debates/debates2025-07-02c conversation_18
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-07-02)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-07-02c conversation_18

Peter Dowd:I pay tribute to the veterans of the Royal Naval Association Crosby branch who are in the Gallery today. Gabe Santer, a 15-year-old, fell to his death from a multi-storey car park in Liverpool in 2020, one of the many to   die in such tragic circumstances, including in my constituency. My Multi-Storey Car Parks (Safety) Bill seeks to prevent such deaths. Will the Government look carefully at its contents as part of a national suicide prevention strategy? \p Keir Starmer: The answer is yes, we will look at the content of the Bill. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising it. Across the House, we all have tragic experiences of suicide. Our thoughts are with Gabe’s family and friends. We will conduct a call for evidence on part K of the building regulations about minimum guarding heights so that the necessary protections are in place to prevent future tragedies, and we will also look at the contents of the Bill. \p Karen Bradley: People across the Staffordshire Moorlands are extremely concerned by the number of applications granted for solar farms and battery storage facilities. Will the Prime Minister give them some reassurance that he will change the law and that we will see good agricultural land saved for producing food, as it rightly should be? \p Keir Starmer: It is right that we do both, and that we do support agriculture. The right hon. Lady says that people across the country are concerned about solar, but they are also concerned about their bills   coming down, after they went up under the previous Government. The only way to get them down is on renewables, and that is what we are doing. \p Lindsay Hoyle: For the final question, I call Jessica Morden. \p Jessica Morden: This morning in Westminster Hall, Centenary Action presented sashes handmade by a team of wonderful women working out of ReMake Newport to every one of our 264 women MPs to mark today’s 97th anniversary of the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act 1928. Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming this initiative, which celebrates the contribution women make in public life? Although we now have a record number of women MPs, does he agree that we must continue to break down barriers for women on our way to achieving the mission of a gender-equal Parliament? \p Keir Starmer: I thank the women in my hon. Friend’s constituency, through her, for their hard work on this initiative. Having 264 women MPs is really significant progress in this House. I am incredibly proud that at the last election 100 new female Labour MPs were elected, meaning that the number of female MPs in the Labour party is now at a record high. On the 97th anniversary of the equal franchise Act, it should be a source of great pride to the House that we have a record number of female Members. \p Priti Patel: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the ratification of the UK-Mauritius treaty on the future sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory. \p Stephen Doughty: I thank the right hon. Lady for her question. On 22 May, the Diego Garcia treaty was signed and laid before the House. As the Defence Secretary told the House on the day of the signature, this treaty secures the strategically important UK-US military base on the island of Diego Garcia. The Diego Garcia military base is essential to the security of the UK and our key allies, including the United States, and is essential to keeping the British people safe. It is also one of our most significant contributions to the transatlantic defence and security partnership.

The base enables rapid deployment of operations and forces across the middle east, east Africa and south Asia, helping combat some of the most challenging threats, including from terrorism and hostile states, and it has a unique strategic location. The treaty ensures that the UK retains complete operational control of Diego Garcia well into the next century. It has robust security measures that prevent threats from the outer islands of the archipelago, including: a 24 nautical mile buffer zone where nothing can be built or placed without UK consent; a rigorous process to prevent activities on the wider islands; a strict ban on foreign security forces on the outer islands, whether civilian or military; and a binding obligation to ensure the base is never undermined. These robust provisions give the UK an effective veto over any activity that presents a clear and direct threat to the base on Diego Garcia, and they will categorically prevent our adversaries from compromising the base.

The treaty sets out that it can be ratified once both parties have completed their relevant domestic processes, and for the UK this of course includes scrutiny of the treaty by Parliament and making the necessary changes to domestic law. The treaty was laid before the House on the day of signature for scrutiny under the usual process set out in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. We welcome the report into the treaty by the International Agreements Committee in the other place, which recognised the importance of ratifying the treaty to secure the base, and the debate on Monday in the other place in which peers rejected a cynical Conservative motion to block ratification.

Nevertheless, before the treaty is ratified, the Government will also bring forward primary legislation, as I have said on many occasions, which will be scrutinised and debated in the usual way, and secondary legislation as necessary. Ahead of ratification, the Government will also make a ministerial statement in both Houses, providing a factual update on Chagossian eligibility for resettlement and on the modalities of the Chagossian trust fund. That will also enable further discussion in a proper manner. The treaty will then enter into force on the first  day of the month following the date on which both parties have exchanged letters confirming these processes are complete.

This landmark agreement secures the future of our strategically critical UK-US military base on Diego Garcia. It is, as I said, a crucial contribution to the defence and security partnerships that we hold. As the Defence Secretary told this House, there was no alternative but to act, and in so doing we have protected Britons at home and overseas. [Interruption.] If the Opposition do not recognise that fact, why did they start negotiating in the first place? \p Priti Patel: Thank you, Mr Speaker for granting this urgent question. With the 21-day CRAG process about to conclude, it is a disgrace that Labour has breached the parliamentary conventions and denied the House a meaningful debate and vote on ratification. The Minister says that we will get a vote on the Bill, but having a vote on the Bill is not the same as voting on a treaty under CRAG.

Earlier this week, the House of Lords had a debate and vote, where the Lib Dems sided with Labour in backing this £30 billion surrender treaty, which is subsidising tax cuts in Mauritius. Why cannot we have a debate and vote in this House? What are Ministers afraid of? Are they afraid that their Back Benchers, now worried about benefit cuts and the impact of unpopular tax rises, will question why so much money is being handed over for a territory that we own and will force them into another embarrassing U-turn? Are they afraid that MPs across the House will do the maths even, and see that the actual amount of money going to Mauritius will be at least £30 billion and not the £3.4 billion accountancy valuation claim that Ministers talk about? Are they afraid that Labour’s barefaced hypocrisy and appalling treatment of the Chagossian community will be exposed?

The Minister once said:

“The people of Chagos must be at the heart of decisions about their future” —[Official Report, 28 October 2015; Vol. 601, c. 192WH.]

but this surrender treaty betrays them. He has betrayed them, leaving any decisions on resettlement and support through the trust fund in the hands of Mauritius.

With a legal case ongoing, will the Minister extend the CRAG process until all legal challenges have concluded? Will the Minister finally admit that Labour made October’s bad deal even weaker by giving up the unilateral right to extend the lease on the base and ditching the clause authorising the UK to exercise sovereign rights? The Prime Minister of Mauritius has said that it has done that, so will the Minister finally admit it? Will the Minister confirm that there are no guarantees that the current levels of marine protections will continue?

There is too much ambiguity; we have not had clarity. There are no guarantees on security or on safeguarding, unanswered questions about notification requirements around the base, and no guarantees that Mauritius will not pursue further lawfare to stop operations at the base if it thinks they contravene international law, including trying to block nuclear weapons, as the Pelindaba treaty now applies to the Chagos islands. The Minister should scrap this treaty or at least have the courage to bring it here for a proper debate, full scrutiny and finally a vote in this House. \p Stephen Doughty: I genuinely have to say, as somebody who has respect for and likes the right hon. Lady, that I am disappointed by the tone of those remarks. I do not know who writes this stuff; I do not know whether it is just performative politics, or rhetoric—I don’t know what.

I should point out that I have received and answered over 100 written parliamentary questions from the right hon. Lady. I have answered over 250 questions in total on the deal and the process. We have had no fewer than six urgent questions in this House. We have had two statements from the Government, from the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary. I personally briefed the right hon. Lady and answered many of her questions in my office just a couple of weeks ago, in good faith and in detail. I have been subjected, quite rightly, to robust scrutiny on these issues not only by the Foreign Affairs Committee, but by the International Relations and Defence Committee and the International Agreements Committee in the other House, in great detail.

I do not know whether the right hon. Lady and her team are simply not reading the transcripts or the answers to the questions, but I have repeatedly answered them. She might not like the answers, Mr Speaker, but I have answered these questions. I have set out the position on costs. I have set out the position on the security arrangements. I have set out the position on the vetoes that we have. The fact is that this deal secures this base, and it secures our national security and that of our allies. It is absolutely right that it has had proper scrutiny, and there will be a vote, because there will be a vote on the legislation that we will put before the House in due course. \p Phil Brickell: On a recent visit to Washington with the Foreign Affairs Committee, I was struck by the support expressed by the US Government for the deal to secure the long-term future of the military base on Diego Garcia. Alongside the US, our Five Eyes allies support the deal, NATO supports the deal, and India supports the deal. Does the Minister agree that the Opposition would do well to listen to our closest neighbours and allies instead of trying to play party politics with our national security? \p Stephen Doughty: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. National security is the top priority of this Government, and working with our crucial allies, including the United States, is key to that. He is absolutely right to point out the support that was gained for this deal through a full and detailed inter-agency process in the United States, at the highest levels of the Administration, as well as the support from our Five Eyes partners and from India. The fact is that this deal secures the base and secures our capabilities, and it would not have been signed off if it did not do that. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Calum Miller: The shambolic process of securing this deal has left many questions for the House, but the glaring omission at the heart of that negotiation has been the failure by successive Governments to properly consult the Chagossian people. For much of their history, Chagossians have been denied consultation on who governs them and their right to self-determination. We Liberal Democrats now fear that in handing over the sovereignty of the  islands to Mauritius without properly reflecting the interests of Chagossians, the Government are only reinforcing that legacy.

The right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) criticises the actions of Liberal Democrat peers in the other place, yet only the Liberal Democrats championed the rights of the Chagossian people and secured a commitment from the Government to make statements to both Houses on their approach before ratification. In the light of those shortcomings, it is wrong that the Government have not brought the treaty to this House for scrutiny. Will the Minister reverse that decision today and give parliamentarians the opportunity to assess and vote on the final deal? \p Stephen Doughty: I genuinely thank the hon. Gentleman for the generally constructive way in which he and his colleagues have approached the process. He is absolutely right to speak about the Chagossians. Indeed, as I have pointed out many times, the Chagossians’ interest in this matter has been at the heart of our discussions. We have the trust fund; we have the agreement to start visits again. Of course, Mauritius will be able to restart a programme of resettlement. He has heard the remarks made by my noble Friends in the other place, in response to the questions that his honourable colleagues raised. We have been very clear about what we will do in that regard, and I hold to that here today.

I have to challenge the suggestion that the treaty has not received scrutiny. It is receiving scrutiny right now. It has been receiving scrutiny in the Foreign Affairs Committee, it has received scrutiny in the other place, and it has received scrutiny through parliamentary questions. It is receiving scrutiny and it is absolutely right that it does. \p Tim Roca: The Minister has just set out the scrutiny that this matter has received in various places, but I was really taken by the number of questions that he said he had received from the shadow Foreign Secretary on this subject. Can he tell me how many questions he has received on other matters of global importance? \p Stephen Doughty: My hon. Friend asks an important question. Since the treaty was laid, I have had 50 written questions from the right hon. Lady. In comparison, I have had four on Gibraltar, two on Ukraine, and one on Poland. He is right that this matter has received scrutiny. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I am not being funny, but it is amazing that the Minister had those figures to hand. \p James Cleverly: The hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a huge amount of respect, keeps saying that the Government had no choice but to do this deal. I do not believe that to be true. My successor, Lord Cameron, did not believe that to be true either, which is why neither he nor I signed off an agreement. Will the Minister please explain to the House in detail why he believed that he had no choice, including what body, at what time, and with what jurisdiction? \p Stephen Doughty: In the interests of time, I refer the right hon. Member to the detailed evidence that I gave in the House of Lords on this matter the other day, including on the legal circumstances. He knows the risk  to the operation of the base in the medium and short term, and he recognises the risk of a binding legal judgment, which we believed to be inevitable. His Government knew that, which is why they started the process. He may not have been able to conclude the deal—I accept that, Mr. Speaker—but the previous Government went through 11 rounds of negotiations because they recognised the importance of doing this deal. They knew that securing the facility was crucial to our national security. We put our national security and securing this base first, and that has met with the approval of the United States and other Five Eyes allies. \p Scott Arthur: I have to admit that I am rather confused, because I am sure that the shadow Foreign Secretary was in the Cabinet when the decision was made to start these negotiations. Too often, we focus on the military aspects of this deal, but can the Minister confirm that it will also end a dangerous, irregular migration route into the UK? \p Stephen Doughty: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This Government took early action—even before the conclusion of the deal—to ensure that that route was closed down by the memorandum of understanding that we reached with St Helena, for which I again thank St Helena. Again, Mr. Speaker, I was rightly scrutinised by this House on that. My hon. Friend is absolutely right on that point, and that is why we have done this deal. \p Bernard Jenkin: Can the Minister tell the House why he thinks China supports this deal? \p Stephen Doughty: I have been very clear on this: the United States, our Five Eyes partners and India support this deal. Mauritius was one of the few countries not to join the belt and road initiative. It is very clear that the deal is in the interests of our security and that of our allies—otherwise, the United States would not have agreed to it in the first place. \p John Slinger: Clearly, language such as “surrender” is inflammatory and inappropriate. Conservative Members of this House wax lyrical and make a song and dance about national security. Will my hon. Friend remind them that on their watch, our armed forces were hollowed out, with the Army reaching its smallest size since the Napoleonic wars, and spending never once reached 2.5%? Is it not true that Labour is the party of strong defence and strong national security? \p Stephen Doughty: My hon. Friend is right. Whether it is in the ambitious agenda for national security and defence set out in the strategic defence review, in the unity and leadership we showed at the NATO summit last week, or in securing our crucial national security bases, including Diego Garcia, this Government are leading from the front when it comes to national security. Quite frankly, the Conservative party is showing some brass neck after hollowing out our armed forces, leaving this deal undone and so many other things. I simply do not understand it, Mr. Speaker. \p Andrew George: I simply ask the Minister the same question that I asked when he first came to the House on this matter. In relation to the cost consequences of this deal, he knows that the lion’s share of the interest lies with the military base on Diego Garcia. Therefore, what contribution is the United States making to the very significant costs of compensating the Mauritian people? \p Stephen Doughty: The United States makes significant and crucial contributions to the operations from Diego Garcia. They are of a quantum much greater than the cost that we will pay in relation to the base under this deal. The benefit to the United Kingdom, the United States and our allies is priceless, and this Government will not scrimp on our national security. \p Peter Swallow: The cost of this deal is equivalent to a quarter of 1% of our defence budget, and that is in the context of a Government who have made the highest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war. When the Minister speaks to our international friends and allies, what is their message about the work that we are doing to restore confidence in national security and our reputation on the global stage? And what message should the Opposition take from those conversations? \p Stephen Doughty: I repeatedly hear a strong vote of confidence in our investment in national security and defence, whether it is from our European partners or from the United States. One just has to look at our leadership at the NATO summit and our ongoing support for Ukraine, which we agree on across the House. My hon. Friend asks about the value and the costs. I have set out the costs on a number of occasions, but, as he says, it is just a fraction of 1% of our annual defence budget. It would pay to run the NHS for just five hours. It also compares favourably with other allies. For example, France pays approximately €85 million a year for its base in Djibouti. Diego Garcia is 15 times larger and the capabilities are priceless. \p Bob Blackman: The Minister rightly says that the base on Diego Garcia is vital for our national security, and we all agree on that. The key issue is what notification has to be given to the Mauritius Government for the base to be used for operational purposes. \p Stephen Doughty: My hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces has replied to multiple questions on this topic, as have I. Indeed, I answered these questions in the due scrutiny that I received the other day. We do not have to provide notification in advance. The treaty refers to “expeditiously” informing after the event, and that is absolutely the normal course of business. I am clear that the operations and the operational autonomy of this base are secure under this deal. \p Sammy Wilson: It is amazing that we are to give up an important security base without it being necessary to do so, that we are to pay billions to a Government that will allow them to make tax cuts while we impose tax burdens on our own country, and that the Minister stands here today at the Dispatch Box and says that he does not have time to  explain why it is necessary to do so. Surely the way to ensure that we have proper scrutiny of this deal is to have a proper debate, or is he afraid that his own Back Benchers, once they hear the real story, will find it as difficult to walk through the Lobby for it as they did for the welfare reform Bill yesterday? \p Stephen Doughty: I have respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but I totally reject his assertion. There is full support for this deal—and, indeed, full support for it from our allies in the United States and the Five Eyes partners. On the point about alleged tax cuts, at no point in his Budget speech did Prime Minister Ramgoolam say that he was planning to fund income tax reform with the money from this deal. That was very, very clear. Indeed, the rationale for this deal, which I have explained multiple times to the House, is that our national security was at risk and the operations of that base could not function as they once did. That is why the Opposition started the negotiations and why we have concluded them. \p Andrew Murrison: After yesterday’s complete chaos, my constituents are bracing themselves for big tax increases in the autumn. How does the Minister think they feel when they see the Mauritian Government crowing about virtually abolishing income tax in Mauritius thanks to the largesse that he is about to pour on them? \p Stephen Doughty: I am genuinely surprised by the comments of the right hon. Gentleman. As a former Defence Minister and someone who has served, he will know the importance of this base and the need to secure it, and he will know the risks to our operations that were inherent under the previous Government. That is why his Government started this process and why we have concluded it. It is also why our costs under the deal are broadly comparable with what France pays for its base in Djibouti, even though our base 15 times larger and has immeasurably more capability, as he well knows. \p Luke Evans: In the Minister’s response, he quoted the answer from the Defence Secretary to my question, saying that he had no choice. But the reason for doing this deal is the worry about being taken to court—so the Government do have a choice, and that is what my constituents and Opposition Members are so upset about. The Government could have a fight in the court and appeal the decision, yet they have chosen not to, and they will not explain why.

Will the Minister set out what the need was for immediacy and why he and his Government will not go to the court for the tribunal he is so worried about to have that fight? If the case were shut down, Opposition Members would understand, and if it was found that we had a legal responsibility to pay, we would do so, but we do not, and we have not had our day in court as a country. That is the travesty of the deal. \p Stephen Doughty: I have to correct the hon. Member as we have had days in court on this issue. That is one of the reasons—[Interruption.] There was the non-binding judgment in the International Court of Justice. He also forgets to mention the International Tribunal for the  Law of the Sea, the votes in the United Nations and all the other legal processes. The fact is, it is our view—indeed, it was the view of the previous Government—that a legally binding judgment would inevitably follow. Leaving such a key national security asset in that way is not responsible; no, the responsible thing to do is to secure the base with our allies, and that is exactly what we have done. \p Richard Tice: While China might support this terrible deal, let me tell the Minister that the British people do not support this appalling deal, giving away our strategic security asset and paying tens of billions of our taxpayers’ money in the process. Our taxpayers will be suffering tax rises for that in order that the Mauritians get tax cuts. Since the Government are in the mood for U-turns, why do they not take the hint and U-turn on this terrible Chagos deal? \p Stephen Doughty: I will not take any lessons from a party that fawns over Vladimir Putin. \p Ben Obese-Jecty: In the Defence Secretary’s statement on 22 May, he stated with regard to potential legal rulings against us that

“The most proximate, and the most potentially serious, is the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.”—[Official Report, 22 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 1291.]

The US, which operates the base, is not even a signatory to UNCLOS. How would ITLOS have ruled a binding legal judgment that we would have recognised? It is notable that ITLOS has not been mentioned since that statement? \p Stephen Doughty: I am confused—I have mentioned ITLOS on a number of occasions, including just a moment ago. The long-standing view of the United Kingdom is that the UK would not have a realistic prospect of successfully defending its legal position on sovereignty in such litigation. Even if we chose to ignore binding judgments made against us—we would not do so—their legal effect on third countries and international organisations would give rise to real impacts to the operation of the base and the delivery of its national security functions.

International organisations have already adopted decisions based on Mauritian sovereignty, and others would follow suit following such litigation. That could affect the electromagnetic spectrum, access to the base by air and by sea, and the ability to patrol the maritime area around the base and to support the base’s critical national security functions. Further, the UK would likely face a provisional measures order in a matter of weeks. The position is clear, and we have explained it. The hon. Member’s previous Government knew exactly the same. [Interruption.] However much he shouts and however much he does not like the arguments, they are the facts. \p Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Minister confirm that 40 years ago the most disgusting, cynical injustice was done against the Chagos islanders and that it was their resolute campaigning over decades—often alone, with little friendship or support—that eventually brought the whole case to international law and an opinion from the International Court of Justice, which has brought about the situation we are now in? Instead  of obsessing with the twilight of empire, should Opposition parties not be thinking about the injustice done to the Chagos islanders?

Will the Minister confirm that in the arrangements now being made, the Chagos islanders, wherever they are resident, and whatever their opinions are, do have a right of return? Will he give us some idea of what the attitude will be about the right of visit, the right of residence and the right of return to Diego Garcia, where the majority of the Chagos islanders have come from? They are a people who have been badly treated by history and are now being used as pawns by people more interested in defending some strange notion of the twilight of empire than justice for the Chagos islanders. \p Stephen Doughty: The primary purpose of the deal was of course to secure the base on Diego Garcia and the national security of the UK and our allies, but the right hon. Member is right to point out the historical situation regarding the Chagossians. We have expressed deep regret for how they were removed from the islands in the 1960s and ’70s; indeed, that is on the face of the treaty. We recognise the importance of the islands to the Chagossians as well as the different views in the community, which he is well acquainted with.

We will be restarting those visits, including to Diego Garcia. The programme of resettlement to islands outside Diego Garcia will be for Mauritius to determine, but we have committed to Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches in the other place that we will provide further statements on how that will work in due course. There is also the trust fund and the support we provide here in the UK. We are listening to the different Chagossian groups and trying to ensure that their interests are at the heart of the treaty deal as we move forward. \p Jim Allister: The Minister will be aware of a pending judicial review challenge focused on the lack of consultation with the Chagossians. Why was there not full and adequate consultation with the Chagossian people? \p Stephen Doughty: I will not comment on ongoing judicial matters, but as I have set out a number of times the negotiations were necessarily between the UK and Mauritius. However, we recognise the importance of the islands to Chagossians, which is why the measures that I just set out have been put in place. \p James Cartlidge: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In answer to the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), the Minister seemed to imply—to Opposition Members’ ears anyway—that the United States would be paying, I think he said, a larger quantum of the funding for the deal. I think he was referring to the operational cost of the base. May I ask for confirmation that the United States is not contributing at all to the £30 billion lease under the settlement? \p Roger Gale: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, but if the Minister wishes to respond I will allow him to do so. \p Stephen Doughty: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Perhaps it was because of the noise and the shouting, but I was clear. The United States contributes to the operations on Diego Garcia, and rightly so. There is establishment of that in relation to the exchange of notes between the UK and the United States. It is not contributing towards the costs of the treaty deal. \p Michael Shanks: With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the publication of the report from the National Energy System Operator following its review into the fire at the North Hyde substation on 20 March. NESO’s review was commissioned jointly by the Energy Secretary and Ofgem in the immediate aftermath of the fire, which disrupted power supply to over 70,000 customers, including, of course, Heathrow airport, which closed operations on 21 March. While power from the grid was restored quickly to customers, there were significant secondary impacts to the aviation sector due to the associated closure of Heathrow airport.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport made a statement to the House at the time, where she committed that the Government would update the House as soon as the relevant investigations had concluded. That is why I am making this statement before the House on the day that NESO’s report has been published.

Before I update the House on the key findings of the review, I reassure hon. Members that the Government are taking action in response to the report. We will urgently consider the findings of the review and have committed to publish a Government response that will set out a plan on how the issues identified will be addressed in order to improve our energy resilience.

Having reviewed the report, I am deeply concerned—I am sure hon. Members will agree—that known risks were not addressed by National Grid Electricity Transmission, a key operator of our electricity system. NGET’s own guidance is clear, and based on the elevated moisture samples that NGET took in 2018, the asset should have remained out of service until mitigating actions were put in place, or the asset should have been carefully monitored until it could be replaced. NGET failed to take action appropriate to the severity of the risk at North Hyde. That was most likely the cause of the catastrophic fire on 20 March.

I spoke to NGET this morning and made it clear that the findings are unacceptable and that action must be taken to ensure that maintenance work on critical assets is prioritised appropriately. Fire suppression systems must not be left inoperable.

I am pleased to see that the regulator is taking swift action in response to the findings, announcing today that it is opening an official enforcement investigation into NGET. Ofgem will consider any possible licence condition breaches relating to the development and maintenance of National Grid Electricity Transmission’s electricity system at North Hyde. I spoke with Ofgem yesterday to express my support for that investigation and the planned audit of National Grid’s critical substation assets. That will be essential to understanding any other potential risks on the network and ensuring that those are being mitigated appropriately.

The report also highlights that North Hyde substation, which was built in 1968, is subject to different design standards than newer sites that were built during the 1990s. There was not sufficient distance or a physical  barrier between two transformers at North Hyde, which allowed the fire to spread. It is essential that we consider the potential risk created by differing design and standards across the electricity network, particularly as we move towards clean power 2030. That will be a key focus of the Government’s response.

My Department and Ofgem will hold NGET to account for its role in the incident at North Hyde, but the extent of the impact of the incident on Heathrow operations must also come into focus. Heathrow Airport Ltd commissioned its own independent review, the Kelly review, which was published on 28 May and investigated the circumstances that led to the airport ceasing operations for most of 21 March. The review highlighted several recommendations to further improve the resilience of the airport’s internal electricity network. Those align with NESO’s findings that there are options to improve Heathrow’s own power resilience, which is the responsibility of Heathrow and not National Grid, and reduce the risk of further disruption at this scale.

Heathrow benefits from three separate supply points to the electricity network. It is rare for any site to have such a resilient connection to the network. As no energy system can ever be free from disruption, this is an opportunity for Heathrow to consider investing in its internal electrical distribution network to take advantage of those multiple supply points. I welcome the continued effective collaboration between Heathrow and energy operators as part of the review. My Department and the Department for Transport will work to ensure that that collaboration continues across those critical sectors.

Although such incidents are rare and the UK has a robust and resilient system, there are always wider lessons to be learned. The majority of recommendations made by NESO in its report suggest potential improvements that could be considered by operators across the energy sector. In collaboration with NESO, Ofgem and other industry partners, my Department will ensure the delivery and implementation of those energy recommendations. However, the report findings are also applicable to wider Government policy on resilience, both in the energy sector and across other critical national infrastructure sectors.

Ensuring the protection and resilience of critical national infrastructure continues to be a key priority for Government, with action already being taken. The Government’s recently published 10-year infrastructure strategy committed to strengthening resilience standards across critical national infrastructure. Further, the Cabinet Office will imminently publish the UK Government resilience action plan, which will articulate Government’s new strategic approach to resilience and is the outcome of the resilience review announced by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in this place last year.

My Department is already taking steps to enhance our current approach to the designation of critical national infrastructure in the energy sector. We recently introduced specific licence conditions that give NESO responsibility for data gathering and technical analysis to independently inform the Government’s decisions on the designation of CNI, ensuring our most critical infrastructure in the energy sector is always as resilient as possible. We will work with the Cabinet Office and wider Government to develop a full response to the North Hyde report and set out how we will tackle some of the cross-sector resilience challenges highlighted,  particularly given the importance of the energy sector for the continued operation of so much of our critical national infrastructure.

I want to restate that Great Britain continues to have a resilient energy network. Even though incidents such as this are rare, it is essential that we learn the lessons to maintain and, where possible, improve our resilience. The Government response will set out our plans for how we will continue to do so.

I thank NESO for carrying out such a comprehensive review over the past three months. The report shows the value of learning from past emergencies such as this. NESO’s newly established functions in energy resilience will enable Government, the energy industry and the regulator to truly understand whole energy system risks and mitigations, proactively ensuring that Great Britain continues to have a reliable energy supply, which is critical to the whole of society. I commend this statement to the House. \p Roger Gale: Before I call the shadow Secretary of State, may I take this opportunity to welcome her back to her place in the House? \p Claire Coutinho: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I feel older, wiser and significantly more sleep-deprived.

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. I also thank NESO for its rapid work. The report is clear that there have been serious failings by National Grid to fix an issue that it knew about for seven years. The Minister is right; that is unacceptable. What is most important, though, is what happens now.

I have some questions for the Minister. First, who at National Grid made the decision to defer critical maintenance of the transformer in 2022? He said that he would hold them accountable, so how will he do that? He spoke about breaching licence conditions. What are the penalties for doing that and what accountability mechanisms will he use? Secondly, the report says that the North Hyde site did not meet modern standards on physical barriers between transformers. Can the Minister confirm he has asked National Grid to review substations with transformers built before the current standards were put in place? Thirdly, what steps will he take to look at the resilience of our energy system, particularly in the light of the heightened geopolitical risk that we all face?

The key message that we should take from the report on the Heathrow blackout is the importance of critical national infrastructure to our energy security and our national security. In that regard, it is the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change who is playing with fire. A week after the blackout hit Heathrow, Spain and Portugal gave us a stark warning of what happens when countries fail to protect their energy security: public transport down, payment systems down and millions of people unable to cook, travel or contact their families. Tragically, people lost their lives. In the case of North Hyde, the blackout affected schools, the London Underground, Hillingdon hospital and 70,000 customers, some of whom had to move out of their homes. That is the price we pay when we do not take  energy security seriously. It is not a nice-to-have—energy is a basic need—and yet this Government are putting our energy at risk.

The national security strategy that the Government published just last week included 12 mentions of climate but not a single mention of the risk that China poses to our energy system. Last year, our intelligence services warned that Chinese state-sponsored hackers were working to disrupt and destroy critical infrastructure in the event of conflict, and yet the Secretary of State is rushing to make Britain dependent on Chinese solar panels, Chinese rare earths and Chinese batteries in just five years’ time. We have just seen China limit the export of critical minerals in its trade war with the US. We have seen kill switches found in Chinese inverters. The US intelligence services have warned us about the risk of surveillance devices in Chinese wind turbines.

I first wrote to the Secretary of State eight months ago, asking him to publish an assessment of what his targets mean for our reliance on Chinese imports. He has not even bothered to reply. If the Secretary of State wants to hand over the keys of our energy supply to the Chinese Communist party, he should come to this House and explain why.

We are lucky enough in this country to be surrounded by our own gas fields, but the Secretary of State does not care. This is a man who would rather import gas from Norway, from the very same fields in the North sea that he is banning Britain from using; who is pouring concrete down our gas wells; and who is blocking off any contingency plan that Britain might need in a crisis. I do not say this lightly, but this is a man who is putting our national security at risk. Today we are talking about the first transformer fire in a decade in this country and he did not even bother to turn up. That is the problem. The Secretary of State might prefer to be in Brazil, Baku, Beijing or wherever he is today, but he should be here to explain himself, because as the former head of MI6 said, he is pursuing an energy policy that is “completely crazy” when it comes to national security.

I want clean energy from nuclear, from small modular reactors and from the next generation of British innovation, but first and foremost I want energy that keeps the lights on and keeps bills down. This Government are going to leave us completely reliant on foreign imports: from China, from Norway, from Qatar—from anywhere as long as it is not Britain. NESO and Ofgem will do their work, but the Minister must do his work too. Alongside the work of the North Hyde report, can he confirm that he will come back and update the House on his plans to protect the energy resilience of this country? \p Michael Shanks: I was going to start—and I will, regardless of the rest of that speech—by warmly welcoming the right hon. Lady back to her place as the shadow Secretary of State. I will miss sparring with my Scottish colleague, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), although I am sure we will still have opportunities to do so. The right hon. Lady might come to miss the lack of sleep at home compared with the noise in this place, but she is very welcome back. She has obviously taken the last few months to write a wrap-up speech on a whole range of issues, and I am glad to give her the opportunity to  pontificate here on many of those things, but let me stick to the questions that related to the statement that I have delivered to the House today.

The right hon. Lady asked about the role that National Grid has played. Ofgem has opened an enforcement investigation into this incident to get to the bottom of exactly what National Grid has or has not done, and whether there are possible breaches of licence. That investigation should now take its course. There are clearly serious questions to answer, and that is exactly the point that I put to National Grid today. I have asked for an immediate response on what action it is taking and for assurances that there are no further maintenance backlogs that it has not acted on, and I expect that by the end of this week. Ofgem has also instructed a wider audit of maintenance work across the energy system, which will identify if there are any similar issues. On the point about being held accountable, clearly I am going to wait for the outcome of Ofgem’s investigation. It is the responsibility of Ofgem as the regulator to determine whether National Grid is in breach of any of its licence conditions and what the appropriate action should be if it is. I will wait for those findings to come through.

The right hon. Lady raised an important point about the physical barriers. Clearly there are differences because the time at which some of our infrastructure was built and the different standards that were in place at different times. We need to make a wider review to see what is actually possible with some of this infrastructure; it was not always possible to build to the standards we now expect, but everything that is being built now is being built to the highest standards. I want the same assurances that she has called for: to know that anything that was built previously is safe.

On the wider resilience questions, I am not going to get into a back-and-forward on the frankly quite ludicrous claims that the right hon. Lady made. I hope this is not an indication of the tone we can expect in the years ahead, because there are some difficult decisions for us all to wrestle with. There is the really important question about delivering our energy security in, as she says, an increasingly uncertain world. We are sprinting towards clean power to remove the volatility of fossil fuels from our system. She opposes all of that investment. There is also a critical role to play in upgrading the network infrastructure across the country, which her party also opposes.

There are some really searching questions for the Conservatives—who were, of course, in charge of this infrastructure for 14 years—about their role and what part they want to play. It is easy to shout from the sidelines with accusations. It is far more useful and important for a party that was in government for 14 years and is now the official Opposition to come up with some credible questions about how we deliver the energy system of the future. We are going to get on with delivering it. \p Roger Gale: I call the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee. \p Bill Esterson: It beggars belief that no action was taken after the risks were identified in 2018 at the North Hyde substation. The NESO report highlights a lack of information-sharing internally at National Grid and externally between organisations. It draws attention to the energy companies not knowing  that Heathrow had a 10 to 12-hour arrangement for switching supply, and that National Grid did not appear to know that Heathrow was a customer of the substation. It is a matter of immense luck that the explosion and fire took place at 11 o’clock at night and that no one was present; otherwise, this would have been a very different discussion, with people having died. The Minister highlighted the unacceptable lack of action by National Grid. Will he ensure proper oversight and information sharing internally at National Grid and externally between organisations, so that we have safety and resilience in our national energy system, where it applies to critical national infrastructure and beyond? \p Michael Shanks: First, on the point about joining up, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. The response that I have seen from National Grid identifies that as one of the points it will take away. It will look at information sharing and joining up the data in various systems, and at how to ensure that is followed through on. It is important to say that there is also learning, not just for National Grid but across the energy system, through looking at what other transmission owners do and at what the Government do around sharing information where we can. There is a lot of learning and a lot of recommendations will be taken forward.

On the question of Heathrow, much was identified in the Kelly review, which looked specifically at these operations. On the question of whether there was a single point of failure at Heathrow, the airport is one of the biggest consumers of electricity in the country and one of our most important pieces of critical national infrastructure. It is important that those at Heathrow reflect on this report and take some lessons from it.

The report has shown—this is a lesson for everyone—the importance of investing in electricity resilience and preparing for the worst, even if we think there is a low chance of the worst actually happening. I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s final point: it is in all our interests to spend time, effort and investment in making sure that our energy system continues to be as resilient as possible. \p Roger Gale: I call the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesman. \p Luke Taylor: This report is an utterly damning assessment of our national resilience, this time through decay but also through a lack of readiness as the climate crisis changes the dynamics, with old equipment operating at higher temperatures just as the loads for climate control and air conditioning are at their peak. The British people will rightly be alarmed that the problem that caused this substation failure was known as long ago as 2018, but there is a much wider point here. Beyond the technicalities of this failure, the resilience of critical national infrastructure has been neglected for far too long.

As an engineer, I came to this place for precisely this reason: we are too short-termist and too narrow in our vision. We cannot possibly expect to remain a world leader in infrastructure if we cannot future-proof and seriously invest in the resilience of our assets. Building and maintaining infrastructure might not get pulses racing. There is no ribbon to cut when something just continues to operate efficiently, but that long-termism is an ideology that we should all get behind if we are  serious about Britain’s future. The report outlined the many missed opportunities to fix the issues at the substation, and we will all have to look seriously into Ofgem’s consequential investigation into National Grid once it is published.

This is not just about grid resilience, though. This time it was a fire caused by a fault, but next time it might be a deliberate cyber-attack or an act of terrorism, which could have a more disastrous impact. We must look beyond the short term, with a strategic and long-term plan to join up national infrastructure and make it safe and reliable for all. The Government must bring about a strategy and act quickly to review the resilience of all similar assets, including every UK airport—they are all critical to our national economy and our society.

With that in mind, can the Minister confirm whether an assessment has been made of the likelihood of a repeat of this incident, at Heathrow and at all other pieces of critical national infrastructure? Also, are the Government taking this opportunity to finally pick up the National Infrastructure Commission reports from 2020 and 2023, which were ignored by the previous Government, and the report from 2024, which was not implemented quickly enough, and to implement standards and frameworks for resilience in key sectors such as aviation, telecoms, water and energy, which will future-proof our ageing infrastructure to make it reliable and safe? \p Michael Shanks: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to broaden this beyond the electricity system and North Hyde to take in wider questions around critical national infrastructure. He is also right about investing in the future. I always think that grids and networks set the heart racing a little faster, but that is just me. This is important, and this Government are investing in this infrastructure; just this week Ofgem announced record investment in it. I hope, given the importance of this statement, that Members on all sides of the House will recognise the importance of that investment.

On the points around wider resilience, the Cabinet Office is leading on trying to bring together what I think it is fair to say has been too fragmented a landscape in resilience across Government. My Department is responsible for a number of key risks in the national risk register. It is right that the lead Departments have expertise in certain areas, but if that information is not shared coherently across Government, we increase the chance of not getting the answers right. A lot of work is being done in that regard. We are also looking at how we share data across all sectors of critical national infrastructure within Government. We will say more about that in the resilience action plan, which the Cabinet Office is working on at the moment. Of course, the 10-year infrastructure strategy is also about how we will invest for the long term in the infrastructure that keeps our country running. \p Roger Gale: I call the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee. \p Chi Onwurah: Speaking as a chartered electrical engineer and as the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, I am absolutely amazed that such an important and large part of our critical  national infrastructure in the National Grid was not properly maintained for seven years and that Heathrow—the busiest airport in the world—had a single point of failure. The Minister has outlined some of the processes and procedures that will follow, but will he say how he intends to improve the standards of engineering maintenance culture and excellence in our critical national infrastructure, which have clearly been allowed to fall significantly under successive Conservative Governments? \p Michael Shanks: First, it is important to say that Heathrow had multiple routes into its electricity network—three in fact—which is unique. This report and the processes identified in the Kelly review will give Heathrow Airport Ltd pause for thought on what it needs to do on how its network is configured and how it can adapt in such situations. Of course, this is an incredibly rare circumstance, but the whole point of resilience planning is to plan for eventualities that we think are extremely unlikely to happen but that would have a significant impact if they did. Heathrow closing is clearly one such circumstance.

Secondly, my hon. Friend is right to highlight standards and systems. I want to be careful not to prejudge the review that Ofgem has announced, because there is something to be said about standards changing over time. Maintenance backlogs obviously then have to be met, and if the issue is that maintenance that should have been carried out has not been, that is clearly an issue we will take forward. But if it is just that pieces of infrastructure were subject to standards that have changed over time, we have a wider question of how we can adapt some of that infrastructure for future standards. We will look at all those points. I repeat to the House that our electricity system is incredibly robust in its resilience. We need to do everything possible to make it even more robust, so that such instances do not have quite so significant an impact as this one did. \p Bernard Jenkin: May I follow up on that and ask the Minister whether he will undertake to have a full, frank and open discussion with the relevant directorates within his Department about what it has learned from this disaster? In particular, what exercises, tabletop or virtual, must be undertaken to practise resilience in the event of future such failures? My right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) is right to warn about the increasing fragility of energy security in this country. There is plenty of informed opinion that supports that view. \p Michael Shanks: I have spoken to colleagues across the Department on these questions. They are rightly constantly looking at how we review our processes. Importantly, they are also working outside of Government and trying to break down some of the silos, so we are co-ordinating with different parts of Government that have different responsibilities. But the right hon. Member is right, and we will constantly push to do more of that.

The question of exercises is important. We had a really significant exercise under the previous Government, which looked at the Government’s response to a significant power outage. We are putting in place many of the recommendations from that exercise, which are important to take forward, but more exercise is useful.

I would slightly separate the response from the infrastructure itself failing, which is what we need to investigate quickly. The Kelly review set out that Heathrow’s response to the incident was in line with its response plan. Although the outcome was clearly not what any of us would have wanted, it goes to a wider question about the infrastructure at Heathrow, not so much the actual plan put in place when the incident did occur. Those are two slightly different things, but they are both extremely important. \p Ruth Cadbury: I, too, thank the Minister for making this statement, and NESO for this damning report. Heathrow Airport Ltd’s power set-up internally virtually guarantees hours of disruption in a scenario like this. On 21 March, that meant over a quarter of a million passengers were affected; airlines lost significant revenue, for which they will not be compensated; and countless time-critical freight loads were also affected. Yet in Spain and Portugal, airports did not close when those countries had full power outages. By any definition, surely Heathrow airport counts as critical national infrastructure as it undeniably requires operational continuity. I note that the Minister confirmed the airport’s responsibility for its own power resilience, but does the Government have a role in ensuring that end-to-end power supply to critical national infrastructure is robust and that risks like power outages are managed adequately? \p Michael Shanks: I thank my hon. Friend for the question and for her thanks to NESO, which has done a comprehensive job on this report in a fairly short space of time. There are lessons to be learned for Heathrow, and it will be learning those lessons. I am in communication with the Transport Secretary, who of course has immediate responsibility for Heathrow as a piece of critical national transport infrastructure. It is worth saying that its back-up generators did operate in the way they were supposed to, but Heathrow is a huge piece of infrastructure, and it is not intended that those back-up processes would continue to run normal operations in a huge airport beyond the immediate situation of being able to land planes safely and ensuring other critical systems within the airport.

The question Heathrow has to answer is on having three points of electricity generation coming into the airport. It clearly needs to look at the way the network is configured and take forward the wider question of its resilience and ability to adapt to such situations. The Government have an incredibly important role, as my hon. Friend rightly says, and we will do all we can to ensure that National Grid is doing its bit, that the distribution operator is doing what it needs to do, and that Heathrow Airport Ltd is also meeting the expectations that we would expect from our most important piece of transport infrastructure. \p Roger Gale: I call the SNP spokesperson. \p Graham Leadbitter: The report by NESO has clearly uncovered serious structural failings at National Grid, but let us not forget that the Government’s response to the outage was severely wanting as well. On the Monday following the outage, the Transport Secretary confirmed that she was relying on the contents of a three-day-old conversation with Heathrow, with no assessment from the Government  and no conversations with National Grid. Can the Secretary of State assure the House that sufficient lessons are being learned in Government to ensure that, when the power supply to critical national infrastructure is affected in the future, the Government are not left without answers again? Additionally, Members will understand the phrase “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”, meaning “Who guards the guards?” Why did it take such a serious outage for the National Grid to be audited like this? Surely better oversight may have identified the shockingly poor risk management. \p Michael Shanks: Since I did not realise in my statement earlier this week that the hon. Gentleman is now the SNP’s energy spokesperson, I welcome him to his place—I hope he will bring the same customary sunshine that his predecessor in the role did to our deliberations in this place.

On the incident itself, clearly there are lessons to be learned from the way the energy infrastructure worked on 20 and 21 March, and for Heathrow on the configuration of its internal network and how that worked. The incident itself is clearly one we want to avoid at all costs, but actually the process was carried out safely, passengers were informed and the disruption was kept to an absolute minimum, but if an airport such as Heathrow closes, there will be disruption. I am not sure that I take the hon. Gentleman’s criticism of the handling of the incident. He is right on the broader point about how we ensure we are regularly auditing the processes of maintenance work going forward. The three transmission owners in the UK have a responsibility for doing that, and that is regulated by Ofgem, which regularly checks on this. The second part of Ofgem’s review announced today will look specifically at whether those maintenance backlogs and any other long-standing issues have been resolved, and look at the lessons we can learn on ensuring that those processes actually happen and that we do not just have things sitting on a list but not actually delivered. \p John Martin McDonnell: The substation is located in my constituency and I was there on the day the incident happened. It was a massive fire and 200 of my constituents were evacuated from their homes during the night, and there was smoke flowing down the street. It could have been a much bigger disaster had it not been for the courageous firefighters who went on to the site, the help they got from the council, the back-up services and the NHS. I place on record the House’s congratulations to them and our admiration for what they did.

My constituents want to be reassured, but the report demonstrates a catalogue of failure. The problem was identified in 2018—we are now seven years on. I welcome the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) back to her place, but sleep deprivation can affect the memory: her party was in Government for most of that period.

I am worried that sites like this could be easily targeted by terrorist activity, so we need a process of reassurance. The recommendations set out in the review, about what we do from here to ensure resilience, have to take into account that the Government have a role in driving through the programme. We have to recognise that we cannot rely on some of the other agencies without a real Government thrust of leadership, but  also securing accountability, because I do not want other areas to experience what we experienced that night. \p Michael Shanks: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks and for the way he made them. He is absolutely right to recognise the heroic role that our emergency services played on the night—I am sorry that I did not say that at the start of my statement—as well as the engineers, who worked in incredibly hard in difficult circumstances in the hours that followed the fire to try to get services reconnected as quickly as possible. There are very serious questions to answer, and I hope that came through in my statement—it certainly came through in the conversation I had with National Grid earlier. We are seeking urgent assurances that the work that should have been done is being done, and that there are no other similar situations. Ofgem is taking the matter seriously, with two reviews, one into National Grid and the other into the wider energy system, to see if there are any further lessons to learn.

However, the right hon. Gentleman is right and I completely agree with his point that the Government need to be front-footed and take a leadership role in driving the work forward: we cannot leave it to individual companies to mark their own homework. We are doing that partly by bringing together our resilience work across Government, and I will soon be chairing a new group that brings together everyone who has responsibility for critical national infrastructure in our energy system, to ensure that energy security, cyber-security and other threats to our infrastructure are taken seriously, so that action is taken at the highest level of Government to ensure that we do not have a repeat of the incident in future. \p Richard Tice: The substation by Heathrow is probably one of the most important in the country, yet this damning report says that there was a “catastrophic failure” of maintenance. Given that National Grid also failed to recognise how close we came to a national blackout earlier this year, we have to ask: is National Grid grossly negligent and does the Minister still have full confidence in its management? \p Michael Shanks: The hon. Gentleman may be confusing two things. The National Energy System Operator is no longer part of National Grid, as it was made into a publicly owned company by the previous Government, which was introduced by us when we came into Government. So the National Energy System Operator is responsible for managing the energy system and it is different from National Grid, which is a private company that operates the electricity network in England, so  those two organisations are slightly different. Of course, he is right to highlight the scale of the failure. That is why I have given a statement today and why a number of serious actions are being taken, which will be followed up in a serious way.

We did not come close to a blackout earlier this year. It is important to repeat that, because there is a lot of misinformation about a particular set of statistics that were misunderstood by some people. We have never come close to that and we have never had a national power outage in our history. The aim of all the work that we do is to build as safe and resilient an electricity system as we can, so that when circumstances like this happen—because fires and accidents do happen—we will have done everything that we could have done to have mitigations in place. When such a fault is down to a failure of maintenance, we must ensure that is taken account of and never happens again. \p Tom Collins: Like any serious incident, this one had multiple causes, both operational and relating to design. I urge the Minister to ensure that the lessons learned are applied not only to electricity transmission and distribution sites, but to energy storage sites, for which we have an absence of standards. He rightly mentioned the need for redundancy and flexibility in our electricity systems, and the need to avoid having single points of failure. That applies well to large pieces of essential infrastructure, but is harder with our distributed critical infrastructure, for example around telecommunications, so we need diversity in our energy system as a whole. Does he agree that in our energy system, we need widespread availability from multiple parts of the energy sector, with electricity being backed up by, for example, hydrogen and ammonia? \p Michael Shanks: My hon. Friend always reminds me how much he knows about many of these issues; it is hugely welcome. He is right: there are wider lessons to be learned across the system, and not just for large critical national infrastructure. As he says, we have a grid that has many more power stations, of different forms, than we have ever had in the past. There are also lessons to be learned for storage, which is rightly becoming increasingly important for our energy mix.

On his wider point about telecoms, in the wake of the storms earlier this year, we took a number of actions to make our electricity system more resilient. Our use of telecommunications equipment in this country is changing. Very few people now have access to traditional copper wire phones, so when telecoms equipment goes down, there is an immediate significant impact on people’s lives. I recently met the Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to discuss this issue. We will work with Ofcom and the operators to ensure that the telecoms infrastructure is as resilient as it can be. \p Liz Saville-Roberts: On a point of order, Mr Dirprwy Lefarydd. Privy Counsellors can request and receive confidential briefings on urgent matters, and that makes it possible for them to come to a fully informed decision on matters of national security. That is particularly pertinent for today’s motion on the proscription of Palestine Action. Could you advise me on how I am to make an informed decision when my request for a Privy Council briefing on Palestine Action was refused this week? \p Roger Gale: I thank the right hon. Lady for giving me notice of her point of order. She will understand that this is not a matter for the Chair, but she has put an important concern on the record. I trust that Members on the Treasury Bench will have taken notice of it. \p Jeremy Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can you consult the Speaker’s Office on whether, before the start of the debate on the statutory instrument on the prevention of terrorism, anything can be done to ensure that the three organisations listed can be voted on separately? That would be the proper way for Members of the House to express their views. \p Roger Gale: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I am afraid that his request is simply, in procedural terms, not possible. The Chair is not responsible for the forming of such motions. The motion will be put to the House as it is on the Order Paper. \p UNKNOWN: Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23) \p Ian Byrne: I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to set a requirement on public institutions, public servants and officials and on those carrying out functions on their behalf to act in the public interest and with candour and frankness; to define the public law duty on them to assist courts, official inquiries and investigations; to enable victims to enforce such duties; to create offences for the breach of certain duties; to provide funding for victims and their relatives in certain proceedings before the courts and at official inquiries and investigations; and for connected purposes.

On 15 April 1989, I entered Hillsborough stadium, an innocent 16-year-old full of hope and excitement, to watch my beloved Liverpool football club in the FA cup semi-final. Little did I, or anybody else there that day, know that we were walking into a national disaster that would leave 97 men, women and children dead, hundreds more injured, and countless families devastated for generations.

What unfolded that day was not a tragic accident. It was a disaster caused by police failures and compounded by one of the most shameful state cover-ups this country has ever seen. Like so many others, I was just a working-class lad who happened to be there, but like so many others, I was dragged into a decades-long web of establishment denial, distortion and deceit. That day shaped me and the course of my life, and it is the reason I stand here today.

We have all witnessed the bravery, determination and anguish of the Hillsborough families and survivors, who are fighting tirelessly for truth and justice in the face of repeated state obstruction. We never sought revenge or asked for special treatment; we just wanted what anyone would want in our shoes—the truth about what happened to our loved ones and a fair chance at justice. Instead, we were met with walls of silence, decades of lies and a legal system stacked against us.

I am so honoured that some of those tireless campaigners and giants of justice are in the House today, watching as we fight once again to end the injustices they have endured for more than three decades. Police officers knew who was responsible and where accountability lay, yet lie after lie was told. At inquests and inquiries and in media briefings, supporters were blamed for the death of their fellow fans. Time and again, false narratives were repeated and legitimised by those in power, and we will never, ever forget or forgive the disgraceful headline in The Sun.

While the families and survivors scraped together funds for legal representation, those responsible were shielded by some of the finest legal minds in the country, insultingly paid for by the state. I remember vividly my dad, who was seriously injured that day, fundraising in the Breck, our local pub near Anfield, for the Hillsborough Justice Campaign. That grassroots organisation was powered by ordinary people, not the Treasury, and the contrast could not be starker. I am very proud that he is here today.

Grieving families fought for justice while the institutions responsible were protected at every turn by a system designed to shield itself. It was not a broken system; it was a system working exactly as it was designed to—a  system in which the establishment protected its own, and in which ordinary people, like my dad and thousands of others, were treated as an inconvenience. Through “The Real Truth” legacy project, we teach schoolchildren about Hillsborough and other examples of state injustice, because this history must not be buried; it must be understood. Crucially, it must never be repeated. When I speak to students about the fight for truth, I compare it to somebody who is blindfolded, and who has their hands tied behind their back, having to go toe to toe with Tyson Fury. That is what those families faced, and still face to this day.

This is not just about Hillsborough, although the legislation bears its name. For decades, we have seen the same institutional playbook used time and again—the cover-ups, the smears, the hostile briefings, and the dragging out of justice until people simply give up or pass away. We have seen Grenfell, Manchester arena, the Post Office Horizon scandal, infected blood, the “Truth About Zane” campaign, covid-19, nuclear test veterans and so many more. Each time, we see the same weary expression on the faces of the devastated families, and the same exhaustion etched on to the faces of those battling a system designed to protect itself. Each time it happens, a little more faith in this country’s soul is lost.

Today we have the power to change that. As the parliamentary lead for the Hillsborough Law Now campaign, I am proud to reintroduce this legislation, the Public Authority (Accountability) Bill. I am proud but deeply disappointed, because this Bill should already be in law. In 2022, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) stood before the people of Liverpool at the Labour party conference and pledged that

“one of my first acts as Prime Minister will be to put the Hillsborough Law onto the statute book.”

He said the same again as Prime Minister in September 2024, and mentioned not a Hillsborough law, but the Hillsborough law. That pledge filled our hearts with hope, and promised an end to the culture of denial and delay, and the decades of deceit.

Make no mistake: this Bill is the Hillsborough law—the one drafted by Pete Weatherby KC and Elkan Abrahamson. It is the one originally introduced by Andy Burnham in 2017 and shaped by the families, for the families. It includes a statutory duty of candour on public authorities, enforceable with criminal sanctions. It levels the playing field so that families are no longer the underdog in the courtroom. It creates genuine accountability mechanisms, so that state cover-ups are much harder to conceal and the truth is much harder to bury. This Bill is for the 97, but also for the victims of every other state failure, and for every family who might in future face the nightmare of being left alone to fight for truth and justice.

Despite the promise in 2022, in March this year the Government brought forward a watered-down version—a replacement Bill, not the Hillsborough law that the Prime Minister promised. They presented it to the legal experts who wrote the original Bill, and those experts said unequivocally that it fell far short, because it had  no legally binding duty of candour, no provision for equal legal funding during inquests and inquiries, and loopholes allowing public bodies to avoid disclosure.

Worse still, that draft followed a family listening day, organised by the brilliant organisation Inquest, at which Ministers heard directly from the families of the bereaved, including Hillsborough families. Those families made their views crystal clear, and their expectations were even clearer. The resulting report was not ambiguous—it was entitled “All or Nothing”—yet the Government returned with a hollow offering that delivered nothing of what was promised. Following widespread outrage from campaigners, that draft Bill was thankfully and rightly shelved, but we understand that a new replacement Bill, still without the key provisions of the Hillsborough law, could be imminent. This time, it will not be shared with the families or campaigners in advance. What does that say about the lessons learned?

The resistance to the Hillsborough law is rooted not in legal complexity, but self-preservation. It is being led by those with the most to lose: senior officials and institutions who fear scrutiny more than they value accountability. Let me be absolutely crystal clear: this law will not weaken public institutions, but strengthen them. It will protect the vast majority of decent, hard-working public servants who, if pressured to conceal the truth, will finally have the law on their side. It will deliver justice more swiftly and affordably, reducing the need for drawn-out and expensive inquiries and inquests that cost the public purse hundreds of millions of pounds.

This legislation is right here. It is written, ready and requires no redrafting and no more stalling. What it requires is political will. Just last week, 166 MPs and Lords from across these Houses signed a letter urging the Prime Minister to honour his pledge. The support spans parties, regions and generations, and that cross-party unity reflects the will of the public. They do not want another whitewash or betrayal; they want integrity and action.

Let me close with this. The law cannot bring back the 97, erase the decades of pain or undo the trauma inflicted by callous lies and institutional neglect, but it can stop this ever happening again. It can give truth, fight injustice and restore some of the faith lost not just in the system, but in the very idea of justice. I say loud and clear to the Prime Minister: do not let this moment slip away. Do not let your promise made in Liverpool be broken in Westminster. Let us honour the 97 and so many others with not just remembrance, but change. I call on the Government to back this Bill—the real Hillsborough law—and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Ian Byrne, Kim Johnson, Paula Barker, Peter Dowd, Derek Twigg, Sorcha Eastwood, Siân Berry, Liz Saville Roberts, Jeremy Corbyn, Stephen Flynn, Tom Morrison and Richard Burgon present the Bill.

Ian Byrne accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July, and to be printed (Bill 280). \p UNKNOWN: Consideration of Lords message \p Luke Pollard: I beg to move,

That this House insists on Commons amendment 2A, to which the Lords have disagreed, and disagrees with the Lords in Lords amendments 2B and 2C proposed in lieu of that amendment.

Before I start, I place on record my thanks to all those right hon. and hon. Members who supported Armed Forces Day events at the weekend across the length and breadth of our country. The Secretary of State had the privilege of attending the national event in Cleethorpes, and I spent time with our armed forces community on Plymouth Hoe to see the fantastic turnout not just of armed forces personnel but of their families, veterans, and the charities and organisations that support everyone who serves and has served. Meeting and hearing from service personnel and their families at this important moment of recognition of our armed forces is a great honour, and provides a moment of reflection for everyone in this House on the great service that those in the military provide to the nation.

I am disappointed that the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill has returned to this House. The last time we were here, a full month ago, I explained that the Bill already delivers what the other House had inserted. I am therefore disappointed that the amendment in the name of Baroness Goldie seeks to replace the Government amendment with other amendments, which I am afraid are deeply flawed. I will explain why.

To be absolutely clear, we are all in agreement about the intention behind the Lords amendments. Defence personnel must feel empowered and protected in coming forward with their concerns, and I absolutely agree that we need to address and eliminate toxic behaviours and cultures in our armed forces. This Government are committed to doing exactly that, which is the whole reason we are shining a light on the welfare matters of our people and legislating for an independent champion in the form of the Armed Forces Commissioner. \p Jim Shannon: I commend the Minister and the Government for bringing this Bill forward, and I understand the issue—I spoke to the Minister just beforehand. Lords amendment 2 deals with whistleblowers and protections for family members, which are necessary. I have a complaint ready to hand to the Minister that was facilitated by family members watching the effect on their loved one. Does the Minister agree that it is right and proper that loved ones have a mechanism for ensuring the right thing is done by those who are legitimately whistleblowing? \p Luke Pollard: I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and I agree with him. It is precisely for that reason that the Government are insisting on our amendment and not accepting the Opposition amendment made in the other place, because that amendment does not include family members. I agree that including loved ones—family members, for the purposes of the wording of the Bill—within the remit of the Armed  Forces Commissioner is an important new step in providing not just members in uniform, but their immediate family members as defined in the secondary legislation that will accompany the Bill, with the opportunity to raise a general service welfare matter.

I agree that there is a lot more we can debate on these matters, and there will be an opportunity to do so during the passage of the next armed forces Bill. However, I say to all Members that I am concerned that going round again on this matter only holds up delivery of a key element that will be used to tackle the very issues this amendment seeks to address. Namely, it holds up the establishment of an Armed Forces Commissioner, which was a key manifesto commitment for defence. The longer this Bill is prevented from becoming law, the greater the disservice we do to our armed forces and their families. I sincerely hope that today we can send a united message from this House that we do not wish to delay this vital legislation any further. \p David Baines: Like everyone else in this House, I am incredibly proud of our armed forces, and particularly of our relationship with them in St Helens. Just yesterday, the Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment paraded through St Helens town centre after being awarded the freedom of the borough—we are so incredibly proud. Does the Minister agree that we just need to get on with this now, so that we can show a united front and speak with one voice in support of our armed forces, and give them the support they need? \p Luke Pollard: I thank my hon. Friend for placing on the record the military events in his constituency. It is so important that we recognise the links and ties that so many of our military units have with the localities from which they recruit, where they are based and where they serve. I agree with his broader point; the time is right for us to pass this Bill, get it into law, and allow us to move to a situation in which we have an Armed Forces Commissioner able to deal with the issues raised by our people and their family members.

The Government took on board the important debates in both Houses and proposed amendment 2A, to which this House previously agreed. That amendment honoured the spirit of the noble Baroness’s amendments in the other place and actually went further than her proposals, delivering concrete legal protections that were not included in the amendments that are back before us today. We are seeking to reinsert that better amendment, which was made early in the process and in good faith, following discussions and co-operation with the Opposition in the other place. Given the strong cross-party support for the Bill and clear arguments in favour of the amendment in lieu, we had been hoping that that would enable us to conclude proceedings. The Government amendment will establish genuine protection for people wishing to raise a concern anonymously, and will build trust and confidence among our armed forces and their families in a way we cannot envisage will be achieved by the proposed amendments that are before us today. \p Graeme Downie: I was very happy to serve on the Committee for the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill while it was proceeding through this place. As the Minister knows, there was a large amount of consensus about the need for that process to conclude as quickly as possible, and I recently  wrote an article with my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) about the need to give our armed forces the reassurance that this Government are taking action to support them and their families. Does the Minister agree that it really is time to get on with this? We have a consensus in this House that the Armed Forces Commissioner should be able to begin work as quickly as possible. \p Luke Pollard: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and for the work he has been undertaking with my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin). The Armed Forces Commissioner was a key manifesto promise made at the general election, and made with the deliberate intent of providing an independent voice—an independent champion for those people who serve. We know that for many of our people some of the service welfare matters are not good enough, including childcare and the poor state of military accommodation. The ability of the commissioner to raise those issues, investigate them and use the additional new powers not currently available to the Service Complaints Ombudsman is a substantial step forward for our people and a key plank of renewing the contract between the nation and those who serve. I agree with my hon. Friend that I would like to see that get into law.

Briefly, I will remind the House of the protections currently afforded to the armed forces; one thing I have been made aware of during these debates and discussions is that it is worth repeating some of those, so that there can be no doubt about them. All defence personnel are protected in relation to whistleblowing under existing defence policy, which enables individuals to raise and resolve issues in a way that is protected and secure and does not lead to wrongful disclosure of official information.

The armed forces operate within a different legal and constitutional construct to that of civilians, so they are not explicitly covered by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998—PIDA. However, as a matter of policy under this Government and the previous Government, the Ministry of Defence already recognises and adheres to the criteria for protected disclosures, and it follows the prescribed procedures and protections for those making a qualifying disclosure. The MOD will not tolerate any form of victimisation of an individual for raising a genuine concern. The Government amendment is supported by further non-legislative commitments which, taken together, further bolster trust and confidence in the Armed Forces Commissioner in that respect. They include reviewing and updating the Ministry of Defence’s policies and protections relating to raising a concern, which would include whistleblowing in the sense we are discussing it today.

To be clear, the Government recognise the importance of due protection for whistleblowers. Indeed, just this week the Cabinet Office is hosting a whistleblowing conference, bringing together policy representatives from across Government to review the current whistleblowing framework and discuss forthcoming changes under the Employment Rights Bill. That Bill contains a new clause strengthening protections for people wishing to make a protected disclosure under PIDA, and explicitly recognises sexual harassment as grounds for a protected disclosure. The Ministry of Defence’s “raising a concern” policy  will be reviewed and updated to reflect these changes, and we welcome the interest of Members from all parties in that process. \p Andrew Murrison: What proportion of the commissioner’s time, and that of his or her staff, does the Minister envisage being devoted to individual matters of casework, of the sort he has just described, and what proportion will be around thematic investigations, such as the state of service housing? \p Luke Pollard: That is a genuinely fair question. The Bill is drafted in such a way that there is no obligation or requirement for any commissioner who is appointed to resource according to a Government position. It is for the Armed Forces Commissioner to decide the allocation of resources and energy. However, the German armed forces model, from which we have taken inspiration, undertakes two to three thematic investigations a year with dedicated teams, using feedback from people who have raised a concern officially and from those getting in touch to raise an issue but not necessarily expecting it to be dealt with as casework. The majority of the resource, due to the casework function, relates to correspondence, but it would be for the UK Armed Forces Commissioner to make that determination. The Bill provides the powers to do that.

Let me come to the amendments from the other place, because the powers relating to whistleblowing are a key part of why we do not think the amendments are suitable. First, the use of “whistleblower” is inappropriate in this context, despite the value we place on the function. Although more recently the use of the term has been more relaxed, and raising a concern and whistleblowing are used interchangeably, engagement in 2019 under the previous Government with the whistleblowing charity Protect suggested that the term might be putting people off coming forward. Today, we are talking about law, rather than the policy that will be implemented. Although the term whistleblowing appears in a few limited circumstances in law, there is no single agreed definition of whistleblowing in UK legislation. Simply using the term in this Bill, as proposed by the Opposition’s Lords amendments 2B and 2C, would therefore have no practical legal effect and would provide no protections that do not already exist or are not already provided for in the Government’s amendment in lieu.

Terminology aside, I have several real concerns about the new amendments inserted in the other place. The whistleblower investigations proposed by these amendments have the same scope as the current investigations on general service welfare matters provided for by the Bill, but none of the associated powers of investigation, so the amendments do not allow the commissioner to access sites to assist their investigation. They do not allow the commissioner to access information or documents to assist their investigation. They do not require the Secretary of State to co-operate, assist and consider any findings or recommendations, as is the current wording, and the amendments do not require reports to go to the Secretary of State or to be laid before Parliament. The scope of the amendments is therefore considerably narrower.

Issues raised under the proposed new clause can relate only to people subject to service law—namely the men and women of our armed forces and not family  members, as I said in reply to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—and cannot be about terms of service. The commissioner would need to consult the individual before starting an investigation, constraining their independence and possibly leading to junior staff facing pressure from seniors to withhold consent. The anonymity protections would relate only to investigations under this proposed new clause, which is unlikely ever to be used, for the reasons that I have set out. It also removes the anonymity protections that the Government propose to include.

More importantly, however, the Bill is intended to provide a safe route for people to come forward with their concerns and know that they will be considered by a truly independent figure. We want people to feel secure and empowered to raise those concerns, and we want the commissioner to have the full range of powers as provided for in the Bill to deal with all matters raised with them. The amendments would restrict the powers available to the commissioner to deal with complaints raised through this process. I do not believe that is really what the House wants to see on whistleblowing. \p Luke Akehurst: The Minister will remember a Westminster Hall debate—I think it was last week—in which I inaccurately and over-optimistically referred to this as the Armed Forces Commissioner Act, not realising it was still going back and forth between here and the other place. I was corrected by the shadow Defence Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois). I assumed it was a friendly correction of my misunderstanding about process.

Have I correctly understood that what is going on is some kind of political difference over the use of the word “whistleblower”, which has led to a badly drafted amendment being inserted into the Bill? That amendment will weaken the Bill and reduce its ability to do what is intended. At the same time, it will delay things, when the Department is at the point of being able to advertise for and appoint an Armed Forces Commissioner—someone to be in that role, fighting for the welfare of our armed service personnel. \p Luke Pollard: I hope that this is not a party political issue, because many of the Members raising concerns about whistleblowing in the other place are doing so because they recognise that cultural issues within our armed forces need to be addressed and to get clarity on what the Government seek to do. I hope that from the statements that my colleague Lord Coaker has made to the other place, and from the remarks I have made at this Dispatch Box, colleagues can feel reassured that we take issues of culture, harassment and abuse seriously, and we are clear that there is no place for them in our armed forces.

We are updating the policies and procedures on whistleblowing and raising a concern from the policy we inherited from the last Government, so as to improve it and take it further. We recognise that the Employment Rights Bill will further strengthen that. I realise that the Opposition do not support the Employment Rights Bill, but we do, and it will further enhance the protections for whistleblowers. By updating these policies and by   including the cross-Government learning that our colleagues in the Cabinet Office are co-ordinating at the moment, we will have a stronger policy.

I hope that my placing that on the record here, as my noble Friend Lord Coaker will do in the other place when the Bill returns there, will be enough for those Members who are concerned to be satisfied that the Government have a genuine desire to address these issues and that the amendments, as drafted, create a narrower scope for the commissioner, and would prevent them from achieving their objectives, due to the wording. It is therefore time to let the amendments fall away so that the Bill can pass.

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I assure him that he is not the only person who gets intervened on by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) for clarification. We are always grateful for his knowledge when he does so.

We have deliberately drafted the Bill to be as broad, clear and inclusive as possible, and through our communications campaigns and guidance that we have already announced, we will make it clear to anyone who is subject to service law that they and their families can approach the commissioner to raise a general service welfare matter, however big or small, and whether it affects them directly or not. In that respect, it provides for the intended functions of the amendments.

I make it explicitly clear that the powers to initiate investigations based on information provided by the commissioner already exist in the Bill. In addition, there are existing policies and procedures in place for people in defence to raise concerns that fall outside the definition of a general service welfare matter, such as fraud or criminal activity. Recognised protections are already in place for those matters. All defence civil servants are covered by the protections provided by PIDA, and all military personnel are provided those same protections through existing defence policy.

Our commitment to review and update defence policy and processes, in conjunction with the protections that are already in place for both civilians and members of our armed forces, plus the deficiencies in the amendments inserted by the other place, mean that now is the time for both Houses to do the right thing and bring the Bill into law at the earliest opportunity. Lord Coaker and I will be writing to the Opposition spokespeople in the other place—I am grateful for the engagement that has already taken place, both between Baroness Goldie and Lord Coaker and between the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), Baroness Kramer and me—to address their concerns in detail, to provide written assurances about the changes we are making that confirm what I have said at the Dispatch Box today, and to invite their contributions as we seek to develop and renew the “raising a concern” policy.

I therefore urge the House to support the Government’s position, to ensure that we can deliver this vital manifesto commitment for our brave servicemen and women and their families as soon as possible. \p Judith Cummins: I call the shadow Minister. \p Mark Francois: I rise to address the Lords amendments, following yet another Government defeat in the other place.

As I said last month when we last debated this important Bill, His Majesty’s official Opposition are driven by a commitment to ensure that our brave servicemen and women receive the robust, transparent and fair support they deserve. The Bill, which aims to establish an independent Armed Forces Commissioner with Ofsted-like powers to gain access to military sites and information, holds the potential to improve the welfare and accountability framework for our armed forces. If implemented effectively, it could significantly enhance public confidence in the way in which the concerns of service personnel are addressed. I believe that this vision enjoys broad support across the House—although yet again I have to place on record that when we are discussing important legislation that affects the welfare and wellbeing of armed forces personnel and their families, no Reform Member of Parliament is in the Chamber of the House of Commons. They cannot spend the whole of their lives on TikTok, particularly as it is a Chinese system.

Our duty as His Majesty’s Opposition is to ensure that the Bill delivers on its promises without introducing unnecessary complexity. We must scrutinise the way in which the commissioner’s role integrates with the existing complaints systems, and what it means for those navigating them. Today we focus again on the key issue of whistleblowing, which was debated extensively in the other place and which now lies before this House yet again. Our amendments, championed by Baroness Goldie, sought to empower the commissioner to investigate whistleblowing concerns related to welfare and service issues, while guaranteeing anonymity for those who come forward, be they service personnel, their families or others. This is not a radical proposal but a reasonable compromise, incorporating the exact wording of the Government’s Commons amendment on anonymity in reports, alongside our whistleblowing duty.

The Government argue that existing mechanisms—a confidential hotline, investigation teams and improved complaints processes—are sufficient, and that our amendment does not confer additional powers. That stance is, I am afraid, both inconsistent and unconvincing. The Minister’s own “Dear colleague” letter of 30 May generously acknowledged that Baroness Goldie’s amendments had sparked an important debate, yet the Government resist embedding a clear, statutorily protected whistleblowing function. Such a provision is essential to ensure that vulnerable service personnel can raise concerns without fear of reprisal.

Lord Coaker, speaking for the Government in the other place on 11 June, claimed that the terms “whistleblower” and “whistleblowing” might deter individuals from coming forward, citing Cabinet Office guidance. That suggestion is plainly daft. If the term “whistleblowing” is truly a barrier, why does the national health service successfully operate its “Freedom to Speak Up” policy, which explicitly uses the term? Why does the Children’s Commissioner issue an annual whistleblowing report? Those examples demonstrate that the term is not a deterrent, but a recognised and effective framework for protecting those who expose wrongdoing. To argue otherwise undermines the very concept of whistleblowing regimes across multiple sectors and public services in the United Kingdom.

The Government further contend that whistleblowing lacks a clear legal definition. That is simply untenable. Section 340Q of the Armed Forces Act 2006 is entitled “Investigation of concerns raised by whistle-blowers”, and section 29D of the Police Reform Act 2002 provides another clear statutory precedent. Those Acts show that including whistleblowing in legislation adds tangible value, ensuring protections for those who raise concerns. If whistleblowing is robust enough for the Police Reform Act and for the very Act that this Bill amends, how can the Government claim that it lacks clarity or value in this instance? That is totally inconsistent.

The Government’s position is riddled with contradictions. In Committee, our broader amendment to empower the commissioner was dismissed by the Ministry of Defence as being too wide-ranging. In a spirit of compromise, we narrowed it to focus on welfare and service issues. Now the Government claim that the revised amendment is too narrow and lacks sufficient powers. Lord Coaker argued that our amendment, if passed, would limit the commissioner’s investigations to the same scope as current powers, without enabling access to sites, information or documents, or requiring the Secretary of State to co-operate or report to Parliament. If the Government believe that our amendment does not go far enough, why do they not support it and propose their own broader amendment to enhance the commissioner’s powers, which would almost take us back to the status quo ante? This inconsistency suggests a reluctance to engage constructively, as if arguments were being plucked out of thin air to block progress.

Lord Coaker—with whom I dealt when he was in this place, and for whom, for the avoidance of doubt, I have immense respect—also claimed that our amendment excluded family members and terms of service issues, and would apply only to those subject to service law. That is incorrect. Our amendment defines a whistleblower as a person

“subject to service law or…a relevant family member.”

Thus a corporal’s sister, for example, could raise a whistleblowing concern if the corporal faced abuse or bullying by a military colleague. This provision ensures that family members have a voice, directly contradicting the Government’s assertion to the contrary.

Let me give a brief theoretical example. Let us consider the possibility of a whistleblower being someone who served in the British Army in Northern Ireland under Operation Banner. That is an extremely topical issue at present, as the Minister will know, given the Government’s appalling remedial order to excise key parts of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. I do not know whether all armed forces personnel who served in Northern Ireland have privately signed the parliamentary petition entitled “Protect Northern Ireland Veterans from Prosecutions”, but I can say that as of today, more than 164,000 people have signed it. We therefore look forward very much to a debate in Parliament on 14 July on exactly that matter, which I am sure will be followed closely by the veterans community and their families.

This is not an “angels on a pinhead” argument. It is actually quite important. The Government’s assurances about anonymity and communications campaigns to promote the commissioner’s role are welcome but insufficient. A campaign can be no substitute for a clear, statutory whistleblowing provision that service personnel can trust—to be fair, I should add that when  we debated the Bill before, the Minister talked about the issue of trust repeatedly. The other place recognised that, delivering another cross-party defeat to the Government in the last fortnight by amending the Bill to include a robust, anonymous whistleblowing route. Our amendment represents a reasonable compromise, aligning with the Government’s own wording on anonymity while embedding a vital whistleblowing duty. To block it would signal that the Government are not serious about working constructively with the Opposition to improve the welfare of our armed forces personnel, so I urge them to accept this compromise in the interests of all who serve.

I will listen closely to anything further that the Minister has to say, but if the Government persist in offering assurances without statutory weight, I will have no choice but to test the opinion of the House. Our service personnel deserve a system that hears their voices and protects their concerns, and if we carry on playing ping-pong—well, that is a sport that I was once quite good at. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Helen Maguire: I welcome Lord amendments 2B and 2C, tabled by Baroness Goldie in response to the Government’s rejection of the original proposals.

These amendments are not about party politics. They were tabled by a Conservative peer and supported across the House of Lords by Liberal Democrats and others. They represent a thoughtful, pragmatic effort to address a real and persistent problem: the need for an Armed Forces Commissioner who is not just a complaints handler, but an independent figure capable of receiving and investigating whistleblowing disclosures about systemic welfare failures confidentially and without fear of reprisal.

I welcome that the Minister has engaged with Baroness Kramer and me. However, the Government’s insistence on removing the Lords amendments and replacing them with something far more limited is deeply disappointing. Their approach diminishes the ambition of the Bill and misses a critical opportunity to build genuine trust with service personnel and their families—something that the commissioner must get right from the start, or it will be near impossible to regain.

Let us be honest about what is at stake. Behind the language of “whistleblowing” are real people—soldiers, spouses and contractors—who have seen something go seriously wrong and want to make it right, not for themselves but for others. They are not filing a complaint; they are raising the alarm. Yet again and again, we have seen these people let down—unheard, unsupported or even punished for speaking out. From the appalling housing conditions endured by military families to serious allegations of abuse and misconduct, the public have grown increasingly aware that internal complaints mechanisms are not enough. That is why introducing whistleblowing matters, and why the Lords amendments are so vital.

Baroness Goldie’s revised amendments 2B and 2C strike a balance. They would preserve the key elements of whistleblower protection, including a statutory duty for the commissioner to protect the anonymity of those  who come forward, and they would respond directly to concerns raised by the Government by making it clear that reports must not identify whistleblowers without their consent. The amendments would bring the Armed Forces Commissioner in line with modern expectations of public service oversight. From regulators and financial services to the NHS and beyond, having a whistleblowing channel alongside a complaints function is now standard.

The Government argue that including the term “whistleblower” in legislation could somehow deter people from coming forward, and refer to previous analysis undertaken by the last Government. I find this baffling. The term is well established in UK law, understood by the public and associated with greater protections. It is clear, accessible and trusted, and diluting or avoiding it sends precisely the wrong message. The Lords amendments would do more than close a gap; they would send a message to our armed forces community that Parliament is listening and that we recognise their loyalty—not just in word, but in the systems we put in place to protect them.

The Liberal Democrats have long called for a fair deal for service personnel and their families. We support the Bill, and the creation of the Armed Forces Commissioner as soon as possible, but to be effective the role must be equipped with the right tools and must work from day one. That means giving people a confidential route to raise serious concerns, and letting them know that they will be treated with dignity and protected by law.

I will vote against the Government’s motion to remove the Lords amendments, and I urge all Members to do the same. Baroness Goldie has offered a constructive and reasonable way forward. Her compromise amendments uphold the integrity of the Bill, would give the commissioner proper investigatory reach and, most importantly, would give service personnel and their families a voice they can trust. Let us take this opportunity to make the Bill stronger and the culture of our armed forces fairer, safer and more accountable. \p Luke Pollard: I agree with the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) that we should arm the commissioner with the right tools on day one. That is precisely why I do not want to accept an amendment that would restrict those tools and provide weaker protections for people raising whistleblowing concerns via a proposed route, rather that the route that is already in the Bill. It is precisely because I want the Bill to work that I am not accepting weaker amendments.

I always find it useful to use the phrase “flip it to see it” to see whether something would work, and I want to try that here. Let us take the counterfactual: if the Government proposed an amendment that would restrict the commissioner’s access to sites in relation to a whistleblowing complaint compared to a normal complaint, or an amendment that would restrict access to information and documents assisting an investigation for a whistleblowing complaint rather than a normal matter, and that would restrict the requirement for the Secretary of State to co-operate, assist or consider any findings or recommendations on a whistleblowing complaint rather than a normal complaint, I think this House would rightly reject it. I am afraid that is what the Lords amendments would deliver: narrower scope, fewer powers and less ability for the commissioner to investigate.

I hope that the House can see from my remarks that we believe in providing a route for people to raise their concerns anonymously. We believe in the protections for it, and we are updating the “raising a concern” policy that we inherited from the last Government in order to deliver that work. The Bill should be passed and be made an Act of Parliament, so that we can implement its provisions as fast as we can.

The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) argues against the advice that his Government issued. He is well within his rights to do so, given his Government were defeated, but it is contrary to the position that existed until July. I do not support a poorer amendment. I have engaged constructively and will continue to do so, because it is right to do so. That is the spirit of this Government on this legislation, and it will continue to be the case.

The right hon. Gentleman accused the Government of not being serious about working for our armed forces personnel, so let me very clear: I do not accept less for our armed forces personnel. I am not accepting the amendments from the other place, because they would provide fewer protections for people on the route that he suggests and fewer powers for the commissioner to undertake that work. I believe that if it were not for the necessity to play some ping-pong in this respect, he would be agreeing with me on this matter. Let us pass this Bill, put it in place, and give our armed force and their families the independent champion that they so richly deserve. \p Mark Francois: I have listened very carefully to what the Minister has said, but I am afraid I remain unconvinced. I think he used the phrase “flip it to see it”. I could offer him another one: jaw-jaw is better than war-war.

Baroness Goldie has done a great job in the other place in bringing together people from across the political spectrum to concentrate on this very important matter. I recommend that the House votes against the Government today in order to send the Bill back to the other place, where there should be all-party negotiations, including with Government Ministers, to see if we can find a way through. As things sit here and now, I am afraid we must press this into the Division Lobbies.

Question put. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 321, Noes 158.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House insists on Commons amendment 2A, to which the Lords have disagreed, and disagrees with the Lords in Lords amendments 2B and 2C proposed in lieu of that amendment.

Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for insisting on Commons amendment 2A and disagreeing to Lords amendments 2B and 2C in lieu of that amendment;

That Kate Dearden, Rachel Hopkins, Graeme Downie, Luke Akehurst, Lizzi Collinge, Mark Francois and Tessa Munt be members of the Committee;

That Kate Dearden be the Chair of the Committee;

That three be the quorum of the Committee.

That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Gerald Jones.)

Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated

to the Lords. \p Iain Duncan Smith: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 outlawed foreign Government ownership of UK media organisations, setting a limit of 5% on that process. The Government have now moved that from 5% to 15%, which is considerably higher. However, there has been only a marginal debate in a Statutory Instrument Committee. My concern—it has only just been passed—is that that is a major change. It would have been fair if the Government had set about having a proper debate on it here in the Chamber of the House of Commons, because newspaper ownership is a very significant issue. The other place will potentially get a much larger debate, yet we are the elected House. I ask your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how we may raise the issue again? \p Judith Cummins: I thank the right hon. Member for giving me prior notice of this point of order. It is not a matter for the Chair, but his comments are now on the record. \p Luke Pollard: I beg to move,

That the draft Armed Forces Act 2006 (Continuation) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 9 June, be approved.

The draft order will address the constitutional requirement, under the Bill of Rights xx-xxxx-xxxx, that a standing Army, and by extension the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, must receive the consent of Parliament. The draft order provides that consent by continuing into force for another year the Armed Forces Act 2006, the legislation that governs the armed forces. This debate usually takes place in a Delegated Legislation Committee, before returning to the Floor of the House for approval. Given the significance to the country of both the armed forces and the democratic oversight that Parliament provides, it is fitting that the debate is today being afforded time on the Floor of the House. That enables all Members who wish to contribute to do so, for as the strategic defence review has shown, we must put our people at the heart of defence—I know that on all sides of the House there is strong support for our people.

Parliament is required to renew the Armed Forces Act every five years through primary legislation—the next armed forces Bill is required to have obtained Royal Assent by December 2026—and in the intervening years it is to approve an annual Order in Council, such as the one before us today. The Act provides nearly all the provisions for the existence of a service justice system. It provides for the service offences and for the investigation of alleged offences, the arrest, holding in custody and charging of armed forces personnel accused of committing an offence wherever in the world they are serving.

On that last point, I draw the House’s attention to the explanatory memorandum to the order, which states:

“The extent of this instrument is the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands, and the British overseas territories except Gibraltar.”

There is a distinct difference between the extent of UK legislation and how the jurisdiction of service law is applied. The extent of any legislation is a statement about in which separate legal jurisdictions the legislation forms part of the law. Not extending to Gibraltar simply means that the 2006 Act does not form part of Gibraltarian law. That is because Gibraltar has made an agreement with the United Kingdom that it will pass forward amendments to the Act in its own legislation. Conversely, service law applies to members of the armed forces wherever they are in the world, so effectively there is unlimited geographical jurisdiction with regard to our service personnel and, in some circumstances, civilians subject to service discipline, including those based in, or serving in, Gibraltar.

The 2006 Act provides the legal basis for offices such as the Judge Advocate General and the Director of Service Prosecutions, as well as the court martial, the summary appeal court and the service civilian court. It also sets out the processes for the accused to be dealt with by their commanding officer, or to be tried at court martial. Finally, the Act also contains provisions that cover non-service justice matters, such as service complaints and the armed forces covenant. As such, the next armed  forces Bill will likely contain a mixture of both service justice measures and non-service justice measures. I look forward to working with Members across the House when it is introduced in due course.

In addition, we have committed to tackling the unacceptable behaviours that have plagued defence in the past, rooting out toxic behaviours that we see evidence of in our armed forces. There is no place for abuse in the UK armed forces.

Today’s debate comes against a backdrop of this Government delivering for defence, for our service personnel and for veterans, by putting people at the heart of our defence plans and renewing the nation’s contract with those who serve, combined with a whole-of-society approach to our national resilience. That is why, last year, we delivered the biggest pay rise for our armed forces in 20 years. We followed that up with another above-inflation rise recently. That is why we have secured a major housing deal to buy back over 36,000 military homes, improving houses for armed forces families and saving taxpayers billions. We are investing £7 billion to improve military accommodation over the course of this Parliament.

That is why we have set new targets to tackle the recruitment and retention crisis we inherited from the previous Government, the results of which are clear already: inflow up 19%, outflow down 7%, and the Army experiencing a seven-year high in application volumes. We are delivering for defence. That is why we will be appointing an Armed Forces Commissioner to improve service life, and are making it easier for veterans to access care and support for our £50 million VALOUR network.

After all, the Government recognise that the world has changed. We are in a new era of threat, which demands a new era for UK defence. The strategic defence review, published last month, will make Britain safer, secure at home and strong abroad, and sets a path for the next decade and beyond to transform defence and end the hollowing out of our armed forces that we have seen over the past 14 years. Decisive action has already been taken. We have: stepped up and speeded up support for Ukraine; signed the landmark Trinity House agreement with Germany; started work at pace on a new defence industrial strategy, ensuring defence is an engine for growth; and implemented the deepest Ministry of Defence reform programme in decades. All of that has been underpinned by an increase in defence spending of nearly £5 billion this year, and a commitment to reach 2.5% in April 2027, 3% in the next Parliament and 3.5% in 2035—the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war. \p Mark Francois: One of the fundamental tenets of the strategic defence review, as the Minister is now broadening this out, is that we should be prepared to fight and defeat a peer enemy by 2035, which is 10 years from now. Why, after all the hullabaloo about the much-vaunted defence review, have this Government returned to what in the 1920s was known as the 10-year rule? \p Luke Pollard: I would say to the right hon. Member that his Government left our forces hollowed out and underfunded, left our forces living in appalling accommodation, left a retention and recruitment crisis  that meant that for every 100 people joining our forces, 130 were leaving, and left a situation where morale fell each and every year for the last decade in every one of our services.

We are fixing that. We are getting our defence back on track. That is why the defence review sets out the journey to transform our defence, why the Chancellor has provided additional financial resource this year, and why the Prime Minister supported the defence investment pledge at the recent NATO summit—something I hope the right hon. Gentleman’s party will, in due course, bring itself to do.

We need to be ready to deliver for our defence and to stand with our allies, and that is what we are doing today: we are ending the hollowing out and underfunding. As someone who values defence sometimes more than his party loyalty, as I saw in the previous Parliament, I hope the right hon. Gentleman would welcome that. Indeed, I hope he has the opportunity to do so in a moment, when he stands up to speak. \p Edward Leigh: I am not sure there is much point in us just blaming each other on this matter. There are historical parallels. In 1935 we were spending only 2.5% of our national wealth on defence. There was massive rearmament following that and consensus on both sides of the House, and by 1945 we were spending the best part of 50% of national wealth on it. It would be much better if the two parties try to work together on this matter and realise that we are facing an existential crisis in the world, and that things are very different now from 2010 or 2015, or whenever, and that we should work together to massively increase defence spending. \p Luke Pollard: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point, and I agree with what he says. It is precisely the reason that when the Defence Secretary was the shadow Defence Secretary, and when I was the shadow Minister for the Armed Forces, we had a position of cross-party support on defence matters. It is really important, I think, that we get back to that place. When our adversaries look at the United Kingdom, they should see strong cross-party support, as indeed I believe they do when we debate Ukraine. There is a strong set of plans in our strategic defence review, with increasing defence funding getting to 2.5%, a figure we have not matched in the past 14 years. There is a real opportunity to send a united message from this House to our adversaries and to our people who serve. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman’s colleagues on the Front Bench were listening to his comments as closely as I was.

Members have the opportunity to approve this order today, knowing that the Government are delivering on our pledge. \p James Cartlidge: On a very serious note, the Opposition have been accused of being pro-Russia, pro-China and pro-Iran repeatedly by the Prime Minister, which the Minister has defended, because we dared to oppose the Chagos deal. If he wants unity, we need to see that on both sides of the House. \p Luke Pollard: I think the unity we saw on the Chagos deal is that the Conservatives started a deal and we finished it; they agreed it was the right thing to start  negotiations and held 11 rounds, and we agreed it was the right thing to complete that deal. We put our national security first in that respect, secured the future of the Diego Garcia base and won the support of our US friends, our NATO allies, our Five Eyes partners and India locally. It is up to the hon. Gentleman which side of the debate he wishes to be on—we choose the side of our national security.

Hon. Members can approve this order today, knowing that we are delivering on the pledge to rewrite the contract between the United Kingdom and those who serve in order to improve it. The Armed Forces Act—and, by extension, this order—underpins the very existence of His Majesty’s armed forces. It backs those who, like my old man—a Royal Navy submariner—and so many across this House, stepped forward to serve our country and protect our United Kingdom and our allies and partners in an era of global instability, to deploy globally in support of British objectives and to support our national security. With the consent of the House today, Parliament will acknowledge, pay tribute to and back their service. \p Mark Francois: The purpose of this instrument is to provide for the continuation in force of the Armed Forces Act 2006, which would otherwise expire in mid-December 2025. In essence, the measure provides for the 2006 Act to continue in force for a further year, taking us up to a deadline of 14 December 2026.

For those with an historical interest—among whom I include myself—the principle of the legislation dates back to the Bill of Rights xx-xxxx-xxxx, as the Minister intimated, which, given that it followed on from the civil war, declared the

“raising or keeping of a standing army within the United Kingdom in time of peace, unless with the consent of Parliament, to be against the law.”

This provision has resulted in the requirement, since xx-xxxx-xxxx, that all legislation on discipline in the armed forces be annually renewed, hence this order.

As the Minister stated, this instrument should have support across the House, and I am sure that it does. However, yet again, when we are debating defence—when we are debating an order that is fundamental to the discipline and integrity of our armed forces—there are no Reform MPs in the Chamber. Why? It is because Reform does not do defence. The Minister and I have seen that time and again over the past year—so there is a point of consensus, if he wants one.

While this order might appear to be a mere formality, albeit an important one, it gives me the opportunity to ask my opposite number, the Minister for the Armed Forces, four important questions, but before I do, I will just report to the Minister that the cadets, who are an important part of the armed forces family, are indeed well disciplined and in good heart. I attended an Armed Forces Day event in Basildon on Saturday, as I have done for years, and was honoured to be invited to inspect the Air Cadets on parade. When I asked one very smart cadet why he had decided to join the Air Cadets, he replied, “Because my mum made me, Sir, although three years in, I’m very grateful that she did.” I also managed to grab a quick drink with some veterans  in a local hostelry. However, mysteriously, all four MPs in the Basildon borough—none of whom are Labour MPs—appear not to have been invited this year. I can only presume that our invitations were lost in the post. I say gently to the Minister, more in sorrow than in anger, that playing silly partisan games like this is demeaning for the Labour-led council. \p Christopher Vince: On that point, will the right hon. Gentleman give way? \p Mark Francois: No.

Armed Forces Day is too important for this sort of silly nonsense, which embarrasses Basildon council in the eyes of the public and, indeed, its local MPs. In all seriousness, perhaps the Minister could have a word with his colleagues on the council and make sure that this unfortunate oversight does not happen again.

Defence is traditionally a bipartisan issue. We all believe in the defence of the realm, and I have always believed that it is the first duty of Government. However, I say to the Minister, on the Floor of the House, that he cannot have it both ways. He cannot on the one hand plead for unity between the Government and the Opposition and then, when it suits, imply that Opposition spokesmen are Russian, Chinese or Iranian fellow travellers just because they had the temerity not to agree with the Government on their bonkers Chagos deal. My honest advice to the Minister is to make up his mind and be consistent; he will then receive the respect that he asks for.

I turn to the order. Armed Forces Acts are normally subject to quinquennial review. We had Armed Forces Acts in 2011, 2016 and 2021, and we can expect a further Act before the instrument expires in December 2026. Given the vagaries of parliamentary life, few things are certain, but assuming for a moment that it will be the Armed Forces Minister and I who will take this legislation through on behalf of our respective parties, this seems a good opportunity to ask the Minister two questions. First, what are the latest timings for that legislation, and when can we expect to see a Bill? Secondly, could he give the House some idea of the likely key themes of that Bill, and the areas, if any, in which the legislation is likely to differ materially from the Armed Forces Act 2021? In fairness, he dropped a hint a few moments ago that there will be service justice provisions; perhaps he could expand on that slightly, if he has the opportunity. I ask because there will be a large number of interested parties, including the armed forces themselves, obviously, the armed forces families federations, military charities and others. From previous experience, I can say that they will take a close and important interest in the Bill. Giving them as good a heads-up as possible is clearly desirable. Perhaps the Minister could assist the House with that.

As the explanatory notes that the Minister referred to point out, were this order not to be passed,

“The key effect…would be to end the provisions which are necessary to maintain the armed forces as disciplined bodies. Crucially, the 2006 Act confers powers and sets out procedures to enforce the duty of members of the armed forces to obey lawful commands. Without the 2006 Act, those powers and procedures would no longer have effect; Commanding Officers and the Court Martial would have no powers of punishment in respect of a failure to obey a lawful command or any other form of disciplinary or criminal misconduct. Members of the armed forces would still owe allegiance to His Majesty, but the power of enforcement would be removed.”

Clearly, that would be very undesirable, and for the avoidance of doubt, we will most certainly not vote against this order in a few minutes’ time, but there is an important point here about members of the armed forces being required to obey lawful commands. That brings me on to my third question for the Minister.

As recently as Defence questions on Monday, we debated in the Chamber the fate of the 300,000 or so British Army veterans who served in Northern Ireland on Operation Banner. They were lawfully commanded to help uphold the rule of law in support of the Royal Ulster Constabulary GC, now the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and to protect all people in Northern Ireland, of whatever tradition, from heinous acts of terrorism, whether by bomb or by bullet. As the Minister will be well aware, the Government have tabled a so-called remedial order that would cut out elements of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, thus potentially opening up some of those veterans to an endless cycle of investigation and reinvestigation. The order also makes it easier for the likes of Gerry Adams and his compadres to sue the British taxpayer for hundreds of millions of pounds.

According to a press report in The Daily Telegraph yesterday and an associated answer by the Northern Ireland Secretary to a parliamentary question, the Government have decided to drop the part of the remedial order that would assist Mr Adams and his associates in suing the British taxpayer. If that report is true, we Conservative Members would warmly welcome it. However, it does not solve the problem of our brave veterans who served in Northern Ireland often being persecuted at the behest of Sinn Féin. \p Julian Lewis: Whenever my right hon. Friend and other members of the Conservative shadow defence team bring up the question of reopening this lawfare against our veterans, Government Ministers say, “We will be sure to give veterans maximum support.” To me, that implies not protecting them from the lawfare, but supporting them as they go through the process; but the process is the punishment. Everybody knows that people involved in fatal incidents would serve only a limited prison term if, heaven forbid, they were convicted, but the probability is that they will not be convicted; the punishment lies in what they have to go through before they are acquitted. \p Mark Francois: My right hon. Friend chaired the Select Committee on which I served some years ago, when it produced a very good report on this issue, so he is an expert on this. All I will say is that when it comes to legacy issues, Labour often provides legal support, but not necessarily always to veterans.

If the Minister wishes to maintain morale in the armed forces past and present—this order is clearly necessary for doing that—perhaps he will take this opportunity to clarify the Government’s position. Do they still intend to table a remedial order, or to move straight to what the Labour manifesto describes as new legislation in the field of legacy matters? Which is it? \p Robin Swann: I seek clarification and support from shadow Front Benchers on this. Do they recognise that there may be a bit of disagreement  in the Government between Ministers in the Ministry of Defence and those in the Northern Ireland Office on how to proceed? \p Mark Francois: I certainly hope there is. I very much hope that MOD Ministers are fighting tenaciously in private, even if they cannot say so in public, to have this mad order scrapped, and to defend the Northern Ireland veterans, just as the Northern Ireland veterans defended all of us. The Minister understands exactly what I mean by that, and I think that he and some of his ministerial colleagues may have been working on this. If they have, then we in good faith wish them Godspeed.

I have one more question on this matter, and then I will move on. If it is the Government’s intention to still go ahead with the remedial order—again, the House would really welcome clarity on this—despite the fact that it would have disastrous consequences for recruitment and retention, which the Minister mentioned a few minutes ago, can he confirm exactly what the Government’s policy is? Is it to go down the remedial order route, or down the route of introducing new primary legislation, and if it is the latter, what are the timings for that new Bill?

Fourthly and finally, the Minister for the Armed Forces has signed a formal statement to the effect that, in his view, the provisions of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (Continuation) Order 2025 are compatible with the European convention on human rights. However, there is a question: were British troops to be deployed to Ukraine as part of some coalition of the willing—perhaps following a ceasefire in Ukraine—what would happen to those British troops if they were to be involved in combat with Russian forces, or Russian acolytes? What guarantee could the Ministry give that if soldiers fired their weapons in anger, they would not subsequently be subject to lawfare under the Human Rights Act 1998, even decades after the event, as is the case in Northern Ireland? This is not an idle point. I understand that the issue of lawfare and its effect on recruitment and retention in the British Army has been raised at the most senior levels in the Army, including in recent meetings with the Chief of the General Staff. This is very much a live issue that deserves to be raised in Parliament, not least for the soldiers who might have to take these actions for real.

Given all this, would it not be helpful—as suggested a number of times by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), the shadow Defence Secretary—for the Minister to issue a formal declaration that we would derogate from the European convention on human rights in relation to any British military operations related to Ukraine, so that soldiers who served in that conflict would be excluded from any lawfare prosecutions, even decades later? The Minister will know that the issue is materially affecting morale in the armed forces, and especially in the special forces community, so any reassurance he can give regarding a derogation would no doubt be gratefully received.

To summarise, we obviously support this order to continue the operation of the Armed Forces Act 2006 until December 2026. It would be helpful to have some idea of timings, and even of the content of the prospective Armed Forces Act 2026, as it is likely to be, to allow interested parties to plan. To maintain morale and discipline in our armed forces, perhaps the Minister could also confirm whether the Government would  countenance derogation from the ECHR during future military operations, potentially including those in defence of Ukraine. Moreover, perhaps he could update the House on where we are on the Government’s proposed new legislation on legacy matters, and on the fate of the proposed remedial order under the Human Rights Act 1998. Are the Government contemplating removing clauses from that remedial order, or are they abandoning it altogether, and instead relying on new primary legislation to achieve their aim?

The Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), gave us all very wise advice: we should increase defence spending. We certainly should, in this increasingly dangerous world; we can argue about by how much and how quickly. We Conservative Members want to work constructively with the Government and the Ministry of Defence, for the defence of the realm—but do unto others as you would have them do unto you. \p Judith Cummins: I can now announce the result of today’s deferred Divisions. On the draft Enterprise Act 2002 (Mergers Involving Newspaper Enterprises and Foreign Powers) Regulations 2025, the Ayes were 338 and the Noes were 79, so the Ayes have it.

On the draft Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Suitability for Fixed Term Recall) Order 2025, the Ayes were 333 and the Noes were 168, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.] \p Christopher Vince: I thank the Minister for his statement. I appreciate him bringing the debate to the Floor of the House. It shows the importance of the issue and the importance that the Government place on our armed forces and, in particular, our armed forces personnel. I welcome the pay rise that this Government are giving our service personnel and the commitment that the Minister has made personally to tackle recruitment and retention issues, as well as, of course, the £5 billion increase in spending.

As I was unable to intervene on the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), I must say that I am disappointed that this has turned into a party political debate, but I assure everyone in the House—after saying that—that I do not intend to say any more on that matter.

This order reflects a constitutional requirement, but it also gives us an annual opportunity to thank our brave servicemen and women. As I have mentioned previously in this House, I am the son and, like most people my age, the grandson of veterans, so I recognise the sacrifice that our armed forces families make for this country.

If the continuation order is not agreed, commanding officers and courts martial will no longer have the power to punish or discipline service people, so it is obviously really important that we pass it today. We should recognise that, for the vast majority of our servicemen and women, the part of the Act covered by the order is irrelevant. However, we must support our  servicemen and women as they support us, which is why I welcome the work of Ministers and veterans on Op VALOUR.

As Lord Coaker said in the other place:

“we inhabit a world that is more dangerous than at any time since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 October 2024; Vol. 840, c. GC84.]

That is something that everybody in this House can reflect on.

Like many Members from all parties, I attend the turning of the page ceremony organised by the Speaker’s Office and the Serjeant At Arms. Every week, I hear the names of Members of this House and children of Members of this House who lost their lives in the second world war, and I find it incredibly moving. This morning, it was particularly moving when one name was read out: it was the name of a son of a Member of the House who passed away at the age of eight.

Of course, our service personnel and our country cannot work in isolation, and it is incredibly important to recognise the work that our armed forces do in collaboration with our NATO allies.

Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all hon. and gallant Members of this House—I know that one of them, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), is about to speak, and I am glad that he has returned to his place—for what they have done in their past careers to keep us all safe. I also pay tribute to the servicemen and women of my constituency of Harlow and the UK as a whole for their continuous service, keeping us and our families safe during these increasingly troubled times. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Helen Maguire: Today’s motion may appear procedural, but it sits at the heart of how we govern our armed forces and, by extension, how we uphold parliamentary democracy and the rule of law. Under the Bill of Rights of xx-xxxx-xxxx, a standing army in peacetime must be consented to annually by Parliament. That annual renewal is not just constitutional housekeeping. It is a clear democratic statement that power in this country derives from Parliament, and that our armed forces serve under the law, not above it.

I will, of course, support the continuation order. The Armed Forces Act 2006 provides a unified legal framework that enables our military to function. Without it, the service justice system would fall away. Discipline could not be enforced and commanding officers would be stripped of lawful authority, and there would be no means to uphold the standards of service that we rightly expect.

With that annual consent must come annual scrutiny. We owe it to those who serve under this Act to ensure that the political leadership they serve is worthy of their trust. The reality is that, over recent years, Conservative Governments have failed in their duty to our armed forces. While a brutal war raged in Europe, the previous Government were cutting 10,000 troops from our Army. Our armed forces are now smaller than they have been for generations, at a time when global threats are escalating. Equipment programmes are routinely over budget and behind schedule. The National Audit Office has repeatedly warned about capability gaps in areas such as battlefield  communications, armoured vehicles and naval readiness, and our service personnel are too often asked to do more with less, and that includes living in unacceptable conditions with a housing system that does not meet their needs.

The effectiveness of our armed forces depends not just on kit, but on people. When these people are being let down—when we ask them to serve under a legal framework renewed by this House, but do not support them properly in practice—we are not keeping our side of the bargain.

The Liberal Democrats are calling for a different path. We demand the reversal of those short-sighted troop cuts and a long-term plan to increase regular troop numbers to over 100,000 once more. That begins with immediate action through a new joining and re-enlistment bonus scheme to help recruit and retain at least 3,000 personnel, stabilising the force while we plan for future growth. We are also calling for cross-party talks to agree a sustainable path to meet NATO’s new spending target of 5% of GDP, a goal that should be above party politics. The security of our country and our allies depends on serious, sustained commitment.

Beyond strategy and numbers, we want to deliver a fair deal for those who serve. That means proper pay and decent conditions. It means high-quality housing that meets the decent homes standard. As a minimum, it means giving real support for the transition to civilian life through access to mental health care, job opportunities and practical assistance for families who so often bear the strain behind the scenes.

We press the Government to deliver long overdue justice for LGBT veterans, many of whom are still awaiting compensation after years of discrimination and dismissal. That process must be fair, fast and comprehensive. We also demand full implementation of the Atherton report’s recommendations to tackle the entrenched issues of harassment and misogyny faced by too many women in uniform. Service should never come with conditions of fear or inequality.

Looking ahead, we understand the new armed forces Act is expected to be introduced in the next year. When the Bill is brought forward, I will hold the Government to a high standard. It must not be a copy-and-paste exercise. It must be an opportunity to improve the culture of our armed forces by ensuring that equality, accountability and modernisation are at its heart.

The continuation order maintains the legal foundation of our armed forces, but laws alone are not enough. We need leadership, we need commitments, and we need a Government who do not simply consent to the military’s existence once a year, but honour their service every single day with action, investment and respect. \p Ben Obese-Jecty: I welcome the Armed Forces Act 2006 (Continuation) Order 2025 and place on record my wholehearted support for our armed forces and the role they play in providing national security and defence of this nation, both at home and deployed on operations across the globe.

As a new MP last year, the first Delegated Legislation Committee I sat on considered the previous continuation order. I was very proud to be able to do that. As a veteran and now the MP for a constituency in Huntingdon  with British, US and wider NATO forces, I know first hand how vital political support for our military is today. Although we have moved past the period of kinetic operations that typified my generation of warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan, the world feels more dangerous today than it did at that time. The Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 precipitated a sea change in the nature of warfare. The manoeuvre warfare of old that we saw during the initial invasion, unchanged in a generation and familiar to those of my generation and several before that, has been replaced by cyber, drones, grey zones and subthreshold activity that feels like warfare but not so long ago would have been the preserve of science fiction or an episode of “Black Mirror”. That is the thread that must run through the strategic defence review and it is in such areas that we must ensure our armed forces are equipped to compete in across domains.

I do not doubt the Government’s sentiment in wishing to increase defence spending to ensure that we remain a credible and capable NATO ally, and that we continue to punch above our weight on the world stage. As an island nation in a notionally geographically safe part of the world, the legacy of our imperial past is one of world policing, post-colonial responsibility and expeditionary warfare. Our decentralised, persistent nuclear capability ensures that we are a nation that continues to be taken seriously, but my concern is that we are in danger of being benched, as those NATO allies closer to the fray, who feel the threat from Russia on the eastern flank and the High North most keenly, will, with their vastly increased defence budgets and whole-of-society approaches to defence, make us a second-tier nation.

The pledge to uplift defence spending to 5%, with the claim that we will achieve 4.1% by April 2027, is simply not credible. This smoke and mirrors approach reflects the fact that the sums do not add up. We saw only yesterday that the Government’s botched welfare reform has left a £4.5 billion gap in the spending plans, which is coupled with a further £1.25 billion from the winter fuel U-turn. Where will that money come from? Spending cuts or higher taxes are now inevitable, and growth projections look at best sluggish.

Meanwhile, the Government claim that they can reach 2.6% on defence plus security, but they refuse to break down the quantum of that spending. How much of that 2.6% is actually on hard defence, and how much is on the intelligence services? By our estimates, the number is somewhere in the region of 0.15%, which suggests that the real defence budget as a proportion of GDP is only 2.45%. If we bear in mind that a sizeable proportion of that figure is solely our continuous at-sea deterrent, the figure for our conventional forces drops to somewhere in the region of 1.7%—a long way from the numbers that the Government are putting forward.

The 4.1% figure that the Government are now puffing their chest out about includes 1.5% on national security and general resilience. This contains everything from UK arts spending to rural broadband. Under the chapter on pursuing asymmetric advantage, paragraph 25 details that the royal research ship Sir David Attenborough plays a part regarding understanding environmental changes in the Arctic ocean, which means that Boaty McBoatface is included in the Prime Minister’s defence spending figures. Do we honestly think that Russia and China will take that seriously?

The huge capability commitments that we see in the SDR and in the forthcoming equipment plan far outstrip our spending power. We are quite literally writing cheques that we may never be able to cash. Not only have we pledged to create an entirely new domain in cyber, but we are about to embark on an essential modernisation process which now simply does not look funded.

The global combat air programme—a project not due to be delivered until the back end of the next decade, but one that runs the risk of being outpaced by technological change—is exquisitely capable, but in 20 years’ time, will a sixth-generation fighter need to be crewed? It may be crewed in 2040, but GCAP’s out of service date is likely to be beyond 2070. Do we honestly believe that crewed aircraft will be relevant by then? Furthermore, how will we deliver the loyal wingmen in the system of systems that it forms part of?

Drones are clearly the future of warfare, and although we continue to use Ukraine as the proving grounds for a new capability against a near-peer adversary, the British Army should be on the front foot, rapidly equipping and training with drones, rather than using e-sports as the only drone warfare training of note. I see the Minister taking notes. While he is writing stuff down, let me suggest that a two-stage warhead a la Javelin on an FPV—first person view—drone is surely the next generation anti-armour capability that we need, thus consigning enfilade fire from a defilade position to a thing of the past, despite my own anti-tank roots.

Meanwhile, Project Grayburn means that we will replace 150,000 SA80A3 rifles by 2030—a significant logistical commitment, in terms not just of changing the weapon system, but of possibly changing the nature of the ammunition as well. Although that will increase stopping power, it will also remove the purpose of 5.56, which I am sure we do not need to go into in the Chamber today, and everything that goes with that, including rifle racks, ammunition pouches, magazines and mag chargers. This is the nitty-gritty of changing a weapons platform that really does take its toll on exactly how we would implement that. We also intend to replace nearly 6,000 Land Rovers by 2030, which is another significant logistical commitment in terms of training soldiers to drive them, putting those vehicles out, and making sure that we have the logistical trail in place to be able to service those vehicles. These smaller but still resource-intensive tasks place more and more strain on our personnel.

Only today, I understand that the Ministry of Defence police have cut 1,500 roles. With the Military Provost Guard Service under-resourced and unable to replace them, the burden has fallen on regular soldiers to augment their guarding tasks. Such additional tasks with weekend guards erodes goodwill and continues to contribute to retention problems.

Only a few weeks ago, I was in Poland visiting the RAF conducting the NATO air policing role, interdicting Russian penetration along NATO’s border. The personnel there were rightly extremely proud to serve, but at the same time the strain that the current operational tempo was placing on those in specialist roles was immense, requiring them repeatedly to spend long periods away from home. Incredibly, the additional penalty that they pay is a financial one, with all but those on the highest  LSA bands finding that the pay they receive for being separated from their families is often, at best, negligible and, at worst, a financial hit. Second-order effects mean that an individual who may be being paid more to be on operations is not physically at home to help with the tasks there; that means having to pay for a babysitter rather than having their spouse look after the children. They have to pay for a dog walker rather than being able to leave the dog at home, for when the spouse returns. Those costs add up, and they simply are not factored into those extra payments that people receive for being on tour.

Meanwhile, we continue to see those who have already served their nation questioning whether they continue to enjoy the support of those they have risked their lives to serve. The concerns around the treatment of Northern Ireland veterans leave Operation Banner veterans rightly very concerned about their futures and about being held accountable for actions from over 50 years ago. Without clarity on whether protections will be guaranteed for those who serve their country, future recruitment could suffer hugely. People serving their country will lose confidence under this Government that they will not one day be treated as a criminal. It raises questions over my own service and that of my peers. The goalposts could one day move for us, and I know that that applies to former service people on both sides of the House. I see the Security Minister on the Front Bench who served so proudly in Afghanistan.

I welcome the Armed Forces Act 2006 (Continuation) Order 2025, and I was proud to play my small part in the history of one of our finest institutions. I recognise and acknowledge the sentiment and intent of Defence Ministers to deliver for our service personnel; I do not call that into question for one second. However, I wish to place on record my concerns that the limitations placed on them by Treasury accounting and the smoke and mirrors approach to hitting our NATO pledges will put the cross-party consensus on defence at risk, and the fiscal rules and botched legislation will reduce the Chancellor’s spending power in a dangerous new world. This Government must demonstrate their front-footed commitment with tangible results, not just pledges. \p Sorcha Eastwood: I want to contribute as the MP for Lagan Valley, which is the home of Army HQ in Northern Ireland. I, too, am proud of my family members who served in the Regular Army, the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Ulster Constabulary. However, I will depart from the view of some Members; I would say that they were professional in everything that they did, and they would agree with me—as would many across the House and indeed in Northern Ireland—that they served not above the law but within the law, as any professional soldier will do.

I pay tribute to the Royal British Legion’s Lisburn and Dromore branches—and in particular to Brian Sloan from Lisburn Royal British Legion—which have been incredible in supporting veterans not just throughout Lagan Valley but across Northern Ireland, making sure that they are at the fore of both civic and remembrance events. I echo the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) on the Opposition Front Bench about the cadets, whom  people often overlook. In Lagan Valley we are blessed to have sea, RAF and army cadets, and every time I look at those young people it makes my heart feel proud and a wee bit more confident for the future.

We are in a changed security situation, as I think everybody in the House knows, and one of the challenges that the Minister referred to in his opening remarks is that of recruitment and retention. We must change the dial whenever we discuss these things, because this should be an opportunity for our young people. I often hear young people maligned and marginalised, but sometimes those young people desperately want to find meaning in life, and want to find that through service. That is exactly what the cadets provide, and they will be our engineers and strategic ops planners of the future.

I put on record my thanks to those who are serving, to gallant Members throughout the House and to people who have served in Lagan Valley. I have their back in all of this completely and utterly. I am proud of them and of what they have done. Lastly, I have a word for their families too, because there is often a hidden shift that people do not see and a hidden threat that many will still be dealing with years from now. It is vital that we remember those people who have served. \p David Reed: I rise to raise an important point that has been reported in the media over the last 24 hours about the future of the Royal Marines. As a former Royal Marine and the Member of Parliament who represents the commando training centre in Lympstone, I think this is an issue that we need to discuss now. I hope that the Minister will be able to give some answers.

It has been reported that the Royal Marines are moving away from their conventional amphibious operations and that large-scale beach landings and traditional force protections from sea are being replaced with small, flexible teams designed to operate alongside special forces. Let me be clear: adaptability is vital, and I am sure that there are many merits in the direction of travel, but it is important that the Minister tells the House about this and gives us the opportunity to discuss it. I worry that abandoning hard-won capabilities without a clear and credible replacement is not adaptation; it is risk.

I would like to put some questions to the Minister. Are the Government removing the United Kingdom’s amphibious warfare capability? If so, what replaces it? What is the long-term plan to project force from sea to land if not through the Royal Marines in their traditional role?

We have no delivery dates for the multi-role strike ships that are meant to underpin the new commando force concept. There is also no detailed plan and no answer on whether they will provide genuine operational flexibility or simply be a scaled-back presence. Will the MRSS be able to deploy full commando units at scale in high-threat environments or are they designed purely for small team operations? If it is the latter, is that now the full extent of our national amphibious ambitions?

That brings us to special forces support, which I know is not an issue that we can discuss in the Chamber with the Security Minister, who served with the special forces support group, in great detail. However, it has been  reported that 40 Commando has been tasked to operate alongside the Special Boat Service in sensitive national missions, including evacuations and hostage rescue. What does that mean for the Royal Marines’ contribution to the special forces support group? Is the SFSG being restructured or reassigned?

That speaks to a deeper point regarding our NATO allies. We talk in the strategic defence review about being “NATO first”. NATO has long counted on the UK’s high-end amphibious expertise. It matters to our national resilience in a world where rapid deployment from the sea is often the only option. Above all, it matters to the men and women who serve, and they deserve clarity about their future roles, mission and identity. I therefore urge the Minister to come forward with honest, detailed answers—not slogans or spin, but clarity on capability, posture and intent—because defence policy cannot be made in stealth. \p Nusrat Ghani: For the final contribution, I call Robin Swann. \p Robin Swann: I thank the Minister for bringing forward this order. I have just a few questions for him in regard to contributions made by other hon. Members.

Many Members have talked about the value of our cadet services in promoting young people, the value that they provide and the additional skills training that is given. It was concerning when I met some cadets in Northern Ireland that their senior officers reported that there was a fall in the core financial support—the core grant—that they receive from the Ministry of Defence. May I have clarity from the Minister, under this order, that if that is true, he will take the opportunity to reverse it? It is not a large sum of money in relation to the Ministry of Defence’s overall spend or, indeed, in relation to the projections talked about today. The cadets provide a valuable service and the financial support that is given to them should recognise that.

On continued support, the Minister and I have had, and will continue to have, many exchanges on the investment not just in our service personnel, but in the facilities and the bases. I refer specifically to Northern Ireland. The Minister knows about Aldergrove and the facility that it can be for all our armed forces as a strategic location in our national defence. I would like to hear, even if it is under the SDR, that there is the possibility of further investment there.

I pay tribute and give thanks to all current and former service personnel. The shadow Minister made reference to the debate in this place on 14 July. I encourage all Members of the House to participate so that our veterans can see their support. Finally, I will turn to the local, as other Members have done. Will the Minister join me in congratulating the Royal British Legion branches in Ballyclare and Randalstown? This year, they have celebrated the 100th anniversary of the support they provide to service personnel who have been through wars, and they continue to support service personnel today. \p Nusrat Ghani: We now come to the Front Benchers. I call the shadow Minister. \p Mark Francois: We have had a good debate—lively at times—about an important subject. Again, for the avoidance of doubt, we will loyally support the order, which I am sure the House will pass without the need for a Division.

We have had some very good speeches, including from my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty). He recalled his time serving as an infantry platoon commander. I had that same honour, although in my case it was as a cold war reservist rather than as a regular, like him.

My hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) asked a number of questions about the future of the Royal Marines now that the Government have flogged off most of our amphibious shipping. He asked for confirmation about timings on the MRSS class and about what happens to the Royal Marines now in their amphibious role. Perhaps the Minister will provide the House with some reassurance. If it is true that the Royal Marines will lose their amphibious role, at least in the short term, will he say whether the Parachute Regiment was consulted on that decision? [Interruption.] I see that Hansard must record that the Security Minister is chuckling at this point. \p Ben Obese-Jecty: I see the Security Minister chuckling away. I, too, would like confirmation that, as part of the big three, the RAF Regiment was also consulted on this decision. \p Mark Francois: I think the RAF Regiment has had other things on its mind lately.

I congratulate the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) on raising the important issue of Northern Ireland. That takes me to the point on which I would like to conclude. I hope that the Minister will answer some of my questions about what will happen to our Northern Ireland veterans. Again, for the avoidance of doubt, I think I know where his heart lies on this. I cannot recall whether the Security Minister served in Northern Ireland— \p Dan Jarvis: indicated assent. \p Mark Francois: He is nodding—I know that he served with great distinction in Afghanistan, so he too will understand this. We on these Benches have to believe that in the privacy of discussions between Government Departments, they are doing the right thing. Perhaps the Minister can give some assurance to those of the 300,000 veterans who served in Op Banner who are still with us that the Government will remove the sword of Damocles that hangs over them, and allow those people who served our country so bravely and with such distinction in incredibly difficult circumstances to sleep safely in their beds, as they deserve. \p Luke Pollard: I thank all Members for their contributions to this debate. It was a good one, and I will refer briefly to a number of the issues that have been raised. First, I detect strong support for our armed forces on all sides of the House, which is good to see, so I hope there will not be a Division. This debate has shown the merit in holding the annual order on the Floor of the House, but I suspect I will need to have a word with the Leader  of the House and the Whips before I commit to any future such debates, because that is definitely outside my swim lane.

I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for talking about cadets. It is absolutely right that we invest more in cadets, and that is why the strategic defence review set out our ambition to increase the size of our cadet force by 30%. This is a strong investment in the future of our young people that provides opportunities to get lifelong skills and increased confidence, as well as a pathway for young people to serve in our armed forces in order to fully realise the benefits. Having seen the cadets on parade on Plymouth Hoe for Armed Forces Day at the weekend, I know that there is strong support for them in every part of the country. The hon. Lady talked about young people finding meaning through service, and I could not agree more. I am grateful to her for that contribution.

The shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), asked me a number of questions. We have to renew the Armed Forces Act every five years, and it will be renewed in the proper way. We are looking at what is necessary to update that legislation, especially as it will come in after the publication of the strategic defence review. He will be familiar with the fact that the strategic defence review made the case for a defence readiness Bill, and we are looking at all those details. I can reassure him that it is part of the commitment we have made that, following the wide consultation we undertook for the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, we will continue that in that spirit for future legislation.

The right hon. Gentleman may have missed it, but just before Prime Minister’s questions today we had Northern Ireland questions, and I believe the Northern Ireland Secretary replied to questions on a number of issues that he has asked me about. I refer him to those remarks because as he will know—if only because I say this every time he asks me a question on it—that these are matters for the Northern Ireland Office, although Defence clearly has strong equities and views on these matters as well. \p Mark Francois: I was watching Northern Ireland questions and, from memory, the Northern Ireland Secretary said that the Government would address this through primary legislation, but he gave no indication of any kind as to what will happen to the outstanding remedial order. If Ministers cannot answer that today, perhaps the Minister or the Northern Ireland Office could write to us and tell us where we stand. \p Luke Pollard: The right hon. Gentleman will know, because I have had a similar conversation in a variety of different formats over recent weeks, that the policy intention of the Northern Ireland Office is to repeal and, importantly, replace the unlawful Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. It has been found to be unlawful, it does not enjoy community support and it needs to be repealed and replaced. Any Government who were elected last July would have had to do that. \p Julian Lewis: On the point about not enjoying community support, when we were having these debates in great detail, the highly divided communities would always stand up and say how this was unacceptable and  that was unacceptable, and then their representatives would quietly come up to us and say, “For goodness’ sake, go on doing what you are doing.” The Minister may have some legal problems to overcome, but let him not be fooled by what is said in public about what really needs to be done. \p Luke Pollard: I thank the right hon. Member for his contribution. Indeed, it is a matter that my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office follow closely as that is the lead Department with responsibility for the repealing and replacing of the legacy Act. I am certain that he will continue making suggestions in that way. It is not for me to make announcements on the Northern Ireland Office’s behalf, but I am certain that it will have listened to what he had to say.

I am grateful for the remarks from the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty). I told him just before this that I look forward to seeing him on the Front Bench in a shadow Defence role very soon. As he knows, I am a big fan of what he has to say, and I like the way he brings his military expertise and a certain defence nerdery, which, as a defence nerd on the Labour side, I very much appreciate.

I politely say to the hon. Member that my experience from engaging with our allies on NATO’s eastern flank—from Finland and the Baltic states all the way down, passing Belarus and others, is that the nations there value the relationship with the United Kingdom even more so over the past year. We have strong relations with the Joint Expeditionary Force nations of northern Europe, and we continue to deepen relations with our Baltic friends, including enhancing our forward land force in Estonia, and our co-operation and support for Latvia and Lithuania. I do not recognise that concern, but he is right to raise it, if only to allow me to put on the record that we have strong support from those nations and, indeed, we strongly support them in wanting to be sovereign and free, including from Russian aggression.

I also politely say to the hon. Member that RRS Sir David Attenborough provides an important presence in the Antarctic region. If he has not yet discovered polar region nerdery, can I recommend that to him? Not only do HMS Protector—our ice ship—and RRS Sir David Attenborough provide an important presence for our Arctic and Antarctic missions; they also help us honour our obligations under the Antarctic treaty, which is an important part of the rules-based framework for the protection of the Antarctic. \p Ben Obese-Jecty: On the Arctic and HMS Protector, what plans do we have to procure an icebreaker to increase our footprint in that region? \p Luke Pollard: I knew he was tempted to go into polar nerdery! I would be happy to speak to the hon. Member about some of those aspects. Clearly, when it comes to the provision of our ships and capabilities, it is not just an MOD matter; it is one that we share, in particular with our Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office colleagues, but I am happy to pick up those points with him.

I am not certain that the hon. Member is right on everything he said on drones, but none the less, he is certainly right that drone warfare has fundamentally changed how warfare is conducted. I am proud that we  have a plan to return to 2.5% spending on defence—a figure not met since 2010. We do need to spend more on defence because we live in more dangerous times.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) was right to speak about the sacrifices that armed forces families make—it is something that we should not forget. Indeed, that is the reason why in the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, we deliberately extend the powers of the commissioner to have a requirement to engage with the family members of our people who serve, which is important.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for her contribution. We do indeed have a Government who honour the service of our armed forces every day, and I am proud to serve within it. She is also right to raise LGBT veterans. She will know that the prioritisation we have decided as Ministers is that the initial payments, as we stand up the system to make payments, should be directed at those who are over 80 or facing a terminal condition. We have completed that work. That was the right prioritisation in the first instance, so justice can be done for those folk who may not see many more days. We are now standing up that wider system so that we can process that wider set of payments that we have committed to do, and we will continue to do so.

Finally, in relation to the questions asked by the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed), the future commando force strategy published under the last Government moved away from full commando assault to small raiding parties. That was the extant policy of the last Government and, because of that, I would be happy to speak to him about it. We have a strong commitment to the amphibious role of the Royal Marines and to the multi-role strike ship, as set out in the strategic defence review, and I would be very happy to speak to him about that further. I have a Royal Marine base in my constituency, as he has in his— \p David Reed: On that point, will the Minister give way? \p Luke Pollard: I am afraid I have to conclude because of time, but I would be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss this further. I can reassure him that the Royal Marines have a very bright and strong future in our armed forces. \p David Reed: On that point, will the Minister give way? \p Luke Pollard: Oh, go on then. \p David Reed: What the Minister says raises a more fundamental question. Just like the release of the strategic defence review to trade bodies and to the press before its publication, we are reading about issues in the press but do not have the opportunity to discuss them in Parliament. While I welcome the Minister’s offer to have a conversation with him, why can we not have that conversation in the Chamber now? \p Luke Pollard: I refer the hon. Gentleman to all the debates that I called on the future of the Royal Marines under the last Government, when I was sitting on the Opposition Benches, to make the case that the Royal Marines have a bright future. We have a strong commitment to the future of the Royal Marines and to amphibiocity.  He will know the changes that his Government introduced in the future commando force strategy. If we look at the lessons from Ukraine, the Royal Marines were well ahead of the learnings that we now see from there. I am happy to discuss that with him further and I am sure that he will want to table a Westminster Hall debate so that we can discuss this even more.

I reassure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the future of the Royal Marines is safe and secure. We have strong commitment to amphibiocity. We need to ensure that all our fighting forces adapt to the changed environment in which they operate. As someone who represents Stonehouse Barracks, the spiritual home of the Royal Marines, I feel personally about that commitment and I do not recognise the concerns that he raised. However, I am glad that there is strong cross-party support for our armed forces and for this draft order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Armed Forces Act 2006 (Continuation) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 9 June, be approved. \p Dan Jarvis: I beg to move,

That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 30 June, be approved.

I am grateful to the House for its consideration of this draft order, which will see three distinct groups proscribed: Maniacs Murder Cult, Palestine Action and the Russian Imperial Movement. \p Jeremy Corbyn: On that point, will the Minister give way? \p Carla Denyer: Will the Minister give way? \p Dan Jarvis: I will make a bit of progress, which I do not think is unreasonable.

The proscription of those three organisations will reaffirm the UK’s zero-tolerance approach to terrorism, regardless of its form or underlying ideology.

It may be helpful to set out some background to the proscription power. To proscribe an organisation, the Home Secretary must reasonably believe that it is concerned in terrorism. That means that the organisation commits or participates in terrorism, it prepares for terrorism, it promotes or encourages terrorism, or it is otherwise concerned in terrorism. Some 80 terrorist organisations are currently proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000.

Proscription is, rightly, ideologically neutral: it judges an organisation on its actions and the actions it is willing to deploy in pursuit of its cause. The UK’s definition of terrorism was established in law a quarter of a century ago, and it has stood the test of time and extensive scrutiny since. \p Alistair Carmichael: On that point, will the Minister give way? \p Dan Jarvis: I will make a little more progress before giving way.

The definition has three limbs. First, the use or threat of action must reach a certain level of seriousness, such as serious violence or serious damage to property. Secondly, the use or threat must be designed to influence a Government or intimidate the public or a section of the public. Thirdly, the use or threat must be made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause. Successive independent reviewers of terrorism legislation have upheld the UK’s terrorism definition as effective and fit for purpose, even as the threat from terrorism has evolved. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Dan Jarvis: I will give way in just a moment.

Proscription is one of the most powerful counter-terrorism tools available to Government. Any decision to proscribe is taken with great care and follows rigorous consideration, as noted by Jonathan Hall KC in his report on the operation of the terrorism Acts of 2022. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Dan Jarvis: I will give way to the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). \p Jeremy Corbyn: I am grateful to the Minister. The question that many of us want to put to him is this: why has he linked these three organisations together? He clearly has made a judgment on each of the three organisations independently of each other. I and many others outside, I am sure, think it would be fair if we took individual votes on the three. Many of us are very concerned about the issue facing Palestine Action, and that is the issue we wish to address in the debate. \p Dan Jarvis: I can say to the right hon. Gentleman that I will move on to that and will explain with real clarity precisely why we have proceeded in the way that we have. I suspect that he has a long memory. I am sure that he will recall that he has voted against proscribing a number of organisations previously, including al-Qaeda in 2001, when the motion was bundled along with 20 other militant organisations, so there is clear precedent for doing this. The reason we seek to do it is to demonstrate that we do not attach any kind of ideological prism with which to seek to make a judgment. The Home Secretary will take a view based on a legal threshold, and that is the basis on which we have proceeded. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for bringing forward this motion. If it comes to a vote, as some have indicated they wish it to do, my party will support the Government. I come from Northern Ireland, and we understand what it means to have security. It is important to have Government, Ministers, the police, the Army, MI5 and MI6, and they all have a responsibility. In relation to the membership of those organisations, is there a list of those who may be members of Palestine Action, for instance? I do not know where they are—there might be some in this House; if there is, perhaps we would understand. Will they be subject to the ruling and proscription as well? \p Dan Jarvis: I know that the hon. Gentleman speaks with great authority on these matters, borne out of his extensive experience of dealing with these matters in Northern Ireland. If he is a little patient and if the House allows me to make a bit of progress, I will explain and respond to the point he has raised and the points that other hon. Members seek to raise.

If the House will allow, let me turn to the specific measures before us today, taking each of the proposed additions to the list of proscribed organisations in order. First, there is the Maniacs Murder Cult, also known as MMC, which is an insidious white-supremacist and neo-Nazi organisation operating online and across borders. It aims to encourage individuals to engage in acts of violence against people it perceives to be antisocial, including homeless people, drug addicts and migrants, all to further its own ideology and degrade human society through violence.

The Government assess that MMC commits, prepares for, promotes and encourages acts of terrorism. MMC members and leaders have claimed a number of violent attacks globally that were committed in pursuit of the group’s aims. MMC supplies instructional material that could increase the capability or motivation of an aspiring attacker, including a guide that provides information on  how to fatally attack someone with a knife and use a vehicle as a weapon. MMC’s members and non-members share its material and other online content, including videos of violent attacks, to encourage further violence in support of its ideology.

On 22 May, a 21-year-old Georgian national known as Commander Butcher, considered to be one of MMC’s leaders, was extradited to the United States, and he is set to stand trial in New York for soliciting hate crimes and acts of mass violence. As set out in the indictment, he is alleged to have recruited individuals online to promote MMC’s ideologies by committing acts of murder, arson, bombing and mass poisoning in New York—acts targeted at members of ethnic minority groups, homeless people and Jewish schoolchildren. As this case illustrates, MMC has a truly transnational audience, which includes people in the UK. It does not matter where the leaders of this network are based if they are capable of inspiring acts of violence and terror in any country. Vulnerable individuals, such as minors, are particularly exposed to the horrific material MMC publishes and distributes online.

This Government will not stand by and allow the terrorist threat and wider societal harms caused by MMC to persist. Proscribing MMC is key to deterring and diverting individuals from engaging with its violent content, and it sends a clear signal to social media companies to remove MMC’s material from their platforms. The threat posed by MMC must be taken extremely seriously, whether it is inspiring acts of violence against our people or influencing young people to commit those acts. We will not hesitate to take action against such groups to keep our country safe. \p Andrew George: I agree with the Minister that MMC clearly meets the threshold for proscription, but when did its actions first come to the attention of the Government? Why have they left it so long to bring forward this order? Why did they leave it until it was politically convenient? \p Dan Jarvis: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has chosen to make that final point. There is no political convenience in what we are seeking to do today. We are seeking to ensure the security of our country, and if he has a little patience, I will further make that case to him and to the House.

Let me turn to Palestine Action. The public attention it has garnered should not be confused with legitimacy, nor should a group formed five years ago be conflated with the legitimate campaign for Palestinian rights and statehood, which has existed in our country and in this House for more than five decades. Let me be clear: the proscription of Palestine Action is not aimed at banning protest that supports Palestine. There are many ways in which people can continue to lawfully express their support for Palestine without being a member or supporter of Palestine Action. \p Zarah Sultana: The Minister will be aware that the High Court has granted Palestine Action permission for a legal challenge. Rather than the Home Secretary, who is not here, rushing this order through Parliament, should it not be delayed until the judicial process has concluded? \p Dan Jarvis: We are certainly not seeking to rush this through Parliament; these are matters that the Home Secretary and I have considered for some time. There is a clear route to legal challenge, and if an organisation is proscribed, it has the opportunity to pursue that route. That is entirely within the rights of any organisation that is proscribed, and is a matter for them.

Let me make the important point that freedom of expression and assembly are cornerstones of our democracy. They are fundamental rights, and this Government will always respect and protect them. We will always defend the right of the British people to engage in legitimate and peaceful protest, and to stand up for the causes in which they believe. \p Chi Onwurah: I often show visitors the statue of Viscount Falkland and its missing spur, removed when a suffragette chained herself to it. I was here when protesters superglued their buttocks to the glass panel above us, causing some scandal and damage. Will the Minister confirm that criminal damage, no matter how creatively or indeed scandalously undertaken, will always be dealt with under criminal law, and not as a terrorist act? \p Dan Jarvis: I know that my hon. Friend has given this matter serious consideration, and she makes an interesting point. In my remarks, I will seek to evidence to her and others why we have chosen to take this course of action on this group. I hope that when I have made my speech, she will understand why we are proceeding in this way. I was just making a point about the importance of the right to protest. Essential as such rights are, they do not give this group carte blanche to seriously damage property or subject members of the public to fear and violence. \p Diane Abbott: The Minister will be aware that many of us in this Chamber think that Palestine Action is in a different category from the other two organisations that he is seeking to proscribe. Is he aware that several UN special rapporteurs, including those protecting human rights, say that they have told the UK Government that

“acts of protest that damage property, but are not intended to kill or injure people, should not be treated as terrorism”? \p Dan Jarvis: I am grateful to the Mother of the House, because she makes an important point. Before I respond to it, let me say politely and gently to her and others that my strong sense is that if the actions of the group that we are considering had been conducted by an organisation with different ideological motives, she and some of her colleagues would strongly recommend that the Government proscribed them. [Interruption.] That is, I am afraid, the conclusion I have arrived at.

My right hon. Friend mentioned the United Nations. The Government received a letter from the UN special procedures mandate holders at the end of 2024, and the UK Government provided a full response, which has been published. I gently say to her that national security and keeping the public safe are very much matters for this country, not other organisations. \p Adnan Hussain: This heavy-handed approach threatens basic freedoms and sets a dangerous precedent for all political dissent in the UK. Does the Minister acknowledge that? \p Dan Jarvis: I do not acknowledge that, and I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the decision we have taken. If he will listen to what I have to say, I hope he will understand why we are progressing in this way.

The attack at Brize Norton on 20 June has understandably provoked shock and anger in this House and across the country, but it was just the latest episode in Palestine Action’s long history of harmful activity. It has orchestrated a nationwide campaign of attacks that have resulted in serious damage to property and crossed the threshold between direct criminal action and terrorism. I hope that goes some way to responding to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah) made. Palestine Action members have used violence against people responding at the scene of attacks. For their role in co-ordinated attacks, members of the organisation have been charged with serious offences, including violent disorder, grievous bodily harm with intent and aggravated burglary, which is an offence involving a weapon. \p Clive Lewis: I thank the Minister for giving way, and for some of the things that he has said. Everything he has spoken about could be dealt with under criminal law. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah) mentioned the suffragettes. I think we need to give the context of a little bit of history. The suffragettes carried out a campaign of window-smashing, poster and paint defacement, cutting telegraph and railway lines and targeted bombing and arson, but specifically avoided harming people. There is a long history in this country of direct action that pushes the boundaries of our democracy. It is very difficult for all of us, but this is still direct action, not terrorist action. \p Dan Jarvis: I acknowledge my hon. Friend’s point about history, and it is entirely reasonable context for him and others to raise, but ultimately this Government must respond to events taking place in the here and now. The Government have to make sometimes difficult decisions about what measures are required to keep the public safe. He is absolutely within his rights to make comparisons with other groups, but as I will explain, fundamentally the Home Secretary has to take a view on whether a legal threshold has been crossed, and if it has, she has to make a judgment on whether she wishes to proceed. \p Alistair Carmichael: Will the Minister give way? \p Dan Jarvis: I must make a bit of progress, because I still have some way to go.

Despite some of its rhetoric, the group’s own materials state that it is not non-violent, and that is echoed in the actions of its members, who have committed atrocious attacks. Having carefully considered all the evidence, the Home Secretary has concluded that Palestine Action is concerned in terrorism and should be proscribed. The House will understand that I am unable to comment on specific intelligence or to go into details about incidents that are sub judice. However, I can provide a summary of the group’s activities, and it is right that I make the position clear to the House.

Since its inception in 2020, Palestine Action has orchestrated and enacted a campaign of direct criminal action against businesses and institutions, including key  national infrastructure and defence firms that provide services and supplies that support Ukraine, NATO, our Five Eyes allies and the UK defence industry. Over time, and most notably since the start of 2024, Palestine Action’s activity has increased in frequency and severity. Its targets have broadened to include financial firms, charities, universities and Government buildings. Its methods have become more aggressive, with its members demonstrating a willingness to use violence. \p Alistair Carmichael: Will the Minister give way? \p Dan Jarvis: I will, but I must then make some progress. \p Alistair Carmichael: The Minister has spoken about some of the history of this, but there is more recent history. The last Government introduced the Public Order Act 2023 to deal with Extinction Rebellion. The Home Secretary, who was then on the Opposition Front Bench, listed all the various crimes that could be dealt with. She said then:

“the Government are extending powers that we would normally make available just for serious violence and terrorism to peaceful protest. Police officers themselves have said that this is, ‘a severe restriction on a person’s rights to protest and in reality, is unworkable’.”—[Official Report, 23 May 2022; Vol. 715, c. 63.]

She was right then, and is wrong today, is she not? \p Dan Jarvis: I will make a bit of progress, because I hope to answer some of the points that the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] I am about to explain to him that specific recent incidents have informed the decision. I understand why he may not want to listen to that, but I invite him to do so, because the context is very important. \p Zarah Sultana: Will the Minister give way? \p Dan Jarvis: No, I will make some progress now.

Palestine Action’s own materials state

“we are not non-violent and we have specific targets”.

The group has a footprint in all 45 policing regions in the UK, and has pledged to escalate its campaign. This disgraceful pattern of activity cannot be allowed to continue. In applying the legislative framework, the Government assess that Palestine Action commits acts of terrorism. In several attacks— \p Ayoub Khan: Will the Minister give way? \p Dan Jarvis: I will not give way, because I need to get these important points on the record.

Palestine Action has committed acts of serious damage to property, with the aim of progressing its political cause and intimidating and influencing the public and the Government. These include attacks against Thales in Glasgow in 2022 and against Instro Precision in Kent and Elbit Systems UK in Bristol last year. In such attacks, Palestine Action members have forced entry on to premises while armed with a variety of weapons, and damaged or demolished property, causing millions of pounds’ worth of criminal damage. As the House has heard, Palestine Action members have used violence against people responding at the scene.

During Palestine Action’s attack against the Thales defence factory in Glasgow in 2022, the group caused over £1 million-worth of damage, including to parts that are essential for our submarines. Palestine Action  caused panic among staff, who feared for their safety as pyrotechnics and smoke bombs were thrown into the area to which they were evacuating. When passing custodial sentences for the perpetrators, the sheriff said:

“Throwing pyrotechnics at areas where people are being evacuated to cannot be described as non-violent.”

The Government also assess that Palestine Action prepares for terrorism. The organisation has provided practical advice to assist its members in carrying out significant levels of property damage at targets right across the UK. For example, Palestine Action has released an underground manual that encourages its members to create small groups or cells and provides guidance about how to conduct activity against private companies and Government buildings. It explains how to operate covertly to evade arrest and provides a link to a website, also created by Palestine Action, which contains a map of target locations across the UK.

The Government assess that Palestine Action promotes and encourages terrorism, including through the glorification on social media of its attacks involving property damage. Palestine Action’s attacks are not victimless crimes; employees have experienced physical violence, intimidation and harassment, and they have been prevented from entering their place of work. We would not tolerate this activity from organisations motivated by Islamist or extreme right-wing ideology, and we cannot tolerate it from Palestine Action.

By implementing this measure, we will remove Palestine Action’s veil of legitimacy, tackle its financial support, and degrade its efforts to recruit and radicalise people into committing terrorist activity in its name. We must be under no illusion: Palestine Action is not a legitimate protest group. People engaged in lawful protest do not need weapons. People engaged in lawful protest do not throw smoke bombs and fire pyrotechnics around innocent members of the public. And people engaged in lawful protest do not cause millions of pounds’ worth of damage to national security infrastructure, including submarines and defence equipment for NATO. Proscribing Palestine Action will not impinge the right to protest. People have always been able to protest lawfully or express support for Palestine, and they can continue to do so.

I am conscious of the time, so I will briefly turn to the Russian Imperial Movement. RIM is a white supremacist ethno-nationalist organisation that seeks to create a new Russian imperial state. The methods that RIM uses to try to achieve those aims threaten UK, Euro-Atlantic and wider international security and prosperity. RIM conducts combat activity via its paramilitary unit, the Russian Imperial Legion, and has actively fought alongside Russian forces and other pro-Russian right-wing extremist groups in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict. In doing so, the Government assess that it has committed or participated in acts of terrorism.

RIM also prepares for terrorism. It manages a paramilitary training programme known as Partisan, which increases the capabilities of attendees to conduct terrorist attacks. By proscribing RIM, the UK will reinforce our steadfast support for Ukraine’s resistance to Russian aggression and our commitment to counter future threats from extreme right-wing terrorism in the UK and Europe.

Almost two years ago, it was my task on behalf of what was then His Majesty’s Opposition to strongly support the action taken to proscribe the Wagner Group,  an organisation that rightly stood condemned for its acts of indiscriminate violence and terror in Ukraine and elsewhere. I hope the whole House will be as united today as it was on that occasion in endorsing the action taken against the Russian Imperial Movement.

To conclude, the first duty of Government is to keep our country safe. When our collective security and our values are threatened, we will not hesitate to act. Today’s proscriptions will send a clear and unambiguous message that this Parliament stands against terrorism however and wherever it manifests itself. Only in applying the UK’s counter-terrorism framework without bias can we maintain confidence in it. I therefore urge Members to support these proscriptions, and I commend the order to the House. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. Members will have noted from the Order Paper that this debate is only 90 minutes long—it has to conclude at 5.27 pm—which means Back Benchers will be on a speaking limit of four minutes to begin with and that only a few will get in before the debate has to conclude. I call the shadow Minister. \p Harriet Cross: I am grateful to the Minister for his speech and for bringing this important and very necessary measure to the House. I also thank him for the briefing I was provided with earlier today.

Let us be clear what these measures are and are not about. Do we support free speech? Yes. Do we support the right to protest? Yes. Do we support freedom of expression? Yes. However, the very freedoms that make our democracy what it is are exactly the freedoms that the groups we are considering are putting at risk, which is why this order is needed. The groups we are discussing—Palestine Action, Maniacs Murder Cult and the Russian Imperial Movement—have nothing whatsoever to do with legitimate protest. They would not be facing proscription if they were demonstrating peacefully, respectfully or legally, as so many groups and organisations across the country do and must continue to be able to do freely. These groups have chosen a different path entirely, and for that reason this action is rightly being taken against them. \p Shockat Adam: Does the shadow Minister agree with me that, if the only acceptable form of protest is polite protest, that is not protest, but permission? \p Harriet Cross: The right to protest is a hugely important part of our democracy. We support the right to protest and the right to free speech. We do not support a right to commit criminal damage or to intimidate or threaten the public, but that is exactly what these groups are doing and why they are quite rightly being proscribed.

We must be clear-eyed about the broader threat landscape we face. Terrorism remains one of the most serious threats to our national security. Whether it comes from international networks, those radicalised online or extremist  groups operating on our soil, the threat is real and evolving and it must demand our constant vigilance. Our security services work tirelessly day and night to keep us safe. They have disrupted countless plots that the public will never know about, but we cannot be complacent. The nature of terrorism has changed—from sophisticated networks to lone actors, from physical attacks to attacks on cyber networks, and from foreign battlefields to our own communities—and our response must evolve accordingly.

We should reflect on what terrorism is. As defined by the Terrorism Act 2000, it occurs when an action’s

“use or threat is designed to influence the government…or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and…the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.”

The full list of actions are detailed in the Act, but they include serious violence against a person, those that endanger life or health and safety, and those that seriously damage property.

Proscription is not a step taken lightly, but it is a strong and necessary tool that the previous as well as the current Government have used and should use to protect the public, and to ensure that our police and security services have fuller access to the resources they need to keep the public, our institutions and our way of life safe. No one could hear the Minister’s description of the actions of Palestine Action, MMR and RIM and consider them to be those of peaceful, legitimate protest groups. \p Ayoub Khan: Does the shadow Minister accept that there is a distinction in intent between Palestine Action and the other two organisations? There is no intention with Palestine Action to cause injury to people, so matters can already be dealt with in the criminal courts. \p Harriet Cross: I thank the hon. Member for that, but if Palestine Action is using pyrotechnics against people who are escaping an attack by that organisation, that is intent. If it intends to damage Royal Air Force property and Ministry of Defence property by sabotaging RAF jets at Brize Norton, that is intent. It is showing intent as well as the other organisations.

These groups do not share our values. They do not respect our country. They do not care about our way of life and they show no regard for the safety of our citizens. On the Conservative Benches, we are proud of the actions taken by previous Conservative Governments to strengthen our counter-terrorism framework. We gave our police and security services the powers they needed to confront evolving threats, and we welcome and support the Home Secretary making use of the same powers today.

As the Minister said, proscription is a vital tool and a strong deterrent, but it is only a part—albeit a very important part—of what we need to do to keep our country safe. On its own, it is not enough. It must be followed by enforcement. We will, of course, be watching closely to ensure the police have the resources and the backing they need from the Labour Government to do just that.

As the Minister and I have said, the first job of any Government is to keep their citizens safe. We, as the official Opposition, will always support the Government in that aim. The activities of these organisations have  clearly met the threshold for proscription under the Terrorism Act, and we on the Opposition Benches are very happy to support the Government in their aims today. \p Richard Burgon: I want to speak specifically about Palestine Action. It is most regrettable that the Government have tabled one order banning three organisations, when it knows that there is political disagreement on Palestine Action. That is no way to bring terror legislation to the House. I want to be clear and to put on the record that I would be supporting the order today if it referred only to the organisations Maniacs Murder Cult and the Russian Imperial Movement.

Leading legal and human rights organisations Amnesty International and Liberty have condemned the proscription of Palestine Action. Liberty said:

“Targeting a protest group with terrorism powers is a shocking escalation of the Government’s crackdown on protest...This move would be a huge step change in how counter-terror laws are applied.”

Amnesty International UK said:

“We’re deeply concerned at the use of counter-terrorism powers to target protest groups...they certainly shouldn’t be used to ban them.”

They both urged the Home Secretary to rethink before bringing this to Parliament. Yesterday, several United Nations special rapporteurs, including those for protecting human rights while countering terrorism and for promoting freedom of expression, said they had contacted the UK Government to say that

“acts of protest that damage property, but are not intended to kill or injure people, should not be treated as terrorism”.

Likewise, Lord Charlie Falconer, the former Justice Minister, stated that the “sort of demonstration” seen at a military base by Palestine Action would not justify proscription as a terrorist organisation.

Today, we are not voting on whether people agree with Palestine Action’s tactics; we are not voting on whether people think its aim is right or wrong. We are voting on whether the actions it has taken against property, not against people, should lead to its being treated as a terrorist organisation, when what it has done can be prosecuted as criminal damage. There is a long history of protest activity including acts of trespass, criminal damage, sabotage and more. Indeed, the Home Secretary’s recent statement repeatedly refers to criminal damage and the live court cases, showing that there is already legal provision to deal with Palestine Action.

There are a variety of potential consequences if the proscription of Palestine Action is passed. Supporting or joining Palestine Action could carry up to 14 years in prison. That risks criminalising thousands of volunteers and supporters. Thousands have supported or volunteered with Palestine Action, including nurses, students, retirees and professionals. Many have never engaged in direct action, but risk being criminalised. Today, I met representatives of Amnesty International who offered a number of frightening examples of how our constituents could be placed at risk of prosecution under section 12 of the Terrorism Act and could face a maximum sentence of 14 years if Palestine Action are proscribed.

According to Amnesty International, a person who tweets, “I oppose the war crimes in Gaza and I think that Palestine Action has a point,” could easily fall foul  of this provision, as could a person who says to another, “I do not support all the methods used by Palestine Action, but I think protest is important and I respect the personal sacrifices members of Palestine Action are willing to make, risking arrest to challenge war crimes,” or an individual with a placard that reads, “Palestine Action is peaceful—it should be de-proscribed.” This legislation could affect constituents who have never been a member of Palestine Action and who have never and would never commit direct action. Speeches or comments they make in community meetings could be trawled, and they could end up facing legal proceedings resulting in a prison sentence of up to 14 years. That concerns us all.

People out there view terrorism as meaning heinous acts such as shooting people, blowing people up, assassinating people and other acts of violence. I urge colleagues to consider the consequences for their constituents of proscribing Palestine Action alongside these other groups. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Lisa Smart: I am grateful to the Minister for taking the time to discuss this issue with me.

As has been mentioned, there are three organisations listed today, and the order before us is unamendable. Taking each of the three organisations in turn, the Russian Imperial Movement is an ultranationalist and white supremacist militant organisation operating from inside Russia. The group has been proscribed by both the United States and Canada, and even the Russian Government have blacklisted many of the group’s publications and activities. The rationale and justification for proscription is clear, and we are content to support it.

The Maniacs Murder Cult is similarly destructive, driven by a belief that society must be violently destabilised so that a new neo-Nazi or white supremacist order can rise from its ashes. It promotes random acts of violence including murder, assaults and bombings as a deliberate tactic to instil fear and chaos. The rationale and justification for proscription is clear, and we are content to support it.

The questions for many Members today relate to Palestine Action. On 20 June, as has been widely reported in the press, two members of Palestine Action gained unauthorised access to RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire, the UK’s largest airbase, circumventing perimeter security under cover of darkness. Once inside, they targeted two aircraft. Incidents involving members of Palestine Action include attacks at sites operated by Elbit Systems in Bristol in 2024 and again this year, as well as at a Thales UK facility in Glasgow in 2022. I note the Minister’s comments about cases currently going through the courts.

No matter how strongly any of us feels about the appalling humanitarian crisis in Gaza—and many of us across this House and across the country feel very strongly indeed—that does not justify attacks on military bases in Britain. Those responsible must face the full force of the law; there is no doubt about that. However, those laws already exist, and that is not what is in front of MPs today. The question we face is not whether or not these people have committed crimes, but whether someone who merely expresses support for them should face up to 14 years in jail. The bar for which groups  should be proscribed as terrorist organisations is rightly set very high. It is crucial that the reasons for these decisions are transparent to maintain the public’s trust in our counter-terrorism framework.

I have listened carefully both to experts who have raised concerns, including those from the UN who were mentioned by the Mother of the House, and to what the Minister has said. I have also seen the Home Secretary’s words about her reasons for making this decision based on damage to property, notwithstanding the Minister’s comments on the use of violence. Proscribing an organisation solely on the grounds of serious damage to property would, I believe, be unprecedented. To date—I would welcome the Minister correcting me if I have got this wrong—no organisation has been proscribed in the UK exclusively for property damage, as is the case here, according to the Home Secretary’s words on the Government website.

While there may be compelling legal arguments that the actions of Palestine Action have met the legal definition of terrorism in terms of serious criminal damage, the decision to proscribe is ultimately made at the Home Secretary’s discretion. There are still questions as to whether that discretion is proportionate in this case, given the level of threat posed to the general public. I would welcome more details from the Minister on why he believes this is a proportionate response, as I remain to be convinced.

Currently the maximum custodial term for certain offences relating to membership of, or expressing support for, a proscribed terrorist organisation is 14 years. Yet in instances such as this, where actions, though criminal and damaging, may not pose the same imminent threat to life, a blanket application of such severe penalties risks being disproportionate. The Home Secretary rightly has substantial powers to take action to keep our country safe, but it is also right and entirely proper that we scrutinise the use of these powers and press the Government to ensure that any use of them is wholly proportionate. \p Zarah Sultana: Twenty-one years ago, a human rights barrister stood in court and defended an activist who broke into RAF Fairford trying to disable a bomber to prevent war crimes in Iraq. That became a landmark case in lawful, non-violent direct action against an illegal war. That barrister is now our Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer KC. He argued that it was not terrorism but conscience.

Fast-forward to 20 June 2025: two Palestine Action activists entered RAF Brize Norton and sprayed red paint—red paint, not fire—on aircraft linked to surveillance flights over Gaza. Instead of prosecuting them for criminal damage, which is what normally is done, the Home Secretary is using the Terrorism Act 2000 to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist group. This is an unprecedented and dangerous overreach of the state. Never before in Britain has it been a crime to simply support a group.

This order lumps a non-violent network of students, nurses, teachers, firefighters and peace campaigners—ordinary people, my constituents and yours—with neo-Nazi   militias and mass-casualty cults. Palestine Action’s real crime is, we have to be clear, shutting down Elbit Systems sites that arm the Israeli military; its true offence is being audacious enough to expose the blood-soaked ties between this Government and the genocidal Israeli apartheid state and its war machine.

Let us be clear: to equate a spray can of paint with a suicide bomb is not just absurd; it is grotesque. It is a deliberate distortion of the law to chill dissent, criminalise solidarity and suppress the truth. Amnesty international, Liberty, over 266 senior lawyers and UN special rapporteurs have all opposed these draconian measures. Even at this late stage, the order should be withdrawn.

Under this order, anyone expressing moral support for a proscribed group could face 14 years in prison. That includes wearing a badge, wearing a T-shirt, sharing a post or calling for de-proscription. And journalists have no exemption either: there is no legal protection for reporting favourably, even factually, about Palestine Action. By this weekend, millions of people, including many of our constituents, could be placed under these sweeping restrictions.

Let us not forget what is happening in Gaza,  where the real crimes are being ignored: hospitals  bombed, children starved, and tens of thousands of people killed. Palestinian children now suffer more amputations per capita than children anywhere else on earth. Israel is on trial for genocide at the International Court of Justice and the Israeli Prime Minister faces  an International Criminal Court arrest warrant, yet  the Government’s response is to criminalise solidarity and to continue exporting lethal F-35 jets that are decimating Gaza.

We also have to understand the history of this country and what built our democracy: the tradition of civil disobedience that includes the suffragettes, without  whom I would not have the vote, let alone the privilege of being here as an MP.

Even those who oppose Palestine Action’s tactics must recognise the vast gulf between criminal damage and terrorism. If this order passes, what and who is next—climate protesters, striking workers, feminists in the street? Already we have seen a wider crackdown on our civil liberties—musicians censored, journalists arrested, and demonstrators, including MPs sitting here, harassed—and now this Government want to use anti-terror laws to make peaceful protest itself a crime. If our democratic institutions functioned as they should, none of this would be necessary.

To conclude, if this proscription passes, as it will, we have to understand that no campaign will be safe tomorrow. We have to recognise that this will go down as a dark day in our country’s history and one that will be remembered: people will ask, “Which side were you on?” and I stand with the millions of people who oppose genocide, because I am one of them. I oppose the blood-soaked hands of this Government trying to silence us. So I say this loudly and proudly on Wednesday 2 July 2025— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. I call Sir Iain Duncan Smith. \p Iain Duncan Smith: I do have concerns about the last of the three organisations covered by the order, in relation to the application of the criminal law. There might be another way of doing it, but I support the Government’s position.

However, this debate has cast into light the fact that we have taken no action to proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Given all the elements that we are discussing today, this question sits like the elephant in the room: why are we not proscribing the IRGC? Why have we resisted doing that? That would have a huge impact on terrorism, or aspects of terrorism.

Let us look at it carefully. The IRGC deliberately exports the Islamic revolution. It uses proxies and has been sponsoring terrorism—as has been demonstrated without dispute all over the world. It supports Hamas and Hezbollah and has supplied them with huge amounts of weapons. On whichever side of the arguments one sits, the fact is that this terrible killing would not have happened had that not been the case. The IRGC was heavily involved in that. It is sanctioned but not proscribed. Sanctioning does not give us enough powers to deal with its proxies and those who work for it.

When in opposition, the Government campaigned to proscribe the IRGC. I remember quite happily working with various Members who were then on the Opposition Front Bench to do that. The Foreign Office endlessly says that we would lose all possibility of forming diplomatic relations or getting through to Iran, but how is that going? How has that gone over the past year? Not at all well. One cannot reason with these characters.

A huge number of global attacks are rooted in IRGC money and training. It has high levels of activity in the UK, such as propaganda to try to build arrangements here, sometimes in plain view—there are even links on Facebook. It could be trapped, but it does it openly because nothing can be done to it at all. Of course, the IRGC supports Hezbollah, which is also proscribed. If we keep following this chain around and around, we come back to the IRGC.

That should be the subject of the debate today. That should be the decision. That should be considered on the Floor of the House. The IRGC should be proscribed, because it is at the root of all terrorism that exists here and in the middle east. If we do not do that, it prompts the question of what we are doing here with these other three organisations. \p Clive Lewis: Let me first associate myself with the very good comments of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart).

I agree with the proscription of the two far-right fascist organisations—I think they should be proscribed—but can we as a House accept that there are those of us present who have a different take on today’s proscription of Palestine Action? We do not have to agree with the behaviour or actions of Palestine Action to make the case today that this proscription is wrong. I ask hon. Members to acknowledge that the many of us here today who take a different view on this issue are as much a part of this democracy as those who agree with the proscription.  It is just that our take on the delicacy of our democracy, on what this proscription does and on how it undermines our democracy happens to differ from that of other people.

There are Opposition Members who have repeatedly said that they understand and empathise with constituents who have smashed and vandalised ultra low emission zone cameras and low emission zone cameras. Direct action is not just of the left; everyone in our democracy can partake in it. This is a judgment call about how we best protect our democracy and an acknowledgment that not all threats are external or violent. Some threats are based on the decisions that we take in this place. Sometimes, we might take decisions that fundamentally undermine our own democracy.

I have no doubt that some of us will be called terrorist sympathisers by some who disagree with our position, but that would be wrong. Look around the world and watch as democracy and the rule of law are systematically smashed. Corporations and the wealthy have increasing power and wealth to influence our democracy. Look over the Atlantic at the United States. Our democracies are delicate; our democracies are precious. The decisions we take in this place determine whether those democracies will survive into the future.

I look around the world and around this country—I look at the authoritarian right party that is 10 points ahead in the polls—and I worry about the future of our democracy. This Government—our Government—have to make decisions that take account of the possibility that we might not be in government one day. It may be the authoritarian right who are in government, and they will take this further, faster and deeper than we ever have, so we should be putting in fireguards now, protecting our democracy, and this measure does not do that.

In conclusion, I understand what terrorism is. I was in London on 7 July 2005 and I watched my community—this city—attacked by real terrorists. At that point, rightly or wrongly, I decided that I was going to Afghanistan to fight the terrorists. I went because I love this country and I love our democracy and I want to see it protected. Today’s proscription order against Palestine Action undermines that, and I wish that my Government were not doing this. \p Pete Wishart: As we have heard, the issues around the proscription of Palestine Action has thrown up a number of legitimate concerns. There is no doubt that it will have an impact on our right to protest and on the civil liberties that we have enjoyed for decades. Although it is absolutely right to condemn and prosecute criminal activity, especially those that threaten our national security, surely this must be done within the framework of existing legislation, as it always has been.

This order looks nothing other than a direct response to Palestine Action being able to infiltrate an RAF base and cause damage to a defence aircraft. The decision to proscribe an organisation is ultimately a matter for the Government, and it is up to the Home Secretary to decide who goes on that list. It is based on intelligence that the Government hold. I do not think that the Minister has convinced many of us today that this has met the threshold for proscription, and we need to hear more about their concerns about this particular group.

Before reaching for that power, the Government must take into account whether it is proportionate, justified and in the national interest to proscribe such an organisation. Terrorism legislation, as we know, hands extremely broad powers to the state and, as such, it must always be treated with the highest degree of caution and restraint.

We live in a society where groups and organisations have the democratic right to campaign and express their views on particular issues in a democratic, respectful and lawful manner. It is important that the right to lawful protest is not affected by the Home Secretary’s decision today, and it is extremely concerning that this decision could lead to these powers being extended to other campaigning organisations.

Palestine Action has inexplicably been linked to groups such as the Maniacs Murder Cult and the Russian Imperial Movement—groups unknown to the House until this measure was on the Order Paper today, but they are groups that, from a cursory glance at their activities, should of course be proscribed.

For Palestine Action to be included alongside those groups is, at best, a cynical and calculated move by the Government to ensure that this order gets through today. People all over the UK, including many of my constituents, rightly feel very strongly about the appalling crimes that are being committed against innocent civilians in Gaza on a daily basis. Many of those people have been taking part in weekly protests to make their voices heard, and to show solidarity with the Palestinian people. These people are now concerned that they might be caught up in this proscription.

I am also concerned that many young people who are sharing social media posts from Palestine Action could now be considered to have glorified what will soon be a proscribed group. We need clarity on what actions would result in people being charged under this terrorism legislation. For example, could a person wearing a Palestine Action badge handed out at a demonstration or a rally be charged with terrorism? Organisations such as Amnesty International and even the United Nations have expressed their concern about the UK’s broad definition of terrorism in this regard.

This week, an Israeli strike on a Gaza seafront café killed at least 20 Palestinians. This is what we should be discussing today and every day until a permanent ceasefire is reached and all the hostages are released. The Government must act in the national interest and keep us safe from all the challenges presented to them, but we need clear reassurance about the wider impact of what is proposed. \p Jonathan Pearce: I welcome the Home Secretary’s decisive action on Palestine Action, the Maniacs Murder Cult and the Russian Imperial Movement. Twenty months on from the horrific terror attacks of 7 October, the suffering of innocent people in Gaza, in Israel and beyond has rightly been the subject of much international campaigning. Money has been raised to support charities getting aid into Gaza, the hostages and missing families forum has worked tirelessly to keep the plight of the 50 remaining hostages on the world’s agenda, and hundreds of thousands of people have contacted their MPs, signed  petitions and made their voices heard. That is all genuine activism, which is, importantly, within the bounds of the law.

Palestine Action is different. Over five years, it has conducted a campaign of violence, intimidation and criminal damage. In one attack on a business in Bristol, two police officers were attacked with a sledgehammer. The officers found not only sledgehammers but whips, axes and other home-made weapons. Palestine Action has attacked a business in my constituency, intimidating the workers there.

Last month, at RAF Brize Norton, military planes were vandalised and £30 million of damage was done. Such attacks undermine our national security and our armed forces. They can never be justified. I applaud the Home Secretary for responding in the strongest possible terms.

Palestine Action also has a track record of attacks against the country’s Jewish community. In May, a building housing Jewish-owned businesses in north Manchester was vandalised with red paint and graffiti reading “Happy Nakba Day”. Later that month, a Jewish-owned business in Stamford Hill was attacked by the organisation, with windows broken, red paint graffiti, and damage done to the building’s mezuzah. In the latter case, Palestine Action’s claims that the business was linked to Israeli defence companies proved baseless. This campaign of antisemitic harassment reveals the logical conclusion of its extremism. The important difference between it and all the other groups mentioned in the House is that it targets a specific ethnic and religious minority in our country.

This extremism does not help a single Palestinian. Smashing windows will not free Palestine, but it undermines the hard work of so many people who support the Palestinian cause and are working towards a peaceful future, and it leads to an environment where British Jews feel unsafe and harassed. That should never be tolerated.

Legitimate protest is a fundamental democratic freedom, but Palestinian Action abandoned legitimate action a long time ago. I welcome the Government’s swift action in ensuring that that organisation can no longer pose a threat to our security, to our businesses and to the Jewish community. \p Jeremy Corbyn: As the debate opened, I intervened on the Minister, and I am grateful to him for giving way. I just need an explanation—I hope that we will get one—as to why groups are always put together in these orders and not dealt with separately. There are clearly different orders of concern here. I want to speak solely about Palestine Action.

We live in a democratic society, and we have to understand where our rights have come from. The hon. Member for High Peak (Jon Pearce) represents the place where in 1932 the mass trespass took place, led by Benny Rothman—a Jewish activist in the Communist party at that time—who was demanding rights of access to the countryside. He was roundly condemned by all the mass media and the Government of the day, he was put on trial and he was put in prison. He was eventually released from prison after mass protests in his support.  Without Benny Rothman and those others, that access to the countryside simply would not have happened at that time.

We can look at all the other people who over decades of our history have stood up for free speech and democracy. We can go back to the Chartists, to the suffragettes and to those who campaigned to end apartheid in South Africa. Interestingly, during all the apartheid years, while the British Government did condemn the African National Congress and did indeed believe for a while that Nelson Mandela was a terrorist, they never banned the ANC in Britain, because they were advised that it was important that there should be a place where people could express that voice of hope for the end of apartheid.

The women who went to Greenham Common to protest about the deployment of nuclear weapons there were never labelled as terrorists either. Yes, they were charged with criminal trespass, as many others have been. Indeed, those who undertake direct action are well aware of the risks they take. However, it crosses an enormous threshold to suddenly make such an announcement about Palestine Action, which speaks out against the horrors of what is happening in Gaza, where hundreds are mown down every day by the Israel Defence Forces simply for queuing for food when they are desperately hungry and their children are starving. Surely we should be looking at the issue that Palestine Action is concerned about, as well as the supply of weapons from this country to Israel, which has made all that possible.

If the order goes through today, it will have a chilling effect on protest. I quote a letter sent to the Home Secretary on 28 June:

“Direct action is a longstanding and respected part of British political history. From the suffragettes chaining themselves to railings, to striking miners, to anti-apartheid campaigners occupying institutions and disrupting trade, civil disobedience and direct action have always been necessary forces for progress and justice.” \p Lee Dillon: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? \p Jeremy Corbyn: I will not.

That letter comes from Bibi Khan, the chair of North London Council of Mosques, and Muhammad Uddin from Newham Muslim Forum, on behalf of the London councils of mosques that are concerned about the chilling effect that this piece of legislation, if agreed today, will have on the rights to protest as a whole.

My last point—I hope the Minister can reply to this if he gets the chance—is that legal action is being taken. There will be a hearing in the High Court this Friday about judicial review of this case. Can it be made clear that the order will not be put into force until all legal avenues have been exhausted and that there will not be a temporary imposition, later to be withdrawn if there is successful legal action? We need to know that all democratic avenues have been fully explored in this process. \p Kim Johnson: Today’s push to proscribe Palestine Action, a non-violent direct action group, as a terrorist organisation is a disastrous turning point of historic proportions. It risks undermining existing prosecution cases against activities by Palestine Action activists and is legally dubious. Human and civil rights organisations, lawyers and UN experts have all  spoken out against the misuse of terrorism laws, calling the move unjustified and warning of a chilling effect on protest and advocacy generally, especially in relation to the defence of human rights and international law in Palestine.

We have already seen the chilling effect on protest. Palestine Solidarity Campaign has been prevented from protesting outside Parliament this evening, with police placing restrictions on the demo and pushing it further down Whitehall. For hundreds of years, protests outside Parliament have gone ahead. Limiting dissent in this way should concern us all, and we have seen that in the last couple of weeks in relation to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, abortion and the empty welfare cuts.

The question that Members of this House must ask ourselves today is whether non-violent political groups should ever be designated as a terror threat. If Palestine Action is proscribed this week— \p Scott Arthur: Will she give way? \p Kim Johnson: No, I will not.

By the weekend, anyone with a branded t-shirt or bag could face a terrorism charge. Amnesty International has flagged that if Palestine Action is proscribed this week, even meeting their lawyers to discuss intervening in judicial review proceedings could see its members fall foul of counter-terror legislation. Those are all examples of potential grounds for prosecution under counter-terrorism laws if Palestine Action is proscribed, which could come to constituents who are not members of the organisation and have never engaged in direct action. The scope of what we are talking about is insanely broad. Will the Government really demand that we vote to criminalise our constituents in that way?

Proscribing Palestine Action today would set a dangerous precedent for future Government misuse of counter-terror laws. It would be the first group proscribed mainly for serious damage to property and the first proscribed direct action group. Proscription is neither necessary nor proportionate. We already have sufficient criminal legislation that has always dealt with this when necessary and the Home Secretary has provided no impact assessment as

“no, or no significant, impact on the private, voluntary or public sectors is foreseen.”

However, we have received no reassurances about how the proportionality test has been applied or whether unintended impacts on the wider pro-Palestine movement were considered by the Home Office and the proscription review group. Indeed, we have heard from civil rights groups that there have allegedly been meetings with representatives from the Israeli Government and arms companies such as Elbit, but none with human rights groups.

Whether or not Members of this House debating and voting on this statutory instrument today agree with the methods or aims of Palestine Action, we should all be able to agree that lumping Palestine Action together with the other two obscure groups to ensure that it is proscribed is a disgraceful manipulation of parliamentary procedure. Searching Hansard, I see that neither of the other two groups has been mentioned, as they are so obscure. This manoeuvre is transparent, and it shows that the Government know just how shaky this proscription  is. Today they come for Palestine Action. If this measure is passed today, who and what will be next? I look forward to the Minister answering the concerns we have raised, particularly about the three organisations being grouped together. \p Ellie Chowns: Let me start by putting on record that I know at least two people who have participated in Palestine Action protests, but that is not why I am speaking today. This is about fundamental principles. This is a chilling moment for British democracy. Let us be clear about what is happening: a political protest group is being silenced. Is it not hugely ironic that this is being done today, given that this morning, hundreds of women MPs, including the Home Secretary, celebrated in Westminster Hall the 97th anniversary of equal votes for women—a victory won by the suffragettes, a direct action protest group?

I have three key points. First, it is a clear overreach to conflate direct action with terrorism. Secondly, this will have a chilling effect on the democratic rights to free speech and protest. Thirdly, it is utterly cynical of the Government to wrap up the proscription of Palestine Action with the proscription of two other clearly terrorist groups. The Terrorism Act 2000 makes it clear that strict proportionality and necessity tests must be met before any group is proscribed, but this decision on Palestine Action is not necessary or proportionate.

As Amnesty International and others have made clear, there is ample criminal law that can be used to respond to a direct action protest network such as Palestine Action. It may have engaged in criminal damage; its supporters may break into airbases; it may have been charged with offences such as violent disorder and aggravated burglary; and it may have carried out actions that I absolutely do not condone—indeed, I condemn the attacks on properties in Stamford Hill, which may understandably have stirred up genuine fear, and I find the words spoken by one of its co-founders at a rally in the aftermath of the 7 October Hamas attacks absolutely horrific—but that does not make Palestine Action terrorists. That bar is, and should be, extremely high. It is commonly understood internationally to involve the use or threat of violence against civilians to instil fear, whereas the stated aim of Palestine Action is to prevent war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

It is not just the members and supporters of Palestine Action who are being silenced but, by association, millions of members of the public. This proscription represents a grave risk to the free speech and protest rights of those who are rightly concerned that a genocide is happening in Gaza on this Government’s watch. Millions of people in this country are active, whether online or in their communities, in campaigning to end the UK’s complicity in that genocide. There is a clear risk that proscribing Palestine Action will criminalise people who, for example, share a social media post, and there is potential for imprisonment for up to 14 years. This proscription interferes with the fundamental rights of members of the public to protest against the Government’s policies, and it is clearly disproportionate in the light of the actions of the group.

I am also deeply concerned by the Home Office’s utterly cynical decision to wrap up the proscription of Palestine Action with that of two other groups that undeniably meet the terrorism test. This has clearly been done to make it extremely difficult for MPs to vote against the motion. I want it on record that I and my Green party colleagues absolutely oppose the proscription of Palestine Action, and we will oppose any similar attacks on the civil disobedience that is such a proud part of UK history.

Let us compare the charges against Palestine Action with those against the Maniacs Murder Cult and the Russian Imperial Movement. Running paramilitary training camps, producing guides on how to fatally attack somebody and white supremacist neo-Nazis organising in support of satanism are clearly terrorist acts, whereas proscribing Palestine Action appears to be a purely political move, unworthy of a democracy supposedly committed to human rights. No wonder there is significant opposition to this move across Parliament, including from the former Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary, Lord Falconer. It is a massive distraction from the continuing horrors in Gaza that Palestine Action wants to bring to an end, as do many in the Chamber— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. I call Nadia Whittome. \p Nadia Whittome: I want to make it clear to Members that the order we are voting on is not about whether we support Palestine Action’s political positions or protest methods. To vote against this motion, Members do not have to agree with the group at all; they can still support holding it criminally liable for its actions. The question is whether it should be proscribed as a terrorist group, placed alongside the likes of al-Qaeda, Islamic State and National Action.

It is fitting that this debate takes place on the 97th anniversary of women winning the vote on equal terms with men, thanks in no small part to the suffragettes. The suffragettes carried out direct action far more extreme than anything those in Palestine Action have done, but today their role in changing history for the better is commemorated. Whatever we think of its actions, Palestine Action is part of a similar tradition, with the target this time being to stop the genocide in Gaza. It is unprecedented for a Government to ban a civil disobedience protest group in the way that they are attempting to today, but what is not unprecedented is protesters breaking into military bases. That has never before resulted in proscription.

Proscribing Palestine Action would be a draconian overreach. It would threaten the fundamental right to peaceful protest. It would set a dangerous precedent that could be used in future to further silence dissent, while diminishing what the Terrorism Act is meant to prevent. \p Lee Dillon: I am the MP for Newbury, where we have Greenham Common, which is now peaceful but had cruise missiles. Greenham Common peace women broke into the base and attacked jets with hammers, and they were prosecuted under criminal law. They were held to account. Does the hon. Member agree that under this Government, even Greenham peace women could have been considered a terrorist organisation? \p Nadia Whittome: I agree entirely with the hon. Member.

UN experts urge us not to do this. They state that they are

“concerned at the unjustified labelling of a political protest movement as ‘terrorist’”.

Hundreds of lawyers have written to the Home Secretary, warning that proscribing Palestine Action would conflate protest and terrorism. Amnesty International and Liberty have both expressed deep concerns. A senior civil servant has briefed that there is disquiet among Home Office staff about the decision, and has called it “absurd”.

It is important to remember that this proscription would affect not just members of Palestine Action, but anyone who supports them. Donating to a fundraiser or posting positively about the group on social media would be committing a crime. We risk criminalising huge numbers of our constituents. I regret our being denied the opportunity to vote separately on the proscription of Palestine Action. The other two bodies are neo-Nazi organisations whose proscription I wholeheartedly support. This grouping together of organisations that so clearly do not belong in the same category demonstrates again why we cannot allow this proscription to go ahead. I have no choice but to vote against the order. \p Julian Lewis: I must say that I never thought the day would arise when I as a non-lawyer would be advising a Government of lawyers that they need to be sure of the legal basis for what they are doing. As I said in an intervention on this subject on 23 June,

“it would do the country and the Government no favours if they were to lose in court a challenge to the process of proscription, because whereas the secret sabotage of planes would certainly have been an act of terrorism leading to proscription, the fact is that this was a performative act that these people announced they had done.”—[Official Report, 23 June 2025; Vol. 769, c. 893.]

My question for the Government is this: will they at least adopt a belt-and-braces policy when it comes to the prosecution of the people who did that terribly irresponsible and wrong-headed act of sabotaging those planes? Will they also prosecute them on the basis that they have done criminal damage, and have attacked the forces of the Crown and thereby done something that borders on sedition? Otherwise, by using the wrong aspects of the law to pursue people who did some very bad things indeed, I fear the Government will end up scoring an own goal, and these people will walk free with a court triumph under their belt.

Although it is justified by the unacceptable behaviour of the perpetrators, I am not convinced that the policy that the Government have adopted will stand up in court, when there are plenty of other legal methods that could be used to deal with this form of extremism. It is extremism, but it does not, in my opinion, pass the threshold to be classified as terrorism, in the legal sense. If I had been able to accept the Minister’s offer to have a word with me on Privy Council terms before the debate—I thank him for that offer, and I am sorry that I was not able to take it up—he may have been able to tell me things about Palestine Action that would have convinced me that it crossed that threshold.

However, if the Minister is not able to say those things in public—there may be very good reasons why he is not—then I suspect he will not be able to tell them  to the courts, either. Nobody can accuse me of being soft on anti-militarist extremist groups, but I say to the Government, with the best will in the world, that they must adopt a legal belt-and-braces policy when it comes to prosecuting this group, and not rely on this proscription alone, because I fear that I see trouble ahead from m’learned friends. \p Imran Hussain: I place on record my full support for the proscription of Maniacs Murder Cult and Russian Imperial Movement. They are vile, murderous and fascist cults, and their place on the proscribed list is justified and necessary. However, it is precisely because we must take terrorism seriously that we must draw clear lines. To put Palestine Action, a direct action protest group, in the same category as those murderous, extremist organisations erodes the credibility of our legal framework and risks undermining civil rights.

Proscription must be used judiciously. Conflating protest with terror is a dangerous step that undermines the freedoms that our counter-terrorism laws are meant to protect. There is adequate provision in our criminal law to deal with any criminal activity, but we are being asked to proscribe Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act. To treat civil dissent, whether or not we agree with it, as extremism is a concerning shift, and we risk crossing a line. Hundreds of lawyers, including King’s counsel and human rights advocates, have warned that such a move is not a hallmark of democracy.

We heard earlier today that United Nations special rapporteurs have expressed serious concern about the measure, but we have not heard about the huge implications that the proscription will have for some of our communities, who risk being criminalised simply for showing support for Palestine. Under this proscription, people could face prosecution for something as simple as wearing a badge, sharing a post online or attending a peaceful protest.

The question for the House is: do we really want to become a society where non-violently expressing solidarity, or even speaking out, could be interpreted as terrorism? That will only further fuel fear and repression. Local anti-racist groups could suddenly find themselves under suspicion. Whole communities could be classed as suspects, not for what they do but what they stand for. There are numerous examples of that, which I do not have time to set out today. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) has already eloquently set out a number of examples that, frankly, should send shivers down the spine of all hon. Members. This is not the way forward. Non-violent protest, which our democracy is meant to protect, now risks being labelled as terror.

The legal basis for this proscription is unsound. The democratic consequences are severe, and the moral cost is frankly unacceptable. Let me be clear: it will disproportionately target campaigners and minority communities and set a precedent that reaches far beyond this one group. Today it is Palestine Action, and tomorrow it could be climate activists. We are standing on a slippery slope. Proscribing a protest group is not strength.

I urge this House to defend our hard-won rights and civil liberties. Conflating protest with terrorism is not democracy. I therefore put on record that I will not support any proscription of Palestine Action. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. I can squeeze in one more speaker if they are brief. \p Shockat Adam: I came to this country as a child; it nurtured, educated and embraced me. I love this country for so many reasons, but for two reasons more than anything else, I suspect. The first is for its sense of fairness, and the second is for the freedom to express how we feel democratically. That is why I speak specifically about Palestine Action when I say that if we proscribe this organisation under the Terrorism Act, we will for the first time in this nation’s history outlaw a domestic protest group as a terrorist organisation.

Britain has a proud and often hard-fought tradition of civil resistance. We remember with reverence the suffragettes, who were branded as criminals for smashing windows but are now celebrated as heroes of justice. We remember the civil rights movement, in which protesters occupied streets and broke unjust laws to dismantle segregation. We remember the global campaign against apartheid—which included Ministers in this House—where people of conscience defied authorities, trespassed and disrupted in the name of ending a brutal system. The very freedoms we hold dear today—votes for women, racial equality and the end of apartheid—were born not from men and women in suits in this establishment, but from people out there. It is that tradition that we are about to disrupt today.

This decision, which has been rushed through Parliament in a matter of days and bundled with unrelated, foreign neo-Nazi groups and debated for mere minutes, is a reckless abuse of process. It denies Parliament the gravity of deliberation that this issue so badly demands. The proscription has already been condemned by a vast range of people, from Sally Rooney to Lord Falconer, and that will continue.

Even worse, this statutory instrument risks criminalising anyone who supports, sympathises with or even publicly praises the aims of Palestine Action. It opens the door to the prosecution of journalists, filmmakers, campaigners and politicians for doing nothing more than expressing solidarity. This is Orwellian dystopia on steroids. Let us ask ourselves honestly: if we set this precedent, who will be next? History will judge harshly those who choose silence in moments of moral testing.

I urge my colleagues not to allow this dangerous step to go unchallenged. Do not allow a Home Secretary, in a moment of political expediency, permanently to expand the reach of anti-terror laws into the heart of a domestic protest. Do not let this House be the one that shrank the boundaries of freedom of expression. We owe it to those who fought so hard for our freedoms, dared to dissent and refused to be silent—let us summon their courage now. I urge colleagues to vote against this proscription, and to protect our democratic tradition and our right to protest. \p Dan Jarvis: I am grateful to all those who have contributed to this debate. The proscription of these three organisations affirms the UK’s zero-tolerance  approach to terrorism. To be clear, these proscriptions will not affect anyone’s legitimate and lawful right to protest, whether it is about Palestine, Gaza or anything else. \p John Martin McDonnell: Will the Minister give way? \p Dan Jarvis: The Government have to take action when Palestine Action has orchestrated a nationwide campaign of property damage, featuring attacks that have resulted in serious damage to property and crossed the legal threshold— \p John Martin McDonnell: Will the Minister give way? \p Dan Jarvis: I will not give way. \p John Martin McDonnell: Will the Minister give way? \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. I think it is clear that at this point the Minister does not wish to give way. He has until 5.27 pm, so let us see how this progresses. \p Dan Jarvis: These attacks have resulted in serious damage to property and crossed the legal threshold from direct criminal action into terrorism. Members have used violence against people responding at the scenes of attacks, and have been charged with a series of serious offences, including violent disorder, grievous bodily harm with intent and aggravated burglary, which is an offence involving a weapon. This order would degrade their harmful activity. It will also reduce the threat—particularly to vulnerable individuals—from MMC’s violent content, and it will reinforce our support for Ukraine and our commitment to countering extreme right-wing terrorism in Europe. \p John Martin McDonnell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. \p Nusrat Ghani: Mr McDonnell—[Interruption.] I am on my feet. This is a very tight debate that has to conclude at 5.27 pm. The Minister has time; he may wish to take your intervention shortly. Is your point of order really relevant right now? \p John Martin McDonnell: It is, Madam Deputy Speaker—let me explain. I want to know whether, if this order goes through and I go out to the demonstration that is mobilising at the moment to say that I am opposed to this, I will be prosecuted. \p Nusrat Ghani: That was not a point of order. The Minister may wish to respond—he has a few minutes in which to do so—but that was not a point of order. \p Dan Jarvis: I am happy to respond directly to the right hon. Gentleman’s point of order. The process of proscription requires this House to agree such action. Should the House do so later this evening, it would then go to the other place, and it would be for the other place to agree the action or not. It would then be for the Home Secretary or myself to sign an order, and that order would then become law at midnight on the night it had been signed. \p John Martin McDonnell: Will the Minister give way on that point? \p Dan Jarvis: I am not going to give way to the right hon. Gentleman. \p John Martin McDonnell: What if I oppose it tomorrow? What if I suggest it is wrong? \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. Minister, continue. \p Dan Jarvis: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman listened to what I said—I just explained to him the process that is in place.

I am grateful to all of those who have considered this matter. This order is a necessary and proportionate step to protect the public and defend our values. That is, after all, the first duty of the state, and under this Government, nothing will matter more. With that, I commend this order to the House. \p Carla Denyer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. \p Nusrat Ghani: This is not a time for a point of order.

Question put. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 385, Noes 26.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 30 June, be approved. \p Carla Denyer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you know, every single person who just voted no on the statutory instrument wanted to vote yes on the proscription of the Maniacs Murder Cult and the Russian Imperial Movement, but we were prevented from doing so by the cynical way in which the Government lumped together those two clearly terrorist organisations with Palestine Action, which we could not support. Can you please advise me and the other MPs who just voted no if there is any way that, in future, proscription orders for unrelated organisations could be voted on separately, so that each MP can apply their own critical assessment of whether each group has met the tests of proportionality and necessity that are required for a terrorism proscription? \p Caroline Nokes: I thank the hon. Lady for giving notice of her point of order. The Chair does not have the power to separate out decisions on the contents of a statutory instrument. In making her point of order, she has put her concerns on the record. \p Zarah Sultana: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During the debate on the proscription of Palestine Action, the hon. Member for High Peak (Jon Pearce),  whom I have notified of this point of order, spoke without declaring that he is chair of Labour Friends of Israel and has accepted hospitality and overseas trips funded by private Israel lobby organisations. The House was discussing a non-violent direct action group that directly challenges the Israeli state, which is on trial for genocide against the Palestinian people. Can you advise me on what mechanisms are available to make the British public truly aware of what interests are being represented on the Floor of the House? \p Caroline Nokes: I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order, and for having given advance notice of it. The procedure for raising a complaint of this sort is by writing to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, and it is not a matter for the Chair. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Sheep Carcase (Classification and Price Reporting) (England) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 2 June, be approved.—(Keir Mather.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Subsidy Control (Subsidies and Schemes of Interest or Particular Interest) (Amendment) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 2 June, be approved.—(Keir Mather.)

Question agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Keir Mather.) \p John Hayes: Speaking long before I was born, G. K. Chesterton said that

“big business…is now organized like an army. It is, as some would say…militarism…without the military virtues.”

Heaven knows what he would say if he was alive now, as global corporations have such influence on all our lives.

Yet it is the small and medium-sized businesses in my Lincolnshire constituency and in constituencies across this country that are the backbone of our economy. They also provide the particularities—the colour and shape —of the places that each of us calls home. Those small and medium-sized businesses reinvest in the communities of which they are a part and provide opportunities for local people. We all know them from our daily experience as customers, but we also know them from the representations they make to us as Members of Parliament. Today, I speak in the interests of those small businesses, those entrepreneurs, those people who devote so much of their time, skill and energy for the common good—for the national interest and the common good drive all that I do in this place.

Small and medium-sized businesses employing up to 250 people make up about 99% of businesses, but just think of the influence and effect of the other 1%. When SMEs are accused of wrongdoing or even of breaking the law, they often have little in the way of resources to defend themselves, so they are at the mercy of powerful regulators and the caprice of giant competitors. In contrast, the big multinational companies, which have come to dominate too much of our economy, have armies of compliance officers, lawyers and spin doctors to bat away legitimate concerns.

The fear that many of us in this Chamber have about two-tier justice runs parallel to our certainty that there is a two-tier economy. Faceless, heartless multinational firms often have little in the way of roots here, and many tech firms use such rootlessness to justify decisions to pay little, if any, tax. Corporate behemoths have grown ever larger, ever more dominant in their sectors, ever more detached from their customers, and ever more determined to bend rules and evade justice. In recent years, we have seen profiteering by, for example, the major supermarkets, which very often give their suppliers—primary producers such as the farmers and growers in my constituency—a raw deal. We have seen them distort the food chain, yet take advantage of the disruption brought by the pandemic and the war in Ukraine.

Indeed, the pandemic exacerbated the power of greedy globalists. Following research on 17,000 big firms, the trade union Unite has highlighted that average profit margins have soared by 30% compared with the pre-pandemic period. In 2022, the profits of the 350 largest companies in Britain increased by about 89% compared with pre-pandemic levels. Contrast that if you will, Madam Deputy Speaker, with the plight of smaller businesses, which face ever greater costs and ever more unfair competition from their giant competitors.

What of the claims of the enthusiastic globalists that the world would be a better place as a result of their activities? Do you remember the globalists—those people who were addicted to modernity and change? Who has really benefited? In an economy in which standards of living are falling, productivity has stalled and the state grows ever bigger in the face of rising worklessness, it seems to me that the only beneficiaries of globalisation are a few people at the top of those corporate businesses. We need not monopolies, but a multiplicity of businesses, such as start-up firms, local firms, and firms that innovate and engage in new activities in the economy, rather than cement existing practices. Let us give those businesses what they need, which is greater freedom, while the big corporate monoliths need to be regulated so that they do not exploit the marketplace they dominate.

Think for a moment of the banks. I have a vision of banking—I hope you might too, Madam Deputy Speaker—rooted in a sort of “Dad’s Army” approach: a Captain Mainwaring figure committed to his community, in close touch with his customers and caring about the businesses they run. That was not just a fiction in my younger years. I well remember going to a bank as a young man and asking if I could borrow £500 to buy an old car—I was a student at the time. The manager, a bit like Captain Mainwaring in character, invited me in, gave me a glass of sherry, interrogated me for half an hour and eventually said, “Yes, I think we can probably lend you the £500.” Imagine that scene now. At best, you would have an online connection with someone remotely situated— \p Iain Duncan Smith: You wouldn’t get a car for 500 quid though, John! \p John Hayes: I think my right hon. Friend is referring to the £500 he still owes me from the days when I used to work for him.

The point is that nowadays the connection between customers and suppliers has become at best detached and at worst remote. As I say, now you would have a conversation with some remotely situated person who knows nothing about you or your circumstances, and probably cares less. \p Iain Duncan Smith: Will my right hon. Friend give way? \p John Hayes: I will happily give way. Is it about the £500? \p Iain Duncan Smith: Yes—without interest. I agree with my right hon. Friend. I also agree about something else, which is that people do not realise that the really big global multinationals, for example Amazon, do not really make their profits on what they sell. They hold your data and that is what they really sell, subsequently. That is where they make their money and their profit. You derive no income from that data, but they make a lot of money off the back of it. To try to break that process down and make things more local, we have to start with what we have all been complicit in, which is the idea of getting something for nothing. It is not for nothing—there is a cost. \p John Hayes: My right hon. Friend, as ever, makes an apposite comment. The trading of data by big businesses has become a business in itself, in the way that he sets out. By contrast, we need firms to practise responsibility, not parrot slogans and virtue signal. They concentrate power and wealth with little regard to the community in which they sit, or even the country in which they are situated. \p Jim Shannon: I commend the right hon. Gentleman. He is a friend to us all in this Chamber and we all love him because of the wisdom he brings to it. He is also a good friend to Northern Ireland. I say that because he will be very pleased when he hears about what we are doing in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland better regulation strategy requires Departments to undertake and publish a regulatory impact assessment when considering new policy proposals or amendments to existing policy that may impact on businesses and to carry out a microbusiness test to assess the impact on businesses of fewer than five employees. Does he not agree, understanding what we are doing in Northern Ireland, that with increased regulation must come increased co-operation to secure better business, which benefits us all—the very thing he is trying to achieve? \p John Hayes: As ever, the hon. Gentleman makes an apposite and worthy contribution to our considerations. I simply say this to the Minister. The Government have a lot of power in all kinds of ways. They certainly have the power to regulate the kinds of unfair practices I have begun to set out, but they also have power as a customer. Government procurement has never, under successive Governments, been used as well as it might be to support British businesses, and in particular British small businesses. My challenge to the Minister is to look at that again. Let us look at how the Government, as a huge customer of all kinds of businesses, can support small and medium-sized firms.

Decades of non-intervention, driven by the mistaken belief in the triumph of liberal economics, have resulted in extraordinary numbers of foreign takeovers of British firms. It is also a matter of who owns these corporate giants and overseas companies that own our critical national infrastructure. The Government recently approved the Vodafone-Three merger, and the latter company is owned by a Hong Kong-based conglomerate. I wonder how closely the Competition and Markets Authority looked into the owners and leadership of Three’s parent company, the CK group, and I wonder whether that group has ties with the Chinese state—perhaps the Minister can inform us tonight. This merger must not become yet another corporate bonanza for shareholders at the expense of our national interest and the common good.

I sought this debate in particular following a meeting with a constituent who was previously a Vodafone franchisee, along with others from across the country. I am mindful, Madam Deputy Speaker, of a legal case involving those Vodafone franchisees; I have taken advice from the Table Office and amended my speech heavily as a result. However, I do think it is important to set out some of the context, in the broad terms that I have described, which relates to the behaviour of large companies that adopt the franchise model. \p Navendu Mishra: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in particular my trade union membership. I wonder whether he shares my view that the merger between Vodafone and Three will have real consequences for both pricing for customers and job losses in Britain. \p John Hayes: That is certainly the risk. I think mergers more generally need to be looked at closely. It is why we have the Competition and Markets Authority, and why these things are indeed considered in the terms I have described.

More recently, of course, as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) will know—as a former member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, of which I remain a member—the Government introduced other legislation in respect of security, large businesses, mergers and all kinds of similar and related matters. It is important to gauge the national interest in all kinds of ways when one considers business activity. \p Richard Tice: rose— \p John Hayes: However, I will say no more about that, as it would be digressing from my main theme, and I can see an eagerness to intervene—I give way to my neighbour. \p Richard Tice: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He makes a powerful case about the differences between small businesses, entrepreneurs, franchisees and the big corporates. Does he share my concern that franchisees suffer the risk of what is essentially corporate bullying from the mega-companies—the likes, potentially, of Vodafone—and that they do not have any form of umbrella regulatory comfort? Entities such as the British Franchise Association may sound effective, but they are actually toothless in the face of such corporate bullying. \p John Hayes: I have worked closely with the hon. Gentleman—as ever, he and I are on the same page here. He is absolutely right that franchising can be used as a method to exaggerate the power of the business at the heart of the franchise and to weaken the position of franchisees. My assertion is that that is common and is particular in the case of Vodafone. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p John Hayes: I will give way to the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) and then to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). \p Luke Akehurst: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this important Adjournment debate. Like him, I have met Vodafone franchisees in my constituency, particularly the Chester-Le-Street former franchise holder, whom I met again today. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for setting out the legal advice he has received on the ongoing case, and I will therefore be careful about what I say. I think there are major corporates that treat their franchisees very badly; they sign them up on one set of terms—one rate card—and then change the goalposts, and then, when people dissent and complain about that,  they find their franchises withdrawn and lose their investment, after they have put a great deal into that corporate giant. I think this is a matter that will in the near future require ministerial attention. I thank the right hon. Gentleman very much for bringing this to the House’s attention. \p John Hayes: I give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green. \p Iain Duncan Smith: I need not detain my right hon. Friend for long, but I very much supported the unions’ position on this, as I thought this was wrong at the time. Without straying into the issues of the bids, we should consider organisations such as CK from China. It now has links with and control over UK Power Networks, Northumbrian Water, Wales and West Utilities, and Eversholt Rail. The network it has now is intriguing, which is hugely around the power and communications networks. All of those are now falling into the hands of conglomerates that have nothing to do with the UK, but that are linked to Governments of a different country. This is the big problem we face: it is not that we do not like big businesses; it is just that so often now they operate from outside our legal empowerment. \p John Hayes: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who takes a great interest in these matters, and that is precisely why I posed the earlier question to the Minister about how closely he and others had looked at that merger. I will say no more about it than that, but it does seem to me to be a legitimate question to ask: were those things considered in this particular case, and how are they generally considered? If my right hon. Friend is right that there are threats that result from this, under existing legislation and regulation it is perfectly possible for the Government to become involved in these kinds of commercial affairs. \p Navendu Mishra: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? \p John Hayes: I will give way once more and then will make a little more progress. \p Navendu Mishra: May I put on record that I did not use the term “right hon.” in my earlier intervention on the right hon. Gentleman and wish to correct that? Also, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) made a very important point about bigger businesses that operate outside the UK perhaps in some cases abusing their position. On a lighter note, may I encourage him to join a trade union? I would be happy to supply him with a membership form. \p John Hayes: I am again grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It seems to me that there is a mood across the House tonight that more must be done. This Minister, as an experienced Member of the House, will have gathered that that mood could easily, from this small beginning, become a crescendo that might endanger the very safety of his office and the Government as a whole, so let us hope that this is the beginning of a journey, for both the Government and the Minister, towards a regime that counters the very things that have been described by Members across the House. \p Matt Rodda: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? \p John Hayes: Because I am a long-standing friend of the hon. Gentleman, I will certainly give way to him, but then I must make progress. \p Matt Rodda: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who does the House a favour in his work tonight. I should first declare an interest, as I have a close relative who works for the Competition and Markets Authority. I do not wish to comment on competition and mergers, though I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to join me in supporting the Government’s work. I believe that Ministers are shortly to do some further work to offer greater support to small businesses in terms of opening up Government procurement and in other matters. Like the right hon. Gentleman, in my own constituency I am a keen supporter of small business, and my own small business competition has provided a great deal of recognition for businesses, whether local florists, those repairing small musical instruments, people providing other services, and indeed many other forms of small business. So I do want to commend the broad thrust of the right hon. Gentleman’s work tonight, although I do not want to comment on the CMA. \p John Hayes: I am most grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support.

During the pandemic, the UK Government introduced the business rates relief package, which allowed businesses with commercial leases to claim relief on their business rates. That was designed to help firms with physical stores compensate for lost footfall during the lockdowns, and it was an essential lifeline to those smaller businesses. This automatically applied to businesses through local councils. From 11 March 2020 to June 2021 the relief was 100% with no cash cap, and ratepayers with more than one property were entitled to relief for each eligible property.

Franchisees were eligible to receive this relief, and it would have been automatically applied to stores operated by companies such as Vodafone and not through the franchise programme. It is worth noting that some corporations that benefited from that scheme, such as Tesco—although I hold no candle for Tesco generally—have since returned the money to the Government. The question is how Vodafone used that money: did it achieve its original purpose—I would be interested to hear the Minister’s answer to that question—or was it redirected in some way that was out of tune with the Government’s intention and the proper purpose? It is worth noting that that was available not only to Vodafone, but to all those organisations that had franchises. I wonder how other organisations handled the matter and how that compares with the circumstances surrounding Vodafone.

The important thing to consider as we debate these matters is that the franchisees are small business owners with families—this was important to them. Business rates relief was of huge significance and made a meaningful difference to people, as intended by the Chancellor at the time, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak). The Government’s stated purpose for covid-19 business relief was to assist small businesses to carry on trading at a financially difficult time when profits in bricks and mortar shops  were much reduced. The question is, was that the reality? The fact that the Government later introduced caps on the relief indicates that it was intended to help small businesses—those to whom £100,000 makes a great difference—not to subsidise large globalist corporations with hundreds of stores and access to other types of relief.

What is the Minister’s assessment of how that kind of funding was used during the covid pandemic? Too often, franchisees’ payments from those who franchise them are cut drastically and with little or no explanation. Contracts are often terminated with just a few days’ notice and stores repossessed with little notice, often without valid reasons for doing so, leaving debts and loans to be repaid with no income. Franchisees claim that they faced fines and clawbacks that were grossly disproportionate to the errors in question. In some cases, the errors that led to fines were the results of failures in major corporation systems, yet the financial burden was often unfairly placed on franchisees. Communications raising serious concerns, though made, were often unanswered and pressing issues were ignored for long periods of time, leaving franchisees without support or resolution to their problems.

Moreover, it has emerged that whistleblowers had warned a series of senior Vodafone executives that scores of its franchise store owners face financial ruin. What steps are the Government taking to regulate corporate businesses’ relationship with their franchisees? As I say, we are not speaking of powerful businesses with deep legal departments and balance sheets to absorb losses but ordinary people—mothers, fathers, sons and daughters—who saw an opportunity when they became a franchisee to build a meaningful business of their own under the banner of a global household name and to make a difference to their family, their community and the towns in which they are situated. People put their savings, their homes and their reputations on the line because they believe that a franchise agreement with a company such as Vodafone—there are others too—would be safe and secure.

Last month, the Competition and Markets Authority confirmed the merger of Vodafone and Three. Will the Minister confirm that the matter of the problems with franchisees were discussed ahead of that merger being approved? Indeed, more broadly, can such a merger really be said to benefit the British public, given that it is forecast to cost 1,600 UK jobs and that evidence from overseas shows that countries with fewer mobile phone operators tend to charge higher prices to consumers? Will the Minister confirm what steps the Government are taking to investigate allegations of inappropriate use of Government relief during the covid pandemic, specifically in relation to businesses with franchisees? Will the Minister confirm that all allegations of misappropriation of Government relief schemes intended for franchisees should be investigated as part of the inquiry into covid by the covid commissioner? Will the Minister urge banks to show leniency and support to those franchisees facing financial distress, and will he commit to looking afresh at the lack of enforceable regulations governing franchiser conduct?

A key lesson from the Post Office scandal is that we must not allow the sophisticated power of a corporate body, or the impression created by an impressive balance sheet, to persuade us to ignore the voices of less powerful  individuals who speak out. Many franchisees have given up stable jobs. Some have taken out personal loans, and some have remortgaged their home. They train staff, open stores, serve customers, and are told by the big business that they are partners; but when the going gets rough, when the commission cuts come with little warning, when franchisees’ performance plummets due to decisions beyond their control, and when stores are repossessed with inadequate notice, they are left out on their own, high and dry. No lifeline, no dialogue—just silence from the corporations that they once trusted. I cannot believe that this Minister does not feel as I do about corporate malpractice—about greedy, soulless, heartless firms that act irresponsibly and hide behind the high wall of their substance.

Governments have a duty not only to promote entrepreneurship and business, but to protect entrepreneurs and ensure that businesses do not take unfair advantage of their staff. We must call time on the era of corporate giants using legal structures not as a framework for partnership, but as a shield for avoidance—for avoiding responsibility and decency.

Brands that trade on their reputation and public trust must be held accountable for the actions that they take that cause real harm. We must move away from a globalist, faceless corporate model that has enriched a few, and towards a different kind of economic order, in which we shorten supply lines, encourage small and medium-sized businesses, and understand that economics must serve a civil purpose. I call that fraternal economics —an economics in which community and economic activity are bound together in a common cause. We can build that kind of economic future, but it requires Government to know when to step forward to support business, and when to step back and not suffocate entrepreneurship. That future is within our grasp, but it will require this Government—perhaps any Government —to think afresh about the power balance between large, faceless businesses, and smaller entrepreneurs. They are ordinary people, like most of us, I guess, who simply want to get on and do the best for their family and their community. I know which side I am on. I am on the side of those people, because I know that they make so much difference in my constituency, and across the whole of our kingdom. \p Gareth Thomas: In the usual way, I thank the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for securing this debate. Having crossed swords with him when our positions were reversed, I approached this debate with particular wariness, not least because he has assembled a very distinguished cross-party group of Members to participate in this debate.

We heard from not only the right hon. Gentleman, but the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), my hon. Friends the Members for Stockport (Navendu Mishra), for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) and for Reading Central (Matt Rodda), and the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice). Each of them made important points. I very much agreed with the opening remarks of the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings about small and medium-sized businesses being  the backbone of our communities. They are important; they are fundamental to the strength of each of our constituencies. The Government are determined to do much more to support our SMEs going forward. That is why, on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central, we will publish a strategy for supporting SMEs.

The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings was right that we as a country should do more to celebrate our entrepreneurs and to champion their interests. They are brave; they are risk takers; they create wealth; and they make all our communities better and richer. We are determined to encourage more people to come forward as entrepreneurs, to take risks and succeed, and to grow businesses. We have already taken a number of measures to support SMEs. The Secretary of State for Business and Trade has already committed to establishing a business growth service inspired by the US Small Business Administration. That is why one of the outcomes of the spending review was a two-thirds increase in the capacity of the British Business Bank. The vast majority of that funding will go to help tackle the considerable challenges that SMEs face in accessing the right forms of financial support.

The right hon. Gentleman rightly raised the issue of access to public procurement for British SMEs. I am sympathetic about the need to open up public procurement to SMEs. Again, we will have more to say on that in the small business strategy, when it is published shortly. Cabinet Office colleagues are very much working in this space, too.

The right hon. Gentleman also rightly raised the matter of the difficulties that small and medium-sized businesses face when legal issues arise. Again, we will have more to say on that in the small business strategy shortly. Towards the end of his remarks, he made a powerful link to an appalling miscarriage of justice: the scandal of how the Post Office treated its sub-postmasters. There are many lessons to learn from that. I hope that he will take confidence from the Government’s determination to do that when he sees the Green Paper on the future of the Post Office, which we are seeking to bring forward. I am sure that the whole House appreciates the work that Sir Wyn Williams is doing to draw conclusions about what went wrong in the scandal, and about what more we need to do to learn the lessons and ensure that nothing like that ever happens again. \p John Hayes: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he is responding. There is a close parallel between the way the Post Office is constructed—its business arrangement, and the connection between independent post offices and the centre—and the matters that I described. Will he ensure that his small business strategy includes something on franchising? That is a really important part of getting right our approach to regulation on the relationship between smaller businesses and corporate giants. \p Gareth Thomas: I have already given a flavour of what might be in the small business strategy. I will leave the right hon. Gentleman to wait a little longer, if I may—he will have to forgive me—before he sees the strategy in full.

Let me come to the substance of the right hon. Gentleman’s concern. He rightly and understandably mentioned the experiences of a number of franchise  operators who allege mistreatment and being badly let down by Vodafone during covid. No one in the Chamber will have failed to have been moved by those stories. I have read a number of them in correspondence from colleagues on both sides of the House.

There are, without question, serious allegations being levelled at Vodafone. As the right hon. Gentleman said, and as I am sure he will understand, I am unable to comment on ongoing legal disputes, but I will respond on behalf of the Government as best I can, given the ongoing nature of the case. Until now, there has not been sustained concern about the quality or effectiveness of the self-regulation of franchises in general. However, I recognise that this case has raised concerns across the House, and I will track very carefully what happens in this case, the final outcome, and the conclusion of any court case.

As hon. Members will no doubt be aware, franchising is growing in the UK, and it makes a big contribution to our economy, at just over £19 billion annually, according to the latest British Franchise Association survey. The franchising industry is covered by the same general protections in law as other businesses, and I will come on to some of those in a moment. In addition, the franchising industry also effectively self-regulates through the British Franchise Association, which has a code of ethics, and the Quality Franchise Association, which provides a code of conduct. On the whole, as the House will recognise, there are significant advantages to self-regulation: greater flexibility and responsiveness, and lower costs. \p Luke Akehurst: Is the Minister aware—this is my understanding from the franchisees—that Vodafone left the BFA, and walked away from its self-regulatory framework and code of conduct? \p Gareth Thomas: My hon. Friend will forgive me, but I will not comment on the particular circumstances of Vodafone and its relationship with franchisees in general, or those former franchisees who are bringing court action. However, I note his comment. \p Navendu Mishra: I have worked with the Minister on a number of issues relating to his ministerial role, and he has always been helpful and proactive. As he is representing His Majesty’s Government, does he feel that there is a need to legislate on this issue, and that the code of conduct simply does not go far enough? Also, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) has just said, there might be cases of larger corporations opting in and out as and when it suits them. \p Gareth Thomas: As I said, I recognise that this case has raised concerns across the House about the quality and effectiveness of the legislation that governs franchisees and, indeed, other businesses, and about the arrangements around franchisees, and their relationships. As I say, up to now, we have not had significant representations that the quality of regulation of franchises is not adequate. However, I recognise the concerns across the House that this case has brought up, and as a result, I will track very carefully how the court case unfolds.

I was noting the advantages that, on occasion, self-regulation brings. They include freedom when it comes to contracting. Individuals and businesses have the right to enter into agreements and set their own terms, free from unnecessary Government interference. That freedom allows franchise agreements to be tailored to individual needs. People can set up shop more easily on the high street or elsewhere with the power of a big brand behind them. On the whole, self-regulation also allows the franchise industry to set standards and guidelines based on deep, industry-specific expertise. It allows the industry to adapt more quickly to market changes, too.

It is my understanding that the franchise agreements are the main instruments governing the relationship between franchisors and franchisees. Those agreements normally cover key issues such as fees, territory rights, contract duration and dispute resolution mechanisms. The Government of course encourage anyone entering a business contract such as a franchise to seek independent legal advice before agreeing to the terms and conditions laid out in those agreements.

I have talked a little bit about self-regulation and its benefits, and I alluded earlier to the fact that there are existing protections in law that cover all businesses, including franchises. For example, under the Misrepresentation Act 1967, anyone who has entered into a contract as a result of misrepresentation may be able to rescind the contract and claim damages. Misrepresentation is a false statement by one party to another that induces that person to enter the contract. Ultimately, it would be for the courts to decide whether a misrepresentation had occurred and what the remedy would be. There are other forms of legislation, too, including the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, which may apply to business-to-business contracts. That references the application of a reasonableness test, but that again is a matter for dedicated legal advice. \p John Hayes: The Minister is absolutely right, of course. Contract law is well established and business contracts are enforceable in the way that he sets out, but the problem with franchising is that it is a hierarchical relationship that creates a kind of dependency. The franchisee is dependent on the larger business, so there is an in-built advantage if that larger business is inclined to be permissive in the way that it applies the terms of the contract, or even varies its terms. The parallel I drew in my speech was with supermarkets and primary producers. The supermarkets have so much power that the primary producer is implicitly weakened in that commercial relationship. \p Gareth Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman made a very interesting speech with a series of interesting analogies, and I have noted those and the points that he made. As I have said, I will track this particular court case and its conclusions. I always try to make myself available when hon. and right hon. Members want to discuss particular issues that are pertinent to my brief, and as things unfold, I make that offer to the right hon. Gentleman too.

I should stress again that only the courts can really decide on the application of contractual terms. It is absolutely right that affected businesses seek independent legal advice on the particular circumstances of their situation. As the right hon. Gentleman will be fully aware, legislation cannot prevent wrongdoing. It can deter and  it can punish, but only after the event. It is important for companies, obviously, to conduct business fairly. We already have rules that encourage this, whether in relation to criminal offences of fraud, audit requirements or prompt payment reporting, which my Department has begun to strengthen and on which we will publish further proposals shortly.

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that investors and the public expect and deserve access to truthful reporting from our most important businesses on their finances and related issues. This is critical for trust, and ultimately it is critical for economic growth. That is why, through the audit and corporate governance reform Bill, we are developing legislation to uphold standards and the independent scrutiny of companies’ accounts while ensuring real accountability for company directors.

Section 172 of the Companies Act 2006 already requires company directors to frame regard in their decision making to a wide range of stakeholder interests. That includes the impact of the company’s operations on the wider community. It also requires directors to have regard to the desirability of the company maintaining a reputation for high standards of business conduct. This requirement applies to a company’s business transactions, including the treatment of franchisees. Large companies must report annually on how their directors have complied with these requirements. Taken together, the section 172 duty helps to provide assurance that companies are run responsibly and that directors are mindful of the impact of their decision making beyond the company and its shareholders.

The right hon. Gentleman touched on the additional regulation of franchises and the wider franchise model. As he will know, this Government are dedicated to   implementing an ambitious regulatory reform agenda. In March, we published our action plan for regulation, outlining changes to streamline rules and regulations to support growth. While that plan includes a clear commitment to cut regulatory administrative costs for business by 25%, it also includes a commitment to strengthening accountability for regulators. That includes simplifying their duties to ensure that the regulatory environment focuses on growth, investment and, crucially, transparency.

Our modern industrial strategy also includes an ambitious package of regulatory reforms that will support our growth-driving sectors and the wider economy, but as we stated at its launch, that is not the end of the journey; it is just the beginning. Where there are changes that we can make to increase the UK’s economic resilience and channel support to the most productive parts of our economy, we want to continue to work with Members across this House to implement them.

In conclusion, let me thank the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members who have participated in the debate. Franchise regulation is a complex and difficult issue and, as I have said, this particular case has raised concerns across the House. As I promised, I will continue to look closely at how the case develops and ultimately what conclusions are reached. I am happy to continue conversations about this case and its implications outside the Chamber.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned. \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Enterprise Act 2002 (Mergers Involving Newspaper Enterprises and Foreign Powers) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 15 May, be approved. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 338, Noes 79.

Question accordingly agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Suitability for Fixed Term Recall) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 9 June, be approved. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 333, Noes 168.

Question accordingly agreed to.