Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 days, 19 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before we begin the next item of business, I think it would be helpful to the House if I reminded Members of the decision in question and the procedures for today’s debate. The decision before the House today is not whether a contempt has been committed; it is whether to refer the matter to the Privileges Committee. If such a referral is made, it will be for the Committee to report back to this House in due course and make any necessary recommendations.
The debate today may continue until 7 o’clock at the latest, at which time there will need to be a successful closure motion, or the debate will be adjourned to a future date. In recent years, the length of time taken for debates on similar motions has ranged from seven minutes to five hours. Any Members who wish to speak need to stand at the beginning of the debate to ensure that they catch my eye. If the debate becomes very repetitive, we may have to consider whether it would be appropriate to accept an early closure motion.
Finally, Members will be aware of the rules relating to good temper and moderation in parliamentary language. Today’s proceedings are on a substantive motion relating to specific responses by the Prime Minister to this House. It is perfectly in order for hon. Members to question the veracity of the responses cited in the motion, and to debate whether or not they were misleading. However, it is not in order to challenge in more general terms the truthfulness of the Prime Minister.
The Leader of the Opposition has tabled a motion for debate on the matter of privilege, which I have agreed should take precedence today. I call her to move the motion.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for securing and introducing this motion. Does she agree that there is a very dangerous pattern emerging in the Government’s judgment after they bypassed vetting to appoint Lord Mandelson, a man with well-documented security concerns? Is she also concerned about the Government hand-picking an Attorney General whose hands are still warm from defending Gerry Adams against the victims of IRA terror? It is little wonder that the people of this nation, out there in the streets, are worried and concerned. Well done to the Leader of the Opposition for bringing this motion forward.
Mr Speaker
Order. You are straying outside the debate, Mr Shannon, and we must not do that.
Mrs Badenoch
I am concerned about the Prime Minister’s judgment on all manner of issues, not just the one we are discussing today.
This morning, we even heard the Prime Minister’s former chief of staff say that it should not have been him doing the due diligence, and that what he got back from Mandelson was not the full truth, but the Prime Minister appointed Peter Mandelson anyway—that is Morgan McSweeney saying that it was not full due process.
On several counts, it is clear that full due process was, in fact, not followed in this appointment.
Justin Madders
I will ask the questions of the Leader of the Opposition, as that is how interventions work. Can I also suggest that, if she wants Government Back Benchers to support her motion, she should not be insulting us and calling us sheep? The critical question to which a lot of Back Benchers want to know the answer is: why now? Why, when the Foreign Affairs Committee has not concluded its investigation, has she brought forward this motion now? Is it because there are local elections next week, or is that a coincidence?
Mr Speaker
Order. The decision was made on the letter that was sent to me, not on whether somebody may be meeting somewhere else. It is judged on the merit of that. I do not need to be questioned again.
Mrs Badenoch
I think the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) would like his ministerial job back, as that is the only explanation for asking that question.
I asked why, if full due process was followed, Sir Olly Robbins was sacked. No answer.
The Privileges Committee is clear that
“misleading intentionally or recklessly, refusing to answer legitimate questions, or failing to correct misleading statements, impedes or frustrates the functioning of the House and is a contempt.”
The Prime Minister has not answered legitimate questions on this appointment. Labour Members were all there at PMQs when I asked him about six times whether he spoke to Peter Mandelson before the appointment, and the Prime Minister refused to answer—that is contempt.
This is no longer just about the appointment of Peter Mandelson, or about the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. This is about whether or not the Prime Minister should be referred for contempt of Parliament. I do not know if he is in the Chamber, but the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) said last week that
“the Prime Minister is a man of the utmost decency who would never, ever lie”.—[Official Report, 21 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 197.]
If that is the case, Labour Members should welcome this chance to prove it. If they really believe that statement, they would not have to be whipped to block an investigation.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
Of course, the Leader of the Opposition is right that the Conservatives had a free vote on the partygate scandal. She chose to abstain, which is an absolute disgrace. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. If the right hon. Lady gives way, that is fine. You have had one crack at the whip, Dr Arthur. I would not try too many cracks.
Mrs Badenoch
I know that a lot of Labour MPs have not been in this situation before. They are being stitched up. I am trying to be helpful. This man has led them up so many hills and down again, with U-turn after U-turn. I talked about banning social media for children; there was also a U-turn on pensions mandation. This is a Government that do not know what they are doing.
I think it is very valiant of Labour MPs to come out to defend the Prime Minister, despite the fact that he took the Whip away from MPs who wanted to lift the two-child benefit cap—and then did it anyway. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) had the Whip removed for opposing the two-child benefit cap, then the Prime Minister U-turned. The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) had the Whip removed for voting against the Prime Minister’s welfare reforms, then he ditched the reforms. The hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) had the Whip removed for opposing the family farm tax. The Prime Minister has ditched that, but the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway still does not have the Whip back. This matters, Mr Speaker—
Mr Speaker
Order. This is about the privileges motion. I know that you are developing a theme, but I think we have run out of theme.
Mrs Badenoch
You are absolutely right, Mr Speaker. I am just asking why this is a whipped vote, when it will still happen anyway. This man has ruined the reputation of the Labour party, he has not been loyal to his own MPs and I do not think they are united.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
On the point of reading out statements, I see that the right hon. Lady is enjoying reading out her statement. What I cannot see is the case that she makes about the Privileges Committee, and what she does not think is right about a criminal investigation and the inquiries that are consistently being made about the decision, which we have accepted was wrong. What is wrong with the Foreign Affairs Committee and what is wrong with the processes—
Mrs Badenoch
Perhaps the hon. Lady should have just taken the Whips’ questions instead of messing that one up. She raises an interesting point about the Foreign Affairs Committee. It is looking only at Mandelson and not into the issue of the Prime Minister misleading the House. Let us stop pretending that the Committee is carrying out a massive inquiry. It really is not.
Sam Rushworth
A moment ago, the Leader of the Opposition described the statement read out by the Prime Minister as “doctored”. That is akin to saying that it was dishonest and that he was lying. Is that not unparliamentary language, Mr Speaker?
Mr Speaker
As I suspected, it is not a point of order. You need to read the rule book. This is a substantive motion; it is not the normal debate. It might be helpful if you took some time out, rather than questioning, because you might be on to something, but not today.
Mrs Badenoch
Time and again throughout this debate, I have seen Labour MPs stand up and show that they do not understand what the rules are or what this is about. This is not about the specific statements; it is about whether or not there should be a referral to the Privileges Committee. They are moving the goalposts because they do not want to answer that simple question. They have come up with all sorts of excuses. It is not an excuse to say that there is a war on. The Prime Minister has said repeatedly that we are not in this war. He cannot have it both ways.
At every turn, the Prime Minister has tried to deny the House full transparency over this appointment. The House voted for documents to be released, and yet we discover that documents are not being released. That is a contempt of this Parliament. Labour MPs supported that Humble Address because they knew that we needed to see the truth. Documents from that release show that due process was not followed. The ISC is complaining that the documents are being delayed. We only discovered that there were numerous problems with Mandelson’s vetting because of a leak to The Guardian. The truth is being covered up. Today’s vote is about whether Labour MPs want to be complicit in this cover-up. If they vote against an investigation by the Privileges Committee, they are in this together.
This motion is supported across the House, including by Labour MPs, which is why they have to be whipped to vote against it. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) tweeted last week that he was calling for a referral to the Privileges Committee, before he deleted that tweet. This week he is calling it “a stunt”. Why? Who is twisting his arm? Why was it not a stunt last week when he was doing it, but it is a stunt this week when everybody else is doing it?
May I remind those who are mindlessly repeating the lines the Labour Whips have given them that it is also their job to hold the Government to account and uphold the standards of our democracy? Appointing a known national security risk to be ambassador to the United States is a profound failure of government. Do they not think it is important that Prime Ministers tell the truth on a matter of national security, or do they think this is an internal Labour party matter that they can fix themselves? For those who believe that Andy Burnham is coming to rescue them, I just say that if they vote against this investigation, there will be so much contempt for Labour that there is no by-election on this planet that Andy Burnham will be able to win. This is not an internal Labour party matter. Do they believe that when something is wrong, we should look into it? This is about whether they believe that Prime Ministers should not destroy the careers of civil servants to cover up for their own failures.
I know it is very difficult for Labour MPs to walk through the Lobby with Members from other parties, but let me be clear what they are saying if they vote against this motion. Would they rather be on the side of Peter Mandelson, of convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, of Morgan McSweeney and Matthew Doyle, and of the man who sacked Sir Chris Wormald, Sir Olly Robbins and Sue Gray? Is that what they came into Parliament for? Yesterday we read that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) said that Labour Members should back the Prime Minister so that she can pay off her new kitchen. Do they really want to tell their constituents that they voted against this inquiry because they are more concerned about their own personal finances than probity in public life? That is a shocking statement.
Every MP voting on this motion today will need to examine their conscience. This is not a matter of party loyalty; it is a matter of what each and every one of us believes is right. Labour MPs are being asked to defend a man who has let the country down, who has let Parliament down, and—let’s be honest—who has let the Labour party down. I say to Labour MPs: you can defend the Prime Minister today, and there are enough of you to get the vote through, but you will be complicit in a shameful abandoning of promises made to the electorate—promises that every Labour MP stood on. It is up to them what kind of MP they choose to be. They can choose to live up to their promises on standards, to ensure proper scrutiny takes place and allow the Privileges Committee to get to the bottom of this, or they can choose to put party before country. Their vote will define them, and the public are watching.
They say it is a stunt—then let the inquiry expose it. They say there is no evidence of misleading the House—then let the Committee test it. They say the Prime Minister has nothing to hide—then they should not vote to stop the Prime Minister being scrutinised. They do not have to defend this. They can still do the right thing. They can show that Parliament matters—it matters more than any party or any faction. They can vote to enhance Parliament, or they can prove the worst fears of people who think there is one rule for Labour and another rule for everyone else. I commend this motion to the House.
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
I have watched this whole sorry saga play out for weeks now. Like the public, I feel let down, disappointed and angry. Peter Mandelson should never have been appointed. That was a fundamental failure of judgment. Matthew Doyle should never have been given a peerage. That was also a failure of judgment. I feel the way that today’s vote has been handled by the Government smacks once again of being out of touch and disconnected from the public mood. The fact that MPs like me are being whipped into voting against the motion is, in my view, wrong. It has played into the terrible narrative that there is something to hide, and good, decent colleagues will be accused of being complicit in a cover-up.
A number of weeks ago, at a private meeting with my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister, I spoke about how, after a career spent working so closely with victims of child sexual abuse, I could not even begin to express how much it hurts me when people are screaming at me in the street that I am a member of the “paedo protectors party”. I also said that prior to this scandal, people criticised the Government’s policies and, at times, lack of political narrative, but they are now questioning the Government’s moral compass. My comments were leaked, almost immediately, by colleagues who were present. My words were later used by the Leader of the Opposition. Recent weeks have seen such abuse intensify and ongoing abuse and threats to my and my staff’s safety continue.
Privilege motions, ISC investigations, Committee hearings and process do not come up on the doorstep. What does come up time and again is a general feeling that there is something just not right—that politicians are failing to deliver on their promises. Trust has gone, and it has been replaced by anger. The already fragile fabric of our democracy is eroding further every day that this continues.
This Prime Minister is very careful with his words and does have respect for the office he holds. He does want to change this country for the better, and he truly believes in public service—something that has been sorely lacking from Prime Ministers in recent years—so I cannot understand why the Prime Minister does not refer himself to the Committee, with a clear statement that he is doing so to clear his name. One quick session of the Committee could surely see this matter concluded. Instead, this will now drag on and dominate every headline and interview. It will overshadow and undermine every good policy we make and continue to drag every single one of us down. Whether any Prime Minister misled the House is not a matter for the Foreign Affairs Committee, nor is it a matter for the Intelligence and Security Committee. It is a matter for the Privileges Committee—that is why such a Committee exists.
It may be that Opposition parties are using this motion to box Labour MPs in. I am not angry about that—that is politics; some of us here would do the same. I know one thing for certain today: I will not be voting against this motion. But I want to listen carefully to the rest of this debate, because like everyone, when I came to this House I wanted to do the right thing, and I hope I continue to do that for however long I have left in this place.
Karl Turner
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. I think I said on Twitter that he rarely gets things wrong—I was accused of being wrong for agreeing with what he said. In the time I have known him, my right hon. Friend has rarely, in my opinion, got it wrong. I think he is absolutely spot on.
I am confident and convinced. I know the Prime Minister and know that he is not a liar. I know for a fact that he would not deliberately mislead. I think he would be exonerated. The trouble we now face is accusations from the electorate that we stopped the inquiry from happening in the first place and that the Prime Minister is guilty through the fact that we avoided it. Once we are in that position, we have a big problem, because you cannot prove something that never happened.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
May I first extend my thoughts and prayers to the victims of Epstein? I commend the bold and courageous contributions of Labour Members who will be voting for the motion.
I was elected as an independent Member of Parliament to represent the people of Birmingham Perry Barr without fear and without favour. I was sent here without a party Whip—without shackles or controls, or indeed hidden notes given to me behind closed doors. I was sent here to exercise my judgment, my discretion and my conscience at the behest of my constituents, and that is exactly what I do each and every day.
The truth is that the British public feel deeply, profoundly disenfranchised. Too many people no longer trust politicians. Too many believe that we say one thing and do another. Too many feel that there is one rule for those in power and another for everyone else. We cannot simply dismiss that sentiment; we must confront it. Honesty matters. Integrity matters. Credibility matters. Above all, transparency matters. Without those fundamental elements, public confidence does not just weaken; it disappears. And once it is gone, it is incredibly difficult to rebuild. I therefore ask colleagues across the House—especially Labour colleagues—what message do we send today if we refuse even to allow a Committee to examine the facts? What are we saying to the public if we block scrutiny before it has even begun?
The motion is not a verdict, a judgment or a declaration of guilt; it is a fair, established parliamentary process to examine evidence, to determine the facts and to allow the truth to emerge. Yet we are told that Labour Members are under a three-line Whip. For those outside the Chamber who may not know, that means they are being instructed and compelled to vote against the motion—to vote against even allowing the question to be examined. Let us be honest about what that looks like.
If an individual votes to prevent the investigation, they are not defending due process, but denying it; they are not upholding transparency, but obstructing it; they are not strengthening public trust, but further eroding it. To the British people, it will look like they are shielding, blocking and protecting the powerful from scrutiny. That is precisely the perception that we should all be fighting against, not reinforcing.
If we expect the public to follow the rules, to respect the law and to have faith in our institutions, we must hold ourselves to the same, if not higher, standards. We cannot ask for trust while refusing accountability, we cannot demand integrity while avoiding scrutiny and we cannot rebuild confidence by closing ranks.
This is a moment that calls for courage—not partisan courage, but moral courage; the courage to say, “Let the process take its course”; the courage to say that no one is above scrutiny; and the courage to put principle above party. As an independent Member, I answer only to my constituents and to my conscience. I am confident that every Labour Member will listen to their conscience. My conscience tells me that supporting this motion is the right thing to do, not because of politics, but because of principles, and not because of personalities, but because of the standards that we owe to the British public.
I urge colleagues across this House, particularly those under instructions today, to reflect carefully on the message that their vote will send. Will it be a message of openness or a message of obstruction? Will it be a message of accountability or a message of avoidance? The public are watching and they will draw their own conclusions. If we are serious about restoring trust in politics, we must be serious about transparency. If we are serious about integrity, we must be serious about scrutiny. If we are serious about public confidence, we must allow the truth to be examined, wherever that truth leads. For that reason, I support the motion. The Prime Minister is willing to put each and every Labour Member of Parliament at risk at the next general election, but he will not risk going in front of the Privileges Committee.
Mr Speaker
Order. In fairness to the right hon. Member, he has given way once already. The hon. Lady cannot stand while he is speaking; she can indicate that she wishes to intervene, but she cannot continue to hang loose like she is trying to summon a taxi.
Darren Jones
I am grateful, Mr Speaker. I, for one, am rather enjoying myself, but I think the public might want to listen to the debate in the House today.
While the Opposition parties are playing games—as we can hear from their chuntering, their joking and their shouting—this Labour Government are doing the work that matters. I have been asked, “Where is the Prime Minister?” This afternoon, the Prime Minister has been chairing the middle east response committee, bringing together the Government to mitigate the impact of the war in the middle east. In contrast, the Opposition parties want to distract from the fact that after years of ordinary people facing pressures from the cost of living and feeling like hard work is not rewarded like it used to be, the Conservatives and their friends in Reform wanted the UK to go to war in the middle east, making it harder for families up and down the country—distraction, distraction, distraction.
In contrast, this Government are investing in new rail, roads and nuclear reactors, new scanners for our hospitals and free breakfast clubs for our kids. It is this Labour Government who have saved British Steel and who are investing in sovereign AI, renewing our high streets and delivering home-grown energy. This is relevant, Mr Speaker, because it goes to the motivation behind today’s motion.
This Labour Government are doing the hard work of building a better Britain, a Britain that gives people hope for a better future. All these Opposition parties want to tear that down—they want to tear down this Labour Government and the labour movement. [Interruption.] They agree, because like our forefathers before us, we have stood up to the power of vested interests, and we will do so again. When the Opposition parties come to the Chamber to try to tear down this labour movement and our project for the British people, I say to them all, “Not today—not on our watch. We will not let it happen.”
Question put.
Mr Speaker
A Member of Parliament has complained to me, as has another Member. When Members are shouting “shame” at others who are voting, it is not acceptable and will not be tolerated. I hope that the people concerned will apologise to those Members they shouted at.
Sir Julian Lewis
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Out of 190 questions for written answer that I have put down in this Session, which is coming to its close, all but one have been answered. The exception is one that I mentioned on the Floor of the House yesterday during the statement by the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister. He responded:
“I always ensure that I honour parliamentary questions in a timely fashion.”—[Official Report, 27 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 598.]
The last day for answering this question is today, and it so far has not been answered, so I wonder if I might give the Chief Secretary the opportunity to answer it now. It is this:
“To ask the Prime Minister who first suggested to him that Peter Mandelson should be appointed as Ambassador to the United States.”
Mr Speaker
We are not going to carry on the debate, but the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister is desperate to answer.
Darren Jones
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. First, may I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman? I would have cleared parliamentary questions, but I have been in the House all afternoon. To answer his specific question, I refer him to the evidence given today to the Foreign Affairs Committee by Mr Morgan McSweeney, who confirmed that the first person to recommend Peter Mandelson to become ambassador was Peter Mandelson.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that when an MP visits another MP’s constituency, the custom and practice is that they should give that MP due notice. The Leader of the Opposition came to my constituency but did not inform me that she would be there. I seek your advice on how best to resolve this.[Official Report, 28 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 870.] (Correction)
Mr Speaker
The good thing is that the Member has told me about it. I say to Members—whether they are Ministers, shadow Ministers, leaders or whoever—the courtesy is to the inform the Member whose constituency is being visited, unless it is a private visit. Can everybody please take that on board, especially as we are coming up to the election? The fever is already with us, so please adhere to what I believe is good practice.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yvette Cooper
As the hon. Lady knows, we have already introduced three packages of sanctions related specifically to the settler violence on the west bank, including sanctions against Cabinet members. She will appreciate that we do not discuss sanctions in advance, but we continue to look at the issue of sanctions, and to take immensely seriously the expansion of settlements. The decision that the UK took in the autumn to recognise the state of Palestine depends on progress with the peace process in Gaza, and on ensuring that the west bank can be a viable part of a Palestinian state.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
My constituents have shared with me their concern that Benjamin Netanyahu’s Security Cabinet is committing international war crimes in Gaza, the west bank and Lebanon, under the cover of the war that he launched with Donald Trump. As my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) has just said, the Government were right to finally recognise the state of Palestine, yet the actions of the Israeli Government on the west bank are explicitly intended to destroy the prospect of a two-state solution. I am deeply concerned that what the Foreign Secretary has laid out today is not enough to show the Israeli Government that this Government are serious about prohibiting that. Let me ask again: will the Foreign Secretary do everything in her power to ban all settlement goods from the UK? Will she look again at measures to prohibit all UK individuals, businesses and banks from enabling illegal settlement?
Mr Falconer
I have been in regular contact with the family of the Foremans. This is a terrible case, and it is absolutely obvious that they are innocent tourists—that is clear to all concerned. We have made that point repeatedly to the Iranian regime, and I have raised it countless times with Iranian representatives, as the Foreign Secretary has done with her counterparts. We will continue to pursue this case; it is an injustice.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
The barbaric regime in Tehran has murdered tens of thousands of its own people. It remains the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism and is responsible for appalling antisemitism, and for spying on the British Jewish community. Why did the Government not stop Iran from being appointed to prominent positions in the United Nations Economic and Social Council, as the United States did? If Iran is found to be behind the disgusting attacks on Jewish sites in recent weeks in London, will the Government move forward with the proscription of the IRGC, and act against any financial institutions in the UK that are involved in funding state-sponsored terrorist activity in the UK?
Stephen Doughty
As ever, my hon. Friend is right to raise this crucial issue. I was very privileged to see for myself the incredible work that we are supporting to trace what has happened to those Ukrainian children. The figure she has cited is correct, and it is absolutely appalling. I am very proud of the work that we are doing with other countries on that issue, and I will certainly look at the issues she has raised. Of course, we have already taken action against the oil companies she mentioned.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
In recent months, western sanctions have really been biting Putin, with the foundations of Russia’s economy failing. However, as we highlighted with the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation in December 2025, concerns have been reported that Russian crude is reaching refineries—including one part-owned by Lakshmi Mittal—via shadow fleet vessels, showing that gaps remain. Will the Government now lead efforts to crack down on those networks and press those refineries in Turkey, China and India to stop processing Russian oil?
Yvette Cooper
I met Pakistan’s Foreign Minister in the last few days, and the hon. Lady will know that Pakistan is leading the mediation work as part of this effort. I have also spoken frequently to the US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, and we have been engaging with a whole series of countries. Over the last few days, I have met more than a dozen Foreign Ministers and counterparts to ensure that everyone is pressing the same messages as part of this process. We need the ceasefire extended and a swift resolution, but we must have the strait opened and we must have no tolls. Proposals for tolls have been circulating, but that would be deeply damaging and would go against the law of the sea.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Lebanon’s humanitarian flash fund secured less than a third of the money that was required. Some 20% of the Lebanese population is currently displaced, and 40,000 housing units have been destroyed. Lebanon is on the brink of economic collapse and social tensions are rising. I thank the Foreign Secretary for the humanitarian support sent to date, including cash transfers, but I ask her to do more. We need to press for a real ceasefire, provide practical support to Lebanon’s armed forces, help the state to tackle negative influences that are trying to undermine its sovereignty and, finally, vigorously oppose the illegal expansion of Israel’s buffer zone in south Lebanon.
Stephen Doughty
I have a lot of respect for the hon. Gentleman, but I simply disagree with the premise of what he says. Chagossians who have been coming to this country have come because of agreements made under the previous Government for them to acquire British citizenship, which entitles them to come here. Support has been provided to councils, and I have worked closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on this issue. If he has any further concerns or requests to make sure, he should do that through the usual channels.
Stephen Doughty
I can assure my hon. Friend of that. It is important to note that Gibraltar’s sovereignty was never on the table in the negotiations—we have been very clear about that throughout. The agreement has been supported by and worked through with the Government of Gibraltar throughout, and it was unanimously supported by Gibraltar’s Parliament. That is very important to note in this House.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The Minister made a statement to the House on 26 February. Sadly, that has not been followed by the detail that Parliament was promised. In his most recent answers to my written parliamentary questions he says that the final treaty will be laid “As soon as possible” after EU processes conclude, yet the Government of Gibraltar have stated that it is provisionally due to come into force in July. Will the Minister set out a clear timetable for implementation and confirm when Parliament will be given proper time to scrutinise the full details? Will he guarantee that scrutiny under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act process will take place before provisional application?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the changing technology, geopolitics and security threats. We now face very different threats to our country. That is why we are increasing both the defence budget and the Foreign Office’s work around a range of hybrid threats, including cyber and others, and we will need to continue to do so. I suspect that we will need to accelerate that work, too.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
This morning, we heard Sir Olly Robbins say that there was a “dismissive attitude” and an atmosphere of pressure from No. 10 towards security vetting due to its desire to get Mandelson in post as soon as possible. Given Sir Olly’s account, why did the Foreign Secretary lose confidence in him last week? Surely the Prime Minister passed the buck for his own failures and appalling judgment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
I know of my hon. Friend’s commitment to these issues and of the concern in Burnley. I raised exactly those concerns about the west bank with counterparts from the United States—with high representatives from the board of peace—and most importantly with the Palestinian Prime Minister, who is doing everything he can to ensure that people on the west bank are protected from settlement violence. Settlements have expanded at an historic rate and are a subject of deep controversy both in Israel and in this House. We will continue to raise these issues with the seriousness that they deserve.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
This morning the Foreign Affairs Committee learned that officials in No. 10 put pressure on the FCDO to find a job as ambassador for Matthew Doyle, a close friend of a convicted sex offender. Does the Foreign Secretary see a pattern here? Does she find it incredible that No. 10 told FCDO officials not to tell her predecessor about this proposal? Will she commit to investigating and publishing all records held by the FCDO about this proposal from No. 10? Is she concerned that political decisions by No. 10 about FCDO staffing have grossly eroded trust and morale among her hard-working civil servants?
Mr Falconer
I think the hon. Member refers to the legislation passed in the Israeli Knesset. We oppose the death penalty everywhere. On 29 March, we joined many of our friends across the world to condemn that specific measure, and the Foreign Secretary has raised it specifically with the Israeli Foreign Minister. I can leave the House in no doubt about our opposition to the measures.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
May I associate myself with the comments of the Foreign Secretary with regard to the Foreign Office and the dedication and hard work of its officials? At a time like this, we are particularly in need of a Foreign Office that is absolutely at the top of its game, not just in this country but across the world. However, the Foreign Affairs Committee’s concerns remain about security more than anything else, and the impact of employing Peter Mandelson causes us great concern. During his time as the ambassador to the United States, he was given access to top secret information. How can we protect our country against his leaking any of that, given his record?
Mr Falconer
I was discussing precisely these issues yesterday. Hamas must disarm; there must be a process by which their weapons are decommissioned. There are ongoing discussions on those questions. Hamas must agree, voluntarily, to disarm. That is vital and it is a key component of the 20-point plan. Without agreement on that point, it will be difficult to make progress. I was discussing that with a range of our international counterparts yesterday and we will continue to remain very focused.
Mr Speaker, may I take the opportunity quickly to correct—
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
On Sudan and the failing international response, will the Foreign Secretary consider further economic measures and sanctions, including against the nationals of the countries that support the belligerents? Will she encourage the Prime Minister to prioritise Sudan in his international engagements so he can show the leadership that she has shown?
Mr Falconer
Freedom of religious belief continues to be an important issue that the Foreign Office pursues with vigour. I am glad that we are joined in the Chamber by our envoy on that question, my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith). We have raised questions of freedom of religious belief with the Iranian Government on countless occasions. It is clear, given the scale of restrictions that they have put on their own people, that they are not listening to the United Kingdom’s advocacy on these questions, but we will continue to raise these questions and pursue the matter with our partners.
Mr Falconer
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to correct the answer I gave the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), in relation to the Iranian appointment. While it is true that our diplomats have raised concerns about human rights issues in general, the Foreign Secretary has not herself raised within the United Nations the question of this appointment. There has been no opportunity for her to do so.
Peter Mandelson Appointment
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
Mr Speaker, I seek leave to propose that the House debate a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration—namely, that this House has considered the matter of the Government’s accountability to the House in connection to the appointment of Peter Mandelson. This is a matter of national security, because the Prime Minister has admitted appointing a known serious security risk to our most sensitive diplomatic post. This goes beyond Mandelson’s close relationship to a convicted paedophile. Today I raised deeply concerning ties to the Kremlin and China, which the Prime Minister admitted he knew about before the appointment.
Despite the Prime Minister’s statement today, there remain serious questions about what he knew and when. He has hidden behind process at every turn and failed to take responsibility. It is quite clear that the spirit and letter of the Humble Address, which this House voted for, have not been met. That is disrespectful to this House. There remain serious inconsistencies in the Government’s position, inconsistencies with the accounts of officials involved in the process, and inconsistencies with the Members of this House and journalists who sought to scrutinise the appointment at the time.
There are also questions to be asked about the Prime Minister repeatedly sacking senior civil servants, on a whim, for his own decisions, and leaving the taxpayer with financial liabilities. The British public deserve to know the truth. Members on all sides were not satisfied with the answers the Prime Minister gave today. I even gave him my questions in advance and still I did not get proper answers. Tomorrow, the former permanent secretary of the Foreign Office will appear in Parliament. The House should also have the chance to debate what he says at the earliest opportunity. That is why the House should be able to debate this before the forthcoming Prorogation.
At its core, this matter pertains to the Prime Minister’s catastrophic judgment. It pertains to his lack of grip and his failure to ask the relevant questions. It would be unfair of him to palm this debate off on to a junior Minister who does not have the information and did not take the decision. This whole saga has been about the Prime Minister’s leadership. A real leader would come here and answer these questions himself.
Mr Speaker
The right hon. Member asks for leave to propose a debate on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration—namely, the Government’s accountability to the House in connection with the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States of America. I have listened carefully to the application from the Leader of the Opposition. I am satisfied that the matter raised is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 24. Does the right hon. Member have the leave of the House?
Application agreed to.
Mr Speaker
As there is no objection, the right hon. Member has obtained the leave of the House. The debate will be held tomorrow as the first item of public business. The debate will last for up to three hours and will arise on a motion that the House has considered the specific matter set out in the right hon. Member’s application.
Strait of Hormuz
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks 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
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise these issues. The extraordinary, reckless actions that Iran has been taking threaten not only those international shipping routes but the crews serving on board those vessels, who should be foremost in all our minds. Coming from a city with a proud merchant navy tradition, I am only too aware of the sacrifices made across multiple generations. I have been speaking closely with a range of partners in recent days, including across the Mediterranean—with our partners in Malta, Cyprus, Greece and elsewhere—and we are working very closely through the Department for Transport and other agencies to ensure that the safety and security of shipping is maintained and restored.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
Households across the UK are fearful of rising prices at the pumps and for heating their homes. The closure of the strait of Hormuz by Iran will worsen the serious situation, yet it should have come as no surprise. In response, President Trump’s position is both irresponsible and inconsistent. One week, he says that he has no need for UK warships to support his unilateral action, because he has already won; the next, he says that we must send ships. One day, he suspends sanctions on Russian oil in a desperate, dangerous attempt to bring down oil prices; the next, he says that he might bomb the Iranian facility at Kharg island “for fun”. The UK should be leading on the world stage at a time like this, not following Trump like a poodle, or succumbing to his bullying, as the Conservatives and the Reform party have advocated. Can the Minister state what specific actions the UK is taking with our reliable allies to press the US, Israel and Iran to scale back hostilities? Will the Minister commit to seeking agreement at the UN Security Council on a collective approach to open the strait?
International Women’s Day
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
It is my absolute pleasure to speak in this year’s debate to mark International Women’s Day. This important day gives us an opportunity not only to reflect on how far women have come—and, disappointingly, how far we have yet to go—but to recognise the women who continue to shape and strengthen our communities every single day. I want to use my time to celebrate some of the remarkable women across South Derbyshire who make a real difference. Making people feel seen in this place is my absolute favourite thing to do.
First, Kalila Storey is my right-hand woman in the constituency. She runs my office, and I honestly do not know what I would do without her. I am sure that many of us across the House share that experience, with incredible women in their teams. I would like to give a shout-out to Lib Orme and correct a mistake I made in business questions this morning when I did not recognise her as being the founder of “I love Swad”, a Facebook page with almost 46,500 members—an incredible achievement. I also want to mention Lesley Aspey. I hope that she feels seen by me for the woman she is, both in the constituency as her MP and in this place—she will know why I have mentioned her name.
In Melbourne, Sharon Brown is the driving force behind the wonderfully vibrant Melbourne festival of arts and architecture, which last year celebrated its 20th year. She also manages the Creative Melbourne gallery. Through her work, she has brought art, culture and creativity to the heart of her community, creating opportunities for artists and inspiring residents and visitors alike. Also using creativity as a force for good is Julie Batten, director of People Express. Julie has led the organisation since 1992, and under her leadership it has used the arts as a powerful tool for engagement, working with a diverse range of people across our community and enabling them to become writers, filmmakers and artists of their own stories. Her work helps ensure that creativity is truly accessible to everyone.
Supporting local enterprise is Keelie Briggs, a marketing expert who provides networking opportunities for businesses across South Derbyshire, particularly in Swadlincote. She is a passionate champion of small businesses and organises the annual small business showcase, giving local entrepreneurs a platform to grow and succeed. Entrepreneurship is also embodied by Elaine Penhaul, the founder of Lemon and Lime Interiors, whose business has grown into a highly successful company supporting homeowners and property professionals alike. Supporting that growth with her is Katie Lavis, who started her own business and now works with Lemon and Lime as it continues to expand. Another fantastic local entrepreneur is Tracey Payne, who exemplifies the work, determination and creativity of women running small businesses in our community.
Public service is another area where women across South Derbyshire make an enormous contribution. Angela Archer, chair of South Derbyshire district council, is a passionate advocate for children with special educational needs and disabilities. As a parent of SEND children herself, she co-founded the charity Shout to support families navigating the challenges that SEND can bring. Keddie Bailey quietly supports families of SEND children, demonstrating the compassion and commitment that empower families at times of significant challenge.
In the voluntary sector, I want to recognise the work of Hollie Benton, chief executive of South Derbyshire Community Voluntary Support, and Petra Parker, who manages its food hub. Together they support local people to access food parcels and befriending services, and provide help to return home after a hospital stay, as well as a wide range of support, ensuring that no one in our community feels alone when they need help the most. Ingrid van der Weide, editor of the local publication SwadStyle, keeps residents informed about what is happening across Swadlincote and the surrounding area. She also leads the wonderful Swadlincote festival of words taking place this month, which celebrates literature, storytelling and creativity for all ages.
Our cultural heritage is also being preserved thanks to Becca King, the museum manager at Sharpe’s pottery museum, who works tirelessly to ensure that our local history is accessible, engaging and celebrated. I also recognise Peggy Moore, whose dedication to remembrance in our community is truly extraordinary. Peggy has spent countless hours knitting poppies, creating a life-size knitted Tommy soldier and collecting donations for the Royal British Legion poppy appeal. Her dedication ensures that the sacrifices of those who served are never forgotten.
I also want to recognise Maria Hanson MBE, founder of the charity Me & Dee. Since founding the charity in 2006, Maria has dedicated herself to supporting families facing life-changing and life-limiting conditions. Her vision, compassion and determination have helped thousands of families across the UK, and this remarkable work has been recognised with the charity being awarded the King’s award for voluntary service.
In my constituency, there are women whose leadership continues to inspire long after they have left public office. One such person is Edwina Currie, the first female MP for South Derbyshire. To this day, residents still speak fondly of her to me as a dedicated constituency MP who worked tirelessly on their behalf. I would like to give a special mention to Margaret Garner, an absolute gem in our community—Repton in particular. Margaret, now in her 80s, is an incredibly loyal and supportive friend, a volunteer for many activities in Repton, and swears like a trooper. She is the kind of person who lifts those around her, brings humour and honesty wherever she goes, and reminds us all of the strength and spirit that run through so many women in our communities.
Of course, none of us would be here today without the women who came before us and fought to open the doors of democracy. One such woman from my constituency is Hannah Mitchell, a suffragette who lived in Newhall in the early 1900s. She was an activist and rebel, and one of the many women who challenged inequality and fought for women’s right to take part in public life.
The women I have mentioned come from many different walks of life, from business, the arts, public service, charity work and community leadership. What unites them is their determination to make the places where they live better for others. There are, of course, so many incredible women across South Derbyshire. Giving a few shout-outs today inevitably means that I will have missed someone, but I hope this speech goes some way towards recognising the extraordinary contribution that women make across our communities every single day.
Mr Speaker
We now have a maiden speech. I remind everyone that there are no interventions during maiden speeches. I call Hannah Spencer.
Hannah Spencer (Gorton and Denton) (Green)
Four weeks ago today, I was in college, a plumber learning how to plaster, and today I am in Parliament as an MP. Being here is the honour of my life, but I do not want this to be unusual or exceptional. I truly believe that anyone doing a job like mine should get a seat on these Benches.
Where I am from, we are taught to look after each other, to look out for each other, to stick up for each other and to stick together—to see each other as human. I am so proud of that humanity and that people in Gorton, Denton, Burnage, Levenshulme, Longsight and Abbey Hey feel that way too. It is in our blood and in our bones—we see each other as human.
Where I am from, we give a nod to the statue of Emmeline Pankhurst. We remember the farm worker and seamstress Hannah Mitchell, the trade unionist Mary Quaile and the mill worker Annie Kenney—and, of course, Elsie Plant, who is from just down the road from me and who I named one of my beautiful greyhounds after. I think of these brilliant women a lot, and especially today as we debate International Women’s Day.
I think of many others, too, from pits, slums and factories; the women who changed the system so that I could be here; the women of colour whose names we will never know because history did not bother to recognise or remember them. But we do today, because without their struggle, their fight and their determination to stick together, none of this could be possible. It is bittersweet to recognise these brilliant people but to be reminded that we still need to try to be them.
The constituency that elected me is the 15th most deprived in the country. It has suffered decades of neglect and broken promises. We see that every day right in front of us, in the litter and fly-tipping, the state of housing, the struggle for a job you can build a life on, the filthy and polluted air, and the reduced life chances—the sheer unfairness of it all.
My constituency has been hit hard by the ongoing cost of living crisis. None of this is fair, none of it is right and none of it happens by accident. So I very much share my predecessor’s strong commitment to tackling health inequalities and putting local people and all our communities at the heart of decision making. That is how we begin to turn things around, to give people agency and a genuine chance of a better today and a better tomorrow.
To the girls I saw photos of, going to school on International Women’s Day dressed as Hannah the Plumber, with their overalls and spanners, and the trademark hair. To the 10-year-old boy at HideOut who rock-climbed an incredibly high wall with me, saw me become suddenly very terrified of how far up I was, and said, “Don’t ever give up. And if it’s scary looking down then just look at what’s in front of you.”
To the women in my life who have had my back and fought for equality alongside me. To the men I work with—especially the lads on my plastering course, who dealt very well with my new-found spotlight in the middle of our training. To those men who will suffer the effects of this unequal society through their mental health. To the veterans I know who were willing to risk everything, and came home and found that society was turning its back on them.
To the white working classes, who are always lumped into one group and never appreciated. To everyone who will have nowhere to sleep tonight, or will barely exist in a cold, damp and insecure home. To my trans siblings who get blamed for everything. To the Muslims everywhere, who are constantly, and often violently, scapegoated. To the disabled people who cannot access the world because of structural inequality that is completely fixable. To the people of colour, who have to work harder at everything.
I do not always get it, and I will not say that I always understand it, but what I do know is what it feels like to be looked down on, to be let down and left behind, to be less worthy because of something about me. Our struggles may be different, but our humanity is the same. We always stick together, we always fight for each other, and that is what I want us to take forward from International Women’s Day, and to do that every single day.
The cleaners, bus drivers, nursery workers, foster carers, home carers, unpaid carers, teaching assistants, bin collectors, warehouse workers, delivery drivers, school dinner staff, lollipop wardens, supermarket workers, posties, library staff, kitchen porters, farm workers, mechanics, ground workers, scaffolders, electricians, plasterers and plumbers—we deserve to be here; every single one of us. And I will make space for you to come and join me, to get to have your say.
From the bustle of Longsight market, the many Irish pubs in Levy, Sue’s chippy, and Tony at California Wines in Gorton, to the amazing young people at HideOut, the best hash brown butty at Cafe Plus in Denton, and the women-led social enterprise at Dahlia Café on Burnage Lane—you are the best of our brilliant communities. I want to put Gorton and Denton on the map by championing the positives about our community: the spirit, the warmth, the grit, and the way we help each other out every single day. Whether it is our neighbours where we live, or our siblings in places like Afghanistan, Gaza, Sudan and Iran—wherever we are, we deserve to live freely as the human beings that we all are.
We do things differently in Manchester, and it makes me proud every single day. Now I want to make Abbey Hey, Levenshulme, Burnage, Longsight, Gorton and Denton proud of me. Thank you so much for putting your faith in this plumber and newly qualified plasterer. Together, we can make hope normal again, and we will look after each other, whoever we are, because where I am from, that is just what we do.
Mr Speaker
At least the hon. Lady can cross the football political divide by being a Bolton Wanderers supporter.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yvette Cooper
I confirm that we are doing exactly that. We have raised that in discussions with colleagues and partners right around the world, because we know that Russia has continued to use oil and gas to fuel its war machine. That is also why we are strengthening the operations, sanctions and pressure on the Russian shadow fleet. We will also continue to pursue further action. We would like to see international support for a maritime services ban.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
As the Ukraine war passes its fourth year, we continue to salute the bravery and heroism of the people of Ukraine as they fight for their independence and freedom. This is the moment, however, for the Government to spearhead a new campaign with our allies to starve Russia of the funds it needs to wage war. It is clear that we need to target not only the shadow fleet but the refineries in Turkey, India and China buying Russian crude so that they rapidly diversify. Will the Government now take action with our allies to put huge new pressure on those refineries? With the foundations of the Russian economy crumbling away, that action would make it much harder for Putin to sustain the costs of his war.
Mr Falconer
The Government are truly committed to pursuing a two-state solution; it has been at the heart of our policy in relation to Israel and Palestine for the entire duration of our time in government. As the hon. Lady will know, I have stood at this Dispatch Box and announced three waves of sanctions, and I am sure that she will have listened carefully to my remarks in answer to the previous question.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
The British Government recognised Palestine last summer, and that was greatly welcomed around the world. The concern now is that Israel may be about to annex the west bank. If Israel does that, where is Palestine? The Minister spoke last week and said that they were considering concrete steps, and he has said that again today. I just wondered what they were.
Mr Falconer
I thank the right hon. Member and my predecessor for that important question. We have pointed to a whole range of areas of concern in relation to the viability of a Palestinian state. One that has not received mention so far in our exchanges, but which is vital, is the E1 development. The British Government are deeply concerned by the speed with which the Israeli Government are proceeding with a project that we completely oppose. It is clearly designed to try to split two parts of a contiguous Palestinian territory. We oppose it, and we will continue to do so.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
The rapid growth in Israeli settlements in recent months has been fuelled by settler violence, which not only goes unpunished, but receives tacit support from the Israeli Government. The UK Government continue to avoid responding to the International Court of Justice’s 2024 advisory opinion condemning Israelis’ forcible transfer of Palestinians—a war crime. Last month, the UN high commissioner for human rights noted that the forcible transfer of Palestinians from their homes in the west bank raises concerns of ethnic cleansing. Does the Minister agree with his analysis?
Seema Malhotra
The hon. Member will know that any attempts by foreign Governments to coerce, intimidate or harm those in the UK are utterly unacceptable. Indeed, these arrest warrants and bounties encourage reckless behaviour on UK soil, and damage Hong Kong’s international reputation. It is important that we continue to address these issues, and we will look further at the situation. We will publish our six-monthly report on Hong Kong soon.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Last month, the Foreign Secretary held an unpublicised meeting in Munich with Wang Yi, which we only know about because the Chinese Communist party boasted that the Foreign Secretary told the party that the Prime Minister’s visit to China was
“a complete success with fruitful results”
for UK-China relations. Can the Minister, on behalf of the Foreign Secretary, confirm whether or not the human rights of those living in Hong Kong were raised at the meeting? With Jimmy Lai languishing in prison, the CCP looking to toughen up the Hong Kong national security law, and Hongkongers living in Britain with bounties on their heads, on what basis was the Prime Minister’s visit a complete success? Given how little the UK got, it was a complete failure, wasn’t it?
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
I accept that there are problems with the curriculum in Palestinian schools, but the eyes of the world are now distracted, and settlement expansion continues, as far as we can tell. I am concerned that when the dust settles and the rubble is cleared, the viability of the Palestinian state will be significantly jeopardised. Does the Minister share my firm belief that what is going on does not really represent the will of the Israeli people?
Mr Falconer
I am sure that the whole House will recognise the authority with which my hon. Friend speaks. He is right that violent settlement expansion is not the will of most Israelis; polling reflects that time and again. As the Israeli public approach Israeli elections, I hope that there will be a discussion in Israel about the appalling nature of this violence and this expansion.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The Palestinian Authority continue to show an absolute disregard for the MOU, with deeply disturbing and antisemitic content still being promoted in Palestinian schools. How are the UK Government monitoring this, and ensuring that no UK taxpayer money is being used to fund that? With “pay for slay” continuing, will the Minister tell the House if he raised these concerns with the Palestinian Authority when he met their ambassador last week? What is his assessment of the payments being made? What direct action is he taking to stop “pay for slay”, such as withholding payments until this vile practice ceases?
Yvette Cooper
I just point out to the right hon. Member that I take the threats on UK streets immensely seriously, but he was a Home Office Minister and a Cabinet Minister during an entire period when we saw Iran-backed threats on UK streets. He did nothing to strengthen the legislation in so many years in government. This Government are now taking forward measures to strengthen that legislation.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
It is currently unclear whether the turmoil unleashed by Trump and Netanyahu’s unilateral military action will bring freedom and security for Iranians who deserve a better future, but we can be certain that the IRGC will seek to crush domestic opposition and, if given the chance, export terror abroad—and that includes the United Kingdom’s streets. Members of the Iranian diaspora here, and the UK’s Jewish community, have expressed their fears of attack. May I echo the words of Members on both sides of the House, and ask whether the Foreign Secretary will work with her colleagues in heeding the calls of the Liberal Democrats and other parties for emergency legislation to enact the recommendations of the Hall review and proscribe the IRGC?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. It is extremely important to ensure that Iran is not able to develop a nuclear weapon, and there are obviously concerns about the security of materials as well. Obviously, we continue to work closely with our operational partners on this issue.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
The Government’s indecision on how to deal with Iran has left the UK weaker and has undermined our own security, but, as the House has already started to discuss, proscribing the IRGC will strengthen our position. I proscribed Hamas when I was Home Secretary, so I have dealt with state proscriptions.
Last year, in her role as Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary spoke about bringing forward the Hall review and recommendations, and about introducing a series of powers. Let me make a suggestion. When will the Foreign Secretary and her Government provide the parliamentary time that is essential if we are to have emergency legislation to proscribe the IRGC? If she desperately needs parliamentary time that has not been timetabled so far, will she scrap the Chagos surrender Bill so we can legislate to do that now?
Yvette Cooper
I want to praise the UK armed forces in Akrotiri for their huge professionalism, and for the work that they do to defend the UK’s national security. We have already increased the deployment, with additional defensive capabilities including radar, F-35 jets, and air defence and counter-drone systems, and we work closely with the Cypriot Government on safety and security issues.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
Yesterday, the Prime Minister argued that the Government were distinguishing between defensive and offensive operations by US bombers making use of UK bases. On issues of such gravity, clarity is essential to avoid mission creep. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that the UK will agree the target, and monitor the outcome, of each of these US sorties? Will the Government report those to the Intelligence and Security Committee, and can she confirm that if one were found to have hit anything other than a missile battery or missile store, the UK would suspend its agreement for the use of its bases?
Gibraltar Treaty
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
With permission, I wish to make a statement on the UK-EU treaty in respect of Gibraltar. First, I welcome the presence in the Gallery of His Majesty’s Governor of Gibraltar, His Excellency Lieutenant-General Sir Ben Bathurst. Given his previous commands, I also take the opportunity to wish him a very happy St David’s day in advance—dydd gŵyl Dewi hapus—which I share with all the House and, indeed, with the people of Gibraltar. It is also a pleasure to have you in the Chair, Mr Speaker, given your own strong support for and associations with Gibraltar, not least in relation to the university.
After five years of tireless and complex work and dozens of rounds of negotiations, I am pleased to inform the House that we have published a draft version of the treaty. I am depositing a copy of the draft treaty in the Library of each House, together with an accompanying summary document. I am delighted that we have reached this moment, which heralds a new era of security, prosperity and stability for Gibraltar and the surrounding region and, crucially, protects British sovereignty over the Rock.
For more than 300 years, the Rock has been a hugely important part of the British family. Its people are British citizens, and our commitment to them remains absolute. This Government have taken seriously their responsibility to protect Gibraltar’s unique position and to secure post-Brexit arrangements that deliver on that responsibility. This draft treaty protects jobs and livelihoods for the people of Gibraltar and offers a stable framework for their relationship with the European Union, removing the uncertainty they have faced since Brexit. In short, it shows what real diplomacy and co-operation can achieve. It is the result of sustained and effective efforts on the part of the United Kingdom, His Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar, the European Union and Spain.
His Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar have been at the table at every stage of the negotiations; nothing has been agreed without their full support. I place on the record my appreciation for the Chief Minister, the Deputy Chief Minister and their teams, who played vital roles in securing the best outcome. I also pay tribute to UK negotiators, including our teams in Brussels, Madrid, London and Gibraltar. Their diligence and diplomatic skill have ensured that this treaty protects UK sovereignty and delivers practical outcomes for citizens and businesses on both sides of the border.
Now let me reflect on some of the detail. Around 15,000 people cross the land border between Spain and Gibraltar every day—half of Gibraltar’s workforce. The treaty removes all checks on people and goods at that border; instead, dual immigration checks will take place at Gibraltar’s airport, with Gibraltar conducting its own controls and Spain, as the neighbouring Schengen state, conducting checks on behalf of the European Union, in a model similar to the French police operating at St Pancras.
Let me be clear: Gibraltar is not joining Schengen. Immigration, policing and justice remain the responsibility of its own authorities. British sovereignty over Gibraltar, including British Gibraltar territorial waters, is fully upheld and explicitly protected. Crucially, the United Kingdom’s military facilities and operations on the Rock remain under full UK control. The treaty also establishes a bespoke customs model that removes the need for routine goods checks at the land border and strengthens co-operation between customs authorities.
Gibraltar will align its import duty rates on goods with EU rates. That will allow people to cross the border with everyday goods, such as shopping, without declarations or additional charges, bringing an end to long queues for workers, businesses and visitors. Having been in those queues myself, I know that that will make a substantial difference. To be clear, Gibraltar will not apply VAT or any other sales tax, and its vital services industry will not be affected.
The result is a pragmatic agreement and arrangement that protects Gibraltar’s way of life, supports its economy and strengthens cross-border co-operation, while safe- guarding the United Kingdom’s sovereignty position. It also gives businesses the certainty that they have sought for many years, allowing them to plan and invest with confidence. The conclusion of the negotiations also reflects the wider, transformed change in tone and trust that this Government have rebuilt with our European and EU partners, including Spain—a crucial NATO ally and economic partner. It represents a new era of co-operation and delivery for growth and security.
As with the UK-EU summit last year, the agreement shows that a constructive, problem-solving relationship with the European Union can deliver real benefits for British citizens. We are publishing the draft treaty alongside the European Union while legal teams complete final checks and translations, so that all Parliaments with an interest can have access to it on the same timeline.
The publication of the draft today marks a milestone, but it is not the formal end of the process; the final version of the treaty will be laid in the UK Parliament for scrutiny before ratification, in accordance with the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. We will continue to work closely with the Government of Gibraltar, the European Union and Spain as we move towards signature and implementation, and I will update the House as that work progresses.
In conclusion, this is a significant achievement for Britain, for Gibraltar and for our wider European partnerships. It shows this Government’s commitment to fixing problems, supporting our overseas territories, and defending Britain’s interests with clarity and confidence. With this treaty, Gibraltar can look to the future with certainty. Its people can be reassured that their way of life is protected. To quote the Chief Minister today, the treaty
“provides a springboard to stability, certainty and a modern partnership with the EU. And it does so without affecting our fundamental, inalienable right to remain British in every respect. Indeed, the Agreement makes absolutely clear that nothing in the Agreement or any supplementing arrangements shall affect sovereignty.”
In the words of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, our commitment to Gibraltar remains, as ever, as solid as the Rock. I commend this statement to the House.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for bringing this statement to the House and for allowing me to have advance sight of it, but let me be clear: Parliament is reacting to events, rather than being respected as part of the process.
For weeks, detailed provisions of the treaty have circulated in the press before Members of this place have been permitted to see any legal text. That is not how serious constitutional business should be conducted. Now that we have the text, proper scrutiny must follow in this place and in Gibraltar. As we have consistently said, this must be a deal that the Government, the Parliament and, above all, the people of Gibraltar are comfortable with. It is right that the democratically elected Government of Gibraltar have led negotiations and prioritised a free-flowing border, but trade-offs come with that, and it is our duty to examine them carefully.
The sovereignty clause states that nothing in the treaty alters the respective legal positions of the UK or Spain, but sovereignty is not simply about words; it is about how arrangements operate in practice. What recourse does the United Kingdom have if there is an operational overreach by Spain, including in the exercise of border control powers within Gibraltar’s port and airport? Will British citizens be subject to the 90-day Schengen rule in Gibraltar? What is the reciprocal position for Spanish citizens, and what protections exist for British nationals with long-standing ties to Gibraltar who do not hold Gibraltar ID cards? What mechanisms are in place to resolve disputes when asymmetric decisions are taken at the border?
On customs, processing at EU-designated points in Spain and Portugal raises practical and constitutional questions. What oversight will the UK have, and what recourse exists if those arrangements fail to operate effectively? What protections are there for imports of British goods and for Gibraltar’s distinct economic model, particularly its financial services sector? Have the Government’s impact assessments fully examined UK-Gibraltar trade flows and potential adverse effects?
We must also address dynamic alignment. The treaty does not merely apply a fixed list of EU laws; it provides for future EU Acts listed in the annexes to be adopted and implemented, with serious consequences if they are not. Can the Minister explain clearly how this mechanism will operate, and how Gibraltar and the UK will avoid becoming subject to ongoing EU rule-taking without meaningful political control?
The treaty requires consistent interpretation of applicable Union law in line with case law of the European Court of Justice. In which precise areas will EU law bind Gibraltar’s domestic arrangements? What assessment has been made of the implications of future rulings for Britain’s national interest?
I must also draw attention to article 25 and its reference to the European convention on human rights. Will the Minister clarify how that provision operates within the treaty framework, and does adherence to the ECHR form a continuing condition of the agreement? No international agreement should pre-empt or constrain the sovereign right of this Parliament to determine the UK’s constitutional arrangements. Will the Minister confirm that under this treaty an EU national may have access to Gibraltar through the land border without restrictions, but a British national travelling from the UK could be banned from entering at the airport, including on the say of those carrying out Spanish border checks? More broadly, what domestic legislation will be required to give effect to the treaty, and will Parliament have the opportunity to amend it in the normal way?
On national security, Gibraltar’s naval base is of immense strategic importance. Will the Minister give an absolute assurance from the Dispatch Box that nothing in this agreement—now or through future implementation —can directly or indirectly impact the operations, freedom of action, access arrangements or security of the UK’s naval base in any way whatsoever?
Finally, process matters. Given the scale of the agreement, it is not possible to cover all its implications in this short exchange today. There are serious questions about the operation of the border and dual checks, the role of Spanish authorities at the airport, customs and taxation arrangements, business impacts, the adoption of future EU Acts listed in the annexes, ECJ interpretation and the domestic legislation required to implement the treaty. The Minister has said that it is a draft, so when does he expect it to be finalised? When will the CRaG process begin? There has been talk of early implementation, with Gibraltar suggesting 10 April. Can the Minister please clarify that? There must be time for the CRaG process, and it must be meaningful. Provisional application on 10 April must not reduce parliamentary scrutiny to merely a rubber stamp. Gibraltar has stood resolutely British since 1713, and its people have repeatedly affirmed that choice. Any treaty must be examined line by line by this Parliament.
Diego Garcia and British Indian Ocean Territory
Lindsay Hoyle 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
The hon. Member suggests that we have gone around the American Government. I have set out already in my response the extensive talks that we have had on this question with both Secretaries and, indeed, the President of the United States in recent months. There is no question of us going around the US Government.
The hon. Member says, “Well, what has changed?” Clearly, the view of the US President may well have changed, but the treaty has not. We have discussed the treaty in great detail in this House. The treaty emerges from talks initiated by the previous Government and completed—[Interruption.] Mr Speaker, I might find the chuntering on the Conservative Benches more plausible had I not been a Foreign Office diplomat during the period when, for 11 rounds, they were negotiating this deal. I understand that right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches now wish to distance themselves from the 11 rounds they conducted, but let us at least—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. One of us is sitting down, Minister, and it is not going to be me. An urgent question has been granted and other Members want to hear it. I want to hear it, I expect them to hear it, and I expect them to hear it in silence.
Mr Falconer
Returning to the substance of the hon. Member’s question, I would just like to remind him that if he turned up with a selfie stick to RAF Waddington in Lincolnshire, which is a similarly sensitive military base, he would be turned away. I do not understand his surprise, or that of those who travelled with him, that when you sought over the weekend to film a video on a sensitive military site under the control of the UK—[Interruption.] It is part of the British Indian Overseas Territory, as you know. I encourage the hon. Member, and indeed every member of the public, to check British travel advice—
Mr Speaker
Order. Minister, you keep saying “you”. I am absolutely not responsible for, or was involved in, that filming. Please, I am being drawn into something that I do not wish to be drawn into at this stage.
Mr Falconer
Mr Speaker, I can only apologise. I would not seek to draw you into such a flagrant incident of ignoring travel advice.
The treaty is as it was signed. It is going through both Houses of Parliament. We are discussing it with our American colleagues. The fact that the hon. Member sought to take a selfie video on the islands does not change any of those facts.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Could the Minister please assure the House that international law will apply to Diego Garcia, by way of either the ownership or the use of Diego Garcia, either by our military or by the Americans?
Mr Falconer
I thank my right hon. Friend for the question. Of course, the UK Government abide by international law and will continue to do so.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Labour’s Chagos surrender is a shameful, unnecessary and reckless deal that will leave Britain weaker, poorer and less secure. This is not a legal necessity but a political choice made by a floundering Prime Minister, and it is British taxpayers who will be left to pay the price. No other Government would pay £35 billion to hand over their own sovereign territory and make their country less secure in the process. At a time when families are being squeezed, Ministers are asking them to subsidise another country’s budget, potentially funding tax cuts in Mauritius while taxes rise here at home. That is indefensible. Can the Minister therefore confirm that no payments will be made under the treaty of the so-called strategic partnership unless and until ratification is fully complete?
This is also a national security crisis. Diego Garcia is one of the most strategically vital military bases in the world, yet Ministers are pressing ahead before resolving the binding 1966 UK-US treaty, before addressing concerns raised by President Trump, and without guaranteeing that the lease can never collapse or be legally challenged. On the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, will the Minister confirm that article 298 provides an opt-out from compulsory dispute settlement for military activities, meaning that this is a political choice, not an unavoidable legal trap?
Will the Government suspend the Bill until the legal position with the US is settled and any amendments have been scrutinised under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act process? Will the Minister confirm whether the Pelindaba treaty would apply if Mauritius were to take sovereignty, and if so, what iron-clad safeguards protect our nuclear deterrent?
Finally, what of the British Chagossians, some of whom are now on the islands? Can the Minister guarantee that there will be no forced removal and that their rights will be protected in full? British sovereignty is not for sale, and this House should not be bounced into surrendering it.
Mr Falconer
I would not like to accept the connection being made between the British Indian Ocean Territory and Gibraltar and the Falklands. We are four-square behind the sovereignty of Gibraltar and the Falklands, which have chosen repeatedly to remain British, and long may that continue. We are abiding by our manifesto commitments. The issues around the continued operation of the base have been discussed many times in this Chamber, and they are being scrutinised in both Chambers as the treaty goes through the full process that Parliament would expect, and that will continue.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I am acutely aware that this urgent question comes in the aftermath of the attempt by the hon. Member for Clacton to land on the Chagos archipelago last week, and although I might admire the hon. Member’s audacity, I am deeply concerned that his actions trivialise what is indeed a deeply serious situation and potentially render the genuine grievances and injustices felt by the Chagossians as a political backdrop to his social media feed.
However, I must also acknowledge that the hon. Member’s platform has been created only because of the vacuum created by this Government, because the wheels have undoubtedly fallen off their negotiations. They have failed to secure the support and consent of Chagossians, and they now seem to have lost the support of the President of the United States too. While either one of those things might be considered unfortunate, the combination of the two looks deeply careless.
What is the status of the negotiations right now? What is the latest position of the United States? Will the Government also take on our very long-standing concerns about the rights of Chagossians? There is clearly not widespread consent here. Will they take on the points that we have made in amendment after amendment and recognise that Chagossians have the right to self-determine their own future? Will he also accept our concerns about the finances to ensure that Britain is not left as a leaseholder of these islands if a deal goes ahead without a sitting tenant?
Mr Falconer
The hon. Gentleman says “Stop the boats”, but he did take a private jet to get there, which is not quite consistent with the small boat rhetoric we usually hear from his party.
I want to be clear that there has been an attempt to land—indeed, a successful one—on part of the British Indian Ocean Territory, and it was not an area fit for human habitation. British travel advice is very clear that one should not travel to that area. This House has discussed the sensitivity of this base and these islands on many occasions. I encourage everybody listening at home to attend to our travel advice, which is there for a reason.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
As always, this argument depends not on gimmicks but on a detailed examination of the law. On 22 May, the Government made it clear in an answer that they were bound by the international law of the sea. However, in answer to a written question on 12 February, they said that article 298 of UNCLOS—an opt-out—still applies, so the law remains the same as in 2003 and 2020. This specific question was asked by the Opposition spokesperson, and we now want an answer. This is desperately important, because this opt-out is vital for the Falklands and for Gibraltar.
Jimmy Lai: Prison Sentence
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks 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
Seema Malhotra
The right hon. Member may have missed my earlier reference to Jimmy Lai as a British citizen, but I reiterate it. It is also important to reiterate our call on the Hong Kong authorities to release Jimmy Lai immediately on humanitarian grounds, so that he may be reunited with his family and receive all necessary medical treatment, and have full access to independent medical professionals.
The right hon. Member will know that the Prime Minister raised Jimmy Lai’s case with President Xi on 29 January in Beijing. Since the visit, the Foreign Secretary has been in contact with Mr Lai’s family. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is also in close contact with Mr Lai’s international legal team at Doughty Street Chambers, and with his son and daughter, Sebastien and Claire, whom the Foreign Secretary last met on 8 January.
On the Chinese embassy, national security is our first duty. The planning decision was taken independently by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. It was the conclusion of a process that the right hon. Gentleman may remember began in 2018, when the then Foreign Secretary provided formal diplomatic consent for the plans. It is also important to say today that we stand with the people of Hong Kong. We will always honour the historic commitments made under the legally binding Sino-British joint declaration, and China must do the same.
Seema Malhotra
My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. She is right to say that the situation Jimmy Lai is in, and the urgent need to release him on humanitarian grounds so that he may be reunited with his family and receive the independent medical treatment that he must have, goes beyond his family and touches the hearts of Members across the House and this country. He has been sentenced to 20 years in prison for peacefully exercising his right to freedom of expression. My right hon. Friend will know that his case remains a priority for this Government and the Prime Minister.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing this important urgent question. Today Jimmy Lai, and the democracy and freedom that he has campaigned for in Hong Kong, has been sentenced to 20 years. As his son Sebastien has said, Jimmy
“dedicated his life to defending the freedoms of Hong Kong. For that heroism, he’s being punished; he’s essentially getting a death sentence for that.”
Jimmy is a hero and deserves to be back home with his family, not hauled in chains before the courts and languishing in a prison cell. We call for his release. The fact that Jimmy Lai has been sentenced to 20 years—the longest sentence ever under the national security law—is not only a reflection of the cruelty inflicted by the Chinese Communist party, but it is a monumental diplomatic failure of this feeble and gullible Prime Minister. Just over a week ago, he was with President Xi defending engagement with the CCP. He gave China permission for its super-embassy spy hub, but failed to secure Jimmy’s release. Will the Minister now have some backbone and tell us exactly what details were discussed between the Prime Minister and Xi? Did the Prime Minister call for Jimmy to come back home, or demand that he gets access to the healthcare he needs?
The official readout of the meeting published on the Downing Street website did not even mention Jimmy Lai’s name. We need answers, Mr Speaker. Jimmy’s family, and the whole country, want to know when this weak and pathetic Labour Government will finally stand up to China and show some backbone. Will the Foreign Secretary actually do something, such as summon the Chinese ambassador and prepare a list of diplomats to expel in response to China’s refusal to free Jimmy Lai? Will the Government revoke the planning permission granted for the super-embassy spy hub, and will China now be placed on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme at long last? With the UK holding the presidency of the UN Security Council, what diplomatic steps will be taken to escalate this case, put some pressure on China for once, and secure global support for Jimmy’s release? Jimmy must be freed now, and this is a day of shame for this weak Labour Government and their failure to stand up to China.
Seema Malhotra
I thank my hon. Friend for her comments and for her work on behalf of her constituent, Jimmy Lai. I can confirm that we are in discussions with our allies, including the United States, Australia, Canada and the European Union, about what we can do internationally to continue to advocate for and to secure the immediate release of Jimmy Lai.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
The whole House shares my horror and disgust at the politically motivated imprisonment, conviction and sentencing of Jimmy Lai. Last week, following his trip to Beijing, the Prime Minister suggested that he could change outcomes for Jimmy Lai and Hong Kongers by speaking softly with President Xi. It is clear now that the Prime Minister’s trip to Beijing failed spectacularly to secure Mr Lai’s release. Have the Government summoned the Chinese ambassador to make clear this House’s shared outrage? Jimmy Lai’s experience is the most visible example of Beijing’s efforts to supress any and all criticism of the Chinese Communist party, but it is far from the only example. Pro-democracy Hong Kong activists living in the UK continue to face intimidation, repression and threats from Beijing. Can the Minister provide any guarantees to those Hong Kongers that they will not face further persecution or intimidation at the hands of the CCP?
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
Last year, the UN working group on arbitrary detention ruled that Mr Lai has been unlawfully and arbitrarily detained. In 2022, the same UN working group concluded the same thing about Jagtar Johal. Today, Jagtar turns 39, but instead of celebrating, he is languishing in a foreign prison like Jimmy Lai. I caution the Government that if we do not stand up for our citizens unlawfully imprisoned abroad, we risk becoming beholden to the whims of others, rather than standing on firm principles. How are the Government making meaningful representations to our Indian and Chinese counterparts to bring these British citizens home?
Seema Malhotra
We take the UN working group’s opinion on Jimmy Lai incredibly seriously, which is why we continue to call for his immediate release. My hon. Friend will also know the work that we continue to do in relation to Jagtar Singh Johal.
Iran
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks 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
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her questions; I will respond to them in turn. We have taken a series of steps to ensure that anyone in this country wishing to support the Iranian Government must meet a much higher threshold to do so. We have introduced 550 sanctions, including some introduced by the last Government and some that we have built on. I will come to the sanctions we announced yesterday in due course.
Let me turn to the foreign influence registration scheme. We have now put Iran at the very top tier, which means additional reporting requirements for those who would seek to act here. That provides new options to our services and our police force should those seeking to act for Iran attempt to do so in the UK. This House has heard from me, and the right hon. Lady knows from her time as Home Secretary, about the extent of the threat that Iran poses to the UK. I reassure the House that we continue to treat that threat with the utmost seriousness that it requires, and we believe that the legislative steps we have taken on FIRS, the increase in sanctions and implementation of the Hall review will all further increase our defences against such action.
The right hon. Lady asks about discussions in recent days. We have been in regular discussion with all our regional partners. I am sure she will be aware of commentary over the last few days about further conversations between the Iranians and the United States. I do not wish from the Dispatch Box to get ahead of the direct participants but, as she would expect, we are in regular discussion with all those with an interest. As I said in my initial response to her urgent question, we want Iran to have no prospect of achieving a nuclear weapon. A diplomatic process to that effect is necessary, and we support all efforts by the United States and our other partners to assure that.
The right hon. Lady asks about our plans regarding assets and what scenarios may entail. She will appreciate why I will not be drawn into speculation in any great detail. These are clearly very delicate moments for Iran; as she rightly says, there has been very widespread loss of life on the streets of Iran. I will also take this opportunity to say that I know that for many British Iranians, there is great anguish about the lack of contact they have been able to have with their families in Iran. I feel that most acutely for British people still detained by the Iranian regime, but it is obviously an experience felt widely across the country. The British-Iranian community make an important contribution to this country, and I understand the anguish they feel over these recent days.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I would like to turn to the threat that Iran poses to people here in Britain. The Intelligence and Security Committee has said,
“since 2022 the risk appetite of the Iranian regime to attempt assassinations of dissidents and…journalists in the UK has increased significantly”.
We need effective collaboration between the police and the intelligence services to protect ourselves—particularly those of Iranian heritage—against the Iranian regime’s use of wide-ranging and persistent threats, including physical threats, harassment and intimidation. What is being done to prevent attacks on media freedom in the UK by the Iranian regime, such as the stabbing of Pouria Zeraati in March 2024?
Mr Falconer
I will repeat to the House the message I gave the Iranian ambassador on one of our first interactions: any violence on the streets of the UK that is linked back to Iran, whatever Iran might think about the origin of those individuals or the press coverage they might supply, will be treated in the most serious terms by the British Government. I have left the Iranian ambassador—and, indeed, all our Iranian contacts—in no doubt about the strength of our feeling on these questions.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
We have been watching developments in Iran with anger and disgust. By some accounts, as many as 30,000 Iranians may now have been killed during the regime’s brutal crackdown on peaceful protest, leaving relatives to sift through piles of body bags. There can be no doubt that Iran’s leaders have perpetrated crimes against humanity on a catastrophic scale—it is utterly intolerable.
The UK has a responsibility to hold Iran’s leaders to account. The Government must take concrete steps to ensure that those responsible will one day face justice. Those steps must include sanctioning the senior leadership, on which the Government have already taken welcome steps in the right direction; using British satellites to collect evidence; pursuing action through the United Nations; opening a case at the International Criminal Court; and proscribing the IRGC. Will the Minister tell me how the Government will hold Iran’s leaders to account, and will he commit today to those concrete measures? What is being done, working multilaterally with our partners, to apply sustained pressure to make Iran drop its nuclear ambitions and ensure that it never acquires a nuclear weapon?