Commons Chamber

Tuesday 20th January 2026

(began 2 weeks, 5 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:34
11:34
11:34
11:35
11:35
11:35
11:36
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:38
11:39
11:40
11:41
11:41
11:42
11:43
11:43
11:44
11:44
11:45
11:45
11:46
11:47
11:48
11:48
11:49
11:50
11:50
11:51
11:52
11:52
11:53
11:54
11:54
11:55
11:55
11:56
11:56
11:57
11:58
11:58
11:59
11:59
11:59
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:01
12:01
12:02
12:02
12:03
12:03
12:04
12:04
12:05
12:05
12:05
12:06
12:07
12:07
12:07
12:08
12:09
12:09
12:09
None Portrait Q9. What diplomatic steps she is taking to help ensure that international humanitarian law is upheld in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. (907368)
-

>> Mr. speaker, we have consistently called on all parties to comply with their international humanitarian law obligations in Palestine and where this government
12:10
12:10
12:11
12:11
12:12
12:13
12:13
12:13
12:14
12:14
12:14
12:15
12:15
12:16
12:16
12:17
12:17
12:18
12:18
12:19
12:19
12:20
12:20
12:21
12:22
12:22
12:23
12:24
12:24
12:24
12:25
12:25
12:26
12:26
12:27
12:28
12:28
12:28
12:29
12:29
12:29
12:30
12:30
12:31
12:31
12:32
12:32
12:32
12:33
12:33
12:34
12:34
12:35
12:35
12:35
12:35
12:36
12:37
12:37
12:37
12:38
12:38
12:38
12:39
12:39
12:40
12:40
12:41
12:41
12:42
12:42
12:43
12:43
12:44
12:44
12:45
12:45
12:46
12:46
12:46
12:47
12:47
12:48
Liz Kendall Portrait Rt Hon Liz Kendall MP, The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Leicester West, Labour)
-
-
Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. With permission, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make a statement on the next steps this statement on the next steps this government will take to keep children safe online and give them the childhood they deserve. Last week, I said in this House that AI and technology have huge potential to create jobs and growth. Diagnose and treat disease, transform our public services and so much more besides. But this government knows we will only seize this potential if the benefits of technology are felt by all, not just a few at the top.

And above all, if people know they and their children are safe online. We've already made significant progress on this crucial issue. The Online Safety Act brought in one of the most robust systems globally, with groundbreaking steps to tackle illegal content and activity and to protect children from harmful and age inappropriate content. But we have long known there is more to do. My first act as Secretary of State was to make online content that promotes self-harm and suicide a priority offence, so platforms must take proactive steps to stop users seeing this material in the first place and to swiftly take it down if it appears.

We have also made intimate image abuse and cyber flashing priority offences, and we've introduced an offence in the Crime and Policing Bill to criminalise AI models, which have been optimised to create child sexual abuse material. Eight days ago, in response to the abhorrent and illegal spreading of sexualised deepfake images of women and children without their consent by grock, I said we would uphold British values and British laws, that we would fast track legislation making it an offence to create non-consensual, intimate images, and that I would make this a priority offence under the Online Safety Act two.

Since then, I am pleased to say X has announced it will ban the generation of intimate images of real people, something that will be carefully monitored, but which I and the government have welcomed. But Mr. Speaker, the story does not end there. I know up and down the country parents are grappling with how much screen time their children should have, when they should give them a phone. What on earth they are seeing online, and the impact all of this is having? Yesterday I met with bereaved families who have suffered the most unimaginable tragedy as a result of what their children have experienced online.

One of the most devastating discussions I've ever taken part in, and I pay tribute to their courage and dignity. Yet I know that many parents are deeply worried about a whole range of other impacts on their children, the consequences for their mental health, their concentration and sleep, their sense of self-esteem, their ability to learn and to explore the online world without fear. We are determined to help parents, children and young people deal with these issues with a lasting solution that gives children the childhood they deserve, enhances their wellbeing and prepares them for the future.

Last year, the government said in response to the private member's Bill on protecting children online from my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington, now Minister for Children and Families, that there would have to be further action on these issues. Since I was appointed to this role, I have been urgently considering this issue because keeping children safe online is a top priority for the government and me personally. So today I can tell the House we will bring forward a swift three month consultation on further measures to keep children safe online.

This will include the option of banning social media for children under 16, and raising the digital age of consent to stop companies using children's data without their or their parents consent. The consultation will include a range of other options too, such as whether there should be curfews, overnight breaks to stop excessive use, or doomscrolling. How we ensure more rigorous enforcement of existing laws around age verification and action. To address concerns about the use of VPNs to get around important protections.

We will consult with parents, the organisations representing children and bereaved families, technology companies and, crucially, with children and young people themselves because their views and voices must be heard. We will look closely at the experience in Australia, which, as many people know, has just introduced a ban on social media for the under 16 seconds and we will make sure that the consultation is evidence led with input from independent experts. Mr. speaker, we are prepared to act to deal with the serious concerns parents, teachers, doctors and others have about children's screen time use in schools but also at home.

Last week, my hon. Friend, the Education Secretary announced that for the first time ever, we are developing screen time guidance for children under five, which will be available from April of this year. Today, I can confirm that we will also be developing evidence based screen time guidance for parents of children aged 5 to 16. And while we have already been clear that mobile phones have no place in our schools, the government will take further action as part of our determination to safeguard children and support their wellbeing.

Today, we have published updated guidance on the use of mobile phones in schools and we have asked Ofsted to include this in its inspections because we want there to be no doubt in the minds of school staff, parents and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

young people that phones should not be used in schools. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Mr. speaker, I know these issues are are really important for members of Parliament, teachers and the medical profession. Many children's organisations, young people themselves and above all, parents across the country, many parents across the country, many people, including in this House, are strongly in favour of a ban on social media for the under 16 seconds as the best and clearest way forward for protecting children and stopping both acute and chronic online harms.

They want action now, but others take a different view, saying they worry about letting online platforms off the hook, that a ban would simply push harms further underground and above all, that it could stop children from using the positives of social media, like connecting with like minded people, finding those who love in the same way and love the same things, and getting peer support and trusted advice. There are clearly risks in all these different approaches, which is why I believe a proper consultation and promoting a national conversation, especially with the public, is the right and responsible way forward.

But I want to make one thing crystal clear. The question is not whether the government will take further action. We will act robustly, as we did with Grock. The question now is about next steps. Doing this effectively and doing it together with children and families. That is what our consultation will deliver because we are determined to ensure technology enriches children's lives, not harms them. To give children the childhood they deserve and to prepare them for the future. And I commend this statement to the House.
12:57
Julia Lopez Portrait Julia Lopez MP (Hornchurch and Upminster, Conservative)
-
-
Shadow Secretary of State Julia Lopez. thank you to the Secretary of State for advance notice of her statement. What does an ailing Prime Minister do to demonstrate firm and decisive do to demonstrate firm and decisive leadership? Mr. speaker, he launches a consultation. A consultation with a variety of options. And what does he do when the Conservative Party, the House of Lords, trade unions and more than 60 of his own Labour MPs line up against him on a tricky issue, rather than take a clear position on a social media ban for children and getting phones out of schools like the conservative leader has done.

This Prime Minister finds an unkempt meadow with some lengthy grass in it, and he boots the tricky issue right in. And we don't just need to take my word for it, Mr. Speaker. One senior Labour MP has said this consultation will take too long. Another said the immediate reaction is that this is just a way of kicking a social media ban into the long grass. So there's a very straightforward question Ministers must answer today. Is the government apparent change of heart on a social media ban for real? Is this consultation a way of elegantly managing yet another U-turn, or is it simply a device to get the Prime Minister through the parliamentary week? While the position remains unchanged? Because if it is progress, Mr.

Speaker, if it is progress, it can be celebrated. But let's not forget that until very recently, the Prime Minister said that he is personally opposed to a social media ban for children. In December, the culture secretary confirmed she's against one. The business secretary is opposed. The chief secretary to the Prime Minister said on the media this very morning that the government doesn't take a view. Exactly. In fact, the only senior Labour figure that we know who's clearly in favour of a ban is Andy Burnham.

Yep. That's some leadership. What is the Secretary of State's personal view, and what is her message to Labour MPs who would like to vote for a ban this week? Because each of those rebel MPs is going to be asking themselves after the Prime Minister has grand old Duke of York's me up and down so many hills, can I really trust him to see this through? Especially when this same proposal was tabled previously and they voted it down just like they voted down our amendment to the children's bill on a phone ban in schools, just like they were told not to support their own colleague, the hon.

Member for Whitehaven and Workington, when he put down a private member's bill on this issue. So knowing where the Secretary of State personally stands on a ban, not where she stands on a consultation, not what she thinks about having a variety of options may help ease their minds. And what are the timeline? Does a three month consultation mean that legislation to introduce a social media ban will be ready for the King's Speech? Because if not, if MPs do not vote for a ban this week, they will not have the chance again for 18 months.

The opportunity to change things is now. How many of the government benches will take that chance? The government must have a lot of the evidence it needs. The Secretary of State's predecessor commissioned a University of Cambridge review on children's wellbeing in relation to smartphone use, messaging and social media. It was due to report in December. Can she tell us what the report said? The urgency is obvious. Everyone, especially parents, can see what social media is doing to children. It's not just exposure to extreme or explicit content, although of course that matters.

The Online Safety Act that we brought in is already addressing illegal material and age gating, and that work is ongoing. But the harm goes Wallasey wider social media has created an anxious generation hooked by products designed to be addictive, displacing real world activity and undermining attention, emotional regulation and mental health. Schools and families deal daily with the consequences cyber bullying, social anxiety and fractured concentration. China's version of TikTok, Douyin, limits children to an hour a day and promotes educational content. But Western platforms do the opposite.

Engagement loops optimised for emotional arousal. We welcome scrutiny of those algorithms and steps to stop children's data being exploited. But there is a simpler option, which is to keep children off these platforms altogether, while allowing adults the freedom that follows. Conservatives believe in parental responsibility. We believe in freedom for adults, but we believe, too, in protecting children. Policing age, not policing speech. It is not to strip parents of their roles and responsibilities. To recognise that the online world can be a discombobulating nightmare to supervise.

It is not to be a modern day Mary Whitehouse, to worry deeply about children being exposed to images and topics they are simply not equipped to deal with. This consultation also includes a rethink on phones in schools, and I see the education secretary's in her place. After months of her telling us that it was a gimmick and unnecessary, despite most secondary school pupils saying the phones are still used extensively. By when will phones be banned in schools, and how quickly will Ofsted enforce this, and are they enforcing against guidance, or are they enforcing against the law because guidance is simply not enough? We must be upfront that the challenges of implementing any social media ban are real.

We support the government as it navigates them because we want this to work. But can the Secretary of State make clear that digital ID will not be a requirement to pass age verification on social media sites? The truth is, Mr. Speaker, that the internet grew as a pioneer society with consequences, but all reckoning with it now needs to be retrofitted with very clear rules for children. They need to be protected. Other countries are taking the approach of a social media ban.

Will this government in the UK do the same?
13:02
Liz Kendall Portrait Rt Hon Liz Kendall MP, The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Leicester West, Labour)
-
-
Secretary of State. >> Secretary of State. >> The hon. Lady talks about leadership. Can I just remind the leadership. Can I just remind the House that last week, when the Prime Minister and I showed strong and firm leadership on X and Broxtowe, she claimed the issues were a legal grey area when they're not, and she compared our stance to that of the mullahs of Iran, which would be laughable if it was not so offensive. She asked whether we have published the research by Professor Orban.

Yes, we have. We have published that today and we are going further with some.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I want to hear the Secretary of State, the two front benchers. Having this private conversation. Is it helpful? Liz Kendall?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it helpful? Liz Kendall? I mean, if she doesn't like me repeating her words back to him, repeating her words back to him, she shouldn't say them. She asked whether we've published the research from Professor Orban. Yes, research from Professor Orban. Yes, we have published that today. And I should say we have gone further should say we have gone further with some short, sharp trials on different interventions, the impact that they may have, because I think it's really important the evidence is evolving.

We need to go faster on that, but it will not cause delay in our action. She mentions Ofsted. I mean, maybe she doesn't understand that the chief inspector of Oxford has actually welcomed the new guidance today, which I think

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is a really important step forward. No, no, I want no more. And I genuinely mean this. This is continuing from me. I just don't like for somebody who's meant to be looking after education, I think we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

looking after education, I think we all need to set examples. Liz Kendall Mr Speaker you took the words right out of my mouth and finally she asked for my personal position. I believe it is the right position. I believe it is the right and responsible way forward to act swiftly, but by doing a proper consultation. And let me tell the House my position is I will act, I will get results and I will deliver for the British people.
13:04
13:06
13:06
Victoria Collins Portrait Victoria Collins MP (Harpenden and Berkhamsted, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Victoria Collins Liberal Democrat spokesperson. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. >> Last year. >> I carried out a safer screen store in Harpenden and Birkenhead hearing directly from young people hearing directly from young people because for for us, it is those children, those young people at the heart of this. Teenagers shared concerns about extreme content pushed by algorithms, but also about being glued to their screens alongside their younger siblings. One said it's as addictive as a drug and I feel the negative impacts every day.

Another pleaded help, I just can't stop. Last week, over 1700 parents emailed me calling for the social media ban. One mother said that social media for her two boys fills me with dread. Another highlighted how anxiety reduced attention, online bullying and exposure to harmful content are becoming common topics among families, parents, teachers, experts and young people themselves are crying out for action. That's why the Liberal Democrats have long raised this as a public health issue. We pushed to raise the digital age of data, consent to 16 tackling addictive algorithms.

We voted to ban phones in schools and called for health warnings. Now, the Liberal Democrats have tabled an amendment in the Other place to ban harmful social media for under 16 seconds, based on a film cell age rating extending to 18. We also reset the default age of social media now to 16, with strong age assurance, because enough is enough. This world pioneering approach brings age appropriate standards to online safety, learning from Australia and preparing for today's reality. Supported by over 40 charities and experts including the NSPCC, Molly Rose and the Internet Watch Foundation, this risk based approach stops new platforms slipping through the net whilst addressing harmful games and AI chatbots, protecting educational sites like Wikipedia and safe family connections.

Crucially, this does not let social media companies off the hook. We've had age appropriate safety standards offline for toys and films for decades. After 20 years of social media platforms clearly prioritising profit over children, building addictive algorithms, keeping children and adults hooked, it's time to take action. We don't need consultation, we need that action now. But at least in this consultation, we must look at how this we implement a ban on harmful social media for under 16 seconds. Not if I urge the government to consider a ban on harmful social media.

With swift timelines addressing this growing public health crisis and action, our proposals now, our children's future is something not to be played with here.
13:09
13:10
13:10
13:11
13:12
13:12
13:13
13:14
13:14
13:15
13:16
13:16
13:16
13:17
13:17
13:18
13:18
13:19
13:20
13:21
13:21
13:22
13:23
13:23
13:24
13:25
13:25
13:25
13:26
13:26
13:27
13:27
13:28
13:28
13:29
13:29
13:29
13:29
13:30
13:31
13:31
13:32
13:33
13:33
13:34
13:35
13:35
13:36
13:36
13:37
13:37
13:38
13:38
13:39
13:39
13:40
13:41
13:41
13:42
13:43
13:43
13:44
13:45
13:45
13:46
13:47
13:47
13:48
13:49
13:49
13:50
13:50
13:51
13:52
13:52
13:52
13:53
13:54
13:54
13:55
13:55
13:56
13:56
13:57
13:57
13:58
13:58
13:58
13:59
13:59
14:00
14:00
14:01
14:01
14:02
14:02
Dan Jarvis Portrait Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker. the national security considerations of China's proposal to build a new embassy at the Royal Mint Court in Tower Hamlets. I know that members will by now be well aware that the Secretary of State for housing, Communities and Local Government has approved China's planning application. Some some right hon. Members have been briefed by my security officials, and some members will have seen the statement from the Intelligence and Security Committee, as well as the letter from the Director General of MI5 and the director general of GCHQ.

The decision made by the Secretary of State for housing was an independent, quasi judicial planning one, and it concludes, a process which began in 2018 when the then Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, gave formal diplomatic consent for China to use the Royal Mint site for its new embassy, subject to planning permission, and welcomed it as China's largest overseas investment. Now, given the potential for legal proceedings, it would not be appropriate to give a commentary on the grounds for the decision.

In their decision, MHCLG notes that the package of security measures proposed would be proportionate to the proposed use of the site, and that no bodies with responsibility for national security, for national security, including the Home Office and the Foreign Office, have raised concerns or objected to the proposal on the basis of proximity of the cables or other underground infrastructure. Now, I know that some members have raised concerns regarding the security implications of the new embassy, and it is on that issue that I wanted to update the House.

National security is the first duty of any government, and that is why the intelligence and security agencies have been absolutely integral to this process. The ISC, as the committee entrusted and empowered by this House to scrutinise the government's most sensitive information, have today released their judgement on the security implications. I thank them for their work and am reassured by the depth of their scrutiny throughout the process, the ISC concluded, and I'm quoting from their statement on the basis of the evidence we have received and having carefully reviewed the nuanced national security considerations, the Committee has concluded that, taken as a whole, the national security concerns that arise can be satisfactorily mitigated.

And I can confirm today that the Home Office has received a letter from the director of GCHQ and the director general of MI5, which makes clear that, as with any foreign embassy on UK soil, it is not realistic to expect to be wholly able to eliminate each and every potential risk. However, they say that the collective work across UK intelligence agencies and HMG departments to formulate a package of national security mitigations for the site has been, in our view, expert, professional and proportionate.

They judge that the package of mitigations deals acceptably with a wide range of sensitive national security issues, including cabling. And indeed, they note that there are clear security advantages from the consolidation, clear security advantages. Now our security services have over a century of experience managing security matters related to foreign embassies on UK soil. This government and the last have been aware of the potential for a new embassy at this site since the Chinese government completed the purchase in 2018.

The issues that continue to be raised in the media reports are not new to the government or the intelligence community, and an extensive range of measures have been developed to protect national security. We have acted to increase the resilience of cables in the area through an extensive series of measures to protect sensitive data, and I can confirm that, contrary to reporting, the government had seen the unredacted plans for the embassy, and this government has agreed with China that the publicly accessible forecourt on the embassy grounds will not have diplomatic immunity.

Managing the risk to the public. Based on all of this and our extensive work on this matter, I am content that any risks are being appropriately managed. But let me be clear the build also brings clear national security advantages. Following extensive negotiations led by this government, the Chinese government has agreed to consolidate its seven current sites in London into one site. That is why, following deep scrutiny by security officials, the government has been able to conclude that we can manage the security concerns related to the embassy.

Whilst there are those who have a no doubt continue to have concerns about this embassy, it is a fundamental and normal part of international relations that countries agree to establish embassies in each other's capitals. While some would stick their heads in the sand and ignore the obvious need to engage, this government is engaging with China confidently and pragmatically recognising the complexity of the world as it is and challenging them where we need to. Because for our security, our economy and our climate, China matters.

And to be clear, this is not a question of balancing economic and security considerations. We don't trade off security for economic access. Now, of course, we recognise that China poses a series of threats to UK national security and cyber attacks, foreign interference and espionage targeting our democratic institutions to the transnational repression of Hong Kongers. And, of course, China's support for Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine. That is why I announced a package in November to protect our national security, which set out the range of the work the government is taking forward to strengthen the security of our democracy against the threat from foreign interference and espionage.

It's also why, for example, in December 2025, the UK sanctioned two China based companies that have carried out cyber attacks against the UK and its allies. And it's why we have completed work to remove Chinese made surveillance equipment from sensitive sites. It is why the UK has sanctioned 50 Chinese companies under the Russia sanctions regulations. As part of our efforts to take action against entities operating in third countries over economic and military support for Russia. And it's why I will be hosting a closed event in February with vice Chancellors to discuss the risks posed by foreign interference from a range of states, and to signpost our plans to further increase the sector's resilience.

But taking a robust approach to our national security does also include engaging with China. Under the previous government, engagement with China had ground to a halt. This made us no safer. Indeed, it is only through engagement that we can directly challenge China on its malicious activity. And by taking tough steps to keep us secure, we enable ourselves to cooperate in other areas, including in pursuit of safe economic opportunities which are in the UK's interest, but also in areas like organised immigration, crime, narcotics trafficking and serious organised crime.

This is what our allies do and this is what we're doing delivering for the public, putting more money in their pockets and keeping them safe through hard headed, risk based engagement with the world's most consequential powers. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am grateful to Right Honourable and hon. Members for their ongoing attention that they give to protecting the UK's security. China has and will continue to pose threats to our national security. But following detailed consideration of all possible risks around this new embassy by expert officials across government, I am assured that the UK's national security is protected.

Let me assure this House and the country upholding national security is the first duty of government, and we will continue to take all measures necessary to defeat these threats. I commend this statement to the House.
14:12
Chris Philp Portrait Rt Hon Chris Philp MP (Croydon South, Conservative)
-
-
Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp. Yes. Let us be in no doubt about the threat China poses. MI5 has warned that Chinese intelligence is that Chinese intelligence is actively trying to disrupt our democracy. Bounties have been placed on the heads of Hong Kong campaigners. Members of this House have been directly spied on by China. China actively supports Russias illegal invasion of Ukraine, and China is infiltrating universities and businesses to acquire sensitive technology, as well as stealing it directly.

Yet this government has failed again and again to take the action needed. This government failed to place China in the enhanced tier of the Foreign Influence registration scheme. This government failed to properly support the case against two men accused of spying for China on MPs in this House, and now they have shamefully approved plans for a Chinese super embassy. Despite everything China has done on our soil, China has been rewarded with exactly what they want a super embassy that will be a base for espionage, not just in the UK, but likely across Europe as well.

The government has capitulated to Chinese demands. The Prime Minister himself said to President Xi at the G20 in November 2024, and I quote, you raised the Chinese embassy building in London when we spoke on the telephone. We have since taken action by calling in that application. In other words, the Prime Minister did precisely what President Xi told him to do, and then he faithfully reported back afterwards. This decision has serious implications. Last week, The Telegraph published plans showing 208 secret rooms and a hidden chamber just one metre from critical data cables.

Our economy depends on those cables. So what assurance can the Minister give that those cables will be secure from Chinese interference? Now, in paragraph 97 of his decision, notice, the Secretary of State who made the decision admits that he had not himself even seen unredacted plans before making his decision. So how can he possibly have assessed the risk himself as the decision maker without having seen those plans? The Secretary of State also admits at paragraph 13 that he did not follow our suggestion to hold sections three, two, one closed hearings to take evidence.

Once again, how could the Secretary of State possibly have taken this decision in an informed way without having personally assessed the risk? And Madam Deputy Speaker, it gets worse because paragraph 8.63 onwards of the inspector's report admits that China can legally refuse to allow UK authorities to inspect the building during or after construction. So we're going to have no idea what they're actually building in there. In any event, now the Minister references the ISC. He says that someone in government has seen unredacted plans, although we know that was not the decision maker, the Secretary of State.

So can I ask, have the ISC seen those unredacted plans? Because it has been suggested to me that they have not seen those unredacted plans. The ISC say the risks can be mitigated, but mere mitigation is not enough. Mitigation entails only a partial exclusion of risk, and nothing is said about how to manage future developments in China's capabilities. Developments we cannot anticipate today. The ISC also says. And the Minister for some reason forgot to quote this, but they also say the government process was not robust enough.

They say it lacked clarity on national security. The ISC say the key reports lack the necessary detail, and the ISC said the government does not have the dexterity required to handle China. Does the Minister accept those elements of the ISC report and others share those concerns? A US government source was recently quoted saying the UK had, quote, downplayed the risks. The White House last week was reported to be, quote, deeply concerned, and the US House China Committee chair says that he opposes these plans on the grounds that Americans data may be at risk.

Does the Minister agree with our American allies? Madam Deputy Speaker, it is clear this decision is timed shortly before a planned trip by the Prime Minister to China. He apparently intends to seek some kind of economic deal with China in order to fix the mess he and the Chancellor have created here. With jobs down and unemployment up since the election. From its timing and from President Xi's clear demands, this planning consent appears linked to the Prime Minister's imminent visit and linked to the economic deal.

Seems clear to me that they are trading national security for economic links, and this is a shameless capitulation to China's demands. China is spying on us. It is subverting our democracy. It is repressing people on our soil, and it is stealing our technology. Isn't the truth this in those circumstances, giving them what they want is simply the wrong thing to do.
14:17
Dan Jarvis Portrait Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-
Before I call the Minister, can I gently remind shadow Ministers I gently remind shadow Ministers and spokesmen that there is a time limit which the hon. Gentleman exceeded somewhat. Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

exceeded somewhat. Minister. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I listened very carefully to what the Shadow Home Secretary had to the Shadow Home Secretary had to say. There was a glaring gap in his analysis, and he didn't seem to want to have to say anything about the level of challenge that we inherited from the previous government in terms of the lay down of the diplomatic estate. He didn't want to accept that. As with other countries, there is a degree of risk which has to be managed.

And I explained very carefully and made sure that he had the opportunity to come in this morning for a briefing. And I was at pains to stress in my opening remarks that whilst, of course balanced views have to be taken about these things, there are national security advantages to the proposals that have been agreed. Now, I know that he and hon. Members opposite don't want to agree with that, but I think it is important that we debate the. The right hon.

Gentleman says it's nonsense. He's absolutely entitled to his opinion, as is this government, and I hope that he takes the opportunity to look very carefully at what the director general of MI5 and GCHQ have to say. I also say to the right hon. Gentleman, and to some but not all members opposite, that actually, this is also a moment, hopefully, where we could have discussed these things in a sensible and reasonable way. And that's how we should approach matters relating to national security.

But also, I don't think it would be such a bad thing for a bit of humility from some members opposite. Not not least because the attack that we heard from the shadow Home Secretary, the attack that other hon. Members have already engaged with, might have actually sort of landed a bit fair and a bit truer if they hadn't spent 14 years in government flitting between hot and cold, neither consistent nor credible on what is, after all, one of the most complex geopolitical challenges that we face.

The party opposite went from golden age to ice age, from welcoming, welcoming China with open arms to choosing to disengage almost entirely. And that's with the world's largest nation, who, along with Hong Kong, are our second largest trading partner. Now it's convenient for some members opposite to forget that it was, of course, Boris Johnson as conservative foreign secretary in 2018, who granted consent for the Royal Mint site to be used as diplomatic premises. He was proud, and I quote, to welcome the fact that this is China's largest overseas diplomatic investment.

Conservative Foreign Secretary, in recent times, of course, we've seen conservative MPs U-turn on the original position of their government and take a different approach. This government will ensure that the the approach that we will take will be underpinned by ensuring that we engage consistently and pragmatically with China, but we will do so in a way that ensures our national security. The House will have heard the important contributions that have been made by the ISC, and the conclusion that they have drawn the House.

The country will have heard the comments that we've seen from the director generals. These are important contributions. Nobody should underestimate how seriously government has taken this matter. We've engaged with it incredibly closely. The intelligence security agencies have been involved with this process from the outset. I can give an assurance to those who have doubts that we will, of course, continue to monitor this process very carefully, but we believe that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this is the right judgement. Can I respectfully say to the Minister, that was an incredibly long answer, indeed, longer even than the question and perhaps questions and responses need to be questions and responses need to be briefer. Rushanara Ali. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Many of my constituents will continue to have constituents will continue to have serious concerns about the proposed new embassy in my constituency. These include China's human rights
14:22
14:22
14:23
Lisa Smart Portrait Lisa Smart MP (Hazel Grove, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Liberal Democrat spokesperson Lisa Smart. >> Much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I'm grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement and for the Chinese officials took to for the Chinese officials took to brief me earlier today. The government's decision to approve plans for the Chinese mega embassy represent far more than a planning represent far more than a planning matter. It shows that Ministers have learnt very little from evidence exposed in recent months of Chinese spying, efforts to infiltrate British politics and this House.

Throughout this stunted process, we on these benches have consistently called these plans out for what they are and mistake. The government knows that this decision that they have made today will further amplify China's surveillance efforts here in the UK, endangering the security of our data. Planning conditions are meaningless without proper enforcement. Given the unprecedented security concerns surrounding this site, how will the government ensure planning conditions are rigorously monitored and enforced, particularly in regards to the underground cables that the current plans come dangerously close to? But no amount of planning conditions can address the fundamental problem.

The embassy does not clean Chinese officials of their human rights abuses. It is shocking that China has placed bounties on the heads of democracy activists from Hong Kong who live in the UK. This type of interference and intimidation in our country is totally unacceptable. So in light of this decision, will the government include all Chinese officials? Hong Kong Special Administrative Region officials and Chinese Communist Party linked organisations on the enhanced tier of the Foreign Influence Registration scheme. Beyond the security and diplomatic concerns, there are fundamental questions around our democratic freedoms.

The previous conservative government attacked our fundamental right to protest, and this Labour government has continued to erode these freedoms. As a democratic society, we must protect the right to protest, protest peacefully, including near embassies and including for those Hong Kongers living in the UK. Will the government continue to guarantee the right to protest, even as this embassy now moves ahead?
14:25
Dan Jarvis Portrait Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-
Mr. >> Madam Speaker, I'm grateful to the hon. Lady. Not least because she came along in good faith this morning and attended the briefing morning and attended the briefing at our invitation, and I hope that she found that helpful. I am acutely conscious that there are acutely conscious that there are technical details that the House will understand that I am not able to get into, and that is why we took the opportunity to to brief the hon. Lady and other right hon.

Members this morning. I'm afraid I don't agree with her analysis at the beginning of her statement, in terms of our understanding of the threat. I referenced earlier on in my opening remarks the very significant number of measures that we've taken in recent times in order to protect our national security. But she did ask me about the cables. So let me take the opportunity to update her and the house with regard to that specific point. Let me say to her that the allegations that have been much discussed in the media are, of course, not new to us or to the security agencies.

Our intelligence services have scrutinised the plans and an extensive range of measures have been developed and are being implemented to protect national security, including putting in place additional resilience measures to protect sensitive data. Now, the House will understand that I clearly the hon. Member opposite asked me what that means. I hope that he will understand that it would be unwise of me to get into the technical detail of the mitigations that we're seeking to put in place. I hope he understands, surely, that Security Minister isn't able to get into the guts and the detail of precisely what we're

**** Possible New Speaker ****

going to do, but if he's just patient for. I'm simply not going to have this, there's too much chuntering. And indeed, yelling across the And indeed, yelling across the chamber from the sedentary position, and the Minister might focus on responding to the question that was responding to the question that was asked by the Lib Dem spokesperson not to heckling from the rest of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not to heckling from the rest of the chamber. Security Minister. I'm grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member opposite did make a point about transparency, and I think it's important I take the opportunity to give as much detail as I am. But it's important for the hon. Gentleman over there to understand that the Security Minister, I can't get into the absolute detail precisely what we're going to do for what I thought would have been fairly obvious reasons. But let me say to the hon.

Lady that the government has been aware of the potential new embassy proposal since 2018. Our security services have been involved throughout that process, and an extensive range of measures have been developed and are being implemented to protect our national security. I can say to her and give the assurances that I think she seeks, that an extensive range of measures have been developed and are being implemented to protect our national security. Now, she also, I think, quite unfairly, I have to say, criticised the government's belief in the right to protest.

I do not think that that is a fair critique. The government takes very seriously the right of people to protest in our country is a cornerstone of our democracy, and the government will always ensure that people have the ability to protest in a peaceful way. She also asked entirely reasonably about those. I'm waiting for the hon. Member opposite to ask me about it as well. She will know that Firs is still a new scheme. It only relatively recently came into force the 1st of July.

More effectively, on the 1st of October. She will also understand that any decision with regard to Firs will be brought forward to Parliament in the usual way.
14:29
14:29
14:30
Jeremy Wright Portrait Rt Hon Sir Jeremy Wright KC MP (Kenilworth and Southam, Conservative)
-
-
Vice chair. >> The ISC, sir Jeremy Wright. >> Very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, as you and the House would expect, the Intelligence Security Committee the Intelligence Security Committee has investigated the security implications of this proposal, specifically whether the specifically whether the intelligence community had sufficient opportunity to feed in any security concerns and whether Ministers had the necessary information on which to base a decision. And if you'll permit me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to quote directly from the conclusions we've reached, which represent our unanimous view as a committee on the basis of the evidence we have received, and having carefully reviewed the nuanced national security considerations, the Committee has concluded that, taken as a whole, the national security concerns that arise can be satisfactorily mitigated.

I will say, though, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we have been concerned solely with the national security perspective here, not with the other arguments for or against a new embassy. And if I may say to the Minister, it has proved more difficult than it should have been to get straightforward answers to our basic questions. The process within government does not seem to us to be effectively coordinated, nor as robust as would have been expected. In particular, there was a lack of clarity about the role that national security considerations play in planning, in planning decisions.

And, Madam Deputy Speaker, we will take those matters up further, as I know the Minister would expect with the government Minister.
14:32
14:33
14:34
14:35
14:36
Dan Jarvis Portrait Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-
Yeah, yeah, yeah. >> Yeah, yeah, yeah. >> Well, madam, Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm grateful, as I always am, to the right hon. Gentleman and am, to the right hon. Gentleman and I, I genuinely am, because I actually respect the wisdom of someone who served in this House for many. Right hon. Lady, sort of questioning my gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman. I can give her an assurance that I have a huge amount of respect. I am answering the question. I have a huge amount of respect for members who served for a long period of time, and particularly those who've chaired the Is, and I think we do need to find a kind of a mechanism in order to ensure that members like the right hon.

Gentleman have access to some of this information so that they can make informed comment in this House. I take his point, although I don't agree with it about mitigations, he understands there are limits to what I can say with regard to to the mitigations, but I take the point that he's made in terms of his substantive point. I don't agree with him. I don't accept that this is a win, not least because I could not have been clearer about the importance of the consolidation of the estate.

The government has reached an agreement with China that the existing diplomatic footprint in London will be reduced in size from seven diplomatic sites to one. I'm not sure that kind of constitutes a particularly big win in my book, not least. Well, it is a statement of truth, and I think it undermines Sewards.
14:37
14:38
Dan Jarvis Portrait Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-
Minister. don't accept the basis of the argument that my hon. Friend has made, and I think he would be well made, and I think he would be well advised to place more emphasis on the point about consolidation, because I'm confident that that will deliver meaningful operational will deliver meaningful operational benefits. And that's a point that's been agreed by, by the security experts. But let me find a what I hope is an important point of consensus. And that is to be absolutely clear about how unacceptable it is for China or for any other nation, for that matter, to seek to persecute individuals who are resident here in the United Kingdom.

The government takes these matters incredibly seriously. That's why, through the Defending Democracy Task Force, which I chair, we've completed a very significant, extensive piece of work looking into transnational repression. There are a number of actions that have come from that, that piece of work which have been routed right across government. We take it incredibly seriously. I myself have met with a number of people who've been the victim of TNR, and it is, as I say, completely unacceptable for China or anyone to to persecute people in this country.

But I would just ask him just to consider that we're talking about a proposal that will deliver an embassy for China at some point in the future. What I have to do, and what the government has to do with deal with the level of threat as it is. And I'm confident, given the point about consolidation, that actually this is a proposal, that we will be able to work in the national interest of our country and all of the people who live here.
14:40
14:41
14:41
14:42
14:43
14:44
14:45
14:46
14:47
14:48
Dan Jarvis Portrait Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-
Mr. Well. >> Madam Deputy Speaker, try though I might. There was never going to be a scenario where I would be able to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman, today, in terms of what I've been today, in terms of what I've been able to say. He and I have exchanged on, on, on these matters, on many. And it's completely intolerable and unacceptable that he and members of his family have been sanctioned, and he knows the government's position with regard to that.

He mentioned the issue of law. UK law is absolutely sacrosanct and where anyone, whoever they might be, falls short of that. They will be held to account by this government. He made a specific point about the potential, I think, for an increase in staff. Again, there are very clear procedures that rest with the Foreign Office, that where a foreign nation seeks to bring additional staff resource into a country, all of that has to go through the normal diplomatic channels and has to be agreed by the Foreign Secretary.

Now, I know that he doesn't support these proposals. I understand that he has strong views, which I have a lot of respect for, but I hope that he can respect the fact that we have engaged seriously with this proposal. The security services have been involved from the outset, and ultimately government has to take a view. We've taken a view that the national security implications of this can be mitigated. We've also taken a view, and I know that some hon. Members opposite don't agree with it.

There could well be some security advantages as a consequence of these proposals, but I undertake to keep him and hon. Members up to date, and if he wishes to discuss it somewhere else other than this chamber, then I'd be very happy to do that.
14:50
14:51
14:52
14:52
14:52
14:53
Dan Jarvis Portrait Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-
future, and that is up to him. I mean, the hon. Gentleman seems to operate in a world that is quite operate in a world that is quite selective in terms of some of the decisions that it seeks to make. I looked over to him earlier when I looked over to him earlier when I referenced the requirement for cooperation on areas like organised immigration crime. I don't know immigration crime. I don't know whether he thinks that's a good thing. I don't know whether he or his party have a policy about his party have a policy about whether, given the concerns that are shared across this House, we should be engaging with China on matters relating to immigration as part of the work to stop the small boat crossings across the channel.

He will understand. I hope that it is, of course, necessary to engage with our near neighbours, but it is also necessary to engage internationally. I am not clear whether he thinks that's a good thing, and I am not clear whether he thinks that we should engage with China on those matters. What I am clear about is that this government will engage pragmatically, do the right thing, secure the economic opportunities, but fundamentally will always make sure that we will underpin our national security.

And in terms of his point about British Steel, that is a fair one. This government will always want to support UK based manufacturers and UK based industry. So let's always look for. Let's end on a point of consensus. Let's always look for opportunities to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

buy British. I'm very hopeful that we can find a point of consensus that find a point of consensus that questions need to be shorter. Answers need to be shorter. I intend to keep the Minister here until all members have been

**** Possible New Speaker ****

until all members have been satisfied this afternoon, but we do need to speed up Mark Francois. There's a pattern. Of behaviour here.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of behaviour here. The failure, the failure to act meaningfully over Jimmy Lai, the
14:54
14:55
14:56
14:57
14:57
14:57
14:58
14:59
14:59
15:00
15:00
15:00
15:00
15:01
15:01
15:02
15:03
15:04
15:04
15:04
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:08
15:08
Shockat Adam Portrait Shockat Adam MP (Leicester South, Independent)
-
-
Here, here, here. >> Here, here, here. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I beg to move that leave be given to bring in a bill to make to bring in a bill to make provision about the detection, treatment and monitoring of glaucoma by optometrists in England and to make provision about the full integration of optometry and ophthalmology services for the purpose of glaucoma care in England and for connected purposes. I would also like to refer members to my register of interests as a practising NHS optometrist, and I would like to begin by thanking the Minister for being here for this valuable debate.

As a practising optometrist for many years, one of the heartaches of the role is this that during a routine eye examination, one detects a condition that will forever change that person who is sitting in my chairs life and the patient is blissfully unaware of it because that's exactly what glaucoma does. It changes lives quietly and often without warning. Glaucoma is known as the thief of sight and for a very good reason. Glaucoma damages the optic nerve at the back of the eye, with each nerve fibre representing a different point in the visual field.

And because the loss begins in the peripheral vision, people often don't realise that anything is wrong until it's too late. So if members would like a glimpse of what an advanced glaucoma sufferer sees, could I ask them to just cover one eye completely and with the other eye? Look through an aperture created by your hands and touch your fingertips to your palms. And as the condition progresses, the aperture gets smaller, smaller, and smaller until eventually nothing is left. Now imagine trying to navigate a busy high street to cross a road, or even simply move safely around one's own home.

This is simply this isn't simply theoretical. Let me give you just two very brief, but very real examples from my experience. A woman who on two separate occasions whilst driving her car, was hit by another car from the side before she finally came in for an eye test, unaware that there was a problem because she could see the number plate, she could see road signs perfectly clearly, for what she couldn't see was the side of a vision eroding. Oh, and secondly, a heartbreaking experience for me.

When a pensioner with a handbag packed with what looked like a life savings cash in hand, explaining that she will spend whatever it takes, if I could just give her a pair of glasses that would allow her to see her two loves. One was her love of painting and the other was her love of her grandchildren. Unfortunately, no amount of money would be able to restore her sight as glaucoma, as well as being silent, is usually irreversible. Glaucoma, in fact, is the leading cause cause of preventable blindness.

In the UK, over 700,000 people are affected, and what is even more concerning is that more than half of them are undiagnosed. That's 350,000 people walking around, driving around, not knowing this could be any one of us, someone we love or someone we work with, as was with the case of a previous member of this House, Paul Taylor, a former Lib Dem member who was not diagnosed until a routine eye test in its early stages. Glaucoma rarely has symptoms, and there are rarely any warning signs, just a silent, slow theft.

By the time it's noticed, the damage is usually permanent and the loss has far reaching consequences. People lose not only their sight, but also their independence, the ability to drive, read, cook or even leave their house. Falls increase, isolation grows, and then comes the emotional and mental health impacts fear, depression and loss of identity. Furthermore, with an ageing population, we are facing a growing crisis. Glaucoma cases are expected to dramatically rise in the next coming decades, with a growth rate that outstrips the ageing population.

A study from 2017 suggested that over the next 20 years, glaucoma cases would rise by 44%. That's hundreds of thousands of more people needing care, follow up and support, and I fear that data will prove to be an underestimate. So let me be blunt. Patients are losing their sight not because care doesn't exist, but because the pathway is broken and the follow up is delayed. Just recently, I saw a patient who was referred to the hospital and diagnosed with glaucoma. That bit absolutely fine.

The initial appointment happened, but the follow up was postponed. Then they missed an appointment. So by the time they came to see me again a year later, they had lost a significant amount of their visual field to such an extent that even their central vision, their acuity, was affected. This anecdotal example corroborates with findings from major chains like Specsavers and others. The problem? Current waiting list data only provides a measure of first appointments, not the ongoing care vital to chronic conditions like glaucoma.

We need published data on follow up waiting times because that's where sight is being lost. And here's the reality hospital ophthalmology is one of the largest outpatient specialities in the NHS, with 8.9 million appointments a year between 2023 and 2024. In England, it is estimated that glaucoma care accounts for about 20% of all hospital eye service appointments, with around 1 million visits annually across England alone. In 20 2425, it was reported that 600,000 people were on hospital waiting list for an ophthalmology appointment.

However, the ongoing care such as the need for regular planned follow up glaucoma patients is often overlooked, with the numbers not hitting the headline like those waiting for an initial assessment or surgery. NHS hospitals cannot carry this load alone. Thankfully, Minister, this is where the government's own NHS ten year plan, and in particular its ambition to shift care out of hospitals and into community and to focus on prevention, not sickness, closely aligns with the transformation needed in glaucoma care.

There are over 14,000 qualified optometrists in England, providing more than 13 million NHS funded eye tests. They are trained, regulated and ready to help community glaucoma services led by appropriately qualified optometrists with appropriate approved equipment, have already demonstrated the ability to reduce hospital appointment referrals by up to 71% if implemented nationally, alongside an optometry based glaucoma monitoring service. It may be possible to release 300,000 hospital appointments every year. That's not a one time saving. Glaucoma is a chronic condition.

These are reoccurring appointments for people who are living with, not cured of the condition, making full use of the skills and capacity already in primary care. Take significant pressure off hospital services, enabling them to focus on tasks that can only be managed in a hospital. This could also save the NHS an estimated £12 million annually. At present, ten Icbs have no glaucoma case finding referral management services and without this service, many patients in these areas who are referred to hospital could instead be retaining primary care optometry with appropriate commissioning, rather than adding to the existing waiting list.

And even what is more concerning, 20 one half of the Icbs do not commission a glaucoma monitoring service in the community and rely simply on the hospital eye service to follow up glaucoma patients for the rest of their lives. This is where light like sight loss occurs, as the hospital simply do not have the required capacity. It's a postcode lottery, one that punishes the vulnerable, especially when people from Black and Asian communities are up to four times more likely to develop glaucoma and often have the least access to timely care, as opposed to Wales.

In Scotland, where a shared care service for glaucoma is commissioned by every health board, optometry led and properly integrated between primary care, optometry and ophthalmology, and often the approach of NHS commissioners in England is hospital led. The recent draft, Getting it right first time model developed with minimal input from primary care optometry, risks reinforcing England's hospital led approach and undermining the government's own ambition to shift care from hospitals to the community. We are also seeing worrying behaviour at the ICB level, with several icbs removing the limited community glaucoma services that had in place to make short term savings.

This is extremely myopic given ongoing financial pressures on Icbs. We do not expect individual icbs to make significant progress. Progress in commissioning optometry led glaucoma pathways that fully integrate optometry and ophthalmology without clear direction from the government. The total cost of visual impairment in the UK is now estimated to be £26.5 billion, set to rise to £33.5 billion by 2032. Glaucoma alone accounts for £750 million of it, and this is just not a cost to the NHS, but also the cost of lost productivity, informal care and diminished quality of life.

This is a silent epidemic, but it is not inevitable. So why am I asking for what can be done to begin to tackle this silent epidemic? Fundamentally, I am asking for a national direction from the DHSC to icbs that they should commission a uniform primary care glaucoma service that utilises qualified high street optician practices, and only by doing so will we end the current postcode lottery in glaucoma care. We already know what works. We already have the workforce and we already have the technology.

We now need clear

**** Possible New Speaker ****

direction and a political will. Thank you. The question is that the hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the hon. Member have leave to bring in the bill. As many hours of that opinion bill. As many hours of that opinion say I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Who will prepare and bring in the bill? Marsha de Cordova. Jim Shannon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Marsha de Cordova. Jim Shannon. Brian Leishman. Jeremy Corbyn. Ayoub Khan. Iqbal Mohamed. Mr. Adnan Hussain. Paulette Hamilton. Mark Pritchard and Adrian Ramsay and myself. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Shockat Adam.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Shockat Adam.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And all. Roger Gale. And.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Glaucoma Care (England) Bill Second Reading. What day? Friday, 13th of March 2026.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friday, 13th of March 2026.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friday the 13th of March 2026. formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. The question is as on the Order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion, say aye. Of the contrary, opinion, say aye. Of the contrary, no, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The clerk will now proceed to read the orders of the day.
15:19
15:20
15:21
Jake Richards Portrait Jake Richards MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Rother Valley, Labour)
-
-
Speaker. And his memo also has the memorable line. Don't think you memorable line. Don't think you know things to be true. Get out of the habit of saying think. I happen the habit of saying think. I happen to think he should get into the habit of thinking a little more. The hon. Member for Newark says he The hon. Member for Newark says he is joined to be part of the team. We are still unclear whether he will remain speaking on justice issues. He's not in his new place issues.

He's not in his new place today. Over the weekend, it was said that there would be a mini reshuffle at reform, a rather depressing game of musical chairs. But whether they're just a spokesperson remains the Member for Runcorn, or if the Member for Newark takes over, if the Member for Ashfield has a go, or if the Member for East Wiltshire or the Member for Romford joins in. The story is the same. Madam Deputy Speaker failed former Tories who cannot be trusted with our justice system, let alone our country.

Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, this bill will make sure that we are never again in the position that this government inherited prisons at risk of running out of places entirely, leaving us with nowhere to put dangerous offenders, police without the capacity to make arrests, courts unable to hold trials, and a breakdown of law and order unlike anything we have seen in modern times. That's why this bill is vital. It does not kick the can down the road. It does not shy away from making tough decisions to keep the public safe.

Instead, it will end the cycle of crisis once

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and for all. And it does more than this. Absolutely. I thank the Minister for giving way. He has given a powerful speech. way. He has given a powerful speech. He will recognise. This is a bill that is of huge concern to residents of my constituency of residents of my constituency of Harlow, because obviously many of those who are waiting for justice to be served, they're victims of to be served, they're victims of crime, are waiting years for their the person that caused that offence to to actually see a trial.

So to to actually see a trial. So would you agree with me. It's really important this government gets on top of this backlog and gets people in front of courts as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

quickly as possible. Absolutely. And my hon. Friend is a fine champion of of of of this agenda, but also, of course, for his constituents in Harlow. And as he knows, this bill does more than just fixing the crisis we inherit. just fixing the crisis we inherit. It will confront re-offending, keeping our communities safe. Madam Deputy Speaker, as my right hon. Friend, the Deputy Prime Minister Friend, the Deputy Prime Minister set out in the very first debate on the bill in this House.

It takes us back to the fundamental purpose of sentencing punishment that works, sentencing punishment that works, punishment that works for victims who deserve to see perpetrators face retribution. Punishment that works for society, which wants criminals to return less dangerous, not more, and punishment that works to prevent crime. We want better citizens, not better criminals. That is what will deliver safer streets and protection from crime. This bill will restore the confidence of victims in the criminal justice system. And let me reiterate that nothing is worse for victims than prisons running out of places and crimes going without punishment, which is the situation we inherited when we came into

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government in the summer of 2024. Yes. Jim Shannon Madam Deputy Speaker, can I thank the Minister for giving way? And the Minister has outlined very clearly what the government and the Minister in particular is and the Minister in particular is trying to achieve. There are some perceptions by the general public that certainly indicated in the that certainly indicated in the press and the media that they feel that maybe the government is going to be a bit soft, and those who carry out the crimes.

But in the rehabilitative structure, which I am very much in favour of, and which I think maybe the Minister is in favour of as well, can he outline, please, what will be done to enable those, when they leave prison to be rehabilitated and to ensure that they don't re-offend because they, they rise in numbers

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of those who reoffend is incredibly worrying. And I. Welcome the right hon. Member's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Welcome the right hon. Member's intervention. I'll be setting out in the course of this speech, and more generally, what this government is doing to ensure that government is doing to ensure that we can increase rehabilitation, crack down on re-offending. But I would just say gently to the hon. would just say gently to the hon. Gentleman, he states that there is suggestion that this bill is somehow soft on crime. By the end of this Parliament, there will be more offenders in prison than ever before.

So I completely reject that assertion. Briefly, Madam Deputy Speaker, I just want to pay tribute to the campaigners that informed large parts of this piece of legislation and the amendments that we're discussing today. We are introducing tough restriction zones that limit the movement of offenders instead of limiting the movement of victims. These new restriction zones, which will be given to the most serious offenders on licence and can be imposed by a court, will pin any offender down to a specific location to ensure that the victims can move freely elsewhere.

This was campaigned for by the founders of the Joanna Simpson Foundation, Diana Parks and Hetty Barkworth Nanton. Once again, I pay tribute to them and to all of those who have campaigned for this crucial change. And clause six of this bill introduces a new judicial finding of domestic abuse and sentencing, which enables probation to identify abusers early, to track patterns of behaviour and to put safeguards in place. On this. I must pay tribute to the Liberal Democrats in particular and in particular the hon.

Member for Eastbourne for his tireless campaigning and willingness to work across party, across party to deliver this. I know that all parties opposite support this crucial change. It is worth reminding, remembering more generally, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this legislation was carefully drafted as a result of an independent sentencing review led by the former conservative Justice Secretary, David Gauke. I again take this opportunity. Great man. They're saying they don't. They're voting against every single one of his proposals, Madam Deputy Speaker, but there we go.

I take this opportunity. I take this opportunity to thank him again for all his work. It was a thorough, comprehensive and excellent piece of work. We are determined to ensure that the Bill receives Royal Assent as soon as possible. There is an urgency to this process. And let me also remind the House that alongside this legislation, this government is building prison places at a faster rate than ever before. In our first year, we opened nearly 2500 new places and we are on track to add 14,000 by 2031.

In the next four years alone, we will spend £4.7 billion on prison building, but we simply cannot build our way out of the crisis we inherited from the Conservatives. The pressures on the system demands that we reform sentencing. But let me also remind the House that nothing in this bill changes sentences for prisoners convicted of the most serious, heinous crimes who were serving extended, determinate or life sentences. And of course, this bill delivers vital reforms to our probation services. We are rebuilding the service.

The last government decimated, we increasing investment up to 700 million by 2028, 29, 45% increase. And we are recruiting. We hired 1000 trainee probation officers in our first year, and we're on track for 1300 more this year. At this point, I want to pay tribute to all the hard working probation officers in our country. They deserve full credit for what they do, and it has been important for us to find the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

extra resources to put into this service, to grow the numbers and the support available. Absolutely. In government. The party

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In government. The party opposite oversaw a disastrous privatisation of probation, which privatisation of probation, which ended in a £500 million bailout by taxpayers. Our probation service plays such a critical role in the rehabilitation of offenders and rehabilitation of offenders and keeping our communities safe. So can the Minister set out further

**** Possible New Speaker ****

how this bill will ensure that our probation systems are strengthened and fit for purpose? Can the Minister perhaps

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I welcome the the intervention from I welcome the the intervention from my hon. Friend, I'll be coming on to that issue shortly. Madam Chair. I want to address Lords Amendment I want to address Lords Amendment number seven. Whilst we cannot support the amendment as drafted, we fully support the intention we fully support the intention behind it to promote transparency and improve the experience of victims. We agree that robust processes are required to ensure processes are required to ensure the accuracy of transcripts, but placing a statutory duty on on the judiciary to approve the release of all Crown Court transcripts could significantly increase workload and undermine efforts to drive down the Crown Court backlog.

However, Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm delighted to say that we have tabled a government amendment that will expand the provision of Crown Court sentencing remarks to all victims who request them free of charge. This new clause puts victims firmly at the centre of the process, ensuring that every victim can request and receive relevant sentencing remarks for free. This clause delivers a major step forward for transparency, enabling victims to digest sentencing remarks outside of the Frames and processes will be set out in due course, but I can confirm our intention to the House that this will specify that transcripts will be provided within 14 days of a request being made.

This timeframe will support applications made under the Unduly Lenient Sentencing Scheme, and I can also assure the House that we are considering the opposition's amendments to the Victims and Courts Bill, which would extend this deadline to 56 days extremely carefully. I am grateful to members of this House for their engagement on this issue. This change represents a profound step forward for victims and for transparency in our justice. I know that the hon. Members for Richmond, Warrington North and Lowestoft have been campaigning on this issue for some time.

They deserve great credit, in particular. The Member for Richmond, if I may. And so, for the first time, every victim whose case is heard in the Crown Court will have this important right of access, free of charge. I turn now to Lords Amendment one, and again, I must begin by thanking the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle. The Shadow Justice Minister and the parents of Lenny Scott, an ex prison officer murdered by a former inmate in a horrendous revenge attack. This amendment meets their call for a small but important reform to sentencing around whole life orders.

We recognise the unique and dangerous job that police, prison and probation officers do. They perform a distinctive role with routine contact with dangerous offenders. We want to ensure. Madam Deputy Speaker, that the exceptional seriousness of murders that are motivated by their important work, which strike at the heart of the rule of law, are expressly recognised in the sentencing framework for murder. Yes. Of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

course. I thank. The Minister for giving way. I comment often made to me and my colleagues when I was policing. I colleagues when I was policing. I was, as soon as I left the police station in full uniform. I was a sitting target every single day. Does the Minister agree that the mandatory whole life sentence is proposed for those who murdered police officers, prison officers police officers, prison officers and probation officers sends a clear and unequivocal message that they will be met with the harshest

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they will be met with the harshest and most serious penalties on offer to the court. Yes, absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for his service and his contribution and his support for this amendment. As I said, when I had the great privilege of meeting Lenny's parents last week with the Shadow Justice Minister and Lord Timpson in the other place, it's not just about the technical mischief that this amendment solves, because thankfully, these cases are few and far between. It is about sending a signal to the brilliant prison officers and probation officers that the work they do is respected by people in this place, in the country at large, and that we can make this small change in as part of this legislation, I hope goes some way to doing that.

And indeed, I've met prison officers since we've announced this change who have intimated their gratitude to Lenny Scott's parents in particular, and to this place for hopefully making this change. And that's very welcome indeed. I want now to move, if I may, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the amendments 2 to 5, which relate to sentencing Council. Through these, we have sought to help clarify what is expected from the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice when considering any approval requests from the Sentencing Council for its business plans and sentencing guidelines.

Broadly speaking, these amendments do three things. First, if the Lord Chancellor decided not to approve a business plan, amendment two requires them to notify the council. It also requires them to lay a document before Parliament as soon as practicable, stating the reasons for that decision. Amendments three and four make similar provisions under different guises. Secondly, we want to make it clear that there is a very high bar that must be met for any guidelines to be rejected. Amendments four and five therefore provide that guidance.

Guidelines can only be rejected when this is necessary to maintain public confidence in the justice system. Finally, we have set out on the face of the bill that any approval requests from the Council are to be considered as soon as practicable practicable. Taken together, Madam Speaker, these amendments represent a significant step by the government to ensure that these approval processes are surrounded by clear safeguards, transparency

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and accountability. Yes, absolutely. Given why the Lords have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Given why the Lords have endeavoured to amend the Bill in a number of areas, the provisions of part four allowing foreign national offenders to be deported at any time within their sentence, is very important to Northern Ireland. important to Northern Ireland. Given article two of the Windsor Framework, that assessment has been made of the risk that these offenders will actually not be removed, leaving Northern Ireland with a two tier system in which foreign criminals benefit from additional EU derived human rights protections, rather than being sent home.

Would you commit to meet with myself and a number of my colleagues on this important issue

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to Northern Ireland. On this issue was raised, I think, at Second Reading and at think, at Second Reading and at Report stage by one of the hon. Member's colleagues. The legal advice that we have received simply states that there is no discrepancy states that there is no discrepancy in Northern Ireland. I'm very happy to have a conversation with you and any other colleagues on that. It clearly only right that these clearly only right that these provisions apply also to Northern Ireland as well.

Madam Deputy Speaker, this government is committed to greater transparency committed to greater transparency on prison and probation capacity and holding current and future governments to account. We have demonstrated this by publishing the first annual statement on prison Capacity in December 2020. For the 2025 edition will follow shortly. This amendment delivers on that promise by making it a statutory requirement to lay a statement before Parliament each year. Legislating on this duty ensures transparency in the long term and delivers on the government's commitment to do so.

Never again. We will be in a situation that this government inherited, where the previous government had overlooked prison capacity for 14 years, leading to the crisis that we had to deal with. The government has also accepted amendment 12, which removes the clause in the bill that would have introduced the power to publish the names and photographs of those subject to an unpaid work requirement. The purpose of this clause was to increase the visibility of community payback, and ensure the public can clearly see justice being delivered.

We remain committed to ensuring that local communities can see the benefits of community payback in their area. However, we have listened carefully to the issues raised in both houses concerning this measure and perhaps more importantly, the concerns raised by our brilliant probation and prison staff on the ground. And after careful consideration, we do not consider it appropriate to proceed any further. We are confident that current delivery of unpaid work, bolstered by wider provisions in this bill, means that unpaid work will continue to be tough and visible without the addition of this specific measure.

Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, we are very pleased to have made further progress on the issue of IPP sentences. We want to do everything we can to support those who are still serving these sentences to progress to the end of their sentence, but we are not willing to undermine public protection. The amendments made in this bill strike that careful balance. The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 made significant changes to the IPP licence. Licence period. The qualifying period for. For referral to the Parole Board for consideration of licence termination was reduced.

It went from ten years after first release to three years for those serving the IPP sentence, and two years for those serving the DPP sentence who were convicted when they were under 18. It has now been over a year since the first of these measures came into force. 1700 people had their licence terminated automatically on the 1st of November 2024, and a further 600 became eligible for referral to the parole board on the 1st of February of last year. We have now gone further by providing those serving the IPP sentence with an early opportunity for licence termination and an additional opportunity for those serving IPP and DPP sentence.

Thereafter, those serving an IPP sentence will be considered for licence termination two years after release, rather than the current three years. This provides suitable time for support and rehabilitation

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in the community, whilst ensuring our communities are best protected from harm. The Minister give way? Yes, absolutely.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, absolutely. I thank him for giving way and I welcome the amendments relating to IPP sentences. It is a matter of IPP sentences. It is a matter of concern to many across the House. Can the Minister assure the House that changes to IPP licence termination will continue to provide for community rehabilitation whilst protecting rehabilitation whilst protecting communities from harm? And can the Minister also commit to continuing to work to resolve the remaining

**** Possible New Speaker ****

challenges around these sentences? Yes, absolutely. My hon. Friend, as a member of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My hon. Friend, as a member of the Justice Select Committee, always brings thoughtful contribution on justice issues, but in particular IPP, there is that balance that has to be struck between protecting public safety, but also ensuring that there is rehabilitation. The government thinks that this legislation has gone some way to doing that, but there is always room for further review and assessment as we go forward. And I know that Lord Timpson, who is leading on this piece of work for the government, will continue to engage certainly with the Justice Select Committee on this issue.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm very grateful for the improvements that have been made to this bill during its passage in the House of Lords, and I hope in particular with the undertakings I have given on the provision of sentencing transcripts, I hope that all parties will be able to support the government's amendments in lieu of amendment seven. These represent a major step forward for transparency and for victims, and I beg to move these amendments.
15:38
Kieran Mullan Portrait Dr Kieran Mullan MP (Bexhill and Battle, Conservative)
-
-
The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment seven. I call shadow Minister Doctor Kieran Murray. Minister Doctor Kieran Murray. >> Thank you, Madam. >> Deputy Speaker. And as we've heard today, the House is considering amendments made in the considering amendments made in the other place to the Sentencing Bill. There is no doubt that our justice system is facing significant challenges. I have always acknowledged this, and during recent debates on a wide range of issues, from sentencing to prison capacity to probation to jury trials, there has been cross-party acknowledgement that for decades, across a number of governments of different colours, there hasn't been sufficient investment or political priority given to our justice system.

But that should not and must not serve as an excuse for this government to bring forward changes to our justice system system that damage it, fail to actually address the challenges before us, and slip through the net changes that elements of the Ministry of Justice have always wanted to do, and are simply using the excuse of the current challenges to finally pull off. That is what we are seeing, both in relation to the proposals on jury trials and even more clearly to the clear detriment of victims in this Sentencing Bill.

I welcome elements of this bill. Some of the examples will go on to discuss. And the Minister mentioned, for example, the restriction zones, the domestic abuse markers. But these are overwhelmingly outweighed by the fact that at the heart of this bill is a catastrophic blow to the victims search for justice, as it will let out thousands, thousands of rapists, paedophiles and seriously violent offenders out of prison earlier. The Minister mentioned in his opening remarks the Independent Sentencing Review. And I remind members of this House that the Independent Sentencing Review gave absolutely no consideration whatsoever to what victims and the public would think of the proposals related to sentencing.

And actually, that report is an insult to victims and their families. And many of them have told me directly, at least during the common stages of this bill, every other party joined the Conservatives in voting against these dangerous proposals, including the Liberal Democrats. And in fact, a number of Labour MPs bravely abstained. It should be a matter of deep shame for the Liberal Democrat Party that they have since joined labor in voting to let rapists and paedophiles and seriously violent offenders out of prison earlier, especially as they so clearly articulated why this was wrong before a complete betrayal of victims of crime and their families.

This is likely my final opportunity to say to this House and MPs opposite that I'm confident they will come to regret these elements of the Bill and will find it difficult to explain themselves to victims when they see perpetrators of crimes like rape, child sex offenders, offences and child grooming leave prison, sometimes only after having served a third of their sentence because of their support for these measures. I will do whatever I can to ensure those victims know who made those choices when there were so many other alternatives available to them.

But as I do have to accept that this government majority, with the help of the Liberal Democrats, has ended that campaign, for now, we should consider the amendments to this bill before the House today. And as I know, the public greatly value constructive cross-party working. I want to begin with an important area where we were able to secure government support in relation to laws. Amendment one. This amendment ensures that where a police officer, prison officer or probation officer, including a former officer, is murdered because of their service, a whole life order will be the starting point for sentencing.

This change originated from the opposition, and I am grateful that the government accepted the principle. Following my meetings and campaigning with Paul and Neil Scott, Paula Rather and Neil Scott, whose son Lenny, a former prison officer, was murdered because he refused a bribe from an inmate. Parliament has long been clear that those putting themselves in danger directly by confronting and standing up to the most dangerous people in our society, should have the greatest possible protection of our law available to them. That is a whole life order.

We had previously legislated to that effect through the mandatory whole life order. For those that murder police and prison officers in the course of their duties. The case of Lenny Scott highlighted a gap in the law, though. Lenny was brutally murdered years after his service as a prison officer, in revenge for handing in a phone he'd found in a prison cell search. Imagine, years later, having moved into a new phase of his life, enjoying work, the gym time with his children and the rest of his family, being shot in a car park late at night simply for doing his job.

Lenny's mum told me how she knew something was wrong when Lenny didn't come home that evening. She even went out in the middle of the night to look for him, only to have the police arrive at her door at 1 a.m. with the devastating news. It's been a true privilege for me to work with her and Lenny's dad. Neil and I want to extend my sincere thanks to Lord Timpson and the other place, and the Minister for taking the time to meet with them both, and agreed to work with them further to see what else we might do to improve protections for our prison officers.

I'm sure the Minister will agree. It was clear from the meeting what decent moral people they are, which explains the sort of person Lenny was. I'm also very grateful to Lord Timpson for bringing fresh thinking to this area by including probation officers in the measure. They also must work closely with dangerous, violent offenders and sometimes stand up to them to protect the public. They face the same dangers and so should get the same protections, whilst our wider focus must always be on preventing crime and protecting the public.

It's right that clear gaps in the law are addressed when they arise. The opposition therefore supports this amendment in lieu of our own, and I know Lenny's parents and all his family and friends have been delighted to see its progress in the house. In my time working with victims on campaigns, I've learned the pitfalls of naming a law after an individual case. There are always others that might warrant the remembrance of their own experiences in the naming of a law. But for Lenny's family personally, they would have every right to call this measure Lenny's Law.

Next. Madam Deputy Speaker, I'd like to consider amendments that are attempting to deliver reform in an area much needed but are simply insufficient. Lords amendments two, three, four and five all concerned themselves with the relationship between the Lord Chancellor and the Sentencing Council. Between them, they provide guidelines for specific scenarios, but the Lord Chancellor may not approve the Sentencing Council's business plan. Conditions for withdrawing consent for sentencing councils. Issuing of sentencing guidelines. Conditions of withholding the consent to a request from the Sentencing Council to issue allocation guidelines if it's necessary to do so in order to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system.

We saw in the debacle over sentencing just how far the Sentencing Council has strayed, and these measures will not fundamentally correct that. The official Opposition has made it clear in the past, and I will restate it again, that it is our firm policy position that we would abolish the Sentencing Council and restore power back to elected Ministers, directly accountable to the public, and give Parliament a role itself. The functions of the Sentencing Council in delivering consistency through sentencing are well recognised, and it is not our intention to do away with those functions which will be restored to the Lord Chancellor's office.

But we believe it is for the Justice Secretary to be responsible for sentencing guidelines, not a group of unelected individuals with no direct accountability to the public and limited accountability of any kind. Consultation with the public is not the same as accountability to the public, and we are clear Parliament should have the power to act as well. Therefore, Madam Deputy Speaker, whilst amendments are not a point of contention, the Bill's progress we will and we will not divide the House on them. I raise them to point out that they would not be part of a bill introduced by a conservative government, as we would abolish the Sentencing Council entirely and fully restore accountability.

Next, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to draw the House's attention to laws. Amendment seven on court transcripts of sentencing remarks proposed by the opposition and supported in the other place, Lords Amendment seven would require sentencing remarks delivered in the Crown Court to be made available within 14 days of request, free of charge, subject to judicial approval and existing reporting restrictions, and published online. As I mentioned, this was a conservative amendment. Let's start with something we can all surely agree on. Sentencing remarks matter. They are how judges explain the seriousness of the offence, the harm done to victims, and the reasons for the sentence imposed for victims and offenders are sentence being passed in a Crown court will be a moment of extreme seriousness in their lives.

I think we can surely agree that it shouldn't be that unless you can afford to pay, you'd have to simply rely on your memory or scribbled notes by those in the court on your behalf and not have a word for word. Record of this event is a good example of how, for decades, our justice system has been doing things that no one can really justify from any party. And these things must be changed for victims and families. Access to these remarks is often central to understanding the outcome of a case and having confidence that justice has been done.

It will also be crucial for them to give consideration to making an application to the unduly lenient sentence scheme, as the Minister mentioned, which the government continues to insist should remain at 28 days. I do take on board the Minister's remarks that they're giving consideration to the 56 day time limit. I would just say I know it's incredibly important to the families is as well as a wider overall limit, is that those directly affected by the most serious crimes get a more extended period than just simply 56 days, equivalent to the offender's ability to have a limited appeal in exceptional circumstances.

So I do hope the Minister takes that on board. The last conservative government initiated the piloting of access to the remarks for victims of murder, rape and other sexual offences. I'm not aware of anything from this pilot that would make for an argument against the measures we proposed. Lords amendment seven addresses that problem directly by placing a clear duty on the court on the face of the bill to provide sentencing remarks within 14 days, free of charge, and publish them. The Minister said it would be all remarks.

That's not what the amendment says. It says remarks on request, and this is actually short of where we should be in the end, which is to aim for all court transcripts more generally of proceedings to be made available. But we've been sought to be modest with the aim of garnering wider support. We have to remember we have a system of open justice, with very limited exceptions. In the vast majority of criminal cases, any member of the public can walk into a court and hear each and every word.

That said, I acknowledge that Ministers have since indicated a willingness to move in the direction of greater access, and that is welcome. But their proposals fall short under the approach now proposed by the government. Key details, including the timetable for provision, the scope of any exceptions and the safeguards that will apply will be set out in regulations and the remarks will only be available to the requested victims rather than other individuals, for something as fundamental to victims and society's understanding of justice as sentencing remarks that opposition does not believe that is good enough.

If the government truly agrees that victims should receive sentencing marks free of charge within 14 days, and there should be no difficulty in keeping that guarantee in the bill itself, it does not allow for the publication of remarks for others to be able to see them either, and I'm also not clear if the victim receives the remarks under the government's proposals, if they be allowed to forward and share them and publish them themselves. And why does wider transparency matter? As well as being a measure for victims, I would appoint members to the historic injustice of the appalling grooming gangs offences.

It's clear that the hard work done to revisit historical examples of these offences, and ensure the public are fully aware of their full horror of what has happened and continues to happen to these girls and boys, has made a difference to the public and Parliament's understanding of these offences. This is what transparency does. It drives accountability and it should not simply rest with the victims to secure that, the judiciary accept that in principle, there are open courts and through select broadcasting of sentencing, high profile cases, that transparency is vital and this agenda must continue to be driven forward.

And the government's proposals for for far too short a time and public confidence in the justice system is under strain. Transparency and accountability are not optional extras. They are essential. Lords amendment seven delivers a clear, practical improvement for victims and others by guaranteeing timely, free access to sentencing. Remarks in primary legislation and the opposition will vote to keep it. And I urge the House does the same. I don't intend to hold the House further to ensure others with particular interests in other amendments have the opportunity to speak.

I've made clear we welcome some of the provisions of this bill, but I've also made clear that whatever positive it brings, this bill is enormously damaging to one of the core purposes of our justice system ensuring victims of serious crime and their families are able to secure true justice. It's a matter of personal regret for me that I was not able to persuade members opposite of the damage this bill will do to that, and it will now fall onto the shoulders of victims and families in future months and years to speak up when their perpetrators walk out of jail early.

And even more concerning the victims who are stalked, abused, raped or violently attacked by criminals when they should have been in prison, it will fall on them to speak out and get these measures reversed. Those of us on these benches will be there to help them raise their voices. At least I hope by then some of the members on the benches opposite will do the same.
15:50
Amanda Martin Portrait Amanda Martin MP (Portsmouth North, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This bill delivers the long term, joined up sustainable reform our joined up sustainable reform our criminal justice system desperately needs. I want to comment today on amendments 1 to 7 alongside amendment 14, amendments I believe will strengthen this bill. Madam Deputy Speaker, we inherited a system on the brink. Prisons close to running out of places, courts paralysed by backlogs, police forced to operate with one hand tied behind their back. Trust broken and fear raised a breakdown of law and order that left communities like mine in Portsmouth paying the price.

In Portsmouth and across the country, the justice system is struggling under the weight of an unprecedented backlog. Crown courts in England and Wales now have between 77 and 78,000 outstanding cases waiting to be heard, with tens of thousands open for a year or more, and some defendants waiting for up to four years before trial dates are even available. These delays, Madam Deputy Speaker, mean victims in my city and beyond are denied timely justice, eroding confidence in our courts. The Sentencing Bill and wider reforms are a crucial step towards tackling these backlogs, speeding up justice and ensuring sentences offences are addressed without further delay.

The Conservative Party talks tough on crime, but their record tells a very different story. They increase sentencing lengths without building the capacity to support them, and in 14 years they added just 500 prison places. When the system finally broke, they released tens of thousands of offenders early, largely, Madam Deputy Speaker in secret, 10,000 in secret in secret, shattering public confidence in justice. This government is working hard to fix their mess. We believe in prisons. Madam Deputy Speaker, many offenders must go there.

And some. Madam Deputy Speaker, for a very long time, many offenders must go there. We have already opened two for 2000 2500 places, and we're on track for 14,000 by 2031, the biggest expansion since Victorian times. But we also have to be honest about the challenge. We cannot build our way out of a Tory prison crisis alone. We owe it to the British public to reduce crime and to reduce victims. That is why this bill reformed sentencing. So punishments can actually cut crime and rehabilitation can help reduce crime and reduce victims.

That includes tough, credible and visible punishments in our community. Offenders will be closely monitored through tagging, restrictions on where they can go and strict conditions that curb their freedom. Courts will be able to impose no go zone ban, banning offenders from entering specific areas such as town centres, retail zones, building sites or industrial estates where they have previously offended. These, Madam Deputy Speaker, are not soft options. They are enforceable restrictions backed by modern technology and real consequences. If breached. This approach is vital for crime that devastates working people.

And particularly I'd like to mention, Madam Deputy Speaker, the horrendous life changing crime that is tall theft in Portsmouth and across the country. Tradespeople have told me the story time and time again. When tools are stolen, it's not just property. They lose it's income, cancel jobs, damage to reputation and families pushed into financial stress overnight. And in some cases, Madam Deputy Speaker has led to the taking of our trades people's lives. It is because of this. I have campaigned relentlessly on this issue, working closely with tradespeople, industry bodies, police, insurers and retailers.

And together we made the case that tool theft must be treated as serious and repeated crime. Because of that work, this bill and the amendments delivers real change for these victims. Repeat offenders will now face tougher sentences in court and also

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in our communities in. Does she accept? The vast

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does she accept? The vast majority of this bill will only have to serve a third of their sentence instead of half? I believe that we are clearing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I believe that we are clearing up the mess left by the Tories, where people are still waiting for where people are still waiting for their day in court. It is not OK to commit a crime and not even be able to sentence for 4 or 5 years. If

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to sentence for 4 or 5 years. If you'd like to intervene again, I'll sit down. The facts are those tool theft victims that she's talking about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

were every single one of them agree that those people should only serve a third of their sentence? I think they'll be serving more

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think they'll be serving more than that was under the Conservatives when they didn't care crime.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

crime. Yeah, hear, hear. Repeat theft offenders will now face tougher sentences because of a face tougher sentences because of a Labour government, including tagging on release, strict movement tagging on release, strict movement restrictions, robust unpaid work and no go areas, stopping them returning to the places where they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hard and play by the rules. Here I thank my friends. I want to. Thank her personally. The work that she's done. On tackling the that she's done. On tackling the huge issue of tool theft, which has had a huge impact on tradespeople in my constituency of Harlow. So can I personally thank you for that work? And does she agree with me that, as she said previously, that it's not just about the person it's not just about the person themselves, but it's also about their family, their livelihood and it's a huge impact on their mental health to, to to be to be a victim

**** Possible New Speaker ****

health to, to to be to be a victim of such crime. So I thank her for her work. I thank my hon. Friend for his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words and the work he has also done in Harlow. And I repeat my knowledge, there was not a government before us that even cared about tradespeople. Alongside this we are investing, Madam Deputy Speaker, up to £700 million more in community punishment and increasing probation funding by 45%. That means better supervision, faster enforcement and a system that is credible to both offenders and to the public, and again looks to reduce repeated crimes for victims.

In addition, I particularly welcome a number of government amendments which further strengthen this bill. As the daughter of a retired police officer and I notice my hon. Friend from Portsmouth South is in the room and his dad was a retired probation officer. I have family and friends still serving in the forces and in as prison officers. I welcome amendments one and 14 which broaden whole life. Orders murder, Madam Deputy Speaker, is the most heinous crime a person commit. And these amendments ensure that those who murder police, prison or probation officers, including where the crime is motivated by their current or former duties, face the full force of the law.

These crimes strike at the very heart of the rule of law, and it is right that sentencing reflects that. I also welcome amendments two, three, four and five, which strengthens transparency and accountability around the Sentencing Council. These amendments set a very high bar for rejecting sentencing guidance, ensuring Parliament is informed where decisions are taken and help maintain public confidence in the justice system. Crucially, they sit alongside the reforms that reflect legislation I fought for in my Tool Theft bill to ensure sentencing properly takes account of the full circumstances and impact on victims.

That principle is vital. Justice must never lose sight of the harm that is done to victims and communities. When crimes are committed. Amendment six, Madam Deputy Speaker, is another important step. By placing a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on prison capacity. This government is ending the culture of secrecy we inherited and ensuring proper accountability to Parliament and to the public. Madam Deputy Speaker, I strongly welcome the government's changes in lieu of the Lords Amendment seven, which will ensure victims can access.

Transcript of sentencing remarks free of charge. This is meaningful improvement for victims, an important move towards a more transparent and humane justice system, and another step in the right direction of putting victims at the heart of our justice system. Madam Deputy Speaker, this bill ends the chaos we inherited. It restores confidence in justice, and it delivers punishment that works for communities like Portsmouth now and into the future. I am proud to have worked hard on developing this bill and I am proud to support it here.
15:58
Jess Brown-Fuller Portrait Jess Brown-Fuller MP (Chichester, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I call Liberal Democrat spokesperson Jessica Brown. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I would like to thank members across both chambers for their contributions to this and their continued work, particularly the Prisons Minister, for engaging collaboratively with Liberal Democrats and the other place, and making concessions both in the legislation and at the despatch box. We are pleased to see the government amendment to the Lords amendment seven today, which would introduce the provision of free transcripts of sentencing remarks for victims. As a long standing campaign of my hon.

Friend, the Member for Richmond Park, for the provision of all court transcripts, it is a great first step to see victims gaining access to this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

accountability. My hon. Friend. Friend. I'm very grateful to her for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful to her for giving way. I just want to take this opportunity to say my personal thanks to the Minister, to everybody involved in bringing the everybody involved in bringing the legislation to this stage, and also pay tribute once again to my constituent, Giuliana Terlizzi, who constituent, Giuliana Terlizzi, who came to see me when she was charged £7,000 for the transcript of the trial that saw her rapist sent to trial that saw her rapist sent to prison. This is a huge step forward for victims of all kinds and I am really, really pleased to see this in our in our debate today.

And I just want to put on record my my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

huge thanks to everyone for that. I thank my hon. Friend for reminding us that at the heart of reminding us that at the heart of this piece of legislation that's coming forward in the Sentencing Bill is victims and their ability Bill is victims and their ability to understand what's come in in sentencing remarks. Because given that so much happens in a court that so much happens in a court trial, whether reliving past trauma or confronting a perpetrator, for many, listening to proceedings can many, listening to proceedings can feel like a foreign language for others who choose not to attend their sentencing the sentencing hearing, they have no knowledge of what was said.

That is why having consistent free access to transcripts is so vital, as it provides an opportunity to process the events of court proceedings afterwards, or to read them for the first time. For many, this can give closure and an opportunity to move on, but it is also the route for appealing a sentence if they believe it to have been unduly lenient. Providing victims with court transcripts free of charge would markedly improve experiences for victims and survivors. But I do have some questions regarding the amendment that the government have brought forward.

So my question to the Minister are, could he provide some clarity as to the application of the term victim is in the definition used by the victims code? And whether in the case that a victim is unable to personally request sentencing remarks, such as victims without capacity or victims that are children that are immediate families of victims are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

included within the provision. Would. Member.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Member. Because I can't ask the Minister himself. I might ask you whether you think we also need clarity on whether deceased victims family

**** Possible New Speaker ****

whether deceased victims family members might also have a right. I thank the Member for his point, and the victims code lays out that a victim, if they are deceased, that immediate family being parents or siblings would would be included. Which is why I asked that question Which is why I asked that question of the Minister. Also, subsection three C allows the Secretary of State to provide exceptions to the requirement to supply a transcript of sentencing remarks. What sort of exceptions does the government anticipate? And as per subsection three D, what sort of information might be omitted from a transcript? And if the Secretary of State doesn't plan to use sweeping powers to accept or omit.

Why have such provisions in the amendment been included? The previous government ran a very limited pilot of free court transcripts. Will this government publish a detailed publication of the review of that pilot? We believe that this could and should go much further. As per the campaign by my hon. Friend for Richmond and Baroness Brinton in the other place, and we have tabled an amendment to the Victims and Courts Bill, which would mean all transcripts were provided free of charge, including judicial summaries and bail decisions.

The Chief Lady Justice recently spoke to the Justice Select Committee about a pilot with HMT, the use of AI for transcripts, especially in the asylum and immigration courts, and she described it as a great success. So I'd be keen to understand if the government will work with the Liberal Democrats to progress this work, because we do appreciate the growing cross-party support on this issue and the work of all in the other place to achieve this really important first step. Today, we also welcome the government committing to a statutory annual report into the state of prison capacity and importantly, the Probation Service.

This is an important mechanism for oversight, which will improve long term assessments of the health of our justice system. And we were very happy to see the government accept our amendment to remove clause 35 from the bill, which did nothing to address the crisis in our justice system, and was totally at odds with the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. We also welcome the amendments tabled by the government to strengthen protections in relation to the Lord Chancellor's approval of sentencing guidelines. We have been supportive of many of the provisions in the Bill aimed at addressing some of the key failings in our crumbling justice system.

Our courts, prisons and probation services are all at breaking point and, without urgent intervention, are at risk of failing completely. The bill offered an opportunity to ease some of those pressures our system faces where currently the needs of victims, offenders and the system are widely are too often ignored. We do also need to ensure that our prison system is one of rehabilitation, one that ends the cycle of reoffending and reduces those long term pressures. All of the Liberal Democrat work on this bill has been in that vein.

In order to get the legislation into a better place to achieve those aims. So to briefly conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker, we realise the mess our justice system finds itself in, and we've always aimed to work collaboratively and productively cross-party to ensure that we can begin to turn the tide on this and we will continue to do so. We need a sustainable solution to this crisis, which includes cutting reoffending and tackling the court backlog to reduce the number of people in prison on remand, and properly resourcing our probation service, which will no doubt feel the impact of this legislation most acutely.

The bill contains a number of proposals that Lib Dems have campaigned for as part of the wider package of reform, but it still could go much further to ensure that it's fit for purpose, to protect victims and safeguard our justice system for the future.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Thank you, thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm pleased that Deputy Speaker. I'm pleased that this bill will deliver some long term and sustainable reform to our criminal justice system and make criminal justice system and make sure that we never again end up in the position where dangerous offenders aren't being locked up. offenders aren't being locked up. The police don't have capacity to make arrests, and courts are not able to hold trials. It was, frankly, a breakdown in law and order like nothing we have seen in modern times, because the last government increased sentence lengths without reckoning with the consequences of doing that, adding just 500 places in their time in office.

And that was a dereliction of duty beyond comprehension. And I think that's something that must not be forgotten in the context of this bill. Our prisons were brought to the point of crisis, and frankly, they only survived until the general election in 24 because they, on the quiet, largely released 10,000 offenders and completely undermining public confidence in our justice system. And, well, it's true. And the opposition shadow justice Minister shaking his head, I was working in the prison service. I know what went down.

I know exactly what happened. And that's why this bill is so important, because whilst it was born out of necessity, it is bringing forward the kind of reform which will be absolutely transformational and which, frankly, governments of all colours should maybe have done in years past. That doesn't mean we're not being tough on crime. In fact, quite the opposite, because as the Ministers laid out today, there's going to be more people in prison at the end of this Parliament than there has ever been in the past, but has has been previously been outlined in this debate today.

Anyone that thinks you can simply build your way out of this crisis is not living in the real world and
16:06
Sally Jameson Portrait Sally Jameson MP (Doncaster Central, Labour )
-
-
is not serious about public policy. So it is welcome that we're deporting more national offenders and bearing down on the court and bearing down on the court backlog to reduce remand prisoners. All of this is necessary, but not sufficient, which is why this bill sufficient, which is why this bill is very, very welcome. Today I want to speak specifically about to speak specifically about amendments one and 14 around broadening whole life orders. When broadening whole life orders. When I was a prison officer, I found it incredibly frustrating how little acknowledgement was given, frankly, by wider society about the serious level of assaults and injuries that that staff often had to suffer.

And this is something I'll be taking up with the Minister, maybe on another time, because I know it's not directly about this amendment, but I do think it's important that there is that public recognition about how dangerous the job can be for probation officers as well. And I want to pay tribute to to Lenny Scott's family, who have worked tirelessly to advocate for to advocate for this change. It is very welcome, and I hope that every, every, every member of Parliament from across the House will support that amendment and those amendments today, sending the clear message that this House backs our police, probation and prison staff, particularly with the dangers that they face, and send a clear message that we support them this day and indeed every day.

Madam Deputy Speaker, as I said at the start of this bill, it may have been born out of necessity and frankly, emergency at the start of this government, but I am proud that it is a Labour government that is bringing forward the reform that our justice system has long needed, and I am proud to support the government amendments today, the House Minister.
16:08
Jake Richards Portrait Jake Richards MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Rother Valley, Labour)
-
-
Must leave the House. Madam Deputy Speaker, today is a pivotal day, subject to agreement from this day, subject to agreement from this House in due course. In the other place, this bill would have completed all its stages and will shortly become law. And Madam shortly become law. And Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank, first of all, my predecessor, my hon. Friend, the Member for Scunthorpe. Although Member for Scunthorpe. Although I've been the Minister who has taken this piece of legislation through the House, his painstaking work in developing the policy has been fundamental and he deserves great credit.

I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North, for every single opportunity. She quite rightly raises her campaign for clamping down on tool theft, and she's taken that opportunity again. She is a fine champion on this issue and for her constituents. And I want to thank my hon. Friend, the Member for Doncaster Central. She brings huge experience to this, to the to these issues, and we are taking measures to offer further protection for prison staff. But I'm very happy to speak with her about what more the government can do.

Very briefly, Madam Deputy Speaker, just some of the issues that have been raised on the Sentencing Council. We've aired this debate before, but the conservative position, which was developed by the now former shadow justice secretary, the Member for Newark, it is a team effort. I'm not sure about that. It is is is an opportunity. It is an example of real constitutional vandalism. It has never been the case that the judiciary is would this would threaten the independence of the judiciary. What these amendments do and what this proposal does, is set out in legislation is ensure there is a democratic lock around sentencing, ensures there is a role for this place, but that the sentencing Council remains independent.

And that is absolutely the right thing to do. On transcripts, I welcome that. There is a degree of consensus on this. The conservative position on on this amendment at the back end of last week and then early this week seems to have changed a few times. This strikes the right balance. If anyone could seek a free transcript of sentencing remarks, we might be in a position where our court staff, who have a big job at getting a grip of the backlog, are spending all their time issuing transcripts.

This strikes the right balance on the specific issues that the hon. Member, the Liberal Democrats spokesperson, has raised. Of course, we have to look into it. When victims are children, whether they are deceased, whether there is a lack of capacity. It may be that the victims code does that already for us, but absolutely. Yeah, but we absolutely have to get it right, Madam Deputy Speaker, and we will ensure we do so as this as this policy is developed. She mentioned her concerns about exceptions and omissions and asked me to to to ponder on examples when those exceptions could be engaged.

But of course, when there are issues of national security or public safety, it may be relevant, but I can say at the Dispatch Box that one would hope that that would be extremely exceptional circumstances. But it is important that those provisions are in there. We believe that this provision will allow more openness. It's ambitious but also realistic considering where the technology is at the moment and also the pressures on our court system. But do we want to go further when we can? Absolutely. We believe in the fundamental principle of transparency and openness in our justice system and where we can, we will.

And Madam Deputy Speaker, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will. Yes, absolutely. I apologise. Every opening speech I was

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Every opening speech I was during the Justice Committee, but I don't think that matters because I don't agree with him on these amendments. They have they amendments. They have they strengthened the bill considerably. They do bring more openness and They do bring more openness and they do bring more transparency. And we welcome, I think, all of the recommendations here, whether whether they be in relation to whether they be in relation to sentencing council or the prison capacity report or indeed the transcript new version of Lords Amendment seven and indeed IPP prisoners, they're all welcome improvements on this bill.

They need to go further, if I may. We think particularly in relation to IPP prisoners, but this is a good

**** Possible New Speaker ****

step along the way. I always welcome the intervention from the chair of the Justice Select Committee. As I said, Justice Select Committee. As I said, following an intervention from my right hon. Friend, the Member for Colchester, the work on IPP is is Colchester, the work on IPP is is an ongoing process led by Lord Simpson and the other place, but an ongoing process, and I know that he ongoing process, and I know that he will always be happy to engage with hon.

Friends in the Select Committee. Madam Deputy Speaker, Committee. Madam Deputy Speaker, then I can conclude my remarks by stating very firmly that this bill will solve the mess that this government inherited and begin to make sure that our prison system is fit for the future. I want to once again place on record my thanks to all honourable and right hon. Members who have engaged with this Bill throughout its passage. That expertise is strengthens it in many important respects, and I beg to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move, Madam Deputy Speaker. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment seven. As many as are of that opinion say I. I of the that opinion say I. I of the contrary. No. No. Division, clear
16:13
None Portrait Division
-

It It is It is as It is as on It is as on the It is as on the Order Paper. As many as are of that opinion, say I I of the contrary. No, no tellers. The eyes jeered Stephen Morgan, tellers for the nurse. Harriet Cross. Gregory

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And. I I don't I don't know.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That's That's one

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank Thank you Thank you for.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, Order, order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order! The ayes to the right. 319. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right. 319. The noes to the left. 127.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Yeah. The ayes to the right were 319. The noes to the left were 127. So the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Unlock. With the leave of the house. I shall put a single question on government amendment A and B in lieu of Lords Amendment seven. I call the Minister to move amendment A and B in lieu of the Lords. Amendment seven formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To move. The question is that Government amendment A and B in lieu of Lords

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment A and B in lieu of Lords Amendment seven be made. As many as are of that opinion say aye. I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I. Of the contrary, no I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. ayes have it, the ayes have it. With leave of the House, I call the Minister to move that this House agrees with the Lords and their agrees with the Lords and their amendment 1 to 6 and 8 to 15. The question is that this House agrees with the Lords and Amendment 1 to 6 and 8 to 15. As many as are of that opinion say aye.

Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. Point of order Sally Jameson.
16:28
16:29
None Portrait Motion: Holocaust Memorial Bill: Allocation of Time
-

Holocaust Memorial Bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

consideration of Lords amendments. Now I can inform the House that the Lords amendment does not engage
16:29
16:29
Miatta Fahnbulleh Portrait Miatta Fahnbulleh MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Peckham, Labour )
-
-
through the other place and for being so thorough in his approach. Before I address the amendments tabled by the Lord, I would like to take a moment to remind the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, why we Madam Deputy Speaker, why we introduce this bill in the first place. There is a long standing place. There is a long standing cross-party commitment to establish a new National Holocaust Memorial and learning centre. We do this to and learning centre. We do this to mark a profound and dark moment in our history, to remember the sheer loss of humanity and to continue to learn the lessons day after day, generation after generation.

This simple three clause bill will introduce was introduced in February 2023 to enable us to make progress in delivering this. The bill does two things. Firstly, it authorises expenditure on the construction, operation, maintenance or improvement of the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre, and secondly, it seeks to remove a statutory obstacle to it being built next door in Victoria Tower Gardens should it receive planning consent. The Bill does not provide the government with planning powers to build the Memorial and learning Centre.

They are being sought through the separate statutory planning process. Turning to the amendment which is before us today, on the face of it, the Lords amendment looks uncontroversial and I have absolutely no doubt it is well intentioned. However, the government cannot accept the amendment. In short, the amendment seeks to deal with matters which are not part of this bill and which are more properly dealt with elsewhere. Following debates in the other place, there have been constructive discussions with those leading and support for the amendment to consider how best to proceed in light of those discussions.

I want to assure this House that the government's aim in establishing a national Holocaust memorial and learning centre, in line with the cross-party consensus since 2015, is to increase understanding of the Holocaust and of anti-Semitism. There must be no question of learning centre

**** Possible New Speaker ****

deviating from this purpose. The Minister and I declare a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Minister and I declare a sort of interest in that our many members of my family were murdered members of my family were murdered in the Holocaust. What I understand the meaning of the term Holocaust the meaning of the term Holocaust to be is the Nazi mass extermination of the Jews during their period in power, both in their period in power, both in their own country and in the countries they occupied. Now, I haven't been following the progress of the bill as closely as I should have done, but I get the impression that there's some move away from keeping it specific to that terrible crime and to widening it to cover massacres in general and other terrible racial crimes.

I think the intention of this bill for this museum was that it was the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis and their associates. Can she

**** Possible New Speaker ****

confirm that that is still the situation? Mr. Thank you to the hon. Member. I can confirm that's the case, and I will be very clear and explicit about both the intention and what we will do to ensure that we we will do to ensure that we enshrine that intention. The Learning Centre will provide a Learning Centre will provide a solid, clear historical account of the Holocaust, leaving no visitors in any doubt about the unprecedented crimes perpetrated unprecedented crimes perpetrated perpetrated against Jewish people.

The content for the Learning Centre is being developed by a leading curator curator supported by Martin Winstone, the Holocaust historian and educator, and by an academic advisory group. With their help, we will ensure the content is robust, truthful and fearless. It will stand as a vital rebuttal to Holocaust denial and distortions in all its forms. Delivery of the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre is being supported by the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation. We value the work of the foundation, which has been steadfast in its determination to build the memorial and to create a learning centre in which the story of the Holocaust is told powerfully, unflinchingly and honestly.

We aim to make sure that the body responsible for the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre has the independence and the permanence which the Commission sought. We will provide the operating body with governing documents that are clear and specific, leaving no doubt that the Learning Centre has been established to provide education about the Holocaust and about anti-Semitism. We will also ensure appropriate processes for the appointment of governing body members and provide support so they have a clear understanding of their role. The governing body will be permitted to hold fundraising and commemorative events and public lectures, as long as it is appropriate to the intent and the purpose of the Learning Centre.

It will be for the trustees to determine what activities are consistent with the aims of the Memorial and Learning Centre. So I hope I have shown that there is no disagreement between the government and those who wish to ensure that the learning centres focus very clearly on the history of the Holocaust. No additional clauses are needed on the face of the bill to achieve what we all want to see. Moreover, there are inevitable risks in seeking to prescribe too narrowly what the learning centre is permitted to do.

The better way to proceed is to put and robust governance arrangements for the learning centre. The trustees responsibility for ensuring the facts of the Holocaust and the long history of anti-Semitism are explained clearly and honestly. For this and for future generations, and our aim must now be to pass this bill and to move ahead as quickly as possible to establish the National Holocaust Memorial and Learning

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Centre. The question. Is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment. with the Lords in their amendment. One shadow Secretary of State James.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you. As this bill returns to the House, As this bill returns to the House, it does so at an important time of year. Next week, we mark Holocaust
16:35
James Cleverly Portrait Rt Hon Sir James Cleverly MP (Braintree, Conservative)
-
-
Memorial Day, when communities across the country will pause to remember the 6 million Jewish men, women and children who were murdered during the Holocaust. As a former Home Secretary, I've seen first hand the strength and dignity with which Jewish communities have preserved the memory of the Holocaust. And as foreign Secretary, I saw that also in Israel and in other countries. But the people who have done so do it not only to honour those who were murdered, but also to educate future generations.

And that act of remembrance is a service to the whole country. And it is why education is essential. If the memory of the Holocaust is to endure, and if we are to confront anti-Semitism wherever and whenever it appears. Madam Deputy Speaker, this bill has taken much longer to progress than any of us would have wished. I am therefore pleased that the government has chosen to take it forward. The primary purpose of this bill is clear and narrow in scope.

It is about the Holocaust, and it is about ensuring that the lessons of the Holocaust are learned and that history is preserved for future generations. And on that point, there is strong and genuine cross-party agreement across both houses. And I want to thank the Minister for meeting with me and for listening carefully to the concerns that were raised from our side of the House. I think those discussions have been constructive and I welcome the seriousness with which they have been approached.

There has been contention during the passage of this bill, and there have been strong views expressed about the location of the memorial, about the security of the memorial and the design of the memorial. And those debates reflect the importance of this project and the desire to ensure that it is done properly. However, the issue before us today relates to the purpose of the Learning Centre. Conservative and crossbench peers have been clear and expressing their concern.

They have sought assurance that the learning Centre will exist for one purpose only, and that purpose is to provide education about the Holocaust and about anti-Semitism. I welcome the assurances that the government has now provided on these points, in particular, the commitment that the Learning Centre will be focussed exclusively on the Holocaust and anti-Semitism, and that there must be no question about it drifting from that mission or that purpose in future years. I also welcome the commitment that the governing documents of the Future operations body will make this purpose clear.

These assurances matter. This memorial is intended to last for generations, and it must have a clear mission that future trustees and future governments cannot dilute or reinterpret. Madam Deputy Speaker, in light of those assurances, we will not be pressing this matter to a division, and that reflects the progress that has been made through constructive discussions, both in this House. Yes, in this House and in the other place. But I do want to make one, one thing clear, one final point clear.

Those assurances must be carried through. And the good faith of those who have entered into the conversations need to be rewarded. I also recognise concerns about the design have been raised throughout the passage of the bill, both directly with me and with the government. And whilst those matters fall outside of the scope of the legislation before us today, I hope that Ministers have listened to those concerns and will ensure those concerns are communicated more widely to those involved with the construction of the of the Education Centre.

If this House is to create a lasting national Holocaust memorial, it must be clear in its purpose and it must be faithful to its promise.
16:41
Chris Vince Portrait Chris Vince MP (Harlow, Labour )
-
-
Yeah, yeah. can I start by thanking the Minister and indeed the Shadow Secretary of State for their speeches in opening this important speeches in opening this important debate? And can I start by saying, Madam Speaker, that I absolutely welcome this bill and its aims to create a lasting memorial to those 6 million people who lost their lives in what was probably the most devastating event in recent history. And also, of course, those who did survive and, you know, carry those scars with them, and of course, also their families, although I do obviously recognise what my right hon.

Friend has said about the Bill and the amendment in particular, and also particularly, I would say, the need to move this bill forward at pace. I'm attending my Holocaust Memorial Day event in Harlow at the weekend, and the theme for Holocaust Memorial Day 2026 is Bridging Generations. And the reason this is so important is because we need to recognise that the responsibility of remembrance can't just end with survivors. When we came together in this House last year to recognise the 80th anniversary of the end of the Second World War.

We all recognise that this will be one of the last significant anniversaries where veterans of that terrible conflict would be with us. We must also recognise that as we move forward, those survivors who did survive the terrible events that happened in the Holocaust will no longer be with us. But we must carry their flame. We must continue to remember. And building a bridge between memory and action, between history and hope for the future and education about the Holocaust and anti-Semitism is hugely important.

For this reason, like I'm sure many hon. Members and right hon. Members across the House, I have visited Auschwitz and seen the horrors of the Holocaust. But what we perhaps don't see so often are the events that led to this. I think about Kristallnacht. I think about the ghettos. It has been a real pleasure to meet on a fairly regular basis with my local rabbi in Harlow, Rabbi Egbert, to talk about how the Jewish community in Harlow is doing.

And I'm pleased to hear that the Jewish community in my constituency haven't experienced anti-Semitism. However, we must always be mindful, and I want to particularly pay tribute to Rabbi Eric for the work that she's done working with faith groups from across my constituency. I was sadly unable, for personal reasons, to attend this year's interfaith service that she ran at Harlow Synagogue, but I'm looking forward to attending it next year. An opportunity for the Christian community, the Muslim community, the Hindu community to come together to show that we are at one to fight the scourge of anti-Semitism and other forms of racism.

And I'm looking forward to standing with her and other religious groups and other religious leaders in Harlow at the weekend to recognise Holocaust Memorial Day. We must never forget the evils of the Holocaust, and I'm really pleased that this government is taking that very seriously, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this bill is a huge part of that. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats. Marie Goldman.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Democrats. Marie Goldman. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As the Holocaust begins to fade As the Holocaust begins to fade from living memory, it becomes ever more vital that the next generations continue to be properly educated about it and that the victims are commemorated, commemorated with dignity and with commemorated with dignity and with care. The theme of this year's Holocaust Memorial Day, Bridging Generations, reminds us that remembrance of the Holocaust does not end with the survivors. The responsibility now passes to all of us.

We must engage with the past so its lessons are not lost in the
16:45
Marie Goldman Portrait Marie Goldman MP (Chelmsford, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
future. The work of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust encourages us to honour the legacies of all who were murdered in genocides, including those who have no family left to remember them not through bloodlines, but through education bloodlines, but through education and memorial. A Holocaust memorial and education centre in the heart and education centre in the heart of London would be a powerful, permanent commitment to that permanent commitment to that responsibility. 6 million Jews, along with millions of others, Roma, disabled people, LGBTQ plus individuals were murdered in the Holocaust, showing where hatred can lead the genocide.

Since show we haven't learned enough. Last year, hate crimes increased across our country, fuelled by political extremism. When we say never again, it cannot be empty words. It must be our commitment to stand united against hatred. Alongside my friends, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton and the members for Cheltenham and Guildford. I have met with the Board of Deputies, the Jewish Leadership Council, the Community Security Trust and the Antisemitism Policy Trust to to discuss the alarming rise in anti-Semitism and how we must respond to it.

The Liberal Democrats believe no one should feel scared or anxious when going to their place of worship, which is why it's which is why, in our manifesto, we pledged funding for protective security measures for places vulnerable to hate crime and terror attacks. While we are devastated that this is necessary, we are pleased that the government has increased protections for synagogues and ask that these continue, that they continue to work hand in hand with these organisations for the safety and security of all Jews in the United Kingdom.

This memorial Madam Deputy Speaker, presents a vital opportunity to challenge anti-Semitism through education, and we recognise the work of the House of Lords has put in to safeguard its its educational purpose. But we must ensure that robust security measures are in place so that people can visit this memorial safely and without fear. It is also key that we deliver this memorial in a timely manner. The conservative government committed to this project following the findings of the Holocaust Commission in 2015. It is unacceptable that 11 years later, construction has yet to begin.

In 2023, Holocaust survivor Manfred Goldberg said. I was 84 when Prime Minister David Cameron first promised US survivors a national Holocaust memorial in close

**** Possible New Speaker ****

proximity to the Houses of Parliament. I will go away. Yes. Thank you. I appreciate the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I appreciate the giving away. One of my constituents, Kitty Hart-moxon, actually helped to set up the Holocaust Educational to set up the Holocaust Educational Trust and will be 100 this year. And as I said, that bridging that gap is she's handing it over to Peter Moore in the family to keep that going. But don't you think it'd be a wonderful tribute that she'd be able to see this memorial

**** Possible New Speaker ****

she'd be able to see this memorial and show how important it is to the people of Great Britain? I thank. My hon. Friend for that intervention. I couldn't agree more. Manfred Goldberg went on to say, last month I celebrated my 93rd birthday, and I pray to be able to attend the opening of this important project. Tragically, Manfred passed away on the 6th of November at the age of 95. My thoughts are with his family. Manfred was an extraordinary man who gave so much to Holocaust remembrance and education in the United Kingdom.

As a nation, we must continue this legacy and ensure this memorial and education centre is built through proper process with careful planning, strong security and quick delivery. In doing so, we commemorate the 6 million Jewish people murdered in the Holocaust, honour survivors and create a space that truly educates educates future generations. Standing as a lasting commitment to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

remembrance. Sir Edward Leigh. Madam Deputy Speaker, there's universal recognition of the gravity of the Holocaust. It's widely and widely regarded as the greatest crime in human history, which is precisely why this memorial should proceed only on the memorial should proceed only on the basis of broad consensus. No one wishes to create division around Holocaust commemoration, yet there Holocaust commemoration, yet there is demonstrably no consensus within the Jewish and local community about the learning centre itself, or how it should be used.

This was evidenced by the 2018 times letter, signed by eight Jewish peers, expressing deep reservations about the current proposal. The original decision to site the memorial in
16:50
Edward Leigh Portrait Rt Hon Sir Edward Leigh MP (Gainsborough, Conservative)
-
-
Victoria Tower Gardens was made with good intentions, including the recognition of the importance of recognition of the importance of the Holocaust through proximity to Parliament, but it was taken without prior consultation or proper investigation and was opposed by the local council. opposed by the local council. Subsequent scrutiny has revealed serious flaws within the site, and you cannot have a discussion of you cannot have a discussion of what the Learning Centre is used for without understanding that, and I've taken part in several of these debates, including the last time we debated this with Sir Peter Bottomley, the former Father of the House on the day of the general election was called, and no satisfactory answers have ever been given.

Given. The plans are for a substantial underground structure on ancient marshland beside the Thames. The water table is known to rise sharply after heavy rainfall. Significant flooding occurred there with recent memory. Do we want to have to wet vac our Holocaust memorial every few years? We've had no answers on this point. Victoria Tower Gardens is a protected public park, protected by statute. It's maintained by the Royal Parks, which has never supported a memorial on this site. The chairman of the Royal Parks warned that it risked damaging one of the area's few open green spaces and setting a dangerous precedent.

Statutory protections dating back to 1900 Act of Parliament are being undermined with very little debate. The park can realistically accommodate only a modest memorial without destroying its character. The current design would fundamentally alter the park for an 80 metre ramp, a wide moat dividing the space, and the replacement of large areas of grass with paving. Now, quite rightly, the intention is for large numbers of visitors, particularly schoolchildren, to attend the National Holocaust Memorial. No credible plans exist to manage coach traffic, drop off points or parking, compounding existing pressures on Millbank.

Local opposition is well documented, including from the Thorney Island Society for residents and regular users. The park would largely cease to function as a neighbourhood green space, ordinary activities becoming inappropriate in such a situation. Victoria Tower Gardens may also be needed to support the ongoing restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster. Reducing flexibility now risks increasing costs and constraining future options. The moat. Now let's talk about the purpose of this. And I've been to these Holocaust memorials.

The most impactful Holocaust memorial internationally is the Washington Model, which I visited. Their Holocaust Memorial Museum is immensely successful because it prioritises education through a dedicated museum that confronts the scale and the reality of the crimes. The most meaningful memorial we can offer is sustained education, ensuring young people understand the Holocaust fully and that its memory is never diminished. Had the Learning Centre been established years ago at the Imperial War Museum, as we've constantly suggested, and as the Imperial War Museum wants to do, I'm going to finish, if you don't mind.

Hundreds of thousands of visitors could already have benefited from it, and there would have been no delay. Now, the House of Lords has wisely passed an amendment clarifying that the sole purpose of any learning centre must be the provision of education about the Holocaust and anti-Semitism. It's a mystery to me why the government opposed this, and why they have imposed strict time limits on debate. This much desired memorial should be the result of clear consensus, not in pose in a way that stifles discussion.

And I'm quite suspicious of why the government is opposing this wise amendment from the House of Lords. One of the reasons why an underground learning centre is inappropriate. This is not a proper museum. You know, I've been to the memorial in Israel, in Washington. These are huge structures. You are taken across the whole process. You can't understand the Holocaust unless you understand its beginnings and how people came to abide this, be filled with this horrible hatred. It's basically just a bunker.

It's totally inappropriate. It's also a security risk. You're going to have to have armed guards on it. You're going to have to have railings. Just imagine the, the, the, the terrible nature of some appalling atrocity or terrorist atrocity that might be committed there. It's just simply an inappropriate location. And I suspect now I don't know, but I suspect the reason why the government are resisting this amendment is they are actually worried that this bunker, this totally inappropriate underground structure, which is not a proper museum, might become a target,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

might become a target. And I would suggest. All right, I'll give away the hon. Gentleman. Tatton Scott Arthur.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Tatton Scott Arthur. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It's not that the government is not It's not that the government is not that the government is not giving way. The government is showing leadership by negotiating negotiating with other parties to negotiating with other parties to find consensus in this chamber. That is something we should celebrate. I am ashamed that 81 celebrate. I am ashamed that 81 years after the Second World War ended, we still do not have a national memorial. And the Father of the House is talking about more debate, more time wasting, and more Holocaust survivors dying before we even start work.

Does he not recognise the need for this memorial and placing it right next to right next to the home of democracy in the UK absolutely makes sense? To celebrate what we did well during the Second World War in terms of protecting the Jews,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

but also what we got wrong. Edward Leigh the whole point of what? It's not just me, by the way. what? It's not just me, by the way. It's a large part of the Jewish community. We want a proper museum community. We want a proper museum of the type that exists in Washington. And this, I'm afraid, is not a proper museum. It's a is not a proper museum. It's a small underground structure in an inappropriate place, difficult to inappropriate place, difficult to secure.

If the government and the previous government had proceeded with consensus and wanted to build an ascetic memorial which could have given proper tribute to the people who died, this would all have been past years ago. The whole debate has been around the Underground Learning Centre. It has not been around the memorial. Everybody accepts there should be a memorial. Everybody wants to have a proper museum. This is not a proper museum. And I'm just curious, frankly, as to why the government is resisting this perfectly sensible amendment from the House of Lords.

And I think there is a real danger, actually, that in order to allay security concerns, the whole purpose of this learning centre may indeed drift from the Holocaust, may indeed drift. And that would be, I think, extremely regrettable. So I'm sorry if I irritated the hon. Gentleman, but I think that this is a debate, and I think that we're all entitled to express a point of view.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Josh Babarinde thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome the spirit of this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I welcome the spirit of this amendment. I welcome, of course, this bill. I welcome the assurances that the Minister gave, and notwithstanding some differences of opinion, I do welcome the civility opinion, I do welcome the civility with which this debate is taking place, which is exactly what needs place, which is exactly what needs to happen on such a sensitive issue. Madam Deputy Speaker, I speak today not only to this House, but to those gathering back home in Eastbourne on Holocaust Memorial Day 2026, the 27th of January, and
16:58
Josh Babarinde Portrait Josh Babarinde MP (Eastbourne, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
on behalf of our town and those far beyond it, I pay huge tribute to beyond it, I pay huge tribute to remarkable Eastbourne resident and Holocaust survivor Dorrit Oliver Wolf, whose tireless Holocaust education work as a survivor herself ensures that future herself ensures that future generations never forget she's a leading light, whether by leading light, whether by facilitating events like Holocaust Memorial Day in Eastbourne school visits, or even as a published author sharing her experiences through her book Yellow Star to Pop Star, or sharing her story to the masses of channel four viewers.

When she appeared on First Dates in 2021 and told us more about her experiences. We thank Dorrit so dearly for her advocacy, for her service and for her fabulousness. Dorit's example serves as a real testament to the need for the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre that is the subject of this Holocaust Memorial Bill going through Parliament, literally as we speak. Education is our most powerful defence against Hatred's return, and the theme of this year's Holocaust Memorial Day for a Better Future carries such profound weight.

In that spirit, we remember the 6 million Jewish lives stolen and all victims of Nazi persecution. We honour their memory by confronting hatred wherever it emerges, including in the face of genocide in our world today. But with great sadness. That confrontation requires vigilance. From the anti-Semitic attack on Bondi Beach to the targeting of Jewish people worshipping at their synagogue in Greater Manchester, hatred persists. And in Eastbourne the event organisers of our Holocaust Memorial Day commemorations this year have worked so hard to hold an event as safe as possible.

In fact, I directly request that Sussex Police strengthen its officer presence at the event to reinforce that. And while I'm grateful that the police have agreed to review its presence and have deployed specialist officers with significant capabilities, accordingly, it is a shameful tragedy that in 2026, Holocaust memorial gatherings still require the extensive protection necessary today. Our society at home and abroad has so much further to go. Legislation like that before Parliament can take us some way, but defeating prejudice requires each of us in our communities, our schools, our daily interactions to challenge anti-Semitism and division.

And so I say to those gathering in Eastbourne, thank you for remembering, for standing against hatred and for choosing a better future as we embrace the path forward, as we light candles of remembrance, let us move towards the tolerance and humanity that the Holocaust victims and survivors were denied. We will never forget.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Susan Murray. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Since the horrific attacks of 7th October, we have attacks of 7th October, we have seen a sharp and sustained increase in anti-Semitic abuse in Britain. Last year, a report commissioned by the Board of Deputies of British Jews found widespread failures to address anti-Jewish discrimination address anti-Jewish discrimination across public life, including within the NHS, education, the arts within the NHS, education, the arts and policing. This matters today and is not a problem of the past.

The Community Security Trust recorded over 3500 anti-Semitic incidents in the UK in 2024, one of the highest totals on record. I also understand that some will try to tie what is happening here to Israel's actions in Gaza. People may hold strong views about that conflict, but we must be absolutely clear that British Jews are not responsible for the actions of any government overseas. There are
17:03
Susan Murray Portrait Susan Murray MP (Mid Dunbartonshire, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
people trying simply to live their lives regardless of their faith or lives regardless of their faith or community identity. They should never be blamed, targeted or held to account for events beyond their control. This is why remembrance must go hand in hand with education. Holocaust survivors are fewer each Holocaust survivors are fewer each year, as we've heard. We cannot rely on living testimony alone. We need strong, honest education about the Holocaust, about anti-Semitism, and about how quickly lies and conspiracy theories can spread, especially online.

The truth is that hatred is often fuelled by misinformation and lack of understanding. Today, conspiracy theories travel faster than ever, amplified by social media and algorithms that drive people towards ever more extreme content. Given the ease with which hate can spread online, a memorial linked to a learning centre, one that helps people understand the Holocaust and confront anti-Semitism has real value. As we approach Holocaust Memorial Day, I hope the House can send a clear message. We remember, we educate, and we will stand against anti-Semitism and prejudice

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in all its forms, wherever it's found. Thank you. Hey. Hey, Steve Barclay. Thank you, Madam.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Barclay. Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker. I rise very briefly because I agree both with the tenor of the debate and also the tenor of the debate and also the tone in which colleagues across the House have quite rightly the House have quite rightly highlighted the sheer horror of the Holocaust, the importance of Holocaust, the importance of remembering its sheer scale and the challenges, particularly as the Member for Chelmsford highlighted in the context of rising anti-Semitism, or indeed, as the Member for Eastbourne spoke about in terms of as fewer survivors with lived experience are there to share their stories.

I also wanted to address two points that the member, the Father of the House, the Member for Gainsborough, raised, he raised. I could surmise, I think, a point firstly on security and I simply don't know. I say to my right hon. Friend, I simply don't know where the best site would be. From a security perspective, it may be between Parliament, which is obviously a heavily secured site, and MI5 is an appropriate location for a site that will always carry security risks.

It may be there are
17:05
17:05
17:05
Steve Barclay Portrait Rt Hon Steve Barclay MP (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
-
-
Father of the House spoke about concerns with the design of the memorial, and it's also, I think, reflective of the fact that the Father of the House is the former chair of the Public Accounts chair of the Public Accounts Committee, and I always have a slight concern, not obviously the principle. We all agree on the importance of this. And again, as the Member for Chelmsford spoke 11 years now, there is a need to make progress. So it is not that I call for delay, I certainly don't.

This is important. We need to get on with it. We need to deliver it. But I think it is fair to say that when the house is all agreed on an issue, there is a danger that issue is not sufficiently scrutinised. And I note the current father and the previous Father of the House raised concerns. He speaks of a Monmouthshire. I currently chair the Finance Committee and the Finance Committee is not responsible for restoration and renewal in this House, and the House will come on to debate that.

But I think I've already seen, Madam Deputy Speaker, and you have huge experience of that programme, but there are already very serious concerns emerging around the challenges of restoration and renewal. And indeed, that programme has been repeatedly delayed and seen significant cost overruns. And we have a design here where a significant proportion of the construction is underground in a very constrained site. And the Minister, who again, I think opened the debate extremely well and I agreed with much of what she said, but she spoke about giving the trustees, as it seemed to me, quite a lot of discretion.

And so I simply wanted to say how important I think on this programme that there is very real transparency around some of the challenges that I fear will emerge with the design of this programme, with the construction, the risk of cost overruns, the constraints and compromises, and could I just bring that alive, bring one question as an example. This site was constrained and Parliament, as is its right, chose to vote to remove that constraint. When I look at the R&R programme, I'm told that the Children's Education Centre has to move because of an identical constraint and the interaction between this programme and the R&R programme, I suspect, is something that will come before the House in due course and raise some challenges.

And indeed the House hasn't even decided on on things like what happens with the education centre. And so my purpose in speaking is the importance of remembering the unbelievable horror of the Holocaust cannot be overstated. But when the House, if you just let me finish, when the House all agrees on something, the question is have the designs been sufficiently scrutinised? And therefore my plea to the Minister is to have a commitment around the transparency of that and how some of the pressures which I foresee will emerge will be communicated in a very timely way.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Division. Minister will leave the House to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

wind up. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, with leave of the House, I would like to thank hon. Members on all sides for their contribution to sides for their contribution to this important debate. I appreciate that while the government's commitment to establish a new National Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre has cross-party support, there are strongly held views in many quarters about how that vision is made a reality, and we are committed to listening and to engaging as we move forward. I'd like to start by thanking the hon.

Member for Braintree, both for the work that his party did to initiate this important scheme and this Bill, and for maintaining cross-party consensus and working constructively with us to find solutions in order to move forward. He was right to focus our minds on the purpose of this bill and on the key purpose and mission of the Learning Centre. The. My hon. Friend the member of Harlow was absolutely right to remind us for the need of pace and urgency. This
17:10
Miatta Fahnbulleh Portrait Miatta Fahnbulleh MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Peckham, Labour )
-
-
was initiated in 2015. It has taken far too long to get to this point. far too long to get to this point. And as he pointed out, as we delay, as we take time, the hope, the as we take time, the hope, the ambition that the last surviving, the last survivors could see the the last survivors could see the construction of this memorial and learning centre is is further out learning centre is is further out of sight. So we are determined to move at pace with construction.

Should we get support of the House. To conclude, this was the last remaining survivors are still here. The Member for Chelmsford gave a powerful contribution highlighting the reason for this again and the need to constantly remember so that never again is not just a hollow slogan. It is not just empty words. And she is right to highlight that we do this, and we have this debate in the context of a rising tide of hate and division that we are seeing across our country.

And so the collective task before us is to make sure that we move, that we deliver, that we remember and we learn for this generation and I think it is timely just to remind us all that if we held a minute's silence for every person killed in the Holocaust, we would be silent for 11.5 years. It's right and proper that we have a national memorial. Can she just reassure this House? Anti-Semitism is not confined to history. It is happening day and daily. Whether it be attacks at football matches or street or streets around us, our Jewish friends face hostility simply for being Jews.

So, as this centre remembers the Holocaust, will it also deal with the anti-Semitism that is very prevalent today in our society? And will those Jewish friends feel confident that they will not be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

attacked when they go to the centre? Thank you to the Member for raising that point. She is absolutely right. We are seeing increased anti-Semitism. We see case after case in all of our communities. I spend a lot of time talking to the Jewish community, to talking to the Jewish community, to our faith leaders. I hear the fear, I hear the anxiety, I hear the worry. And we as a government are absolutely committed to responding absolutely committed to responding to that and to making sure that we are taking action so that our Jewish friends in this country feel safe and feel that they can live their lives without the fear of attack, without the fear of prejudice.

That is a collective ambition we have across the house, and one that we have to work day in and day out to make sure we deliver. But remembering and remembering where this can take us is part of that journey. Which is why I think this bill and I think the Memorial Centre is absolutely key. Can I thank the Member for Eastbourne for paying tribute to his constituency, Dora Oliver Wolfe, and for her legacy and her impact. There are so many survivors that have made such a huge contribution that have continued to live, that have continued to remind us, and I hope that collectively we deliver this bill for them and we deliver the construction of this site.

I'll move to the Father of the House, and the Father of the House is right to point out that there have been issues about the location. There have been large debates about this, but I want to gently point out that there has been extensive consultation throughout the planning process. 4500 responses were submitted to the planning application, and a planning inquiry was held publicly. So we have consulted and we have heard and we have listened. The issue of the location is increasingly settled, but there is work that we will continue to do with the community, with the council, to make sure that we get the design right.

And critically. And I point out to all members of the house, we protect the garden. So the site only takes up 7.5% of the area of the Victoria Tower Gardens. So we will do a huge amount of work to make sure that the memorial centre is absolutely aligned and consistent with that public park, and that critically, we are doing work to enhance the park, including the playground. And let me end by sort of reflecting on the contribution for the Member for North East Cambridgeshire and his plea for transparency.

And we hear that there is consensus and we want to maintain that consensus, and that does require us to continue listening, to continue engaging, and to make sure that we are keeping the house updated. Any construction has difficulties going through planning, but also delivery. And our commitment is that because all members across this House have worked together to get this point, we will continue to update the house. And look, I would like to close, Madam Deputy Speaker, by underlining the government's determination to ensure that the Learning Centre remains firmly focussed on education about Holocaust and anti-Semitism, we will ensure that this determination is embedded in the future governance arrangements for the Memorial and Learning Centre, so that there can be no dilution or digression from this intent.

And we do this because, as members across the House have raised and highlighted eloquently and passionately in order to ensure that we remember this dark moment, and that we learn the lessons of history so that this can never happen again. And I hope we can now move ahead as quickly as possible to establish the Holocaust Memorial

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and Learning Centre, with the consent and the support of members across the House. Hey.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hey. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords and their disagrees with the Lords and their amendment one as many as are of that opinion say I. I of the country. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Minister to move the committee be appointed to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move the committee be appointed to draw up reasons. I'd like to move the committee be appointed to draw up reasons, to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing with their mentor, the Miatta Fahnbulleh Deirdre Costigan Laura Kyrke-Smith Mark Sewards Peter Prinsley, Sir James Cleverly and Zoe Franklin the members of the Committee, the Miatta Fahnbulleh be the chair of the committee. The three of you. The quorum of the Committee that the Committee do withdraw immediately.
17:16
17:17
17:17
17:18
Stephen Doughty Portrait Stephen Doughty MP, Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Cardiff South and Penarth, Labour )
-
-
Well, thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I beg to move that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment number one. Madam Deputy Speaker, national security must always be the first priority of any government, and this is all the more important during these uncertain times. This government has always and will always act to ensure the safety and security of the British people. That is precisely why we have agreed the Diego Garcia military base deal, and why we need to pass this bill so that the treaty can come into effect.

The deal secures the vital military asset for future generations. It allows the base to continue to operate as it has done for decades to come, protecting UK national security and regional stability and that of our allies. Madam Deputy Speaker, as part of this agreement, the government has negotiated robust and extensive provisions to protect the base that will categorically prevent our adversaries from compromising the base or interfering with the vital protection that the base gives both the United Kingdom and the United States.

I make a little bit of progress, and I will take some interventions, certainly from those hon. Gentleman. The UK will never compromise on that national security. And as we have repeatedly made clear, the agreement we struck is vital for protecting our national security, guaranteeing the long term future of a base that is vital for both the United Kingdom and the United States and our allies, which had been under threat. And the deal secures the operations, crucially, of the joint US-Uk base on Diego Garcia for generations.

And it's been publicly welcomed by key allies, including our Five Eyes partners, as well as key international partners including

**** Possible New Speaker ****

India, Japan and South Korea. I'll happily give way. I'm very I'm very grateful to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very I'm very grateful to the Minister for giving way throughout the passage of this bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

throughout the passage of this bill. He has. Prayed in aid, the. Support of the United. States of America and the wider

**** Possible New Speaker ****

States of America and the wider Five Eyes Five Eyes community. Well, this morning, the president of the United States dropped his depth United States dropped his depth charge on that and made very clear what he thinks. Now, what is the House and the government to read in what the Minister says of what was the American position on the bill and what it appears their commander in chief is saying today? Yeah,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

yeah. Mr. Well, of course, we engage with the United States. Our closest defence and security partner are a defence and security partner are a range of issues, including this issue every single day, and we continue to do so. And he asks an important question. The United States and President Trump welcome this deal in the spring. And when we discuss in detail the reasons we discuss in detail the reasons why the agreement was needed, the strong protections it includes, and the vital security it provides for Diego Garcia, the administration endorsed the agreement as a and I quote, a monumental achievement following a thorough interagency process in the United States.

And he will know how serious that is, and I will just respond in one more point, and then I will happily give way. And in May, the United States Secretary of State said, and again, I quote, the Trump administration determined that this agreement secures the long term, stable and effective operation of the joint US-Uk military facility at Diego Garcia. And we will, of course, have discussions with the administration in the coming days to remind them of the strength of this deal, how it secures the base for the United Kingdom and the United States.

And we, of course, continue those discussions in many levels. I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Following the excellent point made by my hon. Friend, does he made by my hon. Friend, does he realise that the president of the United States, following his perspicacious comments last night, perspicacious comments last night, has had a chance to examine the deal in full? And does he therefore understand why the last government, understand why the last government, the conservative government of which I was a part, indeed doing the same job that he is doing now? the same job that he is doing now? Does he understand why the last conservative government would never, ever have got this deal?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. On that last point. Madam Deputy Speaker, as I've said in this House Speaker, as I've said in this House many, many times, and he does know this, the right hon. Gentleman, as he was part of that government, his government started this deal because they recognised there was a serious challenge to the operations of that base that's critical for our national security. No no no no, our national security. No no no no, no. Madam Deputy Speaker, we've heard this claim made multiple times on the government's own record of his past administration.

record of his past administration. The former member of the Prime Minister, the Member for Richmond. It's very, very clear that, he continued, and the government continued those negotiations right into the run up to the general election in 2024. They engaged in 11 rounds of negotiations because they recognised, as did we, of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

very serious risks to the operation of that base. I'll happily give way to the former Cabinet Office Minister. The Minister makes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Minister makes. An important point that the key thing about these negotiations were thing about these negotiations were they were predicated upon the United States concern about the United States concern about the continuing operation of the base in the context of concerns around the context of concerns around international law. Now, given the position set out by the president of the United States last night, namely, that he's not concerned about this, in fact, he's concerned about the deal the other way round.

And moreover, I don't think any of us would think there's a concern around international law vis a vis the president of the United States. These two things are material changes. Surely, in the face of these material changes. Now is the time to pause and reconsider the implementation of this treaty,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

because the circumstances have changed. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And, Madam Speaker, the circumstances have not changed. And if he refers back, if he refers, I mean, I mean, again, this this collective amnesia that we see on behalf of former Cabinet Ministers on the other side who engaged, I on the other side who engaged, I remind him in 11 rounds of negotiations because they knew of the very serious security and operational reasons affecting this base. And I refer him again to the the Secretary of War, who said at the time, Diego Garcia is a vital military base in the United States.

The UK is very important. Deal with Mauritius secures the operational capabilities of the base and key US national security interests in the region. We are confident. Again, I'm quoting directly from the Secretary. We are confident the base is protected for many years ahead. Madam Deputy Speaker I've taken a number of interventions, so I'm going to move on. Madam Deputy Speaker the deal had to be done because the base was under threat. Courts had already begun making decisions that weakened our position and without the deal, as I've said many times, we face the prospect of further wide ranging litigation, which could have rendered the base inoperable.

But let me be clear, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I have on many occasions, this is not just about the legal position. This is about the operations of the base. Because without a treaty and without a secure footing, legally binding provisional measures could have been imposed within weeks, undermining base operations. Our ability to protect the electromagnetic spectrum from interference, to ensure access to the base by air and sea, and to patrol the area around the base, would have been eroded, and everything from overflight clearances to securing contractors could have been affected.

Driving costs through the roof, deterring future investment and degrading the facility and our adversaries would have jumped at the chance to disrupt the base, for example, establishing outposts on the outer islands where the guise of legality on their side. And it's for all those reasons, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the previous government, many of whose former Cabinet Ministers sit opposite us, undertook 11 rounds of detailed negotiations. And that's also why they made critical concessions on the principles of sovereignty and of direct payment.

And I repeat, Madam Deputy Madam Deputy Speaker, I've taken a number of interventions. I'd like to make some progress. I will happily I will happily come back and take further interventions. I'll happily yes, of course I'll give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Stringer I'm grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. And I've heard him in this chamber a number heard him in this chamber a number of times say that the United States supported this deal. The president of the United States clearly doesn't support it any more. I would have thought that was the would have thought that was the case for a pause, but I also thought it was the case for a pause. Something else that's changed, Something else that's changed, which is the resolution of the United Nations Committee to End Racial Discrimination, who've also asked for this bill not to go forward.

Does he not think those

**** Possible New Speaker ****

two things together mean we should pause? Madam Deputy Speaker we won't

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker we won't pause in defending our national security interests and those of our allies. We will do the right things to keep our national security and to keep our national security and the operations of this base working as they have done for many decades. And I would reiterate, Madam Deputy And I would reiterate, Madam Deputy Speaker, that despite the claims opposite, there is a matter of public record. February 2024 the public record. February 2024 the former Prime Minister spoke with his Russian counterpart to confirm his commitment to negotiations, which continued, as I said, to the general election, and it was simply not credible to try and hang on, hope for the best and endanger an asset vital to our national security.

The reality is, of course, Madam Deputy Speaker is the previous government failed to secure a deal. They failed to secure the protections, for example, to the outer islands. And when it came to a matter of critical security, they did not deliver. So I'm proud that we've secured a deal

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that is able to do those very things. I will give way. I thank the Minister for giving way. Like every time he comes to way. Like every time he comes to the House, he's most courteous. But he's he's brought the example of the former Prime Minister into this the former Prime Minister into this debate. Today. The former Prime Minister stated very clearly that the negotiations had to result in a, the negotiations had to result in a, quote, mutually beneficial agreement that was not the case and therefore the government ended therefore the government ended those negotiations today in this House, this government is expecting us to vote at Third Reading on a deal that our greatest ally, an ally that he has advocated through this whole process, has turned its back on.

How can he expect this House to do that when circumstances

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have fundamentally changed? Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, I've

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, I've explained again the references from the Secretary of State, from the Secretary of War, from the government, of course, the government, of course, the president's previous comments on this. And of course, it's our Five Eyes partners as well. It's Canada, it's Australia, it's New Zealand, it's Australia, it's New Zealand, it's other key partners. And they all understand the critical national security capabilities the national security capabilities the base provides. It's also Japan. It's also the Republic of Korea. And indeed it's also been welcomed by a number of our other overseas territories.

So perhaps he would discount their views. We're not willing to do that. We're willing to deliver national security and the capabilities that our Five Eyes partners need. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me turn to the issue referenced in the amendments from the Lords. I want to refer to the many questions, genuine questions on behalf of a number of honourable and right hon. Members about Chagossians. We have also secured a deal that protects the interests of Chagossians. And I know that there are a number of members of this House that rightly care deeply about this issue and have done so for many years, but I'm afraid to say that there are others who have picked up the mantle of the pure political game playing, and also failed to recognise that there is a genuine range of opinions within the Chagossian communities.

There are genuine range of views, there are some who oppose this deal and there are many who support it, and that simply has not been recognised by many. And we deeply regret, and I reiterate this, Madam Deputy Speaker, the way that Chagossians have been treated by successive governments in the past, and that's why we're committed to a future relationship that's built on trust. The treaty provides the only viable path to resettlement on the outer islands, the archipelago. And we know that's a matter of critical importance to many Chagossians.

And following the government's efforts, Mauritius has confirmed that all Chagossians who were born on the archipelago and their children will be eligible for Mauritian citizenship will be eligible to participate in a future resettlement program, regardless of where they live. And this bill also preserves current British and British Overseas Territory citizenship and the pathway to British citizenship for Chagossians, meaning that Chagossians will be able to hold both British nationality and Mauritian citizenship. And in fact, as of April 2025, 90% of for 94% of Chagossians with British nationality also have Mauritian citizenship.

I'll give way on this issue to the gentleman. That

**** Possible New Speaker ****

particular point. The Minister will be aware that that matter was debated at length in the Lords. And indeed, one of in the Lords. And indeed, one of the amendments we are now considering is precisely the entitlements that Chagossians they weren't involved in these negotiations at any stage, and they negotiations at any stage, and they made that clear. Why on earth would you reject the Lords amendment, which simply says that they should

**** Possible New Speaker ****

which simply says that they should have a say in their own future? Yeah, Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, with respect, Madam Deputy Speaker, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but it's a decision in relation to the engagement of the financial privilege and the Standing Orders. That means that those amendments are not up for debate and will be disagreed with. debate and will be disagreed with. That's been made clear by the by the chair. But working with Mauritius, we have also agreed the Mauritius, we have also agreed the parameters for the operation of a Chagossian trust fund. And on the 12th of December, the Mauritian government approved legislation to establish the trust fund.

And this confirms and again in response to very many reasonable opinions expressed both in the Other place and indeed by the benches opposite the Liberal Democrat.
17:31
17:32
Stephen Doughty Portrait Stephen Doughty MP, Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Cardiff South and Penarth, Labour )
-
-
Thank you for clarifying that, Madam Deputy Speaker. And I wanted Madam Deputy Speaker. And I wanted to say that in parallel, we have also established a contact group to give Chagossians a greater say in UK government support to their communities. And we're in the process of enhancing that group as Baroness Chapman committed to doing so in the other place. And as I said, that Chagossian trust fund, thanks to the work we've done, thanks to very reasonable concerns raised across the house that will be operated for Chagossians by Chagossians, and there will be a Chagossian majority on the board, including a UK based representative and a Chagossian chair, which I think have been very reasonable concerns raised during the course of these debates and we are trying to address.

I need to make some progress. Madam Deputy Speaker has been conscious of time. I'd like to make some progress, if that's OK, but I will come back for further interventions. Madam Deputy Speaker, before moving on to a discussion of amendments specifically, I'd like to also to express my thanks to the noble Lords and the Other place for their tireless efforts and to the many noble peers who scrutinised and supported the Bill. I want to come specifically first to amendment four, tabled by the government.

I'd like to thank Lord Lansley and the other place for his helpful conversation and collaboration on the topic. The amendment will change the parliamentary procedure applicable to the delegated power in clause six, and with this amendment, all instruments made using that power will be subject to the negative procedure and previously no parliamentary procedure applied unless the power was used to amend, repeal or revoke Acts of Parliament or Statutory Instruments made under them, and this amendment makes clear the government is prepared to work with those who engage in genuine, constructive dialogue, rather than those who rely on political point scoring to achieve meaningful compromise.

I'd like to turn to the amendments made in the other place, and make it clear that the government is thankful for all the scrutiny and willing to engage with the challenge. But the other amendments are either already provided for, not necessarily, or are simply making political points and play games with our national security. We cannot accept them. Lords, amendment one would amend clause one of the bill so that the bill and treaty would be prevented from entering into force until the government had sought to renegotiate the termination clauses to include the base becoming unusable due to environmental degradation.

And that's unnecessary. And let me set out why. First of all, I'd like to highlight that limiting the circumstances in which the treaty can be terminated protects the UK's interests and those of the United States who have invested heavily in the base and in line with the United States wishes. The previous conservative government agreed to limiting termination to two grounds, both of which in UK control and the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government. This government secured that I will if it's on this point. Minister mentions the United

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister mentions the United States wishes, and he appears to be presenting the case that the United States remains in the position it States remains in the position it was previously. And yet this is despite the fact of what the President Trump said last night and President Trump said last night and the the then the now deputy Prime Minister said in February, if President Trump and I quote, if President Trump and I quote, if President Trump doesn't like the deal, the deal will not go forward.

Well, last night he said he didn't like the deal. Is it still going forward, or does he suggest that President Trump didn't mean what he

**** Possible New Speaker ****

said last night. On TV? Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, I've already answered this point. As I already answered this point. As I said, discussions will continue with the administration in the coming days, as they have done throughout this process, and we will remind them of the strength this deal, allay concerns and, of course, emphasise how it secures the base for both United Kingdom the base for both United Kingdom and the United States. We work together on these matters. As the speaker of the House of Representatives set out this morning, it's important we work morning, it's important we work together on all matters of national security.

Let me make some progress on this issue of termination. First of all, I would like to highlight that limiting the circumstances in which the treaty can be terminated protects the UK's interests and those of the US. The government secured that procedure. And secondly, I would like to reassure the House that, given the importance of this base, we are taking necessary steps to protect it from environmental damage and working with the United States again in partnership. We already have extensive measures in place, such as the Coastal Erosion Program, and scientific studies show that natural land loss over the past 50 years has been less than 1%.

That said, we recognise the concerns of Lord Craig and Lord Horton, and I'd like to reassure them and the members of this House, that the international law of treaties allows for the termination of a treaty when it becomes impossible for a treaty to be performed as a result of, and I quote, the permanent disappearance or destruction of an object indispensable for the execution of the treaty, and Baroness Chapman set out the legal position clearly in the other place. And since that debate, for further reassurance, we have also consulted Mauritius to verify that they share that assessment.

And I'm happy to update the House that this has been confirmed in writing to the government. Mauritius is clear on the point, both as a matter of international law and in its own domestic law, and we welcome that confirmation by Mauritius and trust this assures members of this House, and indeed in the other place, that share his concerns, why such an amendment is unnecessary. I will give way to the former chair of the Intelligence Committee.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To the Minister. He does seem to be putting an awful lot of faith in be putting an awful lot of faith in the good intent and reliability of the Mauritian government, a close ally of China, which, you may ally of China, which, you may remember, gave us cast iron guarantees about the future of the guarantees about the future of the Hong Kongers. Once the lease on Hong Kong was given up, may I Hong Kong was given up, may I gently remind him that in the Labour 2024 manifesto entitled change, it said defending our security also means protecting the British Overseas Territories and Crown dependencies, including the Falklands and Gibraltar.

Labour will always defend their sovereignty and right to self-determination. Can he look the Chagossians in the gallery in the eye and tell them that that's what

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the government is now doing? Madam Deputy Speaker, as I've said many times, and I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman and respect for the hon. Gentleman and his his role, and we've had many good conversations, but it is extremely unhelpful and not wanted by residents in Gibraltar or indeed the Falkland Islands that this comparison, this false comparison, keeps being made. It is absolutely keeps being made. It is absolutely we stand and we stand by that commitment, Madam Deputy Speaker, absolutely. To defend the Falklands absolutely.

To defend the Falklands and Gibraltar. And that's exactly what we have been doing and will continue to do. So. I would gently say I recognise, fully and respect that there are many Chagossian groups who disagree with this deal. There are many who agree with this deal, and unfortunately, some of the comments in this place have only represented one side of that argument. It's our duty as a government to listen to all of those groups and to engage appropriately with them. Madam Deputy Speaker, Lords Amendments five and six both relate to the cost of the treaty, and I'm not going to take any more moments at the moment.

I do need to make some progress. Amendment five requires the Secretary of State to publish the total real terms costs of payments made under the treaty, including the methodology used by the government, Actuary's Department and the Treasury. And Madam Deputy Speaker, I confess it brings me to some satisfaction to learn that the opposition has eventually accepted the importance of quoting financial figures for a 99 year treaty in real terms. They've always known it's misleading to ignore the impact of inflation. A pound today is not worth the same as a pound in 99 years time.

And now, at long last, they seem to have seen the light. But let's see if in today's debate we can do away with that deliberately and the misleadingly inflated figures that have been bandied around again today, again by the shadow Foreign Secretary at questions. And we actually start discussing the financial elements, the treaty with accuracy and transparency. And with respect to the no. I'm going to I'm going to complete and then I will take the gentleman opposite who has raised these issues before with respect to the amendment.

For all these good intentions, I'm afraid it's quite unnecessary. We have been clear about the costs of the deal from the moment of signature, and we publish full details of the financial arrangements at that time. On the very same day the treaty was signed, including the finance exchange of letters and the explanatory memorandum laid before Parliament and Madam Deputy Speaker. If members on the opposite bench are having difficulty finding where it is on pages nine and ten. In the explanatory memorandum, the document set out the payment schedule and confirmed the amounts at that time.

Then methodology is clear the average annual payments being calculated using forecast inflation figures from the office for Budget Responsibility use the forecast GDP deflator, which is published regularly. This generated the real value of the payments, which is the value adjusted for inflation, to create a fair comparison with other costs, members will recall this equates to less than a quarter of 1% of the defence Budget, and compares favourably with the cost of comparable overseas facilities. I've mentioned the facility that France pays for in Djibouti.

This is an immensely more valuable facility. It's priceless for our defence capabilities and those of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

our of our of our allies. I will take one on this side and then I'll come back over here. I'm grateful to the Minister for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the Minister for giving way, but can he confirm that this deal provides certainty and a full operational use of this pay for 99 years going forward? Yes, Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Absolutely. I can confirm this secures the base. It secures us and our allies, and it secures the crucial capabilities which benefit ourselves, the United States, and indeed all our allies. But I'm happy to take some some further canter through the calculations. The net present value was established by discounting the real value of the sums due to be paid over the treaty, using the social time preference rate as set out in the Green Book. This adjusts for social time preference, which is a reflection of the value society attaches to present as opposed to future consumption, and that's been used in the UK by governments of of our flavour and of the other sides since 2003.

And members will also be aware, I'll just make this one point and then I will members will be aware that my right hon. Friend, the Chief Secretary of Treasury, announced a review of the social time preference rate shortly before Christmas, and this follows a review of the Green Book last year. I don't know how that review will conclude, but I do know that the government used the correct methodology at the time. It's clear and transparent in doing so. And we when the figures were published, and we will continue to do so in whichever way the review comes out.

The final point I want to make is that I will go on, go on.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for giving way this evening. The Minister is way this evening. The Minister is trying to convince us to vote for this Chagos deal. So can I just ask this question? Because the this question? Because the president of the United States says that the government are handing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that the government are handing this over for no reason whatsoever. So can he give us some reasons? Madam Deputy Speaker with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker with respect to the right hon. Lady, I don't think she's been present in many of the other debates on this issue. Popped up here today to make these points. I've been very clear and answered the question already, so I'm not going to do so again. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will give way to the hon. Gentleman Ben Obese-Jecty. I thank the Minister for giving way and for his detailed way and for his detailed explanation of how the calculations have been have been made. The government Actuary's Department said that it clearly stated it was said that it clearly stated it was cost 34.7 billion for this for this deal. That figure was then confirmed by his colleague, the Minister for the Middle East, who said that all figures have been ratified by the government Actuary's Department.

But his colleague sitting next to him, the colleague sitting next to him, the Minister for defence, Readiness and Industry, told me that that figure was inaccurate. Could the Minister,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

by how much does this deal cost? We set out very clearly the costs at the time, which I've done costs at the time, which I've done with him on the chamber a number of times, and what I will confirm is they've been verified by the government Actuary's Department, government Actuary's Department, the House of Commons Library has been through them and reached the same conclusion. The office for Statistics Regulation has welcomed the government's approach and said it's in line with intelligent transparency, and the office for Budgetary Responsibility also Budgetary Responsibility also confirmed separately.

To them the discount rates were correct, so I've given him for good reasons and the cost, however much they bandy around the costs, this is simply unhelpful. Madam Deputy Speaker I think we've Madam Deputy Speaker Madam Deputy Speaker I will move on to the other amendments. Amendment six introduces an ongoing estimates and supply scrutiny process for expenditure under the treaty, including parliamentary approval for future payments and supplementary estimates. The agreement has undergone intense scrutiny and the treaty provides robust mechanisms for dispute resolution.

Under article 14, it's normal practice for payments under treaties to be made under the prerogative power and charged on the Consolidated Fund under the authority of the Supply Act, and furthermore, this would infringe on the financial privilege of the Commons and affect the Commons arrangements for authorising expenditure, and these are long standing practices that members of the former government will know. It was the same that applied under them, and it applies under this government, too. And finally, subsection four would infringe on the prerogative power of making and unmaking treaties.

It's not wise to impose any immovable requirements about a hypothetical set of circumstances which might arise in the future. This provision would seek to risk requiring the government to breach the UK's obligations under a treaty, and it's clearly preferable that all options should be open to a future government to deal with whatever the future may bring in the UK's best interests, taking into account the circumstances that exist at the time. But Madam Deputy Speaker, conscious of your exhortations on time, and I know a number of honourable and right hon.

Members wish to speak. The previous government recognised there was a problem. They engaged in 11 rounds of negotiations. They failed to reach a deal in the interests of ourselves and the United States. We secured this deal. It protects the base. It protects the interests of the United States and our Five Eyes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

partners. And I beg to move right. Before I call, before I call the shadow Shadow Foreign Secretary for shadow Shadow Foreign Secretary for the benefit of the House, and to provide a fuller response by the point of order raised by the Member point of order raised by the Member for South Holland and the Deepings. It is the Lords Amendments two and three which relate to the three which relate to the referendum, which will be disagreed to under SR number 78 three. The expenditure necessary for a expenditure necessary for a referendum has not been authorised by this House Lords.

Amendments five and six are within the scope of the debate. Although amendment six engages the financial privilege of this House, it does not in itself involve any expenditure. I hope that helps colleagues going forward. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment one, and I call the shadow Foreign Secretary, Dame Priti Patel.
17:46
17:46
Priti Patel Portrait Rt Hon Priti Patel MP (Witham, Conservative)
-
-
act in the national interest and defend the rights of the Chagossian community and protect hard pressed British taxpayers money, who are expected to foot the colossal bill of £35 billion in costs being given to a foreign government. Madam Deputy Speaker, to guess what? Cut their taxes while our taxes rise here, I want to put on the record the thanks of this side of the House to the other place for their scrutiny and diligence in once again holding this government to account.

Because when Labour plotted to deny this House a debate and a vote on the surrender treaty during the 21 day crag process, it was conservatives in the House of Lords which forced the debate and a vote. And when Labour limited the time for this House to give the bill line by line scrutiny it needed, it was the House of Lords which stepped in and made time available, and when this Labour government ignored and neglected the views of the Chagossian community, it was the House of Lords in the International Relations and Defence Committee that came to the rescue and organised a survey giving important insights into their concerns about the Government of Mauritius and the future of their ancestral home.

And when Labour refused to accept any amendments to modify and improve this 35 billion surrender bill, it was the House of Lords which made important changes which, Madam Deputy Speaker, we are debating today. So let me be clear. This is a bill that the Conservatives have fought against every single stage. It is a deal to surrender British sovereignty that we will not accept. And it's a deal we will continue to oppose and challenge Ministers on. And every vote today is a vote to kill this bill.

We will keep on voting against this bill and opposing it until the government and one would hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Prime Minister sees sense and withdraws it and tears up the treaty. And we are not the only ones vociferously opposing this, because we now know that the president of the United States is against it, saying it is being done, but no reason whatsoever. And and that China, I'll come in in a second, and that China and Russia will have noticed this total act of weakness.

I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my right hon. Friend, I did ask the Minister what were the reasons this government are signing away those Chagos Islands he couldn't give any reasons. The president of the United States says president of the United States says for no reason whatsoever this government is giving those islands away. So can my right hon. Friend

**** Possible New Speaker ****

away. So can my right hon. Friend give us any reason to sign off this deal today? Let me just remind my right hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Let me just remind my right hon. Friend exactly what the president of the United States said. There is for no reason whatsoever. And of course, Russia and China will have noticed this total act of weakness. And, Madam Deputy Speaker, in fact, it was a previous foreign secretary, now deputy Prime Minister, who's on the record saying if President Trump doesn't like the deal, the deal will not go forward and they've got to be happy with the deal or guess what, there's no deal.

So why have Labour continued to press this bill today? And in light of these comments from the president, can the Minister tell us what will happen with the future status of the 1969 exchange of notes between the UK and the United States, which states clearly that the British Indian Ocean Territory shall remain under the United Kingdom sovereignty? What is the impact on that agreement? Is it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

being changed? I will give way. I will. Give me back. When I intervened

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Give me back. When I intervened on the Minister, as did other colleagues, we seem to get some sort of rather sort of la la land sort of rather sort of la la land answer about the government's response to what the president of the United States has said, and in the United States has said, and in terms the Minister said, oh, I'll sort of go and have a word with him and sort of, you know, put him and sort of, you know, put him straight.

Well, good luck with that, I suppose. Is she as confused with me that with with the government having prayed in aid for so long the unalloyed support of the United States, they've now lost it, and rather like in a Bobby in the shower moment of Dallas and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

pretending the incident has never happened. David Mundell I thank my right

**** Possible New Speaker ****

David Mundell I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. And I mean, look, first of all, this side of the house is completely against of the house is completely against us. But when it comes to the president of the United States, who, for the record, has said for no for the record, has said for no reason whatsoever should this be going ahead, it seems to me that the government is still on hold to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the government is still on hold to the president of the United States. I will give way. I thank. The hon. Member for giving way. I'm too young to have seen that scene in Dallas. So that went slightly over my head. But would the right hon. Member agree that you can't read everything into a social media post? After all, the Member for Clacton said about the Member for Newark he's a fraud. I've always thought so. Don't believe a word that he says.

Isn't it true that you can't always stick with the same mindset on social media?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Daisy Cooper let me just say, for the benefit of everyone in this for the benefit of everyone in this House, the United States of America is our strongest ally when it comes to the national security of our to the national security of our country, and rightly so. And when the president of the United States now raises concerns, we should now raises concerns, we should listen to those concerns. And I would like to think that this government will act upon his government will act upon his concerns as well.

So, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me turn to the details of the amendments and amendment five from the other place on the cost and expenditure, because these introduce new provisions on the transparency of the costs that British taxpayers are being forced to pay. And I think, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the benefit of this House, it's vital that we see the full cost as Labour has never acknowledged or accepted the financial costs and the burdens of this bill on the taxpayer. And as the House knows, the Conservative Party this side of the House had to force the information out of the government to a freedom of Information request.

And even Labour Ministers have had the barefaced cheek to come here and give us a 3.5 billion valuation, rather than the 35.8 billion cost the government Actuary's Department tells us. In most areas of government spending, Labour like to brag, obviously, about how much is being spent. Welfare is another familiar theme that they like to go on about, but on this issue, they are using a valuation technique to downplay the amount. And we've even seen the Prime Minister claim it's how the OBR council costs, and when the OBR has actually said that they do not hold any information on the cost of the financial impacts on the specific treaty over the future sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago, and have not been contacted by His Majesty's Treasury, the Mod or the government Actuary's Department.

So what, Madam Deputy Speaker, is the truth. This amendment should help bring about more openness and transparency on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the cost. I will, of course give way to. First of all, can I commend the Shadow Minister and commend the Shadow Minister and commend the Conservative Party for bringing this forward? It's absolutely crucial. Does the Shadow Minister crucial. Does the Shadow Minister share my concern? Key is that if the British government has fully briefed the US about the risks to briefed the US about the risks to the bear bear treaty for Diego Garcia, becoming sovereign to Mauritius because of government, has then President Trump will be has then President Trump will be very glad to comment on it? Does the Shadow Minister agree? Maybe contact with President Trump might

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be the thing to do now? Well, I would like to thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, hon. Friend for his intervention, and he's absolutely right. The particular treaty is in relation to nuclear weapons on the basis of coming on to the basis of Diego Garcia. That is why our emphasis must be on the strength of that relationship when it comes to the relationship when it comes to the national security of our country. This House will not disagree on that. But what is deeply concerning is that the president of the United States has explicitly expressed his disapproval of this entire process and this giveaway.

And so to the point that my right hon. Friend speaks about, which is about the nuclear treaty, we should absolutely be engaging with our closest ally, the United States of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

America. I will give way. I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. It's not as if the president of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's not as if the president of the United States has expressed disapproval. He says it's the greatest act of stupidity to do greatest act of stupidity to do this. And do you think it's ironic we're getting told by the Minister for a statement in May when? When

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for a statement in May when? When under 12 hours. The president has absolutely trashed this deal. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My friend is absolutely right. And this speaks to the absolute complete nonsense as to why this government has proceeded with this. It is a gross act of self-harm. And actually, to quote the president of the United States, an act of stupidity and one that will have very significant consequences for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this government, I will I will give way one more time. Very grateful to my right hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very grateful to my right hon. Friend. And has she noticed that the Minister, who is a, shall we the Minister, who is a, shall we say, a a flexible friend in the cause of the government's policy, cause of the government's policy, has been relying on the fact that in the past, in the past, other members, other members of Donald Trump's government in America have been saying supportive things about the bill. Would she like to cast a wager, as I would with Minister, that 24 hours after Donald Trump

**** Possible New Speaker ****

changed his tune, they will change their tune in exactly the same direction. Well, I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I. Say to my right hon. Friend, you know, if the government wishes to U-turn on this and scrap the bill, U-turn on this and scrap the bill, we would absolutely welcome that answer. There's no question about that. So coming to amendment one, Madam Deputy Speaker, it's not just on the money, which was amendment five, where the government claims five, where the government claims lack any credibility, but on amendment one, the surrender of the British sovereignty leaves us weaker. And, of course, as we've already heard from colleagues, hon.

Friends in the House, it will compromise the long term operations of the base. We are required, Madam Deputy Speaker, to give notice to the Government of Mauritius of a range of activities taking place on this base. If the pendulum a treaty, as my hon. Friend has pointed out already, which Mauritius is a signatory to, applies to Diego Garcia, then it would prohibit the station and the storage of nuclear weapons. This is very serious. And while the Prime Minister has claimed that China, Russia and Iran oppose the oppose the surrender, we know that these three states guess what? They back it, they publicly endorse it, and they will seek to gain from this lack of sovereignty.

These points are all relevant to amendment one, as this change requires the government to renegotiate article 11 of the treaty so that payments cease. Should the use of the base for military purposes become impossible. And we hope that this scenario obviously does not materialise. We believe that Diego Garcia is a vital cornerstone of our national security and our defence, and it should remain so. But as the treaty currently stands, if we stop using the base, the UK is still bound into paying pretty significant payments.

Madam Deputy Speaker, huge cost over the 99 lease period and this amendment is therefore a vital point of contingency and we would like to see the whole agreement binned now, but we will believe it is reasonable and practical for the government to accept this change. So can the Minister explain when he sums up why he's not prepared to consider

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this and renegotiate parts of the treaty? I will be. Grateful to my right hon. Friend.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Grateful to my right hon. Friend. It does she, like me, feel some sympathy for the Minister. He's rested his whole case on this. On rested his whole case on this. On the support of the United States of America, the deputy Prime Minister saying it wouldn't go ahead if the president of the America didn't support it. And we all remember, we all remember the great mystery all remember the great mystery around who shot J.R. Request. There's no mystery around who shot the Ministers.

Fox. And that was

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the president of the United States last night. His whole case has crumbled away. Yeah. My. My hon. Friend is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. My. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He's spot on. And this is the moment. Madam Deputy Speaker, I would argue this is the Speaker, I would argue this is the critical moment where the government should tear this up and scrap this absolute disaster, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

scrap this absolute disaster, and this should not proceed at all. I will, I will, of course I will. I'm very. Grateful to the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Grateful to the. Shadow Foreign. Secretary for. Giving way. Does she, like me? Notice that all the military veterans in the government and on the Labour benches seem to have abandoned their post today? And I think I've counted about I think I've counted about nine veterans, with one notable exception. And I think I've counted about nine veterans on our benches. And if more of them have been there, perhaps they could have told the frontbench about the forlorn hope.

The forlorn hope were the people who were sent out either to defend the indefensible or go on suicidal attack missions. They were either in search of promotion or for pardons for sins of the past. And so does the right. My right hon. Friend agree with me that they have been sent out here to defend the indefensible.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to thank my hon. The point. Of order. Point of order. Mr. The record. He's saying that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The record. He's saying that there weren't any any veterans. I've served this country as an Army reservist as well. I'm very proud reservist as well. I'm very proud to have done so, as have many other members on this side who served as veterans. And they absolutely defend our national security in
18:00
18:01
Priti Patel Portrait Rt Hon Priti Patel MP (Witham, Conservative)
-
-
which is a brief moment and a survey has been undertaken. Clearly in the other place in the House of Lords. And that was by the International Relations and Defence Committee, which is very important because something like 3000 respondents gave a view, given a very clear statement, as to the very clear statement, as to the direction of travel on the Chagos Island, their ancestral home, and they want them to remain British.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And we have been absolutely I want intervention. I'm very. Grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. If this is such a good deal, why does she think what are my local authorities is having to house hundreds of Chagossians who are fleeing to the UK to escape

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the consequences of this deal? Well. My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I thank him for his intervention because I'm aware that intervention because I'm aware that his local authority is under a range of pressure with with Chagossians who are fleeing Chagossians who are fleeing basically to come to the United Kingdom. They have raised many serious concerns about the serious concerns about the government of Mauritius and a clear wish for the Chagossian community wish for the Chagossian community to be respected, to be engaged and to absolutely be stood up for their voices to be listened to.

And they have been treated appallingly. And there is a sense of betrayal of the Chagossian community. It is wrong. It is absolutely wrong. And while we cannot Madam Deputy Speaker vote on these amendments today, it is still within the gift of the government to see, sense and take action to facilitate their right of self-determination, which is absolutely vital. In conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, this entire surrender bill is wrong, which is why we will keep on opposing this on these benches. And to all those Labour MPs.

I've said this before and I'll say it again being whipped and commanded to enter the division lobbies to back the surrender bill and to support the government's plans to remove the Lords amendments. Tonight, I say this. You are being used to service the interests of your Prime Minister, rather than your country and your constituents. You are being forced to vote through billions to a foreign government allied with our enemies, who are growing closer to them. While your councils and schools are seeing their budgets squeezed and cut, you are being forced to be complicit in the betrayal of the Chagossian community.

But tonight, you have the chance to do the right thing and join us in the division lobbies. And Madam Deputy Speaker, the Conservative Party will continue to stand up for our national interests, British taxpayers and the Chagossian community. And that is why we will keep opposing Labour's 35 billion Chagos surrender Bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Backbench members, on a five minute speaking limit. It will drop

**** Possible New Speaker ****

further as the debate continues. Alex Ballinger Madam Deputy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Alex Ballinger Madam Deputy Speaker and in answer to the member Opposite's intervention earlier, there are more than one veteran on the benches on this side, and I the benches on this side, and I wonder what the veterans from the Conservative Party that were there through 11 rounds of negotiations under the last government were saying, because they clearly supported it at that point, and there were clear reasons for doing so. For me, this is not an exercise in process. It is about whether this House chooses to protect on
18:04
Alex Ballinger Portrait Alex Ballinger MP (Halesowen, Labour)
-
-
firm, enforceable terms and overseas base that is fundamental to British security and our closest alliances. Diego Garcia is a critical asset for the UK and our allies. It supports allies. It supports counter-terrorism, monitors hostile state activity and enables a rapid deployment of UK and US forces deployment of UK and US forces across regions that matter deeply to our national interest. Those opposing this bill need to be clear opposing this bill need to be clear what they are opposing. They are opposing a treaty that secures the base for 99 years with full operational freedom, backed by our allies, and negotiated substantially under the previous government.

Delay or failures here.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, I will give way. Will you. Be supporting. Clause one, given the fact that it says he's just specified it it says he's just specified it needs to be for military purposes if they become impossible because the islands go underwater, which is a real risk. For example, does he want to be able to carry on paying for it? So will he be supporting clause one?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clause one? I will be supporting clause one because this amendment would require renegotiation, and we require renegotiation, and we already have a joint commission that deals with issues that arise. An international treaty law provides roots determination if we're in that sort of situation. So this amendment is not necessary at all. And I will come back to this in a second in my speech. If we are refusing to comply, others, international organisations and partners would not ignore those measures, undermining the practical operation of the base.

The same reason, indeed why negotiations were started under the last government and the treaty does contain safeguards that are not decorative. They are operationally vital. The UK will control installations and the electromagnetic spectrum. We will control the 24 nautical mile buffer zone, where nothing can be built without UK consent, and there will be a strict ban on any foreign, military or security presence on the outer islands. These are precisely the kinds of protections that make the base secure, usable and resilient against interference.

Madam Deputy Speaker, as we're here today to consider the Lords amendments, I wanted to go through each of those in turn. Lords Amendment one, which is requiring recognition so the UK can stop payments if it cannot use the base on the surface. If others have mentioned, this may sound prudent, but it is a recipe for uncertainty and delay at the very moment we need clarity. The treaty already establishes a joint commission to deal with issues as they arise. An international treaty law provides routes to termination if an indispensable object for execution permanently disappears.

The amendment adds risk, not security, undermining confidence in the treaty framework that we need to keep the base operational. Yeah. Lords amendments numbers two and three were rejected by the speaker. Lord amendment four, which is around procedures for orders under clause six. This is a government amendment responding to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee to provide appropriate parliamentary procedure. It strengthens scrutiny and is a sensible refinement of how the Bill operates. This House should support Lords Amendment four, Lords Amendment five, which is to do with publishing the total costs and methodology.

This is duplicative. The government did already publish full details of the financial arrangements arrangements on the day the treaty was signed, including the relevant explanatory material. This methodology is clear. It uses the office for Budgetary Responsibility Inflation forecasts to calculate the average annual figures, and the figures have been verified by the government's Actuary Department. The House of Commons Library reached the same conclusion, and the office for Statistics Regulation has welcomed this approach. This is not about transparency, it's about rerunning an argument that we've had time and again in this House, including, I don't know how many Urgent Questions Lords Amendment six to do with Commons votes to cease payments if Mauritius breaches them.

This would require additional parliamentary steps on anticipated expenditure. I will happily give

**** Possible New Speaker ****

way. Gentlemen. He's talking about the cost of the deal. Could you just set those out for the house? just set those out for the house? Because I don't think anyone has done that in the debate so far today, and he's speaking with such expertise. It'd be great to hear

**** Possible New Speaker ****

expertise. It'd be great to hear from him exactly what it is costing. I will very happily outline the House. The Minister has already outlined it. It's approximately outlined it. It's approximately 0.25% of the defence Budget. This is tiny in comparison to the base in Djibouti that the French operate. in Djibouti that the French operate. And if you compare that to the operation of an aircraft carrier or something of that size, it is very, very good value for money. As, as as I as I was saying, Lords Amendment six would cut across long standing constitutional practice on treaty payments and it would infringe Commons financial privilege and established arrangements for authorising expenditure.

More importantly, it would send a damaging signal that the UK is building an exit ramp into primary legislation, weakening our hand and injecting instability into the very agreement designed to secure the base. The treaty already contains robust dispute resolution mechanisms and that is where the issues belong. Yes, I will continue. Madam Deputy Speaker, the strategic logic is straightforward. Diego Garcia's location, infrastructure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and operational utility are indispensable. The treaty. My friend. way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

way. I thank my hon. Friend for giving way on the security of the base. Does he recall the visit that base. Does he recall the visit that I went on? And I think he went on as well as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee to Washington, DC Affairs Committee to Washington, DC last year, where we spoke to many American interlocutors, including American interlocutors, including State Department officials. And over the course of an entire week in the US Capitol, not a single US interlocutor disagreed with or

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opposed the deal before us. Yes. My my hon. Friend makes a very good point. Of course, this treaty has been through the interagency has been through the interagency process in America. It has support across the system. And while colleagues may have mentioned the president changing his position at the moment, the UK, the US system is much wider than that, and I is much wider than that, and I don't think we should we should base our long term strategic and security interests on truth social security interests on truth social posts.

Therefore, this House should reject Lords Amendments one, five and six and support the government's Sensible Procedural Amendment number four, and pass this bill in a way that protects

**** Possible New Speaker ****

national security rather than gambling with it. For the Liberal Democrat

**** Possible New Speaker ****

spokesperson, Doctor Al Pinkerton. ChatGPT. Give me a speech on.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The border. Simon Hoare. Never has a point of order. Been greeted with such joy from the chair you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the chair you. Rightly have pointed. Out, as has Mr. Speaker, with regards to the Lords amendments,
18:10
18:12
Al Pinkerton Portrait Dr Al Pinkerton MP (Surrey Heath, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I please keep your speech short. Doctor Al Pinkerton. >> I have done my best after

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have done my best after receiving a visual cue from Madam Deputy Speaker, this bill returns to us from the other place with amendments that raise very serious amendments that raise very serious questions about the governance, cost and durability of the treaty, concerning the future of Diego Garcia and the wider Chagos Archipelago. For decades, decisions about the Chagos Islands were taken without the consent of the Chagossian people. That was the defining feature of the injustice that they have experienced.

My concern, shared by many across this House and others in this place, is that unless this government properly considers these amendments, Parliament risks giving statutory effect to a framework that lacks the safeguards necessary for accountability, legitimacy and long term sustainability. And that is precisely what these amendments, in my opinion, seek to address. Now, the government has acknowledged in the things that they have proposed, the historic wrongdoing to the Chagossian people. It's recognised the right of return in principle, and proposed a £14 million trust fund to redress the harms caused by forced displacement.

Yet the framework before us today provides limited assurance that the Chagossian people will have any meaningful agency over the decisions and structures that will shape their future. That matters because legitimacy is not derived alone from Intergovernment intergovernmental agreement, it rests on whether those affected can participate meaningfully in decisions taken about their homeland. At the core of the United Nations Charter lies the principle of self-determination. Article 1.2 could not be clearer. One of the purposes of the United Nations is, and I quote, to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and the self-determination of peoples.

It is therefore deeply regrettable that members across this House, who reasonably expected to have the opportunity to vote to reaffirm our commitment to the UN charter and, crucially, our commitment to the right of Chagossians to self determine their own future as a distinct, albeit

**** Possible New Speaker ****

displaced, people have been denied that opportunity today. On that subject.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will give. The hon. Gentleman I'm very sorry about his throat. I suspect sorry about his throat. I suspect he, like me, will be very keen that Greenlanders have the right of self-determination. I've sat self-determination. I've sat through Ministers time and again who carp on about the need to defend their right to have a say on defend their right to have a say on what happens to them. Will he compare and contrast that with the situation faced by the Chagossians, and say, why it is that the Danes can put into law the right for their people to have a say on their future? But we're about to rule it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

out for people to whom we owe a duty of care. I am very grateful to the hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and if you just bear with me two minutes, I will get to precisely that point. It's a it's precisely that point. It's a it's it is shameful that a meaningful referendum was not the starting point of this government's approach, point of this government's approach, leading opposition parties to insist upon it through amendments is equally shameful that this is equally shameful that this principle today has been rejected on the grounds of cost. What price does this government place on self-determination for Chagossians? This will be received for what it is.

Justice led upon injustice. Now this government and governments before it routinely defend our overseas territories in the international arena on the basis of the self-determining rights of their citizens. Today, this government rightly defends Greenland on that same basis, asserting the right of Greenlanders to determine their own future. It is therefore, with deep regret that I speak in support of that right and of that principle, as expressed through amendments two and three, knowing that we will have no opportunity to vote in favour of those amendments when a division is called on accountability and oversight.

Amendments five and six reinforce Parliament's role in scrutinising the financial commitments of this agreement. The ensure that this House is not asked that that that the House is not asked to authorise long term expenditure without clarity of its scale, duration and assumptions. These amendments require transparency in how costs are calculated and ensure that Parliament retains control over future payments. This is not obstruction, it is a proper exercise in parliamentary responsibility and one owed to future administrations and to the public.

They also give the government a mechanism to terminate the deal and all future payments to Mauritius. Should Mauritius fail to honour its obligations now. In May, the Prime Minister stated that this deal would cost up to £3.4 billion over 99 years. However, Freedom of information disclosures suggest an initial estimate closer to £34.7 billion, a figure we've already heard today. That disparity risks further undermining trust in this government and confidence in its wider approach to public spending. At a time when families across Britain faced a cost of living pressure.

Parliament is entitled, indeed, expected, to demand clarity before committing taxpayers to potentially vast long term liabilities that will endure well beyond any of our lifetimes. On security and durability, amendment one addresses the strategic importance of Diego Garcia while addressing that the United Kingdom is not sorry, ensuring that the United Kingdom is not locked into ongoing payments. Should the military use of the base become impossible. Given the rapidly shifting nature of the United Kingdom's relationship with the United States, particularly under this current president, this amendment is essential to ensure that we are not bound into a long term lease without a similarly long term tenant, no one in this House or in the other place disputes the strategic importance of Diego Garcia to our national security and to global security more broadly.

This amendment reflects that reality and raises legitimate questions about the long term viability of this deal. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I may briefly to amendments five and six, these together form a coherent and, in my opinion, proportionate package, the reinforced parliamentary oversight. Protect the public purse and hold the government's financial commitments to account. The Other place has not sought to frustrate this bill. It has asked whether Parliament is prepared to proceed without sufficient safeguards on cost, governance and legitimacy concerns.

And very finally, I again place on my on record my disappointment that amendments two and three were not selected for today's debate. Those amendments would have provided the Chagossian people with a referendum, allowing them a direct and meaningful say over their future, something that remains conspicuously absent despite repeated assurances about consultation. So absolutely in. In conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Chagossians are not and should not be diplomatic collateral. They are not a note in the marginalia of an agreement between Mauritius and the United Kingdom.

They are a people who have been treated badly by our country and are now deserving of agency, dignity and justice. For those reasons, the Liberal Democrats urge the government to accept amendments one, five and six. But more than that, we urge the government to pause to reflect on the changing geopolitical circumstances in which we find ourselves and to think again about whether this is the right approach for us, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Chagossian people, and for our future security. Graham Stringer you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It's been said in this debate that some honourable and right hon. some honourable and right hon. Members have come to the debate on Chagos late in. Late in the day. That's right. I first got interested. Someone honourable and right hon. Members, the right hon.
18:19
Graham Stringer Portrait Graham Stringer MP (Blackley and Middleton South, Labour)
-
-
right hon. Members, the right hon. Member for North Islington, for instance, has been banging on about Chagos for decades and I admire him for doing that. I first became concerned when I saw the cost to the United Kingdom to pay for something that we own. I ask myself, in terms of a litmus test, could I explain that to my constituents why we're going to pay for something to an island that has no connection

**** Possible New Speaker ****

directly with Diego? Yes, I will. Thank him for the kind comment he just made. The reason that I he just made. The reason that I spoke about the Diego Garcia and the Chagos Islands for many years was fundamentally the injustice was fundamentally the injustice that was done, and their right of return to the islands. The whole point has been to gain the right of return, which has been won through this bill for the outer islands in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a limited form to Diego Garcia itself. I thank my Right Honourable for the right hon. Member for that intervention that is at the heart of what has gone wrong, that he has been talking about for a long time. The Chagossians were treated as itinerant workers in the 1960s, so they didn't get at that point the basic rights that other people on other parts of the old British Empire, British protectorates. So they were discriminated against and they're being discriminated against again by giving the Mauritius the power to determine what goes on.

The only solution to the central issue of this problem is not a survey that the House of Lords are doing in good faith. It is to have a referendum which has been ruled out of order today for for good reasons, in procedural terms, to give the Chagossians a say in a referendum of whether they want to return or not. Otherwise it is all speculation. I don't think my hon. Friend from the front bench answered the real point about why we shouldn't be taking notice of the United Nations Committee to End Anti-Discrimination, anti racial discrimination.

That's fundamental because they go back to the 1960s decision and they see what happened then and what is being perpetuated now as racial discrimination. And the mauritians and ourselves are perpetuating that. My hon. Friend didn't really answer that point as he didn't really answer the point. The other thing that has changed, and I did listen to many of his statements in this House when he said in good faith that the United States supporters, whether they did then or not, they they probably did.

They absolutely, certainly don't at this time. And both those items are a reason for pausing, thinking again and getting into compliance with the United Nations Committee on Ending Racial Discrimination and talking. Certainly, as my hon. Friend said to the United States, because they have changed their position, the amendments before us. Are really not the core of the bill, because that has been dealt with in a very short period of time. The Second Reading and report, stage and Committee stage in this House.

But they are important in as much as they ask for information. We're going to pay for something that we didn't used to have to pay for. It will have consequences for our ability in the Indian Ocean to look after our defence interests, and we don't know how much it will cost putting amendments in that will give us an exact figure for those costs is important. It's also important an amendment one to. Limit that. If for some reasons the island, the Mauritius changes its view or the islands indeed disappear if if they go underwater.

So I, I don't have the opportunity this afternoon, Madam Deputy Speaker, for vote to vote for what I would like to, but I will vote for the amendments that the Lords have put before us.
18:24
Iain Duncan Smith Portrait Rt Hon Sir Iain Duncan Smith MP (Chingford and Woodford Green, Conservative)
-
-
Greg Smith Deputy Speaker, I >> Greg Smith Deputy Speaker, I really rise because it comes out of the previous debate that we had in here where the government, here where the government, government Ministers were posed with and the question has been asked again, what are the reasons asked again, what are the reasons for this legislation? And they rested on, first of all, one issue, which was all about the idea that somehow we had received a binding judgement from the International Court of Justice.

And this was therefore important because we had to stand by that. And I remember we had these arguments about it and the debate, and it became clearer and clearer and clearer during that debate, particularly amongst some of our colleagues, that this simply wasn't correct, that there is no binding judgement on this. It is an advisory judgement because we have an opt out for all matters to do with Commonwealth governments. Now that is very clear. That's been said by many, many judges and and learned legal people as well.

And some of my right hon. Friend, one of who I see sitting on the bench right now, have raised then other reasons, and it was led to us that somehow that beyond that there were other issues, that if we didn't do this, we would face challenges under two other agreements. One is UN and the the other one stands steadily as the ITU. And what is most interesting about all of this is that when pressed throughout all of this, that it bit by bit, their argument fell apart.

And it's clear and it's important for here because there are very detailed. I won't go into those now, but they have to be raised in much more detail later on. But the issues really well, I don't get any extra time, so I'm not sure it's such a good idea. If you want to give me a bit of extra time, that's fine. OK. Very quickly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Do you think I give because I know this is a very important subject to him, and he's very carefully explained why he doesn't think the government has to act, think the government has to act, but he has not explained why his government was negotiating a deal

**** Possible New Speaker ****

if it did not have to act at great cost and great consumption of time. Thank you. It doesn't really matter to me

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It doesn't really matter to me who's in government. I'm in opposition. I was opposed to it then, so I'm not going to try and then, so I'm not going to try and defend any of this. If he doesn't mind. I was far more opposed to it than than many of his colleagues were on the right ventures, let me tell you. So now that I've expunged any dishonour to my part, I have to say to those on the opposite side and to the rest of the house.

So really, these two areas that were really critical on Klos and the ITU, we discovered that there were certain articles that exempted us in any way from any challenge in a legal sense. So therefore they were not binding. And so I say this because today it is a matter of intense sadness, and I follow the hon. Gentleman who I'm a massive admirer of. And he knows that for his steadiness and determination, often in unpopular elements. But I say to in following him that articles two and three, and by the Liberal Democrats the same.

We have very in a matter of sophistry, I have to say to this House, if we believe in free speech and free debate, and we believe in voting on what we believe or we oppose, then why is it genuinely that we cannot do this on articles two and three? Because sitting in the gallery, there are people there who will be utterly depressed by the idea this chamber has shut itself out from the rights of the Chagossians to debate them here today and to vote on them.

And I know it's clever to get that done. And I know the the speaker's office is under pressure to do that. But I have to simply say this is not right. It is not right that they cannot have this House decide on their rights. And particularly when the committee that he mentions, the UN committee has made it very clear that they should stay this legislation because they fear for the problems that exist on that as well with regard to race relations.

And so I simply say to the House today, this is a sad moment for this House, this horribly flimsy piece of legislation that casts away rationale completely. And then this morning, the president of the United States, who was prayed in aid in all of this, that somehow we should motor through this because he was in favour of it. And the American government, if they're in favour of it. We stand and we know that the earlier Foreign Secretary said, if America doesn't want it and doesn't agree with it, then we won't do it.

But here we are rushing through with this. Why are we rushing? Why don't we stay this wait to hear exactly what America thinks about it, and make a decision as to whether we carry on? Surely that would make more sense and it would be more rational. And I just don't get through all of that. What? The unpalatable haste of all of this is all about to dismiss the Chagossians, to dismiss the logic and the reasons why we have to do this, and to head to pay billions and billions of pounds of taxpayers money for no reason at all.

I think somebody else said that today. No reason at all. Meanwhile, China, as they say, is facing and looking at this and laughing. So is Russia. So is Iran. So are all the nasty states that exist. And we have danger. And I simply finish, Madam Deputy Speaker, by saying, honestly, this is a bad day. This is badly done. This is a bad day for us for the concept of dispute, debate and liberty. And I simply say we should hang our heads in shame, because that place is better at debating things than we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

rights. Here it is, four minute Tom Hayes four minutes. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend for Halesowen has said much of what I was going to say, thankfully, so I'll try to be say, thankfully, so I'll try to be briefer. The Shadow Foreign Secretary has made a set of arguments which are predicated on arguments which are predicated on the case for national security. And so I think it's important, therefore, that we do take on the question of how secure we are. We question of how secure we are. We look at the economic security that this government inherited 15 years of slow, weak growth, the lowest business investment in the G7, wages, which grew at a consistent 2% a year, flatlining.

If we look two at the impact of the Brexit deal negotiated by that side in early 2025, the UK GDP was between 6 and 8% lower than it would have 6 and 8% lower than it would have been without Brexit, and we lost 180 billion, up to £240 billion of output. Madam Deputy Speaker. This output. Madam Deputy Speaker. This is important because it actually relates to the credibility of the opposition when they make their case on the basis of national security.
18:31
Tom Hayes Portrait Tom Hayes MP (Bournemouth East, Labour)
-
-
There is this debate is about the issue in hand, not the credibility of the opposition. Let's get to the point quickly. Marvellous.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Moving forward, three pages, which was a condensed version of the way in which our country was left completely insecure by the opposition. If we move forward and look at Diego Garcia, it is a critical UK asset for national critical UK asset for national security. We all agree on that. In this House it supports counter-terrorism, it monitors counter-terrorism, it monitors hostile states and it enables rapid deployment of US and UK forces worldwide, in large part why the US administration has backed what this government has been pushing forward.

Recent operations against high value ISIS targets show its vital role in keeping global trade routes and the British people safe. And with this deal, we have full operational freedom. We have control of installations, communications, logistics and land use with strict safeguards. UK control of the electromagnetic spectrum at 24 nautical mile buffer zone, and a ban on foreign military presence in our islands. Now, in the interest of giving a briefer speech, I'm going to put down the two pages which further explain the way in which this treaty reinforces the UK relationship to the Chagos Islands and support our national security.

But I do have to say, we have talked about this issue at great length. There have been many Urgent Questions, there have been statements, there has been many debates in this House, but the opposition side are talking about the importance of national security we are now facing in this country some of the gravest threats to our national security. We have Russian cyber attack and Russian disinformation that this country is preparing daily. We have security services that are having to fight against Russian spying and sabotage of our infrastructure.
18:33
18:33
Tom Hayes Portrait Tom Hayes MP (Bournemouth East, Labour)
-
-
Need to stop using points of order to continue debate. No doubt the member is going to get right to the point and conclude very quickly. Tom Hayes. >> I always listen to you and I always listen to the hon. Member opposite. And as I said at the opposite. And as I said at the outset, I support all of what the hon. Member for Halesowen said. And he went into great detail about the amendment. But the point I'm bringing us back to here is the Conservative Party need to put country before petty party politics.

They are acting in a childish way and they are overexcited about this debate. I'm going to close here by saying that this is a treaty which protect our national interest. It safeguards British interests, and I think that the opposition have a cheek, when in fact they were responsible for at least 85% of the negotiations which has led this House to this debate. So I'm going to close just by saying, in this House we speak through the chair, because in so doing, it tempers debate.

When I speak to school children about this House, they remark upon the fact that we're in an old building. And I think that shows our continuity over many years of history. In this place, we make decisions in a sombre, sober way. We do not make it in the same way as the president of the United States did last night, in the form of a rash tweet. Let's not take that social media post at face value. Let's do the reasonable thing and debate this properly.
18:34
Alicia Kearns Portrait Alicia Kearns MP (Rutland and Stamford, Conservative)
-
-
Yes, thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Speaker. >> Some very tiny islands. That is how this government's national how this government's national security adviser described Diego Garcia and the Chagos Islands. And I'm afraid that that contempt is I'm afraid that that contempt is consistent with how they continue to treat those people. The former foreign secretary never once met with Chagossians, the current foreign secretary. There is no evidence that she has ever met with Chagossians, and I'm afraid the Minister of the Dispatch Box only met with Chagossians on the 30th of September and the 3rd of October.

After the deal was done, and refused to discuss the deal with them unless he is saying that those who are here today are lying. I, on the contrast before anyone starts to heckle, have many meetings with representative Deirdre Costigan community and organise roundtables with them. I'm afraid, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we urgently need these amendments one, five and six on financial oversight of this £34.7 billion bill, the British people are about to have to foot. The clawback option is the bare minimum the government should be accepting for.

If Mauritius breaks the conditions of this appalling deal, because it is quite likely that we will see mistreatment of the Chagossian people. It is also important that that clawback is there, because we will need to review and understand the surge of Chagossians, who came to the UK to do. This deal that is wrong and we will continue to see that this is a bad deal. The agreement is legally illiterate. There was an ICJ opinion, not a ruling. It is historically illiterate because the Chagos have never belonged to Mauritius.

This is a bad deal ceding territory to those hailing from those ceding territory, not from those hailing from those islands, but a country that has consistently mistreated Chagossians and legislated to criminalise their views. This bill cements a shameful treatment of the Chagossian people into law. Anyone voting tonight against a clawback should be ashamed of themselves, because they should want to put in place the minimum protections for the people of the Chagos Islands. Those people who have come this evening to hear us debate because their voices have not been heard in this chamber, and they have been denied by government that would not meet with them, a government that has no interest in supporting them, and a government who tonight will vote against the only protections that might make sure their voice is heard.

Thank you, Madam Deputy.
18:37
Anna Gelderd Portrait Anna Gelderd MP (South East Cornwall, Labour)
-
-
God, thank you. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And I align myself with the comments made by my hon. Friend, the Member for Halesowen in South East Cornwall. We may be East Cornwall. We may be geographically removed from Diego Garcia, but we are closely connected by the realities of national defence. In Torpoint, we have the third highest number of veterans of any community, with over 14% of people having served. And residents across the area have written to me about the importance of this issue.

His Majesty's Naval Base in Devonport, which is largest naval base in Western Europe and a key part of our national defence capability. So we're an area that understands the importance of national defence. We understand its complexities. We know that it requires long term thinking and joint working with multiple allies, each of which understandably have their own national interests in mind. So would the Minister agree? This is not just about international law. It's about securing Britain's ability to defend ourselves, including control over key capabilities like berthing, submarines, electromagnetic defence and force mobility.

Given that 85% of the Chagos negotiations took place under the Conservatives. Can I also ask the Minister, does he know why the Tories started negotiations when they were in government? If they didn't think there was a threat to this crucial base as well as defence? South East Cornwall has deep ties to our marine environment, with many local livelihoods dependent on the sea, and our local economy relies on healthy and resilient marine environments. So it's also important to recognise the role of that.

The Chagos Marine Protected Area, established in 2010 through the Blue Belt programme, the UK continues to play a leading role in enhancing marine protection across the overseas territories. For members who may not be aware, this is a brilliant programme that works with local communities to understand biodiversity, manage impacts and build deeper understanding between people and nature. And this marine protected area is home to extraordinary marine life. Research has shown that it contributes to climate resilience at a global scale, so Mauritius has committed to protecting that marine environment, which I welcome.

However, as an island state located miles from the base, I do have concerns about the practicalities of monitoring and enforcing protections against harmful activity. So I asked the Minister what provisions within the bill and the treaty will safeguard the existing marine protected area and ensure that effective enforcement remains in place to prevent this harm to the ecosystems

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and the species that depend upon it. Hey.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hey. Katie Lam. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This government's handover of the Chagos Islands is nothing short the Chagos Islands is nothing short of a disgrace. British taxpayers are being asked to stump up billions of pounds in order to pay for the privilege of giving away for the privilege of giving away something. We own a strategically vital territory to a close ally of the Chinese Communist Party, and why an entirely advisory opinion issued by politicised judges in the
18:39
Katie Lam Portrait Katie Lam MP (Weald of Kent, Conservative)
-
-
International Court of Justice. People across this country are rightly asking why on earth any British government would agree to a deal that diminishes our strategic capabilities and costs us billions in the process, particularly under a government that is putting the squeeze on people's finances in so many ways, the government's many ways, the government's arguments for doing so were already thin, and they become even thinner when we consider the amendments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

before us today. Another question that might be asked is why did the Conservatives

**** Possible New Speaker ****

start the negotiations in the first place? The question. Before us today is about the deal that the government has agreed deal that the government has agreed to. It is a terrible deal and it should be opposed. What we are voting on today is, is the voting on today is, is the government's deal and it is appalling. The the government's arguments for putting it forward arguments for putting it forward become even thinner when we look at these amendments and how they have been responded to by the government, both here and in the other place.

If as the government, as the government claims, this deal will actually make us safer, then why not support amendment one, which would ensure that payments are only made to the Mauritian government if our armed forces retain access to the Diego Garcia base? We have already heard, of course, that the government will not support amendments two and three. And if, as the government claims, the costs of the deal are proportionate, then why not support amendments five and six, which would provide much needed transparency about why taxpayers are being asked to stump up so much for the privilege of handing away territory.

Yet we hear no such support for these amendments from the government. So the Chagos handover cannot really be about our security or the Chagossians or self-determination. So what is it about? The truth is that this so-called deal is motivated entirely by ideology. We have heard from this government's attorney general that, quote, almost every aspect of the British Empire was, quote, deeply racist, echoing the language used by the Mauritians at the International Court of Justice. Of course, when Britain has done something seriously wrong, we should be honest about that.

But in the case of the Chagos Islands, there was no original British sin. Mauritius never had sovereignty over the Chagos Islands, and practically no Mauritians have ever lived there. The islands have been under British sovereignty since 1814, before which they were occupied by the French. Before that they were uninhabited. This is no decolonisation. It is a surrender. Our history is complex. It contains cruelties, yes, but also enormous contributions to human health, wealth and flourishing around the world. The darkest moments in our history were hardly unique.

Yet many of the most virtuous moments in that history were truly exceptional. I believe that we should be proud of the contributions that our country has made to the world. The government's position on these amendments lays bare the truth that they simply do not agree. Instead, they believe that it is their responsibility to go around the world, flagellating themselves and writing imagined wrongs on behalf of and at the expense of the British taxpayer. To their minds, this country is indelibly stained by the actions of those who came before us.

The Chagos surrender is one such example, but it is not the only one, and I fear it will not be the last to attempt to right the wrongs, real or imagined, of the distant past by squeezing the taxpayers of today is divisive madness. The government would do well to accept the amendments before us today, or which would be far better. Scrap this deal entirely if they ever want the British people to believe that they are motivated by anything other than deep shame about our history.

The British people are owed a government which stands up for their interests today, not one which punishes them for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

imagined sins of our ancestors. This is a sad day for the United

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This is a sad day for the United Kingdom, because we have seen a government which is not prepared to stand up for the interests of the stand up for the interests of the United Kingdom, and indeed seems to be willing to surrender when there is any challenge made to the interests. And let me just look at some of the arguments that the Minister has made today against the Minister has made today against the amendments which are here, that, first of all, nothing has changed since the bill was originally brought to the House.

And of course, we have seen that the American attitude has changed. We have now
18:43
Sammy Wilson Portrait Rt Hon Sammy Wilson MP (East Antrim, Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
got the United Nations who are saying we have we're not giving the protections to the people who we protections to the people who we should be giving protections to. In fact, we're more interested in the in the rights of the Danes. The in the rights of the Danes. The Danes who live in Greenland rather than than the Chagossian population than than the Chagossian population and the the United Nations have actually said we should stay this. So there's been changes. There have been changes and changes which are quite substantial.

The second thing is that the base was under threat and therefore we had to take changes. Now I noticed what the I noticed what the Member for South East Cornwall said about the marine protection areas and the environmental requirements on the Mauritian government. There are no legal requirements in this treaty for the Mauritian government to protect the Marine protection area, no legal requirements. And that, and indeed they've made it quite clear their marine protection area can allow fishing. Now what? Now what? What do we what's the danger there? The danger is, of course, that Chinese ships can come into this area.

We know what the Chinese have done in the the the South East China Sea, where they've used commercial activities to be eyes and ears, etc. So the base is actually under threat as a result of this, this particular change.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And the third thing is about cost. I will give way. Yes. Do you recognise the 24 nautical

**** Possible New Speaker ****

mile exclusion zone that this government negotiated in the treaty? That would prevent much of that he was talking about? Yeah, well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, well. In fact it's not we're not talking about 24 mile, not, not, not a exclusion zone to ensure that there is not the spying and everything else. It still leaves the area environmentally damaged the area environmentally damaged and also a threat to the military base. The third thing is, and the government has refused even to look at the or to consider the Lords amendment would cost at a time when we're looking for every penny to supply the services which are required, the citizens of this country, the government, is turning its nose up at an amendment says, well, if the base can't be used, then you no longer pay for it.

And the cost, of course, the Minister has talked about today and his he has given us all of the mechanisms by which the cost has been calculated. He hasn't actually told us what the cost is. Is it 3 billion, is it 10 billion? Is it 37

**** Possible New Speaker ****

billion? All of those are significant to constituents. The hon. Member for giving way 35 billion is obviously the figure 35 billion is obviously the figure that has been talked about mostly today. This is taxpayers money and it should be funding schools, it should be funding schools, hospitals and other much needed infrastructure. The deal is not only a shameful surrender of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

only a shameful surrender of national sovereignty, but a waste of taxpayers money. And I think most people listening to this debate, even if listening to this debate, even if they don't know a great deal about the Chagos Islands and about the, the, the base, they will understand that although we had no necessity to do so, we have handed over the the islands and then we're buying them or leasing them back and using taxpayers money to do so. And I think that that's one of the scandals of this particular treaty that we are discussing here tonight.

The last point I want to make is, and the Minister talked about building a future relationship of trust with the, the, the, the Chagos Islanders. What way is it to build trust when there is even a refusal to give them a say as to whether or not this treaty is the kind of treaty which reflects their interests, and which deals with the concerns which they have, and the despicable way in which they've been treated in the past. The cost is, is wrong.

The way in which we're treating the people who are affected by this wrong. The long term security of the base is wrong. It's a bad deal for the United Kingdom, and we should be ashamed that the majority which the government has will be used to push this through when it's so clear. It is full of flaws and full of problems for our future.
18:48
Aphra Brandreth Portrait Aphra Brandreth MP (Chester South and Eddisbury, Conservative)
-
-
Yes. This bill goes to the very heart of our national security, the safety of the British people, our global reach and our operational effectiveness in two of the most volatile and unpredictable regions of the world, the Indo-Pacific and the Middle East. It also raises serious questions about the cost to the British taxpayer, a cost amounting to £34.7 billion. Even in the short time since this bill was first brought to the House, the world has become even more unstable.

Yet the government remains content to press ahead with it. I struggle to see how it makes us safer when one considers the requirement to expeditiously inform Mauritius of operational activity and the fact that Mauritius is a signatory to the Pelindaba treaty. The implications this has for the basing of nuclear weapons, which we know are vital to our security and deterrence and have been deployed to Diego Garcia in the past, should concern every member of this House, and further clarity and assurance from the government on this point is needed.

That brings me, Madam Deputy Speaker, to defence spending and the recent revelation of a £28 billion shortfall in the defence Budget presented to the Prime Minister by the chief of the Defence Staff. It does not take a mathematician to see the point that I am making. Indeed, the maths is so basic. I would suggest that even the Chancellor could work it out instead of I'm going to make progress because we're nearly out of time. Instead of pursuing this bill, the government could withdraw it and redirect the vast sums involved towards addressing that shortfall and genuinely strengthening our national security.

We're short of time, ultimately, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Lords amendment ultimately, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Lords amendment is about accountability, accountability to Parliament and to the electorate. There is no mandate for this bill if the government chooses to force it through using its majority, it must at the very least, be accountable for the cost. Madam Deputy Speaker, British Chagossians are the forgotten people of this bill. They may have been forgotten by the government, but they have not been forgotten by those of us on these benches.

As we continue to oppose this bill, we do so with them firmly in our minds. The Prime Minister has rightly stated that the sovereignty and self-determination of Greenland rest with the people of Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark. The question is simple why is that same right not afforded to the British Chagossians? Madam Deputy Speaker, this bill has profound implications for our national security and public expenditure. The amendments tabled by opposition peers are there for a reason, not for political gain, but to make a bad bill, slightly less damaging, to introduce safeguards to offer some reassurance to the British taxpayer, and to ensure that the voices of the British Chagossians people are finally heard.
18:51
John Hayes Portrait Rt Hon Sir John Hayes MP (South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
-
-
Yeah, yeah, yeah. >> I'm I'm immensely grateful. Madam Deputy Speaker. The best laws begin as bills that metamorphosize begin as bills that metamorphosize during their passage as through scrutiny they are improved. But of course that depends on Ministers course that depends on Ministers that listen and learn. And when we consider the amendments before us tonight from the House of Lords, they are measured. They are reasonable. They are not wrecking amendments. They are attempts to save the government from its worst instincts, amendments which suggest greater scrutiny, greater parliamentary oversight, greater checks and balances.

And yet they are rejected by the government. Now, I'm not going to speak in the brief time available about the cost, although of course it is wholly unpalatable that we should be giving away a treasured possession and then renting it back from a foreign place. I'm not going to speak today about the strategic, the strategic cost of doing just that, although I will draw on Lord West's remarks. Lord West, the former Labour security Minister who sits on the ISC with me, who said surrendering sovereignty over Chagos Islands would be an irresponsible act which would put our strategic interests and the interests of our closest allies in danger.

That is wholly unwise. I am going to speak, however, about the interests of the Chagossians, who have been ignored throughout this process, uninvolved in the negotiations from the outset, whose voice has not been heard and whose future has been disregarded. That seems to me to be completely unethical. So this is unwise. This is unpalatable, this is unwelcome, this is unethical. This is fundamentally wrong. The Lords amendments would make some improvement to something which is woeful.

I implore the government to accept those amendments. But more than that, I implore them to abandon this sorry mission, which is not in the national interest,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and certainly not in the interests of the Chagos Islanders. Yeah. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. If it were possible, one could almost feel sorry for the Minister. almost feel sorry for the Minister. No, because this is the Minister No, because this is the Minister who came to this House on previous sessions on this bill and batted
18:53
Jim Allister Portrait Jim Allister KC MP (North Antrim, Traditional Unionist Voice)
-
-
sessions on this bill and batted away every criticism by telling us, oh, but the Americans support this deal and gleefully told us that they, of course, were our strongest and most important ally. And if they were enthusiastic and supportive of this bill, what was the problem today? Of course, the Emperor has no clothes because the president of the United Nited States has talked about the great stupidity, the great stupidity of this deal. When you give away your own sovereignty.

He describes it as an act of great stupidity. So today the Minister has been forced into some very indelicate gymnastics as he tries to deal with the fact that the peg upon which he hung all his defence previously has snapped out of place. And there he is. And of course, his gymnastics have been equally on display when it comes to dealing with his own party's manifesto. Because it is very, very clear and unlike what the Minister says when it declares that Labour will always defend their sovereignty and right to self-determination, it is not only referring to Gibraltar and the Falklands, it was referring to all British Overseas territories and Crown dependencies.

That's what it says, it says, including Falklands and Gibraltar, but not exclusively Falklands and Gibraltar. So he's hoisted on the petard of his own manifesto, which he says I don't think there's any time for the stage.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. So he's, he's hoisted on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So he's, he's hoisted on the petard of his own manifesto, which he is in blatant breach of, and can he is in blatant breach of, and can hardly look the suggestion the people of the Chagos Islands in the people of the Chagos Islands in the eye, in denying to them what his manifesto promised to them. And manifesto promised to them. And they are the people hurting here. There are people at the heart of this. They have not been treated well over decades by this nation.

But now we are finally betraying them by denying them the right to have any determination on their own future. That is shameful. That is something that this House should be running away from rather than embracing. And I do say to the government, it's not too late to do the right thing on this, and it's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

time you did. And I trust they will. Final backbench contribution Andrew Rosindell.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy. Speaker. This has been fundamental to everything I've ever stood for in everything I've ever stood for in this House as a member of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

made. Dartford sit down. The origins of this Bill will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The origins of this Bill will not only from this current government, but they were originally the proposals of the
18:57
Andrew Rosindell Portrait Andrew Rosindell MP (Romford, Reform UK)
-
-
previous conservative government. We have never no government, no We have never no government, no government has ever given the right of self-determination to the of self-determination to the Chagossian people. Shamefully, we have treated them differently than all of the other overseas territories. Madam Deputy Speaker, we sent a task force to rescue the we sent a task force to rescue the Falkland Islands. Margaret Thatcher would never have given one inch of British territory away to a foreign country, let alone pay billions of pounds for doing so.

This is a shameful day for our country. Giving away the King's Islands, rescuing the Falkland Islands was the right thing to do, betraying the Chagossian people is absolutely the wrong thing to do. And my former party went along with this for years, ignoring everything I ever said to every foreign Minister, every Foreign Secretary. Over and over again, I raised this issue and warned that it would lead to this catastrophe. I was ignored, and now we have the betrayal of the Chagossian people.

Our national security is being threatened. We're paying billions for it. And and I say to all colleagues on all sides of this House, including my new party, but particularly my old my old party, this is a humiliation for this country, a betrayal of loyal British people sitting in the gallery who should have the right of self-determination. I'm ashamed of what this government and what this parliament is voting on today. And I will speak up. I will speak up.

I will speak up for the rights, the democracy and the self-determination for all British people of all ages. Francois.
18:59
Stephen Doughty Portrait Stephen Doughty MP, Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Cardiff South and Penarth, Labour )
-
-
Was that it? >> I will now come to the Minister for the wind up, Minister Doughty. >> Well, thank you, Madam Deputy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And with the leave of the House. I'll close the debate. And honourable and right hon. Members have raised important questions and points across this debate. And once again, I must reiterate that for those who engage in genuine and constructive debate, the government is willing to find compromise, whether that's reasonable and proper. And that debate is very welcome, as it has been in the other place. And the deal sits at the cornerstone of the defence and security of both the United Kingdom and the United States interests.

It plays a crucial role in defending our interests, our countries and our people, and ensures we will remain equipped to face an increasingly complex and dangerous world. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have to challenge one of the points that's been made repeatedly and falsely throughout this debate. We

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have heard the same nonsense. This deal puts the base at threat from Chinese interference. It seems to be many.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It seems to be many. Side conversations taking place. If any members wish to leave the chamber, they can do so. Otherwise, we should focus on what the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we should focus on what the Minister is saying. Mr. Doughty. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was referring to these claims about Chinese interference, but I doubt, Madam Deputy Speaker, that those on the opposite benches have those on the opposite benches have actually read or seen the op ed by the Chinese ambassador to Mauritius on the 14th of January criticising the Chagos deal, which again, very much underlines the point that I've been making repeatedly. And indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker, just last week the United States military signed a new contract worth $85 million for base operating support services, and before the treaty was signed, they'd been rolling over previous contracts due to the uncertainty.

But because of the certainty provided by this deal, they have now entered into a new long term contract that delivers strength and certainty for the United States, strength and certainty for the United Kingdom, and strength and certainty for our allies, because national security is the priority for all of us. And when securing our national security, we have taken the steps throughout this bill to make sure that we have the the measures in place, including full control of Diego Garcia, the 24 mile nautical buffer zone where nothing can be built or placed without our consent, meaning we can protect our interests.

A rigorous process to prevent activities on the wider islands, some over 100 nautical miles away from disrupting base operations. A strict ban on foreign security forces on the outer islands, whether civilian or military, without UK consent, and a binding obligation to ensure the base is never undermined. These are robust provisions and they defend the national security of ourselves and indeed our allies, including the United States. Madam Speaker, many important points have been raised about the Chagossian communities, and I absolutely acknowledge and respect the Chagossians who are here today.

I also acknowledge and respect. There are many views within the Chagossian communities. I was disappointed by the tone of the remarks from the hon. Lady opposite, who I have very good engagement with. I can tell her that I met with the Chagossians on the 30th of September, 2024, the 3rd of October 2024. On the 22nd of May she came. The former Foreign Secretary hadn't met the Chagossians. In fact, he met them with me. And on the 2nd of September, 2025, I was at the first meeting of the Chagossian contact Group, and officials regularly engage with Chagossians.

And indeed, I've engaged with Chagossians long before I took this position as a Minister and did so in opposition, along with many honourable and right hon. Members to listen to those range of views that are there. And of course, there are many groups that support this deal, including the Chagos Refugees Group. Now I. Madam Deputy Speaker, Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm conscious of the time I need to respond to the points made, including the Chagos Refugees Group, the Chagos Islanders movement and the Seychelles Chagossian Committee who support this deal.

Now, I would remind the right hon. Lady, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, who made many, many criticisms. We've heard them. We've been through them a number of times. But of course, it's her party that started the negotiations in the first place. When she was in government. She supported this, and I'm afraid the party opposite has demonstrated absolute naked opportunism, ignoring the national security issues and jumping on the political bandwagon. And they talk about defence and national security. But in 14 disastrous years in office, her party hollowed out our armed forces.

While our government is investing at levels not seen since the Cold War, and 85% of the negotiation rounds took place.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister Graham Stuart, I hope this is an actual point of order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Graham Stuart. Point of order. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I fear the Minister may have I fear the Minister may have inadvertently misled the House. The only public statement by the Chinese government on this subject was on the 29th of May last year, was on the 29th of May last year, when it welcomed the Chagos deal.
19:04
19:04
Stephen Doughty Portrait Stephen Doughty MP, Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Cardiff South and Penarth, Labour )
-
-
I was referring Madam Deputy Speaker to an article that was published on the 14th of January by published on the 14th of January by the Chinese ambassador to Mauritius. That was what I was referring to. But Madam Deputy Speaker, the former government had access to the same legal advice, the same security briefings and the same threat assessments as we do now, including the threats to the operations of this crucial base and senior figures raised then no objections in Parliament Fylde no critical questions and voiced no concerns on social media.

And it's only after leaving government that they have done so. So this is not principled opposition. It's opportunistic. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, there were many questions raised about the finances. This I will in one moment, the higher 34.7 billion figure that was released by the government Actuary's Department. I must be clear, Madam Deputy Speaker was a nominal amount and it was not adjusted for inflation or the social time preference rate. And so it's deeply misleading to quote that particular figure, given the changing value of money over time, a pound today is not worth the same as a pound tomorrow.

And quite frankly, I'm baffled to hear these complaints about the finances given the billions. The party opposite waited on defective PPE, the festival of Brexit, and you know who knows what else. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, there were some very sensible and I think legitimate questions raised about the costs. And the government has always sought to be transparent on these matters. We set out the forecasts at the time of the the publication and the documents that we published at the time of the treaty, then set out that the net present value of the treaty was 3.4 billion, calculated using the Green Book methodology.

I've set that out on many occasions before. Of course. Madam Deputy Speaker, I would expect forecasts to change over time given the changes in the OBR's forecast, inflation rate and other matters. We were transparent then, and of course, we will continue to keep that transparency going in the usual ways before the House and of course, the Taxpayers Alliance. Madam Deputy Speaker, no less, confirmed that the use of a discount rate to give NPV is a standard concept in finance, and the government is reasonable to use an inflation assumption and a discounting rate to give an NPV of the cost.

Naturally, if you use their suggestion of 2.9%, the annual payments would be 96 million on average. That's 5 million in today's money, less than the government's forecast at the time of the publication of the treaty. Madam Deputy Speaker I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm not going to presume down that line. I already did it last time, but I just want to ask a very time, but I just want to ask a very simple question today. This morning we had a very clear statement from the president of the United States. The deputy Prime Minister was also The deputy Prime Minister was also clear previously when he said, If America says no, then this doesn't go ahead. Can I simply ask him is go ahead. Can I simply ask him is in any way in his councils, are they discussing or thinking about waiting to find out whether that waiting to find out whether that view from the president today is clear and is for good? In other

**** Possible New Speaker ****

words, will they then stop this bill? Madam Deputy Speaker it's a very reasonable question from the hon. Gentleman and, of course, we engage Gentleman and, of course, we engage with the United States as our closest defence and security partner every single day. Conversations are ongoing. We always are engaging with them on always are engaging with them on these matters. I'm sure we will continue to do so over the coming days. I've set out the very clear days. I've set out the very clear position the United States set out on many occasions.

This went through a detailed interagency process. And of course, we will continue conversations with the continue conversations with the United States as we've done before. I was rather baffled. He's not in his place now, but the plain to the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, because of course, it was his government who is he's he's he's down here now. Of course, it was his government who established the citizenship route for Chagossians that rightly gives them the right to come here. So it's his government that did that.

And of course, local authorities are able to engage in the usual way with the Department for Communities and Local Government over needs that they have. The hon. Gentleman, my hon. Friend for Blackley and Middleton South raised the issue of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. But can I be clear, Madam Deputy Speaker, this is very, very important. They do not speak on behalf of the United Nations or on behalf of UN member States. And indeed, of course, the UN Secretary general and the African Union chairperson both welcomed the agreement.

So I think the concerns that have been raised there that were allegedly from the United Nations are simply not the case. And I think it's important that the record is collected, corrected. Madam Deputy Speaker, there were concerns about the reasons. I was very, very clear about the operational impacts that would have on the basis of not securing this deal, including overflight clearances, securing contractors, declining investment and degraded facility. And we'd also be unable to prevent and this is a crucial point.

Members have reasonably raised China or other nations setting up installations on the outer islands or carrying out joint exercises. I've set out the legal reasons for that on many occasions, including the the litigation that could be brought quickly by Mauritius against the UK, including under annexe seven of the UN convention on the law of the sea, which would be legally binding. A judgement from such a tribunal. The shadow Foreign Secretary raised the Pelindaba treaty. The United Kingdom and Chichester satisfied their existing international obligations are compatible with the agreement.

I can I just finish this point on this point and we're very, very clear that we comply with our obligations under international law.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'll happily. I refer him to article 298 of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I refer him to article 298 of the treaty, which means we have a complete opt out on military bases. complete opt out on military bases. But can I take him back to costs? The government actuary's office, whose whole raison d'etre is to whose whole raison d'etre is to calculate long term spending commitments, stood up the 35 billion figure. In fact, they said billion figure. In fact, they said it might be more so. Who should the House believe? People whose whole life's work is to calculate long term costs? Or this Minister.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. speaker, I do regret the tone of that. I do have respect for him. Normally I but I but if he'd been listening a moment ago, Madam Deputy Speaker, I explained this exact point. It is the amount is a nominal amount. It is not adjusted nominal amount. It is not adjusted for inflation or the social time preference rate. And therefore if it's not adjusted for inflation, the value of money changes over time. A pound today is not worth the same as a pound tomorrow.

This is very, very clear. We've been is very, very clear. We've been very clear. I set out the multiple ways in which this has been verified, and it's even agreed by the Taxpayers Alliance of all. So, Madam Speaker, we have discussed these issues at great length in this House on many, many occasions. Let me be clear, this deal secures this base for national security of the United Kingdom and the United States. It secures it for our allies. It is vital. And I think this is an important an important point to end on.

Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend from Blackley and Middleton South asked, why does this matter to our constituents? It matters because the capabilities on this base matter for the national security of this country, our allies, for our citizens in preventing terrorism and preventing the activities of adversaries with hostile intent towards us, the United States and our allies. It secures this base into the future, and we urge the House to reject the Lords amendment and agree with Lords Amendment number four.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their disagrees with the Lords in their amendment one, as many of their opinions say, I. I as the contrary. No,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No.
19:11
None Portrait Division
-

Colleagues Colleagues on Colleagues on their feet should be seated. The question is, as on the Order Paper is made up of the country. No. No tellers for the ayes are Jade Botterill and Gregor Poynton tellers for the noes are Harriet Cross are now on throne. I'm staring right at you, but Order, Order, order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Ayes to the right 344.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Ayes to the right 344.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Noes to the left 182. The Ayes to the right 344. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Ayes to the right 344. The Noes to the left 182. So the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Unlock. We now come to Lords amendments two and three. As the House was informed earlier, Mr. Speaker is satisfied that Lords Amendments two and three would impose a charge on public revenue, which has not been authorised by a money resolution in this House, in accordance with paragraph three of Standing Order Number 78. Lords amendment two and three are therefore deemed to be disagreed to order.

Order under the programme order of today, I must now put the questions necessary to bring to a conclusion proceeding on the Lords amendments. We now come to Lords Amendment five, Minister, to move the motion to disagree formally. The question is this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment five as amended, As the chair is on her feet, members will be observing that they should be seated. The question is, as on the Order Paper as many people say, I of the contrary, no.

No tellers for the ayes a Jade Botterill and Gregor Poynton tellers for the noes Order. Order. Order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Ayes to the right 347. The Noes to the left 185. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Noes to the left 185. Thank you. The Ayes to the right 347. The Noes to the left 185 to the ayes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have it. The ayes have it. Unlock. It could be one.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It could be one. We. We now come to Lords amendment six. Minister to move

**** Possible New Speaker ****

motion to disagree. Formally. Formally. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

disagrees with the Lords in their amendment six. As many that say, I, I. No, No. Observing Observing the Observing the chamber will be aware that they should be seated. The question is, as on the order papers may not appear in say I of the contrary, no tellers for the ayes I Jade Botterill and Gregor Poynton Tellers for the noes, Order, Order, order. Order, order. The Order, order.

The ayes Order, order. The ayes to Order, order. The ayes to the Order, order. The ayes to the right 347. The noes to the left 184.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. The ayes to the right. 347. The nose, the left. 184. So the ayes nose, the left. 184. So the ayes have it. The ayes have it unlock. We now come to the government motion to agree with Lords motion to agree with Lords Amendment four. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House agrees with the Lords in their amendment. As many say, I. I of the contrary. No, the ayes have it.

The ayes have it. Minister, to move that a committee be appointed to draw up reasons. I beg to move that the Commission appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments one, two, three, five and six. That Stephen Doughty Imogen Walker Catherine Atkinson, Jessica Toale, Chris Curtis, DEFRA, Priti Patel and Zoe Franklin the members of the committee, that Stephen Doughty to be the chair of the Committee, and that three be the quorum of the Committee, and that the Committee do withdraw immediately.

The question is that a committee be appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for their for disagreeing to their amendment one, two, three, five and six. That Stephen Doughty Imogen Walker Catherine Atkinson, Jessica Toale Chris Curtis, Dame Priti Patel and Zoe Franklin be members of the Committee, that Stephen Doughty be the chair of the Committee, that three be the quorum of the Committee. That the Committee do withdraw immediately, as many of their opinions say I. I of the contrary.

No. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. If those members want to exit quickly and I carry on quick, everyone else can stay seated while I finish business. I'm still on my feet. That concludes, Mr. Joffe. That concludes consideration of the Lords amendments to the Diego Garcia military base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill. Those that wish to exit the chamber should do so now in the front bench may wish Please. Please. Exiting should exit quickly so I can continue with business.

Being polite along the benches is just delaying proceedings. Mr. Davis. Mr. Rupert Lowe. Motion number

**** Possible New Speaker ****

eight and the local government Minister to move. I beg to move. The question is, as on the order
19:53
19:54
Shaun Davies Portrait Shaun Davies MP (Telford, Labour)
-
-
Friend, the Minister in his >> Friend, the Minister in his place. He's a man of great knowledge and passion of this agenda and I know that he'll take it forward both in Telford, the West Midlands and further afield. And I'd also like to place on record my gratitude for the department and how helpful and proactive they have been with me since I've been raising this issue, both in terms of in this House, but also outside of it. And can I say also how grateful I am for the opportunity to raise in Parliament something that I've been talking about for some time, but that my constituents have been bearing up with for even longer.

The 5G connectivity in Telford and across our region, all to to speak to the fact the lack of often this debate focuses on connectivity in rural areas, and rightly so. But I want to start out by reminding anyone who is unaware that despite our beautiful nature and green spaces, Telford is no village. It's a town with more than 185,000 people. A borough is predicted to reach 200,000 people by 2032 and 12 12.5% growth from 2018. We are just half an hour drive from Wolverhampton, 40 minutes from our second city, Birmingham.

But despite that, despite our size and our population and our proximity to major cities, we have very patchy 5G connections. In fact, constituents tell me that getting a 4G reception is often a challenge, and Telford is a cultural and economic hub bustling with industry. And I can't tell people to come and employ people in our great town or visit our wonderful World Heritage site. When our connectivity in the whole areas across our town are, frankly in the dark ages, this problem feels all the more sharp because we are in the heart of our region, the West Midlands, which has the best 5G connectivity in the country, according to the combined authority who's doing excellent work led by our mayor, Richard Parker, he's harnessing technology to reduce congestion and pollution, improve the local economy and improve the services it offers.

Telford is run by a forward thinking council that will be very keen to innovate in similar ways. If we were only given the opportunity. Madam Deputy Speaker constituents have been raising this with me in conversations for a very long time, but I wanted to put numbers on it. So I ran a survey of my constituents and the result I got was stark. Almost 100% of those people responded to my survey, told me that they had no 5G connection whatsoever, and many experienced that in their homes, in their workplaces, and even in our town centre.

One constituent bill, told me his connection at both home and at work, at work has gotten worse over the last five years. Another Joanne, said her signal with O2 has got has deteriorated even in the last few months, and she's connected to O2, who deny this, and two other constituents, Waz and Phil, both said that they had trained providers multiple times but found them to be, and I quote all the same, one former constituent, Peter, who now lives in Europe, told me that the contrast between us and our international partners is shocking.

I could go on with the results of my survey, Madam Deputy Speaker, but if the Minister would like to hear directly from my constituents, he's very welcome to visit them all.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I can share the survey with him. I will. I'm very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He's making a really excellent speech and a really, really good point. And it applies equally, I think, to urban and rural areas, that mobile urban and rural areas, that mobile network operators don't have minimum standards of coverage and quality of signal. So in some quality of signal. So in some places where there was good coverage before, now it doesn't appear to be the case because the signal quality is so poor.

Would signal quality is so poor. Would you agree with me that we need to look at a way of ensuring that mobile network operators provide a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

good quality signal to everyone? Agree with my hon. Friend my neighbour in Shropshire on that point. I think this is a rural urban issue because mobile signal is very much like utilities. People is very much like utilities. People just expect them to work for both their personal life and their work related life. Telford Wrekin Council has kindly shared with me a report containing research from the River Severn Partnership between River Severn Partnership between 2024 and 2025, which I found, and I quote, a significant difference between what Ofcom estimates estimates to be 5G coverage and real the real world experience.

The survey found that 28% of Telford postcodes had good signal, but Ofcom claims has not a single postcode. In Telford, where the signal is poor. Again a direct contrast to the lived experiences of our residents. This goes to the heart of the problem and it's exactly what our residents are saying, what Ofcom says and frankly, what the government says just does not live up to the will. The real life experiences of our residents. In fact, in a written question last January, the then Minister for digital told me that 99% of all premises in my constituency have 5G available, and I am not in any way attributing the blame to the Minister at the time, because I know that the government is getting its data from Ofcom.

But Ofcom in turn is getting its data from the network providers, who told me in a meeting this week that their data is provided by computer generation and and analytics. So the real life experiences of residents are simply not being taken into consideration. I'd also like to point to the Local Government Association, a organisation that I'm very familiar with who authored a report with a Digital Communities APPG. The report was very validating and for my constituents, they said that residents who make this complaint are not imagining things.

They are they they take the same issue with Ofcom's data. The report confirms that while Ofcom's regulatory oversight has supported progress in expanding digital infrastructure, significant concerns remain about the accuracy of coverage of data. The current system relies heavily on operator supplied modelling, which often falls and fails to reflect on the experiences of our residents up and down our country. I want to make it clear that there are two sides to this problem, but they are connected. We need better reporting of 5G coverage, but obviously what my constituents care about more is actually improving the coverage itself.

But the path to a better 5G infrastructure in my constituency and other constituencies across the West Midlands acknowledges and needs the acknowledgement that there is a problem in the first place. I'm very happy to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He has made some excellent points and he has mentioned Wolverhampton in my mentioned Wolverhampton in my constituency of Wolverhampton West we have Tettenhall, which is a we have Tettenhall, which is a significantly populated suburb of Wolverhampton, where they face similar problems to the one similar problems to the one highlighted by my hon. Friend. So constituents say that they have little or no signal. They struggle to make contact with family and to make contact with family and friends.

And the other day, a constituent said to me that he had difficulty in making contact with emergency services because of there being no mobile phone connectivity. So does my friend. Hon. Friend agree that he is right to say that very often its rural areas that are considered to be a problem, but there are populated areas such as Tettenhall in my constituency where we have a similar problem and we therefore need to, in this day and age, ensure that we have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

connectivity everywhere. Thank you. I completely agree with my hon. Friend, and he makes the excellent point that this is not just about point that this is not just about economic growth and access to public services, although that is important. It is also about live important. It is also about live life saving public services and emergency. As he sets out in the case, I've come across two negative forgive me in case I've come across two negative. At this point, I would like to acknowledge the progress that is being made or will be made, and I recently had the chance to meet officials and the Minister, Baroness Lloyd of the Other place at the department, who informed me about Ofcom's reporting tool so that my constituents can tell me where on a map they are not getting 5G signal.

But I would like just to gently point out to the Minister that it cannot simply be an expectation of our residents to have to report this problem, where network providers are making millions in pounds in profit. I've also written to Ofcom and to providers including O2, EE, three and BT. I found them all to be responsive, and I've also met with some of those providers this week and will meet them again. But it's so important that we see action in this regard.

But while these all sound great in principle, I hope that providers will forgive me and my constituents for saying that we will believe it when we see it, because ultimately that is the test. Can people connect to a 4G and 5G signal in 2026?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My hon. Friend, I thank my hon. Friend who's making a very compelling speech. I should declare an interest that in a previous role, an interest that in a previous role, I did advise a mobile phone company on communications, but I just want on communications, but I just want to ask him if he agrees with me that there have been in the past that there have been in the past occasions when mobile phone companies and other digital companies make very, very grand promises about things like video calling has happened when they rolled out 3G and then 4G and then 5G, and unfortunately, it doesn't always match with the expectations of the public who watch those adverts and who buy those devices.

And while they're going to great lengths to improve services, we must implore them to match the reality of their service provision with the things that they're

**** Possible New Speaker ****

advertising and promising. I couldn't agree more with my hon. Friend, and I respect his hon. Friend, and I respect his expertise in this field. I also think it's not unrealistic for our think it's not unrealistic for our residents to be demanding better of our phone providers, particularly our phone providers, particularly in what is a fifth or sixth utility. I want to emphasise that this is not me asking the government to and the providers for charity. We're not asking. We're asking for an opportunity to contribute.

Telford is a wonderful town. Shropshire is a wonderful county in the West Midlands is a fantastic region. And they the those consumers are a market opportunity for this ever growing network. But if you want to continue to grow as we've grown for the last 60 years in Telford, we need to be in the 21st century. And when it comes to 5G, we simply are not. Businesses need to know that they can operate here. People need to know that they can work from home, that they can access an online GP appointment.

And crucially, for a town impacted by flooding, especially around the famous World Heritage Site at Ironbridge Gorge, that they need to be able to have surety that when they need to contact the emergency services in a crisis, that that resilience and connectivity is there. Telford has so much to offer to the government, to the private sector, to anyone who wants to live and visit and invest in our town. In return, we need a modern 5G infrastructure. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have both a national and a local ask of the Minister.

Nationally, I would like to echo the calls of the Digital Communities APPG, chaired by my the hon. Member for North Shropshire, for an independent review of the UK's Digital Connectivity Framework and the integrity of the data in reporting of it. It's frustrating for me and my constituents to be hit with the computer, says no answer when sharing our lived experience as something that is a real problem to so many people. The Ofcom reporting tool is welcome, but I would I would ask that the Minister, if we can go further so that we're not just starting with a inaccurate map and making individual residents responsible for correcting it.

My local ask is this Will the Minister visit Telford with his officials and see for himself what my constituents and I are dealing with? Will he help me convene the relevant providers and lend his voice for my call? That there should be better 5G connection, or at least 4G connection, so that my constituents can rely upon that service to access public services and to help make our economy grow, both in Telford and for the region. And lastly, I know that digital connectivity is a priority for this government.

I welcome the steps that they are taking, including through Project Gigabit, to to revolutionise our infrastructure. So will he reassure me, my constituents Bill, Peter, Phil and Joanne and the other hundreds of constituents in Telford who have contacted me and the hundreds of thousands across this country that they will get connected, connected to a world class network that provides them with access to digital services. Madam Deputy Speaker, this government's priority is clear economic growth, reforming public services and change.

And I would say to the Minister that this is a grand opportunity for me to demonstrate to my constituents that the economy mission is being met. The access to reform public services can be met and change in every pocket of every resident in my constituency through their phone will be benefited through this measure. And I thank Madam Deputy Speaker the House for allowing me time to explore this issue.
20:07
Kanishka Narayan Portrait Kanishka Narayan MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Vale of Glamorgan, Labour)
-
-
Call the Minister Kanishka Narayan Minister. Narayan Minister. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and can I first and foremost thank my hon. Friend, the Member for Telford for securing this Telford for securing this adjournment debate. In his entire tenure, he has been a relentless champion for the people of Telford. On this particular question of 5G and mobile coverage, he has listened closely to those he represents in person on surveys. He has represented that voice in the media. He has represented that to my hon.

Friend, the Minister for the Digital Economy in the other place. And I know that in tonight's debate, he has done that again with both an impressive speech and a depth of understanding of Telford as well. Mobile coverage is an extremely important topic, and this is reflected in the amount of interest shown across the House in any parliamentary activity on this subject. Access to high quality, reliable and secure mobile connectivity is critical for people to effectively participate in the modern digital economy. It's essential to day to day life in many cases, whether it is to run a business online, to access essential public services, to manage finances online, to contact GP surgeries or staying in touch with loved ones.

All of us need reliable mobile connectivity. Government has an ambition for all populated areas to have access to higher quality, standalone 5G by 2030. This of course includes Telford and areas right across the West Midlands. It is true that Ofcom currently reports that standalone 5G is available outside of only 1% of premises across. My hon. Friend's constituency in Telford. This is clearly unacceptable. I'm also conscious that the picture has slightly updated in more recent weeks months as well, and I would, Madam Deputy Speaker, like to take the opportunity to shine some light on that too.

The published coverage stats were last collected in July last year, and there has been some improvement in the picture as a consequence of that, we expect that the figure will increase significantly further still in the next report published by Ofcom as reporting catches up with network rollout. Mobile network operators are investing significantly to improve coverage and I know the progress continues at pace. I have been assured that this is leading to coverage improvements in many areas, including Telford. The operators significant investment plans are public.

11 billion has been committed by Vodafone three as a result of their merger. BT has an ambition to deliver standalone 5G to 99% of the UK population by the end of financial year 30, and Virgin Media O2, as part of their mobile transformation plan, committed 700 million of further investment into their mobile network nationwide. In preparation for this debate, officials have engaged with the operators to understand specific coverage improvement plans that they have in my hon. Friend's constituency and across the West Midlands, BT have confirmed that in line with their announcement of October of last year, 99% of residents across the Telford constituency can now access standalone 5G.

I will, of course, come to points of dissatisfaction between that claim and the wider experience of people in Telford imminently. To Vodafone, three have confirmed the standalone 5G coverage will increase in the Telford constituency to 100% by their first reporting milestone in 2028, in line with their merger commitments, Virgin Media O2 have made strides to improve mobile coverage across the West Midlands, including boosting 4G and 5G capacity across Coventry, deploying standalone 5G small cells in Birmingham city centre to in 2024.

This feedback from operators starts to show the significant progress being made in rolling out standalone 5G across Telford and the West Midlands region as well. I would encourage all members of the House if they would like to understand plans for their constituency to contact the operators to. I am deeply sorry to hear of the difficulties that my hon. Friend and Telford report in relation to the reliability of services in the region. I recognise that in our modern economy and way of life, services need to be reliable for everyone in all parts of the country.

Communications providers have legal obligations to ensure that their services are appropriately resilient, as overseen by Ofcom, and I can recommend that if customers are having continuing difficulties, as my hon. Friend has mentioned, they can of course contact their provider and in the instance of serious and repeated failures, also report to Ofcom. At this point, can I also just raise the particular issue that my hon. Friend has highlighted about the discrepancy between people's lived experience and the reported data? It's an experience familiar to me, both from my constituency and wider experience, and government recognises that there are discrepancies in cases between the lived experience of people and the level of coverage that Ofcom reports as well.

Whilst the launch of our tool, the Map Your mobile tool in June of last year was a positive step forward, the work of our government does not stop there. We have restated in our proposed statement of strategic priorities for Ofcom the importance of continuing to improve the reporting of mobile coverage as well, for example by building on the launch of that tool through the exploration of measured and crowdsourced data as well. Alongside that, I would also point out that the Street Wave coverage checker is one tool that has both available on the River Severn Partnership website, but has been funded by government funding by the 5G Innovation Regions project as well.

And I'm conscious that that in particular includes my hon. Friend's constituency in Telford as well. Madam Deputy Speaker I understand my hon. Friend's concerns about flooding, too, in his local area that I know he has brought up with the department. There are potential safety risks arising when flooding is combined with a lack of a mobile signal. And I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. Clearly, it must be right to raise the risk to public safety so that they can be looked into and addressed accordingly in relation to mobile signal, I hope some of the information provided starts to give him some reassurance on what is available in the local area and plans for the future.

I'm also very happy to work with him and colleagues from both Defra and the Environment Agency, so that the matters he has raised can be investigated by the correct authorities. As I know, the hon. Member and my friend will be aware, satellite services can provide another new means of connecting for residents in otherwise hard to reach areas. I'm pleased that the rapid advance of low Earth orbit technology for satellites means that the performance of services is also increasing through that measure, as well as satellite services offering home broadband already on the market.

Vodafone and O2 have both announced that direct to mobile device services were launched and be available to consumers this year to help operators achieve their ambitious rollout plans. We continue to work closely together with them to identify and remove barriers to deployment, where it is practical to do so. This includes implementing the remaining provisions of the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022, and launching a call for evidence to see where planning rules can be relaxed to support the deployment of mobile infrastructure. Alongside this work at a national level, we have also provided funding to both the West Midlands and Shropshire as part of our 5G Innovations Innovation Regions programme to increase the uptake of 5G services and to drive investment in networks.

Now, I know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we need to do more to ensure investment in high quality mobile connectivity. That is also why we are undertaking a full mobile market review. We want to better understand the factors impacting investment in widespread, high quality mobile connectivity and what more government can do to support this over the long term. We will soon be publishing a call for evidence to support our assessment and encourage all relevant parties to engage with this process. Can I also encourage all members of the House to be champions of digital infrastructure deployment? It is only in working within their constituencies, with both constituents and the local planning authority, that we can together champion digital connectivity.

Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to repeat my thanks to my hon. Friend for Telford for securing this debate on such an important topic, and to all members who have intervened and contributed to the debate today. It would, of course, be remiss of me not to end on a note of acceptance of his kind invitation. I will be very happy, either directly or through my hon. Friend and the other place, to visit him, and to support his hard work for the people of Telford.
20:15
11:00
None Portrait Oral questions: Foreign, Commonwealth and Development
-

This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page