debates/debates2025-03-04b conversation_22
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-03-04)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-03-04b conversation_22

Oliver Dowden:Attracting high net worth individuals to spend more time in the United Kingdom drives jobs, growth and, crucially, tax revenues, but unfortunately the opposite is happening in the UK right now. Will the Chancellor use the spring statement to look at the statutory residence test and, in particular, the ties rules to see whether we can incentivise people to spend more time in the UK, not the other way around? \p James Murray: As part of the reforms announced at the autumn Budget, we are modernising the system for people from overseas spending time in the UK with a new residence-based test. We are always looking at ways to encourage people from overseas to spend time in and invest in the UK and to help grow our economy. \p Rachel Blake: I congratulate the Government on announcing the greatest level of financial sanctions last week. Does the Chancellor agree that keeping dirty money out of the City of London and homes and communities across our country is vital for our national security, as well as our economic stability? \p Rachel Reeves: It is absolutely right that we increased and stepped up the sanctions last week. Also, under the loan agreement we made with Ukraine last week, the loan will be repaid with the profits on foreign sovereign Russian assets. Russia should pay for the damage it has done. \p Wera Hobhouse: My constituent is one of hundreds of people who suffered from the collapse of Collateral. While the Financial Conduct Authority has apologised to investors for failing to act faster to stop Collateral’s fraudulent activities, I am concerned that, without internal changes, the FCA will make similar mistakes again. Should there not be an investigation into the FCA’s handling of the case? \p Emma Reynolds: I am happy to meet the hon. Lady and look at the case she mentions, because I need to get more detail. \p Ruth Cadbury: The Transport Committee has looked at the economic growth case for the Heathrow expansion and has heard conflicting evidence on the project’s growth impact on regions away from London and the south-east, and also on other carbon-using sectors. Will the Chancellor ask Heathrow Airport to release the full text of the Frontier Economics report on which she made her decision to expand Heathrow? \p Darren Jones: Heathrow, as an important hub airport, will have benefits for regions across the country, as chambers of commerce have said to us. Of course, I   understand that the Transport Committee is looking at the issue, and we will consider its report when it publishes it in due course. \p Luke Taylor: St Raph’s hospice in my constituency faces a £140,000 increase in staff costs due to the Government’s national insurance hike. That means the hospice will have to further cut staff services that take pressure off the NHS. Will the Chancellor think again and provide an exemption for healthcare providers from the national insurance rise? \p James Murray: The Chancellor set out our Budget, and I set out during debates on the Finance Bill and related legislation exactly how we will implement the changes announced at the Budget. In the case of employer national insurance contributions, there are defined ways in which public sector organisations are reimbursed. The changes do not apply to hospices, as they are largely charities or are not directly part of the public sector. I also point him to the £100 million of extra investment that we have announced in improving hospices. \p Allison Gardner: Does the Minister agree that investment in the fifty500 midlands growth corridor will provide an excellent opportunity to deliver this Labour Government’s mission for growth and opportunity for all? \p Darren Jones: I join my hon. Friend in celebrating investment in her region. Our growth mission is one in which each part of the country will benefit, and we look forward to working further with her. \p Jim Allister: With farmers protesting again in Westminster today, why is the Chancellor of the Exchequer running away from meeting farming unions from across this nation? Why do those who feed our nation not deserve some of the Chancellor’s time? \p James Murray: Just two weeks ago, I spent a fair amount of time meeting representatives from the National Farmers Union and other representative organisations from different nations within the UK. I listened to their concerns and what they had to say. We have to be honest that we disagree. They do not agree with the Government’s policy, and I need to be direct about that because we had to take a number of difficult decisions at the Budget. But I do not apologise for the importance of balancing the public finances and sticking to our fiscal rules. \p Amanda Martin: Next month will see a rise and an extension to the minimum wage. In Portsmouth North, there are 9,600 minimum wage workers—higher than the national average—leaving many in in-work poverty and in desperate need of a boost to living standards. What steps are the Government taking to help improve living standards for those low-paid workers? \p Torsten Bell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that a higher minimum wage is an important way that we make low-earning workers’ lives better—as is the extension that we announced to sick pay yesterday, which I hope will be welcomed on all sides of this House. \p Harriett Baldwin: The art of taxation is extracting the largest amount of money with the lowest amount of squeaking from the  goose. Yet the Chancellor will have heard the honking of the tractors on Whitehall today in response to her raising an amount of money that will pay for less than one day of NHS spending. Will she commit to reversing the family farm tax? \p James Murray: As we have debated several times in this Chamber and Westminster Hall, the changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief retain a generous relief for people accessing those benefits within the taxation system. That means that people will get £1 million before inheritance tax is due, in addition to the existing nil rate band for spousal transfers. Over that, it is up to an effective rate of 20%, and any money due can be paid over 10 years, interest free. \p Luke Murphy: The Government’s recent £100 million investment in hospices, including St Michael’s hospice in Basingstoke, will help to modernise facilities, enhance digital services and provide more comfortable spaces for patients and their families. Given the vital role that hospices play in all our communities, will the Treasury continue to work with the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure the sector’s long-term financial stability? \p James Murray: As my hon. Friend rightly points out, £100 million is being made available for hospices—£25 million in 2024-25 and £75 million from April 2025. That capital funding is intended to help charitable hospices in his constituency and elsewhere across the country to improve and modernise their facilities and physical estate. \p Tim Farron: Britain is only 55% food secure. In these deeply uncertain times internationally, is it not time to change policy when it comes to agriculture? Is this not the day to get rid of the family farm tax, undo the 76% cut in basic payments and invest in the people who keep us food secure? \p James Murray: As I have made clear to other hon. Members, the changes to agricultural property relief are a fair way to raise the money necessary to balance the public finances. Britain has excellent food security, and that is a priority for the Government. \p Meg Hillier: It is right that the Government have put more money into defence. However, in answer to a previous question, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that there is an impact assessment of the overseas development budget. Does that mean that it is still in scope of the spending review and that there could be changes to that budget in June? \p Darren Jones: Just to clarify, I did not say there was an impact assessment; I said that the impact of the changes is being considered by the Government, but we will set out the detail on that in due course. \p Rishi Sunak: I commend the Government for their international leadership at this challenging time. Events overnight make it even clearer that Europe must find considerably more resources for Ukraine. The Chancellor has rightly continued our policy of using the interest on frozen Russian state assets to benefit Ukraine, but I believe that now is the moment to go further by actually seizing those assets. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine violates the principle of sovereign equality, providing a basis in international law for such a policy, and by acting in concert with our allies, we can ensure that there are no risks to financial stability. May I urge the Chancellor to push for co-ordinated action to seize those frozen Russian state assets and give that money to the Ukrainians so that they can defend and rebuild their country? \p Rachel Reeves: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his words about this Government stepping up the funding for defence. Last week, we expanded sanctions on Russia, including by looking at financial services. This week, we have signed off a UK Export Finance package to provide more military support, above and beyond our defence spending and as well as the loan repaid using the profit on those assets. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, we would look at going further but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is incredibly complicated to do that in line with international law. However, we keep  all options on the table, because, as he is absolutely right to say, Russia should pay for the damage that Russia has caused. \p Ellie Chowns: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Gaza. \p Catherine West: We urge all parties to fully implement the ceasefire to help deliver a permanent end to hostilities. We are very concerned at reports that Israel is preventing humanitarian aid from entering Gaza. Israel must not block aid coming into Gaza. Humanitarian aid should never be contingent on a ceasefire or used as a political tool. We urge the Government of Israel to lift restrictions immediately and unconditionally.

The humanitarian situation in Gaza is dire. The halt on goods and supplies entering Gaza risks breaching Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law. The UK is doing all we can to provide support. Alongside our existing support, on 28 January, the then Minister for Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), announced a further £17 million in funding to ensure that healthcare, food and shelter reaches tens of thousands of civilians, and to support vital infrastructure across the Occupied Palestinian Territories and neighbouring countries.

We must all work together with the United Nations and all partners to continue to facilitate aid and ensure it is sustained. Fully reinstating commercial deliveries will be key, as will allowing more types of goods in, so that civilians who lost their homes can be protected and civilian infrastructure repaired.

We welcome the announcement of an agreement to end the fighting in Gaza, and we welcome the release of 38 hostages in Gaza so far, including British national Emily Damari and Eli Sharabi, who both have both close links to the UK. Emily, of course, has met the Prime Minister and discussed her dreadful treatment at the hands of Hamas. The hostages and their families have endured unimaginable suffering from the cruelty of Hamas, and the situation in Gaza has continued to worsen. The current ceasefire is the only way for the region to move forward.

As we have made clear, we want to see a negotiated two-state solution, with a sovereign Palestinian state, including the west bank and Gaza, alongside a safe and secure Israel. We have also made it clear that we would oppose any effort to move Palestinians in Gaza to neighbouring Arab states against their will. Forced displacement of Palestinians or any reduction in the territory of the Gaza strip are simply not an option. We need Palestinian civilians to be able to return to their homes and lives, and to rebuild. International law guarantees them this right. A two-state solution is the only way to secure long-term peace and security for Palestinians and Israelis.

As the Foreign Secretary said:

“You can hold in your heart the pain of the Israeli people and the plight of those hostages and their families, and at the same time, you can hold in your heart the awful damage, pain and suffering that this has wrought on Gaza, with well over 45,000 Palestinian people having lost their lives.”—[Official Report, 16 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 535.]

We must continue to focus on the future and on turning the current ceasefire deal into a political process that leads to a two-state solution, including the west bank and Gaza. \p Ellie Chowns: Over the weekend, the Israeli Government took the decision to block the entry of humanitarian aid into Gaza. The Minister talked about that aid, but it can no longer be delivered. Israel is once again using starvation as a weapon of war, and today we hear that it has also announced a so-called “hell plan” that would see electricity and remaining water supplies cut off.

These decisions coincide with the end of the first phase of the ceasefire agreement, with negotiations on phase 2 barely begun, jeopardising the release of the remaining live hostages, plans for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza and a longer-term peace agreement. The UN has said:

“International humanitarian law is clear: We must be allowed access to deliver vital lifesaving aid.”

Oxfam described the move, made as Ramadan began, as a

“reckless act of collective punishment, explicitly prohibited under international humanitarian law”,

and the International Court of Justice has previously issued explicit instructions to Israel to facilitate aid deliveries to Gaza.

Does the Minister agree that the Israeli Government are again in clear violation of the ceasefire agreement and of international humanitarian law? Has she, or have her colleagues, spoken to their Israeli counterparts to condemn Israel’s “hell plan”, and to make it clear that there must be no resumption of the war and that  it is unacceptable for the people of Gaza to be denied critical food, water, and medical or any other supplies? What action will the UK take against the Israeli Government if they continue, illegally, to use humanitarian aid and access to water and power as a bargaining chip? I know that the Minister wants the ceasefire to hold. Can she share her assessment of the impact of these latest developments on the prospects for a lasting, just and fair peace? \p Catherine West: I thank the hon. Lady for the urgent question. A halt on goods and supplies entering Gaza, such as that announced by the Government of Israel, does risk breaching obligations under international humanitarian law. To answer her question directly, the UK Government have been in touch with interlocutors to make that point. In fact, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), is in the region pushing for a peace deal, hence my covering this brief today, although I am the Indo-Pacific Minister.

Humanitarian aid should never be contingent on a ceasefire or used as a political tool. On 28 January, the then Minister for development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), announced £17 million in funding to ensure that healthcare, food and shelter could reach tens of thousands of civilians, and to support vital infrastructure across the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The UK has announced £129 million of funding for the OPTs so far this financial year, including £41 million for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency.

The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) asked about the long-term ceasefire prospects. The UK plays its part in pushing both sides towards a hopeful future for the region. We are working with not just Arab states, but partners such as the US to try to push for a solution that is in line with international humanitarian law. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. \p Emily Thornberry: I have just come back from the middle east, where I went with the Foreign Affairs Committee. While the world watches with increasing alarm the disintegration of the peace process in Gaza, we were warned in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the west bank and Israel that the far-right Government in Israel may have no long-term plan on Gaza, but that there is a long-term plan for the west bank, and that is annexation. The international community is well aware of that. It sees the evictions, the demolitions, the increasing number of Israeli settlements, and that 40,000 people have recently been displaced. In these days of hard power, what is plan B? What will the international community do to stop the annexation of the west bank? It will not be enough to simply condemn it once it has happened. \p Catherine West: I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for her ongoing interest in this important matter of foreign policy, and for the work that she and her Committee have done, including through personal interviews and visits to the region. That is all part of the supportive role that the UK must play. It must take an international role in pushing for peace.

The UK Government have taken a very tough position on militant factions or groups attacking Palestinians in the occupied territories and the west bank. We continue to look at the measures available to get our message across in not just words, but actions. With my right hon. Friend’s permission, I will write to her as Chair of the Select Committee with an updated assessment of the situation. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Foreign Secretary. \p Priti Patel: As recent days have shown, the ceasefire continues to be incredibly fragile. Of course, we all want this agreement to hold, and none of us should be in any doubt that that hinges on the release of each and every hostage held by the Iranian-backed terrorists Hamas, who caused the conflict by their sickening acts on 7 October. As the Minister has pointed out, those hostages and their families have now suffered unimaginably for more than 500 days, and that cannot go on. The hostages have been held in barbaric conditions, and the world has been shocked by the distressing scenes involving those who have been released.

The Minister rightly referred to Emily Damari and others. Emily has shared details of her really awful ordeal in captivity by Hamas. We all wish her well in her medical appointments and in the treatment that she is receiving. Last week, we also tragically saw the distressing return of the bodies of those killed in Hamas captivity. Our hearts break for their loved ones, and we mourn with them and with the people of Israel.

I have a series of questions for the Minister. First, what role is the UK playing in helping to get an agreement on phase 2 of this ceasefire over the line? What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with America, Israel, and other regional players in recent days? What engagement have the Government had with the plans for the future of Gaza that are being discussed in Cairo, and on how to prevent Hamas from continuing to control the Gaza strip?

Secondly, what is the Government’s practical response on aid access? How are they working to unblock this situation, and what is happening to the British aid that is already in the region or en route? Finally, what recent conversations have Foreign Office Ministers had with the International Committee of the Red Cross, both on its efforts on hostage release and on humanitarian assistance more broadly? \p Catherine West: I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for emphasising the effect on families on both sides of this terrible conflict, but particularly on the British families whom the Prime Minister has met, and on Emily Damari, and their dignity and grace. She also mentioned all those who want a home, want security in the region, and have been affected by this most horrendous of wars. She evoked the terrible images of hostages being released while the most macabre of pantomimes went on behind them. That cruelty is utterly unacceptable, and the UK has made that very clear to interlocutors, both at ministerial and Foreign Secretary level.

The shadow Foreign Secretary has talked about phase 2. There have been stops and starts in this peace process, as there often are in these very difficult situations. Our role is to continue to speak very closely with the US and with Steve Witkoff to push for practical, day-to-day solutions. She asked about British aid and what negotiations we are undertaking. We are in daily contact with the region, and are pushing for discussions, conversations and dialogue, so that aid can get back in. Following this urgent question, we undertake to contact the Red Cross, one of our partner organisations, with the message that this House wants that aid to re-enter the area, and to save lives. \p Abtisam Mohamed: The powerful scenes of Palestinians celebrating the start of Ramadan, even as their homes and lives have been reduced to rubble by Israeli forces, send a defiant message to the world that despite the displacement and destruction, Palestinians remain rooted in their land. Will the Minister confirm that the decision to block all aid to Gaza, collectively punishing the entire population, is a war crime and a breach of international law, contravening provisions of the Geneva convention and the Rome statute? \p Catherine West: My hon. Friend is quite right to point out the devastating impact of no aid getting through, and to say that a halt on goods and supplies entering Gaza, such as that recently announced by the Government of Israel, risks breaching Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law. It is not for Ministers at the Dispatch Box to make legal decisions or judgments, but I assure my hon. Friend that the former Minister for development pledged £17 million to ensure that healthcare, food and shelter can reach tens of thousands of civilians, and to support vital infrastructure.  My hon. Friend must reassure her constituents that the Foreign Office is doing all it can to get infrastructure across the OPTs and into Gaza, in order to relieve the suffering. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Calum Miller: The Israeli Government are wrong to prevent humanitarian aid entering Gaza. That threatens the lives of Gazans who are dependent on aid after the destruction of the past 15 months, and is a clear breach of international humanitarian law. What practical steps are the Government taking to ensure that the Israeli Government back down and let that aid in? I understand the depth of distress in Israel about the despicable way that Hamas terrorists have played psychological games with the hostages and their families, but withholding essential supplies of food, medicine and shelter only worsens the devastation faced by the Palestinian people.

In the west bank, we also see illegal settlers violently attacking Palestinians and apparently receiving the support of members of the Israeli Cabinet. Does the Minister agree that we in the UK must do all we can to undermine the extremists in this conflict, so that a second phase of the ceasefire can be negotiated, all hostages can be released, and Gazans can receive the aid that they desperately need? \p Catherine West: I thank the Lib Dem spokesperson for his words. He is quite right to emphasise the psychological impact of this terrible conflict, and the traumatised state of people in the region. As the Foreign Secretary has said, we welcome the release of the 38 hostages in Gaza, including of course Emily Damari, whom we have already mentioned. We think so much of those members of the Lifshitz family—they of course had strong ties to the UK—who were held hostage by terrorists in Gaza and who died. We thank Qatar, Egypt and the US for providing support to ensure that the horrific ordeal of individuals and families can come to an end, but unfortunately, this is not the end. That is why it is so important that we take this moment to push.

The hon. Gentleman asked what we were doing practically. We are in daily contact with the region, including our mission there. Obviously, in the context of the international debate, interventions such as this urgent question push for a just solution for those on both sides of this terrible conflict. \p Alex Ballinger: Last week, I was in the west bank, alongside other members of the Foreign Affairs Committee, on our wider trip to the middle east. While the world’s attention is rightly on the devastating humanitarian situation in Gaza, we met Palestinians in the Jordan valley whose schools were being attacked, whose mosques were being burned, and whose livestock were being stolen by extremist Israeli settlers. This is happening with the apparent connivance of the Israeli security forces, and it appears to be part of a wider plan for annexation. What steps are we taking to prevent further erosion of Palestinian land in the west bank that would put the two-state solution even further away? \p Catherine West: I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and for his expertise on aid and foreign affairs. He is quite right to emphasise the actions of some settlers. There are many settler communities that just  get on with it, and that want a peaceful solution, but he is right to say that there is violence in the settlements, which are of course unlawful under international humanitarian law and harm the prospects of a two-state solution. I thank my hon. Friend for putting on record the impact on the faith community, particularly during the holy month of Ramadan, and the fact that mosques have been attacked. We will ensure that that point gets through in our next discussion with our interlocutors, both on the Israeli side and on the Palestinian side. \p Brendan O'Hara: No one is surprised that as soon as the world’s attention shifted from Gaza, Israel reimposed its siege, preventing the entry of all humanitarian aid. The Minister knows the impact that this will have on the beleaguered civilian population, who are already suffering from disease, starvation and an absence of healthcare. After 17 months in which Israel has been given carte blanche, none of us—least of all Netanyahu—expects there to be any meaningful consequences from Israel’s actions, but does the Minister consider what is happening in Gaza to be collective punishment? If she does not, what would she call it? \p Catherine West: Sometimes, the words we use are really important. There has been an enormous amount of suffering. We know that so many in Israel feel that we do not understand their need for security, and so many in Gaza feel that we do not understand the depth of their suffering. We must redouble our efforts to communicate what we want, which is a two-state solution and a peaceful future for both communities, which must live side by side. \p Jonathan Pearce: The leaders of the Arab world have made welcome proposals about the future of Gaza and its people. What update can the Minister give on the UK’s support for those proposals, and will she join me in welcoming the fact that the proposals recognise that the terrorist death cult Hamas can have no part in the future governance of Gaza? \p Catherine West: My hon. Friend is quite right to say that, as a proscribed terror organisation, Hamas have certainly displayed some very frightening characteristics that we would expect of a terrorist organisation. There was also the macabre pantomime that we saw in the past couple of weeks during the release of hostages—that was truly shocking. I thank him for his question. The exact detail on the next stage of the negotiation is to be defined by the two parties, but we play a real role both with the ally, which is Israel, but also working with Egypt, Qatar and the wider region. That is why our Minister right now is in the region, making the point that we want to be involved, pushing for a peaceful solution and to see that day when terrorism is not extant and the two communities can live side by side  in peace. \p Kit Malthouse: I was going to ask what we would do if the Israelis refused to let in aid, or to turn on the water and power, but I think we all know that basically the answer is nothing. Instead, let me ask this. The Minister rightly mentioned the macabre display around the return of the hostages and the condition of those hostages, and she is right. I think she said that she has taken that up with interlocutors.   Why has not she mentioned the return of the Palestinian non-combatants? Why has not she mentioned their condition when they are returned, often emaciated and showing signs of torture? Why has she not mentioned the number of senior medics who have been detained without charge and then died in mysterious circumstances in Israeli detention? Apparently there is some kind of investigation, but it never comes to a conclusion. Is she surprised that people have become cynical about British conduct in this conflict, when it seems that we are only concerned about the welfare of one side? \p Catherine West: With all due respect, I think that across this House we have had a very balanced approach to the suffering of all the communities in the region. The right hon. Member is right to mention the terrible suffering of those who have experienced arbitrary detention or alleged torture by various law enforcement agencies. He is also right to include that in what needs to be the next step of the negotiation—the hostages on the one side, but those being released from prison on the other. I remind him that there are concerns that some people who might have been released should not have been. All of that has to be taken in the round and balanced. I encourage balance and understanding about the suffering of both sides of the community and the desire for security in the words that we use in the House. \p Damien Egan: The issue of collaboration and infiltration between Hamas and some UNRWA officials is well documented. Clearly, people in Gaza need aid, so can the Minister update us on how we are monitoring the work being done to restore neutrality and confidence in UNRWA? \p Catherine West: The UK Government have been a supporter of the work of UNRWA throughout this conflict and before it. We have been supporting UNRWA financially, as have all international organisations and countries. There have been problems with certain challenges to individuals who have been employed by UNRWA, but we have consistently joined with allies in expressing our concerns about the role of UNRWA being curtailed. At the UN Security Council sessions on 6 November, 11 December, 3 January, 28 January and 25 February, and in a joint statement with partners on 27 October, we urged that the important work of UNRWA can continue. \p Shockat Adam: The blockade of aid is just the last line in a long list of activities that Israelis have committed against the Palestinian people. Now that we have cut our overseas aid to a mere 0.3% of GDP—the lowest in real terms in 20 years—does the Minister still agree with the Labour party manifesto that international aid makes the world

“a safer, more prosperous place”?

Does she agree that, with this move, the UK’s historic role in the middle east is dead and over? \p Catherine West: The hon. Member is right to talk about the ongoing need for aid in the region, and the Prime Minister was very careful in his speech at the end of last week—I think he has mentioned it since then in the press—to say that humanitarian aid must continue. Gaza was specifically mentioned, because it is one of  our top priorities. The hon. Member is aware that the decision to divert some of our aid spending into the defence of Europe is only a week old, but he must also be aware that we will come forward with the detail of that. I reassure him and his constituents that Gaza was specifically mentioned in this House by the Prime Minister, because it remains one of our top priorities in the Foreign Office. \p Imran Hussain: It is clear that Israel has been emboldened by Trumpian tactics in imposing a total siege and blocking all supplies, including humanitarian aid into Gaza, to force new ceasefire terms. We in this House should be clear and call that what it is: collective punishment of the Palestinian people, starvation as a method of war, and a blatant war crime. Will the Minister finally sanction Israel for these gross violations of international law? \p Catherine West: Specifically on the question of sanctions, I think my hon. Friend knows what I am going to say, which is that we do not talk about them until we make a decision. We review any tools that we have available to us to protest. We also need to understand that we are in the midst of a peace process. We know that peace processes throughout history have had stop-start elements. What we are doing is making clear our views—the views of this House and of the Government—that humanitarian aid must not be prevented from entering Gaza. While this important peace process is going on, people still need to eat. They still need lifesaving medical treatment. Children still need to be educated. That is the point we have continued to make all the way along. \p Caroline Voaden: In her letter resigning as Development Minister last week, the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) wrote that

“it will be impossible…given the depth of the cut”

to maintain the Government’s support for all their development commitments. She explicitly cited aid to Gaza. At this point, I commend the Totnes Friends of Palestine for raising £10,000 to help those in Gaza. With hospitals destroyed, a lack of clean water, desperate food shortages and now more threats to power and water supplies, how will the Minister ensure that last week’s cuts to development spending will not worsen the humanitarian catastrophe happening in Gaza? \p Catherine West: I congratulate the hon. Member on all the work she does in her community to show international support and solidarity for communities in Gaza. We know that the humanitarian situation remains extremely challenging, with more than 48,000 having been killed and 90% of the population having been displaced, many repeatedly. I think the UK has a really good story to tell. We have been in there for many decades now. She mentions the outgoing Minister for Development, and a further £17 million was announced on 28 January so that healthcare, food and shelter could reach tens of thousands of civilians, and to support vital infrastructure. The hon. Member asks about ongoing funding, and she is right to ask that question and hold our feet to the fire. Once we have had time to look at the coming financial years and the comprehensive spending review, she will have her answer. \p Yasmin Qureshi: Does the Minister agree that Israel’s decision to block aid to more than 2 million Palestinians in Gaza is collective punishment? With 80% of Gaza’s health infrastructure destroyed, 1,000 medical workers killed and the World Health Organisation estimating that 14,000 Palestinians, including 4,500 children, require urgent medical evacuation, what concrete steps have we taken to ensure that aid gets in and that those who need medical treatment have that treatment made available to them? \p Catherine West: I thank my hon. Friend for her ongoing campaigning on humanitarian aid for Gaza. It is very positive that the Rafah crossing remains open: that has led to a significant increase in the number of medical evacuations in recent weeks. It is vital for Israel to ensure that there is a sustained passage for patients who need treatment that is not available in Gaza, and officials from all relevant Whitehall Departments are exploring avenues to ensure that our support best meets the needs of the those who are critically ill there. The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) talked about the medical staff who are under threat. We have supported them with technical advice and training, and we have also announced £1 million for the Egyptian Ministry of Health and Population, to be delivered through WHO Egypt, to support Palestinians who have been medically evacuated from Gaza. \p Bob Blackman: Yesterday the all-party parliamentary group on UK-Israel heard from the families of five of the remaining hostages. It is estimated that of the 59 who are still in captivity, only 24 are alive and 35 have been murdered. The recently released hostage Eli Sharabi described the conditions in which he was detained: he was held in chains, brutally beaten and starved. Alon Ohel, who was held alongside him, remains in captivity. The families believe that the remaining hostages are in a very vulnerable position. Clearly the demand must be for all of them to be released immediately, and that should be the aim of the British Government. What action is the Minister taking to ensure that happens? \p Catherine West: I thank the hon. Member for his ongoing support for peace in the region. He specifically mentioned the family of Eli Sharabi, and we know that those families have a UK connection. The UK has played an active role in co-ordinating with international partners since the beginning of the conflict. The Foreign Secretary has visited Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories on three occasions since taking office, and has worked closely with European partners in pushing for a resolution to secure the ceasefire. I think the situation has improved on that front in the last couple of weeks, but the hon. Member is right to emphasise the importance of the return of hostages as part of the negotiated next part of the peace process. \p Frank McNally: I thank the Minister for updating the House on this troubling matter. The Israeli Government’s decision is contrary to international humanitarian law and clearly undermines such a fragile ceasefire. Both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have been absolutely clear about the right of Palestinians to return home to Gaza to rebuild their lives. Does the Minister agree that their right to  return is jeopardised by the blocking of critical humanitarian aid, and what actions will the Government take if that right continues to be restricted? \p Catherine West: My hon. Friend is right that humanitarian aid should never be contingent on a ceasefire or used as a political tool, and we urge the Government of Israel to lift restrictions immediately and unconditionally. He asked what else this Government will do. We will continue to support the peace process, which should involve both sides getting around the table, freeing the hostages, allowing the aid in, and having a vision for the future of this region that is so affected by conflict and death. \p Layla Moran: I pay tribute to the former Development Minister, my constituency neighbour the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), for her work in this area, and also for the wise words in her resignation letter.

The Minister has rightly said that forced displacement is unacceptable. Indeed, I think she said that the actions of the illegal extremist settlers were unlawful. You may have seen the Oscars ceremony this week, Mr Speaker, which featured an incredible film called “No Other Land”, which highlights the forced displacements in Masafer Yatta, and was made by Israelis and Palestinians together. It won the Oscar. I bet they would trade every gong going for that film to have its desired effect, and for the violence to stop. We can do something, and if ever there was a time for us to ban the illegal settlement goods that fund those extremist settlers, is now not that time? \p Catherine West: I thank the hon. Lady for all her work in the community and also in the House, educating Members not just on the two sides that we always think about but on the Christian community in Gaza and in Palestine—the Palestinian Christians who are so much affected by the current conflict. She mentioned the UK’s position on settlements. I want to be clear that our position is that they are illegal under international law, present an obstacle to peace and threaten the physical viability of a two-state solution. \p Florence Eshalomi: Many Members have spoken about the importance of humanitarian aid, which is vital to saving so many lives, but the role of the aid workers who are working on the ground in horrific conditions is also vital. According to estimates, more than 320 have been killed, the highest number on record, but we see many aid organisations being attacked on social media, with claims that they have links to terrorist organisations. What more can the Minister do to make clear the Government’s support for these vital international aid workers and organisations? They include Islamic Relief, based in my constituency, which is one of the UK’s five non-governmental organisations certified by the core humanitarian standard in respect of aid and transparency. What more can we do to support these vital aid workers? \p Catherine West: I thank my hon. Friend for her important work in this regard, and I thank those aid organisations that are based just across the river. Not only must aid reach those who need it in all areas, but the important work of aid workers must be respected  and they must be protected. It is horrifying to hear reports that, for example, six babies have died from hypothermia and cold-related injuries in Gaza in just two weeks. Islamic Aid, the Red Cross and all the other organisations that make up the partnerships across the region must be able to get into Gaza to do their important work, and must also allowed to bring in goods such as tents, medical equipment and machinery that are needed to support the resumption of basic services in Gaza. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for her responses to the urgent question. Over the weekend and in the Chamber yesterday, the Prime Minister made very clear his support for Ukraine until peace is achieved, for which I am eternally grateful; but will the Minister confirm that our support remains with Israel as we attempt to secure peace for now and a lasting solution to maintain it, and that we hope that a future can be achieved for the children on both sides of the Gaza boundary? \p Catherine West: I thank the hon. Member for mentioning the children involved in this conflict. He is well aware of the trauma that can be passed down from generation to generation, and of the many orphans in the region. I thank him for his commitment to the state of Israel and a secure future for its people so that the suffering of people in Palestine can also come to an end. \p Tan Dhesi: As well as expressing my sadness and alarm about the Netanyahu Government’s again blocking aid from entering Gaza, may I point out that over the years I have repeatedly expressed my concern in Parliament about the forced evictions and illegal settlements in the west bank? Now, shockingly, for the first time in two decades, there are tanks in Jenin and further displacement of Palestinians. What representations are the Government making to the Israeli Government that aid must not be blocked from entering Gaza, and that this illegal occupation and these further evictions must be stopped immediately? \p Catherine West: My hon. Friend’s question gives me a further opportunity to emphasise that Israeli settlements are illegal under international law and harm the prospects for a two-state solution. The Foreign Secretary has made it clear to Israeli Ministers on a number of occasions that their Government must clamp down on settler violence and end settler expansion. \p Mark Pritchard: I thank the Minister for mentioning orphans, who, unfortunately, do not have much of a voice in this place, although sadly there are too many in the world as we see more and more conflict.

I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) that civilian lives are just as precious whether they are Israeli or Palestinian, and that we should do all we can, across the House, to save lives. I fear, however—this may be a surprise—that the biggest foreign policy headache for the Government over coming months may be not Ukraine but Israel, with the divergence of the new American Administration over Israel being of great concern.  Does the Minister accept what has been agreed today at  the Arab summit in Cairo—a $53 billion five-year reconstruction plan for Gaza which will allow displaced Palestinians to return, no Trump Gaza riviera, and countries in the region putting Palestinians back into Gaza and at the heart of its future? \p Catherine West: I thank the hon. Member for his question, which has many aspects. He is aware that the majority of homes in Gaza have been damaged or destroyed, the economy has collapsed and the delivery of basic services, including energy and water, has been badly affected. Over 60% of the electricity distribution network has been damaged or destroyed. Over 90% of main roads are damaged, profoundly limiting the mobility of people, aid and goods. That is why the underlining of the $53.2 billion is so welcome. We are supportive of regional efforts cohering around a single workable reconstruction plan for Gaza, and we support the regional expertise in construction to get going on that.

On the hon. Gentleman’s question about orphans, he is perhaps aware that one of the Foreign Secretary’s main areas of concern is the welfare of children, particularly children who are orphans or in need of adoption or fostering. I will take back the concern that he expressed about that workstream, on which we do quite a lot in the Foreign Office, and emphasise its importance. \p Kim Johnson: The suffering of Palestinian children who have been attacked by Israeli drones is devastating, and the fact that those children are denied medical support and assistance is even more so. The Minister has said that we are looking at medical evacuations, but does she agree that actions speak louder than words? When will enough be enough, and when will these children get the attention that they so desperately need? Other countries are providing support right now. \p Catherine West: My hon. Friend is quite right to talk about children. Whether it is in Sudan, Ukraine or anywhere else, we know that children suffer deep trauma as a result of conflict, and we are deeply alarmed by the disproportionate impact of the conflict on children in Gaza. Half of Gaza’s population are children, and the consequences of tens of thousands being killed, injured or separated from their parents threaten not only their individual futures, but the very fabric of Palestinian society for generations to come. Most, if not all, students in Gaza have not had access to education since 7 October, and at least 88% of school buildings will need full or major reconstruction.

My hon. Friend is quite right to ask what we are doing. The UK is supporting the restoration of education services in Gaza, including through the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs and the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East. She will be aware of the important work to maintain the ceasefire so that we have a hope of realising the reconstruction dream. \p Ben Lake: I am very pleased to hear the Minister emphasise that the withholding of humanitarian aid is a direct contravention of international humanitarian law. What steps are her Government taking to work with partners in the region and in Europe to apply pressure on the Israeli Government, to ensure that the flow of critical aid is no longer impeded? \p Catherine West: That is precisely why we have ministerial visits to the region: to emphasise the importance, not only to the Government but to this House, of the message that we must keep pushing for a peaceful future. In the meantime, we must provide enough food to eat and enough water to wash and to cook, to educate children and keep people healthy and safe. \p Patricia Ferguson: Have the Government carried out an assessment of the impact of the withdrawal of USAID from the region? In light of any assessment that may have been carried out, are the Government confident that the decision to cut the international aid budget will not be an increasingly detrimental problem in Gaza? I understand that the Prime Minister has said that funding for Gaza is ringfenced and that our humanitarian aid will continue, but I am concerned that the withdrawal of American aid may leave a vacuum that we cannot fill. \p Catherine West: It is true that, over the decades, the people of the USA have been generous in providing aid across the world, including in the region. It will be almost impossible to replace the important work that USAID has done over the decades in the middle east. I will not, however, give up hope, because we have to keep making the case for working together internationally. A lot of the work in the region is done by partners working multilaterally. Much of that work has been done by USAID, but it is also about trying to encourage other countries, including those in the region that have more vibrant economies, to step up to the plate and fill the gaps.

On my hon. Friend’s specific question about the assessment, it is not complete, because the decision is still relatively recent, as is our own decision on UNRWA a week ago. I trust that we will come back to the House when we know the shape of the comprehensive spending review and how we will address this difficult problem. \p Nick Timothy: On Monday, the London School of Economics’ middle east centre will host the launch of a book called “Understanding Hamas”. One contributor to the book, Azzam Tamimi, has previously called for the destruction of the state of Israel. Speakers at the event deny that Hamas is a terrorist organisation and wrongly dismiss Israel as a “white, settler colonialist nation”. Will the Minister join me in saying very clearly that this is not an accurate description of Israel? There is no genocide, as I heard an hon. Member claim earlier, and Hamas is a terrorist organisation that seeks to murder Jews and has brought nothing but destruction and disaster to the people of Gaza. \p Catherine West: I thank the hon. Gentleman for doing his research before coming to the House, and I can confirm that Hamas is a terror organisation that is proscribed by our Government for those reasons. It is really important that we are robust in our defence of the right of the state of Israel, our ally, to exist. \p Stella Creasy: The people of both Israel and Palestine have been failed by their leadership, with horrific consequences. One person who knew that more than most was my constituent’s father, Oded Lifschitz, whose coffin we saw paraded horrifically through the streets of Khan Yunis. We  should say his name in this place, because he dedicated his life to securing peace between Israel and Palestine. He drove ambulances over the border to help Palestinian people. We can be clear in this Chamber that withholding aid and using starvation as a weapon of war is wrong, but if we want to challenge that leadership, we must step up ourselves. The Minister previously spoke about what we are doing to try to support medical needs in Gaza. For the avoidance of doubt—may Oded’s memory be a blessing, and in his cause we will follow up—can the Minister be clear that we will evacuate people who need medical assistance from Gaza to the UK? \p Catherine West: The Lifschitz family have a great champion in my hon. Friend, who has come to the House and laid out in clear terms her expectation of the Government. There are certain schemes to assist families in medical emergencies. With her permission, I will write to her with the detail and the exact guidelines that are used by the Government to determine who is eligible for those schemes. \p Jeremy Corbyn: There have now been 60,000 known deaths in Gaza. Israel is already accused by the ICJ and the ICC of war crimes, including genocidal acts, and it is now committing a new war crime by denying food and water to the people of Gaza. What will it take for the British Government to cease all arms supplies to Israel and to end the use of the RAF base in Akrotiri as a staging point for delivery to Israel? When will we end the security co-operation with Israel to make it absolutely clear that we are not prepared to support a regime that is breaking international humanitarian law in so many respects? \p Catherine West: As the right hon. Member is aware, as soon as the Foreign Secretary took office he ordered a review of the compliance with international humanitarian law of various export items. Following the review, the Government suspended export licences to Israel in a number of categories, assessing where there was a clear risk that they might be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law.

As the right hon. Member will also be aware, the question of genocide is not for a Minister to determine at the Dispatch Box. Legal experts continue to look at the definitions and descriptions of acts of war, and they will come forward with their determinations over time. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. I am planning to run this urgent question for only about another 10 minutes, so it would be very helpful if questions were short, please. \p Rachael Maskell: Over recent days, we have seen the power of co-ordinated action when addressing a most challenging diplomatic, military and humanitarian crisis, yet in 17 months we have not seen a parallel in addressing the challenges over Gaza. What action is the Department taking to ensure that there is such a co-ordinated effort, and will the Foreign Secretary call such a summit? \p Catherine West: I thank my hon. Friend for that suggestion. The UK will certainly continue to work, as it has done, ceaselessly with Israel, the Palestinian Authority,  the US and regional partners to build consensus for a post-conflict Gaza governance and security framework that supports conditions for a permanent and sustainable peace. Her request has been heard in the Chamber. \p Monica Harding: What message does the Minister think the Government send about their commitment to international aid in Gaza—and, indeed, anywhere else—by not only cutting it to 0.3%, which is its lowest level this century, but removing the ability of this House to scrutinise that cut or any remaining spend by moving ministerial responsibility for aid and development from this Chamber to the other place? \p Catherine West: I thank the hon. Member for her question; there will be an opportunity in the estimates debates later this week for her to ask further questions. However, as I am sure she is aware given her expertise in aid and development and in soft power, it will take some time for the comprehensive spending review to come forward with a picture of the resource implications. I know that she and her party fundamentally support the decision to look at the security of Europe and to try to make that part of the balance in our foreign policy work. \p Andrew Slaughter: I understand that the Minister does not want to give a legal opinion, but is it not clear that banning all supplies to Gaza is a breach of the Geneva conventions and the Rome statute? Failure to call that out emboldens Israel in its collective punishment of all Gazans. Will she confirm, as it was missing from her earlier response, that when the Government finally recognise the Palestinian state, it will include not only the west bank and Gaza, but East Jerusalem as its capital? \p Catherine West: I thank my hon. Friend for all his work as the vice-chair of the Britain-Palestine all-party parliamentary group, and for his ongoing campaigning in this area. To be clear, humanitarian aid should never be contingent on a ceasefire or used as a political tool, and Jerusalem should of course be the shared capital. \p Iqbal Mohamed: My constituents are horrified at reports that the UK Government are not only complicit in Israeli atrocities, but have actively and directly participated in the war crimes and ethnic cleansing perpetrated by Israel. Will the Minister explain to this House what the UK’s participation and role have been in the Israeli genocide and the ongoing atrocities that continue in Gaza and the west bank? \p Catherine West: As I have mentioned, it is not for the Minister here, but for legal experts to determine the definition of genocide. On the role of the UK, the reason I, as the Indo-Pacific Minister, am before the House is that my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for the middle east is currently engaging in conversations and pushing for a peaceful solution. There can be nothing better than a face-to-face meeting with a Minister of His Majesty’s Government in the region having those important discussions and pushing for peace. \p Melanie Ward: With almost 20,000 Palestinian children having been killed, Gaza and its people are in a state of devastation. The use of starvation as a weapon of war is a war crime. The denial of humanitarian aid is a war crime, and it leads to babies freezing to death—an example the Minster gave earlier. What specific action are the Government taking with allies to pressure the Israeli Government to comply with international law and let aid into Gaza? \p Catherine West: I thank my hon. Friend for all the work she did before she entered Parliament on aid and supporting international solutions for war-affected areas. Our work continues with our partners—Israel, the Palestinian Authority, the US and regional partners—to build consensus, because we all want to live in a world where aid is no longer necessary and there is a vibrant economy and people have jobs, schools and hospitals. That is what the UK is doing: redoubling our efforts for a post-conflict Gaza governance and security framework that supports conditions for a permanent and sustainable peace. \p Ben Maguire: It has been very frustrating to hear about this Government’s practical inaction in the face of flagrant breaches of international law in the siege of Gaza, and I sincerely hope that the Government do not continue down this path of inertia. With that in mind, what steps is the Minister taking to recognise Palestine as a state immediately as part of the two-state solution based on the 1967 borders? This is surely essential to reinvigorate the peace process and deter extremists seeking perpetual conflict in Gaza, the west bank and across the middle east. \p Catherine West: The hon. Member is quite right to describe what feels like a hopeless situation, but I would remind him that over the last few weeks we have seen some rays of sunlight and a few bits of hope as—hopefully—less violence is being perpetrated and more people are going back to their homes. However, he is right to push the Government and to ask what more can be done, and that includes visits to the region to speak to the interlocutors I have mentioned and to keep pushing for peace. \p Steve Yemm: Of course, many of us in this House want to see progress towards a permanent two-state solution following the current ceasefire and hostage deal. In December, the Prime Minister announced that the Foreign Secretary would be convening a meeting of partners to support civil society in both Israel and Palestine. What update can the Minister provide to the House on how the UK plans to support the international forum for Israeli-Palestinian peace? \p Catherine West: In the short term, Israeli military withdrawal from Gaza will be phased—all parties have agreed to that—but in time we must see the occupation end, as confidence is rebuilt in Gaza and Israel. The Palestinian Authority should play a key role in the future governance and security of Gaza. For the deal to work, we need all parties to co-operate, including on future security arrangements that protect both Israelis and Palestinians and allow the safe distribution of aid, in the vision of the two-state solution. \p Sammy Wilson: Despite the appalling abuse of the hostages who were released and the propaganda value made of them, in 42 days the Israeli Government have allowed 25,200 truckloads of aid into Gaza, which is enough to sustain the entire population for four months. \p Iqbal Mohamed: Nonsense! \p Sammy Wilson: It is a fact. The concern is that Hamas are now using aid as their major source of income and are seeking to control the billion-dollar aid industry there now is in Gaza. What assurances can the Minister give that UK aid will not be used to sustain that terrorist organisation or to control the local population? \p Catherine West: If the right hon. Member is reading things online, he needs to be careful that they are correct, because while there have been recent arrivals of aid, we all know that there is a continuing need for aid. We all want to eat fresh food, we all need fresh medications, and we all need water and all those other things, and the essential aid going in needs to be refreshed every day. What we can say in this House is that providing access to essential civilian services with that aid is also crucial. I encourage him to widen his sources of reading on the access of aid into Gaza and the west bank. \p Rupa Huq: Instituting an aid blockade, while getting on for 50,000 Gazans have been killed and there is a polio epidemic, surely looks as if civilian deprivation is being used as a weapon of war. What are the Government doing about that, and to ensure that the entire fragile ceasefire does not fall apart and the hostages can come home? \p Catherine West: I thank my hon. Friend for specifically mentioning polio. We are very pleased to hear that the latest polio vaccination roll-out reached 99% of the children who were targeted, but we remain gravely concerned by the lack of adequate medical care in a wider sense in Gaza. All prisoners detained in Gaza, including medical staff, must be allowed full International Committee of the Red Cross access. \p Andrew George: Other than the Minister’s response to the excellent question from the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), I strongly welcome both the tone and content of the Minister’s answers. It is clear that there is no justification for the vindictive and counterproductive actions of the Israeli Government, but they are clearly emboldened by the US President. In seeking to build international alliances to put pressure on the Israeli Government to change their actions and stop that vindictive behaviour, what conversations are the Government having to ensure that their view is conveyed to the United States so they can adopt the same line as we are? \p Catherine West: To provide clarification on some of the ideas that have been proposed, for example on the future of Gaza, we have made it clear that we would oppose any effort to move Palestinians in Gaza to neighbouring Arab states, and the forced displacement of Palestinians or any reduction in the territory of the Gaza strip are simply not an option. I thank the hon. Gentleman for helping to keep us on track with what people in the region actually want, and for supporting around the table all partners who are pushing for a peaceful deal between the two parties. \p Connor Rand: Does the Minister agree that, especially at a time of such intense suffering for so many civilians in Gaza, this use of both humanitarian assistance and aid is totally unacceptable and not conducive to a lasting ceasefire and long-term peace? \p Catherine West: My hon. Friend is quite right to emphasise the need for the steady inflow of aid. Anything else could potentially be a breach of international humanitarian law. What we see in peace processes are hiccups: one step forward and two steps back. We would be pushing for all parties to see this as a hiccup. I hope to wake up tomorrow morning to the happy news that all is back on track, aid is getting in, conversations are happening and that the peaceful future we all want for the two parties is becoming a reality. \p Chris Philp: To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement on the bounties placed on Hong Kong democracy activists in the United Kingdom by the Chinese Communist party and other authorities in Hong Kong and China. \p Dan Jarvis: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question on what I agree is a very serious matter.

Security is the first duty of Government. As such, we are deeply concerned by the recent bounties placed on Hong Kong democracy activists resident here in the UK. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the Foreign Secretary issued a statement condemning those bounties. As he said at the time, the individuals were merely exercising their right to freedom of expression. As the Foreign Secretary has also said, we call on Beijing to repeal the national security law, including its extraterritorial reach. We also call on the Hong Kong authorities to end their targeting of individuals in the UK and elsewhere for seeking to exercise their basic rights. Ministers have raised those concerns with the authorities during recent visits to both Hong Kong and Beijing. The continued safety of Hong Kongers remains a priority for this Government. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on individual cases, but I want to be clear that we will not tolerate any attempts by foreign Governments to coerce, intimidate, harass or harm their critics overseas, especially here in the UK

We have received assurances from counter-terror policing that the appropriate measures are in place for the individuals in question, and we regularly assess potential threats to the UK and use all available levers to counter them. Where we identify individuals at heightened risk, we are front footed in deploying protective security guidance and other measures as appropriate. Anyone—anyone—acting to coerce individuals in the UK is liable to prosecution under the National Security Act 2023. To date, there have been six individuals charged under the new Act.

The Government’s position is clear: we will protect the rights and freedoms of all individuals in the UK. We will use every available power and tool to uphold the principles we hold dear. \p Chris Philp: This is an incredibly serious issue. The Chinese Communist party is an authoritarian regime which has been persecuting people in Hong Kong, mainland China and elsewhere for some time. Nearly 100 people—that we know about—have been arrested for political reasons in Hong Kong since July last year. It is completely unacceptable that harassment and intimidation takes place now on British soil. It is a gross infringement of the liberty of the individuals concerned and it is an affront to British sovereignty.

Bounties, amounting to approximately £100,000 each, have apparently been placed on three people who are in the United Kingdom: Tony Chung, aged 23; Carmen Lau, aged 30; and Chloe Cheung, aged only 17. All fled Hong Kong owing to persecution. Chloe Cheung was apparently advised by the police to dial 999 if she felt under threat, which strikes me as an inadequate response. I understand that posters appeared near the home  addresses of two of those people, and that letters were posted to their neighbours, offering a reward if they were “delivered to the Chinese embassy”. That is completely unacceptable. That cannot be tolerated and robust action must be taken.

I have a couple of questions to put, respectfully, to the Security Minister. First, has the Chinese ambassador been summoned by the Foreign Secretary to the Foreign Office to have it explained to him that this is unacceptable and to ask what is being done to stop it? My understanding is that no such summons has been issued, which is unacceptable. Does that not make clear that giving the Chinese permission to build a mega-embassy in London is completely inappropriate? It will simply be used as a pan-European base for Chinese spying. Are investigations into the perpetrators under way? Why is China not being placed into the enhanced tier under the foreign influence registration scheme? Surely China should be placed into that tier as a matter of urgency. What is the update on the Chinese police stations operating covertly in the United Kingdom? I was briefed on that as Policing Minister a year or so ago. Where are we with those? Finally, the Security Minister says that we will not tolerate this happening. I am sure the whole House will agree with that, but what concrete and tangible action is being taken to prevent these outrages? \p Dan Jarvis: I am grateful to the shadow Home Secretary for his points and questions. Let me again, for the avoidance of doubt, be absolutely clear about the Government’s position. The safety and security of Hong Kongers in the UK is of the upmost importance and the UK will always stand up for the rights of the people of Hong Kong. Wherever we identify such threats, we will use any and all measures, including through the use of our world-class intelligence services, to mitigate the risk to individuals.

The shadow Home Secretary asked a number of questions, so I shall attempt to respond to them. First, he asked about raising concerns with the Chinese authorities. I can tell him that concerns have been raised at every opportunity, including by the Foreign Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), who has met with the families of the individuals involved.

Secondly, he raised a point about the Chinese embassy. A final decision on China’s planning application for a new embassy has yet to be made. As I am sure he will be aware, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, in her independent, quasi-judicial role, will make the final decision in due course. However, the House should be aware that a joint letter sent by the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary to the Planning Inspectorate on 14 January outlines that the Home Office, working with the Foreign Office, has considered the full breadth of national security issues in relation to this planning application. In the joint letter, the Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary also made it clear that they would want to see the implementation of suitable mitigations for any public order and national security risks before China was permitted to build a new embassy at the Royal Mint Court site.

Thirdly, the shadow Home Secretary asked about overseas police stations. As I am sure he will understand, the police have carefully examined these allegations. We  have made clear to the Chinese authorities that the existence of undeclared sites in the UK is completely unacceptable and that their operations must cease, and the Chinese authorities have confirmed that they have been closed.

Fourthly, he asked about FIRS. As he will be aware, I am due to make a statement shortly that will include an update on the implementation of FIRS, so I will not get ahead of myself. However, I will say that FIRS strengthens the resilience of the UK political system against covert foreign influence and provides greater assurances on the activities of certain foreign powers or entities that are a national security risk. As a result, the UK will be better informed about the nature, scale and extent of foreign influence in this country.

As I am sure he will be aware, since coming to power in July, we have ensured that more people than ever are now working on FIRS implementation. The case management team have been recruited and are in place in dedicated accommodation, and an IT system has been identified and a contract signed for its delivery. We plan to lay before the House the regulations underpinning the scheme shortly ahead of the scheme going live in the summer. \p Alex Sobel: I also spoke to Chloe Cheung this morning, and I want to reiterate what the shadow Home Secretary has said. I want to ask the Minister whether guidance can be given to police forces, not only to give reassurance to Hongkongers who have a bounty on them or threats made against them, but to carry out target hardening and security work to ensure that Hongkongers are safe in their own homes in the UK and not under threat of abduction. It is a real, serious and live threat, and we need to do more than just tell people to call 999. \p Dan Jarvis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that important point. I can reiterate what I have said specifically in this case, which is that we sought and received assurances from counter-terror policing that the appropriate measures were in place for the individuals in question.

On his broader, important point on transnational repression, I can tell my hon. Friend and the House that the defending democracy taskforce is reviewing the UK’s approach to transnational repression to ensure we have a robust and joined-up response across Government and law enforcement. The Government will update on the conclusions of that work in due course. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Christine Jardine: I am grateful to the shadow Home Secretary for raising these appalling incidents. I also thank him on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds), whose constituents have been affected and have received some of these letters.

For me, these incidents are a reminder of the pernicious threat we all face as the Chinese Government try to infiltrate every level of British society. I have been filmed by a drone while filming at a pro-Hong Kong democracy rally in Edinburgh; Members have been sanctioned by the CCP; secret police stations have operated across the UK, including in Glasgow; there is the issue of the embassy in London; and the attempts of  Chinese companies to be involved in our energy provision in a way that, if not mitigated, will threaten our energy security and national security. The list grows longer almost daily. We must strengthen and make clear our response to China and stop more of our citizens and brave activists being threatened on British soil.

How will the Government bring these bounty hunters to justice? Will they enforce Magnitsky sanctions to crack down on those in Hong Kong and Beijing who are responsible for this and every other insidious attack on our freedoms and democracy? \p Dan Jarvis: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for those questions. I can reiterate the points I have made previously about how these concerns have been raised at every opportunity and about how seriously the UK Government take these matters. We will use all the tools at our disposal to ensure that everybody who lives in this United Kingdom can go about their lawful business uninhibited by the activities of those in other countries. We take this matter incredibly seriously, and we are working at pace to ensure that every protection is in place. \p Adam Thompson: Since the launch of the British nationals overseas visa route for Hongkongers, more than 209,000 people have been granted a visa, of whom more than 150,000 have arrived in the UK, including in my community in Erewash. I welcome the Government’s continuing support for Hongkongers. What steps is the Immigration Minister taking to support the integration of those coming into the UK via the BNO route? \p Dan Jarvis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important point. He will understand that the BNO route reflects the UK’s historical and moral commitment to the people of Hong Kong who chose to retain their ties to the UK by taking up this status at the point of Hong Kong’s handover to China in 1997. I am sure he will be aware that to be eligible for this route, applicants must have BNO status or be the eligible family member of someone with this status.

Since the route opened in January 2021, close to 220,000 visas have been granted to Hongkongers, who are making much-valued contributions to communities across the UK, including in his constituency. We will work closely with those constituencies and local authority areas to ensure that all those people feel properly valued and supported. If my hon. Friend has any specific concerns, I am happy to meet him to discuss them further. \p Thomas Tugendhat: First, I want to say that one of the proudest things I was able to achieve over the past few years was the BNO visa route, which was a correct correction of a mistake made by this House nearly 40 years ago. I am grateful that my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), who was in her place as shadow Foreign Secretary a few moments ago, was able to introduce it when she was Home Secretary. The support I received from the Minister at the time was also gratefully received.

Turning to the threat to activists, as someone who is sanctioned and who occasionally gets letters to my home and text messages from random Hong Kong and  Beijing numbers, I can only imagine how much more threatening that activity would be if I had connections or relatives in Hong Kong and mainland China. Will the Minister assure me that he is advertising as widely as possible the role of the counter-terrorism police in fighting not just terrorism, but the state threats that are appearing before us? The reality is, we do not expect war today to take its old nature of massed armies or invasions. We are instead seeing a pernicious undermining of the confidence in the British state and the credibility of our ability to protect our citizens and friends, which, in turn, undermines not just our position, but our economy and the freedom of our citizens. \p Dan Jarvis: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the work he did in government. He raises some important and valid points. Let me say, first of all, that the matter of sanctioned Members of this House is something that we take incredibly seriously. The Foreign Secretary has personally raised his concerns about it at the highest levels. We will continue to keep it under very close review.

The right hon. Member made some other important points. I hope he will join me in welcoming the additional resource that the Prime Minister announced the other day for our operational partners and the intelligence services. He will know from his previous service what a hugely important role they fulfil in keeping our country safe. He knows, too, the seriousness that we attach to these matters, and I look forward to continuing to work with him on a cross-party basis to ensure that we maintain our national security. \p Alan Gemmell: The director general of MI5 has highlighted the increasing risk of state actors operating in the UK. What steps is the Minister taking to support MI5 in protecting the UK from these intrusions? \p Dan Jarvis: This provides us with a very good opportunity to pay tribute as a House—I hope collectively—to the extraordinary work of our operational partners and the security services. By the very nature of their work, they serve in the shadows. It has been an extraordinary pleasure and privilege to work very closely alongside them in recent months. They do difficult work, but they do it incredibly well, and we owe them a debt of gratitude for doing it. \p Iain Duncan Smith: I hear what the Minister says. As somebody who is sanctioned by the Chinese Government, who has been pursued by low-level intelligence operatives around the world, and who, like others in Governments elsewhere, has had falsehoods about me placed in newspapers, I can say that this goes on and on. Most of all, for those who have fled here from Hong Kong, what we are seeing is extraterritorial attacks in plain view, yet it seems that, ultimately, nothing ever happens. I have here a copy of a redacted letter about an individual who has been threatened. His neighbours have been offered a bounty if they hand him in to the Chinese embassy. I ask how much longer will we keep on saying all these wonderful words in this House about what we stand for, because when it comes to those who need our protection,  nothing ever seems to happen. What will the Minister do about the embassy? Wherever China has a super-embassy in the world, we see extraterritorial activity grow massively. Will he now reject that and start arresting the people responsible and kicking them out of the country? \p Dan Jarvis: I know the right hon. Gentleman speaks with long experience on these matters. The Government are crystal clear that the activity that he has just described is not acceptable. We will do everything that we can to prevent it from taking place. He referred to the embassy. As I think he knows—I know that he has raised specific concerns about this previously—a decision on the embassy will be made by the Deputy Prime Minister in her capacity as Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. I refer him to the letter that has been written jointly by the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary, which takes into account the full breadth—[Interruption.] The shadow Home Secretary tuts from a sedentary position. I do not know whether he has read the letter, which is available online. He should read it, because it takes into consideration the full breadth of national security concerns. This Government will stand against all those who seek to repress others or behave in the way that he has described, and use all the tools at our disposal to stop it from happening. \p Steve Race: Across the UK, including in Exeter, where we have a very large and welcome Hongkonger community, we have seen rising threats from state actors who seek to influence and intimidate peaceful dissidents. Will the Minister update the House on how the foreign influence registration scheme will help to tackle these threats? \p Dan Jarvis: I do not want to get too far ahead of myself, as I will be making a statement shortly. I can say that we are working at pace to implement the FIR scheme. This is an important tool in the Government’s armoury. It will strengthen the resilience of the UK political system against covert foreign influence, and it will provide greater assurance around the activities of certain foreign powers and entities that we know to be a national security risk. We are getting on with the work, and we plan to lay the regulations that underpin the scheme in the near future, ahead of it going live in the summer. \p Sarah Olney: It is a privilege to represent a substantial community of Hongkongers in Richmond Park. I notice from Hansard that I was last here two months ago to ask the Government about renewed reports of repression against Hongkongers in this country, yet here we are again and nothing has been done to reassure my constituents about their continued safety and security in this country. I was interested in the Minister’s response to the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), who talked about reviewing transnational repression. I urge him to give us some more detail about when we in this House, and my constituents in Richmond Park, can expect to hear more about what the Government plan to do about this. \p Dan Jarvis: The hon. Lady makes an important point. Let me give her an absolute assurance that we take these matters incredibly seriously. That is why, through the defending democracy taskforce, which I chair, we have  continued a process that was initiated by the previous Government to review the issue of transnational repression. For the sake of clarity, I can say to her that any attempt by any foreign Government to coerce, intimidate, harass or harm critics overseas, which undermines our democracy and the rule of law, is completely unacceptable. We have at our disposal now the National Security Act 2023, which enables law enforcement and the security and intelligence agencies to deter, detect and disrupt the full range of modern-day state threats, including actions that amount to transnational repression. As I say, the defending democracy taskforce is looking very carefully at the issue of transnational repression. There has been a lot of work taking place across Government, and we will have more to say about it shortly. \p Laurence Turner: Birmingham has a large and growing community of people from Hong Kong. Although most are now well settled in the wider community, some of my constituents are fearful about continued monitoring and surveillance, especially if they speak out on human rights. Will the Minister give me and my constituents an assurance that if they are subject to those utterly unacceptable practices, they will receive protection and support? \p Dan Jarvis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question and for his representation of his constituents. Yes, I can give him that assurance. Hopefully, my comments today convey the seriousness that we attach to this particular issue. We work incredibly closely with counter-terrorism policing, policing right around the country, operational partners and the intelligence services, and I can absolutely give him the assurances that he seeks on behalf of his constituents. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his answers to our questions. The activity of Chinese operatives on our shores has to stop. No steps taken thus far have deterred the Chinese from overstepping the mark on our shores. If those who legally and peacefully oppose China are not safe here, just where are they safe? Putting bounties on people’s heads sounds like something from a film, but this is real life for those living lawfully in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland right now. What will the Minister do to tell China that the line has been crossed and that there will be consequences? \p Dan Jarvis: I am grateful, as I always am, to the hon. Member. He has a long-standing track record of standing up for repressed minorities wherever they might be. Clearly, that is particularly relevant in the context of today’s urgent question. He will have heard my opening remarks, in which I referred to the statement that had been issued by the Foreign Secretary specifically condemning the bounties, and in which he called on Beijing to repeal its national security law, including its territorial reach. We take these matters incredibly seriously. We are working with the police and local communities and will do everything we can to make sure that people get the support that they deserve. \p James Naish: I want to come back to the embassy. I have been contacted by several constituents on this matter. At 700,000 square feet, it would be China’s largest embassy in Europe. As we know from the incident at the Manchester consulate in 2022, such  an embassy would be contributing to the transnational repression that Hongkongers, Tibetans and the wider Chinese diaspora in the UK experience. Have the Government made an assessment of whether this new super-embassy would contribute to transnational repression and, if so, on what basis has that assessment been made? \p Dan Jarvis: My hon. Friend’s question has been asked by others. I assure him that national security is the overriding priority for this and, I hope, any Government. We look incredibly carefully at these matters. We will consider every aspect of this application, which ultimately is to be decided on by the Deputy Prime Minister. But as I have said, both the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary have written a very clear letter—I invite those Members who appear not necessarily to have read it to do so—and I can tell him and the House that the letter covers the full breadth of national security issues in relation to this planning application. \p Bob Blackman: The Minister is talking about the national security position in relation to the super-embassy. In January the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary wrote a letter about the application to the Deputy Prime Minister, who has to make the decision. In the light of the new information that has become available, will the Minister review that letter and take advice on whether the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary should be writing to the Deputy Prime Minister to recommend that the planning application is refused, rather than taking all these things into account? \p Dan Jarvis: I understand the concerns that the hon. Member has raised. He will understand that I have already referred to the letter that was written back in January. If new evidence comes to light that is material to the planning application, no doubt that will be looked at very closely both by the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary, but I can assure him and the House that we take these matters incredibly seriously and look very closely at them. The letter that was written on 14 January does consider the full breadth of national security implications. \p Blair McDougall: I draw the House’s attention to my role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Hong Kong.

I welcome the Minister’s recognition that the bounties on the heads of these British Hongkongers are for exercising rights guaranteed to them under the joint declaration. I do not wish to repeat what other right hon. and hon. Members have said, but at some point, when Ministers come to the House again and again to talk about the infiltration of the royal family by Chinese agents, the putting of bounties on people’s heads or secret police stations, there have to be consequences for the relationship with China.

I have a practical question. The fear felt by those who have bounties on their heads here is nothing compared with those who remain in Hong Kong who fear that they may not be able to leave. What practical assistance can we give to Hongkongers who have had either their BNO passport seized or other travel documents frozen, so that they are able to come to the safety of the United Kingdom? \p Dan Jarvis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his work through the APPG and his long-standing interest in this particular matter, and for his practical question. BNO status holders and their families are making significant contributions to our economy and local communities. He asked an important question about passports. I can assure him that there is no requirement for a person’s passport to be valid in order for them to apply to extend leave or for indefinite leave to remain under the BNO route. I know that colleagues in the Foreign Office will have heard his point about those who remain in Hong Kong, but I would be happy to discuss it further with him should that be helpful. \p Brendan O'Hara: Intimidating pro-democracy Hongkongers living in the UK, placing them on a wanted list and circulating reward notices to their neighbours is simply unforgiveable. I am sure that the Minister will agree that no trade deal is worth subverting our values and allowing the rights of our people to be abused in such an appalling fashion. What discussions has his Department had directly with the Chinese ambassador? What has the ambassador been told the consequences will be for those found to be responsible? What is the status of the current investigation, or does everybody just accept that this matter is now closed? \p Dan Jarvis: I understand why the hon. Gentleman raises these concerns in the way that he does. I hope that he will be reassured that the UK Government, especially the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary, take these matters seriously and take every opportunity to raise these concerns at the appropriate level. We will continue to do everything that we can to protect the public in our country. \p Joe Powell: At the recent lunar new year celebrations, I met democracy activists who have had bounties placed on them. The fear in the room was palpable. People chose not to attend the event so that they would not be photographed with people who have a bounty on their head. I fear that that chilling effect is already very real. I thank the Minister for confirming that transnational repression is being looked at by the defending democracy taskforce, but could he give us a bit more detail on the practical measures that can be put in place now to better protect those in the UK with a bounty on their head, and their family members still in Hong Kong, for whom they are deeply concerned, given the possible knock-on effects for them? \p Dan Jarvis: I completely understand my hon. Friend’s point about the fear felt, and the chilling effect that I am certain there will be in a number of communities. He has asked me for practical measures; I gently ask him to be a little patient, because I will have more to say about these matters very soon. \p Richard Holden: Government and Opposition Members have asked the Minister several times whether the Chinese ambassador has been summoned to be held to account for these actions. This House deserves an answer from the Minister. A lot of these people face kidnap plots. What investigations are being undertaken into those? \p Dan Jarvis: The right hon. Gentleman will know from his time in government that, in the first instance, these matters will relate to the ambassador in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. I can give him the same assurances that I previously gave: the UK Government take these matters incredibly seriously and raise them at every opportunity. He asked about investigations; the police are working incredibly hard alongside operational partners, and will investigate all these matters, using the appropriate resource, in order to bring perpetrators to justice and ensure that victims are provided with the support that they need and deserve. \p Mark Sewards: Today I spoke with Chloe Cheung, the youngest person to be sanctioned under the national security law. I know that she will be pleased to have been at least referenced by Members on both sides of the House. Chloe conveyed to me the anxieties and concerns of the Leeds Hong Kong community, which were not new to me, given the conversations that I have been having with that community, who form a substantial part of my constituency.

I understand that the Minister cannot comment on specific cases, so I have two general questions. First, can the Government give a cast-iron guarantee that any future trade deals with China will not compromise the protections that we have offered Hongkongers living in the UK? My second question is about MI5. Will the Government consider facilitating a meeting between MI5 and those Hongkongers who have had a bounty put on their head as a result of the national security law, to ensure that robust protections are in place for those who have been sanctioned? \p Dan Jarvis: My hon. Friend is an assiduous constituency MP. He has raised the plight of his constituent previously in this House, and I am grateful to him for doing so. On his first point, national security is the first priority of this Government. His second point is probably more a matter for counter-terrorism police and West Yorkshire police, but I have heard what he said, and I will take it away and come back to him with a fuller response. \p Luke Taylor: I thank the shadow Home Secretary for securing the urgent question. I am lucky enough to represent, in my constituency, one of the largest Hong Kong communities, and they tell me that the proposed Chinese super-embassy is a chilling prospect for Hongkongers who have moved to our country to escape repression in Hong Kong. As we all understand, the decision is with the Deputy Prime Minister at the moment, but surely the Minister agrees that it is unconscionable that a foreign state should be allowed to massively enhance its operations in this country while it flagrantly conducts extrajudicial acts on the streets of the UK. Does he agree that if permission is given, it would undermine any assurances given that foreign states will be held to account for hostile actions targeting British residents on British soil? \p Dan Jarvis: Given the hon. Member’s strong constituency interest, I completely understand why he raises those concerns. I hope that he and other hon. Members will understand that, from a national security perspective, we take these matters incredibly seriously.

There is a limit to what I can say about the specifics of this case, but let me put this in a slightly more diplomatic way than I might normally seek to. There seems to be something of a misunderstanding about the circumstances of this case. I give the hon. Member an absolute assurance that we look incredibly carefully at these matters, and some of the suggestions that have been made are not correct. A process is under way, and I am legally bound not to interfere with it. No hon. Member would expect me to do so, but I point him again to the very carefully considered letter written by the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary, which includes reference to the full breadth of national security issues to do with this application. \p Peter Swallow: My hon. Friend will know that the Joint Committee on Human Rights is conducting an inquiry on the important issue of transnational repression. Will he commit to looking very carefully at any recommendations that come from that inquiry, so we can ensure that we have the correct measures in place to uphold the fundamental British values of democracy here in the UK and, of course, safeguard our national security? \p Dan Jarvis: I know about the Joint Committee on Human Rights inquiry; in fact, I believe that I am due to give evidence to it. I can absolutely give my hon. Friend an assurance that we will look carefully at the findings of that important piece of work. I have written to the Committee Chair about it, and I look forward to meeting the Committee and giving evidence. I look forward to progressing the work through the defending  democracy taskforce, so that we can say more about the work against transnational repression that the Government intend to do. \p Ben Maguire: I recently met Jimmy Lai’s son Sebastien and his legal team, and I was horrified to hear that his UK legal team from Doughty Street Chambers recently faced a concerted and co-ordinated campaign against them, including intimidation, surveillance, hacking of bank accounts and rape threats aimed at their children. It appears that the Chinese state is now undermining our legal system.

The Minister has repeated at the Dispatch Box that the Government will take all steps to prevent persecution of Hong Kong nationals in the UK. Will he support the call from me and my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) for high-profile visits by UK and Chinese officials in our respective countries to be paused until the security situation is resolved? \p Dan Jarvis: I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising the case of Jimmy Lai. I too have met Sebastien Lai. Jimmy Lai’s case is a priority for the Government, and we have made that clear in our engagements with China. We call on the Hong Kong authorities to end their politically motivated prosecution and immediately release Jimmy Lai. The Prime Minister raised his case with President Xi at the G20 summit in November; the Foreign Secretary raised it with China’s Foreign Minister in October; and the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), raised it with Hong Kong officials during her visit to Hong Kong in November. \p Dan Jarvis: With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the growing threat to the UK from Iran, and the steps that the Government are taking to combat this threat. [Hon. Members: “Welcome back!”] It is a pleasure to be back.

The threat from Iran sits in the wider context of the growing, diversifying and evolving threat that the UK faces from malign activity by a number of states. The threat from states has become increasingly interconnected in nature; the lines are blurring between domestic and international, online and offline, and states and their proxies. In the last year, the number of state-threat investigations run by MI5 jumped by 48%. That statistic is a stark indication of the increased threat.

I turn to Iran. The regime has become increasingly emboldened, and is asserting itself more aggressively to advance its objectives and undermine ours. That is evidenced by the fact that direct action against UK targets has substantially increased over recent years. The director general of MI5 recently stated that since the start of 2022, the UK has responded to 20 Iran-backed plots presenting potentially lethal threats to British citizens and UK residents. The Iranian regime is targeting dissidents, and media organisations and journalists reporting on the regime’s violent oppression. It is also no secret that there is a long-standing pattern of the Iranian intelligence services targeting Jewish and Israeli people internationally. It is clear that these plots are a conscious strategy of the Iranian regime to stifle criticism through intimidation and fear. These threats are unacceptable. They must and will be defended against at every turn.

It is testament to our world-leading law enforcement and intelligence services that, through their tireless commitment, so many plots have been thwarted. I am sure that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to the brave men and women of our law enforcement and intelligence agencies, who work day in, day out, to keep us safe.

To tackle this threat, we must understand it. The Iranian intelligence services, which include the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Ministry of Intelligence and Security, direct this damaging activity, but often, rather than working directly on UK shores, they use criminal proxies to do their bidding. That helps to obfuscate their involvement, while they are safely ensconced in Tehran. We see that in intelligence, but we also saw it publicly in the 2023 conviction of the Chechen-born Austrian national who was imprisoned for conducting surveillance on Iran International’s UK headquarters.

These threats are not only physical in nature. The National Cyber Security Centre has seen malicious cyber-activity, conducted by actors who are affiliated with the Iranian state, that targets a range of state sectors, including in the UK. The Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies have the tools that they need to disrupt and degrade the threats that we face from Iran, so I can announce today that we will place the whole of the Iranian state, including Iran’s intelligence services, the IRGC and MOIS, on the enhanced tier of the new foreign influence registration scheme. The FIRS is a critical disruptive tool for the UK.

This action will mean that those who are directed by Iran to conduct activities in the UK, such as criminal proxies, must register that activity, whatever it is, or face five years in prison. They will face a choice: expose their actions to the Government or face jail. The Home Office will lay regulations before Parliament as soon as possible, with a view to having the scheme up and running by the summer.

On proscription, as hon. Members will know, we do not routinely comment on groups that are being considered for proscription, but I assure the House that we do and will continue to keep the list of groups considered under constant review. However, it has become increasingly clear that there are challenges inherent in applying our existing counter-terror legislation to state and state-linked threats to our national security. That challenge was first raised by the Home Secretary in opposition. She warned of a lack of a comprehensive strategic approach for state threats to mirror that adopted on terrorism, and the specific difficulties of using on state bodies a proscription mechanism that was designed for groups such as al-Qaeda.

We are progressing work at pace to address that challenge, so I can announce today that Jonathan Hall KC has been asked to review the parts of our counter-terrorism framework that could be applied to modern-day state threats, such as those from Iran. That includes giving specific consideration to the design of a proscription mechanism for state and state-linked bodies, providing more flexibility than is offered under the existing powers. As the independent reviewer of both state threats legislation and terrorism legislation, Mr Hall is perfectly placed to undertake the review and we are grateful to him for agreeing to provide that advice.

Let there be no doubt: we are utterly determined to stay ahead of those who threaten our country, and any step that could aid us in that critical endeavour will be considered. The UK is not alone in facing such threats. States across the western world are threatened by Iran, so we will work with our allies to better understand, expose and condemn Iranian actions and bring Iranian-linked criminals to justice wherever in the world they may be.

We regularly collaborate with our Five Eyes and European partners to protect our democracies from hostile Iranian attack. Here at home we are going further too. The National Security Act 2023, which was supported on both sides of the House, has given the police new powers to target evolving activity. For example, the Act criminalises assisting a foreign intelligence service, such as the IRGC or MOIS. The maximum penalty for those offences is 14 years in prison, which is the same as the maximum for a proscription offence.

I can also announce that training and guidance on state threats activity is now being offered by counter-terrorism policing to all 45 territorial police forces across the UK. That will mean that when any frontline officer encounters a suspected state threats incident, they will know what to do and what to look for to ensure that our communities are kept safe. Furthermore, we have recently issued guidance on the National Security Act and how it applies to the UK security profession, including private investigators. That ensures that they are aware of the law and understand where they might be criminally liable if they were working for any foreign power such as Iran.

We will also continue to go after the criminal networks and enablers that Iran uses to carry out its work. The leader of the Zindashti organised crime group—a group frequently used by the Iranian regime—has already been sanctioned. We will explore further sanctions against other Iranian-linked criminals, and the National Crime Agency will target those who assist the IRGC and others to launder their money.

Alongside the recently launched Border Security Command, which strengthens Britain’s border security and disrupts criminal smuggling gangs, I have asked officials to consider new ways to enforce our robust immigration rules to specifically address threats from Iran. That work will focus on further protecting the UK from Iranian infiltration, including those who promote Iranian interference in the UK.

I am clear that our response must be a UK-wide effort, so I welcome the Charity Commission’s statutory inquiries into both the Islamic Centre of England and the Al-Tawheed Charitable Trust. I have also asked officials to review where any Iranian interference is being conducted in the UK, and FIRS will shine more light on any undisclosed relationships between the Iranian state and UK-based institutions and individuals.

Finally, the National Protective Security Authority and counter-terrorism policing will continue to provide protective security advice and support to individuals and organisations threatened by the Iranian regime and its criminal proxies, including Persian-language media organisations and their employees. We will also continue to maintain funding for protective security measures to synagogues, Jewish community centres and schools, ensuring that we do all we can to keep our Jewish communities safe.

In a dangerous, volatile world, Britain must lead the way. That means proudly promoting our values and straining every sinew to keep our people safe. The measures I have set out today should reassure the House and the public about our unflinching commitment to those objectives. Under this Government, security will be the foundation on which everything else is built. We will resist attacks on our way of life as vigorously as we counter threats to life, whatever their source. We will work relentlessly to root out those intent on causing harm on our streets, and we will do whatever it takes to protect our country and our democracy. I commend this statement to the House. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the shadow Home Secretary. \p Chris Philp: I thank the Security Minister, once again, for his courtesy in giving me advance sight of his statement. The House should be in no doubt about how serious the threat posed by Iran is. Iran sponsors terror organisations across the middle east. It is an enthusiastic and significant supporter of Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis in Yemen and it backs Shi’a militias in Iraq and Syria. Those organisations kidnap, murder, rape and commit terrorist atrocities. Without Iran’s support, those terror organisations would not be able to operate in the way that they do. Iran therefore bears a heavy burden of responsibility for enabling those terrorist actors to perpetrate atrocities.

Let us not forget that Iran is also an enthusiastic supporter of Putin’s murderous regime and its invasion of Ukraine. Iran supplies drone technology to Russia and more recently, according to the Foreign Secretary, has supplied ballistic missiles to Russia, which are being used in furtherance of their illegal and barbaric invasion. There is no question that Iran is a hostile state; it promotes terrorism, undermines freedom and undermines democracy. We have recently seen actions by Iran on British soil and journalists being harassed to the point that one media organisation had to relocate its activities—thankfully, only temporarily—from London to New York. That is completely unacceptable.

We of course support the Government in the listing of Iran in the enhanced tier of FIRS, and we will support the relevant statutory instrument when it comes before Parliament. I am glad that the National Security Act 2023 is being used, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) —I see he is in his place—for his work in putting that Act on the statute book.

Having welcomed this move, I have some questions, however, which are essentially in this vein: is merely requiring registration a strong enough sanction? I put it to the House that it is not, because under FIRS all that is required is registration, and that alone is not enough. We saw our allies, the United States, in 2019 designate the IRGC as a terror organisation; we saw our Canadian allies do the same just last year. Yet I have heard nothing on proscription.

The Minister said they do not comment on proscription, but the Home Secretary did comment on it in January 2023, when in opposition, and in unequivocal terms:

“The IRGC is behaving like a terror organisation and must be prescribed as such.”

She then said in April 2024 that she would like to make changes to the legal architecture. Yet it is only today that the Security Minister has announced the review by Jonathan Hall. Why has it taken seven months to initiate a review, which the now Home Secretary talked about nearly a year ago?

Then we come to the views of Jonathan Hall himself, because he said— coincidentally, also in April 2024—that the National Security Act 2023 is good enough for the purposes of dealing with Iran. My question to the Security Minister is this: who is right? Is it the Home Secretary, who in 2023 called for outright proscription? Is it the Home Secretary, who in 2024 called for a change in the law about which nothing appears to have been done until today? Or is it Jonathan Hall, who said also in April 2024 that the National Security Act is sufficient? There is some confusion about the Government’s position, which seems to have moved over time, so clarification on that would be welcome. Why is the Home Secretary not introducing outright proscription, as she said she would do in 2023?

More needs to be done to counter the threat posed by Iran on our shores. The Security Minister hinted at this towards the end of his statement. For example, are there more diplomats that we could expel who might be undertaking espionage activities or directing some of the activity on British soil? I see that the Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention—my successor as Policing Minister—the right hon. Member for Kingston  upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), is in her place. Is there more that the police could do to investigate this activity?

Are we doing enough to provide protective security to potential victims of this activity? It was, in my view, completely unacceptable that the independent Iranian dissident media group had to move temporarily to New York. We should make sure that no one has to move again as a result of these threats. And are we using sanctions enough? The Security Minister mentioned this in his statement, but should we be using more sanctions against individuals in the Iranian regime and organisations that are part of the Iranian security apparatus? I think we should, and we should certainly be using the levers at the Home Office’s disposal, such as visa sanctions—that is to say, not issuing entry visas to people we suspect of being complicit in these activities, or denying visas to high-ranking or other well-connected Iranian officials to act as a deterrent.

The Security Minister talked about the wider context of hostile state threats. He said in the previous urgent question that he would address in this statement the question of whether China should be placed in the enhanced FIRS tier— \p Dan Jarvis: indicated dissent. \p Chris Philp: Well, he said he would address it, and eagle-eyed Members will notice that he did not address it, so I will ask him the question directly now and there will be no avoidance because there is no further statement. Will he place China in the enhanced tier of FIRS? Will he please confirm that to the House, because I think all of us would support him if he did? \p Dan Jarvis: I am grateful to the shadow Home Secretary for the points he has raised, which I will endeavour to work through. First, let me agree with his characterisation of the Iranian regime. I hope there is no disagreement among us about that, which is precisely why it is right that we proceed with the measures I have described today. He was right to mention the National Security Act 2023, a landmark piece of legislation—I pay tribute to all those who were involved in it, including my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat). It is an incredibly useful tool that is already delivering and making a significant contribution to our national security. It is a mechanism that we will continue to use and also to build on.

Perhaps the shadow Home Secretary will forgive me if I suggest that he was seeking to make a bit of mischief over the issue of proscription—heaven forbid. He will understand, because this was the case when he was a Minister in the Department, that Governments do not comment on organisations or entities that are being considered for proscription. He knows that is a long-standing protocol and will understand very well the reasons for it. He would not expect me to break from that long-standing precedent today, and I am not going to.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to comments made previously by the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary, when in opposition, absolutely rightly identified the challenge that we are now seeking to address in government. I know that there is huge respect for Mr Hall. Clearly, he is independent of the Government and  supremely well qualified. He is a credible and authoritative figure who is perfectly placed to look at the legislative framework and give advice independently to the Home Secretary about how best to proceed, given our concern that the architecture that is in place is better geared towards a terrorist entity—an organisation such as al-Qaeda, for example—than to a state-backed entity. I think that is entirely the right way to proceed. We will obviously look very closely at Mr Hall’s findings. I am very happy to discuss them further with the shadow Home Secretary and others, and of course we will give a further update to the House as soon as possible.

The right hon. Gentleman entirely reasonably asked what more could be done. Again, as a former Home Office Minister he will completely understand that there are lots of things that we are doing that we are not going to talk about, and he will understand the reason for that, but I can give him the assurance that we are doing everything we possibly can to combat the threat that we all know we face.

The right hon. Gentleman also made an important point about protective security. Again, we take that matter very seriously; it has been tested on numerous occasions in recent years. He will understand that the Home Office works closely with other Government Departments, as well as with the relevant agencies and law enforcement, to ensure that we are providing the proper protection for those individuals who have been identified as at risk, and that the police and the security services work tirelessly to investigate those threats and to take other steps to ensure the safety of those concerned. Tailored, protective advice is offered to those individuals considered to face specific threats and, where necessary, more extensive security options can be put into effect.

Finally, the shadow Home Secretary—again, slightly mischievously—sought to infer that I had made a commitment in my previous response, but that was not quite the case. He will understand that announcements about FIRS will be made in this House. Today’s announcement specifically relates to the decision that we have taken on Iran; it is specifically about that country, and other announcements that are made with regard to FIRS will be made in due course. \p Jonathan Pearce: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his statement and also for his unwavering commitment to addressing the threat posed by the Iranian regime here in the UK, particularly to our Jewish communities. I have heard evidence of the IRGC operating on British campuses, seeking to radicalise our students; operating charities to pursue its malign aims; and plotting to murder people on Britain’s streets. Can the Minister reassure the House that the review of proscription and state threats will be expedited, and that he will do whatever is necessary to protect Britain from this growing threat? \p Dan Jarvis: I know that my hon. Friend has a long-standing interest in these matters, and I can give him the assurances that he seeks. I completely agree that the kind of disruption and interference that he has described—whether that is in universities, on students, or through charities—is completely and utterly unacceptable. He specifically asked me about the review of state threats that the Home Secretary has commissioned Mr Hall to undertake. He will understand, as will other Members, that Mr Hall is extremely efficient and well organised.  He understands the importance of this work, and he is getting on with it at pace. We are keen to work with him and make sure that he has all the support that he requires, and I anticipate that he will be able to complete that work quickly. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Christine Jardine: I thank the Minister for giving me advance sight of his statement. The Liberal Democrats of course welcome the steps he has outlined and recognise the existential threat that Iran now poses not only to Israel but to western democracies, including here in the UK. Last year, the head of MI5, Ken McCallum, laid bare this very serious threat—Iran and other nations such as Russia intensifying their efforts to interfere in all aspects of British life, including the 20 plots backed by the “emboldened” Iranian Government, as he described them, that MI5 has identified in the past three years.

Of course we welcome the placing of the whole Iranian state on the FIRS enhanced tier, and that will include Iran’s revolutionary guard, which is a vital part of the infrastructure that makes Iran’s Government such a threat, acting as it does with impunity, supplying terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, and contributing so much to the tension and violence across the middle east. If we are to achieve lasting peace, it is also essential to curtail the influence and threat of Iran to the west.

We welcome the review by Mr Hall that has been outlined. I am glad to hear that the Government continue to keep the list of proscribed groups under review, but I hope that a decision on the IRGC will come sooner rather than later. I would like to hear how we will strengthen sanction regimes to start tackling the influence of Iran. The measures announced today are a welcome start, but we stand ready to support sanctions, and I hope the Government will go further and faster.

I am pleased to see the Government working closely with territorial police forces across the United Kingdom to give officers at all levels the skills and confidence to identify these threats on our own shores, particularly those to communities that remain vulnerable, so I also welcome the reference to the threat faced by our Jewish communities across the country and the rising tensions on our streets. I hope the Minister can outline how his Department will work with the Community Security Trust and other groups to keep all Jewish communities safe at a time when those abroad seek to undermine our whole country. We must not let them succeed. \p Dan Jarvis: The hon. Member is absolutely right that we must not let them succeed, and we will not. She is also completely right about the existential nature of the threat. The 20 plots that she referenced—in the threat lecture by the director general of MI5 towards the end of last year—illustrate the scale of the challenge.

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s support for the specific announcement today on FIRS and for her acknowledgment of the work that we seek to do with Mr Hall in looking carefully at the legislative framework. We keep matters relating to proscription under constant review. She is right to mention sanctions. I can assure her that we work incredibly closely with partners in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.

I am grateful, as I know other Members will be, for the hon. Lady’s reference to the importance of ensuring that we work cross-party to protect Jewish communities around the country. She mentioned the Community Security Trust. It is an organisation that will be well known to Members across this House. It is incredibly professional and delivers massive value to communities right around the country, and we will continue to work closely with it.

I just want to make one further reference. I spoke earlier about the landmark nature of the National Security Act—it is a measure for which we are truly grateful. I also want to take the opportunity to acknowledge the contribution made by the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) in introducing that landmark piece of legislation—it is not forgotten. \p Josh Dean: I thank the Minister for his statement and welcome the action that this Government are taking to counter the malign influence of Iran on Britain’s streets. Given the wide range of threats from hostile state actors, including Iran, it is vital that we take effective action to protect critical national infrastructure from cyber-attacks. Will the Minister update us on plans announced in the King’s Speech last year for a new Bill on cyber-resilience and on the other action being taken to improve our protections in this area? \p Dan Jarvis: My hon. Friend raises an important threat vector that is not often commented on. I can tell him that the National Cyber Security Centre assessed that Iran is an aggressive and capable cyber-actor, with a number of powerful disruptive and destructive tools at its disposal. As he will understand, the NCSC continues to work closely with Government, industry and international partners to mitigate the cyber-threat from Iran. It is something that we take seriously and that we are working across Government to counter. \p Julian Lewis: Does the Minister agree that this is at least one area where our co-operation with the United States can continue on the basis of a common mutual interest, given President Trump’s extremely strong attitude to the abuses carried out by the Iranian regime? Is the Minister aware—I think he probably is—that during the previous Parliament the Intelligence and Security Committee completed the classified version of a major report on Iran and all its activities? Does he look forward, like me, to the redaction process being completed soon, so that we can all benefit from the findings of that report? \p Dan Jarvis: I am grateful, as always, to the right hon. Gentleman because he always adds a significant amount of wisdom to proceedings, and I appreciate it. I agree about the importance of our relationship with the United States and that we absolutely have a mutual interest with colleagues in the new Administration. The Prime Minister discussed the matter with President Trump on his recent visit to Washington. I am aware of the report by the Intelligence and Security Committee in the previous Parliament that the right hon. Gentleman referenced. I wrote to the Committee this morning outlining the measures that I have announced today. I look forward to working closely with the Committee to ensure that  we can collectively derive the benefits of the report. I am grateful to him and previous Members for the work they have done. \p Joe Powell: I thank the Minister for his reference to money laundering. He will know full well the extent to which Iran uses illicit financial networks to evade sanctions and to fund hostile activities. Will the Minister update us on what the Government are doing to follow the money and disrupt those money laundering networks, particularly those used by proxies and enablers in the UK? \p Dan Jarvis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question and the important work that he does through the all-party parliamentary group. He is absolutely right that illicit finance funds hostile activities, and this Government take it incredibly seriously. That is why we have appointed Baroness Hodge as the anti-corruption champion and we are in the process of producing an anti-corruption strategy, which the Government intend to publish before the summer recess. That is also why I recently visited the United Arab Emirates, because the nature of this particular challenge requires an international response. It is why the UK seeks to work with our international partners to do everything we can to tighten the screws on those who would seek to use illicit finance to fund terrorist activity. It is a priority for the Government. We are grateful for the support and work that he does and for the work that Baroness Hodge does, and we will continue it at pace. \p Thomas Tugendhat: I pay tribute to the Minister for the work he is doing on leading this fight against a hostile state that is doing so much against us. I join him in paying tribute not just to Jonathan Hall—he did amazingly good work for us in government and I am sure will be serving the Minister with the same dedication and diligence—but to MI5, whose leadership under Sir Ken McCallum has begun to put real focus on some areas that had previously slipped by.

Does the Minister agree that this is not just a domestic challenge? I recognise all that he has set out, but we need to be working on this matter with friends and allies. The pressures that we see in Iran today—the failure of the state, the emergence of a civil society and perhaps even, let us hope, the destruction of that dreadful regime that has occupied the country and tortured those people for so many years—require a whole-of-Government response. We are feeling the effects here in the United Kingdom because the poison is seeping out of Tehran. \p Dan Jarvis: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the work he has done previously and for the support he has provided. I completely agree with what he said about Jonathan Hall. Jonathan Hall is a figure of great integrity and authority. We are lucky to have him, and we benefit hugely from the advice and support that he provides in his own, and very independent, way.

I completely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about the leadership of MI5. We do not say a lot about them in this House for understandable reasons, but they do extraordinary work and we should be grateful for their service.

The right hon. Gentleman is completely right that this is not just a domestic challenge; it is a challenge that requires an international coalition of the willing, and we need to work incredibly closely with our partners—with the US, with our partners in Europe and partners in the region. We are progressing that work with colleagues in the Foreign Office and as the right hon. Gentleman knows—he reflected on the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday—the Prime Minister personally takes it very seriously. These are the most profoundly important matters. We take them incredibly seriously, and we are working across Government and with our partners to address them. \p Mark Sewards: I welcome the action that the Minister is taking to combat Iranian state threats on our streets. He said in his statement that there was a long-standing pattern of targeting Jewish and Israeli people by the Iranian intelligence services. Although that is certainly no secret, it is still very concerning for the community involved. I absolutely welcome what he said about maintaining funding for protective security measures around synagogues, community centres and schools, but given the seriousness of the situation, will he set out in more detail how the Government will protect the Jewish community in the UK from those and other threats? \p Dan Jarvis: My hon. Friend makes an important point—that concern will be shared right across the House. I spoke in my opening remarks about the importance that we attach to ensuring that all communities in our country are not just safe but feel as if they are safe. He is absolutely right to reference the importance of ensuring that our Jewish communities feel that they are both properly valued and properly protected. He will have heard me refer to the important work of the Community Security Trust, to which we have made a significant financial commitment to support that work. I have written to the trust today, and will meet it, I hope, in the very near future. It does extraordinary work, and we are grateful for that. I am very happy to take this opportunity to reassure him and all Members of our continued commitment to work with the trust in the future. \p Damian Hinds: I welcome what the Security Minister said about the inclusion of Iran in the enhanced tier of FIRS. Can he confirm—I hope that the ISC will look at this—that as that system operationalises, it will also cover more complex situations in which it is not as straightforward as somebody taking instruction from an organ of that state or from some other organisation, including under FIRS, or indeed situations in which there is no actual instruction or relationship at all but somebody chooses to act on that organ’s behalf? \p Dan Jarvis: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his previous work. He makes an important point, and I can absolutely give him the assurances that he seeks. We will have much more to say about that in future, but I hope he recognises that today marks a significant step forward. This measure was introduced by the previous Government, and we think that it is  the right way to proceed and are seeking to progress it  at pace. \p John Slinger: I welcome the Minister’s statement. I am confident that he will agree that this House, the Government and the country bear no animosity towards the Iranian people, and that it is the actions of the Iranian state that we are deeply concerned about and taking action on. In that regard, will he give me more detail on the training available for police officers, who must often counter the actions of the Iranian state on our streets in constituencies around the country? \p Dan Jarvis: My hon. Friend makes two important points. I completely agree with his point about the Iranian people. This is not about them; it is about the targeted activity of the Iranian state. We are absolutely clear that the measures we have announced today are specifically for those state entities, not for the people of Iran.

My hon. Friend also made an important point about police training. I confirmed in my introductory remarks that work by counter-terrorism police, with all our territorial police forces right around the country, is already under way. It is absolutely essential that police officers on the beat, wherever they may be, have the training that they need to spot and more effectively understand the risks and threats that some of our citizens are subjected to. That is relatively new work; it is being progressed at pace. I am grateful to counter-terrorism police and to police forces right around the country for their commitment to it. \p Sarah Olney: It has been a privilege and an honour to engage with my many Iranian constituents over the years, but I am always filled with horror when they tell me stories not only of what is happening to their family and friends back home in Iran—particularly the oppression still suffered by many women—but of their experiences in this country. I very much welcome the measures that the Minister has outlined, particularly in relation to police training, which I know will make a big difference to my constituents.

One issue that those constituents often raise with me, and which is one of the biggest for British-Iranians living in this country, is banking. I very much welcome the Minister’s response to the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) on money laundering, but British-Iranian residents who have been living here for many years often find that their bank accounts are frozen, which leaves them in considerable financial hardship—some of those banking restrictions are just imposed without discrimination. Will reassurances can the Minister give my constituents about their ability to continue banking without restrictions? \p Dan Jarvis: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for those points, and for referring to our work to ensure that, wherever they are in the country, police officers have the requisite knowledge and experience to handle such matters when they encounter them. She makes a good, practical point about frozen accounts and banking arrangements for British-Iranians. Let me take that away and come back to her. She will recall that I mentioned earlier the work being done, through the defending democracy taskforce, to review the issue of transnational oppression. We are looking carefully at what more we can do in that area. I will take away her point about banking, for which I am grateful. \p Dan Tomlinson: It is welcome that the Minister is taking such strong action to counter the threat posed by Iran on Britain’s streets, but will he explain how the process to consider a proscription-style framework to tackle the IRGC will work? \p Dan Jarvis: In opposition, the now Home Secretary rightly did not think that the existing legislative architecture was necessarily appropriate. That is the challenge of terrorist entities such as al-Qaeda, and ensuring that a mechanism that might be used to proscribe a state entity will work in the same effective way. In order to seek advice, the Home Secretary has commissioned Jonathan Hall to look carefully at that. As my hon. Friend will have heard me say, Mr Hall is superbly qualified to do that work and is working at pace on it. We will have more to say about it in the near future. \p Andrew Murrison: I very much welcome the statement. The Minister is absolutely right to underscore the interconnected nature of the threats that we face from malign state actors—which George W. Bush called the “axis of evil.” Given recent events in the US—the apparent distancing of Washington from some of its allies, and an alignment, perhaps, with President Putin—and noting the strong connection between Tehran and Moscow, does the Minister share my concern that America may not have fully understood the connection between the two, and what conversations will he and his colleagues have with the US about the need for it to distance itself entirely and cauterise its relationships, as far as that nexus between Tehran and Moscow is concerned? \p Dan Jarvis: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, as I always am. He always asks challenging questions. I completely agree with his point about the interconnected nature of the threat—he is absolutely right in his assessment. He will understand, as a very experienced Member of this House and a former Minister, that I need to choose my words incredibly carefully, so I will say that we place huge emphasis on the importance of the relationship with the United States. That is why the Prime Minister was in Washington recently to meet President Trump.

The right hon. Gentleman will understand from his ministerial service the huge importance and value of the operational partnerships that we have with the US in the wider context of the Five Eyes arrangements. Those are valuable linkages from which we benefit hugely. As a relatively new Government, we are still investing in those relationships to ensure that we get the most out of them. We will work very closely with our new US allies to target what he rightly describes as the interconnected nature of the threats from countries about which he knows all about. \p Alec Shelbrooke: I welcome the Minister’s statement. The Israelis have done a huge amount to dismantle Iran’s influence in the middle east, so will the Minister ensure that we carry on giving Israel the support to ensure Iran is not able to re-establish that influence in some areas through Hezbollah and Hamas? Will he also ensure that British companies are not supplying components to Iran through a series of countries with which they can trade, and that we are able to achieve our stated objectives on that supply chain? \p Dan Jarvis: The right hon. Gentleman makes important points. He is right to attach importance to our relationships with partners in the middle east. We invest heavily in those relationships, and it is in our national interest to do so. He made a very good point about supply chains. I can give him an assurance on that, but it is a good point and I will think further on it. \p Dave Doogan: I welcome the content and nature of the Minister’s statement. He says that he is considering new ways to enforce robust immigration rules specifically to address threats from Iran. Can he flesh out what that means, specifically on the Government’s stance about proscription of the IRGC? I know he is reluctant to talk about that, but he may sense the frustration among right hon. and hon. Members that zero context has been given and the Government are standing behind a veil of obscurity about how that might happen.

The Minister spoke appropriately about the protections that will, quite rightly, be afforded to members of the Jewish community in the United Kingdom, and previously, in response to the urgent question, he spoke about the protections that will be afforded by the UK state to Hongkongers against foreign state actors acting against their best interests. Will he tell the House what the UK state will do to protect Iranians and Persians living in the UK who are the subject of malign foreign state action against their interests? \p Dan Jarvis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; there was quite a lot in his question. With regard to proscription, I hope I have given him a sense of the importance we attach to the work that the Home Secretary has commissioned. It is entirely reasonable for the Government to say that we have looked at the existing legislative framework and decided that we need an independent reviewer and some independent advice to guide us about whether proscription is most appropriate for the state threats that we undoubtedly face. I think that is the right way to proceed. I hope he understands that no Government would ever get into a running commentary about proscription, because that is not helpful and undermines the deterrent effect of that tool.

The hon. Gentleman made an important point about ensuring that, as a Government, we do everything we possibly can to protect Iranians who are currently residing in the UK. I can give him those assurances. Hopefully he heard my words earlier about the work the defending democracy taskforce is progressing and about the transnational repression review, which is an important piece of work. The process has taken some time, but it should provide the mechanisms by which Government can most effectively ensure that people in this country are protected from the kind of threats that we have been discussing today. \p David Davis: I know I bore the Minister incessantly with my repetitive calls for the proscription of the IRGC, so I welcome what he has to say today, particularly about the independent adviser’s review, which I hope will be rapidly available for him to take action. May I pick up the issue raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) about the need for a whole of Government response? That does not mean just the Foreign Office as well as the Home Office; it is wider  than that. I could give the Minister a single example or a number of examples. Successive British Governments have stood aside while British universities have done military research in conjunction with Iranian researchers on battlefield armour, range-finding lasers, drones and fighter jets. Will he ensure that the whole of Whitehall brings the focus to this that is required? \p Dan Jarvis: The right hon. Gentleman has never bored me—[Interruption.] I sense, Madam Deputy Speaker, that not everybody in the Chamber would be able to say precisely those same words, but I can say them and look the right hon. Gentleman in the eye. He is right to mention Jonathan Hall’s work. He will know that Jonathan Hall is not an individual who sits on his hands; he will work at pace. We need to get a move on with this, and I can give the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that we will and that work will progress at rapid pace.

The right hon. Gentleman’s point about wider Government is exactly right. There is an important role for the Department for Education. The defending democracy taskforce that was set up by the previous Government, which I now chair, brings together virtually all the Departments, as well as a number of other operational partners, so that fulcrum point across Government that looks at these matters very much has that wider approach, which he is right to raise. \p Bernard Jenkin: I thank the Minister for his statement. It is reassuring that the Government are not losing sight of all the other threats that face the United Kingdom and our allies. I praise and endorse his comments about how our relationship with the United States is far deeper and more integrated in defence and security, goes well beyond any disagreements we have with the present White House and will endure. However, I warn him that while he has been speaking, President Putin has made overtures to the Iranian regime to offer to broker talks between Iran and President Trump. Is it now time to draw to the United States’ attention the true nature of their new friend in Moscow? \p Dan Jarvis: The hon. Gentleman speaks with great wisdom on these matters. I simply say that I completely agree with his analysis of the depth of the relationship with the United States. The truth of the matter is that all our constituents are kept much safer because of the partnership arrangement we have with the United States and other Five Eyes allies. That is the most important security relationship we have, and we need to invest in it for the long term. I can give him an assurance that that is what we will do. \p Bob Blackman: I warmly welcome the Minister’s statement. He will probably be aware that at the start of this year our close ally the United Arab Emirates proscribed 19 organisations for their links to the IRGC and Iran, and that eight of those organisations are headquartered in the UK. Will he give a commitment to the House not to take action today, but to review what has been decided by our allies and take action to prevent those organisations from carrying out terrorist activities in the United Kingdom? \p Dan Jarvis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that important matter. I was in the United Arab Emirates on Friday, so I am well versed on the points he made. I have responded to that issue in the House  previously, but I give him an assurance that we will look closely at it, and I am happy to discuss it with him further. \p Caroline Nokes: I thank the Minister for his very diligent turn at the Dispatch Box this afternoon. \p Alex Norris: With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall make a statement about the Government’s plan for neighbourhoods.

The defining mission of this Government is delivering economic growth and driving up living standards. In that pursuit we are determined that nowhere is left behind, because, as every Member of this House will know, when our economy has prospered in the past, not everywhere has benefited. Over the past 14 years, decisions taken by the Conservatives have seen too many neighbourhoods fall into decline, with the most deprived areas suffering more than others.

As we deliver our mandate for change, the £1.5 billion plan for neighbourhoods means that in 75 places across the UK, which for too long have been underestimated and undervalued, this Government will support the delivery of growth and access to opportunity and raise living standards, because when our local neighbourhoods thrive the rest of the country thrives too.

Our new plan for neighbourhoods marks the turning of the page on levelling up. This Government will not repeat the mistakes of the past: no more micromanaged pots of money or pitting communities against one another to bid for them. The truth is, for all the promises about levelling up, the Tories’ instinct was to hoard power and hold our economy back. Some 75 towns were promised funding that did not exist, with inflexible restrictions on how that money could be spent. Our plan for neighbourhoods stands in contrast with the Conservatives’ unfunded and failed approach. Unlike the Tories’ list of restrictive options for how towns could spend funding, we have doubled the policy activity that can be considered by neighbourhood boards and put communities at the heart of making these changes.

The money will be spent on a broadened set of interventions and has completely different objectives, aligned with the missions that the Prime Minister set out in our plan for change. For example, communities can now spend funding on the things that really matter to them, such as the modernisation of social housing, community-led housing, skills support, cohesion, childcare and much more. We are making good on commitments to deprived communities, giving each of the 75 places the certainty that they will receive up to £20 million of funding and support over the next decade.

In many communities, work has already been undertaken, and we want to build on that rather than undo it. That is why in each area, we will support new neighbourhood boards, bringing together residents, local businesses and grassroots campaigners to draw up and implement a new vision for their area. For the first time, that will include representatives from social housing and workplace representatives and, in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the representative in the devolved legislature. In consultation with its community, each board will be given the freedom to decide how to spend the £2 million a year to deliver the priorities of local people, ranging from repairs to pavements and high streets to setting up community grocers, co-operatives or even neighbourhood watches.

These new, broadened objectives will give communities the tools to make informed decisions, with a list of interventions aligned with this Government’s central missions. Those interventions have already been assessed as demonstrating good value for money, so they can be pursued without delay. We have also published a toolkit outlining the wide-ranging powers available to communities and local authorities in England, with similar powers for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to come following consultation with the devolved Governments. This is about giving communities autonomy and about people designing and delivering the change that they want to see.

Our new approach puts communities at the heart of delivery, which is why we have introduced three new objectives to guide the plan. First, there is the importance of building thriving places. People take immense pride in their local area, but too many of our high streets and estates have been neglected and left behind. This funding can be used to ensure that town centres and neighbourhoods better reflect the needs of their community, giving residents a say in how they are designed. It will deliver change that people can see and identify with, so that at the end of this Parliament, people can look out from their doorsteps and see a better neighbourhood. We also want the UK to be a country with world-class public services that work for everyone, which is why this objective will support services that are accessible, responsive and tailored to local need, because investing in young people’s futures and in preventive measures now will ease pressure on services over the long term.

The second aim is to build stronger communities. We want to empower neighbourhood boards to tackle the root causes of disengagement and division and to bring people together so that they can feel proud of their area and safe in their neighbourhood to restore a collective sense of belonging to their community. That is about understanding how division is not only an impediment to growth, but a barrier to driving up living standards.

Our third aim is to empower people to take back control. Everybody should be in the driving seat of their own life and should feel in control of their future, but that can feel like a distant prospect when people are living from payslip to payslip, stuck on a waiting list or just not listened to. It is quite right that people want to have a say over the future of their community, with enough to get by and the opportunity to make the most of their lives. We want to make sure that children have the best start in life and that adults can live the life that they want.

I will finish by talking about the inspiration for this programme, which can be traced back through six decades of community politics. We have drawn enormously from John Prescott and the noble Baroness Armstrong’s new deal for communities, which provided the stability of long-term funding backed by the support of central Government. Like them, our aspiration is to empower local people to drive the renewal of their neighbourhood and to deliver the transformational change that they want to see. This announcement also has its origins in the community development policies of Wilson and Callaghan, who drew the link between social deprivation and social division, and now we are looking to the future.

The Prime Minister has been clear that the task before us requires a decade of national renewal, and our country has all the necessary raw ingredients, untapped talent and potential across every town, city, village and estate, but we also have people without enough to get by and places and public services that have been hollowed out. Addressing that is the central driver of our plan for neighbourhoods, and that is just the start. We have already begun to deliver a real shift of power, aligned with the Deputy Prime Minister’s broader work on devolution, making work pay, fixing the foundations of local government and building decent homes, but this is also a down payment on what we know that communities can achieve. We will give people and places the resources and powers that they need to succeed.

Today’s announcement is a response to anyone in these 75 places who wants to see change. It sends a message that the full force of Government will be there to help them to deliver it, and that is why I commend this statement to the House. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the shadow Minister. \p David Simmonds: Much in this statement builds on the work of the previous Government, and we share the new Government’s ambitions for the growth and renewal of our neighbourhoods and high streets, which are so fundamental to our constituents’ quality of life. As the Minister knows, there is a history behind this statement that links back to the desire of all our constituents to have a proper say in the development of their home area. In a country that is as grossly centralised, by democratic standards, as the UK, that local voice is vital.

EU cohesion funds, which were the predecessor of the UK shared prosperity fund, were directly accountable to both the UK Government and local representatives. In the short timeframe in which the previous Government’s levelling-up strategy was in effect, it sought to bring to bear a wide variety of national resources on exactly the challenges that the Minister referred to in his statement. There was a £2.6 billion fund allocated for regeneration and communities; the £4.8 billion levelling-up fund, which was specifically designed to support treasured assets such as pubs and theatres, where there was strong community support; and the £1.5 billion long-term plan for tax. We know that local leaders welcomed that investment, and many Members across the House spoke very warmly of the benefits to their constituents, so the challenge to the Government today is to set out how this very small and limited project sits against that much broader levelling-up ambition and, in particular, where it sits against the £3.6 billion towns fund set out under the previous Government.

The House will acknowledge that this statement comes at a time when this Government’s financial decisions are bearing down very heavily on our communities. The massive rise in national insurance contributions, the increases in business rates on pubs, retail businesses and hospitality, the changes to business property relief and the multibillion-pound funding gap that opened up in council budgets as a result of the Government’s Budget last October all weigh very heavily in the balance against this modest announcement. That leaves aside the impact of the loss of things such as the rural services grant and  the community ownership fund, which were specifically targeted at delivering support to communities that  needed it.

While we welcome this rebadging and rehashing of a scheme that we progressed when we were in office and its allocation to largely the same list of recipients, we have some questions to put to the Minister. The first is about the accountability of the proposed neighbourhood boards. It is a significant concern that the Minister finds time to say that the boards will include trade union representatives, but not to mention the democratically elected representatives of those local communities—a trend that sits alongside the changes in the proposed planning White Paper. Local democracy is vital if these boards are to work effectively.

The second question is about the lack of a clear purpose for these resources. While it sounds like a positive thing to broaden the range of areas in which they can be spent, it is a serious concern that the Government again choose refurbishment and modernisation of social housing, which is already allocated for in other areas of local government funding. It begs the question of whether these funds will, in fact, go towards making up shortfalls that the Budget created in other areas of Government spending.

Finally, there is real concern that broadening the criteria, and choosing to use generalised national statistics rather than local understanding of need to decide how to allocate funding, will mean that the resource is allocated in a way that simply does not reflect needs and local circumstances. A bidding process allows local authorities—which lead and represent their areas, and can identify particular needs—to come forward to Government and present a plan. The process of allocation that is being suggested creates a serious risk that those who can do the most to regenerate and benefit our high streets and communities will lose out in favour of those who are simply able to meet the criteria of Whitehall box-ticking. \p Alex Norris: I am grateful to the Opposition spokesperson for those questions. He is right to say that this plan builds on the previous long-term plan for towns commitment, which is why we thought it prudent to retain the same recipient areas. That promise has been made, and it should be kept. However, when I entered the Department on my first day in government, and talked to civil servants, it was astonishing to find out that the programme—a £1.5 billion commitment made by the previous Government—was unfunded. It was funded through a reserve that had been spent three times over. That is simply no way to run a country. I am very pleased that we have been able to keep that commitment to those communities, because goodness knows there would have been disappointment had we not.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the plan’s place in the wider environment. Of course, we committed to the transition year of shared prosperity funding in the Budget. We are now in a spending review period, and as I said in my statement, we are committed to getting communities the tools and resources that they need in order to shape place.

To respond to the hon. Gentleman’s questions on accountability, of course local councillors are still involved. We are talking about changes to broaden neighbourhood boards. We want local councillors to be involved; we  would like local Members of Parliament to be involved; and in the areas where they exist, we would like devolved representatives to be involved. However, we think that the voices of people who work in the communities are also valuable, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not.

The hon. Gentleman talked about a lack of clear purpose. I think this is where we are in different spaces, because I believe in freedom to make decisions locally. I believe that expertise is held locally; the wisdom about communities across this country is held by the local community, rather than the Minister. That might perhaps be revelatory for a Minister to say. I believe that changing a community—whether through what we call local growth, levelling up, or any of the other things that it has been called over the past 60 years—is an inside job, best done by local communities, and that my role as Minister and our role as Government is to get communities the tools and resources that they need. We differ on that point.

Even the previous Government moved away from their affection for the bidding process by the end of the last Parliament. They understood that it did not work—that a debilitating beauty parade that pits communities against each other was not a very good way of getting money to those communities. However, another point of difference is that I believe in a longer-term allocative settlement that is more flexible and guided by people locally, whereas the Opposition believe in shorter-term bidding and central prescription. \p Kevin Hollinrake: Value for money. \p Alex Norris: I believe that the best value for money is when communities have the tools and resources to shape place themselves, according to their criteria, rather than mine. That is how we drive change. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Chair of the Select Committee. \p Florence Eshalomi: I thank the Minister for the statement. A number of Members have been on councils, and some of us still serve on them. If we are all honest, the unfortunate reality is that the competitive tendering process did pit some councils against each other, including deprived councils. It is right that we move away from that, and away from the sticking-plaster politics that we have seen over the past few years.

I want to press the Minister to give us a bit more of an understanding of how the neighbourhood boards will be set up and how they will function. Will there be a clear recruitment process to get the local buy-in that is critical? As the Minister said, it is important that we bring communities along with us. If there is conflict between local authorities and the boards—for example, over a regeneration plan—will one have the power to veto the other, and will the Department have oversight, so that it can intervene, should there be serious concerns about interventions and operation?

The Minister said that it was important for communities to have a say in their future, so is the Department looking at the community right to buy? I declare my interest as a Labour and Co-operative MP. Through the community right to buy, we have seen local pubs, libraries,  leisure centres and so much more saved. When can we expect to see that new light, and when will that legislation come forward? \p Alex Norris: I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee for those questions. I agree with what she said about competitive tendering; the quid pro quo is that the Government of the day have to be very clear about how allocations are made. My commitment is that we will always be very transparent about how the decisions are made, and I know that the Select Committee will take a strong interest in that.

Turning to the establishment of boards, I suspect that one of the themes of discussion over the next few minutes will be our not wanting to hold back areas that are making great progress. Areas with established boards may take advantage of the opportunity to add more people to those boards, and may move on at pace, while other areas may want to treat this moment as a chance to reboot their board. Either way, the basic principle is that the local authority will be the ring-holder, supported by the local Member of Parliament, but once that board has got going, we expect it to be in leadership. We do not want boards to have significant tensions with their councils, and we would expect any tensions to be resolved in the usual way, but those boards will have the power to get on with the job.

The community right to buy was a component of the White Paper. We are looking forward to delivering the community right to buy, because we know that it would be greatly valued, whether we are talking about buying pubs or other buildings in communities. We are very keen on that, and as a fellow Labour and Co-op MP, I am particularly keen on it. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Gideon Amos: The Liberal Democrats welcome this plan to work with communities to improve local amenities and engagement in the process. We also welcome the move away from local council areas bidding against each other, and towards a more objective approach, based, for example, on indices of multiple deprivation. In our opinion and my opinion, the previous system divisively pitted one area against another in a way that did damage to more areas than it helped.

The Liberal Democrats are committed to allowing communities to take action to improve their area. Given sufficient powers and resources, local authorities can play a major role in responding to climate and nature emergencies, whether through the insulation of homes, enhancing green spaces or improving air quality. However, the Conservative Government forced councils to do more and more with less and less, plunging many into financial crisis. As a result, councils have gone bankrupt around the country, and many are feeling the strain of cuts to public services and a lack of investment in community assets.

No community can flourish without proper powers and resources, so we welcome the plan’s commitment to ensuring that new neighbourhood boards work with local authorities to implement new funding. However,  we urge the Government to confirm that local authorities will be funded and resourced substantially to take on this additional workload.

The financial burden on councils has forced many to make impossible choices on funding. In my council of Somerset, for example, nearly 70% of council tax receipts go on care for vulnerable adults and children, which many believe should be a national responsibility. Until we have a national solution to the care crisis, councils will continue to be held back from reaching their full potential. We welcome the Government’s commitment to investing in community-led improvement.

We also welcome the new neighbourhood boards, which should provide community engagement throughout the process. We urge the Government to reconsider their decision to remove district council-level scrutiny from the planning process. Where Whitehall takes power and decisions out of the hands of local councillors, it also takes decisions out of the hands of local people. That is undemocratic and will ultimately slow up the process of getting the homes that we need. We also call on the Government to confirm that nature and climate specialists will be included on the neighbourhood boards. Finally, can I ask the Minister— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. I remind the hon. Member that there is a time limit. I will give him one more sentence. \p Gideon Amos: Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will the Secretary of State review the list of 75 towns, so that others can be included in future? Finally, will the Government consider rolling the plans into neighbourhood plans, so that they are given more statutory effect when planning decisions are made? \p Alex Norris: I am grateful for those questions. On the point about climate and nature, gaining consent from the community often starts with buy-in, and localised climate interventions through these programmes may well be a good way to do that. On the local authorities point, the Budget was the first step in rebuilding local authority finances, which will take time. As the hon. Member says, resolutions on social care will take some of the pressure off, too. On planning, local plans are so important, and not enough of the country is covered by them. Local people rightly want a say, and the best way to ensure that is through the local plan process. On the 75 towns point, the ones that were previously announced are the ones for which we have honoured commitments, but as he says, there may be scope to go further in the future. I cannot run ahead of the spending review, but if we can prove that things have worked in these 75 towns, there will be a strong case to do them elsewhere. \p Andy McDonald: I thank the Minister for his statement. The previous Government admitted that they thought that Labour’s formulas, which provided money to deprived urban areas, “needed to be undone”, so I welcome this Government’s commitment to tackling deprivation, which is much-needed. As a local authority area, Middlesbrough has the lowest wages in the region and some of the worst statistics for deprivation in the qualifying metrics, so it is regrettable that no community in my constituency of Middlesbrough and Thornaby East has qualified for the long-term plan for towns, which is a legacy of the predecessor Government’s failed levelling-up agenda.  I fully understand the rationale, in terms of the parameters and populations, and the need to follow through on promises previously made, but will the Minister confirm the steps that he is taking to move on from the Conservatives’ pork barrel politics, and provide assurance that the Government’s determination is to invest in the deprived urban areas not served in today’s announcement? \p Alex Norris: I am grateful for the chance to reiterate that we wanted to honour the commitment made to those 75 communities, because we felt that it was the decent thing to do. Our commitment, which I have given at the Dispatch Box previously, is that in the future we will have allocative formulas based on deprivation and need, and we will go where the data says we should. Too often in the past Ministers sought to go where the politics were, but that did not serve those communities or the country, and we will do much better in the future. \p Andrew Mitchell: The Minister will understand that in the royal town of Sutton Coldfield, we were delighted to receive the towns fund money from the last Government, and we are grateful to him for—in his words—honouring that commitment from the Dispatch Box. May I also thank him for the courtesy he has shown in the discussions that he and I have had about this? As I have said to him before, I hope that he will pay a state visit to the royal town of Sutton Coldfield, where we can show him not only the delights of the town, but how well we will ensure that this taxpayers’ money is spent. \p Alex Norris: I am grateful for that, and for the conversations that I have had with the right hon. Gentleman. The difference between his area and the other 74 is that in his case, the connection is with a town council, rather than a local authority. As he knows, I am a great proponent of town and parish councils. He bears a heavy weight as a result, but we want to demonstrate that this is a model that works and could be used again in the future. I look forward to working with him, and I will of course pay that visit. \p Melanie Onn: The two towns in my constituency are delighted to be included on the list of towns that will receive this long-term funding—such certainty has been absent from previous financial commitments—but I am particularly interested in the Government’s arrangements for the future. Under the previous arrangements for town board deals, decisions have been made about putting money into parts of projects that have been left to suffer delay and incur extra costs; in my case, money that had been intended for the library was reallocated. Can my hon. Friend reassure my constituents that there will be an opportunity to review the Government’s arrangements for the new neighbourhood boards? \p Alex Norris: Yes: now is the time to review those boards, and we will be asking for that to be done by the end of next month. There will then be time for the boards to formulate plans over the next few months, and to put in writing how the money will be used to make that commitment to, and contract with, the local community. I hope that communities become involved in those conversations—indeed, I am sure that they will—so that the plans reflect what local people want. \p Julian Lewis: The Minister referred to his support for parish and town councils. Can he explain a little more about the neighbourhood boards? Will their geographical footprint be similar to that of parish and town councils in the 75 areas concerned? If so, would it not have been better to give this role to elected bodies, such as parish and town councils, rather than to unelected new boards? \p Alex Norris: The elected body that will be the fundholder will be a local authority. As I have said, in only one case do the arrangements differ from those for the other councils, apart from parish and town councils. As for the boundaries, they reflect the human rather than the political geographies; there may or may not be points of alignment. The best models will have a local political as well as a local community say—I think that that balance can be found—but if there are concerns about boundaries, now is a very short moment in which that could be revisited. There is not much flexibility to change the scope completely, but if sensible tweaks can be made, we will of course have the necessary conversations. \p Rebecca Long-Bailey: It is welcome that today’s plan finally delivers on the unmet promises made to communities through the last Government’s long-term plan for towns, but since the selection methodology in that plan was delivered, Pendleton in Salford has sadly lost its only leisure centre and pool to fire, which has left a community who were already starved of leisure facilities with nothing at all. Will the Minister meet me to discuss what help the Government can give Salford to ensure that this vital facility is rebuilt as a matter of urgency? \p Alex Norris: I am very sad to hear about the fire, and I will of course be happy to have that meeting. \p Sarah Dyke: The Liberal Democrats welcome the plan’s commitment to social housing and to ensuring that development is community-led. However, it is disappointing that Somerset will not feel the benefit, given that demand for social housing in Glastonbury and Somerton, and across the county, vastly outweighs supply. Can the Minister confirm whether there are plans to extend the plan to allocate further funding, in addition to the 75 local authorities confirmed today? \p Alex Norris: The hon. Lady knows that I cannot run ahead of the spending review. Other funds are available, including through the enhanced local government settlement and the shared prosperity fund, but if we can prove that this is an effective model, there may be scope in the future to extend it. \p Helena Dollimore: For all the talk of levelling up from the Conservatives, I gently remind them of my Hasting and Rye constituents’ experience of levelling up: £150,000 of taxpayers’ money was given to a Conservative donor to improve Hastings town centre, and all we have left as a result is a boarded-up shop. I really welcome the Minister’s commitment of £20 million for Hastings, which will be spent in a responsible way, based on the priorities of my constituents, whether that is broken pavements, broken bus shelters or buying back important community assets, from pubs to closed concert venues—I know there is a lot of  concern in Hastings about St Mary in the Castle. Can he explain how residents of Hastings can feed into the process for how the money is spent? \p Alex Norris: I am aware of the history that my hon. Friend mentions. I hope that this will be a reboot moment for Hastings and a chance to get some of the benefit that the community undoubtedly wants to see. The plan will be to get a board in place quickly, and then to develop a neighbourhood plan. I exhort the board to engage with its community as best as possible, and there are some brilliant examples. Chesterfield and Arbroath spring to mind, and I am sure those communities will be generous in sharing their experience of how to do it well. \p Stephen Gethins: The Minister and I had a very consensual exchange yesterday at questions, and he knows that Arbroath has been exceptional in this endeavour. Can he assure me that where communities have good structures, those structures will be kept? The funding is welcome, but it is fair to say that there has been some disappointment in areas such as Perth and Dunfermline. There has also been some disappointment about the promises that were not kept by those who backed our leaving the EU on the lifeline funding that came from the European Union. Can he give us some of his thoughts on how we match some of that up? Finally, will he assure us that devolution will absolutely be respected in any plans going forward? \p Alex Norris: As I said yesterday, it was impossible in the church hall not to be struck by the extent of the consultation in Arbroath, which is a model for elsewhere. As the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have said, we see devolution through the prism of wanting to reset our relationships with the devolved Governments. I have had those conversations, as the hon. Gentleman may know, and I will continue to do so. Having representatives of the devolved legislature involved in the board is a positive step. We do not want to hold back progress where areas have made significant progress, so they should move at pace. I believe that we will be able to make the relatively minor tweaks that are needed in their cases and move forward at great pace. With regard to previous structural funds, we were able to deliver what we could in the Budget, and what is coming forward will be looked at as part of the spending review. \p Matt Rodda: I thank the Minister for his statement and welcome the overall thrust of this important area of policy, which puts communities at the heart of regeneration and investment. I have a couple of questions for the Minister. I appreciate that Reading has unfortunately missed out this time around, and I hope we are successful in the future. Could he explain how successful initiatives, such as high street action zones, will be incorporated into this sort of work? Similarly, how will the Government incorporate assets of community value and other local matters that have helped communities to rebuild and re-energise their areas? \p Alex Norris: That is a really important point. The support provided previously was well meant but not very efficient. What we have seen over recent years is an accumulation of various different strands of levelling-up funding, which was less than the sum of its parts. One of the challenges is that we lose great insight, so we will absolutely draw on the best initiatives—whether that is high street accelerators, community ownership or funding assets of community value—and share that insight with not just those winning 75 recipients, but the rest of the country. \p Steve Darling: Torbay is the premier resort in the United Kingdom, but behind our palm trees and Victorian villas is the most deprived council in the west of England, so it is a truly welcome that Torbay is one of these 75 neighbourhoods. Sadly, we have had a pregnant pause while the new Government walked through the wreckage of the finances left by the previous Conservative Government, but it is very welcome that this money is coming to bear. It is also really heartening that it will be over a number of years, so we can have confidence about how to support our communities. However, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) are particularly concerned about the resulting pregnant pause, because we have oven-ready opportunities for our communities. I have already written to the Minister on this issue, but is it possible that, after conversations with him, we could pre-spend rather than have even more months of delays in implementing the changes we all desperately want for our local communities? \p Alex Norris: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his forbearance and for his consistent lobbying. I want to be very clear that the programme starts from 2026, and that cannot be brought forward. Local authorities do have the flexibility to spend earlier, understanding that the money is coming, but that would of course be a decision for them to take locally. \p Jo Platt: I thank the Minister and his Department for today’s announcement and for the commitment to Leigh in the plan for neighbourhoods. As he knows, Leigh is home to some amazing community organisations and businesses that are working hard to improve our area, but they have been doing it alone for too long. Today’s cash boost for Leigh changes that. Does he agree that this plan marks the first step towards a new partnership in which communities are supported and empowered to shape the places they call home? \p Alex Norris: I know of Leigh’s great creativity, not least at the Spinners Mill, which my hon. Friend used to run. From our perspective, we want this to be a reset of the way in which central Government work with local communities to unleash that creativity. As I have said, I think this was seen by the Opposition as revelatory, but I believe the people of Leigh, rather than me, should make decisions about the future of Leigh. \p Gregory Campbell: I welcome the Minister’s statement. It is indeed very welcome in Northern Ireland, where it affects Coleraine and Londonderry in my patch. The 10-year period is particularly welcome as it allows for planning and for  proposals to be put in place. Can he assure us that, towards the end of this Parliament, we will review the plan to see if it is possible to develop it and to become very focused on trying to get benefit for our constituents? \p Alex Norris: Yes, this is a really important point. Plans do take time to gear up, and there may not be a uniform spend of exactly £2 million every year. There may be some flexibilities, which is why I think such a length of time is valuable. However, after the fourth year we will do a stocktake, because we do not want places spinning their wheels and building up a huge backlog of funding. Plans have to be realistic, so by the end of this Parliament, exactly as the hon. Member says, we will have a full stocktake. \p Terry Jermy: I am grateful to the Minister for this very positive statement. I am naturally delighted that my home town of Thetford in South West Norfolk will receive a share of this money. It is really going to help unlock Thetford’s potential, but after 14 years of so much decline, what measures will be taken to ensure that this money is spent as quickly as possible and makes as much of a difference as possible in the short term? \p Alex Norris: We will work closely with Thetford and all the other recipients so that they have the best possible insight about what is effective and about some of the good practices elsewhere. We have developed, as part of the prospectus, a series of pre-approved interventions, so Thetford could pick from among those knowing that they have already been assessed as representing value for money. Such information and insight should be there to build a really effective plan really quite quickly. \p Lee Dillon: The plan for neighbour-hoods prospectus published on the website earlier today talks about ending the “Whitehall knows best” culture. With that in mind, would the Minister look at the current allocation of 75% capital and 25% revenue, and if that split needed to be changed in a local area, would he consider doing that? In his statement, he said that this

“is about giving communities autonomy and about people designing and delivering the change that they want to see.”

I am sure that all communities in the UK would wish to have that autonomy, so how could the principle of neighbourhood boards be rolled out, even if the funding is not there to begin with? \p Alex Norris: Absolutely, we would want to see those boards meeting. I know from other areas where they have anticipated and set up their boards early that they have asked them to do other things as well, which I think is a really good sign of mature partnership. On the revenue-capital split, I am afraid there is no flexibility, although that point is heard. As part of the evaluation we will see what is effective, but I am afraid that what has been agreed in the Budget is what is agreed. \p Frank McNally: I commend my hon. Friend for today’s statement and wholly welcome the up to £20 million for the town of Coatbridge in my constituency. I am grateful to him for taking the time last year to speak to me about the former towns fund. Coatbridge was earmarked for levelling-up funding, but that was put at risk by the  previous Government announcing the plans, but cynically —yet perhaps unsurprisingly—failing to identify how they would fund them. Does my hon. Friend agree that, by delivering this funding, it is this Government who are supporting regeneration in Coatbridge, putting local people and local businesses at the heart of decision making to provide much-needed jobs and growth? \p Alex Norris: Yes, absolutely. When my hon. Friend came to visit me in my office, I felt that he and his colleagues had come rather as wallet inspectors and that I was not going to get away with the shirt on my back. I have to be candid: as I said then, I really did not know whether we would be able to find the funding to deliver the programme, which is why I am overjoyed that we have. Those promises were made and needed to be kept, for the people of Coatbridge and beyond. \p Seamus Logan: I rise to thank the Minister for his commitment and his assurances today, not least on behalf of the people of Peterhead, which is in my constituency. The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) asked him about the geographical footprint of the new bodies. I want to press him on that, because it is important to be clear whether there would be scope within the reorganisation of the boards to extend their footprint. Is he able to comment on that please? \p Alex Norris: Yes, that is not an unfamiliar ask that colleagues have made. As I have said, we could not support boundary changes that really change the nature of an area—if we went up to a population of 1 million people, it would cease to be the programme it was. However, if there are common-sense changes that could be made, we will look at them very closely. Now would be a very good moment for a local authority and a local MP to come forward with such an idea. \p Sarah Hall: Like the Minister, I am proud to be a Labour and Co-operative MP. Today’s announcement is a great win for our movement, putting power where it belongs: in our communities. In areas such as mine, community can be found in our proud grassroots sports teams. Will the Minister update us on what more can be done to empower fans to own and shape their local sports teams? \p Alex Norris: We are very enthusiastic about fan ownership and we are, through the fan-led review, taking forward many things related to football. The community ownership fund had its final round just before Christmas, which in many cases had a sporting element to it. The shared prosperity fund, through the local authority, can support sports teams. We understand that sports teams, facilities and fields are a huge part of local communities. We are committed to ensuring that local communities have control and the security of knowing that they will be there at the heart of their community. \p Anneliese Midgley: I welcome the Minister’s statement and the vision that will truly transform communities and constituencies such as mine. I am made up that Kirkby will get a massive funding boost under the Government’s plan. Knowsley is the second-most deprived area in the country, yet communities across   the constituency never stop working to improve their home. Centre 63, in the heart of Kirkby, is a vital youth and community hub that was opened by my illustrious predecessor, Harold Wilson, who was mentioned in the Minister’s statement. I invite the Minister to meet me to discuss how we could give Knowsley more power, and the funding and resources we need, to shape the place that we call home. \p Alex Norris: I absolutely support the points my hon. Friend makes. I know the people of Knowsley are very proud of the communities that make up Knowsley. I was very pleased to visit recently and to talk to my hon. Friend and her local authority, which really has a strong sense of local purpose. I would be very happy to have similar conversations about the plan to support Kirkby and much more. \p Douglas McAllister: I thank the Minister for today’s statement and announcement, which are incredibly welcome. I am most grateful, not least because my constituency of West Dunbartonshire and my home town of Clydebank are set to receive up to £20 million of funding. I met the Minister last year on this matter, too. Can he confirm that Clydebank will decide how best to use the funding to transform its town centre to ensure the investment has maximum transformational impact on my community, and that this demonstrates that this UK Labour Government are delivering for West Dunbartonshire and for Scotland? \p Alex Norris: I totally agree. My hon. Friend has told me of the proud sense of identity in his community and the desire for the tools to enable them to shape their community, which is what we are doing through this programme. I know he will be a proud champion of getting residents’ voices into those local plans to ensure they are as effective as possible. \p Jim Dickson: I warmly welcome the Minister’s announcement of the plan for neighbourhoods, which replaces the unfunded promises left by the previous Government. I welcome in particular the fact that it gives communities far more agency to decide how the  money is spent. However, I am sure the Minister will appreciate that other communities across the country will have their noses pressed against the proverbial shop window, including Dartford, where projects such as the Swanscombe pavilion are in dire need of funding to bring them back to life. It has been great to discuss that particular project with the Minister. Could he give an indication of how we might build on this great programme throughout the Parliament to provide investment for critical projects outside the designated 75 places? \p Alex Norris: My hon. Friend succinctly expresses the strength of feeling from colleagues today. As I say, we are going into a spending review phase, which may be a good moment for those conversations. I enjoyed the conversation I had with him on the Swanscombe pavilion, and will look to support him in whatever way we can to try to find a solution. \p Judith Cummins: For the final question, I call John Slinger. \p John Slinger: I know that the list of areas is the one the Minister inherited. He gave a truly brilliant statement, which spoke of a stronger community, of pride in place and of the need for thriving communities. I pay tribute to the Minister for visiting Rugby, where he did a walk-around and held a roundtable with me, and saw that our Labour borough councillors—my colleagues—are working hard to achieve all those things, as well as a vibrant community and business sector. I hope the Minister will work with them so that they can learn some of the lessons from this absolutely superb plan for neighbourhoods going forward. \p Alex Norris: I greatly enjoyed my visit to Rugby. It took me more than an hour to realise that the great ovoid-shaped public art installations were rugby balls, hence the rugby pun. It was, perhaps, not my sharpest day. However, I really enjoyed the session we had with local business and community and the local authority. It was impossible not to come away with the sense that the community of Rugby really has a grip of where it wants to go in the future. As a Government and a Department, our job is to give that community the tools and resources to make that a reality. \p UNKNOWN: Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23) \p Alistair Strathern: I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for a right to manage for freeholders on unadopted private or mixed-use housing estates; to set minimum standards for public amenities on new housing estates; to make provision about the enforcement of those standards; to make provision about the adoption by local authorities of public amenities on new housing estates; and for connected purposes.

In perhaps less parliamentarily precise language, but in words that might be a bit more relatable for those watching at home, the Bill will make sure we are finally tackling the fleecehold stealth tax that is affecting far too many new homeowners on new estates right across the country.

I am incredibly proud to be here as a member of a party that recognises, in some of the best traditions of this country, the importance of a secure home in which people can build stable and prosperous lives. Indeed, as a Labour MP, I am probably contractually obligated to remind the House that one of the defining missions of this Labour Government is to get Britain building again. When it come to the state of the housing market that we inherited, it is clear that far too much simply is not working for far too many people. That may be due to the following: the broken state of the house supply system, which prices far too many people out of home ownership; the lack of affordable social rented homes or insecure private rented sector accommodation, creating precariousness for families who just should not have to face that in their lives; or the broken leasehold system, on which we announced some really important measures yesterday that I know many Members across the House will have welcomed.

Today, I wish to address a slightly less appreciated issue, but one that is no less important. Fleecehold housing estates are really growing right across the country. Fleecehold arises when homes are not adopted by local authorities, leaving new occupants exposed to fleecehold stealth taxes and paying money to a private management company for services that others receive as part of their council tax. They are on the hook to an estate management company, which is often unaccountable to them and often seeks to exploit them with every available power.

I know from lots of conversations that I have had with other Members across the House that I am far from alone in experiencing this issue. It is growing in my constituency, and also right across the country. Indeed, when I am away on holiday, I cannot escape it either. Over recess, I was up in Scotland visiting my family. A family friend took me to one side to raise the issues that they have had, which is quite typical. Their estate had gone unadopted for many years. There was no end in sight to this situation. In the meantime, they were paying hundreds of pounds each year for basic services that the rest of their neighbours were receiving through their council tax. But that was not the worst of it. When they missed one bill, which had gone up quite considerably at a week’s notice, rather than giving them any tolerance, their estate management company used the contractual powers that it had to go straight to their mortgage  lender to have the amount added to that family’s mortgage and to drive a wrecking ball through their credit score in the process. This injustice cannot be allowed to persist, but for far too many people, this situation is becoming the norm.

There was once a time when local authorities would typically adopt housing estates when they came forward, but that simply is no longer the case. Indeed, a Competition and Markets Authority report into this issue last year found that up to 80% of new housing estates now go unadopted, with no end in sight. Indeed, many in my constituency have gone unadopted for well over a decade after completion. In the meantime, these householders are on the hook to a private management company that they never expected to be stuck with and for a length of time that they had never considered. The impact of that relationship has many facets. First, these householders are hit with what is in effect a new homes stealth tax. They are often forced to pay hundreds of pounds each year for services that every other homeowner would get as part of their council tax.

Typically, these bills are around £350, but that is a significant amount in a cost of living crisis. However, the bills are far from limited to that. I have had correspondence from constituents who have been hit by bills running to thousands of pounds. Again, very short notice is often given for steep increases. Across the whole country in 2022, the CMA found that more than £260 million was spent by households on exactly these charges. In that time, given the growth that we know has happened and that needs to continue to happen in our housing supply, that amount will only have grown. That cannot be fair and it cannot be justified.

Part of the issue is not just the injustice of paying twice for something, but the fact that this delivery mechanism is structurally designed to maximise the costs that these households bear. The management companies are not directly accountable to the homeowners—to the people to whom they are providing service. There is no incentive for these management companies to keep bills down. Indeed, I have had correspondence from people who have been charged upwards of £250 just for having one lightbulb changed on their estate. Moreover, the small size of some of these estates, or the extent to which they can be subdivided, means that the bulk of the high fees can often just covers management and professional services fees, and bear no relation to any actual service delivered on the estate.

Indeed, one estate had been subdivided to such a level that the vast majority of the bill that every household was paying was simply the fee for how they were audited each year. That cannot be right. Alongside that, it is not just the cost that is the problem, but the way that this is undercutting the very nature of the stability and prosperity that home ownership is meant to bring with it.

By being on the hook to these management companies, residents often have to fight for years to get bare-minimum works and services and responses to their queries. They also often find that when they look to move away from this exploitative relationship, they are unable to do so because of the risk created by that fleecehold system. I have spoken to homeowners whose sales have fallen through when crucial management pack information has not been provided by management companies in a timely way or who, when they have looked to move,   have not been able to because their credit score has been decimated by exploitative charges when they have not been able to pay steep increases in their service charge in what the management company viewed to be a timely manner.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to trying to do something about this, but it is important that we address it at pace. Hopefully, we will be building 1.5 million homes over the course of this Parliament, but those homes will not deliver security or prosperity for the families who take them up if they trap them in fleecehold relationships and on fleecehold unadopted estates. My Bill looks to take several important steps forward to address this. First, it looks to build on some of the recommendations in last year’s CMA report to cut off unadopted estates at source, mandating minimum adoptable standards that all developers would have to reach as part of their works and laying out minimum adoption timelines that local authorities would be accountable for delivering on. All that would ensure that unadopted estate limbo can finally be a thing of the past.

Given the perilous state of local authority finances, I am aware that this could create some financial burden. However, giving certainty over the direction of travel in the adoption of estates and creating clarity about the minimum standards for estates to be adopted would create the conditions for local authorities to be able to assess, negotiate and condition through the planning process any value that they need to extract, to ensure that they can cover the maintenance costs of that estate. Hopefully, that will enable us to undercut that iniquitous persistence of two tiers of council tax payers at source.

Alongside that, it is important that we do not walk by those who are already in these estates, particularly because until we have a solution, they will only grow in number since they are now the default model for housing provision across this country. The Bill also looks to build on amendments tabled by the then shadow Housing Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), in the last Parliament to give freeholders on private estates the ability to enact right to manage. This would put them back in the driving seat, give them the power to fire unaccountable management companies, ensure that they have a choice, and drive up service levels, responsibility and, hopefully, the performance of those undertaking management work.

The Bill is far from a panacea. Many homeowners will want adoption to be the end state for their estate, but it is an important step forward to drive down the ability of management companies to be exploitative and extract unjustifiable fees from new homeowners. It puts them back in the driving seat and part of those adoption conversations, hopefully to get their estate to where it needs to be, so that the inequity can finally end.

I am so excited about this Government’s housing mission, and to see the number of people in my constituency and across the country whose lives will be transformed by our commitment to stable homes. However, for a long time now we have failed to appreciate the extent to which fleecehold becoming a default model for new home delivery in this country is undercutting the very sense of security and prosperity that new home ownership is meant to bring.

I hope that the Government will act with the pace that this issue deserves. I am very excited to introduce the Bill today to start to tackle at source the root causes of the fleecehold stealth tax that is affecting thousands of homeowners across the country, who are paying millions every year in unjustified service charges. I look forward to working with the Government to do right by those affected right across the country.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Alistair Strathern, Emma Foody, Abtisam Mohamed, Yuan Yang, Connor Naismith, Amanda Hack, Ben Coleman, Tom Rutland, Callum Anderson, Mr James Frith, Luke Murphy and Mrs Sarah Russell present the Bill.

Alistair Strathern accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 June, and to be printed (Bill 190). \p UNKNOWN: Ordered,

That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Bill: \p UNKNOWN: (1)(a) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken at today’s sitting in accordance with this Order.

(b) Proceedings on Second Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.

(c) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion five hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order. \p UNKNOWN: (2) When the Bill has been read a second time:

(a) it shall, despite Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;

(b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.

(3)(a) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the whole House, the Chair shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

(b) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.

(4) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (1), the Chair or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply:

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

(d) the Question on any amendment, new Clause or new Schedule selected by the Chair or Speaker for separate decision;

(e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded; and shall not put any other questions, other than the question on any motion described in paragraph (15)(a) of this Order.

(5) On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chair or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(6) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (4)(c) on successive amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Chair or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.

(7) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (4)(e) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chair shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions, except that the Question shall be put separately on any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill which a Minister of the Crown has signified an intention to leave out. \p UNKNOWN: (8)(a) Any Lords Amendments to the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.

(b) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed.

(9) Paragraphs (2) to (7) of Standing Order No. 83F (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (8) of this Order.

Subsequent stages

(10)(a) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.

(b) 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; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed.

(11) Paragraphs (2) to (5) of Standing Order No. 83G (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on further messages from the Lords) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (10) of this Order.

Reasons Committee

(12) Paragraphs (2) to (6) of Standing Order No. 83H (Programme orders: reasons committee) apply in relation to any committee to be appointed to draw up reasons after proceedings have been brought to a conclusion in accordance with this Order.

Miscellaneous

(13) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill.

(14) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.

(15)(a) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken, to recommit the Bill or to vary or supplement the provisions of this Order.

(b) No notice shall be required of such a Motion.

(c) Such a Motion may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.

(d) The Question on such a Motion shall be put forthwith; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (c) shall thereupon be resumed.

(e) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on such a Motion.

(16)(a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.

(b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(17)(a) The start of any debate under Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) to be held on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall be postponed until the conclusion of any proceedings on that day to which this Order applies.

(b) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings in respect of such a debate.

(18) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(19)(a) Any private business which has been set down for consideration at a time falling after the commencement of proceedings on this Order or on the Bill on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders or by any Order of the House, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day.

(b) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business so far as necessary for the purpose of securing that the business may be considered for a period of three hours.—(Vicky Foxcroft.) \p UNKNOWN: Second Reading \p Pat McFadden: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I am pleased to open the debate on this Bill, which I hope will have the House’s support. It is a simple, straightforward and clear piece of legislation that seeks to do one simple thing: it will remove a legal barrier that prevents Catholics from holding the office of the Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. This historic legal restriction applies only to Catholics; it does not apply to people of other faiths or indeed of no religious faith.

For those hon. Members who are not familiar with the role of Lord High Commissioner—if there are any—perhaps it is beneficial for me to set out some context. The Lord High Commissioner is the sovereign’s personal representative to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. They are appointed as an observer to attend proceedings on behalf of His Majesty the King. The General Assembly is the governing body of the Church of Scotland that meets each May in Edinburgh to hear reports, make laws and set the agenda for the Church for the coming year. The ceremonial duties of the Lord High Commissioner include addressing the Assembly at its opening and closing sessions as well as attending the daily business on the sovereign’s behalf. In addition, the Lord High Commissioner undertakes official visits in Scotland as well as hosting engagements at the Palace of Holyroodhouse.

Historical legislation currently prevents the appointment of Catholics to the role: specifically, the Claim of Right Act xx-xxxx-xxxx set out restrictions against Catholics being appointed to public offices in Scotland, including the role of Lord High Commissioner. Most of that was changed by the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829, which removed many aspects of religious discrimination towards Catholics. However, it did not explicitly remove the restriction against Catholics holding the office of Lord High Commissioner. That means that a legislative restriction exists to this day against someone of the Catholic faith being appointed to this office. Until now, the issue did not arise because no Catholic was ever appointed to the role, but that position changed in December with the announcement of the appointment of Lady Elish Angiolini. The Bill will allow Lady Elish to take up the role.

There is similarity to the approach adopted in the Lord Chancellor (Tenure of Office and Discharge of Ecclesiastical Functions) Act 1974, which removed restrictions on Catholics taking up the role of Lord Chancellor. The Bill is short—as hon. Members can see—and narrowly focused. It will deliver a small but important modernisation to allow Catholics to undertake the role of Lord High Commissioner. \p John Lamont: I should declare an interest as a member of the Church of Scotland and an elder of the Kirk. I very much support the Bill, but the Minister will be aware that the Law Society of Scotland has suggested that it would have preferred consultation before the Bill was  introduced. Does he have any reflections on that? I think that its particular concern was about wider religious discrimination on the statute book that could have also been dealt with as part of this process. \p Pat McFadden: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for the Bill. I will come on to the timetable that, by necessity, we have had to adopt.

Legislation of this kind is not always preceded by a consultation. Some hon. Members may remember our late friend David Cairns, whose position in this House was facilitated by legislation removing barriers on ordained priests being elected to the House. As I understand it, that particular piece of legislation did not have a consultation before it either.

I turn to Lady Elish Angiolini, whose appointment as the Lord High Commissioner for this year will be facilitated by the passage of the Bill, if it proceeds. Lady Elish has a distinguished background in law, justice and academia. She was appointed Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire for services to the administration of justice in 2011. In 2022, she was appointed by Her late Majesty the Queen to the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, and in that role she participated in the coronation in 2023. Lady Elish has also been principal of St Hugh’s College, Oxford since 2012 and was made a pro-vice chancellor of the University of Oxford in 2017.

The announcement Lady Elish’s appointment as Lord High Commissioner has been widely welcomed in Scotland. The appointment would make her the first Catholic to undertake the role of Lord High Commissioner and would be a significant symbol of unity, good will and collaboration between the Church of Scotland and the Catholic Church in Scotland. It builds on the spirit of the St Margaret declaration, signed at Dunfermline abbey in 2022. That was a historic declaration of friendship between the Church of Scotland and the Catholic Church in Scotland, and the legislation before the House builds on the spirit of that.

The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) referred to the circumstances and the timetable. I say to the House that the Bill is on an accelerated timetable, which is necessary to ensure that Lady Elish’s appointment can be finalised ahead of the General Assembly in May. We hope to have all the parliamentary stages completed by the end of next month when, subject to Royal Assent, the formalities of the appointment can begin. That process will include a formal commission for the office, accompanied by a royal warrant, and the speedy passage of the Bill is to allow the formalities necessary to enable Lady Elish to act as Lord High Commissioner and address the General Assembly at its opening and closing sessions in May.

Were the appointment not able to proceed, that would be a setback to recent progress and an outcome that I do not believe anyone wants. I therefore hope that the Bill can proceed today with the support of all parties in the House. While the Bill relates to the reserved matter of the Crown, I have spoken to the First Minister of Scotland and to representatives of both the Church of Scotland and the Catholic Church in Scotland about the Bill and the desire to facilitate the appointment of Lady Elish. I thank them all for their constructive and collaborative approach. I have also had the pleasure of  discussing the matter with Lady Elish directly, and I have no doubt that she will be an excellent Lord High Commissioner.

Moving on to the Bill itself, there are two clauses. Clause 1 makes provision to allow a person of the Roman Catholic faith to hold the office of the Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and clause 2 sets out the territorial extent of the Bill and its commencement, including that the Bill will commence on Royal Assent. It is a small step to remove a religious barrier. Without it, neither Lady Elish nor any other Catholic could take up the appointment by the sovereign. The Bill changes that and ensures that the announced appointment can go ahead. It is short and simple, but still in its own way an important Bill. I hope it will receive a broad welcome, and I commend it to the House. \p Judith Cummins: I call the shadow Minister. \p Andrew Bowie: It is a pleasure to rise to speak in this debate. In fact, it is a genuine pleasure to be speaking, as a member of the Church of Scotland, on an historically significant piece of legislation. It could be argued that this is the latest piece of the work that was begun with the passing of the very legislation that it seeks in part to repeal—the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829—to ensure full equality for Catholics in our public realm.

I grew up not quite a son of the manse—it was three doors down—but very much in and around the kirk, and in eight years as a Member of this place, this is the first debate on any issue regarding the governance or affairs of the Church of Scotland that I can remember. Given that it relates to one of the two established Churches of our United Kingdom, that is on the one hand surprising, especially when compared with the hours we spend debating governance and issues pertaining to the Anglican Church. But then, its privileged status as the established Church in Scotland—underpinned by the Acts of Union and the Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Act 1707—means that since 1921, when the Articles Declaratory of the Constitution of the Church of Scotland formed part of the Church of Scotland Act 1921, it has not required any UK or Scottish parliamentary oversight regarding church worship, governance, constitution, membership or office bearers. This makes today an even more significant moment in the history of the Church and the nation, so infrequently are matters of the Kirk discussed on the Floor of either of Scotland’s two Parliaments.

Our relationship between Church and state in the United Kingdom is a brilliantly fashioned piece of British pragmatism—or possibly a fudge, as some might describe it. Only in Great Britain could we have a Head of state who, while being Supreme Governor of one established Church, the Anglican Church of England, is also an ordinary member of a completely separate Presbyterian Church, the Church of Scotland. But we do, and no questions are asked. It is a piece of ecclesiastical deftness that would be inconceivable in any other country. However, I think we would all agree that it was carried out with ease by the late Queen Elizabeth, who demonstrated her commitment to, interest in and knowledge of both Churches throughout her reign—an interest, passion and dedication now matched by our King.

Today, we see another brilliant piece of British pragmatism in what we are about to legislate for. To many in the outside world, the appointment of the brilliant Dame Elish Angiolini to one of the most significant roles in Scottish public life will rightly be seen as a well-deserved honour for one as successful as she has been in her field and in Scottish and British public life. When we think about it, however, it remains quite incredible that a practising Roman Catholic will represent our Protestant monarch, whose very first act as King, in accordance with the Act of Succession, was to take an oath to

“inviolably maintain and preserve the Settlement of the true Protestant Religion as established by the Laws made in Scotland in prosecution of the Claim of Right and particularly by an Act intituled ‘An Act for securing the Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Government’”.

Rightly, no questions will be asked about her appointment.

There may in fact be some who question the appointment, but I think it speaks well to us as a nation—our two nations—that we are so relaxed about such an appointment today. It speaks to just how much Scotland has changed. I wonder if the Scotland of my grandfathers’ time—both of whom were born in Glasgow in the 1920s and both of whom went on to be Kirk elders—would have been as relaxed about such an appointment. Bear in mind that the Church of Scotland was formed out of the blood and fire of the Scottish reformation, with John Knox in his revolutionary zeal creating the only truly national Calvinist church. It dominated public life for centuries: for better, especially in the realm of public education; and for worse, given that for too long it excluded all other forms of Christianity and adherence to anything but the Kirk’s form of Christianity from most positions of influence in public life in Scotland. The songs still sung at certain football grounds between fans of certain rival teams speak to a more difficult time in the history of Scotland and indeed the Churches in Scotland—one that, sadly, has not totally been consigned to the history books.

Scottish public life was until incredibly recently dominated by the Kirk. Its General Assembly was covered in the same way as the sitting of a Scottish Parliament—at that point not in existence—would have been. Its membership when I was born in the mid-1980s sat at around 1 million people, and its presence touched the lives of a great many more. It had daily five-minute slots on Scottish television, with “Late Call” being parodied so well by the late great Rikki Fulton, as well as the Boys’ Brigade and the Women’s Guild. So many people had so much interaction with the Church, but Scotland has changed, and in many ways for the better.

In many ways, however, the changes in Scotland have presented challenges for the Church. Church membership, which was just shy of 1 million when I was born, sits now at just over 200,000. The General Assembly, which for many years sat as the one national forum in Scotland at which issues of importance to people across Scotland could be aired in public and debated, was covered as a sitting of a Parliament would be. Since the creation of the Scottish Parliament, it has not engaged the same media interest as it did in the years preceding 1999. The decline in numbers entering the ministry and the reduction in footfall in church buildings across the country have led to difficult—at times, heartbreaking—decisions being taken to sell buildings and reduce the Church estate.

Yet there are huge positives as well. In recent decades, we have seen the Kirk move with the people of Scotland and modernise. It allowed women to be ordained back in 1968, some 24 years before the Church of England did likewise, and that led to huge growth in the number of women in leadership roles in the Church. The Church has had multiple female Moderators of the General Assembly, the first being Alison Elliot in 2004. In 2015, the Church allowed congregations to appoint ministers who were in same-sex marriages or civil partnerships. That was followed by it officially approving those marriages, and it allowed ministers to conduct them in 2022. Whether it is through traditional church services, outreach in communities across Scotland and Europe, the Guild, CrossReach, or missionary work across the world, the Church of Scotland continues to touch and guide our national life in many ways.

Religion in Britain is a funny thing. On the one hand, we famously “don’t do God.” On the other, we have prayers before every meeting of our national Parliament. On the one hand, unlike other countries, we treat our religion as private. On the other, bishops of one of our established Churches sit in one of our legislatures, and our Head of State is the supreme governor of one of our two established Churches. What we are doing today will baffle most of those watching our proceedings, not least those who do not know that there are two established Churches in the United Kingdom, but it is important, and it has the official Opposition’s full support. It is a significant gesture of good will and unity between two of Scotland’s largest Churches, and builds on the St Margaret declaration of friendship between the Catholic Church in Scotland and the Church of Scotland in 2022. It is yet another display of fantastic British pragmatism, and the sensibleness that has underpinned how Churches and the state have interacted over centuries.

It only remains for me, on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition, to wish the new Lord High Commissioner well in her role; to thank the outgoing Moderator of the Church, Dr Shaw Paterson, for his service over this year; to wish the Moderator Designate, Rev. Rosemary Frew, well as she takes up the role; and to wish all those attending the upcoming General Assembly wisdom and patience as they deliberate on matters that mean so much to the national life of Scotland. \p Alison Taylor: Like so many in my constituency and across Scotland, I have a lifelong association with the Church of Scotland. For so many of us in Scotland, the stories of our families are intertwined with local Church of Scotland parishes, not just through attendance at church on a Sunday, but through our marking of important life events. That link is evidenced in so many ordinary aspects of community life—at local badminton club meetings in the church hall, and at summer fêtes, jumble sales and coffee mornings.

The Church belongs to all our communities. It assists the elderly and frail in the community, supports young mothers, runs youth clubs, and makes commitments to international aid. My great aunt was an organist in the church in Bishopton, and in Paisley in my constituency. My two children were baptised in the Church of Scotland  in Paisley, and my husband and I were married in Drumclog memorial kirk in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride and Strathaven (Joani Reid).

My sense of belonging to the Church of Scotland is no barrier to my appreciation of other faiths and other Christian communities. Indeed, the Church of Scotland has demonstrated a sincere commitment to ecumenical dialogue. The Catholic Church has been a willing and active participant in that effort. For more than 40 years, that has led to a shared commitment to people from all faiths and none working together, notably in food banks and many other community support services.

I know that my life is enriched by friendship with people of other faiths; the Church of Scotland has been similarly enriched. Today, for historical reasons that may seem odd to those following the debate, there is a legislative restriction on a person of the Roman Catholic faith being appointed Lord High Commissioner by the sovereign to act as an observer on the sovereign’s behalf. Such restrictions do not apply to people of others faiths, or indeed to those of no faith.

A change in the legislation is long overdue. I am pleased to support the Government in removing this unnecessary and unwelcome impediment to a Roman Catholic serving as the representative of His Majesty the King at the upcoming General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Christine Jardine: It is a delight to follow the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor). In the almost eight years that I have been here, I do not think I have ever looked forward to a debate this much, or taken this much pleasure from one, not just because there is no real party divide to worry about, but because it feels as if the Church of Scotland—of which I was, but am no longer, a member—is finally standing up for the sort of Scotland that we all want to see and work towards.

I am no longer a member of the Church, but I was for many years, and my late husband was an elder in the Kirk, not so very far from the constituency of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie). The Church is still a huge part of community life in Scotland. The fact that it has taken this long to overturn the injustice of the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829—a piece of discrimination against Roman Catholics—is something that we should bear in mind, and we should promise never to allow this to happen again. Although it is important that we get this legislation through quickly, so that we can appoint Lady Elish Angiolini, I hope that we address the wider discrimination left in Scottish society.

This is an important day. Lady Elish has been a role model for so many young women in Scotland. She was the first female Solicitor General, Lord Advocate and Lord Clerk Register, and, as the Minister mentioned, she has been the principal of St Hugh’s College, Oxford, since 2012. The fact that she will be the first Roman Catholic to hold the post of Lord High Commissioner is significant, and further enhances her position as a role model. Everyone I have spoken to from the Church  is delighted that she will be in position. We Liberal Democrats completely support the Bill, and hope that it goes through quickly. \p Patricia Ferguson: The fact that in 2025 we can say that no Roman Catholic has ever held the post of Lord High Commissioner seems slightly absurd. There are, of course, other positions in this nation that a Catholic has never occupied and, as matters stand, can never occupy. It is good that we can break down one of those barriers today and reflect the extremely friendly relationship between the Catholic Church in Scotland and the Church of Scotland—and indeed, through the interfaith council, the Church’s relationship with other faiths, too. The change is also a mark of the high regard in which people of good will hold Lady Elish Angiolini, and of the many qualities that make her a fitting representative of His Majesty.

As we have heard, by convention, the sovereign is not normally present at the General Assembly, as he or she is technically an ordinary member of the Church, not its supreme governor, as he or she is in England. Traditionally, the Lord High Commissioner represents the sovereign, and is an observer appointed under the royal prerogative, so, as we know, there is no need for parliamentary approval of the appointment, or for legislation. As the Lord High Commissioner is a representative to the General Assembly, rather than part of the assembly, it is not necessary for them to be a member of the Church of Scotland, or indeed of any other church. However, the legislation that we are considering is necessary because the holder of the office cannot currently be a Roman Catholic.

The Scottish Claim of Right Act xx-xxxx-xxxx set out restrictions on Catholics being appointed to public office. Paragraph 19 states:

“That by the law of this Kingdome no papist can be King or Queen of this realme nor bear any office whatsomever therin”.

Those are harsh words, if I may say so. The Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 was the culmination of a long process, working towards giving Catholics relief from the many restrictions imposed on them in Great Britain and Ireland prior to the Union of 1801. However, although that Act retained some restrictions on Catholics, most of which have since been repealed, some significant ones remain. That is what we wish to amend today.

As the Law Society of Scotland has suggested, it is unfortunate that the Bill cannot also be amended to remove the reference to the Lord High Chancellor from the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829, so that the 1829 Act can be brought into conformity with the Lord Chancellor (Tenure of Office and Discharge of Ecclesiastical Functions) Act 1974.

There is clearly a long history surrounding the appointment, with the first Lord High Commissioner having been appointed in 1580. In the intervening five centuries, significant people have held the post, including a number of former colleagues of mine, and of the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), and including Lord James Douglas Hamilton, Lord Wallace, Lord Steel and George Reid. Colleagues might have spotted that they have something in common: they were all men. It was not until 1970 that the late Peggy Herbison, a former MP, was appointed the first female Lord High Commissioner. We then had to wait  another 24 years, until the appointment of Lady Fraser, for the second. Since then, the Princess Royal has held the post twice, and it would be good to think that, following Lady Elish’s appointment, we might see woman appointed more regularly.

The appointment is expected to be made, we are told, on the basis of the merit and contribution to society of the appointee, and Lady Elish certainly qualifies on both counts. I should declare an interest: I have known Lady Elish since we were both teenagers and members of our respective schools’ debating societies. She was very much better than I was, and even then, it was clear that she was destined for a very significant future. I also served in Government with her when she was appointed by First Minister Jack McConnell as the first female Solicitor General. Elish went on to become the first female Lord Advocate. She held both positions with distinction and was highly regarded during her time in office. Since then, she has served in a number of legal posts, and is currently the principal of St Hugh’s College, Oxford, and Pro-Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford. She is also the first woman to hold the position of Lord Clerk of Scotland, another first for a woman. Significantly, she chaired the public inquiry into the abduction, rape and murder of Sarah Everard. We can safely say that Lady Elish is an outstanding candidate for the post of Lord High Commissioner.

As I mentioned in opening, it is regrettable that in 2025 we still have such laws on the statute book, but ironically the relationship between the two Churches is in very good heart. The signing of the St Margaret’s declaration in 2022 by the Moderator and Archbishop Cushley, the representative of the Catholic bishops conference, seeks to build on the common heritage of the two denominations in the Christian tradition. It recognises that divisions are still present, but seeks to mend those divisions and to focus on what the Churches have in common. With the passing of the Bill today and the appointment of Lady Elish to the post of Lord High Commissioner, we take another welcome step on the journey to ecumenicalism. \p Brendan O'Hara: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson). Of course we welcome the Bill, and the Government can be assured that we will do whatever we can to assist its progress through the House, but as we have heard from many hon. Members, the fact that in 2025 the United Kingdom is still having to introduce legislation to remove anti-Catholic legislation from the statute book is pretty embarrassing. That people of the Roman Catholic faith are still explicitly legally barred from holding the position of Lord High Commissioner of the Church of Scotland—a post that can be held by people of all other faiths and those with no religious belief—is nonsense.

I do not blame the Government or the Minister one iota. I am quite sure that they were as surprised as anybody when, after having appointed Lady Elish Angiolini to the office of Lord High Commissioner, one of their lawyers appeared, blowing the cobwebs off the 1829 Act, to reveal the flaw in their plan. That does not take away from the fact that it is ridiculous that two centuries after the Act was passed, the Government are still having to introduce these narrowly focused Bills to correct historical wrongs as and when they appear.

While I can understand that the Government were caught on the hop with regard to this particular appointment, I share the frustrations of the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), who wondered whether it would not be better to bundle all this legislation together and remove all existing anti-Catholic discrimination, rather than just doing it piecemeal as and when circumstances arise. That may well not have been possible on this occasion, given the time constraints of Lady Elish’s appointment, and so the Government are having to get around the problem in this fashion, but I hope that we never again find ourselves in this situation and that the Government will find time to bring forward legislation that, once and for all, removes all traces of anti-Catholic discrimination from UK law.

Were the Minister to approach his boss with such a proposal, I suspect that he would receive a fair hearing. As far back as 2002, an aspiring young barrister—now the Prime Minister—writing in The Guardian, described the UK’s remaining anti-Catholic laws as “deeply offensive” and an offence to multicultural Britain. Should such a Bill be introduced, I would like to think that it would pass through this House quickly and without too much opposition.

It is important to point out that this situation has nothing whatsoever to do with the Church of Scotland, which, to its enormous credit, has viewed the appointment of Lady Elish to the post of Lord High Commissioner as completely uncontroversial. The Rev. Fiona Smith, principal clerk of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, has said:

“We are honoured that His Majesty has appointed Lady Elish Angiolini as Lord High Commissioner…We very much look forward to welcoming her to the General Assembly.”

As others have mentioned, that is a remarkable transformation, because not so long ago the idea of a Catholic female, particularly one of Irish descent, being the sovereign’s official representative in the Church of Scotland would have been unthinkable to many in this Kirk.

Although I do not think that the Minister was there personally, I am sure he will remember that it was only in 1923 that the infamous report entitled “The Menace of the Irish Race to our Scottish Nationality” was presented to the General Assembly, so the appointment of a Catholic woman as Lord High Commissioner being welcomed by the Church of Scotland is a wonderful example of how far Scotland as a nation has travelled in recent decades.

As the Minister has said, and as others have repeated, it should come as no surprise to any of us that if there was a trail to blaze, Elish Angiolini was the person who was going to blaze it. Born Elish Frances McPhilomy in Glasgow and educated at Notre Dame high school and the University of Strathclyde, she became one of Scotland’s most prominent lawyers, serving as Solicitor General, as we have heard, before becoming Lord Advocate. She served under both Labour and SNP Governments at Holyrood between 2006 and 2011, before being appointed to St Hugh’s College the following year.

Lady Elish remained prominent in public life; as we have heard, she chaired several Government inquiries into deaths in police custody and the investigation and  prosecution of rape. In 2020 she published a report on her review of the handling of complaints against Police Scotland, before becoming chair of the board of trustees at Reprieve, a charity made up of lawyers, investigators and campaigners fighting for justice for people facing human rights abuses, often at the hands of powerful Governments.

As if to cement her trailblazing reputation, in October 2023 Lady Elish became the first woman to be sworn in as the new Lord Clerk Register of Scotland—one of the oldest remaining great offices of state, with origins going back to the 13th century. Given the circumstances, I do not think that there could be a more appropriate appointment to the role of Lord High Commissioner of the Church of Scotland than that of Elish Angiolini, but, as I have said, it is deeply regrettable that because of her religious beliefs, we have had to pass a Bill in this House to allow it to happen.

Finally, given that this Bill is welcome but long overdue, I am delighted to inform the Government that should Lady Elish decide not to take up the role for any reason whatsoever, from this day on I, too, am available for selection. \p John Grady: The hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) has provided a most eloquent job application.

I was very pleased to read of the upcoming appointment of Lady Elish Angiolini. Not only would Lady Elish be the first Roman Catholic to hold the office of Lord High Commissioner, but she is incredibly well qualified—speaking as a recovering Scots lawyer, someone who has held the posts of Lord Advocate and Solicitor General with such accomplishment is clearly incredibly well qualified for the role. She is an example, as are some Members of this House, of the excellent education you can get from state schools in Glasgow.

The current law means that, at present, a Roman Catholic cannot be Lord High Commissioner. The Bill removes the legal impediments to that, and therefore I fully support it. Lady Elish Angiolini is a practising Roman Catholic, and much work has been done to build closer links between the Catholic Church in Scotland and the Church of Scotland, including the St Margaret declaration signed in 2022. However, as importantly—if not more importantly—much work has taken place between local Catholic and Church of Scotland congregations. I have seen much of that work in Glasgow at first hand, pretty much every Sunday, and it is an absolute joy to behold.

More widely, Lady Elish’s appointment is another very good example of the progress made between the two Churches. She has said the following of her appointment, which is something quite profound that we in this House should pause and reflect on:

“It is really important that people of all religions and faiths come together. The world is a scary place these days and it is important that people of all faiths meet, share, and promote peace and harmony. This is a good example of that.”

I could not agree more.

I say that this Bill is important, because it is a demonstration of people of different religions and faiths coming together in Scotland and putting aside their differences. In Glasgow, in Scotland and across our  family of nations, people of different faiths, and of no faith, work very well together for the good of our communities. In Glasgow, we see many examples of that. We have one of the oldest Muslim populations in Scotland, which gives greatly to people in Glasgow; we have a vibrant Sikh population, which dedicates itself to the service of the poorest in Glasgow; and the annual Holocaust memorial lecture at the University of Glasgow brings large and diverse audiences, including many of our Jewish brothers and sisters, to reflect on the terror of the Holocaust. People in Glasgow and in Scotland work hard to understand each other, and religious diversity is a source of joy, energy, strength and beauty in Glasgow’s 850th year. The appointment of Lady Elish is a profound moment in this year.

All this speaks to the words of the St Margaret declaration:

“what we hold in common is often greater than what divides us.”

In these times, as Lady Elish suggests, it is important that we redouble our efforts for dialogue and understanding between people of faiths, as well as people of no faith. At this moment, we should also celebrate the real progress we have made in that regard across our family of nations. This Bill is one very good example, and I for one am proud to live in a family of nations that has had a Muslim First Minister and a Hindu Prime Minister. I am proud to see this Bill make progress through this House. \p Douglas Alexander: It is a genuine pleasure to close this important debate. I should begin, as others have done, by declaring an interest, in that I myself am a member of the Church of Scotland. I give my thanks to hon. Members on both sides of the House for their thoughtful, measured and constructive contributions, in addition to their substantive support for this worthwhile piece of legislation.

As we have heard from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, this important Bill will facilitate the appointment of Lady Elish Angiolini as the first Roman Catholic to hold the historic office of Lord High Commissioner. The Bill will put an end to the statutory constraint that prevents someone from being appointed to that position solely on the basis of their religion. In this debate, we have heard a number of views and contributions from hon. Members, to which I will now turn.

First, I thank the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), for both his substantive support and the spirit of his speech to the House today. When it comes to the ecclesiastical deftness of which he spoke, the appropriate acknowledgment of the Kirk’s place in our national life is surely more tablet than fudge—by which I mean tablet, rather than The Tablet, the esteemed Catholic newspaper. In all seriousness, the powerful case he made for ecumenical understanding in modern Scotland was well judged and surely commands support across the House. As he stated, thankfully Scotland has changed. As a fellow communicant member, he spoke with knowledge, understanding and empathy of the Kirk’s continuing work and witness, guiding our national life.

My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor) spoke movingly of the huge contribution made by the Church of Scotland, not just in the now renamed Clyde presbytery, but in local parishes right across our nation. I can personally attest to that. My grandfather, the Rev. Douglas Alexander, was a parish minister in Eaglesham in East Renfrewshire, and my father—also the Rev. Douglas Alexander—was, as my hon. Friend knows, a parish minister in Bishopton. She spoke of her family ties there, and I am proud to say that Bishopton is now in her constituency. My father served in that parish for almost 30 years. It is right to recognise the huge contribution of the Kirk to the life and work of communities right across our nation, and I am happy to do so from this Dispatch Box today.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) brought a zest and enthusiasm to this debate that I had not fully anticipated, but it seems merited in the light of the contributions we have heard. As the Liberal Democrat spokesman for Scotland, she described this Bill accurately as an action standing up for the Scotland that we all want to see. That is a sentiment with which we would all surely agree. She also spoke generously and accurately about Lady Elish Angiolini’s genuinely pioneering role in our national life. That is a sentiment with which we would concur on this side of the House.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) brings to this House her experience of serving in the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Cabinet. That experience was reflected in her remarks in this Chamber this afternoon, where she spoke with warmth and insight—in part born from a similar schooling at Notre Dame—about the suitability of Lady Elish Angiolini for the high office of Lord High Commissioner. I thank my hon. Friend for sharing those insights, and I concur with her view that Lady Elish is indeed very well qualified for the role.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West made an observation about why this Bill does not remove the reference to the Lord High Commissioner from the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829. I can offer her the assurance that that was made obsolete by the 1974 Act. While I can understand the desire for legislative tidying-up, the scope of this Bill is necessarily limited to the role of the Lord High Commissioner, and the position is clear: following this Bill, there will be no restriction on a Catholic holding either role.

The hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) offered his support and that of this party for the Bill, and we are grateful for that. Cross-party support in this House is a powerful symbol of our shared commitment to cross-denomination and cross-faith understanding in modern Scotland. He rightly recognised the time constraints under which we are necessarily operating today to ensure that Lady Elish Angiolini can take up this office in time for the gathering of the Kirk’s General Assembly in the spring. Despite smuggling into his speech a late and, I have to say, rather unexpected job application, he rightly recognised Lady Elish’s cross-party credentials as a genuine trailblazer in Scottish national life.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) described with characteristic eloquence how, to quote him, people in Glasgow

“work hard to understand each other, and religious diversity is a source of joy, energy, strength and beauty in Glasgow’s 850th year.”

In that, he is correct. I should perhaps declare another interest, in that Glasgow is the city of my birth, but it is right to recognise that after an at times troubled history of sectarian and religious intolerance, today people make Glasgow, and those people are comprised of all faiths and none. I thank my hon. Friend for his powerful advocacy for dialogue and understanding, which brought to mind Jo Cox, lately of this House. I thank him for his understanding and contribution to the debate today. His speech was very much in keeping with the spirit of the St Margaret declaration.

The debate has indicated that there is support for this legislation across the House. I look forward to hearing further from hon. Members in the remaining stages of the Bill, due to follow shortly. With the support of the House, I commend this Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day). \p UNKNOWN: Considered in Committee (Order, this day)

[Ms Nusrat Ghani in the Chair] \p Nusrat Ghani: I remind Members that in Committee they should not address the Chair as “Madam Deputy Speaker”. I ask them please to use our names; alternatively, “Madam Chair” or “Madam Chairman” is acceptable.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. \p Nusrat Ghani: With this it will be convenient to consider clause 2. \p Douglas Alexander: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani.

I hope that I will not detain the Committee for long in dealing with the two clauses. The purpose of clause 1 is to make provision to allow a person of the Roman Catholic faith to hold the office of Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. The Lord Chancellor (Tenure of Office and Discharge of Ecclesiastical Functions) Act 1974 removed restrictions on individuals taking up the office of Lord Chancellor, and, similarly, the Bill removes the restriction on the Lord High Commissioner from the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829. Clause 2 sets out the extent, commencement and short title of the Bill: it extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It will come into force on Royal Assent, which will ensure that the upcoming appointment of Lady Angiolini as the Lord High Commissioner goes ahead in the run-up to the General Assembly in May.

It is clear that the Bill commands a broad consensus, and I am grateful to colleagues for their approach to it. I look forward to the rest of the debate today, and to seeing the Bill on the statute book soon. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the shadow Minister. \p Andrew Bowie: I, too, will not detain the Committee for long, having already expressed the full support of His Majesty’s official Opposition for the Bill, and it will come as no surprise that we are not proposing any amendments in Committee. I do, however, have two questions for the Minister. When does he expect the Bill to go to the House of Lords, and can he assure the Committee and, indeed, the Church of Scotland that everything possible will be done to secure its swift passage to Royal Assent so that it is passed in time for the upcoming General Assembly of the Church of Scotland? \p Douglas Alexander: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we want progress to be expeditious. I shall be happy to write to him once we know the exact date on which it will be introduced in the House of Lords, contingent on support in this Chamber today, but I can assure him that,  as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made clear, we have been engaging in regular dialogue with the Church of Scotland and the other relevant offices, and we have every confidence, on the basis of the support we have seen today and will hopefully see in the other place, that we will be able to provide a timetable ensuring that Lady Angiolini is able to take up her position by the time of the General Assembly in May.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Third Reading

King’s consent signified. \p Pat McFadden: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Given the mood in the House, I do not intend to detain people for long. By now we know the purpose of the Bill: to allow Catholics to be appointed to the role of Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. That is the Bill in a nutshell. Today’s debates have demonstrated that there is wide support for the Bill across the House.

I thank the Church of Scotland, the Catholic Church and the Scottish Government for their engagement and collaboration in the development of the legislation. I also thank all those who spoke in our debates, including the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor), the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara), my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Cabinet Office. I am grateful to all of them.

As we have said, at the signing of the St Margaret’s declaration at Dunfermline abbey in 2022, both the Catholic Church and the Church of Scotland declared that what they hold in common is far greater than what divides them, and that they would commit to continue working towards greater unity. I hope that this Bill, in its small way, will continue in that spirit.

The hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber referred to 1923 and asked if I was there. I was not there, but in the same year W. B. Yeats wrote that “peace comes dropping slow”. Maybe equality sometimes comes dropping slow too, but today we have taken a small and important step, and I commend the Bill to the House. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the shadow Minister. \p Andrew Bowie: I would like to record the thanks of the Opposition to those who have made possible this Bill, which will hopefully soon become an Act, and to Members from across the House for their contributions. I am grateful for the engagement with the Church of Scotland, the Catholic Church and Lady Elish herself.

I think we can all agree that the Bill is a positive step and speaks well to the type of country that Scotland is today, which was certainly not the case 100 years ago. I express yet again my best wishes to the new Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly, and to all those attending its deliberations in its upcoming meeting in May.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed. \p Nusrat Ghani: With the leave of the House, I will put motions 5 to 7 together.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Non-Domestic Rating (Levy and Safety Net) (Amendment) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 6 February, be approved. \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Immigration (Biometric Information etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 21 January, be approved. \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 21 January, be approved.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)

Question agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: [Relevant Document: First Report of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, Re-appointment of an Electoral Commissioner, HC 740.]

Ordered,

That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that His Majesty will re-appoint Dame Elan Closs Stephens as an Electoral Commissioner with effect from 13 March 2025 for the period ending on 12 March 2027.—(Lucy Powell.) \p UNKNOWN: Ordered,

That—

(1) the sum to be deducted from the salaries of Members of the House of Commons in pursuance of section 4(1) and (2) of the House of Commons Members’ Fund Act 2016 shall be 0.03% of the salary of each Member of the House of Commons; and

(2) that sum shall be deducted from the beginning of the financial year starting on 1 April 2025 and for each subsequent financial year thereafter (subject to any further resolution of the House of Commons under section 4(2) of the House of Commons Members’ Fund Act 2016).—(Chris Elmore.) \p UNKNOWN: Ordered,

That Mike Amesbury be discharged from the Modernisation Committee and Chris Vince be added.—(Lucy Powell.) \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Taiwo Owatemi.) \p Jim Allister: The issue of diversion of trade is becoming an increasing problem of manifold proportions for Northern Ireland. Before the protocol, goods could be moved from Birmingham to Belfast as easily as they could be moved from Gloucester to Glasgow, but no more. The resulting Irish sea border, and all that comes with it, has caused a huge and increasing diversion of trade.

We can get an insight into how things naturally should be and how business wishes them to be by looking at the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency figures of recent years. If we look at the pre-protocol days, we see that in 2018, for example, the volume of goods purchased from the Irish Republic was £2.8 billion, but the amount purchased from GB was five times that—£13.4 billion. There we have a snapshot of the natural inclination of trade in Northern Ireland, particularly for our raw materials.

Before Brexit, there was a similar situation. Indeed, we could say—and some may say—that that is a better reflection of whether there has been trade diversion. Before Brexit, we could as readily buy our goods from the Republic as we could from GB, because we were all in the EU single market. Even then, the predominant trading of choice was from GB. That is no surprise because for decades Northern Ireland has been a particularly integrated part of the UK economy.

However, along came the protocol, which requires Northern Ireland to be subject to a foreign customs code—that of the EU—which of course treats GB as if it is a foreign country. Therefore, when goods come from outside the EU into the EU, and we in Northern Ireland are regarded as being in the EU for these purposes, those goods have to be checked, with customs declarations, documentary checks and physical checks on, for example, all our raw materials. So it is no surprise that that is inevitably bound to cause diversion of trade.

We were told, as part of the spin of selling the protocol, “Oh, there are protections against the diversion of trade, and it wouldn’t be allowed to happen”. Article 16 of the protocol, we were told, was our safety net:

“If the application of this Protocol leads to…diversion of trade…the United Kingdom may unilaterally take appropriate safeguard measures.”

It has led to the diversion of trade, but the United Kingdom Government have not taken unilateral action in that regard.

The fact of the diversion of trade is a challenge to the protocol’s proponents. It is a challenge to those who put this upon us, and it is one that they have to meet, but which I fear they will not meet. Where is the proof, some may ask, of the diversion of trade? Again, it is in the NISRA statistics. Dr Esmond Birnie, a renowned economist in Northern Ireland, has done a succession of studies of the NISRA statistics. He wrote back on 11 December 2024 that the data

“provides further evidence that the NI economy is becoming more trade integrated with the Republic”,

and of

“North-South trade growing at very rapid rates at the expense of what previously was an inflow of goods from GB.” \p Jim Shannon: Will the hon. Member give way? \p Jim Allister: Perhaps in a moment.

We also see that in the purchase of goods figures that NISRA reports. It has given us figures from 2020, contrasting them in a table with those for 2023. The year 2023 was only the beginning of things getting difficult, as the Irish sea border did not in effect come into place until October 2023 because of the grace periods. However, those NISRA figures show that Northern Ireland’s purchases of goods increased from 2020 to 2023—of course, it was a period of inflation—by 24% from GB, but by 50% from the Republic of Ireland, meaning twice the growth rate in the buying of goods into Northern Ireland that would previously have come from our integrated United Kingdom economy.

The Office for National Statistics business insights and conditions survey states that 13.1% of currently trading manufacturers based in GB had sent goods to Northern Ireland in the past 12 months. That was at the end of 2024. But in January 2021, 20% of manufacturers in GB were sending goods to Northern Ireland. So, in just those four years there has been a dramatic fall in the number of manufacturers supplying goods to Northern Ireland. It has nearly halved in four years. The ONS data for 2024 tells us more: 11.7% of companies tell us they have stopped trading with Northern Ireland. Why? Because of the bureaucracy, because they have to make customs declarations, because they have to have them checked, and because they have to employ extra staff to do all that. Many companies, particularly in smaller sectors, have simply said that they are not going to do it. \p Robin Swann: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way? \p Jim Allister: In a moment, perhaps. I need to make sure I get through what I need to say.

It is beyond doubt, I would respectfully say, that there has been trade diversion. Back in September, the Road Haulage Association gave evidence to a parliamentary Committee of this House. It told the Committee that 30% of haulage lorries that take goods to GB are returning empty. Why? Because GB companies have stopped supplying. Now, that is an incredible thing to contemplate. Trade works on the basis that you take goods out, and then you fill your lorry and bring goods back. That is how you make it viable and how the economy works. That 30% of lorries now returning to Northern Ireland are returning empty is an incredible indictment of the operation of the protocol.

And things are getting worse. The EU regulation on general product safety now puts more burdens on companies selling into Northern Ireland, because they have to meet enhanced EU product safety regulations. I have mentioned the craft sector in this House before. Recently, 11 suppliers in that niche market stopped supplying Northern Ireland. It will get worse, because the partial border is coming and they will have to do more paperwork and make more declarations about sending simple parcels from GB to Northern Ireland.  Tesco has slides that it shows to its own suppliers stating that they should now buy from the Republic of Ireland because it is easier to supply from there than from GB. The same is happening in veterinary medicines and in every sector.

Why does that matter? It matters for a very pertinent political reason. The whole idea of trade diversion and the whole purpose of the protocol was and is to build an all-Ireland economy: to dismantle the economic links between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and enhance links with the Irish Republic, thereby creating stepping stones out of the United Kingdom into an all-Ireland for Northern Ireland. That was the determination that lay behind the protocol.

We do not need a protocol to govern trade. It is demonstrable that if we can organise trade through Northern Ireland to GB without border checks in the Irish sea, and if, as the Government now say is possible, we can do it with checks away from the border, then equally we could do it in the other direction, through mutual enforcement. That would mean recognising that if we are going to export from one territory to another, our manufacturers must produce goods to the standards of the other, and we would enforce that by making it a criminal offence to do otherwise. That is the essence of mutual enforcement. It would work, but it is not allowed to work, because the political agenda of the protocol is to ensure this reorientation and realignment.

We are told that we now have Intertrade UK, but  it has no staff and no budget, in comparison with InterTradeIreland, which has more than 50 staff and a budget of £6.5 million a year and is active across the whole area. Intertrade UK has been set up as a shadow, but it is not able to compete in any sense.

This Government have allowed the economy of Northern Ireland to drift out of the United Kingdom. I believe those who are protocol enthusiasts want that to happen. Now it is happening, the onus is back on the Government to do something about it. \p Sammy Wilson: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman takes the intervention, I know that he was anxious about getting through his speech, but, because the Adjournment debate started early, he does have until 7.30 pm. [Laughter.] I believe he was about to take an intervention—does he want to continue with that? \p Jim Allister: I will give way. \p Sammy Wilson: You shouldn’t encourage him, Madam Deputy Speaker—he will take to 7.30 pm and beyond, because this is such an important subject.

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the diversion of trade has not only political but economic implications for Northern Ireland? There are increased transport costs, because lorries do not come both ways with goods in them; there is the fact that many people chose suppliers in England because they are cheaper, better-quality and so on, and now manufacturers in Northern Ireland are having to go to the second-best suppliers; and there is also the additional paperwork that is involved. That all adds to costs and makes the Northern Ireland economy less competitive, which therefore makes it more difficult for it to be viable. \p Jim Allister: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Business is like water: it follows the easiest course. When we were an integrated part of the UK economy, the easiest and cheapest course was to do the greater bulk of our trade with GB. That, historically, has been our basic supply market for our raw materials and everything else. However, when a fettering of trade is imposed, naturally, business will follow the easiest route. The easiest route now, sadly, is to cease trading from GB and accentuate trading with the EU, and most particularly the Republic of Ireland.

The United Kingdom was built on two pillars, according to the Acts of Union. The first was a political union, with article 3 establishing this House as one sovereign Parliament for the whole United Kingdom; the second was an economic union, through article 6, which established unfettered trade between and within all parts of the United Kingdom. That was what article 6 said—that there should be unfettered trade. But along came the protocol, which fettered trade, leaving the Supreme Court with no choice but to accept that the protocol had therefore subjugated article 6. The very foundation of our economic union, article 6, which says that there shall be unfettered trade, is in suspension. It is no wonder that the consequence of that fettering of trade is a diversion of trade. \p Robin Swann: I thank the hon. and learned Member for giving way. It is on that diversion of trade that I  wish to speak. He and most Northern Ireland MPs will  know of the fantastic Colemans Garden Centre in my constituency of South Antrim. It supplies quite a number of people across Northern Ireland who have had difficulty in getting plants and fruit brought across from their main supplier, McIntyre Fruit, in Scotland. Just before this debate, the manager of Colemans Garden Centre told me that he had been in contact with Stuart McIntyre who said that he had just picked up a contract to supply a firm in Japan. He said that, bureaucracy-wise and administration-wise, it is easier for a supplier in Scotland to supply into Japan than it is to supply across the 14-mile stretch of water into Northern Ireland. \p Jim Allister: That is the absurdity of where we have got to, and it has been accentuated by our subjection to the EU’s general product safety regulations. Those regulations provide that if a company is supplying into Northern Ireland from outside the EU—in other words, from GB—it must have an agent resident within the EU. The company must complete the paperwork on the origin of its goods and on the customs declarations, and it cannot do so without employing an agent within the EU. Anyone who knows anything about business will know that that is added cost that will cause many businesses to say, “Northern Ireland is not a huge market to start with, so I shall just not bother with it.” That is what all our businesses in Northern Ireland are suffering from. \p Jim Shannon: I congratulate the hon. and learned Member on securing this debate. Small businesses in my constituency have told me that they are now having to pay His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs a duty for buying goods from English suppliers and then selling the same goods in Northern Ireland to the Northern Ireland consumer, remaining within the internal market. Last Friday, one trader told me that he is now having to   pay more in duties to HMRC than the invoice was for the goods. That is because HMRC does not trust that the goods will remain, but assumes that they will be sold into the EU. Does the hon. and learned Member not agree that the same HMRC displays greater trust and acceptance of VAT declarations, on the premise that they will be checked at random, than it does for internal trade within the United Kingdom? What a backward step that is. \p Jim Allister: I agree. Let us just think about the Irish sea border. Given the infinitesimal amount of goods and trade that cross that border—infinitesimal when compared with the proportion of EU trade—it is incredible that it has 20% of all the checks across the whole of the EU. That infinitesimal amount when set against the totality of EU trade warrants 20% of all the checks in the EU. It would be easier to bring in goods from Belarus into the EU than it is to bring goods from GB into Northern Ireland. \p Sammy Wilson: The hon. and learned Member talks about that trade being infinitesimal—0.4% of EU trade crosses that border, yet it accounts for 20% of checks. Does he agree that that will not be the story of the future? In my constituency, we are already building a £140 million EU control post on a 10-acre site. Once that is open, there will be much more scope to check goods to an even greater degree. If that is not the point of having such a large EU border post in the middle of the United Kingdom, what is? \p Jim Allister: That is the point, because it is an EU border. EU trade laws govern the Irish sea border. EU officials, under the protocol, have the right to supervise checking. When we have the full panoply of facilities that are being built at Larne and at other ports, I fear that we will see the muscle of EU inspections. The protocol gives the EU, which boasted that the price of Brexit would be Northern Ireland, the upper hand in that regard.

I return to the point that the protocol is imbued with a political motivation, and that motivation is not to get Northern Ireland the best of both worlds. My goodness, what a con that idea is. The protocol was supposed to make Northern Ireland a Mecca, a Singapore of the west, but we now know that there has been no uplift whatsoever in foreign direct investment. Why? Because a manufacturer coming to Northern Ireland is interested not just in selling goods out of Northern Ireland, but in where it is getting its raw materials. When a manufacturer is told that its basic supply line has to pass through an international customs border controlled by the EU, the shine soon goes off the prospect of investing in Northern Ireland.

We are in a pretty dire situation, which is getting worse, and which has massive constitutional and economic implications, but I fear that the Government are deaf and blind to the issues, because they do not want to face the consequences. They are hand in glove with the EU, dismantling Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom, and setting us on a course for the economics marrying with the politics, and Northern Ireland ceasing to be. \p Richard Tice: We were told by the previous Administration that with the new green lane and the Windsor framework, all would be glorious—it could be the best of both worlds. Did the previous Administration mislead the House? \p Jim Allister: Not just the previous Administration; I think there has been gross, calculated and deliberate misleading about the protocol from day one. We were told that the green lane was gone. It has not. We still have to do customs declarations. We still have document checks, but all our raw materials must, by dint of the protocol, come through the red lane, so they must be subject to all the rigour of the EU’s international border. That is what will cripple our economy. We have seen it in small craft sectors. Niche sectors that depend on small suppliers are giving up. When that bites, as it will, we will see that right across our economy.

The Government need to find some dignity and stand up for this United Kingdom, which is not just Great Britain but includes Northern Ireland. It is time to put some mettle into defending that position, and to row back from the disastrous destructive elements that the protocol has brought us. \p Hilary Benn: I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) on securing the debate. The House, once again, has been left in no doubt but that he speaks about Northern Ireland’s trading arrangements with fervour and sincerity, as he did in the Westminster Hall debate in November, to which I responded, and in the debate on his private Member’s Bill in December, to which the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland replied on the Government’s behalf. On the Windsor framework, his position is quite clear: he is opposed to it. \p Gregory Campbell: The Secretary of State has outlined that on a number of occasions, both he and the Under-Secretary have responded to issues that the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) has raised. He will be aware that I wrote to him about a month ago about the problems with horticultural industry trade between Scotland and Northern Ireland, but I have yet to get a response. \p Hilary Benn: I can only apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I try hard to be punctilious about responding to correspondence. Those watching will have noted what he said, and he can, I hope, anticipate receiving a reply from me very soon.

For the Government’s part, I want to be equally clear. We needed to have a system in place for managing a unique set of circumstances. The system we have is the inevitable result of leaving the European Union. That is where this all began; if that had not happened, we would not be having this discussion. What did that result in? Two trading entities—the United Kingdom and the European Union—with different rules, but an open border between them. That is to be found nowhere else in the world. In other words, all of us together—everyone has to take responsibility for what they argued for, and for the consequence of that—faced the question: how do we deal with the unique situation of two trading entities with different rules having an open border between them? \p Jim Allister: The way not to deal with it is to say, “We, the United Kingdom, will hand over part of our territory to EU jurisdiction. We will put it under the EU’s customs code, which will decree the rest of the United Kingdom a foreign territory. We will subject that part of our territory to having 300 areas of its law not made in the United Kingdom; law in those areas cannot even be amended in the United Kingdom. It will be foreign law imposed.” This could have been dealt with by mutual enforcement. We could have said, “We want to trade with each other, and we want to be neighbourly, so we will guarantee, on pain of criminal conviction, that anything we send into your territory meets your standards and vice versa.” Why did things have to be made complicated, at the expense of jettisoning Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom economically and constitutionally? \p Hilary Benn: The hon. and learned Gentleman argues in favour of what he calls mutual enforcement, but that is not a credible basis for resolving the dilemma created by our leaving the European Union. \p Jim Allister: indicated dissent. \p Hilary Benn: The hon. and learned Gentleman may disagree. I am expressing the Government’s view, which is that it is not a credible basis. One thing is absolutely clear: the answer was never to try to wish the dilemma away and pretend that it did not exist. I am afraid that, at times, it has appeared as though that argument has been advanced.

The first go at trying to find an answer was the Chequers plan, which did not get support. The Northern Ireland protocol was the second go, but that was never going to work—I made that argument as an Opposition Back Bencher—so the Windsor framework was negotiated. There is no denying that the Windsor framework represents a huge improvement on the prospect created by the Northern Ireland protocol. \p Sammy Wilson: The Secretary of State says that the situation is unprecedented, and that unique arrangements have therefore been put in place. The Government recently recognised that the flow of trade from the Irish Republic through Northern Ireland into GB could cause a situation where goods had to be checked to safeguard the GB market, yet they have been able to put in place arrangements, without all this elaboration, that do not require laws to apply to traders in the Irish Republic; they are simply checks away from the border. If the unique situation of trade from GB into Northern Ireland, which has a non-check border with the Republic, has to be dealt with through a labyrinth of regulations, why is it possible to avoid that in the other direction? If such arrangements can work from Northern Ireland to GB, why can they not work from GB to Northern Ireland? \p Hilary Benn: The answer is this: as a sovereign country, it falls to us to decide how we check goods that arrive in our territory. For quite a period after our leaving the European Union, the last Government were not checking stuff coming across the channel, first, because there was nowhere to do the checks, and secondly, because they were concerned about delays, shortages and added costs for the consumer. They repeatedly put off implementing checks. At the same time, British exporters were experiencing the full impact of checks on the goods that they sent the  other way, across the channel to Calais and the rest of the European Union. It is for sovereign countries to determine what checks they apply. The same truth applies to the European Union; it has a single market.

We are a responsible country. Some may argue that we should be irresponsible and say, “Well, this is not our problem; let us leave it to the EU to sort it out.” In the end, we had to have a negotiated answer to the question created by our departure from the European Union on the goods that cross that non-existent border. The one thing that almost everybody agreed on during the Brexit debates was that the border needed to remain as it was. That open border is important for a whole host of reasons, not least the extraordinary progress that Northern Ireland has made in the 26 years since the signing of the Good Friday agreement. The question, therefore, was: how does the EU ensure that goods that cross that border and come into the Republic, and go on to France, Germany or Greece, meet the rules? In exactly the same way, we would ask: how do we know that goods coming into the United Kingdom meet our laws? The only way to do that was with a negotiation. \p Richard Tice: The right hon. Gentleman said that it is up to a sovereign nation to look after its own borders and determine its own checks. Does he accept that there has been trade diversion within the United Kingdom? If so, does he accept that it is within the Government’s remit to use article 16 or drop the checks to protect trade within our sovereign borders? \p Hilary Benn: I have only just begun my remarks, but if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall shortly come to the point that he raises.

The Windsor framework protects the UK internal market, while, as I argued a moment ago, enabling the EU to be confident that its rules will be respected. The Government’s view and my view is that that was the responsible thing to do in the circumstances, because this Government support sustainable arrangements for Northern Ireland that respect its particular circumstances —indeed, they are unique—and its place in the Union, and that uphold the Good Friday agreement. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim’s central argument this evening is that we should trigger article 16, the unilateral safeguard in the Windsor framework. To do that would be contrary to Northern Ireland having stable arrangements for trade, now and in future. It would disregard the benefits that the Windsor framework offers for businesses—indeed, the benefits that are actively relied upon by businesses, including those that are taking advantage of Northern Ireland’s unique access to the UK and EU markets—[Interruption.] The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim shakes his head, but I have met businesses that have told me how they are taking advantage of that dual market access. I meet businesses in my constituency that can see what Northern Ireland has got out of these unique arrangements.

Those benefits will be enhanced by the UK internal market “facilitations”—that is the phrase—that will come into force in the near future, and that will, on a durable and legally binding basis, support the smooth flow of goods across the whole of the UK when the next phase of the UK internal market system is implemented this year, without, for example, unnecessary international customs paperwork.

We have seen the benefits of negotiating a way forward. There is unilateralism, as the hon. and learned Gentleman argues, and there are the benefits of negotiation. In respect of agrifood and sanitary and phytosanitary measures, we have been able to lift the old ban on the movement of seed potatoes. Not all those problems have been solved—I am the first to acknowledge that—but it is an improvement compared with the situation before. We are now able to apply UK public health and safety standards to agrifoods on the basis of primacy for goods staying in the United Kingdom moving under the Windsor framework schemes. We have reached agreements with the EU on tariff rate quotas, enabling businesses from Northern Ireland to import steel and agrifood products under UK tariff rates.

We also have an active Assembly that is scrutinising the regulations and raising its views—[Laughter.] Well, I will come back to that point later on. Medicines for the whole of the UK are now authorised by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, and we have ensured that Northern Ireland benefits from the same VAT, alcohol duty and other taxes as the rest of the UK.

All of those are undoubted benefits for Northern Ireland. They are benefits of the framework that supports Northern Ireland’s access to the two markets, and from which this integral part of the United Kingdom, which Northern Ireland is, uniquely benefits. This is possible because we have a lawful and sustainable agreement, in stark contrast to what the hon. and learned Gentleman has proposed as a way forward.

I would be the first to acknowledge from this Dispatch Box that the Windsor framework is not perfect. We all know that. Where problems arise with the practical operation of the framework, this Government and the EU have tried to show that we can work through them in a constructive and pragmatic way, because that is what we have to do. For example, having listened to businesses, we took a pragmatic decision to extend on the timetable for implementing the new arrangements on parcels. One of the consequences of doing that was that the introduction of the new, less onerous customs arrangement was put off, because the EU’s view was that we needed to do the parcels at the same time in order for the new customs arrangements to come in.

Another example is the horticultural sector, where, in the last month the restrictions on the movement of two species of plant were removed. If we are talking about trees, I think that takes it up to 23, including our beloved silver birch and, I am advised, a number of varieties of cherry tree that were sorted out at the end of last year.

On the question of the Stormont brake, we acted on the concerns that the Northern Ireland Assembly raised about the potential implications of the new rules on chemical labels, font sizes and so on by committing to consult on taking forward measures across the UK that will protect the UK internal market. I would just point out—because the hon. Gentleman looks slightly sceptical —that there is a high bar to be met for the Stormont brake. When I received the application as Secretary of State, I was under a legal obligation to consider the application under the rules of the Stormont brake, and I made the decision that I did. In the end, what the Government announced was moving towards the same  outcome that those who had raised the concerns in the first place wanted, just by different means than they had sought. In the end, the Stormont brake process actually worked to achieve the outcome that the Assembly wanted. \p Jim Allister: I think the Secretary of State should listen to himself. What he is saying to the House is that we should be grateful for some sort of dud mechanism to deal with the situation whereby the right to make laws in 300 areas has been gifted to a foreign power, and that people elected in Northern Ireland can have no say in those laws and cannot amend, move or bring them into effect. He says that we should be grateful that, in those 300 areas of law, we might be able to go to the EU and say, “Please, Sir, would you ever mind just making that a little better?” Really? Where is the sense of dignity from this United Kingdom, that we should so prostrate ourselves to a foreign unelected jurisdiction—elected by no one in the United Kingdom—allow them to make our laws, and then claim as a victory the fact that we have a right to go and ask them to make some changes? But the Secretary of State has failed to answer the question. There is trade diversion—what is he going to do about it? \p Hilary Benn: I am not asking anyone to be grateful for anything; I am simply pointing out to the House the problem that was created in the first place when we left the European Union. \p Jim Allister: It is punishment. \p Hilary Benn: If I heard the hon. and learned Gentleman correctly, from a sedentary position he said, “punishment”. I could not disagree more. I would encourage him to reflect on what he has said, because I do not think that he acknowledges that there was an issue there that had to be addressed, and wishing it away was never going to work. \p Jim Shannon: I am reminded of the wee song we used to sing in Sunday school many years ago:

“So high, you can’t get over it,

So low, you can’t get under it”.

The Stormont brake does not work because it is too high and too low; it is just not functional. In my intervention on the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), I referred to the HMRC cost. To give the Secretary of State an example, last week a business said that the HMRC charges have got to the stage where they are even more expensive than the goods the business is bringing in. There has to be something wrong when it gets to the stage where it is not the issue of getting the product across but the cost factor. Could the Secretary of State look at that, because there is something wrong with a system that ends up costing us more, when it did not cost that amount before the Brexit system came in? \p Hilary Benn: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to provide me with further information about the particular example he has raised, I will of course look at it.

On trade, I have a slightly different set of figures from those that the hon. and learned Gentleman used. From 2020 to 2023, purchases in Northern Ireland from GB went from £13.4 billion to £16.2 billion—an increase of 20.7%. Sales to the year ending December 2023 from Northern Ireland to GB rose by 12.4%, to £17.1 billion. He used a phrase at the beginning of his speech—I hope  I wrote it down correctly—the “natural inclination of trade”. I would simply observe that the inclination of trade is a consequence of decisions that individuals and firms make, and those patterns change over time depending on what they want to buy or sell and what the market itself looks like.

The point I was making, without seeking gratitude, is that in every one of the examples I have just given, the Government worked to resolve the challenges we faced, working with stakeholders in Northern Ireland and with the EU, in what I think is a constructive and mutually beneficial way. That is what a responsible Government do, including abiding by commitments in international law on the world stage. The hon. and learned Gentleman advocates triggering article 16. That measure refers both to trade and to instances where serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties are liable to persist. Given that most goods are flowing relatively smoothly between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, how can it be argued that we are facing those difficulties?

I would just make the point that if one goes to the port, the lorries come off and most of them go on their way—the goods are moving. That is in contrast to the argument that the hon. and learned Gentleman put towards the end of his speech, when he used the phrase “cripple” in relation to the Northern Ireland economy. I have seen no evidence that the Northern Ireland economy, which, by the way, has the lowest unemployment in the whole of the United Kingdom, is being crippled by the matters that we are discussing. \p Gregory Campbell: rose— \p Hilary Benn: I will give way, but then I will make progress. \p Gregory Campbell: The Secretary of State is being very generous with his time. He just said most goods are flowing freely. Does he not agree that he should amend that to say, “In certain sectors, most goods are flowing freely, but in certain other sectors, they most certainly are not”? \p Hilary Benn: It depends on the hon. Gentleman’s definition of “freely.” There are requirements that certain goods must meet. There is the retail movement scheme and the horticultural scheme, and certain paperwork and documents are required, looking forward to the customs requirements being reduced later this year—hopefully when the new arrangements come in—but the goods move, and I do not think that anyone in the debate can stand up and say that the goods are not moving in those circumstances.

As I have indicated, the Windsor framework represents a step forward. Although I respect the sincerity with which the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim makes his argument, I do not believe that current circumstances meet the article 16 test. Pulling that lever in the current circumstances would actually throw away the progress secured by the framework and damage the good faith that has been built up in taking the framework forward. We all need to remember that, not long ago, we had a Government who signed an international agreement and then set about showing that they had no intention of honouring it. That did extraordinary damage to the United Kingdom’s international reputation. \p Jim Allister: rose— \p Hilary Benn: The hon. and learned Gentleman has had quite a lot to say and I have given way to him three times, so I hope he will bear with me while I continue my remarks.

In the past, the idea that the UK would be a country that signed an international agreement and then reneged upon it would have been extraordinary to us all in this House, but that is what happened in very recent living memory, and it is why I put this point to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

The last Government negotiated the Windsor framework. I stood up in the House and supported it. The Opposition supported it at that time, and I voted for it because I genuinely believed that it represented a significant step forward. But if we do not honour the most recent agreement that we have signed with the European Union, why would it wish to reach agreement on what this Government are currently seeking, in particular on an SPS veterinary and agrifood agreement? This Government have come in saying that we want to do that, while the last Government appeared to say, “Well, the trade and co-operation agreement is all we want—we don’t want anything else.” This Government have a very different view: we want to negotiate an SPS veterinary and agrifood agreement, and that would help considerably with some of the issues that have been raised during the debate. The Government will continue to listen to the concerns of businesses and respond pragmatically. \p Carla Lockhart: I have listened intently to the Secretary of State’s contribution and I am somewhat bemused by some of what he said. He speaks of businesses in his constituency that are jealous of what Northern Ireland businesses have. What we have in Northern Ireland is increased costs, increased paperwork and impediments to trade. It is increasingly difficult for engineering, agrifood and horticultural businesses in my constituency. I have invited the Secretary of State to visit those businesses, but I am still waiting. I encourage him to come to Northern Ireland and listen to the businesses that are impacted by the protocol and the Windsor framework on a daily basis. I also heard today about two plants that have been added to the ever-lengthening list of plants that are not available to Northern Ireland, well whoop-de-do-da-day—how brilliant and great for Northern Ireland. When are we going to get real and address the real problems that exist with the protocol and the Windsor framework? \p Hilary Benn: Kind though it is of the hon. Member to encourage me to come to Northern Ireland, as she knows I am in Northern Ireland on a very regular basis and a little while ago I had a meeting with her and two organisations, at her request. I meet businesses on a very regular basis. I met the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry Brexit working group and I always do my level best to respond to requests for visits from colleagues in the House of Commons, including the hon. Lady, but there are only so many hours in the day.

I wanted to point out that the independent monitoring panel, which I met for the first time yesterday, has started its work. Establishing the panel was a commitment made in the safeguarding the Union Command Paper. Its job will be on the basis of the evidence and it will be provided with data on the flow of goods between Great  Britain and Northern Ireland to say whether the UK internal market guarantee is being met. The first six-month reporting period commenced on 1 January and will conclude on 30 June 2025, following which the IMP will publish its assessment and any recommendations. I commit to the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim, and all those who contributed to the debate, that I shall consider the report with the same attention to detail that he has shown in forwarding his argument today.

To conclude, this Government are committed to Northern Ireland. They are committed to the United Kingdom and to implementing the Windsor framework in a manner that is consistent with protecting Northern Ireland’s place within our internal market.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.