China Audit
Judith Cummins Excerpts(2 days, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
With permission, I will make a statement on the China audit.
China’s rise has shaped the geopolitical landscape. Over the past decade, its military expenditure doubled. Its armed forces became the world’s largest. It established dominance over critical mineral supply chains. It pursued relentless innovation in electric vehicles, artificial intelligence and even space travel. Over the same period, China has delivered a third of global economic growth, becoming the world’s second largest economy and, together with Hong Kong, the UK’s third largest trading partner.
Not engaging with China is therefore no choice at all. China’s power is an inescapable fact. After what the Intelligence and Security Committee in 2023 described as a “completely inadequate” approach over the past decade to deal with China’s “size, ambition and capability”, we must now look at the facts. Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton attempted a golden era. Boris Johnson let Huawei into our critical national infrastructure before U-turning. Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak decided that China was a threat but failed to devise any policy response, instead burying their heads in the sand.
This Government conducted an audit of our most complex bilateral relationship to deliver a long-term strategy, moving beyond cheap rhetoric to a data-driven, cross-Government approach. I would like to thank the hundreds who contributed to it, including hon. Members, of course, and experts, businesses, diaspora communities, devolved Governments and close allies. The audit is less a single act than an ongoing exercise that will continue to guide the UK’s approach to China. It informed the Government’s strategic defence review, which assessed that China was a “sophisticated and persistent challenge”. It informed the national security strategy, published today, which sets out China’s impacts on each strategic pillar of UK national security. It has steered our trade and industrial strategies, which analysed where greater engagement is possible, given the important role China can play in delivering UK growth.
Hon. Members will understand that much of the audit was conducted at a high classification and that most of the detail is not disclosable without damaging our national interests. I am therefore providing a broad summary of its recommendations today in a manner consistent with that of our Five Eyes partners. On security, the audit described a full spectrum of threats, from espionage and cyber-attacks to the repression of Hongkongers and attacks on the rules-based order. It made clear that our protections must extend more widely than they currently do—from the security of this House to our critical national infrastructure.
Hon. Members will again recognise that disclosing the detail of the responses to those threats would undermine their effectiveness. However, I can confirm that following the audit we are investing £600 million in our intelligence services; updating our state threats legislation following Jonathan Hall’s review; strengthening our response to transnational repression; introducing training for police and launching more online guidance to support victims; launching, as announced in the industrial strategy, a 12-week consultation on updating the definitions covering the 17 sensitive areas under the National Security and Investment Act 2021; and working bilaterally with China to enhance intelligence flows related to illicit finance specifically, organised immigration crime and scam centres, using new National Crime Agency capabilities.
On global security, the audit underlined the extent of Beijing’s support for the Kremlin. The Government have already tripled the number of Chinese entities sanctioned for equipping Russia’s illegal war, and we will continue to confront that.
The audit reiterated that our approach to China must stay rooted in both international law and deterrence. We will continue to confront China’s dangerous and destabilising activity in the South China sea, which I saw for myself when I visited the Philippines. We will continue to work with our regional partners to support freedom of navigation and call out China’s abuses. We will double down on AUKUS. We will not change our long-standing position on Taiwan, while sustaining unofficial but vibrant ties with Taiwan on trade, education and innovation. We will also never shy away from shining a spotlight on human rights—notably the situations in Xinjiang and Tibet—while on Hong Kong we will insist that China honours its commitments under the Sino-British joint declaration, including by repealing the national security law and releasing Jimmy Lai.
The audit made it clear that our approach will always be guided by the UK’s long-term economic growth priorities. It provided ample evidence of the extent to which our economies are intertwined. China is our third biggest trading partner and our universities’ second largest source of international students. China will continue to play a vital role in supporting the UK’s secure growth, but over the past decade we have not had the structures either to take the opportunities or to protect us from the risks that those deep links demand. Businesses have told us time and again that they have lacked senior political engagement and adequate Government guidance.
We have already begun to develop new structures, including regular economic and financial dialogues with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, setting us on course to unlock £1 billion of economic value for the UK economy and positioning the UK’s world-leading financial sector to reflect China’s importance to the global economy; joint economic and trade commissions; and joint commission meetings on science. We will also launch a new online hub, bringing together detailed and specific business advice. The forthcoming trade strategy will set out how we will support British firms to enhance links with China’s vast and growing consumer market as well as assess new tools to keep goods made by forced labour anywhere in the world off Britain’s high streets.
The audit recognised that China’s global role does not fit into simple stereotypes. China is the world’s biggest emitter but also the biggest producer of renewables. It offers $80 billion towards development annually. It is also the UK’s second largest research collaborator: 11% of British research output included Chinese authors.
So the audit was clear: the UK must develop new dialogues with China on issues such as climate, development, global health and science, as well as on trade. In doing so, we are driving our long-term interests and creating secure opportunities for UK plc.
We cannot deal with China’s complexity unless we improve our capability to understand it, for our national security and for secure trade and growth. The audit showed that under the last Government there was a profound lack of confidence in how to deal with China and a profound lack of knowledge regarding China’s culture, history and—most importantly—language. Over the past year, I have found that far too few mandarins speak Mandarin. We are already taking action to address that by introducing a new China fast stream in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, creating an FCDO global China network and training over 1,000 civil servants on China policy in the past year. Enhancing those capabilities still further will be a core focus for the £290 million FCDO transformation fund announced in the national security strategy by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster a short time ago. The new strategy, which proceeds from the audit, will ensure that the Government examine the full spectrum of interests in their decision-making processes and deliver the consistent approach that was so sorely lacking.
Anyone expecting a simple prescription on China is not living in the real world. The audit has painted a complex picture, but it has provided us with a clear way forward. The UK’s approach to China will be founded on progressive realism, taking the world as it is, not as we would wish it to be. Like our closest allies, we will co-operate where we can and challenge where we must. Never compromising on our national security, recognising the complexity of the world as it is, engaging confidently, carefully and pragmatically, and delivering secure growth—those are the hallmarks of grown-up government, acting in the long-term national interest.
Mr Lammy
I know that the right hon. Lady can be pretty brazen, but a lecture from her about China policy should make even her blush. The Conservative party oversaw more than a decade of division, inconsistency and complacency towards China. There was no strategy, there was no plan and there was no sense of a national interest. The Intelligence and Security Committee, which was chaired by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), from her party, said that the actions on China had left Britain “severely handicapped” in managing our future security. The truth is that the right hon. Lady was at the centre of it.
Where was she during the ill-judged Cameron-Osborne golden age? She was the Minister for the Treasury. Where was she during the humiliating Huawei U-turn? She was Home Secretary. The Tories had their heads in the sand. Under them, Britain’s defences were weakened and our armed services hollowed out. It is a Labour Government who are investing £600 million in our intelligence services to deal with those threats; it is a Labour Government who are investing £290 million extra a year in our diplomatic capabilities in this area; it is a Labour Government who are delivering the biggest increase in defence spending since the cold war; and it is a Labour Government who are making Britain secure at home and strong abroad.
I refer the right hon. Lady to page 28 of the strategic defence review—she clearly has not bothered to read it—which makes it clear that we of course understand that China is a “sophisticated and persistent” threat. She talks about the embassy, but she should know, as a former Home Secretary, that it is a quasi-judicial decision that has been properly made by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government.
The right hon. Lady talks about Jimmy Lai. I met Sebastien Lai last week, and we have been raising the issue on every single occasion. A trial is ongoing, so let us see how it will complete. She raises transnational aggression. We are the ones updating our state threats legislation because the Conservatives left the gaps and did nothing when in power. She raises the situation in Russia and the Chinese supplying Russia with dual-use goods. Who has done the sanctions? There have been five rounds of sanctions under me as Foreign Secretary. What did the Conservatives do? I will take no lectures on this subject from them, who know that, as a Government, they were found wanting on the question of threats from the Chinese.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Our relationship with China is most definitely a difficult one. On the one hand, it is our third biggest trading partner, but on the other hand, the national security strategy, on page 35, says that there is an increase in espionage, China is undermining our economic security and interfering in our democracy, and that has increased over recent years. The Foreign Office needs to hold the ring.
The China audit needs to be wide-ranging. It is an important piece of work. We were looking forward to seeing it published and to the Foreign Secretary coming to talk to us—he said that he would—but instead we are looking through a glass darkly, we do not know and we will not be able to see it. We want to be able to do our job properly and scrutinise this important piece of work. May I therefore suggest that the Foreign Secretary makes available a reading room at the FCDO for Foreign Affairs Committee members and staff before his appearance on 8 July so that we can study the audit properly and hold him to account?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the interest that she has taken with the China audit. I did say that I would update the Committee, and I look forward to appearing before it and taking questions on this subject.
In completing the audit, it has been important to remain consistent with our Five Eyes partners. She will recognise why much of the audit has led to a high level of classification. She will note, when she looks across the G7 and other Five Eyes partners, that many of them have handled their approach to China in the way that I have set out. I refer her to the strategic defence review and its contents on China. I refer her to the national security strategy, which has just been published, and its references to China. I also refer her to the UK’s industrial strategy and its references to China, alongside the statement that I have just made.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. For years, UK Governments have failed to take seriously the challenge posed by China. The Conservatives failed to deliver even the semblance of a coherent approach to dealing with Beijing. Today, after months of waiting for this audit, the Government’s failure to publish a stand-alone document is immensely disappointing. Will the Foreign Secretary set out how Members of this House, including those on the Intelligence and Security Committee and those on the Front Benches with responsibility for foreign affairs, defence and security, can be briefed on the more sensitive elements of the audit?
We on the Liberal Democrat Benches recognise China for what it is: a threat to our values and interests. The Foreign Secretary is right that our approach must confront the facts as they are. They include China’s hostility to the UK’s allies and support for our adversaries, its abuse of human rights in Xinjiang and Hong Kong, the theft of intellectual property and its efforts at transnational repression. Instead of trying to establish warm relations with President Xi, the Government should commit to clear red lines on what they will not accept. For example, we have yet to receive a satisfactory explanation for why my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) was denied entry to Hong Kong when on a private visit to see her family. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm what steps he will take if Beijing refuses to give an assurance that MPs will not be blocked from visiting Hong Kong or China?
We now hear reports that the Deputy Prime Minister is preparing to wave through Beijing’s application for a proposed mega-embassy in the heart of London. That is not a technical planning matter to be cloaked in the veil of quasi-judicial powers; it is a matter of national security. Opposition has been expressed by the United States and by pro-democracy Chinese and Hong Kong activists living in the UK, who already face Chinese Communist party-sponsored bounties. Has the Foreign Secretary met those activists, and will he formally request that the mega-embassy application be blocked?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Members will be aware that we have three debates this afternoon, so I aim to finish this statement by 2.35 pm.
Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
May I say to the Foreign Secretary how much I welcome this China audit? I would like to highlight one aspect in particular. As someone who studied Chinese at university and lived there for a year, I know how complex and different China can be, and the many misconceptions and ignorance around China have been a source of frustration for me. Whatever anybody thinks of our relationship with China, it is absolutely vital that we have clear communication and that we deal with China from a position of knowledge. Does the Foreign Secretary agree how important it is that the FCDO is upskilled to ensure that we have that knowledge of Chinese culture and language skills, so we are fully prepared for the years ahead?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend’s question goes to the heart of capabilities. We must have more diplomats with a fine understanding of China and more Mandarin speakers, and we are doing that. Sadly, the last Government cut the number of diplomats with that capability and understanding. We need to invest in the Great Britain-China Centre so that understanding of the culture is across our country, and she is absolutely right on that point.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I also remind Members that it would be helpful to have short questions and answers.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
On the one hand, the Defence Secretary has told the world that the UK will increase offensive cyber operations against China. On the other hand, the Deputy Prime Minister is pushing for a Chinese super-embassy in London, which will be furnished with secret data cabling. Does the Foreign Secretary see any inconsistencies in his Government’s approach to China?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
For an example of a quick question, I call Sir Desmond Swayne.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
It was proper and lawful to send HMS Spey through the Taiwan strait in pursuit of vital international freedom of navigation in the South China sea, was it not, and can we see more like it?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman has put his views on the record, and I will consult my officials about what he has revealed.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. It is essential that we have a fuller understanding of the reach of China, as well as of our goals. British citizens have contacted me about the human rights violations, not only against those in China but those who live on our shores. Will the Foreign Secretary ensure that China understands that its reach stops before our shores, and that our people are entitled to think and have freedom of speech whenever they desire, without any fear of reprisal?
Points of Order
Judith Cummins Excerpts(2 days, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice about the exchange that I have just had with the Foreign Secretary. After he had been incredibly partisan about the history of Huawei’s involvement in our telecommunications infrastructure, I pointed out that that involvement began under the previous Labour Government when he was a Minister, but he tried to accuse Members on the Conservative Front Bench of something similar. I asked a serious question about the Chinese dominance of the world market for cellular internet modules, which is a very serious issue. We have all grown used to the fact that we do not get answers in this House, so perhaps you will advise us, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether Ministers will do so. The Foreign Secretary then decided to abuse and insult me personally about advice that he claims that I gave, in a previous role, to a former Prime Minister. He has no idea what advice I gave in that job. If he cares so much about my personal history, he will read all the things I have ever written about the role of Chinese companies in our energy infrastructure. I would like him to take the opportunity to withdraw the accusation.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. What he refers to was a matter of debate and nothing disorderly occurred. This is not a matter for the Chair, but I would urge that good temper and moderation be followed at all times in this Chamber.
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a matter of record that former Prime Minister May was considering matters that pertain to our nuclear capability. The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) was an adviser at that stage, and she had to withdraw her recommendations on the China General Nuclear Power Group. That is a matter of record, and anyone in this Chamber can google it.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. While the Foreign Secretary is sitting here, I thought it relevant to record that we have just heard that the American Government have put in a second disapproval, for security reasons, to the granting of a Chinese embassy in the proposed location.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order, but as he knows, that is not a matter for the Chair. He has put his comment on the record.
Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories
Judith Cummins Excerpts(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend has extensive experience of international coalition building and of taking steps against those who support corruption or who, as in this case, breach human rights. I can confirm that we will work with our friends and allies to try to preserve a path to a two-state solution at the conference next week, in the way that he sets out.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank both the Minister and Members for their perseverance.
Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories
Judith Cummins Excerpts(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
We are appalled by repeated reports of mass casualty incidents in which Palestinians have been killed when trying to access aid sites in Gaza. Desperate civilians who have endured 20 months of war should never face the risk of death or injury to simply feed themselves and their families. We call for an immediate and independent investigation into these events, and for the perpetrators to be held to account.
It is deeply disturbing that these incidents happened near the new Gaza Humanitarian Foundation distribution sites. They highlight the utterly desperate need to get aid in. The Israeli Government say they have opened up aid access with their new system, but the warnings raised by the UK, the United Nations, aid partners and the international community about these operations have materialised, and the results are agonising.
Israel’s newly introduced measures for aid delivery are inhumane, foster desperation and endanger civilians. Israel’s unjustified block on aid into Gaza needs to end. It is inhumane. Israel must immediately allow the UN and aid partners to safely deliver all types of aid at scale, to save lives, reduce suffering and maintain dignity. It must ensure that food and other critical supplies can reach people safely, where they are, across all the Gaza strip. Civilians and medical and humanitarian workers and facilities must be protected.
We will continue to be steadfast in our support for the UN and other trusted international non-governmental organisations as the most effective and principled partners for aid delivery. Our support has meant that over 465,000 people have received essential healthcare, 640,000 have received food, and 275,000 have improved access to water, sanitation and hygiene services. Just two weeks ago, the Minister for Development, my noble Friend Baroness Chapman, announced £4 million of additional funding to support the British Red Cross and enable the delivery of humanitarian relief in Gaza through its partner the Palestine Red Crescent Society. That was part of our wider £101 million of support this financial year. Aid must be allowed in so that support can continue.
Today, the UN Security Council is expected to consider a resolution for an immediate ceasefire, the release of all hostages and the lifting of all Israeli restrictions on humanitarian aid, supporting delivery by the United Nations. We will once again use our vote in support of those goals.
Following our leadership in co-ordinating dozens of countries to address the humanitarian situation and the joint statement by the UK, France and Canada, as well as the actions announced by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 20 May, we will continue to convene international partners to increase the pressure and take further steps to address the catastrophic situation on the ground.
We will continue to strongly support the efforts led by the United States, Qatar and Egypt to secure an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. As the Prime Minister has said, a ceasefire is the best way to secure the release of all remaining hostages and achieve a long-term political solution. The Israeli Government’s decision to expand their military operations in Gaza and severely restrict aid undermines all of those goals.
We repeat our utter condemnation of Hamas and our demand that they release all hostages immediately and unconditionally. Hamas can have no role in the future governance of Gaza. A two-state solution is the only way to bring the long-lasting peace, stability and security that both Israelis and Palestinians deserve. We welcome France and Saudi Arabia’s leadership in chairing an international conference later this month. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for her question; of course, it was her request for an urgent question this morning that led to this statement. I do not agree with the whole premise of her question, but I assure her that we will continue to convene international partners, to increase pressure and to take further steps, as long as this catastrophic situation remains. We have taken steps since we were first elected; we announced further steps on 20 May, when the Foreign Secretary was at the Dispatch Box; and we will take further steps, which we were clear about in the joint statement between the UK, France and Canada, until the situation improves.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement. I spoke yesterday with a British surgeon who has regularly visited Gaza to deliver emergency medical aid. He first reported cases of malnutrition 18 months ago and is deeply anxious about what he will find when he arrives at Nasser hospital in southern Gaza later this month.
People in Gaza are on the brink of starvation. Others are dying daily from gunshot wounds inflicted as they queue for food. The situation is intolerable, and it is deliberate. The policies of Netanyahu’s Government amount to an indiscriminate assault on the Palestinian people. We must get the aid in, we must get the hostages out and we must stop the violent forced displacement of Palestinians in Gaza and in the west bank. That is the only path back to a ceasefire.
The time for timidity is over. Liberal Democrats have consistently called for the Government to take firmer action, and they must do so today. We called for the sanctioning of the extremist Ministers Ben-Gvir and Smotrich 18 months ago. Will the Minister finally commit to implementing those sanctions, showing that we will no longer tolerate calls for Palestinian dispossession? Will the Government make it clear that unless the Israeli Government change course, the UK will expand sanctions to those Ministers and Members of the Knesset who support a continuation of the blockade and the current military action? Will the Government finally ban the export of all UK arms to Israel?
In his response earlier, the Prime Minister said that the Government were working with allies to get aid into Gaza. Can the Minister expand on what options are under consideration and when they could be implemented? Last week’s announcement of 22 new settlements in the west bank—the largest expansion in years—is intolerable. The UK should have no part in this, so will Ministers introduce legislation now to ban all UK trade with the illegal settlements? Will the Government use the conference later this month, together with allies such as France, finally to recognise the state of Palestine, showing beyond doubt the UK’s commitment to Palestinians’ right to self-determination and a two-state solution?
Mr Falconer
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson alludes to some of the commentary of some Israeli Government Ministers. I want to be clear that the UK Government’s issue is with Netanyahu’s Government—it is with the statements and actions of many of those Ministers. As Members will know, I will not discuss from this Dispatch Box sanctions that we might take, but what I will say is that we watch very closely the statements that have come out. We have condemned them repeatedly, and they have not stopped; they have continued. We keep this under very close review.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the International Development Committee.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation is no such thing; it is a group of trigger-happy private security employees. Under international law, Israel, as the occupier, has a duty to the people in Gaza. The International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion on 19 July 2024 stating that Israel’s
“policies and practices are contrary to the prohibition of forcible transfer of the protected population”
under article 49 of the fourth Geneva convention. The Government have still not given their response to this, and if I were to be very uncharitable—and, hopefully, very wrong—I would say that this has created a limbo whereby the Government are not using their full toolbox of sanctions, prohibitions and legal accountability to hold Israel and indeed Hamas to account. When will the Government act and acknowledge that they have duties under this advisory opinion?
Kit Malthouse
Not a single thing has changed—nothing! They are ignoring you now. I am sorry, but they are killing dozens every day—
Mr Falconer
We have taken steps, and we will continue to take steps. We have led the international community in the most recent of those steps. I am, and we are, under no illusion about the severity of the situation that we face.
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
Judith Cummins Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I remind Members that we currently have a 15-minute guide limit for speeches, so please help each other so that as many Members as possible can speak.
Gregory Stafford
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like your advice. Mr Speaker said that more than 90 people wish to speak in the debate. We have been debating the amendments for an hour and a half and four speeches have been made. If we go to 2 o’clock, that will mean fewer than 20 speakers. I understand that whether a closure motion can be moved is at the discretion of the Chair. If we have not got past, let us say, 20 or 30 Members speaking in the debate, can you give us any indication of whether, if you are still in the Chair, you would accept a closure motion at that point?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. We will cross that bridge when we come to it. We are currently asking Members to keep their contributions to 15 minutes and that, of course, will be reassessed very shortly—I can give him assurances about that.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
Madam Deputy Speaker, since I have been in the Chamber, I have received the truly awful news that three people died last night in a fire in Bicester, including two members of the Oxfordshire Fire and Rescue Service. The hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) has had to leave the Chamber to liaise with those on the ground and we both want to take this opportunity, if we may, to convey our deep sorrow for and solidarity with the families of those who have died, and our fervent and heartfelt best wishes to the two firefighters who remain in a serious condition. We are grateful for their heroism and that of their colleagues when, as ever, they ran towards danger to serve us all. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
I rise to speak in favour of new clause 16 and amendment 14, and I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak. When the Bill first came before the House, I was a Minister attending Cabinet and therefore unable to speak on the subject. I genuinely thank my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) and every single Member who served for so many hours on the Bill Committee for this incredibly important Bill. I also thank the hundreds of my constituents who have contacted me with their views. I genuinely believe that every single one of them was motivated by compassion and a determination to reduce suffering, and in many cases their views were shaped by their experience of death and of suffering in life. I know that that is the case for many of us in the Chamber as well, so I hope that the same spirit of respect that we saw previously will continue throughout the passage of the Bill, whatever our views may be.
New clause 16(1)(a) would exclude from the scope of the Bill those who do not want to be a burden on others or on public services, and paragraph (b) would exclude those experiencing a mental disorder, including depression. On the former, we have discussed this morning whether it is appropriate to mention international analogies. They will, of course, be instrumentalised by those who have different views about this important subject. I have personally found survey evidence from the Oregon example of people expressing that they felt they were a burden to be highly compelling. I do not believe that it indicates that that was the primary reason why they sought assisted dying, but I believe that it is an important piece of evidence that we need to take into account.
I also believe that we need to look at situations where people who are potentially subject to coercion have been evaluated by professionals in our society, and where we might be concerned about the outcomes. I ask for Members’ understanding here.
Daisy Cooper
I supported the Bill on Second Reading on condition that it would be strengthened to tackle the issue of capacity. Does the right hon. Lady accept that the Bill that we see today is very different from the one that we saw on Second Reading? There is a requirement for capacity. If there is any doubt at all, a doctor is compelled to report that person for additional assessment, and independent advocates have been introduced for people with learning disabilities, autism or mental disorders. Social workers are now included in the panel of experts, specific training on mental capacity is required, and there is a disability advisory board too. Does the right hon. Lady—
Anneliese Dodds
I agree that the Bill has been improved, but there is a difference between mental capacity, at least as assessed by medical professionals, and the presence of mental disorder. I know the Committee examined that subject at length. It was very clear from the discussion in Committee that it anticipated that elements such as being able to assess information and make judgments between alternatives would be covered by the mental capacity provisions—but the evaluation of those alternatives, which can be impacted by mental disorder, is not part of that process. The reality is that those subject to a number of mental disorders—including, sadly, eating disorders—may be highly intelligent and may well be able to carry out many logical procedures to assess information, but their evaluation of the value of their future life and their assessment of the value of bodily control, in relation to other factors, are different from those of someone who is not ill. I believe that issue has not been fully understood.
Anneliese Dodds
I am aware of what my hon. Friend quite rightly refers to. Of course, any such condition would have to be coterminous with a terminal illness, but we know—the Committee thrashed this out for a long period—that depression is often present at the same time as a diagnosis of terminal illness. We also know that concepts such as “terminal anorexia” have started to be used in certain contexts. That unfortunately suggests that, despite the many protestations of those who understandably support the Bill, there is the possibility that those subject to eating disorders will be pulled within its scope. I am very pleased that amendment 14 would rule that out—it is important that it does so. It is critical that this Chamber sends that message too, given the potential confusion about scope.
I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak to new clause 16 and amendment 14. Above all, I hope we can continue this important discussion, which is critical for so many of our constituents.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I wish to speak to new clauses 16 and 17. Rather than giving my own views, I think that powerful testimony on behalf of someone who actually runs a care home should be heard by the House. I want to quote, as briefly as possible, Dan Hayes, who runs the Orders of St John Care Trust, which runs care homes in Lincoln generally and in my constituency:
“we believe that the Bill as drafted is flawed, and the risks to older, vulnerable people, residing within social care environments are substantial.
We believe that any assumption by those drafting the final legislation that it is not intended for use by those living with conditions regarded as part of the ageing process, would be mistaken. Any legislation would be immediately tested and assumed to be accessible to such a cohort of people.
To that end we believe that in order to provide the necessary protections to such a vulnerable part of our society, the Bill must be explicit in its reference to older people living in residential services.”
That is why these new clauses are so important. He continues:
“The Bill must take account of the current unfairness and instability at the heart of our social care system, and question whether such legislation can be introduced whilst such problems exist.
The Bill must recognise that an individual health/social care professional’s ability to remove themselves from the process of Assisted Dying is so difficult, that specific exclusion of the care home sector should be a feature of the Bill. In any case, organisations, and sites, should be given the ability to exclude themselves from the act of an assisted death without prejudice to their approval as providers of services to the state.”
We have experience of that, with regard to Catholic adoption agencies. There is a real risk that some care homes may feel they have to withdraw from this sector. I will carry on quoting:
“Those that fund their own care pay substantial sums, often saved for over a lifetime—including property wealth. These savings will have been set aside for retirement and to pass on to loved ones. Instead, they are used to fund the costs of their own residential care, and to substantially subsidise the state.
We see the real prospect that those that might fit the criteria for assisted dying under the Bill, but have no wish to accelerate their death, would feel an immediate dilemma between prolonging their own lives, and the future quality of life of their loved ones. For illustrative purposes, the six-month period stated within the current Bill would equate to between £25,000 and £40,000 of expense borne by an individual paying for their own residential care in the current system.
Failings in the system mean that older people who should not be in hospital are held there, causing a burden to the NHS, and Local Authorities face an ever-growing proportion of funding needed to support social care, without a proportionate increase in funding from central government.”
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Before I call the next speaker, I will be asking Members after him to limit their comments to eight minutes.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I start by thanking the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) for introducing the Bill and for giving me the opportunity to serve on the Bill Committee.
I rise to speak in favour of my amendment 4, which goes to the very heart of what the Bill is all about: dignity, compassion and choice at the end of life.
Gaza: UK Assessment
Judith Cummins Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I am looking to finish this urgent question at around 2 o’clock, so I would appreciate it if Members kept their questions pithy and the Minister kept his answers pithy, as would the rest of the House.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I have recently returned from a visit to the Occupied Palestinian Territories with the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam). We were expecting an appalling situation, but it was far, far worse. Israeli Ministers are gleefully calling for the bombing of food warehouses because they believe it will help bring victory—in their eyes. It is clear that Israeli hostages are being used as a pretext to continue the slaughter and starvation in Gaza.
Although I recognise the Minister’s sincere compassion in the way he has expressed himself on this issue, it is clear that he comes to this Chamber with a straitjacket around him. What we need here is the Prime Minister, who can make the decisions; otherwise, we are not going to see any action on arms supplies, on trade or in any other area, including recognition of the state of Palestine. If the Minister cannot do those things, can he at least recognise the right of Palestinians to statehood?
Mr Falconer
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman was able to travel; as I have said before from the Dispatch Box, I recognise the importance of Members from across the House seeing these situations up close and being able to form their own judgments. I am the relevant Minister, and I speak with the authority of the Government.
Middle East Update
Judith Cummins Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the middle east. Yesterday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that the Israeli Security Cabinet has approved a plan to expand and intensify Israel’s military operations in Gaza. He said that the Israel Defence Forces operations will extend across more of Gaza. Tactics will no longer involve short raids, with the implication that Israel will hold the ground it takes. Reports suggest that the plans could include full military occupation of the Gaza strip. Prime Minister Netanyahu said that Gaza’s population will be moved “for its protection”. Tens of thousands of reservists are being called up. In parallel, the Security Cabinet reportedly approved a plan to deliver aid through private companies.
This comes at a time when the scale of civilian suffering and humanitarian need is already intolerable. More than 52,000 people have now been killed in Gaza. Israel has fully blocked the entry of humanitarian aid for over two months. The World Food Programme says its food stockpile has been exhausted. The announcements from the Israeli Government have rightly sparked grave concern that this conflict, which has already wrought so much bloodshed and suffering, may enter a dangerous new phase. I know that concern will be felt right across the House.
Let me make the Government position crystal clear: we strongly oppose the expansion of Israel’s operations. Any attempt to annex land in Gaza would be unacceptable. Palestinian territory must not be reduced or subjected to any demographic change. We want this war to end. We want an immediate ceasefire, the release of all hostages, the urgent provision of humanitarian aid and a pathway to a political solution.
We all recognise that Hamas continue to hold hostages in the cruellest fashion. Their actions show their complete disregard for the interests of the Palestinian people. Hamas must not divert aid for their own financial gain or use civilian infrastructure for military purposes. We repeat our demand for the immediate release of the hostages, but an expansion of this conflict is not the route to achieve their safe return. That is why it is so strongly opposed by so many hostages’ families. Negotiations offer the best hope of ending the agony of those waiting for loved ones who are held captive, alleviating the suffering of civilians, and ending Hamas’s control of Gaza. It is evident that Hamas cannot be defeated through military means alone. An expansion of military operations will result in the deaths of more innocent civilians and put the hostages at yet greater risk. The fighting must stop.
The Government have said since day one in office that the only way to ensure a path towards long-term peace and stability is an immediate ceasefire, the release of hostages, better protection of civilians and significantly more aid entering Gaza. Diplomacy is how we ensure security for Israelis and Palestinians, not more bloodshed. All the people of this region deserve to live in peace, prosperity and security. We urge all parties urgently to return to talks, implement the ceasefire agreement in full and work towards a permanent peace. We continue to use our full diplomatic weight to bring about a ceasefire and end the suffering.
After more than two months of aid into Gaza being blocked, Palestinians continue to face immense suffering. Essential supplies of food and medicine are either no longer available or quickly running out. As the United Nations has already said, it is hard to see how, if implemented, the new Israeli plan to deliver aid through private companies would be consistent with humanitarian principles and meet the scale of the need. We need urgent clarity from the Israeli Government on their intentions.
We must remember what is at stake. These humanitarian principles matter for every conflict around the world. They should be applied consistently in every war zone. As we have said repeatedly, humanitarian aid must never be used as a political tool, and Israel is bound under international law to allow the unhindered passage of humanitarian aid. I repeat my call for Israel to engage with partners to allow for a rapid and unhindered resurgence in the flow of aid into Gaza.
We reiterate our outrage at recent strikes by Israeli forces on humanitarian workers, infrastructure and healthcare facilities. Israel must do far more to protect the civilian population and humanitarian workers, and hold to account those who are responsible. Over a year since the appalling attack on the World Central Kitchen, in which three British nationals were tragically killed, we continue to press for a conclusion to the Israeli investigation and a decision as to whether criminal proceedings will be brought. The UN and humanitarian partners must be able to carry out their work in safety, in accordance with their principles.
Last week, we welcomed Prime Minister Mustafa of the Palestinian Authority to the United Kingdom. We signed a landmark memorandum of understanding and confirmed a £101 million package of support for the Occupied Palestinian Territories. We will continue to support the Palestinian Authority as the only legitimate governing entity in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including in Gaza. During that visit, we reaffirmed the UK’s commitment to recognising a Palestinian state as a contribution to a two-state solution. Only a political horizon of moving towards a two-state solution can ensure the long-term peace and security of both Palestinians and Israelis. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Foreign Minister, Dame Priti Patel.
Mr Falconer
I know the strength of feeling of my hon. Friend and of so many Members on the Benches behind me and, indeed, across the House. It is obviously a source of great anguish to me and all in the Government that we continue, this far into our government, to not have the ceasefire in place that we have long called for. We are working with our allies to try to persuade Israel to change course. As he will know, I will not comment on sanctions from the Dispatch Box, but we have been as clear as we can on our position in relation to the many areas we have discussed in the House week after week, month after month where there has been a failure to see improvement, whether that is the protection of civilians or aid into Gaza. We will, of course, continue to discuss all other matters in relation to this fraught and tragic situation with our close partners, as he would expect.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
The Israeli Government’s decision to approve plans for an expanded offensive, summarised by officials as the “conquest” of Gaza, is disgraceful. It will wreak more devastation and displacement on Palestinians after months of bombardment. It will also narrow the path back to a ceasefire, while severely harming the chances of getting the remaining hostages in Hamas’s captivity back to Israel alive. Does the Minister agree that if the Israeli Government carried out their threat to seize and hold Gaza, that would constitute a further flagrant breach of international law? In that instance, what would this Government’s response be?
The latest aid blockade of Gaza has now lasted for more than 60 days. The UN has described it as a “growing humanitarian catastrophe”. Prime Minister Netanyahu’s latest proposal to deliver aid through private companies at military hubs appears to contravene basic principles of international humanitarian law, including the neutrality of aid, and has been criticised by aid organisations as dangerous and unworkable.
The Israeli Government’s refusal to reopen aid routes is utterly unacceptable and contravenes their obligations as an occupying power. We welcomed the Government’s pledge of a £101 million package of support for the Occupied Palestinian Territories. However, without more action to secure the reopening of aid pathways, this new package will provide limited relief for Palestinians suffering in the strip. Can the Minister provide details on how the Government are working with international partners to pressure the Israeli Government to allow their aid to reach Gaza? Can he update the House on whether contingency measures are being considered to ensure that aid reaches those suffering in Gaza, even if the Israeli Government continue to block the direct supply of aid into the strip?
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
We have heard throughout the afternoon all the things in Gaza that have been committed by Israel. The truth of the matter is that Israel is committing the cold-blooded murder of medics, civilians, UN staff and even many aid workers in the aid flotilla in international waters. In the west bank, there are more than 500,000 illegal settlers, and illegal violent settlers using force, backed by the IDF and the Israelis, have been killing and maiming people. Does that not show that the actions of Israel have been all about occupying Gaza and the west bank and that, as Israeli Cabinet Ministers have been saying, Israel basically wants a full Judea and Samaria and that it will not stop at Gaza or the west bank, but continue?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Before I bring in the Minister, may I ask hon. Members and the Minister to make their questions and answers a little bit shorter?
Mr Falconer
Let me restate the British Government’s position in relation to the west bank and the Gaza strip: we hope that both those territories will be a vital part of a single Palestinian state and that is the objective towards which we strive.
London Sudan Conference
Judith Cummins Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Falconer
This is a truly tragic sequence of events for the people of Sudan. The right hon. Gentleman has long had an interest and he is right to call me to the House to answer questions. We had hoped that at the conference last week, we would be able to issue a communiqué agreed by all parties. As he identifies, there is a whole range of countries with an interest in Sudan. We are at real risk at the moment not only of a further degradation of the situation for those in Zamzam, northern Darfur and across Sudan, but, as he says, of a declaration of parallel Governments, none of which will lead to the peaceful democratic future that the Sudanese have long hoped for.
The Foreign Secretary took the decision to try for this conference in an attempt to ensure wide agreement among the parties, because he recognises that there must be no hierarchy of conflict. The situation in Sudan is catastrophic and we are making every effort. The conference was the beginning, not the end, of our efforts to try to reduce the suffering in Sudan.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Let me begin by supporting the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) and congratulating him on securing what is a very important urgent question.
Many millions of innocent Sudanese civilians have been caught up in what is a barbaric conflict. They deserve peace and dignity. They are facing the most appalling, dire humanitarian crisis. It is a fact that red lines have been crossed in the conflict, and that cannot be allowed to stand. We all want to help chart a course to a meaningful peace for the people of Sudan, and we are aware of the various pillars articulated in the London Sudan conference statement. We all agree on the need for an immediate end to the fighting, on preventing the partition of Sudan, and on the need for urgent humanitarian access.
Crucially, the Foreign Secretary’s conference did not see any new practical measures agreed with the African Union and other partners to help the warring parties into a ceasefire and an end to the conflict, and, importantly, to deter the ways in which the conflict is being escalated, because there has been no de-escalation whatsoever. Supporting a transition to a civilian-led Government is clearly crucial, and it must be led by the Sudanese people. What practical diplomacy are the Foreign Office and the Foreign Secretary doing to help international processes such as Cairo to stay on track and to build confidence among the Sudanese civilian and political forces?
Finally, the Minister mentioned the additional £120 million in humanitarian aid announced by the Government for 2025-26. Will he inform us which organisations the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is partnering with for the delivery of this new aid, whether delivery has started and whether it is actually making any impact whatsoever? Will he also confirm that in parallel to announcing this new aid, he is working to keep border crossings open and pressing for the proper safety nets to ensure that this aid ends up with those who genuinely need it, and not in the wrong hands?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to put the focus on violence against women and girls in Sudan. It is absolutely appalling—the latest reports are lurid and graphic in their details of what is befalling women and children right across Sudan. The Minister for Africa has been leading international efforts to maintain a spotlight on these questions. He chaired a UN Security Council briefing on conflict-related sexual violence in Sudan just last month, and was also at the UN Security Council in November further highlighting this issue. This conflict is disproportionately affecting women and children, and the UK will remain completely focused on doing everything we can to bring that to a close.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
The Sudan conference in London presented an opportunity to generate international consensus for a path to peace in Sudan’s civil war, the world’s largest conflict. It was deeply disappointing that the conference failed to establish a contact group for the conflict, as such a group could build international political will to move towards an end to the fighting. Will the Minister therefore outline what new diplomatic initiatives he will pursue to establish a contact group?
I welcome the announcement of £120 million more for humanitarian aid, but with aid access being wielded as a weapon of war on both sides, can the Minister assure us that it will reach civilians?
Gender-based violence is a terrible feature of the war, so what steps can be taken to protect women and children? I am also deeply concerned by reports that other nations are supplying arms to the warring factions, particularly the reports that the United Arab Emirates have provided weapons to the Rapid Support Forces, which are alleged to have committed mass civilian killings and are accused by the US of genocide in Darfur. Will the Minister outline what steps he has taken to stop the flow of arms to ensure that British exports are not used in Sudan?
UK Democracy: Impact of Digital Platforms
Judith Cummins Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I am imposing an immediate five-minute limit. I call Manuela Perteghella.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I am now imposing an immediate three-minute time limit.
Joani Reid
I absolutely agree.
I want to give Members a sense of what I have reported to X, which I have been told does not meet its threshold for action and I can just block the accounts if I want to. Here are some of the comments being directed at me:
“Why are Jews allowed to invest in politicians in the UK?”
“Are you Jewish? Most Jewish children are weak and neurotic and struggle to understand things the way advanced Aryan children do.”
“You are not well-bred. You are 1/4 tainted of Jewish blood. This softens the heart and darkens the soul.”
In relation to the Holocaust, I have been told it “didn’t happen, mate.” That didn’t reach X’s harmful content threshold and was allowed to continue.
These people operate with impunity in this country. Transparency in the algorithms, proactive content moderation and genuine co-operation with regulators such as Ofcom should absolutely not be optional. Tech companies must understand that accessing our markets and citizens carries clear responsibilities and that if they want to operate here, they need to obey the law of our land. This is not about stifling innovation or freedom; it is about—
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
The strength of our democracy lies in its people—their voices, concerns and participation. The Labour party that I know has always been a party of the grassroots, particularly in Cornwall, and of real individuals engaging with real communities. We are not the party of faceless bots, anonymous profiles or foreign interference. Yet, as we reflect on last year’s general election, we must confront the unsettling reality that the integrity of our democratic process is under threat from hostile actors and unaccountable digital platforms, such as those we have heard about today.
In my constituency I have seen the manipulation at first hand. The administrators of the local Reform UK Facebook group—supposedly representing my constituency —are not local at all. Not a single one that I can see has anything to do with my constituency. Many cannot even be identified as real individuals. This is not grassroots activism; it is astroturfing—an insidious form of political manipulation where orchestrated campaigns masquerade as spontaneous grassroots movements, misleading and deceiving the public.
That is not an isolated case. Across the UK, our election was tainted by misinformation on an unprecedented scale. These were not spontaneous expressions of a democratic electorate, but the work of malign domestic and foreign actors, deliberately interfering to distort the public discourse. The power of those platforms to spread falsehoods rapidly and without scrutiny undermines trust in our political system.
Undoubtedly, the owners of the platforms wield immense influence on our public discourse. Their decisions on content moderation, as we have heard, shape what information is disseminated and trusted. The fact that one such owner has openly endorsed figures convicted of hate crimes, such as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, is appalling, signalling how those with immense digital influence can amplify those voices. These are not neutral platforms but ideological battlegrounds, and right now the scales are tipped in favour of disinformation. Labour stands for a different vision of politics; a politics built on real people, engagement and communities.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
A serious allegation was made recently that Liberal Democrats spend too much time in our communities fixing church roofs and are not on Twitter. Well, last night I logged back on, and let me tell the House that Twitter was absolutely brilliant. The quality and depth of political debate really was something to behold. Liberals and authoritarians, nationalists and internationalists, and people from the economic right, left and centre were engaging in well-informed, expansive and thoughtful debate about the most pressing issues of the day. I jest, of course—it was a total waste of time for everybody involved, including me.
Elon Musk has made Twitter useful for some people, though. I refer to those on the hard right of politics, who are profiting by sowing the seeds of division. They are not just profiting politically, but lining their pockets with the money of social media barons. Madam Deputy Speaker, I have already told the Member to whom I am about to refer that I intend to refer to him today, because his entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests is revealing. The leader of Reform, the Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), has declared more than £10,000 in earnings from one particular source since he was elected. The address of the payer is in Market Square. I know what Members are all thinking: “It’s the charming covered market in Clacton”. No, that closed in 2022. It is Elon Musk’s X, based in Market Square in San Francisco, California. He has also declared more than £14,000 in earnings from Google, £98,000 from Cameo, based in Chicago, and more than £2,700 from Meta in California.
One wonders where the Member for Clacton finds the time. As a 2024 intake MP, I encounter colleagues who basically do not have time to go to the loo. On a more philosophical note, for someone who claims to be a patriot, he is certainly taking a lot of money from international sources. That should give us all pause for thought when we consider the impact of digital platforms on democracy. We might conclude at the very least that it distracts some MPs from doing their actual job—and I do not mean the distraction of doom-scrolling; I mean the distraction of the grift.
What of the broader threats presented by social media platforms? We have spoken on many occasions recently about the issues that young men face and the impact on democracy. It is my belief that, at heart, those issues are the symptoms of many problems, including the tone of debate about the roles and responsibilities of boys as they become men, a lack of routes to secure employment, and ludicrously high housing and rental prices. For someone who is stuck in their childhood bedroom looking for reasons why their life is rubbish, the digital world has no shortage of scapegoats: women, minorities, LGBT+ people, immigrants, foreigners, refugees, disabled people, the weak, single-parent families—the list goes on.
There is also no shortage of snake oil salesmen out there to tell them who to blame and what they can do about it. Andrew Tate tells us it is the fault of women. I can tell any young men listening at home that nobody outside the manosphere wants to see pictures of bald middle-aged men with their tops off—I know from personal experience. My social media followers and, more importantly, my friends left me in no doubt about what a plonker I looked after I posted a photo of myself at Cheltenham Lido. Those who idolise Tate would do well to heed that advice.
Jordan Peterson, another big thinker on the right, gives brilliant advice to young men. He tells them they must make themselves physically strong so that they can find a mate and get rich and powerful, or they will end up dying poor and alone, perhaps with melted brains like crustaceans defeated in a violent fight in the depths of the ocean. I am pretty sure that is not true. The lads should not worry about it, but so many do, thanks to these snake oil sellers online.
Thanks to President Trump and those who argue for a bizarre form of freedom of speech—just not for everyone—the truth is now a contested concept, and it is intertwined with fear and hatred, which are both a threat to our democracy. We all know where the truth goes to die: whichever social media platform you like. You just start posting outlandish stuff. You keep going. You double down. You find a mad and hateful narrative. You tell everyone it is free speech, and before you know it, you might be lucky enough to become a successful online grifter with your top off. Perhaps you will be an MP, or maybe even the President of America.
Two days ago it was April fool’s day. I hate April fool’s day, because the world is now so ludicrous that we do not know what is a joke and what is not. Even worse, what we post as a joke might end up being shared so many times that it becomes somebody else’s truth eventually. In the worst case, that becomes part of a hate-fuelled conspiracy theory. I will not mention it; everyone here knows what it is. There are many increasingly popular conspiracy theories online that have nothing to do with hatred but are plainly bizarre. I will not name them here for the sake of all our inboxes, but every single one of those outlandish claims is a threat to our democracy, and those views are going round the world quicker and quicker thanks to social media.
What should we in this place be doing about it? While digital and social media platforms can be good for democracy, they are inherently vulnerable to misinformation and abuse, and they reduce the quality of public debate. We need look no further than the riots following the tragic Southport attacks. That tragedy for those little girls and their families was compounded for so many by what happened in the following days, when people were whipped up into a frenzy by false rumours leading to more violence. Musk’s X, Zuckerberg’s Meta and other social media companies facilitate that spreading of misinformation, and they have made it entirely clear to all of us that they do not care.
Let us face it: platforms such as TikTok and Snapchat are making our children sad and depressed, they are putting a check on the development of the adults of the future, and they absolutely cannot be trusted. Musk used his purchase of Twitter to further leverage his influence over the world’s largest democracy. He changed the rules to boost his own posts and push aside those he disagrees with—freedom of speech, but for some more than others.
From his own platform, the world’s richest man has made several direct interruptions in our democracy. Last summer he sought to further incite disorder, posting that in the UK “Civil war is inevitable”. He also called for America to
“liberate the people of Britain”
and overthrow the UK Government, and he has suggested he might bankroll the Reform party. While I have some sympathy for Ministers dealing with Trump, do they really think it is wise to be so gentle with him when his right-hand man, Musk, has called for them to be forcibly ejected from office? I realise that Ministers are limited in what they can say, but I am pretty sure I know what they think. Regardless of diplomatic norms, this is plainly absurd. Worse than that, it makes our once strong nation look weak.
What should we do? Social media companies must take a larger role in tackling misinformation. It is clear that they will not do it without Government intervention, and they need to get on with it. Liberal Democrats believe that stricter regulations must be introduced to ensure that they properly challenge the spread of misinformation on their platforms. We must stand up to them. We must intervene to protect our democracy. As a liberal, I believe that unchecked power and wealth are inherently dangerous, and I often take my whip from John Stuart Mill, who warned:
“the dictum that truth always triumphs over persecution, is one of those pleasant falsehoods…which all experience refutes.”
We must heed that warning.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Feryal Clark)
I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for securing the debate. I join her in honouring the memory of our dear colleagues Sir David Amess and Jo Cox. I am grateful to her and to all the other speakers for their incredibly powerful and insightful contributions to the debate.
The Government share the hon. Member’s concerns about the impact that online harassment, intimidation, abuse, misinformation and disinformation have on our democracy. Existing and emerging technologies have led to changes in the information environment and will continue to shape our future, but it is, and will always be, an absolute priority for the UK Government to protect our democracy, and we remain well-prepared to do so with robust systems in place. I was grateful to the hon. Member for sharing her experiences. The House should hear about the online abuse and hate that she has faced. There is no place for that, and I thank her for sharing it.
The Government are committed to combating violence against women and girls. The Online Safety Act requires Ofcom to develop and enforce guidance for tech companies, which aims to ensure that platforms implement measures to reduce harm to women and girls online. The Act imposes legal responsibility on online platforms, including social media platforms, gaming platforms, dating apps and search engines, to protect users from illegal content and material that is harmful to children and to address issues that disproportionately affect women and girls. Those measures reflect the Government’s commitment to creating a safer online environment, acknowledging the unique challenge faced by women and girls in the digital space. In putting that guidance together, Ofcom consulted with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, the Victims’ Commissioner and experts in the field.
The effectiveness of those measures depends on their robust implementation and enforcement, which we will monitor closely. As the hon. Member knows, the implementation of the Online Safety Act started only in spring this year. While we know it is a landmark Act, it is not perfect, so the Government will continue to keep it under review, and we will not shy away from strengthening it where required. As I said, the Act is already being implemented. We will introduce protections to protect people from illegal content, such as child sexual abuse and terrorist material, as well as to protect children from harmful material. I make it clear to the House and to all Members who raised this issue that that is not up for negotiation.
The hon. Member also raised the issue of banning smartphones for under-16s. The Government will consider all options in pursuit of children’s online safety. However, it is important that the Government take evidence-based action in recognition of the need to balance safety with allowing children to use technology positively. I am sure she is also aware that in November last year, the Department announced a study using methods and data to understand the impact of smartphones and social media on children. The study began in December last year and will run for six months until May 2025, and I am sure we will report to the House on that.
I come back to my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds). I take this opportunity to thank her for all the support she gave me and many of my colleagues when she served on the Front Bench in opposition and when we came into government. I look forward to seeing her on the Front Bench again soon; I hope she does not spend too long on the Back Benches.
My right hon. Friend raised the issue of the unrest last year. During that unrest, the Department worked with major platforms to tackle content contributing to the disorder, which included proactively referring content to platforms that assessed and acted on it in line with their terms of service. Throughout our engagement, we have been very clear that social media platforms should not wait for the Online Safety Act to come into action: they should actively be removing harmful content.
My right hon. Friend also raised the issue of broader international collaboration on online safety, with which I absolutely agree. International collaboration is absolutely crucial in tackling the global threat of online harms, and we must build consensus around approaches that uphold our democratic values and promote a free, open and secure internet.
As the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) said, since 2022, the Elections Act has protected candidates, campaigners and elected office holders from intimidation, both online and in person. It is an election offence for a person to make or publish, before or during an election, a false statement of fact about a candidate’s personal character or conduct, for the purpose of affecting the return for that candidate at the election, if the person does not believe it to be true. This provides a reasonable check and balance against malicious smear campaigns.
We also have the defending democracy taskforce, which has a mandate to drive forward a whole-Government response to the full range of threats to our democracy. That taskforce reports to the National Security Council and is comprised of Ministers and senior officials, as well as representatives of law enforcement, the UK intelligence community, the parliamentary authorities and the Electoral Commission. In April 2023, the task- force set up the joint election security and preparedness unit—JESP, for short—as a permanent function dedicated to protecting UK elections and referendums. It monitors and mitigates risks related to the security of elections, including those posed by artificial intelligence, misinformation and disinformation. JESP stood up an election cell for the 2024 elections, which co-ordinated a wide range of teams across Government to respond to issues as they emerged, including issues to do with protective security, cyber-threats, and misinformation and disinformation.
An election cell has been stood up for the upcoming local elections. Firm steps are being taken to ensure the security of candidates and campaigners. That happened during last year’s election, and will happen again for the upcoming local elections. Candidates were issued with security advice, and guidance was made available on gov.uk about the risks they face, including from AI and disinformation. That guidance brought together expertise from across the security community, including from the police and the National Cyber Security Centre, to help candidates implement quick and effective personal protective measures. I have only recently looked at that guidance, and I recommend that all candidates take a look. There was also an investment of £31 million over financial year 2024-25 to strengthen protective security measures for MPs, locally elected representatives and candidates.
As reported by the Electoral Commission, last year’s UK general election was delivered safely and securely. Certain novel risks, such as AI-generated deepfakes influencing the outcome, did not materialise. However, in that election, there was unacceptable harassment and intimidation directed at candidates—particularly female candidates—and campaigners, especially online. It is clearly vital that everyone, regardless of their sex/gender or race, feels able to participate in public life. The Home Office is reviewing this activity through the defending democracy taskforce.
We need to better understand the trends, motivations and drivers that cause people to harass and intimidate their elected representatives. That includes identifying gaps and vulnerabilities and developing recommendations to strengthen legislative responses, as well as a clear delineation of online versus in-person activity and its impact. That work will be reported to the taskforce, and my Department has contributed to these efforts to tackle online harms and improve online environments. While the primary responsibility for harmful social media content rests with the individuals and groups who create and post it, social media platforms have a responsibility to keep users safe.
Northern Gaza
Judith Cummins Excerpts(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I will try to get everybody in, but I am aiming to finish this urgent question at about 2 o’clock and a lot of Members are on their feet. You would really help each other if you made your questions and answers succinct.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Reportedly, six babies have so far frozen to death in Gaza, largely as a result of a denial of fuel, heating, shelter and medical care. People’s tents are being flooded in the winter rains, diseases are spreading, aid access is virtually non-existent and there is not one single operational hospital in northern Gaza, with healthcare staff continually being targeted. What are the UK Government doing to ensure that Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu immediately stops such atrocities and allows proper aid access into Gaza, and that we finally get an end to the bloodshed in Palestine?
Mr Falconer
The hon. Member mentioned sanctions, and we put in place extensive sanctions at the end of last year. I will not comment on further sanctions—to do so might undermine their impact—but we keep these issues under close review. I have discussed the recognition of a Palestinian state and arms. I recognise the strength of feeling in the House, I recognise how desperately people in this Chamber and across the world want to see an urgent ceasefire in Gaza, and that is the zeal with which the Foreign Office ministerial team approach this.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I am aware of the time, and I am aware of the number of Members who want to ask a question, so I will run things slightly longer, but I ask Members to keep their questions and answers as short as possible.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I listened to what the Minister said about the recognition of a viable Palestine, as opposed to the recognition of Palestine. As that could happen in a number of steps, will he take the first step in recognising the state of Palestine, before moving to a full viable Palestine, as he describes?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend is right to flag the more than 300 aid workers killed since 7 October. We have many former aid workers on the Government Benches; they perform a vital function for the provision of international humanitarian assistance. British nationals are among those killed since 7 October. Particularly close to my heart are the families of the British aid workers who were part of the World Central Kitchen convoy killed on 1 April. Most particularly in relation to the death of British nationals, but also in relation to all such incidents, we continue to press for a proper legal process in Israel to ensure that where aid workers are killed, there are proper investigations and full legal consequences where that is appropriate.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
Thank you very much for that upgrade, Madam Deputy Speaker.
In my opinion, there is no grey area to be had here: to sell arms is to be complicit. How can the Government realistically and honestly say that Britain is doing everything it can for a ceasefire and for peace when we continue to sell any arms to Israel?