Live Debate: Commons Chamber

Q5. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of proposed changes to indefinite leave to remain on the number of people living in poverty. (907755)

Carla Denyer question. >> Mr. Yeah, yeah, yeah. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We understand how important the details of these proposals are to details of these proposals are to people. That is precisely why the government opened a public consultation to gather views on the proposals. Once the consultation closes, we will analyse those responses, which will help inform responses, which will help inform the development of the final earned settlement model. We have also settlement model. We have also committed to publishing the impact assessments for the settlement proposals, as well as the government's response to the consultation.

14:53

Mike Tapp MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dover and Deal, Labour)

- -

Carla Denyer Mr. in the UK will face a decade of living in limbo under the government's earned settlement

14:53

Carla Denyer MP (Bristol Central, Green Party)

- -

proposals, according to new research out this week by the Ippr. Their wait for settled immigration Their wait for settled immigration status will be extended by at least five years, during which many families will face no recourse to families will face no recourse to public funds restrictions. We know that that raises the risk of homelessness and destitution. So homelessness and destitution. So how does the Minister reconcile that poverty increasing measure with the government's new child

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with the government's new child poverty strategy, which says that reducing child poverty is a moral imperative? Minister.

14:54

Mike Tapp MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dover and Deal, Labour)

- -

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, firstly, when migrants enter the UK on economic routes, it is expected that they will be able to support their families. We are maintaining that principle and it's right that we look into how we can do that better in response to circumstances. We'll continue to ensure that migrant children are considered when making decisions on requirements for settlement on the bigger picture. We've seen record unprecedented influx of migration under the previous government that will put a massive strain on public services.

So it's right that we extend this from 5 to 10 years. That's what the British people expect. That's what you hear on the doors. That's what your constituents are saying to.

14:55

Q6. What assessment she has made of the potential implications for her policies of the EU’s decision to designate Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist group. (907756)

Doctor Peter Prinsley. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Given a question. Question number six. Sorry. Mr. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Sorry. Mr. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We work very closely with our allies, but EU designations are a matter for the EU. It's the government's long standing position not to comment on the detail of intelligence and security matters, including if specific organisations are being considered for prescription in the UK. But I can say that in concert with our say that in concert with our international partners, we will use all appropriate tools at our disposal to protect the UK from state threats.

14:55

Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)

- -

Doctor Peter.

14:55

Peter Prinsley MP (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, Labour)

- -

for his answer. So, given Iranian malign influence on the streets of London, it's web of proxies, the London, it's web of proxies, the menace it poses to world peace. And recent reports that as many as recent reports that as many as 30,000 protesters may have been killed by the IRGC. Will the UK actually join the EU, the United States, Canada and Ukraine in imposing further sanctions? And is it not time for our government to formally proscribe the IRGC, who are surely not the servants of the Iranian people?

14:56

Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)

- -

Minister? raise his concerns in the way that he does. I can say to him and to the House on the 13th of January, the Foreign Secretary set out the action that the government is taking in coordination with allies, in response to the consistent threat that the Iranian regime poses to stability, security and freedom. And last week, the foreign Secretary also announced a further sanctions package targeting ten individuals and one organisation involved in human rights abuses in Iran. We're continuing to monitor the situation very closely, and we urge Iran to protect fundamental freedoms, including to access to information and communications.

14:56

Rt Hon Sir Julian Lewis MP (New Forest East, Conservative)

- -

Sir Julian Lewis. IRGC is responsible for many acts of terrorism? And whilst we appreciate the difficulty that arises from it being a state organisation and the reluctance to prescribe a state organisation, isn't it a fact that Jonathan Hall, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has come up with a formula to allow this to happen? If so, why doesn't the government bring this forward with maximum speed?

14:57

Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)

- -

Well. >> Mr. Speaker, we're very grateful to Jonathan Hall for the work that he has done. And I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that we're taking forward all of his taking forward all of his recommendations on strengthening our state threats powers, including the development of a prescription right tool for state threats that will allow us to ban activity and the operations of foreign state backed organisations.

14:57

Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)

- -

John Lamont. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With asylum claims falling in Europe and rising here, we must reduce the incentives that pull people here. incentives that pull people here. The permanence of refugee status in this country is clearly a pull factor. And so we are making it temporary. The ability to melt into our illegal economy lures people here. So we have lifted immigration raids to record levels and effective removals, send a clear message, and returns are now up by around a quarter under this government.

Mr. speaker, illegal immigration. Illegal working and illegal trading.

14:58

Ms Julie Minns MP (Carlisle, Labour)

- -

Frequently go hand in hand and too often manifest in the proliferation of dodgy shops on our high streets. Now, whilst I welcome the shop raids in my constituency last summer without action to tackle illegality at source, the police and Trading Standards face a never ending game of whack a mole. Can the Minister please assure my constituents in Carlisle that this government will redouble its efforts to clamp down on illegal immigration and illegal working?

14:58

Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)

- -

Well, I can give my hon. Friend that reassurance. Illegal working undermines honest employers, undermines honest employers, undercuts local wages and fuels organised immigration crime. And this government will not stand for it. Since coming to power, enforcement action nationwide has increased with an 83% rise in illegal working arrests. And we will be stepping up that action even further in the year ahead.

14:59

Rt Hon Sir Edward Leigh MP (Gainsborough, Conservative)

- -

Further the House. Sir Edward Leigh. >> Main reasons behind this false narrative that Britain is broken is people sense of despair that neither this government nor the previous government could deal with illegal migrants, it simply driving our people mad. So may I give this advice to the government? If she'll forgive me? They're not going to solve this problem by getting rid of the Prime Minister. Anything like that. What are they going to do is finally deal with the pull factor, and the only thing that will work is to arrest, detain and deport anybody who arrives illegally in this country and have a temporary derogation from any convention that prevents us doing it.

If they do that, they'll suddenly there'll be so much more confidence in the nation. The Prime Minister will be more popular and people won't drown anymore. So, sir.

15:00

Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)

- -

Well, look, Mr. Mr. speaker, what I would say gently to the hon. what I would say gently to the hon. Gentleman. Look, I'm always willing to listen to advice from wherever it may come from, but I would point out that in 14 years under his his party in government, we didn't see any such action. And it is very easy, I think, to say from the sidelines, just deport everybody. If that was if it was so easy to derogate from international obligations. I'm pretty sure the previous administration would have done it, that they're only now saying it from the sidelines, I think says a lot about them and their attitude to government.

There is no one silver bullet in dealing with the problems of illegal migration, and that is why I'm taking action across every potential forum that is both on changing our human rights laws, passing legislation later this year on the application of article eight, dealing with our appeals processes. Absolutely. Talking about reform of the European Convention on Human Rights, which we are doing, getting illegal working rates up. All of these things are important steps to try to get this system under control.

I am determined that we will deal with the problem of illegal migration, but there is no one silver bullet and that is why I'm taking action across all fronts.

15:01

Katie Lam MP (Weald of Kent, Conservative)

- -

Katie Lam Minister. >> Katie Lam Minister. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Last week, The Times reported that companies and company directors who companies and company directors who have previously abused the work visa system have been allowed to continue sponsoring visas despite the government's promise of a clampdown. One social care business has been able to sponsor 116 visas, despite being caught hiring illegally, as the Home secretary just said herself, being able to work here illegally is one of the greatest pull factors.

So what message does she think this sends to companies that break the rules?

15:01

Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)

- -

Well. being part of an administration that actually opened the social care route that was open to such horrifying levels of abuse. That route was closed by this government. That was the right action to take. And since we've been in government, a thousand sponsor licences have been revoked. We will continue to take action. I will absolutely. We are already following up on the the newspaper investigation that she references. And we will keep revoking licences so that only legitimate businesses with proper jobs are able to sponsor workers into our country.

15:02

Max Wilkinson MP (Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Max Wilkinson Liberal Democrat spokesperson. >> Thank you. >> Mr. Speaker. British people have watched in horror over the past weeks as President Trump's Ice weeks as President Trump's Ice squads have murdered, kidnapped and oppressed people. Even infants and children have not escaped this rough treatment. Now, the Conservatives have suggested they would like to introduce a removals force styled on ice, and we can only guess what the hon. Member for Clacton would do if he was in charge. Even if he concedes that ice has gone too far on occasion, so will the Home Secretary condemn Trumps Ice squads? And will she reassure us that we will not see Ice squads on the streets of Britain?

15:02

Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)

- -

John. >> John. >> Mr. speaker, like I think most of Westminster, I'm not plagued with America brain, and I don't spend any of my time worrying about spend any of my time worrying about what's happening over in the States. But as the Home Secretary, I focus on my day job, which is protecting people in our country, and he will know full well that we do not have anything like the sorts of arrangements that we've seen over in America, but without having armed immigration enforcement, we've already got record removals to just under 60,000 since we've been in government.

We will go further, but we will do so in line with the arrangements we already values.

15:03

Q10. If she will have discussions with Cabinet colleagues on the potential merits of the opening of papers relating to the murder of Martha Giles in 1959. (907762)

Mr. Gavin Williamson.

15:03

Sarah Jones MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Croydon West, Labour)

- -

And the murder of Martha Giles in 1959 was particularly horrific, and I can only imagine the pain and suffering that her family have been through, given that the case is still ongoing and there has never been justice. I am advised that decisions around opening or closing the National Archives records on the murder of Martha Giles are a matter for the Metropolitan Police Service and not for us, but I'm very happy to facilitate the introductions that he might want with the Met Police.

15:04

Rt Hon Sir Gavin Williamson MP (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge, Conservative)

- -

Sir Gavin? And in on the 12th of February, 1959, Martha Giles was brutally murdered, leaving her work at New Cross Hospital in Wolverhampton, and she left behind five children. There's only one of those children that's still alive today. Mrs. Edwards, and they desperately she desperately seeks answers. I know that it's not within the Minister's gift, but if there's any way of being able to convene officials and officers in the Metropolitan Police just to be able to bring some closure on this awful chapter, it would be so deeply appreciated.

Yes.

15:04

Sarah Jones MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Croydon West, Labour)

- -

Can I thank him and again offer >> Can I thank him and again offer my condolences to to Martha's family, who have been looking for justice for many, many, many justice for many, many, many decades. I am happy within the bounds of what I am allowed to do, to do it for the for the right hon. Member, and will make sure we make the appropriate introductions. Gardner.

15:05

Q12. What steps her Department is taking to use technology to increase police efficiency. (907765)

Question number 13, please, Mr. Speaker.

15:05

Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)

- -

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We are investing a record £140 million in state of the art technology to make state of the art technology to make our communities safer. This includes rollout of live facial recognition, a technology that is already transforming policing. Investing in technology means more time for the police to be out where we want them on the streets, fighting and deterring crime in our communities.

15:05

Dr Allison Gardner MP (Stoke-on-Trent South, Labour)

- -

Doncaster North thank you, Mr. Speaker. I recently met with Home Office colleagues to discuss the use of synthetic cathinones, often referred to as monkey dust, in Stoke on Trent. These substances cause significant harm to users and indeed to communities, and they are frequently sold via the dark web and imported through the post. So can the Minister provide an update on their work with the National Crime Agency and Royal Mail to detect illicit substances using technology, and advise whether existing opioid detection methods can be adapted or applied to synthetic cathinones.

15:06

Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)

- -

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the scourge of synthetic cathinones. Let me assure her that the work between the National Crime Agency, Royal Mail and others continues at pace. It's a the use of synthetic drugs is a concerning development in the global drugs market. But this government and law enforcement are taking action, and we continue to innovate and seek new methods for screening and identifying drugs using emerging technologies, including AI, to tackle this challenge.

15:06

Lincoln Jopp MP (Spelthorne, Conservative)

- -

Lincoln Jopp thank you, Mr. >> Lincoln Jopp thank you, Mr. Speaker. I recently visited a major retailer in my Spelthorne constituency, and they reported. constituency, and they reported. That the corporately. Their systems are so clunky that to get information to the police when they have evidence of shoplifting, they had to resort to sending an officer round to the thing to film the body on their body cam footage from the corporates, the retailers own systems. So as well as sorting out the technology within the police, would the Home Secretary also encourage and reach into those big corporate retailer chains so that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we can have a seamless flow of information in order to drive down shoplifting? Yeah. I'm very glad. I'm very pleased

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very glad. I'm very pleased he raises that particular issue. I'm happy to look into the detail that he's seen in his own that he's seen in his own constituency. Let me reassure him. There is a lot of work happening with retailers. I know that there are different platforms that are are different platforms that are being adopted. The pace of technological innovation in this area is really very quick indeed, area is really very quick indeed, and we will we will do everything we can to make sure all of these systems are absolutely joined up, and that the police are in the best possible position to go after these criminals as quickly as possible.

Lisa Smart in.

15:07

Sarah Jones MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Croydon West, Labour)

- -

14, please, Mr. speaker. neighbourhood officers in post since last September, and we're ensuring that every community has named contact officers dedicated to tackling the issues facing their communities. Of course, the provision of in-service in-person services, such as front counters, are for local police to decide. I want those police on our streets catching criminals.

15:08

Lisa Smart MP (Hazel Grove, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Lisa Smart. Communities like Woodley and Mike Hazel Grove constituency has been plagued by shoplifting on the precinct. We've had far too much anti-social behaviour and recently we've had some really worrying violent incidents as well. Bredbury police station was closed by the mayor a few years ago, and we know many people want to access police services in person for all sorts of accessibility reasons, just because it's much more reassuring to have that conversation in person. Police also tell us that they can pick up on things in person that they just can't when they receive an online form.

We Lib Dems have a plan for a police counter in every community in places like supermarkets, where people already are. What steps is the government taking to ensure that communities like Woodley can access police services in person?

15:09

Sarah Jones MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Croydon West, Labour)

- -

Minister. So every ward will have a named community officer that have a named community officer that they can contact and get in touch with, which I think is the priority. Here she talks about retail crime, which, as I said earlier, increased by 60% in the last two years of the conservative government. So by us taking steps, for example, by making that, making sure that the £200 rule that the previous government had in place so that any theft in a shop under the under £200 was not even investigated by the police.

We are scrapping that and we are making sure that there are more officers in our community. I'm sure there are innovative things that that can be done in terms of making sure that visibility is there, but having a named police officer that you can contact in your ward is massive progress on what we had before.

15:09

Melanie Onn MP (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, Labour)

- -

Mr. speaker, Humberside Police and trade unions representing Humberside Police have raised concerns about potential closures of counters under Operation Balance. of counters under Operation Balance. Can she offer any reassurance further to her remarks? That will give assurance to my local community that they will be able to contact local police as and when

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they need to. And they. Absolutely can. I thank my hon. Friend, and of course, people are worried about making sure they have access to their police officers, particularly when they need them, which is why we're introducing which is why we're introducing targets to make sure the response is quick and there when we need them, and why we are putting more them, and why we are putting more money into policing. Police forces themselves will have £796 million additional funding this year, which is a 4.5% cash increase and a 2.3% real terms increase.

And I'm happy to make sure and work with her to make sure our neighbourhood guarantee is being delivered in her constituency.

15:10

Jess Phillips MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Birmingham Yardley, Labour)

- -

Olly Glover. >> And Mr. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Our cross-cutting government strategy cross-cutting government strategy has committed £1 billion over the next three years to support victims of Vawg, including domestic abuse. Some of what is in that includes £30 million uplift under this government on refuge and safe accommodation for victims of domestic abuse, and also millions extra on funding the Da perpetrator schemes, specifically targeting the most high risk of harm repeat offenders.

15:11

Olly Glover MP (Didcot and Wantage, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. After >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. After years of enduring domestic abuse, a constituent of mine came forward to Thames Valley Police. She was badly Thames Valley Police. She was badly let down by process and communication failures, resulting in the perpetrator avoiding prosecution. Despite a positive prosecution. Despite a positive charging decision, she is now worried for her own personal safety and has a PTSD diagnosis. So I appreciate what the Minister said she's doing to help victims of domestic violence.

But what more can she do to make sure that they're taken seriously so that victims do not have the same Minister?

15:11

Jess Phillips MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Birmingham Yardley, Labour)

- -

The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly good point, is that we would save ourselves a lot of time and people a lot of harm if we just got it right in the first place, which is why this government has invested £13.1 million specifically into policing centre for violence Against Women and Girls, that seeks to look at all of the gaps in the system within policing and seeks to make a nation wide standards that they will be held accountable to.

15:12

Samantha Niblett MP (South Derbyshire, Labour)

- -

Samantha Niblett. >> Thank you. >> Mr. Speaker. In my constituency of South Derbyshire, I'm grateful to Derbyshire women who provide domestic violence and abuse services and who use my offices for free in order to speak with victims of domestic violence and abuse in a safe and neutral environment. I wonder if the Minister can tell me what she is doing to tackle domestic violence and abuse in rural communities, where isolation plays a significant part in this going undetected?

15:12

Jess Phillips MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Birmingham Yardley, Labour)

- -

The honourable I pay tribute to >> The honourable I pay tribute to the organisation in her constituency and across our constituencies, and tribute to her for doing that work within her own surgery. I would encourage the same of everybody and I'm sure many do do that. What what I would say is that the the rural communities experience domestic abuse, the same as people in urban areas, but they have different needs that need to be met. And that is why this government and I invite the hon.

Lady to join me in this. And any members in the House will work with members from rural areas to look at really specifically, what needs to be done to make sure that that isolation is when police standards are written fully taken into account.

15:13

Rt Hon Mark Pritchard MP (The Wrekin, Conservative)

- -

Mark Pritchard how the police respond to domestic violence incidents at the first instance oftentimes is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Critical for the criminal justice. Process, but also.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Interpreting the events on the ground. I know the Minister, who in my view, does a very good job, by the way, likes to look at best the way, likes to look at best practice across the world. Would she look at best practice in Europe, she look at best practice in Europe, where academics have proved proven that where there is a male and female officer responding to these female officer responding to these incidents, that the process of prosecuting is often far easier as a result of having a mixed gender patrol where possible.

15:14

Jess Phillips MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Birmingham Yardley, Labour)

- -

Minister. >> I thank the hon. Gentleman for that suggestion and I welcome and will make sure that our officials look up this particular study. I look up this particular study. I will I will do anything that shows an improvement in this area. And it look, it never surprises me that actually gender parity and things makes things better. That's also another thing I've committed my life to Pam Cox.

15:14

Pam Cox MP (Colchester, Labour)

- -

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I welcome the government's determination to tackle violence against women and girls and to support victims. Would the Minister agree with me that improvements to our family justice system, as well as to our criminal justice system, are going to play a really important part in that?

15:14

Jess Phillips MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Birmingham Yardley, Labour)

- -

Minister. >> I thank the hon. Lady, and I think that whilst you know this is Home Office questions and people will rightly bring their issues will rightly bring their issues with regard to policing across the country. You know, around only 10% of victims of domestic abuse. Ever see the inside of a police station ever interact with policing. So making sure that every other part of our system and the family court system and the family justice system and our civil courts absolutely have to play a part.

And that is why they are a fundamental part of the violence against women and girls strategy.

15:15

Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)

- -

Harpreet Uppal question. >> Harpreet Uppal question. >> 17, Mr. speaker. >> Minister. >> Mr. speaker, my hon. Friend is a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. speaker, my hon. Friend is a great champion for Huddersfield's High Street, and I'm pleased to be able to tell her that tackling money laundering is key to delivering on this government's mission to make our streets safer and to deliver economic growth. The new High Streets Illegality Taskforce will bring together departments and agencies to systemically disrupt money laundering and related crime on the high street, while new funding will boost trading standards capabilities and fund an increase in law enforcement officers.

15:15

Harpreet Uppal MP (Huddersfield, Labour)

- -

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Police operations last year, including in West Yorkshire, saw hundreds arrested and thousands of high street shops raided across the country. So can I ask what further steps are being taken to tackle money laundering, including connecting information across agencies and flagging suspicious entities so such operations can be closed down quickly?

15:16

Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)

- -

Yeah. And we are taking more steps. And the new High Streets Taskforce will look at whether the current data sharing between agencies in sharing between agencies in supporting enforcement teams is appropriate in order to maximise our response to be as effective as it possibly can be. The government will also publish a new anti-money laundering and asset recovery strategy this summer. This will set out further ambitious measures to strengthen our fight against money laundering, including better sharing and exploitation of system.

15:16

Rt Hon Dame Karen Bradley MP (Staffordshire Moorlands, Conservative)

- -

So the Select Committee, Dame Karen Bradley. much of the money laundering that we see on our high streets. And that's why my committee last week launched an inquiry looking at organised criminality and the role it plays in crime. We see in neighbourhoods up and down the country. Can the Minister set out what support the Home Office is giving to the National Crime Agency in regards to this issue, and how does he envisage the National Crime Agency working with the 12 mega forces that are envisaged in the White Paper and the National Police Force?

15:17

Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)

- -

Minister? grateful to the chair of the committee for setting out the work that they're going to be doing. I have long believed that the importance of the work that we need to do, working very closely with the National Crime Agency to tackle tackle serious organised crime, which is a blight on all of our communities. We're working very closely with the NCA to make sure that they've got the appropriate level of resourcing and the correct strategic priorities. I meet with the director every single week.

We'd be very happy to cooperate closely with the work that she's doing, and she's right to mention the importance of police reform. Obviously, we're looking very carefully at that process, and we'll make sure that we can figure ourselves in a way that will maximise the ability of the National Crime Agency to tackle serious organised crime.

15:18

Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)

- -

We now. >> Come to topicals. Rupert Lowe topical question number one Mr Speaker Justice Secretary.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaker Justice Secretary. Mr. speaker, this government pledged to restore order and control to our borders and our work control to our borders and our work is taking effect since we took office. Removals of illegal migrants are up 31% to nearly 60,000 since we took office. Forced returns are up 45% and deportations of foreign criminals are up by a third. In December, we impose visa sanctions on three countries Angola, Namibia and the Democratic Republic of Congo, and they have worked.

Each of those countries is now accepting their citizens back. I know the public want us to do more, and we will. We will reform human rights law and our appeal process appeals processes to swiftly remove those with no right to be here. This country will always offer sanctuary to genuine refugees. But for those who do not play by the rules, we must be firm. The last conservative government lost control, and it is we, the Labour government, that are restoring order to our border.

15:19

Rupert Lowe MP (Great Yarmouth, Independent)

- -

Rupert Lowe. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the Minister knows, our independent rape gang inquiry hearings ongoing. Just a short walk from this chamber. Last week, I sat opposite one woman who was raped by between 6 and 700 men. She estimated that 98% were Pakistani Muslims. The evidence we are collecting is brutal. Again and again, we've been told of failed attempts to traffic raped and abused women overseas to Pakistan and elsewhere. Thankfully, those attempts failed.

How many did not? Will the Minister agree to urgently review cases of missing girls in target areas and launch a full state investigation into reports of such trafficking?

15:20

Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)

- -

Justice Secretary. the victims that the hon. Gentleman has heard from is absolutely horrifying. And the grooming gang scandal was one of the darkest moments in this country's history. Victims and survivors of these hideous crimes deserve justice, and we will make sure they get it. Our inquiry is a full statutory, independent inquiry with all the powers under the Inquiries Act 2005 to deliver justice. And I would urge him and anybody else with any allegations of criminality or evidence of criminality, should share that with the police immediately.

15:20

Tom Hayes MP (Bournemouth East, Labour)

- -

Tom Hayes. >> Democratic right to protest within the law in Bournemouth, Dorset Police has been forced to spend around £100,000 policing spend around £100,000 policing protests at the three asylum hotels opened by the Conservatives at eye watering expense. Often protests have to be managed by neighbourhood policing teams that we as Labour government are rebuilding. This means that they are policing protest rather than out on the beat in their neighbourhoods. When will Bournemouth's asylum hotels begin to close? Not just because they're bad for the people living within them and around them, but because of the huge cost to our local police force and the abstractions involved to our neighbourhood policing teams.

15:21

Alex Norris MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Nottingham North and Kimberley, Labour )

- -

Minister, the honourable. >> Doughty champion for his community and has has raised the issue of these hotels with me on multiple occasions. I know he'll continue to do so until they are continue to do so until they are closed. He is exactly right. The reasons he mentions hotels are a very, very bad place to accommodate those seeking asylum. He will have heard the commitment from myself and from the Home Secretary. We will get them closed and get them closed within this parliamentary term.

15:21

Rt Hon Chris Philp MP (Croydon South, Conservative)

- -

Justice Secretary Chris Philp sir. sir. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. >> Deng Majak from Sudan is an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deng Majak from Sudan is an illegal small boat migrant who was sentenced last week to 29 years in prison for the brutal murder of prison for the brutal murder of Rhiannon White. He stabbed Rhiannon 23 times as she desperately tried to defend herself. Given the timing of Magic's arrival in the summer of 2024, he would have been eligible for deportation to Rwanda. But Labour cancelled the Rwanda plan and instead accommodated this illegal immigrant in a hotel at taxpayers expense.

Does the Home Secretary now accept it was a huge mistake to cancel the Rwanda plan just before it started, which would have seen magic deported, thereby preventing Rhiannon's murder?

15:22

Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)

- -

Home Secretary. >> Well, let me say first and foremost, Mr. Speaker, that the murder of Rhiannon White was an abhorrent crime and our thoughts abhorrent crime and our thoughts are with her loved ones. And I would caution all members against using individual cases to make a bigger political point, as the shadow Home secretary has just sought to do. He knows full well his government's Rwanda plan was nothing more than a gimmick. £700 million spent on four volunteers going to Rwanda.

There are no silver bullets in dealing with the mess of the migration system left to us by the previous conservative administration, but we are taking action across every front to get illegal migration under control and to secure our border.

15:23

Rt Hon Chris Philp MP (Croydon South, Conservative)

- -

So never started because this government cancelled it. She talks about gimmicks. Her government's about gimmicks. Her government's gimmicks have failed and that is why cross-channel migration is up 42% since the general election. And I'm afraid, Mr. Speaker, this is not an isolated case. Hundreds of crimes have been committed by illegal immigrants, including a 30 year old woman raped on a Brighton beach, a 15 year old girl raped in Leamington Spa by two Afghan small boat migrants, and a girl, aged just 12, strangled and raped by two illegal immigrants in Nuneaton.

So does the Home Secretary agree? This cannot go on and that only radical action will fix this. And just like the Father of the House said earlier, we need to leave the and deport all illegal immigrants within a week of arrival. And then the crossings will stop.

15:24

Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)

- -

Home Secretary. up this new policy of leaving the ECHR in opposition, not one that they took up when they were in government. And I'm afraid it's just carping now from the sidelines to which he has been condemned by the British people for failing to control our borders. It is this government that is sorting out the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

absolute abject mess left by the system. Order! Order! Order! Mr. Philp,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order! Order! Order! Mr. Philp, can we just calm down, please? It doesn't look good on TV for anybody shouting somebody down. I'm sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

shouting somebody down. I'm sorry. We are already taking action, Mr. speaker. We will go much further, and we will not stop until

15:24

Jessica Morden MP (Newport East, Labour)

- -

we have restored order to our border. >> Jessica Morden. >> Mr. speaker, city centre safety is a top concern of residents in Newport East, so I was pleased to hear from Gwent Police last Friday. We are seeing crime coming down thanks to extra measures and resources. Can I also draw the Minister's attention to Gwent Police's new Project Vigilance scheme, which uses undercover officers to protect women and girls in the night time economy? And alongside this, what more is the government doing to make our city centres safer?

15:25

Sarah Jones MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Croydon West, Labour)

- -

Minister. We are putting more money into policing. We're introducing respect orders. We're bringing back the rule that any theft under £200 must be investigated by the police. We are putting thousands more officers into our town centres. We're working with retailers to make sure we're using new technology to tackle crime. We're introducing live facial recognition to get these nasty criminals locked up where they where they belong. And I'm very pleased and very much looking forward to working with her and perhaps even visiting her constituency at.

15:25

Max Wilkinson MP (Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Some point. Max Wilkinson Liberal Democrats. recent weeks, those warning that a rapid dip in net migration could harm public services in the economy span left and right, including commentators such as Fraser Nelson, not known for his softness on this sort of thing. It is no secret this government is struggling to deliver growth after its two damaging budgets and stubborn refusal to join a customs union with the EU. So is the Home Secretary totally certain that her plans on immigration won't further harm the economy and public services like our precious NHS?

15:26

Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)

- -

Yes, I am, and that is because having an ordered migration system, having an ordered migration system, both for legal migration and sorting out the problems of illegal migration, are absolutely critical to maintaining public confidence across the country and to make sure that we can hold our country together. So I back all of these reforms, and I know that they will have nothing but a positive impact. Speaker. Speaker.

15:26

Alex Baker MP (Aldershot, Labour)

- -

In addition, we have a brilliant police team, but recruitment of officers is difficult because of the pay difference along the Hampshire Surrey border, where officers can earn more by working just a few miles away, leaving our local police team understaffed and overstretched. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to address these recruitment challenges? To ensure we have bobbies on the beat in every community?

15:27

Sarah Jones MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Croydon West, Labour)

- -

Minister. >> Minister. >> My right hon. Friend makes a good point, and we need to make sure we're both paying our police sure we're both paying our police well, which we have done through a pay uplift and also making sure we are looking after our police force, the number of police leaving the service not for retirement or ill health, but leaving the service because they were fed up with it, tripled under the last government. We will put a stop to that cross.

15:27

Harriet Cross MP (Gordon and Buchan, Conservative)

- -

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Girls were raped and abused. Wales. Yet they are excluded from the grooming gangs inquiry. Girls, no matter where they are in the UK, must get justice and rapists, no matter where they are in the UK, must face the consequences. In response to an earlier answer, the Minister said of Vawg perpetrators that she doesn't care who they are or where they come from. So will the Minister please now do the right thing and include Scottish victims in her inquiry?

15:28

Jess Phillips MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Birmingham Yardley, Labour)

- -

Yes, Minister. Lady is that it is for the Scottish Government to undertake there to undertake an inquiry, because actually, just unlike in Wales, justice is also devolved within Scotland, as well as education as well as health. All of the things that will be absolutely vital facets of the inquiry that will run across England and Wales. But I don't disagree with her that there absolutely needs to be no stone left unturned in Scotland, and that is, and anything that of the work of the committee that is found, we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will make sure that that is shared with Scotland. Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the

15:28

Luke Myer MP (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, Labour)

- -

>> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister give an update on the work of the Defending Democracy Taskforce to tackle the level of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Taskforce to tackle the level of disinformation in on social media and in our democracy? Mr. Mr. speaker, I'm very grateful

15:28

Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)

- -

>> Mr. speaker, I'm very grateful to him. Defending Democracy taskforce is the fulcrum point that coordinates activity across government. We work very closely with other government departments, specifically on the issue of countering mis and disinformation, not least as we move towards important elections taking place in May. This is an important body. It has recently had its mandate renewed by the Prime Minister, and we ensure that we work very closely with law enforcement in order to make sure that our democracy is properly protected.

15:29

Bob Blackman MP (Harrow East, Conservative)

- -

Bob Blackman. Thank you. Mr. >> Bob Blackman. Thank you. Mr. Over the last two and a half years, our Jewish population had to put up with hate marches starting outside with hate marches starting outside synagogues. Jewish businesses have been suffering hate demonstrations outside, and now shops that store kosher goods are being targeted by demonstrators. What action can the Home Secretary take to make sure that our Jewish population are protected, and these evil perpetrators are brought to justice? Home Secretary.

15:29

Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)

- -

Well, Mr. Speaker, let me condemn in the strongest possible condemn in the strongest possible terms all of the antisemitic incidents that he has highlighted in his question. This government will not stand for any antisemitism in our country. We will take every step we can across government to wipe out this evil from our society. He will know that I am reviewing police protest powers. I've already made some announcements on changes that we will make. Lord Ken MacDonald is conducting a review, and I will not hesitate to take further legal steps in order to protect our Jewish community.

Sonia Kumar Mr. speaker, what action is my right hon. Friend taking to disrupt the finances of the organised crime groups. Facilitating illegal migration to Facilitating illegal migration to the United Kingdom? And what steps is the Department taking with international partners to prosecute those who are funding these operations, both domestically and internationally?

15:30

Sonia Kumar MP (Dudley, Labour)

- -

Mr.

15:30

Alex Norris MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Nottingham North and Kimberley, Labour )

- -

I can report to the House that we've made 4000 such disruptions against organised immigration crime. against organised immigration crime. We are working with partners from all of those flows of illicit trafficking of peoples across the world. At every stage, of course, closely with our French neighbours, closely with our French neighbours, but all the way around the world to disrupt these flows and send that very clear signal to those who

**** Possible New Speaker ****

trafficking persons that their time is up. Pete Wishart Westminster Hall

15:30

Pete Wishart MP (Perth and Kinross-shire, Scottish National Party)

- -

petition to be on indefinite leave to remain for some 60 Labour MPs to remain for some 60 Labour MPs unanimously turned up to rubbish and disparage the Home Secretary's proposals. I got the impression that they were highly unlikely to that they were highly unlikely to support that. So can she guarantee that any changes to ILR will be that any changes to ILR will be brought to this House for a debate and a vote? Hear, hear! honourable.

15:31

Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)

- -

honourable. >> Gentleman is these are the right reforms. We have set out proposals for an earned settlement scheme that are being consulted upon. That consultation closes in a matter of days, and the government will consider all of those responses and any changes that we wish to make. We will do so in the usual way.

15:31

Mr Jonathan Brash MP (Hartlepool, Labour)

- -

Jonathan Brash. >> Town centre crime in Hartlepool. year. >> Thanks to the brilliant work of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thanks to the brilliant work of our police force under the leadership of Helen Wilson. But there is far more that needs to happen. My constituents deserve to happen. My constituents deserve to feel safe in their town centre. So can the Minister tell me what more we can do to make sure our town centres remain safe? Yeah.

15:32

Sarah Jones MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Croydon West, Labour)

- -

I am delighted that town centre >> I am delighted that town centre crime has fallen by 15% in my hon. Friend's constituency. It has fallen in many towns across the fallen in many towns across the land since this government came to power. Not just because we're introducing new technology where we need to live, facial recognition and others. Not just because we're introducing more neighbourhood policing, not just because we're changing the law to make sure all crimes are investigated, but because we're all working together to get this done.

15:32

David Simmonds MP (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, Conservative)

- -

David Simmonds thank.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of the volunteer manned police station, part of a programme on the Mayor of London that leaves the Mayor of London that leaves the whole of the London Borough of Harrow with no in-person access to the police thus far. The volunteers that man, the front desk and I have had no response at all from the Mayor of London to our attempts to Mayor of London to our attempts to raise this issue. So will she intervene to ensure we at least get

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a response? So the Mayor of London listens to my constituents concerns. Minister. I'm sure the mayor of London listens to his constituents concerns, which is why we have increased funding into the Metropolitan Police, why we're doing everything we can to reverse the increases in retail crime that we saw under the previous government that we are beginning to tackle now.

15:33

Sarah Jones MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Croydon West, Labour)

- -

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On Friday, I visited Saint James Primary School in Haydock in my constituency were after learning about the dangers of knife crime. Year six children are campaigning to install bleed control kits in to install bleed control kits in their community should the worst ever happen. Can the Minister please assure them and all my constituents, this government is constituents, this government is doing all it can to tackle knife crime? And will you join me in paying tribute to the children and efforts? efforts?

15:33

David Baines MP (St Helens North, Labour)

- -

Mr. constituents and children who I know are deeply worried about knife crime. We have a target in this government to halve knife crime in government to halve knife crime in a decade. And I can say that since the start of this Parliament, knife crime has fallen by 8% and knife crime has fallen by 8% and knife homicides are down by 27%. But we will not stop until we reach that target. target.

15:33

Sarah Jones MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Croydon West, Labour)

- -

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Home Office has said that a new licence to practice will be required for all police officers. Can the Minister explain how that will differ from the existing police differ from the existing police Conduct regulations, the Police Code of Ethics and the current police training programmes?

15:34

Minister.

15:34

Sarah Jones MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Croydon West, Labour)

- -

The licence to practice is being introduced to make sure all officers, whatever stage in their career, are getting the right career, are getting the right support, the right training that they need to do the jobs that we demand of them. We have said very explicitly, we are going to design this with policing so that we can get this right, but it is about supporting police to do the jobs that we all need them to do.

15:34

Ben Obese-Jecty MP (Huntingdon, Conservative)

- -

For the better. comments from Rashid Afrin, the co-director of the Al-roj camp in Syria, reported that several ISIS linked individuals have been repatriated from that camp to the UK. Can the Home Secretary confirm how many individuals, ISIS linked individuals have been repatriated to the UK and whether, upon their return, they were held in custody

**** Possible New Speaker ****

or not? Mr. I hope the hon. Gentleman will understand if I don't get into the understand if I don't get into the specifics of that, nor do we comment on individual cases, but I can tell him that the Home

15:35

Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)

- -

Secretary will use all tools at her disposal to make sure that we keep the public safe. >> Shockat Adam. Thank you, Mr.

15:35

Shockat Adam MP (Leicester South, Independent)

- -

>> Shockat Adam. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to pass on my heartfelt sympathies to the family of Khalid Oladipo, who sadly, tragically got killed by a knife tragically got killed by a knife crime incident last week in the city of Leicester. I'm sure every member in this House does not want to see another life shortened and another mother's heartbroken. So can I ask the Minister if she would back my calls for the government to appoint a dedicated Minister to tackle knife crime?

15:35

Sarah Jones MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Croydon West, Labour)

- -

Minister. >> I am that dedicated Minister, and it is my job to tackle knife crime and is what I have campaigned on for many, many years and I am on for many, many years and I am glad to say we are having some success. But every knife attack, every knife murder is an absolute tragedy and we will continue to do all we can.

15:35

Helen Morgan MP (North Shropshire, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Final question. Speaker. The police officers and PCSOs in North Shropshire work hard, but the PCSOs hours have been cut because of Budget constraints and there are no front desk services at all in my constituency, despite it having five market towns. Can the Minister outline how we're going to see better and more visible community policing in North Shropshire.

15:36

Sarah Jones MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Croydon West, Labour)

- -

And the officer maintenance grant, which kept the uplift of officers, became a barrier to more visible policing and actually saw us reducing the number of PCSOs by half under the previous government. So by giving the police more flexibility, but by ensuring that we are putting 13,000 more officers into our communities, on our streets, where they can tackle the scourge of everyday crime, I think the hon. Lady will get the the constituents.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We We now We now come We now come to We now come to the We now come to the urgent

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We now come to the urgent question, Sir. Iain Duncan Smith. Yeah, yeah yeah, yeah. Mr. speaker, to ask the Foreign

15:37

Rt Hon Sir Iain Duncan Smith MP (Chingford and Woodford Green, Conservative)

- -

>> Mr. speaker, to ask the Foreign Secretary if they'll make a statement on the 20 year sentence imposed on our brave citizen, Jimmy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

imposed on our brave citizen, Jimmy Lai, a British citizen. Mr. Welcome, Minister. Mr. speaker, may I thank the

15:37

Seema Malhotra MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Feltham and Heston, Labour )

- -

>> Mr. speaker, may I thank the Right Honourable. Member for his question on this very serious matter. He will know that the UK condemns in the strongest terms the politically motivated prosecution of British national Jimmy Lai. As the Foreign Secretary said this morning, 20 years is tantamount to a life sentence for a 78 year old man. We remain deeply concerned for Mr. Lee's health. We call on the Hong Kong authorities to release him on humanitarian grounds, so that he may be reunited with his family.

Sadly, this sentence is not a surprise. The national security law was imposed on Hong Kong by Beijing precisely to silence China's critics. That is why the government has long called for the repeal of the national security law, and for the end to the persecution of all individuals charged under it. It is also why the Prime Minister raised Jimmy Lai's case with President Xi on his recent visit to Beijing. The Prime Minister's visit allowed us to open up discussion with China, making our case directly to the Chinese president is an approach being taken by the USA, Canada, France, Ireland and many other allies.

The Foreign Secretary has been in touch with Mr. Lee's family in relation to the private conversations that have happened, and I know that many in this House will want to express their support for the family. We recognise their fortitude at this incredibly difficult time. Mr. speaker, this government remains steadfast in our support for the people of Hong Kong. That is also why today the Home Secretary has announced the expansion of eligibility for the Bno visa route. The UK has welcomed around 200,000 Hongkongers since 2021, and we will unequivocally continue to uphold our commitments to them.

This government's utmost priority is to secure the release of Jimmy Lai, an elderly, unwell British citizen. He has endured an extraordinary ordeal for five years and we call for this to end now. That is why we are focusing on the action that will help him the most. Sustained engagement with China. Making our case consistently and directly as the right hon. Member knows, we shouldn't sit outside the room refusing to engage where you can't even have that conversation, and I am grateful to have the opportunity today.

Mr. speaker, to reiterate, this government's call for Jimmy Lai's immediate release.

15:40

Rt Hon Sir Iain Duncan Smith MP (Chingford and Woodford Green, Conservative)

- -

Right. Let's go back to Ian. >> I'm grateful for you granting this today. As the Minister said, Jimmy Lai, a British citizen, has Jimmy Lai, a British citizen, has been imprisoned for a further 20 years now. Given his poor health and the fact that he sat for five years in solitary confinement, this is not a sentence. It is a death sentence on this brave man. I they've trashed everything that we would consider reasonable in law. I, for example, as others have named nine times in this prosecution case, and I've never even met him or sadly, ever even spoken to him.

I asked the question simply the Minister, why is the UK government's statement they released today refer to Jimmy Lai as a British national? Lord Cameron finally changed that and made it clear that he was a British citizen. Can she not now say that she will now change that and call him a British citizen, which is what he is? And why does this consider constantly now refer me to Hong Kong and to the national security law? But the reality is that the British government has sanctioned absolutely nobody in the Chinese government for trashing the Sino-British agreement and now installing the Chinese national security law, which is the reason why Jimmy Lai has been arrested and he has been convicted and sentenced for nothing more than standing up for freedom of speech and peaceful protesting for democracy.

So I asked the Minister as well, Mr. speaker, the government went on a visit to China recently, and they before that granted full planning

**** Possible New Speaker ****

permission for this huge and ghastly Chinese embassy in London. They couldn't even.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They couldn't even. At least I say to the Minister, surely, why did they not hold back if that's what they want to do on if that's what they want to do on that planning permission? So say to the Chinese government, you must the Chinese government, you must release Jimmy Lai now and cut and cancel this prosecution altogether. Otherwise you will not get your Otherwise you will not get your Chinese embassy, instead of which we've given it to them, free and for nothing.

And the Prime Minister was treated like dirt while he was out there. The reality is, Mr. Speaker, that Sebastian Lai and Clare Lai, children of Jimmy Lai, have fought for him and I feel sorry for them and my thoughts go to them. But surely that indeed a sad day for anybody that believes in freedom, justice and legitimate rule of democratic made law. And now will the government, now will the government call for a humanitarian parole?

15:42

Seema Malhotra MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Feltham and Heston, Labour )

- -

Yeah, Minister. may have missed my reference in my opening remarks to Jimmy Lai being a British citizen, but perhaps I can reiterate that again. And it is important to reiterate what also we have said today, which is that we call on the Hong Kong authorities to release Jimmy Lai immediately on humanitarian grounds so that he may be reunited with his family and for him to be receiving all the necessary medical treatment and for full access to independent medical professionals.

The right hon. Member will also know that the Prime Minister raised Jimmy Lai's case with President Xi on the 29th of January in Beijing, and since.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Since the visit, the Foreign

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Since the visit, the Foreign Secretary has been in contact with Mr. Lai family. The FCDO are also Mr. Lai family. The FCDO are also in close contact with Mr. Lee's international legal team, Doughty Street Chambers and his son and daughter Sebastian and Claire, and the Foreign secretary last met with the Foreign secretary last met with Sebastian and Claire on the 8th of January in relation to the Chinese embassy. National security is our first duty. The planning decision was taken independently by the Secretary of State for housing.

The conclusion of a process that he may remember began in 2018, when the then Foreign Secretary provided formal diplomatic consent for the plans. But it is also important to be saying today that we stand with the people of Hong Kong and we will always honour the historic commitments made under the legally binding Sino-British Joint Declaration, and China must do the same.

15:45

Rt Hon Emily Thornberry MP (Islington South and Finsbury, Labour)

- -

Sir, the Select Committee, Dame Emily Thornberry. Emily Thornberry. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Jimmy Lai is 78. He has rotting Jimmy Lai is 78. He has rotting teeth. He has diabetes, heart issues, and recently he's visibly been losing weight. And now he has been sentenced to 20 years. It is effectively not a life sentence. It's a death sentence. I would urge the Chinese authorities to end this elderly man's appalling ordeal, and I would ask that they exercise clemency and allow him to be reunited with his family.

Does the Minister agree with me that the concern for the suffering of Jimmy Lai extends far beyond his family and touches the hearts of so many British people?

15:45

Seema Malhotra MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Feltham and Heston, Labour )

- -

The Minister. >> The Minister. >> I thank my right hon. Friend, and indeed she makes a very powerful point, and she is powerful point, and she is absolutely right that the situation that Jimmy Lai is in, and the urgency of the need to release him on humanitarian grounds so that he may be reunited with his family and receive the independent medical treatment that he must have, is a matter that goes beyond his family and indeed touches the hearts.

I know of members across this House and across this country. He has been sentenced to 20 years in prison for peacefully exercising his right to freedom of expression, and my right hon. Friend will know that his case remains a priority for this government and the Prime Minister. Secretary.

15:46

Rt Hon Priti Patel MP (Witham, Conservative)

- -

I commend. securing. question today. Jimmy Lai and the democracy and freedom he. Has campaigned for in Hong Kong, has been sentenced to 20 years. As his son Sebastian has said, Jimmy dedicated his life to defending the freedoms of Hong Kong. For that heroism, he's being punished. He's essentially getting a death sentence for that. Jimmy is a hero and deserves to be back home with his family, not hauled in chains before the courts languishing in a prison cell.

We call for his release. The fact that Jimmy Lai has been sentenced to 20 years, the longest sentence ever under the national security law, is not only a reflection of the cruelty inflicted by the Chinese Communist Party, but it's a monumental diplomatic failure of this feeble and gullible Prime Minister. Just over a week ago, he was with President Xi, defending engagement with the CCP. He gave China permission for their super embassy spy hub, but failed to secure Jimmy's release. So can the Minister have some backbone now and tell us exactly what details were discussed between the Prime Minister and she? Did he call for Jimmy to come back home? Did he demand access to the health care he needs? The official readout of the meeting, published from Downing Street on the website, didn't even mention Jimmy Lai's name.

So we need answers, Mr. speaker. Jimmy's family and the whole country want to know when will this weak and pathetic Labour government finally stand up to China and show some backbone? And will the Foreign Secretary actually do something, such as summon the Chinese ambassador and prepare a list of diplomats to expel? In response to China's refusal to free Jimmy Lai? Will the government revoke the planning permission granted for this embassy? The super embassy spy hub? Will China now be placed on the enhanced tier of furs at long last? And will the UK, holding the presidency of the UN Security Council, actually take some steps now and ask what diplomatic steps will be taken to escalate this case? Put some pressure on China for once, and secure global support for Jimmy's release.

Jimmy must be freed now. And I have to say, this is a day of shame for this weak Labour government and its failure to stand up for China.

15:49

Seema Malhotra MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Feltham and Heston, Labour )

- -

Yeah, yeah, yeah. >> Let me thank the shadow Foreign secretary for her comments. But to also say that she will know that also say that she will know that this is a situation that has been ongoing before we were in government and that we continue and that we continue to seek the release of Jimmy Lai immediately. She will know that we we assess Jimmy Lai's prosecution to be politically motivated, and she will know that in order to have the conversation with the Chinese government, you need to be in the same room.

That's why that's why the Prime Minister raised this on his visit. And we continue to raise this at every level of government and at every opportunity to do so. The hon. Lady right hon. Lady will also know that on the instruction of the Foreign Secretary, the British Consul General also attended the sentencing, and that we continue to keep in regular touch with the family. She will also note that we continue to do all that we can, publicly and privately, to secure the release of Jimmy Lai, and that is what we will continue to do.

15:50

Rachel Blake MP (Cities of London and Westminster, Labour )

- -

So Rachel Blake. >> So Rachel Blake. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can see that the whole House is angered by this sentencing, but no one is more devastated than Jimmy Lai's family. Jimmy is a British citizen. There must be a. Every single international pressure must be put on the Chinese government now to secure a humanitarian response to the situation we find. Can the Minister tell us how that we will be building an international coalition to restore that pressure to to secure a humanitarian response?

15:51

Seema Malhotra MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Feltham and Heston, Labour )

- -

Minister. >> Minister. >> I thank my hon. Friend for her,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for her, for her comments and indeed for the work that she has done on behalf of her constituents. And I can confirm that we are in discussion with our allies, including the US and Australia and Canada and the EU, on doing what we can internationally to continue to advocate and secure the release. The immediate release of Jimmy Lai. spokesperson.

15:51

Lisa Smart MP (Hazel Grove, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Very much, Mr. Speaker, I know >> Very much, Mr. Speaker, I know that the whole House shares my horror and disgust at the politically motivated imprisonment, politically motivated imprisonment, conviction and sentencing of Jimmy Lai last week, following his trip to Beijing, the Prime Minister suggested that he could change outcomes for Jimmy Lai and Hong Kongers by speaking softly with President Xi. It is clear now that the Prime Minister's trip to Beijing failed spectacularly to secure Mr. Lai's release. Has the government summoned the Chinese ambassador to make it clear this house's shared outrage? Jimmy Lai's experience is the most visible example in terms of Beijing's efforts to suppress any and all criticism of the CCP, but it is far from the only one.

Pro-democracy Hong Kong activists living in the UK continue to face intimidation, repression and threats from Beijing. Could the Minister provide any guarantees to those Hongkongers that they will not face further persecution or intimidation at the hands of the CCP?

15:52

Seema Malhotra MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Feltham and Heston, Labour )

- -

Minister. >> Thank the hon. Member for her comments and if I can also share comments and if I can also share that that we continue to raise Jimmy Lai's case publicly and privately with the Chinese government. And it is important also to to note that in December, when we did summon the ambassador at the verdict, senior officials in the FCDO summoned the Chinese ambassador to convene to condemn the development in the strongest terms. And there is a public readout of those representations made during that meeting.

And what is continuing to be the case is that any attempt by any foreign state to intimidate or to harass or harm individuals in the United Kingdom will not be tolerated. And we have taken action to do more to support law enforcement and training in this country to make sure that that is the case.

15:53

Joe Powell MP (Kensington and Bayswater, Labour)

- -

Mr. speaker, many of Jimmy Lai's family, including his son Sebastian, family, including his son Sebastian, are my constituents. They are devastated by today's sentence. That risks being a death sentence That risks being a death sentence for a 78 year old British citizen, a much longer sentence than any of the co-defendants, and the longest ever under the national security law. Can the Minister reassure this House that it is the government's position that now this sham trial is over, that there are no more phoney procedural reasons for us to work with our international allies to negotiate Jimmy's release?

15:54

Seema Malhotra MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Feltham and Heston, Labour )

- -

Minister. indeed for the work he has done to support the family. And let me be support the family. And let me be clear that we see this as a as a politically motivated prosecution. And we believe and we continue to state, that he should be released immediately, and we will continue to work directly with the Chinese government, raising our concerns and our views in public and in private. Continue to engage closely with the family and indeed continue to work with our allies.

As I have already mentioned. And he will also know that this is a case that the Foreign Secretary has also discussed with Secretary Rubio. And officials are also in regular contact on the matter with the US government.

15:55

Rt Hon Tom Tugendhat MP (Tonbridge, Conservative)

- -

Tom Tugendhat thank you, Mr. Speaker. the Prime Minister went over and managed to sell somehow the partial sanctioning of a few of us as a victory. I would have welcomed a victory which would have been the release of Jimmy Lai. But sadly, the Prime Minister conceded all of his cards before getting on the plane, leaving himself nothing to negotiate. Couldn't the Minister find anything else that maybe China wants that he could negotiate with? Maybe the Prime Minister could offer them the Isle of Wight, or perhaps the Outer Hebrides.

He's trying to give away everything else anyway, and at least the job of the Prime Minister would then be to protect a British citizen and one who, as we all recognise, has now been given a death sentence by the Chinese, not the Hong Kong authorities.

15:56

Seema Malhotra MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Feltham and Heston, Labour )

- -

Minister. >> Minister. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I can answer the substance of that question with a more serious question with a more serious response, which is this which is that it was important to see progress that was made on lifting the ban of parliamentarians to be free to travel to China. And what the Prime Minister said last week is absolutely right, that there is more to do, and it is important to get clarity on how we move forward where those bans have not been lifted.

And it is very important that we continue to see that progress.

15:56

David Smith MP (North Northumberland, Labour)

- -

James Asser David Smith. >> James Asser David Smith. >> Mr. speaker, I have to say it's really disappointing to see the opposition frontbench treat this as opposition frontbench treat this as some kind of party political issue and that they do not have they do not have a monopoly on outrage about this. And this really should be a this really should be a cross-party issue. So I will ask my right hon. Friend the Minister, a specific element as she works in the government, works for the release of Jimmy Lai in this outrage.

Can she also keep into consideration his freedom of religion or belief? Because I understand that he has been denied access to the Eucharist as well. And so as we are making representations on his behalf, as all of us should be, can we keep that in mind? For the outrage?

15:57

Seema Malhotra MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Feltham and Heston, Labour )

- -

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and indeed for the work question, and indeed for the work that he does as our envoy on freedom of religion and belief. And certainly that is a matter that we continue to keep and to and to continue to advocate for on his behalf.

15:57

Rt Hon Sir Andrew Mitchell MP (Sutton Coldfield, Conservative)

- -

Andrew Mitchell thank you, Mr. Speaker. >> Mr. speaker. >> Now is not the time to lambast. >> The Chinese. Government for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Chinese. Government for the wider issues between us, but to focus 100% on securing clemency for focus 100% on securing clemency for Jimmy Lai. Surely the granting of clemency and a one way ticket back to the UK and to his family will be a win for everyone, including the Chinese.

15:58

Seema Malhotra MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Feltham and Heston, Labour )

- -

Minister. and perhaps on this we can agree that we do want to see an immediate release. We want to see that there is an immediate release on is an immediate release on humanitarian grounds so that he can be reunited with his family, and he must be supported as well, to receive that vital independent medical treatment to support his health and his wellbeing. Right now.

15:58

Jas Athwal MP (Ilford South, Labour)

- -

Jas Athwal. >> Thank you. >> Mr. Speaker. >> Last year, the UN working Group on Arbitrary Detention ruled that on Arbitrary Detention ruled that Mr. Lai has been unlawfully and arbitrarily detained in 2022. The same UN working group concluded the same for Jagtar Johal. Today, Jagtar turns 39 and instead of celebrating his languishing in a foreign prison like Jimmy Lai, I caution the government that if we don't stand up for our citizens unlawfully imprisoned abroad, we risk becoming beholden to the whims of others rather than rather than standing on firm principles.

So how is the government making meaningful representation to our Indian and Chinese counterparts to bring these British citizens home?

15:59

Seema Malhotra MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Feltham and Heston, Labour )

- -

It has been well woven in. Minister. >> Mr. speaker, let me thank my hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. speaker, let me thank my hon. Friend. And in relation to Jimmy Lai. Let me say that we take the UN Lai. Let me say that we take the UN Working Group's opinion incredibly seriously. That is why we continue to call for Mr. Mr. Lai's immediate release and in relation to Jagtar Singh Johal, he will know also the work that we continue to do.

16:00

Rt Hon Sir John Whittingdale MP (Maldon, Conservative)

- -

Sir. John Whittingdale. >> In December. >> I asked the Prime Minister to make clear that his visit to Beijing could only go ahead if Beijing could only go ahead if Jimmy Lai was released. He responded to me, it is important that we continue to engage so that we can raise this issue that clearly achieved nothing. But will the Minister also bear in mind that alongside Jimmy Lai, six other senior members of Apple Daily received lengthy prison sentences in what RSS have described as the complete collapse of press freedom in Hong Kong.

And will she say what action the government will take in the two week period before, and in which an appeal has to be lodged to make sure that not just Jimmy Lai, but all of them are released?

16:01

Seema Malhotra MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Feltham and Heston, Labour )

- -

Mr. >> Let me thank the right hon. Right hon. Member. And he will know that in relation to the appeal that that in relation to the appeal that will be a matter for Mr. Lai. Jimmy Lai, his family and his legal team. But he is right that it is important that we continue to call for an end to the national security law and for the release of all those who are being held or prosecuted under it. That is our position, and it will continue to be so.

Speaker.

16:01

Emily Darlington MP (Milton Keynes Central, Labour)

- -

As chair of the. Parliamentary >> As chair of the. Parliamentary group on Hong Kong, I just want to absolutely say on behalf of many of absolutely say on behalf of many of the members of that group and myself, how horrified we are. This case exemplifies the systematic dismantling of Hong Kong's judicial independence. The proceedings under the National Security law do not operate within the independent or impartial judicial framework. Judges are designated by the Hong Kong SAR. Executive trials are conducted without juries, evidential thresholds are lowered, and the fundamental presumption of principle of innocence, of of innocence is gone.

How is the government going to take on not just on behalf of Jimmy Lai, but under? For all the Hong Kong who live here in the UK, that we will protect them from this nefarious activity and illegal law.

16:02

Seema Malhotra MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Feltham and Heston, Labour )

- -

Mr. >> Mr. >> It is absolutely the case that we continue to be concerned about we continue to be concerned about the erosion of freedoms, and she will have seen that be expressed in the six monthly reports that are also published by the Foreign Office. We continue to stand, and we will always stand with the people of Hong Kong, and it is essential that we continue to see the honouring of historic commitments that were made under the legally binding Sino-British Joint Declaration, and it is absolutely clear that China must do the same.

16:03

Clive Jones MP (Wokingham, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Clive Jones Mr. >> Speaker. >> Jimmy Lai's conviction. >> Is, as my hon. Friend said, a massive failure for Sir Keir massive failure for Sir Keir Starmer who said he could change outcomes. This sends a worrying signal to Hong Kongers living and Wokingham and across the UK, many Hong Kongers face intimidation from China when they are simply standing up for their civil liberties. So what steps is the government taking to protect pro-democracy Hong Kong? As in Wokingham and across the UK, who feel themselves to be under threat from Chinese authorities in our country? These residents are very concerned and many of them feel for their lives.

16:04

Seema Malhotra MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Feltham and Heston, Labour )

- -

Minister. >> Let let me thank the hon. Member for his important question and it is essential that we continue to is essential that we continue to make sure that any attempt by a foreign state to harass or intimidate or to harm individuals in the UK, it must not be tolerated. It is the reason why we are supporting increased training and support for law enforcement in relation to these matters, so that they can be dealt with with the with the urgency that is required, and also the intelligence that is also important to be sharing.

And let me also say that in relation to Jimmy Lai and the Prime Minister's visit, look, I will disagree with members of this House who are seeking to make this a party political matter. Jimmy Lai has been in prison since before this government came in to power, and we continue to work as we should across the House to do all we can to make sure that we are not just advocating for his release, but that this remains a priority for the government as it is, and that we continue to work to have his release as immediately on on humanitarian grounds.

16:05

Gareth Snell MP (Stoke-on-Trent Central, Labour )

- -

Gareth Snell. answers. But I think it's fair to say that when the sentence was passed down, the CCP baked into our reaction that we would reiterate calls for release, that we would put out warm words of demands towards the well-being of Jimmy Lai. And there are, of course, concerns now that he may be transferred to prison inside China, where access to that legal representation will be even more difficult. So could I ask the Minister what practical and tangible changes will happen today as a result of this shift in the relationship with China, now that they have sentenced a British citizen to 20 years? And is she able to say a bit about what actions her department are going to take in the weeks ahead, to give practical support to Jimmy Lai, so that this isn't another statement or question in a few weeks time, lamenting an appeal that was unsuccessful.

16:06

Seema Malhotra MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Feltham and Heston, Labour )

- -

Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Let me just reiterate in relation to my hon. Friend's relation to my hon. Friend's question, that we continue to work with our allies and also to speak directly with China that is both directly with China that is both public and also private. In terms of the work we continue to do to of the work we continue to do to secure his release. The government also remains in close contact with Mr. Lee's family to discuss the actions that we are taking, and we will continue to do this because securing the release of Mr.

Lai remains a priority for this Minister.

16:06

Rt Hon Sir Desmond Swayne MP (New Forest West, Conservative)

- -

So, Desmond Swayne, can. Minister that this is not party political? The last government were as bad, if not worse. The reality is, the hon. Lady spoke about condemnation in the strongest terms. That is a complete waste of breath. They understand one thing, and that that there has to be a cost. Will she sanction those responsible?

16:07

Seema Malhotra MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Feltham and Heston, Labour )

- -

Yeah. Yeah, yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah, yeah. >> Mr. speaker, I think the hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. speaker, I think the hon. Member, I think, will perhaps disagree, but I think the the key, disagree, but I think the the key, the key point is that you can't move forward unless you're in dialogue. And that is why what the Prime Minister did in going to China and in raising this directly, has opened the doors to further conversation. And it is important to say that we continue to advocate for the release of Mr. Lai in public and in private, and that we remain in close contact with Mr.

Lee's family on the steps that we are taking.

16:08

Alex Sobel MP (Leeds Central and Headingley, Labour )

- -

Alex Sobel. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The government's been pretty generous to the Chinese government, first the embassy, then the Prime the embassy, then the Prime Minister's visit to China, trade concessions and in return, the Chinese government have conferred a death sentence on Jimmy Lai. Will those responsible in Hong Kong, the administration, judiciary that undertook this politically motivated sham trial, will they welcome the United Kingdom, or will they be sanctioned?

16:08

Seema Malhotra MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Feltham and Heston, Labour )

- -

Minister. >> I thank I thank my hon. Friend, for for his question, and he will know in relation to what we have said, how important it is that we continue to see that what we have seen under the Sino-British declaration is upheld, and that we expect those standards under the declaration not just to be held in relation to those historic commitments by Britain, but that we expect China to do the same.

16:09

Stephen Gethins MP (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry, Scottish National Party)

- -

Stephen Gethins Speaker. Mr. speaker, the Minister. speaker, the Minister. >> Will be aware that there is cross-party consensus that we are horrified by the jailing of Jimmy horrified by the jailing of Jimmy Lai, but she will also be aware that there are consequences when a UK government is perceived as being weak and they have consequences for British citizens. Now, she said that the Prime Minister spoke softly. He also spoke ineffectively. So will she tell us what's next?

16:09

Seema Malhotra MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Feltham and Heston, Labour )

- -

For this? >> For this? >> Perhaps I can just say again what I what I have shared with the House today, that in relation to the announcement today, that we continue to advocate for his release publicly and privately, we have not hidden our view over the imprisonment of Jimmy Lai. We have not hidden that. We see this as politically motivated. We have said clearly and unequivocally that he should be released on humanitarian grounds.

That remains a priority for this government, and it remains a priority for the Prime Minister. And he will know that.

16:10

Mark Sewards MP (Leeds South West and Morley, Labour)

- -

Mark Sewards.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Parallel to the terrible injustice inflicted on Jimmy Lai, my constituent Chloe on Jimmy Lai, my constituent Chloe Chung still has to live with a 100 zero zero £0 bounty on her head. Her zero zero £0 bounty on her head. Her resolve has never been stronger. I spoke with her this weekend, despite knowing that anyone in the despite knowing that anyone in the UK can claim that bounty. So in the spirit of keeping the conversation going, can I ask the Minister to going, can I ask the Minister to use everything in her power to convince the CCP to lift that bounty from Chloe and indeed all the other UK residents who currently have bounties placed on them under Hong Kong's national security law.

And the only crime these people have committed is telling the truth about the repressive regime in Hong Kong.

16:11

Seema Malhotra MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Feltham and Heston, Labour )

- -

Mr. >> Mr. >> I thank my hon. Friend, and I do agree with him. And what I will agree with him. And what I will also say is that we will not tolerate this harassment and intimidation in the UK and the safety of Hong Kongers in the UK is of the utmost importance for the government. He will also know that training and guidance, as I've said on state threats, activity is now being offered by counter-terrorism police to all 45 territorial police forces across the United Kingdom and this includes upskilling dedicated 999 call handlers on TNR, which may be the last government did as much of, I don't know, this new package of training allows.

This new package of training does allow frontline police officers and staff to increase their understanding of the threats that foreign powers present, and we will continue to work with my hon. Friend in relation to his constituents.

16:12

Rt Hon Sir Julian Lewis MP (New Forest East, Conservative)

- -

Julian Lewis I'm. really hopeless. I mean, no disrespect to this particular Minister, but I'm sure you've noticed, as I have, that whenever something indefensible comes up, they always put middle ranking or junior Ministers in the front line. Why isn't that? Maybe she's abroad. Maybe she's in her sickbed. But

**** Possible New Speaker ****

otherwise, why isn't the Foreign Secretary voluntarily. Making Chris Kane rather than.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Making Chris Kane rather than. Sending someone else to take the flack in this position, which flack in this position, which really, really is, is not fitting of the outrage that hon. Members of the outrage that hon. Members and there are hon. Members on both sides feel about the fate of Jimmy Love. Yeah. Mr.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Love. Yeah. Mr. Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure whether to take part of that as a compliment in relation to not being directly targeted. But as the Minister for the Indo-Pacific, it Minister for the Indo-Pacific, it is a case in which I take great interest and it is important that interest and it is important that we are here in front of the house today.

16:13

Seema Malhotra MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Feltham and Heston, Labour )

- -

Bridgend the Minister has read.

16:13

Rt Hon Mark Pritchard MP (The Wrekin, Conservative)

- -

believe, and the Silver Rule, which talks about mercy and compassion. talks about mercy and compassion. And whilst all of us in this House will continue to campaign for Jimmy Lai's release, could the Minister Lai's release, could the Minister at least confirm whether there is consular access to Jimmy Lai, not consular access to Jimmy Lai, not just consular communication? And would she call upon President Xi, who no doubt has studied Confucius, who no doubt has studied Confucius, to revisit compassion and mercy and at least allow medical treatment, correct diet, and allow Jimmy Lai confinement?

16:14

Seema Malhotra MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Feltham and Heston, Labour )

- -

Yes, Minister. >> Yes, Minister. >> Mr. speaker, the hon. Member may already be aware that we continue already be aware that we continue to seek consular access and that it is important that we continue to advocate for the release of Jimmy Lai on humanitarian grounds. And I'm sure that that message is one that is going out loud and clear from this House.

16:14

Rt Hon Dr Andrew Murrison MP (South West Wiltshire, Conservative)

- -

Andrew Murrison speaker, the Trump administration. >> Rights. >> And yet the US has been perfectly. Prepared to sanction perfectly. Prepared to sanction Chinese officials, CCP officials who have been abusive. And yet, the UK has sanctioned nobody. Why is that? And when will the judges and prosecutors involved in Jimmy Lai sham trial be sanctioned by this government?

16:15

Seema Malhotra MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Feltham and Heston, Labour )

- -

Minister. >> I thank the hon. Member for his question, and what I will say is that in relation to what we expect that in relation to what we expect to see happening in Hong Kong, that it is unacceptable that we have not seen those commitments, those historic commitments that we made at the time of the Sino-British Joint Declaration be upheld. It remains a matter of concern that the national security law was brought in at all, and it remains a matter of concern that people are being prosecuted under that, and that we seek an end to the national security law and that we seek the immediate release of Jimmy Lai.

16:15

Jim Allister KC MP (North Antrim, Traditional Unionist Voice)

- -

Jim Allister. >> Mr. speaker, strong words of condemnation are appropriate and necessary. But when will the necessary. But when will the government's actions match those words of condemnation?

16:16

Seema Malhotra MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Feltham and Heston, Labour )

- -

The Minister. >> Mr. speaker, I think that the hon. Member will know that to have a case that is a priority for the government that is raised at every opportunity, at every level of government, and that we continue to work on publicly and privately. It is a matter of great concern, I know, to this House and to the country, and that we will want to see all of us working as much as we can and wherever we can, to see the release of Jimmy Lai.

That is our priority.

16:16

Dr Kieran Mullan MP (Bexhill and Battle, Conservative)

- -

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. >> The Prime Minister was happy to track back from China, heralding the successes of the visit without having secured the release of Jimmy Lai. And now we see Jimmy faces his Lai. And now we see Jimmy faces his 20 year prison sentence, in effect, a life sentence. Does the Minister think that was a price worth paying?

16:16

Seema Malhotra MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Feltham and Heston, Labour )

- -

Minister. >> Mr. speaker, I, I will just reiterate again that what is the most important thing is that we focus on doing everything we can to focus on doing everything we can to secure the release of Jimmy Lai. That is our priority, and we will continue to raise this matter publicly and privately, and continue to be in close contact with the family on the steps that we're taking.

16:17

Ben Obese-Jecty MP (Huntingdon, Conservative)

- -

Ben Obese-Jecty thank. >> Ben Obese-Jecty thank. >> You, Mr. Speaker. >> The Minister appears to have come to the chamber today with absolutely nothing to say. Yeah. absolutely nothing to say. Yeah. The recent visit to China was an absolute disaster where people took burner phones. We took a burner plane. We even appeared to take a plane. We even appeared to take a burner, Prime Minister. So the Minister has recently said earlier in the statement she made reference to progress being made in these discussions.

So can she outline exactly what progress has been made, and can she also outline what the response was from the Chinese government when the Prime Minister raised the case of Jimmy Lai with them directly?

16:18

Seema Malhotra MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Feltham and Heston, Labour )

- -

Minister. Minister's recent visit allowed us to open up discussion and dialogue directly, directly with the Chinese government at the highest level, something it seems to me that the party opposite had forgotten is actually quite important in having a discussion and dialogue, including on incredibly difficult issues with other governments. There is absolutely no point trying to call for something when you are shouting into a void, and they should know better, because it is much better to have a relationship that allows us to make our case directly to the Chinese president, rather than talking to ourselves.

And as the Prime Minister has said, the purpose of engaging is to seize the opportunities that open up as a result of engagement, but also to provide an opportunity for those discussions. If you sit outside the room, if you refuse to engage, you can't even have the conversation. And so I come back to the point that I have made a number of times in the chamber today, that we continue those discussions publicly and privately to secure the release of Jimmy Lai.

That is this government's priority.

16:19

Jim Shannon MP (Strangford, Democratic Unionist Party)

- -

Jim Shannon. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Speaker. >> And the Minister has heard me asking for interventions numerous times over the last number of years on behalf of British citizen Jimmy Lai, as others have in this House. And collectively we've been very strong. And now the sham trial has ended. And unsurprisingly, Jimmy will be held in unknown conditions for 20 years until he is 98 years of age. If he lives that long denied his religious beliefs, no masks and unable to worship God as he so wished to do.

Mr. speaker, this surely cannot be acceptable to this government, whose Prime Minister and Attorney General have been at the forefront of using human rights as a panacea for every decision. Are we truly in this House to believe that government abandonment of Hong Kong has meant there are not options for those who are British in Hong Kong, and whose only crime is not agreeing with Beijing?

16:20

Seema Malhotra MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Feltham and Heston, Labour )

- -

Minister. indeed the right hon. The hon. Gentleman. He will also appreciate Gentleman. He will also appreciate the importance of wanting to see progress in this case. He is right to actually see 20 years as the sentence which is tantamount to a life sentence, or indeed has been said in this House. A death sentence is unacceptable. That is why we continue to call for the release of Jimmy Lai, and it is important that we see that release on humanitarian grounds.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Right? That completes the Urgent Question let the frontbenches Question let the frontbenches

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question let the frontbenches Jones. Yeah, yeah. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last

16:21

Ministerial statement: Update on Standards in Public Life

>> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last week I came to the House in the wake of information released by the United States Department for

16:21

Rt Hon Darren Jones MP, Minister of State (Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister) (Bristol North West, Labour)

- -

justice around the depth and extent of Peter Mandelson's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. I outlined with Jeffrey Epstein. I outlined immediate steps this government took, including an initial review of material which ultimately led to a referral to the Metropolitan Police and steps taken to modernise the disciplinary procedures to allow for the removal of peers who have bought the House of Lords into disrepute. I'm here today, Mr. Speaker, to update the House on Speaker, to update the House on further action the government will take to rebuild trust in public life in the wake of these damaging revelations.

Since my statement last week, I'll finish the statement first, if I may. Mr. Speaker, I am assured the House will agree with me. The issues of standards, while important in and of themselves, do not meet the scale of disgust that we all have when we see powerful rich men misuse their positions to abuse women and girls. These procedural rules and the rules that I will talk to the House about today, Mr. Speaker, are important given what has been able to happen in the past.

But we should start by recognising that our response collectively requires wider changes in the culture and use of power wherever it rests. This goes to the heart of who my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is. It is why he became a human rights lawyer in the first place, why he became the Director of Public Prosecutions, and why he changed the Crown Prosecution Service to be more victims oriented. And it is why he became Prime Minister. Mr. speaker, as I set out last week, Jeffrey Epstein was a despicable criminal who committed disgusting crimes.

The Epstein scandal is another awful example of a culture that did not value the lives, let alone the voices of women and girls. The series and sequencing of events across the last week has rightly made clear to us all that for too long and too often, influential people in positions of power, overwhelmingly men, have been able to avoid proper and just scrutiny because of the perverse power structures that incentivise their belief that rules do not apply to them.

And if I may say so, Mr. Speaker, members chuntering from the benches opposite, whilst I am talking about the victims of sexual abuse and abuse of power, should know better and should recognise that they should be quiet and listen. When we are talking about the victims and the justice they deserve to see. Peter Mandelson's disgraceful behaviour raises a number of questions about the ability of the current standard system to catch those few who seek to break our rules.

This damages all of us across the House. The vast majority of public servants, whether officials or elected members, come to serve the public, not themselves. This house, indeed this building, is full of people working hard, unsociable hours, making significant personal sacrifices in order to try and make a difference to people's lives, to do what is best for their country, to fight for their communities. To use their position in this place, to give a voice to those whose voices are too often not heard.

The issues associated with Peter Mandelson, however, show that we must go further to ensure that no one can ever again behave in this way. Since entering government, Mr. Speaker, we have delivered on our manifesto promises to strengthen the role of the independent adviser and we have set up the Ethics and Integrity Commission whilst also publishing Ministers interests, gifts and hospitalities more frequently and reforming severance payments to ensure that they are proportionate and fair. This is significant and important reform after years of repeated ethics scandals under the last administration.

This includes restricting payments for Ministers leaving office following a series of serious breach of the ministerial code, and requiring repayment of severance for those found to be in breach of the business appointment rules. Mr. speaker, it's also why the government has introduced the Public Office Accountability Bill, a landmark piece of legislation to tackle injustice so that when tragedy strikes, the state is called to account. In response to the latest revelations in the past week, the Prime Minister has confirmed that the government will bring forward legislation to ensure peerages can be removed from disgraced peers, and that Peter Mandelson will be removed from the list of Privy Counsellors.

And we are changing the process for the relevant direct ministerial appointments, including politically appointed diplomatic roles, so that in cases where the role requires access to highly classified material, the selected candidate must have passed through the requisite national security vetting process before such appointments are announced or confirmed. But, Mr. Speaker, we recognise we need to go further. We will work with the newly established Ethics and Integrity Commission to ensure that it achieves its aims of promoting the highest standards in public life.

We will consider whether the current arrangements for the declaration and publication of financial interests for Ministers and senior government officials are sufficient, and whether in the future regular published financial disclosure forms or other additional transparency measures should be used. We will look closely at our system for providing transparency around lobbying. And, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that we should consider again the use of non-corporate communications channels within government. Revelations from the Epstein files have shown that it has been far too easy to forward sensitive information via unofficial channels.

There is a lack of clarity about the use of non-corporate communication channels within government, which has raised concerns about the security of official information. As members on the benches opposite know from their former Ministers, who also forwarded information from the government via private email accounts to people when they shouldn't, the government recognises the consistent calls for a strategic review of these channels, the role they play in government, the legal framework in which they sit and whether the current codes of conduct and guidance relating to them are effective.

Mr. speaker, this work will focus on the issues for government, but will complement a range of work being carried out in both this House and in the other place. The government is committed to the principle that second jobs for members of Parliament should be banned outside of very limited exceptions, such as maintaining professional qualification. The Committee on Standards is currently conducting an inquiry into second jobs, and we are working with the committee to deliver meaningful change as quickly as possible. The House is considering the legislation currently before Parliament to introduce a duty of candour, and the Prime Minister has been clear that we will bring forward legislation to enable the removal of peerages from those who bought the House of Lords into disrepute.

And, Mr. Speaker, the government will ask the Lords Conduct Committee to expand its work reviewing the code of conduct in the other place to consider whether standards issues, including the rules relating to peers and lobbying, need to be reformed. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to provide the House with an update on the response to the humble address motion passed by the House last Wednesday. The government is committed to publishing all relevant documents in line with the motion agreed by the House, and is working at pace to do so.

As the House agreed on Wednesday, papers which the government believe should not be published on national security or international relations grounds, will be referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. The Prime Minister wrote to the chair of the committee on Friday, acknowledging that it is important that documents are made available to Parliament as soon as possible and as the Prime Minister has set out, the government is committed to being as transparent as soon as possible and in full compliance with the motion.

The Prime Minister has asked the Cabinet Secretary to liaise with the Intelligence and Security Committee, and I will ensure that the House is kept updated on this work. Mr. speaker, we have all been appalled at Jeffrey Epstein's disgusting crimes and Peter Mandelson's despicable behaviour. It is utterly contrary to what the Prime Minister stands for and the values at the heart of this government. We are resolute in our commitment to fighting men's violence against women and girls and supporting their victims. Delivering on this mission is a critical part of our response to the terrible misogyny at the heart of the Epstein scandal.

We also recognise that Peter Mandelson's behaviour has posed difficult questions about our safeguards against corruption. I have set out today, Mr. Speaker, the steps the government is taking to ensure that the British public can have confidence in the integrity of public life, and I will continue to update the House, as I said last Monday and today on these matters as our works develop. Mr. speaker, I commend this statement to the House.

16:30

Neil O'Brien MP (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, Conservative)

- -

Point of order are just beginning the debate. So does the rules of the House. I'm not going rules of the House. I'm not going to change them, especially for you. Neil O'Brien shadow Minister. Yeah. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Minister for advance sight. Of his statement. Mr. speaker, the Prime Minister's authority. Is gone and his government is starting to collapse. But the PM's decision to appoint Peter Mandelson raises massive questions about standards in public life, questions which the minister's statement today just doesn't answer. Mr. speaker, advisers advise that Ministers decide, and on that basis, can the Minister explain why it was right for Morgan McSweeney to resign, but not right for the Prime Minister to resign? Morgan McSweeney might have provided the advice, but it was the Prime Minister who made the decision to appoint the best friend of the world's most notorious paedophile to be Her Majesty.

His Majesty's ambassador in Washington and the PM did this despite knowing that Mandelson had stayed in Epstein's house while he was in jail for child prostitution. The problem is not the structures or the processes. The information was there, the warnings were there. The problem is that the Prime Minister had all of that before him and yet chose to ignore it. He cannot keep blaming others. He cannot blame the process. He must start taking personal responsibility for the. The record of this government on standards is truly extraordinary.

First, the Prime Minister was embroiled in the freebies scandal £107,000 in gifts given to him since 2019 and a personal donor being given a Downing Street pass. Then the Prime Minister was reprimanded by his own ethics adviser over the appointment of a non-disclosed labour donor to be the football regulator. His transport secretary, an ex-cop, had to resign over misleading the police. His anti-corruption Minister had to resign over corruption. His homelessness Minister had to resign from making people homeless and then his deputy Prime Minister.

Housing Minister had to resign over a £40,000 unpaid tax bill on her house. No wonder even the leader of the Scottish Labour Party now says that the PM must go. Mr. Sarwar says and I quote, there have been too many mistakes and he has no choice but to be honest about failure. Where I see it, he is right. Now let me turn to some specific questions. First, can the Minister confirm whether Peter Mandelson received a golden goodbye severance payment signed off by the government? Why has the government refused to answer this question? Since September, it has been reported that the golden goodbye was between 39 and £55,000 more than the average person earns in a year.

Mr. speaker, this is grotesque. And what steps is the government taking to retrieve this incredible payment for resigning in disgrace? It sounded from the Minister like he was saying he couldn't do it. I have to remind the Minister at the moment at least, they are actually the government. They can take action. Second, will the government agree to a full investigation into Peter Mandelson's behaviour while he was our ambassador? On 27th February, Mandelson arranged for the Prime Minister to meet Palantir, a client of Global Council, his own company.

It was not recorded in the Prime Minister's register of meetings. It only emerged later. Palantir were then directly awarded a 250 £240 million contract by the government. I make no criticism of talent here. My point is simply, why wasn't it recorded how many more such lobbyists meetings with the PM were there, and what other inside information was being shared? Will he agree, yes or no to a full inquiry into Mandelson's time as our ambassador? Third, let me ask about another new Labour veteran put forward for a public office.

Despite his known association with the paedophile, number ten have said that they investigated Matthew Doyle's relationship with the convicted paedophile Shaun Morton. Number ten gave Doyle, the PM's former director of communications, a peerage after purportedly examining this matter, but they have never clarified whether their relationship continued after Morton's conviction. If Doyle cut ties with Morton upon his conviction, why doesn't the government just say so? So I asked the Chief Secretary to clarify this, and will he agree to publish all the documents relating to that appointment? Fourth, the Chief Secretary told the House on Secretary February that a review of the decision to appoint Mandelson was underway.

What form will it take? Will a statement be laid before Parliament? When will Mandelson be interviewed as part of that review? Will it include the potential involvement of hostile intelligence services? And finally, has the government substantively responded to the Esrc's request for more resourcing so it can do its job properly in reviewing the papers that are about to be released? Mr. speaker, no amount of process or fiddling about with procedures can compensate for a Prime Minister who lacked the judgement to act on information put before him.

The Prime Minister was warned about Mandelson. He knew, but he decided it was a risk worth taking. And as the leader of the Scottish Labour Party pointed out today, it's not just the Mandelson affair. Time and time again the Prime Minister gets it wrong. From the Winter Fuel Payment to the family farm tax. And just like with the Grooming Gangs inquiry, the PM has once again put his own political interest ahead of the interests of victims. Mr. speaker, at the start of his statement, the Minister says the PM's choices in this case go to the heart of who he is and that is what we are worried about.

Mr. Speaker. The PM's head of communications has resigned. The PM's chief of staff has resigned. The leader of the Scottish Labour Party says the Prime Minister should resign. It seems like more and more people, even in the Labour Party, are now coming to the same conclusion as the public. This country deserves better.

16:35

Rt Hon Darren Jones MP, Minister of State (Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister) (Bristol North West, Labour)

- -

Minister Darren Jones. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would remind the the hon. Gentleman that the public had their say at the last general election and elected a last general election and elected a landslide Labour majority and put the party opposite into a historic, historic defeat. And and might I say that one of the reasons, in my view, Mr. Speaker, that the public booted that lot out of office was because of the repeated failings in standards and ethics, from the PPE contracts to dodgy friends, to lying to Parliament, to the sex misconduct scandals.

And he says to me, why is it that Ministers that have breached the code have resigned because we fixed the system? The reason we have an independent ethics adviser who can't be directed by the Prime Minister, as was the case under the previous party, is because it is independent. And when Ministers have been found to break the code, they have gone, because that should be the consequence for doing so. The hon. Member has asked me about what the Prime Minister knew at the time of Peter Mandelson's appointment.

The Prime Minister has answered this question repeatedly. Mr. speaker. Sorry that the information has come out since his appointment has made it clear that Peter lied to the Prime Minister about the state of his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, and had the Prime Minister had known then at the point of appointment, what we all know now, with the privilege of hindsight, he would not have appointed him in the first place. He asked me a number of questions about the process, I think, which flow from the humble address, as I've already informed the House.

Mr. speaker, the government is working with the leadership of the Intelligence and Security Committee to ensure that we can comply with the humble address and cooperate with transparency to release the documents in the way that we have said we will, in compliance with the Met Police investigation and other constraints which are currently being managed, and we will ensure that the Intelligence and Security Committee is given all the available support it needs to be able to service the House effectively, in line with the humble address.

16:37

Rt Hon Emily Thornberry MP (Islington South and Finsbury, Labour)

- -

Yes. Is that it? Well, shall we >> Yes. Is that it? Well, shall we go? Dem Emily Thornberry? >> Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I'm grateful to the to the right I'm grateful to the to the right hon. Gentleman for for his speech and for telling us that direct, relevant, direct ministerial appointments, including politically appointed diplomatic roles where they have access to highly classified material, will have to pass the requisite national security vetting process before such appointments are announced or confirmed.

I know that it may sound a little surprising to members opposite, because they probably didn't hear what he said because they were barracking the Minister so much. But I mean, that is to be that is. That's to be welcomed. However, the Foreign Affairs Committee has believed, believed that Peter Mandelson should come in front of our committee before he was sent to Washington. And we were right, and we shouldn't have been prevented from seeing him in the past. Political appointees to ambassadorial roles have nearly always appeared before the committee, but only at the Foreign Office's discretion.

We do not want discretion anymore. We would like it written into the rules that before someone is appointed to an ambassadorial role, or the chair of the British Council, or the director of the BBC World Service, we would like those political appointees to appear in public before the Foreign Affairs Committee and to answer our questions here. Andre.

16:39

Rt Hon Darren Jones MP, Minister of State (Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister) (Bristol North West, Labour)

- -

Can I thank the chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee for her questions? She raises for her questions? She raises important points about the process, particularly for the appointments of ambassadors and the delay between announcement, appointment and also the host country then accepting their appointment to formally appoint them to their role. That's why we've made it clear today that the security vetting process will now have to be concluded before announcement and confirmation. She asks me about the role of Pre-appointment hearings.

I know that the permanent Secretary of the Foreign Office has already informed her committee that the committee is entitled to invite ambassadors to appear before them to answer questions. And, of course, we continue to keep all other Pre-appointment hearings under review.

16:40

Lisa Smart MP (Hazel Grove, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Liberal Democrat spokesperson Lisa Smart. and I thank the Chief Secretary for advance sight of his statement. We must remember that we are having this debate today because of the courage of the women and girls who spoke out against Jeffrey Epstein and those connected to him. Their bravery has forced us to confront uncomfortable truths around power, accountability, and the standards we must demand from those in public life. There are many questions swirling around this place about judgement rightly. And while you can't legislate out poor judgement, you can put in place a better system that leaves us little to chance as possible.

And successive governments have failed to do that. From partygate to ministerial code breaches that went unpunished, we have witnessed a systematic deterioration of standards and the current system is broken. The ministerial the ministerial code lacks legal force. We need structural reform and I welcome some of the mention the measures that the Minister has mentioned in his remarks today, including the ability to boot out peers whose behaviour falls below the standard. We should all expect the ministerial code must be enshrined in law with genuine sanctions for breaches.

The ministerial must extend ministerial code must extend beyond its current parameters to include senior public servants like ambassadors, and we agree that vetting standards must also be made tougher and they should include trade envoys like Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. We must also ban those who have served in any capacity for a current foreign administration, from donating to political parties, think tanks or campaign organisations. And we must end government by WhatsApp. All ministerial instant messaging conversations involving government business must be placed on the departmental record.

These should be published quarterly alongside emails, letters and phone calls to ensure greater transparency. We should also protect whistleblowers through a new office of the whistleblower with legal protections and criminal sanctions on Ministers who fail to report wrongdoing. Just this morning, Madam Deputy Speaker, I met the lively and engaged year 12 students from Hazel Grove High School. When the next election rolls around, they can all vote. They deserve better than the broken system, and we should all be working hard to politics.

16:42

Rt Hon Darren Jones MP, Minister of State (Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister) (Bristol North West, Labour)

- -

Chief Secretary. >> I thank the hon. Lady for her statement and remarks. I think we all agree that we don't just need effective rules, but effective effective rules, but effective enforcement for people who break those rules. And these issues have highlighted the fact that there is more work to do. And I look forward, as does the government, in working on a cross-party basis, to make sure, as she said, that we bring justice for victims who are affected by the abuse of power.

16:42

Apsana Begum MP (Poplar and Limehouse, Labour)

- -

Apsana Begum Speaker. >> Apsana Begum Speaker. >> In December 2025, Palantir won a three year contract worth £240 million from the government. This million from the government. This contract, which is three times larger than any that Palantir has previously won, was awarded without tender. Will the Minister ensure that there is full transparency of how this decision was made and who was involved? And does he agree with me more widely that resignations under the last government meant that true accountability could be evaded and obscured, and that all our constituents wanted from us, and this government was the change that we promised to deliver.

16:43

Rt Hon Darren Jones MP, Minister of State (Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister) (Bristol North West, Labour)

- -

In the first part of my hon. >> In the first part of my hon. Friends question, I can assure her that all procurement rules have been followed. But if there is any suggestion of wrongdoing, we have suggestion of wrongdoing, we have powers under the Procurement Act to take action if required. On the second part of her question, I agree with her that the public were calling for change at the last election, partly because of the repeated scandal issues that happened under the last administration.

And that's why, as I've set out today, we've already taken action to make the ethics adviser independent institute, the Ethics and Integrity Commission. And as I've set out in my statement today, we will go further.

16:44

Simon Hoare MP (North Dorset, Conservative)

- -

Select Committee Chair Simon Hoare. >> Could I ask. The Chief Secretary of the following points? >> He said in answer to an earlier question, the documentation would be released in compliance with the Metropolitan Police. Can he ensure that his department, number ten and the met understand what parliamentary privilege means and assert it on behalf of this House? Secondly, he's mentioned the bill which would remove Mandelson's titles in preparation. But that's a short bill. Could he tell us when he expects to see it introduced in this place, and guarantee a one day process for all stages of the bill? And his statement today is entitled Standards in Public Life.

Knowing that Mandelson was a friend of Epstein. Forget the extent and all of Mandelson's baggage. Could the Chief Secretary finally explain to the House why Mandelson was ever on the short list of people being considered to be appointed to ambassadorial.

16:45

Rt Hon Darren Jones MP, Minister of State (Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister) (Bristol North West, Labour)

- -

Gorlin. Select Committee for his questions? On his first question around privilege, I don't for one second question the supremacy of Parliament or the basis of parliamentary privilege. All I meant to say was that the government is in discussions with the Met Police, who have launched a criminal investigation, and that it's important that we work with them to ensure that information is released, that doesn't then affect their criminal investigations. The Cabinet secretary and others are in discussions with the Met Police about that, and we hope to be able to say more soon.

On his question on the bill. As I inform the House last week, the government's preference is to bring forward legislation that could be applied to any peer who is subject to breaching the rules and bringing the Other place into disrepute. We have begun the work looking at the scope and ability for that bill to be brought forward to the House. I've been informed that that has not been the bill of that nature has not been brought before Parliament since 1425, and that there are no 19 the 1970 bill.

Madam Deputy Speaker, if I may have a few moments, was about a collective group of peers who had been, I think, collaborating with the Nazis around the Second World War. This issue is different. This is about standards that should apply to all peers in the House of Lords, and you should have appropriate mechanisms for that to be instigated. But we are working on that, liaising with House authorities to ensure that we can do that. Right. And we'll bring it forward very, very shortly.

On his final question about the appointment of Peter Mandelson as the Prime Minister has said repeatedly, if he had known that his at the point of his appointment, what we know now, he would not have appointed him in the first place.

16:46

Patricia Ferguson MP (Glasgow West, Labour)

- -

Patricia Ferguson thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker, and I thank the Chief Secretary for his the Chief Secretary for his statement, and I wonder if he could tell the House how the Prime Minister is considering strengthening the role of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ethics and Integrity Commission, given his commitment to improving standards in public life. Chief Secretary.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Chief Secretary. I thank my hon. Friend for her question. The Ethics and Integrity Commission has been set up only very recently by this government to very recently by this government to play an important role in relation to standards in public life. We want to work with the Ethics and want to work with the Ethics and Integrity Commission together to ensure that we set it up for success in delivering on the issues and reforms that I've mentioned to and reforms that I've mentioned to the House today, and that's the basis on which we will be collaborating with them.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Standards Committee. Alberto Costa. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. Madam Deputy Speaker. I never make comment about. Any conduct or comment about. Any conduct or standards. Issues that may impact on individual MPs, precisely because of my adjudicatory role in because of my adjudicatory role in the Committee on Standards, and I do not propose to refer to the Prime Minister in respect of the

16:47

Alberto Costa MP (South Leicestershire, Conservative)

- -

Prime Minister in respect of the potential that, if not all documents are disclosed to the House, it might be a breach of privilege. But I do want to just say gently to the Minister this, that when he constantly refers to the past and to my party in government's role, with breaches of the standards issues from this moment on, will he accept that given the litany of issues that have befallen the Labour government as outlined by my hon. Friend at the despatch box, that it would really behove him if he stopped doing that, and just ensured that going forward, the Labour government acts with the same standards of conduct that it demanded of my party in government.

And might he request the Prime Minister, given the statements that he has made here today, to attend a meeting with the Committee on Standards to outline exactly how, moving forward, the Prime Minister will uphold the highest standards.

16:48

Rt Hon Darren Jones MP, Minister of State (Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister) (Bristol North West, Labour)

- -

Chief Secretary. question, Madam Deputy Speaker, I agree that we need to ensure that we have a standard system, both in this place and the other place that meets the challenges we're talking about today. That is not a party political issue. I merely make reference to the performance of the last government, given the chuntering that we've had from the benches opposite. When I was talking about the reforms of bringing forward to ensure justice for victims and appropriate powers to tackle corruption in the future.

On the second part of his question, I'm sure that if he writes to the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister's Office will engage with invitation.

16:49

Ms Polly Billington MP (East Thanet, Labour)

- -

Which I call Polly Billington, followed by Steve Darling Polly followed by Steve Darling Polly Speaker. >> I think. >> It's worth. >> Reminding my hon. Friend, that one of the things that people keep one of the things that people keep going back to is that the decision was made, that this appointment was worth the risk, and what we finally found out was that some people decided that the rules didn't apply to them. Considering how important tackling violence against women and girls is to this government and to this Prime Minister, could the prime.

Could the hon. Gentleman agree to meet with women backbenchers in particular, to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

discuss the possibility of exploring further how we tackle misogyny in public life? Secretary.

16:50

Rt Hon Darren Jones MP, Minister of State (Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister) (Bristol North West, Labour)

- -

>> Secretary. >> I would be very happy to meet the hon. Friend and colleagues and to do anything I can in pursuit of

16:50

Steve Darling MP (Torbay, Liberal Democrat)

- -

to do anything I can in pursuit of that outcome. >> Steve Darling thank you. >> Madam Deputy Speaker. It is jaw

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker. It is jaw dropping. How many rich and powerful people were within Epstein's orbit, and how many of Epstein's orbit, and how many of them believed that they were untouchable? It's important that we have a culture that is supportive and trusting around whistleblowers. Does the Minister agree with me that we need to have an office for whistleblowers to as the backbone for such a positive culture?

16:50

Rt Hon Darren Jones MP, Minister of State (Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister) (Bristol North West, Labour)

- -

Yes. Chief Secretary. processes are available in all circumstances. My understanding is that the legislation was updated in recent years, but I'm happy to consider any inputs from the hon. Member and other members in the me.

16:51

Johanna Baxter MP (Paisley and Renfrewshire South, Labour)

- -

Johanna Baxter. statement and would he be able to confirm the actions the government has taken to ensure that direct ministerial appointments, including political appointments, must pass the appropriate security vetting processes prior to those appointments being announced or confirmed?

16:51

Rt Hon Darren Jones MP, Minister of State (Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister) (Bristol North West, Labour)

- -

Chief Secretary. >> I can confirm for my hon. Friend that the rules have been updated to ensure that national security vetting must receive full clearance before any direct ministerial appointments are confirmed publicly, or then confirmed for appointments at later stages. As I said to our hon. Friend, the chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee recently, for ambassadors in particular, the process can often be quite stretched out over a number of days, from announcement to being confirmed by host country and then fully being in post.

But we will update the rules to make sure that what happened in these circumstances with Peter Mandelson can't happen again.

16:51

Rt Hon Sir Iain Duncan Smith MP (Chingford and Woodford Green, Conservative)

- -

Sir Iain Duncan Smith Madam Deputy Speaker, I don't doubt that the right hon. Gentleman's desire to put things right. What I slightly doubt today is that right now, today, when everything is about the Prime Minister's judgement, that this looks a lot like smoke to me. This is right, but not right now. And the point I simply say to him is that the point about Mandelson is that he all of this stuff was actually known in conversation, discussion. He was sacked twice for impropriety in government office.

He actually ended up in Deripaska's yacht when the EU was discussing taxation on aluminium. Improper again. And all this stuff leads to the final question of why him then? Of course the vetting was not good enough, but it could have been had they bothered to check everything. I simply say, gentlemen, there is a big question to be asked here. As my Uncle Jim said, surely this is ultimately about the Prime Minister's judgement in overruling anything that he found and deciding for his own purposes that this man should have been appointed to ambassador.

16:52

Rt Hon Darren Jones MP, Minister of State (Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister) (Bristol North West, Labour)

- -

Secretary. >> Secretary. >> The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Prime Minister apologised last Thursday last apologised last Thursday last Thursday for having appointed Peter Mandelson to the post, as he said repeatedly, had he seen the information that we are now able to see from the release of documents from the US Department of Justice, which showed the level of corruption, but also the deep and extensive relationship that existed between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein, on which Peter Mandelson lied to the Prime Minister about at the point of his appointment, he would never have appointed him in the first place.

16:53

Alex McIntyre MP (Gloucester, Labour)

- -

Alex McIntyre thank. thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. My biggest concern, the biggest concern of my constituents, is that the impact of behaviour like Peter Mandelson's undermines trust in our politics and in our democracy because quite frankly, all parties in this House have had scandals related to someone in

16:54

Rt Hon Darren Jones MP, Minister of State (Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister) (Bristol North West, Labour)

- -

PQ second. this House, but also civil servants and other political appointments in the other place, come into politics to serve the public, not to serve themselves. But what the Peter Mandelson issue has shown is that for all of the rules that we have in place that work for the majority of people doing the right thing, there have still been loopholes for people who want to do the wrong thing, and those are the loopholes that we're now going to close.

16:54

Stephen Gethins MP (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry, Scottish National Party)

- -

Stephen Gethins Madam. >> Deputy Speaker. >> Can I thank. >> The Minister for his statement today? It was clearly preferable being here than in the reception being here than in the reception that the Prime Minister is hosting for Scottish Labour MPs and MSPs later on. I have lost count of the amount of time that I've spent here dealing with one way or another, Westminster chaos, and it often relates to members of the House of Lords who are there for life, be they Labour, Liberal or Conservative.

This statement is tinkering. When will they commit to what they have committed to? For 115 years, and dealing with the obscenity that is the House of Lords?

16:55

Rt Hon Darren Jones MP, Minister of State (Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister) (Bristol North West, Labour)

- -

The hon. Member will know that the government's committed to working with peers in the other working with peers in the other place to modernise the House of Lords, and that we agree that that needs to happen. That's why we're in the process of removing hereditary peers, and why we're working with the authorities in the other place to make sure that we deal with the issues we're talking about today.

16:55

Chris Vince MP (Harlow, Labour )

- -

Chris Vince thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Chief Secretary for his statement and his focus on the victims of these appalling crimes. Could the Chief Secretary explain what steps this government has taken to ensure victims, survivors? These vile crimes are heard by those in power.

16:55

Rt Hon Darren Jones MP, Minister of State (Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister) (Bristol North West, Labour)

- -

Chief Secretary. >> Chief Secretary. >> I thank my hon. Friend. And he's right to bring us back to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein and all women and girls who have been women and girls who have been subjected to these atrocious crimes across the country, because evidently their voices continue to not be heard and these crimes continue to perpetuate. That's why the government is committed to halving violence against women and girls, and why it's introduced. The measures to ensure standards of public life are enforced in this place and in the other place, too.

16:56

Rt Hon Sir John Whittingdale MP (Maldon, Conservative)

- -

So John Whittingdale. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I tell the Chief Secretary in relation to his previous answer? The Foreign Affairs Committee repeatedly asked for Lord Mandelson repeatedly asked for Lord Mandelson to appear. You refused to come. But what the Foreign Affairs Committee did hear was from the permanent Under-Secretary that Lord Mandelson would be entitled to a payoff in relation to the terms of his contract. So can the Chief Secretary say how much he received and whether or not he will be asked to repay it?

16:56

Rt Hon Darren Jones MP, Minister of State (Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister) (Bristol North West, Labour)

- -

The Foreign Office is currently reviewing the terms of the contract that led to the suggestion of severance payments, when Peter Mandelson was sacked, and is due to update the House in due course.

16:56

Sam Rushworth MP (Bishop Auckland, Labour)

- -

Sam Rushworth thank. government that is committed to making those in positions of trust accountable. They're clearly very angry today, and maybe it's because it's in marked contrast to a record of people who voted to cover up for one of their friends. But may I say, for ordinary people in Bishop Auckland, the crimes of Epstein are truly shocking and disgusting, and they're shocked to see this global web of power and people acting with such complete impunity.

So is the government. In addition to looking at improved vetting, looking at how we have improved surveillance and vetting of those who are in a position of trust to make sure that these sorts of things cannot happen by those who are entrusted.

16:57

Rt Hon Darren Jones MP, Minister of State (Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister) (Bristol North West, Labour)

- -

Chief Secretary. question, as he will have heard in my statement today, there are a number of avenues that the government is pursuing, including the potential for more routine annual disclosure of financial and commercial interests that we hope will shed more light on some of these issues where individuals are getting away with breaking the rules.

16:57

Rt Hon Gavin Robinson MP (Belfast East, Democratic Unionist Party)

- -

Gavin Robinson Madam. Secretary will know that there are too many members on both sides of this House that enjoy situations like this, and it belies the seriousness of the situation. Does he recognise that an integrity and ethics adviser would not be able to solve the appointment of somebody removed from government twice? If the Prime Minister wishes to appoint them? Would not be able to assist a former director of the Public Prosecution Service whose professionalism should have been to discern the truth in accepting lies, or to inject honour in a situation where a Prime Minister accepts the advice of an individual and then accepts his resignation, but receive the advice.

16:58

Rt Hon Darren Jones MP, Minister of State (Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister) (Bristol North West, Labour)

- -

Chief Secretary. public do not expect party political bickering on these issues, but problems to be solved and justice to be sought for those who deserve it. On the question of the advice the Prime Minister received, as I've said a number of times, Peter Mandelson lied to the Prime Minister. Questions were asked and Peter Mandelson lied in his answers. I'm sure that will become clear as part of the disclosure of documents in compliance with the humble address in the coming weeks.

16:59

Mr Luke Charters MP (York Outer, Labour)

- -

Luke Charters Madam Deputy Speaker, can I thank my right hon. Speaker, can I thank my right hon. Friend for all he is doing to overhaul standards in public life after the absolute bin fire that the party opposite left. But can I ask him to comment on this? Because Peter Mandelson is reportedly in receipt of a severance payment and I was a former regulator. And clawback is an important tool that can come in. So does my right hon. Friend agree that, if possible, Peter Mandelson should be forced to pay every single penny back to the British people?

16:59

Richard Foord MP (Honiton and Sidmouth, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Chief Secretary. >> I do agree with my hon. Friend and as I say, the Foreign Office will be coming forward with more information in due course. >> Richard Foord.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Intelligence and Security Committee wrote to the Prime Minister last Thursday. The letter Minister last Thursday. The letter was published and it included the following. The committee would be grateful to now be told the date on which we will receive the papers, such that we are able to plan the resourcing requirements. I don't doubt what the Minister said about the government being committed to being as transparent as possible, but in his statement, the Minister repeated the phrase as soon as possible.

Can the Minister go beyond ASAP so that the Intelligence and Security Committee can plan the resourcing before receiving the papers?

17:00

Rt Hon Darren Jones MP, Minister of State (Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister) (Bristol North West, Labour)

- -

I can confirm the government will be working with the Intelligence and Security Committee. There are meetings, I think, happening today and tomorrow morning on that basis. The government is just liaising with the Metropolitan Police about the criminal investigation. And once that has been clarified, we'll be able to move forward with disclosures to the House.

17:00

Perran Moon MP (Camborne and Redruth, Labour)

- -

Perran Moon madam. Secretary elaborate to the House how the government will work with the Committee on Standards, on proposals to ban second jobs for members of Parliament to deliver meaningful change? Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My hon. Friend will know that it was a clear manifesto commitment of our party to ban second jobs from our party to ban second jobs from Members of Parliament, except in limited circumstances, for example, where you have to maintain a professional qualification by being professional qualification by being a doctor or a lawyer. The the committee in the House is considering those issues, and I considering those issues, and I know that they've been working on them in quite some detail. The government is working with the committee to try to move that on as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

committee to try to move that on as quickly as possible, and I know the committee wishes to do the same. So Julian Lewis. I think it's notable, Madam.

17:01

Rt Hon Sir Julian Lewis MP (New Forest East, Conservative)

- -

Deputy Speaker, that despite the government's huge majority, I think they've run out of people to stand up and defend their position. John Slinger now the Minister is and I'm not being patronising. The Minister is a very intelligent man. Therefore, I ask of him that he does not insult the intelligence of the rest of us when he talks about the Prime Minister having believed Mandelson's lies after he asked him questions. We now know from the forensic questioning by the Leader of the Opposition that the Prime Minister knew that the relationship between Mandelson and Epstein carried on ongoing was the word.

After his being jailed for paedophilia and prostitution related offences. He apparently chose to ask first more questions after that and was lied to. What more did he need to know before knowing that this man should never be allowed within a miles of the American post? As our ambassador.

17:02

Rt Hon Darren Jones MP, Minister of State (Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister) (Bristol North West, Labour)

- -

Business Secretary. course see papers disclosed in compliance with the humble address, which will be very clear in showing the questions that were asked to Peter Mandelson and the lies that Peter Mandelson responded with in answering the Prime Minister's Questions.

17:02

Ann Davies MP (Caerfyrddin, Plaid Cymru)

- -

Ann Davies. Madam, and I thank the Chief Secretary for the statement. We in Wales know how this story ends. The former Welsh first Minister, Vaughan Gething, was forced to resign following a serious error of judgement and the Prime Minister had expressed full confidence in him. The Prime Minister then went on to appoint Peter Mandelson, despite his association with a convicted paedophile being a matter of public record. So what lessons, if any, does the Chief Secretary draw from this pattern of poor judgement at the very top of government?

17:03

Rt Hon Darren Jones MP, Minister of State (Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister) (Bristol North West, Labour)

- -

Chief Secretary. Madam Deputy Speaker, there needs to be rules that apply in all circumstances to all people in respect of the House of Lords, this House of Commons, and an appointment to these roles and clear consequences for people who lie or breach those rules. And those are the reforms that the government are bringing forward.

17:04

Sir Bernard Jenkin MP (Harwich and North Essex, Conservative)

- -

Sir Bernard Jenkin. >> Mr. Speaker. >> Yesterday the Prime Minister's adviser, Morgan McSweeney, resigned adviser, Morgan McSweeney, resigned because he had advised the Prime Minister to make this appointment. What advice did the national security adviser, Jonathan Powell, give to the Prime Minister? And if he did give the same advice, shouldn't he resign as well?

17:04

Rt Hon Darren Jones MP, Minister of State (Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister) (Bristol North West, Labour)

- -

The Chief Secretary. it would not be appropriate for me to speak on behalf of civil servants and special advisers from the Dispatch Box. The statements the Dispatch Box. The statements released by Morgan McSweeney and Keir Starmer yesterday answer his questions in relation to Morgan McSweeney's decision to resign from post.

17:04

Siân Berry MP (Brighton Pavilion, Green Party)

- -

Sian Berry. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. A government in Deputy Speaker. A government in thrall to men and corporations drunk on power is the rot at the centre of Mandelson's scandal. When people operate in the shadows, they think they can act with impunity. So of all the seven Nolan principles, openness can help build back the most trust. So does the Chief Secretary agree that we must drive out corporate influence and money? And as a start, would he cap political donations and ask all MPs and peers to follow my example in releasing logs of all lobbying meetings so the people can know we work for them? Chief Secretary.

17:05

Rt Hon Darren Jones MP, Minister of State (Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister) (Bristol North West, Labour)

- -

I thank the hon. Lady for her question on a number of those measures. As I said in my statement, we are looking at the current procedures and whether they can be updated in the future to provide more transparency. But she is right that individual rules alone, whilst can be improved, will not be sufficient for tackling the culture issue or the cultural issues that lead to some of these challenges. And it is upon all of us on a cross-party basis, and any other people in power to call out and make it clear that that's not acceptable in public life.

17:05

Rt Hon Sir Alec Shelbrooke MP (Wetherby and Easingwold, Conservative)

- -

Sir Alec Shelbrooke. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Further to the point that my right hon. Friend for Chingford and Woodford Green made. This does look Woodford Green made. This does look like smoke today. It really does. And when this horse has bolted so far, it's at Wetherby Racecourse. And I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that he really is not giving the answers that we need to hear. So let me ask the right hon. Gentleman, he said that the standard of what goes to the heart of the Prime Minister is what he's trying to do.

So why did the Prime Minister believe that somebody who took loans, which in today's money would be worth over £1 million, was found to be flogging passports? Why did the Prime Minister ever think that that person should be rewarded?

17:06

Rt Hon Darren Jones MP, Minister of State (Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister) (Bristol North West, Labour)

- -

Chief Secretary. Gentleman's question, I would just remind him that the reforms that this government has made in the past 18 years, and those which we are talking about today, will be the most wide ranging reforms to standards in public life that we've seen for a very, very long time indeed. I wouldn't call that smoke and mirrors. I'd call that progress. On the second part of his question, as I've said repeatedly to the House, if the Prime Minister had known the depth and extent of the relationship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein, then he wouldn't have been appointed in the first place.

And it's easy for members on the opposite benches with the benefits of hindsight, and now with access to the documents that were not available to the Prime Minister at the time of appointment to say that it should have been done otherwise.

17:07

Alison Bennett MP (Mid Sussex, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Alison Bennett. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This matter is not about process. It is about the judgement of the Prime Minister. And we really can't legislate out poor judgement that we've seen on evidence today. So maybe the Minister has considered our calls to create an office of the whistleblower, but would he also agree that we can ensure that there are proper, proper criminal sanctions for those Ministers who fail to whistleblow to mitigate the frailties and human error we see here? Thank you.

17:07

Rt Hon Darren Jones MP, Minister of State (Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister) (Bristol North West, Labour)

- -

I'd point the hon. Lady to the duty of candour provisions that were bringing forward in the Public Accountability Bill, which include criminal sanctions for those who breach those rules. And as I've said to her hon. Friends on the Liberal Democrat benches, I'm very happy to consider wider recommendations for whistleblowers as she sets out Esther McVey.

17:08

Rt Hon Esther McVey MP (Tatton, Conservative)

- -

Thank you, Madam. >> Given the. >> Importance of standards in public life. >> Why is it that the adviser who

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Why is it that the adviser who suggested Peter Mandelson as the ambassador to the US, has had to ambassador to the US, has had to resign, but the person who actually appointed Peter Mandelson, that is, the Prime Minister, is still in post.

17:08

Rt Hon Darren Jones MP, Minister of State (Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister) (Bristol North West, Labour)

- -

Not. >> As the Prime Minister said last Thursday. He has apologised for having appointed Peter Mandelson and had the information that is now and had the information that is now available had been available at the time of his appointment. He wouldn't have appointed him in the first place.

17:08

Ayoub Khan MP (Birmingham Perry Barr, Independent)

- -

Ayoub Khan thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We all know that the Prime Minister is a lawyer, and the Prime Minister is a lawyer, and one of the traits of a lawyer is to understand and test the veracity of information that is being provided. We know that the Prime Minister has said from that Dispatch Box that he took a risk and that he had no he had known that Mendelssohn kept his relationship with Epstein. The real question is that I, I suspect the risk was that the public wouldn't find out.

The public do now know, is it not time for the Prime Minister to simply go?

17:09

Katie Lam MP (Weald of Kent, Conservative)

- -

Yeah, exactly. >> No. >> Katie Lam. Thank you. >> Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker. This is insulting. The first. Time, though, it was not to be the last time that Peter Mandelson the last time that Peter Mandelson resigned in disgrace from a Labour government, then Tony Blair's Cabinet, I was seven years old. Is the Minister seriously telling us that our Prime Minister needs tweaks to process, to know, not to hire somebody who has been a nationally notorious crook for over 25 years? Secretary.

17:09

Rt Hon Darren Jones MP, Minister of State (Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister) (Bristol North West, Labour)

- -

As the hon. Lady will have heard, if the Prime Minister had access to if the Prime Minister had access to the information we now have about the depth and extent of the relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and Peter Mandelson, he would have not been appointed in the first place.

17:09

Tessa Munt MP (Wells and Mendip Hills, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Tessa Munt thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and. >> If I may, I'll. >> Direct the House to my Register of Members interests in relation to of Members interests in relation to whistleblowing. I'm very hopeful that Chief Secretary knows that. I was promised a meeting with him about the subject of whistleblowers during the passage of the Public Office Accountability Bill. I look forward to meeting meeting him. I wonder if he is aware. I hope he is, that actually the current legislation dealing with whistleblowers directs them into the employment Tribunal, of which there are 47,000 cases awaiting to be heard.

We have to do something about whistleblowing and making sure that protections are in place. I'm looking forward to meeting him with a number of my colleagues, so that we can discuss this in detail in full.

17:10

Rt Hon Darren Jones MP, Minister of State (Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister) (Bristol North West, Labour)

- -

As I've said to the hon. Ladies colleagues on the Liberal Democrat benches, I'm very happy to receive further representations on reform further representations on reform of the law as it relates to whistleblowers. And if we need to go further, we'll be happy to consider such factor.

17:11

Rt Hon Dr Andrew Murrison MP (South West Wiltshire, Conservative)

- -

Andrew Murrison Deputy Speaker the Minister. >> To throw out more. Chaff than a B-52. Can I ask him in his remarks B-52. Can I ask him in his remarks about security vetting, whether he means developed vetting of the sort that is applied to very senior officials before they are appointed to extremely sensitive positions, including military individuals, or whether he has something else in mind. Will he say whether that will be repeated periodically, as is the case for officials, and will it be applied both to political appointees and also ministerial appointments, I should say appointments as Ministers, where those positions are particularly sensitive?

17:11

Rt Hon Darren Jones MP, Minister of State (Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister) (Bristol North West, Labour)

- -

Secretary. >> Secretary. >> I think the hon. Member knows, Madam Deputy Speaker, that there's different processes in relation to the different types of roles that the different types of roles that we might have and others in government, from due diligence through to develop national security vetting as he sets out, the important point is that the right process is applied to the right person at the right time, and that is what we're reviewing right now.

17:12

Pete Wishart MP (Perth and Kinross-shire, Scottish National Party)

- -

Pete Wishart. statement that my constituents want today is a resignation statement. The only reform they want is the The only reform they want is the reform that takes this Prime Minister out of ten Downing Street. It does not matter how many reviews, inquiries or fire guards they put in the way. He has lost the confidence and trust of the British people. My, what we need. This is a government that will end this chaos. They promise to end this chaos when they came to power.

Instead, it is through the stratosphere. He knows everybody in this house, knows everybody in this country knows he is toast. Why don't they just get on with it and get rid of him?

17:12

Rt Hon Darren Jones MP, Minister of State (Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister) (Bristol North West, Labour)

- -

Secretary. wishing for more chaos in our country. The public voted to end that at the last general election. And that's why this government is getting on for delivering change for people across the country.

17:12

Rt Hon Wendy Morton MP (Aldridge-Brownhills, Conservative)

- -

Wendy Morton. >> Today's statement is actually little more than a smoke screen, an attempt to detract away from the key issue, which is about Peter Mandelson and our Prime Minister. There are more questions being asked and still no answers. I'd like to take the Minister very briefly back to that central point about a golden goodbye for Peter Mandelson. How much?

17:13

Rt Hon Darren Jones MP, Minister of State (Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister) (Bristol North West, Labour)

- -

I refer the right hon. Lady to my previous answer.

17:13

Rt Hon Sammy Wilson MP (East Antrim, Democratic Unionist Party)

- -

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Of course, we do need to have a commissioner who has got the powers and abilities to expose where there has been corruption and to deal with it. But this statement today is not required, because we already know that a bad judgement has been made by the Prime Minister. And really, what the public want to know is how is he going to be held to account for things which he already knew and ignored? But can the Minister give us an assurance that, in looking at extra powers for commissioners, will not go as far as what has happened in Northern Ireland, where the discredited former standards commissioner has used her powers to silence members of the Assembly for too vigorously questioning.

Ministers are not showing enough empathy when they make public statements about security situations in their own, in their own constituency, and especially since some of the members sitting behind me when they're heckling fields now threaten members by reporting to the standards commissioner to try and silence them that way.

17:14

Rt Hon Darren Jones MP, Minister of State (Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister) (Bristol North West, Labour)

- -

Justice Secretary. practice wherever it exists, and learn the lessons where other reforms have not worked, whether in our Parliament or in other devolved governments across the United Kingdom. And the hon. Gentleman is encouraged to write to me with his examples in more detail to ensure that we avoid that in the future. I can assure him that the government has no intention to want to try to limit the voices of people in this House, or indeed anywhere else.

17:14

Gregory Stafford MP (Farnham and Bordon, Conservative)

- -

Gregory Stafford thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. >> Going back. >> To the process. >> The Prime Minister followed. >> He received information from the vetting and security services that Peter Mandelson might have had an ongoing relationship. He then questioned Peter Mandelson about that. Did he then test those answers that Peter Mandelson gave with that security and vetting service? Because if he did not, it can only mean one of two things. Either he has a dereliction of duty or he's a credulous fool.

Either way, he should resign, shouldn't he.

17:15

Jim Allister KC MP (North Antrim, Traditional Unionist Voice)

- -

Chief secretary? >> Jim Allister. >> Thank you. Can I take the House back to where this debate started? back to where this debate started? It began with the shadow spokesman reminding us that advisers advise and Ministers decide. And on the back of that, I want to give the Minister the opportunity, I think, for the fourth time in this debate, to answer the fairly fundamental question that I'd like to know the answer to, and my constituents would like to know the answer to.

If it is right for an adviser to resign, why not the far more culpable decision maker?

17:16

Rt Hon Darren Jones MP, Minister of State (Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister) (Bristol North West, Labour)

- -

The Secretary is? >> The Prime Minister has made clear he apologised for appointing Peter Mandelson to the position of ambassador and had the information ambassador and had the information which is now available, been available at the point of his appointment. He would never have appointed Peter Mandelson in the first place.

17:16

Dr Luke Evans MP (Hinckley and Bosworth, Conservative)

- -

Doctor Luke Evans. statement about the new. >> Rules and legislation. >> That he's bringing forward? I've missed something, though. Could you missed something, though. Could you point to the one that he's bringing forward that would stop a Prime Minister from appointing a twice sacked best friend of the world's greatest paedophile?

17:16

Rt Hon Darren Jones MP, Minister of State (Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister) (Bristol North West, Labour)

- -

Chief Secretary?

17:16

Rupert Lowe MP (Great Yarmouth, Independent)

- -

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Many of us, including myself, spoke Many of us, including myself, spoke in this House against the ill judged appointment of Peter Mandelson, which flew in the face of logic. Given his poor relationship with the US and his history of misfeasance in public office. Will the Minister undertake to obtain all redacted evidence from the US pertaining to all UK persons in positions of influence referred to in the Epstein documents, and expose them to the public? This is the only way to clear up this global scandal for the UK electorate.

17:17

Ben Obese-Jecty MP (Huntingdon, Conservative)

- -

Chief Secretary. >> Where the government has jurisdiction over documents and in compliance with the humble address, we will publish them. As I've said

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to the House earlier today. Ben Obese-Jecty. Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Minister keeps making reference to if we had known then reference to if we had known then what we know now with regards to Peter Mandelson's appointment. But the key fact is that we already knew of Peter Mandelson's ongoing relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, as the Prime Minister spoke about at PMQs last week, just as the government knew about Matthew Doyle's relationship with Sean Morton and still gave him a peerage after the internal investigation.

But coming back to the resignation statement of the Chief of Staff yesterday, he stated that whilst I did not oversee the due diligence or vetting procedure, so could the Minister explain who did oversee the due diligence vetting procedure?

17:18

Jim Shannon MP (Strangford, Democratic Unionist Party)

- -

Secretary. >> These processes are administered by the proprietary ethics team in the Cabinet Office, by the Foreign Office and all of the normal

**** Possible New Speaker ****

appropriate authorities. Jim Shannon. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and can I chief Secretary is an and can I chief Secretary is an honourable man, and he's answering incredibly difficult questions. And we have to recognise that the Chief Secretary will know that I seek to find solutions rather than prioritising point scoring. I say that very respectfully in this House. In this instance, it's clear that the public want a solution to the seeming litany of trust breaking decisions taken by successive governments.

And whilst we cannot please all people, the issue of a basic standard for public servants is non-negotiable. And this breakdown, I believe, has highlighted the need for accountability at the highest level. So does the Chief Secretary. I believe that this can be achieved

**** Possible New Speaker ****

without a complete overhaul of the appointment system. I agree with the hon. Member

17:19

Rt Hon Darren Jones MP, Minister of State (Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister) (Bristol North West, Labour)

- -

>> I agree with the hon. Member that there's evidently a number of changes that need to be brought forward. And as he suggests in his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

question, I think that should be done on a cross-party basis in the interest of how we serve the public. Iqbal Mohamed.

17:19

Iqbal Mohamed MP (Dewsbury and Batley, Independent)

- -

>> Iqbal Mohamed. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The confidence. >> In the Prime Minister is at an all time low, and many of the reasons for that have already been discussed. However, one particular issue the Prime Minister visited Palantir's head offices in Washington, DC in February 2025. Will the Chief Secretary confirm if Peter Mandelson advised the PM to visit Palantir? What the purpose of the visit was? Will the government publish details and minutes of the discussions that took place at this meeting? And will the government review all existing contracts with Palantir and suspend any further engagement with them until the investigations are completed?

17:20

Rt Hon Darren Jones MP, Minister of State (Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister) (Bristol North West, Labour)

- -

The Prime Minister engages with a whole host of businesses, whether in the United Kingdom or abroad, in in the United Kingdom or abroad, in relation to his question suggesting particular wrongdoing. As I said to my hon. Friend earlier, we have powers under the Procurement Act to act on these issues, if we must, and if evidence comes to light, then we reserve the right to do so.

17:20

Dr Kieran Mullan MP (Bexhill and Battle, Conservative)

- -

Doctor Kieran Mullan. those measures will protect us from the Prime Minister's poor judgement, unfortunately. And before I ask him the question, I will just point out to him, as the Minister sat next to him and he mentioned himself, the government is currently putting through a House the Duty of Candour Bill, which will require Ministers legally to answer questions frankly and with information that they have, which people could usefully think that they should know. So ask them for a third time. How much is the Peter Mandelson due to take as part of his pay off?

17:20

Rt Hon Darren Jones MP, Minister of State (Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister) (Bristol North West, Labour)

- -

Chief Secretary.

17:20

Shockat Adam MP (Leicester South, Independent)

- -

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. despicable. But I'd like to remind the Minister that under the last government, the now Prime Minister said this a fish rots from the head down and the real change had to be led and modelled from the top. Yet here we are. The issue is back. Despite the colour of the rosette changing, the Prime Minister's closest circle must now take the fall for his poor decision making and appointing a man who is best friends with a paedophile.

Given that there is now a criminal investigation into his closest advisers, shouldn't he do the honourable thing and take his own advice?

17:21

Rt Hon Darren Jones MP, Minister of State (Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister) (Bristol North West, Labour)

- -

Yes. >> Please, Secretary. >> The Prime Minister has, as he said today, is getting on with the job of delivering change for this job of delivering change for this country that the electorate voted for 18 months ago. Rewarding my party with a huge majority in this House. These issues are important and we will fix them, not least keeping the victims of sexual abuse and abuse of power at the centre of those thoughts. And I know that members across the House will want to work with us to ensure that that is done.

17:21

Motion: Business of the House (Today)

And that concludes the statement. And we now move on to motion number And we now move on to motion number one on business of the House today. Minister, to move. >> Back to. >> The question is, as on the Order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that Paper, as many as are of that opinion, say I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. And we now come to the

17:22

Select Committee Statement: Select Committee Statement on the Fourth Report of the Procedure Committee, Call lists, HC 536

Select Committee statement on behalf of the Procedure Committee. Lee Dillon will speak for up to ten minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call members to ask questions on the subject of the statement. These should be brief questions and not full speeches. And can I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee chair and not the relevant government Minister? Front benches, of course, may take part in questioning. I call Lee Dillon.

17:22

Mr Lee Dillon MP (Newbury, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, it's a pleasure to speak on behalf of the Procedure Committee about our fourth report of the session, which looks at the ideas of introducing call lists. And I am happy to stand in for the chair of our select Committee on this occasion. I also want to start by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for giving us time today, and my colleagues on the Procedures Committee for the thoughtful and constructive way they have approached this work.

We launched this inquiry, Madam Deputy Speaker, because members from all sides of the House raised concerns with us. Some colleagues told us that they wanted more certainty in the sitting day. Others spoke about the challenges they faced because of disabilities, long term health conditions or caring responsibilities, and colleagues from smaller parties explained how difficult it can be to know whether there be called at all in a debate. For many of them, call lists seemed like a straightforward answer. But we also heard the opposite view strongly and sincerely held.

Some members were worried that call lists could change the very character of debate in this chamber. They feared we'd lose the spontaneity, the energy and the genuine back and forth that makes this place what it is. So our task was to look at all of this in the balanced, evidence based way. We took written and oral evidence from a wide range of people, from former deputy speakers Nigel Evans, Baroness Lang and Baroness Winterton, from smaller parties, the Hansard Society, Centenary Action and the presiding officers of the devolved legislatures.

Their insights were incredibly helpful and we're grateful to all of them. After weighing everything carefully, the committee concluded that call lists should not be introduced. This wasn't a decision that we reached quickly or casually, so I want to explain the main reasons behind it. First, we found that there isn't a single, clearly defined problem that call lists would solve. The concerns raised with us were varied accessibility, work life balance, speaking opportunities, and the general flow of business. Call lists might help in some of those issues, but not all, and certainly not in a consistent or fair way.

They're simply too blunt an instrument for such a wide range of issues. Second, we heard real worries that call lists what call lists would do to debates themselves. Many members reflected on the pandemic period when call lists were used out of necessity. Those arrangements were right for that moment, but they were undeniably reduced. Spontaneity. Interventions were limited or banned, and the chamber felt flatter and the natural rhythm of debate was lost. That experience made it clear that call lists can change the atmosphere here, in ways that we might not want to repeat.

Third, we looked at how other legislators use call lists. It was a useful exercise, but in truth, their systems operate in a very different procedural environment. Many of them allocate speaking rights proportionally between parties. That is not how this House works. You can't simply lift one feature from another Parliament and drop it into ours without considering the procedural ecosystem around it. Fourth, we examined how call lists would fit in with the way time is currently managed in this house.

Our existing system strikes a careful balance between certainty and flexibility. We know when the day starts and ends, and we know how long different types of business can run, but we also have the ability to respond quickly to events through urgent questions and statements. That flexibility is essential to the House's role in holding the government to account. Introducing call lists would disrupt that balance, and doing so would require a much wider rethink of how the parliamentary day is structured. And finally, we consider the role of the speaker and Deputy speakers.

Their discretion in calling members is fundamental to how debates are managed. They are elected by the House, they are impartial, and they are trusted to use their judgement fairly. Call lists would inevitably, inevitably limit that discretion. We did not find a strong enough case to justify restricting the chair's ability to steward debates effectively, and we note that there are already informal mechanisms in place to support members who have genuine health or accessibility needs, and that the speaker's office handles these with care and sensitivity.

Our report also suggests that the Modernisation Committee should set out how it intends to, how it intends to approach its upcoming work on the use of time in the chamber. That broader perspective will help the House to think about these issues in the round, rather than in isolation. So to close, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to say that we fully understand why some colleagues may be disappointed by our conclusions. We listened carefully to all the views put to us, and we took them seriously.

But our recommendation is based on detailed evidence and a clear view that call lists are not the right solution to the concerns raised. They would change some of the fundamental features of how this chamber operates, and not necessarily for the better. This report isn't the end of the conversation. What it does is give the house a structured foundation on which those conversations can continue. And with that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend this report to the House.

17:28

Rt Hon Sir Julian Lewis MP (New Forest East, Conservative)

- -

Sir Julian Lewis. previous occasion in approaching 29 or 30 years in this House that I've heard a statement from a select committee with every word of which I entirely agree. This is one of those occasions, and I'd like to congratulate the committee and the members who are involved in the preparation of this excellent contribution.

17:28

Mr Lee Dillon MP (Newbury, Liberal Democrat)

- -

I thank the right hon. Member for his question, and I will pass on that, that, that that thanks to the Committee and I think that, you know, we genuinely did take that wider consideration into the multiple aspects that we'd have to change if we were going to bring this into fruition.

17:28

Jim Shannon MP (Strangford, Democratic Unionist Party)

- -

Jim Shannon can I thank the chair of the Select Committee very much for for wanting to and I agree with the hon. Gentleman that often we have two people agreeing spontaneously with the chair of the committee. And I suppose at the end of the day, I think, Madam Chair, that the strongest legs in the chamber, because I'm nearly always lost. And today, Madam Speaker, of course, you brought me in third from the end so that that record has been beat today for a change.

But can I just say that the that I enjoy the spontaneity that we have in the chamber, I don't think there's any need for change whatsoever. I'm not a traditionalist, but I love the way we do it. Let's not change it.

17:29

Mr Lee Dillon MP (Newbury, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Yeah, yeah. comment and we agree spontaneity is such an important aspect of how we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

operate here. And that concludes the select

17:29

General debate: General debate on the UK-India free trade agreement

>> And that concludes the select committee statement. We now move to the general debate on the UK India

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the general debate on the UK India Free Trade Agreement, and I call the Minister to move the motion. Thank you. Very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.

17:30

Chris Bryant MP, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Rhondda and Ogmore, Labour)

- -

17:49

Andrew Griffith MP (Arundel and South Downs, Conservative)

- -

18:17

Imran Hussain MP (Bradford East, Labour)

- -

Imran Hussain. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Madam Deputy Speaker, just to be absolutely clear, in the beginning of my remarks of this important debate today, I do not oppose free trade deals which have immense benefits, as has been set out by the Minister, although for once or on a certainly on a very rare occasion, I do accept some of the points that have been made by the Shadow Minister in terms of missed opportunities, and I think one of the biggest missed opportunities in the point I wish to focus my remarks on today is at what point do we sacrifice our obligations to protection of human rights in favour of free trade? And that's what I will be focussed on.

The free trade agreement before us today raises many serious questions about our trade policy and human rights. But for many of my constituents in Bradford East, today's debate is not just about abstract trade policy or distant diplomatic calculations. It's about an issue very dear to their heart. Kashmir, which continues to be occupied, and I represent thousands of British Kashmiris with close family ties to Jammu and Kashmir. For them, the actions of the Indian state are not theoretical.

They are lived realities felt through family separation, fear, arbitrary detention and the systematic erosion of basic freedoms. That is why the UK India Free Trade Agreement raises such serious and urgent concerns. It is a major agreement, as pointed out by the Minister, with over 30 chapters, yet it contains no explicit, enforceable human Rights clause. It goes much further than just tariffs. It is about standards, cooperation and the institutional machinery that will shape the relationship for years to come.

And the central question for many of my constituents is how can we seek to deepen economic cooperation with India while remaining silent on the grave and ongoing human rights violations in Kashmir and beyond? And let me be clear at the outset, economic engagement can never come at the expense of human rights, and it must never come at the expense of the Kashmiri people. For nearly 80 years, Kashmiris have endured persecution, repression and injustice, and in recent years the situation has dramatically worsened since the illegal revocation of article 335.

In 2019. Indian occupied Kashmir has experienced prolonged restrictions on civil liberties, mass surveillance, arbitrary detention and repeated internet shutdowns. Political dissent has been criminalised, journalists silenced and human rights defenders targeted. These are not isolated incidents. They form part of a deliberate and sustained policy to strip Kashmiris of dignity, voice and agency. And I hear from the wider community I represent whose family members have been detained without charge, whose communications are monitored and whose basic freedoms are denied.

This is not an abstract foreign policy issue. It's a human rights crisis that reaches directly into our communities here in Britain. Madam Deputy Speaker political prisoners remain behind bars without due process. Horsham Parvez, a globally respected human rights defender, has spent years imprisoned for documenting abuses. Yasin Malik has recently been convicted following proceedings widely condemned for lacking fairness and transparency. Transparency. These cases symbolise a broader reality the use of national security legislation to silence dissent, criminalise peaceful political activity and intimidate those who speak out.

And yet, despite this context, the UK India Free Trade Agreement contains no binding human rights safeguards, no accountability mechanisms and no credible system of monitoring. There is no dedicated human rights chapter and no monitoring body within the agreement. Structures required to monitor human rights tasks. Human rights risks such as arbitrary detention and repression. The government presents this agreement as a landmark deal designed to deepen economic ties and open new markets, but trade agreements are not neutral instruments simply for economic gain.

They reflect political choices and moral priorities. This agreement seeks to formalise and deepen economic cooperation with India, while deliberately excluding enforceable human rights provisions. What kind of a message does that send? It sends a dangerous message that human rights violations can be overlooked in the pursuit of market access. It tells those responsible that there will be dialogue but no consequences. Engagement without conditions does not drive reform. It signals impunity. Independent organisations, including UN bodies and human rights NGOs, have documented widespread and systematic torture and ill treatment by Indian police and security forces, including custodial violence and abuse of pre-trial detention.

Indeed, India signed the UN convention against torture in 1997, yet by choice remains one of the few countries in the world never to have ratified it. The House will know that the torture is absolutely prohibited under international law. It is not culturally relative, it is not negotiable, and it cannot be ignored. While negotiating preferential trade access. I also note that the agreement, the agreements, labour commitments are explicitly, explicitly excluded from the dispute settlement, which means they cannot be enforced in practice in the same way as the core economic chapters.

If we are serious about modern partnership, then workers rights and decent standards cannot be treated as optional add ons. Warm words are welcome, but without clear routes to accountability, they offer little reassurance to those at risk of exploitation. And they have. They leave a clear imbalance between what this agreement compels and what it merely encourages. Madam Deputy Speaker with trade at around 43 billion and deep ties across our communities, Parliament's duty to get the safeguards right is even greater.

It is troubling that there are no monitoring trigger, no safeguards, no accountability mechanisms that speak to Kashmir or minority protections. There are no graduated remedies for serious abuses. Short of tearing up the whole agreement and no meaningful lever to respond when violations occur. Indeed, Parliament itself, whilst this comes before us today, what real influence does Parliament have in this place today, even today, in a statement like today, to amend this or to add safeguards to this, to add human rights clauses to this.

So with the little, with the little influence we have over this today, let me ask the Minister some questions. And I hope he is a Minister who normally is very good at answering direct giving, direct answers. And I look forward to his direct answers to these questions. How can the government justify advancing a trade agreement of this scale, whilst excluding binding human rights protections, particularly in light of the situation in Kashmir, which continues to worsen? What mechanisms will exist to monitor and respond to credible human rights violations linked directly to this agreement? What assurances can be given to British Kashmiri communities that their concerns are not being sidelined in the name of economic convenience? And finally, the Minister will be aware the Indian occupied Kashmir remains disputed territory.

What safeguards are in place in terms of any trade that will occur as a result of this agreement directly with an occupied territory, as recognised under international law, because the agreement remains silent on that very important point. Madam Speaker, this agreement is not yet in force and Parliament still has a responsibility. We must insist that the trade policy strengthens justice rather than undermines it. We must refuse to send the message that human rights, especially the rights of an oppressed people, are negotiable.

For the Kashmiri community I represent, I cannot stay silent and see injustice continuing. I cannot accept a trade agreement that deepens economic ties while turning its back on human dignity and justice. The world has ignored Kashmir for far too long. Britain must no longer be part of that silence. We have a moral, legal and historic duty, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it's about time we honoured it. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson Charlie Maynard.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I refer members to my register of interest and the business I founded in 1996, BDA partners, in founded in 1996, BDA partners, in which I still hold a stake but have no role or responsibility economically. This agreement offers economically. This agreement offers some benefits. As per the government's impact assessment, the UK's gross domestic product is UK's gross domestic product is estimated to increase by 0.13%. As Minister has stated as a result of this FTA.

That's equivalent to £4.8 billion. That's in the long run. That's by 2040. So it's 0.13% by 2040. Let's put that into context. The hit to our economy from Brexit is around 6 to 8% of GDP. In the region of £210 billion. So an impact 44 times larger. That's now compared to 15 years time. We get

**** Possible New Speaker ****

0.13%. I would be delighted. I'm grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He quotes a Brexit hit of 6 to 8% of GDP. Has he just invented that figure or has he got some evidence for it?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

some evidence for it? Bureau of Economic Research, the United States. You don't like the states?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You don't like the states? I certainly like the states. So and while we are comparing with and while we are comparing with Europe, I note that the UK's free trade agreement means that 92% of UK exports to India will enter

18:29

Charlie Maynard MP (Witney, Liberal Democrat)

- -

18:43

Katie Lam MP (Weald of Kent, Conservative)

- -

companies will be saving a lot more money by underpaying their employees. >> Thank you. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank the Member for his intervention. It's it's a very important point because as I'm about to talk about, we have double contribution conventions with other companies, but with other countries, but not with other countries. With economies like India is where there are so many people well north of a billion people who would be happy to do these jobs for much lower salaries than our workers at home would expect.

So, as I say, it is true that we have double contribution conventions with other countries. These aim to simplify intracompany transfers for international businesses. However, these agreements are usually struck with countries that have compatible economies, similar education outcomes, and comparable social security systems like Japan or Canada. India stands alone as by far the largest and least wealthy country on the list. In exchange for a deal with India, this government has chosen to sell out skilled British workers who've worked hard to get where they are by allowing Indian firms to undercut them.

We will see highly skilled British workers in cutting edge fields like engineering, priced out by Indian workers. Given the relative markets and educational systems in the UK and India, we should not expect this always to be a like for like swap. In terms of talent, this is a model that we've already seen take hold in the United States. There, Indian consultancy firms lease their workers to American companies, who are then able to pay an Indian worker far less than they would need to pay an American.

The result has been a massive expansion in the number of lower cost Indian workers, at the expense of American workers. Most other countries are perfectly happy to strike trade deals without forcing us to undercut our own workforce. This government should

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have expected India to do the same. Here. Liam Byrne. Thank you very much.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much. Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm very grateful to have a chance to speak in this debate and to use the moment to say a huge thank you to my colleagues on the Select Committee for helping inform this Committee for helping inform this debate with a report that was agreed cross-party and which provided, if anything, a reasonably provided, if anything, a reasonably warm welcome for the government's work in securing this free trade agreement. But with a number of caveats, which I will touch on before I set out the committee's evaluation of this agreement.

However, I do think it is worth us just in a way marking the moment. And if anything, the Minister, who

18:46

Rt Hon Liam Byrne MP (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North, Labour)

- -

is not necessarily someone who is known for underselling a moment in the House, could have actually sold the House, could have actually sold this moment rather more because we don't quite know when he will get the Gulf cooperation deal over the the Gulf cooperation deal over the line. No doubt that is imminent. We don't quite know when he will get the Swiss deal over the line. Presumably that's not too far off now, but it could well be that this is the year in which he crowns a is the year in which he crowns a number of free trade agreements signed since we left the European Union, which do, in effect, create a triple ocean system of alliances that basically bring free trade agreements between the UK to about 46 countries in all, home to 2.5 billion people, and blessed with something like 60% of world output.

That is actually quite an achievement. Now, those on these benches who are the pro-Europeans amongst us will, of course, say that we can now look at what the prize of free trade agreements has brought, compared to the losses that have entailed since we left the European Union. About 14 billion of uplift in GDP is forecast as a result of the free trade agreements that we have signed. That is much less than the perhaps £140 billion hit to the GDP that we have lost since leaving the European Union.

But I am not going to provoke you, Madam Deputy Speaker, by dwelling on that point for too long. Nonetheless, the India Free Trade Agreement that we debate tonight is the keystone in that new architecture. It does connect us to one of the world's fastest growing economies, and it does anchor us in the Indo-Pacific for decades to come. I think it is also worth saying that this is a significant moment for India, because this is not the only deal that India has signed.

As the Minister said, there is also the EU deal that has been signed by India, and there is also, it would appear, a deal with the United States too. And so India is on the cusp of the biggest transformation in its trade policy since independence. It's a country that has long been defined by its protectionism, but it is now choosing to use its trade agreements as the anchors for very ambitious domestic reform. And if these agreements hold, as I hope that they will, with the exception of agriculture, India is now moving from selective liberalisation to something approximating a near open economy.

That is a very significant moment in India's long history. Home as it is to about a sixth of humanity. These are not the traditional kind of Swiss cheese deals with lots and lots of carve outs, delays and exemptions. India is now set to almost fully liberalise its manufacturing sector within 7 to 10 years. That is a step change by any historical standard and for the first time, India has agreed deals that will be policed by powerful external partners, not just the Minister on the front bench, a powerful interlocutor in any trade negotiation, but also by the combined might of the European Commission.

Now, for a government in India that has been protectionist by conviction for a long time, this does represent an important reversal of deep nationalist instincts. And as one of the world's great homes of free trade, that is something which our nation should celebrate. And I hope that this new found philosophy that we see from Delhi is something that the Minister can help use in the conversations that he has got to have in the World Trade Organisation and elsewhere over the course of this year, because, let's face it, we all now need more allies for free trade in this world.

And if we are to build what the Finnish call the values based multilateralism, that is probably the best safeguard for peace in this world, then India's role in promoting free trade could be an important component. This agreement also, this new posture also does have, I think, an important dimension when it comes to China. Because if India is indeed going to grow a low cost manufacturing sector, then the world will need to depend on China and much less so. All in all, it is very important that the UK has played its role in securing this agreement.

Now, the committee's report confirms that the agreement secures substantial tariff liberalisation in what is a highly protected market. As the Minister said, Indian tariffs are reduced or eliminated by our reckoning on 92% of UK exports by value, with around 64% of tariff lines liberalised on on day one. Now, the government modelling such that it is always a bit speculative, always some interesting assumptions, always a bit long term, always a bit difficult to pressure test. But nonetheless, the government modelling suggests that the deal adds nearly £5 billion a year to UK GDP by 2040 and raises UK India trade by 25.5 billion.

Those were the numbers that the Minister rehearsed in his opening speech tonight. Our analysis, however, I think presents numbers which are a little bit more meaningful for UK business because the £400 million worth of tariff savings in year one is real revenue for UK businesses. This is something that will flatter the bottom line. And for businesses which are under pressure for reasons we will set out in a report on Wednesday, this could provide much important cash flow. Those tariff savings could rise to about £3.2 billion over ten years as export volumes improve.

Now there are clear sector gains. There are particular sectors that account for much of those gains in the future. Automotive is something where we think there could be a significant prize, although we do think that there are implementation challenges, and we do think that there is some clarity that is required on how the quotas will actually work in practice, as the Minister said. And as we heard from other hon. Members, spirits exporters are due to do extremely well from this new bargain.

They're going to see tariff reductions from extremely high rates, which exist today. And as the Minister belaboured for the first time, UK firms are going to secure access to India's central government procurement market. Now that is a very large number. Whether it will be true that our firms can genuinely compete for those new contracts is something that the committee plans to study very carefully. Now, when the deal was signed and first published, there was a lot of noise in the media about migration and mobility, and that was something that the committee took a lot of evidence on.

Actually, we concluded that this agreement is not, in fact, a big migration deal, nor does it materially change overall migration policy. What it does, as I think the opposition spokesperson pointed out well, is it does provide limited facilitation of mobility for skilled professionals linked to trade and services delivery. It could go much further in the future, but given where the Home Office positions itself on this policy at the moment, we accept that there won't be much progress in the near term.

There are other real advances and they do reflect years of negotiation and they shouldn't be dismissed. But the committee did want to underline that there are very, very significant risks attached with this agreement. India is not a frictionless market. Tariffs were never the only barrier. The regulatory system in India is complex, it's decentralised and it's highly discretionary. Much of the barriers, whether it's licensing requirements, certification documentation are at the state level and that state level variation and state level stubbornness in bringing those barriers down is something that is going to require an awful lot of work from His Majesty's Government in India.

And that is why the successes of this agreement depend less on what is written in the treaty text, and far more on whether firms can actually operationalise it in day to day, week to week business. And I am glad that the Minister sought to take this bull by the horns in his opening remarks, because we are being asked to debate a treaty tonight, at a time when the Department for Business and Trade is seeking 40% reductions in export support staff, the Minister went out of his way.

I would in a moment, the Minister went out of his way to stress that those headcount reductions would not be in India. I think that was the guarantee that he gave to the House tonight. That's important because these are the officials who are responsible for helping firms navigate the rules of origin, quota management, regulatory blockages and enforcement failures. They're also going to be required to staff an awful lot of working groups that the Minister and his counterpart are going to have to oversee. But I worry that the reduction in export support staff here in the United Kingdom is going to deny firms here in Britain the knowledge and the connections that they might need to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

really exploit the full possibilities of this new agreement. But I give way to the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member, for giving way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The hon. Member, for giving way. Would he agree with me that, unlike the UK, we are well regulated, we the UK, we are well regulated, we have auditing, we have verification and there is a level of trust in and there is a level of trust in the system for products, services, food, pharmaceuticals, agriculture. food, pharmaceuticals, agriculture. It's not at the same level. I'm a big fan of India. My heritage is from India, my family is from India. So I'm not here to criticise India unnecessarily.

But the culture of compliance is not as embedded as it is in Europe and in the UK. So we would need more audits and inspections externally to confirm that the products coming to our shores did meet our standards, and for that the government needs to invest more in resources, not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reduce the team sizes. Well, I think the hon. Member is exactly right. What we lamented exactly right. What we lamented when we published our report is that there wasn't a full scale, full blown implementation plan that full blown implementation plan that went alongside this plan. Now, to a degree, those are difficult things to write, because who can forecast to write, because who can forecast how quickly this treaty will go through the ratification process that is needed in India, for that is needed in India, for example.

But we heard evidence that some markets, not least in automotives, had been chilled because of course, if people know that there are huge tariff savings on the way, if people know that there are huge price savings on the way, then why would they not delay their purchase rather than make the purchase today? So we think that there could have been some wisdom in at least attempting an implementation plan, not least a resource plan that goes alongside this treaty, even perhaps something that could have been tabled for for tonight's debate to show and to reassure the House that the government is going to be watching the implementation of this deal like a hawk.

And it is for that reason that the select committee has decided to go to India a bit later on in March to really understand how this deal is going to get implemented in real life, because the risk is that if our export support work is hollowed out, the consequences will be predictable. Smaller exporters, in particular, will walk away, utilisation rates for the treaty will remain low, and the headline gains will fail to reach the wider economy and benefit the constituents who sent us to this House to debate this treaty tonight.

So I do hope that as quickly as he can, the Minister will rustle up an implementation plan to tell us how this agreement is actually going to be implemented in practice. And I very much hope that he will be able to align the ambitions for this treaty with the level of resource that he and his department are investing in it. The House will want to know that the committee also tested this treaty against the deals that have now been secured by our allies in the European Union and in the United States.

Compared with the EU India deal, it does seem that the UK has moved faster and secured earlier liberalisation on some tariff lines. We've liberalised 92% of the value of our exports. The EU has secured 96.6% of its exports, but both were for roughly the same level of market access to India offers, covering over 99% of India's exports by value to both the UK and the EU's markets. Now, the EU deal is obviously covers a much wider volume of trade than we deliver with India.

They are therefore going to enjoy a much bigger total tariff savings and a much bigger quota access, in particular for sectors like automotive. But the opposition spokesman, the Member for Arundel and South Downs, was right to flag that there was limited progress on services. That was something that we flagged to. It is the lifeblood of the British economy. It's the lifeblood of our exports. We are a services superpower, and the EU's negotiating position does appear, at first blush, to be broader and deeper.

Although the final outcomes, I would say at this stage do remain unclear until the final text is published. Compared with the United States, the contrast is different. Again, it would appear that the White House has prioritised strategic leverage and tariff pressure over comprehensive liberalisation, extracting concessions through market power, not traditional FTA approaches. The UK has chosen a different path. This rules based its negotiated commitments and its long term engagement. I think that this is a choice that can work for us, as long as we are ruthless about ensuring good implementation.

We are sceptical about the level of services mobility that has been delivered. We are sceptical about the absence of a bilateral investment treaty. We do think that that is a significant gap in our long term framework, and we recognise that policy volatility and regulatory risk do still matter. In particular, India's record on investor protection does remain uneven and its tax administration is still too often used in a way that is frankly weaponised. So making sure that we have good ways to monitor this and to escalate this will be important if this deal is to be success.

As the hon. Member for Stoke Central flagged, there are some UK sectors like textiles and ceramics, where there will be increased competitive pressure. And while the agreement does contain binding human rights provisions, the responsibilities of UK firms don't end at the border and so being strong on human rights protection, upgrading the dysfunctional trade remedy authority and pressurising the Competition and Markets Authority to actually publish a foreign subsidy control regime would all be extremely welcome. The final point, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I wanted to flag, though, is something that came up during the Minister's appearance in front of the committee, where I haven't yet heard enough tonight or since he came to the committee about progress.

The reality is, India remains one of the biggest customers of Russian oil. That is money that is fuelling Putin's war machine. And certainly as recently as January, His Majesty's Government had not introduced controls that were in place in the European Union to ensure that oil derivatives made from Russian oil were banned from this country. Indeed, when Politico reported on this earlier in the year, they noted that something like 1 in 6 units of Britain's aviation fuel imports imports were derived from Russian oil.

That is not something that I know the Minister will want to tolerate for very long. He for a long time has been one of the leading voices in this House, standing up to Putin and the evil of Russia. And so I hope in the wind up he will be able to say more about exactly what he is doing, along with his colleagues, to ensure that we are now stopping the possibilities of importing Russian oil derivatives from India. So, in conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, our overall take on this was that this was a good deal in the UK national interest.

There is just one final note of dissent that I wanted to supply when the Crag legislation was introduced to the House in 2010, it was always the intention of Parliament that when free trade deals came for debate, they would be debated on a votable motion, and that would allow Parliament to actually exercise the licence that it was promised to delay ratification if it was discontent with the terms of agreement that had been tabled before us. I am grateful both to the Leader of the House and to the Minister for ensuring that there is a general debate available for us tonight, but it is not a debate on a votable motion.

If this Parliament is to be a strong watchdog and a strong guardian of the executive, than it is important that what were once prerogative powers are powers that are transferred to us here in this House. And so I hope that this is the last debate on a free trade agreement that we have on a general motion, because in a democracy, we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

decide things by voting. Stephen Gethins. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Madam Deputy Chair. Can I first of all, thank the officials who have been working with the Minister have been working with the Minister on this particular trade deal. I am sure the Minister won't mind me doing so. These these trade deals doing so. These these trade deals are difficult and they take a while to come to fruition. And also I'd to come to fruition. And also I'd like to acknowledge the reduction on whisky. But as a member for Moray East quite rightly highlighted, that has to be matched in terms of domestic policy towards whisky industry as well.

But that being said, I know that distilleries such as Arbikie in my own constituency, who who trade globally, will be absolutely delighted with this. I will put on the record that it would be quite

19:03

Stephen Gethins MP (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry, Scottish National Party)

- -

helpful, and we have heard some of that from the opposition front bench about food and drink and some of the safeguards that have been of the safeguards that have been put in place. And I know the Minister has mentioned that, and I would hope you mentioned a little would hope you mentioned a little bit more of that later on. In fact, this is exactly the kind of deal that we were told that only Brexit Britain could deliver, that if only the UK left the European Union, the UK left the European Union, we'd be able to deliver all of these kinds of deals.

Except the EU has gone and done exactly the same. Imagine, imagine my surprise when I discovered that all that stuff about Brexit Britain was absolutely nonsense, that the EU has been able to do exactly the same. And, you know, it would be remiss of me not to give way to the hon. Gentleman. What the hon. Member.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hasn't mentioned to the House is that it took the EU 20 years to get that it took the EU 20 years to get a deal with India, took the United Kingdom three.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Kingdom three. Well. The hon. Member speaks and he says that I've not mentioned it. I had just spoken and I was I had I had just spoken and I was I had started and I did want to keep him in the member who of course represents a part of the United Kingdom, which we've all been told gets the best of both worlds, being in the single market and the customs union. Imagine the best of both worlds. As has been told by Conservative and Labour members as well.

But on that point, will he tell us why the EU has been able to remove more tariffs on its EU goods? There is also, and I wonder if the Minister will talk about this, a stronger commitment on climate sustainability as well as trading within that. And there is there are elements on it in terms of dealing with climate change inside of that and of course, on bilateral income, the percentage, because we know that the EU's a bigger market, there would be bigger. The percentage is higher in terms of the EU savings within that.

Now, I know that the Minister used to be a European enthusiast. I know that since he's gone into government, it has dissipated somewhat, dissipated somewhat, but I hope that I'll give

**** Possible New Speaker ****

way one last time to the member. I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Would he agree with me giving way. Would he agree with me that being inside the EU would have given us much more bargaining power? And and the reason why the EU's got And and the reason why the EU's got a better deal with India is that they are collective bargaining with so many countries, and now we are a so many countries, and now we are a lone wolf, little island and and countries agreeing trade deals with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

countries agreeing trade deals with barrel. Well he's right, the UK is a second tier. Power has left itself poorer, as the Minister has acknowledged to his credit, in the Liberal Democrat speaker acknowledged that as well. It is just a pity that the Liberal Democrats do not agree with me and the hon. Member that we should rejoin, it would seem. Now, look, I did say it was going to be my last, but since it's the Minister, I really ought to collective bargaining.

Surely he's in favour of Scotland doing its collective bargaining within the United Kingdom. If only we were listened to. You know, we feel about as listened to as the leader of the Scottish Labour Party at the moment. And that's not terribly well. Listen to, you know, I'm a great believer in a 21st century model of union based on the treaties, the one that listens to its different member states, makes its members richer, gives them more rights rather than a pretty out of date and outmoded 18th century version of the Union.

So I'm glad that the Minister has given me that opportunity. Now. Earlier on, the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill, quite rightly talked about services and some of these others that the EU has negotiated higher levels of freedom of movement on services. And let me it would be remiss of me not to talk about the higher education sector. And I wonder if the Minister can talk about this in his summing up. He will be aware of the huge impact that trade with India has on our higher education sector in Dundee, for example.

And I'm going to talk about student recruitment. There was a huge amount of recruitment from India, more than the entire European Union, certainly post-Brexit, when that of course fell off and we were left more isolated. There were 810 Indian students in 22, 23, 365 and 2425, which led to that university significant financial crisis. And it is not alone in the higher education sector for that. The former principal, Shane O'Neill, talked about the negative impact of UK policy, and the University Scotland have talked about the loss of dependence and the toxic rhetoric around migration in the UK having a detrimental impact on the higher education sector.

Can I also say my register of interest? As somebody who still does a lot of teaching at the University of Saint Andrews, I have to say the value that we get from having more international universities, not just in terms of income, but in the richness of the teaching regime, in terms of giving our students access to students from throughout the world, but also in terms of research as well, is exceptionally important. And I wonder if we will touch on that point. It's had a hugely UK policy, has had a hugely detrimental impact on my constituency and in particular the financial challenges that University of Dundee faces and I am sorry to say, and I truly am sorry to say, when we saw continuation of that toxic legacy around the Conservatives migration policy being continued into government by the Labour Party.

Now finally, just on some of these issues, the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill, talked about some of the scrutiny. Now, if we were members of the European Parliament, we would get full access to these trade agreements. Will he look at the way the European Parliament deals with this, not just in terms of voting rights, but also in terms of the scrutiny and things being published as a way of good practice at the UK Parliament could pursue. I also, and I am glad that the Member for West Dunbartonshire has not taken up the offer, being cross the road at number ten, but is here.

Can I say to him I am so pleased that he brought up the case of Jagtar Singh Johal. He's made a great case for his constituent and if he doesn't mind me saying continuing from the good work as well, that Martin Docherty-hughes, of course continued I think we all want to wish you a happy birthday, but we all sincerely hope that it's a happier birthday at this time next year. And I thank him for the work and for raising that. And I will add my voice to that for the Minister to respond to.

And finally, a number of members have raised this, but the question of Russian oil in terms of this, what is happening in terms of Russian oil and what conversations were had with Indian officials? And are there any refineries that could be targeted as part of a broader sanctions process? Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ayoub Khan. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker, can I start by saying that we all, of course, want a trade deal, a symbiotic relationship where not symbiotic relationship where not just our country succeeds, but any other country that we trade with other country that we trade with also succeeds. But that must not, cannot be a compromise where we undermine the core values, the core British values of upholding law, ethical and moral values. And yet, when it comes to this agreement, that's exactly what we've done.

Our commitment to human rights, climate and justice have been sidelined for what is obviously a commercial gain. And it is this kind of moral weakness that has become a defining feature of pretty much everything this government has done on the world stage, discarding human rights at the first sign of pushback and branding, cowardice

19:11

Ayoub Khan MP (Birmingham Perry Barr, Independent)

- -

for pragmatism. Time and time again, we've seen the same story when the Prime Minister went to China. We Prime Minister went to China. We all know that the Uyghurs, facing forced assimilation, abuse and forced assimilation, abuse and genocide in Xinjiang were the last item on his agenda, if not left out item on his agenda, if not left out entirely. And with British Jimmy Lai having been sentenced to 20 years in jail today for defending years in jail today for defending democracy in Hong Kong, it's clear that any attempts to move the dial on that front have failed miserably.

Without doubt, the same can be said of Sir Keir Starmer's trip to India. He promised to raise the case of Jagtar Singh Johal and many hon. Members have raised this. A British Sikh who has been imprisoned for eight years without conviction or because he stood up for the most basic human rights for Sikhs in India. The same can be said for environmental and labour standards, which have been neglected to the government refused to even complete an independent human rights risk assessment, which would have highlighted the violations.

British money was at risk of perpetuating. That refusal speaks volumes. But nowhere, nowhere is this government's moral obligation more glaring than in its silence on Kashmir, a region born out of a catastrophic failure of partition in 1947, Kashmir has endured decades of broken promises and betrayed commitments. Yet the Prime Minister did not even pretend to raise its plight with the Prime Minister. Modi. For a people long accustomed to British indifference, this was simply the latest insult. It's a region that is not only occupied partly by India, but had its constitutional autonomy removed in 2019.

For decades, the people of Kashmir have seen their most fundamental rights trampled upon. We have military occupation, political repression, arbitrary detentions, extra judicial killings, restrictions of freedom of speech and assembly, the suffering endured by Kashmiri people at the hands of India is nothing short of horrifying. And yet it is in this context of systemic and unashamed oppression that Kashmiri people's fight for self-determination continues to be ignored, overlooked by nations that are more interested in kowtowing to an occupying power for economic gain.

For more than 75 years, successive British governments have washed their hands of a crisis they helped create, hiding behind the fiction that it's merely a matter for India and Pakistan. Even now, while we have presidency of the United Nations Security Council, we are silenced by our political objectives, paralysed when it comes to addressing injustice around the world. This government is always talking about its non-tolerance of affronts to justice. But when the time comes to act on those promises, it falters.

And it's not just about priorities. It is a sign of the discrimination that this government is willing to tolerate on our own shores. When it suits their interests, it speaks to the responsibilities it is willing to flout when sorting out the mess that our empire left behind. Wherever there's human rights violations, we cannot neglect our moral and legal obligations abroad for quick wins at home, just as there should be. With any trade deal struck by this nation, the free trade agreement should have included a clause that made the benefits of trade conditional upon the protection of human rights, the release of political prisoners, the enforcement of labour standards, and the liberation of the oppressed.

And I hear the Minister make mention of the fact that we have a clause, but that it is not enforceable, and unfortunately that might not have been included within the documentation, because it has no bite, and because if there are no meaningful sanctions determinations from committing such atrocities, how can we expect them to change? And I would gently request that the government reflects on how committed it truly is to upholding international law and its and on its willingness to have tough conversations with our allies in a world I'm afraid to say we are seeing losing international law and values aligned to it.

Britain must be a binding force that holds it together no matter what. And Madam Deputy Speaker, I do echo what my hon. Member for Bradford East has, has said and has repeatedly said in this chamber we must uphold the moral legal obligations. Wherever there's injustice, we must be the force

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that stands up to it. Thank you John Cooper. Thank you. Mr. I'd be remiss not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Mr. I'd be remiss not to touch on the fact that the roots of this trade deal stretch back to the previous conservative the previous conservative government, and to mention that the then Secretary of State, Alister Jack, now Lord Jack of current, in Jack, now Lord Jack of current, in the other place, sent an aircraft carrier stuffed with dancers and pipers from the Edinburgh Military pipers from the Edinburgh Military Tattoo to India to highlight the unfairness of the regime that whisky faced out there, and which this deal does so much to address.

I have the pleasure of sitting on the business committee, chaired by the chair, adroitly by the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North, and one of the things that worries me on that

19:16

John Cooper MP (Dumfries and Galloway, Conservative)

- -

committee when we talk about these trade deals, and he's touched on it himself, here is the government figures for these deals. We have

19:16

Ayoub Khan MP (Birmingham Perry Barr, Independent)

- -

figures for these deals. We have heard time and again that the expected lift in GDP from this deal

19:16

John Cooper MP (Dumfries and Galloway, Conservative)

- -

is around 4.8 billion, 0.13 of the UK's GDP. These figures seem incredibly low and that may be a incredibly low and that may be a lack of ambition, I hope not. It may also be caution. Perfectly good that the government should do that, that the government should do that, but I do think that it's incredible that we are expecting so little from these deals, and I think we could raise those figures. That must not be a ceiling. That must be a floor figure. We could do much better, I think.

And the difficulty we've got is and again, this has been touched on, the Department of Business trade is cutting its headcount. Now the bloated state has to be reduced. Of course it does. But we have to apply those cuts judiciously. And I think cutting good that the in-house team, the in-country team in India are staying put. But the teams in the UK that will help businesses here export. If they go, then we have a problem and we kill growth again. I must touch on the CPTPP easy for me to say.

The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership. Again, we expecting very modest gains from that. And yet it offers us a tremendous market, an absolutely huge market at a time when the EU share of GDP is drifting away. The hon. Member from the the Liberal benches is very keen on returning us to a customs union. In fact, that customs union would commit us to applying EU set tariffs that would take away the freedoms that we have got from Brexit to strike out and do our own deals.

Potentially the EU is looking at CPTPP we are already in, we have first mover advantage and we should strike out with the confidence that Brexit gives us as a trading nation, this country. Adam Smith wrote literally wrote the book on free trade. We are a trading nation. That's what built this country. We should get back to that confidence. I must also touch on the question of agriculture. The Business and Trade Committee heard evidence, both written and oral, from Tom Bradshaw, the NFU president, and he was concerned that while lamb exports could do well in this deal, dairying is once again left quite wide open to some difficulties.

And that's a particular issue for me. In my constituency, Dumfries and Galloway, we have some of the most productive grassland in the UK. We make fabulous Galloway Cheddar. I would love to see more of that being exported to India. It's probably the case that not much paneer comes from India to this country at the moment, but that will change. India is moving at an incredible pace. It's hard to believe that in five or even ten years time, the Indian dairy industry will not have moved on and the licences that the Minister talked about will be in place, and there will be a flow this way from dairying.

And that is that is a concern for that particular sector, one that is very, very sensitive. And the other thing that worries me on the Business and Trade Committee is the EU reset, the much vaunted EU reset, which the government is currently seeking. Part of that is a sanitary and phytosanitary deal which will affect agriculture in the round. What impact can the Minister tell us might this have on future trade deals? Because these trade deals at the moment are struck with the UK based on UK rules and regulations? If we accept dynamic alignment with Europe, we are no longer rule makers in this area.

We are rule takers. Will those countries with whom we are striking deals have to look to the EU then where does that leave us? Does it not hamstring us at a time when again, as I say, we have this fantastic opportunity to strike our own deals and hopefully

**** Possible New Speaker ****

drive growth? Thank you. Jim McAllister. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister, of course, was one of the most ardent Remainers that this House produced. So I'm sure the House produced. So I'm sure the irony is not lost on him today that he comes to this House to propose a trade deal, which wouldn't have been possible if he'd had his way, been possible if he'd had his way, because it is only because of Brexit that it is possible for the United Kingdom to reach trade deals across the world.

And of course,

19:20

Jim Allister KC MP (North Antrim, Traditional Unionist Voice)

- -

sorry. Yes, I will deal with the fact that the EU just signed one. But as I indicated in an earlier

19:21

John Cooper MP (Dumfries and Galloway, Conservative)

- -

But as I indicated in an earlier intervention, I well remember when I was a member of the European Parliament at the time when Peter

19:21

Jim Allister KC MP (North Antrim, Traditional Unionist Voice)

- -

Parliament at the time when Peter Mandelson was the Trade Minister, trumpeting the fact that there were trumpeting the fact that there were now going to negotiate a trade deal with India. That was in 2007. It with India. That was in 2007. It took them to 2026 to manage to cobble together a trade deal. Such is the pace of how the EU proceeds. The United Kingdom, on its post Brexit era, has been able to reach this deal from 2022, so I think the parallel does not stack up for Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Remember, tell me, if Brexit's been so great, why on earth nobody else has followed the UK out of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

door? Well, I, I well suspect that one of the reasons is because the EU made it a punishment beating of the United Kingdom in respect of United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland, so that any other country daring to assert their sovereignty would be frightened out of it and have a return to the impact of this deal on Northern Ireland in a minute. But this it is good to see the tariffs fall. It's good to see that UK products across the board will generally fall from 15% on tariffs to 3% going into India.

That is good. I have a question for the Minister on that, though. It seems from what I read in this deal that there will be once the deal is confirmed, that there will be an immediate, uninhibited flow of Indian goods that come under the deal into the United Kingdom. But the reciprocal movement of goods seems to be on a progressive basis rather than an immediate basis. And perhaps the Minister would explain to the House why that is why the Indians get immediate access and we get truncated and delayed access.

I think we would all be interested to hear that. I note that part of the deal, of course, does reduce the horrendous tariffs on whisky, but still to a very high level, still to 75%. And as I can as a constituent member with Bushmills in my constituency, of course, that reflects on the good jobs that are provided there and provokes my interest in that. Ultimately, we are told over a ten year period the tariff might ultimately reduce to 40%.

It's still a whopping tariff. Yes, it's much better than the 150%, but it still is a huge tariff. Another point I want some clarification from the Minister on relates to vehicles. There is a portion of this deal which deals with access, though it's capped for United Kingdom vehicles into the Indian market. Can I ask the Chris Murray? Does that include buses or is it just motor vehicles? Is it just cars? It's very important. It includes buses because in my constituency, of course, we have right bus producing quality buses.

And in Falkirk and elsewhere we have buses produced in Scotland. So it's important that the access is across the vehicular and includes buses and that it is not unreasonably capped. And perhaps the Minister could explain the wherewithal and the why of that particular cap. In answering that point. Now I come to the absurdity of the implementation of this deal, and I come now to the Windsor framework and the protocol which afflicts Northern Ireland, because under that Windsor framework, we are there in Northern Ireland under the EU's customs union.

And that the EU's customs union. And that means that means that any imports from India come to Northern Ireland, subject not to the tariff set forth in this deal, but subject to EU tariffs. Yes, our exports, such as Bushmills whisky, go out under this deal, but imports are blocked under this deal in terms of meeting whatever the tariff might be for the rest of the United Kingdom, we are subject to the EU tariffs. And of course, that is a common feature across all the deals that have been

**** Possible New Speaker ****

done and will be done. And it is rooted in. Yes. Iqbal Mohamed for maybe he can

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Iqbal Mohamed for maybe he can enlighten me for my information, the reason that something had to be introduced like that was to keep introduced like that was to keep the free flow, friction free border between Northern Ireland and between Northern Ireland and Ireland. And wouldn't the conditions to remove the Windsor framework impose a hard border between the two nations?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

between the two nations? No, it most certainly would not in modern in modern times, there is an abundance of opportunity to develop a scheme with the assistance of modern technology, to have mutual enforcement on the fundamental of international trade. If my if a company in my constituency wants to stick with buses, wants to sell buses to Germany, they must make them to the standards of the German customer. If a German company wants to sell buses into the United Kingdom, they must make them to the standards of the United Kingdom.

So that is the fundamental starting point for trade. You create a circumstance where each country mutually enforces the standards of the other, and thereby you protect the market of the other. And to underwrite it, you introduce a criminal sanction that of any country, any company in the United Kingdom breaches those rules. Then there's criminal liability and you look for reciprocal arrangement. That's the essence of mutual enforcement. That would work. But instead we have sacrificed the sovereignty over part of our own country to a foreign jurisdiction, namely the EU, and said to them, we will subject all our economy to your rules, which we don't make, and we can't change, and we do it utterly unnecessary.

And the real bite of unfairness in that is that multiple companies in Northern Ireland, which do not trade outside the United Kingdom, many don't even trade outside Northern Ireland, but they are caught by the same rules as if they did. They must make their goods, produce their goods, market them in the way dictated by the foreign jurisdiction. Utterly no protection there is necessary for the EU single market, but just an incursion, an imposition of unnecessary restrictions.

And it really does reduce to this. Are we a United Kingdom? If we are a United Kingdom, then the laws of this nation should be made by this United Kingdom, not by a foreign jurisdiction imposed on my constituents in 300 areas of law. Laws we don't make and can't change, but are a supplicant rule taker on. And that is so fundamentally wrong. Now the Minister will tell me, and he's told me before in a rather trite response, oh, that's all because of Brexit.

Sorry. It's not. It's because we in Northern Ireland didn't get Brexit. The Windsor framework denied us breakfast at breakfast at Brexit. It kept us. It kept us within the EU's customs union. It kept us within the EU's single market. Whereas the rest of the United Kingdom escaped. And that is why we have this absurd situation where we do not get the full benefit of these trade deals. And that is something which I, as a representative from my constituency, say to the other members of this House, why are my constituents less important, less entitled than those of every other member from Great Britain when it comes to these matters? So I do say, and then we have some in this House and the Member for Arbroath, and is one of them who wants us to all rejoin the customs union so that we so that we cannot pick, so we cannot make trade, trade deals so that we cannot have a deal with India.

We cannot have a deal with any country because we we would only have the deals that someone else would make for us. Such absurdity. But those are the fundamental issues that I would like to see addressed. And as for getting the best of both worlds, sorry, the best of both Worlds is a fantasy for Northern Ireland for a very simple reason. If you you might have access into the EU market, as indeed GB does through its trade deal with the EU.

But what you forget is that to bring all our goods from our main market, our raw materials, GB, they have to pass through an international customs border with paperwork and checks and extra costs and and therefore not Brexit. The Windsor framework that is now Brexit is what causes the Irish Sea border and therefore the fantasy that Northern Ireland is some special position. We are in the worst of all worlds, and that is proven by the fact that though we were told that under the Windsor framework, we would become the Singapore of the West, the fact that there hasn't been one extra job created by foreign direct investment proves what a fantasy that is.

And the reason it's a fantasy is no company is going to set up on the basis that they can sell into the EU as they could from GB, and forget about the fact that the raw materials would be subject to an international trade border, and the extra cost of that, so that it more than cancels that out, I think. Madam Deputy Speaker, I've probably

**** Possible New Speaker ****

tested your patience, so I'll leave it there. Final backbench contribution Iqbal Mohamed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Iqbal Mohamed. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I of course, like everybody across I of course, like everybody across this House, as a proud British citizen, support the government's efforts and its intentions, the, efforts and its intentions, the, the, the, the, the growth strategy and its efforts to agree mutually and its efforts to agree mutually beneficial trade agreements between countries after the debacle of Brexit and the loss of the collective bargaining and the benefits that we enjoyed under membership of the EU.

I join my hon. Friend, the hon. Friend, the Member for Bradford East and my hon. Friend, the Member for Birmingham Perry Barr and associate myself with their remarks around the absolute mandatory obligation on Britain to ensure that whatever trade deals we negotiate with whichever country, wherever in the world, that human rights are front and centre in those negotiations. Thousands of my Kashmiri diaspora constituents and their families are suffering. They've been suffering for nearly 80 years.

And it's about

19:33

Iqbal Mohamed MP (Dewsbury and Batley, Independent)

- -

time that Britain took a lead in helping alleviate the issue of helping alleviate the issue of Kashmir, the occupation, the illegal treatment of of the illegal treatment of of the citizens there and and the illegal occupation and and allow them the occupation and and allow them the right to self-determination, building on the the issues around building on the the issues around around human rights. I also joining them stand here today to express my profound sadness and disappointment that we are signing a free trade agreement with the leader of a Hindu nationalist governing party that has for decades violently persecuted Muslims, Christians, Dalits and other minorities in India for their religious beliefs or their class status.

And the millions of people in occupied Kashmir. Most egregiously, as Chief Minister of Gujarat in 2002, Modi facilitated a pogrom that resulted in over a thousand individuals, the majority of whom were Muslims, murdered and missed amidst widespread reports of sexual violence, looting and property destruction. The exact death toll of the Gujarat riots is unclear, but it's estimated to exceed 1000 men, women, children, the vast majority of whom were Muslim, according to Genocide Watch, during the massacres, at least 250 women and girls were gang raped before being burnt to death.

A mob of 5000 5000 people set fire to houses in Muslims in Ahmedabad Naroda Patiya neighbourhood, resulting in the death of over 65 people before being burned and hacked to death. Women and girls were gang raped in public. Their male family members were forced to watch the rapes and then they were killed. A couple of heartbreaking examples. Hina causa from Narendra Naroda Patiya was pregnant when she was raped. Several eyewitnesses testified that she was raped and tortured, and that her womb was slit open with a sword to extract the foetus, which was then hacked to pieces and burnt alive alongside the mother, Bilkis Yaqoob.

Rasul was five months pregnant when she was gang raped. 14 members of her family, including her three year old daughter, were murdered in front of her eyes. The Gujarat government has now granted early release to all 11 of her convicted rapists. Madam Deputy Speaker, I was there myself in Amdabad on the first day and for the subsequent days of these riots, I climbed to the rooftop of my uncle's home and I watched the city burn around me. Black smoke was billowing from every direction.

I saw first hand how the leader of a state facilitated and stood by his fanatics, murdered, raped and pillaged their way through Muslim communities and neighbourhoods. Modi was complicit in this ethnic cleansing, even if attempts to achieving legal justice have so far proved futile. Since then, he has continued to refuse to accept any responsibility or to apologise for the events that took place, thereby adding insult to injury to the bereaved victims and families. As Prime Minister of India, Modi continues to engage in faith based oppression of India's Muslim, Christian and other minority populations.

Homes, businesses and places of worship are unlawfully and arbitrarily demolished, a phenomenon that Amnesty International has labelled bulldozer injustice. Communal violence against Muslims is rife with mob violence and lynchings on a daily or weekly basis. So I am gently remind the government of how innocent civilians are being treated by this government with whom we are signing this trade deal, and to do everything in its power, everything in its power to get the best deal we can, but without compromising the principles of human rights for all.

Muslims, Christians, Dalits and others are relegated to the status of second class citizens and subject to collective punishment, and instead, the government therefore, should pursue an economic diplomacy that recognises the importance of religious tolerance and pushes to promote peaceful coexistence of groups with different beliefs. Signing this trade agreement and with it exchanging a reduction in tariffs for our values, sends a dangerous signal to the world that religious bigotry and violations of international human rights law are permissible.

Since Brexit, successive UK governments have shifted away from integrating enforceable human rights clauses into trade deals, instead opting for profit over people by adopting a values free approach that starkly diverges from the human and workers rights provisions that the EU, albeit imperfectly, championed. Shame on them, I say, and shame on this deal. The government should follow the Human Rights Committee's proposals that standard human rights protections should be included in all agreements, and begin to treat human rights as something that applies to all

**** Possible New Speaker ****

individuals of any religion, anywhere in the world. Thank you. I now come to the Shadow

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I now come to the Shadow Minister, Dame Harriett Baldwin. Thank you very much.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much. Madam Deputy Speaker. Soggy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker. Soggy Poppadoms buses, a lot of whisky, pottery, bricks, some Galloway pottery, bricks, some Galloway cheddar, cheddar and even an aircraft carrier promoting whisky.

19:39

Dame Harriett Baldwin MP (West Worcestershire, Conservative)

- -

Those are some of the colourful items that were mentioned in this debate, which really bring to life

19:39

Iqbal Mohamed MP (Dewsbury and Batley, Independent)

- -

the impact across all our constituencies of this UK, India,

19:39

Dame Harriett Baldwin MP (West Worcestershire, Conservative)

- -

constituencies of this UK, India, Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement. And so it's a pleasure Agreement. And so it's a pleasure to close today's debate on the UK, India Comprehensive Economic and India Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, which forms part of the process that Parliament has adopted of constitutional reform and governance, whereby we spend 21 sitting days scrutinising this particular agreement and despite the fact that there are other things happening in this building this evening that I think have perhaps distracted some of the attention, particularly on the government benches, I think we have heard that this is a an agreement that has a lot of significance.

In particular, in my closing remarks, I want to draw attention to a very excellent and detailed speech from my hon. Friend, the Member for the Weald of Kent, who highlighted some of the potential incentives or the economic incentives that will exist as a result of this agreement in terms of employment of British people versus Indian people to do the same jobs here in the UK. And I'm interested to hear the Minister elaborate his answer to those particular points.

And in addition to my hon. Friend, the Member for Dumfries and Galloway, who raised an important issue around dairy, because while it is the case that today there are no licenses for dairy products, as I understand it, coming into the UK from India, that could of course change in the future and it will be interesting to see what process the government would adopt to address that. Now, as my right hon. Friend said in his opening speech, free trade is a key belief on these benches, and that is why we pursued the trade agreements with the EU, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and of course, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific partnership.

And indeed, it was predecessors in the predecessor government who laid the groundwork for the agreement that we see before us today and rightly acknowledged in many speeches this evening that it represents a Brexit dividend, the ability to pursue an independent trade policy and to deepen our relationship with one of the world's fastest growing economies. But recognising that that achievement doesn't mean that we can ignore the areas where the agreement falls short. Many of those points were raised by others in this debate.

The chair of the Business and Trade Committee made the point that the government risks undermining the benefits of the agreement through its planned 40% cuts to UK export staff. And so I'm going to give the opportunity to the Minister once again to reconfirm to the House that the cut in export support staff does not include staff in India who will be working on the implementation of this deal. The House of Lords International Agreements Committee report highlights the stark disparity in this agreement between goods and services, and for a country whose economy is so overwhelmingly services based, this imbalance does matter.

There isn't any meaningful advance in this agreement on mutual recognition of qualifications, with the deal placing a 36 month target for conclusion on this. But I ask the Minister what will happen if no agreement is reached within that 36 month period. And as my right hon. Friend highlighted, the sequencing of market access is deeply asymmetric, with many Indian exporters gaining from immediate tariff reductions here, while UK exporters face phased access and quotas. A striking omission is that of legal services.

The House of Lords International Agreements Committee again said and I quote, we view this as a missed opportunity, given that legal services comprise a strategically important and growing sector of trade, both in their own terms and relation to supporting trade in other sectors. As others have noted. Another concerning omission is the absence of any investment protection, the bilateral investment treaty that was expected to be agreed at the same time remains undelivered, and I'd like to hear from the Minister if he can confirm.

For UK firms investing in India what his plans and deadline are for implementing an agreement. Along those lines, when we compare this agreement with the EU India Free Trade agreement, the contrast is quite clear. They managed to achieve a full investment protection agreement and they, their investors, will have a stronger legal certainty than their UK competitors on agriculture products. My hon. Friend was absolutely right to highlight the concerns that farmers have about dairy being an issue in the future. So again, I give the Minister the opportunity to offer to the farmers up and down this country the assurances they would need in terms of the effect that these provisions might have on them in the future.

But finally, I think we must address again the double contribution convention. We don't know very much detail about it, but we do know that Indian workers posted to the UK will pay no national insurance, nor will their employers. And at the very same

Feed Live - Click to view video

Return to start of debate - Return to top of page