Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I have taken a number of interventions, so I would like to make some progress. I will happily take further interventions later.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)]

rose—

[Stephen Doughty]

I will give way to my hon. Friend.

[Graham Stringer]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I have heard him in this Chamber a number of times say that the United States supported this deal. The President of the United States clearly does not support it any more. I would have thought that that was the case for a pause, but I would also have thought that something else that has changed was the case for a pause: the resolution of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has also asked for the Bill not to go forward. Does the Minister not think that those two things together mean that we should pause?

[Stephen Doughty]

We will not pause in defending our national security interests and those of our allies. We will do the right things to keep our national security and the operations of the base working as they have done for many decades. Despite the claims from the Opposition Benches, I reiterate that it is a matter of public record that, on February 2024, the former Prime Minister spoke with his Mauritian counterpart to confirm his commitment to negotiations, which continued until the general election. It was simply not credible to try to hang on, hope for the best and endanger an asset that is vital to our national security. The reality is that the previous Government failed to secure a deal. They failed to secure protections for the outer islands, for example. When it came to a matter of critical security, they did not deliver, so I am proud that we have secured a deal that is able to do those very things.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Pinkerton]

If the right hon. Gentleman will bear with me for two minutes, I will get to precisely that point.

It is shameful that a meaningful referendum was not the starting point of this Government’s approach, which left Opposition parties to insist on it through amendments. It is equally shameful that this principle has today been rejected on the grounds of cost. What price do the Government place on self-determination? Among Chagossians, this will be received for what it is: justice layered upon injustice.

This Government, and Governments before them, have routinely defended our overseas territories in the international arena on the basis of the self-determining rights of their citizens. Today, this Government rightly defend Greenland on that same basis, asserting the right of Greenlanders to determine their own future. It is therefore with deep regret that I speak in support of that right and of that principle as expressed through Lords amendments 2 and 3, knowing that we will have no opportunity to vote in favour of those amendments when a Division is called.

In respect of accountability and oversight, Lords amendments 5 and 6 would reinforce Parliament’s role in scrutinising the financial commitments of this agreement. They would ensure that the House is not asked to authorise long-term expenditure without clarity on its scale, duration and assumptions. The amendments would require transparency in the way in which costs are calculated, and ensure that Parliament retains control over future payments. That is not obstruction; it is a proper exercise of parliamentary responsibility, and one owed to future Administrations and to the public. The amendments would also give the Government a mechanism to terminate the deal and all future payments to Mauritius should Mauritius fail to honour its obligations.

In May, the Prime Minister said that the deal would cost up to £3.4 billion over 99 years. However, freedom of information disclosures suggest an initial estimate closer to £34.7 billion, a figure that we have already heard today. That disparity risks further undermining trust in this Government, and confidence in their wider approach to public spending. At a time when families across Britain face cost of living pressures, Parliament is entitled—indeed expected—to demand clarity before committing taxpayers to potentially vast long-term liabilities that will endure well beyond any of our lifetimes.

In respect of security and durability, Lords amendment 1 addresses the strategic importance of Diego Garcia, and would ensure that the United Kingdom is not locked into ongoing payments should the military use of the base become impossible. Given the rapidly shifting nature of the United Kingdom’s relationship with the United States, particularly under its current President, the amendment is essential to ensure that we are not bound into a long-term lease without a similarly long-term tenant. No one in this House or the other place disputes the strategic importance of Diego Garcia to our national security, and to global security more broadly. The amendment reflects that reality, and raises legitimate questions about the long-term viability of this deal.

Let me now return briefly to Lords amendments 5 and 6, which together form a coherent and, in my view, proportionate package. They would reinforce parliamentary oversight, protect the public purse, and hold the Government’s financial commitments to account. The other place has not sought to frustrate the Bill; it has asked whether Parliament is prepared to proceed without sufficient safeguards on cost, governance and legitimacy concerns.

I again place on record my disappointment that Lords amendments 2 and 3 were not selected for today’s debate. They would have provided the Chagossian people with a referendum, allowing them a direct and meaningful say over their future—something that remains conspicuously absent despite repeated assurances about consultation.

The Chagossians are not, and should not be, diplomatic collateral. They are not a note in the marginalia of an agreement between Mauritius and the United Kingdom. They are a people who have been treated badly by our country and are now deserving of agency, dignity and justice. For those reasons, the Liberal Democrats urge the Government to accept Lords amendments 1, 5 and 6. More than that, however, we urge the Government to pause, to reflect on the changing geopolitical circumstances in which we find ourselves, and to think again about whether this is the right approach for us, for the Chagossian people, and for our future security.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)]

It has been said that some hon. and right hon. Members have come to the debate on Chagos late in the day. That is right. The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) has been banging on about Chagos for decades, and I admire him for doing so. I first became concerned when I saw how much it would cost the United Kingdom to pay for something that we own. As a litmus test, I asked myself whether I could explain to my constituents why we are going to pay an island nation that has no direct connection with Diego Garcia.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments. Fundamentally, I spoke about Diego Garcia and the Chagos islands for many years because of the injustice that was done and the islanders’ right of return. The whole point has been to gain the right of return, which has been won through this Bill for the outer islands and, in a limited form, for Diego Garcia itself.

[Graham Stringer]

That is at the heart of what has gone wrong, and the right hon. Gentleman has been talking about it for a long time. The Chagossians were treated as itinerant workers in the 1960s, so they did not get the basic rights that people got in other British protectorates. They were discriminated against, and we are discriminating against them again by giving Mauritius the power to determine what goes on. The only solution to the central issue is not a survey, which the House of Lords is doing in good faith; it is to have a referendum, which has been ruled out of order today, for good reasons in procedural terms. We should give the Chagossians a say in a referendum on whether they want to return or not. Otherwise, it is all speculation.

I do not think the Minister explained why we should not take notice of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. That is fundamental, because the Committee goes back to the 1960s decision, and it sees what happened then, and what is being perpetuated now, as racial discrimination, and we and the Mauritians are perpetuating that. My hon. Friend the Minister did not really respond to that point, just as he did not really address what has changed. I have listened to many of his statements in this House, when he has said in good faith that the United States supports us. Regardless of whether it did so in the past—it probably did—it certainly does not support us now. Those are two reasons for pausing and thinking again: becoming compliant with the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and talking to the United States, because it has changed its position.

The amendments before us would not affect the core of the Bill, because that was dealt with in a very short period of time on Second Reading, on Report and in Committee, but they are important in as much as they ask for information. We are going to pay for something that we did not used to have to pay for. It will have consequences for our ability to look after our defence interests in the Indian ocean, and we do not know how much it will cost. Amending the Bill to give us an exact figure for those costs is important. Lords amendment 1 is also important if for some reason Mauritius changes its view or the islands disappear under water. I do not have the opportunity this evening to vote for what I would like to vote for, but I will vote for the amendments that the Lords have put before us.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I rise because in the previous debate we had on this, a question was posed to Ministers, and it has been asked again now: what are the reasons for this Bill? First, Ministers rested on one idea, which was all about how we had somehow received a binding judgment from the International Court of Justice, and this was therefore important because we had to stand by that. I remember it became clearer and clearer during that debate, particularly for some Members, that this simply was not correct. There is no binding judgment; it is an advisory judgment, because we have an opt-out for all matters to do with Commonwealth Governments. That is very clear, and it has been said by many judges and other learned legal people.

Some of my right hon. Friends, one of whom I see on the Front Bench, have raised other reasons in these debates. Beyond the ICJ judgment, we were told there were other issues, and that somehow if we did not do this we would face challenges under the United Nations convention on the law of the sea and by the International Telecommunication Union, which stands steadily. What is most interesting about all this is that, when pressed throughout, bit by bit Ministers’ arguments fell apart. These issues are very detailed, so I will not go into them now, but they will have to be raised in much more detail later.

Proposed Chinese Embassy

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra]

It is important to agree that the decision to provide China with consent to use the Royal Mint as diplomatic premises was made in 2018 by the previous Government under the former Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, and was subject to planning permission. China purchased the site on that basis. That is what my colleague Baroness Chapman has also shared. It is important to recognise that the decision will be an independent one made by MHCLG through a quasi-judicial process.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)]

I think I heard my hon. Friend say clearly that the Government would not stand for coercion by the Chinese diplomatic service. Has the Foreign Office not been looking at what has been going on over the last 10 years? At the consulate in Manchester, people who were demonstrating against the Chinese Government were dragged into the grounds and beaten up, and the diplomatic staff were left alone, with nothing happening to them. There are pop-up police stations all over the country that intimidate members of the Chinese community, whether they are British citizens or from Hong Kong or other parts of China. There should be a simple answer to this application. There is no need for an embassy of this size for the Chinese diplomatic community in this country. It is there to intimidate Chinese people and undermine the elected representatives in this Chamber.

[Seema Malhotra]

My hon. Friend is right that we must not tolerate any attempts by foreign Governments to coerce, intimidate or harass. He has highlighted some examples that have caused great concern and that we take extremely seriously. We continue to assess potential threats in the United Kingdom, and the protection of individual rights and freedoms is a matter of great concern for the Government. Indeed, freedom of speech and other fundamental rights of all people in the UK are protected under domestic law. The police and security services monitor these issues closely.

The UK has a broad suite of powers available to counter foreign interference, including acts that amount to transnational repression. We continue to implement measures in the National Security Act 2023, which strengthens our legal powers and makes the UK a harder target for states that seek to conduct hostile acts. The Security Minister announced last year that counter-terrorism policing is offering training and guidance on state-threats activity to all 45 territorial police forces across the UK. This will enhance the ability of frontline police officers and staff in the identification of state-directed crimes and the actions that can, and must, be taken to escalate matters and mitigate such activity.

Occupied Palestinian Territories: Humanitarian Access

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Before I call Melanie Ward to move the motion, it is self-evident that this debate is well subscribed. At the moment, just based on the numbers who have put in to speak—there are some hon. Members who have turned up who have not put in to speak, which does not mean they cannot be called—it looks as though the speech limit will be around one minute 30 seconds. If there are more interventions, that may have to be reduced.

[Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered humanitarian access to the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. We meet today almost two years in to the devastating war on Gaza. Over 63,000 Palestinians have been directly killed—44% of them women and children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. Will Members remain bobbed for a second so that we can calculate the time for speeches? I remind Members to bob after every speech. The speech time will be one minute and 30 seconds.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

It is a real honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer.

Nine children lie in bloodstained, torn clothes. They were not fighters, militants, extremists or terrorists; they were simply queuing for water in what Israel itself has declared a safe zone, and yet the so-called most moral army in the world unleashed death upon them. Their small bodies now bear witness to a horror that no child should ever know. That is not an isolated strategy, as the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) so powerfully said. We have seen the death of innocent people in churches, mosques, hospitals and schools—every sector of Palestinian society has been destroyed.

For those who survive the bombs, starvation is tightening its grip. Families are already watching loved ones waste away: 361 people have already died of hunger, including 83 since famine was officially declared. The world’s leading genocide scholars, Israeli human rights organisations and international experts are clear: what is happening in Gaza meets the legal definition of genocide. Yet here in Britain, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), in his final flurry as Foreign Secretary, wrote that the Government have not determined that Israel acts with intent, and therefore there is not a genocide. How can anybody look away relentlessly when all this tragedy is happening?

I have very little time, so I ask the Minister: will he call on diplomatic—

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

The IPC has declared only four famines since it was established in 2004. In August, it declared one in Gaza City. It said:

“this Famine is entirely man-made, it can be halted and reversed”.

The non-governmental organisations I have spoken to have been unable to get any aid into Gaza since March. Save the Children has 45 trucks of aid, including medicine, shelter items and hygiene kits, waiting in warehouses, and Oxfam has been unable to bring in any menstrual supplies.

Humanitarian access also means ensuring the safety of humanitarian workers. The year 2024 was the deadliest on record to be an aid worker, and Gaza is the deadliest place on Earth to be an aid worker. On 1 April 2024, one of my constituents, James Henderson, was killed alongside other aid workers from World Central Kitchen while taking humanitarian aid into Gaza. It was not an isolated incident. Between 7 October 2023 and August 2025, 508 humanitarian personnel have been killed.

I welcome the statement by the previous Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), on the IPC ruling made on 22 August. I also welcome the diplomatic and economic measures that the Government have already taken with allies. However, the situation is becoming ever more desperate. Many constituents constantly ask me what more we can do and what more action we can take. Some, such as Kerenza, who I saw yesterday, are taking time off work to support the flotilla, and some are protesting.

With the other three Labour MPs for Cornwall, I have asked for clear diplomatic and economic action with our allies, such as extending further sanctions—

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.

In the words of the President of the European Commission:

“What is happening in Gaza has shaken the conscience of the world.”

In this House, in debate after debate, we come and talk about the horrific scenes in Gaza, yet there is very little action. My constituents are telling me that the Government can and should do more, and I agree.

The starting point should be the recognition of Palestine. By recognising the state of Palestine, we can deliver much-needed aid to the Palestinians, but we can do that only if we recognise Palestine. If Israel then tries to obstruct that, we must deal with it, with the force that needs to be applied to Netanyahu, because he has gone berserk. He is going round like a mad dog—a mad dog that has attacked every sovereign country in and around the region, that has no regard for international law, and that disregards everything to do with humanitarian law and humanity. We cannot sit back—

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. I call Warinder Juss.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fleur Anderson]

On a point of order, Mr Stringer, I omitted earlier to draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have been on two trips to Palestine: one with Medical Aid for Palestinians and one with Yachad. I wanted to make that clear and set the record straight.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Thank you. I call Brian Mathew.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward), not least because of the unique experiences she brings to this debate and the important way she has put it together. I will try to keep my comments as brief as possible, because I think that some 20 Government Members spoke in the debate and the Minister will have a lot to answer and get through.

Obviously, a lot of the speeches have been about humanitarian access, as that is what the debate is about. Many stories have been brought forward about reports from the ground, and it is indeed undoubtable that a famine is taking place. The first thing I would like to probe the Minister on is whether he has had any reports on where all the violence is coming from at the humanitarian aid points. Is it purely from one side, or the other? Has he had any reports on what the security situation is and how that could be improved? I ask because we obviously want to see aid getting in in any way we can. In that sense, you—

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. Sir Alec, you are an experienced Member. Can we move to ordinary parliamentary debate? I have not had any reports.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

I apologise sincerely, Mr Stringer. Has the Minister got the plans for what will be said to the President of the United States to cover these very important aspects? Why is there such violence around the aid points, and what influence can be brought to bear to get more aid in? Some Members have suggested using assets such as the Royal Navy. Indeed, the last Conservative Government were involved in trying to put harbours in and get aid in place. These are all important aspects, because the first point that we come to today is the value of human life and doing everything that can be done to stop what is a man-made famine, wherever the original or ongoing responsibilities for that may lie.

The events going on in the middle east shock us all; indeed, the events of last night shocked us all. That includes the President of the United States making statements that perhaps surprised us all and showed that it may be time for the Israeli Government to rethink whether they can act with impunity, because it appears the Americans were not aware of what was happening and are absolutely furious at what appears to be an attempt to scupper any peace deal. That shows the importance of the Israeli President coming to see the Prime Minister today. It is important to keep those engagements alive, and to be able to look people in the eye and be honest with them. Often, friends can give people the most honest opinion, and it is important to keep those relationships in place.

The hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy said that it is not Hamas that pays the price for the lack of humanitarian aid, but the starving children. What assessment has been made of where aid is going when it is received on the ground, and what can be done to secure that aid for the populations that need it?

We are in a position to leverage influence on the Israeli Government, but I am concerned that declaring recognition of a Palestinian state without calling for the release of hostages may damage the ability of the Israelis to listen to what is said. The significant shifts in foreign policy at this time must be balanced with trying to get a tangible outcome to this event. Everybody wants to see this conflict come to an end. Everybody wants to ensure that the events of 7 October cannot happen again. We must be able to be in the room and to work with the Israelis and the Americans, who have such influence in this area, to ensure that we can reach that position as quickly as possible.

I think the Minister will have plenty of time to answer all the questions that have been raised about humanitarian aid, but I want to draw on the comments made by the hon. Members for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) about getting to the ceasefire and what takes place afterwards. I urge the Minister, if he can, to outline any plans the Prime Minister may have, in meeting the President of the United States, to clarify where American thinking about the day after the war is. We have heard many conflicting reports of the things that may go on, some of which may well be genocidal acts. On that note, is it still the position of the Foreign Office and the Foreign Secretary to support last week’s letter from the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), which said that the Government did not recognise a genocide? Can the Minister outline the thinking behind that? There is plenty of international law that makes the situation opaque, so perhaps he can outline exactly where that thinking came from.

With that, I will sit down, because the Minister has a huge amount to get through. A lot of valuable comments have been made today, and I thank all Members for outlining their points in very precise terms.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

We have caught up on time, so the Minister has a decent amount of time to speak. I ask him, if possible, to find a couple of minutes at the end for the proposer to wind up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. He is a good man who pays an awful lot of attention to these issues. He is telling us about the difficulties regarding aid and he is applying his mind to them. However, as we speak, we have President Herzog in the country.

So I ask the Minister: is that opportunity being used to discuss the root cause of this situation? The failure to transmit humanitarian aid is because of the genocide and war crimes being committed by Israel. Is President Herzog being challenged on his open statements about collective responsibility and saying that there is no such thing as an innocent Gazan? And will he be upbraided for blithely signing his name on bombs that come raining down on Palestinian children? If so, will the Minister make those comments known to the public? We must know how this President is being received.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Just before I call the Minister to respond, we have done really well on the timings so far. However, if hon. Members are going to make interventions, can they be short and to the point, please?

[Mr Falconer]

Thank you, Mr Stringer; I will try to speed up as well. I will come to the important points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) shortly, but first, I will just segue from the overall humanitarian challenges to discuss some of the specific areas of work on which I and the rest of the Government have been heavily engaged over the recess period.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy asked vital questions about the evacuation of vulnerable people. Over the recess, we repeated our commitments to assist both medically vulnerable children and a number of scholars, and there are a number of other people, too, whom I and the Foreign Office are trying to get out of Gaza. However, the operation to get anybody out of Gaza is enormously complex and involves a range of operational partners, and the brute truth is that it also involves the Israeli Government. Nobody can leave Gaza without the support of the Israeli Government.

I am pleased to report to the House that we are making progress on some of those cases, but not all of them. It is an overwhelming focus for me—the operational challenge implicit in getting even handfuls of people out of Gaza. This contribution is, of course, a tiny one, given the scale of need outlined in the IPC report and everywhere else. However, despite the small number of people involved, the operational challenge remains great.

I hope to be able to update the House on the specifics shortly. I know that many right hon. and hon. Members have constituents who are personally affected. As soon as I am in a position to give confirmation on specific cases, I will do so. I know that there are so many right hon. and hon. Members who are deeply concerned about this situation. I can give the House the commitment that at the moment there is nothing else on which I am spending more time, and I will continue to do so until as many people as we can possibly rescue are rescued.

My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East asked an important question, which was also asked by other Members. Just to clarify, President Herzog’s visit is a private visit. He has come not at the invitation of the British Government. Nevertheless, given his presence in the UK, we are taking the opportunity to raise a number of very important issues with him.

The Foreign Secretary met the President this morning, and the Prime Minister will meet him this evening. I am sure that they will provide a full account of the points that they have raised. From speaking briefly to the Foreign Secretary, I know that she raised a range of important points, including the importance of Israeli support for our evacuations, over the course of her discussion this morning.

I want to leave my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy some time to respond, but I would like to say that, understandably, Members raised the question of determinations, and I want to make as clear as I can how the British Government approach genocide determinations. They are, obviously, a question for a competent court. No competent court has made a determination, but courts have made provisional findings, which we would clearly abide by. The previous Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), set out in his letter that, of course, as I have told the House on a number of occasions, we conduct assessments of likely breaches across the whole range of our international legal commitments, including in relation to genocide.

As hon. and right hon. Members will know, there are different tests for different elements of international law. As I have always told the House, we take our commitments under all elements of international law, including the genocide convention, extremely seriously. We keep all those assessments under regular review. The spirit of the previous Foreign Secretary’s letter was not to break with what hon. Members have heard me say many times—that it is for a competent court to make determinations—but to seek to give further aeration to the IDC about what our internal assessment looks like on that particular element.

UN High-level Meetings in 2023

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Tuesday 11th July 2023 Westminster Hall

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) on securing the debate. I recognise his long-standing commitment to international development issues, universal healthcare and global justice, demonstrated in today’s debate, in his co-chairmanship of the all-party parliamentary group on global tuberculosis and in his work on other important issues.

The first debate that I led in Westminster Hall, in June 2015, was on the negotiation and implementation of the sustainable development goals. That debate reflected the general tone of consensus and optimism that there was at the time about the future in the UK and at a multilateral level. Progress had been made toward the millennium development goals; there was a sense of the kinds of intervention that were really making a difference to driving down poverty, improving water and food security and boosting access to health and education; and appropriate funding was starting to be leveraged, not least as a result of UK leadership and the cross-party consensus around meeting the ODA spending target of 0.7% of GNI. Eight years later, however, things are very different indeed.

The UN high-level meetings in September this year must focus minds and galvanise political will if we are to have any hope of meeting the SDGs or of reversing the decline that has begun to happen in some areas. As other hon. Members have said, the sequence of high-level meetings around the UN General Assembly in September indicates at the very least that there is a recognition by world Governments that more action is urgently needed to end tuberculosis, deliver universal healthcare and improve prevention, preparedness and response to pandemics. We have all just lived through one of the greatest global healthcare challenges of recent decades, and we are still living with the ongoing impacts of the covid-19 pandemic on our health services, on the ability of the international community to respond to such crises, and on our response to other diseases and health challenges.

As the points that have been made in this debate suggest, the spread of tuberculosis is perhaps the largest of those challenges, not least because it encapsulates so many aspects of the other two areas of focus for the high-level meetings. TB has overtaken covid to become, once again, the deadliest of all infectious diseases. That is, at least in part, a factor of the lack of access to basic healthcare and sanitary provision in so many parts of the world. The rise of drug-resistant TB raises the prospect of widespread infections, perhaps even to epidemic, pandemic or endemic proportions.

None of the solutions to these challenges is rocket science. If we were prepared to spend political and financial capital, we would be able to address the challenges and make more rapid progress towards all the sustainable development goals. Key interventions at a community level, ideally community-led, in developing countries and here at home can make some of the biggest impacts.

As the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) rightly says, access to water, sanitation and hygiene is a basic human right that ought to be respected. It is demonstrably effective in reducing the spread of disease and therefore reducing reliance on antibiotics and the growth of antimicrobial resistance in relation to TB and a range of other diseases. I fully endorse the report that she highlighted, and I congratulate all those involved in producing it.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

There has been a consensus in this debate that resources need to be directed at trying to prevent pandemics and get rid of as many diseases as we can. One of the proposals to be considered at the high-level talks is transferring some decision making—the declaration of pandemics, for instance—from nation states to the World Health Organisation. I think that that would be a huge loss of sovereignty and a mistake, particularly as the World Health Organisation is dominated by China and has a huge amount of funding from Bill Gates. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that transferring sovereignty to the World Health Organisation would be a mistake?

[Patrick Grady]

With the greatest respect to the hon. Member, I think that that is a point more usefully directed at the Minister, because it is the Government who represent the United Kingdom at the World Health Organisation. I am a believer in popular sovereignty; I would like Scotland to be an independent member of all those international, multilateral institutions, ensuring that the voice of the people of Scotland is heard in those negotiations. There has to be accountability within international mechanisms, and countries that sign up to international treaties ought to do so on the basis of consensus. They should be prepared to implement their commitments. If more Governments were living up to their commitments, perhaps we would not find ourselves in this position.

I understand that the issue that the hon. Member raises is of concern to a number of constituents; I have heard similar concerns myself. It is important that the Government are able to respond to those concerns, and that when international treaties are entered into, full transparency and accountability are built in.

There are interventions that we already know work, without having to reinvent the wheel: access to water and sanitation is one of them; food security is another. Driven by small and sustainable farmers, food security improves nutrition, which improves educational outcomes and boosts gender equality. That helps societies to grow and develop overall, and ultimately generates tax receipts that can be invested back into health and other social services. In all that, there are important lessons to be learned in the way that the world has sought to tackle other challenges, not least HIV/AIDS. Indeed, the ongoing fight against HIV should not be forgotten in these meetings.

At a higher level, investment in research and development and new technologies can help to combat and control the spread of disease. The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) spoke about the work that institutions do in his constituency; similar work is going on at the University of Glasgow, and all the institutions work together on many of these issues. Regrettably, we still live in a world where more money is invested in treating hay fever and male pattern baldness—I have some experience of both—than the diseases that affect the poorest and most vulnerable around the world. Global Justice Now points out that between 1945 and 1965, when TB was a significant problem in western countries such as ours, eight different anti-TB drugs were discovered, but once TB was no longer a significant problem in the global north, development stalled, and no new anti-TB drugs were developed between 1965 and 2012. Even today, just 4% of newly approved pharmaceutical products are for neglected diseases that affect low and middle-income countries. That has to start to change, and perhaps there is also a role in that for the WHO and other multilateral organisations.

From today’s contributions, it is clear that none of the actions or outcomes needed from the high-level meetings is particularly novel or surprising. Various Members have made a good case for the levels of funding that are needed, and the Government, rather than yawning, need to listen to them. There was a habit, especially among the Government’s predecessors, to announce money—£100 million for this, £1 billion for that—but those were just nice round figures. United Nations agencies and international stakeholders have analysed what is actually needed to meet the research goals, meet the delivery objectives and set targets for the amounts to be funded. That is what the Government ought to focus on. The question at all these meetings is whether world leaders will step up; for us here today, that means whether the UK Government are prepared to step up.

Of course, the Government would be stepping up, regrettably, from a lower standing than back in 2015, when the SDGs were first negotiated. Indeed, the UK helped to lead the negotiation process, but it has now taken a back seat. By the admission of the Minister for Development, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), the UK is no longer the development superpower that it used to be, and it is trying to stretch a significantly reduced aid budget that has been further diminished by the smash-and-grab raid on FCDO resources perpetrated by the Home Office to fund its failing and unlawful anti-asylum policies.

That is the first big and clear ask for the Minister today: the Government simply need to put more money into the system and get back on track to 0.7% as quickly as possible. Within that, they have to prioritise the most effective interventions. They have to recognise the importance of the multilateral system and the effectiveness of initiatives such as Gavi and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, especially where work is delivered at a community level and with community empowerment and involvement in decision making. The Government have to be committed to a genuinely universal rights-based approach to the provision of healthcare and pandemic preparedness. Flexibility has to be built into trade and intellectual property, for example, so that profit never comes before people and the planet. There must also be a recognition of digital rights, privacy and the security of individuals’ data. In all of that, there has to be political leadership. Like every other Member who has spoken today, I would be grateful if the Minister could suggest who the Government will send to the meetings. Will it be a Secretary of State, or at the very least the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, who speaks on development issues in Cabinet?

Finally, I am always encouraged by the number of constituents who raise global justice, access to healthcare, tackling poverty and the sustainable development goals with me. People in Glasgow North and across Scotland want to play their part in building a world where everyone has the opportunity to flourish free from hunger and disease, and right now they do not see the UK Government stepping up to help to make that vision a reality. That is why more and more of them are realising that an independent Scotland would have its own representation at these high-level meetings, and that it could set 0.7% as a floor, not a ceiling, for aid spending. Perhaps they will conclude that the best way for Scotland to play its part will be to take its own place as an independent member of a community of nations.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[David Rutley]

I respect the hon. Gentleman’s comments. He and I have worked together on many issues in the past, and I understand his campaign on this issue. Our priority is, of course, the safety of all British nationals who travel to the World cup. The UK prioritises the issue of LGBT+ rights internationally, and we continue to engage with the Qatari authorities on this issue. Many sportsmen and women use their platforms to do important work across a range of issues, which is their personal choice. The UK Government stand by our values, and our team stands by the values of our home nations.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

20. What recent assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of the violence against demonstrators at the consulate of the People’s Republic of China in Manchester on 16 October 2022.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)]

The apparent behaviour of Chinese officials in Manchester is unacceptable. We have made it clear to China that freedom of protest must be respected. If the police determine that there are grounds to charge any Chinese diplomats, we would expect China to waive immunity. There will be diplomatic consequences should China not agree to co-operate in this way.

[Graham Stringer]

I do not think that is good enough. The violence by consular officials on the streets of Manchester is unacceptable, as the Minister says, but this is just the visible tip of the iceberg of secret police stations—consular activities by the Chinese to police and intimidate people in this country. To stop this unacceptable activity, will she consider reducing the number of Chinese diplomats who are allowed into this country?

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

This issue is with the Greater Manchester police and, because we are a country that believes in following the rule of law, we are waiting for it to complete its investigations. At that point, the Foreign Secretary will determine how to proceed.

Chinese Consulate: Attack on Hong Kong Protesters

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

The hon. Lady raises two interesting points. There are aspects of our open democratic society—such as the use of drones—that can be used in a very intimidating way. She is absolutely right to point to that, and it raises a longer-term issue for our security and wellbeing. On the consulates, I thank her for her suggestion, which needs to be taken very seriously; I am grateful for it.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

At a time when relationships with China were improving, I was a guest at the consulate in Manchester on a number of occasions. It struck me then that the consulate is huge—by far the biggest consulate of the many in Manchester. At a time when détente has finished and relationships with China are getting worse, because it is not respecting international law or the laws of this country, the size of that consulate indicates to me that it is being used to control and police members of the Chinese community in Manchester. When the Minister has had the results of the investigations—whatever they turn out to be—will he consider reducing the size of that consulate and any other consulates that the Chinese have, because they are being used not for the normal business of consulates, but as an extension of the Beijing Government in this country?

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I do not think that I should comment on the activities of the consulate, with which I am not personally familiar, but he is right that the fundamental consular activity is extremely straightforward, in terms of the support of one’s own people in a foreign country. One would not think that an enormous infrastructure is needed to do that. His point could be applied not just to consulates, but to other potential institutions around the country and around the world, and I thank him for that.

Hong Kong Anniversaries

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman is making an excellent point about the individuals involved. Does he agree that HSBC, headquartered in London, is a business that regularly breaks the law? It is the money-laundering choice for a number of illegal operations and has been fined three times. HSBC is not only involved in Xinjiang, but in Hong Kong it has frozen the accounts of individual protesters—people who were trying to restore democracy in Hong Kong. Does he agree that the Government could do more to influence or control that dreadful bank?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because that is correct. I had clashes with HSBC when it froze the accounts of those who had fled Hong Kong under the Government schemes. The same applies to Standard Chartered. HSBC’s answer was that it has to obey the law. My answer to the bank is, “You are headquartered in London. You take advantage of the freedoms in London, yet you behave like a brutal part of the Government in Hong Kong in obeying their every whim. You cannot ride both horses.” Those who take advantage of our common law purpose and the rights that exist in London need also to obey the norms of how those things came about and how they are operated. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The abuses of those banks are shocking and the Government should pay attention. I was going to raise that appalling situation, but now he has done.

On other issues, I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s support for the withdrawal, finally, of serving UK judges from the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal. I was surprised that we had to campaign for that at all, and that judges, whose responsibility in the UK is to arbitrate fairly in disputes in a democratic country under the rule of law, should so position themselves in Hong Kong while arbitrary detention was taking place, and carry on earning a living while serving in the UK. I am enormously pleased that that has now come to an end.

The President of the Supreme Court, Lord Reed, has agreed that High Court judges will no longer act in Hong Kong, but retired judges continue to do so. He said:

“the judges of the Supreme Court cannot continue to sit in Hong Kong without appearing to endorse an administration which has departed from values of political freedom, and freedom of expression”.

We obviously welcomed that decision, even though it was overdue, but I would have thought that retired judges were bound by much the same principle. If the Supreme Court has reached the opinion that its judges can no longer appear to act with an Administration who have departed from the values of political freedom and freedom of expression, how is it that retired judges, who are meant to be bound by the same principles, can in all honestly look themselves in the mirror and say, “That’s all right, but we are different”? I appeal to them today, for the sake of all those who are being traduced, arrested, tortured and dealt brutally with: it is time for us to show the world that the legitimacy of the legal system in Hong Kong is no longer. I understand that they have defended their decision, and I am not going to go through the details, but we must now call time on it.

What should the UK be doing? This is important: we should implement individual sanctions against Hong Kong officials who are responsible for the crackdown on civil liberties in Hong Kong. The UK is yet to impose sanctions on any Hong Kong official, which is astonishing given the fact that we had a joint requirement to see fairness. We see it trashed, yet we have done nothing about those who are clearly and obviously guilty. Here is the irony: the USA has done exactly that, and it did not have the same responsibilities that the UK Government had. The outgoing Chief Executive, Carrie Lam—sanctioned. The incoming Chief Executive, John Lee—sanctioned. Seven officials of the Hong Kong special administrative regions—sanctioned. That is Teresa Cheng Yeuk-wah, Xia Baolong, Zhang Xiaoming, Luo Huining, Zheng Yanxiong, Chris Tang Ping-keung and Stephen Lo Wai-chung—they have all been sanctioned by the US Administration. I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister: why have we not done the same? Should we not be leading the USA and others, rather than be following them? Bold action and a bold answer are required.

The Government should conduct an audit of assets belonging to Chinese and Hong Kong officials held in the UK. A recent Hong Kong Watch report states that 11 Hong Kong officials and legislators own property in the UK. We have already established over time, and particularly since the Russians invaded Ukraine, the level of abuse that has taken place in the UK property market. We are now at last bearing down on that, and sanctions are moving, yet for Hong Kong, where people have been abusing the system for some time, we have still not carried out the audit that has been requested.

The Government should further scrutinise and limit the export of surveillance technology to Hong Kong. Following the outbreak of protests in 2019, I welcomed the announcement that the British Parliament would stop issuing export licences for crowd-control equipment to Hong Kong and announced the extension of the arms embargo on Hong Kong. However, technology that can be used for surveillance, such as facial recognition, closed circuit camera systems and technologies fuelled by the mass collection of personal data, can still be exported if they do not fall under the scope of existing legislation. That needs to be shut down immediately.

We must introduce “know your customer” and due diligence requirements for entities that produce surveillance technology. I understand that a local branch of the UK company Chubb has been providing surveillance products and services to detention facilities in Hong Kong that have been involved in the inhuman treatment of detainees. The reality is that it is in our power to act, and I do not understand why we are so resistant. Surely it is the decent thing to do.

Ukraine

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I know that the Home Office is working hard to speed up the visa process, and we are now seeing more visas come through, but I will be happy to raise the case that the hon. Member mentions directly with the Home Secretary.

As well as supporting Ukraine, it is also important that we support the other countries that are affected by Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine. We have seen an increase in food prices and are seeing an increase in energy prices. At the spring meetings, the UK helped to secure the World Bank’s largest ever financial commitment to low-income countries to help them deal with the issues of food security and energy prices. We are also supporting Ukraine by removing all tariffs on Ukrainian imports into the United Kingdom, and we hope that other countries will follow suit to help Ukraine to continue to secure the funding that it needs.

Throughout the crisis, the generosity of the British people has been incredible. They have donated more than £300,000,000 to the Disasters Emergency Committee and we have had the largest ever UK Government aid match of £25 million. Across the country, we have all seen Ukrainian flags flying in people’s gardens, the incredible Ukrainian community centres and the huge support for Ukraine among the British public. The British people are standing with Ukraine, and we are prepared for the long haul.

Looking to the future, when the war is finally over, we will continue to support a strong, sovereign Ukraine. We will help bolster its security against future threats. To that end, we are working on a joint commission with Poland to ensure that Ukraine has the means to defend itself in the longer term, including with NATO-standard weapons. We will also help Ukraine to rebuild. I am determined to work with the United States, the EU and other partners on a new Marshall plan for the country. We need to see a landmark international effort to rebuild Ukraine’s towns and cities, regenerate its industries and secure its freedom. We will also ensure that Putin and his regime are held to account for their crimes in Ukraine.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

I am sure that the whole country and whole House are behind what the Foreign Secretary has said so far. One of the biggest changes since this dreadful war started has been President Putin’s threat to use nuclear weapons. The Soviet Union, followed by Russia, had a commitment to “no first use”, but that appears, certainly in statement, to have changed. What is the Government’s response to that and does she believe that a change is needed in the integrated review?

[Elizabeth Truss]

The integrated review made it very clear that Russia was the No. 1 threat that we were concerned about, and it reflected that. President Putin and his regime are making these threats because they are not succeeding in Ukraine. It is very important that we focus on continuing to support the Ukrainians in their fight for their freedom and self-determination and that we are not distracted and put off our course by the threats from the Russian regime. That is what we continue to do.

I was talking about ensuring that Putin is held accountable for the appalling war crimes. We led calls at the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe for an independent investigation. It reported “credible evidence” of torture, rape, the killing of civilians and the forced deportation of over half a million people—scenes that we thought had been consigned to history.

We referred Russia to the International Criminal Court; the referral is now backed by 40 states. We are providing funding to the court and we have appointed Sir Howard Morrison to support the Ukrainian prosecutor general in her investigations. This House can be assured that we will do whatever it takes to bring the perpetrators to justice, either through the ICC process or other processes, if required. We will not rest until these perpetrators are brought to justice for these appalling war crimes.

The repulsive behaviour of Putin and his forces only strengthens our resolve to stand with Ukraine. This is a battle for Ukraine’s freedom and sovereignty and for the very principles of self-determination and the rule of law. Ukraine must triumph, and we will not relent in our efforts until it does.

Christians and Religious Minorities: India

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Thursday 24th February 2022 Westminster Hall

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Before we begin, I remind Members to observe social distancing and wear masks.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this has considered the matter of the persecution of Christians and religious minorities in India.

It has been a while since we had a debate on this issue, although a few days ago we were fortunate enough to have a debate on India-UK trade negotiations, introduced by the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). I commented on the issue of the persecution of Christians and other ethnic groups in India during that debate, ever mindful that this debate was coming up. I am pleased to see the hon. Gentleman here; in fact, I am pleased to see everyone here. I wanted to mention that debate, because perhaps it was a warm-up for this debate. I declare an interest as chair of the all-party group for international freedom of religion or belief. Looking around this hall, I see that most of the people here are members of it. Indeed, some are officers of the APPG.

I am always an optimist, and always have been; I live my life along those lines. I always look to better things. This debate looks to better things in India, ever mindful that we have a special relationship. It is my hope that things in life will get better. I prefer the glass half full to the glass half empty, and think we should try to build the world a better future. That is at the crux of this debate. With prayer and perseverance, crises may resolve, relationships will heal, and collectively we inch towards a better world. I believe we can achieve that if we all have the same motivation, and try to achieve the same goal.

I am pleased to see the Minister for Levelling Up Communities in her place—I look forward to her response—and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) on the Opposition Front Bench. I am also glad to see my good friend from the Scottish National party, the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson)—there is not a debate that she is at that I am not at alongside her, and vice versa. I am very pleased to see the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi), who has just joined the all-party parliamentary group, here to support the debate. I thank the Library for the background information it has given us.

Freedom of religion or belief is always my hope, but looking back on the past year in India, it cannot be said to have been there for Christians and other religious or belief minorities. Back in 2016, in his address to the United States Congress, India’s Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, said that

“For my Government, the Constitution is its real holy book. And in that holy book, freedom of faith, speech and franchise, and equality of all citizens, regardless of background, are enshrined as fundamental rights.”

To be fair to President Modi, he has the motivation to do that, but the reality is very different. Some of the examples I will refer to are evidence of where that is not happening. That is what the debate is about. President Modi also said, referring to some extremely violent clashes, that a new law would have

“ no effect on citizens of India, including Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Jains, Christians and Buddhists.”

Well, if only. In fact, it has an effect on all the religious minorities. They no longer have the freedom they once had. They can no longer follow their beliefs and express their religious views. Today’s debate offers time to stop and reflect on the situation regarding freedom of religion or belief in India and the problems that persist today.

In January 2021, this same topic was discussed by this House. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Harrow East and everyone else here was present for that debate. Some might wonder why we are raising the subject again. Well, I will tell the House: we are raising it quite simply because, looking back at developments in India over the last 12 months, we find a string of human rights abuses and the suffering of Christians. More than ever, Her Majesty’s Government need to take additional steps to encourage full and rigorous defence of freedom of religion or belief for all. The steps they have taken so far are clearly not enough. Christians and other minorities continue to be failed by efforts in this regard.

In the previous debate, I commented on the lack of representation of Christians and other groups in the political sphere, but looking through the Library background briefing, I see it shows that at least one of India’s states is taking steps to ensure that there is political representation of all groups.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Four Back Benchers have applied to speak and are standing. I intend to call the Front-Bench spokespeople at 4 o’clock. I will not put a time limit on, but hon. Members can do the arithmetic.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine West]

I thank the right hon. Member for her reminder of what was a mistake. I understand that, at the time, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) clarified that that was a moment in the heat of the by-election. I know she is a fierce campaigner and understands the sentiment that this was not the right thing to put out and that it does not contribute to community cohesion.

I urge the Minister to outline what steps the British Government are taking to support freedom of religion or belief in India, and indeed whether it has been raised in discussions with the Indian Government. India is, and will always be, a country that is held in the highest regard by Members of this House and in this country, not least with the large diaspora of British Indians who live in all our constituencies. I think of the community hub in my own constituency, providing such crucial community-based services locally. Those involved are great champions of human rights and have written to me regarding their concerns about today’s debate.

We must redouble our efforts to understand more fully the complexity of today’s India, and we must continue to develop our shared understanding of the promotion of human rights, as enshrined in the constitution of India, without fear or favour and to cherish religious freedom of expression.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Before the Minister responds, let me say that we have plenty of time, but please could she leave two minutes for the mover of the motion to reply?

Timpson Review of School Exclusion

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Thursday 16th September 2021 Westminster Hall

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Before we begin, can I encourage Members to wear masks when they are not speaking? This is line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. Please also give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room.

[Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the implementation of the recommendations of the Timpson Review of School Exclusion.

I am delighted to have secured the debate. This is the first time I have led a Westminster Hall debate and I am pleased it is on a topic that many hon. Members care about deeply. I am also delighted, and we are fortunate, that we have the opportunity to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson) who conducted the review for Government. This vital review of the use of school exclusion found that more needed to be done to ensure exclusions are used fairly and consistently, so that every child has access to the high-quality education they deserve.

As a former trustee of an alternative provision multi-academy trust and a chair of governors at a pupil referral unit, I have seen how high-quality education within alternative provision can turn young people’s lives around. Indeed, as an employer leading a business in the creative sector, I worked with AP schools to find career opportunities for young people who thought differently but had creative flair. However, often, because of either an underlying special educational need or challenges in their home life, they had not quite managed to fit into mainstream schooling. With that in mind, I established the all-party parliamentary group for school exclusions and alternative provision when I came to the House to look at ways in which we could reduce the number of preventable exclusions and promote best-quality education for pupils who are excluded.

I thank all those working in the sector, particularly over recent months during the pandemic, who, because of the children, stayed open all the way through. I pay particular tribute to two individuals who have helped me to understand the sector: Seamus Oates, London regional director for the Ormiston Academies Trust, and Karen Thomson, my first head when I became a governor at a school in Warrington.

Through the APPG, we have met many pupils and parents, as well as teachers and local authority inclusion needs experts, all of whom work day in, day out with pupils excluded from school. They continue to urge the Government to implement the important recommendations of the Timpson review. While some progress has been made in implementing those proposals, a lot more still needs to be made, so I am delighted the Minister is in Westminster Hall today to give a progress update.

Our collective determination should be to ensure that every child being educated in alternative provision obtains better outcomes than they would have achieved in a mainstream school. With better models of AP working effectively with the sector, as well as more funding, we will be a few steps closer to making that aim a reality.

Therefore, these recommendations have never been more important, as pupils return to school from a year of immense disruption. Even prior to the pandemic, we were starting to see a dangerous uptick in the number of permanent and fixed-term exclusions. I say again that the most vulnerable children—those known to social services and those with special educational needs—are most likely to disappear from school rolls, and I am afraid the pandemic has only further entrenched what is a barrage of disadvantage.

One of the most worrying conversations I had during the summer recess was with a mainstream headteacher at a school in Warrington who highlighted the number of children now appearing on the local authority’s at-risk register. Those children were becoming involved with county lines drugs gangs and entering the criminal justice system owing to schools being closed, and they are now at risk of permanent exclusion from their mainstream school.

The Government have rightly been concerned about the learning that pupils have lost over the last year. We should also be concerned that that disruption to learning might well reverse progress that the Government have made since 2011 in closing the attainment gap. However, a growing cohort of pupils are not returning to school, and consequently they cannot access the support in which the Government have rightly invested.

As schools reopened, we found that pupils were disengaging from school at a frightening pace. Nearly 100,000 pupils were severely absent last year, missing more than half their education through non-attendance. We also face an increase in mental health issues in our classroom, with the rate of children with probable mental health disorders rising from one child in nine in 2017 to one child in six in 2020. All those factors point to an increased need for upstream support, by which I mean that if we are to avoid permanent exclusions, we need to intervene earlier.

Teachers and parents—those who have been through the exclusion process with their children—as well as inclusion leads told us during sessions held by the APPG that we need to invest in a system that offers both high standards and high support for our most vulnerable learners, securing every pupil’s right to high-quality education. One of the first steps to achieving that would be recognising the importance of alternative provision in the education landscape and enshrining the role of giving support to pupils at risk of exclusion.

As was found by the review undertaken by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury, the best AP across the country offers some of the greatest expertise in working with children who have challenging behaviours and additional needs. Those providers are seen not as a last-chance saloon, but as a place where life chances can be transformed. That is where we need to be with every alternative provision school in the country.

As the APPG has heard, the very best APs work along a continuum of support, offering outreach and advice to schools and pupils upstream to ensure that as many children as possible can stay in mainstream classes while accessing the support they need. They do not want children to go into AP; they want to support them in mainstream schools. That is what great AP schools are doing.

One brilliant example is the Pears Family School, an AP that not only supports pupils excluded from school but draws on its expertise as an AP with a reputation for exceptional parental engagement to build the capacity of mainstream teachers to support those learners in their classrooms. It does that by offering continuous professional development focused on parental engagement, supporting teachers with strategies to engage with parents. Its approach has been found to re-engage disaffected pupils, and it offers holistic support to vulnerable pupils and their families.

Although that is an admirable example of the potential of great AP, I am afraid that it is not yet the norm across the country. Far too many pupils can only to access the support of an AP if they have experienced a school exclusion; it is the last chance they get. As pupils return to school, we need to think about how we build this capacity to elevate the status of APs as respected experts in the education ecosystem.

We cannot, however, elevate the status of AP if we do not invest in it further. I am afraid it is unacceptable that schools for excluded pupils are often totally unsuitable buildings passed down by local authorities—schools that are no longer used for mainstream education. They have all the hallmarks of the last chance saloon. Before coming here, and more recently through the APPG, I have heard and, sadly, seen some horror stories about the buildings the schools are operating out of. I specifically recall visiting buildings on the Wirral when I was a governor in Warrington and seeing smashed windows, walls painted black, and furniture that was around 40 years old. That is not a suitable educational environment for children who have been excluded from mainstream schools.

Some alternative providers are offering education in neglected commercial premises and old converted houses that are simply unfit for purpose. Four in five respondents to the Centre for Social Justice’s AP capital survey said that the facilities in AP were simply not on a par with mainstream schools, and we have heard from parents who say that turning up to AP schools that look like dumping grounds, rather than schools, further raises anxiety about being placed in an AP, not just for parents but for children too. That only serves to reinforce the stigma and anxiety felt by pupils and their families following their AP referral. The review by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury suggested prioritising AP in any upcoming capital funding. Like many Members, I welcome the Government’s significant investment in improving the quality of the schools estate over the next 10 years, and I will take the opportunity to ask the Minister whether we can please prioritise these settings in the next round of capital funding, and invest significantly in expanding buildings and facilities for pupils who need AP.

I also ask the Minister for some clarity on when the special educational needs and disability review will be published. Although it is essential that the Government take the time to understand the scale and complexity of the changes needed, every delay extends the time in which those children and families are not getting the help they require. We also need some assurances that the SEND review will focus on AP reforms and how to create a system that enshrines APs as experts in the education landscape.

I am aware that the Government have made some progress in some areas, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments rightly recognise that many of the recommendations have been taken forward, but there are many on which we still need urgent action. As such, can the Minister tell us when she expects the AP workforce programme to be published, and what plans there are to establish a practice programme that embeds partnerships, allowing them to intervene earlier through the introduction of a practice improvement fund? Finally, can she tell us what steps have been taken to introduce more substantive training on behaviour issues into initial teacher training and the early career framework? I look forward to hearing her responses, and thank her in advance for addressing Members.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. Let me also pay tribute to the outgoing Minister for School Standards, the right hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Nick Gibb). I have shadowed him since I took on this role and know him to be a decent, communicative and respectful opponent. I am grateful for that. Last night, I passed on my personal respects and gratitude to him, and I am happy to do so today on the record. He is also the Member of Parliament for the area I grew up and went to school in, which has been another great source of conversation between the two of us because I ended up going back to secondary school at the age of 25, so I had a lot to talk to him about.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter). He, with the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson), not only triggered the debate and gave us the opportunity to have this conversation today, but set the tone in a thoughtful and wide-ranging way. For that, I think hon. Members across the House are grateful.

I will start my remarks in the way the hon. Member for Warrington South and the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) did, by paying tribute to the teaching profession and all those who support students in schools. As the hon. Lady pointed out, most schools successfully support students to make the right decisions on behaviour, learning and delivering outcomes that are successful for them, their families and our community. We should be entirely grateful for that. However, today’s debate focuses on the areas where we do not succeed, and we need to do much better overall.

Most teachers do a tremendous job. Despite the considerable challenges they face, they work tirelessly to deliver high-quality learning to all children, regardless of background. They face mounting workloads, coupled with cuts to real-terms budgets, and they have adapted to the unique circumstances of the pandemic. However, where teachers exclude too easily, honest conversations need to be had about why. They are working against a system with high incentives to exclude and too few incentives to include. Moreover, they face a Government who are reticent to address the vulnerabilities underlying exclusions, which their policies have sometimes fostered.

The impact of austerity fell directly on schools, but it also fell indirectly on young people. Cuts were made to children’s services and the wider network of partners designed to support children and to keep them healthy and safe. That has led to a rise in vulnerability. Between 2014 and 2018, the numbers of children being looked after, subject to child protection plans and becoming homeless or living in temporary accommodation, all increased. We know that vulnerability is a key driver of behaviour that leads to exclusions, so it is no wonder the rate of permanent and fixed exclusions rose dramatically over the same period.

Economic vulnerability is a key factor behind exclusions, but other characteristics matter too. According to analysis by the Centre for Social Justice, pupils eligible for free school meals are four times more likely to be permanently excluded than others and more than two in five of all permanently excluded pupils have some form of SEND, a matter particularly close to my heart. Concerningly, the rise in school exclusions shows no sign of ending and more and more pupils are getting stuck in a vicious cycle of exclusions, unsettling for them and unsettling for the school at large.

The historian and critic R.H. Tawney once said:

“What a wise parent would wish for their children, so the state must wish for all its children.”

I doubt that any parent would desire a system in which exclusion is used so readily, especially when we know the consequences of exclusion are so severe. They are felt in education, where only 7% of permanently excluded children receive GCSEs in maths and English. They are felt in work, where only 54% of pupils in alternative provision are in education, employment or training six months after leaving key stage 4. They are felt in the criminal justice system, with an NSPCC analysis of serious case reviews showing that 31% of serious violence victims had received a fixed-term exclusion.

Where no other options are available, exclusion should of course be open to schools, teachers and leaders. I have been involved in establishing two schools, both in areas of quite extreme deprivation. I became chair of governors of one of those schools at the very beginning. In the previous year, the predecessor school had permanently excluded 12 children. That was unacceptable to me. As chair of governors, at the beginning of the new school, I set the target of getting to zero in one year, while increasing student outcomes and attainment.

We managed to get it down to one. In that one case, the child had stabbed six other children with a hypodermic needle. In such circumstances, we cannot allow other students to feel so unsafe. The line cannot be crossed. In those circumstances, exclusion should of course be used, but with a very heavy heart.

We reduced permanent exclusions down to one. At the same time, in one year, we managed to achieve a 100% increase in children with five GCSEs including maths and English. The link between permanent exclusions and the use of exclusion and de facto increasing exam results is simply not there. By never writing off a young person and making sure that the right support is there at the right time, an atmosphere is created that sends a message to every student, whether they face challenges making the right choices in life or not, which ultimately fosters an environment that is conducive to learning for all students.

We must fix the underlying problems that drive problematic behaviour first. As schools balance the desire to keep children in schools with accountability for the performance of others, we must act to introduce sensible safeguards to prevent overuse, not least when—as I saw in my period as shadow Minister for youth justice—children are often excluded while being criminally exploited. That is utterly heartbreaking. Some are even trained by gangs in how to become excluded in the first place, to free up time for drug running and more.

A few years ago, with the serious violence epidemic reaching its peak, the Government seemed to recognise this. They commissioned the hon. Member for Eddisbury to lead a review into school exclusion, attempting to understand how the system could be sensibly rebalanced to allow more children to remain within mainstream provision.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on that report, as the Opposition did at the time. We welcomed his findings and recommendations. The Government did too, “in principle”. Two years on, only six out of 30 of the recommendations have been implemented. Like the Lammy review, when it comes to tough action to tackle unfairness in public systems, the Government must do better to walk the walk. It is not just rhetoric—it means something.

The recommendations ignored by the Government to date include a practice improvement fund to disseminate best ideas on tackling exclusions across the country, and empowering local authorities to lead on partnership working, thus ensuring a truly joined-up approach between all parties involved in the process. Critically, that includes making schools accountable for the results of excluded children. That would ensure that pupils were never dismissed as a problem to be got rid of but were subject to proper tailored interventions that gave them the education that they so sorely need.

The Prime Minister took office on a platform of cracking down on crime, yet his Administration have shown no interest in cutting off the pipeline into crime or tackling child criminal exploitation. I am afraid that Conservative Members were even whipped to vote against my amendments to the recent Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. Without shutting off this pipeline, no amount of police action will succeed.

I close by asking the Minister the following questions. What is her rationale for failing to implement the remaining recommendations in the Timpson review? What plans does she have to evaluate the success of the exclusions process as part of the Department’s forthcoming review into the statutory guidance? Along with the hon. Member for Warrington South, I ask the Minister: when will the review into tackling racial and SEND disparities be published? Will she commit to making sure that new exclusions guidance provides specific protections for children subject to criminal exploitation?

There have been too many wasted opportunities. We need to act now to make sure that the school exclusion process is rigorous and fair. If we fail, it will not just be other people’s children who suffer; it will be us all.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

In calling the Minister, I ask her to leave a couple of minutes at the end for the Member who introduced the debate to make a winding-up speech.