British Indian Ocean Territory
Kieran Mullan Excerpts(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The mistake the hon. Member makes is in buying into China’s narrative that there is a grey zone in the South China sea. There is no grey zone. China should not be there, but it could not care less. It goes there anyway. The idea that some agreement we make with Mauritius is going to stop China acting at a later date is complete nonsense, as China proves in the South China sea every day.
Tim Roca
I disagree with the hon. Member, because the two situations do have parallels. In the South China sea, people are challenging Chinese sovereignty, and it has been proved not to have standing in international courts. At the moment, ambiguity is starting to arrive in our position over the Chagos islands. This treaty would remove it and remove cause for the Chinese navy to take advantage.
Against this backdrop, I want to restate the tests that I set out in an earlier debate on this deal. Does the agreement protect our national security? Does it command the support of our allies and professional security community? Are the costs proportionate to the benefits? On each of these tests, the answer remains yes. Diego Garcia is a keystone of our joint security architecture in the Indo-Pacific. It is where UK and US forces operate together against terrorist threats. It is a logistics, communications and intelligence hub, and it is central to safeguarding the global trade routes on which our economy depends. Without a secure base, all of that is placed at risk.
Our Five Eyes allies in Canada, Australia and New Zealand support this deal, and our strategic partner India supports this deal. I want to address briefly the noise around President Trump’s social media posts, which the Minister dealt with very well earlier. Social media is not statecraft. What matters is the settled position of the United States, its military leadership and its security agencies. On that, there has been clarity for some time. The Pentagon, the State Department and successive US Defence Secretaries—Republican and Democrat—have supported this agreement.
As I said at the beginning, interconnectedness is incredibly important and we cannot ignore the fact that international opinion matters. Yes, the world has changed. Power today is exercised through force—hard power has become incredibly important—but it is also still exercised through legitimacy, alliances and rules. If we expect others to respect international rules where it suits us, whether in Ukraine or the South China sea, we cannot be seen to apply them selectively elsewhere, except in the supreme national interest.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I welcome the opportunity to make clear my opposition to any proposal to give away this strategically important sovereign British territory. This is not merely a territorial concession; it is an act of strategic self-sabotage, a dereliction of duty and an unforgivable betrayal of our national security. At a time of growing global instability, when our adversaries are watching for any sign of weakness, Labour has chosen to send precisely the wrong signal: that Britain can be pressured into abandoning its own territory.
This decision is indefensible on every level. The Chagos islands, and specifically Diego Garcia, have been a vital strategic asset for the UK and our allies for decades. The military base on Diego Garcia has played a crucial role in global security operations, supporting counter-terrorism efforts, maritime security and regional stability. It has been instrumental in projecting western power in the Indo-Pacific, a region increasingly shaped by geopolitical competition, particularly with China. By ceding sovereignty over these islands, Labour has put at risk Britain’s strategic interests and undermined our ability to operate in the region. What makes this decision even more staggering is that we are not just surrendering our sovereignty: we are paying Mauritius billions of pounds for the privilege.
My central concern is the serious strategic challenge we face in respect of China. China has a population of 1.4 billion people and by 2030 its GDP is projected to be $26 trillion, second only to the US, and there are projections that it will potentially outstrip the US by 2050. China’s increase in military spending this year alone is expected to be 7.2%, which is the third consecutive year in which its increase in military spending has been over 7%. China has become the world’s largest shipbuilding nation, and its navy is expected to comprise 430 military grade ships by 2030, compared with the US navy’s estimated decline to 294 ships. China is a growing military power and there are no indications that it is anywhere near a supposed peak.
Domestically and internationally, China conducts itself as an autocratic state. It has the most sophisticated domestic surveillance system in the world, Skynet, which as of 2023 has 700 million cameras—that is one lens for every two Chinese citizens. We must not be so naive as to assume that if we end up in even greater strategic competition with China it will care at all about what agreement we have reached with Mauritius. We saw with Hong Kong how easily agreements made with third countries can be ignored, as China did there.
If Mauritius seeks to align itself strategically with China, do we think China will hesitate and ask it not to break the treaty because of international law? China will not respect any Bill or pay any attention to diplomatic consequences for Mauritius if it thinks it is in its interest to get Mauritius to break that agreement. That is the difference between any form of agreement and sovereignty, because once sovereignty has been given away, it can never be bought back.
Sir Julian Lewis
This is why some people are concerned that if Mauritius allowed the Americans to have nuclear weapons on the base, although I do not think it would allow that, that would give China an excuse to break the same treaty to which Mauritius is already committed about a non-nuclear Africa, and China would not even get the odium that it otherwise would receive if it started deploying nuclear weapons all over the African continent.
Dr Mullan
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is extraordinary that Labour Members are prepared to defend the deal, while admitting that they do not even know if our accusations are correct. They could say that they do not agree with what we are proposing, but to admit that they do not know whether nuclear weapons will be allowed on the island and that they are happy to support the deal anyway is disgraceful.
We must address the wider consequences of this decision. If Labour is willing to abandon the Chagos islands so easily, what message does that send to our other overseas territories? The International Court of Justice may have issued an advisory opinion in 2019—[Interruption.] What I say is true; the world is watching. We have had pressure put on us in relation to a sovereign territory and we have collapsed, but Labour Members want us to think that the rest of the world will not interpret our standing from that.
Tim Roca
We have heard from chief Ministers and leaders of the other British overseas territories how disappointed they have been in the rhetoric used by the Conservatives in trying to drag them into the situation. There is no question about our commitment to the British overseas territories. This deal is a completely separate matter.
Dr Mullan
The people who we should be worried about are not the people in charge of the British overseas territories—we should be worried about the people who are watching what we do and making decisions about how they will act, as we saw with previous attempts to take control of those territories. Does the hon. Gentleman think that Argentina will observe this situation and not draw a lesson from it? Of course it will.
Mr Francois
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Will he confirm to the House that very shortly after the deal was announced, the Argentine Government announced that they wished to renew their claim to the Falkland Islands? That is a fact, is it not?
Dr Mullan
That is a fact. My right hon. Friend will know that other UN bodies have supported Argentina for decades, and are pressuring us to continue negotiations around that issue. The Government rely on what the UN says, but the UN’s position on the Falklands is completely contrary to the interests of this country.
Sir Julian Lewis
Ministers keep saying “How dare you compare this with the Falkland Islands?”, but Labour’s manifesto at the last election gave a commitment to defend the sovereignty of the British overseas territories—not some of them, all of them. If they cannot be trusted on this one, they cannot be trusted on any of them.
Dr Mullan
My right hon. Friend highlights the lessons that the rest of the world will be drawing from this decision.
A submissive approach to third party calls on these issues displays an incredible naiveté about the world we live in and the direction we are travelling. Our previous positive disposition towards the role that these institutions could play was in a different era, when we expected a converging uniformity of basic values and democracy. That convergence is not happening; instead, our enemies are using our desire to stick to it as a weakness to exploit. They do not even recognise basic legal norms and institutions in their own countries; their own citizens do not benefit from legal protections and rights, and they do not believe in the rule of law full stop.
Do the Government really think that our enemies will put international legal obligations ahead of pursuing their own strategic interests? Of course not, yet we are expected to undertake a strategic surrender in the name of the rule of law in a way that advantages them, and on what basis—that they might look at what we have done and change their ways in the future, as they failed to do in Hong Kong? That is incredible naiveté.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
Does it not prove my hon. Friend’s point that despite being signatories to the World Trade Organisation, the Chinese continue to steal intellectual property?
Dr Mullan
It is not just the WTO; the Chinese are supposed to follow the jurisdiction of international maritime courts, for example. The Government point to that as a reason why we should comply with them, but the Chinese break those rulings all the time, as we discussed in relation to the South China sea. They could not care less; they are restrained only by their strict self-interest. They pretend and play up the idea that they might follow the rules—when it does not suit, they do not follow them—yet we are supposed to follow the rules, because the aim is to get the Chinese on side. That is never going to happen.
Let us look at the membership of the ICJ and the people who made the ruling. The vice-president was Xue Hanqin, who ruled that the UK should give the islands over to Mauritius. She is a former Chinese Communist party official who served as the director-general of the department of treaty and law in China’s foreign ministry—the same ministry that is overseeing the violation of the agreement in Hong Kong. It makes absolutely no sense to see it as a neutral arbiter. In 2022, she was one of two judges who voted against an ICJ ruling that Russia should suspend its invasion of Ukraine.
Would our country slavishly adhering to those rulings, against our own national interest, bring onside wavering countries that are making their own strategic calculations about who they want to support when it comes to challenges such as Ukraine and, if it happens, Taiwan? Of course it will not. The historical argument for that approach has been to suggest that we will bring other countries over to our way of doing things—the rules-based order—but I am afraid that that is not happening. Countries across the world are actually looking at which bloc and which sphere of influence would be best at defending their interests if they seek to align with it. This surrender deal will make it very clear that they should think twice about supporting the western democracies and instead point their finger towards the autocratic states that will benefit so enormously from the deal.
Surrendering the Chagos islands will simply strengthen those countries that want a more disorderly world. We should seek to use the rules-based order—we should not abandon that long-term goal, and we should continue to make it clear that that is our preference for how we run the world—but not with our eyes and ears closed to what is actually happening, and not at huge cost to our own interests. This is not diplomacy or pragmatism; it is weakness, and weakness has consequences. Britain is not just losing a territory; we are losing credibility. Our allies are watching as Labour surrenders key strategic ground without so much as a fight. Our adversaries are taking note and seeing a Government who lack the resolve to defend their own interests.
This deal is a sell-out and a catastrophic misjudgment, and it must not go ahead. I urge every Member of this House to stand firm for Britain’s interests, our national security and our place in the world. We must reject this reckless agreement and demand that our Government defend British sovereign territory, rather than bargaining it away behind closed doors.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
The hon. Gentleman may have been tied up this morning trying to decide whether he backs Andy Burnham, but our leader has made our posture crystal clear today. When asked whether she would be going to Beijing now, she said that she would not, because there was no point in doing so until there was a proper plan about which strategic interests we would work on with colleagues in Beijing. I am afraid that I do not believe that there is much to celebrate in a trade deal with the Chinese worth £600 million; it barely seems worth the trip.
On debt, the hon. Gentleman has slightly forgotten something called a pandemic, which cost half a trillion pounds. He has forgotten Gordon Brown’s banking crisis, which also cost a half a trillion pounds, and he has forgotten that we have gone into a war in Europe that caused 11% inflation. We get a very interesting dichotomy from Government Members; they say, “Inflation was 11% under your Government, but it’s not our fault that inflation is going up; it’s because of the war in Ukraine.” They might want to marry those two sentences up.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
And it has put what it said into practice. It has raised £77 billion in taxes, but I cannot see great investments being made in defence. May I say that I do not like the idea of expressing the amount of GDP being spent on defence as a percentage? Somewhere along the line, NATO and its allies fell into the trap of thinking that we had to spend x% on defence; they say, “Well, we spent 5% of GDP on defence in the 1980s.” Yes, we did, because that was what it cost. That was not a target to get to. We should identify what we need, and then fund it, and see what that comes out as. If we do not properly defend ourselves, it may well not be possible to deliver the things that we say we want to fund.
That brings me back, before I go too far outside the lines, to the point of today’s debate. This is about a geopolitical situation, and about removing a key capability without a guarantee that we can have our nuclear deterrents. We have shown over decades that those nuclear deterrents help keep the peace. There are no SNP Members in the Chamber, but when they say, “We would never use Trident. We would never use a nuclear weapon,” they miss the point. It is not a nuclear weapon, but a nuclear deterrent. We have used it every single day since the day that the Resolution class was launched, and that has kept a semblance of peace and moved us away from war. I am deeply concerned that this debate seems to be more about what may be written on a piece of paper than what we actually have the capability to do today.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I will come on to that, but my right hon. Friend is right. I just wanted to provide the background information on what the problem is. The problem is China. Remember that China supports Russia, so the very idea that a British citizen—Philippe Sands in this case, representing Mauritius—should actually negotiate with and talk to the Russians about how this would not make it difficult for them to hold on to Crimea strikes me as astounding. It is astonishing that a British citizen should even engage with them on this. That tells us that the nature of some of the people who are involved in this is questionable indeed.
The background, then, is “What is the threat?” It could be argued, I think, that the threat is now greater than it has been at any time since the second world war, and certainly since the end of the cold war. We are in a new environment, and that new environment requires us to understand the nature of our assets and how we would maximise those assets, not minimise them. My argument here is slightly different: we have taken the wrong decision over Chagos for the wrong reasons. If we had stepped back and then asked ourselves about this in 10, five or even two years’ time, when China is estimated to have a more powerful fleet in the Pacific than the United States can muster at any stage, would we really say that we ought to let the Chagos islands go and put them in the hands of Mauritius, which China lauds in almost every announcement that it makes and with which it has a very good relationship?
Dr Mullan
Even if we accept the Government’s position that Mauritius does not get on particularly well with China, are we really leaving in the hands of fate the question of whether the Mauritians might change their minds 50 years from now and seek to line up with China’s sphere of influence? It is a huge gamble to take.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I fundamentally agree with him. In a way, I am sorry that the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) is not here—that is not to say that I have a detrimental view of the Minister now on the Front Bench, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard)—and I worry about why he is not here. I hope he is not suffering from “long Chagos.” Maybe we should send him a “get well” card very soon. We miss him, because we are definitely seeing studied ambivalence at the Dispatch Box as a master strategic plan.
I will repeat what has been said by a number of colleagues: we know from yesterday, if we needed to know it at all, that the Deputy Prime Minister of Mauritius has made it categorically clear that there will be no allowance for nuclear weapons, either parked or landed, on the Chagos islands while the treaty exists. The hon. Member for Macclesfield rightly spoke about studied ambivalence, but there was no ambivalence in the statement from the Deputy Prime Minister of Mauritius. He is completely clear, yet we are ambivalent. For us, ambivalence is a mistake, because it allows the statements of fact to be presented by those who will take control of Chagos. That is not just a mistake, but a disastrous mistake.
Iran
Kieran Mullan Excerpts(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend will be aware of the strong action that my hon. Friend the Security Minister has taken on transnational repression, including from Iran. People who live in the UK need to feel safe on our streets and safe to debate and communicate, and they should not feel that they are in any way under threat from an overseas regime.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
We sometimes talk about political courage in this country, but that pales in comparison with the courage shown by young people in Iran, such as 26-year-old Erfan Soltani, who reports suggests is to be hanged today, alongside other protesters. I know that these situations are complex and carry political risk, but given the risk that those young people are facing, will the Foreign Secretary commit to showing whatever political courage she can to help them in all sorts of different ways if opportunities arise in the coming days?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Gentleman is right to talk about the incredibly disturbing reports of potential executions. We are urgently calling for the violence to end, including the reported executions and brutality. It is essential that this violence ends. The whole world is watching those horrific scenes.
Jimmy Lai Conviction
Kieran Mullan Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yvette Cooper
It is exactly because of that transnational repression—threats to people resident on UK soil, including Hongkongers whom we have welcomed into our communities as a result of the repression they have faced—that we have strengthened the work of the counter-terrorism police and intelligence agencies on targeting state threats. We will continue to do so, because it is immensely important that we support not just residents here, but the freedoms and traditions of the people of Hong Kong.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I, too, pay tribute to the bravery of Jimmy Lai and his family. The reality is that we are engaged in a battle over what form of state will dominate in the coming decades: states like ours that try, imperfectly, to balance the rights of individuals and the state, or authoritarian regimes such as China, which want unfettered state power. Those sorts of regimes respond to strength. The Foreign Secretary has talked about how we feel and said that the Government feel upset and angry, but those sorts of regimes respond to strength. Given that, does she agree with me that it would be a disastrous decision to allow the super-embassy to go ahead?
Yvette Cooper
As the hon. Gentleman well knows, it is an independent planning process and it has long been so. This is not just about the UK’s direct engagement with China, but about our engagement through international forums. That is why I have raised Jimmy Lai’s case directly in the G7 and with other Foreign Ministers across the world. It is why we have seen international condemnation of what has happened today. It is also why we are seeking international support for our call for the urgent release of Jimmy Lai, which I think should be the priority for all of us now.
Parkinson’s Disease
Kieran Mullan Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I will keep my remarks brief because the debate is so well attended. It is a real privilege to speak in this debate on behalf of so many people in my constituency who have campaigned tirelessly to improve care and support for those living with Parkinson’s. Parkinson’s UK tells me that in Bexhill and Battle, around 377 people live with Parkinson’s.
I pay special tribute to my constituents Linda, Helen and Vivienne, who join us in the Public Gallery today. They are part of a fantastic local Parkinson’s group, which campaigns with energy, determination and an unwavering commitment to the community, and their advocacy has brought the realities of living with Parkinson’s to the forefront, highlighting not just the challenges but practical solutions. Their work has also been key in raising awareness locally around the Parky charter petition. I am immensely proud that Bexhill and Battle recorded 576 signatures, the highest number anywhere in the UK. That is a testament to the strength of feeling in our area and the dedication of campaigners who ensured every voice was heard.
The charter aims to highlight delays in diagnosis, fragmented care, failed benefits assessments and underinvestment in research as key areas where we need to do better. Delays in diagnosis can have irreversible consequences. Around 21,000 people in the UK currently live with Parkinson’s undiagnosed. Access to a full multidisciplinary team is another central pillar of good care, yet only 44% of people have access to an occupational therapist; 62% to a physiotherapist; and 40% to a speech and language therapist. Research is needed to create a brighter future for Parkinson’s sufferers. Currently, there is no cure and treatment options are limited. With someone diagnosed every 20 minutes in the UK and 25 million people affected globally, the need for new therapies is urgent.
Closer to home, we have seen some encouraging steps in local Parkinson’s services. Our local trust has signed up to Parkinson’s Connect, allowing direct referral at the point of diagnosis. The trust now supports around 800 patients and the specialist team has grown from one to four staff members over the past two years. Home visits and outreach clinics are planned, which could make a meaningful difference once fully operational, but progress remains uneven.
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
Kieran Mullan Excerpts(8 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Olney
I will not; I am sorry.
The amendment would help to inform the clinical judgment that will need to be made in each individual case and discourage patients from applying to multiple doctors for an assessment.
I am proud to support amendment 24, tabled by the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis), which would disapply the presumption in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 that a person has capacity unless the opposite is established. There was a great deal of debate in Committee about the efficacy of the Mental Capacity Act and whether its provisions were sufficient to establish an individual’s capacity to make an informed decision about whether to seek an assisted death. The hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford spoke compellingly in Committee about his experiences of how the Act is not always applied effectively. I am glad that the whole House has had an opportunity to hear him today.
The Royal College of Psychiatrists cited the insufficiency of the Mental Capacity Act as one of its nine reasons for opposing the Bill earlier in the week. It said:
“The Mental Capacity Act was created to safeguard and support people who do not have the capacity to make decisions about their care or treatment or matters like finances. Should the Bill become law in England and Wales, implications for both the Mental Capacity Act and Mental Health Act need to be considered.”
I also support new clauses 1 and 2, tabled by the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), which would prohibit health professionals from raising the subject of assisted dying with a patient. It is my personal belief that people’s rights to pain relief and palliative care towards a natural end should be prioritised above an assisted dying pathway, and that that should be made available only as the result of a specific request. It is particularly important that young people under the age of 18 should not be thinking about assisted dying as an alternative to continued treatment or palliative care.
I was disappointed that during Committee my proposed amendments to safeguard people suffering from eating disorders were rejected. Eating disorders are primarily a mental health condition but have an obvious physical impact, and there is a severe risk that the physical impact of an eating disorder can be diagnosed as a terminal illness, when in fact eating disorders are always treatable. We cannot allow vulnerable sufferers from eating disorders to elect for an assisted death when there remains the possibility of a full recovery and the chance of a happy and fulfilling future. That is why I support amendment 14, in the name of the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), who was such an articulate member of the Bill Committee. I was glad to hear that the lead Member, the hon. Member for Spen Valley, will adopt that amendment; I look forward to seeing the further drafting.
I also support amendment 16, tabled by the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi). I welcome the lead Member’s new clause 10, which extends the right to refuse to participate in assisted dying to any person, but it is important also to extend that right to organisations such as hospices and care homes. Assisted dying undermines those institutions’ mission and purpose, and they should have the right to refuse to provide it on their premises if they do not wish to participate in it.
Finally, I will speak in favour of amendment 22, tabled by the name of the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon). There is insufficient provision in the legislation to identify and seek to ameliorate mental health conditions or other factors that may lead people to seek a premature end to their life, which they would not seek if those factors were addressed. Every time a person seeks to end their life prematurely is deeply regrettable, and we have a duty to explore whether preventable factors could be addressed before a request for assisted dying is granted.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
As has been the case throughout the Bill’s consideration, His Majesty’s Opposition have not taken a position on the principle of the Bill, and nor do we take a position on any of the amendments before the House. It is not for me to justify or argue against particular amendments. The arguments for and against have been well ventilated by hon. Members today.
As we might expect—I know this from my own email inbox—many constituents are considerably more interested in our proceedings than might ordinarily be the case for a Bill’s Report. It might also be the case that there is not a complete understanding of the nature of today’s proceedings, so I hope that I might usefully reiterate what we are and are not doing.
I then want to make some remarks focused on the public and campaigners, about how they should reflect carefully on their own obligations to respect the sincerity and freedom of choice of Members. I have come to consider that issue to be important, given some public interventions by high-profile campaigners, experiences with my own constituents and experiences that I know other hon. Members have had when they have been lobbied on the topic and on the way in which they will be voting today.
Jess Asato
The shadow Minister says that we are debating those amendments today, but we have not actually been able to hear from all those who have tabled those amendments. Nine Members who have tabled amendments have not been called to speak, so how can we call this a debate when we have not even heard why they are proposing their amendments in the first place?
Dr Mullan
I will make some remarks about the process. The time allocated today is a matter for the Chair and it would not be appropriate for me to comment, but I accept and understand the concerns raised by the hon. Lady and other hon. Members.
Today we have also looked at the procedure for receiving assistance, including safeguards and protections, and issues related to eligibility and mental capacity. As in Committee, some of the proposed amendments would make significant changes. I want to comment on the correspondence from the relevant Ministers regarding the amendments. Their letter to Members quite properly explained that those amendments laid by the Bill’s promoter, the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), were considered workable by the Government, but the same could not be said about other amendments. It is important that the Minister emphasises, in his closing remarks, that that should not be read to mean that those amendments are not workable, which a superficial reading of the letter might imply; it just means that the Government have not given a view.
I have sympathy with the concerns raised by the hon. Members for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) and for Bradford West (Naz Shah) about the challenges for Members seeking to lay amendments without Government support. While all the normal conventions may have been followed, this is not a normal Bill, because of its significance and potential impact.
Several hon. Members rose—
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
My hon. Friend will remember that in the last Parliament we brought in the National Security Act 2023, which introduced huge controls on the nature of an individual’s liberty. The legislation passed through the House over a period of two years and required an entire Department to prepare it. There were considerations with the judiciary, foreign Governments and other services, including the police. The Bill before us allows the state to kill someone. Does he feel that this legislation is therefore somewhat more constrained than other legislation that would normally have been allowed to pass? And yes, it is correct to say that it allows the state—an actor on behalf of the state, at the request of an individual—to take a life. In the English language, that is called killing.
Dr Mullan
Not on that point.
We may wish to reflect on how we might change our approach to Bills like this one in the future, given the significant dissatisfaction that has been expressed with the manner in which it has been considered, even though it has been done in the ordinary way. But we are where we are.
As on Second Reading, this debate has been a balancing exercise. The promoter of the Bill and others have appropriately reminded us all of the very difficult and tragic experiences faced by the terminally ill and their families, but I respectfully say to the hon. Member for Spen Valley that we should be cautious in saying that opponents of the Bill are happy with the status quo, and I know that she would not have meant to suggest that.
Neil O'Brien
I am one of those people who is against the Bill, not in principle but for the reasons set out brilliantly by many articulate Labour Members. When my constituents ask what I think about this, I have no way of telling them; there is no way for me to get into the nuance of my position on it, because there has been no time to have a proper debate, and so many Members will now be unable to say a single thing about this totally transformative Bill.
Dr Mullan
My hon. Friend has added his concerns to those of others about the manner in which the debate has been conducted, but I reiterate that this has been done in the ordinary manner in terms of the Speaker’s discretion and the Standing Orders of the House.
Opponents of the Bill are concerned that it will lead to a different set of unacceptable circumstances for different people; it is not that they are happy with how things are at the moment. All MPs have talked about people they care deeply about and how to help them. Whether they referred to disabled people, young people or the terminally ill, MPs have been speaking out in support of or against amendments, out of concern and compassion.
I may be tempting fate in saying that we might find consensus on advertising restrictions, but outside of that, Members have undoubtedly expressed a variety of strong views on others’ amendments. It may be that Members vote consistently in line with whether they were originally for or against assisted dying, but other Members who are supportive of the Bill in principle are voting for restrictive amendments because they think that they are necessary. That is because this is a complex moral, legal and societal matter. I understand that Members are considering their votes with a degree of uncertainty.
There should be no shame at all in Members’ admitting that they will be daunted by the sheer number of potential changes to the Bill, not to mention the decisions from the Speaker on those we are going to vote on or the challenge of deciding how to vote on each of them, either today or on a future day.
Dr Mullan
No, I need to make progress. They will be daunted not least because, although we have international examples, we are considering a novel practice in this country in our particular circumstances.
Members who are generally supportive or opposed in principle may choose to abstain on a number of amendments on which they feel that they are unable to give a definitive view and are content to vote on the final outcome on Third Reading. That would be understandable. I know that Members have considered how they will vote very carefully, and that they will continue to do so, by taking into account their views and experiences, as well as those of their constituents, other Members whom they respect, and experts and campaigning organisations. We will all be directly accountable to our constituents at the next election for all our votes throughout this Parliament.
That brings me to the remarks that I said I would like to finish with on the responsibilities of the public and campaigners towards MPs as they consider our votes. As we are first and foremost public servants, the focus is quite rightly usually almost entirely on the responsibility of MPs to the public, but as with all meaningful relationships, this is, and should always be, a two-way street. I accept the very strong feelings and deeply personal experiences that are brought to bear for those people contacting their MPs, and nothing I say should be taken as diminishing the rights of campaigners to make their cases strongly and consistently, but I and others have experienced lobbying by campaigners whose passion for securing the outcome they want has led them to question the integrity, sincerity or understanding of those MPs seeking a different outcome to them.
Some high-profile campaigners have made unhelpful remarks. Although I am not religious, I was concerned to see the clumsy criticism of those whose objections to the Bill are thought to be centred in their religious beliefs, as was mentioned by the hon. Members for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) and for Lowestoft (Jess Asato).
Dr Mullan
I need to make progress.
I say that not least because I suspect that a very large number of supporters of the Bill might draw on their Christian or other religious compassion to explain why they want to see it pass. There was widespread reporting of how powerful the Second Reading debate was in showcasing the best of Parliament, with thoughtful debate and a consideration of nuanced and varied viewpoints. If Parliament demonstrates itself at its best, that creates a call for the public to do the same.
Gregory Stafford
I agree with the shadow Minister that the Second Reading debate was Parliament at its best. Would he say that the length of time that we have had to debate the Bill today, given the number of amendments and the number of people who wanted to speak, showed Parliament at its best?
Dr Mullan
I have expressed my views on that matter. I understand why Members are concerned, but it has been in order, and at your discretion, Mr Speaker.
MPs who disagree with campaigners’ views for or against assisted dying are not uncaring or lacking in compassion. They have not failed to understand the arguments; they have just inevitably disagreed with at least some of their constituents. I urge campaigners to use their passion and commitment to the cause to fuel their campaigning, as is their right, but to pause and reach understanding before criticising an MP simply because they have reached a different view on a very challenging matter.
In a democracy, the public are as important as politicians in determining the quality of our discourse. I hope that my remarks remind people of that, and encourage them to aspire to be the best example of the behaviour that they want to see from their elected representatives, just as we have seen again in the Chamber today.
Sanctions: Iran
Kieran Mullan Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I welcome the opportunity not just to give my support to the proposal to continue and extend sanctions, but to put on record my condemnation of the Iranian regime and to give my support to the women and girls of Iran, who have been so brave in fighting for their rights in the face of brutal suppression. Sanctions imposed on Iran come as we see increased hostility by groups associated with Iran, or by Iran itself, at an international level. Most recently, Iran’s two direct attacks on Israel this year, which the UK and western allies have condemned as escalatory actions in an already precarious situation, speak volumes about the threat that the regime represents.
One of the purposes of the UK’s sanctions on Iran is to deter its Government, or an armed group backed by that Government, from conducting hostile activity against the UK or any other country. The removal of sanctions should come only when there is evidence that Iran has disengaged from that hostile activity, yet all we have seen is the opposite. Since May 2019, Iran has continued to violate the joint comprehensive plan of action implemented to limit the Iranian nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief. Furthermore, it is well known that Iran funds multiple groups across the middle east designated by the UK as terrorist organisations. Those proxies act to destabilise the region as a whole, but Iran’s activities are not limited to the middle east. As has been said in the Chamber already, there have been a number of threats to individuals in the UK emanating from Iran, and as the Minister outlined, it is now providing extensive support for the illegal war in Ukraine—both military and logistical—which is impacting directly on the lives of brave Ukrainian soldiers seeking to defend their country.
As I said at the start of my speech, Iran’s terrorist actions sadly extend to its own people. We know that Iran’s people currently live under a violent, oppressive regime. In September 2022, Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old Iranian-Kurdish woman, was arrested by Iran’s morality police for allegedly not complying with the country’s Islamic dress code. Three days later, she tragically died in police custody, sparking a wave of protests across Iran and drawing the attention of the international community. Despite Iranian officials claiming that Mahsa Amini died of natural causes, the widespread protests that followed were a clear response to years of repression, with demonstrators demanding justice, freedom and accountability. The bravery of these protesters cannot be overstated. The Iranian Government’s heavy-handed response was brutal, with the UN fact-finding mission and Iran Human Rights reporting that over 550 protesters were killed by security forces. Those deaths represent the highest death toll seen in any protests since the Islamic Republic’s founding in 1979, and are a stark reminder of the dangers faced by those who dare to voice dissent.
Sadly, the plight of women in Iran is not limited to the enforcement of hijab laws, but extends to many aspects of daily life, rooted in systemic discrimination that is codified in law. The situation becomes even more alarming when we consider the lack of protection against domestic violence. Iran currently has no law to safeguard women from abuse or femicide, and between March 2021 and June 2023, at least 165 women were killed by male family members in honour killings. That remains an ongoing and disturbing tragedy.
I am also deeply concerned by Iran’s treatment of followers of the Baha’i faith, which the UN has referred to as
“the most egregious forms of repression, persecution and victimisation.”
In February 2022, Iranian authorities allowed only recognised religions to be stated on the new national ID card. In doing so, they deprived unrecognised religious minorities of access to many basic services. Without that ID, Iranian nationals are unable to obtain credit cards, driver’s licences or passports; nor can they buy property, cash cheques or apply for loans. That is clear evidence of serious discrimination against minority groups.
I am proud that, at the 78th UN General Assembly under the last Government, the UK co-sponsored the Iran human rights resolution calling for Iran to eliminate in law and in practice all forms of discrimination on the basis of thought, conscience, religion or belief. Although that was a strong message from international partners, it fell on deaf ears, but the UK Government, alongside allies such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States, have made their stance clear.
In September, our Foreign Secretary called on the Iranian Government to end human rights abuses and to cease the use of force to impose the hijab. We should continue to press the Iranian regime to respect the rights of its citizens, and we remain committed to holding it to account for violations through sanctions and international pressure. We must not turn a blind eye to human rights abuses in Iran. We stand in solidarity with the Iranian people, especially the women and other minority groups who are leading the fight for dignity, equality and justice.
Our sanctions regime is an important part of how we stand up for our values and for the victims of the Iranian regime both in Iran and abroad, and I enthusiastically support the motion securing their continuation and expansion.
Sanctions
Kieran Mullan Excerpts(3 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Elizabeth Truss
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the ones named in the statement are either in our legislation or have already been sanctioned. The point about working with our allies across the world is that these people and organisations will have nowhere to hide.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
India is a great friend of the UK and a leading democracy, and Indian communities prosper in democracies around the world, including of course in this country. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is in India’s long-term interests to do everything it possibly can to ensure this invasion fails?
Elizabeth Truss
That is absolutely correct. Every sovereign nation that believes in fair play and the rule of law around the world should be doing all it can to stop Putin being successful in Ukraine. That includes India, China and every other country around the world.
Oral Answers to Questions
Kieran Mullan Excerpts(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wendy Morton
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was following entirely all the announcements at the G7 at the weekend, because we announced that we will donate 100 million vaccine doses within the next year, with 5 million by the end of September. Our Prime Minister led the G7 to help commit to ensure global vaccination by the end of 2022 and also announced his plan to share 1 billion vaccine doses, and to expand vaccine manufacturing as well. When it comes to our ODA commitments, the UK is one of the largest donors to the international response, committing up to £1.3 billion of ODA since the beginning of the crisis, and our overall ODA budget remains at £10 billion, helping the world’s poorest.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
The threat posed by North Korea continues to grow. Its nuclear and ballistic missiles programmes threaten to destabilise the region and pose a grave threat to international peace and security. The United Kingdom is deeply concerned that humanitarian needs in North Korea may be growing following the closure of its borders in January 2020. We urge North Korea to facilitate access for international humanitarian organisations to carry out an independent assessment of needs and to allow aid to flow freely into that country.
Dr Mullan
Does my hon. Friend agree that the international community’s complete failure to stop the ongoing brutal treatment and subjugation of the North Korean people is testament to the fact that we need new international structures to tackle the worst human rights abuses outside of the UN Security Council, which is not able to deliver on this and many other issues?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue, but he can be reassured that the UK is clear that there must be no impunity for the most serious international crimes. The international community has a responsibility to respond to human rights violations in North Korea. The United Kingdom remains committed to continuing to push for action at all levels to bring pressure to bear on the Government of North Korea.
Human Rights Update
Kieran Mullan Excerpts(4 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dominic Raab
We have been pretty clear that there are no realistic prospects of a free trade deal on the horizon. Of course, given China’s size, there is an economic reality that we recognise, as every other country around the world does. As I have said before, the best route to engaging more deeply with China on trade, including going down the track I have set out today, is for China to improve its human rights record, but that is for China itself to demonstrate.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con) [V]
I welcome today’s announcement, but I am afraid that, as China’s power and influence grows, our ability to pressure it into following the international rules-based order shrinks. Does my right hon. Friend welcome the recent revival of the quadrilateral security dialogue, and does he agree with the Australian Prime Minister that the largely benign security environment in the region has gone?
Uyghur Slave Labour: Xinjiang
Kieran Mullan Excerpts(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text 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
Nigel Adams
We are not making excuses. I have a lot of time for the hon. Lady and we have spoken at great length on these issues, both inside and outside the Chamber. We are taking a lead; if that was not the case, a rising number of countries would not be supporting our statements at the UN. We are of course looking very closely at the case in Myanmar—we have discussed it face-to-face on a number of occasions and will continue to do.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
I understand that these things are difficult, but I encourage the Minister to persuade our allies that, whatever the difficulties and costs of tackling this and other problems now, they will only go up. The sooner we deal with these issues, the easier they will be to tackle. On this particular issue, what steps can we take to ensure—not just through guidance—that UK companies are not benefiting from slave labour?
Nigel Adams
Like many right hon. and hon. Members, my hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. We constantly urge businesses involved in investing in this part of the world to ensure that their supply chains are free of forced labour and to satisfy themselves that their activities do not support, or give the impression that they support, forced labour. We constantly talk to industry groups, as well as directly to businesses. It is worth pointing out that we have financed projects to increase awareness of how international supply chains may contribute to human rights violations or abuses in Xinjiang.