to £34.7 billion, a figure that we have already heard today. That disparity risks further undermining trust in this Government, and confidence in their wider approach to public spending. At a time when families across Britain face cost of living pressures, Parliament is entitled—indeed expected—to demand clarity before committing taxpayers to potentially vast long-term liabilities that will endure well beyond any of our lifetimes.
In respect of security and durability, Lords amendment 1 addresses the strategic importance of Diego Garcia, and would ensure that the United Kingdom is not locked into ongoing payments should the military use of the base become impossible. Given the rapidly shifting nature of the United Kingdom’s relationship with the United States, particularly under its current President, the amendment is essential to ensure that we are not bound into a long-term lease without a similarly long-term tenant. No one in this House or the other place disputes the strategic importance of Diego Garcia to our national security, and to global security more broadly. The amendment reflects that reality, and raises legitimate questions about the long-term viability of this deal.
Let me now return briefly to Lords amendments 5 and 6, which together form a coherent and, in my view, proportionate package. They would reinforce parliamentary oversight, protect the public purse, and hold the Government’s financial commitments to account. The other place has not sought to frustrate the Bill; it has asked whether Parliament is prepared to proceed without sufficient safeguards on cost, governance and legitimacy concerns.
I again place on record my disappointment that Lords amendments 2 and 3 were not selected for today’s debate. They would have provided the Chagossian people with a referendum, allowing them a direct and meaningful say over their future—something that remains conspicuously absent despite repeated assurances about consultation.
The Chagossians are not, and should not be, diplomatic collateral. They are not a note in the marginalia of an agreement between Mauritius and the United Kingdom. They are a people who have been treated badly by our country and are now deserving of agency, dignity and justice. For those reasons, the Liberal Democrats urge the Government to accept Lords amendments 1, 5 and 6. More than that, however, we urge the Government to pause, to reflect on the changing geopolitical circumstances in which we find ourselves, and to think again about whether this is the right approach for us, for the Chagossian people, and for our future security.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
It has been said that some hon. and right hon. Members have come to the debate on Chagos late in the day. That is right. The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) has been banging on about Chagos for decades, and I admire him for doing so. I first became concerned when I saw how much it would cost the United Kingdom to pay for something that we own. As a litmus test, I asked myself whether I could explain to my constituents why we are going to pay an island nation that has no direct connection with Diego Garcia.
Jeremy Corbyn
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments. Fundamentally, I spoke about Diego Garcia and the Chagos islands for many years because of the injustice that was done and the islanders’ right of return. The whole point has been to gain the right of return, which has been won through this Bill for the outer islands and, in a limited form, for Diego Garcia itself.
Graham Stringer
That is at the heart of what has gone wrong, and the right hon. Gentleman has been talking about it for a long time. The Chagossians were treated as itinerant workers in the 1960s, so they did not get the basic rights that people got in other British protectorates. They were discriminated against, and we are discriminating against them again by giving Mauritius the power to determine what goes on. The only solution to the central issue is not a survey, which the House of Lords is doing in good faith; it is to have a referendum, which has been ruled out of order today, for good reasons in procedural terms. We should give the Chagossians a say in a referendum on whether they want to return or not. Otherwise, it is all speculation.
I do not think the Minister explained why we should not take notice of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. That is fundamental, because the Committee goes back to the 1960s decision, and it sees what happened then, and what is being perpetuated now, as racial discrimination, and we and the Mauritians are perpetuating that. My hon. Friend the Minister did not really respond to that point, just as he did not really address what has changed. I have listened to many of his statements in this House, when he has said in good faith that the United States supports us. Regardless of whether it did so in the past—it probably did—it certainly does not support us now. Those are two reasons for pausing and thinking again: becoming compliant with the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and talking to the United States, because it has changed its position.
The amendments before us would not affect the core of the Bill, because that was dealt with in a very short period of time on Second Reading, on Report and in Committee, but they are important in as much as they ask for information. We are going to pay for something that we did not used to have to pay for. It will have consequences for our ability to look after our defence interests in the Indian ocean, and we do not know how much it will cost. Amending the Bill to give us an exact figure for those costs is important. Lords amendment 1 is also important if for some reason Mauritius changes its view or the islands disappear under water. I do not have the opportunity this evening to vote for what I would like to vote for, but I will vote for the amendments that the Lords have put before us.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I rise because in the previous debate we had on this, a question was posed to Ministers, and it has been asked again now: what are the reasons for this Bill? First, Ministers rested on one idea, which was all about how we had somehow received a binding judgment from the International Court of Justice, and this was therefore important because we had to stand by that. I remember it became clearer and clearer during that debate, particularly for some Members, that this simply was not correct. There is no binding judgment; it is an advisory judgment, because we have an opt-out for all matters to do with Commonwealth Governments. That is very clear, and it has been said by many judges and other learned legal people.
Some of my right hon. Friends, one of whom I see on the Front Bench, have raised other reasons in these debates. Beyond the ICJ judgment, we were told there were other issues, and that somehow if we did not do this we would face challenges under the United Nations convention on the law of the sea and by the International Telecommunication Union, which stands steadily. What is most interesting about all this is that, when pressed throughout, bit by bit Ministers’ arguments fell apart. These issues are very detailed, so I will not go into them now, but they will have to be raised in much more detail later.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I do not think I will get any extra time, so I am not sure it is such a good idea, to be honest. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member wants to give me some extra time, I will give way.
Dr Arthur
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, because I know this subject is very important to him. He has carefully explained why he does not think the Government have to act, but he has not explained why his Government were negotiating a deal if they did not have to act, at great cost and with a great consumption of time.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
It does not really matter to me who is in government because I am in opposition. I was opposed to this then, so if the hon. Member does not mind, I am not going to try to defend any of that. I can tell him that I was far more opposed to it than many of his hon. Friends on the Back Benches are now. I hope I have now expunged any dishonour on my part.
On the two critical areas—UNCLOS and the ITU—we discovered that certain articles exempted us from any legal challenge in any way, and therefore they were not binding. I say that because today is a matter of intense sadness. As the Minister knows, I am a massive admirer of him for his steadiness and determination, often on unpopular matters. However, I have to say to him on Lords amendments 2 and 3, and the Liberal Democrats say the same, that this is a matter of sophistry. If we believe in free speech and free debate, and if we believe in voting on what we believe or what we oppose, I genuinely ask why we cannot do so on Lords amendments 2 and 3.
Sitting in the Gallery are people who will be utterly depressed by the idea that this Chamber has shut itself out from debating the rights of the Chagossians and to vote on those rights today. I know it was clever to get that done, and I know the Speaker’s Office was under pressure to do that, but I simply say that this is not right. It is not right that this House cannot decide on those rights, particularly given that the UN committee mentioned by the hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) has made it very clear that the Government should stay this legislation, because of its fears with regard to race relations.
I simply say that this is a sad moment for this House, because this horribly flimsy piece of legislation completely casts away any rationale. Then this morning we heard from the President of the United States, who was previously prayed in aid in all this; it was said that we should somehow motor through this because he was in favour of it, and if the American Government are in favour of it, we should stand with them. A previous Foreign Secretary said that if America did not want it and did not agree with it, we would not do it, but here we are rushing through with it.
Why are we rushing? Why do we not stay this Bill, wait to hear exactly what America thinks about it and make a decision about whether we carry on? Surely, that would make more sense and be more rational. Through all of this, I just do not get what the unpalatable haste is all about—to dismiss the Chagossians, to dismiss the logic and the reasons why we have to do this, and to head towards paying billions and billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money for no reason at all. I think somebody else said that today.
Meanwhile, China is looking at this and laughing, as are Russia, Iran and all the other nasty states. Honestly, this is a bad day. This is badly done. It is a bad day for us and for the concepts of dispute, debate and liberty. We should hang our heads in shame, because the House of Lords is better at debating things than we are, and it has much better rights.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The time limit on speeches is now four minutes.
Tom Hayes
My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) has said much of what I was going to say, thankfully, so I will try to be brief. The shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), made a set of arguments predicated on the case for national security. It is therefore important to take on the question of how secure we are. Look at the economic security that this Government inherited: 15 years of slow, weak growth, the lowest business investment in the G7, and wages that had grown at a consistent 2% a year flatlining. Look at the impacts of the Brexit deal negotiated by the Conservatives: in early 2025, the UK’s GDP was between 6% and 8% lower than it would have been without Brexit, and we lost between £180 billion and £240 billion of output. This is important, because it relates to the credibility of the Opposition when they make their case on the basis of national security.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Mr Hayes, this debate is about the issue in hand, not the credibility of the Opposition. Let us get to the point quickly.
Tom Hayes
Moving forward three pages—those pages were a condensed history of how our country was left completely insecure by the Opposition—to look at Diego Garcia, it is a critical UK asset for national security. We all agree on that in the House. It supports counter-terrorism, monitors hostile states and enables rapid deployment of US and UK forces worldwide. That is, in large part, why the US Administration have backed what this Government have been pushing forward. Recent operations against high-value ISIS targets show its vital role in keeping global trade routes and the British people safe.
With this deal, we have full operational freedom. We have control of installations, communications, logistics and land use with strict safeguards, a UK-controlled electromagnetic spectrum, a 24 nautical mile buffer zone and a ban on foreign military presence on the outer islands. In the interests of giving a briefer speech, I am going to put down the two pages that further explain the way in which the treaty reinforces the UK’s relationship with the Chagos islands and supports our national security.
We have talked about this issue at great length. There have been many urgent questions, statements and debates in the House. The Opposition talk about the importance of national security. This country is facing some of the gravest threats to our national security. We are repelling Russian cyber-attacks and disinformation daily. Our security services are having to fight against Russian spying and sabotage of our infrastructure.
Dr Luke Evans
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am not sure which amendments are being addressed. There are at least five on the amendment paper to be talked about. I just wondered if Russia is relevant to any of those amendments.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Dr Luke Evans, you need to stop using points of order to continue debates. No doubt Mr Hayes is going to get right to the point and then conclude very quickly.
Tom Hayes
I always listen to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans). As I said at the outset, I support all of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen, who went into great detail about the amendments. The point I am bringing us back to is that Conservative Members need to put country before petty party politics. They are acting in a childish way and they are overexcited about this debate. This treaty protects our national interest. It safeguards British interests. The Opposition have a cheek, when they were responsible for at least 85% of the negotiations that led to this debate.
I will close with this. In this House, we speak through the Chair, because doing so tempers debate. When I speak with schoolchildren about the House, they remark upon the fact that we are in an old building, and that shows our continuity over many years of history. In this place, we make decisions in a sombre, sober way. We do not make them in the same way as the President of the United States did last night, in the form of a rash tweet. Let us not take that social media post at face value. Let us do the reasonable thing and debate this matter properly.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
Some “very tiny islands”. That is how this Government’s National Security Adviser described Diego Garcia and the Chagos islands. I am afraid that that contempt is consistent with how they continue to treat those people. The former Foreign Secretary never once met Chagossians. There is no evidence that the current Foreign Secretary has ever met Chagossians. I am afraid that the Minister at the Dispatch Box met Chagossians only on 30 September and 3 October, after the deal was done, and refused to discuss the deal with them—unless he is saying that those who are here today are lying. By contrast—before anyone starts to heckle—I have had many meetings with representatives of the Chagossian community and organised roundtables with them.
We urgently need Lords amendments 1, 5 and 6 on financial oversight of this £34.7 billion bill the British people are about to have to foot. The clawback option is the bare minimum the Government should accept for the eventuality that Mauritius breaks the conditions of this appalling deal, because it is quite likely that we will see mistreatment of the Chagossian people. It is also important that the clawback is there because we will need to review and understand the surge of Chagossians who came to the UK after the deal was announced. The Government tried to dismiss it, and claimed that the increase had nothing to do with the deal. That is wrong and we will continue to see that.
This is a bad deal. The agreement is legally illiterate: there was an ICJ opinion, not a ruling. It is historically illiterate, because the Chagos islands have never belonged to Mauritius. This is a bad deal, ceding territory not to those hailing from those islands, but to a country that has consistently mistreated Chagossians and legislated to criminalise their views. The Bill cements the shameful treatment of the Chagossian people into law.
Anyone who votes against the clawback tonight should be ashamed of themselves, because they should want to put in place the minimum protections for the people of the Chagos islands—those people who have come this evening to hear us debate, because their voices have not been heard in this Chamber and they have been denied by a Government who would not meet them, a Government who have no interest in supporting them, and a Government who tonight will vote against the only protections that might make sure that their voice is heard.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
I align myself with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger).
In South East Cornwall, we may be geographically removed from Diego Garcia, but we are closely connected to the realities of our national defence. Torpoint has the third highest number of veterans of any community, with over 14% of people having served. Residents across the area have written to me about the importance of this issue. His Majesty’s Naval Base Devonport is the largest naval base in western Europe and a key part of our national defence capability, so we are an area that understands the importance of national defence and its complexities. We know that it requires long-term thinking and joint working with multiple allies, each of whom understandably has its own national interests in mind.
Does the Minister agree that this matter is about not just international law, but securing Britain’s ability to defend itself, including control over key capabilities such as berthing submarines, electromagnetic defence and force mobility? Given that 85% of the Chagos negotiations took place under the Conservatives, does the Minister know why the Tories started negotiations when they were in government if they did not think there was a threat to the crucial base?
As well as defence, South East Cornwall has deep ties to our marine environment, with many local livelihoods dependent on the sea. Our local economy relies on a healthy and resilient marine environment, so it is important to recognise the role of that environment. The Chagos marine protected area was established in 2010. Through the Blue Belt programme, the UK has continued to play a leading role in enhancing marine protection across the overseas territories. For Members who may not be aware, this is a brilliant programme that works with local communities to understand biodiversity, manage impacts and build a deeper understanding between people and nature. The marine protected area is home to extraordinary marine life. Research has shown that it contributes to climate resilience at a global scale.
Mauritius has committed to protecting that marine environment, which I welcome. However, as an island state located miles from the base, I have concerns about the practicalities of monitoring and enforcing protections against harmful activity. What provisions in the Bill and the treaty will safeguard the existing marine protected area and ensure that effective enforcement remains in place to prevent harm to the ecosystem and the species that depend on it?
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
This Government’s handover of the Chagos islands is nothing short of a disgrace. British taxpayers are being asked to stump up billions of pounds to pay for the privilege of giving away something we own—a strategically vital territory—to a close ally of the Chinese Communist party. And why? All because of an entirely advisory opinion issued by politicised judges in the International Court of Justice.
People across the country are rightly asking why on earth any British Government would agree to a deal that diminishes our strategic capabilities and costs us billions in the process, particularly when the Government are already putting the squeeze on people’s finances in so many ways. The Government’s arguments for doing so were already thin, and they become even thinner when we consider the amendments before us today.
Katie Lam
The question that we are voting on today is the deal that the Government have agreed to. It is an appalling deal, and it should be opposed.
The Government’s arguments for putting the deal forward become even thinner when we look at the amendments and how the Government have responded to them both here and in the other place. If, as the Government claim, the deal will make us safer, why not support Lords amendment 1, which would ensure that payments are made to the Mauritian Government only if our armed forces retain access to the Diego Garcia base? We have already heard that the Government will not support Lords amendments 2 and 3, but if, as the Government claim, the costs of the deal are proportionate, why not support Lords amendments 5 and 6, which would provide much-needed transparency about why taxpayers are being asked to stump up so much for the privilege of handing away territory? We hear no such support for those amendments, so the Chagos handover cannot really be about our security, the Chagossians or self-determination.
So what is it about? The truth is that this so-called deal is motivated entirely by ideology. We have heard from the Government’s Attorney General that “almost every aspect” of the British empire was “deeply racist”, echoing the language used by the Mauritians at the International Court of Justice. Of course, when Britain has done something seriously wrong, we should be honest about that, but in the case of the Chagos islands, there was no original British sin. Mauritius never had sovereignty over the Chagos islands, and practically no Mauritians have ever lived there. The islands have been under British sovereignty since 1814, before which they were occupied by the French. Before that, they were uninhabited. This is no decolonisation; it is a surrender.
Our history is complex. It contains cruelties, yes, but also enormous contributions to human health, wealth and flourishing around the world. The darkest moments in our history were hardly unique, yet many of the most virtuous moments in that history were truly exceptional. I believe that we should be proud of the contributions that our country has made to the world. However, the Government’s position on the amendments lays bare the truth: they simply do not agree. Instead, they believe that it is their responsibility to go around the world flagellating themselves and righting imagined wrongs on behalf of and at the expense of the British taxpayer. To their minds, this country is indelibly stained by the actions of those who came before us. The Chagos surrender is one such example, but it is not the only one, and I fear it will not be the last. To attempt to right the wrongs, real or imagined, of the distant past by squeezing the taxpayers of today is divisive madness.
If the Government ever want the British people to believe that they are motivated by anything other than deep shame about our history, they would do well to accept the amendments before us today or—far better—to scrap this deal entirely. The British people are owed a Government who stand up for their interests today, not punish them for the imagined sins of our ancestors.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
This is a sad day for the United Kingdom. The Government have not been prepared to stand up for the interests of the United Kingdom. Indeed, they seem to be willing to surrender when any challenge is made to its interests.
Let us look at some of the arguments that the Minister has made against the amendments. First, the Minister said that nothing has changed since the Bill was originally brought to the House, but of course we have seen that the American attitude has changed. The United Nations says that we are not giving the protections to the people we should be giving them to—in fact, we are more interested in the rights of the Danes who live in Greenland than the Chagossian population. The UN has actually said that we should stay this. So there have been changes, and the changes have been substantial.
The second argument we heard is that the base was under threat and we therefore had to make changes. I noticed what the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) said about the marine protected area and the environmental requirements on the Mauritian Government, but there is no legal requirement in this treaty for the Mauritian Government to protect the marine protected area. Indeed, they have made it quite clear that fishing will be allowed in the marine protected area. What is the danger there? It is of course that Chinese ships can come into the area, and we know that in the South China sea, the Chinese have used commercial ships as their eyes and ears, so the base is under threat as a result of this change.
Alex Ballinger
Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the 24-nautical mile exclusion zone that the Government negotiated in the treaty? It will prevent many of the things that he referred to.
Sammy Wilson
It is not just a question of ensuring that the 24-nautical-mile exclusion zone prevents spying and everything else; the area would still be left environmentally damaged, and there would still be a threat to the military base.
Thirdly, the Government have refused even to consider the Lords amendment about cost. At a time when we are looking for every penny, so that we can supply the citizens of this country with the services that they require, the Government are turning their nose up at an amendment that would ensure that if the base cannot be used, we will no longer pay for it. The Minister has talked about the cost. He has told us all the mechanisms by which the cost has been calculated, but he has not actually told us what the cost is. Is it £3 billion? Is it £10 billion? Is it £37 billion? The difference between those figures is significant to our constituents.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The £35 billion figure has been cited the most today. This is taxpayers’ money that should be funding schools, hospitals and other much-needed infrastructure. The deal is not only a shameful surrender of national sovereignty but a waste of taxpayers’ money.
Sammy Wilson
Most people listening to this debate, even if they do not know a great deal about the Chagos islands and the base, will understand that we have handed over the islands when there was no necessity to do so, only to use taxpayers’ money to lease them back. That is one of the scandals of the treaty.
The Minister talked about building a relationship of trust with the Chagos islanders. What way is this to build trust? The Government have refused to give them a say on whether this treaty reflects their interests and deals with their concerns and the despicable way in which they have been treated in the past. The cost is wrong. The way in which we are treating the people who are affected by the treaty is wrong. The Government’s position on the long-term security of the base is wrong. This is a bad deal for the United Kingdom, and we should be ashamed that the Government’s majority is being used to push the deal through when it is so clear that it is full of flaws and problems for our future.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
The Bill goes to the very heart of our national security, the safety of the British people, our global reach and our operational effectiveness in two of the most volatile and unpredictable regions of the world: the Indo-Pacific and the middle east. It also raises serious questions about the cost of this deal to the British taxpayer, which amounts to £34.7 billion.
Even in the short time since the Bill was first brought to the House, the world has become even more unstable, yet the Government remain content to press ahead with the Bill. I struggle to see how it makes us safer, considering the requirement “to expeditiously inform” Mauritius of operational activity, and considering that Mauritius is a signatory to the Pelindaba treaty. The implications of the Bill for the basing of nuclear weapons, which are vital to our security and to our deterrence, and which have been deployed to Diego Garcia in the past, should concern every Member of the House. We need further clarity and assurance from the Government on that point.
That brings me to the £28 billion shortfall in the defence budget that the Chief of the Defence Staff recently presented to the Prime Minister. It does not take a mathematician to see the point that I am making; indeed, the maths is so basic that I suggest that even the Chancellor could work it out.
Aphra Brandreth
I will make progress, because we are nearly out of time. Instead of pursuing the Bill, the Government could withdraw it, and redirect the vast sums involved towards addressing that shortfall and genuinely strengthening our national security.
Several hon. Members rose—
Aphra Brandreth
We are short of time. Ultimately, the Lords amendment is about accountability to Parliament and to the electorate. There is no mandate for the Bill. If the Government choose to force it through using their majority, they must, at the very least, be accountable for the cost.
British Chagossians are the forgotten people of this Bill. They may have been forgotten by the Government, but they have not been forgotten by Conservative Members. We continue to oppose the Bill with them firmly in our minds. The Prime Minister has rightly stated that Greenland’s sovereignty and right to self-determination rest with the people of Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark. The question is simple: why is that same right not afforded to the British Chagossians?
The Bill has profound implications for our national security and public expenditure. The amendments tabled by Opposition peers are there for a reason: not for political gain, but to make a bad Bill slightly less damaging, to introduce safeguards, to offer some reassurance to the British taxpayer, and to ensure that the voices of the British Chagossian people are finally heard.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Time is tight, and interventions should be taken with caution. I call Sir John Hayes.
Sir John Hayes
I am immensely grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. The best laws begin as Bills that metamorphosise during their passage and are improved through scrutiny. However, that depends on Ministers listening and learning. The amendments before us from the House of Lords are measured and reasonable. They are not wrecking amendments, but attempts to save the Government from their worst instincts. They provide greater scrutiny, greater parliamentary oversight and more checks and balances, yet they are rejected by the Government.
I will not speak, in the brief time available, about the cost of the deal, although it is wholly unpalatable that we should give away a treasured possession and then rent it back from a foreign place. I will not speak about the strategic cost of doing just that, although I will draw on Lord West’s remarks. That former Labour security Minister, who sits on the Intelligence and Security Committee with me, said:
“surrendering sovereignty over the Chagos Islands would be an irresponsible act, which would put our strategic interests—and the interests of our closest allies—in danger.”
That is wholly unwise.
I will speak, however, about the interests of the Chagossians, who have been ignored throughout this process, who were uninvolved in the negotiations from the outset, whose voice has not been heard, and whose future has been disregarded. That seems to me to be wholly unethical.
This is unwise, unpalatable, unwelcome, unethical, and fundamentally wrong. The Lords amendments would make some improvement to something that is woeful. I implore the Government to accept the amendments. More than that, I implore them to abandon this sorry mission, which is not in the national interest, and certainly not in the interests of the Chagos islanders.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
If it were possible, one could almost feel sorry for the Minister. This is the Minister who, during previous stages of the Bill, batted away every criticism by telling us, “Oh, but the Americans support this deal.” He gleefully told us that they were our strongest and most important ally, and if they were enthusiastic and supportive of the Bill, what was the problem? Today, the emperor has no clothes.
The President of the United States has talked about the great stupidity of this deal. He describes a country giving away its own sovereignty as
“an act of GREAT STUPIDITY”.
Today the Minister has been forced into some indelicate gymnastics, as he tries to deal with the fact that the peg on which he hung all his defences has snapped out of place.
The Minister’s gymnastics have been equally on display when it comes to dealing with his party’s manifesto. Contrary to what he says, it is very clear that when the manifesto declares that Labour will always
“defend… sovereignty and right to self-determination”,
it is referring not only to Gibraltar and the Falklands, but to all British overseas territories and Crown dependencies. It says
“including the Falklands and Gibraltar”,
but not “exclusively the Falklands and Gibraltar”.
Jim Allister
I do not think that there is time for the hon. Member to remedy his speech at this stage.
The Minister is hoisted on the petard of his own manifesto, of which he is in blatant breach. He can hardly look the people of the Chagos islands in the eye, as he denies them what his manifesto promised them. They are the people who are hurting here. They are at the heart of this. They have not been treated well over decades by this nation, and now we are betraying them by denying them the right to any determination of their future. That is shameful. It is something that this House should be running away from, rather than embracing. I say to the Government: it is not too late to do the right thing. It is time they did, and I trust that they will.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
For the final Back-Bench contribution, I call Andrew Rosindell.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)
This has been fundamental to everything I have ever stood for in this House as a Member of Parliament. This Bill did not have its origins in this Government; these were originally the proposals of the previous Conservative Government. No Government have ever given the right of self-determination to the Chagossian people. Shamefully, we have treated them differently from all the other overseas territories. We sent a taskforce to rescue the Falkland Islands. Margaret Thatcher would never have given one inch of British territory away to a foreign country, let alone have paid billions of pounds to do so. This is a shameful day for our country. We are giving away the King’s islands. Rescuing the Falkland Islands was the right thing to do; betraying the Chagossian people is absolutely the wrong thing to do.
My former party went along with this for years, ignoring everything I ever said to every Foreign Minister and every Foreign Secretary. Over and over again, I raised this issue, and warned that it would lead to this catastrophe. I was ignored, and now we see the betrayal of the Chagossian people, our national security is being threatened, and we are paying billions for it. I say to all colleagues on both sides of this House—including those in my new party, but particularly those in my old party —that this is a humiliation for this country, and a betrayal of the loyal British people sitting in the Gallery today who should have the right of self-determination. I am ashamed of what this Parliament is voting on today. I will speak up for the rights, democracy and self-determination of all the British people in all the overseas territories.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Mr Francois, the speech has finished. We now come to the Minister for the wind-up.
Stephen Doughty
With the leave of the House, I will close the debate. Hon. and right hon. Members have raised important questions and points during the debate. Once again, I must reiterate that for those who engage in genuine and constructive debate, the Government are willing to find compromise where that is reasonable and proper, and that debate is welcome, as it has been in the other place.
The deal sits at the cornerstone of the defence and security of both the United Kingdom and the United States. It plays a crucial role in defending our interests, our countries and our people and ensures that we remain equipped to face an increasingly complex and dangerous world.
I have to challenge one of the points that has been made repeatedly and falsely throughout the debate. We have heard the same nonsense that this deal puts the base at threat from Chinese interference. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. There appear to be many side conversations taking place. If Members wish to leave the Chamber, they can do so. Otherwise, we should focus on what the Minister is saying.
Stephen Doughty
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I was referring to the claims about Chinese interference. I doubt that those on the Opposition Benches have actually seen or read the op-ed by the Chinese ambassador to Mauritius on 14 January criticising the Chagos deal, which again very much underlines the point that I have been repeatedly making.
Just last week, the United States military signed a new contract worth $85 million for base operating support services. Before the treaty was signed, it had been rolling over previous contracts due to the uncertainty, but because of the certainty provided by this deal, it has now entered into a new long-term contract, which delivers strength and certainty for the United States, the United Kingdom and our allies, because national security is the priority for all of us.
While securing our national security, we have taken steps throughout the Bill to ensure that we have the measures in place, including the full control of Diego Garcia; the 24-mile nautical buffer zone where nothing can be built or placed without our consent, meaning that we can protect our interests; a rigorous process to prevent activities on the wider islands—some over 100 nautical miles away—from disrupting base operations; a strict ban on foreign security forces on the outer islands, whether civilian or military, without UK consent; and a binding obligation to ensure that the base is never undermined. These are robust provisions, and they defend the national security of ourselves and our allies, including the United States.
Many important points have been raised about the Chagossian community. I absolutely acknowledge and respect the Chagossians who are here today. I also acknowledge and respect that there are many views within the Chagossian community. I was disappointed by the tone of the remarks from the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), who I have good engagement with. I can tell her that I met Chagossians on 30 September 2024 and 3 October 2024. On 22 May 2025, she claimed that the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), had not met the Chagossians; in fact, he met them with me. On 2 September 2025, I was at the first meeting of the Chagossian contact group. Officials regularly engage with Chagossians. Indeed, I engaged with Chagossians long before I took this position as a Minister and did so in opposition, along with many hon. and right hon. Members, to listen to the range of views.
Several hon. Members rose—
Stephen Doughty
No, I will not give way. I am conscious of time—I need to respond to the points made.
Of course, many groups support the deal, including the Chagos Refugees Group, the Chagos Islanders Movement and the Seychelles Chagossian committee.
The shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), made many criticisms. We have heard and been through them a number of times. I remind her that, of course, it was her party that started the negotiations in the first place. She supported this when she was in government. The Conservatives have demonstrated absolute naked opportunism, ignoring the national security issues and jumping on the political bandwagon. They talk about defence and national security, but in 14 disastrous years in office their party hollowed out our armed forces. Our Government are investing at levels not seen since the cold war, and 85% of the negotiation rounds took place—
Graham Stuart
I fear the Minister may have inadvertently misled the House. The only public statement by the Chinese Government on this subject was on 29 May last year when they welcomed the Chagos deal.
Madam Deputy Speaker
That is not a point of order. Can we prevent the debate from continuing in points of order? If colleagues wish to intervene, they can try to do so, and it is up to the Minister whether he wishes to respond to those interventions. We can keep going until 7.18 pm when the time will cut off.
Stephen Doughty
I was referring to an article published on 14 January by the Chinese ambassador to Mauritius.
The former Government had access to the same legal advice, the same security briefings and the same threat assessments as we do now, including on threats to the operations of this crucial base, and senior figures raised no objections in Parliament, filed no critical questions and voiced no concerns on social media. It is only after leaving government that they have done so. That is not principled opposition; it is opportunistic.
Many questions were raised about the finances. I must be clear that the higher figure of £34.7 billion that was released by the Government Actuary’s Department was a nominal amount and was not adjusted for inflation or the social time preference rate, so it is deeply misleading to cite that figure, given the changing value of money over time. A pound today is not worth the same as a pound tomorrow. Quite frankly, I am baffled at hearing these complaints about the finances, given the billions that the Conservatives wasted on defective personal protective equipment, the festival of Brexit and who knows what else.
There were some very sensible and I think legitimate questions raised about the costs. The Government have always sought to be transparent on these matters. We set out the forecasts at the time of publication, and the documents that we published at the time of the treaty set out that the net present value of the treaty was £3.4 billion, calculated using the Green Book methodology —I have set that out on many occasions before. Of course, I would expect forecasts to change over time, given the changes in the OBR’s forecast inflation rate and other matters. We were transparent then, and of course we will continue that transparency in the usual ways before the House. Indeed, the TaxPayers’ Alliance, no less, has confirmed that the use of a discount rate to give NPV is a standard concept in finance, and that it is reasonable for the Government to use an inflation assumption and a discounting rate to give an NPV of the cost. If we use its suggestion of 2.9%, the annual payments would be £96 million on average, which is £5 million less in today’s money than the Government’s forecast at the time of the treaty’s publication.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I am not going to pursue the Minister down that line—I did that last time—but I do want to ask a simple question. This morning, we had a very clear statement from the President of the United States. The Deputy Prime Minister was also clear previously when he said that if America says no, then this does not go ahead. Are his counsels in any way discussing or thinking about waiting to find out whether that view from the President today is clear and for good? In other words, will they then stop this Bill?
Stephen Doughty
That is a very reasonable question from the right hon. Gentleman. Of course, we engage with the United States as our closest defence and security partner every single day. Conversations are ongoing. We are always engaging with them on these matters, and I am sure we will continue to do so over the coming days. I have set out the clear position that the United States set out on many occasions—this went through a detailed inter-agency process—and of course we will continue conversations with the United States, as we have done before.
I was rather baffled by the complaint of the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), who is not now in his place—[Interruption.] Ah, he is at the Bar of the House. It was his Government who established the citizenship route for Chagossians, which rightly gives them the right to come here, and local authorities can engage in the usual way with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about their needs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) raised the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. This is very important, so let me be clear: it does speak on behalf of the United Nations or member states. Indeed, the UN Secretary-General and the African Union chairperson both welcomed the agreement, so it is simply not the case that those concerns were raised by the United Nations, and it is important that the record be corrected.
There were concerns about the reasons. I was clear about the operational impacts on the base of not securing this deal, which include overflight clearances, securing contractors, declining investment and degraded facility. We would also be unable to prevent—this is a crucial point that Members have reasonably raised—China or other nations from setting up installations on the outer islands or carrying out joint exercises. I have set out the legal reasons for that on many occasions, which include the litigation that could be brought quickly by Mauritius against the UK, including under annexe VII of the UN convention on the law of the sea. A judgment from such a tribunal would be legally binding.
The shadow Foreign Secretary raised the Pelindaba treaty. The United Kingdom and Mauritius are satisfied that their existing international obligations are compatible with the agreement, and we are very clear that we comply with our obligations under international law.
Mr Francois
I refer the Minister to article 298 of the UNCLOS treaty, which means we have a complete opt-out on military bases, but may I take him back to costs? The Government Actuary’s Department, whose whole raison d’être is to calculate long-term spending commitments, stood up the £35 billion figure—in fact, it said it might be more. Who should the House believe—people whose whole life’s work is to calculate long-term costs, or this Minister?
Stephen Doughty
I regret the right hon. Gentleman’s tone. I have respect for him normally, but if he had been listening a moment ago, he would have heard me explain this exact point. It is a nominal amount. It is not adjusted for inflation or the social time preference rate. The value of money changes over time; £1 today is not worth the same as £1 tomorrow. This is very clear. I set out the multiple ways in which this has been verified, and it is even agreed by the TaxPayers’ Alliance.
We have discussed these issues at great length in this House on many occasions. Let me be clear: this deal secures this base for the national security of the United Kingdom and the United States, and it secures it for our allies. It is vital, and this is an important point to end on. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Middleton South asked why this matters to our constituents. It matters because the capabilities on this base matter for the national security of this country, our allies and our citizens in preventing terrorism and the activities of adversaries with hostile intent towards us, the United States and our allies. It secures this base into the future, and we urge the House to reject the Lords amendments and agree with Lords amendment 4.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
As the House was informed earlier, Mr Speaker is satisfied that Lords amendments 2 and 3 would impose a charge on public revenue that has not been authorised by a money resolution in this House. In accordance with paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 78, Lords amendments 2 and 3 are therefore deemed to be disagreed to.
After Clause 5
Cost of the Treaty
Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 5.—(Stephen Doughty.)
Business without Debate
5G Connectivity: Telford and West Midlands
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
It is good to see the Minister in his place. He is a man with great knowledge of, and passion for, this agenda, and I know he will take it forward in Telford, west midlands and further afield. I also want to place on record my gratitude to the Department for how helpful and proactive it has been with me since I raised this issue both in this House and outside of it. I am also grateful for the opportunity to raise in Parliament something I have been talking about for some time, but which my constituents have been putting up with for even longer: 5G connectivity in Telford and across our region—or the lack of it.
Debates on this subject often focus on connectivity in rural areas, and rightly so, but I want to start out by reminding anyone who is unaware that, despite our beautiful nature and green spaces, Telford is no village. It is a town with more than 185,000 people. Our borough is predicted to reach 200,000 people by 2032; that represents12.5% growth from 2018. We are just a half an hour drive from Wolverhampton and 40 minutes from our second city, Birmingham, but despite our size, population and proximity to major cities, we have very patchy 5G connections. In fact, constituents tells me that getting a 4G reception is often a challenge.
Telford is a cultural and economic hub, bustling with industry. I cannot tell people to come and employ people in our great town, or to visit our wonderful world heritage site, when connectivity in whole areas across our town are, frankly, in the dark ages. This problem feels all the more sharp because we are in the heart of a region—the west midlands—which, according to the West Midlands combined authority, has the best 5G in the country. The combined authority is doing excellent work, led by Mayor Richard Parker. He is harnessing technology to reduce congestion and pollution, and to improve the local economy and the services it offers. Telford is run by a forward-thinking council that would be very keen to innovate in similar ways, if we were only given the opportunity.
Constituents have been raising this issue in conversations with me for a very long time, but I wanted to get some numbers so I ran a survey of my constituents. The results were stark: almost 100% of respondents told me that they have no 5G connection whatsoever. For many, that was the experience in their homes, their workplaces and even in our town centre. One constituent, Bill, told me that his connection both at home and work has got worse in the last five years. Another, Joanne, said her signal with O2 has deteriorated even in the last few months, although O2 denies this. Two other constituents, Waz and Phil, both said they had changed providers multiple times but found them to be “all the same”. One former constituent, Peter, who now lives in Europe, told me that the contrast between us and our international partners is “shocking”. I could go on with the results of my survey, but if the Minister would like to hear directly from my constituents he is very welcome to visit them, or I can share the survey results with him.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech and a really good point, which applies equally to urban and rural areas. Mobile network operators do not have minimum standards of coverage and quality of signal. At some places where there was good coverage before, that now no longer appears to be the case because the signal quality is so poor. Does he agree that we need to look at a way to ensure mobile network operators provide a good quality signal to everyone?
Shaun Davies
I agree with my Shropshire neighbour. This is a rural issue and an urban one. A mobile signal is very much like a utility; people expect it to work for both their personal life and their work-related life.
Telford and Wrekin council kindly shared with me a report containing research by the River Severn Partnership. Between 2024 and 2025, it found a “significant difference” between what Ofcom estimated 5G coverage to be and real-world experience. The survey found that 28% of Telford postcodes did not have a good phone signal, but Ofcom claims there is not a single postcode in Telford where the signal is poor. Again, that is in direct contrast to the lived experiences of our residents. This goes to the heart of the problem and it is exactly what our residents are saying: what Ofcom and the Government say just does not live up to the real-life experiences.
In an answer to a written question last January, the then Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), told me that 99% of all premises in my constituency have 5G available. I am not in any way attributing blame to that Minister, because I know that the Government get their data from Ofcom, which in turn gets its data from the network providers, and those network providers told me in a meeting this week that their data is provided through computer generation and analytics. The real-life experiences of residents are not taken into consideration.
The Local Government Association—an organisation with which I am very familiar—authored a report with the all-party parliamentary group on digital communities. That report was very validating for my constituents. It said that residents who make complaints are not imagining things, and the association took the same issue with Ofcom’s data, confirming that
“while Ofcom’s regulatory oversight has supported progress in expanding digital infrastructure, significant concerns remain about the accuracy of coverage data. The current system relies heavily on operator-supplied modelling, which often fails to reflect the lived experiences of residents.”
I want to make it clear that there are two sides to this problem, but they are connected. We need better reporting of 5G coverage, although obviously my constituents care more about improving the coverage itself. The path to better 5G infrastructure in my constituency and other constituencies across the west midlands requires an acknowledgment that there is a problem in the first place.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has made some excellent points. Tettenhall in my constituency is a significantly populated suburb of Wolverhampton, where residents face similar problems to those highlighted by my hon. Friend. Constituents say that they have little or no signal and they struggle to make contact with family and friends. The other day, a constituent told me that he had difficulty contacting the emergency services because there was no mobile phone connectivity.
My hon. Friend is right to say that very often the problem is considered to be in rural areas but that more densely populated areas, such as Tettenhall, have similar problems. Does my hon. Friend agree that in this day and age we need to ensure that there is connectivity everywhere?
Shaun Davies
I completely agree. My hon. Friend makes the excellent point that this issue is not just about economic growth and access to public services, though that is important; it is also about access to lifesaving services in an emergency.
In case I have come across too negative, at this point I would like to acknowledge the progress that is being or will be made. I recently had the chance to meet officials and Baroness Lloyd who is a Minister in the Department for Science, Innovation and Skills, who informed me about Ofcom’s reporting tool—a map that enables my constituents to show Ofcom where they are not getting 5G signal—but I gently point out to the Minister that the expectation cannot simply be on our residents to report problems, when network providers are making millions in profit.
I have written to Ofcom and providers, including O2, EE, 3 and BT. I found them all to be responsive, and I met some of them this week and will do so again. It is so important that we seek action. Although what they say sounds great in principle, I hope that providers will forgive me and my constituents for saying that we will believe it when we see it, because ultimately the test is whether, in 2026, people can connect to a 4G or 5G signal.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a compelling speech. I should declare that in a previous role, I advised a mobile phone company on communications. There have been occasions in the past when mobile phone companies and other digital companies have made very grand promises about things like video calling, as happened when they rolled out 3G, and then 4G and then 5G, but unfortunately those promises have not always matched the expectations of the public, who watch the adverts and buy the devices. Does my hon. Friend agree that while companies are going to great lengths to improve services, we must implore them to match the reality of their service provision with the things that they are advertising and promising?
I want to emphasise that I am not asking the Government and the providers for charity; I am asking for an opportunity for us to contribute. Telford is a wonderful town, Shropshire is a wonderful county and the west midlands is a fantastic region, and those consumers are a market opportunity for this ever-growing network. If we want Telford to continue to grow as we have done for the past 60 years, we need to be in the 21st century, and when it comes to 5G, we simply are not. Businesses need to know that they can operate; people need to know that they can work from home and access online GP appointments; and, crucially for a town that is impacted by flooding, especially around the famous world heritage site at Ironbridge gorge, we must be sure that we can contact the emergency services in a crisis. That resilience and connectivity must be there. Telford has so much to offer the Government, the private sector and anyone who wants to live, visit or invest in our town. In return, we need modern 5G infrastructure.
I have both a national and a local ask of the Minister. Nationally, I echo the call of the digital communities all-party parliamentary group, which is chaired by the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), for an independent review of the UK’s digital connectivity framework and the integrity of the data in reporting. It is frustrating for me and my constituents to be hit with the “computer says no” answer when sharing our lived experience of something that is a real problem to so many people. The Ofcom reporting tool is welcome, but I ask the Minister to go further, so that we are not just starting with an inaccurate map and making individual residents responsible for correcting it.
My local ask is this: will the Minister visit Telford with his officials and see for himself what my constituents and I are dealing with? Will he help me to convene the relevant providers and lend his voice to my call for better 5G, or at least 4G, connection, so that my constituents can rely on it to access public services and to make our economy grow, both in Telford and the wider region?
I know that digital connectivity is a priority for the Government, and I welcome the steps that they are taking, including through project gigabit, to revolutionise our infrastructure. Bill, Peter, Waz, Phil and Joanne, as well as hundreds of other constituents, have contacted me about this issue. Will the Minister reassure them, as well as the hundreds of thousands across this country who are affected by this issue, that they will be connected to a world-class network that provides them with access to digital services?
This Government’s priorities are clear: economic growth, reforming public services and change. I say this to the Minister: this is a grand opportunity for me to demonstrate to my constituents that the economy mission is being met and that the mission relating to access to reformed public services can be met. Every one of my constituents who has a phone in their pocket will feel change and be benefited through this measure. I thank the House for allowing me time to explore this issue.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
First and foremost, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Shaun Davies) for securing this Adjournment debate. Throughout his entire tenure as the local MP, he has been a relentless champion for the people of Telford on the question of 5G and mobile coverage. He has listened closely to those he represents in person and through surveys. He has represented their voices in the media and to my hon. Friend the Minister for the Digital Economy in the other place, and he has done that again in this debate with both an impressive speech and a deep understanding of Telford.
Mobile coverage is an extremely important topic, which is reflected in the amount of interest shown across from the House in any parliamentary activity on the subject. Access to high-quality, reliable and secure mobile connectivity is critical for people to participate effectively in the modern digital economy. It is essential for day-to-day life in many cases. Whether it is to run a business online, to access essential public services, to manage finances online, to contact GP surgeries or to stay in touch with loved ones, we all need reliable mobile connectivity.
The Government have an ambition for all populated areas to have access to higher-quality stand-alone 5G by 2030. That of course includes Telford and areas right across the west midlands. It is true that Ofcom currently reports that stand-alone 5G is available outside of only 1% of premises across my hon. Friend’s constituency. That is clearly unacceptable. I am also conscious that the picture has slightly updated in recent months, and I will take the opportunity to shine some light on that. The published coverage stats were last collected in July last year, and there has been some improvement in the picture since then. We expect that the figure will further increase significantly in the next report published by Ofcom as reporting catches up with network roll-out.
Mobile network operators are investing significantly to improve coverage and I know that progress continues at pace. I have been assured that that is leading to coverage improvements in many areas, including Telford. The operators’ significant investment plans are public. VodafoneThree has committed £11 billion as a result of the merger, BT has an ambition to deliver stand-alone 5G to 99% of the UK population by the end of financial year 2030, and Virgin Media O2, as part of its mobile transformation plan, committed £700 million of further investment in its mobile network nationwide.
In preparation for this debate, officials have engaged with the operators to understand their specific coverage improvement plans in my hon. Friend’s constituency and across the west midlands. BT has confirmed that, in line with its announcement of October of last year, 99% of residents across the Telford constituency can now access stand-alone 5G. I will come to points of dissatisfaction between that claim and the wider experience of people in Telford imminently.
VodafoneThree has confirmed that stand-alone 5G coverage will increase in the Telford constituency to 100% by its first reporting milestone in 2028, in line with its merger commitments. Virgin Media O2 has made strides to improve mobile coverage across the west midlands, including boosting 4G and 5G capacity across Coventry and deploying stand-alone 5G small cells in Birmingham city centre in 2024. That feedback from operators starts to show the significant progress being made in rolling out stand-alone 5G across Telford and the west midlands region. I encourage all Members to contact the operators if they too would like to understand plans for their constituency.
I am deeply sorry to hear of the difficulties that my hon. Friend reports about the reliability of services in the region. I recognise that in our modern economy and way of life, services need to be reliable for everyone in all parts of the country. Communications providers have legal obligations to ensure that their services are appropriately resilient, as overseen by Ofcom, and I recommend that if customers are having continuing difficulties, as my hon. Friend has mentioned, they can contact their provider and, in the instance of serious and repeated failures, also report to Ofcom.
At this point, may I raise the particular issue that my hon. Friend has highlighted about the discrepancy between people’s lived experience and the reported data? It is an experience familiar to me, both from my constituency and more widely, and Government recognise that there are discrepancies in cases between the lived experience of people and the level of coverage that Ofcom reports.
The launch of our Map Your Mobile tool in June last year was a positive step forward, but the work of our Government does not stop there. We have restated in our proposed statement of strategic priorities for Ofcom the importance of continuing to improve the reporting of mobile coverage, for example, by building on the launch of the tool through the exploration of measured and crowdsourced data. Alongside that, I also point out that the Streetwave coverage checker is a tool available on the River Severn Partnership website which has also been funded by Government and the 5G Innovation Regions project. I am conscious that that, in particular, includes my hon. Friend’s constituency in Telford.
I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns about flooding in his local area. I know he has brought that up with the Department. There are potential safety risks arising when flooding is combined with a lack of mobile signal, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important issue. Clearly, it is right to raise the risk to public safety so that it can be looked into and addressed accordingly. In relation to mobile signal, I hope that some of the information provided starts to give him some reassurance on what is available in the local area and what is planned for the future. I am happy to work with him and colleagues from both the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency so that the matters that he has raised can be investigated by the correct authorities.
As I know my hon. Friend will be aware, satellite services can provide another new means of connecting residents in otherwise hard-to-reach areas. I am pleased that the rapid advance of low Earth orbit technology for satellites means that the performance of services is also increasing through that measure. As well as satellite services offering home broadband that are already on the market, Vodafone and O2 have both announced that direct-to-mobile device services will launch and be available to consumers this year.
To help operators achieve their ambitious roll-out plans, we continue to work closely with them to identify and remove barriers to deployment where it is practical to do so. That includes implementing the remaining provisions of the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022 and launching a call for evidence to see where planning rules can be relaxed to support the deployment of mobile infrastructure. Alongside that work at national level, we have also provided funding to both the west midlands and Shropshire as part of our 5G Innovation Regions programme to increase the uptake of 5G services and to drive investment in networks.
I know that we need to do more to ensure investment in high-quality mobile connectivity. That is why we are undertaking a full mobile market review. We want to understand better the factors impacting investment in widespread high-quality mobile connectivity and what more the Government can do to support it over the long term. We will soon be publishing a call for evidence to support our assessment and we encourage all relevant parties to engage with this process. I also encourage all Members of the House to be champions of digital infrastructure deployment. It is only through working in our constituencies, with constituents and with the local planning authority, that we can together champion digital connectivity.
Finally, I would like to repeat my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Telford for securing this debate on such an important topic, and to all Members who have intervened and contributed to the debate today. It would, of course, be remiss of me not to end on a note of acceptance of his kind invitation. I will be very happy, either directly or through my hon. Friend in the other place, to visit him and to support his hard work for the people of Telford.
Helen Morgan
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I just highlight that I did not declare my interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on digital communities, which I should have done?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Fantastic; that is now on the record. I shall just remind the Minister that he is also more than welcome to come to my constituency of Sussex Weald to deal with any 5G connectivity questions.
Question put and agreed to.