Regional Accents and Social Mobility

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you very much, Sir Roger, for giving me the chance to participate. I thank the hon. Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt), my cousin from across the sea—or across the shuck, as we would say back in Northern Ireland—for highlighting this issue. It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate.

When I first came here, there was a time in our friendship, Sir Roger—I have learned to value your advice on many things—when you would have said, “What’s that boy saying?” You never said it to offend, of course, but you might have asked yourself that question.

When we talk about diversity, inclusion and breaking down barriers to social mobility in the country, we rightly talk about race, gender, background and socioeconomic status. But, as the hon. Member for Leigh and Atherton said, there is a silent, pervasive form of prejudice that remains entirely socially acceptable in corporate boardrooms, academic institutions and possibly the very corridors of power in this place. I am talking about accentism. I have a very clear accent. I think it is normal, but when I came over here I realised that I might be the only one with it. People’s intelligence, competence and worth can be judged entirely on how they sound.

I will give an example. I was saying to the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) that when I asked a question in the Adjournment debate one night, the Minister said, “That’s a great question. I’ll come back to you with the answer.” I just thought that was what she meant; I never had any reason to think otherwise. She happened to meet one of my colleagues, David Simpson, who used to be an MP, and she said, “Jim asked me a question in the Chamber the other night. I have no idea what he said, so I just told him that I would come back to him with a written response.” That illustrates that, in the early days, it took a wee bit longer for people to understand.

I stand here today as a proud son of County Down, and I speak with the voice of my constituency. All my constituents can understand it—I suppose that is the important thing. It is a voice heavily shaped by our rich Ulster Scots linguistic heritage. To me and the people of Strangford and Northern Ireland, it is the language of our hearts, our history and our homes. It is a dialect full of warmth, character and deep-rooted culture. But if we step outside Northern Ireland, that same voice is too often treated as a barrier. I speak not for me but for some of my constituents who have come here for university or to seek employment.

Studies into accent bias, such as the landmark “Speaking Up” report by the Sutton Trust, have shown that regional working-class accents, including those from Northern Ireland, are consistently ranked lower for prestige and perceived professional capability than received pronunciation or standard BBC English. I remember, at school as a young boy, my earliest words were in Ulster Scots. Education was different at that time. Whenever a child said something wrong, the teacher, Mr Whisker, would say, “That’s not proper English.” I would say, “Those are the words my granny and mum use.” In those days, a child would get a clip round the ear for that. That is not a criticism; it did not do me any harm. Teaching was done in a different way.

Young people from my constituency, who travel across the water and study at top universities or apply for corporate roles in London, are routinely told—sometimes subtly, sometimes brutally—that they need to soften their accents if they want to be taken seriously. That it is a damning indictment of our social mobility framework. Why should a young person have to trade away their identity just to get a foot on the career ladder?

We speak pretty fast in Northern Ireland, and the speed of words may be part of the problem. Kate Hoey, the former Member for Vauxhall, said, “Jim Shannon gets more words to the minute than any other MP.” In all honesty, she told me that and I took it as a compliment, which I am sure it was. The fact is we do talk a wee bit fast. The House will know I am not a man who is shy about speaking up for his constituents. I mention Strangford almost as many times as the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) mentions Harlow.

I make it a point of principle to participate in as many debates, urgent questions and statements as I humanly can. I have lost count of the number of times the brilliant and hard-working staff from Hansard have had to chase me—down the corridor sometimes—saying, “Mr Shannon, have you got a wee minute, please? Could you send me your notes? Who was that person you mentioned? Where was that place? Will you spell it, please?” They do it for urgent clarification of names, towns or specific phrases I have used in a debate. I say that with the utmost fondness and kindness to the Hansard staff, who are incredibly understanding. I respect all of them for doing a heroic job. I know they go the extra mile for me to ensure that everything is correct.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

This is a serious issue—we must ensure that people are not disadvantaged for any type of accent—but does my hon. Friend agree there is sometimes a humorous side, as we saw this week in the European Parliament? A Sinn Féin MEP complained that they were not allowed to speak in Irish. When the chair reminded him that they could, the MEP replied that he was not prepared, so he would speak in English instead. It can be humorous—even if slightly embarrassing at times.

[Jim Shannon]

It certainly is. I appreciate that intervention from my hon. Friend and colleague.

The Hansard staff do a heroic job. They are always happy to write down the names of my local farmers, community groups and townlands such as Ballywalter—which we know as Whitkirk—or Kircubbin. Last week, I got a wee message, “Could you spell your sons’ names, please?” That perfectly illustrates the point of this debate, and the centre and core of what the hon. Member for Leigh and Atherton had to say. If a Member of Parliament, with more than two decades of public service, still faces hurdles to be understood because of his or her regional tongue, what hope does a 21-year-old graduate from a working-class Ulster-Scots background have when trying to navigate an interview panel of elites? How challenging and hard could that be?

One of my favourite stories dates back to when my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) and I served on the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is again about the accent being hard to understand. I had an American guest for a meal in the dining room there. The lady, an English professor at a prestigious American university, was really interested in Ulster Scots words and accent. We were served by a young boy I knew and had probably grown up with in Ballywalter—or Whitkirk. I chatted with him and asked after his mum and dad, as you do in small talk. That lovely, intelligent lady from Philadelphia leaned over to Naomi, my private secretary, and said, “That’s wonderful. Jim is speaking in Ulster Scots.” Naomi replied, “No, he always speaks like that.” Again, that is an illustration of this. It was not really Ulster Scots; it was the way I talked. That is how we speak, and although that story may be humorous in a way, it highlights the issues that an accent can bring.

I will come back to the seriousness of this issue and why it is important. When someone constantly has to repeat themselves, is met with blank stares—nobody is ignoring them; sometimes they just do not follow—or is asked, “Could you maybe say that again?” or “Speak more clearly, if possible,” it chips away at their confidence. The hon. Members for Leigh and Atherton and for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee) both referred to that; it is a key issue. That breeds a form of imposter syndrome that tells our young people that they do not belong in high-flying professions, and it pushes them out of the rooms where decisions are made, as the hon. Member for Glasgow South said. Linguistic diversity is the ultimate sign of a rich and vibrant democracy. We should be celebrating the fact that the United Kingdom is a tapestry of different voices, dialects and accents. That enriches us all, and there are some people in this room—I am thinking of one in particular, and he knows who he is—whose accents I love listening to. I just love it when some other MPs, such as the Plaid Cymru Members, speak. Their voices and their words are almost like singing in the way they come over. There are also the Scotsmen. Angus MacNeil—I can use his name, because he is no longer a Member—was speaking one day in the Chamber, and my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry said to me, “Do you understand him?” I said, “I understand every word he said,” and he said, “I suppose you probably would.” Angus speaks fast; his words were at a rate similar to my own. That example underlines the issue.

What do we need? We need employers, universities and civil services to actively train interviewers to look past the phonetic wrapper and focus purely on the substance of what has been said. I will conclude with an Ulster Scots phrase for Members to work out—it will be a challenge, of course. Keep ‘er lit!

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I love the hon. Gentleman’s accent. It portrays the person he is: the history, the culture, and the locality he comes from. Every word that the hon. Gentleman speaks is a word from his constituency and from his people. I like him as a person, by the way, but I just wanted to say that I love his accent as well.

[Ian Lavery]

That is very kind of the hon. Gentleman. My youngest son Liam speaks with a much harsher dialect than me, but he speaks five times faster than the hon. Gentleman. Imagine the problems that causes us when we travel abroad, or even to Yorkshire, for example. People do not have a clue what he is saying, but he is university educated and is absolutely fantastic at the work he does.

My accent is pitmatic: it is from the pits, from the coalmines. Every little village and town had their own pit—some had more than one—and we all spoke different. In one town, we had our own language and dialect—our own speak. I am proud of that. I am really proud of the fact that, when I left school with very few qualifications, I went to work seven miles under the North sea with some of the finest and brightest people I will ever meet: the miners. Not many of them ever got the opportunity to go to university, but you should hear the way they speak. When I look at some of the videos and recordings of the miners in my patch from days gone by, I can hardly understand what they are saying, but it is so rich in heritage, it is absolutely wondrous, to be honest.

I have an anecdote before I get on to the serious part. Two or three years ago, in my patch in Ashington, a group of asylum seekers met a shadow Minister to discuss the situations they faced in towns like mine, and one of the big barriers was the dialect. They said that it was okay and that they could understand what we were saying; the big problem was that their children were going to school and picking up the dialect. When the children were coming in from school and speaking to their mams in their best Ashington dialect, their parents did not have a clue what they were talking about. That is how serious it is, and that is the situation in areas like mine up and down the country.

This place easily intimidates people. Fortunately, I am not the type of person to be intimidated, but I have faced my fair share of hostility in this place. It is as if someone with an accent like mine should not be in here. If anything underlines the lack of correlation between competence and dialect, we only need to look at the dialect of our Eton-educated former Prime Ministers. They did not do much good for my community.

My constituents are proud of where they come from. There are subtle, and often not so subtle, patterns of speech that mark communities that are only miles apart. Many people are forced to choose between maintaining an accent they are proud of or ditching it to try to move on in life. That is just not right. It is the last form of acceptable discrimination, and it is absolutely ridiculous in this country. Where you speak, how you speak and where you are from affects how people identify you, and people discriminate against you because of what you say.

Despite some recent setbacks, this country has done fantastically well to rid itself of many prejudices, but the one that remains is the one we suffer from the most: the prejudice around social markers and local dialects, and the ideas about who we are and where we should be in life because of how we speak. Before saying anything more than a sentence, people from Ashington, Blyth, Bedlington, Newbiggin-by-the-Sea, Choppington and Stakeford are judged. The people in my patch refuse to compromise their dialects, but they are judged every single day for them, and we have to tackle that.

The north-east accent often acts as a proxy for social class and colours the opportunities for far too many people—mainly younger people. In some areas a local accent can be positively viewed, but they are too few in number. Trade unions, community organising, social work, youth work, skilled trades, emergency services, sport and local journalism stand apart, but even in those fields the class prejudices that follow a person’s accent can limit their opportunities.

Nobody should be forced to ditch their accent for a job or to reach their potential. As I said, when I worked as a pitman I met some of the finest thinkers in the world, and I listened to their political analysis while sitting in the pitch black seven miles under the North sea. They are the people who built our nation, but they continue to be looked down on by those who see themselves as their betters. Accents are a proud part of the heritage and legacy of those who went before us—the giants of our movement we stand with, who should never be forgotten. That well-known red Clydesider John Maclean said:

“Rise with your class, not out of it.”

That should include maintaining your accent.

A whole number of issues have been raised in some of the briefings that have been sent out. It is worth mentioning some statistics at this point: 69% of people change their accent to fit in; 27% change the way they speak for a job interview; 24% change the way they speak at work; 26% have been teased in the workplace for their accent; 11% believe they missed out on a job because of their class and social status; 10% felt discriminated against when applying for a job because of their background and social class; and 61% of people would support making discrimination on the basis of socioeconomic background illegal.

Professor Rob Drummond says that people across England have expressed positive views about regional accents, but still rated northern-accented speakers as less intelligent and less “correct” when hearing identical speech. Earlier research found that lower-working-class speakers were judged to be 14% less intelligent, 4% less friendly and 5% less trustworthy than upper-middle-class speakers. There is huge prejudice about people with accents like mine.

I have often been asked if I am Dutch, Ukrainian or Russian. I am asked what part of Europe I am from. Am I German? Am I Irish? Although that is quite humorous, there is a serious point to it. I will never, ever change my accent, and when I say that I will never change it, I am speaking me best Queen’s English. I have really slowed down my speech for this contribution today, because I am not far behind the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in terms of how fast I speak. When a group of people from where I live get together and we have had a few pints, believe me: there’s nobody can understand what is being said. Nobody has a clue.

I think my friend, the hon. Member for Strangford, said before that in this place you can be speaking to people about very serious issues, issues that your constituents face, and you can tell that the person who you are talking to is not taking it in. They just say, “Yes. Yep. That’s right.” Indeed, you can say some of the most extraordinary things and they will just say, “Yes, yes, yes, yes,” because they are not taking it in, and that is because of your accent. That is a serious issue.

I am a proud member of the Northumbrian Language Society, which since 1983 has championed the diverse dialects of Northumberland, north-west Durham and Tyneside. The man who did most to mark this organisation was the Ashington-dialect poet, Fred Reed. He has written some fantastic poetry, which I urge people to read. They will not understand it, but it is worth reading and it highlights and accentuates a point. He was very proud of the mining community that he came from, and he knew that working people created the wealth of the nation. In his own words, “Dividends were won by the pitmen’s blood.” I think that is a fantastic saying from a fantastic individual. The legacy of the miners and workers who left us our rich dialects should be the eradication of that final, acceptable prejudice. That way, we can break down the barriers for brilliant working-class kids who, given the opportunity, can change the world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Marie Goldman]

The hon. Member reminds me that my aunt sadly lost her partner a few months ago. He was three days off his 90th birthday, and he was a true Cornishman. He had lived in Cornwall his entire life—in a very small area of Cornwall, in fact. He was incredibly well known, and I had the privilege of being able to love spending time with him. Listening to the way that he spoke and the stories that he used to tell was just beautiful, but the phrases that he used to use are unfortunately dying out. They will be lost over time, so we have to take advantage of modern technology to record some of these things, so that they are not lost and we should also continue to encourage them in our schools through spoken histories. I thank the hon. Member for raising that.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady referred to her aunt’s father, who was almost 90 years old, and that reminds me of my own dad, who is dead and gone. He was a very proud Donegal man, and one of the wee poems or verses that he taught me when I was small was this:

“Where ye fa?

Donegal.

How’s your purties?

Great or small.

How do you eat them?

Skins an a.”

Those wee verses will be lost forever if they are not retained and written down. It is important to retain some of those wee stories from days past, as well as the fact that potatoes was what it was all about. Potatoes in Donegal—that is what they lived on, for their dinner and their tea. That is just a wee step back in time.

[Marie Goldman]

There are so many lovely stories to tell about this subject, and that is why this has been such a lovely debate. We genuinely should be continuing to encourage the retention of regional phrases, stories and poems, and I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for bringing us that poem.

In conclusion, my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I believe very strongly in a society with strong social mobility. Our regional accents, backgrounds and experiences should never hold us back from social mobility; people’s opportunities should definitely never ever be limited by their accent. I thank the hon. Member for Leigh and Atherton for bringing us this debate.

Conflicts: Impact on Older People

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the humanitarian impact of conflicts on older people.

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts; thank you for chairing this debate for us. I have been asking for a debate on this subject for some time. The subject is close to my heart, and not merely as a matter of policy—it is a matter of conscience, human dignity and our shared responsibility for the most vulnerable in our world. I thank hon. Members for attending. It is always a pleasure to see the Minister in his place. He is always very jovial and friendly and tries to give the answers that we hope for.

I want to start by referring to a constituent named Margaret. She is 83 years old and lives in the Ards peninsula, where I live in my constituency of Strangford. She still keeps a photograph on her mantelpiece of the street where she grew up, which was not in the Ards peninsula. It was in Belfast on a street that no longer exists because it was destroyed—a casualty of the troubles that we had in Northern Ireland. Margaret speaks about the cold, the fear, and the long, painful shadow of conflict. She speaks from experience because it is her story. As an 83-year-old, she can remember it very well.

Across Northern Ireland are thousands upon thousands of older people who carry with them a lived memory of trauma. My family lives with the trauma of the death of my cousin Kenneth; my aunt, uncle and family were never the same. Across Northern Ireland, many thousands of families are affected by the troubles. As the title of the debate states, this is about the impact of conflicts on older people. I will refer to conflicts across the world, but the Northern Ireland one is the one that we can draw experience from and illustrate.

That experience, alongside my role in addressing health policy for the Democratic Unionist Party, means I understand viscerally what conflict does to older people—maybe because I am older now myself. I am more conscious of those who are just ahead of me, which makes me very aware of their vulnerability. I think of my mother who is 94—95 next Tuesday, if God spares her. Again, I think of older people and what they have lived through.

A wound does not simply wound the body, although it does that profoundly and permanently. It fractures community and destroys the very networks of care and support on which older people depend. It strips away the intrinsic dignity that every human being deserves, regardless of age, faith and nationality. My own community of the veterans of the Ulster Defence Regiment, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Prison Service and their families fully understand the lasting impact of trauma.

Apologies—I should have thanked the Backbench Business Committee at the beginning for allowing this debate.

The global picture is incredibly worrying. The scale of the crisis is mammoth. The United Nations estimates that approximately 200 million people aged 60 and over are living in fragile or conflict-affected settings. Let us take a few moments to let that number sink in: 200 million older people are living in fear, without adequate healthcare and shelter, and too often without any recognition that their needs are specific, urgent and distinct from those of younger people in the same crisis zone.

I wanted this debate because I have felt for some time that we look at the wars and see the young people, the deaths and the lack of education and healthcare. But in the middle of that are people of an older generation with incredible problems.

We see that with devastating clarity in Ukraine. Whenever I read the stories about Ukraine, they move me significantly. Who is left in the villages that are destroyed? Who is left among the ruins? Usually it is the older people, living in the basements. I want to focus on them for a few moments. I have stood consistently with the Ukrainian people in their hour of need, as has the House, the Minister and every hon. Member. Ukraine has the highest proportion of older people affected by conflict anywhere in the world; one in four Ukrainians is aged over 60.

In eastern and southern Ukraine, near the frontline, the situation is even more acute: one in three people who need assistance is over 60 years of age. The families fled, of course, to get away from the violence, the attacks and the Russian aggression. Only 5.4% of the Ukrainian refugees who arrived in Europe were over 65 because elderly people have been left behind, either due to their choosing to remain in their homes because it is the only place they have, usually with their pets—their cats or dogs—or because of severe health conditions that make fleeing conflict zones more difficult, even though the Ukrainians always try to give such people the choice to leave.

The situation has left older people facing acute challenges. Shockingly, around 50% of documented civilian deaths in Ukraine have been of people older than 60 years of age. They have faced severe disruptions to their support systems as family members, friends or carers have left. Some 90% of older people in Ukraine are unable to pay for even their basic medical needs to be met. They are probably in the conflict zones and often their medications, or the medical help that they need, cannot get to them.

Some 43% of older people in Ukraine have at least one disability. I know, from my position as health spokesperson for my party, that when someone gets to a certain age, they do not just have one thing wrong with them but half a dozen things. Complex needs are incredibly common among many elderly people. That makes evacuations and displacement even more challenging. There are barriers of mobility, digital exclusion and bureaucratic complexity that become insurmountable for an 80-year-old person who has lost just about everything they ever had, including their family.

I speak as one who has spent considerable time examining the collapse of health systems under the pressure of conflict. I want to underline this point with some force: older people have healthcare needs that are complex, chronic and ongoing. They need orthopaedic care. Many old people will struggle to get about at all; being in a warzone, under attack, makes that even more difficult. They also need cardiac monitoring and management of long-term conditions, such as diabetes—I am a recipient of management for that—and respiratory disease, hypertension and dementia. Those are not luxuries; they are the basic requirements of survival.

When a conflict destroys a hospital, a medical centre or a GP surgery; when it displaces a medical team; or when it cuts off a supply chain of medicines, it is the older people who suffer first and most. Long-term conditions are worsened by food insecurity, income insecurity, and the pressures of displacement and living in conflict situations. There are no shops and only the smallest means of cooking—it may be only a wee Calor gas thing, or even only a wood fire. The waiting lists that I have seen grow to crisis point here in Northern Ireland even in peacetime are as nothing compared with what older people face when the infrastructure of healthcare is obliterated by war.

Let us look at some of the harrowing theatres of war across the world. In Lebanon, older people face compounding risks from the escalation of hostilities, rising displacement, economic collapse and pressure on a weakened health system. A 2025 HelpAge assessment of 670 older women and men across five regions of Lebanon found that they were frequently excluded from assistance and recovery planning because they are at an age, they are probably still in the danger zones and little or no effort is made to help them. Some 61% received no humanitarian aid after the conflict and 39% reported being completely left out of the response, even during active hostilities. Only 12% of those who received aid said that it met their needs. Many have been unwilling or unable to leave their homes despite evacuation orders, while those who have fled found shelters that were poorly equipped for mobility, care and dignity, all three of which are so important.

Lebanon illustrates a wider failure. Aid might be provided, but if it is not designed around older people’s access needs, including their outreach, transport support, continuity of medication, assistive devices, home-based care and mental health support, it will not reach those most at risk. Who is at the back of the queue? It is the elderly.

Sudan is the second place that I will focus on. Today in business questions, Sudan was asked about; there was also a question about South Sudan in the questions about NATO, which the Secretary of State for Defence replied to earlier. I secured a Westminster Hall debate on Sudan—four weeks ago today, I think—in which I highlighted the issues in the country. What is happening there is absolutely tragic.

Since fighting erupted in April 2023, Sudan has seen repeated waves of displacement. Over 20 million people need health assistance and around 1 million of them are older people. Civilians face worsening conflict in the Kordofan region and risk escalating violence, confinement and starvation. UN figures provide an evidential base, showing that older men and women each make up about 4% of the population living in displacement camps, while around 3% live in refugee camps in neighbouring countries.

Older people remain one of the least supported groups in Sudan. Human rights monitors report that they are often left out of aid programmes, especially in remote areas. It is a massive task to get aid to remote areas; I understand that. But some consideration must be given to it. At the end of my speech, I will set out some ideas, which I hope the Minister will give me some encouragement about.

Due to limited mobility, many older people struggle to flee explosions or attacks. I am 71. I cannot run a marathon any more; I could probably walk it, but I could not run it. Older people who are on mobility aids cannot walk or run at any speed whatever, so they cannot get away from the destruction coming their way. Older people also face high rates of depression and post-traumatic stress. As we get older—maybe you and I both recognise this particular trait, Mr Betts—things may worry us more than they did when we were younger. I say that in jest, but the fact is that older people sometimes dwell on things longer than they should.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Member should not take my views for granted in this sort of debate—he can speak for himself, I am sure.

[Jim Shannon]

I speak for myself, but I think you are not too far off my years, Mr Betts, although I know that I am older than you.

In Sudan, the health sector has been destroyed and medicines are in short supply. Even those with manageable health conditions are at grave risk. In parts of Darfur, dozens of older people are among those who have died of hunger in recent months, after armed groups blocked food deliveries. Who cannot get to the aid centres or food centres, because of their disabilities or their particular needs? Older people.

Why is that allowed to happen? It is because older people are invisible in the data. We often come back to data when it comes to debates—especially health debates, but perhaps debates on anything—because data collection and analysis fail to capture the realities of older people’s lives, with data collection often stopping before people are 60. If someone is over 60, their time in this world, according to those who collect data, is limited.

Where older people’s data is included in data collection, they are often lumped together as a single group—those over 60—but that obscures diversity and hinders effective policy making. Evidence shows that age inclusion specialists can change humanitarian assistance by improving assessments, data collection, training and programme design. To give just one example, the data collection tools used by HelpAge Ethiopia showed that there were six times more older people in one region of Tigray than had been previously thought. The data had not been there before so the number of older people had been unknown.

In Venezuela, age inclusion specialists supported humanitarian actors through adjusted food basket guidance to better meet nutritional needs. They use the data for the betterment of services. Unfortunately, there has been a double earthquake in Venezuela and many people are missing—the country is dealing with some incredible problems.

A 2025 systematic review found that the barriers to age-inclusive healthcare include inaccessible health services, shortage of medication and equipment, limited geriatric expertise, age discrimination, low mobility and dependence on others—more often than not, elderly people do depend on others. Funding reform is desperately needed. A 2025 analysis by HelpAge found that older people are rarely named in humanitarian funding databases. How can we deliver enough aid, medication, food and support to elderly people if we do not know how many there are? In funding databases, only 6.5% of descriptions and 0.1% of project titles mention older people.

I must raise the question—you would expect me to, Mr Betts, because I always do—of freedom of religion or belief. It is intrinsic to this debate in ways that are not always acknowledged. In many conflict zones, such as in Myanmar, Nigeria, Syria and Ethiopia, older people are targeted not merely because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time, but because they are the custodians of their communities’ faith and culture. The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and I share this concern, and I look forward to her contribution.

As custodians, older people hold the memory of worship, tradition and identity. They are the heartbeat of the congregation and the lifeblood of the community, and they are targeted because of that. They are driven from their homes because of their faith and denied the right to practice a faith that has sustained them across a lifetime. That is not simply a humanitarian failure; it is a moral outrage. Does the Minister agree that the protection of older people in conflict zones must explicitly include the protection of their right to freedom of religion or belief? I know the Minister’s answer to that, but perhaps we could have it on the record in Hansard.

I do not want to be churlish about the progress that has been made in international humanitarian law. There are frameworks and conventions, as well as the “Sphere Handbook” and the Inter-Agency Standing Committee’s work on inclusion, but let me be direct in a respectful way. The gap between the frameworks that exist on paper and the reality experienced by an 80-year-old woman sheltering in a basement in Kharkiv or a 75-year-old pastor driven from his church in Kaduna state in Nigeria is vast and unconscionable.

I have a number of questions for the Minister—seven, to be precise. We need to make humanitarian aid age-inclusive by default. Will the Minister commit to requiring UK-funded programmes to explicitly and systemically identify and reach older people, including those living alone, those with disabilities and chronic illness, and those unable to travel to distribution points?

To protect older people’s health, care and wellbeing, will the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office prioritise continuity of medication, accessible health services, assistive devices, safe evacuation, accessible shelters, home-based care, if possible, and mental health support in active conflicts? Will the Government support universal social pensions, inclusive cash assistance and shock-responsive systems that enable older people to meet their own priorities with dignity? That will ensure age-inclusive access to cash and social protection.

Will the Department include older women in protection and its responses? Pre-existing patterns of discrimination are exacerbated during conflict, and extreme levels of violence against women and girls are a recurring theme. Older women are particularly at risk due to their age, gender, disability, caring responsibilities, widowhood or financial dependence. The UK international strategic framework on women and girls fails to consider how older women are affected, but there must be a focus on older women in particular. Will the Government ensure that its implementation includes explicit reference to older women’s humanitarian protection and safeguarding, and programmes to tackle gender-based violence through a life course approach? Russian army personnel have carried out horrendous sexual attacks on girls as young as eight and women as old as 80. We need to protect women of all ages.

We must count older people properly. Will the Minister require age, sex and disability to be included in disaggregated data, including specific age cohorts over 60? The age of 60 is where it seems to stop. If someone is over 60, we do not know about them for the purposes of all humanitarian assistance that the UK Government provide or support.

We must recognise older people as rights holders. Will the UK support the creation of a UN convention on the rights of older persons to recognise the agency and contributions of older people and to facilitate their participation in humanitarian planning, peace building and monitoring, and local decision making?

Last, there must be engagement with devolved Administrations. Will the Minister engage directly with the relevant Ministers in the devolved Administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, where we have hard-won knowledge of what conflict does to older people across generations, so that the lived experience of communities like mine can inform and enrich our international humanitarian policy?

I opened my speech with Margaret, so I will close it with Margaret. She once told me something that I cannot forget—that the worst thing about conflict is not the noise of it but the silence that comes after, when the world moves on and forgets that you are still carrying all that pain, memory and trauma. The older people of Ukraine, Sudan, Lebanon, the Sahel and every conflict zone across the world are still carrying that. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—these great four nations together as one—has both the capacity and the moral duty to ensure that they are not forgotten.

I commend this debate to the House. I thank Members for turning up, and I look forward to their contributions, particularly those of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden), and the Minister. I look forward to engagement with the Minister and to ensuring that older people in conflict are not forgotten about. There are ways of doing it better; let us start now.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Chris Elmore)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Betts. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate. As if the House needed any more confirmation that he comes from good stock, I wish his mother a very happy birthday for next week. I think anyone reaching their 90s is a great achievement, and it is no surprise to me that the hon. Gentleman’s mum will be reaching that great milestone in age.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) for her contribution. Having worked with her over many years, I know how much she cares about these issues. She has always been steadfast and utterly consistent in her views about supporting older people, not just in the UK, but internationally.

As the Minister with responsibility for multilateral affairs, I often speak in international fora about peace building and conflict resolution, and I often talk about Northern Ireland. It is sometimes forgotten that we have had conflict on our own shores that lasted for decades. Much the peace building that followed was from women, and from older people who lived through the entire period of the troubles. We forget that we have much to celebrate about the work of the peace process in Northern Ireland; but we must also recognise the impact that the conflict has had and still has on many constituents and people across Northern Ireland. I pay tribute to Margaret, the constituent mentioned by the hon. Member for Strangford. I am sure that must have been a fascinating conversation for him as her local MP.

The Foreign Secretary has been clear that tackling humanitarian need and reducing the violence caused by conflict and atrocities is a key priority for the Foreign Office. We are committed to delivering the vision for a reformed humanitarian system, set out by the emergency relief co-ordinator, Tom Fletcher, to build a system that is focused on the most vulnerable and prioritises the views of communities affected by crisis. The needs of older people must be central to that work.

When we think about the human cost of war, we often think first of children separated from their families, women and girls facing violence, or communities forced from their homes—and while we should continue to do so, we should also recognise that older people are among those hardest hit by conflict, yet they remain largely invisible. At the same time, older people are not one homogeneous group. Age alone does not make someone vulnerable. Many continue to lead, care for others and support their communities, even in the most difficult of circumstances. That is why we must take three steps to address the humanitarian impact of conflict on older people.

First, we must recognise that older people can be disproportionately affected by conflict. Today, more than 100 armed conflicts are taking place around the world, from Sudan and Ukraine to Myanmar and Gaza. The experiences of older women and men are too often missing from discussions, data and humanitarian planning. Many are unable to flee when violence erupts. Older people are also often hardest hit in a crisis. Many depend on regular medicines and healthcare, as has been mentioned, so disruptions can quickly become life-threatening.

Poor health, disability, limited mobility or caring responsibilities can leave older people trapped in conflict zones long after others have escaped. Others become separated from family members and the support networks on which they rely. Humanitarian assistance is frequently designed without adequately considering those specific needs, which creates barriers to getting food, water and basic services.

Older people also face greater risk of neglect, abuse and exclusion, with older women in particular often facing additional and intersecting challenges linked to age, disability and gender. That is why the UK consistently presses all parties to conflict to uphold international humanitarian law and allow rapid, unimpeded humanitarian access to all those in need, including older people. But that alone is not enough, as has been mentioned by Members across the House today.

We must work proactively to understand and integrate the needs and perspectives of older people into humanitarian responses. For many years, humanitarian actors have highlighted the lack of systematic data on the needs and experiences of older people during crises. Without data, needs are often overlooked; without visibility, resources are not allocated; and without representation, policies and programmes risk being developed without the participation of those affected.

That is why the UK is taking practical action through our humanitarian programmes and partnerships in order to build the evidence base to inform effective responses. Members from across the House have today raised this point about data, and I hope to provide an answer on that particular concern. We work with UN agencies, the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, and other non-governmental organisations to support humanitarian responses that take account of age, disability and other barriers people may face.

We also encourage partners to collect and use age as aggregated data, so that assistance is informed by evidence and reaches those who might otherwise be invisible in humanitarian responses. This is not simply a technical point. As the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned, it helps to determine whether food distribution points are accessible, whether healthcare reaches those with chronic conditions, whether shelters are sustainable, and whether protection services are identifying those most at risk. In Gaza, for example, the UK has funded assistive products for people injured in conflicts. Each kit can provide practical, lifechanging support for hundreds of people. For an older person, it can be the difference between being left behind and reaching safety, medical care and essential services.

We cannot just look through the lens of vulnerability and must recognise older people across the world as leaders, caregivers and contributors to community resilience. Many continue to care for grandchildren, support neighbours, maintain community networks and help others to navigate crises. Humanitarian and conflict responses are more effective when older persons are involved in decisions that affect their life and the lives of those in their broader community. Their knowledge and networks can make responses more effective, more trusted and more sustainable.

Let me try to answer some of the more specific points that have been raised by hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central was right to raise Sudan; it is the greatest humanitarian crisis of our age. The Foreign Secretary, the Deputy Prime Minister when he was the Foreign Secretary, and Lord Cameron of the other place have spent the last four years leading the work internationally—multilaterally and bilaterally—to ensure that Sudan remains high on the agenda.

In February of this year, when the UK Government chaired the Security Council, the Foreign Secretary chaired a special session focusing purely on Sudan. The Foreign Secretary gave a statement on the Floor of the House today updating us on the NATO summit, the issues around Sudan and the fact that the UK is leading the conversation on trying to bring a peaceful resolution to the conflict. We always need to do more to highlight and broadcast what is taking place in Sudan, because it is truly important to find a resolution that brings about a ceasefire and takes us back to peaceful stability.

My hon. Friend the Member for York Central made a particular point around older women being overlooked in conflict, and the hon. Member for Strangford talked about women in relation to the atrocity of sexual violence being used as a weapon of war. I reassure the House that we support women-led and women’s rights projects and organisations, recognising that they are often the most trusted actors in helping to identify the victims of sexual violence and the risks specifically faced by older women, including widows, carers, women with disabilities and women separated from family support.

As the special envoy on preventing sexual violence in conflict, as well as in my role as Minister, I have a wider women, peace and security commitment that focuses on not only younger women and girls but older women as well, and making sure that there is support for survivors. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee), who is no longer in his place, made the point about evidence gathering, justice and retribution for these heinous crimes of sexual violence in conflict. We work as a UK Government to ensure that evidence is gathered and that, in the near future, when we hopefully have peace in Ukraine, Sudan and other conflicts, there is accountability for people who have committed acts of sexual violence in the name of conflict.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for his response so far. I mentioned those of an older generation who are the custodians of the community’s faith and culture. They are the ones who hold the memory of worship, tradition and identity; they are the heartbeat of the congregation and the lifeblood of the community. Can the Minister give us some reassurance in relation to those older women and men who are targeted because of their religious belief—some of them sexually as well? Will the Government help them to retain and protect their religious beliefs?

[Chris Elmore]

To reassure the hon. Gentleman, he knows that I have a personal commitment to working with our freedom of religion or belief envoy, my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith). He never shies away from the particular point the hon. Gentleman is raising and nor will I as Minister.

On the wider point that the hon. Gentleman raises about supporting and working with older people on peacebuilding and resolution, which my hon Friend the Member for York Central also raised, I reassure him and the House that the Department has an instinctive view that locally led, inclusive peacebuilding needs to include elders—the older women and men who understand many of the challenges in the community. We need that support because they bring trust and knowledge. They are leaders in their communities, whether they are of any faith or none. It is extremely important that older people are part of that peacebuilding resolution. In many cases, where older people are engaged in peacebuilding, the process actually lasts longer. That is particularly true of women; when women take part in peacebuilding, there is much evidence to show that many years of peace follow. It is extremely important to the Government that that work continues.

A number of Members mentioned Ukraine, including the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne). I reassure the House that the budgets for overseas development and for additional support through the 100-year partnership have been protected, specifically for Ukraine, Gaza, Lebanon and Sudan. I reiterate that point because it is extremely important. The House will know that events in Ukraine disproportionately affect older people, as the hon. Member for Strangford said. There is some concerning data that shows disproportionate suffering among civilian casualties, with older people accounting for more than 45% of civilian deaths. Those are real people, not just statistics, and they show the incredible impact that conflict has on older people across Ukraine.

We do specific pieces of work to support older people. A number of colleagues raised the issue of assistance and pensions; let me to try to offer some clarity on that. Through the UK Government’s partnership with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and UNICEF, we are supporting the Government of Ukraine in relation to strengthening national social protection systems. We are also trying to make sure that there is more specific support for winter cash assistance and that older people have more support during power outages. The work that the Government do is focused in many of the areas where there is an adverse impact on older people.

There has been much conversation about data. I reassure the House that FCDO partners should use disaggregated data, including on sex, age and disability, to understand who is being reached and, crucially, who is missing out on support. I wanted to put that on the record because part of the reason for that expectation is that when considering age-related barriers, we are talking about the risks linked to disability, or based on gender, poverty, health, isolation, displacement and other forms of marginalisation. That expectation is very much set out by the Department.

In my time as a Minister, I have never been given a list of questions in advance by the Member leading the debate. I have tried to answer each of them and not miss anything. I have a couple of points to make. One is about the violence against women and girls response. I reassure the hon. Member for Strangford that older women are a part of that work, as I said earlier in my speech. To make that very clear point, it is not about forgetting women who are victims of sexual violence; it is about trying to be as inclusive as we can to offer support to victims in recovery, and to try to prevent sexual violence in conflict.

My hon. Friend the Member for York Central and the hon. Member for Strangford raised the UN convention on the rights of older persons to recognise older people and their legacies. I can confirm, as I have done in response to parliamentary questions and to various colleagues who have written to me during my time in this role, that we are supportive of a UN convention on older persons. There are many existing support mechanisms for older people in the UN multilateral system, but that does not mean that some form of convention should not come through. The negotiations are ongoing, but when it happens, although I cannot give a cast-iron guarantee in the sense of who the Minister will be, there is genuine support across HMG for the work of that resolution in supporting older people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I thank everyone for their contributions. I thank my hon. Friend—she is my friend—the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) for her contribution and the work she does on the APPG for ageing and older people. She does a lot—only in these debates do we realise just how much she does—so I thank her for that. She referred to how conflict shortens lives. She also referred to frailty, gender-based violence and the complex needs that people have. Older people are the ones who usually lose out in conflict. She referred to resilience, food, care and support and also to the sexual violence in Ukraine, and indeed across the world. She mentioned how better distribution of international aid is vital. I thank her for outlining very clearly the way forward and for all that she does.

The hon. Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee) referred in an intervention to the need to have data to focus on the issue so that we can know just how many people are suffering. I thank the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) for his contribution. We do need to look at international aid; the question of where that money comes from cannot be ignored. He referred to how older people suffer more in a humanitarian crisis, and challenged the Government to address the issue of international aid. He also referred to how women and girls suffer disproportionately in many of these crises. Data is needed.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden), made an incredible contribution, as he always does. He reminded us of Armenia. Sometimes we forget about places in the world and it is good to remember because it keeps our minds focused on the subject of this debate. Older people were murdered because they were still there, and because they were surplus to the enemy’s requirements. He also referred to the executions in Myanmar; we need to remember that as well. Across the world, in many places, those over 60 are tortured and then murdered. He also mentioned the pension issue in Poland for people from Ukraine. To be fair to the Minister, he gave a decent response in relation to it. The shadow Minister also referred to displaced people in Sudan and Syria who cannot access healthcare.

I thank the Minister for his contribution, as always. I never doubted—I say this very respectfully and sincerely—that the Minister would respond to us and give us encouragement. I always give the Minister my points in advance. That is the way I do things, because I would rather have a decent response and not be attacking anybody. That is just me—that is the way I am. I thank him very much for responding on the pension issue and giving us some encouragement around how that will work.

The Minister also referred to not forgetting about any victims, which is really important, and to making sure that we get the data and the willingness to succeed. I noted some of his phrases. He referred to the lack of data and how the Government are responding to ensure that they can collect such data better. He also noted how older people are adversely affected in conflict and the focus on medical aid, and on retention of support for disabilities and trauma. It worries me greatly when I hear that enemies, strong men—they are monsters—use their strength to abuse women and girls. The Minister has grasped that.

The Minister also referred to peacebuilding and revitalisation in Northern Ireland—I know he is acknowledging Northern Ireland; that is not lost on me—and that was primarily driven by women. Very often that is the case. Their persuasion of men, although not always to the fore, is recognised very much by the Minister. I thank him for all his answers to the questions, his commitment and the commitment of the special envoy, the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith), who does a grand job. I thank you, Mr Betts, for your chairship. I thank the civil servants who organised the debate, and the Department civil servants, who keep the Minister right—well done to them. I thank everyone for their contributions. They are much appreciated. Today we start something, and look to help those older people who are often forgotten, though today in this Chamber they were not.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the humanitarian impact of conflicts on older people.

NATO Summit

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, which had vast portions of positivity and good news within it. While the £70 billion Ukraine package and the 5% spending target by 2035 sound impressive, our constituents want to know just how well those declarations translate into safety on the ground. Russia continues its brutal onslaught. As was rightly pointed out at the summit, Iran’s nuclear ambitions and regional aggression are incredibly worrying, too. How will the Government ensure that all NATO countries are fully playing their part and that every pound coming from our taxpayers will be matched by fellow NATO countries and their taxpayers?

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome the hon. Member’s question. I can assure him that the commitment to increasing investment in defence—both in each country’s sovereign defence and in our shared defence—was evident right around the NATO council table from every country, and I am sure that that will continue. NATO’s strength has been the commitments from all allies working together, and that commitment will make us strong into the future, too.

Iran Conflict: Ceasefire

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I reassure the House that the Foreign Office keeps contingency plans for the region under close review. We were incredibly grateful for the co-operation of our partners and, indeed, the support of British nationals themselves in the very speedy departure from the Gulf during the outbreak of this conflict. It is clear that should there be any difficulty—although there is no suggestion that there is—in the region for travelling British nationals, we will need the co-operation of British nationals and those in the region. It is very unlikely, and it is quite a distant prospect, that a further evacuation will be required.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his answers. His words are always well chosen, and I think he encapsulates the energy and opinion of this House. The IRGC continues to wage war against humanity, executing prisoners, ruthlessly spying on dissidents on British soil and orchestrating severe targeted persecution against religious minorities, including our Christian brothers and sisters in Iran. The IRGC also continues to block the strait of Hormuz and attack peaceful neighbours. What discussions have the Minister and the Government had with our NATO and USA allies to collectively respond and show Iran that its continued state-sponsored terrorism will no longer be tolerated?

[Mr Falconer]

The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the threats that the IRGC has posed in the region and internationally. As I said in an earlier answer, domestic measures are being introduced in relation to state threats, and I imagine that we will have more to say about the employment of that new tool shortly. On the international position, we have made a series of interventions, both internationally and in the region, to try to reduce Iran’s malign role in the region. We have spent most of this urgent question discussing what is happening in the strait of Hormuz, but there are clearly Iranian militias right across the region continuing to threaten civilians, stability and the security of the region.

Draft UK-EU Agreement on Gibraltar

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for securing this incredibly timely and crucial debate. It is nice to see some representatives of Gibraltar in the Public Gallery, as well as one of our old friends from this House. It is good to see the Minister in his place, and I wish him well in his job. He always gives us encouragement, and he will no doubt do the same today.

When the Minister stood up in the main Chamber back in February to outline the massive 1,000-page document, I was reminded of a wise old saying that my dear mother used to repeat when I was a wee lad with black, curly hair—I had hair at one time, believe it or not. That saying was, “Once bitten, twice shy.” The hair is long gone, but the wisdom of that saying firmly remains. My mother is 94 years of age and next Tuesday, 14 July, she will be 95 if God spares her until that time. The people of Northern Ireland have been bitten hard, which is why “once bitten, twice shy” comes to mind.

I should have said that it is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards). We might be on different sides of the Chamber, but it is remarkable how much he and I agree on. If there was a party somewhere between Labour and Conservative, I think we might find ourselves in it, or maybe we will just be in both—well, he cannot be, but that is by the way.

As I said, the people of Northern Ireland have been bitten hard. We have seen what happens when the United Kingdom signs a treaty with the European Union in good faith, only to find ourselves a slave to foreign diktats, with our internal trade disrupted, our state aid hampered and our constitutional place in this great Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland chipped away.

I have been to Gibraltar only once in my life, and that was with the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I remember that Gibraltar drips Britishness, and I mean that constructively and positively. We were encouraged to meet the Royal Gibraltar Regiment and to know that we are a part of them. There is a bit of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in Gibraltar. It is all there, and Gibraltar is very close to our hearts.

When I look across the water at our loyal, steadfast fellow Brits on the Rock of Gibraltar, I do so with an eye of deep caution. I will make my point constructively and respectfully to the Minister. He knows I am very fond of him; in fact, we all are. In the past, he has reassured us that the agreement will bring “fluid” borders. He told us that it will boost the economy, eliminate long queues and align import duties so that ordinary people can do their daily shopping without a mountain of paperwork.

I do not doubt the good intentions of the Government and of the Minister in particular. The Chief Minister of Gibraltar and his Parliament have worked tirelessly, and they have even asked for a referendum on the final text to let the people have their democratic say. I praise them for that, and I thank them for all they have constructively done to try to find a way forward that protects them. We want to protect them as well.

We must look at the fine print of these 1,000 pages. The treaty proposes a hybrid governance model. It pulls Gibraltar into the Schengen area and places it under significant levels of EU law. We are talking about dual border control checks at Gibraltar airport, involving not just Gibraltarian officials but Spanish officials having their way on British territory, which concerns me.

What real safeguards do we have? If the European Court of Justice is given the final say on the interpretation of these laws, as I understand it will, how can we truly look the people of Gibraltar in the eye and say that their British sovereignty is uncompromised? That is the question. We cannot allow Spain to use the European Union’s legal machinery to slowly strangle the Rock’s independence and British identity, just as the Northern Ireland protocol attempted to separate my Strangford constituency and Northern Ireland from the rest of Great Britain.

The people of Gibraltar are fiercely, proudly and unapologetically British. Over the years, they rejected joint sovereignty by almost 99% in two separate referendums. That is the sort of election result we all need, and what encouragement it would be if it were to happen. They fly the Union Jack with a pride that matches any town or village in my constituency. I put up my Union flag over the weekend, as it is a special occasion with 12 July coming up—we always have it in place at this time of year.

Gibraltarians have stood by the United Kingdom through thick and thin. Their strategic military base remains a vital asset for NATO and the defence of the realm. The Rock, by its nature, conveys strength. When I was there with the armed forces parliamentary scheme we had the opportunity to go through some of the tunnels in the rock, and I can understand why it is a bastion of military strength.

While the treaty moves towards formal signature and parliamentary ratification under the CRaG process, I urge the Government not to rush this. Examine the treaty line by line and listen to the community’s concerns. I am a man of Scripture, as I know you and many others in the House are, Sir John. Psalm 62 says:

“He only is my rock and my salvation, my fortress; I shall not be…shaken.”

The Rock of Gibraltar is that very place; it stands firm and will not be shaken. We must stand steadfast and ensure that the United Kingdom’s sovereignty over Gibraltar is not just a symbolic phrase written on a piece of paper to save face, but a practical, iron-clad reality on the ground. Let us not make the same mistake twice; let us protect the Rock, its people and our great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

I do envisage the treaty coming forward, but I want to ensure that we do not start the clock and then Members feel they do not have a chance to scrutinise it over the recess. The minute that the treaty is signed, it will be provided—within appropriate transmission times—to both Houses. We will ensure that we are in close contact with the Committees and that we have an agreement on the CRaG process, and we will make the appropriate statements. Sir John, you will know that the timing of statements and debates in the House is a matter for the usual channels between the Government and the Opposition, but I do not want to shy away from scrutiny, and that is why I welcome this debate. We will not try to curtail the CRaG process in any way. In practical terms, this treaty will have had far more pre-scrutiny and Committee scrutiny in this House than many other international treaties. I hope that provides some assurance to colleagues.

Members asked a number of other questions. I have covered the questions about article 2 and sovereignty. I was asked about future scenarios that might emerge with respect to the relationship between the UK and Gibraltar. It is important to emphasise that the Gibraltar Parliament unanimously passed a motion calling on the UK to ratify the treaty, subject to the existence of a concordat assuring that the UK can exercise its powers in the treaty only with the consent of His Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar, and that the people of Gibraltar have the right to determine in a referendum whether the treaty should be terminated in the future. Obviously, we hope to never get to that scenario, but it is important that we have those safeguards in place.

To answer the questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley asked, I quote from my letter to the Chief Minister on 2 March:

“It is therefore politically inconceivable that in any normal circumstances, should a democratically elected Government in Gibraltar or indeed the Gibraltarian people determine that this agreement does not serve their interests, His Majesty’s Government would not take action.”

I hope that provides assurance, as it is certainly the tenor of my discussions with the Chief Minister and, indeed, of the discussions he has had in the Gibraltar Parliament.

I have touched on the questions about the 90-in-180-day rule, but for the record, under the agreement, non-resident British nationals can visit Gibraltar for up to 90 days, as is the case today—there is no change in that—but, as visitors will be free to enter Spain without checks, time spent in Gibraltar will count towards the 90-in-180-day requirement of the EU. Importantly, immigration into Gibraltar is and will remain the responsibility of the Government of Gibraltar. The agreement provides a unique solution, a fluid border, and puts different procedures and processes in place.

On the military base, there are lots of details, but I was asked a specific question, so I want to be clear that UK military personnel entering Gibraltar will not be subject to Schengen checks under the proposed arrangements. That will enable our facilities to continue their vital operations without interference or interruption. The posting of UK military personnel serving in Gibraltar and their families will not depend on Schengen border checks; as is the case now, the UK will decide who will serve in Gibraltar. We also have important agreements on goods entering the base. As colleagues will understand, we do not disclose sensitive operational details, but we have agreed special arrangements to ensure the functioning of the new arrangements.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive response. I asked him about officials from Spain being at border control posts alongside officials from Gibraltar to oversee that work, and about the impact and influence that they may have. Can he confirm that that will be the case? What influence will the Spanish officials have? Will they oversee or counteract Gibraltar border control and customs officials?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman asks a good question. The practical checks that take place at the airport are not dissimilar to the juxtaposed controls at St Pancras and elsewhere. We tried to come up with a practical solution to the new arrangement, and it is one that has the full agreement of the Government of Gibraltar. Everyone arriving at the airport will undergo Gibraltar immigration controls carried out by Gibraltar officials, followed by Schengen entry checks carried out by Spanish officials on behalf of the EU. On completion of those checks, individuals will be able to enter both Gibraltar and the Schengen area.

As I said, that set-up is similar—it is not exactly the same—to how we make the arrangements work practically at St Pancras. Of course, 18,000 people use Eurostar every day, and we have heard about the 15,000 people crossing the border in Gibraltar. The Government of Gibraltar and the different authorities are working closely on a whole series of practical and physical arrangements for how things will work—I will not go into the detail of all the different maps, plans and architect’s drawings that we scrutinised in great detail.

As was rightly pointed out by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, another benefit of the agreement is that, subject to commercial interest, new flight routes into Gibraltar from other areas within the Schengen area could open up. Again, this will provide an economic boost and benefit. I pay particular tribute to the Deputy Chief Minister, who has taken a keen role in relation to the airport and its functioning over the years; it has been at the heart of the agreement throughout.

On customs checks and the business impacts, I recognise the points made by Members about the questions they have been asked by businesses. The UK Government and the Government of Gibraltar are confident that overall, the economic benefits of the agreement will massively outweigh any issues with changes. Obviously, there will be implementation periods for the taxation arrangements, which are for Gibraltar to decide on; for example, there will be a period coming up to the VAT rate changes.

On customs checks for businesses, to allow for free flow across the Gibraltar-Spain border, goods in Gibraltar must meet EU standards. Over half of all goods in Gibraltar arrive from the EU and already meet those standards, as do many others that arrive from outside the EU. They are going to be pre-cleared away from the land border by relevant customs officials. The Government of Gibraltar fully support that new model, which brings in the benefits of an open border and protects Gibraltar’s economy.

Points were made about security. I think there is a steadfast commitment on both sides to work together, with practical arrangements between law enforcement agencies. None of us wants anything going on in Gibraltar or indeed over the border in Spain that will put anyone at risk. We all know the types of threats, which we share. That is at the heart of the wider discussions we are having with the EU about how we better align on law enforcement and security and defence.

I want to conclude by thanking everybody for their scrutiny, which has been hugely important. I thank the all-party group for its consistent engagement over many years, and I thank friends in the Gallery for their engagement. I really do think this is a milestone moment in finalising something that was left undone by Brexit. The agreement will have practical benefits for the people of Gibraltar, for the people of the whole region, for the United Kingdom, and for the UK and the EU. There are wins across the board in the agreement. I very much hope that Members will engage with the CRaG process as it goes forward. I will keep the House fully informed, as appropriate, the minute the treaty is signed and deposited. With that, I thank Members for their contributions.

Societal Impact of AI: Government Policy

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend’s point about no place being left behind as a result of the AI revolution. I will develop that point a later. We can already see the first signs of AI impacting on work here. We have record numbers of young people not in employment, education or training because many entry-level jobs have disappeared.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. I spoke to him beforehand; he knows where I am coming from. My concern is for the young people of today looking for the jobs of tomorrow. My grandchildren will have to prepare themselves. We must try to equip young people. In the last few days the Belfast Telegraph reported that this may be the first time in a century that young people have lower scores in tests for memory, focus and reading than their parents. Is it not time for the Government to acknowledge the challenges and ensure that there are employment prospects for young people? If the hon. Gentleman’s objective is that, it is the right way to go.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

Yes, young people and their employment prospects are intrinsically linked to the debate about the future of AI. The hon. Gentleman is right that we have to get that right for those people to have a future.

We also need the Government to introduce a raft of measures to manage AI-driven changes to work. Those measures should include an employment levy on companies that replace large numbers of workers with AI, training subsidies for displaced workers, redeployment programmes to move workers into sectors with skills shortages, and a job subsidy scheme for workers and companies at the sharp end of industrial change, along with, of course, stronger social security support for those who face unemployment.

We know that if it is left to the market, firms will often reach for the crudest form of automation, stripping out roles and degrading the work that remains. The alternative is that we start to advance the case for dignified work, and recognise that that will mean having meaningful worker involvement in every step of the process. The involvement of workers in adoption is often what turns a promising tool into a productive one. That is why I agree with the TUC that the Government should strengthen the Employment Rights Act 2025 to give workers a real say in decisions. There should be a duty on employers to disclose their use of AI, and a right for the workforce to be consulted and negotiate over how AI is introduced.

One of the biggest challenges of AI is to ensure that everyone gets a fair share of the gains. The AI and big tech corporations in the US stand shortly to become some of the wealthiest and most powerful private actors in history. Their wealth has been built on public research and public investment, as well as all our shared written inheritance, which has trained the models they use.

The fact that our tax system taxes income from work far more heavily than income from capital gives firms a direct tax incentive to automate a worker out of a job rather than employing them, and could see AI facilitate a further shift of national income away from labour and towards capital, eroding the tax base that funds the public services that we all need and want.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is focusing on employment and big tech companies; does he agree that we need to go a step back—back to school, teachers and training? Teachers need to prepare their pupils for the future with AI, and for what that means. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that that is something not for this Minister but perhaps for a Minister in another Department?

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his second intervention—let us see whether he can make it a hat trick before I finish. The reality is that AI is here now. We have to deal with how it impacts on today’s workers and future workers as well. This is not one generation against another, and I know the hon. Gentleman understands that.

The Government could seek to equalise tax treatment, actively explore widening the digital services tax to include AI companies, which it currently excludes, and raise the level of the tax from 2% to the European average. We cannot allow the use of machines to be made artificially cheaper than employing people.

It is important to look at AI sovereignty, which the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) mentioned earlier. The UK is growing increasingly dependent on US tech, and owns little of the data infrastructure and AI models on which the future economy will increasingly rely. This repeats the pattern of recent decades in other sectors, whereby essential national infrastructure has passed into overseas ownership and money has flowed offshore, leaving British people with less and less control over the essentials of a good life. That dependence not only creates security risks, as has been mentioned, but prevents the UK from capturing and distributing any AI windfall.

We need to give UK companies a meaningful chance to compete. The Competition and Markets Authority could use existing powers to take on the concentration in the cloud market, which underpins the AI companies’ business models. A progressive sovereign AI programme should involve an industrial strategy that seeks to expand public investment in the sector and impose strict conditions on private access to public assets, alongside active support for models such as co-operatives, public interest companies and other democratic ownership models, so that the gains of AI can be captured and shared throughout the UK.

At the heart of this debate is the role of the public. Big decisions about AI, such as where data centres are built and how AI is deployed in public services, are being taken with little democratic input.

UK Aid Policy: Global Funding Trends

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for raising this important issue and for the passion and detail that he conveyed. I welcome the Minister to his place; I very much look forward to what he has to say. I also look forward to the contribution of the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), who is always here in these debates.

We meet at a sobering hour. The global landscape for official development assistance is contracting before our very eyes, and funding is falling right across the west. At home, our aid budget is projected to come down to 0.3% of gross national income. I understand the intense fiscal pressures facing our nation and the absolute necessity of strengthening our national defence in a dangerous world, but as the aid pot shrinks, our moral responsibility does not diminish; it intensifies. When there is less to go around, it is a matter of profound duty to ensure that every single penny that we set aside is well spent. We cannot afford waste, bloated bureaucracy and Whitehall-centric projects that fail to hit the ground.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman raises the principal point that this money will go from aid to defence. The reduction will be £4.8 billion in 2026-27, and then £6.5 billion. We obviously appreciate the need for defence investment, but that money is being transferred to the most profligate and incompetent spending Department in Government: the Ministry of Defence. Those of us who have been here for a number of years can remember Nimrod, which cost £4 billion and was scrapped. The Bowman radio system cost £2.5 billion and was scrapped. The Daring-class destroyer went £1.5 billion over projected expenditure. The Ajax armoured fighting vehicle has cost £4 billion and probably cannot be used. The sale of married quarters lost £4 billion. We are taking money that is desperately needed to save lives and giving it to a Department that has wasted money time and again.

[Jim Shannon]

The right hon. Gentleman has made his point well. I am not sure whether the Minister will be able to answer that, because he is not in charge of defence, but the point is none the less well made.

Being wise stewards of public money also means that we must take a hard, honest look at where our money is going. Aid was never meant to be a permanent, open-ended dependency; its ultimate goal must be to help nations to stand on their own two feet. We still see today vast sums of British taxpayers’ money flowing into middle-income countries with excellent economies. For example, India has a fast-growing economy, an expanding space programme and burgeoning domestic wealth. Surely common sense must prevail. We should be deeply wary about continuing to fund countries that are now clearly on their feet and fully capable of looking after their own citizens. Our priority must shift; I have a solution that I will put to the Minister at the end of my speech. We must concentrate our precious, limited resources on the poorest of the poor—on those forgotten nations that desperately need a helping hand just to get on their feet.

To achieve true value for money, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office must radically change how it delivers aid. For too long, vast sums of UK aid have been swallowed up by massive international agencies and expensive consultants sitting in metropolitan hotels miles away from the suffering. The right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale mentioned conferences being held in hotels while people starve on the streets. This is not efficiency. If we want maximum impact for the British taxpayer and maximum relief for the world’s most vulnerable, we must empower local, on-the-ground bodies. We must trust the people who know the area, speak the language, live among the communities and truly understand the complex realities on the ground.

In particular, I want to champion a group too often overlooked by modern technocrats: our Church missionaries and faith-based organisations. They have been doing their job for literally hundreds of years, carrying out physical, emotional and biblical charity. These men and women do not fly in for a three-month contract and fly out when a crisis hits. They have been in place for years, sometimes for decades and often for generations. They are there in the poorest villages of Africa, the remotest parts of Asia and the most dangerous corners of the middle east. They have built deep, unbreakable bonds of trust with local people. They know exactly who is starving, which clinics lack medicine and how to distribute resources without a single penny being siphoned off by corruption.

I say respectfully to the Minister, who knows me well, that when the FCDO partners with established missionary networks, it is not funding expensive administrative overheads. My Strangford constituency has many churches and faith groups, including the Church of Ireland, the Methodists, the Baptists, the Presbyterians, the Elim Church and many others. They are funding pure, direct delivery. They are utilising infrastructure that is already built, relationships that are already formed, and a dedication that money simply cannot buy.

As I have mentioned in other debates—I hope the Minister can give me a reply today—the networks are there and the people are there. In particular, the Elim missions in Zimbabwe and Swaziland are working with farmers to till the land and produce their own food. At the same time, they are involved in healthcare and education. As we reshape our aid footprint, will the Government commit to bypassing the bloated international middlemen and graduated economies? Will the FCDO actively channel our precious, reduced resources into the trusted, long-standing Church missionaries and local bodies that offer the ultimate value for money?

Let us ensure that British aid is defined not by the billions we spend but by the lives we save through those who know how to save them: the Church missionaries and faith-based groups. They are happy to partner with the Government, and they should be invited to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) on securing this important and timely debate. As ever, he brings considerable knowledge and experience on development issues and, importantly, an understanding that the world in which we deliver development has fundamentally changed—as indeed do a number of other speakers today, not least my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell). I think it is fair to say that few in this place have the depth of knowledge that he brings to the debate.

Today, the international landscape is defined by conflict, instability and strategic competition. Russia continues its illegal invasion of Ukraine. Sudan has become the world’s worst humanitarian catastrophe. Fragility stretches across the Sahel and the horn of Africa. China is using finance and infrastructure investment to expand its geopolitical influence. At the same time, donor budgets across western democracies are under increasing pressure.

Against that backdrop, Britain must ask a simple question: how do we ensure that every pound we spend overseas delivers the greatest possible benefit for the British people—our national security, our prosperity and health—as well as for the recipients? That is why we Conservatives believe the debate should not simply be about the size of the aid budget; it must be about reform.

Following the Government’s decision to reduce ODA from 0.5% to 0.3% of GNI, the spending review allocated £8.9 billion in ’27-28 and £9.4 billion in ’28-29. We believe it is right to go further, reducing ODA to 0.1% of GNI, and delivering almost £7 billion of savings across those two years, to help fund the sustained increase in defence spending required in today’s far more dangerous world. But reductions in spending alone are not enough; they must be accompanied by genuine reform. That is where I fear the Government have failed to provide the meaningful clarity that we deserve.

After two years in office, Ministers continue to speak of moving from donor to investor, yet we still do not know what that means in practical terms. I gently point out that it was almost a decade ago that the Conservative Government published a strategy for how to do economic development. Can the Minister explain what criteria are now being used to determine whether a programme represents value for money and serves Britain’s national interests? Which programmes have been cancelled? Which partnerships have been scaled back? Which priorities have been strengthened? What measurable outcomes will the Government use to judge success? I believe the British taxpayer deserves answers and so do we, as parliamentarians.

The Conservatives’ approach is clear. We believe Britain’s development mission should be redefined. Development assistance must be tightly focused on advancing Britain’s economic interests, national security and wider strategic influence. That means asking of each and every programme whether it strengthens Britain’s security, supports economic resilience, helps to prevent instability, counters authoritarian influence or creates stronger, long-term partnerships.

[Jim Shannon]

The right hon. Lady always makes incredibly important and helpful contributions. In my contribution, I suggested that there is another way of doing things, which is working alongside church groups and faith-based organisations. Does she feel that that is a possible way to spend money and have influence more wisely?

[Wendy Morton]

The hon. Gentleman always brings great passion to this place and is never afraid of sharing ideas. I think we are at a stage with development where we are, I think all of us, looking for more answers and ideas. It is also important that we look to partners in other donor countries, and learn from them too.

Coming back to the point about longer-term partnerships and areas where programmes should be helping us, if they do not we should ask why not and why British taxpayers are funding them. That also means introducing far greater conditionality. The British taxpayer rightly expects the organisations and countries receiving our support to demonstrate accountability, transparency and good governance.

That principle must apply equally to the multilateral system. Under the previous Conservative Government, Britain led international efforts to reform UN agencies, reduce duplication and introduce stronger performance-based funding. We challenged international organisations to deliver better value and greater accountability. What reforms is the Minister pressing for across the United Nations and the wider multilateral development banks? What conditions are attached to UK funding? What discussions has he had with our international partners about driving greater transparency and accountability throughout the multilateral system? What are the Government doing to promote positive reform where it takes place, such as that being rolled out by the president of the World Bank, Ajay Banga.

Equally important is the role of bilateral and minilateral partnerships. Britain’s relationships, particularly across the Commonwealth, remain one of our greatest strategic strengths. Rather than relying on large multilateral institutions, how are the Government exploring more agile bilateral and minilateral partnerships that can better advance our economic and security interests? What discussions has the Minister had with key partners, particularly across the Commonwealth, about developing those new models of co-operation that deliver greater impact, stronger accountability and better value for the taxpayer? Have the Government also explored the potential for development partnerships with countries such as Japan and South Korea, as well as the Nordics and Germany? These are allies whose interests align with ours in different parts of the world, and they matter for our security and prosperity.

Economic development must sit at the heart of our approach to international development. Conservative Governments demonstrated that development is not simply about grants, but creating jobs, building markets and enabling countries to stand on their own feet. As we heard today, British International Investment has become one of Britain’s genuine development success stories, mobilising private capital to support sustainable economic growth. Can the Minister tell the House whether BII will receive further support, and what level of private capital do the Government expect to leverage through development finance?

If development is to support Britain’s national interest, global health must also remain central. The Conservatives have a proud record of supporting Gavi and the Global Fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. Those investments have not only saved millions of lives but strengthened Britain’s own health security. Can the Minister confirm today the Government’s future commitments to Gavi and the Global Fund, and, importantly, the sequence of that funding?

I want to turn quickly to a humanitarian crisis, because Sudan cannot be ignored. It is now the world’s worst humanitarian emergency. Will the Minister tell us what additional action Britain is taking to secure humanitarian access and what discussions are taking place with regional partners?

I am conscious of the time. I am coming to an end, but I first want to touch on Ukraine, which I visited earlier this year. One of the gravest humanitarian issues arising from the war is the systematic abduction and forced deportation of Ukrainian children. Can the Minister update us on the latest support the UK is providing to help locate, identify and reunite the children with their families?

Conflict is increasing, donor funding is under pressure and strategic competition is intensifying. Britain’s development policy must change, too. I hope the Minister will explain not only where the Government are spending the money, but how their approach is being fundamentally reformed to meet the realities of a more dangerous and contested world. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

Israel: E1 Zone Expansion

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

Goods produced in illegal settlements should not be traded with the United Kingdom. We distinguish them clearly from goods produced in green line Israel. I have said repeatedly that no one should benefit from a profit made on land that has been unlawfully procured.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

No one doubts the Minister’s commitment to bringing about change. Those hon. Members who have consistently stood up as firm friends and allies of Israel recognise its absolute right to defend itself and secure its borders. However, as someone who represents a deeply rural constituency with a strong tradition of family businesses and farming, I know that land is not a political commodity; it is a livelihood. In the E1 corridor, any unilateral land grab will disrupt centuries of agricultural practices and cut off traditional grazing routes. When farming infrastructure and small businesses are dismantled or isolated by expansion, local economies collapse, leaving families with no means of self-sufficiency. Will he Minister take time to convey those concerns to our ally and friend, and ask for immediate reconsideration of this action?

[Mr Falconer]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point and raises a concern that many across the House have raised about the huge disruption to long-standing agricultural practices caused by the expansion of settlements.

Sudan

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Elmore]

The point that my hon. Friend makes, as many Members have, about the international spotlight on Sudan is a correct one, and also applies to our domestic media. We have ringfenced funding for support for women and girls. We are offering more support and working with the international coalition to end violence against women and girls. I can assure him that one of the Foreign Secretary’s six priorities is around women and girls, and Sudan forms a crucial part of that.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his answers. Two weeks ago to the day, I held a debate on Sudan in Westminster Hall, as the Minister will know. We highlighted all these issues, and today we are back again. Does the Minister agree that the terrifying escalation of drone strikes and the ethnically targeted violence in El Obeid demand an unyielding response, rather than the global reticence we have seen too often? Will the Minister commit to using the UK position on the UN Security Council to enforce immediate humanitarian corridors, and in particular to ensure that missionaries—there are many out there—and other British foreign nationals in the area are safe and have the support that they need?

[Chris Elmore]

The hon. Gentleman has championed the issues of the Sudanese people for a number of years, and I thank him for doing so; I have responded to debates in Westminster Hall in which he has raised, in particular, the persecution of Christians in Sudan. He is quite right to raise the wider point about the UN Security Council. Just this Tuesday, as I mentioned earlier, the Foreign Secretary spoke to the UN Secretary-General. As penholder, we have issued the clarifying statement with Norway, Germany and others, as I mentioned. He is right that we will continue to lead this work in the UN to bring about a peaceful resolution and do all we can to get crucial humanitarian aid to the people of Sudan.

Environmental Sustainability: UK-Indonesia Collaboration

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy]

I very much agree. We both spent the Easter recess wading through peatlands. I was going to say that we were wading up to our knees; I was wading up to my knees, but for everyone else there the peat came up to about mid-calf on them. I had very short wellies on, too—I was given children’s ones. There was an awful lot of squelching going on. Nevertheless, it was amazing to see the richness of the peatlands. We also took boats along the river. The water there is brown—apparently it is entirely drinkable—because of the peat in the water supply. I very much agree that stopping peatland fires and underground burning are as important as stopping the wildfires that destroy our forests.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for rightly securing this debate. She has given us some of the problems and, in her intervention, the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) suggested some of the things that could happen to solve them.

Back home in Northern Ireland, we have a number of small and medium-sized green tech businesses. They are innovative firms, who have new ideas about how to do things. Although I am not smarter than anybody else, I think that in Northern Ireland we are capable of giving some help to others.

Might there be access for companies in Strangford to bidding pipelines or other international investments, to ensure that we can help? Obviously, it would be at a price, because that is how businesses operate; they exist to make a profit. If that is possible, perhaps the hon. Lady would be kind enough to direct me on the right way to go.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I direct the hon. Gentleman to the Minister, because she is the one with the power to put him in touch with the embassy, for example.

However, I know exactly what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I was at the desertification COP in Riyadh in December 2024, which was all about land degradation and water scarcity. I went to the UK stand, which had a number of British investors. What really struck home with me there was a small company in my constituency called LettUs Grow, which grows salad vegetables through aeroponics, so no water is required and the company has a very low carbon footprint.

It was brilliant to see out in Riyadh that countries such as Jordan and Iraq, which are managing extreme water scarcity, were aware that a company in Bristol might be of use to them in future. We need to use opportunities such as those showcases at COPs to illustrate what we do, so that our companies can find buyers in the markets that need their products the most.

[Jim Shannon]

If Members have not had the chance to go to it already, I will just let them know that the British Red Cross is holding an event in a dining room A or B today. Earlier, I was talking to a young lady who is doing some work in Nepal on water issues, including water shortage. There is flooding in Nepal, but it is projected that in about 20 years’ time there will perhaps be a water shortage in the country. The British Red Cross might have some innovations or ideas for Nepal. The hon. Lady and I both know the British Red Cross; I know that she knows it very well. There is an organisation that perhaps could help, too.

[Kerry McCarthy]

The hon. Member makes a very important point. At Foreign Office questions last week, I had the first question on the Order Paper, which was very ably answered by my hon. Friend the Minister. My question was about the Tibetan plateau, the environmental degradation there and what China is doing to divert water sources. Obviously, Nepal is part of that situation, as it is in the Himalayas. I think that a fifth of the world’s population depends on the Tibetan plateau for water sources.

If the hon. Gentleman seeks out the answer that the Minister gave me on that occasion, he will see that we have quite a few international initiatives that try to ensure that people get access to the water that they need.

If Indonesia is under threat environmentally, that affects us all, as I think some interventions today have already illustrated. Over recent decades, Indonesia has lost hundreds of thousands of hectares of forest each year. The main drivers of that loss are unsustainable agriculture, especially palm oil production, legal and illegal logging, mining, and rapid urbanisation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

I could not agree more. I really appreciate all the interventions, which are a very good way of getting the debate flowing, but it is quite easy for me to lose my place. I was talking about the impact of mining, logging and urbanisation, and about the fact that forest and peatlands have been damaged by wild fires. I will come on to the marine environment later.

The UK has been at the forefront of efforts to help reverse these problems. In a joint statement in November 2024, our Prime Minister and the President of Indonesia agreed a new strategic partnership, underpinned by people, planet, prosperity and peace. It included a commitment to address illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing, conservation of ocean species, sustainable supply chains and food security.

At COP29 in Baku in 2024, we pledged £239 million to halt and reverse deforestation in forest-rich nations that act as critical carbon sinks, including Indonesia. The measures included £188 million for high-integrity forest carbon markets, £48 million for blended finance for forest programmes to attract private investment and £3 million for the United Nations framework convention on climate change to support communities to benefit from forest restoration.

We have also funded some specific Indonesia programmes, including UK Partnering for Accelerated Climate Transitions, which covers low-carbon transportation and energy efficiency. Phase 5 of a 20-year forestry programme looking at timber governance, legislation and regulation has had £12 million from us. The UK partnered with Jakarta and funded the Nature Transition Support programme for biodiversity protection in key national parks and pioneer carbon and biodiversity credit markets. The Climate and Ocean Adaptation and Sustainable Transition programme is funded by the UK’s Blue Planet fund. I have several more things on my list, but I am slightly worried that I will steal the Minister’s thunder. I suspect that she will tell us a bit about what the UK has done, so I will save them for her. As I say, good things have happened, but I will now focus on the challenges.

I have been fortunate enough to visit Indonesia twice in the last couple of years. In April 2025, as the then Climate Minister, I represented the UK at the Forest, Agriculture and Commodity Trade dialogue meeting in Malaysia. Indonesia had been co-chair of the dialogue with the UK, but was handing over to Malaysia, so my visit took in both countries. The discussion mostly focused on palm oil, as hon. Members would expect, and the theme of the dialogue was smallholders. I think I am right in saying that, in both countries, about 50% of palm oil production comes from smallholders. Although it is easy for the larger agricultural concerns to monitor regulations, comply with the certification and do all the bureaucracy that is involved in that, it is much more difficult for smallholders. As we have said, we need to bear their needs and livelihoods in mind.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) said that the first thing for people is always to feed their children and look after their families, and he is absolutely right: that is critical. If we cannot get that right, nothing can happen. Palm oil is in short supply at the moment, so how can we better ensure that those who produce it get the price they want, and the rest of the world gets the supply it needs? We need to find a balance, so perhaps we need a working partnership.

[Kerry McCarthy]

That is probably the subject for another long debate, because it gets into the inequities in global food supply chains and making sure that farmers—whether in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency or the heart of the Indonesian rainforest—get fairly rewarded for what they do. I would say that a lot of products with palm oil in them are probably not the best elements of a healthy diet, such as the ultra-processed foods we should be stamping out. However, palm oil can be sustainable, and I will come on to talk about how we ensure that it is. Even if some palm oil products someone ends up consuming are not particularly great, there are others where palm oil is an important part of our food systems.

Indonesia is the world’s largest producer of palm oil, supplying more than half of global exports. Palm oil accounts for around 4.5% of GDP and supports 16 million jobs, with many of those involved being smallholders, as I said. This is a dilemma that many emerging economies face: going for growth, exploiting abundant natural resources to the max and boosting the livelihoods of people who might otherwise be living in poverty, or protecting their environment. However, I do not think those two things need to be at odds with each other.

It is true that palm oil has historically been linked to deforestation, peatland drainage and biodiversity loss, but Indonesia has been taking steps to address that. A mandatory national certification scheme for Indonesian sustainable palm oil, known as ISPO, was introduced in 2011. A palm oil moratorium was introduced in 2018, halting new plantation permits and revoking some non-compliant concessions, and many private sector companies have adopted NDPE, or “No Deforestation, No Peat, No Exploitation” policies.

Indonesia has also acted more widely to protect its forests and peatlands. Forest and peatland moratoriums were introduced in 2011 and made permanent in 2019. New permits to clear primary forests and peatlands were suspended, and that was complemented by peatland restoration programmes and stronger protection against wildfires. Secondary forests are still vulnerable, however, and many forests remain exposed within existing concessions.

Indonesia’s efforts are now focused on scaling up certification, strengthening enforcement and ensuring that future growth in palm oil production does not come at the expense of remaining forests, but this is a global issue, and we cannot expect Indonesia to act alone. We know that 90% of all global deforestation is driven by agricultural expansion to meet international demand for traded commodities. What we consume in this country is contributing to the destruction of forests and peatlands across the globe. The Government’s figures show that, in 2023, British consumption of everyday goods, such as palm oil, cocoa, rubber and soy, was linked to the clearing of around 29,000 hectares of forests worldwide. That is an area two and a half times the size of Manchester—we normally say the size of Wales, but perhaps Manchester is where it is at these days.

This was going to be the point at which I called out the Government for not making more progress with our legislation on forest risk commodities. I was going to say that we cannot have any credibility on the global stage in co-chairing initiatives such as the FACT—forest, agriculture and commodity trade—dialogue or the Forest and Climate Leaders’ Partnership, which we co-chair with Guyana, if we are not prepared to take steps to stamp out deforestation in our own supply chains.

During my time as Climate Minister, I spoke often to the Minister for Nature and the FCDO Minister responsible for international development, as well as to our two excellent envoys for climate and nature—Rachel Kyte and Ruth Davis—about this issue. I also pay tribute to the team in the international forest unit, which spans the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and the FCDO, who were great to work with.

Our conversations went back and forth on the pros and cons of going down the EU route on regulation, which was focused on the concept of sustainability, or the route proposed by the previous UK Government under the Environment Act 2021, which was based on legality. There was a valid discussion to be had about which approach was best, complicated by the fact that the EU approach would apply in Northern Ireland.

What should not have been up for debate was whether we would act at all, yet some parts of Government were arguing that this represented another burden on business, which we could not impose. Businesses such as Ferrero, which I met, were calling for regulation, as were supermarkets. The opposition within Government was a straw man to argue for delay or, in fact, for dropping the proposal altogether.

As I said, I came here prepared to vent my frustration at the delay, but I was pleased to get a heads-up from the Nature Minister last night that the Government are announcing today, at London Climate Action Week, that they are moving ahead with the regulations. UK businesses that trade in internationally sourced commodities such as palm oil will be legally required to check that their supply chains are free from products linked to illegal land clearances and the destruction of the world’s rainforests.