Commons Chamber

Wednesday 2nd July 2025

(began 7 months ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:34
11:35
None Portrait Oral questions: Northern Ireland
-

Right. Questions to
11:35
None Portrait Q1. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the adequacy of the A75 and A77 roads leading to Cairnryan Ferry Port on the Northern Ireland economy. (904876)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question number one.
11:35
11:35
11:36
11:36
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:38
11:38
11:39
11:39
11:40
11:41
11:41
11:42
11:42
11:43
11:43
11:44
11:45
11:45
11:46
11:47
11:47
None Portrait Q3. What recent discussions he has had with technology businesses on investing in Northern Ireland. (904878)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question number three Mr Speaker. Thank you Mr Speaker. With permission I will answer questions
11:47
11:48
11:48
11:49
11:49
11:50
11:50
11:51
11:51
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:54
11:54
11:55
11:55
11:56
11:56
11:57
11:57
11:57
11:58
11:58
11:59
11:59
12:00
12:00
12:01
12:02
12:02
12:02
12:02
12:03
12:04
12:04
12:06
12:06
12:07
12:08
12:08
12:10
12:11
12:12
12:13
12:14
12:15
12:16
12:17
12:18
12:19
12:19
12:20
12:21
12:22
12:23
12:23
12:23
12:24
12:25
12:25
12:26
12:27
12:27
12:28
12:28
12:29
12:29
12:30
12:30
12:31
12:32
12:32
12:33
12:33
12:34
12:34
12:35
12:35
12:36
12:37
12:38
12:39
12:40
Stephen Doughty Portrait Stephen Doughty MP, Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Cardiff South and Penarth, Labour )
-
-
House on the day of signature, it secures the strategically important military base on the island of Diego Garcia. The military base is essential to the security of the UK and key allies including the USA and is essential to keeping the British people say. It is one of our most people say. It is one of our most significant contributions to the transatlantic Defence and Security Partnership. It enables operations across the Middle East, East Africa, helping protect against threats and has a unique strategic location.

The treaty ensures the UK remains incomplete operational control of the Diego Garcia into the next century and there are robust measures including a 24-mile nautical buffer zone where nothing can be built without UK consent, rigourous process for the wider islands under strict ban on foreign security forces on the outer islands and a binding obligation to ensure the base is never undermined. These robust proportions provide an effective veto for the UK over any opportunity that presents a threat and they will categorically prevent a series from compromising the base.

The treaty sets out to ratify, once both parties have completed relevant to permitting processes, and this includes scrutiny in parliament and making the necessary due to domestic law. The treaty was laid before the House under the usual process set out in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act and we welcome the agreement in the other place which recognised the importance of ratifying the treaty to secure the base and the debate in which the peers rejected a cynical conservative motion to block the ratification.

Before the treaty is ratified, the government will bring forward primary legislation which will be scrutinised and debated in the usual way and secondary legislation, as necessary. Ahead of ratification, the government will make a ministerial statement in both places, providing an update on the Chagossian eligibility and then it will enter on the first of the month, following the date on which both parties exchanged letters to confirm the process is complete. This landmark agreement secures the future of the strategic military base on Diego Garcia and there is also an important contribution to the Defence and Security partnership that we hold.

There was no alternative but to act and, in doing so, we are protecting our interests at home and overseas and if the Opposition do not recognise that fact, why did they start negotiating in the first place?
12:43
Priti Patel Portrait Rt Hon Priti Patel MP (Witham, Conservative)
-
-
There was a process of 21 days which is about to include and it is a disgrace that Labour have denied this pace a meaningful debate and vote on ratification. The Minister says we will get a vote on the bill but that is not the same as voting on the treaty. Earlier this week, there was a debate in the House of Lords where the liberal Democrats sided with Labour, backing this £30 billion surrender treaty which is subsidising tax cuts in Mauritius.

Why can't we have a debate? What are they afraid of? Are they concerned about the impact of the unpopular tax rises? Why is so much money being handed over for a territory that we own? Body that will force them into an embarrassing U-turn? Are they afraid MPs will do the maths and see the money going to Mauritius will be at least £30 billion and not the £3.4 billion valuation claim that ministers talk about. Are they afraid that the barefaced hypocrisy and poor treatment of the liberal Democrats will be exposed? The Minister said there must be concerned about the future but they have been betrayed, leaving any decisions on resettlement and support through the trust fund in the hands of Mauritius.

With the legal case ongoing, will the Minister extend the process until this has completed and will he admit that the bad deal was made weaker by giving up the unilateral right to extend the lease on the place and giving the class to operate sovereign rights? They are so willing to finally admit this. Kindly confirm that there are no guarantees under current protections will continue? There is too much lack of clarity around this with no guarantees and security, on the safeguarding, and answered questions about ratification requirements around the base, no guarantees that there will not be further attempts to stop operations at the base.

And if there is a further attempt to build nuclear weapons with the treaty and that will apply to the Chagos Islands. He should scrap this treaty or at least have the courage to bring it here for a property bed,
12:45
Stephen Doughty Portrait Stephen Doughty MP, Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Cardiff South and Penarth, Labour )
-
-
I say this as someone who likes and respects the honourable Lady but I am disappointed by the tone of these remarks. I don't know who writes this stuff and whether it is performative politics of rhetoric, I don't know. I should point out that I have received and answered over 100 written Parliamentary Question from the honourable Lady. I have answered over 250 questions on this deal and the process in total. We have had no less than six urgent questions in this House.

We have had two statements from the government by the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary. I personally briefed the right honourable lady and answered many of the questions in my office a couple of weeks ago in good faith and in detail. I was subjected quite rightly to robust scrutiny not only from the Foreign Affairs Committee of this House but also from the international relations Defence Committee in the other House and the international Arrangements Committee in great detail on these issues. I don't know whether the right honourable lady and her team are not reading the transcripts of the answers to the questions,, she might not like the answers but I have answered the questions.

I've set out the position on costs, I said that the positional security arrangements will stop I set up positions on the vetoes that we have. The fact is that this deal secures this space, secures our national security, and that of our allies. It is actually right that it has had the proper scrutiny. There will be a vote because there will be a vote on the legislation which we will be putting before the House in due course. due course.
12:47
12:48
12:48
12:49
12:50
12:50
12:51
12:52
12:52
12:53
12:53
12:53
12:54
12:54
12:55
12:55
12:56
12:57
12:58
12:59
13:00
13:00
13:01
13:02
13:02
13:03
13:04
13:05
13:06
13:06
13:07
13:07
13:08
Michael Shanks Portrait Michael Shanks MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Rutherglen, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. We come to a statement from the Minister Of State for Energy. With permission, I will make a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With permission, I will make a statement on the publication from the energy system operator following the energy system operator following the review into the fire at the North Hyde substation in March. This was conducted jointly by the Energy Secretary and Ofgem in the immediate aftermath of the fire disrupted the power supply to over 70,000 customers including Heathrow airport which closed operations on 31 March this year. Our from the grid was -- the power was restored quickly from the grid to customers in the aviation sector due to the associated closure of Heathrow Airport.

The Secretary of State for transport made a statement at the time where she committed the government would update the House as soon as the relevant investigations had concluded and that is why I make the statement on the day that the report was published by NESO. I would like to reassure members the government is taking action in response to the report and will consider the findings of the review and are committed to a government response to set out a plan on how the identified issues will be addressed to improve energy resources.

Having reviewed the report, as I am sure members will agree, and deeply concerned that risks were not addressed by a key operator of the energy system, National Grid Electricity Transmission. The asset should have remained out of service until mitigating actions were put in place or the attitude have been carefully monitored until it could be -- the asset should have been carefully monitored until this could take place and appropriate action was taken about the severity of the risk at North Hyde.

This was probably because of the catastrophic fire in March 2035. I spoke this morning to NGET admit it clear that work critical assets must be prioritised accordingly. Fire suppression systems must not be left inoperable. I'm pleased to see the regulator is taking swift action in response to the findings and the opening unofficial enforcement investigation into NGET and of general consider potential breaches relating to the maintenance of the electricity system at North Hyde. I spoke with Ofgem yesterday to express support for the investigation and the planned audit of the National Grid critical substation assets which will be essential to understanding any other potential risks on the network and ensuring that they are appropriately mitigated.

The report appropriately mitigated. The report also highlights that North Hyde Substation, built in 1968, is subject to different design standards than newer sites built in the 1990s. There is not a physical barrier between the two transformers at North Hyde, which allowed the fire to spread. It's essential because it the risk caused by differing design standards across the Ella Pardy network particularly as we move towards Clean Power 2030. And this will be a key component of the government response.

The extent of the impact of the incident on Heathrow operations must come into focus. Heathrow Airport Limited had their own review which was published on 20 May and it investigated the circumstances which led to the port ceasing operations for most of March 21 and the several recommendations in the review to further improve the resilience of the internal electricity network and these are Lane with the findings from NESO that it is the responsibility of Heathrow are not the National Grid to improve electricity resilience at Heathrow.

Heathrow benefits from three separate supply points to the network and it is rare for any state network and it is rare for any state to have such network -- to have such a connection to the network and Heathrow should consider investing in the distribution network to take advantage of the multiple supply points. I welcome the continued and effective collaboration between Heathrow and the energy operators as part of the review. My Department and the Department for transport will work to ensure the collaboration continues across these critical sectors about the instances are rare, and there is a robust and resilient system in the UK, there are wider lessons to be learned.

The majority of recommendations made by NESO include improvements that could be made across the sector and in collaborations with NESO, Ofgem and other departments, we will look at the findings. We are also applicable to wider government policy on resilience in the energy sector and across other critical infrastructure sectors. Ensuring the protection and resilience of critical national interest continues to be a key priority for government action already being taken. The government has recently published a tenure of the structure strategy which is committed to strengthening resulting standards across infrastructure and -- 10-year strategy.

It will look at the new strategic approach to resilience and is the outcome of the resilience review announced by the Chancellor in this place last year. My Department is taking steps already to enhance the current approach to the designation of infrastructure in the energy sector and we have introduced specific licence restrictions giving responsibility for data gathering to NESO, ensuring our structure is as resilient as possible. We will work with the cabinet of a son by the government to develop a full response to the report and look at some of the cross-sector resilience challenges which have been highlighted, particularly given the importance of the energy sector for so much of national interest.

In closing, I want to restate that Great Britain continues to have a little bit energy network and while incidents like this are rare, it is essential that we learn the lessons and we must improve resilience. The government has set out plans for how we will continue to do so. I would like to thank NESO for carrying a bit apprehensive of you and the report shows the value of learning from past emergencies like this. The newly established functions of NESO will enable the government and the energy sector to fully understand the risks and proactively ensure that Great Britain continues to have a reliable energy supply which is critical to all of society.

I commend the statement to the House.
13:15
Claire Coutinho Portrait Rt Hon Claire Coutinho MP (East Surrey, Conservative)
-
-
I welcome the right honourable lady back to her place in the House and I called the shadow Secretary of State.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I feel older, wiser, and significantly more sleep deprived. I thank the Minister for the statement thank the Minister for the statement and I also thank NESO for their work. The report is clear there have work. The report is clear there have been serious failings from the National Grid to fix an issue that National Grid to fix an issue that was known about for many years. What is important is what happens now. is important is what happens now. First of all, I would ask the Minister, who made the decision at National Grid to defer the critical maintenance of the transformer in 2022? He said he would hold them accountable.

Can I ask him how? He accountable. Can I ask him how? He spoke about bridging the conditions and so what are the penalties for doing that and what are the doing that and what are the accountability mechanisms he will use? Second, the report says the use? Second, the report says the site at North Hyde did not meet modern standards for physical barriers between transformers. Can the Minister confirm he has asked the Minister confirm he has asked the National Grid to review the substations built before the legislation was put in place Quetta legislation was put in place Quetta finally, what steps will he take a look at the energy sector, particularly in light of the particularly in light of the heightened geopolitical risk that we heightened geopolitical risk that we The key message we should take from the report on the Heathrow blackout is important to an energy security in national security.

And it is his Secretary of State was playing with fire. One week after the blackout hit Heathrow, Spain and Portugal gave us a stark warning of what happens when countries failed to protect the energy security. Public transport is down, payment systems down, millions of people unable to cook, travel, or contact their families. Tragically, people lost their lives. In the case of North Hyde, the blackout affected schools, the London Underground, Lincoln Hospital, and 70,000 customers, some of whom had to move out of their homes.

That is the price you pay when you don't take energy security seriously. It is not a nice to have, energy is a basic need. And yet this government is putting our energy at risk. The National Security Strategy they published just last week had 12 mentions of climate but not a single mention of the risk that China poses to our energy system. Last year our intelligence services warned that Chinese sponsored hackers working to disrupt and destroy critical info structure in the event of conflict.

And yet, the Secretary of State is rushing to make Britain dependent on Chinese solar panels, on Chinese rare earth, on Chinese batteries in just five years time. We have seen China limit the export of critical minerals in their trade war with the minerals in their trade war with the US. We have seen switches found in Chinese inverters. The US intelligence services have warned us about the risk of surveillance devices in Chinese wind turbines. I first wrote to the Secretary of State eight months ago asking him to publish an assessment of what his targets mean for our reliance on Chinese imports.

He hasn't even bothered to reply. If the Secretary of State wants to hand over the keys of our energy supply to the Chinese Communist Party should come to this House and explain why. We are also lucky enough in this country to be surrounded by our own gas fields. But the Secretary of State does not care. This is a man who would rather import gas from Norway, from the very same fields in the North Sea that he is banning Britain from using.

This is a man who is blocking off any contingency plan that Britain might need in a crisis. I don't say this lightly Mr Deputy Speaker but this is a man putting a national security at risk. Today we are talking about the first transformer fire in a decade this country need not even bother to turn up. That is the problem. Secular state might prefer to be in Zille or Beijing whether he is today we should be here to explain himself because, as the former head of MI6 said, he is pursuing an energy policy that is quickly crazy when it comes to national security.

I want clean energy from nuclear, from the next generation of British innovation but first and foremost I want energy that keeps the lights on and keep bills down. This government is going to leave us typically reliant on foreign imports, from China, Norway, Qatar, anywhere long as it's not Britain. So any Esso will do their work we must do his work as well. Alongside the work of the North Hyde Review can confirm we will come back to the House and update the House against the energy risks in this country?
13:20
Michael Shanks Portrait Michael Shanks MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Rutherglen, Labour)
-
-
I was going to start, and it will regardless of the rest of that speech by warmly welcoming her back to her place as that shadow Secretary of State was I will miss sparring with my Scottish colleague though I'm sure we will still have opportunities to do so. The right honourable lady might come to Miss the lack of sleep at home rather than the noise in this place but she is welcome back for top she is on to take the last few months to write a wrapup speech on a whole range of issues I'm glad to give her the opportunity to pontificate on any of those things.

But let me stick to the questions related to the statement delivered today. She asks about the role that the National Grid has played in this. Ofgem's open enforcement investigation into this incident to get to the bottom of what National Grid has done or not and whether there are possible breaches of licence, that investigation should now take its course. There are clearly serious questions to answer and that is the point I would put to National Grid today. I've asked for an immediate response and the actions they are taking, and assurances that there are not further maintenance backlog they have not acted on.

I expect by the end of this week. Ofgem have also instructed a wider audit of maintenance work across the energy system which will identify if there are similar issues to this. On the point of being held accountable, clearly I will wait for the outcome of Ofgem's investigation. It is responsible of the Ofgem is the regulator to determine if they are in breach of licence conditions, and what the appropriate action should be. We will wait for the findings to come through.

In terms of the physical barrier, she raises an important point. Really there is a difference between when some of the infrastructure was built and the different standards at different times will stop I think there is a wider review we need to make to see what is possible with some of the infrastructure. It won't always be possible to build them to the standards we now expect. Everything that is being built now is being built to the highest standards. I want the same assurances she has called for anything that was built previous to those is safe clearly.

On the wider resilience questions, I'm not going to get into a back and forward and frankly there are some quite ludicrous claims that the right honourable lady made I hope this isn't an indication of the tone we can expect in the years ahead because there are some difficult decisions for us all to wrestle with full stop there is a really important question about delivering energy security, and an increasingly uncertain well. That is why we are sprinting towards clean power to remove the volatility of fossil fuels from our system for top she opposes all of that investment.

There is also a critical role to play in upgrading the network infrastructure across the country which a party also opposes. So there are some searching questions I think for the Conservative party, who of course went out of this info structure for 14 years. About what their role as was but also about what parts they want to play. It is easy to shout from the sidelines and accusations will stop it is far more useful and important for a party that was in government for 14 years and now the official opposition to, some credible questions about how we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

deliver the energy system of the future. We will get on with delivering it. Chair of the energy select
13:23
13:25
Michael Shanks Portrait Michael Shanks MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Rutherglen, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my honourable friend for his questions. Firstly on the point of joining up, I think he is absolutely right. The response I've absolutely right. The response I've seen from National Grid identifies that as one of the points they will take away around how they join up information sharing the data in the systems and how we make sure this is followed through. It is important learning not just what National Grid across the energy system, what other transmission owners do but also what government does around sharing information where we can.

There's a lot of learning and recommendations we take forward. On the question of Heathrow, much of this was identified in the Kelly review which looked specifically at the operations full stop on the question of whether there was a single point of failure at Heathrow. Heathrow of course is one of the biggest consumers of electricity in the country. It is also one of the most important piece of critical national info structure. I think it's important they reflect on this report today as well and take some lessons from it.

It has shown, this is a lesson for everyone, the importance of investing in electricity resilience, preparing for the worst even if we think of as a low chance of actually happening, and this final point I would be to agree with, it is in all their interests to spend time, effort, and investment in making sure that our energy system continues to be as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

resilient as it possibly can be. Liberal Democrat Frontbench Spokesperson.
13:26
Luke Taylor Portrait Luke Taylor MP (Sutton and Cheam, Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank yous the Deputy Speaker. This report is an utterly damning assessment of a national resilience. assessment of a national resilience. This time through decay but also a lack of readiness as part of the climate crisis changes dynamic. Old equipped operating at higher temperatures just as climate control and air conditioning needs is at its peak. The British people will be rightly alarmed that the problems were known as long ago as 2018. There is a much wider point here, beyond just the technicalities of this failure.

The resilience of grand critical structure has been elected for far too long. I came to this place as an engineer for precisely the sort of reason, we are short-term are narrowing our vision. We can't expect to remain a world leader in infrastructure if we cannot future proof and simply invest in the resilience of our assets. It might not get pulses racing to build and maintain infrastructure there is no ribbon to cut when this happens will stop but we should all get behind it if we are serious about bittersweet of the report outlined there were so many missed opportunities to fix the issues at the substation.

We all have to look simply to Ofgem's consequential investigation into the National Grid wanted is published. It is not just about grid resilience. This time it was a fire caused by faults, the next time it might be a deliberate cyberattack or an act of terrorism which could have a more disastrous impact. We must look beyond the short-term, the strategic and long-term plan to join at national infrastructure, safe and reliable for all. The government must bring about a strategy and quickly to review the resilience of all similar assets including every UK airport which are also critical to our national economy and our society.

With that in mind I will ask the Minister to confirm whether an assessment has been made of the likelihood of repeat of this incident both at Heathrow and at all other places of Critical National Infrastructure? And whether the government is taking the opportunity to finally pick up the National Infrastructure Commission report from 2020 and 2023, which was ignored by the last government, and 2024 which will not implement it quickly enough, to implements standards and frameworks for resilience for key sectors such as aviation, telecoms, water, and energy.

This will future proof our ageing infrastructure to make it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reliable and safe. I thank the judgement was questions. I think it's actually
13:29
13:30
13:31
Michael Shanks Portrait Michael Shanks MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Rutherglen, Labour)
-
-
Firstly, on the question of Heathrow, it is important to say that Heathrow had multiple routes into its electricity network fee, in fact, it is unique, and this report and the processes that were identified in the review, it will give Heathrow airport limited pause for thought on how the network is configured and how they can adapt to situations. This is an incredibly rare circumstance but the whole point of resilience and planning for these moments is that you plan for the thing that you think is unlikely to happen but will have impact if it does happen, and Heathrow closing is one of that category.

On the second point, I think she is right to highlight this point. I want to be careful not to prejudge the review because there is something to be said for standards changing over time, maintenance backlogs having to be met, and if the issue is that maintenance hasn't been carried out, that is an issue we will take forward, but if it is just pieces of infrastructure that have been subject to standards that have changed over time, we have a wider question around how we can adapt that for future standards, so we will look at all of these points, but the resilience of the electricity system is incredibly robust.

When you do everything we can to make it more robust and particularly for instances like this, do not have quite such a significant impact as they did on 20 March.
13:33
13:33
13:35
13:36
13:37
13:38
13:40
13:41
Michael Shanks Portrait Michael Shanks MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Rutherglen, Labour)
-
-
I'm sorry that I didn't say at the start of my statement that he is absolutely right to recognise the role that emergency services to on the night, and also the engineers who worked in incredibly difficult circumstances to try and get things reconnected as possible. He is right to say that. I think there are very serious questions to answer here, and I hope that came through my statement. It certainly came through in the conversation I had with National Grid earlier.

We are clearly seeking urgent assurances that the work that should have been done has been done, but also, there is no other situation similar to this. It is always taken forward a serious way with two reviews in the National Grid itself, the other into the wider energy system to make sure there are other energy systems to learn. I completely agree with the point that the government does need to be front footed on this and take a real leadership role in driving us forward.

We can't lead it to individual companies to mark their own homework. We are doing that, and Park that is doing work across government, but will also soon be chairing a new group that brings together everyone who has responsibility for critical national infrastructure and energy systems to make sure the energies, cybersecurity, and other threats to an infrastructure are taken seriously, but that actions are taken to make sure we don't have a repeat of this in the future.
13:43
13:44
13:45
13:46
13:47
13:48
13:48
13:48
13:49
13:50
Ian Byrne Portrait Ian Byrne MP (Liverpool West Derby, Labour)
-
-
year-old. Little did I know, I was walking into national disaster that walking into national disaster that left 89 men dead. It was a disaster left 89 men dead. It was a disaster left 89 men dead. It was a disaster caused by police failure. Like so many others, I was just a working many others, I was just a working class lad who happened to be there. Because of that, I, like so many Because of that, I, like so many others, was subjected to a decade- long web of establishment denial.

It long web of establishment denial. It shaped the course of my life and it's the very reason I stand here today. We've all witnessed the bravery, determination and anguish of the Hillsborough families and survivors fighting tirelessly for survivors fighting tirelessly for truth and justice in the face of repeated state obstruction. We never repeated state obstruction. We never saw revenge or ask for -- we never saw revenge or ask for -- we never sought revenge or ask for special treatment. We just wanted the truth about what happened to our loved about what happened to our loved ones.

Instead, we were met with decades of silence and lies. Some of decades of silence and lies. Some of those tireless campaigners, those giants of justice are in the house today watching as we fight once again to end the very injustices they have endured for over three decades. Police officers new who was responsible. They knew where accountability the, and yet light -- lie after lie was told. Inquest and enquiries, immediate briefings, supporters were blamed for deaths of supporters were blamed for deaths of their fellow fans.

We were never know what we will never ever forget -- we will never ever forget. Will families struggle to get funds for legal representation, those responsible were shielded by this are -- some of the finest legal are -- some of the finest legal minds in this country. I remember vividly someone who was seriously injured that they fundraising in the local pub for the Hillsborough Justice Campaign. A grassroots organisation which was powered by ordinary people, not the Treasury. Grieving families fight for justice whilst the institutions responsible were protected by a system designed to shield itself.

This was not a fair system. This was a system where the establishment treat ordinary people as an inconvenience. We must teach schoolchildren about Hillsborough. It must not be buried, it must be understood. It must never be repeated. When I speak to students about the truth... That's what those families are still faced with today. It is unjust Hillsborough. For decades, we have seen the same institutional playbook used time and time again to cover up used time and time again to cover up hostile briefings and injustice until people simply give up and pass away.

Grenfell, Manchester Arena, the Post Office Horizon scandal, infected blood, Covid-19, and so many, many more. Each time, the same expressions on the faces of the devastated families. Each time, those battling the system designed to protect itself. Each time it happens. Today, we have the power to change that. Is the parliamentary read for the Hillsborough Law, I'm proud to introduce this legislation. I'm proud but also deeply, deeply disappointed because this bill should already be in law.

In 2022, Keir Starmer stood before the people of Liverpool at the Labour Party conference and pledged, and I quote, one of my first acts as per Minister will be to put Hillsborough law on the statute book. He said the same again as Prime Minister in September 2024. Not a Hillsborough law but the Hillsborough law. That pledge filled our heart with hope. It promised an end to the culture of denial and delay, a decade of deceit. Make no mistake, this today is the Hillsborough Law.

The one drafted introduced in 2017, the one shape by the families for the families, which includes a statutory... It creates mechanisms so that state coverups are much harder to conceal and truth is harder to bury. This bill is for the 97. It is also for the victims of every other state failure, and every other family that might in the future face the number of being left alone to fight through injustice. The government brought forward a watered-down version, not the Hillsborough, law that the Prime Minister promised.

It fell short because it had no legally binding duty come in the provision for funding of enquiries and loopholes allowing public bodies to avoid disclosure. This was followed by a family listening day where ministers hear directly from the families of the bereaved, including Hillsborough families. Those families made their views crystal clear. Their expectations were even clear. The report was titled All or Nothing. Yet, the government deliver nothing of what was promised. That bill was thankfully and rightfully shelved but we understand a new replacement bill could be imminently introduced still, still without the provisions of the Hillsborough Law.

What does of the Hillsborough Law. What does that say about the lessons learned? This is not rooted in legal complexity, it is rooted in self- preservation. It is being led by those with most to lose, senior officials and institutions that fear scrutiny. Let me be clear. This law will not weaken public institutions. It will strengthen them. It will protect the vast majority of decent, hard-working public servants, those who seek the truth. It will deliver justice more swiftly.

It will quicken enquiries. This legislation is right here. It is written. It is ready. It requires no new drafting and no more stalling. What it requires is political will. Just as we, 166 MPs from across this house signed a pledge supporting this and that cross-party reflects the will of the public. They do not want another whitewash. They want integrity and they want action. Let me close with this. The law cannot bring back the 97, it cannot erase the decades of pain or the trauma inflicted by callous lies and institutional neglect, but it can This from happening again and it can restore some of the faith lost, not just in the system but the very idea of justice.

So today, can I say loud and clear for the Prime Minister : don't let the promise fade away. I call on the Government to back this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill, the real Hillsborough Law, and I commend it to the house. The question is that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the honourable gentleman the member for Edinburgh have leave to bring in his Edinburgh have leave to bring in his bill. As many of that opinion, say bill. As many of that opinion, say "Aye". Those in the contrary, say "No". The Ayes have it. Who will Ian Ian Byrne.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Public

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Public authority Public authority accountability bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill. Second reading, what day? July

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Second reading, what day? July 11. The clerk will now proceed with the orders of the day.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, consideration of Lords Amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Now. The government motion to insist on amendment to a and disagree with on amendment to a and disagree with amendment to be and to see in lieu of that amendment.
14:01
14:01
Luke Pollard Portrait Luke Pollard MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Plymouth Sutton and Devonport, Labour )
-
-
of our country. The Secretary of State had the privilege of attending State had the privilege of attending in Cleethorpes and I spent time with in Cleethorpes and I spent time with the community in Plymouth how to see the fantastic turnout of not just Armed Forces personnel, their Armed Forces personnel, their families, veterans and the charities and organisations that support them. Meeting and hearing from service Meeting and hearing from service personnel and their families at this important moment of recognition for important moment of recognition for everyone in this house and the great service and those in the military provide for the nation.

I am disappointed that the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill has returned to Commissioner Bill has returned to this house. The last time we were here, a full month ago, I explained that the bill already delivers what that the bill already delivers what the other house had inserted. And therefore disappointed that the therefore disappointed that the amendments named from Baroness Goldie seeks to replace the government amendment with another which I'm afraid is deeply flawed amendment and I will explain why in my remarks here. I would like to be my remarks here.

I would like to be absolutely clear that we are all in agreement on the intention behind agreement on the intention behind the Lords Amendments. Defence personnel must feel empowered and protected to come forward with their concerns, and I absolutely agree that we need to address and eliminate toxic behaviours and cultures in our Armed Forces. This government is committed to doing that. It is the whole reason we are shining a light on the welfare matters in our and legislating for an independent champion in the Armed Forces Commissioner.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I commend the Minister and government for bringing this forward and I understand the issue. I spoke and I understand the issue. I spoke to the Minister just beforehand. There are also and protected family There are also and protected family members which is necessary. I have a complaint ready to hand the Minister complaint ready to hand the Minister is facilitated by family members watching the effect on their loved one, so does the Minister not agree that it is right and proper that loved ones have a mechanism to ensure the right thing is done?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ensure the right thing is done? I do agree with him that it is precisely for that reason that the government is insisting on our amendment, not accepting the amendment, not accepting the opposition into the other place because the opposition amendment does not include family members and does not include family members and I agree with him that having loved ones, family members for the purpose of the wording of the bill included of the wording of the bill included within the remit of the Armed Forces Commissioner is an important new Commissioner is an important new step for providing not just the opportunity for members in uniform to raise a general service welfare to raise a general service welfare matter but also for the immediate family members as defined in the secondary legislation that will accompany it, so I thank him for that intervention.

I agree that there is a lot more we can debate on these matters, and there will be an opportunity during the passage of the Armed Forces Bill, but I would say to all members that I am concerned they going round again on this matter only holds up delivery of a key element that is used to tackle the very issues this amendment is seeking to address, namely holding up the establishment of an Armed Forces Commissioner, a key manifesto commitment for defence. The longer this bill is prevented from being law, the greater the service we do to our Armed Forces and their family.

I sincerely hope that we can today send a united message from this house that we do not wish to delay

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this vital legislation any further. I am incredibly proud of our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am incredibly proud of our Armed Forces and our relationship with them and sent Helens. The Duke with them and sent Helens. The Duke of Lancaster paraded through St of Lancaster paraded through St Helens town centre and we are incredibly proud. With the Minister agree with me that we need to get on agree with me that we need to get on with this now so we can show a united front, speak with one voice and give them the support they need?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and give them the support they need? I thank him for placing on record the military events in his constituency in St Helens. It is so important that we recognise the local links and ties so many of our military units have to localities where they recruit from, where they where they recruit from, where they are based on where they serve, but I agree with his point that the time agree with his point that the time is right now to passes legislation, get it into law, and allow us to get it into law, and allow us to move to a situation where we can have an Armed Forces Commissioner able to deal with the issues raised by our people and their family members.

The government has taken on board the important debates in both board the important debates in both houses and proposed amendments to a witch this house previously agreed to. This amendment honoured the spirit of the noble Baronesses amendments from the other place and went further than her proposals, delivering concrete legal protections that were not included in the amendments that we have back before us today. We are seeking to reinsert that better amendment again. This was an amendment made early in the process and in good faith following discussions in cooperation with the opposition in the other place.

We had hoped, given the strong cross-party support for the bill and clear argument in favour of the amendment that this would enable us to conclude proceedings. Protection of people wishing to raise a concern anonymously and build trust and confidence with the Armed Forces and their families in a way we cannot envisage would be achieved by the proposed amendments we have before

**** Possible New Speaker ****

us today. I was very happy to serve on the bill committee for the Armed Forces bill committee for the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill while it was proceeding through this place, there was a large amount of consensus was a large amount of consensus around the need for us to carry on as quickly as possible, and I as quickly as possible, and I recently wrote an article about the need to give our Armed Forces the assurances that this government is taking action to support them and taking action to support them and their families.

Does he agree that it is time to get on with this? We have a consensus in this house for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have a consensus in this house for the Armed Forces commission to begin as quickly as possible? I thank him for the work he has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for the work he has done with Portsmouth North. It was a key manifesto promise made the general election and made with the general election and made with the deliberate intent to provide an independent voice, a champion for independent voice, a champion for those who serve. We know that, for many people, service welfare matters are not good enough. That is are not good enough. That is childcare for many people. The poor state of accommodation. The ability of the Commissioner to raise those issues, to investigate them, to use issues, to investigate them, to use the additional new powers not available to the service complaints ombudsman currently is a step ombudsman currently is a step forward for our people and a key plank of renewing the contract between the nation and those who serve, and I agree that I would like to see this get into law.

I would like to briefly remind the house of the protections currently afforded to the Armed Forces because one thing I have been made aware of is that it is worth repeating some of those so there can be no doubt about them. All defence personnel are protected in relation to whistleblowing under defence policy which enables individuals to raise problems in a way that does not lead to wrongful information. Because the Armed Forces operate within a different legal and constitutional constructed civilians, they are not explicitly covered by the Public interest disclosure act, however, as a matter of policy under this government and the previous government, defence already recognises and ideas to the criteria for disclosures and it follows the prescribed procedures and protections for those making a qualifying disclosure.

The MoD will not except any victimisation for individual raising a genuine concern. The amendment is supported by nonlegislative commitments which further bolster trust and confidence in the Armed Forces Commissioner in this respect, including reviewing and updating defences policies, policies and protections related to raising a concern which would include whistleblowing in the sense that we are discussing it here today. The government recognises the importance of due protection for whistleblowers. Just this week, The Cabinet Office is hosting a whistleblowing conference to bring together cross government representatives to review the current whistleblowing framework and discuss forthcoming changes under the employment rights spell which contains a new section strengthening protections for people wishing to make a protected disclosure under PETA, including recognises sexual harassment.

The MoD is raising a concern policy which will be reviewed and updated to reflect these changes and we welcome the interest of members on both sides of the house in that process. Turning now to the amendments inserted in the other place,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Would he say what proportion of the Commissioner's time and that of the Commissioner's time and that of the Commissioner's time and that of his staff he envisages being devoted to individual matters of casework of to individual matters of casework of the sort he has just described, and what proportion will be around some what proportion will be around some attic investigations like the state of service housing?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of service housing? That is a fair question, and the bill is drafted in such a way that bill is drafted in such a way that there is no obligation or requirement for any Commissioner requirement for any Commissioner appointed to resource against a government position on that. It is for the Armed Forces Commissioner to decide the allocation of resources decide the allocation of resources decide the allocation of resources and energy. If you were to look at the Armed Forces model which we have taken inspiration from, they undertake to 23 them attic undertake to 23 them attic investigations a year with dedicated teams using the feedback that comes from both people raising a concern from both people raising a concern officially, getting in touch to raise an issue but not necessarily expecting it to be dealt with as expecting it to be dealt with as casework which relates to correspondence, but it will be for the UK Armed Forces Commissioner to make that determination.

The bill provides for its powers to do that, and if we can come onto the amendment in the other place because the powers relating to whistleblowing, a key part of why we don't think this amendment is suitable, and I will explain why now. The first 1 to address the use of the word whistleblower as being inappropriate in this context, despite the value we place on the function. The term has been more relaxed in terms of raising a concern and whistleblowing which is used under the previous government with the whistleblowing charity protect, suggesting that people may not want to come forward, and today, we are talking about the policy that will be implemented.

Although the term appears in a very few limited circumstances in law, there is no single definition of whistleblowing in UK legislation. Simply using the term in this bill as proposed by the amendments would therefore have no practical legal fact and would provide no protections that do not already exist or are provided for in the amendment in lay. Terminology aside, I have several real concerns on the new amendment. The whistleblowing investigations proposed in these amendments have the same scope as the current investigations provided for by the bell investigating general matters.

But none of the associated powers of investigation. So, the amendment does not allow the Commissioner to access sites to assess their investigation. The amendment does not allow the Commissioner to access documents to assist the investigation. The moment does not require the secretary of state to cooperate, assist and consider any findings or recommendations as is currently the case with the wording, anime does not require reports to go to the Secretary of State or to be laid before Parliament. The scope of the amendment is considerably narrower.

Issues raised under this section can only relate to people subject to service law. That is the men and women of the Armed Forces are not family members as the intervention from the member for Strangford enquired, and cannot be about terms of service. The Commissioner would need to consult from the individual before starting an investigation, constraining the independence and possibly leading to the staff facing pressure to withhold consent, and the anonymity protections would only relate to investigations under this section which is unlikely ever to be used for the reasons I have set out.

And it removes the anonymity protections that the government is proposing to include. More importantly, the bill is intended to provide a safe route for people to come forward with their concerns and know that they will be considered by a truly independent figure. We want people to feel secure and empowered to raise those concerns, and we want the Commissioner to have the full range of powers that are raised with the Commissioner. The amendment as drafted would restrict the powers to deal with the complaint raised by this process, and I believe that is not actually what both sides of this house really want to see in relation to whistleblowing.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Minister will remember last week at Westminster Hall, a debate week at Westminster Hall, a debate where I inaccurately and over optimistically refer to this as the Armed Forces Commissioner act, not realising it was still going back- realising it was still going back- and-forth between here and the other place and I was corrected by the shadow defence minister, and I assumed it was a friendly correction about my misunderstanding about about my misunderstanding about process, but have I understood that what is going on is some kind of political difference over the use of the word whistleblower that is leading to a badly drafted amendment leading to a badly drafted amendment being inserted into the bill which actually weakens it and will reduce actually weakens it and will reduce its ability to do what the main body its ability to do what the main body The department is actually at the point of being able to go out and advertise for an Armed Forces Commissioner and for someone to be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in that role of fighting for the welfare of our service personnel. Can I thank him for his intervention? I hope that this is not party political because I think that many of the members who are raising concerns about whistleblowing in the other place are doing so because they are recognising that there are cultural issues within our Armed Forces that need to be addressed. We are seeking to raise issues around whistleblowing to get clarity on what the government is seeking to do.

I hope that in the statements that my colleague Lord Coaker has that my colleague Lord Coaker has made in the other place and comments made in this space, colleagues on both sides can feel reassured that we take harassment and abuse culture -- culture of harassment and abuse very seriously. We are updating policies and procedures in relation to whistleblowing and raising concern from the policy inherited from the British government to take it further. We recognise that the Employment Rights Bill will support this further.

That would further enhance protections for whistleblowers that we would seek to implement. And that by updating these policies and including the cross government learning that our colleagues in the Cabinet office are coordinating at the moment, we will have a stronger policy. Having placed goes on the record here, as indeed my noble friend Lord Coaker would do -- will do when this bill returns to the other please come I hope that will be enough for those members were concerned about this to be satisfied that there is a genuine desire from the government to address these issues.

And that the amendment as drafted creates a narrower scope for the Commissioner, actually prevents the Commissioner from achieving objectives they wish to raise due to the wording of the amendment, and therefore it would be time to let the amendment passed -- the amendment fall away and the bill to pass. I thank the honourable gentleman for his intervention. I can assure him he is not the only person who has intervened. We are always grateful for his knowledge when he does so. We have deliberately drafted this bill to be as broad and as clear and as inclusive as possible.

Through our communications campaigns and guidance that we have already announced, we will make it clear to anyone that is subject to service law that they and their families can approach the Commissioner to raise a general service welfare matter, however big or small, and whether it affects them directly or not. In that respect, it provides for the functions as laid out in the intent behind the amendments. But I'd like to make clear is this. The powers to initiate investigations based on information provided by the Commissioner already exist in the bill.

In addition, there are existing policies and procedures in place for people in defence to raise concerns that would fall outside the definition of a general service welfare matter. These have protections already in place. All service personnel are covered by protections, as our military personnel. Our commitment to review and update defence policy plus the deficiencies in the amendments inserted by the advice mean that now is the time for both houses to do the right thing and bring this bill into law at the earliest Will be addressing concerns in detail and providing detailed assurance about the changes we are making that confirm what I said at the dispatch box today and to invite their contribution as we seek to develop the Raising Our Concern policy.

I therefore encourage the house to support the government 's decision so we can deliver this for brave servicemen and women as soon

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as possible. The question is that this house

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this house insist on Commons amendment 2A and insist on Commons amendment 2A and disagrees with Lords amendment 2B and 2C. Shadow Armed Forces Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. Thank you. As I set out last month when we were previously month when we were previously debating, it's very important -- it debating, it's very important -- it is very important, this bill. This is very important, this bill. This bill, with the team to establish an independent Armed Forces Commissioner with Ofsted like ours Commissioner with Ofsted like ours holds the potential to provide the holds the potential to provide the welfare and accountability network for our Armed Forces -- framework.

I for our Armed Forces -- framework. I believe this vision enjoys broad support across the house. Although, yet again, I have to place on record that when we are discussing that when we are discussing important legislation that affects the welfare and well-being of Armed Forces personnel and their families, yet again there is no Reform member of Parliament in the chamber of the House of Commons. You can't spend your whole life on tick-tock -- TikTok, particularly as it's a Chinese system.

We must scrutinise how the Commissioner was macro integrates with the existing complaints system and how this will be navigated. Today, we focus on the issue of whistleblowing which was extensively debated in the other place and now lies before our House again. We must guarantee anonymity for those who come forward. This is not a radical proposal but a reasonable compromise, incorporating the exact wording of a government's Commons amendment alongside our whistleblowing duty. The government argues the existing mechanisms, confidential hotline and improved complaints processes are sufficient and our amendment does not confer additional powers.

The Minister's own letter of May 30 acknowledged that Baroness Goldie's amendment sparked an important debate. Yet the government resist embedding a clear statutory whistleblowing function. Such a provision is essential to ensure personal coming forward without fear of reprisal. Lord Coaker speaking in the other place on 11 June claimed that the terms of whistleblower and whistleblowing might deter individuals from coming forward, siting cabinet office guidance. This suggestion, I'm afraid, is plainly daft. If the term whistleblowing were truly a barrier, why does the National Health Service successfully operate its freedom to speak up policy which explicitly uses the term? Why does the Children's Commissioner issue an annual Whistleblowing Report? These examples demonstrate the term is not a deterrent but a recognised and effective framework for protecting those who expose wrongdoing.

To argue otherwise undermines the very concept of whistleblowing regimes across multiple sectors and public services in the United Kingdom. The government further contends that whistleblowing lacks a clear definition. This is simply untenable. Section 340 Q of the Armed Forces Act 2006 is titled Investigation of Concerns Raised by Investigation of Concerns Raised by Whistleblowers. And section 43 B provides another statutory precedent. These actual that it adds tangible value, ensuring the protection of those who have raised concerns.

How can the government then claim it lacks clarity or value in this particular instance? That is totally inconsistent. The government was vision position is riddled with these issues. -- The government's position. Now the government claim the revised amendment is too narrow. Lacking sufficient powers, Lord Coaker argued, our amendment would limit investigations to current powers without enabling access to powers without enabling access to some confidential documents. If the government believes our amendment doesn't go far enough, why not support and propose their own support and propose their own brother amendment to enhance the Commissioner's powers? This inconsistency suggests a reluctance to engage constructively as if arguments are being plucked out of thin air to block progress.

Lord Coaker who I dealt with when he was in this place and have immense respect for also claimed that our amendment excludes family members, only those subject to service law. This is incorrect. Our amendment defines a whistleblower as a person subject to service law or a relevant family member. Does a corporal's sister could raise a concern if the court will faced pulling by another military colleague. This ensures family members have a voice, directly contradicting the government's assertion to the contrary.

To illustrate, I will just give one a brief theoretical example. Friends in, let's consider the possibility of whistleblowing the -- being somebody serving under Operation Banner. That is a topical issue at present. The Minister will be aware. I don't know whether all Armed Forces personal serving in Northern Ireland signed the petition. I can say that as of today, over 164,000 people have signed it. We therefore very much look forward to a debate in Parliament on 14 July on exactly that matter, which I'm sure will be followed very closely by the veterans community and indeed by their families.

So, in summary, this is not an Angels on a pinhead argument. It is actually quite important. The government assurance about the commissioners all are welcome but insufficient. There must Whistleblowing provision that service personal contract. And we debated this, the Minister, to be fair, talked about the trust issue repeatedly. The other place recognise this, delivering another cross-party debate for the government. Our amendment represent a reasonable compromise aligning with the government's own wording of anonymity. To block it would signal the government is not serious about working constructively with the opposition to improve the welfare of Armed Forces personal.

I urge the government to accept this compromise in the interest of all who served. I will listen closely to anything will listen closely to anything further the Minister has to say. If the government persists in offering assurances without statutory weight, assurances without statutory weight, I will test the opinion of the house. If we carry on playing ping- house. If we carry on playing ping- pong, that a sport I was once quite good at. good at.
14:29
14:30
Helen Maguire Portrait Helen Maguire MP (Epsom and Ewell, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
they were tabled by a Conservative they were tabled by a Conservative peer and supported across the house. They represent a thoughtful, pragmatic effort to address a real pragmatic effort to address a real and persistent problem, the need for an Armed Forces Commissioner who is not just the complaints handler, but not just the complaints handler, but an independent figure capable of receiving, investigating whistleblowing disclosures about systemic welfare failure is, systemic welfare failure is, confidentially and without fear of reprisal. I welcome that the Minister has engaged with Baroness Kramer and myself.

However, the Kramer and myself. However, the insistence of -- on removing these insistence of -- on removing these proposals and replacing them with something far lesser is deeply disappointing. This Mrs a genuine disappointing. This Mrs a genuine opportunity to build trust with service personnel and their families. This is something the Commissioner must get right on start Commissioner must get right on start or it will be near impossible to regain. Let's be honest about what regain. Let's be honest about what is at stake.

Behind the language of whistleblowing are real people. whistleblowing are real people. Soldiers, spouses and contractors Soldiers, spouses and contractors who have seen something wrong and want to make it right. Not for themselves but for others. They are themselves but for others. They are not filing a complaint, they are raising alarm. Yet, again and again, we have seen these people let down, and heard, and supported or even punished for speaking out. From appalling housing conditions to serious allegations of abuse, the public has grown increasingly aware that internal complaints mechanisms Ernest Goldie's revised amendment struck a balance.

They look at whistleblower protection and they respond directly to concerns raised by government by making sure that reports must identify whistleblowers without consent. It brings the Armed Forces Commissioner into line with modern expectations for public service oversight. From regulators of financial service to the NHS and beyond, having a channel alongside the section is now standard. The government argued that including the term in legislation could somehow deter people from coming forward and reference previous analysis undertaken by the last government. I find this baffling.

The term is well established in UK law, understood by the public and associated with greater protections. It is clear, accessible and trusted. Looting or avoiding it sends the wrong message. These amendments would do more than close a gap. They would send a message to our Armed Forces community that Parliament is listening that we recognise their loyalty not just in word but in the systems we put in place to protect them. The Lib Dems have long called for fair deal for service personnel and families.

We support this bill and the Armed Forces Commissioner as soon as possible to be effective, the role must be equipped with the right tools. It must work from day one. That means giving people a confidential route to raise serious concerns knowing they will be treated with dignity and protected by law. I will vote against the government's motion to prove this, and I urge all Lords to do the same. Her compromised amendments uphold the integrity of the bill, give the Commissioner proper reach and most importantly, give service personnel and their families a voice they can trust.

Let's take this opportunity to make this stronger and help the Armed Forces fairer, safer and more accountable. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will seek to lead up this I agreed that we should arm the commission with the right tall on commission with the right tall on day one. That is why I don't want to accept an amendment that restricts these tools and provides weaker protections for people raising protections for people raising whistleblowing concerns throughout posed route. It is precisely because I want this to work that I am not accepting a weaker amendment. I always find it useful to use the phrase flip it to see it, and I just phrase flip it to see it, and I just want to try that here for top if we take the government amendment that take the government amendment that restricted access to sites in relation to a whistleblowing complaint, one that restricted access to information and documents access to information and documents assisting other than a normal matter to cooperate, assist or to cooperate, assist or recommendations on a whistleblowing complaint, I think this house would complaint, I think this house would rightly reject that.

That is what this amendment delivers. Narrower this amendment delivers. Narrower scope, fewer powers, less ability for the Commissioner to investigate those same reasons, but I hope the those same reasons, but I hope the house can see from the remarks I have made that we believe in providing a route for people to raise their concerns anonymously. Believing the protections for it. We are raising the concerns from the last government in order to deliver that work, and I believe that the bill should be passed so that we can implement it as fast as we can.

It's for that reason that we say it is contrary to the position that was put in place up until July. I don't support a poorer amendment. I have engaged constructively and will continue to do so because I think that is right to do that. It is the spirit of this government on the legislation that will continue to be the case. But I will say to him that when I am not serious about working for the Armed Forces personnel, let me be clear that I do not accept less from the Armed Forces personnel.

That is why am not accepting his amendment because it provides fewer protections for people on the route that he is taking. It provides fewer powers to undertake that work, and actually, if it went the necessity to play ping-pong in this respect, he would be agreeing with me on this. Let's pass this bill, put it into place, let's give the Armed Forces that independent champion that they so richly deserve.
14:36
Mark Francois Portrait Rt Hon Mark Francois MP (Rayleigh and Wickford, Conservative)
-
-
I have listened very carefully to what the Armed Forces Minister has said but I have to say I am afraid that I am unconvinced. I think he used a phrase flip it to see it. I can offer him your jaw is better then a walk, so I think Baroness Goldie has on a great job on the other place in bringing together people from across the political spectrum to concentrate on this very important matter, and I recommend that the house boats against the government today to send it back to the other place where there should be all-party negotiations included government ministers to see if we can find a way through, but as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

things sit here and now, I'm afraid we must press this into the division lobbies. This question is this house

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This question is this house insist on common amendment and disagrees with Lord amendment to be disagrees with Lord amendment to be and to see in lieu of that and to see in lieu of that amendment. Division, clear the The The question The question this The question this is The question this is on The question this is on the The question this is on the order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, Order, order. The The Ayes The Ayes to The Ayes to the The Ayes to the right, The Ayes to the right, 321. The Ayes to the right, 321. The The Ayes to the right, 321. The Noes to the left, 158.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to the left, 158. The Ayes to the right, 321. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Ayes to the right, 321. The Noes to the left, 158. The Ayes have
14:52
14:53
14:54
None Portrait Motion: Motion to approve the draft Armed Forces Act 2006 (Continuation) Order 2025
-

capture, it is now on the record.
14:54
Luke Pollard Portrait Luke Pollard MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Plymouth Sutton and Devonport, Labour )
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

capture, it is now on the record. About to move the Armed Forces

**** Possible New Speaker ****

About to move the Armed Forces continuation act. -- I beg to move. continuation act. -- I beg to move. This draft order provides concerned This draft order provides concerned by continuing into force for another year that the Armed Forces Act 2006, the legislation which governs the the legislation which governs the Armed Forces, be renewed for another year. This debate usually takes place in a delegated Legislation place in a delegated Legislation committee before returning to the floor of the house for approval.

Given the significance to the country of the Armed Forces and the democratic oversight that Parliament divides, it is fitting that this divides, it is fitting that this debate is being afforded time on the floor of the House today. This allows members to contribute who allows members to contribute who wish to do so. We must put our people at the heart of defence. I know there is strong support for know there is strong support for know there is strong support for Parliament renews the Armed Forces Parliament renews the Armed Forces Act every five years.

The next bill will be required to obtain Royal assent by December 2026. In the intervening years, by approving an annual order in Council such as the one before us today. The Armed Forces Act provides nearly all provisions for the existence of a service justice system. It provides for service offences and for the investigation of alleged offences. The holding in custody and charging of Armed Forces personnel accused of holding an offence wherever in the world they are serving. There is also an explanatory memorandum to the order which states that the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man and British overseas territories, excluding Gibraltar.

The extent of any legislation is a statement about which separate legal jurisdictions form part of the law. Now is extending to Gibraltar simply means that the 2006 part does not form part of Gibraltar law and that is because Gibraltar has an agreement with the United Kingdom that they will draft their own version. Effectively, there is unlimited geographical jurisdiction. In some geographical jurisdiction. In some circumstances, civilians are subject to this also. A return to the 2006 act which provides legal basis for officers such as the judge advocate general and the director of service persecutions as well as the appeal court and the service a civilian court.

It also sets out resources for the accused to be dealt -- dealt As such, the next Armed Forces Bill will likely contain a mixture of both service and justice measures and nonservice justice measures. I look forward to working with members across the house when he gets introduced in due course. In addition, we have committed to tackling the unacceptable behaviours that have plagued our defence in the past. Routing out those toxic behaviours that we have seen evidence in our Armed Forces.

There is no place for abuse in the UK Armed Forces. Today's debate comes against the backdrop of this government delivering for defence, for our service personnel and for veterans. By putting people at the heart of defence plans and renewing the contract with those who served. That is why last year we delivered the biggest pay rise for our Armed Forces in 20 years. We follow this up with another above inflation up with another above inflation This is why we This is why we secured This is why we secured a This is why we secured a housing deal, improving houses for forces, families, and saving taxpayers billions.

Were investing £7 billion to improve military accommodation over the course of this Parliament. That's why we set new targets to tackle recruitment and retention crisis we inherited from the previous government. The results of this are clear already. Inflow is up this are clear already. Inflow is up 19%. Outflow down 7%. The army is experiencing a seven year high in application volumes. We are delivering for defence. That is why we will be appointing Armed Forces Commissioner to improve service life and make it easier for veterans to access care and support for R £50 million valour network.

The government recognises the world has changed. We are in a new era of threat which demands a new era for UK defence. The Strategic Defence Review published last month will break Britain -- will make Britain stronger. It set apart for the next decade and beyond to transform defence and entered the hollowing out of Armed Forces we have seen over the last 14 years. Decisive action has already been taken. We have set up and speeded up support for Ukraine, signed a landmark agreement with Germany, started work at pace on a new defence industrial strategy, ensuring defence is an engine for growth.

Implemented the deepest LOD programme in decades, all of which has been underpinned by increase in defence spending of nearly £5 billion this year. And a commitment to reach 2.5% in April 2027, 3% in the next Parliament and 3.5% in 2035, the largest increase in defence spending since the end of the Cold War. -- Since the Cold War.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful for him giving way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful for him giving way. We should be prepared to fight by 2035 is the implication. That's in 10 years. Why after all the 10 years. Why after all the hullabaloo about the defence review have the government returned to what

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have the government returned to what in the 1920s was known as the 10 year rule? Let me say to the right

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Let me say to the right honourable member that his government left our Armed Forces government left our Armed Forces hollowed out and undefended. He left them living in appalling accommodation, he left them in a retention and recruitment crisis retention and recruitment crisis that meant 130 people were leaving for every hundred that joined the for every hundred that joined the Armed Forces. We are fixing that. We Armed Forces. We are fixing that. We are getting our defence back on track and that is why the defence review sets out the journey to transform our defence.

That's why transform our defence. That's why the Chancellor has provided additional financial resources this year. That's why the Prime Minister supported the defence investment pledge at the last NATO summit. We pledge at the last NATO summit. We need to be ready to deliver for our need to be ready to deliver for our defences. We need to be ready to stand with our allies. That is what we are doing today. We are ending the hollowing out and underfunding. I hope he would welcome that.

I hope he gets an opportunity when he he gets an opportunity when he

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There are historical parallels. We were only spinning 2 1/2% of national wealth on defence. There national wealth on defence. There was massive rearmament following that, and there was consensus on that, and there was consensus on both sides of the house, and by 1945, we were spinning 50% of national wealth. I think it is much national wealth. I think it is much better if the two parties try and work together on this and realise we are facing an existential crisis in the world and things are very different than they were in 2010 or different than they were in 2010 or 2015 and we should work together to massively increase defence spending.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

massively increase defence spending. I thank the gentleman for that and I agree with what he says. When the shadow secretary with defence shadow secretary, we had a position of cross-party support on defence of cross-party support on defence matters. It is really important we get back to that place because it is get back to that place because it is for our adverse areas that look at the UK, they should see strong the UK, they should see strong cross-party support as they do in ACS debate Ukraine.

There is a strong set of fans in the defence strong set of fans in the defence review. There is increasing defence funding for getting to 2.5%, a funding for getting to 2.5%, a figure we have not matched in the last 14 years. There is a real opportunity to send him a message to our adverse areas and for the people who serve, and I hope his Frontbench were listening strongly as I was in that respect. Members of the opportunity to improve this order knowing that the government is delivering on our pledge to rewrite stop

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On a serious note, we on this side were accused of being pro- Russian, pro-Chinese and pro- Iranians repeatedly by the Prime Iranians repeatedly by the Prime Minister. He defended it. Because we Minister. He defended it. Because we dared to defend things, we need to see things on both sides.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

see things on both sides. The unity we saw as they started a deal and we finished it. They agreed it was the right thing. We agreed it was the right thing. We agreed it was the right thing to complete the deal. We put national security first in that respect, security first in that respect, secure the future and won the secure the future and won the support of our US fans. It is up to us what side of the debate he wishes to be on.

We choose the side of our to be on. We choose the side of our national security. Honourable members can approve this order today knowing that we are delivering on knowing that we are delivering on the pledge to rewrite the contract between the UK and those who serve between the UK and those who serve to improve it. The Armed Forces act and this order underpins the very existence of his man Armed Forces. existence of his man Armed Forces. It backs those who, like my old man, stepped forward to serve like so many across this house, stepped forward to serve our country, to protect our United Kingdom, our allies and partners in an era of global instability to deploy globally in support of British objectives and support our national security.

With the consent of the house today, Parliament will acknowledge their service, pay tribute to service, and back their service. I beg to me.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is is on the order paper.
15:05
Mark Francois Portrait Rt Hon Mark Francois MP (Rayleigh and Wickford, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

The purpose of this is to provide the continuation of the Armed Forces act 2006 which would otherwise act 2006 which would otherwise expire in mid-December 2025. In essence, the measure provided 2006 act to continue in force for a further year, taking us up to a deadline of 14 December 2026. For those with a historical interest, the principle of the legislation actually dates back as the Minister intimated to the Bill of Rights of 1688 which, given that it followed on from the Civil War, state the following.

Raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it with the consent of Parliament is against the law. This has resulted in a requirements in 1688 that all legislation on discipline and the Armed Forces has to be annually renewed, hence this order. The Minister stated that this should have support from all sides of the house and I'm sure that it does. But yet again, when we are debating defence, when we are debating an order that is fundamental to the discipline and integrity of our Armed Forces, there is no reform MP in the chamber of the house of commons.

Why? Because reform don't do defence. And the Minister and I have seen that time and time again over the last year. So there's a point of consensus if he wants one. However, whilst this order might appear to be merely a formality, albeit an important one, it does provide me with an opportunity to ask my member for important questions. But before I move on to that, can I report to the Minister that the cadets, an important part of the Armed Forces family, are indeed well disciplined and in good health.

When I attended Armed Forces Day on Saturday, I was honoured to Day on Saturday, I was honoured to be invited to inspect on parade. I asked one cadet why he decided to join the architects and he replied because my mum made me. So, I attended Armed Forces Day in Basildon as I have done for years, and I managed to grab a quick drink with some veterans in the local hostelry thereafter. However, mysteriously, all four MPs in the Basildon borough, none of whom are Labour MPs, appear not to have been invited this year.

I can only presume our invitations are somehow lost in the post. Can I say gently to the Minister, more in sorrow than in anger, that playing silly games like this on Partizan Grounds is demeaning for the Labour left Council. Armed Forces Day is too important for this sort of silly nonsense and it just embarrasses the council in the eyes of the public and local MPs, so perhaps in all seriousness, he can have a word with his colleagues on the council and make sure that unfortunate oversight doesn't happen again.

One other point on that, traditionally, defence is a bipartisan issue. We all believe in the defence of the round. I've always believed that as the first duty of government, but can I say to the Minister that you can't have it both ways. You can't on one hand plead for unity between the government and the opposition and then, when it suits you, imply that opposition spokesmen are somehow Russian or Chinese or Iranians fellow travellers because they have the temerity not to agree with you and your bonkers trade-off deal, so my advice to the Minister is make your mind up and be consistent, and then you will receive the respect that you asked for in return.

Now, turning to the order directly, the Armed Forces are normally subject to the Armed Forces act, normally subject to a review. We had acts in 2011, 16 and 21, now we can expect in the further one before the item expires. Assuming for a moment that it will be the Armed Forces Minister and myself who take this legislation through in behalf of our respective parties, this is a good opportunity to ask the Minister what the latest timings are on that legislation and we can expect to see a bill.

Secondly, pending that, perhaps the Minister could give an idea what the key themes that are likely to be, and in which areas if any the act is likely to differ materially from the existing act 2021. In fairness, he dropped a hint that there will be justice provisions. If he has an opportunity, he can expand on that slightly. I asked the question because there will be large parties through to military charities and others who based on previous experience will take a close and important interest in the bell and be able to give them a good heads up as possible which would clearly be desirable, so perhaps the Minister could assist the house this afternoon in that regard.

As the expanded tree notes point out, where this order not to be passed, the key effect of the 2006 pack shall be to end the provisions which are necessary to maintain the Armed Forces as disciplined bodies. Crucially, the 2006 act confers powers and sensor procedures to enforce duty to obey lawful commands. Without the 2006 act, those powers and procedures will no longer have effect, no powers of punishment in respect of a failure to obey a lawful command or any other form of discipline or misconduct.

We will still oh allegiance to his match with the power enforcement which would be removed. Clearly, that would be a very undesirable situation and we will most certainly not be voting against this order in a few minutes time. Nonetheless, there is an important point here about members of the Armed Forces being required to obey lawful commands. This brings me onto the third question. As recently as defence questions on Monday, we were debating in this chamber the fate of the 300,000 or so British Army veterans who served in Northern Ireland.

They were lawfully commanded to help uphold the rule of law in support of the Royal Ulster Constabulary GC, and to protect all people in Northern Ireland from whatever tradition they might come from heinous acts of terrorism, whether by bomb or by bullet. As the Minister will be well aware, the government has tabled the so-called remedial orders which would cut out elements of the 2023 Northern Ireland legacy act, thus potentially opening up some of those to an endless cycle of investigation and reinvestigation.

As currently drafted, the remedial law makes it easier for the likes of Jerry Allinson his compadres to sue the British taxpayer for hundreds of millions of pounds. According to a press report in the daily Telegraph yesterday, and an associated PQ from the Northern Ireland secretary, government has now decided to drop the part of the remedial orders which would assist associates from suing the British taxpayer. If that report is true, this is something that these benches would warmly welcome.

However, it still doesn't solve the problem the potential persecution of our brave veterans who served in Northern Ireland often who served in Northern Ireland often

**** Possible New Speaker ****

being persecuted at the behest. Whenever he and members of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Whenever he and members of the shadow defence team bring up this law fair against our veterans, government ministers always say we will be sure to give them maximum support. To me, that implies not protecting them from the law fair supporting them as they go through the process, but the process is the the process, but the process is the punishment. Everybody knows that people who are involved in fatal accidents would only serve a limited accidents would only serve a limited prison term if, heaven forbid, convicted, but the probability is convicted, but the probability is that they won't be convicted but the punishment lies in what they have to go through before they are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

acquitted. My right honourable friend chair the Select Committee where they the Select Committee where they produced a very good report on this whole issue. He is an expert on whole issue. He is an expert on this. All I will say is that, when this. All I will say is that, when it comes to legacy issues, Labour often provides legal support but not necessarily always to veterans. So if the Minister wishes to maintain morale in the Armed Forces, perhaps he would take this opportunity now to clarify precisely the government's position on whether or not they still intends to table remedial orders, whether they intend now to move straight to what the Labour manifesto describes as new legislation in the whole field of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

legacy matters. Which is it? They also recognised that there

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They also recognised that there may be a bit of this concern in the government between the Minister of government between the Minister of defence Frontbench and the Northern Ireland Office Frontbench as to how this proceeds.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this proceeds. I hope there is. I very much hope

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I hope there is. I very much hope that MoD ministers in private, even if they can't say so in public, are if they can't say so in public, are fighting tenaciously to have this fighting tenaciously to have this mad order scrapped and to defend the Northern Ireland veterans in a way that the Northern Ireland veterans defended all of us. The Minister defended all of us. The Minister understands what I mean by that and I think he and some of his colleagues may have been working on colleagues may have been working on this, and if they have, then in good this, and if they have, then in good this, and if they have, then in good If there is an intention to still go If there is an intention to still go ahead with the remedial order, and I would welcome clarity on this, despite the fact that that would have disastrous consequences for both recruitment and retention, which the Minister mentioned a few minutes ago, could the Minister confirm exactly what the government 's policy now is? Is it to go down the remedial route or for new legislation? If it is new, what are the timeframes? Would he be able to sign a statement to the effect that in his view it is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

However, it is now a question as to whether where British troops to be deployed to Ukraine as part of some coalition, potentially following a potential ceasefire, what would happen to those British troops if they were subsequently to be involved in combat with Russian forces or Russian acolytes? Would guarantee could the Minister give that if soldiers were to fire their that if soldiers were to fire their weapons, they would meet -- they would not be subject to warfare? Law fair? -- lawfare.

This is therefore very much alive issue which deserves to be raised in Parliament, not least on behalf of the soldiers who might have to do it for real. Given all of this, would it not be helpful, as suggested a number of times by my right honourable friend, to issue a formal declaration that we would derogate from the European Convention on human rights. Soldiers would be excluded from any potential prosecutions even decades later. The Minister will now for himself this is now materially affecting morale in the Armed Forces, especially among the special forces community.

Any reassurance you can give concerning derogation would be gratefully received. To summarise, we obviously support this. It would be helpful to have somebody -- some more information on timings about the new act in order to allow interested parties to plan. This would help to maintain morale and discipline in the Armed Forces. The Minister could let us know about future operations, especially those involving deploying troops to unit -- Ukraine. And specifically whether the government is contemplating removing clauses from the remedial order or abandoning the remedial order altogether, or whether the intent to abandon the remedial order and provide new legislation to achieve this aim? With those questions, I conclude but for one other thing.

The father of the house gave us all very wise advice. We should increase defence spending. We can argue over how much and how quickly, but we certainly should in this increasingly dangerous world. On these benches, we want to work constructively with the government and the ministerial defence for the defence of the realm. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order. I will now announce

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order. I will now announce ... On the ... On the draft ... On the draft Criminal ... On the draft Criminal Justice ... On the draft Criminal Justice The Ayes, 333, Noes, 138.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I appreciated being in this debate on the floor of the House. It shows the importance this House. It shows the importance this government puts on our Armed Forces and in particular our personnel. This government is giving our
15:21
Chris Vince Portrait Chris Vince MP (Harlow, Labour )
-
-
This government is giving our service personnel and the commitment to recruitment and retention issues. As well as the increase in spending. As I was unable to make my intervention, have to say I'm disappointed this has turned into a party political debate but I can assure the house I don't intend to say more on the matter. I recognise that this act reflects a constitutional requirement but also gives us an annual opportunity to say thank you to our brave servicemen and women.

As I've mentioned previously, I am the son, and like most people of my age, the grandson of veterans. I would also like to recognise the sacrifice that our Armed Forces families make for this country. This active -- if this act is not renewed, marshals will no longer be able to enact punishment longer be able to enact punishment within the Armed Forces. We must support our servicemen and women as they support as, which is why I welcome him and the veterans work on Op Valour.

As Lord Coaker said in the other place, we inhabit a world which is more dangerous than in any time since the fall of the Soviet Union. That is something everybody in this house can reflect on. Any members across this is, iron -- I attended -- I attend the ceremony every week. I have to say I find it incredibly moving. This morning was particularly moving 11 name was read out of the son of a member of the House who passed away at the age of eight years old.

Of course, our service personnel, a country cannot work in isolation. It's important to recognise the work that our Armed Forces do in collaboration with our NATO allies. Finally, I would like to thank all honourable gallant members of this house for what they have done in the past careers to keep us all say. I would also like to pay tribute to the servicemen and women of my constituency of Harlow and the UK as a whole for their continuing service and keeping us and our families safe during these increasingly troubled times.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I now call Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
15:24
Helen Maguire Portrait Helen Maguire MP (Epsom and Ewell, Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

spokesperson. Thank you. Today's ocean may appear procedural but it sits at the heart of how we uphold parliamentary democracy. Under the Bill of Rights 1688, ascending are the -- army in peacetime speak and sent it to annually by Parliament. This is not just constitutional housekeeping, it is a clear democratic statement that power in this country derives from Parliament and Armed Forces serve the law and are not above it. I will support this order.

Without it, the system would fall away, discipline would not be enforced and commanding officers would be stripped of lawful authority. There would be no means to uphold the standards of service that we rightly expect. But with that annual consent, must come annual scrutiny. The leadership they serve must be worthy of the trust. Over recent years, Conservative governments have failed in their duty to Armed Forces. Well a brutal -- while a brutal war raged in Europe, the previous government was cutting troops from our Armed Forces.

Equipment programmes are routinely over budget and behind schedule. The National Audit Office has repeatedly warned about capability gaps. Our service personnel are too often asked to do more with less. This includes living in unacceptable conditions with a housing system that does not meet their needs. The effectiveness of Armed Forces depends not just on Kate but on people. When those people are being let down, when we ask them to serve under a legal framework, we are not keeping our side of the bargain.

The Lib Dems are calling for a different part. We demand a reversal of the shortsighted troop cuts and a long- term plan to increase numbers -- increase troop numbers. Were also calling for cross-party talks to agree to a sustainable path to meet NATO's spending target of 5% of GDP. The strategy and numbers, we want to deliver a fair deal for those who served. That Ince proper pay in decent conditions, it means high- quality housing, come access to mental health care, job opportunities.

We press the government to deliver long overdue justice for LGB veterans, many of whom are still awaiting compensation after years of discrimination and unfair dismissal. We also demand full implementation of report recommendations to tackle harassment and misogyny faced by too many women in the Armed Forces. Looking ahead, we understand a new Armed Forces Act is expected to be introduced in the next year. When this bill is brought forward, I will hold the government to a high standard.

And must not copy and paste exercise. It must be an opportunity to improve the culture of Armed Forces to ensure accountability and modernisation are at its heart. This continuation order maintains the legal foundation of Armed Forces. Laws alone are not enough. We need leadership, we need commit and is and we need a government that does not simply consent to military presence once a year but honours their presence with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

actions and respect. Thank you. I welcome the Armed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I welcome the Armed Forces Act 2006 (Continuation) Order Forces Act 2006 (Continuation) Order 2025. I pay respect to the Armed Forces and the role they play in the defence of this nation and across the globe. Last year 's continuation
15:28
Ben Obese-Jecty Portrait Ben Obese-Jecty MP (Huntingdon, Conservative)
-
-
the globe. Last year 's continuation order was the first one I signed and I was very proud to do so. As a veteran and now an MP I know first hand... The world feels more dangerous today than it did at that time. The Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 is has precipitated a seachange in the evolution of warfare. There is activity that feels like warfare in a science fiction film. This must run through the strategic defence review -- this theme runs through the Strategic Defence Review.

We must increase defence spending to ensure that we remain a capable NATO ally. As an island nation in a safe part of the bed, our position as one of postcolonial responsibility. A decentralised nuclear capability shows we are a nation that continues to be taken seriously. We continue to be benched as NATO allies feel to be benched as NATO allies feel threat from Russia. The pledge drop to 5% is simply not credible and this smoke and mirrors approach indicates that these sums do not add up.

There is a gap in spending plans. Where will that money come from? Spending cuts or hike taxes are unavoidable. Projections look at best sluggish. Claims we can reach best sluggish. Claims we can reach 4.6% on security 2.6% -- 2.6%. Bearing in mind that a sizeable proportion of that is the at sea deterrent. A long way from the numbers the government is putting forward. The 4.1% figure the government is now puffing it's just about contains everything from UK art spending to rural broadband.

25 details that the RSS Attenborough plans environmental changes meaning plans environmental changes meaning that both team would face is -- that both team would face is -- We are writing checks that it seems we will be unlikely to ever catch. We are about to welcome a modernisation process that is not appropriate. There is a project for combat air that is not due to be delivered to expected. In 20 years time, there will be a demand for this to be true.

It is likely to have lived beyond 2070. To be believe the aircraft will be ready by then? Drawings are clearly the future of warfare. -- drones. We continue to use Ukraine as the proving ground. There are issues with the drone training and currently using eSports as the only currently using eSports as the only , we will replace 450,000 A3 rifles by 2030 and that is a significant contribution and the discussions and changing the abolition as well and there is the purpose of 5.56 which we will not have to go into in the chamber today but everything that goes with that in terms of rifle racks, ammunition coaches, magazines.

The nitty-gritty of changing a weapons platform that really does take a toll on exactly how we implement. We intend to replace 6000 landlubbers by 2030 which is significant commitment in terms of training soldiers to drive them, making sure we have the logistical trading in place to service the vehicles. These tasks are small but resource-intensive and place more strain on the system. Only today, I understand 1500 roles have been cut and the burden has fallen on existing suppliers. This is one of the factors that erodes goodwill and continues to contribute towards problems.

Only a few weeks ago, I was in Poland visiting the RAF and conducting only two embassy role on the Russian border. The personnel there were rightly extremely proud to serve but at the same time the pressure is immense and they had to repeatedly spend long periods away from home. Incredible, the additional penalty that BP is financial with all but those on the highest LSA bands composite from being separated from their family is at rest negligible. Maybe being paid more to be an operations means you're not physically at home and you have to pay for it be sitting or have your spouse look after them and you have to pay for a dog walker rather than leaving the dog at home.

Those costs add up and are not factored into the extra payments that people received for being on tour. Meanwhile, we continue to see those who have served the nation continue to enjoy the support of. Concerns the treatment of Northern Ireland veterans mean many are concerned about their futures and being held accountable for actions to produce. There is potentially a huge issue that future recruits. A loss of confidence that serpent your control of this government may see you charged as a criminal one day.

-- Serpent. The community minister on the Frontbench served. I welcome the continuation order 2025 and just as I was proud to play a small part in the history of one of the finest institutions in the country. I recognise delivering for service personnel. I do not dressing them for one second. I place my concerns and limitations placed on the Treasury accounting. This is an improvement from the smoke and mirrors afoot. Fiscal rules signed botched legislation and this is a reason the government must demonstrate a commitment to tangible results, not just pledges.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I simply want to contribute to
15:35
Sorcha Eastwood Portrait Sorcha Eastwood MP (Lagan Valley, Alliance)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I simply want to contribute to the on behalf of the home of army HQ in Northern Ireland. I'm proud of in Northern Ireland. I'm proud of family members that have served, both in the regular army and the GC and I will depart from some members of the House when I say that they were professional in everything that they did and they would agree that they did not self above the law but within the law, as every professional soldier bit.

I pray tribute to the Royal British Legion branches have been incredible in supporting veterans across Northern Ireland and making sure that the are represented in remembrance events. I want to echo some remarks made by the shadow front bench in terms of the debts and something people overlook and we are blessed to have both the cadets, the RAF cadets and the army and every time I look at those young people in next my heart proud. I am also more confident for the future.

Anna Berry changed security -- we are in a very changed situation. The militaristic challenges referenced in the opening remarks about recruitment and retention. Sometimes we have to change the dial plan we discussed these things. This should be an opportunity for young people. I often hear that young people are maligned and marginalised. Some of them are going to be the engineers and strategic operations planners of the future. Sometimes they are desperately wanting to find meaning in life and find that through service and I think that is what the cadets provides.

I want to put it on record my thanks to those who are serving, the gallant members throughout the house, the people who have served, and I have the complete and utter back in all of this and I am proud of them and what they have done and for their families, too. There is also a hidden threat that many are still dealing with years from now. It is important that we vitally remember those who have
15:38
David Reed Portrait David Reed MP (Exmouth and Exeter East, Conservative)
-
-
I rise today to raise an important point that will be important point that will be reported in the media -- has been reported over the last 24 hours anticipated Royal Marines. I was a former member of myself and this is an issue that we must discuss now and I hope the Minister can give some answers. It's been reported Royal Marines are moving away from conventional amphibious operations and large-scale beach landings and force protections from CER being replaced by small flexible teams which will operate alongside Special Forces.

I think adaptability is vital and I'm sure there are many merits in this direction of travel but it is important that the Minister comes forward to tell the House and give the opportunity to discuss this. I worry that abandoning these hard won capabilities without a clear and credible replacement is not adaptation, but risk. Some questions for the Minister, is the government removing the UK's amphibious warfare capability? If so, what replaces it? What is the long-term plan to get forces from the sea to the land if not through this role? The (Multiple Multirole support ships, there is no answer and if this is flexible are answer and if this is flexible are scaled back presence.

Will the MRSS be able to deploy the commando units at skill in difficult environments? If the latter, is that the full extent of the national amphibious ambitions? Then onto the issue around Special Forces support and I know we cannot discuss this in the chamber with the security member and I understand we will not be able to discuss this in great detail but it has been reported that 40 Mantle has been passed to operate alongside the Special Boat Service including hostage rescue.

But this is mean for the contribution to the support group? Is it being restructured or reassigned? I think this goes to a deeper point with NATO allies and if we are talking in the Strategic Defence Review about being Lizzo first, this matters to national resilience where this is often the only option and it matters to the men and women who serve fantasy of clarity about the future identity and so I urge the Minister to come forward with honest and detailed answers rather than slogans and spin with clarity on the 2030 plans because the policy cannot be made in stealth.

stealth.
15:41
Robin Swann Portrait Robin Swann MP (South Antrim, Ulster Unionist Party)
-
-
I thank the Minister for bringing this forward in the House today. A few questions with regard to statements that have been made by other honourable members and many have spoken about the value of the cadets and the promotion of young people and the additional skill training. What was concerning was when I met some cadets in Northern Ireland and many were reporting that there was a fall in the core financial support, the grant that they received from the Ministry of defence and I would like clarity defence and I would like clarity from the Minister and if it was true and it was not a large sum of money with regard to the protections.

The cadets provide a valuable service and require parental support to be given as well. In terms of the continued support, the Minister and I have had many exchanges and will continue to have and that is about investment, not just in service personnel but the facilities supplied and the BCs and I refer to Northern Ireland. -- bases. The facility can be a strategic location facility can be a strategic location in national defence. I would like to hear that there is a possibility of further investment under the Strategic Defence Review.

I would Strategic Defence Review. I would like to thank all current and former serving personnel. The comments were made on July 14 and I would encourage all members to participate in that debate so we can show the support members of this House have. support members of this House have. In closing, Qaddafi Minister to join me -- could I ask the Minister to join me in celebrating the 100th anniversary of service personnel through Boris and support personnel at this point in time.
15:44
Mark Francois Portrait Rt Hon Mark Francois MP (Rayleigh and Wickford, Conservative)
-
-
I called the shadow minister. we have had a good debate which has been lively at times about an important subject and, for the avoidance of doubt, we will loyally support this motion which I'm sure will be passed without the need for vision. We have had good speeches including from the member for Huntingdon who recalled time serving in the infantry and I had the same honour, although, in my case, it was as a Cold War reservist rather than a regular.

The honourable member asked a number of questions about the future of the Royal Marines. The government has flogged off a lot of amphibious shipping and he asked for some clarification on the SSS class and what happens in the amphibious role. Perhaps you could provide some reassurance. If it is true that in the short term Royal Marines will lose the amphibious role, can I ask if the parachute regiment were consulted? The honourable member...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will. I can see the Security Minister

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I can see the Security Minister chuckling but I would also ask that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

chuckling but I would also ask that the RAF Regiment are consulted on that issue as well. I think they have had other

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think they have had other things on the mind lately. I congratulate the honourable member for raising the important issue of for raising the important issue of Northern Ireland and that takes me to where I would like to conclude. I to where I would like to conclude. I hope when the Minister replies she can answer some of my questions can answer some of my questions about what will happen to veterans. Again, for the avoidance of doubt, I Again, for the avoidance of doubt, I think I know where his heart is on this and I cannot recall if he this and I cannot recall if he served in Northern Ireland and I know he served with distinction in know he served with distinction in Afghanistan and saw he understands that on these benches we have to that on these benches we have to believe that government are doing the right thing.

Perhaps the Minister could give some assurance Minister could give some assurance to those 300,000 veterans who are to those 300,000 veterans who are still with us and who serve that they will remove the sort of Damocles that hangs over them and allow the people who served with distinction in difficult circumstances to sleep safely in circumstances to sleep safely in
15:47
Luke Pollard Portrait Luke Pollard MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Plymouth Sutton and Devonport, Labour )
-
-
Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I thank all members for their contributions to this debate. It was contributions to this debate. It was a good one. I will refer briefly enclosing to a number of issues that have been raised. First I detect strong support for armed forces on all sides of the house so I hope there won't be a division very shortly, and that is good to see. I think this debate has shown the merit in holding the annual order on the Floor of the House but I suspect I will need to have a word with the Leader of the House and the whips before I commit to a future one of those because that is definitely outside my control.

Can I thank the member for talking about cadets? He is right that we invest more in cadets, and that is why the Strategic Defence Review set out our ambition to increase the size of our cadet force by 30%. A strong investment in the future of our young people, providing opportunities not just to get lifetimes of skills, increase confidence and opportunities, and also to provide a pathway for young people to serve in our Armed Forces, to really realise the benefits. Having seen the cadets on parade in Plymouth for Armed Forces Day at the weekend, I know there is strong support for them in every part of the country and I'm grateful for raising that.

Young people find meaning through service is the line, and I am grateful for that contribution and I agree. In relation to that Shadow Minister who asked me a number of questions, we have to renew the Armed Forces Act every five years. That will be renewed in the proper way. We are looking at what is necessary to update that legislation especially as it would be coming after the publication of the Strategic Defence Review. He will be familiar that the Strategic Defence Review made the case for a defence readiness bill and we are looking at the details and I can reassure him that, as part of the commitment that we have shown, indeed with a wide consultation that we have undertaken with the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, that we will continue in that spirit for future legislation.

He will, he may have missed it, but just before Prime Minister's Questions today, it was Northern Ireland questions, and I believe the Northern Ireland Secretary at the Dispatch Box raised, took questions on a number of issues he spoke about full stop I might refer him to those remarks. As he will know, these are matters for that Northern Ireland Office. Clearly defence has strong

**** Possible New Speaker ****

equities and views on these matters. I was watching Northern Ireland

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I was watching Northern Ireland questions. From memory, Northern Ireland Secretary said they would address this through primary legislation. He gave no indication as to what happens to the outstanding remedial orders. If they can't answer that today, perhaps the Minister the Northern Ireland Office would write to us and tell us where we stand?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we stand? As you will know because I've had similar conversations in a variety of formats in recent weeks, as a matter for the Northern Ireland matter for the Northern Ireland Office, the policy intention is to repeal and importantly replace the unlawful legacy act. It has been found to be unlawful. It does not found to be unlawful. It does not enjoy community support. It does need to be repealed and replaced,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

need to be repealed and replaced, and any government that was elected in July would have to do that. I am very grateful for allowing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am very grateful for allowing me to intervene. I want to say to him, this point about not enjoying community support, when we were community support, when we were community support, when we were having these debates, the highly divided communities will always stand up and say how this was unacceptable and how that was unacceptable and how that was unacceptable, and quietly they would come up to us, their representatives, and say for goodness sake go on doing what you're doing.

So the Minister may have some legal problems to overcome but let him not be fooled by what is said in public about what really needs to be done.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for his question in, and indeed it is a matter that my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office follow closely on this one, Office follow closely on this one, as they are the lead department with responsibility for repealing and replacing of the legacy act. I am certain that he will continue making certain that he will continue making suggestions in that way. It is not for me to make announcement on the Northern Ireland Office behalf but I Northern Ireland Office behalf but I am certain they will have listened to the right honourable gentleman and what he has had to say in relation to this.

I am also grateful relation to this. I am also grateful for the remarks of the member for Huntington who I believe I told him Huntington who I believe I told him just before this I look forward to seeing him on the front bench in the seeing him on the front bench in the shadow defence role very soon. As he knows I'm a big fan of what he has to say, and I do like the way that to say, and I do like the way that he brings his military expertise and a certain good defence nerdery, which has a defence nerd I appreciate.

But I would say appreciate. But I would say politely, the experience I have seen from engaging with our allies on NATO's eastern flank, from Finland and the Baltic states and all the way down passing Belarus and others, is that the nations there value the is that the nations there value the relationship with the United Kingdom even more over the recent past year. even more over the recent past year. We have strong relations with the JEF nations of northern Europe we continue to have deeper relations with our Baltic friends including enhancing the force we have in Estonia.

In our cooperation and support for Latvia and Lithuania at this time. So I don't recognise the concern but he is right to raise it if any for allowing me to put this on the record, that we have strong support from these nations and indeed we strongly support them in wanting to be sovereign and free and free from Russian aggression. I would politely say to him that Sir David Attenborough does provide a really important presence in the Antarctic region. He will know, if you haven't yet discovered polar region nerdery, can I recommend that? The presence of HMS protector and that the presence that Sir David Attenborough provides there is not only an important presence as support for our Arctic missions and Antarctic missions, but help us honour our obligations under the Antarctic Treaty which is a very important part of the rules-based framework for the protection of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Antarctic. I thank the Minister for giving way. On the point about the Arctic way. On the point about the Arctic and HMS Protector, what plans do we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have to procure an icebreaker in order to increase our footprint in that region? I knew he was tempted to go into

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I knew he was tempted to go into this, I would be happy speaking to him about some of the aspects. Clearly when it comes to some of the provisions of our ships and capabilities it is not just an MOT capabilities it is not just an MOT matter, it is one that we share without Foreign & Commonwealth Office colleagues. I'm happy picking Office colleagues. I'm happy picking that up with him. I'm not certain that up with him. I'm not certain he's right there and he said on drones but nevertheless he is right when he says that Jones has fundamentally changed how warfare is fundamentally changed how warfare is can ducted.

When it comes to defence spending I am proud that we have a plan to return to 2.5% on defence, a figure not meant to 2010 full stop figure not meant to 2010 full stop we need to spend more on defence which we live in more dangerous times. The member for Harlow spoke times. The member for Harlow spoke about the sacrifice that Armed Forces families make and he is right to do so. It is something we should to do so. It is something we should not forget indeed it is the reason why in the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill we deliberately extend the powers of the Commissioner to have a requirement to engage with family members of Armed Forces, and I'm grateful to the member for Epsom for contributions.

Can I say that we do indeed have a government that honours the service of Armed Forces every day. But she is right to raise the issue of LGBT veterans. She will note the prioritisation that we have decided as ministers that the initial payments as we stand up for the system to make payment should be directed at those people who are over 80 or facing a terminal condition. We have completed that work. That was the right prioritisation, so justice can be done with those folks who may not see many more days.

We are now setting up the wider system so we can process that wider set of payments stop we will continue to do so. Finally, just in relation to questions from the member for Exeter and Exmouth East, the future commando for strategy that was published in the last government moved away from full commando assault into small raiding parties. The excellent policy of the last government and because of that I'm happy speaking to him about it. We have a strong commitment to the amphibious role of the Royal Marines.

We have a commitment to MMRS that was in the Strategic Defence Review for top I would be happy speaking to him further on this, and I'm going to have to conclude in terms of time. I am very happy meeting him to discuss this further. I can reassure him that the Royal Marines has a very bright strong future in our Armed Forces.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker, I think this raises more fundamental questions will stop just like the release of the Strategic Defence release of the Strategic Defence Review to trade bodies, to the press Review to trade bodies, to the press beforehand, we read about this, I welcome the offer to have a conversation about it with the Minister but why can't we have the Minister but why can't we have the conversation in the chamber now?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

conversation in the chamber now? If I can refer him to all the debates I caught on the future of the Royal Marines under the last government, to make the case that government, to make the case that the Royal Marines had a bright future and I was indeed that the opposition benches. We have a strong commitment to the future of the commitment to the future of the Royal Marines. We have a strong commitment to this. He will know the changes that his government introduced in terms of the future introduced in terms of the future commando force strategy and if you look at the lessons from Ukraine, indeed the Royal Marines were well ahead of the learnings that we now see from there.

Happy discussing it with him further. I'm sure he will with him further. I'm sure he will want to table a Westminster Hall debates so we can discuss this even more. I reassure him and the House more. I reassure him and the House the future of the Royal Marines is safe and secure. We have a strong commitment to amphibious city we commitment to amphibious city we need to make sure all our forces adapt to the environment in which they operate and someone who represents Stonehouse barracks, to something I feel personally.

I don't recognise the concerns he raised but I'm glad honours cross-party basis

**** Possible New Speaker ****

there is strong support for Armed Forces and the continuation order. Thank you. The question is as on the Order Paper. As many are of that opinion say, "Aye". And of the contrary, "No". The ayes have it. The ayes "No". The ayes have it. The ayes have it. I will give the ministers a few moments to shuffle over. Before few moments to shuffle over. Before we start on the next item of
15:58
None Portrait Motion: Motion to approve the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2025
-

we start on the next item of business. Motion number four on Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism. Minister to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I
15:58
Dan Jarvis Portrait Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I beg to move that the Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order, which was laid before the house on 30 June to prove. I'm grateful to the House for its consideration of this draft order which will see three distinct groups proscribed. They are, MANIACS Murder Cult, Palestine Action and Murder Cult, Palestine Action and the Imperial Organisation. The proscription of these three organisations will reaffirm the U.K.'s zero tolerance approach to terrorism.

Regardless of its form or underlying ideology. First, it may be helpful if I set out some background to the proscription power. To proscribe an organisation, the Home Secretary must reasonably believe that it is concerned in terrorism. This means that the organisation commits or participate in terrorism. It prepares for terrorism, it promotes or encourages terrorism, or it is otherwise concerned in terrorism. Some 80 terrorist organisations are currently proscribed under the terrorism act 2000. Proscription is terrorism act 2000.

Proscription is rightly ideologically neutral. It judges and organisation on its actions, and the actions it is willing to deploy in pursuit of its cause. The U.K.'s definition of terrorism was established in law 1/4 of a century ago. It has stood the test of time and extensive scrutiny since. I will make a little bit of progress and that I will give way. It has three limbs. Firstly, the use or threat of action must reach a certain level of seriousness such as serious violence, or serious damage to property.

Secondly, the use or threat must be designed to implement a government or intimidate the public, or a section of the public, and thirdly, the use or threat must be made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial, or ideological cause. Successive independent reviewers of terrorism legislation have upheld the U.K.'s terrorism definition is effective and fit for purpose. Even as the threat from terrorism has evolved. I threat from terrorism has evolved. I Prescription is one of the most powerful counterterrorism tools available to government and any decision to prescribe is taken with great care, following rigourous consideration, as noted by Jonathan Hall in his consideration of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Terrorism Act of 2022. I think the question that many of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the question that many of us want to put to him is, why has he linked these three organisations linked these three organisations together? He has clearly made a judgement on each of the three independently of each other. I think independently of each other. I think it would be fair, and I'm sure many would agree, if we take individual votes on the three because many of us are concerned about the issue facing Palestine Action and that is facing Palestine Action and that is the issue I would like to address today.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will explain with real clarity precisely why we have proceeded in precisely why we have proceeded in the way that we have. I suspect he has a long memory and would recall, has a long memory and would recall, I am sure, that when he has previously voted against prescribing organisations including al-Qaeda in 2001, the particular motion was 2001, the particular motion was bungled along with 20 other militant bungled along with 20 other militant -- bundled along with 20 other militant organisations and so there is clear precedent for this.

The reason that we do it is to demonstrate that we do not attach any kind of ideological prism with which to seek to make a judgement. The Home Secretary will take a view based on a legal threshold and that is the basis in which we will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

proceed. I thank the Minister for bringing this forward. I will be supporting this forward. I will be supporting the government, if it does come to a vote, we will support the moment and vote, we will support the moment and Labour. We understand we must have security and is important to have government, ministers, the police, army, MI5, MI6 all in harmony with that responsibility. In relation to that responsibility. In relation to the membership of those organisations, would it be the organisations, would it be the intention of the Minister...

If they are a list of those who may be are a list of those who may be members of Palestine Action? I do not know, perhaps in the House, but not know, perhaps in the House, but if there is, perhaps we would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

if there is, perhaps we would understand. Will they be subject to the rulings as well? I am grateful for the intervention and I know that he intervention and I know that he speaks with great authority on these matters as a result of his extensive experience of dealing with matters like this in Northern Ireland. If like this in Northern Ireland. If the House will allow me to make progress and if you can be patient, progress and if you can be patient, I will explain the point he has raised and the point that other members are seeking to raise.

I will now turn to the specific measures before the House today and take each of the proposed additions to the list of proscribed organisations in order. First, Maniacs Murder Cult, order. First, Maniacs Murder Cult, also known as MMC. It is an insidious, white supremacist neo- Nazi organisation operating online which aims to encourage individuals to engage in acts of violence against people that it perceives as antisocial, including homeless people, drug addicts, and migrants, or to further its own ideology and agreed society through violence.

-- all to further. The government believes it commits, prepares for, and encourages acts of terrorism and leaders and members had claimed a number of attacks globally which we are committed in pursuit of the aims of the group. MMC provides material that could increase the capability or motivation of an aspiring attacker, including a gate which includes information on fatally attacking someone with and they find using weapons. Members and nonmembers sure the material including videos, violent attacks, to encourage further attacks on ideology.

A Georgian national on 20 May was extradited to the USA and set to stand trial for soliciting head cranes and acts of mass violence and he is alleged to have recruited individuals online to commit acts of murder, arson, bombing, and mass poisoning in New York. These are targeted specifically at members of ethnic minority groups, homeless people, Jewish schoolchildren. MMC has a true transnational audience including the UK. It does not matter where the leaders of the network are based, if they are capable of inspiring acts of violence and terror in any country.

Vulnerable individuals including children are exposed to the horrific material published and distributed online by MMC. The government will not stand by to allow these farms to persist. Prescribing MMC is key to helping to deter and preventing individuals from engaging with the present content and it sends a clear signal to social media companies to remove MMC's material from the platforms and the threat posed by MMC must be taken extremely seriously, whether they are inspiring acts of violence against people, influencing young people to commit those acts, we will not hesitate to take action against groups like these, to keep our country safe.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I agree with the Minister that it clearly meets the threshold very clearly meets the threshold very significantly. I am bound to ask the significantly. I am bound to ask the question, when did the actions of MMC first come to the attention of the government? Why has it left it the government? Why has it left it so long to bring forward this so long to bring forward this proposal? Why has it simply left it to the point where it is convenient

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to bring it forward? I am sorry that the honourable member has chosen to make that final member has chosen to make that final point. There is no political convenience in what we are seeking convenience in what we are seeking to do today. What we are seeking to do today is ensure the security of the country. If he is a little bit the country. If he is a little bit different, I will further make that different, I will further make that -- a little bit patient, I will make that case to the House.

The public that case to the House. The public attention garnered should not be confused with legitimacy and nor should a group formed five years ago should a group formed five years ago be conflated with the legitimate campaign for Palestinian rights and campaign for Palestinian rights and statehood and this has existed in the country and the House for more than five decades. Let me be clear, the prescription of Palestine Action the prescription of Palestine Action does not seek to ban protest that supports Palestine.

People can lawfully express their support in many ways without being a member or

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a supporter of Alice Tai in action mac. The Minister will be aware that the High Court has granted action and rather than this being rushed through Parliament, should it not be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

through Parliament, should it not be delayed until the judicial process has concluded? We are not seeking to rush it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We are not seeking to rush it through Parliament. These are matters the Home Secretary and I have considered for some time. With regard to the point about legal regard to the point about legal challenge, there is a clear route. Should an organisation be prescribed, and has the opportunity prescribed, and has the opportunity to pursue a legal route of challenge. That is entirely within the rate of any organisation who are prescribed to do so and that is a prescribed to do so and that is a matter for them.

-- right. I think this is an important point. Freedom of expression and assembly are cornerstones of our democracy. They are fundamental rights and this government will always respect and protect them. We will always defend protect them. We will always defend the right of the British people to engage in legitimate and peaceful protest and to stand up for the causes in which they believe.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I often show visitors the statue of Lord Falkland and the missing spur that was removed from the spur that was removed from the Suffragettes chain themselves to it and I was here when protesters and I was here when protesters superglued the buttocks to the glass panel the mat, causing scandal and damage. Will the Minister confirmed damage. Will the Minister confirmed that criminal damage, no matter how dangerously scandalously undertaken, dangerously scandalously undertaken, will always be treated under criminal law and is not treated as a terrorist act?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

terrorist act? I am grateful to her for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to her for the intervention and I know that she has given this matter serious consideration. It's an interesting consideration. It's an interesting point that she makes and I will seek to provide evidence to her and to provide evidence to her and others as I progress as to why we have chosen this particular course of action with this particular of action with this particular group. I hope she will understand the reasons why we are proceeding in the reasons why we are proceeding in the way that we are.

I was making the point about the importance of the right to protest. Essential as these rights are, they do not provide a blank cheque for this particular group to seriously damage property or subject members of the public to fear and violence.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On the question of Palestine Action, many of us in this chamber Action, many of us in this chamber think that Palestine Action is in a think that Palestine Action is in a different category from the other two groups he is seeking to prescribe. Is he aware that several UN Special Rapporteurs have said UN Special Rapporteurs have said that they have contacted the UK government to say that acts of protest that damage property but are not intended to kill or injure people should not be treated as terrorism.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

terrorism. I am grateful to the Mother of the House because she makes an important point and before I important point and before I respond, I will say gently to her respond, I will say gently to her and others that if they actions of the particular group we are considering at the moment had been conducted by an organisation who conducted by an organisation who held different ideological motives, held different ideological motives, my strong sense is that she and some of her colleagues would strongly recommend that the government move recommend that the government move to prescribe them.

I have to say, I am afraid, that is the conclusion I have arrived at. She specifically mentioned the point about the United Nations. As a government, we did receive a letter from special procedures mandate holders at the end of 2024 and the UK government provided a response to this which has been published. I would gently there to her that ultimately matters relating to national security and ensuring we keep the public safe are very much matters for this country, not other organisations.

I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I put on record that this heavy-handed approach threatens basic freedoms and sets a dangerous precedent for all political dissent precedent for all political dissent in the UK. Does he acknowledge that?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I do not and I do not accept his characterisation of the decision that we have taken. If you will that we have taken. If you will listen to what I have to say in the moment, I hope you will understand why we are progressing in this way. why we are progressing in this way. The attack on the 20th on 20 June at The attack on the 20th on 20 June at The attack on the 20th on 20 June at Brize Norton has provoked shock and anger across the country but the reality is this was the latest reality is this was the latest episode in Palestine Action's long episode in Palestine Action's long episode in Palestine Action's long history of such incidents.

They have initiated a nationwide campaign of property damage, with attacks that have resulted in serious damage to property and have crossed the threshold from the wrecked criminal threshold from the wrecked criminal action and into terrorism. -- action and into terrorism. -- Direct. Palestine Action members have used violence against people responding at the scene of the attacks and for these roles in these attacks, members have been charged with serious offences including violent assault, grievous bodily harm with intent, aggravated burglary, which is an offence involving a weapon.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for some of the things he has been saying. I wanted to pick up on the fact that OK has spoken about could be dealt with under criminal law. When my with under criminal law. When my honourable friend mentioned the Suffragettes, for context and Suffragettes, for context and history here, when the Suffragettes carried out the captain of smashing windows, poster-based divestment, targeting telephone lines, bombing targeting telephone lines, bombing and arson, I think we have to understand that there is a long understand that there is a long history in this country of direct action which pushes the boundaries of democracy and is difficult for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of democracy and is difficult for all of us but it is still direct action, not terrorism. I acknowledge his point about the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I acknowledge his point about the history. I think it's a reasonable history. I think it's a reasonable history. I think it's a reasonable Ultimately this government has to respond to events that are taking respond to events that are taking place in the here and now. This government has to take sometimes difficult decisions about what measures are required in order to measures are required in order to keep the public safe. He is absolutely within his rights to seek to make comparisons about other groups, but as I will explain in a moment, fundamentally the Home Secretary has to take a view about whether a legal threshold has been crossed.

If it is, she has to make a judgement about whether she's wishing to proceed. I will have to make a bit of progress because I still have some way to go. I will make some progress. Despite some of the rhetoric to the contrary, the group's own materials stated that the organisation is not nonviolence. Which is echoed in the actions of its members who have committed atrocious attacks. Having carefully considered all the evidence, the Home Secretary has concluded that Palestine Action is concerned in terrorism and should be proscribed.

The house will understand that I am unable to comment on specific intelligence, or go into details about incidents that are sub judice. However I can provide a summary of the groups activities, and it is right that I make that position clear to the House. Since its inception in 2020, Palestine Action has orchestrated and enacted a campaign of direct criminal action against businesses and institutions, including key national infrastructure and defence firms that provide services and supplies to support Ukraine, NATO, our Five Eyes allies, and the UK defence industry.

Over time, and most notably since the start of 2024, Palestine Action's activities have increased in frequency and severity. Its targets have broadened to include financial firms, charities, diversities, and government buildings. Its methods have become more aggressive with its members demonstrating a willingness to use violence. I will give way but I do need to make progress.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him because you spoke about the history of some of this and there is more recent history. The last government brought in the The last government brought in the Public Order Act in order to deal with Extinction Rebellion. At that point the Home Secretary when she point the Home Secretary when she was in the shadow front bench listed all the various crimes that could be all the various crimes that could be dealt with. And she said then, the government are extending powers that we would normally make available just for serious violence and terrorism to peaceful protest.

Police officers themselves have said Police officers themselves have said that this is a serious restriction on a person's right to protest, and on a person's right to protest, and in reality, is unworkable. She was right then wasn't she, and she is wrong today?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

wrong today? I am going to make a bit of progress because I hope to answer some of the points that he says. some of the points that he says. Specific incidences for the decision Specific incidences for the decision that have happened recently. I understand why he may not understand why he may not necessarily want to listen to that but I would invite him to do so because it is a very important context. I will make some progress. Some of Palestine Action's own material state we are not nonviolence and have specific nonviolence and have specific targets.

The group has a footprint in all 45 policing regions in the UK, and has pledged to escalate his campaign. This disgraceful pattern of activity cannot be allowed to continue. In applying the legislative framework, the government assesses that Palestine Action commits acts of terrorism. In several attacks, Palestine Action is committed acts of serious damage to property with the aim of progressing its political cause. I'm not going to give way with the need to get these points on the record. The aim of progressing its political cause and intimidating and influencing the public and the government.

These include attacks in Glasgow 22, and last year, Instro Precision in Kent and in Bristol. In such attacks, Palestine Action members. Entry onto premises armed with a variety of weapons, and damaged or demolished property causing millions of pounds worth of criminal damage. As the House has said, Palestine Action members have used violence against people responding at the scene. Drink Palestine Action attack against a Glasgow factory in 2022, group tours over £1 million of damage including parts that are essential to our submarines.

Palestine Action caused panic among staff who feared for their safety, as pyrotechnics and smoke bombs were thrown in the area where they were evacuating for top the sheriff, when passing custodial sentences for the perpetrators said, "Throwing pyrotechnics into areas where people are being evacuated would hardly be described as being non-violent. " The government also assess that Palestine Action prepares for terrorism. The organisation has provided practical advice to assist its members with conducting significant levels of property damage, at targets right across the UK.

Example Palestine Action released and on the ground manual which encourages its members to create small groups or cells and provides guidance about how to conduct activity against private companies and government buildings. It explains how to operate covertly to evade arrest and provide a link to a website also created by Palestine Action, which contains a map of target locations across the UK. The government assesses that Palestine Action promotes and encourages terrorism. This includes the glorification of its attacks involving serious property damage on social media.

Palestine Action attacks are not victimless crimes. Employees have experienced physical violence, intimidation, and harassment. They have been prevented from entering their place of work. We would not tolerate this activity from organisations motivated by Islamist or extreme right-wing ideology, and we cannot tolerate it from Palestine Action. By influencing this measure we will reduce Palestine Action's veil of legitimacy, tackle its financial support, and degrades efforts to recruit and radicalise people into committing terrorist activity in its name. We must be under no illusion, al-Islam action is not a legitimate protest group.

People engaged in lawful protest don't need weapons. People engaged in full protest do not throw smoke bombs and fire pyrotechnics and innocent members of the public. And people engaged in lawful protest do not cause millions of pounds of damage to national security infrastructure. Including submarines and defence equipment for NATO. Proscribing Palestine Action will not impinge on people's right to protest. Those who wish lawfully to protest or express support for Palestine have always been able to, and can continue to do so.

I am conscious of time. That is why I want to turn very briefly to the Russian Imperial Movement, or RIM. It is a white supreme s no nationalist organisation that seeks to create a new Russian in state. The methods used to achieve those aims threaten UK, Euro-Atlantic, and wide international security and prosperity. RIM conducts combat activity from its paramilitary units, and has actively fought alongside Russian forces and other pro-Russian right-wing extremist groups in the ongoing Russia Ukraine conflict.

In doing so, the government assesses that it has committed or participated in acts of terrorism. RIM also prepares for terrorism will stop it manages the paramilitary training program which increases the capabilities of attendees conduct terrorist attacks. By proscribing RIM, UK will reinforce our steadfast support of Ukraine and its resistance to Russian aggression, and our commitment to counter future threats from extreme right-wing terrorism in the UK and Europe. Almost two years, it was my task on behalf of what was then his Majesty's opposition to strongly support the action taken to proscribe the Wagner Group.

An organisation which rightly stood condemned for its acts of indiscriminate violence and terror in Ukraine and elsewhere. I hope the whole House will be as united as it was on that occasion in endorsing the action today taken against the Russian Imperial Movement. To conclude, the first duty of government is to keep our country safe. When our collective security and our values are threatened, we will not hesitate to act. Today's proscriptions will send a clear and unambiguous message that this Parliament stands against terrorism, however and wherever it manifests itself.

Only in applying the U.K.'s counterterrorism framework without bias can be maintain confidence. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

therefore urge members to support these proscriptions. I commend the order to the House. The question is as on the Order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is as on the Order Paper. Before I call the Shadow Minister, colleagues would have noted that on the Order Paper, this noted that on the Order Paper, this debate is only 90 minutes long. It debate is only 90 minutes long. It has to conclude at 527 which means backbenchers will be on a speaking limit of four minutes to begin with, limit of four minutes to begin with, and only a few colleagues will get

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and only a few colleagues will get in as the debate has to conclude at 527. I call the Shadow Minister. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to them is that for am grateful to them is that for statement and for bringing this important and very necessary measure to the house. I also thank him for the briefing I was provided with the briefing I was provided with earlier today. Let us be clear what these measures are and are not about the top do we support free speech? Yes.

We support the right to protest? Yes. Do we support the Freedom of Expression (Religion or Freedom of Expression (Religion or Belief System) Bill? Yes. But, these very freedoms that make a democracy are exactly the freedoms that these groups are considering and putting
16:27
Harriet Cross Portrait Harriet Cross MP (Gordon and Buchan, Conservative)
-
-
groups are considering and putting at risk why this is needed today. The groups we are discussing, Palestine Action, Maniacs Murder Cult, and Russian Imperial Movement, have nothing whatsoever to do with legitimate protest. They would not be facing proscription today if they were demonstrating peacefully, respectfully, or legally. As so many groups and organisations across the country do, and must continue to be able to do freely. These groups have chosen a different path entirely, and for that, this action is rightly being taken against them.

We must be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clear eyed about the broader threat to the landscape we face. I appreciate the Shadow Minister

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I appreciate the Shadow Minister for giving way. Does she agree, the only acceptable form of protest is only acceptable form of protest is polite protest, that is not protest this permission?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this permission? The right to protest is hugely important part of our democracy. We important part of our democracy. We support the right to protest. We support the right to free speech was that we do not support the rights to that we do not support the rights to criminal damage, intimidation, threats to the public. And that is exactly what these groups are doing exactly what these groups are doing and that is why they are being proscribed quite rightly today. As I proscribed quite rightly today.

As I said, we must be clear eyed about the broader threat landscape that we face. Terrorism remains one of the most serious threats to our national most serious threats to our national security. Whether it comes from international networks, from those international networks, from those radicalised online, from extremist groups operating on our soil, the threat is real. It is evolving, and it must demand our constant it must demand our constant vigilance. Our security services work tirelessly, day and night, to work tirelessly, day and night, to keep us safe.

They have disrupted countless plots that the public will countless plots that the public will never know about. But we cannot be complacent. The nature of terrorism has changed. From sophisticated networks to loan actors, with physical attacks against fibre networks, from foreign battlefields to our own communities, and our response must evolve accordingly. We should reflect on what terrorism is, as defined by the Terrorism Act 2000. It is the use or threat of action designed to influence a government, or intimidate the public, or a section of the public, whether use of threat, action, is designed to advance political, religious, racial, or ideological religious, racial, or ideological causes.

The full list of actions are detailed in the Terrorism Act. They include Serious Violence Duty the person, actions that endanger life, health and safety, and action that really damages property. Proscription is not a step that is taken lightly but it is a stronger necessary tool that previous, as well as our current government, have taken and should use to protect the public. And to ensure that our police and security services have full access to the resources they need to keep the public and our institutions and our way of life say.

No one can hear the steps that the Minister set out in the actions of Palestine Action, MMR and RIM and consider these to be the actions of these four legitimate protest groups.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Shadow Minister for giving way. Will she accept that there is a distinction in intent there is a distinction in intent when you look at Palestine Action, as compared to the other two as compared to the other two organisations? There is no intention with the Palestinian Authority to with the Palestinian Authority to cause intentional injury to people. And for that, there is already And for that, there is already criminal matters that can be dealt with in court.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

with in court. I thank the member for that. If you are using pyrotechnics against people who are escaping an attack by people who are escaping an attack by organisation, that is an intent. If organisation, that is an intent. If you are intending to sabotage RAF jets at Brize Norton, that is intent. They are showing intent as intent. They are showing intent as intent. They are showing intent as well as organisations. These groups do not share our values as they do do not share our values as they do not respect our country.

They do not care about our way of life, and they show no regard for the safety of our show no regard for the safety of our citizens. We on our benches are proud that the actions have been taken by the previous Conservative government to strengthen our counterterrorism framework. We gave counterterrorism framework. We gave our police and security services the powers they need to confront the evolving threats, and we welcome and support the Home Secretary now making use of the same powers today. As the Minister said, proscription is a vital tool and a strong deterrent.

But it is only part, yet very important, of what we need to do to keep our country safe. On its own it is not enough. It must be followed with enforcement and we will of course be watching closely to ensure that the police have the resources and backing they need from the Labour government to ensure they can do just that. As both a minister and I have said, the first job of any government is to keep the citizens say. We have the Official Opposition will always support the government in that aim.

The activities of these organisations have clearly met a threshold for proscription under the Terrorism CAPAC. To conclude we on this side of the House are happy to support of the House are happy to support
16:32
Richard Burgon Portrait Richard Burgon MP (Leeds East, Labour)
-
-
I want to speak specifically about Palestine Action. I think it is regrettable that the government has brought one order banning three organisations when he knows there is little disagreement on this and this is no way to do terror legislation and I want to be clear that I would support this today if it only referred to the Maniacs Murder Cult and Russian Imperial Movement organisations. Many have condemned the proscription of Palestine Action and many have said is a shocking escalation and will change the colours against process.

I miss International UK high that they are deeply concerned at the use of counterterrorism powers and these should not be used to ban such should not be used to ban such should not be used to ban such actions. UN Special have said acts of protest that damage property but are not intended to kill or injure should not be treated as terrorism and likewise it has been stated that the sort of demonstration scene at the military base by Palestine Action would not justify proscription as a terrorist organisation.

Today, however, we are not voting on whether people agree with the tactics of Palestine Action, nor for the people think the objectives are right or wrong but further the actions they have taken against property, not people, should lead to them being treated as terrorists when what they have done can be prosecuted under criminal damage and there is a long history of protest activity acts of trespass, criminal damage, sabotaging. The recent statement on this by the Home Secretary refers to criminal damage and live court cases showing they are is legal provision to deal with Palestine Action.

There are a variety of potential consequences if this proscription is passed today against Palestine Action and supporting adjoining Palestine Action would carry up to 14 years in prison and it risks criminalising thousands of criminalising thousands of volunteers and supporters including students, nurses, retirees, professionals. Many of them have never engaged in direct action but risk being criminalised. I met with Amnesty International today and was offered freight the examples of how this could place constituents at risk of prosecution under Section 12 of the Terrorism Act, with a maximum sentence of 14 years.

This would include a person who tweets that they oppose war crimes in Gaza and think palace Lecce of a point could be charged under this provision as could someone who said they do not support the actions but think protest is important and they respect the sacrifices palace Lecce are willing to make, risking arrest to crimes. Also, having a placard saying that the should not be proscribed. These are people who would never take part in direct action but their speeches could be trolled and they could face legal proceedings.

-- trawled. This could result in a prison sentence of up to 14 years. People consider terrorism to be a heinous act such as shooting people, people up, assassination, acts of violence. I would urge coloured to consider the consequences to their constituents of the proscription of Palestine Action alongside the other groups.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the Minister for his time to discuss this issue with me. I have been mentioned, there are me. I have been mentioned, there are three organisations listed today and the order is not amendable. Taking
16:36
Lisa Smart Portrait Lisa Smart MP (Hazel Grove, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
the order is not amendable. Taking each of them in turn, Russian Imperial Movement is an ultranationalist military organisation operating inside Russia. The group has been proscribed by the US and Canada. The justification for prescription Mike is clear and we are happy to support it. Maniacs Murder Cult is also destructive and believes society should be destabilised so a new neo-Nazi white supremacist order can rise from the ashes and they have taken part in acts of violence including motor and bombings as a deliberate tactic to instil fear.

The rational justification for prescription Mike is clear and we -- proscription is clear. In terms of Palestine Action, on 20 June, as has been widely reported, two members of Palestine Action gained access to Brize Norton and circumvented security under cover of darkness. Incidents involving members of Palestine Action also include the tax at six in Bristol in 2024 and again this year at Elbit Systems and incidents in Glasgow. No matter how strongly any of us feel about the appalling humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and many of us across the House and the country feel very strongly indeed, this does not justify attacks on military bases.

Those responsible must face the full force of the law and there is no doubt about that. That is already the law and that is not what is in front of MPs today. The question is not about whether people are committing crimes are not but further someone who expresses support for them should face up to 14 years in jail. The bath which 14 years in jail. The bath which groups should be determined as terrorist organisations is high and transparency is crucial to maintain public trust in counterterrorism frameworks and so I have listened carefully to experts raising concerns, including from the UN, as mentioned previously by the Mother of the House.

Also what the ministry said and the words of the Home Secretary about making this decision based on damage to property, notwithstanding the comments about balance. The proscription of an organisation on this basis would be I'm precedented, I believe. I welcome the Minister correcting me if I am wrong but today the organisation has been proscribed in the UK for property damage is critical. In terms of meeting the legal definition of terrorism in terms of serious criminal damage, decisions on proscription to build up to the Home Secretary and there are questions as to whether it is proportionate in this case, given the level of threat posed to the republic and I would welcome more details from the Minister on Friday believes that this is a proportionate response because I remain to be convinced.

Currently the maximum custodial sentence for offences relating to membership or expressing support for a terrorist organisation which has been proscribed is 14 years. When the actions do not pose the same threat too late, the blanket application of the penalties risks being disproportionate. The Home Secretary rightly has substantial powers to take action to keep the country safe but it is right and entirely proper that we scrutinise the use of these powers and press the government to ensure any use of them is proportionate.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

21 years ago, I should been wrecked but assisted in court defending an activist who broke into
16:41
Zarah Sultana Portrait Zarah Sultana MP (Coventry South, Independent)
-
-
defending an activist who broke into an RDF basin tried to disable a bomber to prevent war crimes in Iraq. It became a landmark in action against an illegal war and that was our current trimester, Sir Keir Starmer. Fast forward to 20 June, 2025, and two activists on behalf of Palestine Action went into RAF Brize Norton and spread red paint, not fire, and were prosecuted for criminal damage which is normally done. The Home Secretary is using this act to proscribe as a terrorist group.

Never before has it been a crime to support the group. These include non-violent people the teachers, students, ordinary people, my constituents and yours and they are being classified alongside neo- are being classified alongside neo- Nazi militias and cons. This is people who are exporting the ties between the government and the Israeli apartheid state anti-war machine. Let us be clear, to equate a spray can of paint with suicide bombers not just absurd but grotesque and the deliberate distortion of the law to chill descent, criminalise solidarity and suppress the truth.

Amnesty International have opposed these along with UN special rapporteur Poole and at this late stage we should be withdrawn. Anyone expressing support for the trip could face 14 years in prison under this law. This is anyone calling for them to no longer be classified by proscription. By this we can, millions of people, including many constituents, could be placed under the sweeping restrictions and let us not forget what is happening in Gaza with hospital's bomb, children's staff, tens of thousands killed, and more amputations per capita than anywhere else on earth and Israel on trial for genocide.

The government was not response to criminalise solidarity and continue exporting the jacks that are decimating Gaza. We must understand the history of the country and the tradition of civil disobedience. From the suffragettes, without whom I would not have had the vote, let alone the village of being an MP. Those who oppose the tactics of Palestine Action must recognise the vast gulf between criminal damage and terrorism and if the order passes, what is next? Climate protesters, striking workers, feminists in the street? We seem a crackdown on civil liberties with musicians censored and journalists arrested and MPs, including some sitting here, harass.

I know the government was to use anti-terror laws to make peaceful protest crime. If democratic institutions function as they should, this would not be necessary. To conclude, if this proscription passes, as it will come up we must understand that no campaign will be safe and we also have to recognise that this will go down as a dark day in our country's history and will be remembered and people will ask which side you were on and I stand with the millions that oppose genocide because I am one of them and I oppose the blood-soaked and if the government is trying to silence us and I will say loudly and proudly that we are all Palestine...



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order.
16:45
Iain Duncan Smith Portrait Rt Hon Sir Iain Duncan Smith MP (Chingford and Woodford Green, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. For listening to this, I have concerns about the last of the three concerns about the last of the three organisations and generally about the application of criminal law but I do support the government position. It cast into late while I position. It cast into late while I listened to this. -- light. There is an organisation that we have not taken action against in this way, the IRGC, and this is the elephant the IRGC, and this is the elephant The IRGC crater they use proxies, sponsor terrorism, as demonstrated without dispute all over the world.

They are... They support her -- Hamas and Hezbollah. They have been supplying them with weapons. We have been complicit in the terrible killing. They are very heavily involved in that. They are sanctioned but not proscribed in that does not give you the powers to deal with the proxies and those for them. There was a campaign for proscribing and they say that, and the foreign office says this endless, that they will look at the political wishes are getting through to Iran but how is that going and how has it gone over the last year? Not at all.

You cannot reason with these characters. Global terrorist attacks have a huge number rooted in IRGC money and treating and high levels of activity in the UK and the propaganda in the UK is trying to build arrangements in the UK and Plainview, at times, even on links where they can be tracked but do it openly because nothing can be done. Of course, they support Hezbollah, who is also prescribed. I think the IRGC should be the debate and the decision and that should be the law decision and that should be the law of the House and the IRGC should be proscribe and they do not, it begs the question, what are we doing the question, what are we doing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I firstly associate myself
16:48
Clive Lewis Portrait Clive Lewis MP (Norwich South, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I firstly associate myself with the comment of the Frontbench for the Liberal Democrats, I thought they made some good comments. Secondly, I agree with that proscription of the two far-right fascist organisations. I think they should be proscribed. But can we as a House accept that there are those of us here today who have a different take on today's proscription for Palestine Action? We don't have to agree with the behaviour or actions of Palestine Action to make the case here today that this proscription is wrong.

I would also like to ask honourable members to acknowledge the fact that many of us here today would take a different view on this issue, are a part of this democracy just as much as those who agree with proscription. It is just that our take on the delicacy of our democracy and what this proscription does and how it undermines our democracy and opinion happened to differ from other people. I know members on the opposite benches have repeatedly said that when it comes to ULEZ and low emissions campaigners, they understand and empathise with those constituents who have smashed and vandalised them.

So direct action is not something that is just of the left, it is something that everyone in our democracy can partake in. This is a judgement call on how we best protect our democracy. And an acknowledgement that not all threats are external and are violent. Some threats are based on the decisions that we hear ourselves take in this place. Sometimes we may take decisions which fundamentally undermine our own democracy. I have no doubt that some of this will be called terrorist sympathisers by some who disagree with our position.

But that would be wrong. When you look round the world, and watch as democracy and the rule of law is being systematically smashed. Corporations, the wealthy, have increasing power and wealth to influence our democracy for top look over at the Atlantic, the United States, our democracies are delicate and precious was the decisions we take here determine whether those democracies will survive as we go into the future. I look around the world I look around this country for top I look at the party, the authoritarian party that is 10 points ahead in the polls and worry about the future of our democracy was it means that our government has to make decisions that take that into account.

Take into account that we may not be in government one day, it may be the authoritarian right and they will take this further and faster and deeper than we ever have. So we should be putting in a fireguard now, protecting our democracy. This doesn't do that. And I will conclude by saying, I understand what terrorism is. I was in London on seventh of July 2007. And I watched my community this city attacked by real terrorists. At that point, rightly or wrongly, I decided I was going to Afghanistan to fight the terrorists.

And I went because I love this country and I love our democracy and I want to see it protected. I think the proscription order against Palestine Action undermines that I wish my government wouldn't do it. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As we have heard, the issues around the proscription of Palestine around the proscription of Palestine Action has thrown a number of legitimate concerns and there is no legitimate concerns and there is no doubt it will have an impact on our right to protest and the civil liberties that we have enjoyed for liberties that we have enjoyed for decades. It is right to condemn and prosecute criminal activity especially those that threaten our especially those that threaten our national security. Surely this must be done within the framework of existing legislation, as it was has existing legislation, as it was has been.

This looks nothing other than a direct response to Palestine Action being able to infiltrate an
16:52
Pete Wishart Portrait Pete Wishart MP (Perth and Kinross-shire, Scottish National Party)
-
-
RAF base and causing damage to a defence aircraft. The decision to proscribed organisation is ultimately matter for the government and it is up to the Home Secretary to decide who goes on that list. It is based on intelligence the government holds full stop eidetic the Minister has convinced many of us today that this has met the Schuld for proscription and we need to hear more about their concerns about this particular group. Before that happens, the government must take into account whether it is proportionate, justified, and in the national interest to proscribe such an organisation.

Terrorism legislation as we know has extremely legislation as we know has extremely broad powers that it hands to the state, and as such it must always be treated with the highest degree of caution and restraint. We live in a society where organisations have a democratic right to campaign and express views on particular issues in a democratic respectful and lawful manner. It is important that the right to lawful protest is not affected by the Home Secretary's decision today full stop it is extremely concerning this decision could lead to these powers being extended to other campaigning organisations.

It is inexplicable that Palestine Action has been linked to groups such as the Maniacs Murder Cult and the Russian Imperial Movement. Groups known to House, and should of course be proscribed for. For Palestine Action to be included alongside these groups is at best a cynical and calculated move by the government in order to ensure that this order gets through today. People all over the UK including many of my constituents rightly feel very strongly about the appalling crimes being committed against innocent civilians in Gaza on a daily basis.

Many of these people have been taking part in weekly protests, to make their voices heard to show solidarity with al-Islam. These people are now concerned that they might be caught up in this proscription. I am also concerned that many young people who are sharing social media posts from Palestine Action could now be considered as glorifying what will soon be a proscribed group. We need clarity on what actions could result in people being charged under this terrorism legislation. Example, does wearing a Palestine Action badge handed out at a demonstration or rally means that they could be charged with terrorism? Organisations like Amnesty International and even the United Nations have expressed concern about this proscription regarding the U.K.'s broad definition of terrorism will stop this week, an Israeli strike in Gaza killed at least 20 Palestinians.

This is what we should be discussing today and every day until a permanent ceasefire is reached and all the hostages are released. The government must act in the national interest of the that is what they have got to do, they have to keep us safe from all of the different challenges presented to them. We need clear reassurance about the wider impact of what has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

been proposed today. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome the Home Secretary's welcome the Home Secretary's decisive action on Palestine Action, Maniacs Murder Cult and the Russian Imperial Movement today for the 20 months on from the horrific terror attacks of 7 October, the suffering of people in Gaza has rightly been the subject of much international campaigning for money has been raised to support charities getting aid into Gaza, the hostages worked tirelessly to keep the plight of the tirelessly to keep the plight of the hostages on the world agenda.

And hundreds of people have contacted MPs and this is all genuine MPs and this is all genuine activism, importantly within the bounds of the law. Palestine Action bounds of the law. Palestine Action is something different. Over five
16:56
Jon Pearce Portrait Jon Pearce MP (High Peak, Labour)
-
-
is something different. Over five years it has conducted a campaign of violence, intimidation, and criminal damage was not in one attack on a business in Bristol, two police officers were attacked with a sledgehammer. The officers also then found not only sledgehammers but whips, axis, and other home-made weapons. Palestine Action have attacked business in my constituency in the High Peak, intimidating the workers there. Last month at RAF Brize Norton, military planes were vandalised and £30 million of damage done. Such attacks undermine our national security, our Armed Forces, and can never be justified.

I implore the Home Secretary for responding in the strongest possible terms. But Palestine Action also has a track record of attacks against his country's Jewish community. In May this year, a building housing Jewish owned businesses in North Manchester was vandalised with red paint and graffiti reading. Later that month, a Jewish owned business in Stamford Hill was attacked by the organisation with windows broken, red paint graffiti, and damage done to the buildings. In the latter case, Palestine Action claimed the business was linked to the Israeli companies, which proved baseless.

This campaign of anti-Semitic harassment reveals the logical conclusion of their extremism. An important difference between all of the other groups that have been mentioned in this House is that this group targets a specific group in our country of a specific ethnic or religious minority. This does not help, with smashing windows, it will not free Palestine. It undermines the work of so many people who support the Palestinian cause and towards a peaceful future. It leads to an environment where British Jews feel unsafe and harassed.

It is something that should never be tolerated. Legitimate protest is a fundamental democratic freedom, but Palestinian action abandoned that legitimate action a long time ago. I welcome the government's swift action today in ensuring that this organisation can no longer pose a threat to our security, to our businesses, and to the Jewish community.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. As the debate opens today, I intervened on the Minister I'm intervened on the Minister I'm grateful to him for giving way. I need an explanation, and I hope you need an explanation, and I hope you will get one as to why groups are always put together in these orders and not dealt with separately and individually. Clearly there are different orders of concern here. And I want Solly to speak about the issues surrounding Palestine Action. issues surrounding Palestine Action.

We live in a democratic society, and we have to also understand where our rights have come from. The member
16:59
Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Rt Hon Jeremy Corbyn MP (Islington North, Independent)
-
-
rights have come from. The member who has just spoken from High Peak represents the place where, in 1932, the mass trespass took place. It was led by a Jewish activist in the Communist Party at the time he was demanding rights of access for the countryside. He was roundly condemned by all of the mass media and he was put on trial, put in prison, and he was eventually released from prison after mass protests in his support. Without him and others, the access to countryside simply would not have happened at that time.

When you look at all the other people that over decades of history have stood up for free speech and for democracy, going back to the suffragettes and others, those that can paint to end apartheid in South Africa. And interestingly, during all of the anti-apartheid years, whilst we did condemn the ANC and did believe for a while that Nelson Mandela was a terrorist, he never banned the ANC in Britain because the advice they got was it was important that there be a place that people express their voice of hope of the end of apartheid.

The women that went to Greenham common to protest about the deployment of nuclear weapons there were also never labelled as terrorists. Yes they were charged under Colonel trespass, as indeed many others have been, as those that undertake direct action are very well aware of the risks they take. But it crosses an enormous threshold to suddenly announce that Palestine Action, speaking out against the horrors of what is happening in Gaza, where hundreds are mown down every day by the Israeli Defense Forces, simply for queueing for food, when they are desperately hungry, and the children are starving for top surely we should be looking at the issue that Palestine Action are concerned about and the supply of weapons from this country to Israel which has made this possible.

If this order goes through today will have a chilling effect on protest. I quote a letter that was sent to the Home Secretary on 28th of June will stop "Direct action is of June will stop "Direct action is Standing and respected part of British history for from the suffragettes chaining themselves to railings, to striking miners, to anti-apartheid campaigners occupying institutions and disrupting trade, civil disobedience and direct action that have always been a necessary force for progress and justice. " The letter comes from the chair of North London Council of mosques and someone from the Newark Muslim Forum.

On behalf of the London Council of mosques who are concerned about the chilling effect that this piece of legislation which agreed piece of legislation which agreed My last point, legal action is being taken and there is a case in the High Court on Friday. Can we have it made clear that this will not be put into force until all legal avenues have been exhausted and there will not be some temporary position, later to be withdrawn if there is successful legal action? I think we have to know all legal avenues have been fully explored in this case.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The push to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation
17:02
Kim Johnson Portrait Kim Johnson MP (Liverpool Riverside, Labour)
-
-
Action as a terrorist organisation is a disastrous point of historic proportion and risks criminalising activists and is legally dubious. Many experts have spoken out against the misuse of terrorism was copy move unjustified and warning of a chilling effect on protest and advocacy generally, especially in relation to the defence of human rights and international law. We have seen the chilling effect on protest and Palestine Solidarity Campaign had been prevented from protesting today and have been police restrictions of the demonstration.

For hundreds of demonstration. For hundreds of years, process -- protests have gone ahead outside Parliament. We have seen this in terms of the Assisted Dying Bill, abortion, and more. The question members must ask ourselves today is whether nonviolent political group should be designated as a terror threat. If Palestine as a terror threat. If Palestine Action is proscribed then anyone with a branded T-shirt or bag could face a terrorism charge. Amnesty International has flagged the proscription of Palestine Action and it means that even lawyers could fall foul of counterterrorism legislation for meeting with people.

This could come from issues with members who are not members of the organisation have never engaged in direct action. The scope of what we are talking about is insanely bright. Is the government going to demand that we vote to criminalise constituents in this way? The proscribing of Palestine Action today would set a dangerous precedent for the future of counterterror laws and it would be the first group proscribed for damage to property and the first action group and the proscription is neither necessary nor proportionate and there is legislation that deals with this where necessary and the Home Secretary has not provided an impact assessment and we have received no reassurances around how it has been applied to the impact of the wider movement and if this was considered by the Home Office and the proscription review group.

Allegedly, there have been meetings with representatives from the Israeli government and arms companies like Elbit Systems but none with human rights groups. Whether the members of the House agree with the actions of Palestine Action today, we should all agree that categorising them together with the other two obscure groups to ensure it is proscribed is a disgraceful manipulation of parliamentary procedure. Neither of the two other groups have been mentioned in Hansard because they are so obscure and this is transparent and shows the government knows how shaky proscription is.

They are coming for Palestine Action today. If this passes, who and what will be next? I look forward to the Minister answering the concerns raised in the debate today, particularly around gripping the three organisations together. Thank

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you. I start by putting on record that I know at least two people who have previously participated in protests by Palestine Action. This is about fundamental principles and this is a fundamental principles and this is a chilling moment for British democracy. Let's be clear about what is happening. Our political process group is being silenced. Isn't it usually ironic that this is being done today when this morning, done today when this morning, hundreds of women MPs including the Home Secretary herself celebrated Home Secretary herself celebrated the 97th anniversary of equal votes for women which was a victory won by the Suffragettes who were themselves a direct action protest group.

I a direct action protest group. I
17:07
Ellie Chowns Portrait Ellie Chowns MP (North Herefordshire, Green Party)
-
-
a direct action protest group. I To associate direct action with terrorism. Secondly, it will have a chilling effect on democratic rights to free speech on protest. Thirdly, it is utterly cynical of the government to wrap up proscription of Palestine Action with two other clearly terrorist groups. Terrorism Act makes it clear that strict criteria must be met before the Scripture McAvennie group and this is not necessary nor proportionate and has been made clear by Amnesty International, there is ample criminal law for criminal damage caused by a group like post- election.

They may have engaged in criminal damage and been charged with offences like disorder and aggravated burglary and may have carried it actions I do not condone. Indeed, I condemn physical attacks against property but understandably they have stirred up genuine fear and I find the works written by one of the cofounders at a rally in the aftermath of the Hamas attacks of October 7 horrific but that does not make members of Austin Ekeler terrorists. The bar for this must be set high.

The stated aim of this group is to prevent workrooms, prevent crimes against humanity, prevent genocide. It is not just members and supporters of Palestine Action being silenced but by association the proscription presents a grave risk to free speech and protest rights of millions of people who are greatly concerned genocide is happening in Gaza on this government's watch. Millions of people are active, either online and communities are campaigning to end the complicity of the UK anti- genocide and is a clear risk that proscribing Palestine Action to criminalise people for shooting a social media post and see them in your footages.

It is clearly disproportionate when compared with the actions of the other groups. I am concerned with the utterly cynical decision of the Home Office to wrap Palestine Action with two other groups who do meet the test. It's clearly been done to make it difficult for MPs to vote against the motion and I wanted on motion that I and my colleagues absolutely oppose the proscription of Palestine Action and will oppose any other attacks on civil disobedience which is a pro part of UK history and if you compare these charges against Pastor Lecce against the other two groups, including paramilitary organisations, neo-Nazis organising supremacy, these are terrorist acts and the proscription of Pastor Lecce is not worthy of democracy committed to human rights, supposedly.

There is opposition including from the former Lord Chancellor and Justice

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Secretary Lord Falconer. Palestine Action to bring the genocide in Gaza to an end. Order. I want to start by making clear

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I want to start by making clear to members that the order that we are voting one is not about whether are voting one is not about whether or not we are supportive of the political position or protest
17:10
Nadia Whittome Portrait Nadia Whittome MP (Nottingham East, Labour)
-
-
methods of Palestine Action. Vote against the motion, you do not have to agree with them at all and can support holding them criminally liable for actions. The question is about whether they should be proscribed as a terrorist group and placed alongside the likes of al- Qaeda, Islamic state, National Action. It Is Fitting It Is Taking Place on the 97th Anniversary of Women winning the right to vote on equal terms with men, thanks in no small part to the Suffragettes are carried out action more extreme than anything those have done for Palestine Action.

Today, the role is commemorated. Whatever you think of your actions, Palestine Action are part of a similar tradition of the target being stopping genocide in Gaza. It is unprecedented for a government to ban a civil disobedience protest group in the way it is attempting to do so today but what is not unprecedented as protesters breaking into military bases. This is something that is not in resulting in WUBSA in the past. It would be overreach and would set a dangerous precedent that could be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

used in the future to further silence dissent. I thank the on ability for giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the on ability for giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the on ability for giving way. We are from a place at one side cruise missiles and people broken and attacked jets with hammers and are prosecuted under criminal law. They were held to account. Under They were held to account. Under this government, potentially, they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this government, potentially, they would have been classified as a terrorist organisation. I agree entirely with his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I agree entirely with his intervention. Experts from the UN intervention. Experts from the UN are urging us not to do this and saying that they are concerned that the unjustified labelling of the protest movement as terrorist. protest movement as terrorist. Hundreds of lawyers have written to the Home Secretary warning that the the Home Secretary warning that the proscribing Palestine Action would conflate activism of terrorism and conflate activism of terrorism and Amnesty International and Liberty have expressed concerns. There is a briefing about the decision and it has been called absurd.

It is has been called absurd. It is important to remember that this proscription would not just affect members of Palestine Action but members of Palestine Action but anybody supports them. Relating to a fundraiser, posting positively about the trip on social media would mean committing a crime. We would risk criminalising huge numbers of our constituents. I regret that we are being denied the opportunity to vote separately on the proscription of Palestine Action and the other two organisations, whose proscription I would wholeheartedly support.

Dripping these organisations together -- classifying these organisations together means that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

therefore have no choice but to vote against this today. I must say I never thought that
17:14
Julian Lewis Portrait Rt Hon Sir Julian Lewis MP (New Forest East, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I must say I never thought that the day would arise when I, as a nonlawyer, would be advising the nonlawyer, would be advising the government of lawyers that they have to be really sure of the legal basis for what they are doing. As I said in an intervention on the subject on 23 June, it would do the country and the government now favours to lose in court challenge to the process of proscription. The secret sabotage of planes would certainly have been an act of terrorism leading to proscription, it was performative and these people and those that they had done it.

The question I would put to the it is, are they going to at least adopt a belt and braces policy when it comes to the prosecution of people who did that terribly irresponsible and wrongheaded act of sabotaging the planes? Will they prosecute them as well on the basis that they have done criminal damage? That they have done something to attack the forces of the Throne, which borders on sedition. Otherwise, I fear that by using the wrong aspects of the law to pursue some people who did some very bad things in the, the government will end up actually scoring an own goal frame these people walk free with our triumph in court under their belt.

I am not convinced that the policy that the government has adopted on this matter, although justified in terms of the unacceptable behaviour of the perpetrators, is, nevertheless, going to stand up in court when there are plenty of other legal methods that could be used to deal methods that could be used to deal with this form of extremism. And extremism it is, but it is not, in my opinion, pass the threshold to be classified in the legal sense as terrorism.

It may be the case that if I had able to accept the offer of the Minister, which I understand he made to have a word with me on Privy Council terms before the debate, and I thank them for that and I'm sorry I could not take it up, but it may be that he could have told me things about the group that would have convinced me that it crossed that threshold if it is not able to tell these things in public, and there may be good reasons why, then I suspect he will not be able to tell it to the courts either.

I would say to the government, and I do not think anyone would accuse me of being soft on extremist groups that are antimilitary, but with the best will in the world, I say to the government to adopt a legal belt and braces policy when it comes to prosecuting drip and do not rely on proscription because I can see proscription because I can see

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Let me place on record my full support for the prescription of support for the prescription of Maniacs Murder Cult and the Russian Imperial Movement. These are vile murderous fascist colds, and then being placed on the proscribed list is justified and necessary. But it is precisely because we must take terrorism seriously that we must also have clear minds. To put Palestine Action in the same
17:17
Imran Hussain Portrait Imran Hussain MP (Bradford East, Labour)
-
-
Palestine Action in the same category as these murderous extremist organisations erode the credibility of our legal framework and risks undermining Civil Rights. Proscription must be used judicially full stop conflating protest with terror in a dangerous step that undermines the very freedoms our counterterrorism laws are meant to protect. Where there is criminal activity, there is adequate legal provision within the criminal law to deal with that. What we are being asked to do is proscribe them under the Terrorism Act to treat civil descent, whether or not we agree or disagree with that civil descent as extremism.

That is a concerning shift, and we risk crossing a line. Hundreds of lawyers including Caseys and human rights advocates have warned that this is not a hallmark of democracy. We have heard earlier today that United Nations Special Rapporteurs have expressed serious concern about this measure. What we have not heard is the huge duplication that this would have on some of our communities. The risk of being criminalised simply for showing support for Palestine under this proscription, people could face prosecution for something as simple as wearing a badge, sharing a post online, or attending a peaceful protest.

The question for this House is do we really want to become a society where nonviolently expressing solidarity, or even speaking out, could be interpreted as terrorism? This will only further fuel fear and repression. Local groups could suddenly find themselves under suspicion. Whole communities could be cast as suspects, not for what they do but for what they stand for. And there are numerous examples, I don't have the time today, the member for Leeds East has eloquently set out a number of examples that should send shivers frankly down the backs of everybody's spine in this place.

This is not the way forward. A non- violent protest, what are democracies meant to protect, now risks being labelled as terror. The legal basis for this proscription is unsound. The democratic consequences are severe, and the moral cost is frankly unacceptable. Let me be clear, it will disproportionately target campaigners and minority communities, and it will set a precedent that reaches far beyond this one group. Today it is Palestine Action, tomorrow it could be climate activists. We are standing on a slippery slope proscribing a protest group is not strength.

I urge this House to defend our hard-won rights and civil liberties. To conflate protest with terrorism is not democracy, and therefore I will not support, and I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

want to put that on the record, any proscription of Palestine Action. I can squeeze in one more speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

speaker. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I came to this country as a child.
17:21
Shockat Adam Portrait Shockat Adam MP (Leicester South, Independent)
-
-
came to this country as a child. This country nurtured me, educated me and a brace me I love this country for so many reasons for top there are two reasons I love it for more than anything else, one is its sense of fairness, and the second is a sense of ability to be free to be able to express how you feel. That is why today I speak specifically about Palestine Action and I said that if we proscribe this organisation under the Terrorism Act, we will for the first time in the nation's history outlaw a domestic protest group as a terrorist organisation.

Britain has a proud but often hardfought tradition of civil resistance will stop remember the reference of the suffragettes who were branded as criminals for smashing windows but are now celebrated as heroes of justice was not remember the civil rights movement where protesters occupied street and broke unjust laws to dismantle segregation. We remember the global campaign against apartheid. Ministers in this House where people face trespasses, and the very freedom we hold dear today, votes for women, racial equality, the end of apartheid, were not born out of men and women in suits and the establishment of the but by people out there.

It is that tradition we are about to disrupt today. This decision, rushed through Parliament in a matter of days, with unrelated foreign neo-Nazi groups and debated for mere minutes is a reckless abuse of process. It denies Parliament the gravity of deliberations and issues that is demanded. Proscription has already been condemned by a vast range of people from Lord Faulkner. This is going to continue. What is even worse, this statutory instrument risks criminalising anyone who supports sympathisers or praises the aims of Palestine Action.

It opens the door to the prosecution of journalists, filmmakers, campaigners, and politicians were doing nothing more than expressing solidarity. This is Orwellian dystopian on steroids. Let us ask ourselves, we set this president today, who will be next? History will judge us harshly, and I urge my colleagues to not allow this dangerous step to go unchallenged. Do not allow a Home Secretary in a moment of political expediency to permanently expand the reach of the anti-terror laws into the heart of the domestic process will stop and do not let this House be the one that shrank the boundaries of freedom and expression was we know it to those who fought so hard for our freedoms, who dared to descent, refused to be silent.

Let us summon the courage now. Vote against this proscription, protect our democratic

**** Possible New Speaker ****

tradition and the right to protest. I now come to the Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I now come to the Minister. Madame Deputy Speaker, I'm grateful to all of those who contributed to this debate. The proscription of these three proscription of these three organisations affirms the U.K.'s zero tolerance approach to terrorism. To be clear, these prescriptions would not affect anyone's legitimate and lawful right anyone's legitimate and lawful right to protest. Whether that is about Palestine, Gaza, or anything else. Palestine, Gaza, or anything else. The government has to take action when Palestine Action has orchestrated a nationwide campaign orchestrated a nationwide campaign of property damage, featuring attacks that have resulted in attacks that have resulted in serious damage, tax that have serious damage, tax that have resulted in serious damage on property and crossed the legal threshold.

I'm not going to give way.
17:24
Dan Jarvis Portrait Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

way. It is clear that the list is not wishing to give way. He has until

**** Possible New Speaker ****

527. These are attacks that have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

These are attacks that have resulted in serious damage to property, and have crossed the legal threshold from direct criminal action into terrorism. They have action into terrorism. They have used violence against people responding at the scenes of attacks. Members have been charged with a series of serious offences including violent disorder, Rivas bodily harm, with intent. An aggravated burglary, which is an offence involving a weapon. So this order would degrade their harmful activity. It will also reduce the threat particularly to vulnerable individuals from MMC's violent content.

And it will reinforce our support for Ukraine and commitments to countering extreme right-wing terrorism in Europe. Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This is, I am on my feet. This is a very tight debate that has to a very tight debate that has to conclude at 527 the Minister has time he may wish to take your intervention shortly. Is your point

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of order really relevant right now? Let me explain, I want to know,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Let me explain, I want to know, if this order goes through, and I go out there to the demonstration that is mobilising at the moment to say I
17:26
None Portrait Points of Order
-

is mobilising at the moment to say I am opposed to this, will I be prosecuted?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not a point of order. That is not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a point of order. Madam Deputy Speaker I'm happy to respond directly to the right honourable gentleman's point of honourable gentleman's point of order. The process involving prescription action requires this prescription action requires this House and should it do so later this House and should it do so later this evening it will go to the other place and it is for them to agree or not and it will be for the Home Secretary or myself to sign an order and the order would become law at midnight on the night it had been midnight on the night it had been signed.

I'm not going to give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. Minister continue.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. Minister continue. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I don't think the right honourable gentleman listens to what I said, I explained the process that is in explained the process that is in place. I am grateful to all of those who have considered this matter. It is a necessary and proportionate step to protect the public and step to protect the public and defend our values. That is after all the first duty of the state. Under this government, nothing will matter more.

With that, I commend this order to the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is, this is not the time for a point of order. The question is as on the Order Paper as question is as on the Order Paper as many are of that opinion say, "Aye". And of the contrary, "No". Division,
17:28
17:42
None Portrait Points of Order
-

every single person who just voted no wanted to vote yes. To the prescription of the Maniacs Murder prescription of the Maniacs Murder Cult and the Russian Imperial Movement but were prevented from Movement but were prevented from doing so by the cynical way that the government lumped together these two clearly terrorist organisations with clearly terrorist organisations with Palestine Action which we could not support. Can the Speaker please support. Can the Speaker please advise me and those other MPs who just voted no if there is any way in the future that prescription orders for unrelated organisations can be voted on separately so that each MP can apply their own critical assessment of whether each group has met the tests of proportionality and necessity required for a terrorist

**** Possible New Speaker ****

prescription? I thank the honourable lady for having given notice of her point of having given notice of her point of order. The chair does not have the power to separate out decisions on power to separate out decisions on the contents of a statutory instrument. In making her point of order she has put her points and her concerns on the record. Point of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

order Zarah Sultana. Thank you for subduing the previous debate on the prescription of Palestine action the member hi PQ of Palestine action the member hi PQ I have notified spoke without declaring he is chair of Labour Friends of Israel and has accepted hospitality and overseas trips funded by pro Israel lobby funded by pro Israel lobby organisations first of the House was discussing a non-violent direct action group that directly action group that directly challenges the Israeli state which is on trial for genocide against the Palestinian people.

Can you advise, Palestinian people. Can you advise, Madame Deputy Speaker and what mechanisms are available so the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

mechanisms are available so the British public are truly aware of what interests are being represented on this floor? I thank the honourable lady for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the honourable lady for her point of order and need for having given advance notice of it having given advance notice of it will stop the procedure for raising a complaint of this sort is by writing to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, and it Commissioner for Standards, and it is not a matter for the chair. Motion number five, on agriculture. Minister to move. The question is as on the order paper. As many as are
17:44
None Portrait Remaining Orders of the Day
-

of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. Motion number six on subsidy control, minister to me. The question is. As -- As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." I think the ayes have it, the ayes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have it. I beg to move that this House do now adjourn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now adjourn. The question is that this House do now adjourn. Sir John Hayes. do now adjourn. Sir John Hayes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Speaking long before... GK Chesterton said big business is now an organised calming. Some would say militarism calming. Some would say militarism without military values. -- Virtues. Heaven knows what he would say if he Heaven knows what he would say if he was allowed now as global corporations have such influence on all our lives. It's the small and all our lives. It's the small and medium-sized businesses in my Lincolnshire constituency and Lincolnshire constituency and constituencies across this country that make up the backbone of our that make up the backbone of our economy.

But they also provide the particularities for colour and shape make that colour and shape the make that colour and shape the places each physical home. As they small and medium-sized businesses small and medium-sized businesses that reinvest in the communities that reinvest in the communities Is those businesses which provide opportunities for local people. We all know them from our daily experience as customers of businesses, but we also know them from the representations made to us as members of Parliament. Today, I speak in the interest of those small businesses, those entrepreneurs, those people who devote so much of their time and skill and energy for the common good, for the national interest and the common good drive all I do in this place.

Those businesses make up about 99% of businesses. Just think of the influence of the effect of the other
17:47
None Portrait Adjournment: Regulatory environment of corporate businesses and franchisees
-

1%. When SMEs are accused of wrongdoing, breaking the law even, they often have little in the way of resources to defend themselves. They are at the mercy of powerful regulators and at the caprice of giant competitors. In contrast, the big multinational companies which have come to dominate too much of our economy, have armies of compliance officers, lawyers and compliance officers -- lawyers. Faceless, heartless multinational firms often have little in the way of roots here, with many tech firms using such ruthlessness to justify decisions to pay little if any tax.

Corporate businesses have grown even Corporate businesses have grown even bigger -- ever bigger. You see profiteering, for example in supermarkets, over recent years, who give their suppliers, primary producers like farmers, very often a raw deal. We see them distort the raw deal. We see them distort the food chain yet take advantage of the disruption brought by the pandemic and the war in Ukraine. Indeed, the pandemic exacerbated the power of greedy globalist. Unite the trade union has highlighted big firms profit margins have soared compared to the pre-pandemic period.

The profits of the 300+ largest companies in Britain increased by 19%, compared to pre-pandemic levels. Contrast that with the plight of smaller businesses with ever greater cost and ever more unfair competition from their giant competitors. But if the claims of the globalist... Do remember them a question mark the people addicted to modernity and change, the claims of those enthusiastic globalists that the world would be a better place for their activities were true, who has really benefited? An economy where standards are falling, productivity has told, where the state grows ever bigger in the face of rising were clusters.

The only beneficiaries are the few people at the top of those corporate businesses. It's not monopolies we need, it's a multiplicity of businesses. Start-up firms, local firms, firms that innovate, that engage in new activities. They need greater freedom while the monoliths need to be regulated so they don't exploit the marketplace which they dominate. Think for a moment about the banks. I have a vision of banking and I hope you might to, rooted in the dad's Army approach.

The captain figure in close touch with his customers, caring about the business which he ran. And that wasn't just just a fiction in my younger years. I remember going to the bank as a young man and asking if I could borrow £500 to buy an old car. I was a student at the time. The manager, a bit like Captain Mannering, interrogated me for half an hour and eventually said, " Yes, I think we can lend you the £500." Imagine that scene now.

At best, you have an online connection with someone remotely situated. I thank the honourable member was referring to the £500 he still owes me from the days when I used to work for him. The point is that nowadays the connection between customers and suppliers has become at best detached and at worst remote. Now you have a conversation with someone remotely situated person who knows nothing about you or your circumstances and probably doesn't care.

I will happily give way. Is it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

about the £500? Without interest. Can I just say that I agree with him. I also agree with something else which is that with something else which is that people don't realise the really big multinationals, like, for example, multinationals, like, for example, Amazon on, they don't make profits and what they sell you but what they and what they sell you but what they do is hold your data and that is what they sell and that is where they make their money and their they make their money and their profit.

Your data derives you no income at all and yet they money -- they make money off the back of that. Therefore, you have to start that. Therefore, you have to start at what we've all been complicit with which is the idea of getting something for nothing.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My honourable friend as ever

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My honourable friend as ever makes an excellent common. We -- makes an excellent common. We -- makes an excellent common. We -- comment. We need a better system. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give way to my honourable friend. Can I commend the honourable gentleman? We all love him because of the wisdom he brings to this chamber. He is a good friend of Northern Ireland as well. I say this because... He will like what we are doing in Northern Ireland. We assess the impact on businesses with five or fewer employees. Does he not agree that increase in regulation must come with increased cooperation to secure better business which benefits us all?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He, as ever, makes a worthy contribution for our consideration. Government has a lot of power in all Government has a lot of power in all kinds of ways. It certainly has the power to regulate the kind of unfair practices that I've begun to set practices that I've begun to set out. It also has a power as a customer, and government procurement customer, and government procurement has never been used as well as it might be to support British businesses and in particular British businesses and in particular British small businesses.

My proposal to the Minister is let's look at that again. Let's look at government as a huge customer of all kinds of businesses. Decades of businesses. Decades of nonintervention driven by the belief in liberal economics resulted in an extraordinary amount of foreign takeovers in British firms. Overseas companies own national critical companies own national critical infrastructure. The government infrastructure. The government recently approved the Vodafone 's - recently approved the Vodafone 's - Three merger.

Have a look into the ownership of the group? This merger must not become. It's another corporate an answer for shareholders at the expense of our national at the expense of our national interest and the common good. I was speaking to a constituent of mine who was a previous franchisee who I met. I'm mindful of a legal case at which those franchisees of Vodafone are involved and I have taken advice, and amended my speech heavily as a result of that advice from the table office.

I do think it is important to set the context in the broader terms I've described that relates to the behaviour of large companies that adopt the franchise model. I give way to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

honourable gentleman. I thank him for giving way and I congratulate him on securing this congratulate him on securing this debate will stop can I refer to the by -- can I refer to my register of by -- can I refer to my register of interest. I wonder if he shares my view that the merger between Vodafone and Three will have real consequences for customers in terms consequences for customers in terms of pricing but also job losses here in Britain?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in Britain? That is certainly the risk. It is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That is certainly the risk. It is why we have the Competition why we have the Competition Authority. My right honourable friend from the forest will know as friend from the forest will know as a former member of the IC which I a former member of the IC which I remain a member of -- New Forest. It remain a member of -- New Forest. It is important to gauge the national interest in all kinds of ways when interest in all kinds of ways when one considers business activity.

I will say no more about that because it will be digressing. I will give

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it will be digressing. I will give way to my neighbour. I'm grateful to the right honourable gentleman forgivingly. He makes a case about the difference between small businesses, interpreters, franchisees and the big corporate. Does he share my concern that franchisees suffer the risk of essentially corporate bullying from the mega companies, the likes potentially of Vodafone, and they don't have any form of regulatory umbrella comfort, and then entities like the British Franchise Association may sound effective, but they are actually fruitless -- toothless in the face

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of such corporate power? As ever, he and I are on the same page. He is absolutely right that page. He is absolutely right that franchising can be used as a method to exaggerate the power of the business at the heart of the business at the heart of the franchise and to weaken franchisees. My assertion is that it is common and it is particular in the case of and it is particular in the case of Vodafone. I'm going to take two

**** Possible New Speaker ****

more. I thank the right honourable gentleman forgivingly and I congratulate him for securing this congratulate him for securing this very important adjournment debate. Like him, I have met Vodafone Like him, I have met Vodafone franchisees both in my constituency, particularly the high street particularly the high street franchise holder who I met again franchise holder who I met again today. I'm grateful to him for setting out the legal advice that he received about the ongoing case, so received about the ongoing case, so I will be careful about what I say, I will be careful about what I say, other than to say I think there are major corporate's that treat their franchisees very badly that sign them up on one set of terms, when rate card, and then change the goalpost, and then when people descend and complain about that, they find their franchises withdrawn and they lose their investment when they have put a great deal into that corporate giant.

I think that this is a matter that in the future, in the near future is going to require some ministerial attention. I thank the right honourable gentleman very much for bringing this to the House's attention.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I actually very much supported

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I actually very much supported union's position on this. I thought this was wrong at the time. When you this was wrong at the time. When you look at organisations like CK, this organisation from China has links organisation from China has links and control over UK Power networks. It intriguing the network that they have come hugely around communications networks and power networks, all of those are falling networks, all of those are falling into hands of collaborates grammar conglomerates that have nothing to conglomerates that have nothing to do with the UK -- conglomerates that have nothing to do with the UK.

They have nothing to do with the UK. They operate outside of the legal

**** Possible New Speaker ****

operate outside of the legal Is precisely why I posed the early question to the Minister about early question to the Minister about how closely he and others have how closely he and others have looked to that measure. I say no more than that about it, but it does seem to me to be a legitimate question to ask. Where those things question to ask. Where those things considered in this particular case? And how are they generally considered? If my right honourable friend is right, that there are threats that result from this, under existing legislation, and regulation, it's perfectly possible for government to become involved in these kind of commercial affairs.

I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will give way once more and then make a bit of progress. And I put on record that I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I put on record that I omitted the use of right honourable in my early intervention, so can I in my early intervention, so can I correct that? But also the right honourable gentleman for Chingford made a very important point in terms of big businesses operating outside of big businesses operating outside of the UK, perhaps in some cases of the UK, perhaps in some cases abusing their position. Can I also on a lighter note encourage him to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

join the trade union? I would be happy to supply him with a membership form. Again crave at the honourable member. It seems to me there is a member. It seems to me there is a mead across the House that more must mead across the House that more must be done. And this minister, an experienced member of this House experienced member of this House will have gathered that that mood could easily from this small beginning become a crescendo, might beginning become a crescendo, might endanger the very safety office office and the government as a whole, so let's hope this is the beginning of a journey for the government, the Minister towards the government, the Minister towards the regime that counters the very things that have been described by members that have been described by members from across the House.

Because I'm a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

long-standing friend of the right honourable gentleman I will certainly give way to him, but then I must make progress. I'm very grateful to him, the right honourable and learned right honourable and learned gentlemen is doing the House a gentlemen is doing the House a favour in his work tonight. I should first declare an interest in that I have a close relative who works for the CMA and don't wish to comment on the CMA and don't wish to comment on competition matches, multitasking perhaps to work with me to support the government's work, I believe the government's work, I believe ministers are shortly to do some further work to offer greater support to small businesses both in support to small businesses both in terms of opening up government procurement but other matters as well.

Certainly my own constituency like him, I'm a very keen supporter of small business and my own small business competition has provided a great deal of recognition for businesses, whether they are repairing small musical instruments repairing small musical instruments through to local florists to people providing other services and indeed many other forms of small business. many other forms of small business. So you want to commend the broad thrust of his work tonight, although

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I don't want to comment on the CMA. Very grateful for the honourable gentleman's support. Now during the pandemic, the government introduced the business rates relief package which allow businesses with which allow businesses with commercial leases to gain relief on the business rates. Is designed to help firms, physical stores compensate for lost football during knockdowns and it was an essential lifeline to those smaller businesses. This automatically was applied to businesses through local councils. From 11 March 2022 June 2021, relief is at 100% with no cash cap and ratepayers with more than one property were entitled to relief each eligible property.

Franchisees were eligible to receive this relief, and it would have been automatically applied to stores operated by companies like Vodafone and others and not through the franchise program. It's worth noting that some corporations that benefited from that scheme such as Tesco, although I hold no candour for Tesco generally, have since returned the money to the government. Now the question is whether Vodafone, how Vodafone use that money. Did it achieve its original purpose? I'd be interested in the Minister's answer to that question.

Or was it redirected in some way out of tune with the government's intention and the proper purpose? It's worth noting as I say that this wasn't only available to Vodafone but all those organisations that have franchises. And I wonder how other organisations handled this matter and how that compares with the circumstances surrounding Vodafone. The important thing to recall, to remember, to consider as we debate these matters, the franchisees are small business owners with families.

It was important to them. Business rate relief was therefore of huge significance and make a meaningful difference to people. As was intended by the right honourable member for Richmond and Northallerton who was Chancellor at the time. The government's stated purpose from the COVID business rate relief was to give support to companies when bricks and mortar was much reduced, the trade. The question is was that reality? The fact the government later introduced caps, to those who made a great difference was topknot to subsidise large globalist corporations with hundreds of stores and access to other tax relief.

So I wonder what assessment the Minister has made of how this kind of funding was used during the COVID pandemic. Too often franchisees, payments by those who franchise them are cut drastically and with little or no insulation. Contracts often terminated with just a few days notice, stores repossessed with little notice of them without valid reasons for doing so, leaving debts to repay with no income. Cases claim they face fines, clawbacks, grossly disproportionate errors in question, in some cases errors that led to fines results in failures of major corporation systems that the financial burden is often unfairly placed in the franchisees.

And communications raising serious concerns, though made, are often unanswered. And pressing issues ignored for long periods of time. Leaving franchisees without support or resolution to their problems. Moreover, it emerged that in the case of Vodafone, whistleblowers have warned of a series of senior Vodafone executives and scores of its franchised store owners face financial ruin. So let ask the Minister what steps the government is taking to regularly corporate businesses relationship with their franchisees? We are not speaking as a set of powerful businesses with deep pockets and balance sheets.

Ordinary people, mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, who saw an opportunity when they became a franchisee to build a meaningful business of their own. Under the banner of a global household name. To make a difference so their family but also to their community, to the towns in which they are situated. The people, their savings, the homes and the reputations on the line because they believe a franchise agreement, the company like Vodafone but there are others too would be safe and secure.

As I said, the competition and markets authority last month confirmed the merger of Vodafone and three. So can the Minister confirm the matter of the problems with franchisees? Discussed ahead of that merger being approved. Indeed more broadly, can such a measure really be said to benefit the British public, given its forecast to cost 1,600 UK jobs and evidence from overseas shows the countries with fewer mobile phone operators tend to charge higher prices to consumers. Can Mr confirm what steps the government is taking to investigate allocations of inappropriate use of government relief used during the pandemic? Specifically in relation to businesses and franchisees, with the Minister confirm that all should be investigated as part of the enquiry into COVID by the COVID Commissioner? For those franchisees, facing financial distress, with the Minister urged banks to show leniency and support too and will he commit to looking afresh at the lack of enforceable regulations governing franchisor contact? A key lesson from the Post Office candour is you must not allow the sophisticated power of the corporate body or the impression created by an impressive balance sheet to persuade is to ignore the voices of less powerful individuals who speak out.

Many franchisees have given up stable jobs. Some have taken up personal loans, some remortgaged their homes. Yet they trained staff, open stores, serve customers, and they are told by the big businesses that they are partners. But when the going gets rough, and the commission cuts come with little warning, when franchisees performance plummets due to decisions beyond their control, when stores repossessed with adequate notice, they are left out in their own, high and dry. No lifeline, no dialogue, just silence from the corporations they once trusted.

I can't believe that this minister doesn't feel as I do about corporate malpractice, about greedy soulless heartless firms act irresponsibly and hide behind the high wall of their subsidies. Governments have a duty not only to promote entrepreneurship and business but to protect entrepreneurs and ensure businesses do not take unfair advantage of their staff. We must call time on the era of corporate giants using legal structures not as a framework for partnership but as a shield for avoidance.

For avoiding their responsibility and their decency. Trading on public trust must be held accountable for the actions they take which cause real harm. We must move away from globalist faceless corporate model which has enraged a view and towards a different kind of economic order where we shorten supply lines and encourage small and medium-sized businesses, where we understand the economic survey civil purpose. I call it fraternal economics. Where community and economic activity are down together in a common cause.

We can build that kind of economic future, but it requires government to know when to step forward, to support business, and went a step back, not to suffocate entrepreneurship. That is a future that is within our grasp. But it will require this government perhaps any government to think afresh about the power balance between large faceless businesses and those smaller entrepreneurs those ordinary people, people like most of us I guess you simply want to get on and do the best for their family and their community.

I know which side I'm on. I am on the side of those people because I know they make so much difference in my constituency and across the whole of our kingdom. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. Gareth Thomas. Thank you. In the usual way I thank the right honourable member for South and the deep pinks for tabling this debate. Having crossed tabling this debate. Having crossed swords with him when our positions were reversed, I approached this debate with a particular degree of wariness, not least because he has assembled a very distinguished and assembled a very distinguished and cross-party group of members to participate in this debate. And as participate in this debate.

And as well as his own contribution, we heard from The right honourable member for Chingford, heard from my honourable friend from Stockport, honourable friend from Stockport, the honourable gentleman for Boston my honourable friend for Durham, and my honourable friend for Durham, and my other honourable friend here my other honourable friend here today from rating as well. -- Reading. Both of them making important points. I do very much agree with in particular the opening agree with in particular the opening remarks, some of them that the right honourable gentleman made about small and medium-sized businesses small and medium-sized businesses being very much the backbone of our communities, important and communities, important and fundamental to the strength of each one of our constituencies.

And we as a government are determined to do much more to support our SMEs going forward. It's why we will publish a strategy to support SMEs, shortly appoint my honourable friend for Reading alluded to. The honourable gentleman, right honourable gentleman was actually right in saying we should do more as a country to celebrate our entrepreneurs and to champion their interests. They are brave, risktakers. They create wealth and make all our communities better and richer. And we are determined as a government to encourage more people to come forward as entrepreneurs, to take the risks, to succeed and grow It's why we have already taken a number of measures to support SMEs, establishing a Business Growth Service inspired by the US Small Business Administration.

The Secretary of State has already committed to doing just that. We saw the outcomes of the Spending Review being a two thirds increase in the British Business Bank, helping to tackle significant challenges that tackle significant challenges that SMEs face. The issues around procurement for British SMEs, and I'm very sympathetic to the need to open up public procurement for SMEs. We will have more to say that about -- we will have more to say about that in the business strategy.

He also rightly raised some of the legal issues that small and medium- sized businesses face in general terms to the difficulties many have when legal issues arise. Again, we will have more to say on that in the Small Business Strategy shortly. He also, I thought, made, towards the end of his remarks, a powerful link to the appalling miscarriage of justice. The scandal of how the post office treated its sub-postmasters in the past. There are many lessons to learn from that scandal.

Some of them I hope he will draw confidence from in terms of this government being determined to address them when he sees the green paper that we are seeking to bring forward. And the whole house I am sure would appreciate the words of Sir William Williams remixer Wyn Williams -- Sir Wyn Williams. We must learn our lessons and make sure nothing like that ever happens again.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There is a close parallel between the way the post office is the way the post office is constructed their business and some of the other remarks are made. Would he therefore ensure that his Small Business Strategy includes specifically something on franchising. It's a really important franchising. It's a really important part of getting right our approach to regulation around the relationship with those smaller relationship with those smaller businesses and corporate giants.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

businesses and corporate giants. He will forgive me. I've already given a flavour of some of what might be in the Small Business might be in the Small Business Strategy. I will leave him to wait a bit longer before he sees the Small Business Strategy in full. I did want to come unto the substance of want to come unto the substance of his concern in this debate. He rightly and understandably raised rightly and understandably raised the experiences of a number of franchise operators who alleged franchise operators who alleged mistreatment and being badly let
18:19
18:20
18:20
Gareth Thomas Portrait Gareth Thomas MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Harrow West, Labour )
-
-
across both sides of the house about those stories. There are without question some very serious allegations that are being levelled allegations that are being levelled at Vodafone in this case. As he has alluded to and I'm sure he will alluded to and I'm sure he will understand, I'm unable to comment on ongoing legal dispute, but I will of course respond on behalf of the government today as best I can, given the ongoing nature of the given the ongoing nature of the case.

Until now, there has not been case. Until now, there has not been sustained concern about the quality sustained concern about the quality or effectiveness of the self- regulation of franchises in general. regulation of franchises in general. However, I recognise that this particular case has raised concerns particular case has raised concerns across the house and I will check carefully what happens in this case, and the final outcome and and the final outcome and conclusions that any court case might come to.

As honourable members will no doubt be aware, franchising is growing in the UK. It makes a big contribution to our economy. Just over £90 billion annually, according to the latest British Franchise Association survey. The franchising industry is covered by the same general protections in law as other businesses at the moment. I will come unto some of those in a moment. In addition, franchising industry also effectively self regulates itself through the British Franchise Association, which provides a Code of Conduct.

On the whole, as the House will recognise, there are significant advantages of self- regulation in general. This is in terms of greater flexibility, responsiveness and lower cost. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I thank the Minister for giving way. Is he aware that for giving way. Is he aware that Vodafone left the BFA and walked out of the self regulatory framework and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Code of Conduct that they had? If he will forgive me, I'm not going to comment on the particular going to comment on the particular circumstances of Vodafone and its relationship with franchisees in relationship with franchisees in general, or those franchisees, former franchisees that are bringing former franchisees that are bringing court action, but I note the comment court action, but I note the comment that he has made. In terms of... Of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

course. Can I thank the Minister for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I thank the Minister for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I thank the Minister for giving way? Can I just ask him, as he is representing His Majesty's Government, does he feel that there Government, does he feel that there is a need to legislate on this particular issue as the Code of Conduct doesn't go far enough, but also as the honourable member for Durham has just had, there might be cases of larger corporations opting in and out as and when it suits

**** Possible New Speaker ****

them? As I alluded to, I recognise that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As I alluded to, I recognise that this case has raised concerns across the House about the quality and the House about the quality and effectiveness of both the effectiveness of both the legislation of governance franchisees and other arrangements franchisees and other arrangements around franchisees, and their around franchisees, and their relationships. As I say, up to now, we have not had a significant we have not had a significant representation that the quality of regulation in franchises is not well regulation in franchises is not well equipped but I recognise the equipped but I recognise the concerns across the House that this particular case has brought up.

As a result, I will track very carefully result, I will track very carefully how the court case unfolds. I was noting the advantages that on occasion self-regulation brings. occasion self-regulation brings. There is also a freedom in terms of contracting. What that means is that contracting. What that means is that both individuals and businesses have the right to enter into agreements and set their own terms, free from unnecessary government interference. That freedom at the moment allows franchise agreements to be tailored to individual needs.

It allows people to set up shop on the High Street or elsewhere with the power of a big band behind them. Self- regulation, again, on the whole, allows the franchise industry to set standards and guidelines based on industry-specific needs. It allows the industry to adapt more quickly to market changes as well. It's my understanding that it's the franchise agreements which are the main instruments governing the relationship between franchisors and franchisees. Those agreements normally cover key issues such as fees, territory rates, contract duration.

Anyone entering a business contract should seek legal advice before entering into agreement. Having talked a little bit about self-regulation and its benefits, I did allude to earlier that there are existing protections in law which cover all businesses, including franchises. For example, under the Mr President -- Misrepresentation Act, anyone can claim damages. Ultimately, it would be for the courts to decide whether or not misrepresentation had occurred and what the remedy would be. There are other forms of legislation as well, like the unfair contract terms.

That represents -- references the application of the reasonability test.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He is absolutely right. The contract is well established. contract is well established. Business contracts are enforceable in the way he sets out. The problem in the way he sets out. The problem with franchising is that it is a hierarchical relationship. It's a hierarchical relationship which creates this kind of dependency. The creates this kind of dependency. The franchisee is dependent on the larger business. There is an inbuilt larger business. There is an inbuilt larger business. There is an inbuilt advantage of that larger business -- in which that larger business is at in which that larger business is at an advantage.

The supermarkets, for an advantage. The supermarkets, for example, have so much power that the primary producer is significantly weakened in that commercial

**** Possible New Speaker ****

relationship. I thought the honourable gentleman made a very interesting gentleman made a very interesting speech with a series of interesting analogies, and I have noted those analogies, and I have noted those and the points that he has made. As I've said, I will track this I've said, I will track this particular court case and its particular court case and its conclusions, and I always try to make myself available when right honourable members want to discuss particular issues pertinent to my brief.

I leave that offer for the right honourable gentleman as things unfold. I should stress again that only the courts can really decide on the application of contractual terms and it's absolutely right that independent businesses seek legal advice on the circumstances of the situation. As the right honourable gentleman will be aware, legislation cannot prevent wrongdoing. It can deter and it can punish but only after the event. It is important for companies, obviously, to conduct companies, obviously, to conduct business for the.

We already have rules that encourage this. Encourage this weather that is criminal offences or fraud, audit requirements, prompt payment reporting, which is something that my department has begun to strengthen, and we will again publish further proposals shortly. publish further proposals shortly. The right honourable gentleman will probably agree with me that the public expect and deserve access to truthful reporting from our most important businesses on their finances and related issues. This is critical for trust and it is critical ultimately for economic growth.

That is why through the Audit and Corporate Governance Bill we will ensure accountability for company directors. Section 172 of the companies act already requires company directors to frame regard in their decision making to a wide range of stakeholder interests, which includes the impact of the company 's operations and the wider community. It also requires directors to have regard to the desirability of the company maintaining a reputation. This requirement applies to business transaction, including treatment of franchisees.

Large companies must report annually on how their directors have complied with these requirements. Taken together, the section 172 helps ensure that companies run responsibility beyond the company and its shareholders. The right honourable gentleman touched on the subject of additional regulation of franchises and the way -- and the franchise model. This government is dedicated to implementing an ambitious regulatory agenda. In March, we published our action plan for regulation, aiming to streamline regulation and support to streamline regulation and support growth.

Well that includes plans to cut cost to businesses by 25%, it also includes a commitment to strengthen accountability for Simplifying investment, growth and transparency. Also includes an ambitious package of regular through reforms that will support our growth driving sectors and wider economy. But as we stated at the Industrial Strategy's launch, that's not just the end of the journey. It's just the beginning. Changes we can make to increase the U.K.'s economic resilience and channel support the most productive part of our economy, we want to continue to work with members across this House to implement them.

So in conclusion, let me take this opportunity to thank the right honourable gentleman but also to thank other honourable members who participated in this debate today. Franchise regulation is a complex and difficult issue, and this particular case has raised concerns as I've said across the House. As I promised I will continue to look closely at how this case develops, and ultimately what conclusions are reached. And I'm conclusions are reached. And I'm

**** Possible New Speaker ****

very happy to continue to have conversations about this case and its implications outside of the chamber. The question is that this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House do now adjourn. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." The ayes have it.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page