debates/debates2025-05-14f conversation_24
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-05-14)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-05-14f conversation_24

Nesil Caliskan:Every week, I meet families in Barking and Dagenham who tell me that they worry about paying their bills because they are on zero-hours contracts. My constituents want the chance to work hard in a secure job, earn a decent wage and have dignity in their workplace. As Labour’s plan for change delivers the biggest uplift in workers’ rights in a generation, does the Prime Minister agree that Reform MPs working and voting against our Employment Rights Bill show that they are no friend of workers in this country? \p Keir Starmer: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Let us be clear what the parties opposite voted against. Stronger statutory sick pay—they voted against. The right to guaranteed hours—they voted against. Protection from unfair dismissal—they voted against. Stronger protection for pregnant mothers—they voted against. A package worth £600 to the poorest workers in insecure work—they voted against. We are backing British workers; they vote against them at every turn. \p Adam Dance: Maternity services in Yeovil are due to shut on Monday, after a deeply flawed Care Quality Commission inspection in January, and are to be moved to Musgrove Park hospital in Taunton, which does not have capacity for an extra 1,300 births a year.[Official Report, 19 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 10WC.] (Correction) Although the closure is initially for six months, I have received no guarantee that the services will open again, which is creating huge fear. Will the Prime Minister or the relevant Minister agree to meet me and colleagues from the south-west to stop this decision? \p Keir Starmer: I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising this issue, which must be of concern. I am not across the details at this stage, but I will make sure that he gets a meeting with the relevant Minister to get to the bottom of the issue. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Lindsay Hoyle: That completes Prime Minister’s questions. \p Jake Richards: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During Prime Minister’s questions, the Leader of the Opposition claimed that unemployment has risen by 10% since the general election. That figure is completely and utterly incorrect. It is no wonder that George  Osborne, the former Conservative Chancellor, has said that she has no economic plan if she cannot even get basic statistics right. Will the Leader of the Opposition return to the House and correct the record? \p Lindsay Hoyle: The accuracy of what a Member states is not a matter for the Chair, but you have corrected the record in your opinion. We will leave it there for now. \p Adrian Ramsay: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the UK’s assessment of the likelihood of genocide in Gaza. \p Hamish Falconer: Yesterday, alongside partners, the UK convened a meeting of the UN Security Council in response to the intolerable civilian suffering and humanitarian need in Gaza. As I told the House yesterday, Israel’s denial of aid is appalling. Tonnes of food are currently sitting rotting at the Gaza-Israel border, blocked from reaching people who are starving. Israeli Ministers have said that Israel’s decision to block this aid is a pressure lever. This is cruel and indefensible. Overnight, yet more Palestinians have been killed in Israeli strikes. This must end.

The message yesterday was clear: the world demands that Israel stops and changes course immediately. With our allies, we are telling the Government of Israel to lift the block on aid entering Gaza now, and enable the UN and all humanitarians to save lives now. We need an immediate ceasefire now. Humanitarian aid must never be used as a political tool or military tactic, and the UK will not support any aid mechanism that seeks to deliver political or military objectives or that puts vulnerable civilians at risk.

The International Court of Justice case on genocide is ongoing. We support the ICJ. We support its independence. The ICJ issued a set of provisional measures in this case and we support those measures. Israel has an obligation to implement them. It is the UK Government’s long-standing position that any formal determination as to whether genocide has occurred is a matter for a competent court, not for Governments or non-judicial bodies. The UK is fully committed to upholding our responsibilities under domestic and international law, and we have at all times acted in a manner consistent with our legal obligations, including under the genocide convention.

The devastation from this conflict must end. Our complete focus is on lifting Israeli restrictions on aid, on freeing the hostages, on protecting civilians and on restoring the ceasefire. We will work urgently with our allies and partners on further pressure to make Israel change course. \p Adrian Ramsay: Overnight, the UN’s emergency relief co-ordinator, Tom Fletcher, warned that a genocide was possible in Gaza. One in five people face starvation. The entire population is facing high levels of acute food insecurity. In Gaza, Gaza North, Deir al-Balah, Khan Yunis and Rafah, there is a risk of famine. There is one primary cause: Israel’s aid blockade since 2 March.

The Security Council was told that civilians in Gaza have, again, been forcibly displaced and confined into ever-shrinking spaces, with 80% of the territory either within Israeli militarised zones or under displacement orders. Israeli airstrikes on the European hospital in Gaza yesterday killed 28 people, with further reports of at least 48 deaths overnight from strikes elsewhere. Can the Minister tell us whether the Foreign, Commonwealth  and Development Office has conducted any recent assessment of its own on the risk that the Israeli authorities are committing genocide?

Last night, the UK’s ambassador to the UN rightly called on Israel to lift the restrictions and ensure a return to the delivery of aid in Gaza in line with humanitarian principles and international law. But that is not enough.

Notwithstanding the Government’s position that it is for judicial bodies to make a determination, what is the Minister’s response to the latest UN assessment that genocide is possible in Gaza? Can he confirm whether the UK stands by the obligation to prevent duty in the genocide convention? Parliament needs to know whether the UN emergency relief co-ordinator’s assessment will lead to a shift in the UK Government’s position. Why is it that when the horrors increase, the UK Government’s position stays the same?

Lastly, to echo the words in Tom Fletcher’s briefing:

“Will you act—decisively—to prevent genocide and to ensure respect for international humanitarian law?”—

or will you instead repeat—

“those empty words: ‘We did all we could’”? \p Hamish Falconer: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking those important questions. The testimony of the emergency relief co-ordinator, the very most senior official in the world’s entire humanitarian system, given last night at the UN Security Council meeting that we called with our allies, is clearly incredibly important. I can confirm to the hon. Member that we do abide by our international law obligations, including to the genocide convention, and we consider in all of our IHL assessments, which are ongoing, all the relevant tests—and we will continue to do so.

The hon. Gentleman asks important questions, which have echoed in this Chamber yesterday and throughout this long and painful conflict. This Government have taken steps, whether restoring funding, suspending arms exports or working with our partners in the UN and elsewhere. But clearly we are in a situation today that nobody in this House would wish to be in—nobody on the Government Benches and, I am sure, nobody on the Opposition Benches either.

We will need to take more and more action until we see the change that we need, but the central question, as I have told this House repeatedly, is that aid is not being allowed into Gaza. While it is not allowed into Gaza, there is nothing that can be done to get the aid at the scale and in the manner necessary to save Palestinian life. It is on that point that we called the Security Council and on that point that we will continue to act. \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. May I remind Members not to use the word “you”, because I am not responsible for some of those statements? \p Andy McDonald: The Minister has repeatedly said that we do everything to observe international law. Will he please accept that there is a growing body of opinion that says that the UK is not doing that, and that we are not complying with our obligations if we continue to supply parts for the F-35 programme, because these are dropping weapons on children in Gaza? We cannot say that we  are observing the Geneva conventions, the genocide convention and Rome statute if we continue to supply those goods. He talks about doing all that we can. If that is the case, why on earth are we not making it abundantly clear to Israel that trading with it is not an option while this continues? So in answer to the question “Is he doing all he can?”, there are many people in this place and beyond who think that we are not. \p Hamish Falconer: I know my hon. Friend’s commitment to these issues over a long period of time. I do not accept the premise of his question. Whether or not we abide by our legal obligations is a question that will be determined by the courts. It is being determined by the courts this week, so I will leave it to the courts to make judgments on our obligations. We are taking all the steps that we can to bring this conflict to a close. He mentions the vital question of the F-35 programme. I know this House understands the significance of that programme, not just in Europe but across the world. The carve-out that we have put in place has been done on the basis of robust legal advice, which is being tested in the courts this week. We must abide by our obligations to our allies. We are not selling F-35s directly to the Israeli authorities. We continue to supply a global spares pool. That is necessary for the continued function of the F-35 programme, which has critical importance to European security. We make these judgments calmly and soberly, and we will continue to do so. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister. \p Wendy Morton: The situation in the middle east continues to cause concern. That is why we on this side of the House have been clear on the need to see the return of the hostages and a lasting ceasefire. Although we welcome the release of Edan Alexander, there are still 58 hostages held in Gaza by the Iranian-backed terrorists. Those who are still alive are being held in the most dreadful and appalling conditions, without access to aid and medicines. What they and their families have been going through for approaching 600 days is unimaginable. They must be released as a matter of urgency, so can the Minister give an update on the diplomatic steps being taken by the Government to secure the release of the remaining hostages, and what is Britain contributing to those efforts?

This conflict would have been over long ago, had Hamas released the hostages, and the House should not be in any doubt that Hamas and their Iranian sponsors are committed to wiping out the state of Israel. Can the Minister tell us what steps are being taken, with international partners, to deal with the threat to peace, security and stability posed by Iran? We have constantly asked for a strategy to tackle Iran, so when will this come forward? The Government have shared our view that Hamas can have no role in the future governance of Gaza, so can we have an update on the practical steps the Government are taking to secure this outcome and end the misery that Hamas are inflicting on Gaza and the threat they pose to Israel?

We have debated aid access to Gaza on several occasions, including in recent days, so can the Minister tell us exactly how much UK-funded aid, both directly and indirectly through multilateral organisations, is waiting to enter Gaza and give us a breakdown of what that aid is? The Government have known for a number of months  about the concerns Israel has about the delivery of aid to Gaza and aid diversion, so can the Minister today explain what discussions have taken place with Israel, and what practical solutions Ministers have offered to support the delivery of aid that addresses its concerns? Has the Minister been directly engaged in the discussions that have taken place with Israel and the US over alternative ways to get aid into Gaza? Does he have a view on this and will the UK be participating?

We have also been clear that while we continue to press for humanitarian aid and accountability, we do not consider the actions in Gaza to constitute genocide. The case brought by South Africa to the International Court of Justice is not helping— \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Can we please stick to the time? The right hon. Lady is almost a minute over. We have to work within the timescales, and Members need to time speeches. Lots of Members need to get in, and we have to support each other. I think the Minister has enough to go on. \p Hamish Falconer: I of course welcome, as the Foreign Secretary did yesterday, the release of Edan Alexander. I know the whole House thinks of those hostages who remain in Hamas captivity. I have been in direct contact with the American officials involved in that release, and it is a very welcome development. We are focused on ensuring that there is no role for Hamas in a future for Gaza. We are working as part of the Arab reconstruction plan to try to achieve that.

The right hon. Lady asks an important question about the proportion of British aid unable to get into Gaza at the moment. For almost two months, the horrendous answer is 100%. Even before then, there were significant restrictions on the aid that we wish to get into Gaza. I saw for myself the items that were unable to cross from al-Arish into Rafah. The proportions will be very high, but I will see with my officials whether I can break it down in greater detail for her. \p Rosena Allin-Khan: Slow and agonising breaths, scared, crying, emancipated bodies fighting for every heartbeat—it is death by a thousand cuts for the children and for the parents watching their babies deliberately being starved to death. Almost 1 million children are at risk of famine and death in Gaza. Those who have stood by and allowed this to happen should hang their heads in shame. I call on the Government to sanction Israeli officials until the blockade is lifted, because if we do not act now, this will be on us. \p Hamish Falconer: I know the strength of feeling behind my hon. Friend’s words. I am sure she is aware of the findings of the IPC report on Monday, which delineates in great detail the precise suffering being felt because of a lack of food and nutrition. We are horrified by those findings. The need for action could not be more urgent. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Monica Harding: Israel’s continuing blockade of Gaza, now exceeding 70 days, is utterly unacceptable. Will the Government now recognise that the blockade constitutes a clear violation of international law? The Government must respect whatever determination the ICJ reaches regarding genocide. There   are already clear obligations on the Government to prevent genocide in Gaza arising from the ICJ’s January 2024 order. Have the Government taken any steps to meet those obligations? Will they commit today to banning the export of all UK arms to Israel? Will they reconsider sanctions on extremist Israeli Ministers like Bezalel Smotrich, who called for Gaza to be destroyed? Will the Government commit to the immediate recognition of a Palestinian state? As the UN’s British relief chief told the Security Council yesterday, if we have not done all we could to end the violence in Gaza, we should fear the judgment of future generations. Does the Minister agree? \p Hamish Falconer: These responsibilities weigh heavily on me and on every member of the Government and the Foreign Office team. But let us not forget what this Government have done. Whether it is restoring funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency; suspending arms exports in the way we have described; providing £129 million of humanitarian aid and then being one of the loudest voices in trying to ensure that it enters Gaza; or working with Jordan to fly medicines into Gaza, with Egypt to treat medically evacuated civilians, with Project Pure Hope to help Gazan children in the UK, and with Kuwait to support vulnerable children through UNICEF; we are taking steps. We take the judgments of the ICJ incredibly seriously, but I cannot pretend to the House that the events in the Occupied Palestinian Territories of recent days are acceptable, and we will continue to take every step we can to get a change of course. \p Afzal Khan: Tomorrow is the 77th anniversary of the 1948 Nakba, which saw hundreds of thousands of Palestinians displaced from their homes. That still continues today, and the UN Security Council has said that action is now required to prevent genocide. A key step to a peaceful two-state solution would be recognising Palestinian statehood—something that Israel is trying to prevent. With 147 countries recognising Palestinian statehood, is now not the right time for the UK to do so, too? \p Hamish Falconer: The question of recognition of a Palestinian state is obviously one of vital importance. We want to do so as a contribution to a more stable region. We can see the serious and immediate threats to the viability of Palestinian life, and that is what we are focused on in these most urgent of days. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Father of the House. \p Edward Leigh: I have been a member of the Conservative Friends of Israel for over 40 years, longer than anybody here. Hamas is a brutal terrorist organisation that hides its own fighters under hospitals, but it is frankly unacceptable to recklessly bomb a hospital. It is unacceptable to starve a whole people. Is the Minister aware that many Friends of Israel worldwide, notwithstanding narrow legal definitions, are asking this moral question: when is genocide not genocide? \p Hamish Falconer: I have heard in recent weeks a series of powerful interventions from Opposition Members, and I take them seriously with the weight they hold, particularly  from the Father of the House and my neighbour in Lincolnshire. We will not move towards making determinations from the Dispatch Box on questions of legal determination, but that does not mean we will wait. The preliminary judgments of the ICJ and the provisional measures it set out are important, and we will abide by them. \p Helena Dollimore: As the Minister has said, the situation is intolerable with one in five Gazans facing starvation; the use of aid as a weapon of war by Israel is inexcusable. The continued firing of rockets by Hamas and detention of hostages are also inexcusable, and it all must end. I welcome the UK, with our international allies, calling an urgent briefing on the situation at the UN Security Council. There, the UN humanitarian chief was clear in his warning about the dire consequences of the situation continuing. What steps are this Labour Government taking to get more aid in, get the hostages out and bring about the ceasefire and two-state solution that we all in this House desperately want to see? \p Hamish Falconer: I thank my hon. Friend, who I know has been long committed to these issues and used to be an aid worker herself. She is a doughty advocate on these points. We remain absolutely committed to a two-state solution. We are focusing all our diplomatic efforts on ensuring that the current approach is changed, that we return to a diplomatic solution, and that we have a ceasefire, the release of hostages and a move back to that two-state solution, which, as she rightly puts it, is vital. \p Oliver Dowden: The situation in Gaza is clearly intolerable, and Israel has to find a way of getting aid in safely and without diversion. But does the Minister agree that we need to be very careful about the use of the word “genocide” and that we do not devalue the word? It is used to describe the systematic and deliberate murder of 6 million Jews by Nazi Germany. We must question whether—and I do not believe that—a war designed to release hostages and remove a terrorist threat, against terrorists that hide among the civilian population, crosses that threshold. \p Hamish Falconer: It is the long-standing position of Governments of all stripes that it is for international courts to make determinations of that nature, and we will abide by our obligations under international humanitarian law. \p Florence Eshalomi: Since 2 March, no food or medical aid supplies have reached over 2.3 million Palestinians. Many of us from across this House have attended many statements and Westminster Hall debates and have submitted parliamentary questions asking the Government about this critical issue. The hostages still remain in captivity and need to be released, but the reality is that using aid to punish so many people is wrong. Does the Minister agree that under the genocide convention, the UK as a state party has an obligation not only to prevent and punish genocide, but to avoid actions that may assist or enable genocidal acts? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend asks important questions about aid access and the nature of aid delivery. Let me be clear: the UK will not support any aid mechanism  that seeks to deliver political or military objectives or put vulnerable people at risk. The obligations under international humanitarian law and international law more broadly are clear, and they fall on Israel as the occupying power. It must abide by them. \p Mike Martin: Very few issues in politics, particularly international politics, are black or white, but this is one such issue. The Israeli Government are using collective punishment of the civilian Palestinian population, which is illegal under international law and contravenes the Geneva conventions, to which Israel is party. Does the Minister think that the British Government have lost their moral and legal compass in continuing their tacit support for Israel? \p Hamish Falconer: I have set out some of what the Government have done, and I could continue doing so for some time. Let me be clear. The hon. Gentleman rightly points out the absolutely appalling nature of any attempt to weaponise aid and use incendiary language, which are clearly breaches of international obligations. We have condemned from the Dispatch Box much of that language, some of which was repeated by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding). I take this opportunity to say again that the British Government absolutely condemn that inflammatory language. We will continue to do so, and to make our views known to the Israeli Government, in the most forceful possible way. \p Abtisam Mohamed: The international community has failed to stop Israel’s impunity. We have collectively failed to act on violations as they are committed, and to hold Israel to account. With our collective failure, Palestinians in Gaza face collective punishment. Israeli Ministers have stated that stopping humanitarian aid is one of their main levers of pressure. That is not only cruel and indefensible, but an explicit admission of violations of international law. I hear our condemnations, Minister, but I see no action. Why are we still sending arms? Why are we not sanctioning Israeli Ministers? The UN has said what many know to be true: as a signatory to the Geneva convention, we have a legal obligation to prevent genocide. Minister, when will we act? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend is forceful advocate on these questions. She points to failure, and I recognise that failure. So many days and months on, the people of Gaza and the west bank, and of course the hostages, are in the most distressing circumstances possible. I will not comment from the Dispatch Box on sanctions, as she would expect, but I can assure her that we will work urgently with our allies and partners on further pressure to make Israel change course. \p Kit Malthouse: It is becoming increasingly difficult to keep up with the slaughter in Gaza, the brutality and cruelty on the west bank, and starvation as a policy. The crimes come daily, such as the recent killing of Mohammed Bardawil, one of only three key eyewitnesses to the slaughter of rescue workers just a few weeks ago, whose bodies were buried in shallow graves. It is clear to everybody that crimes are being committed daily.

As a number of Members have pointed out, the UK is a party to international agreements that provide a positive obligation to act to prevent genocide and torture and protect the rights of others. We have an obligation, as a member of the United Nations Security Council and a state party to the Geneva conventions, to promote peace and security. What advice has the Minister taken on the liability that will attach to him as a decision maker? Have the Government received advice on whether the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, any senior officials or previous Ministers may be exposed when the reckoning comes? \p Hamish Falconer: As Members would expect, I will not discuss internal legal advice in the Chamber, whether it applies to me or other Ministers. I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that, right across Government, we understand the gravity of the situation and the weight that falls on us to ensure changes to this diabolical trajectory. We will continue to use our role in the Security Council, the G7 and the E3, as we did yesterday, and that action will not stop. \p Imran Hussain: The Minister still refuses to address the central issue, which is that our obligation to prevent genocide under the Rome statute has already been triggered by the ample evidence of Israeli war crimes in Gaza. In the week marking 77 years since the Nakba, how many more times will he come to the Chamber with just words—words that do nothing? We need action. Let us be clear: it is not a case of if but when he will end the UK’s complicity in arming a state that is accused of genocide against the Palestinians, and of when he will finally impose sanctions on Israel. History will judge his delay. \p Hamish Falconer: I remind the House of the decisions that we took last year. We have discussed the question of the F-35 global spares pool. The basis on which we made a carve-out is clear and has been debated many times. Let me be clear: aside from that carve-out, when we came into government, we took on the solemn duty of making an assessment, which did not appear to have been made, of the serious risk of potential breaches of international humanitarian law. We then suspended arms export licences where those weapons could be used in such conduct—that means in Gaza, on the west bank, and in relation to all the areas where those risks accrued. We took far-reaching action. That action is still in place, and we continue to conduct those assessments.

I can understand why many Members may feel frustrated by the F-35 carve-out. Perhaps they also feel frustrated about our continuing to sell arms that do not risk a violation, according to the assessment that has been much discussed here. We think it right that we, for example, continue to provide body armour that might be used by non-governmental organisations in Gaza, or provide parts of the supply chain that could end up in the hands of NATO allies. We have taken far-reaching action on arms. That is important work that we are proud of. \p Brendan O'Hara: I have just returned from the High Court this morning, where Government lawyers will argue, in defending the continued supply of F-35 components, that the evidence available does not support a finding of genocide, and that there is a

“tenable view that no genocide has occurred or is occurring”.

It appears that the Government—whether they have told the Minister so or not—have already made a determination, and that explains why they have no intention of asking for an independent assessment of whether a genocide is likely. The Government know that if they did ask for one, it would reveal an unpalatable truth that would prevent them from supplying Israel with the weapons that it needs to continue its merciless onslaught. It really is as grubby as that, isn’t it, Minister? \p Hamish Falconer: It is not as grubby as that. First, we will not litigate an ongoing legal case in the Chamber, as Members would expect. A judicial review on the F-35 element is happening over these days. The judge will find on that, and we will respect the judgment. Let me be absolutely clear to the hon. Gentleman: we continue to conduct assessments across a full range of responsibilities under international law. It is simply not true to suggest that we are avoiding making any internal assessment in order to justify policy. We continue to assess these things carefully. We do it on a rolling basis, regularly. What he says is simply not true. \p Paul Waugh: I thank the Minister for his personal commitment to this cause, and the UK Government for putting this matter on the record at the UN yesterday as a matter of extreme urgency. May I also put to the Minister directly the challenge yesterday from Tom Fletcher, the UN’s aid chief? He said:

“For those killed and those whose voices are silenced: what more evidence do you need now?...Will you act—decisively—to prevent genocide?”

What is the Minister’s answer to that question? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend has been committed to these issues since before he came to this place. Tom Fletcher’s words are important. As I said earlier, he is the most senior member of the humanitarian community in the world, and what he said at yesterday’s meeting, which we called, is very important. We have not waited for yesterday’s meeting, or for the determination of international courts, to take action. Let us not forget what we have done in relation to UNRWA, on arms suspension, on sanctions on Israeli settlers, or through our convening role on the United Nations Security Council. We will continue to take action. Mr Fletcher rightly asks for “decisive” action. Has our action yet been decisive? Clearly it has not. Hostages remain detained, Palestinians continue to suffer, and a two-state solution feels very distant indeed. We have not yet had the decisive effect that we would wish to see, and we will continue to act until we do. \p Julian Lewis: As well as raping, kidnapping and killing civilians on 7 October for the sake of it, Hamas had a strategy: to try to prevent further peace deals between Israel and its Arab neighbours by provoking a massive, frenzied reaction to the atrocities. Does the Minister share my dismay that this brutal strategy seems to be succeeding? \p Hamish Falconer: I share the right hon. Gentleman’s dismay that events in the region since the horrific actions of 7 October have involved an enormous amount of  bloodshed and civilian suffering. This Government hope that we will yet see a day when the region is stable, when there are normal diplomatic relations between all its members, and when there is a two-state solution, with the two states living securely and safely side by side. I regret that it feels such a distant prospect. \p Naseem Shah: Seventy-seven years since the Nakba, Israel’s illegal occupation eats away at the land. We now have—I will repeat these words loud and clear—“plausible genocide” according to the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court, Amnesty International and the United Nations. Given this week’s news, what new assessments have been made, and how often, to determine what other actions we can take to stop what is happening to the Gazans—the children, the civilians, and the aid workers—and to make sure that we can get aid in? What other pressures and levers can the Government use, including as part of a bloc, together with international partners and others, in addition to recognising Palestine? Surely that recognition is long overdue. \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend asks important questions about assessments. Those are made regularly, on a rolling basis, and in the light of new events. I reassure her that we do not wait for assessments or final legal determinations before taking action. I have listed some of that action already, and I reassure her that we will work urgently with our allies and partners on further pressure to make Israel change course. \p Jeremy Corbyn: Even if the Minister cannot condemn what is obviously an act of genocide, will he tell us in clear terms whether we are still supplying parts for F-35 jets that find their way to Israel and take part in the bombardment of Gaza? Are there still flights going from RAF Akrotiri over to Israel that are carrying military equipment that can be used either to bomb Gaza or to undertake military action against the people of the west bank? \p Hamish Falconer: The decisions that we take on arms bind every part of the UK Government. We are a Government committed to abiding by our international legal obligations, and we will continue to do so. Let me be clear, again, on the position on F-35s. The F-35 sales directly to Israel, whether in relation to any particular component, have been suspended. Sales to a global pool, which are necessary for the continued function of the global F-35 programme, have not been suspended. Where sales go to a global pool, it is clearly possible that they could find a final destination in Israel, but to suspend our provision of components to the F-35 global pool would, in effect, render the F-35 programme inoperable. It is on that basis that we set out the decisions that we took in September. \p Andrew Pakes: May I put on record the relief that I and many others feel about the release of Edan Alexander? I am saying a prayer for the other hostages.

Every week that we come back to this House the horror is greater. Many of us woke up this morning to a spokesperson for the Israeli Government on the “Today” programme denying that there is hunger in Gaza at all. This House knows the reality: we are 10 weeks into a  blockade of aid by the Israeli Government, and one in five are starving. The Minister will know that Tom Fletcher spoke passionately and with purpose yesterday at the UN about the collective failure of the UN to speak out previously. How do we avoid that this time? What more evidence do we need before we take action, and what more action can be done? \p Hamish Falconer: As I said earlier, the words of Tom Fletcher in the United Nations Security Council are important. The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification assessment that was produced on Monday—that assessment is authoritative and thorough in its production—is the most important indication of needs in Gaza. It should be taken seriously by everyone in this Chamber, and indeed by the Israeli Government. My hon. Friend has long been committed to these issues, and he knows the actions that we have taken so far. I will not speculate from the Dispatch Box, other than to reassure the House that we will be working urgently with our allies and partners to ensure that Israel changes course. \p Andrew Murrison: There can be few now who would believe that the conduct of the Netanyahu Government is anything other than gross and disproportionate. However, does the Minister agree with me that the actor in the region that has unequivocally embarked on genocide is Hamas, with their self-avowed policy of killing Jews and eradicating the state of Israel? \p Hamish Falconer: I have condemned Hamas for their despicable actions and ugly and unacceptable rhetoric many times from this Dispatch Box, and I am happy to do so again. It is the events of 7 October, in all their full horror, that triggered this most recent, most horrific round of violence. \p Debbie Abrahams: In addition to calling for the release of all hostages, Tom Fletcher, the UN emergency relief co-ordinator, asked last night what action we will tell future generations that we each took

“to stop the 21st century atrocity to which we bear daily witness in Gaza.”

What action will the Government take if, in the next 24 hours, Israel does not allow aid into Gaza? \p Hamish Falconer: As I have said throughout the course of the afternoon, the responsibilities weigh heavily on all of us. We do not view the situation as acceptable, and we will continue to take steps with our allies and partners to urge Israel to change course. \p Mark Pritchard: As we meet here, in this rather grand Palace of Westminster, the reality on the ground is that Palestinian children continue to die in the rubble. Is it not becoming clear that the central policy of the Israeli Government seems more about protecting the political skin and life of the current Israeli Prime Minister than even saving the lives of the remaining Israeli hostages and saving the lives of Palestinians? I appeal to the British Government to be again on the right side of history, of the law and of moral judgment, and not to back one particular individual, fighting for his political life, back in Tel Aviv. \p Hamish Falconer: The right hon. Gentleman speaks powerfully about the various views in Israel. I will not speculate on the decision making of others, but I listen very carefully to the words of the Israeli hostages themselves when they have been released, what they make of the circumstances in Israel and what policy they think should be adopted. Those are important voices and they echo loudly, both in this Chamber and across the world. We are clear that, whatever the intentions, the international obligations under law on the Israeli Government in relation to Gaza are indisputable, and we call today, as we have called every day, for them to abide by them. \p John Martin McDonnell: I declare an interest as the secretary of the National Union of Journalists parliamentary group.

It is the anniversary of the murder by Israeli forces of Shireen Abu Akleh, the renowned journalist. Alongside her on that day was another journalist, Ali Samoudi, who was shot in the back. Two weeks ago, the Israeli forces arrested him and dragged him from his home, and Ali is now in detention somewhere, but we do not know where. Under international law, journalists are afforded special protection. Will the Minister immediately take up with the Israeli Government the question of where Ali Samoudi is and seek to do everything we can do to secure his release? He works for CNN, Reuters and Al Jazeera, and all he was doing was simply reporting on some of the war crimes that are taking place. \p Hamish Falconer: My right hon. Friend raises incredibly important points about journalists and I am happy to take up the case in question. Not just journalists but a whole set of people are afforded special protections under international law, including medical professionals and aid workers, many of whom we have seen involved in terrible incidents in Gaza. We have been pressing for accountability and justice on those questions; I think in particular of the three British nationals killed in the World Central Kitchen incident more than a year ago, for whom we are still waiting for justice. \p Alistair Carmichael: Does the Minister accept that, where prima facie evidence of genocide exists, awaiting for the determination to be made formally by a court is not sufficient for us to meet the duty to prevent under the genocide convention? \p Hamish Falconer: In this case, the International Court of Justice is clearly the correct authority. It has issued a set of provisional measures, which we support. \p Cat Smith: Civilians are starving to death in Gaza. Aid has been held for 10 weeks and used as a weapon against innocent civilians. My constituents are rightly outraged by what they are seeing, and so am I. While I welcome the Minister’s words, what further actions can the Government take to send a clearer message to Israel that this absolutely has to stop? Will the Minister look again at sanctions? Will he look at arms export licences? And will he recognise the state of Palestine? \p Hamish Falconer: I know my hon. Friend’s constituents will be concerned, just as my constituents in Lincoln and those across the whole country are concerned. I saw  the situation with my own eyes when I went to al-Arish, where British aid was languishing while people desperately required it in Gaza. I saw the restrictions that were preventing aid getting in. I can assure her and her constituents that I have raised this personally in every way that I have thought I am able to do so, to try and make progress, and we will continue to do so. It is a source of continued personal frustration to me, and frustration to the Government, that we have not been able to get aid back into Gaza in accordance with international law. \p John Cooper: Does the Minister have any information about how much aid is being held in Hamas-controlled warehouses in Gaza? Is the key to this desperate situation our links to Tehran? At the end of the day, the Iranian regime pulls the strings of its puppet organisation, Hamas, who are holding the hostages in conditions akin to torture. \p Hamish Falconer: We take serious steps to ensure that Hamas do not get access to aid. We supported a review into the function of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. In his remarks yesterday, Mr Fletcher set out his view on the robustness of the United Nations provisions to try to prevent Hamas from stockpiling aid. The findings of the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification report on Monday about the circumstances in which Palestinian civilians are trying to live in Gaza make for sobering reading. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that Iran’s malign role in the region must stop. It has supported Hamas, who have brought nothing but pain and misery, not just to Israelis but to Palestinians as well. \p Andrew Slaughter: Last week, in response to a question I asked, the Minister said:

“Forcible movement of the Gazan population out of Gaza would be forcible displacement”.—[Official Report, 6 May 2025; Vol. 766, c. 588.]

Forcible displacement is a war crime; it is already happening and it is about to accelerate. Will he say in turn, as the head of UNRWA said this week and as the former Israeli Defence Minister, Moshe Ya’alon, said last week, that Israel is committing war crimes in Gaza? \p Hamish Falconer: I will resist my hon. Friend, who is not just a doughty advocate for the Palestinian people but a respected lawyer. As he would expect, I am not going to take the opportunity to make a determination at the Dispatch Box, but I will be clear again that forcible displacement is clearly prohibited by international law, and we are clear on that at all times. \p Adnan Hussain: Amnesty International has described the two-month siege in Gaza as “genocide in action”. According to experts, Israel is deliberately creating conditions that could lead to the physical destruction of the Palestinian people, a pattern many argue amounts to genocide. As a signatory to the genocide convention, does the Minister agree that the UK has a legal duty to act when there is a risk of genocide, and that the duty to prevent begins not when genocide is confirmed, proven or established, but when  there is a reasonable suspicion that it is occurring? The alarms are flashing red and the warning signs are there for the Government to act. Will they act? \p Hamish Falconer: I have set out the process of determination, the provisional measures that have been issued by the ICJ and the Government’s determination not to wait until cases are concluded but to take action now to try to preserve life. \p Tahir Ali: Israel is intentionally starving Palestinians and action should be taken to stop the war crimes and genocide. Those are the words of a leading United Nations expert on the right to food. Will the Minister tell us what is preventing the Government from imposing sanctions on Israel? What are they scared of? If we cannot discuss this from the Dispatch Box, we certainly cannot discuss it behind closed doors. \p Hamish Falconer: The House has heard me talk about sanctions in the same terms over a long period of time. I understand my hon. Friend’s frustration about my not being able to speculate from the Dispatch Box about the sanctions we might take, but to do so would reduce their effectiveness and frustrate the will of the House. We keep all of these matters under close review. We are not scared in the performance of our duties. We are working all the time to try practically to change the situation on the ground, and that is to what all our efforts are directed. \p Vikki Slade: Barely a day goes by when I do not receive impassioned pleas from my constituents begging for actions, not words, from this Government. Many have shared their distress that we celebrated the defeat of tyranny on VE Day at the same time that the people of Gaza starved and were being bombed to oblivion. They say that we are complicit in genocide. What does the Minister say to my constituents? I agree with them, but I feel powerless to do any more than come to this House every time and say the same thing. \p Hamish Falconer: Deeds, not words. We are restoring funding to UNRWA, suspending arms licences and giving £129 million in humanitarian assistance to the Occupied Palestinian Territories. We have continued work at the UN Security Council and in relation to international courts. I recognise the frustration of the House, and I do not in any way wish to weigh misery between the many, many people still in Gaza or the west bank facing real hardship at this moment, but the action of this Government has made a real difference to Palestinian lives—I have seen it with my own eyes. There are people who are in safety now because of the UK Government, and we will continue to do what we can. I accept that there is more to do, but our actions do have impact. \p Ruth Jones: I thank the Minister for outlining the horrors being inflicted on the people of Gaza so clearly yet again, but we have heard words from the Dispatch Box many times in support of the Palestinians before. He talks about court proceedings, but they take months, if not years, to complete. Men, women and children are dying every  hour from hunger, disease and bombs in Gaza at the moment. They cannot wait. What is the Minister doing? We need action, not words. \p Hamish Falconer: I have outlined some of the action, but I reassure my hon. Friend that we are not waiting for legal determinations, not least because the ICJ has issued provisional measures, and because it is the policy of this Government that we are acting now to try to improve the lot of Palestinians. \p Martin Vickers: One thing we can all agree on is that we want to see the safe release of the hostages. It is evident that military action, in and of itself, was never going to achieve that. With that in mind, do the Government support or condemn Israel for the most recent escalation of military action? If they are not prepared to condemn it at this stage, how many more innocent deaths must there be before they do? \p Hamish Falconer: The hon. Gentleman refers to the hostages. Some of the released hostages have made this argument with the greatest force, and they are important words. Let me say concretely and clearly that the British Government oppose the return to war in Gaza by the Israeli Government; we oppose the most recent escalation. \p Warinder Juss: I am sure that I am not the only Member of this House who is getting increasingly frustrated by the number of discussions that we have where we say the same things over and over again while the horrific situation for the Palestinian people in Gaza worsens day by day. Does the Minister agree that for us to send a clear message to Israel, we need to do three things: suspend all arms licences to Israel, including the F-35 licences; impose sanctions against Israel; and recognise the state of Palestine? \p Hamish Falconer: The House has heard me speak of my frustration on a number of occasions—I share that with my hon. Friend. I think I have addressed the three substantive points that he raises already in this session. \p Rachael Maskell: You’re the Minister! \p Hamish Falconer: I am the Minister; these responsibilities weigh particularly heavily on me. I am not blind to the IPC or to Tom Fletcher’s testimony at a session that we called. Do hon. Members think that I am unaware of the horrors being meted out to people in Gaza? I am not unaware: I am taking every action that I can, as are other Ministers. It is an intolerable situation, as hon. Members heard from the Prime Minister earlier, and we are lifting every effort to try to change it. \p Greg Smith: Nobody wants war, but we must reflect that this is a war. It is a war between our ally Israel and the aggressor, Hamas. It was Hamas who brutally murdered, mutilated and raped innocent Israeli citizens. It is Hamas who still keep 58 hostages under lock and key. It is Hamas who, in their own charter, have genocidal intent, calling for the wiping out of Israel and the killing of Jews. Will the Minister at least accept that those people who wish to call those trying to defend their own citizens genocidal are playing into the hands of the terrorists themselves,  who will continue to use their own citizens as human shields and give no pathway to peace? \p Hamish Falconer: I condemn Hamas and their actions entirely. Israel is an ally, but we say to all our allies that international humanitarian law is a binding framework for us all. When it is breached in one place, the breach echoes around the world. That is why we have been so clear on these questions throughout. \p Richard Burgon: I am sick and tired of coming back to this Chamber, asking the same questions and getting the same answers, when war crime after war crime is being committed and a genocide is taking place. It is a sick joke to believe that it is right—which it is—to impose sanctions on Russia for its unlawful invasion of Ukraine, but that tut-tutting at Benjamin Netanyahu and telling everyone “We think this is really bad” somehow cuts the mustard: it does not. Words are not enough to stop war crimes. We need more than words and more than actions. Can the Minister advise this House how many more Gazans need to be killed, injured and starved by Israel until the Government do the right thing and bring widespread sanctions in, like they did with Russia? People think that we are scared and that this is a double standard. \p Hamish Falconer: We have taken action, as I have described this afternoon. I have already assured the House that it is certainly not fear that shapes our actions. I am always happy to return to this Dispatch Box to answer questions from parliamentarians about this question, but I do not want to give the House the impression that that is all I do. When I am not in this House, I am working on these tasks with urgency. I have listed some of the actions that we have taken since I became the Minister. I will continue to work on these questions and to return to the House to answers Members’ questions. \p Bob Blackman: Over the last 18 months, Israel has facilitated 1.7 million tonnes of aid going into Gaza. Very sadly, much of that aid has ended up in warehouses and trucks have been raided by Hamas operatives. The aid has failed to get into the hands of the people who desperately need it. We now have a position whereby the blockade has continued. Will the Minister come up with a credible plan to get the aid in, require the Israel Defence Forces to facilitate the aid going to the people who desperately need it, and prevent Hamas and other terrorists from capturing the aid and preventing the people of Gaza from gaining the aid that they desperately need? \p Hamish Falconer: Where Hamas have interfered with aid deliveries, I condemn that utterly. We have to be clear that considerable amounts of aid were not allowed into Gaza, even before this most recent blockade, which is now ensuring that nowhere near the scale of aid required is getting in. As I think the hon. Member is alluding to, there are proposals for other methods of getting it in. We would support proposals to get aid into Gaza, provided that they are in accordance with humanitarian principles, which are vital in every conflict zone around the world. The UN emergency relief co-ordinator yesterday set out his views on how those principles need to be adhered to. \p Rachael Maskell: UK manufacturers of F-35 components can place GPS markers on every single component, and the UK Government can ensure that every component that is exported has a GPS marker on it, so what is the Government’s excuse for continuing with their programme on F-35s when they can distinguish the destination of every single component? \p Hamish Falconer: I have set out the position on F-35s and the manner in which the global spares pool works. That is information provided by the experts who are responsible; I understand that some hon. Members may disagree with those facts. The discussion is happening in a judicial review this week, and I will not get ahead of that process. \p Tom Morrison: One in five people in Gaza are facing starvation, 90% of people are now displaced, over 50,000 people are dead, and Gaza is the most dangerous place on earth for humanitarian workers. This has to end. The Government keep on condemning Netanyahu, but he does not listen. The time for words has to stop—we need action. Will the Minister take this opportunity to commit to sanctioning extremist members of the Israeli Cabinet, suspending all arms trade with the Israeli Government and recognising a Palestinian state? \p Hamish Falconer: Those three points have already been put to me over the course of the afternoon, so I will not repeat my answers, and I will not speculate on further sanctions. However, as the hon. Gentleman references sanctions on settlers, I will point out that we have taken far-reaching sanctions on settlers. We oppose the violent expansion of settlements in the occupied territories, which are illegal under international law, and we will continue to do so. \p Rachel Hopkins: I thank the Minister for his often candid comments in this Chamber, but we will continue to come here and ask questions, since our constituents continue to be horrified—as we are—by the devastation that is playing out in Gaza. The UN has stated that action must be taken now to prevent genocide, so does the Minister understand that when our constituents hear a legal response, they remain so frustrated, and that they want to see tangible action? \p Hamish Falconer: I do understand the frustration of constituents; as I said earlier, that frustration is shared in Lincoln and across the country. Everybody in this House and everybody across the country wants to see an end to the awful scenes on our television screens. \p Iqbal Mohamed: The Minister has stated that the legality of the UK’s F-35 exports is currently being tested in the courts. In the High Court, the Government have made submissions that

“No evidence has been seen that Israel is deliberately targeting civilian women or children”,

and that there is

“also evidence of Israel making efforts to limit incidental harm to civilians.”

If the Government need to be shown evidence that Israel is deliberately targeting civilians, I suggest the Minister and his colleagues review the footage captured by the BBC of yesterday’s bombing of Gaza’s European hospital, the footage emerging from the Nasser hospital, the millions of hours of livestreamed footage available since 7 October, or the thousands of reports and articles published since. The past 18 months have seen a total war on all of Gaza, with acts of ethnic cleansing and extermination, according to the UN. Does the UK deny the existence of that evidence, and if so, have the Government committed perjury? \p Hamish Falconer: It is obviously inappropriate to try to rehearse submissions that are currently being heard by the court. \p Stella Creasy: The Minister knows this, but we should put on record that when President Netanyahu says there is “no way” he will stop his onslaught in Gaza, he does not do so with the consent of the hostage families, or indeed of the majority of people in Israel. Even President Trump is now avoiding him. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) is right: we have obligations too. I hear the Minister’s frustration, and I think that across this House we want to give him strength so that he can go further. He will have heard the calls for sanctions and reports to international criminal courts. Will he give us a vote in this place about immediately recognising Palestine, as we had in 2014, so that we can strengthen his negotiations with Israel and send a clear message that what is happening in Gaza is wrong and must stop? \p Hamish Falconer: I know that my hon. Friend has an incredibly brave and courageous constituent who is herself a member of a hostage family. Whenever I have seen her, her words ring in my ears, as do those of other hostage families, and I know they do so across the world. They are important views expressed by those who are most directly affected by the horrors of 7 October and all that followed.

I have already rehearsed some of the arguments in relation to recognition. \p Jack Rankin: I thank the Minister for his clarity that genocide is a legal test of whether a crime has been committed

“with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group”.

That is exactly what the Hamas terrorist group state in their foundational charter: the intent to destroy Israel and Jews worldwide, as they actively sought to do on 7 October. If they wanted to end the war, Hamas would release the 58 hostages they continue to hold. How is the Minister supporting our friend and ally, the democracy Israel, in its fight against this genocidal terrorist group? \p Hamish Falconer: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the horrors of what Hamas have done, and the ugly and unacceptable rhetoric they have often employed, not just towards Israelis but towards Jews everywhere, and I recognise the anxiety in this country about the rise in antisemitic rhetoric ever since 7 October. As I said earlier, Israel is our ally, and we have stood with her  when she faces legitimate security threats. We have always urged her, as a friend, to abide by international humanitarian law. Where there is a risk that she does not, we make that clear, as we have discussed over the course of this afternoon. \p Laurence Turner: I preface my question by saying that no Member of this House should doubt the dedication and compassion with which the Minister fulfils his duties. Over the past few days, the World Health Organisation has warned that Gazans face intergenerational scarring as a result of hunger in the territory. The WHO quoted figures produced by the Gazan Health Ministry, which held that 55 children have died as a result of malnutrition. What assessment do the UK Government make of the extent of malnutrition in Gaza and the number of deaths attributable to starvation as a result of Israel’s refusal to allow aid to enter the strip? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend asks important questions, and I know that he follows these issues closely. The most up-to-date and authoritative assessment of those questions is Monday’s IPC assessment. We are considering it in detail—its findings are appalling. We are not yet able to fully delineate the link between aid restrictions and those findings in the level of detail that my hon. Friend has described, but the connection is obvious. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Judith Cummins: Order. I am looking to finish this urgent question at around 2 o’clock, so I would appreciate it if Members kept their questions pithy and the Minister kept his answers pithy, as would the rest of the House. \p Andrew George: I have recently returned from a visit to the Occupied Palestinian Territories with the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam). We were expecting an appalling situation, but it was far, far worse. Israeli Ministers are gleefully calling for the bombing of food warehouses because they believe it will help bring victory—in their eyes. It is clear that Israeli hostages are being used as a pretext to continue the slaughter and starvation in Gaza.

Although I recognise the Minister’s sincere compassion in the way he has expressed himself on this issue, it is clear that he comes to this Chamber with a straitjacket around him. What we need here is the Prime Minister, who can make the decisions; otherwise, we are not going to see any action on arms supplies, on trade or in any other area, including recognition of the state of Palestine. If the Minister cannot do those things, can he at least recognise the right of Palestinians to statehood? \p Judith Cummins: Order. I call the Minister. \p Hamish Falconer: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman was able to travel; as I have said before from the Dispatch Box, I recognise the importance of Members from across the House seeing these situations up close and being able to form their own judgments. I am the relevant Minister, and I speak with the authority of the Government. \p Rupa Huq: The Minister, who is a good man, recognises that the 70-day aid blockade has made starvation widespread in Gaza. During the recess, I was on a delegation with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). We were nearby in Egypt, and we heard real fears that annexation of both Gaza and the west bank is near-inevitable. The Minister has told us what steps he has taken up until now, but there has been a clear escalation, so can he please give us some hope that there are further levers that can be pulled? We do not want to be on the wrong side of history. \p Hamish Falconer: I will not speculate about further actions, but I recognise, as I did in my previous answer, how welcome it is that my hon. Friend has travelled to the region. Egypt is an important partner for the UK on this question. I saw the vital role that it is playing in supporting healthcare for injured Palestinian children. I saw injured Palestinian children myself in al-Arish hospital, and I was pleased while I was there to announce a £1 million UK contribution to ensure that Palestinian civilians displaced into Egypt get the help and healthcare that they need. \p Liz Saville-Roberts: The UN says that Israel’s denial of aid is evidence of

“the systematic dismantling of Palestinian life”.

There is therefore a risk that we are witnesses to genocide. The Minister’s Government can reinstate airlifts of aid along the lines of those arranged last year, which would send a powerful message. Will the Minister act now and enable aid airlifts? \p Hamish Falconer: We have supported airlifts in the past, as I am sure the right hon. Lady knows, and we were glad to work with our Jordanian partners on that question. I have to be straightforward with the House: given the scale of need in Gaza, we should not be displaced from the central question, which is ensuring that the road crossings open. That is the only way to get aid in at the scale required. \p Matt Western: Things should have been clear at the outset when Yoav Gallant, the former Israeli Defence Minister, said that Israel will “eliminate everything”. Some 18 months and 52,000 deaths later, Israel Katz, also a Defence Minister in Israel, stated that blocking aid was being used to “pressure” Hamas, making starvation an openly stated Israeli weapon of war. Elimination, eradication or genocide—as Tom Fletcher said, can this Government now urgently act to prevent it? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend asks important questions, and I have been clear from this Dispatch Box, and I am clear again, that aid must not be used as a pressure tool, it must not be used as political leverage and it must not be used as a military tactic. \p Ayoub Khan: We have had truly shocking statements in this Chamber. The Foreign Secretary suggested that not enough Palestinians had been killed for it to constitute a genocide. The Prime Minister stated that although he understood the definition of genocide, he did not refer to it as a genocide. The Minister repeats that it is a matter for the International Court of Justice. If that is the case, why  are Government lawyers advancing submissions that no genocide has been conducted when it comes to the sale of F-35 parts? \p Hamish Falconer: As I have said, I am not going to try to litigate the submissions of the court case on the questions that we have described. I have addressed the issues repeatedly in this House. I have always been clear that we would defend that case, and that is what we are doing, and we will see the judgment of the judges. \p Sonia Kumar: Currently, 4,000 newborns in Gaza are unable to access essential lifesaving care due to the destruction of medical facilities. Severe malnutrition and the death of critically ill children is now a daily reality. In the light of the ongoing suffering of children, does the Minister agree that it is time for the UK to go further in its actions and find alternative ways to get critical medicines into Gaza, protect those vulnerable children and ensure humanitarian access into Gaza? Will he consider alternative routes for those children who desperately need critical care? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend is committed to these questions. I responded to an earlier question by emphasising the central importance of road routes in ensuring aid of the scale required. However, I assure the House that we continue to look at what alternatives we can find to help where we can. That has included supporting a small number of Gazan children to get access to specialist healthcare here in the UK, which they are currently accessing. Where we can help, we will help, but I must be honest with the House about the scale of aid that is required if the IPC findings of Monday are to be averted. \p Shockat Adam: Three weeks ago, while I was in the west bank, I spoke to a young Palestinian refugee mother who asked me, with tears in her eyes, “Why has the world forgotten us?” My response then has been echoed today: the world has not forgotten them, but what we have done is fail them completely. The failure looks like this: the United Nations has now confirmed that since March, more than 100 children every single day have been killed or injured. Imagine if it was our children. If, God forbid, 100 European children or 100 Israeli children were being killed every single day, would we be supplying even a penknife to the perpetrators of the crime—yes or no? \p Hamish Falconer: The death of any child is a tragedy. I have set out already the steps that we have taken in relation to arms suspensions. I reassure those watching not from the UK, as I reassured the Jordanian MPs whom I saw this morning, that nobody has forgotten about Gaza—not in this House, and not in this country. It will continue to be an issue of first-rank importance for this Government, and I will continue to work every day to try to see the changes we have described this afternoon. \p Ian Byrne: The Minister has touched on the UK Government supplying the global pool of components for F-35 jets for international security and peace. Considering that we are seeing the live-streaming of a genocide against the Palestinian  people—F-35s are a crucial part of that, and are being used to bomb civilian camps and hospitals—are the Government considering whether Israel, given its actions, should be part of that global pool? \p Hamish Falconer: I do not wish to seem evasive, but when these questions are being determined in the court this week, I do not want to get ahead of those submissions and those discussions. \p Jim Shannon: Some thanks should be given to the Minister for his temperament, his well-chosen words and his reaction to all the questions. He has shown incredible patience, and we all admire him for that. Undoubtedly, there are innocent people who are suffering and have been suffering since Hamas’s genocidal attacks on 7 October. The suffering of Israeli and Palestinian children means that we must find a way forward to secure peace, so how does the Minister believe we can further push for the aim of peace and make the welfare of the children in this region—the innocents—a priority? \p Hamish Falconer: The hon. Gentleman is unfailing in his courtesy, and I am grateful for it again this afternoon. He asks the vital, central question: how can we return to a diplomatic process that provides for security and stability in the region? It must be in accordance with the Arab reconstruction plan, with no place for Hamas in the future, an immediate release of hostages, an immediate return of aid and a return to a diplomatic process that can provide for security and stability for two states side by side. \p Johanna Baxter: My constituents write to me on an almost daily basis, horrified by the humanitarian catastrophe unfolding before our very eyes. The denial of aid to innocent Palestinians is not only intolerable, but unconscionable. My hon. Friend was right earlier when he talked about deeds, not words, so what does further pressure on Israel look like? What practical measures will our Government take to prevent genocide, in line with our international legal obligations? \p Hamish Falconer: I can reassure my hon. Friend and her constituents in Paisley that we discuss these matters urgently with our friends and allies, and we will always abide by our international legal obligations, including those she mentions. \p Paula Barker: Given the genocide we are witnessing unfold before our eyes every single day, will the Government drop the 2030 road map for UK-Israel bilateral relations and impose economic and diplomatic sanctions to apply pressure on Israel to abide by its obligations under international law? \p Hamish Falconer: I thank my hon. Friend for her continued engagement in these questions. As you would expect, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am afraid that I will not be speculating on further sanctions from the Dispatch Box this afternoon. \p John Slinger: I acknowledge the dedication of my hon. Friend and British diplomats in this regard, but my constituents are deeply concerned. Does he  agree that the Israeli Security Cabinet’s recent plans are completely unacceptable? Its aid blockade is also totally unconscionable. We must make plain to this Israeli Government that we and the international community will not tolerate this, and that as in other theatres of conflict, we will consider all practical steps, including military aid drops, to get aid through to those who need it. \p Hamish Falconer: I recognise the concern that my hon. Friend’s constituents will be feeling, but I can reassure him that we are considering all measures to try to ensure that aid gets into Gaza. I regret that there is no alternative to road access, given the scale of the aid required, but we will continue to work on these questions with the urgency that he has described. I am grateful for his words about British diplomats. Let me reassure the House that not only the ministerial team but the diplomatic service of the United Kingdom works on these questions each and every day, includes in yesterday afternoon’s session of the UN Security Council. \p Kim Johnson: The 10 long weeks since the Israeli blockade began have brought famine to the region, while food is rotting across the border and the Israeli Government are lying and denying the scale of the atrocities. Israel’s Defence Minister, Israel Katz, has been quoted as saying that the blockade is a “main pressure lever” to secure victory. When will the UK Government, as a member of the UN Security Council, impose meaningful sanctions to stop the genocide that we are seeing? \p Hamish Falconer: We have covered sanctions and determinations, but I can reassure my hon. Friend that we consider our position on the Security Council to be an important responsibility, which is why we called the meeting yesterday that has led to so much of the discussion this afternoon. \p Emily Darlington: In the scenes and pictures that we are seeing, many of our constituents are looking for family members. One such family member is Dr Radi, who is stuck in north Gaza and is very ill and frail, and whose son and daughter-in-law are important NHS doctors in my constituency. What are we doing to ensure that there is a way for people who need care and are stuck in Gaza to come out, and to be cared for by family members here? \p Hamish Falconer: It is a top priority for me, and for my officials, to ensure that British nationals or their dependants who are in danger in Gaza are able to leave safely. I do not wish to comment on the specifics, but I am happy to take up that case and others with my hon. Friend and any other Members whose constituents are in similar circumstances. \p Tony Vaughan: I, too, thank the Minister for all his work on this issue. Given the UK’s commitment to a two-state solution, and given our obligations under international law, can he explain how the Government justify engaging in trade negotiations with Israel while the UN is warning us about genocide in Gaza, and does he agree that pursuing a trade deal in these circumstances would undermine  both our ability to broker a two-state solution and our positive obligation to act to prevent violations of international law? \p Hamish Falconer: I can assure the House that my focus is on the matters that we have discussed this afternoon. They are urgent and immediate, and they crowd out all other priorities. \p Brian Leishman: The truth is that there is no need for any organisation to tell the public that what is happening is genocide. After all, we have seen the attempted extermination of the Palestinian people televised live for over a year now. I put it to the Minister that this Government will be remembered as having been complicit in, and accomplices to, the war crime being committed by Israel. What actually has to happen before our Government will take meaningful action in the name of humanity and decency? \p Hamish Falconer: On the very first day I became a Minister, we restored funding to UNRWA, and within weeks we had taken the far-reaching actions that I have described in relation to arms sales. I understand the force of the question, and I understand the feeling of our constituents throughout the country, in my constituency of Lincoln and elsewhere, but let us not pretend that this Government have taken the same steps as the previous Government. We took a series of steps, and we took them quickly and decisively.

I am not suggesting to the hon. Member that what we have done is enough—no one could hear this discussion and think it is enough; no one could have listened to the UN Security Council yesterday afternoon and think it is enough. But there is a difference between saying that there is more to be done and saying that nothing has been done. \p Laura Kyrke-Smith: After 70 days of aid being blockaded, we are watching an entirely preventable famine unfold in real time in Gaza. Meanwhile, the Israeli Government’s anti-NGO Bill seeks to restrict the ability of lifesaving humanitarians to operate, and instead militarises aid delivery in violation of international humanitarian law. I thank the Minister for all his efforts and for his challenge on this point, but will he continue to challenge the Israeli Government on it, and does he agree that there has to be accountability? \p Hamish Falconer: I am familiar with the draft legislation in the Knesset, and we are engaging on the questions it raises. \p Polly Billington: I thank my hon. Friend for all his work—it must sometimes feel very lonely on that Front Bench—and particularly welcome the urgent session that we managed to secure at the United Nations, but things have become more difficult in recent days, and we must ask whether we are doing enough with our allies on a number of fronts, particularly recognition. A private letter has been sent by dozens of my colleagues on this side of the House, and there is unity on both sides of the House in favour of recognition of the state of Palestine, action on sanctions for Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, and on the violent settlements. Above all, can we please rule out a trade deal? \p Hamish Falconer: I am genuinely grateful to all Members across the House who ask me questions and seek me out across the Palace to convey the force of their views on this. I have seen the letter to which my hon. Friend has referred, and I recognise, given the strength of feeling in all parts of the House, that I will be returning here almost daily. We will continue to work on the issues that my hon. Friend has outlined. I will not rehearse answers to her substantive policy questions, but I assure her that I will continue to engage with those on the Government Benches and others on the important questions that are being raised. \p Kirsty Blackman: (Urgent Question): To ask the Leader of the House if she will make a statement on Government compliance with the general principles set out in paragraph 9.1 of the ministerial code. \p Lucy Powell: The ministerial code is clear:

“When Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of government policy should be made in the first instance in Parliament.”

That is an important principle by which this Government stand. Already in this Session there have been 146 oral statements in just 133 sitting days—more than one per day, and more than the previous Government made in the entirety of their last Session. They have included six important statements from the Prime Minister and more than 20 from the Foreign Office, as well as statements on very important issues such as today’s statement on infected blood.

The Government and I take our obligations to Parliament very seriously, and the Prime Minister and I remind Cabinet colleagues of that regularly. There are also other ways by which the Government keep the House updated, including written ministerial statements—of which there have been 633 so far in this Session—responses and appearances before Select Committees, and thousands of responses to parliamentary questions.

Although the Government remain committed to making the most important announcements on the Floor of the House, we need to balance that with other demands on the House’s time, especially when there is great interest in the other business of the day. On occasion, developments and announcements will happen when the House is not sitting, or will emerge later in the sitting day. That is why it is not always possible to make every announcement to the House first. It is also important that Members have enough time to read and digest any relevant documents, and that they are given advance notice in order to be able to question a Minister effectively and seek answers.

However, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I take this aspect of the ministerial code incredibly seriously, and I will continue to work with Mr Speaker and colleagues across the House to ensure that Parliament is respected, Members are informed, the Government are scrutinised effectively, and announcements are made to this House first. \p Kirsty Blackman: In recent times we have seen an increasing trend of the Government failing to make statements to the House first, despite there being no barrier to them doing so. Last Thursday was a mess, with the Minister of State for Business and Trade trying to withdraw the statement on the UK-US trade agreement, despite Members having waited here for seven hours for the statement to materialise.

The decision to abolish NHS England was relayed to the House on 13 March, having been trailed in the media beforehand. On Wednesday 12 March, an urgent question was granted on an announcement that had been made the day before on the sustainable farming incentive being cancelled. On 6 March, a consultation  on North sea energy that had been announced to the media the day before was relayed to the House in a statement. In February, the Government changed the refugee citizenship rules, and they still have not informed the House. On Monday this week, the Prime Minister announced the contents of the immigration White Paper via a speech that mirrored Enoch Powell, despite Parliament sitting later that day.

This is a consistent pattern of behaviour by the UK Government. I am concerned that there is little point in having a ministerial code if the Government can ignore one of the key principles with no sanction and apparently no consequences. The Government are nearly a year into their term, so disorganisation or a lack of familiarity with the rules can surely no longer be cited as reasons for consistent breaches of the code. I believe that the UK Government should adhere to the principles set out in the ministerial code, and that the Leader of the House must urgently set out how she intends to improve the situation and ensure that there is adherence. \p Lucy Powell: I thank the hon. Lady for raising this urgent question, and I welcome the opportunity to emphasise that I take these matters very seriously. We have made a number of very big announcements to the House, often responding to world events in real time. I recognise—and I hope she will respect this—that there are judgments to be made and, at times, a balance to be struck, and I have the best interests of the House in mind.

Although the hon. Lady did not say so, there have been many times in this parliamentary Session when statements have been made to this House long before the media or anybody else were aware of them—for example, on prison capacity, increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, the response to the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s report into the women’s state pension age, and many others. On many of those occasions, the criticism that I received was that Members did not have enough time to properly consider the details of the statements before having the opportunity to question the Minister. Hard copies of the immigration White Paper, which is a lengthy and detailed document, were made available in the Table Office at 9.30 that morning to allow Members ample time to read and consider it before questioning the Home Secretary on the Floor of the House in a session that lasted an hour and 25 minutes.

The hon. Lady raised last Thursday’s statement on the US trade deal, and I think we can all recognise that that did not happen exactly as we would have liked. International events are often outside our control, and they do not take account of UK parliamentary sitting hours. The Trade Minister made an oral statement to the House as soon as he was able to do so, and I was trying to get the balance right. We wanted to make a statement when the maximum number of Members were here; otherwise, it would not have been made for several days, because it was a Thursday and the House was rising.

We are doing a lot. We are getting on with delivering on a huge number of policies, and we have signed unprecedented trade deals with other countries. The US trade deal, which is delivering lower tariffs for steel and car manufacturing, is absolutely critical, as is the India trade deal, which is delivering for Scottish distilleries and for Scotland. We are always trying to get the  balance right, and I want to emphasise my commitment to making sure that when announcements can be made to this House first, they absolutely are. \p Judith Cummins: I call the shadow Leader of the House. \p Jesse Norman: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) for raising this urgent question. As she has highlighted, there is a consistent pattern of failure to report first to this House, as is required by the ministerial code. She has rightly drawn attention to the farcical scenes that we had with the Trade Minister being required to deliver a statement, then having to be UQ’d the following Monday. He tried to give the same statement, without any recognition, and was rebuked by Mr Speaker for not knowing the difference.

Back in October we had the embarrassing sight of the Chancellor announcing intended changes to the Government’s fiscal rules to the media before informing Parliament, and having to be publicly rebuked by Mr Speaker for doing so. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North has mentioned a number of other cases. I would highlight the Secretary of State for Education announcing tuition fees to the press before Parliament in November, the Deputy Prime Minister announcing planning reforms before the final national planning policy framework update was publicly available, and a Ministry of Defence leak on the global combat air programme in December.

As we all know, the ministerial code—the Government took great credit for seeking to strengthen it on entering office—makes very plain what the rule is. It does not say, “Judgments are to be made.” It says, “The first announcement must be made to Parliament when the most important announcements of government policy are made.” It does not say, “By the way, you can prioritise these things.” Does anyone seriously think that an announcement on trade, on planning, on tuition fees or on the global combat air programme would not be of the first importance to this House? No, because every single one of those would be vital.

It is not just a matter of the ministerial code and ministerial accountability. These decisions are made in breach of the Nolan principles of openness and the requirement for accountability, and they are made in breach of Labour’s own manifesto promise to

“restore confidence in government and ensure ministers are held to the highest standards.”

Will the right hon. Lady encourage the independent adviser to make an inquiry, and will she look to the Cabinet Secretary to do the same with civil servants? Will she and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, look to Mr Speaker for adequate enforcement of the present rules, which are being widely flouted? \p Lucy Powell: I gently remind the right hon. Gentleman that the ministerial code says that

“when Parliament is in session”,

announcements will be made to this House first. I also remind him that announcements can be made via written ministerial statements and other things as well. There is a balance to be struck, and we try to do that in the best interests of the House.

The right hon. Gentleman describes this as business question bingo. I will give him bingo: I am not going to take a lecture from him on these matters. This Government have done twice as many oral statements as his Government did in the same number of sitting days. We are ensuring that there is proper time to scrutinise Government bills—something that they did not do. We are answering significantly more written parliamentary questions than his Government ever did.

I have to remind the House that the right hon. Gentleman’s Government illegally prorogued Parliament when they could not get their own way—something that he went out and defended to his constituents. The Conservatives had a Prime Minister who was found guilty of misleading this House—something that the right hon. Gentleman also defended. When an MP broke the standards rules, the Conservatives tried to change them. They had to be dragged here time and again. This Government respects Parliament. We stand up for the rights of Parliament. His Government traduced them. \p Richard Baker: Does the Minister agree that there is a certain irony in the SNP raising this matter, given the regularity with which SNP Ministers trail Scottish Government announcements in the press before coming to the Chamber in Holyrood? That was certainly the case when I served as a Member of the Scottish Parliament. It is vital that important announcements on key areas of policy are made in this House first, so is it not right that this Government have come forward with so many oral statements on key areas of policy, including the vital trade deal that we have recently secured with India, which is of such importance to the Scottish economy? \p Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend makes a really good point: the trade deal with India is really good for Scottish distilleries. It will bring in over £1 billion of additional trade for the Scottish whisky sector. I was not aware of his experience in the Scottish Parliament, but he makes a very good point. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Marie Goldman: I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) for securing this urgent question. All of us in this Chamber were elected to represent our constituents and to put the interests of the country first, and to do that we must be able to scrutinise the Government’s plans and policies. The best way to do that is in this Chamber and as soon as possible, so we are disappointed that they have chosen to make announcements in this way.

We also note that this is not the first time. The shadow Leader of the House has mentioned various examples, and I would like to add some more. On the NHS, for example, the Government have, without any statement in the Chamber, made key decisions such as dropping cross-party talks on social care, cutting integrated care board budgets by 50% and scrapping nearly half of NHS targets. The question must be: why are the Government so worried about bringing these issues to the Floor first? \p Lucy Powell: I thank the hon. Member for that question, but I have to disagree with her analysis. The Secretary of State for Health and his Ministers have made eight oral statements to the House so far this Session, nearly all of which have been taken by the Secretary of State himself, and they have lasted for a long time. They have been answering many written parliamentary questions, laying written ministerial statements and appearing before Select Committees. The Prime Minister himself has made six oral statements to this House, and has appeared before the Liaison Committee twice already in this Session, far outstripping his predecessors’ record. So we are accountable, although of course we can always do better and improve, which is what we seek to do. We are so busy as a Government in getting on with delivering the change that people have voted for, but we are doing our best to inform the House. \p Alan Gemmell: At points over the last few years, the most senior SNP leaders in Scotland have been under police investigation, while their Government are failing, with Ayrshire ferries that should have cost £80 million costing half a billion and being years late, one in six Scots being on waiting lists and the shambolic creation of Social Security Scotland costing double at £700 million. With this constant waste of taxpayers’ money, does the Leader of the House agree that the SNP should not be looked to as the model of good government? \p Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend makes the very important point that we should all hold ourselves to high standards of accountability and transparency, and perhaps the Scottish nationalist party should do that as the Scottish Government. \p Julian Lewis: The right hon. Lady is an attentive Leader of the House, and I hope the Government show the same degree of loyalty to her after a tough couple of weeks that she is showing to them. Although I do acknowledge that the Government make many statements to the House, all too often they make them to the media first, as you noted, Madam Deputy Speaker, in your announcement on Monday:

“Mr Speaker does not understand why the Government persist in making announcements in this way, when the ministerial code is absolutely clear”.—[Official Report, 12 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 47.]

Will the Leader of the House take back the message, even if she cannot confess it on the Floor of the House, that they are going too far and they need to stop? \p Lucy Powell: First, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his very kind remarks. He is a very attentive Member in raising matters with me at business questions where the Government are falling short of our commitment to transparency and openness on ministerial questions, correspondence and so on, which I follow up for him.

As I said in my opening remarks, we endeavour to make these important announcements to the House first when the House is in session. Obviously, the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that at times those announcements are not made because the House is not in session or we want to give Members ample time to fully consider the detailed documentation sitting alongside them. I reassure him, however, that I speak to my Cabinet colleagues about this very regularly, as does the  Prime Minister, and I speak to Mr Speaker about it as well, and we will continue to raise our game to ensure that big, important statements are brought to the House. \p Alex Barros-Curtis: Further to the detail the Leader of the House has set out in her response to the urgent question, can she say a little more about the modernisation agenda she is championing? I refer Members to the fact that I am a member of the Modernisation Committee, which is so ably chaired by the Leader of the House. Does she agree that all Members on both sides of the House should take the agenda seriously, so that we can faithfully and to the fullest of our ability serve the constituents whom we are here to serve? \p Lucy Powell: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that. As a member of the Modernisation Committee, he knows that I am determined to ensure that this House of Commons, and Parliament, becomes and remains the crucible of national debate once again—if, indeed, it ever was enough of a crucible—and that is one of the agendas we are delivering. I want to ensure that all Members across the House—particularly, those from the smaller parties who, in our new multi-party House of Commons, perhaps do not have the access that others do—have ample opportunity to scrutinise Government legislation and make the most of this House of Commons. I want to proceed on the basis of cross-party agreement, so that every Member of this House feels they are able to scrutinise and hold to account the Government of the day. \p Brendan O'Hara: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) for securing this urgent question. It is not the first time that she has had to raise this issue during her parliamentary career. It appears that whoever is on the Government Benches conveniently forgets everything they said when they were on the Opposition Benches. The Leader of the House will recall the former shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Walsall and Bloxwich (Valerie Vaz), warning the then Tory Government:

“Parliament must be told first: we are not irrelevant.”—[Official Report, 19 March 2020; Vol. 673, c. 1169.]

That warning is as true for this Labour Government as it was for the previous Tory Administration. Is what we are witnessing a case of acute amnesia or simply a belief that it is now their turn to treat Members of the House with contempt? \p Lucy Powell: I disagree with the hon. Member’s analysis. As I have made absolutely clear, this Government have made 145 statements in 133 sitting days, which is more than one a day. The vast majority of those oral statements have been made by Secretaries of State, which we did not see under the previous Government. Indeed, for many months, I and others were calling for the then Foreign Secretary to come to this House to answer questions, which the previous Government blocked because he was in the other place. We have laid 633 written statements and answered thousands more parliamentary questions in this Session. I take very seriously our duty to lay ourselves open for transparency, scrutiny and openness with this House, and we will continue to strive for ever-increasing respect and standards. \p Graeme Downie: As the Member of Parliament for Dunfermline and Dollar—which was, after all, where the infamous campervan was found—I have had a front row seat for the SNP’s commitment to transparency. Having heard more from SNP Members about their position on transparency and openness, does the Leader of the House agree that it is scandalous for them to raise transparency when it took freedom of information requests to find out more about when the former First Minister met the President of Turkey to discuss, among other issues, Scottish trade? \p Lucy Powell: I think my hon. Friend makes a very good point, and I do not need to add to it. \p Jeremy Wright: I think it would be fair to say that this is not the first Government who have disregarded this particular provision of the ministerial code, but may I put it to the Leader of the House that if the charge is that the Government, for their own calculated and tactical advantage, have breached the ministerial code by announcing something outside this Chamber, surely the person determining whether such a breach has occurred cannot be the leader of that Government? Is it not time to look again at the recommendations made by, among others, the Committee on Standards in Public Life, of which I was once a member, about how the decision maker as to whether the ministerial code has been breached should be the independent adviser on ministerial standards, not the Prime Minister? \p Lucy Powell: The right hon. and learned Member will know that the independent adviser on the ministerial code appointed by the previous Government was reappointed by this Government, and that the independent adviser’s powers were strengthened to be able to initiate inquiries. Those inquiries do not now need to be initiated by the Prime Minister.

We are raising standards when it comes to Members of Parliament, and Ministers as well. We are holding ourselves accountable to much higher standards than happened under the previous Government. I would just reiterate for the House that the ministerial code says:

“When Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of government policy should be made in the first instance in Parliament.”

There are times when Parliament is not in session, and announcements are brought to the House at other times. \p Shaun Davies: As a new Member of this House, I have noticed that on almost every single day on which Parliament sits, there is a statement from the Government, alongside, quite rightly, urgent questions. Will the Leader of the House use the Modernisation Committee to look at more ways that we can scrutinise the work of the Government without slowing down the delivery of government, which is needed to rebuild Britain? \p Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend makes a good point about the balance of business in a day. We are bringing forward a number of key pieces of legislation, and hon. Members from across the House want ample time to scrutinise that legislation. Obviously, statements and urgent questions can eat into the time for doing that; a balance needs to be struck. The Modernisation Committee  is looking at these issues—at how we can best use parliamentary time to ensure that the Government are adequately scrutinised and held accountable, including by Back Benchers, every sitting day. \p Luke Evans: I was here on Thursday, responding as shadow health Minister to the debate on brain tumours. The debate was brought forward because of the delay to the statement on the US trade deal. We were waiting for almost an hour for that statement. Can the Leader of the House confirm that there was no pressure from the Prime Minister, or indeed Donald Trump, to ensure that the announcement was made? She has repeatedly referred to what happens if the House is not sitting, but the House was sitting all day on Thursday. In fact, many Members had to change travel plans and meetings to be in the Chamber. The business was changed purely so that a press conference could happen before the statement in the Chamber. Can she rule out pressure from the Prime Minister or Donald Trump on this occasion? \p Lucy Powell: I absolutely can rule that out. As I said, an agreement on the very important UK-US trade deal was emerging, and events were fast-moving; the timing was changing throughout the day. The deal was not agreed until the announcement was made. We were trying to balance those factors throughout the day. It was made clear to the House earlier in the day that there would be a statement once it could happen, and the Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security came to this House as soon as possible. We were mindful of the fact that there were many people in the Gallery for the Backbench Business debate on brain tumours, which the hon. Gentleman talked about. We were trying to not disrupt the business of the House that day, but sometimes big global events happen, and the people in charge of those big global events are not considering the sitting hours, or the wellbeing of Members of Parliament. The timing was not the Prime Minister’s, either. \p Jim Allister: Is the ministerial code binding, optional, or merely aspirational? Given the blatant disregard of what the code says about making statements, can the House have confidence that Ministers adhere diligently to the other requirements of the code? \p Lucy Powell: Ministers are subject to the ministerial code, and the Prime Minister judges Ministers by their adherence to it. As I said, the independent adviser on the ministerial code has a new power, given to him by the Prime Minister, to instigate inquiries relating to the ministerial code. I reiterate that the ministerial code says:

“When Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of government policy should be made in the first instance in Parliament.”

There are many ways in which that can be done, other than through oral statements on the Floor of the House. \p Harriet Cross: In early November, Mr Speaker asked the Secretary of State for Education in this Chamber to start a leak inquiry to find out why the announcement that tuition fees would be raised was first made to the press, rather than the  House. It is now mid-May. Will the Leader of the House please update us on when that inquiry will report? Has it actually begun? \p Lucy Powell: The Secretary of State for Education made absolutely clear to the House, then and on a subsequent occasion, her fury that elements of the announcement were leaked moments before she stood at the Dispatch Box to make a very important announcement to this House. The announcement had hitherto been kept completely under wraps, and no one had sight of it. She has spoken to Mr Speaker about that. I will ensure that any findings from that investigation are reported to the hon. Lady. \p Dave Doogan: We have seen the contempt in which the Government hold the WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—women, pensioners and the disabled, and their contempt for Scotland’s energy sector, job creators and the hospice sector, but that is all a function of policy. Policy is discretional and therefore, for better or worse—usually worse—legitimate. Adhering to the ministerial code is not a matter of discretion. To be honest, it is a little beneath the Leader of the House to say, “We don’t announce things to Parliament first every time, but we do some of the time, and sometimes the House isn’t sitting.” Every example presented to her today relates to a time when the House was sitting. When will she relay to the Government and the Prime Minister that Members are severely annoyed by the Government’s repeated inaction? For her information, contrary to what is being said by the three Scottish craws sitting on a wall behind her, there is no such duty on Scottish Government Ministers as that set out in section 9.1 of the ministerial code.[Official Report, 19 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 782.] (Correction) \p Lucy Powell: As I have made clear, we take the ministerial code, and respect for this House and Parliament, incredibly seriously. We have driven up standards in that regard—standards that were, as I have said, woefully not upheld by the previous Government, who disregarded Parliament time after time. Can things improve? Can we do better? Of course we can, and we do our very best to. I remind the House that many times, when statements have been made to this House first, I have got the criticism from many colleagues that they were not able to consider the issues properly before questioning the Minister. We need to get that right, too. We are doing our very best, and we will continue to drive up standards. \p Iqbal Mohamed: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) for her urgent question. The people of Britain have lost faith in politics and politicians. It is really important that what we do in this place, since the Labour Government came to power and from this day forward, is aimed at rebuilding that trust. What reassurance will the Minister give me, other Members of this House and our electorate that the Government will not deliberately or knowingly breach the ministerial code going forward? \p Lucy Powell: As I have said, I am determined to ensure that the House of Commons becomes and remains the crucible of national debate, and has the highest standards and the best behaviour and culture. We have been looking at some of those issues on the Modernisation Committee. We must also ensure that independent Members  like the hon. Gentleman and the smaller parties have their voice heard in this House. I think this House has shown itself at times to have all those things. I have taken steps to raise standards by taking action on MPs’ second jobs, and to ensure that those who misbehave are not on the estate and have action taken against them. I will continue to do that. I hope that he, the smaller parties and other parties across the House will join us in taking steps to ensure that we have the best behaviour and the highest standards, and that this House can hold the Government to account and be the crucible of national debate that we all want it to be. \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the Government’s work to respond to the recommendations made in the infected blood inquiry’s 20 May 2024 report. I am grateful for the opportunity to update the House on this work.

On 20 May 2024, the then Prime Minister issued an apology on behalf of the state for the devastating impact that the use of infected blood and infected blood products has had on countless lives. That was echoed by the current Prime Minister, who was then on the Opposition Front Bench. I once again reiterate that apology wholeheartedly. No Member of this House will be in any doubt of the harm resulting from the infected blood scandal. This Government are firm that we must listen to the infected blood community and the inquiry and make tangible changes to the way that our institutions conduct themselves. As the inquiry’s report made clear, however, an apology is meaningful only if it is accompanied by action, and I am here today to set out the actions we are taking to respond to the inquiry’s recommendations.

Last week, the inquiry held further hearings on the timeliness and adequacy of the Government’s response on compensation. I attended to give evidence, along with members of the community who have been impacted by this scandal; I encourage all Members to listen to the incredibly moving testimonies of those impacted. The inquiry has set out its intention to publish a further report, and the Government remain committed to co-operating with the inquiry and acting on its recommendations.

On 17 December 2024, the Government published our initial response to the inquiry’s recommendations. I laid before the House an accompanying written statement, in which I committed to come before the House with a comprehensive update on our response to each of the inquiry’s recommendations within a year of the inquiry’s report. This statement fulfils that commitment. I am grateful for the engagement of all Members across the House, and am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the Government’s progress today. Once again, I thank Sir Brian Langstaff and his team for their work. The recommendations he made are wide-ranging, well considered and necessarily detailed.

The Government have worked closely with the devolved Governments to make progress on the implementation of the recommendations, which we hope will lead to meaningful change. I am grateful to my ministerial colleagues for their co-operation, and in particular the Under-Secretary of State for Public Health and Prevention, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), for her leadership on the recommendations for which her Department is responsible. I also thank Health Ministers in the devolved Governments: the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health in Scotland, Jenni Minto; the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care in Wales, Jeremy Miles; and the Minister of Health in Northern Ireland, Mike Nesbitt. Their engagement has been invaluable in ensuring that our approach is as unified as possible across the whole  United Kingdom. The Government will continue to engage closely with the devolved Governments on issues such as support for advocacy charities and implementation by the national health service.

I recognise that for many in the community, the Government’s actions come after decades have passed. There is nothing that can put right the damage done by inaction on the part of multiple previous Governments, and it is not my intention for this statement to diminish that. My priority now is focusing on delivering meaningful change to ensure that the scandal of infected blood, among many other scandals, is never allowed to happen again.

I turn now to the recommendations. Alongside this statement, I have published an accompanying paper on gov.uk setting out in detail the Government’s response to each of the recommendations, and I will place a copy in the Libraries of the Houses. Equally, I am firm on the importance of these recommendations to the infected blood community, and I am writing today to community representatives to inform them of the publication of the Government’s response.

The UK and devolved Governments have accepted the inquiry’s recommendations either in full or in principle, and implementation is under way across Government, arm’s length bodies and healthcare settings. Where recommendations are accepted in principle, we have sought to explain the rationale for doing so, balancing agreement with the spirit of the recommendations and their implementation. Some are subject to future spending decisions by the Department of Health and Social Care.

I have noted the recommendations that have, quite rightly, drawn attention from across this House in previous debates, so I will take a moment to touch on those today. I turn first to the recommendation on compensation. I am grateful to those who have attended previous debates on this matter in the House; indeed, many are present today. The Infected Blood Compensation Authority delivered on the Government’s commitment to provide the first full compensation payments by the end of last year. IBCA publishes its data on compensation on a monthly basis; as of 6 May, payments totalling more than £96 million have been made. IBCA continues to scale up its operations to deliver compensation as quickly as possible and has confirmed plans to contact an average of 100 people every week to begin their claims. I am pleased to announce today that the interim chair, Sir Robert Francis KC, who developed vital work to inform the design of the compensation scheme and has overseen its delivery to this point, will continue in his role for a further 18 months.

Another recommendation of particular interest to right hon. and hon. Members is recommendation 10, relating to funding for charities providing patient advocacy services. I am pleased that last week, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), wrote to the charities confirming that £500,000 of funding has been made available for this financial year to ensure that the vital patient advocacy work they do for the infected blood community is sustained. Officials are now meeting the charities to begin the grant process to finalise the awards.

The Government recognise the importance of recommendation 5 on ending the defensive culture in the civil service. It is imperative we get this right so that the public can put their trust in institutions that have let down not just the infected blood community, but victims of other scandals that have taken place over decades. The Prime Minister has committed to legislation on a duty of candour, which he has confirmed will apply to public authorities and public servants, and include criminal sanctions. We are consulting on the issue and working to draft the best, most effective version of a Hillsborough law as part of our wider efforts to create a politics of public service.

The inquiry’s final recommendation relates to giving effect to the recommendations it has made. I am only too aware of the strength of feeling here and the need to ensure that the infected blood scandal does not fade from the public consciousness. A lot more needs to be done, and, as I made clear to the inquiry in my evidence last week, I am open to considering how we can improve the Government’s actions to ensure that we deliver justice for the victims of this devastating scandal. As progress continues to be made, my colleagues and I will report on the recommendations for which we are responsible. We are committed to transparency and accountability, and will be publishing the Government’s progress via a publicly accessible dashboard in due course, which will be regularly updated as progress is made.

The victims of this scandal have suffered immeasurably. I pay tribute once again to the infected blood community for their courage, perseverance and determination to demand justice for the wrongs that have been done to them. I hope that this update provides them with some reassurance that we are learning from and acting on the mistakes of the past, and that where there is more to do, this Government will do it. I commend this statement to the House. \p Judith Cummins: I call the shadow Minister. \p Mike Wood: I thank the Minister for his statement and for advance sight of it. The infected blood scandal is one of the clearest failures of the state and public services in recent years, causing enormous harm over many years to countless victims and their families. Next week marks the first anniversary of the publication of the inquiry’s report, and I add my thanks and those of my hon. and right hon. Friends to Sir Brian Langstaff and his team for their work and comprehensive report.

On 21 May last year, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) stood at the Government Dispatch Box and made clear his determination to act on the inquiry’s report. I pay tribute to his work and thank him for the advice and support that he has given to me and the shadow Cabinet Office team on this issue since the election.

I am pleased that the Paymaster General picked up from where his predecessor left off. As I have said previously, both sides of the House speak as one on this issue, but sadly there is nothing that we or the Government can do that will undo the terrible damage caused by this scandal. No amount of money will bring back those  who have been lost, and no amount of lessons learned can make up for the suffering of those who contracted serious illnesses because of contaminated blood, but Ww would be not only failing in our duty, but failing all those who have died and all those who continue to live with life-changing conditions if we did not take up this battle on their behalf.

To do this, we must directly address the profound distress, anger and fear that is being expressed by victims and their families at the pace of the roll-out of the full compensation scheme. Victims in recent hearings have referred to the wait as “torture” and “disgraceful”—to mention just a few cases. Of course, the gravity of those concerns has been underscored by the decision to re-open the infected blood inquiry for a further report on compensation. Although we support that decision, we need to make sure that it does not delay the proper compensation for those who have already lost so much.

With every week and month that passes, we know that more infected and affected individuals will, sadly, die before receiving their full and final compensation. This underscores the human cost of every single day of delay. Therefore, although I recognise that the compensation authority was set up precisely to be independent of Government in operational matters, I ask the Minister whether he is content with the current pace of delivery and, if not, what he and the Government are doing to help David Foley and his team to speed up pay-outs to dying victims.

Let me turn to other recommendations made by the inquiry. May I ask the Paymaster General what progress has been made on recommendation 6 on monitoring liver damage for people who are infected with hepatitis C? On recommendation 8, which is on finding the undiagnosed, what action has been taken to ensure that patients who had transfusions before 1996 are offered a blood test for hepatitis C? Can the Paymaster General update the House on how many such tests have so far been carried out, and what assessment he has made of the additional infected and affected patients who may now be eligible for compensation?

The journey to rebuild trust with the victims and their families will be long and requires not only words of apology and commitment but, crucially, demonstrable action that proves that the Government and, indeed, this House, are listening and responding. The acknowledgement that the current compensation scheme has not yet won the full trust and confidence of the community is a start, and I hope the Government will continue to take these concerns seriously to put in place the robust changes that are necessary. We will support them in that work. \p Gregory Stafford: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. \p Judith Cummins: Points of order come after the statement. \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: I think I can anticipate the hon. Gentleman’s point order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been reassured by the Department that the statement has been sent and is on its way; I hope that deals with that issue.

Let me say to the shadow Minister that the cross-party approach that we have taken has been very important. It was the approach, as he knows, that I took with my  predecessor, the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), to whom I have often paid tribute in this House for the diligent way in which he pursued this matter.

The shadow Minister asked me about the current pace of delivery. I am restless for progress, and will not be satisfied with the pace of delivery until everyone who is eligible for compensation has received it. He asked me about what we will do about the pace of compensation going forward. IBCA has adopted a test-and-learn approach, which has now been completed, and I expect to see a significant increase in the pace of the payments. While respecting IBCA’s operational independence, I will be holding it to account, and quite rightly I will be held to account by this House over the pace of payments. I also stand ready to assist IBCA in whatever way I can to speed up the payments.

On the monitoring of liver damage, a new surveillance registry will be set up. The shadow Minister asked about the blood test prior to 1996; I will ask the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire, who is beside me on the Front Bench, to write to the shadow Minister with the precise figures.

Overall, the whole House is united on this matter. We all want to see the pace of payments speed up, and that is exactly what I am seeking to do. \p Judith Cummins: Before I call any Member to speak, I would like to say that we have looked into Gregory Stafford’s point regarding the lack of copies of the statement. I understand that the Department has now sent the statement to the Vote Office, and it is currently being printed and will be with us shortly. I know that the Minister will be looking into this problem and I am sure that he is as dissatisfied with the situation as the House is. \p Andrew Cooper: I met two of my constituents who have been tragically affected by this scandal and attended the hearings last week. They told me what an emotional day it had been—almost like a family reunion in some ways—but they also spoke of their immense frustration at still having to fight through the long wait for justice that remains. They told me again that the pace of payments to victims and families is far too slow, and it is still unclear what evidence they need to provide to support their claim.

I welcome the fact that the Government have identified £11.8 billion to pay compensation, and that, for the first time, this has been properly budgeted for, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that the challenge now is to ensure that trust is built and maintained as we complete this process. Will he tell the House what he can do to ensure that the evidential requirements are clear to families to allow them to prepare for being contacted, that payments are accelerated, and that justice is delivered to everybody affected by this appalling scandal? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: The hearing last week was an extremely moving experience. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be aware of the evidence that I gave to the inquiry. His point about evidence is important. First, so much happened a long time ago, which makes evidence difficult to source. Secondly, Sir Brian Langstaff’s inquiry also identified evidence of deliberate document destruction.  For those two reasons in particular, it is essential that IBCA takes a sympathetic, enabling view to the evidence that is required and has caseworkers assisting victims in finding the evidence that they need. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Sarah Olney: I thank the Paymaster General for advance sight of his statement. The infected blood scandal is a harrowing story of people being failed not only by the medical professionals who treated them, but by the NHS, which should have been responsible for the safety of their treatment, and by a series of Governments who should have prevented such horror from ever taking place. As the Minister knows, I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues welcome the introduction of the infected blood compensation scheme. The Government were right to introduce the scheme at the start of the Parliament, and I am glad to hear the Minister say that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority is scaling up its operation. However, we are alarmed that the roll-out of the scheme has been far too slow, leaving victims without the justice that they deserve.

Victims and their families have been waiting for decades for answers and recognition of the suffering they endured. So far, only 106 people have received payments from IBCA, and 54 others have received offers. Compensation payouts are not due to conclude until 2029, and that date would rely on a rapid increase in the rate of payments. We are deeply concerned by the speed at which victims are receiving their long-overdue compensation, and I am glad that last week’s hearings looked into the adequacy and timeliness of the Government’s response. To echo the words of Sir Brian Langstaff,

“People infected and affected do not have time on their side.”

To that end, and to provide confidence to victims and their families, can the Paymaster General clarify what deadline he has for the implementation of the inquiry’s recommendations? Moreover, what further steps is he taking to increase the speed at which payments are being made, and can he confirm when all victims can expect to have received their long-overdue compensation? What more can be done to help those who need to provide proof of infection but whose medical records have been destroyed?

It is crucial that there are mechanisms in place to ensure that the concerns of charities, organisations and the affected individuals are heard. Supporting the work of those vital organisations and engaging with them to understand exactly the needs of those affected is crucial.

The Liberal Democrats are backing the survivors’ call for a duty of candour on all public officials. As such, I am glad to hear the sentiment behind the Government’s response to recommendation 5, but when will the Government bring forward proposals to that effect so that such a scandal is never repeated? Can the Paymaster General clarify why there has been a delay, given that relevant legislation was originally meant to be published in April? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: First, with regard to the current position on payments, just over £96 million has been paid, and IBCA has invited 677 claimants to begin the  process. I want to be clear about the 2029 date to which the hon. Lady referred. It is correct to say that there are, as I regard them, backstop dates of 2027 for the infected and 2029 for the affected, but that is what they are—backstops. They are not targets. The target is to make the payments as soon as possible.

The hon. Lady asked about evidence, which I dealt with in response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper). She refers to a situation where someone’s medical evidence has for whatever reason been destroyed, and that is precisely the kind of situation where we expect IBCA to take a sympathetic approach.

On the duty of candour, the Government remain committed to bringing in duty of candour legislation, but it is important that we get it right and ensure that the legislation will actually achieve the shared objective that I am sure the whole House has of trying to prevent this type of scandal from happening again. We must ensure that there are no unintended consequences, so it is because we want to get the legislation right that we are taking a bit more time. \p Ian Lavery: I thank the Paymaster General for his statement. I am in constant contact with the contaminated blood community, and they are furious and frustrated in equal measure at the lack of progress with the claims being processed. I was speaking to a haemophiliac, who as a child was unknowingly used for research all those years ago. He asked why it is that he is likely to get less in compensation after being used in an experiment than a drunken driver who crashed his car and needed a blood transfusion. I think that is a fair question. He also asked whether Members of this House understand the stress and mental torment that individuals are going through, when they are waiting on a Tuesday night for close of play to see whether they are one of the lucky hundred to have their claims processed the following week. I thank my right hon. Friend very much for everything he has done, but I think those are fair points. Does he think they are fair? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: My hon. Friend is and has been throughout this process a powerful advocate for the victims. While this is a broad tariff-based scheme, it is vital that individuals’ suffering and circumstances are reflected in the awards that are made. To his latter point, I know the agony that victims are still going through in having to wait, and I know that he shares my desire to push forward with the payments as quickly as possible. \p Jeremy Hunt: Can I start by commending the approach that the Paymaster General is taking? I know that he is totally sincere about getting justice and is trying his best. However, I think he knows in his heart of hearts that the system that has been put in place is not working. I have constituents, such as Sue Collins, who are asking why in March IBCA had processed the claims of only 250-odd people out of 4,000 people, when they are known to us and have been on previous payment schemes. Even more worrying is the fact that IBCA is saying that it is aiming to process a majority—that could be just 51%—by the end of 2027. Does he not agree that the right target for IBCA would be to process the vast majority—more than 90%, let us say—by the end of this year, and that it  should commit to that? That is what needs to happen, because two people are dying every single week, and justice delayed really is justice denied. \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for the work he did in government on this matter when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. He asks about infected people who are known already because they are registered to schemes, and he is clearly right to identify that particular group in terms of prioritisation and what is known. I said last week to the inquiry that I am open to changes to the scheme that do not in themselves cause further delay. That is the open approach that I took last week at the inquiry, and it is the open approach I repeat to the House today. \p Alex Barros-Curtis: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and update. I know the sincerity with which he wants to deliver this culture change—this being one of many examples of failures by the state that we absolutely have to correct. As has been said by Members on both sides of the House and by constituents to me, speed in the delivery of compensation to infected and affected individuals is of paramount importance. Will my right hon. Friend say more about the conversations he is having with the devolved nations, in particular Wales, to bring efficacy to the recommendations?

Could my right hon. Friend offer any advice to my constituent Suzanne Morgan, who very recently visited my surgery? Her mother Marie Jupe died due to infected blood, but as her mother was not registered with an existing infected blood scheme or the Alliance House organisations scheme, Suzanne is not eligible for any compensation. Will he meet me to discuss that case? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: To my hon. Friend’s latter point, my thoughts are with Suzanne. In respect of Suzanne’s mother, although the registration deadline for the infected blood support scheme has passed, it does not mean she is not entitled to compensation. There would be an entitlement to compensation.

With regard to the point about the whole United Kingdom, one of the issues, which I am sure right hon. and hon. Members will appreciate, is that the awful days when the infected blood products were being imported were in the pre-devolution age. Many of the recommendations require measures to be implemented across the NHS, but health is of course devolved. The undertaking I give to the House is that I will continue to work closely with Ministers in the devolved Administrations to get the equity that my hon. Friend talks about regarding the recommendations across the UK. \p Damian Hinds: Clearly, getting to a good and timely operation of the compensation scheme will take the Paymaster General’s personal attention, and I know that he will give it that attention because of his dedication to getting this right. Could he give an update to the House on the anticipated memorial dedicated specifically to the children who were infected at Treloar’s? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: It is absolutely right that we have both a national memorial and a memorial dedicated specifically to the children who suffered so much at Treloar’s, and it is right that the memorials both recognise  what has happened and ensure that it will be remembered by future generations. The Government are following the inquiry’s recommendation that a steering committee be formed to decide what memorials are provided and where, with consideration being given as well to memorials in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. The membership of the steering committee will reflect the experiences of all routes of transmission, those infected and those affected, and crucially it will contain representatives of all the UK’s Administrations. \p Alice Macdonald: I fully agree with the need for urgency that has been reiterated on both sides of the House. I have spoken to constituents who are frustrated, and the turmoil and distress they are in is immense. Will the Minister provide more detail on how individuals are being kept updated on the progress of their claims? What support is provided to address those cases, in terms of dedicated caseworkers? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: On the first point, IBCA publishes a regular monthly newsletter with data of the payments being made. On support, the money that the Government have announced for the charities that provide such vital patient advocacy is hugely important. In respect of those who are making claims, I have signed off money for both legal support and financial advice, which is hugely important too. \p Julian Lewis: The Minister referred briefly to something called a duty of candour, which will try to avoid a repetition of what was described as a

“defensive culture in the civil service”.

Will he expand on that phenomenon? It is quite extraordinary, is it not, that when people in all innocence were infected with lethal diseases by the NHS, civil servants should have gathered round to deny them the help and compensation they needed? Surely some sort of sanction ought to be involved. Will anyone be held to account for this, because otherwise, it will happen again, won’t it? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: To the right hon. Gentleman’s point about potential criminal sanctions, I have always said that I stand ready to provide whatever evidence might be requested of the Cabinet Office and across Government to any investigation. To his point about a duty of candour, Sir Brian Langstaff said that there was not an explicit conspiracy; rather, there was a culture of institutional defensiveness whereby individual public servants put personal and institutional reputation above the public good. As I said earlier in response to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), the Government will bring forward legislation on a duty of candour. However, it is not just about legislation, landmark though it is; it is about leadership across public service to change culture, which will be important in the years ahead. \p Jonathan Brash: I thank the Paymaster General for his statement and for his correspondence on this issue on behalf of my constituent Alex Robinson. Alex lost her father in 2006 to this scandal, having already lost her mother as a child. She was her father’s carer from the age of 13. She is concerned that when a deceased victim leaves no spouse or partner, the estate is not entitled to the same compensation,  irrespective of the role any member of that estate may have played in the victim’s life. Does the Minister agree that there are exceptional and unique cases, such as Alex’s, and that they need to be looked at differently? Will he meet me to explore how we can ensure that that happens? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: I think the thoughts of the whole House are with my hon. Friend’s constituent, Alex, regarding the loss of her parents. On the point about carers, they are eligible for compensation under the scheme. If my hon. Friend is willing to write to me, I will be more than happy to have an individual discussion and correspondence on that case. \p Pete Wishart: Last week’s hearings were both fascinating and disturbing. One discrepancy was pointed out to me, however, about bereaved partners and whether their loved one died before 31 March. Partners of those who died before 31 March could receive up to 75% of their support payment, whereas newly bereaved partners are no longer able to register for those payments. These people were often forced to give up their career to care for their loved ones and were totally dependent upon those payments. Will the Minister commit to reviewing and rectifying that unfairness, so that no bereaved partner is left behind simply because of the date of their loved one’s death? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: To be absolutely clear, the cut-off date is about registration for the support schemes; it is not a cut-off date for entitlement to compensation. When issues around this were raised with me at the inquiry last week, I said that if there was a particular issue around a gap between cessation of payment and when compensation might be received, I was willing to go away and look at it, and I will do that. The test that I apply is whether we are pushing this scheme forward. We have to ensure that I, and collectively we, do not do things that would cause even further delay. \p James Naish: One of the first pieces of correspondence that I received as a new MP on 10 July last year was from my constituent Robert Dickie, who passionately told me about his brother, who died aged 31 from AIDS and hepatitis C after being infected with contaminated blood products. I therefore welcome today’s update. The Government recently announced that they have allocated funding for charities, which is a recommendation from the inquiry. Will the Minister outline what steps he has taken with the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that the funding gets to those charities? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: My hon. Friend raises an important point. The charities have done a remarkable job in supporting victims and in patient advocacy. I know that there have been meetings already with officials, and he can be assured that I am working with the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), who is here on the Front Bench, to ensure that that money gets to the charities as quickly as possible. \p Liz Jarvis: As the Minister is aware, my constituent Gary Webster has had to live with HIV and hepatitis C since being given infected blood as a pupil at Treloar’s. Gary’s health is failing fast and he fears that he will not live to see compensation. Will the Minister give Gary and the other surviving Treloar’s boys any reassurance that they will be invited to claim for compensation this year? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: IBCA has been set up in such a way that it is operationally independent, and I respect that independence. As I indicated in a previous answer—indeed, the hon. Lady has raised Gary’s case with me on a number of occasions—I stand ready, first, to hold IBCA to account; and secondly, to give support as required by IBCA to ensure that we are moving forward and quickening the pace after the test-and-learn approach that it has used. \p Tom Collins: Families in Worcester have spent years in limbo, grieving the loss of loved ones while navigating decades of delays and bureaucratic mazes that were handed down by the very systems intended to support them. I therefore welcome this statement of ambition in urgently delivering compensation and justice to those both infected and affected. The changes outlined at the end of March relating to people who lose their spouses as a result of infected blood are causing anxiety in my constituency. My constituents are concerned that the injustice of delay will be extended to them more severely than to others. Will the Paymaster General reassure widows and widowers whose spouses die from April this year that they will not be waiting years and years for support payments? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: My hon. Friend raises an important point. As I indicated to the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart), who is no longer in his place, this is not a deadline to claim compensation; it is a deadline for applying for the support schemes. As I also indicated in my previous answer, if injustice arises from a gap in time, I will look at that. \p Kit Malthouse: As a number of Members have said to the Minister, speed is obviously of the essence. I have two questions. First, even though I hear him say that there is a backstop date by which he wants everything to be completed, would it be possible for individual applicants to have a target landing date on which IBCA will contact them? That way, their expectations are managed and people can think about their affairs in due course. Secondly, can the Minister say, hand on heart, that IBCA has enough resources? If it had twice as many people, could it move twice as fast? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: In answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s first question, I am sure that he, as a former Minister, will understand that I respect IBCA’s operational independence in terms of the payments that are being made, but as I have indicated, I stand ready to help to push this forward. Secondly, absolutely there are adequate resources here. We have allocated £11.8 billion to this scheme. He used the example of the number of caseworkers, and I stand ready to assist with that in order to push things forward with IBCA. \p Mark Sewards: I thank the Minister for his statement, which fulfils his earlier promise to make one, and for his correspondence with me on a specific case. I also welcome the fact that the Government are committed, in principle or in full, to all the recommendations made by the inquiry. Last week at the inquiry I met my constituent Martin Threadgold, one of the victims of this scandal. Martin has expressed to me several concerns about the pace at which victims are being compensated, and those concerns have been echoed across the House today. May I ask two questions on Martin’s behalf? First, £11.8 billion was allocated in the Budget to this scheme, so can the Minister confirm how much has been paid out so far? Secondly, will he use his good offices to ensure that IBCA pays out as many claims as possible and as fast as it possibly can? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this—he speaks powerfully on behalf of his constituent. As I indicated in an earlier answer, just over £96 million has been paid out, but I will continue to use my ministerial office, as well as working to hold IBCA to account, to move from what has been IBCA’s test-and-learn phase into a different phase and start to really speed up these payments. \p Ben Lake: I thank the Minister for all the work he is doing to lead on this matter and bring justice to all the victims, and indeed for his statement today. Is it his understanding that victims of the infected blood scandal should not be worse off in the transition from the interim payments to the new compensation scheme? I have spoken to one victim, a constituent, who seems to have been offered a compensation offer that is much, much reduced compared with the offer he previously received under the special category mechanism. \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: The issue of how the special category mechanism is translated across into what is known as the health supplemental route in relation to infected people is something I discussed before the inquiry last week. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, I do not know the facts of the specific case he is talking about, but if he is willing to write to me with the two different figures and the way in which his constituent feels that he is worse off, I will be more than happy to look at it. \p Gregory Stafford: The partner of Helen, my constituent from Farnham, died in 1994 from infected blood. Unfortunately, Helen now has stage 4B ovarian cancer, so she is not in a great state. She wrote to the Chief Secretary in August and, despite chasing this up numerous times, it took months for a rather unsympathetic response from the Chief Secretary to come back. I know that the Paymaster General is keen to speed this up for those infected, but there are also plenty of people who were affected and whose time is short, so can he commit to speeding up the process for them, too? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point: we have people who are infected and people who are affected in a terrible way by this scandal, and he speaks powerfully about Helen and the particular circumstances she finds herself in. I am sure the thoughts  of the whole House will be with Helen. I have not, to my knowledge, seen the piece of correspondence that he is talking about, but if he wants to write to me directly at the Cabinet Office about Helen’s circumstances, I am happy to look at that. I should add that I expect payments to the affected to begin by the end of this year. \p Ian Sollom: I thank the Minister for today’s update. Although I welcome the progress that has been made on the compensation scheme, as he has highlighted, I once again have to highlight the case of my constituent who was infected with hepatitis C during a transplant operation when she was 15. She has suffered terrible physical and mental illness throughout most of her life. The fact that she was infected in 1993, after the cut-off date for the support scheme, means that she has had no formal acknowledgment of her suffering from the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, and no support payments or interim payments. Can the Minister formally address the concerns of unregistered infected people from that period from 1991 to 1996, when we know people were still being infected, and commit to urgently recognising their suffering and the urgency of their compensation claims? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: Again, I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House will be with the hon. Gentleman’s constituent, given the terrible experience that she has clearly had. With regard to the category of victims he is talking about—unregistered, living, infected people—he is absolutely right to raise their position. The objective of this compensation scheme is to ensure that every victim, whatever their circumstances, receives the compensation they are due, and that obviously includes his constituent. \p Robbie Moore: I will be forever indebted to my constituent Clive Smith, who is also the president of the Haemophilia Society. He has been a long-standing advocate and a voice for those victims seeking justice for being affected and infected. Of course, time is of the essence and many victims still feel disillusioned and that the Government are dragging their heels. While the Government have accepted publicly that victims will die before they get the compensation they are owed, as has been referenced in this Chamber, surely this just illustrates that the system is not going fast enough. What reassurance can the Minister provide that compensation will be delivered at speed and that the system will be as simple as possible for those affected and infected to apply for compensation? Also, what reassurance can he provide that they will be kept informed and updated as part of that process? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: I have met Clive Smith and I pay tribute to the campaigning work that he has done over many years. On updating, I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important—that is why IBCA publishes regular newsletters with updates on the statistics—but he also identifies a statistic that should give us all pause for thought, which is that a victim of this scandal is still dying every few days. That shows the impetus and the imperative to speed these compensation payments up, and that is absolutely what I am committed to do. \p Tom Gordon: A constituent of mine infected with hepatitis C and under the special category mechanism has written to express their distress that earlier this year supplementary regulations removed the provisions, which they had previously been promised, to bring their compensation in line with those with cirrhosis. The group were assured that there would not need to go through another round of evidence gathering, yet they have been left without recourse through this mechanism. Will the Minister explain why these provisions were changed, what redress is available to this cohort of approximately 915 people, and what steps will be brought forward to ensure that further reassurances are not breached? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: The issue that the hon. Gentleman raises about the special category mechanism is one that I was asked about in front of the inquiry last week. It relates to conditions that qualified under the special category mechanism, some of which go into the core route for infected people and some of which go into the supplemental route. I gave an undertaking to the inquiry last week that I would look at whether there were particular issues, and I think that is what he is identifying in relation to his constituent. As I said quite openly to the inquiry last week, the test that I use around changes to the scheme is to ensure that it does not cause even further delay. \p Tessa Munt: I am grateful for the Minister’s statement, but I too would like to identify the gaping hole in the compensation scheme that relates to the special category mechanism. I point out that some of my constituents are in very poor health and their lives may be limited time-wise, yet they will end up with less compensation than someone who is in stage one and is healthy. At every point throughout the process, the compensation scheme has said that the SCM infected should be compensated. The infected blood inquiry said the same thing. The Government’s own expert group also said in August 2024, until they were hauled back into the Cabinet Office and then they changed their mind, that they must have compensation. I invite the Paymaster General to meet me and my affected constituent—it would have to be online, and it would be with his carer because this gentleman is very ill and suffering dreadfully, and yet he seems to have been excluded from getting fair compensation. \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: Again, the hon. Lady quite reasonably raises the issue of the special category mechanism, which I answered a question about from her hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon). On the specific case she talks about, I would be grateful if she wrote to me with all the details, and then I would be more than happy to ensure she gets a reply as soon as possible. \p Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have given notice to the Speaker’s Office and the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) of this point of order. I refer to column 95 of Hansard on Monday 12 May. In an intervention on the Minister in the debate on border security and immigration, the Member claimed that

“more than 600 illegal migrants have entered this country today. They could get up to all sorts of mischief, and commit crimes and maybe even acts of terrorism. Does she agree that these young men crossing the channel should be immediately detained and deported, along with the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn)?”—[Official Report, 12 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 95.]

Do you agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this kind of language, innuendo and inaccuracy is unbecoming of this place and not fit to be uttered in this building, and that Members when they speak in Parliament should show respect for each other, rather than risk bringing our whole political process into disrepute? I have no problem with debate, but people should not stoop to abuse, fundamental inaccuracies and conjecture, as the hon. Member did, and I have informed him so already. \p Judith Cummins: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for giving me notice of his point of order. I understand that he has informed the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) that he intended to refer to him in the Chamber. The right hon. Member has put his point on the record. While I am not persuaded that anything unparliamentary occurred in the debate, I remind all Members that “good temper and moderation”, in the words of “Erskine May”, should be

“the characteristics of parliamentary debate.”

I encourage all Members to act towards each other with courtesy. \p Kim Johnson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have given prior notice of my point of order to the Speaker’s Office. I seek your guidance on a matter concerning procedure relating to the ability of Members to hold the Government to account. Yesterday, I attempted to table a question relating to the use of RAF Akrotiri by Israeli bomber planes but was blocked. I received the following response: “The Government has blocked questions on the use of military bases”. The reasoning for that block was given as an answer from the Minister to a similar question tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on 4 October, with the Minister responding on 14 October. Since then, six questions have been tabled relating to the activities of RAF Akrotiri, all without obstruction, and they all received timely answers from the Minister. Under this new ruling, all would have been ruled out of order and automatically blocked, yet they were allowed to be tabled.

Given the importance of transparency and parliamentary scrutiny, particularly in matters of defence, this raises serious concerns. Operational decisions must not be taken on an ad hoc basis to impede the ability of parliamentarians to scrutinise the decisions of Government. Will you advise on whether it is in order for the Table  Office to decide to block legitimate questions in this way and on what recourse Members have when attempts to scrutinise and debate Government policy and activity are being blocked? \p Judith Cummins: I thank the hon. Member for her point of order. She should raise the matter with the Table Office in the first instance. I can, however, advise her that the Minister for the Armed Forces, in response to a written parliamentary question on 14 October, indicated that the Government would not

“comment on any foreign nations’ military aircraft movement…within UK airspace or on UK overseas bases.”

It is not the Table Office but the Government that have blocked questions on this specific subject. Other questions about activities at RAF Akrotiri may none the less be in order. I advise her to talk to the Table Office, who are always happy to help. \p Keir Mather: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I gave prior notice, both to the Speaker’s Office and to the Member concerned, that I intended to raise this point of order. Yesterday, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) appeared on Channel 4 in his role as deputy leader of Reform UK. Filming in my constituency, he called into question the future of our local power station and therefore the hundreds of jobs that it supports locally, which I know will cause real anxiety for constituents in Selby. He did not inform me that he was coming to Selby or that he intended to use our industry, our jobs and our local communities as a political football for Reform UK’s national agenda. On behalf of workers in my constituency, how might I prevent this from happening again, and how might I relay the message that if he wishes to push his anti-worker, anti-jobs and, quite frankly, anti-Yorkshire agenda, he can do so from his constituency across the border in Lincolnshire? \p Judith Cummins: I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order—I understand that he has informed the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness that he intended to raise it. As he and other Members are aware, paragraph 44 of the guide to conventions and courtesies states that

“Members must inform colleagues in advance whenever…a Member intends to visit another colleague’s constituency (except for purely private purposes). All reasonable efforts should be taken to notify the other Member and failure to do so is rightly regarded by colleagues as very discourteous.” \p Iqbal Mohamed: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Following on from the point of order made by the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), the comments made against him were absolutely disgusting and disrespectful. The words we use in this place can have  direct consequences on the outside and impact on the security of Members. What steps can be taken to hold Members to account for the language that they use in this place, so that debate is respectful at all times? \p Judith Cummins: That is not a point of order, but the hon. Member has placed his comments and feelings on the record. \p UNKNOWN: Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary Heidi Alexander, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Ed Miliband, Hilary Benn, Ian Murray, Jo Stevens, Steve Reed and Mike Kane, presented a Bill to make provision about sustainable aviation fuel.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed with explanatory notes (Bill 240-EN). \p UNKNOWN: Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sarah Olney, supported by Josh Babarinde, presented a Bill to require the provision, free of charge, to victims of rape and serious sexual offences of transcripts of sentencing remarks delivered following conviction for those offences; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July, and to be printed (Bill 241). \p UNKNOWN: Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Carla Denyer presented a Bill to set a timeline for the phasing out of UK oil and gas production and the decommissioning of related infrastructure; to require the Secretary of State to publish a plan for ensuring that oil and gas workers have access to appropriate redeployment or retraining opportunities, and to involve unions and communities in the production of this plan, which should include plans for funding; to make provision for the establishment of a training fund for workers in the oil and gas industry, to which oil and gas companies would contribute by paying a levy; to make provision for a proportion of workers’ wages to be guaranteed by the state for a defined period after they leave the oil and gas industry; to introduce sectoral collective bargaining in the energy industry; to extend legislation relating to pay and conditions for UK onshore workers to cover all offshore workers in the UK Continental Shelf and UK Exclusive Economic Area; to require GB Energy’s investments to support UK jobs; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 July, and to be printed (Bill 244). \p UNKNOWN: Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23) \p Bob Blackman: I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the paying out of compensation under the Equitable Life (Payments) Act 2010 for persons adversely affected by maladministration in the regulation before December 2001 of the Equitable Life Assurance Society; and for connected purposes.

Most Members will know that I have, for the past 15 years, been campaigning for proper compensation for Equitable Life policyholders who lost pension savings because of Government and regulatory maladministration. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton)—a friend is what he is to me—has also campaigned, as have many other friends and colleagues from across the House. This has always been a cross-party campaign for justice; MPs from six political parties support the proposed Bill.

For the benefit of Members who may not be familiar with the scandal, it is a sorry saga spanning nearly a quarter of a century. The Equitable Life Assurance Society was considered the gold standard of the retirement savings world. Founded in 1762—the world’s oldest mutual insurer—it was widely respected and considered a safe place to invest a hard-earned pension. However, it turned out that in the 1990s the society was effectively being run as Ponzi scheme. Returns and bonuses were being funded by contributions from new Members. The house of cards eventually collapsed in 2000, following a House of Lords court case, which led to the inescapable conclusion that the society did not have enough money to cover its commitments. The question inevitably arose as to how the collapse of one of the biggest and apparently safest pension companies could possibly have happened.

While several inquiries were set up with varying and limited remits, it was not until the parliamentary ombudsman undertook a four-year detailed investigation that we got to the bottom of what actually happened. Although the society was clearly mismanaged, the ombudsman’s 2,800-page report published in 2008—I recommend it to colleagues for bedtime reading—concluded that there had been a decade of serial maladministration by Government Departments and their regulators, whose job it was to oversee the society in the first place. Specifically, the ombudsman concluded that the serial maladministration

“resulted in the true financial position of the society being concealed and misrepresented.”

The ombudsman further went on to say that

“the prudential regulation of the society during the relevant time period failed—and failed comprehensively.”

She said that it was not

“a system failure, but a failure properly to implement…the system of regulation that Parliament had enacted.”

It was the most serious maladministration ever discovered by the parliamentary ombudsman.

It is important to emphasise that the maladministration led to a failure of prudential regulation, which Government Departments and their agencies were responsible for.  Although the management of the society had failed, the ombudsman was clear that the prudential regulators alone were responsible for scrutinising the society’s financial returns, and verifying its solvency position. They failed to do that to an acceptable standard. As a result, the society was able to continue to take people’s money, while they had no idea of the house of sand into which they were placing their hard-earned savings for those pensions.

The ombudsman made five findings of injustice that policyholders suffered because of the maladministration. Three of them were related to financial loss. In proposing redress, the ombudsman called on the Government to,

“put those people who have suffered a relative loss back into the position that they would have been in had maladministration not occurred.”

In 2010 the incoming Chancellor of the Exchequer formally accepted all the ombudsman’s findings, and apologised to the more than 1 million people affected. He accepted that the financial losses that policyholders had suffered because of the maladministration amounted to £4.3 billion. He subsequently revised that down to £4.1 billion. Despite that, the Chancellor announced that only £1.5 billion compensation would be made available as redress, citing the state of the public finances at the time. Personally, I think that where the state has accepted responsibility for a failure and accepted how much someone has lost because of that, it should provide full compensation. That is the moral, correct thing to do and, to their credit, the current Government are taking that general approach to the blood contamination and Post Office scandals, although there are clearly serious issues about agreeing individual amounts and the speed of payments in individual cases.

My Bill, however, is not about the £2.6 billion compensation still owed to those affected by the Equitable Life scandal; it is about the £1.5 billion that has already been allocated. It appears from public information, parliamentary questions, and freedom of information requests that £180 million of the allocated funding is set to be kept by the Treasury and not reach the people to whom it is owed. When the compensation scheme was announced in 2010, the Government decided that of the £1.5 billion made available, 37,000 annuitants would get 100% compensation via an annual top-up payment for life, with £625 million allocated and indexed at that time for that purpose. As a contingency, in case those individuals lived longer than expected, the Treasury held back £100 million. The rest—£775 million—was allocated to 895,000 non-annuitants via one-off payment, effectively giving them 22.4% of their acknowledged losses. Of that latter group, more than 100,000 people were never traced, contributing to a £24 million underspend of their allocation. In addition, the data shows that the annual compensation payments to annuitants have been running significantly below forecast, by some £54 million from the most recent figures I have seen. That means that the £100 million contingency reserve will never be spent. In total, around £180 million—over 10% of the money allocated to compensate people for their losses—is set to be kept by the Treasury, unless something is done.

The Bill that I propose would require the Treasury to pay the full value of the £1.5 billion allocated for compensation to those affected. In doing so, I would prioritise around 10,000 of the most elderly annuitants who were, in my view, unfairly excluded from compensation  simply because they bought an annuity prior to the Government-imposed cut-off date of September 1992—I have never understood why that date was chosen. The reality is that those annuitants suffered the same consequences as others: reduced pension payments because of maladministration and the failure of prudential regulation. Through campaigning by Members of this House and the Equitable Members Action Group, the Government announced an ex gratia payment to that cohort in 2013, which was welcome in so far as it went.

However, that cohort should be treated the same as other annuitants. According to EMAG, ensuring that would cost around £108 million, after deducting the cost of the ex gratia payments that the cohort received. This group represents the most elderly and vulnerable policyholders. Those who are still alive are in their 80s and 90s. Many will be veterans who served and risked their life for this country, and who we have so recently celebrated and thanked. Many others worked in our national health service and other services. They should be treated fairly, in line with other annuitants. Payments can be calculated simply and quickly. The Government, the Treasury and the Prudential, which took over their policies, know who they are and where they live.

As we might imagine, the people who saved responsibly for their retirement find it difficult to understand why they have not had full redress, when the state has accepted responsibility for the failure that led to their financial losses, which have been calculated and accepted by the state. In the absence of full redress, it must surely be right that the money that has been allocated for compensation actually reaches those affected. It must also be right to prioritise the most elderly and vulnerable. That is what the Bill seeks to do, and I hope that the House will give leave for it to be introduced. It is supported by MPs from six political parties and, I am sure, by many other colleagues.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Bob Blackman, Christine Jardine, Fabian Hamilton, Sir Desmond Swayne, Siân Berry, Jim Shannon, Stephen Flynn and Andrew Rosindell present the Bill.

Bob Blackman accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 July, and to be printed (Bill 242). \p UNKNOWN: Consideration of Lords message \p Michael Shanks: I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 2B in lieu. \p Nusrat Ghani: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment (a) to Lords amendment 2B. \p Michael Shanks: I thank all Members of both Houses for their continued scrutiny of this important Bill. In particular, I extend my thanks to my noble Friend the Minister for Energy Security, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for his expertise and, dare I say, resilience, which ensured that we reached the resolution that we are here to discuss. Lords amendment 2B was added to the Great British Energy Bill during consideration of Commons amendments, and the Government motion to accept Lords amendment 2B was passed in the other place.

The Great British Energy Bill delivers on our manifesto commitment to establish Great British Energy, which will accelerate clean power deployment, create jobs, boost energy independence and ensure that UK taxpayers, bill payers and communities reap the benefits of clean, secure, home-grown energy. We recognise the breadth of concern across Parliament and from the public on this issue, and particularly on the issue of how Great British Energy will tackle forced labour in its supply chains. Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government have consistently stated that they wholeheartedly share that concern and agree on the importance of tackling forced labour in supply chains wherever we find it. That is why we tabled Lords amendment 2B, which is the latest move in the Government’s work to tackle the issue of forced labour while we progress towards becoming a global leader in clean energy.

We expect all UK businesses to do everything in their power to remove any instances of forced labour from their supply chains, and Great British Energy will be no different—in fact, we have stated many times that we expect it to be a sector leader on this matter. Lords amendment 2B makes it clear that Great British Energy is committed to adopting measures so that it can take the appropriate steps to act on any evidence of forced labour in its supply chains, as we would expect from any responsible company. \p Edward Leigh: I am sure we can rely on the Minister to ensure that no solar panels are installed on British farms that are made by the Chinese Government, using slave labour. I am sure that he can assure us on that point. \p Michael Shanks: I have set that out in this debate in a number of ways. We have absolutely committed that Great British Energy will not invest in any supply chains in which there is any evidence of forced labour, and the measures that we are outlining today show how we will deliver that. There is a wider question about forced labour in supply chains for which Great British Energy does not have responsibility, and we have outlined  a number of actions for tackling the issue right across the economy. Just a few weeks ago, I hosted the first cross-Government meeting with colleagues from the Home Office, the Foreign Office and the Department for Business and Trade looking at how we can make regulations much tighter. We want to ensure that what the right hon. Gentleman wants applies across supply chains, not just in the energy space, but across the economy. \p Christopher Vince: The Minister is giving an important speech on a really important topic—a speech that I think everyone across the House will agree with. Does he agree that part of the advantage of having a Government-run GB Energy is that we will have greater control over supply chains, and whether slave labour is being used? \p Michael Shanks: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We want Great British Energy to be a sector leader in this area. It must meet all the standards that we expect from every other company, but we want it to go further and really demonstrate what is possible in this space. He raises a wider question about the importance of Great British Energy to delivering investment in the supply chain, so that we are delivering not just energy security through the clean power mission, but good, industrial jobs. That is what this Bill is all about.

Great British Energy will strive to be a leading example of best practice, not just in this space, but right across corporate due diligence, setting a benchmark for ethical standards in supply chain management. That involves ensuring that human rights considerations are integrated into corporate policies, procurement and suppliers’ conduct; we will draw on guidance from leading experts in the sector, such as the Helena Kennedy Centre at Sheffield Hallam University.

Lords amendment 2B will strengthen our framework. It demonstrates that both Great British Energy and the Government are absolutely committed to maintaining supply chains that are free from forced labour. I urge the House to agree to Lords amendment 2B and the position that the Government have reached on this critical issue. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the shadow Minister. \p Andrew Bowie: On 25 March, when we last debated amendments to the Bill, the Minister assured us that the mechanisms for preventing modern slavery in supply chains were adequate, and that the Procurement Act 2023 would provide adequate protection against technology that could have been manufactured using slave labour being deployed in the UK. He confirmed that in the coming weeks, he would convene cross-departmental meetings on that matter, and said that a broad strategy would be developed, through work with the solar taskforce and other Government Departments. Then we had the incredible sight of Labour MPs trooping through the Lobby, being whipped to vote against an amendment that would have prevented Great British Energy from investing in supply chains in which links to modern slavery were proven.

The offshoring of our emissions, our manufacturing base and our skilled jobs is understood and acknowledged to be the result of Labour’s energy policies, but on that day, we also saw the offshoring of Labour’s moral compass. We saw its narrow-minded, ideological obsession with achieving the unachievable: clean power by 2030, at any price and any cost, delivered through solar panels made by slave labour and with coal power in the People’s Republic of China.

Following all that, though, a screeching U-turn took place. Literally weeks after the Government whipped their MPs to vote against the modern slavery amendment the last time the Bill was debated, the Government conceded what we all knew to be the case—that the mechanisms cited by the Minister in this House were simply not up to the job. However, we sincerely welcome the acknowledgement that the UK must take a principled stand. The Procurement Act 2023 and the Modern Slavery Act 2015 were groundbreaking when they were introduced, but it is evident that more needs to be done today to prevent goods tainted by slavery from entering UK supply chains. \p Simon Hoare: As my hon. Friend knows, heaven rejoiceth when a sinner repenteth. Does he share my hope—let us hope it is not naive—that, with this volte-face by Members on the Treasury Bench on this important issue, the cross-party consensus about the seriousness and perniciousness of modern slavery is restored, so that the House can face up to it, whenever and wherever it manifests itself? \p Andrew Bowie: I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right: over the past decade and more, a cross-party consensus was reached in this House about the pernicious nature of modern slavery and the work we must do together to drive it out of supply chains that could be contributing to, or investing in, the United Kingdom. I think we all believe that we have to achieve that. Now that the Government have acknowledged that the mechanisms in the Bill were not up to the job, as we said at the time, I hope that we can revert to cross-party working on this incredibly important issue.

The transition to clean power must be just, as we have said before and as the Minister has said many times, but it is clear that there is no justice where there is slave labour in supply chains, so we are glad that the Government have listened not just to the official Opposition, but to Members from across both Houses. However, there is a serious question: what does this mean for the clean power 2030 mission? If the route to decarbonisation relies on importing technology from China made with slave labour, surely there should be a rethink of whether that mission is conducive to good policy.

We are pleased that the Minister has rowed back from the position that the Great British Energy Bill needed no extra provisions to exclude slave labour from supply chains, and have accepted an amendment that safeguards against slavery and human trafficking. While we welcome the Government’s change of heart, it would be remiss of me not to reiterate for the record that the official Opposition remain resolutely opposed to the creation of Great British Energy, which is not great, not British, and will not produce any energy. The Minister often cites my constituency in Aberdeenshire in these debates  because of the location of GB Energy’s headquarters, but I say to him in all sincerity that the people and businesses of north-east Scotland do not want more government. They want government to get out of the way and let them get on with what they do best: extracting oil and gas from the North sea, keeping the lights on and homes warm in our country.

Instead of wasting time on this wasteful vanity project, the Government should lift the ban on licences and work faster on replacing the energy profits levy. That would really create jobs—indeed, it would save jobs—and drive investment in Aberdeen, unlike this Bill. High industrial energy costs are pushing energy-intensive industries such as ceramics and petrochemicals overseas. The impact of those costs is real for industrial communities, and we need to see a real plan that shows that the Government understand that and will act on it.

We are grateful to the Minister for heeding our calls—and, indeed, those of other right hon. and hon. Members—for provisions on slave labour to be included in the Bill, and for listening to the arguments made by Members from all Benches in both Houses. Today, we welcome a small victory, the acceptance of an amendment that seeks to prevent modern slavery in our energy supply chains. That is a positive change to the legislation—legislation that should not exist, but a positive change none the less. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Liberal Democrats spokesperson. \p Pippa Heylings: I rise in strong support of Lords amendment 2B and the consequential amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion). The Liberal Democrats welcome this key step by the Government towards preventing goods linked to Chinese slave labour from being part of our renewables businesses’ supply chains. The decision, as we have heard, took time, and it is born of pressure from Members of all political parties and the sheer strength of feeling across both Houses. The Great British Energy Bill needed amending, and we thank the Government for reconsidering.

I want to express in particular my appreciation of Lord Alton of Liverpool’s tireless advocacy. Together with Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, the Bill team and colleagues from across both Houses—with important input from the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China—there has been a constructive and cross-party effort to confront an issue that is too often left in the shadows: the scourge of modern slavery in our energy supply chains. Groundbreaking investigative research has helped to shine the necessary light on what is at stake. We have heard irrefutable evidence from the BBC, The Guardian, and the world’s foremost expert on Uyghur forced labour, Professor Laura Murphy, that forced labour is being used to produce the solar-grade polysilicon that powers most of the global green transition. \p Jim Shannon: I reiterate and support what the hon. Lady and the shadow Minister have said. I understand that this Bill applies to all the regions, including Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. One concern raised with me by my colleagues in the Assembly is slave labour and what is happening to the Uyghur Muslims in particular. The view of the Assembly back home in Northern Ireland—I was a Member of it,  although I am not now, of course—is that this legislation is important, so I welcome what the Government have put in place and thank the hon. Lady for outlining all the people who have contributed to making sure this change happens, including the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. \p Pippa Heylings: I thank the hon. Member for his intervention.

We have to name the report “In Broad Daylight” from Sheffield Hallam University, which found that all solar industry-relevant polysilicon producers in the Uyghur region were either using state-sponsored labour transfers of Uyghurs or were sourcing from companies that were. As we speak, 2.7 million Uyghurs are subject to forced labour and political re-education camps. We cannot allow our green future to be built on the backs of enslaved people. My constituents in South Cambridgeshire do not expect their solar panels to be made by child labourers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo or enslaved Uyghurs in Xinjiang, and I do not expect that Ministers do either—and they are right.

I understand that the Government will not be supporting the amendment (a) to Lords amendment 2B, tabled by the hon. Member for Rotherham, which is about definitions. Definitions really matter. The definition of slavery and how it is interpreted needs to be clear. This amendment would make it clear that the definition of slavery includes forced labour, state-imposed forced labour, exploitative child labour, abuses of workers’ rights and dangerous working conditions. It would be good to hear from the Minister about how the working groups that he is already working on will ensure that there are no loopholes, no grey areas and no convenient ignorance. The amendment would incorporate and put into practice the International Labour Organisation’s definition. How will that ILO standard be put into practice?

We have progress, but it is not the end; it is the beginning. Lord Alton said:

“The Joint Committee on Human Rights is close to completing an inquiry which is likely to call for a comprehensive overhaul of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 April 2025; Vol. 845, c. 1238.]

This is the opportunity to look seriously at the model set by the United States’ Uyghur Forced Labour Prevention Act, which introduces a rebuttable presumption that goods linked to Xinjiang are the product of forced labour, unless clear and convincing evidence can be shown to the contrary. Embedding a similar presumption into UK law would shift the burden of proof away from vulnerable victims and place it firmly on those who profit. It would close those loopholes that have allowed exploitation to flourish unchecked.

As my colleague Earl Russell in the other House rightly noted, we also need international co-ordination. I urge the Minister to update this House on efforts to work with like-minded partners in Europe and elsewhere to eliminate slavery from all our supply chains—those not just of GB Energy, but of all energy companies. Great British Energy, as the Minister said, has a chance to lead by example not just on innovation and independence, but on moral integrity. \p Iain Duncan Smith: Lords amendment 2B resulted from the work of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, which includes cross-party membership from this House.  I see some of its members in the Chamber now. Lord Alton and other members of the alliance, including me, who have been sanctioned by the Chinese Government have worked tirelessly on the amendment, and others have done likewise on other amendments.

Let me say to the Minister that the problem we face at present is that we seem to be attacking this issue piecemeal. When the Conservatives, my own party, were in government, I had a big fight with them to secure a ban on slave-labour-made products in the national health service, and it sits there, in the health service, thanks to cross-party involvement. Now we have a provision in the Great British Energy Bill to block modern slavery, but the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which we helped to enact when I was in the Government, needs to be massively updated in this area because it has no teeth. Unless it is beefed up, what we will have is piecemeal work from officials. If we are to embrace this idea—I know that the Government were tentative about it, but frankly all Governments do this, and the reality is that it has gone through—our objective should be, “How do we make this the case for every single product that is introduced, so that all of Government, including local government, are not allowed to involve themselves in modern-day slavery?” A huge amount of this applies to China, but some of it applies to other countries.

Let me also say to the Minister that this is the beginning, not the end. We must ensure that the lesson that is learned is that we must be paragons of virtue when it comes to modern-day slavery and that we will stand up for those who have no voice. If we go about buying products made through modern slavery, which undercuts the free market dramatically because no salaries are paid, we not only destroy the concept of the free market but cause people to be imprisoned by making our casual purchases.

There are solar arrays all over the country today that contain a modern slavery element—namely, the polysilicon. What are the Government going to do about that? What are they going to do about something that is already in existence in the UK? It is a big question. The Government have only just opened this door, and I think that if they want to stand by moral purpose, which is exactly what a Labour Government would claim to do, they must take this forward. They must say, “Do you know what? We are going to table amendments in all those areas that get rid of this and amend the Modern Slavery Act.” If they do that, they will be right, because this really is the issue of our time. The issue of the cost of products should not outweigh that of the cost of lives.

We have turned a blind eye for far too long, and we must now face up to our responsibilities. America has given us a lead, turning the balance of proof on its head by ensuring that companies make the correct declarations, because they are assumed to have slave labour elements in their products—and those products are not just arrays. Companies have to prove to the Government that their supply chains are clear, and those supply chains are tested using a New Zealand company called Oritain. I suggested its services to the last Government, who were not keen to take them up at that stage, but I offer them to this Government now, because they have to do those tests and force companies to tell the truth, rather than casually saying, “This is what we are told.”

If the Government do that, they will begin to stand up for this one. The Opposition, I am sure, stand ready to assist them in all this, as do all the other parties. This is a real moment, when we, as a Parliament, can say, “That is it. No more backsliding; no more pretence. We will fight modern slavery wherever it exists, because it is a tool of oppression and a tool to break the free market.” \p Dave Doogan: Well, this is a red-letter day: we are in the Chamber to discuss something positive that is happening with GB Energy. I commend the Minister and his colleagues for that, although it is consistent with the function of a significant U-turn in Government policy. I thank Members of both Houses for their work in bringing Lords amendment 2B to fruition.

The amendment would ensure that no material or equipment produced as a function of slave labour is used in GB Energy’s enterprises, but I heard the Minister talk about “expectation” and “striving”, which are much less unequivocal than “ensure”, so I would be very grateful if he could reassure the House that “ensure” means ensure. Consistent with comments from other hon. and right hon. Members, there is a very straightforward way to do that. It is maybe not legislatively or bureaucratically light, but this is an extremely important issue. If it does not attract a burden of administration to ensure that our collective consciences are clear, what will?

As an engineer, I know that many products that we purchase come with a certificate of conformity. In pursuance of ensuring that there is no slave labour in any enterprise of GB Energy, it would be very straightforward for the Government to mandate that a certificate of conformity must be produced for all equipment, which would explicitly guarantee that the supply chains are free of slave labour. That does not seem to be an especially demanding expectation.

I will make a final point. Can the Minister explain something to me? I am genuinely not seeing this with the clarity that I suspect he is—or maybe he is not. In what enterprises will GB Energy be involved as the decider, rather than the provider, in delivering generation, transmission or storage capacity on the ground and in a meaningful way? How will GB Energy scrutinise or mandate bills for materials to say whether they are provided from this provider or that provider? That is not my understanding of the nature of GB Energy. As has been explained in this House and elsewhere, GB Energy is a derisking device that will inject capital into the market and clear the blockages—it will not introduce purchase orders from this company or that company. I would be genuinely grateful if the Minister could clarify that. \p Michael Shanks: I thank all hon. and right hon. Members for their contributions to this important debate. I will start with the intervention made by the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), which set the tone. He said that there is an important cross-party consensus on this issue, and I think that that has come through in all the contributions we have heard. Hopefully, that gives us a mandate to push further on this issue than any of our parties has done until this point. That is my genuine intent, and the hon. Gentleman’s point is very helpful.

I always welcome my exchanges with the shadow Minister, as he well knows. I thought for a moment that there was an opportunity at this very late stage for him to change his way and support investment in his own constituency through Great British Energy, but he has once again decided to use this opportunity to say to his constituents that he does not want investment and jobs. We will of course remind his constituents of that. \p Perran Moon: Bring it down to Cornwall! \p Michael Shanks: Cornwall is ever present in these debates. Nevertheless, however much the shadow Minister’s teeth were gritted, I do welcome his support for the approach we are taking today.

We are debating Lords amendment 2B, which, combined with the previous commitments that I have made from the Dispatch Box and that my noble Friend Lord Hunt has made in the other place, demonstrates that this Government are committed to using Great British Energy as a vehicle for taking this issue seriously. As came through in a number of the contributions, though, this is not solely the preserve of Great British Energy; it is much broader, both in the energy system and in the wider economy.

I have committed to doing some things already. I have committed to appointing a senior leader in Great British Energy who will have oversight of tackling forced labour in the supply chain; we have confirmed that Baroness O’Grady will take on that role. Many Members will know that she has significant experience in this space, and she will bring much effort to important deliberations at GB Energy. I have committed to cross-Government departmental meetings, which took place on 7 May as a starting point. I have committed to including an overarching expectation in the statement of strategic priorities, and that will be delivered within six months. We have demonstrated our unwavering commitment to tackling forced labour in supply chains, and we are resolute in our determination to go further. \p Iain Duncan Smith: The question, however, is this: at the end of it all, how will we know that the supply chains have been correctly declared? If they have not been, it will become a matter of avoidance. America checks, tests and sanctions companies that have lied about their supply chains, and that has forced wholesale change to its supply chain process. I ask the Government to learn from America and get companies such as Oritain to use forensic science to test the company supply chains about which they are suspicious. \p Michael Shanks: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. I was going to come to his substantive contribution shortly, but I will do so now. The first point he made in his speech is important, which is that there is a real danger with the piecemeal approach he mentioned. That is partly why I have resisted the idea that Great British Energy will solve all of these issues in isolation; it clearly is not going to do so. We think it has a really important role in leading the conversation and leading the effort, and certainly in demonstrating that by its own actions, but we have to look at these issues right across Government.

The meetings I have convened are a starting point in looking seriously at where the Modern Slavery Act falls short. We are committed to doing that, and it sounds as though there is consensus across the House about looking seriously at that. That is not only for my Department, and I want to be careful about overstepping, because to avoid the work being piecemeal, it needs to be done right across Government. However, the points the right hon. Gentleman makes specifically on tracking supply chains are very helpful, and I will take them away.

The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) made a point about the International Labour Organisation’s principles. Great British Energy will consider the 11 indicators of forced labour, including abuse of working and living conditions, as part of its efforts. I do not think that this Bill is the right place to get into a conversation about defining slavery. We may need to look at that, and I am not against doing so, but this Bill is about creating Great British Energy, and we need to be careful to keep these things separate.

We are already a signatory to a number of conventions, which highlights the Government’s broad support for tackling forced and compulsory labour, and we will continue to take that forward. The Home Office has produced a modern slavery action plan, which sets out the first steps in its departmental responsibilities for tackling modern slavery at its root. The plan, which will be published shortly, confirms that the Government are considering legislative vehicles for strengthening section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act.

These are clearly important issues, and I do not for a second seek to say that the Lords amendment or Great British Energy itself will solve all of them, but I think this is an important step, and I welcome all the contributions made across the House. \p Debbie Abrahams: I basically want to thank the Minister. This has been quite a robust and rough journey, but he has listened to comments from across the House, analysed the arguments we have made and listened to the other place. I think this is now going to be a very strong Act that will help enormously to shift our global supply chains and get the transparency I think everybody in this House wants, so I thank him. \p Michael Shanks: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, but more broadly, as I have said before, for her significant contribution in this space and for the way she has influenced me and others over the past few weeks on these important issues. I also thank others across the House, because it has been a real cross-party effort, and I think we are in the same place. We want to take this forward, and there is much more work to do. I want the message to be that, while this is progress, it is—as the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) put it very well—the beginning, and certainly not the end, of further work.

Without wanting to tempt fate, this is the last opportunity to speak about the Bill in this place, so I close by thanking everyone who has played a role in getting it to this stage. In particular, I thank my noble Friend Lord Hunt in the other place. I thank all the Members from all parties in this place who contributed to the Bill Committee, and the witnesses who gave evidence. I also thank the parliamentary staff who play such an important role in  shepherding Bills through this place and the House of Lords. I especially thank the fantastic team of officials in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, who moved at incredible speed to develop the legislation, but always with good humour, which I have personally appreciated.

Great British Energy is at the heart of what the Government are setting out to achieve: delivering clean power, but delivering jobs and investment as we do it; and delivering energy security and climate leadership, owned by and for the people of this country, and headquartered in the energy capital of Europe, Aberdeen. With investments having already been made, including in community energy in Scotland today, which Members from Scotland might welcome, and investment in supply chains and much, much more, this is the big idea of our time. It will deliver on our energy objectives, but with the public owning a stake in their energy future. I am pleased that Parliament will—I hope, without tempting fate—back it today, so that it can receive Royal Assent and get on with doing what we need it to do. \p Iain Duncan Smith: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I just want to remind the House that the Deputy Speaker in the Chair today is also sanctioned by the Chinese Government for her bravery. \p Nusrat Ghani: That is noted, and no doubt on the record again, as it has been previously. Thank you. I will continue with the business.

Lords amendment 2B agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 12 February 2025 (Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]: Programme):

Consideration of Lords Message

(1) Proceedings on the Lords Message shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement.

Subsequent stages

(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

(3) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Kate Dearden.)

Question agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Consideration of Lords message \p Nusrat Ghani: I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that Lords amendment 49B, the Lords disagreement with the Commons in Commons amendment 52 and Lords amendments 52B and 52C engage Commons financial privilege. If any of those Lords amendments are agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal. \p Chris Bryant: I beg to move,

That this House insists on Commons Amendment 32 to which the Lords have disagreed and disagrees with the Lords in their Amendments 32B and 32C proposed to the words restored to the Bill by the Lords disagreement. \p Nusrat Ghani: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Government motions:

That this House agrees with the Lords in their Amendments 34B and 34C proposed instead of the words left out of the Bill by Commons Amendment 34.

That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment 43B.

That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment 49B.

That this House insists on Commons Amendment 52 to which the Lords have disagreed and disagrees with the Lords in their Amendments 52B and 52C proposed to the words restored to the Bill by the Lords disagreement.

That this House does not insist on Commons Amendment 55 to which the Lords have disagreed and agrees with the Lords in their Amendments 55D and 55E proposed in lieu of Commons Amendment 55.

That this House agrees with the Lords in their Amendment 56B \p Chris Bryant: Notwithstanding the views of the Chinese Government, it is a delight to see you in your place, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am only saddened that I have not been sanctioned, which feels a shame—nor by Russia, for that matter. There is still time.

I am delighted to be here today to discuss the Bill, which we last discussed in depth a week ago today. First, I would like to express how pleased I am that the other place has agreed to the Government’s amendments relating the national underground asset register and intimate image abuse. I pay tribute to all those Members of the House of Lords who took part in getting that part of the legislation to the place where it is now. I am glad we have been able to work with them. I will start by encouraging the House to agree to those amendments, before I move on to discuss the amendments relating to AI and intellectual property, scientific research, and sex and gender—in that order.

Lords amendments 55D, 55E and 56B, which were introduced to the Bill in the other place by the noble Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge, place a duty on the face of the Bill that requires the Government to: review the operation of the “reasonable excuse” defence in the offences of creating and requesting intimate image deepfakes without consent, or reasonable belief in consent; publish the outcome of the review in a report; and lay that report before Parliament. The Government were pleased  to support the amendments in the other place, as we share the desire to ensure that the criminal law, and these offences in particular, work as the Government intend. \p Natasha Irons: I think we all appreciate the amendment, because we want to protect vulnerable women, children and anybody who is at risk of this sort of harm. Could we not look at doing something similar to the amendment, and the carve-out we have created with it, for our creative industries? If we can protect our vulnerable people, can we not also protect our creative industries from copyright infringement by having territorial exemptions similar to what we have with deepfakes? \p Chris Bryant: My hon. Friend is jumping the gun slightly—I will come on to those issues.

I want to praise Baroness Owen with regard to this part of the legislation. If it had not been for her, I do not think it would have ended up in the Bill. There was a bit of to-ing and fro-ing between her and the Ministry of Justice to ensure that we got the legislation in the right place. As I said in last week’s discussions, one of the issues was whether Baroness Owen’s original version of the second offence really worked in law; I think she agreed that our version, which we tabled in Committee, was better. We have been able to tidy up the question of the reasonable excuse. It is perfectly legitimate to ask how on earth there could be a legitimate or reasonable excuse for creating one of these images or asking for one to be created, and we went through those debates previously. I am glad that the Government have come to a settled position with Baroness Owen, and that is what I urge everybody to support here today.

The Government made a manifesto commitment to ban sexually explicit deepfakes, and the Bill delivers on that promise. For the first time, there will be punishment for perpetrators who create or ask others to create intimate deepfakes of adults without consent.

Secondly, I turn to the national underground asset register, which it does feel has been a long time coming. Of course, that is partly because the Bill is in its third iteration. Amendment 34 relates to the national underground asset register. An amendment was previously tabled in the House of Lords requiring the Secretary of State to provide guidance on cyber-security measures, which was rejected by this House. Last week, the Government tabled amendments 34B and 34C in lieu on this topic, which were drafted with the support of the security services. These amendments expand the scope from cyber-security only to general security measures, clarify the audience for the guidance and extend its reach to Northern Ireland, alongside England and Wales.

On all the amendments I have spoken to thus far, I thank our noble colleagues in the other place for their work and support to reach agreement in these areas. I urge colleagues here today to support these amendments, too; otherwise, we are never going to get the Bill through. \p Steve Barclay: Will the Minister give way? \p Chris Bryant: On the subject of never getting the Bill through, I will, of course, give way to the right hon. Gentleman. \p Steve Barclay: One reason for getting the Bill through, one would hope, is to deliver on things like content credentials, which firms like Adobe have championed, to show who has produced a file, where the ownership sits and whether artificial intelligence has been used to edit it. Can the Minister confirm whether the Bill will deliver on that commitment on content credentials, and if not, why not? \p Chris Bryant: Well, it is because the Bill was never intended to deal with copyright and artificial intelligence at all. The Government have not introduced any provision relating to AI or copyright, and I think that specific issue would probably be ruled out of scope if it were to be tabled.

There are very serious issues in relation to AI and copyright, which I am about to come on to, and I know the point the right hon. Gentleman is making on technical standards. [Interruption.] He keeps on talking at me—I am happy to give way to him again if he wants, but I cannot hear what he is saying. \p Steve Barclay: My point is about AI being used to change photographs, and having the ability to see that through content credentials or the digital fingerprint. The point I am raising is that the Government themselves have still not adopted that, in terms of their official communications. Will the Bill deliver on that, and if not, why will the Government not adopt that best practice? \p Chris Bryant: I am honestly failing to understand the point the right hon. Gentleman is making. The Bill is not and has never been intended to deal with the kind of issue he is referring to. As I say, I think that if somebody were to table amendments to that effect, they would be ruled out of order. The Bill does not deal with copyright or artificial intelligence; the only measures in the Bill on AI and copyright are those introduced in the House of Lords, which I am about to speak to.

Although I was not able to listen to the whole of the debate in the House of Lords the other day, the Secretary of State and I stood at the Bar of the House to listen carefully to considerable parts of the debate. I want to make two separate but interconnected points on AI and intellectual property in relation to the Bill. First, there is an urgent issue that must be addressed—namely, what is happening today, and, for that matter, one could argue what happened yesterday, last week, last year and two years ago. To be absolutely clear, I will reiterate that copyright law in the UK is unchanged. Works are protected unless one of the existing exceptions, which have existed for some time, such as exceptions for teaching and research, applies, or the rights holder has granted permission for their work to be used. That is the law. That is the law now, and it will be the law tomorrow if the House agrees with the Government and rejects the amendment tabled by Baroness Kidron and supported in the House of Lords. As I have said previously, I am glad that several creative industries have been able to secure licensing agreements with AI companies, including publishers, music labels and others, under the existing law. I want to see more of that—more licensing and more remuneration of creative rights holders. \p Samantha Niblett: It is wonderful to hear my hon. Friend talk about the importance of copyright and the fact that we have existing laws that we can use, but I wonder whether he is aware of the growing concern in industry about the risk of expansive US-style fair use principles creeping into UK practice and what we might do to secure our safeguards. We must not allow foreign interpretations of fair use to erode our copyright laws. \p Chris Bryant: As I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, the US system of fair use is different from the UK’s—ours goes back to 1709, with the first of our copyright Acts, and it has been very solid. When we introduced this Bill, I said that this country should be proud of the fact that a succession of different generations have ensured that rights holders can protect their copyright. Interestingly, one of Charles Dickens’ big battles was being able to protect his copyright not only in the UK but in the United States of America, where he felt he had fewer protections. It is for us to develop our own copyright law in our own country, and I say to my hon. Friend that the law as it is will not change one jot as a result of what we are intending to do in the Bill. \p Caroline Dinenage: rose— \p Pete Wishart: rose— \p Chris Bryant: I probably ought to give way first to the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, and then to the hon. Gentleman. \p Caroline Dinenage: Yesterday the Minister appeared before our Select Committee and said, “The best kind of AI is the kind of AI that is built on premium content, and you can’t get premium content without paying for premium content.” Now, as well as being concerned about the overuse of the expression “premium content” in that sentence, I am also concerned about the fact that, as we speak, there are copyright works out there being scraped underhandedly by AI developers, some of whom are feigning licensing negotiations with the very rights holders whose works they are scraping. Surely now is the time to require developers to tell us what copyright works are being used to train their models and what their web-scraping bots are up to. Surely he agrees that Lords amendment 49 is a very good way to move this forward to see what works are being used to train AI models. \p Chris Bryant: The first thing to say to the right hon. Lady is that I completely stand by everything I said to the Select Committee yesterday. I do believe that the best form of AI will be intelligent artificial intelligence. And just like any pipe, what comes out of it depends on what goes into it. If we have high-quality data going into AI, then it will produce high-quality data at the other end. I have spoken to quite a lot of publishing houses in the UK, including Taylor & Francis in particular— \p Jonathan Davies: rose— \p Chris Bryant: Let me finish my point and then I will give way first to the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart), who gets very cross if people queue-barge.

I am aware that there are quite a lot of publishing houses in the UK that are determined to secure licensing deals with AI companies, both in the UK and overseas. First, they want to ensure that those AI companies remunerate them and, secondly, they want to ensure that they have very high-quality, up-to-date information and data going into them, so that if somebody searches for immunotherapy, for instance, they will have the latest information on immunotherapy, not stuff that is five, six or seven years out of date, or that may have come from a dodgy source.

The second point I want to make is this. The right hon. Lady said that this amendment would sort the problem today, but it would not. It would do nothing today, or indeed for a considerable number of months. Therefore, there is an issue about what we do today—what we as a Government do, and what we as the creative industries and everybody working together do, to ensure that we protect copyright under the existing law as it is today. \p Pete Wishart: The Minister keeps saying that we have existing copyright laws that are there to protect the creative industries and our artists, but practically our whole creative heritage is being scraped. There are probably songs in the top 40 that have been totally designed by AI, and there will be books in the top 30 or 40 bestsellers that will be based on AI—probably fully AI. This is happening right now. Surely artists and creators should know when their works are being used. That is why Lords amendment 49B is so important for transparency. \p Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that there are works out there that have been created with the use of AI. As I have said several times, I have never thought that the creative industries are in any sense luddite; I have always thought that they are at the forefront of innovation in so many areas—at the Select Committee yesterday I referred to Fra Angelico. This is true of every creative industry: they have to innovate in order to succeed. A video games company would say that it is using AI all the time, not necessarily to save money but to improve the product and be at the cutting edge of what they are doing. Even Björn from ABBA has said that he has been using AI because it enhances his work.

One area that is in our consultation but is yet to be addressed by anybody in any of the debates I have heard in this House or the other place is this: what we do about the copyright status of works that are solely or largely created by AI, because it is a moot point what we should do about it under existing law? My point is simply that we need to address all these issues in the round rather than piecemeal, and I will come on to that in more substance in a moment. \p Jonathan Davies: The Minister is being very generous with his time. Central to what he is saying is transparency. Does he agree that enforceable transparency obligations would reduce legal uncertainty, deter infringement by increasing the legal risk to AI developers, and enable faster redress by allowing the courts to establish precedent where copyright is breached? \p Chris Bryant: Yes. I do not think that people should breach copyright law. I have said that in several debates, and it is the settled view of the Government. We believe that people should not breach copyright law—they should not break the law. Some of the issues my hon. Friend raises have been or are being tested in the courts, and they will be contested more in the courts in future months.

A point I made right at the beginning, when we introduced the consultation, was that there is a fair use system in the United States of America, while we have our system in the UK, and then there is a slightly different system in the EU, which has largely relied on the Napoleonic code understanding of what an author is and what a work is. All those systems are slightly different and have been implemented in different countries in different ways, and they may lead to different conclusions in individual court cases.

That is why we have wanted to look at every single element of this issue, from transparency to technical data, access to high-quality data, issues of enforcement and personality rights. There are a whole series of issues, many of which are yet to be addressed in debates in either Chamber. That takes me back to my point that I do not think this is the Bill in which to do this piece of work, and I do not think that the amendment we are debating will secure what people hope from it. \p Alison Hume: The Minister mentioned the consultation. Could he confirm that the Government no longer consider an opt-out model to be their preferred approach to copyright and AI, and if so, what alternative approach is now being actively pursued or developed with the sector? \p Chris Bryant: I will say two things. First, we have always said that we were consulting on a package, and part of that package was a technical solution so that rights holders would be able to protect their rights better, in a way that— \p Samantha Niblett: Will the Minister give way? \p Chris Bryant: I will in a moment, but I am still answering the intervention. I had two points to make, and I will now probably forget the second one.

As I was saying, it was always going to be a package of measures, and we always said that we would not introduce that package unless we were secure in the belief that we could deliver for the creative industries a technical solution that made it simpler for them to enforce their rights and seek remuneration and that would lead to more licensing. That is a whole package.

When we last debated this, I said two things: first, that we are open-minded about where we are in relation to the consultation, and secondly—perhaps just as importantly—that our amendment 16 would require us to undertake an economic impact assessment of all the different options included in the consultation. I hope that answers my hon. Friend’s question. Somebody else wanted to ask another question. \p Torcuil Crichton: rose— \p Samantha Niblett: rose— \p Chris Bryant: I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) and then I will probably go over to my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton). \p Anneliese Midgley: The other week, an Observer article reported that a source close to the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology said that

“proposals to introduce an opt-out system of copyright rules was no longer his preferred option but one of several being given consideration.”

That is a very welcome change of heart, potentially, but it does not mean anything unless Ministers are prepared to repeat it in Parliament. Will my hon. Friend the Minister confirm that that is an accurate representation of the Government’s position? \p Chris Bryant: I am afraid that I will repeat what I just said. First, in the consultation we introduced a package of measures and it hinged on the issue of whether we can deliver not only for AI companies but for the creative industries, to protect their rights more effectively than they presently can. Secondly, as I think I have now said twice at the Dispatch Box, we are open-minded about the responses to the consultation. We have had 11,500 responses to the consultation and we are making our way through all that. A lot of different issues have been addressed.

The issue of the economic impact assessment is a serious one. It is one thing to say that the AI sector in the UK, which is the third largest in the world, is worth x billion pounds to the UK economy, and that the creative industries are worth £124 billion—that is a number that a lot of people have used—to the economy. It is quite a different matter to draw up a proper economic impact assessment on the basis of the various different options. \p Mike Martin: Will the Minister give way? \p Chris Bryant: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is in a queue. It is quite a long queue, and it seems to be getting longer. \p Torcuil Crichton: I thank the Minister for— \p Chris Bryant: No, no. I think my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) is next. \p Samantha Niblett: On the point of finding a solution in the round, if no credible technical solution is in sight, will the Minister confirm what non-technical legislative or regulatory measures the Government are considering to protect rights holders in the interim? \p Chris Bryant: That is precisely why we need to do this in the round, rather than just piecemeal. I understand the attraction of what is on the amendment paper today, but I do not think it would deliver the answer that the people need now to the issues that the creative industries are facing now. In another debate we referred to the issue— \p Polly Billington: Will my hon. Friend give way? \p Chris Bryant: Hang on! Madam Deputy Speaker, we will have to set up a queuing system. \p Caroline Nokes: The Minister is very popular. \p Chris Bryant: I am not sure that it is popularity, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The important point is that we need to look at this in the round, rather than piecemeal. I do not think that what is on the amendment paper today would deliver anything now. Indeed, it does not purport to; it instead purports to give something in six, nine or 12 months’ time, or sometime in the future. \p Torcuil Crichton: We can assure the Minister that he remains popular, as well as generous with his time. He mentioned the Government consultation. It has caused deep and sustained anxiety across the sector. When can we expect a substantive response to the consultation? \p Chris Bryant: I wish I could give my hon. Friend a timeline. The main thing I want to say about the timeline, as somebody who I think all hon. Members know cares passionately not just about the anxiety that has been created in this sphere because of the consultation but about the anxiety for many creative people about their future careers, is that I get that anxiety—100%. That is the bigger point.

Frankly, I would like to stop doing the Data Bill and start going out and engaging with the Minister for AI and Digital Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark), to have as many sessions with creative industries and different parts of the sector and with the AI companies—in particular UK-based AI companies—to work out how we can get to proper solutions to all of this. However, until I get the Data Bill out of the way, I will struggle to do that.

On another point, I think of my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley as a musician, because she is still a member of the Musicians’ Union. There is a really important part here for the different sectors within the creative industries. Word, image, music and sound will all probably need different technical solutions. That is the kind of nitty-gritty that we need to get into, which we can only really do when we consider the whole issue in the round, rather than just one specific aspect of it. Now, I think Margate calls. \p Polly Billington: I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being extremely generous with his time.

The Minister is talking about the possibility that the amendments put forward would not do anything today, but there is an urgency in the creative industries because the stuff that they create is being scraped now. Will he prioritise transparency by committing at the Dispatch Box to introducing enforceable obligations, if not through a statutory instrument then at least through a clear public commitment, so that transparency will be central to the Government’s approach to AI and copyright? \p Chris Bryant: First, I completely get the urgency of this. In many ways, I wish we had been addressing this two or three years ago, because we are some way behind other countries in relation to this. Secondly, we will prioritise the issue of transparency in all the work we do as we go forward. I have said that from the very beginning. Transparency is essential to the issue of licensing; licensing is essential to the question of remuneration; and remuneration is essential to the process of AI being high- quality, effective and able to be deployed in the UK. All these things have to be addressed in the round and together, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that without transparency, it is worth nothing.

The AI Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North—is chuntering in my left ear, which is helpful because she makes the point that this was the very first thing we discussed when came into office. With both of us in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, we discussed how we could get to a resolute piece of legislation that enabled greater licensing, greater deployment of artificial intelligence in the UK, in particular UK companies, and greater transparency. So I completely agree on that— \p Polly Billington: rose— \p Chris Bryant: I will give way, but I have the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) waiting. \p Polly Billington: Again, my hon. Friend is extremely generous with his time. Will he therefore consider interim measures or guidance that would deliver similar outcomes while legislative options are being explored? That is what the creative industries are looking for. \p Chris Bryant: I do not know what interim measures would look like. All three of us on the team, including the Secretary of State, have often said that we are open- minded about anybody coming through the door with a good solution. We are in the business of good ideas, and if anybody has any good ideas, we are happy to look at them, but I honestly cannot make the guarantee that my hon. Friend asks for because I do not know what interim measures that were not legislative would look like. It is not our intention—I would urge people to abide by this—to legislate piecemeal in this Bill, which is not about artificial intelligence and copyright. \p Mike Martin: rose— \p Chris Bryant: Of course I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. I am sorry he has been waiting so long. \p Mike Martin: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; he is being very generous, although I might suggest that he works on his queuing system a little bit.

I understand that the timetable issue is a difficult one, and most things seem to be arriving in the spring with this Government, but could we talk about the format? Are we going to have the consultation, then a White Paper and then a Bill? Is that what it is going to look like? Will that perhaps be in the next King’s Speech? \p Chris Bryant: If I was unable to suggest what interim measures would look like, I am not sure I will be able to please the hon. Gentleman by suggesting what will be in the next King’s Speech. I do not even know when the next King’s Speech will be. As the Minister for the creative industries and for data, I want, along with my colleagues in Government, to be able to get on with the business of trying to get together the working parties I have referred to. I want to get people from the AI companies and the creative industries sitting around the same table to work out what a proportionate and effective system of transparency would look like and what the technical solutions might be. Other countries have struggled with drawing this up; the EU is struggling with it at the moment.

That is the next stage. At the same time, we are considering what our response to the consultation should be. We have heard what many people in this House and in the House of Lords have said on this issue, and of course we will bear all that in mind. We are keeping an open mind in relation to that. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a date for when we will publish that consultation, but we are working on it as fast as we possibly can. \p Paul Waugh: My hon. Friend told our Select Committee yesterday that it is not for us to give away the labour of other people to third parties for free. Given that the Government have now said they are open-minded, and if open-minded means there is no technical solution, is the Minister open-minded to the idea of legislative solutions to protect copyright and enhance it for all our great creatives? It is not just ABBA’s Björn; it is people in Rochdale and low-paid creatives across the whole north-west and country. \p Chris Bryant: One of the special and unique aspects of the creative industries as a sector, which has grown faster than the rest of the UK economy and for whom we hope to lay out our plan in the next few weeks in the creative industries industrial strategy, is that they exist in nearly every part of our land. Often, the jobs are not well remunerated, and we want to change that. That is a key part of what we seek to do. We also want to ensure that more people can come into the creative industries and realise their ambitions in those areas, and they will not be able to do that if they are not remunerated. That is why I have made the point from the beginning that we want to get to a technical solution, which is not far distant. It is a possibility—I would not deride it. It does not exist at the moment, but there are those who want to work on it. Frankly, somebody might earn a decent penny if they were to come up with a solution so that all rights holders would be able easily, simply and without great expense to protect their rights across all AI platforms deployed in the UK. \p Karen Bradley: rose— \p James Frith: rose— \p Chris Bryant: Oh my Lord—I am almost as keen to get on to the next bit of my speech as I am to get the data Bill through to Royal Assent, but I probably ought to give way to the right hon. Lady and then I will come back to my hon. Friend. \p Karen Bradley: I am so grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I get the sense that he is perhaps needing to go long, and that might be why he is taking so many interventions—I am happy to assist him in that process. I want to give him an opportunity. I know him well enough and know how much he values this place, but I have been slightly concerned by his comments throughout that he is keen to get on with it. Would he like to put on the record that he is first and foremost a parliamentarian and that being in this place is the bit of the job that he values most? \p Chris Bryant: Well, the right hon. Lady was at my 60th birthday—I know it is difficult to believe. \p Simon Hoare: A long time ago! \p Chris Bryant: “A long time ago!” says the rather ungenerous Member sitting at the back.

Honestly, I have not been asked to go long. I am simply, because I do believe in parliamentary scrutiny, trying to answer all the questions and engage in a proper debate. I know that colleagues want to press me on a series of issues. There are some issues coming up that they might want to press me on that are completely different from this, and I am happy to be pressed, including by the right hon. Lady, as many times as she wants. But I do not think there was a question in her point. She thought she was trying to help me go long, but I am trying to go slightly shorter. \p Nusrat Ghani: To help the Minister for a moment, because colleagues are looking bewildered: I do not know who was or was not invited to the Minister’s 60th birthday party, in case they are feeling a little left out. \p Chris Bryant: I know it is out of order to say that an hon. Member is not telling the truth, but, Madam Deputy Speaker, you were there! [Laughter.] And I accept your apology. \p James Frith: The hon. Gentleman has been generous with his time today and in the process to date, and I thank him for that. I understand the Government have long maintained that this Bill is not the right place for these amendments. Given the Government’s anticipated removal of the Lords amendments and the use of financial privilege, what definitive action will the Minister take to address the ongoing serious concerns of our world-leading creative industries, particularly on copyright and transparency? What does he advise those of us seeking stronger commitments to do next? Would he point to any specific timeline, mechanism or legislative tool that will be used to offer the certainty that the sector is crying out for? \p Chris Bryant: Notwithstanding the hilarity, this is obviously a very important matter to a large number of people. For many people in the creative industry, it feels like a kind of apocalyptic moment—they think that their careers are disappearing in front of their faces. I fully recognise that.

The moment that the Bill is out of the way, I and the two Departments I sit in—the Departments for Culture, Media and Sport and for Science, Innovation  and Technology—would like to get people back in to work on two working parties. One would work on transparency and precisely what it looks like in granular detail—very high-level stuff does not really meet the moment. The second would work on technical standards and solutions that might deliver greater access to data for the AI companies, and on the ability for the creative industries to protect their works.

I do have some sympathy with Lords amendment 49B. There is one element that I would like to explore, which has been raised by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart). It is one thing for Getty Images, for example, to go to court and protect its rights under the existing law, because it has deep pockets and can engage lawyers. It is quite a different matter for individual artists, who may want to promote their work by putting it on the internet and do not want it to disappear from the internet, but also do not want it to be scraped and turned into another version of their work created by AI. \p Simon Hoare: Will the Minister give way? \p Chris Bryant: I will in a second. Then I probably ought to move on to the next subject, Madam Deputy Speaker. \p Chi Onwurah: Will the Minister give way? \p Chris Bryant: Oh dear.

I take very seriously the point that this is not just about people with deep pockets; it is also about individual artists. We want to ensure that they are protected. I give way to the hon. Gentleman. \p Simon Hoare: There is little doubt that the Minister takes the issue seriously—I think the House accepts that—but does he acknowledge that what he has said in answer to questions from the Opposition and from his hon. Friends will offer the sector rather cold comfort? He recognises that this is an issue, as the Government do, and argues that the Bill is not the place to resolve it, but he does not give strong leadership by setting out a clear timetable and a clear direction of travel or sharing with the House his thinking on how the issue could be solved. Many people are facing this problem today, and he is asking them to take comfort from his intention to do something at an unspecified time, with the exception of convening two working parties. It is not quite enough to meet the magnitude of the concern from that vibrant and growing sector, which, as he rightly says, is represented in all constituencies across the country. \p Chris Bryant: Of course, I would like to be able to move faster, but as the hon. Gentleman said to me last week in Committee and in various different places, this is not an easy knot to untie. It will require a great deal of goodwill from a large number of people to secure a settled outcome that works for everybody. I still believe that there could be a win-win situation, but that will happen only if we can gather everybody around the same table in order to deliver it. I am perfectly happy to provide leadership, and to be punched in the nose for  providing that leadership if people think that I have got it wrong, but I do not think that is the problem at this particular moment.

Let me give the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) one reason why I think Lords amendment 49B does not really work. Yes, we all agree that we should introduce transparency measures—although it is difficult to work out precisely how they would be proportionate and effective and work equally for big and small companies—but there is no point in having transparency measures unless we have an enforcement measure. An element of the proposed new clause refers to enforcement, but it basically asks the Secretary of State to draw up that enforcement. One would not expect to be able to do that in any other area without a full Bill devoted solely to that purpose. I wish that I could move faster, but I do not want to move faster than is required to secure an outcome. \p Chi Onwurah: rose— \p James Frith: rose— \p Chris Bryant: I will take only one more intervention, I am afraid, because I have taken so many. I probably ought to give way to the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee. \p Chi Onwurah: I thank the Minister for his generosity in giving way, which has made this a real debate. I commend him for his determination to bring together the tech sector and creatives to develop a solution—I know that many creatives are technical, and many technical people are creative. May I urge the Minister to ensure that he works with a wide range of tech companies? As I have said to him, I do not believe that large tech platforms have the right incentives to develop an appropriate tech solution to this, and I urge him to be transparent about how he engages with them.

Finally, the tech platforms refused to appear at a joint sitting of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee and the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, but it is through transparency that we can ensure competition to identify the best technical solution. \p Chris Bryant: Yes, I completely agree. My hon. Friend makes the good point that in the UK, many of the creative industries—roughly 40%—are tech. They are fast-growing, and part of what we want to incentivise. She makes the good point that we need to talk to lots of different kinds of artificial intelligence companies, just as we need to talk to lots of different kinds of creative industries. All those points are well made, and what she refers to is precisely the work that I and the team will want to take forward as soon as we can. \p James Frith: This will be my last intervention for now. Will the Minister make it his policy to include representatives of the creative industries on the technical committees that are working on AI and copyright reform? We arrived at this point because there is a sense that one Department speaks to some people, and another Department speaks to others, whereas there are implications for both sectors. We should have both sectors in the room, talking about each other with the Minister and his Department. \p Chris Bryant: I completely agree with everything my hon. Friend said, and I can give that guarantee. Interestingly, when we started this process after the general election, the first consultation meetings that the Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark), and I had were with the creative industries in one room and the AI companies in another. Perhaps it would have been better to mix them up in the way my hon. Friend has suggested, and that is precisely the job of work that I want to get on with.

We are determined that wherever we can, we will take creative industries with us, and we will be transparent about the work that we do. I want to lay to rest the idea that there are two Departments at war with one another. That simply is not the case. The two Departments are trying to work together to achieve good outcomes for everybody. \p Caroline Dinenage: The Minister is being unbelievably generous in taking interventions, but before he moves on, I wanted to say that it is really important to have those involved in AI and in the creative industries in the same room at the same time. He must not forget that the reason the creative industries are in such a state of panic and despair about this is because a hare was set running a few months ago by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, when it published an AI strategy that said that the copyright opt-out was a way to grow the AI industry. The Government then published their consultation, in which they indicated that the opt-out was their preferred mechanism, despite the fact that the document also mentioned prioritising transparency. I understand that, but the Minister must understand that panic has set in. Words matter; what we say matters. He needs to do everything that he can to bring this issue to a close. \p Chris Bryant: As the hon. Lady knows, I am sympathetic to the direction of travel that she is trying to take me in. Some people will think that I am splitting hairs, and that is not my intention, but I have been keen to avoid the term “opt-out”. As I said, we have brought forward a package of measures. They were reliant on our being able to deliver greater control, through technical measures, for the creative industries and others who had rights to protect. That is why we referred to “rights reservation”, rather than “opt-out”. I take her point, and I am sure that we will be debating it for some considerable time. She is a Select Committee Chair, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Chi Onwurah). I should have said earlier that when I was Chair of the Committee of Privileges, we produced a report, which has yet to be implemented or even discussed in the House, about how we could ensure that witnesses appeared before Parliament when Select Committee Chairs wanted them to.

If it is all right with the rest of the House, I will move on to further subjects. The issues around scientific research—I can never work out where the emphasis lies when I say the word “research”—are embodied in Lords amendment 43B. Some people have suggested that the Bill will somehow create a wild west for research, but that is simply not true. The Bill does not change the threshold for what constitutes scientific research; we are sticking with what has been and is a fair, clear and  proportionate measure, using the “reasonableness test” that is common in other legislation and well known by the courts.

As Lord Vallance said in the House of Lords earlier this week, this amendment would go against the good work done by the previous Government on avoiding unnecessary red tape for researchers. We have a world-class research sector in the UK. We want to empower it, not tie it up in red tape. We believe that documents such as the Frascati manual, which are useful and interesting in other settings, are not designed to contain legally binding requirements, so the amendment is misplaced.

If the amendment were carried forward, researchers would need to be able to demonstrate their work’s creativity to a legal standard. If someone’s work is aimed at testing or reproducing another researcher’s results, is it truly creative? That is a legitimate question, but it takes on a whole new meaning, and brings a whole new layer of bureaucracy, when enforced to a new legal standard, as the Bill insists, backed up by the potential for huge regulatory fines.

Similar issues arise in relation to requirements for research to be “systematic” and “ethical”. Those words are not necessarily well known in the courts when it comes to this legislation. As Lord Winston argued powerfully on Monday, if the amendment had been law 50 years ago, we may never have had in vitro fertilisation and the benefits spinning off from that, including valuable cancer research. Those are the issues caused by putting such a test in a legally binding setting that it was never designed for. \p Chi Onwurah: On the point that Lord Winston made in the other place, will the Minister explain how setting a test for scientific research, so that data could be reused, would have prevented in vitro fertilisation? \p Chris Bryant: Lord Winston’s point is that by introducing a requirement that research be systematic, ethical and creative, we are creating a whole new idea of what constitutes research. When he wanted to start his IVF work, it was generally thought that it would be unethical to explore that territory. Today, we would consider that view to be misplaced. We believe that the task of deciding what counts as scientific research is best approached by drawing on guidance and the opinion of experts. That is what the reasonableness test allows. It is a concept that is well understood by the courts. While I sympathise with the intention, expressed in the other place, of guarding against misuse, and while I understand the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West and I have discussed on several occasions, the Government believe that the amendment is unnecessary as the Bill already contains sufficient and, I would argue, considerable safeguards.

A controller who wishes to change the purpose of data processing to scientific research must first ensure that they comply with clause 71’s rules on purpose limitation. Scientific research is not listed as grounds for exemption where data was collected on the basis of consent. Secondly, the controller would have to ensure that they passed a “reasonableness” test; thirdly, they would have to ensure that they had lawful basis; fourthly, they would have to ensure that they met the requirements of the safeguards in clause 86; and fifthly, they would have to ensure that the new processing was fair and  complied with the wider data protection principles in UK GDPR. That is a very substantial set of safeguards. The Government cannot see how the Lords amendment would add value, on top of all those requirements against misuse, but it would have an effect on genuine researchers, as I have set out, burdening them with red tape and uncertainty and potentially excluding important research. \p Chi Onwurah: Will the Minister give way? \p Chris Bryant: If my hon. Friend does not mind, I will not give way again. I will sum up at the end of the debate, so if she wants to raise issues again, I will take interventions then. [Interruption.] I think you would like me to get a move on, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I turn finally to the issue of sex and gender, particularly in the context of the measures on digital verification services. I have tabled amendments to remove the measure that was voted for in the House of Lords on Monday, for reasons that Lord Vallance and I have noted in previous debates. For clarity, the data accuracy principle requires personal data to be accurate and not misleading for the purpose for which it is being used. That safeguard should ensure that personal data shared by public authorities with digital verification services for the purposes of verifying a particular attribute appropriately confirms the specific attribute in question. Public authorities and digital verification service providers are legally required to comply with that principle at different stages of the digital verification process. As I said last week, although it is very unlikely that digital verification services will be used in the kind of cases raised by Opposition Members, the provisions mean that if an organisation requests verification of a person’s sex at birth, the public authority must not share data that records gender more widely for the purpose of that check. Likewise, digital verification service providers must not rely on data that records gender more widely as part of the verification process in that scenario.

This Government recognise that there are instances where sex and gender data appear in the same field in public authority data sets. Existing legislation requires personal data to be accurate for the purpose for which it is being used, which means that personal data processed as part of digital verification checks must reflect the specific requirements of that check. I assure the House that if the Government were to identify an instance in which a public authority was sharing with digital verification services gender data that was mislabelled as biological sex data, we would respond appropriately.

To reiterate, this Government consider the issue of data accuracy to be of importance, and accept the Supreme Court ruling. That judgment and its effects must be worked through holistically, with sensitivity and in line with the law. The Government are already undertaking extensive work on data standards and data accuracy that will consider upcoming updated guidance from the equalities regulator. I do not think it would be appropriate to legislate in the way proposed without having taken those steps, particularly given the sensitive nature of this matter and the potential impact on people’s privacy and human rights.

I finish by noting your opinion, Madam Deputy Speaker, that Lords amendments 49B, 52B and 52C engage the financial privilege of this House, which the Government do not believe it is appropriate for this House to waive. I am sure that the other place will reflect on that carefully during its further consideration of the Bill. I am grateful to all those Members who intervened, and I hope that I have not managed to cut off anybody before their prime. \p Nusrat Ghani: That was a substantial opening speech. \p Simon Hoare: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will recall that on Monday, Mr Speaker took to task those on the Treasury Bench for making a very important announcement about major policy changes on immigration to the media before it was made to this House. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) had an urgent question on that issue just this afternoon, and at the heart of the matter is the ministerial code. It has been brought to my attention that this afternoon, the Ministry of Justice has announced some fairly major changes: a limit to the length of time for which some offenders can be returned to prison, under plans to ease prison overcrowding, and a major shake-up of offenders. It seems that the Government are persistent offenders themselves on this matter. It strikes me as arrogantly cavalier that, given the very strong strictures from the Chair and on a day on which a UQ has been granted, another offence has been added to the charge sheet.

This is something that affects, and should concern, all Members of this House who do not sit on the Front Bench. Parliament hears important announcements as they affect our constituents, and public safety and the removal of people from our streets through the prison system and so on are of concern to all our constituents, irrespective of where we represent. I also understand that no indication has been given of a written ministerial statement on this important issue. As such, I rise to reinforce the point that has been made over the past several days on this significant breach of the ministerial code, and to inquire of you, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether—even at this late-ish stage on a sitting day—the Chair has had any indication at all of a statement from the Ministry of Justice, so that a relevant Minister can be questioned on what this policy means for our constituents. \p Nusrat Ghani: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his point of order. He is entirely correct to say that the House took an urgent question earlier today on the provisions of the ministerial code. Those provisions make clear that when the House of Commons is sitting, major Government announcements should be made to the House first. That point has been made repeatedly from the Chair, including on multiple recent occasions. Ministers are accountable to this House, and should make every effort to inform this House of policy developments via statements wherever it is possible to do so. While I have been in the Chair, I have had no warning that a statement is due today. The Government and, no doubt, those on the Treasury Bench will have heard both the point of order and my response, and I trust they will act accordingly and with some urgency.

I call the shadow Minister. \p Ben Spencer: It is a pleasure to rise to speak on Lords amendments to the Data (Use and Access) Bill. Over the course of debating the Bill, it has become customary to thank those in the other place for the work they have done, particularly Baroness Owen for her work on deepfakes and others who have campaigned boldly in that area.

I will begin by speaking to Lords amendment 49B. We have been clear that supporting the creative and AI sectors is not a zero-sum game; we need to support both sectors. Through their ham-fisted consultation on copyright and AI, the Government have raised great concern throughout the creative sector, and the resulting attempts to amend this Bill have been in response to the mess they have created. In Committee and on Report, we set out a series of amendments that focused on the outcome—not the process—for a solution in this area. Those amendments focused on ensuring that the position in law of copyright in this area was clear, on the need for proportionate and effective transparency, on removing barriers to start-ups, and on facilitating technological solutions via digital watermarking.

In one of the many interventions on the Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) mentioned the importance of implementing digital watermarking. He referred to it as a response to deepfakes, but it also has relevance to technical solutions, and it strikes me as quite odd that the Minister went on to cover broadly the same topics in his opening remarks, despite pointing out to my right hon. Friend that those topics were not relevant to the ongoing debate. That indicates how confused the treatment of this area in the Bill has become, and the need for clarity.

I pay tribute to Viscount Camrose, Lord Parkinson, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), Baroness Kidron, and others in this House and in the other place, for their work on amendments to reach a resolution in this area. We had sympathy with earlier versions of those amendments, but also concerns about their workability and prescriptiveness. We have worked with Baroness Kidron to get to a position that we can now support; we believe that solutions need to incorporate the principles of transparency and proportionality. The amendment is not a perfect solution, but it is more reasonable than doing nothing.

I find it astounding that the main criticism that the Minister has made of Lords amendment 49B is that it has a run-in period prior to implementation and that people are calling for things to happen now. That is an odd way of approaching legislating. As the Opposition, we are working with other parties, among others, to try to find a solution to get the Minister out of a hole. I hope that Members across the House support the amendment.

Moving on to digital verification services, I welcome the Lords’ disagreement with amendments 32 and 52, and support their amendments 32B, 32C, 52B and 52C on sex data accuracy, which received the support of Members in the other place. As my noble Friend Viscount Camrose said in his speech, it was necessary to re-table amended versions of the clauses on data accuracy previously secured in the other place because our new clause 21 was not in scope for debate in the Lords. The Lords  amendments are technical and complex, so if you will forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will speak briefly to new clause 21 to explain for the benefit of Members how things have evolved over time.

Our new clause 21 would have compelled public authorities to correct the datasets they hold in relation to sex and to collect data on the protected characteristic of sex in accordance with the legal definition set out in the Supreme Court’s judgment: biological sex. It would also have allowed public authorities to collect data on acquired sex as recorded on a gender recognition certificate where that is relevant and lawful. It would have imposed no new obligations on the correction of data held by public authorities—the obligation already exists under article 5(1)(d) of the UK General Data Protection Regulation—but would simply have put in place a timescale for correcting data on sex. We know from the findings of the Sullivan review that that correction is much needed and long overdue.

To address a misconception, new clause 21 was silent on how sex is recorded in physical and digital forms of identity for those holding a gender recognition certificate. That is a sensitive issue for the 8,500 holders of GRCs in the UK, and we hope that much-needed clarity in this area will be given by the Equality and Human Rights Commission in its guidance due to be laid before Parliament next month. It will be up to the Secretary of State to make rules as to how that guidance is implemented in digital verification services. However, that issue, while important, does not affect the clear obligation that already exists in law to record data on sex accurately.

Lords amendments 32C and 32B, and disagreement with amendment 32, would compel the Secretary of State to examine whether the public authorities that will act as data sources for the digital verification services system ascertain sex data reliably in accordance with biological sex and, where lawful and relevant, with sex as recorded on a gender recognition certificate. That would prevent inaccurate sex data from being entrenched and proliferated in the digital verification services system. Lords amendments 52B and 52C, and disagreement with amendment 52, would give the Secretary of State the power to define in a data dictionary sex data as biological sex and, where relevant, sex as recorded on a gender recognition certificate. That could then be applied across the digital verification services system, the register of births and deaths, and other circumstances where public authorities record personal data. The amendments are critical for correcting our compromised datasets on sex and would ensure that poor-quality and inaccurate data does not undermine digital verification services.

To be clear, if our amendments do not make it into the Bill, self-ID will be brought forward through the back door, risking the protections that single-sex spaces offer to everyone. Self-ID is not and never has been the position in UK law. I do not understand why the Government are resisting these measures. Digital verification systems need to be trustworthy to deliver the benefits intended by the Bill. If they are not trustworthy, the system will fail. I therefore commend these vital and much-needed amendments to the House. \p Victoria Collins: Let me join others in expressing my gratitude for the work of many Members, especially in the other place—in particular, Baroness Owen and Baroness Kidron—but  also across this House. There has been a great deal of cross-party work, including much constructive discussion on many elements of the Bill with the Minister. Today, though, I will refer specifically to Lords amendment 49B.

I am lucky enough to represent a part of Hertfordshire that is woven into British creativity, from Graham Greene of Berkhamsted, whose masterpiece “Brighton Rock” shaped our cultural consciousness, to Eric Morecambe of Harpenden, whose partnership in Morecambe and Wise brought joy to millions, while the music of the Devines from Berkhamsted gets us up and dancing, and local artists such as Mary Casserley and Andrew Keenleyside paint our daily lives in ways that bring perspective, colour and joy in a way that only artists can achieve. Our landscapes in Ashridge and Aldbury have inspired film-makers from Disney to the producers of the Harry Potter films, and our pubs have been featured in films including “Bridget Jones”.

Today, this creative legacy faces an unprecedented threat. The current situation is more than just alarming; it is threatening the essence of our national identity and our creative economy. We hear concerns about resources for protecting our creative sector, but those arguments miss a crucial point: our creative industries, combined, contribute £126 billion to our economy, employ 2.4 million people, and are growing significantly faster than the wider economy. The question is not whether we can afford to protect these industries, but whether we can afford not to. When we invest in enforcing copyright protections, we are also investing in safeguarding one of Britain’s greatest economic assets and our competitive advantage on the world stage.

The transparency provisions in Lords amendment 49B are essential and proportionate. They apply proportionately to businesses of different sizes, while ensuring that our creative powerhouse can continue to thrive and, indeed, work hand in hand with technology. True leadership in AI means building on respect for creativity, not exploitation. Let me make it clear that this is not about resisting technology, but about recognising value and safeguarding innovation—and that brings me back home to Berkhamsted.

In the heart of my constituency sits the British Film Institute National Archive, one of the largest and more significant film collections in the world, comprising over 275,000 titles and 20,000 silent films dating back to 1894. It is a living memory of our national story, told on screen. Would we allow anyone to walk into the BFI and take whatever they liked? Would we let them scan, copy and republish those works without permission or compensation? Of course not. So I ask the Minister, why would we allow the same thing to happen in the digital world?

This is a defining moment. We can build an AI-powered future that respects and rewards creativity, or we can allow short-term interests to strip-mine the work of generations. The question before us today is simple: will we stand for a future when technology and creativity flourish together, or will we allow the foundations of our cultural life and economic prosperity to be hollowed out for short-term gain? I urge the Government to stand up for our creators, stand up for transparency, and stand up for the principle that, in the age of AI, human creativity still matters. \p Chi Onwurah: I rise to speak to Lords amendment 43B, which deals with the safeguarding of scientific research and ensuring that the exemptions in the Bill are used for the purposes of such research alone.

On Second Reading, the Minister was unable to address the points that I raised; he ran out of time because of the length of the debate on AI and copyright, and I rather feel that the same has happened today. In the meantime, however, he wrote to me extensively to address my concerns. Although I do not think all of them were fully addressed, I was convinced that the Minister and, indeed, the Government did not intend this measure to widen the circumstances in which data could be reused for scientific research without consent. I am thinking of circumstances in which data would be reused for the training of AI models which were in themselves not contributing to new, creative scientific research. I believe—let me emphasise this—that all scientific research is creative, and that even if it is simply reproducing existing findings, it is creating confidence in the stock of scientific knowledge. I understand that the Minister does not intend to create a wild west, and I hope that he can confirm specifically that it is not the policy, intention or effect of the provisions to enable the reuse of personal data for AI. \p Chris Bryant: indicated assent. \p Chi Onwurah: The Minister makes a hand signal, but I am of the view that hand signals are not reflected in Hansard. The Minister has far greater knowledge of proceedings in this House than I do, so I suspect he knows that too. If he would like to intervene on me, I would be very happy for him to do so. \p Chris Bryant: I am being very badly behaved. I did not want to take up more time, but I will respond at the end. I think my hon. Friend will be happy. \p Chi Onwurah: I thank the Minister for his inadvertent intervention, and I look forward to my future happiness. Given his reassurances, I think the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee can work with the Government to ensure that the Bill enables scientific research through the use of the fantastic datasets that the UK is proud to have, without exposing the public to the reuse of their data for the purposes of training AI models or for other commercial purposes that are not within the remit of scientific research. I will be pleased to accept the Minister’s reassurances, and on that basis I do not wish to engage in further ping-pong between the Houses. \p Pete Wishart: In reference to the earlier exchange, it seems that if you remember the Minister’s 60th birthday, you were not really there—but I really was not there. [Interruption.] Did I? I knew there must have been some very good reason. Why I was not there is now in Hansard.

There is profound disappointment within the creative sector today. Everyone in the sector really believed and hoped that the Minister would appear today with something in his back pocket that he would be able to bring out to give reassurance to the many artists and creators right across the country who are extremely anxious and concerned about the direction of the debate and  conversations about the use of their work. They are really concerned that some of their precious work, into which they have put so much time, effort, blood, sweat and tears, will be scraped up, trawled through by a bot and ingested by one of the large American tech companies, and then reappear as some minor mirror of itself.

No one has been satisfied with what has been said today, and the Minister has one last chance. I really hope that he can give something to the creative industries, or at least give them some sort of hope as we go forward into the next few months and years, because they are going into the next few months and years unprotected. They will have nothing that they can rely on, other than what is in the amendments, and I know for a fact that the Minister will ensure that they are voted down.

Today has been a curious day, too, because financial privilege has been invoked for a particular amendment. In my almost quarter of a century in this House, I have never seen that before. I think I know why it has been done: it is to ensure that the House of Lords does not get another opportunity to bring this measure back. I say to the Minister and the Secretary of State, who is shaking his head, that the Lords are already designing it. After it goes back to the House of Lords, it will come back once again. I am sure it does not invoke any financial privilege, but it is ultimately disappointing that the Lords will not be able to present the same motion again, which was their intention. That amendment has received overwhelming support from everybody across the creative sector, and I had really hoped that the Government would support it today.

The only reason we are here is the efforts of the Members of the House of Lords. I usually do not pay them much of a tribute or respect what they do, but they have played a blinder. In particular, Beeban Kidron—Baroness Kidron—has stuck to this agenda to ensure that these Lords amendments have been reinserted into the Bill. They have had to do it because the Government have not done so. The Government have done nothing to ensure that our creative sector is protected.

The Government say that there should be more time for this, but we do not have time. We have to act now to protect the livelihoods of 2.4 million creators in the UK against exploitation by some of the richest companies in the world. As I have said countless times throughout this Bill’s passage, if we continue at this rate there will soon be nothing left to protect. The thing is that the Government should have acted earlier. They should have taken steps to protect creators’ rights as a matter of urgency. Instead, it has been left to others to scramble to find a way to ensure that we had these vital Lords amendments to a Bill that, as the Minister has said on several occasions, was not designed for them.

The Government’s motions will in effect set a timeline of several years before any resolution is reached on copyright transparency. I listened very carefully, as I always do, to what the Minister had to say about transparency, but I still do not understand why this cannot be done immediately. All the Government have to do is tell inventors, creators and copyright holders that their work is going to be used or ingested by one of the web crawlers that are in operation. That is all they would have to do, and it could be done very easily. There is no great technical problem in introducing transparency as a priority, and it could possibly happen within a few weeks. \p Alison Hume: The hon. Member is making some important points. As Lord Brennan said recently, this Bill is an opportunity to regulate AI:

“This Bill, this bus, is an opportunity that the Government should be getting on rather than waiting for another bus several years down the road”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 May 2025; Vol. 845, c. 1932.]

This bus is leaving now, along with the opportunity to protect our creative rights. Does the hon. Member agree with me and share my concern that the Government are going to miss the bus? \p Pete Wishart: I would always agree with the noble Lord Brennan. As somebody who played with him for many years in a parliamentary rock band, I think we all miss him in this House. He was spot-on when he said that: we have to act now.

Even if the Government want to change copyright law—I still do not know whether that is their intention, and the creative sector strongly opposes that—it will be years before creators have the slightest hope of protecting their work against creative theft. This sector has seen its work taken, used and exploited by tech companies. They came into this process hoping that they would finally get some protection, but instead of being heard, their hopes have been set aside again.

Lords amendment 49B does exactly what the sector has been calling for over many years. The fact that it has been tabled is a credit to the sustained campaign from our artists in the creative sector, who have organised themselves so efficiently and put such a compelling case. They have put so compelling and knowledgeable a case that our constituents have started to understand the complexities of copyright law, and they now realise its value in ensuring that the works of the artists they love, respect and like to listen to are recognised and that they will be compensated for their wonderful works. Despite what the Government say, merely enforcing the existing law will not be burdensome for AI firms, particularly as Lords amendment 49B allows the transparency requirements to be modified for small AI developers and for all UK-registered developers so that they are proportionate. This will prevent start-ups from being burdened with overly onerous regulation. In fact, all this proposal does is put UK start-ups on a level playing field with US tech giants that gain an unfair competitive advantage by ignoring copyright law. Transparency will make the legal risk of copyright infringement too great for AI firms to break the law. It will allow courts to hear cases quickly, establish precedent and kill any argument that there is uncertainty in UK law. If we can see what has been stolen, it is easier to stop its being stolen and to get redress when it continues to be stolen.

It is now up to the Government to fix this. If they are serious about protecting our creative industries—they should be, and I accept that that is what they intend to do—then they cannot stop at working groups and economic impact assessments. That is the bare minimum; it is not, by any measure, enough.

If this is the last opportunity we have to put the case, it is a black day for our creative sectors. They had hoped that this would be the day the Government appeared with something that satisfied at least some of their concerns. They deserve to have their work protected fairly. They were looking for anything from the Government to see that they were clearly on their side and were prepared to  do something. I think we already know exactly what they will decide, but the Government now have a choice: remove Lords amendment 49B and turn their back on the creative industries, or find an actual way to protect our creative sector and make sure that they back it. \p Chris Bryant: I was anticipating more contributions from other Members, but it is a delight to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to follow on from the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart). I will not speak at great length, Members will be delighted to hear.

First, I want to refer to the matter of financial privilege, because the hon. Member referred to it just now. It is not the Government who decide whether financial privilege is engaged. It is a simple matter decided on advice from the Clerks to the Chair, which is determined from two motions, from 1671 and 1678. Where there is any financial implication of a Bill, or in this case an amendment that comes from the House of Lords, it is a simple matter as to whether or not the financial privilege of the House of Commons is engaged. Anything that obviously requires a system of enforcement is likely to require expenditure. That is why we would not choose to waive our financial privilege in relation to these amendments today. \p Pete Wishart: A money resolution to the Bill was passed with Second Reading. I looked at it and there is nothing that says there is any financial limit on any measures included in the Bill, so I am a bit confused about why financial privilege has to be invoked on that basis. \p Chris Bryant: It is not the Government who invoke financial privilege. It is the House that does it, via the Speaker’s Chair. I am afraid that that is a debate we will have to have at another point. Much as I love debating motions from 1671 and 1678, I think we might move forward.

The only point I will make to the hon. Gentleman about his contribution on the creative industries—he knows that on many of these issues we completely and utterly agree—is that if there were a simple way of being able to enforce those rights today, I would seize it. If he wants to write to me with a suggestion on what that actually looks like and what we would do today to be able to enforce the rights under the existing law today, then of course I would be happy to look at it.

I also said that I would respond to the point from the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Chi Onwurah). The Bill creates no new permission to reuse data for scientific research. It is not the effect of the provisions to provide blanket approval of the reuse of personal data for AI training under the banner of scientific research. I hope that that meets some of her understandable concerns.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that it is completely not in order, but I am going to say it anyway and end on this point. We have discussed some very serious points, but I do just wish that Remember Monday will win the Eurovision song contest on Saturday evening, with their song, “What the Hell Just Happened?” I wish Lauren, Holly-Anne and Charlotte all the best of British.

Question put. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 371, Noes 98.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House insists on Commons Amendment 32 to which the Lords have disagreed and disagrees with the Lords in their Amendments 32B and 32C proposed to the words restored to the Bill by the Lords disagreement. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put,

That this House agrees with the Lords in their Amendments 34B and 34C proposed instead of the words left out of the Bill by Commons Amendment 34.—(Chris Bryant.)

A Division was called. \p Caroline Nokes: Division off.

Question agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put,

That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment 43B. —(Chris Bryant.) \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 68.

Question accordingly agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put,

That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment 49B. —(Chris Bryant.) \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 297, Noes 168.

Question accordingly agreed to.

More than two hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the Lords message, the proceedings were interrupted (Programme Order, this day).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83G). \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put,

That this House insists on Commons Amendment 52 to which the Lords have disagreed and disagrees with the Lords in their Amendments 52B and 52C proposed to the words restored to the Bill by the Lords disagreement.—(Chris Bryant.) \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 366, Noes 98.

Question accordingly agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That this House does not insist on Commons Amendment 55 to which the Lords have disagreed and agrees with the Lords in their Amendments 55D and 55E proposed in lieu of Commons Amendment 55.—(Chris Bryant.)

Resolved,

That this House agrees with the Lords in their Amendment 56B.— (Chris Bryant.)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H(2)), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for insisting on Commons Amendment 32, disagreeing with the Lords in their Amendments 32B and 32C, disagreeing with the Lords in their Amendments 43B and 49B, insisting on Commons Amendment 52 and disagreeing with the Lords in their Amendments 52B and 52C.

That Chris Bryant, Anna Turley, Callum Anderson, Rachel Hopkins, Katie White, Dr Ben Spencer and Victoria Collins be members of the Committee;

That Chris Bryant be the Chair of the Committee.

That three be the quorum of the Committee.

That the Committee do withdraw immediately.— (Keir Mather.)

Question agreed to.

Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords. \p Stephen Doughty: I beg to move,

That the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 (SI, 2025, No. 504), dated 22 April 2025, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23 April, be approved.

This instrument amends the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. It was laid before Parliament on 23 April under powers in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, and the measures in the regulations, which subject to the affirmative procedure, entered into force on 24 April. Sanctions are a powerful tool in our armoury. They play an important part in promoting peace and security abroad, upholding international norms and rules, and protecting our citizens at home. Since coming into power, this Government have ramped up action with our partners, and that includes leading the way on targeting Russia’s revenues, bearing down on its military industrial complex, and deterring and disrupting Iran’s support for Russia.

Just last Friday, the Prime Minister announced a major package of sanctions to target the decrepit and dangerous shadow fleet carrying Russian oil. It is the largest package of sanctions against the shadow fleet, with 110 targets. According to some estimates, sanctions have crippled 200 ships, almost half of Putin’s dedicated fleet. The Government’s support for Ukraine remains steadfast. Our total support for Ukraine now stands at £18 billion, including £3 billion a year of military aid and our £2.26 billion contribution to the G7 extraordinary revenue acceleration loans scheme. \p Jim Shannon: First, I commend the Minister on bringing the measure forward. I do not think there is anybody in this House who would not be encouraged by what the Minister and Government are doing in bringing in the sanctions. The one thing that always concerns everybody—the Minister knows this—is the £22.7 billion of frozen Russian assets. We all wish to know whether the Government can pursue those assets with a vengeance and an evangelical zest. That would be a better zest than any other. If we put a squeeze on the frozen Russian assets, we can use them for the benefit of Ukraine, and strengthen everyone who supports Ukraine. \p Stephen Doughty: I thank the hon. Gentleman again for his steadfast support for Ukraine, and for raising this important issue. As I said, we have already ensured that important resources get to Ukraine. Thanks to the speedy passage of measures through this House, and support from all parts of the House, we made sure that happened, and it is making a tangible difference. Two thirds of the ERA loan scheme funding that I mentioned has been disbursed and is immediately supporting Ukraine in obtaining vital military equipment. He rightly asks about frozen Russian sovereign assets more widely. As the Foreign Secretary said yesterday, we are working apace with international partners to look at all lawful means of ensuring that Russia pays for the horrific damage and destruction that it has done in Ukraine. I can assure the hon. Gentleman on that point. We will of course come back to the House in due course to update Members. \p Julian Lewis: The Minister referred to the attempts to cripple the ghost ships and fleet. Does that have any effect on the shipments of oil to third parties, such as India, that refine the oil and then sell it on to countries that, like us, are trying to sanction Russia directly? \p Stephen Doughty: The right hon. Gentleman asks an important question. We take up all possible avenues of limiting Putin’s war machine and the energy revenues that go towards it. We keep all options under consideration, and we look at them carefully. As he knows, I will not comment on any future actions or designations for obvious reasons, but I can tell him that this action on the shadow fleet has had a significant real-time impact on Putin’s ability to wage war. I have given this figure on a number of occasions, but our sanctions programme overall has denied Russia $450 billion, which would have been enough to keep this war going for many more years. The action has had a tangible impact. Action taken under the last Government, and the action taken by this Government, which has been accelerated, is having a real impact on Putin’s war machine. Again, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his consistent support for Ukraine, and his support for these measures.

We are absolutely committed to securing a just and lasting peace in Ukraine. Maximising economic pressure on Russia is key to that, which is why we are continuing to introduce sanctions. We have now sanctioned more than 2,400 entities and individuals under the Russia regime. UK sanctions have also frustrated Russian trade: Russian imports to the UK have fallen by more than 98% since the invasion, and UK exports to Russia are down by more than 80%. We will maintain the relentless pressure on Putin, alongside our allies, to force him to the table and ensure that he engages seriously in negotiations. We reiterate our call on Russia to accept a full, unconditional ceasefire in Ukraine in order to create the space for talks on a just and lasting peace, and we commend President Zelensky for making his own commitment to peace by expressing his openness to engaging in direct talks with Putin. On Monday, the Foreign Secretary hosted Foreign Ministers from the Weimar+ group of key European allies to discuss our joint efforts to strengthen European security and secure a just and lasting peace in Ukraine. The House can be assured that these conversations form part of all our engagement with partners and allies across the world; indeed, I had such conversations today.

Now is the time for Putin to come to the table, and for Russia to show that it is serious about ending this war or else face the consequences. The UK stands ready to ratchet up the pressure on Russia, so that it ends its brutal war of aggression. As I have said, we will continue to explore all measures through which we can ratchet up economic pressure. The statutory instrument allows us to go even further in our efforts to target Russia’s revenue streams and prevent the Kremlin building its military and industrial capabilities. It introduces a package of more than 150 new trade sanctions, including new, innovative measures that will prevent UK expertise from being used in Russia’s defence and energy sectors. It will deny Russia sophisticated UK technology and software, and will expand our prohibitions, with the aim of further constraining Russia’s economic growth and ability to fuel its war machine.

Let me deal with each of the measures in the instrument. First, it introduces new export prohibitions that apply to a wide range of goods, including chemicals, plastics, metals, machinery and electronics. These prohibitions will deny Russia the means of procuring products that have military and industrial uses. Secondly, we are extending our prohibitions on the transfer of technology, applying them to a broader set of technologies relating to goods that are important for Russia’s military-industrial sectors, and for its economic development. Through these measures, we are removing UK expertise—whether in intellectual property, blueprints or industrial know-how—from Putin’s critical supply chains.

Thirdly, the instrument will ban the transfer of software relating to business enterprise, industrial design, and oil and gas exploration and production. As has been said, Putin relies on energy production and exports to fuel his war economy, so the aim of these sanctions is to make key sectors of the Russian economy less productive and therefore less able to fuel this illegal and barbarous war against Ukraine. Fourthly, we are banning the import of Russian synthetic diamonds that have been processed in third countries, and helium. This targets future funding sources that Russia is developing, as well as potential circumvention routes. Finally, the instrument clarifies the enforcement responsibilities for a small number of trade sanctions on Russia. This will enable the office of trade sanctions implementation in the Department for Business and Trade to enforce certain trade sanctions offences, and to refer serious offences to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for criminal enforcement consideration.

This Government remain committed to European security, and to our steadfast support for Ukraine. We are committed to standing up for the values of democracy and the rule of law, values that continue to be attacked so brutally by Russia. Sanctions, including this important package, are a key part of our efforts, and I commend the regulations to the House. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the shadow Minister. \p Wendy Morton: We on the Opposition Benches support this statutory instrument and all measures that bear down on Putin’s regime and undermine his ability to prosecute the barbaric, illegal invasion of Ukraine. We support the further measures on technology transfers and software, and on diamonds and chemicals, and the other measures to tighten the import and export regimes. Of course, all of those are built on the critical mass of sanctions introduced by the Conservative Government. Working with allies, we imposed the largest and most severe set of sanctions that Russia had ever seen, in order to cripple Putin’s war machine. We sanctioned around 2,000 individuals, companies and groups.

All of us should be in no doubt that the economic pressure that we and our allies have been exerting means that Russia cannot afford to sustain the cost of this illegal invasion. Indeed, Russian interest rates are at levels not seen for decades, and welfare payments are being cut. The international community’s sanctions have deprived Putin of $400 billion since February 2022—money that Russia could otherwise have spent on the war in Ukraine.

On that note, I want to push the Government on four points, because we must strive ceaselessly to constrain Putin’s war machine and never see our actions as an end state. First, we recognise that some measures in today’s SI will deal with specific issues relating to third countries, but can the Minister confirm whether his Department is currently looking into wider secondary sanctions? If so, what is the scope? What kind of diplomatic engagement is he having with countries whose economies are being used to circumnavigate the international sanctions response, and what measures is he considering on the big-ticket issues that are well understood in this House?

Secondly, when is the Minister’s internal deadline for getting the proceeds from the sale of Chelsea football club out the door, and how exactly does he envisage the money being spent? Can he update us on the Foreign Secretary’s engagement with the trustees, the Government of Portugal and the European Commission on this issue? We need to act with urgency, because we are talking about more than £2 billion. It goes without saying that this money could be a huge boost to the humanitarian effort supporting those affected by the invasion.

Thirdly, can the Minister explain why the £2.26 billion loan to Ukraine, backed by the profits of sanctioned Russian assets, will be paid by the Treasury over three years rather than in one immediate instalment, especially given that it is earmarked for military equipment? Can he confirm, with a simple yes or no, whether work is actively ongoing in the FCDO and the Treasury to find additional legal solutions to allow for the mobilisation of sanctioned assets?

Finally, there has been much commentary in recent weeks about initiatives to secure peace, but we urge the Government—in the strongest terms—to leverage Britain’s influence in every way that they can to help ensure that peace is secured on Ukraine’s terms. As has been the case from the outset, it remains ultimately for Ukraine, as a proud and sovereign nation that has sacrificed so much to defend itself and the fundamental freedoms that we all hold dear, to decide its own future.

Of course, we want this terrible war to be brought to an end. Like President Zelensky, we hope for a lasting, reliable peace, but the Euro-Atlantic community must continue to be robust in the face of Putin’s aggression. The lesson of the past 20 years is clear: he only comes back for more. Today we have the added threat that the axis of authoritarian states is collaborating to wreak destruction on our continent, with Iran providing weapons and North Korea providing troops to support Putin. We even understand that a number of Chinese civilians are supporting Russia’s campaign. The stakes could not be higher, but there remains nothing inevitable about a victory for Russia, which thought it could capture Kyiv and subjugate Ukraine within days. Three years on, the cost to Russia has been enormous and unsustainable.

We acknowledge that the UK Government are now proactively seeking to end the war through negotiations and that this takes UK policy on Ukraine in a new direction, but we must also remember that we and our NATO allies have a collective GDP that is 20 times greater than Russia’s, and a collective defence inventory that is many times larger than Putin’s. The Ukrainians are fighting valiantly, and we must ensure that they have the capabilities they need in their hands and the diplomatic  support they require. The Government need to bring allies with us in supporting Ukraine to achieve a just and fair peace on its terms. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p James MacCleary: I congratulate the Minister and the Government on their work to date on sanctioning Russia. The UK must continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with our allies and the brave Ukrainian people in resisting Putin’s aggression. The support for Ukraine across this House sends a really strong message to the Kremlin, so we welcome this latest statutory instrument, which rightly tightens the screw on Russia’s ability to wage its illegal war.

These amendments expand our sanctions regime in three important ways. First, by extending export bans on a wide range of products—chemicals, electronics, plastics, metals and machinery—we are further disrupting the industrial base that fuels Putin’s war machine. Secondly, by banning the transfer of associated software and technical knowledge, including cloud-based solutions, we will prevent the back-door flow of intellectual capital into the Kremlin’s hands. Thirdly, by introducing import bans on Russian synthetic diamonds and helium products, even when processed in third countries, we will cut off future revenue streams to help fund this war. These measures respond to the real-world attempts by Russia to sidestep sanctions by using complex supply chains and third-country networks. They align the UK with our allies—the EU, the United States and the G7—making our collective response far more powerful than going it alone.

However, while I support these measures, I hope that Ministers will consider going further. If the Government are serious about holding Putin to account, sanctions must be not only enforced but escalated. The Liberal Democrats have been saying this for months: the UK should begin the seizure, not just the freezing, of Russian state assets. \p Lisa Smart: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he is laying out, and I absolutely agree with him that the support for these measures across this House is really powerful. I was most recently in Kyiv two weeks ago, and the look on the faces of the people subjected to war crimes by the Russian army will stay with me for a very long time. That underlined to me the importance of UK efforts to support them, and I completely agree with his point about moving from freezing to seizing Russian assets. The Minister today and the Foreign Secretary earlier this week talked about working on a multilateral basis. Does my hon. Friend agree that if such an agreement cannot be found, we should consider moving on a unilateral basis in a leadership role for the United Kingdom? \p James MacCleary: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. There is an estimated £22 billion in frozen assets from Russian central bank reserves held and locked up in the UK at the moment. That money could and should be used to help rebuild Ukraine, provide humanitarian assistance and purchase the matériel that the Ukrainians  need to defend themselves, and the UK should certainly be taking a leadership role in seizing those assets as soon as we can. The United States is already moving in that direction, as are EU member states. The United Kingdom, as we have said, should be leading, not lagging behind.

We must also close the loopholes that have allowed Russian oligarchs to continue laundering their dirty money in London. That means properly resourcing the National Crime Agency, strengthening the economic crime legislation, and demanding the use of Magnitsky sanctions not just for individuals but for their family members when wealth is transferred in an attempt to dodge accountability.

As a member of the UK’s parliamentary delegation to the Council of Europe, I strongly support the register that the Council of Europe has established, on which the UK is taking a leading role, to record the damage that Russia has done to Ukraine. I know that the Government are backing that work, but I hope that Ministers will promote the register, which does not have a very high profile at the moment, to ensure that victims’ claims are properly documented and Russia is held meaningfully to account for its actions.

Let us not forget that Putin’s ambitions do not end with Ukraine. He is actively working to destabilise other sovereign states, including Georgia, Moldova, Romania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and others in a wider attempt to erode European stability and democratic resilience.

Let me be clear: the Liberal Democrats believe in the rule of law, the sovereignty of nations and the right of people to choose peace over tyranny, and Putin’s war is a grotesque assault on all those principles. This legislation is a necessary step, but it must be the beginning, not the end, of our efforts to hold Putin and the Russian state to account. We support the motion, but we will keep pushing this Government to be bolder, faster and more determined in their support for Ukraine and its defence of the values we all hold dear. \p Stephen Doughty: I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to this debate. The measures introduced by this statutory instrument show how the UK continues to use its powers to apply further pressure on Putin, which, crucially, is to help secure an enduring peace and show that we remain fully behind Ukraine. I really welcome the strong support there always is across this House, from almost everybody—I note that one party is absent again. We have strong support, and although we may have disagreements with the Official Opposition across the Dispatch Boxes, but on Ukraine there has been absolute unity. I am glad that that has continued, and I thank them for that, and indeed the Liberal Democrats and other parties, too. \p Robin Swann: On the regulations, does the Minister agree that work also needs to be done on the shadow oil fleet, which is out there supplying money and support to Putin? \p Stephen Doughty: The hon. Gentleman might have missed it earlier on, but I outlined the significant work that we have done on that, including targeting hundreds of vessels, which is having a real impact. I will come to that impact in a moment.

The shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), asked a number of specific questions. She asked about third-country circumvention and the measures we are taking diplomatically— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. We must now take the motion relating to deferred Divisions. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 41A(3)),That, at this day’s sitting, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the Motionin the name of Stephen Doughty relating to Sanctions.—(Kate Dearden.)

Question agreed to. \p Stephen Doughty: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I had forgotten about that particular procedural aspect of talking past 7 o’clock. Thank you for giving me the eye to remind me that that was coming; I appreciate it.

As I was saying, on third-country circumvention, the shadow Minister asked me what measures we are taking. I can assure her and the House that this has been an extremely high priority for me and the Foreign Secretary. I regularly raise issues and we have a number of countries that we are particularly focused on. We have the common high priority list of items that are of most value to Russia’s military industrial complex. I assure her that we have also taken robust action against entities and individuals who have been involved in those matters. We have set out a number of those measures in past sanctions packages. I raise them on an almost weekly basis to try to bear down on that.

The right hon. Lady asked about the proceeds from Chelsea football club. We are determined for the proceeds to reach humanitarian causes in Ukraine as soon as possible, and we are doing everything we can to bring that about quickly. The shadow Minister will understand that this is a complex legal issue, but we are working with our international partners. We have engaged with Abramovich’s team and we are exploring all options to ensure that the proceeds reach vulnerable people in Ukraine who are most in need.

The right hon. Lady asked about the tranches of the ERA funding. I can assure her that two of the tranches, over two thirds of that funding, is already out the door. I spoke to Ukrainian Ministers about that and its availability, and they confirmed that they had access to it. She asked a detailed question about why it is being done in three tranches. I have just written to the shadow Foreign Secretary to set that out in more detail. We can make sure that she gets a copy of that letter. There are technical and other reasons for that, but we are ensuring that Ukraine gets what it needs right now, and is able to plan and deliver in its own defence.

The right hon. Lady asked, as others did—it was raised by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary)—about Russian sovereign assets. I repeat what I said to my friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), which is that we are working at pace on that with others. We are exploring all lawful options to ensure that Russia pays. We have been leading; we have not been lagging. Indeed, the ERA loan is very much a testament to our leadership  on this issue and I can assure the Liberal Democrat spokesperson that we are engaging very closely with international partners on that, as the Foreign Secretary said yesterday.

The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) rightly talked about the importance of continued and absolute support for Ukraine. I can assure her that that is the case, particularly at this time. The leadership shown by President Zelensky, President Trump and others in seeking an unconditional ceasefire and a just and lasting peace is crucial. We will continue to work with them on that and we will continue to support Ukraine in its endeavours. She rightly drew attention to the activities of others—North Korea, Iran and others—in supporting Russia’s barbarous actions. We have taken action on many of those things.

The hon. Member for Lewes raised a couple of other points. On enforcement, I hope to have more news imminently and to be able to update the House on those matters. I promised that we would undertake an important review on the enforcement of sanctions across Government. It has been a crucial piece of work, which was rightly raised by many people. I hope we will have more to say on that very soon. I would also point him to the illicit finance and kleptocracy campaign led by the Foreign Secretary and me. We are taking a series of measures, working with Departments across Government, to ensure that London, our country and our wider British family are not used to support kleptocrats and those contrary to our national interests, or indeed Ukraine’s interests in this specific case.

The hon. Gentleman raised the important role of the Council of Europe. I completely agree with him. My ministerial colleague the noble Lord Collins is currently attending a meeting of the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers. We have taken important work there—not only on the register of loss and damage, but on crucial issues such as the special tribunal against Russian aggression, as the Foreign Secretary spoke about yesterday.

There were, rightly, a number of questions about the impact that these sanctions are having. The impact is substantial: the Russian Government have been forced to take their first major tax hike in more than 20 years, and, following a loss of $7.6 billion in 2023—its first loss in 25 years—Gazprom, one of Putin’s main sources of incomes, lost $12.9 billion in 2024. Russian oil delivery now takes significantly longer due to sanctions, showing how they and the work on the shadow fleet have disrupted and impeded Russian trade. \p James MacCleary: The Minister is speaking of the ways in which we are disrupting the Russian regime, but could he say a few words about those who are resisting the regime within Russia? We often speak about pressure being put on Russia to stop Putin’s aggression, but we sometimes forget about those within Russia who are putting themselves at huge risk to resist the actions of the Russian President. Will the Minister mention how we look to support those who bravely stand up and resist the regime within Russia? \p Stephen Doughty: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Of course, our opposition here is to Putin’s regime and what it is doing in Ukraine. We do not have a quarrel with the Russian people or with Russia; our quarrel is with Putin’s regime, what it is  doing and what he has brought his country to. It was hugely humbling to meet a number of leading figures in the past few weeks, including Vladimir Kara-Murza, who was brutally imprisoned by Putin’s regime, and Yulia Navalnaya, whose husband, Alexei Navalny, died in prison. We continue to call for the release of Russian political prisoners; their imprisonment is absolutely abhorrent.

These measures are hugely important and are having an impact, and I welcome the unified support across the House for them. I commend these regulations to the House.

Question put and agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That, in pursuance of paragraph 2A of Schedule 3 to the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, Mary Curnock Cook CBE be appointed as a lay member of the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority for a period of five years from 2 June 2025 to 31 May 2030.—(Lucy Powell.) \p Freddie Van Mierlo: For three years, the Marsh lock horsebridge in Henley has been closed. The bridge connects Henley to Shiplake and is an integral part of the Thames path national trail. The petition I present today, which has more than 6,000 signatories and was started by nine-year-old Claudia Fennell, who is in the Gallery today, calls for the bridge to be reopened. I welcome news from the Environment Agency that money has been identified to begin design work, but it is only partial funding, and the future is still uncertain.

I take this opportunity to also put on the record my regret at the closure of events organiser Henley Swim due to the sewage crisis, and to express my concern about the pending strike action by lock keepers.

The EA must be given the resources needed to keep our river thriving economically and safe for all users. The petitioners therefore request that

“the House of Commons urge the Government to take immediate action to encourage the Environment Agency to repair and reopen Marsh Lock Horsebridge.”

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,

Declares that Marsh Lock Horsebridge should be repaired and reopened; notes that an online petition on the issue was started by Claudia Fennell; notes the online petition  on this issue has received over 6,000 signatures; notes the petition is supported by the former Mayor and the Deputy Mayor of Henley; further notes that the bridge has been closed since May 2022; notes that the bridge is an important part of the constituency community and impacts the mental and physical health of residents; notes that residents are currently unable to access the Thames path to Shiplake and numerous swimming spots; and further notes that local businesses reliant on the footfall from walkers and river-goers have been badly affected.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take immediate action to encourage the Environment Agency to repair and reopen Marsh Lock Horsebridge.

And the petitioners remain, etc.]

[P003067] \p Jerome Mayhew: Fakenham is the largest town in my constituency, and yet it has not had a permanent post office for more than five years. The town’s high street banks are also closing one after the other, leaving no access to cash deposits for local businesses. This paper petition for a permanent post office for Fakenham, together with an online similar version, has collected 1,223 signatures in order to resolve those problems. It declares that

“residents of Fakenham and the surrounding villages need access to a permanent Post Office to service the needs of the community”,

and asks that the chief executive and the Government work with the banks to provide a long-term solution for access to cash and postal services through a permanent post office in the heart of Fakenham.

The petitioners therefore request that

“the House of Commons urge the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and take immediate action to ensure that a permanent Post Office is delivered to serve the needs of the Fakenham and the surrounding villages.”

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The petition of residents of the constituency of Broadland and Fakenham,

Declares that residents of Fakenham and the surrounding villages need access to a permanent Post Office to service the needs of our community; asks that the Chief Executive and the Government listen to our voices and work with the banks to provide a long term solution to access to cash and postal services through a Post Office in the heart of our town; and notes that an online petition on the same issue has collected 1,223 signatures.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and take immediate action to ensure that a permanent Post Office is delivered to serve the needs of the Fakenham and the surrounding villages.

And the petitioners remain, etc.]

[P003068] \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Kate Dearden.) \p Matt Western: I will, if I may, start by encouraging you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to imagine being in your own home and unable to eat with your family, unable to leave food for even a minute without your kitchen being swarmed with flies, and unable to sleep in your own bed without flies landing on your face. Imagine flies everywhere, in every room of your house, in business premises, in pubs, in restaurants and in takeaways, and vile odours permeating your life whether at home, walking the streets or driving your car. That is the reality for hundreds of families in one part my constituency.

If that is not sufficiently real for those present, let me try to bring alive just how awful this is with the experience of one resident, who wrote to me saying:

“The day my son asked when mummy was going to stop the flies so he could eat his dinner without flies crawling into his mouth...was when I realised how terrible it had got.”

Imagine children being unable to eat without flies crawling into their mouths.

At a time when so many voters feel disillusioned with politics, it is more important than ever that Government—national and local—as well as their agencies address the everyday problems that impact on people’s lives. And the issue of flies and odours blighting families and whole communities is one such a problem.

I estimate that as many as 10,000—if not more—of my constituents in south Warwick, South Leamington and Whitnash are impacted by this. They have faced swarms of flies and foul odours for three years running. Their houses are infested with flies. They are unable to open their windows for fear of swarms entering their home. They are unable to prepare food in their kitchen without the constant cleaning of their work surfaces to clean off the fly excrement, which also adheres to their walls. Would any Member of this House be satisfied with their family living like that? This is not just a minor inconvenience; this is ruining people’s lives. People are getting ill, and some residents are actually selling up.

Then there is the all-pervasive foul-smelling odour. Constituents describe the smell as being like “raw sewage”. They say it is “sulphuric” and “toxic”. Many have told me that the smell is “utterly unbearable”. I have smelt it myself on many occasions. Again, this is substantially harming people and their lives. Two constituents have told me that their asthma has significantly worsened due to the smell, and, as a result, they have had to increase their medication. This is clearly a public health risk and it should be treated as such.

I hope that I have spelled out—albeit briefly—just how awful this is for my constituents, and it should not have been allowed to continue for three months let alone three years. Some may be thinking that this this sounds not too dissimilar to the plague of flies in the Book of Exodus, but, no, God is not to blame for this. The residents are clear: they believe, and I agree with them, that the source of this problem is the Berry Circular Polymers recycling plant, located less than 200 metres from a significant volume of local housing.

Let me be very clear: I am by no means against recycling. We know that recycling plants have a crucial role to play in sustainability. The issue here is not recycling but how businesses are held to account—and authorities demanding that they take seriously their commitment to their neighbours and their impacts on the local environment. \p Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate on behalf of his constituents. I am almost flabbergasted that the local council has not taken action to address this issue. What has it done and what is it going to do to take away this enormous fly problem? The Book of Exodus does talk about the plague of flies, but I know that the council has been blamed for this one. \p Matt Western: I thank the hon. Member—I will call him my hon. Friend—for his intervention. The council does have a role, and I will come on to that in more depth. It has tried to get involved and understand the nature of the problem, and to exercise certain powers, but this is where national Government, particularly the Environment Agency, have a role to play, as I will discuss. The council really does not have the powers that it needs to tackle local environmental health, which is its responsibility.

This is a case of desperately poor planning legislation—approved by the last Conservative Government and locally by a Conservative council—with a new light industrial estate built off a road that is one of the main arteries of south Leamington. The planning issue is not so much in the approval of the building of light industrial sheds—we see them all over the place—but in the failure to realise that a commercial use of the site, such as for recycling food packaging, would have a significant impact on a residential area. No approval was given by the local planning committee for what the actual use of the site would be; it was purely for the building of the sheds.

The local geography could not be worse. Hundreds of homes are on this road and thousands are off it. To have allowed a recycling plant that receives plastic covered in food waste on a daily basis to be built across the road from thousands of residents is absurd. The plant receives food and drink cartons, which we all discard daily and put into our recycling bins, where they can often sit for a couple of weeks. Then they are collected and taken to central processing depots such as the one in my constituency. They are perfect environments for flies to breed in.

It should not have taken a situation like this to make issues with the planning system so clear, but should anyone be in any doubt about the scale of the problem, let me be categorical: I have had reams of complaints and evidence sent to my office. There is a parallel between this site and the dreadful Walleys Quarry in Newcastle-under-Lyme, which many of us will have heard about over many years. Last Friday evening I informed residents that I had secured this debate, and by Monday morning my office had received over 100 complaints, with over 80% blaming the site that we believe to be the source of the problem: Berry Polymers.

When I held a public meeting, over 100 people attended, but hundreds more wanted to be there. That shows the strength of feeling on this issue and hopefully highlights to the Minister how badly it is affecting people’s lives.  To further understand the effects on people, I conducted a survey, asking on a scale of one to 10 how badly the flies and smell had impacted people’s lives over the previous two years, with 10 being that it had completely impacted them. The average response was eight out of 10.

To exemplify how awful the situation is for residents, I will read some particularly distressing quotes. One resident said:

“I have to have fly nets over my foster babies’ cots and bouncers”.

Another said:

“It is apocalyptic, the flies affect every minute of your day, from waking, to washing, preparing food, working, cleaning, trying to sleep.”

Another said:

“I’ve had to come away from various activities around town including paying my respects in the local cemetery because of the smell. Twice it’s been so bad I’ve vomited while driving my car along Heathcote Road, which could cause an accident”.

I hope that highlights for the Minister and those listening the severity of the problem and the urgent need for action. For clarity, I reiterate that those complaints have come in only in the past three days.

My constituents cannot sleep. Their children cannot play outside. They cannot eat without being swarmed by flies and engulfed in disgusting smells. To avoid any doubt over who the culprit is, I will bring to the Minister’s attention some additional evidence. There are tens of households who say that the problem only began after the plant opened. One family had lived there for 30 years before the plant opened, and they never complained about a smell or flies, but now they say that it is unbearable.

It is not only residents who are complaining but former employees of the site. My office spoke to one former employee, who will remain anonymous. They said:

“Conditions were so poor nobody should have been working there.”

They commented that when staff were walking around on site there were flies all over them, on their clothes, and biting them. Staff were expected to spend their breaks in a room covered in flies, and any food they tried to eat in there ended up with flies all over it. I have seen their evidence, and I have shared it with the Environment Agency and the Government. I have been to the site and seen the piles of thousands of flies lying around in the working area. That cannot be right; it is a health and safety issue for the people who have to work there. There are also flies flying around in the washrooms of that business. I cannot understand why it is still allowed to operate. The employees were in no doubt about the cause. They said that

“Berry was absolutely at fault and clearly the cause of the issue impacting the community.”

Local residents, former employees and I all believe that the Berry Circular Polymers recycling plant is responsible for these issues.

Yet here we are, two years on, with no respite other than in the winter months, when the flies abate but the odours persist. We may ask, have the residents followed the correct complaints process and, likewise, have I? Absolutely. First, I have raised it many times with the  Environment Agency on behalf of residents. I have repeatedly conveyed the severity of the situation and the horrific impact on people’s lives. After no success with the Environment Agency, I turned to the Minister under the last Government. After months of correspondence, I finally secured a meeting with that Minister in May 2024, but with the general election, it led to nothing. Following the election, I have twice met the new Minister, who I know fully understands the severity of the issue. The Minister swiftly set up a meeting with the Environment Agency to ensure the best available techniques are being used. I appreciate the pace with which the Department worked, but my constituents need answers now. They cannot be kept waiting.

I again followed up with the Environment Agency just a few weeks ago in April, to which it replied that it had only received two complaints. Yet we have received over a hundred in three days and hundreds over the course of three years, and we hear from residents on an almost daily basis that the problems persist. The Environment Agency is ignoring the complaints it has received over the past couple of years. The residents are busy people who lead busy lives; they cannot keep repeating the same complaint about the same company. They have been reporting these issues for years and have got nowhere, so they can be forgiven for not wanting to spend time every day reporting into a system that they do not believe works for them. They are fed up, and rightly so.

The Environment Agency has written to me to say that it

“did substantiate a strong odour on site”,

and that it is now

“investigating this further and taking appropriate steps to ensure that they (Berry) comply with all requirements to mitigate any potential impact on the local community”.

By coincidence, the Environment Agency came back to me just yesterday—perhaps because I had an Adjournment debate tonight. I have been chasing it for action on this issue for 18 months because my community and its residents’ lives are blighted by it. The EA has said it is happy to meet me and is in the process of setting up a shiny new engagement website—but it misses the point. We have already met on several occasions. In previous meetings, we agreed on the need for officers on the ground to determine the origin of the flies and the source of the odour, and experience how awful the situation is. It now believes us on the source of the odour.

Where are we now? It should not be up to residents to go around with fly swatters and fly traps, which is one of the suggestions, to prove to the Environment Agency how severe the problem is. We did not agree on the need for a new website, as that represents more time-wasting and more faffing around while constituents go into a third summer, facing horrendous conditions at home, in their gardens and on their streets.

The Minister may be new to this topic, but I have heard this all before and yet nothing has changed. Berry Polymers has now declared that it will require advance notice of any unannounced visit by me for “health and safety reasons”. Previously, I visited the site and that visit was unannounced, so I do not understand it. Why should I be prevented from trying to hold businesses like that to account when they cause an environmental hazard to many hundreds, if not thousands, of my constituents?  I take their health and safety concerns very seriously, and if I smell foul smells and see swarms of flies blighting my constituents’ lives, I want to see action.

I know that the Minister takes the issue incredibly seriously. I must therefore insist that the Government now take action. Under current legislation, the Secretary of State holds the power

“to agree the Environment Agency’s overall priorities and objectives”

and “to allocate resources” accordingly. The Department has the capability to fix the issue. Now is the time for action.

What am I asking for? I am calling for an urgent review of the Environment Agency’s initial decision; an immediate unannounced visit to the site, as well as repeated visits, with a team of Environment Agency officers to test the odours and count the thousands of flies; and a visit to neighbouring homes to see what my residents have to cope with and to take their concerns seriously.

When the Environment Agency wrote to me in April, it said that it would take appropriate steps after its previous visit, but what exactly has been done? I would appreciate it if the Minister outlined what the EA has done since the last visit to the site on 1 April. I would like to request an urgent meeting with the chief executive of the EA, because it has now got to that level, and I would like the Minister’s support in securing such a meeting. A directive from the Minister and the Government to the EA is needed to get it to act, and to act with authority.

Finally, if the Berry Polymers recycling plant is found to have breached regulations, it should be shut down as a matter of urgency. I am not against recycling—as I say, I am absolutely pro recycling—but I cannot believe this plant was allowed to be sited so close to thousands of homes. I will conclude my speech by making it crystal clear to the Minister, the Environment Agency and Berry Polymers that I will not allow residents to suffer more of this and I will not stop fighting for my constituents until this is resolved. \p Mary Creagh: I congratulate my hon. Friend and neighbour, the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western). I know his area well and he has made a powerful and compelling speech on behalf of his constituents. We have a commitment to transition to a circular economy and to try to prevent waste from occurring in the first place, but where it does occur we need to manage it in the most resource-efficient way possible. That is really important for the management of plastic waste. We want to minimise the use of plastics, and it is clear that we need to recycle them to prevent them from being landfilled or incinerated.

My hon. Friend has described a litany of distressing incidents, including the failure around planning permission being given for this light industrial estate so close to residents’ houses and the dreadful examples of children asking their parents, “How can I eat my dinner without flies flying into my mouth?” That is something we would not wish on our worst enemies, and I am truly sorry that his constituents have had to put up with this terrible situation.

Plastics for recycling come from a wide range of sources across households and industry, and they need to be cleaned before recycling. That is a note to all of us when we chuck our dirty, unrinsed yoghurt pots into the recycling. Someone has to deal with them later on. There is no such place as “away”. If we want the material to be suitable for remanufacture, we have to clean up our own mess before we hand it on for materials reprocessing. It is clear that, in this case, this activity has impacted on my hon. Friend’s constituents.

We have regulations in place to protect communities. Recycling plants are holders of environmental permits. Those permits are issued by the Environment Agency and they impose conditions on operators about waste handling, in order to mitigate—that is, reduce—environmental risks such as odour and noise, as well as other pollution risks. The Environment Agency regulates the holders of those permits by making periodic visits to inspect activities, to ensure that they are in line with the conditions of the permit. I am pleased to hear that my hon. Friend has been conducting his own unannounced visits and I do hope he finds a way to continue them, or finds other people to do them for him in the event that he is barred. The EA works with the operators of facilities to ensure compliance, issuing through guidance and advice and, when necessary, serving notices on an operator to mandate actions to improve compliance, such as changes to how they carry out the work or how risks are managed.

I am really sorry that residents are experiencing odours and flies in South Leamington, Warwick Gates, Heathcote and Whitnash. The Environment Agency and Warwick district council have been working together to investigate these issues, but having heard what my hon. Friend has said tonight, I would advise him—I will do my best with this through my private office—to ensure that the Health and Safety Executive is also made aware of the unhygienic working practices that workers at that site are clearly experiencing. If it is bad in the neighbouring houses, I am keen to hear what it is like for people taking their breaks and eating their packed lunches on that site, because I cannot imagine that it meets modern working condition standards.

I understand that the Berry Polymers plant in Leamington Spa sources its material largely from municipal waste, which it cleans on site before recycling into material to go back into manufacturing. The site permit requires an odour management plan, which controls the treatment for the washing of plastic, as well as several other potentially odorous—that is, smelly—processes. As these activities are included in the permit, appropriate enforcement action can be taken should odours be assessed as contravening the plan. The odour management plan includes details about the storage and handling of incoming materials that are recognised as potentially odorous.

The current permit conditions in relation to the open water treatment plant to treat water used from the washing of plastics are being reviewed by the Environment Agency to ensure that all required conditions are in place to regulate the activity. I have a regular Environment Agency update and will be asking for regular updates on this plant and for it to be added to my risk update reporting.

The Environment Agency was first made aware of residents’ fly issues in July 2023, as my hon. Friend says, with a volume of odour reports also being reported in  August. It visited two sites in the area regularly, including the Berry Polymers site, and required action to be taken to prevent risks of odours and flies. The actions were to implement fly monitoring, provide evidence of pest management training for staff, and consistently improve pest and odour management plans. As my hon. Friend says, this has been going on for nearly two years.

In January 2024, an external entomologist—an insect specialist—was contracted to conduct a site inspection. Following their recommendations, an improvement plan was produced with further actions. Fly control boards were installed at the plant to kill flies, and fly traps were also installed inside and out to kill flies and allow species of flies to be monitored.

The Environment Agency also asked for volunteers in the local community to conduct fly monitoring in their homes. I sort of agree with my hon. Friend when he asks, “Whose job is it?” I understand residents’ reluctance; only one person responded. Data collection and evidence are an important part of compliance and permit regulatory activity, so if we want action to be taken, we have to have the proof, so I recommend that he re-engages.

In August and September 2024, the monitoring recorded that numbers of flies were not at levels likely to cause distress. However, the Environment Agency continues to investigate all odour reports received and has undertaken 26 unannounced site inspections where odour has been assessed. An additional 11 odour assessments have been conducted in the local area, where sustained odour at levels likely to cause offence has not been identified. However, I take on board what my hon. Friend says about constituents vomiting in their cars as they drive past—he has given a graphic description of the impacts. An odour assessment was carried out on Saturday 1 March. Multiple locations within the locality were visited. Faint and sporadic odours were identified. However, these were not detected at the site boundary. Since March, odour reports have increased—again, it is a hot weather issue. There were 31 reports in March and 32 in April.

In April, the operator notified the Environment Agency of an issue with an on-site sedimentation tank and maintenance was carried out on 25 April to address it. On 15 April, the EA required the operator to provide further information regarding maintenance of the waste water treatment plant, staff training and odour monitoring. A response has been received and is being assessed. Officers carried out further off-site amenity checks on 25 April. No odour or notably elevated fly numbers were noted. A further site visit was conducted last week on 7 May, and no breaches were identified. There were no off-site amenity issues.

The EA is committed, as am I, to ensuring compliance at the facilities that it regulates and that all appropriate measures are in place. I think my hon. Friend will agree— he was very generous in his speech—that we have taken very swift action to tackle waste issues across the country. The EA will continue to respond to reports of odour and flies, and to proactively inspect Berry Polymers and any other permitted or exempt site in the area that it considers a potential source of flies or odour.

The local environment team and the local council have worked together to ensure that residents are kept up to date with investigations and findings through an online community page and monthly briefing notes, but I understand that residents might feel helpless and hopeless. I encourage them to continue taking action and to report fly, odour or noise issues linked to permitted sites, including Berry Polymers, through the 24-hour Environment Agency hotline on xx-xxxx-xxxx. Those reports help the Environment Agency and partners to investigate and assess the impact of all issues. \p Matt Western: I thank my hon. Friend for her comprehensive response. The frustration is that, after two years, there is real fatigue among the community about the district council, the Environment Agency and environmental health not listening and taking this problem seriously, so I do not think that we can just complete online forms and rely on them to respond. If Berry Polymers does not change, this is the last chance for it. We have seen video evidence of its washrooms, with flies flying around. The place needs shutting down if there is one more example of its failing to maintain proper conditions in the workplace or the wider environment. \p Mary Creagh: I cannot, as a Minister, pass judgment on any permitted operator, as doing so could be prejudicial to any ongoing or potential enforcement action. My hon. Friend has had a letter from the Environment Agency—I have seen that letter. We must move from a world in which regulatory activity is focused on activity rather than on progress. I am very keen that the Environment Agency should make progress with the fly and odour issues that he has spoken about so eloquently.

I will, as I say, keep a close eye on this matter. I will push officials for clear and unambiguous action to ensure that, if we have another warm summer, my hon. Friend’s constituents are not suffering in what can only be described as utterly horrible and unacceptable living conditions.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.