Inheritance Tax
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way on this point. He focuses on how much he believes this tax will raise, but what does the impact assessment say about how many businesses will close as a result of this tax?
12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Inheritance Tax
There is a principle at the heart of the motion and it is a simple one: what a person earns through a lifetime of work belongs to them and not the Treasury, and that when the time comes, they have the right to pass on what they have earned to the people they love. It is neither a loophole nor a privilege. It is the oldest instinct there is: for people to work, to save and to leave their children better off than they were. That stands in stark contrast with the Government’s approach. The question that we have put before the House is not complicated: should Governments spend less so that families can keep more? The Conservatives’ answer to that question is yes. In the Mandelson files published this summer, we saw that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions wrote to Peter Mandelson: “Every meeting I have is, ‘Who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others’.” He was right to be exasperated. Some 7 million people—more than 10% of our population—now claim at least one benefit. We will spend over £100 billion on health and disability benefits just this year. A full-time worker on the national living wage takes home £22,500 a year. Someone out of work on credit, with the average housing support and personal independence payment, receives £25,000 a year. We now pay more not to work than to work. However, if somebody has worked and then dies, her unspent pension will now be taxed because of this Government, and the house that she spent her life paying for will be taxed. It beggars belief that Labour MPs looked at those figures, recognised how they are strangling our country, and concluded that they would rebel against the modest reforms proposed by the last Prime Minister. Indeed, the Labour party would rather remove a sitting Prime Minister than attempt to create a fairer system. I ask Members to imagine that they are farmers in the communities that I serve. You are up at the crack of dawn and working until very, very late. It is relentless every day. Your profit margins are the lowest of almost any industry, but you persevere, because you value your land and your family’s connection to it, and you take pride in feeding our country. But Labour hits you with increased road taxes on double-cab pick-up trucks, increased employer NICs and minimum wage, taxes on fertilisers, the cruel family farm tax, and now a levy on the land itself when it passes from parent to child. Lincolnshire and Rutland are the breadbasket and agricultural heartland of Britain. We are proud of what we do to feed this country, so it is offensive when the Nature Minister says that traditional rural Britain—the pubs, ale and loyal dogs that we adore—is a far-right fantasy that never really existed. I invite her and any Labour MP to come and visit Rutland, Stamford and the Harborough and South Kesteven villages, because we are not a fantasy; we are communities who deserve respect—although if I came from her constituency, I would also consider it a fantasy to see the type of idyllic life that we lead in our villages. We will never apologise for valuing the traditions and way of life that make our rural communities so special. The Nature Minister was wrong when she claimed that rural pubs “never really existed”. She would, however, have been correct if she said that she and her Government are doing their best to wipe them out of existence. Under Labour’s plans, the Bertie Arms in Uffington faces a 2,000% increase in business rates by 2029. The hard-working landlady has dismissed the minor relief that came as tokenistic and says that it will make no difference because of Labour’s other tax hikes.
- Hansard source
Inheritance Tax
I am grateful to have the chance to state our record. We cut employee national insurance twice, taking 9 million workers out of it. We raised the national insurance threshold. We abolished the lifetime allowance. We cut fuel duty. We had business rates relief for hospitality and pubs. We did all those things to support our pubs and businesses. The Prime Minister told the voters of Makerfield that the family farm tax “needs looking at again”, so I wonder whether Members in this Chamber who have given it their full-throated support this week will regret their words in a few weeks’ time. Let us see. Since he took office, Members on his Front Bench have excitedly chattered about reindustrialisation, as if the word on its own builds a factory; it does not, and neither does taxing a business at the moment that it passes to the next generation. From April, the family firms in my communities, such as Rutland Plastics, Coles Plant Centre, Arnold Wills, CS Ellis and Rutland Garden Village, and independent family shops on my high street, like Harrison & Dunn and Walkers Bookshops, will all face the same death tax as our wonderful farmers, like Percy Gilman. Business property relief existed for a reason—so that a company need never be broken up to pay the Treasury. Those same businesses are not just economic powerhouses in communities like mine, but social powerhouses, as Philippa Wills said to me this morning. They are rooted in our communities and make decisions for the longer term, because they care about what happens to our people, communities and towns. The Government do not care about that; they have broken the social contract between businesses and our young people and those in part-time work, because they have made it so much harder to hire them. Who loses out the most, apart from young people? Women, because it is women who rely on part-time employment when raising their children who are now unable to pick up additional work. That is the true cost of this tax: not the £15 billion a year that the Government forecast it will raise by 2030, but the businesses never started, the capital that leaves, and the women and young people left without jobs. Tax cuts must be paid for, which is why we have put spending cuts first, but let us be clear. If we tax a family firm at death, the founder sells early, moves abroad or never builds at all. If we tax a farm, the fields go to a solar developer, or they are built on and we become reliant on foreign imports. If we tax the people who work and pay the people who do not, we should not be surprised when fewer people work. We want people to work—we want them to be able to celebrate and benefit from a lifetime of toil and hard work. That is human nature, and nothing to be ashamed of. We have a Government who are asking who they can tax, and an Opposition asking how much more people can keep. Labour’s assault on farms and businesses, its insistence that rural life does not exist, and its addiction to spending will destroy this country. We want people to succeed, and we hold our rural way of life close to our hearts. That is why everyone must support this motion today.
- Hansard source
Inheritance Tax
The Minister has just touched on what the Prime Minister has said. The Prime Minister also told the people of Makerfield that he needed to look again at the family farm tax. Why are the Labour Benches so full of MPs this evening saying that we are absolutely not moving on it when the Prime Minister made that very clear promise during the by-election? Who are we to believe: the Prime Minister then or the Prime Minister now?
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
I come to this debate with experience. I spent 15 years as a prosecutor, and during that time I was designated a sexual abuse prosecutor, which meant that I dealt with a great many cases involving sexual abuse and of course, domestic and other violence. I then defended cases, both in the magistrates court and, obviously, in the Crown court. I welcome the Government’s decision to get rid of clause 3. I also welcome their decision to introduce a RASSO court, and the money that will ensure that that happens. I am grateful for the fact that the Government have listened. However, the central plank of my argument is that restricting jury trials is assumed to be the panacea that will solve the problem of the backlogs in both the magistrates court and the Crown court, which, with respect, is not the case. The reasons for those two backlogs are virtually identical. Covid played a massive part, but so did closures in the magistrates court as well as the Crown court. The number of judicial sitting days were cut massively in the Crown court, and there were not enough sittings in the magistrates court because of the record shortage of lay magistrates. The cuts in legal aid for defendants in both the magistrates court and the Crown court have caused problems. Defendants in the Crown court often do not know what they are doing until they have sorted out their finances and can obtain legal advice from lawyers, and many who appear in the magistrates court are not represented. We must also not forget that the police and other bodies in the criminal justice system have caused delays. Sometimes evidence is not ready when a trial starts. That applies particularly to unused materials and forensic evidence. In many instances pleas have not been discussed, and I know that even now many lawyers who are in court find that on the day of the trial there is a gaping hole in the evidence. That is something that we do not talk about. There is a capacity issue in other parts of the criminal justice system, and that must be dealt with as well. There has also been a problem with the prison services who produce defendants in courts. Defendants are often not produced in time, and that has an impact on trials, which are adjourned to other dates. The backlog is caused by those factors, not by the fact that in the case of either-way offences defendants have been electing for Crown court trials. I believe that the Government have made a good start. They have spent money on increasing the number of judicial sitting days. However, I ask them to go further, and to provide even more sitting days, open up even more courtrooms in both the magistrates court and the Crown court, and, of course, ensure that there is proper legal provision for everyone. I think that that, along with the other things I have mentioned, will bring the court backlogs down. However, I am concerned about an aspect of the Bill that others have already mentioned. At present, someone who is convicted in the magistrates court has an automatic right of appeal against conviction and sentence. Most people who appear in the magistrates court are unrepresented. The Bill currently states that such people must make a reasoned argument to the judge to obtain leave to appeal, but there is no way an ordinary lay person will be able to draft complicated legal arguments to justify why a sentence or, especially, a conviction should be considered further. I know that if I had to draft grounds for appeal, it would take me hours and days. I cannot imagine an ordinary person being able to that, because the court would have to say, “Fundamentally, you’re wrong in so many aspects.” Because of that, there will be unfairness in the magistrates court if people are not given their right, and we have heard that 56% of appeals are successful. The system is there for a purpose, and it helps. Coming back to the RASSO courts, I know that some of my colleagues have talked about victims. Of course we all want to protect victims, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) said—
- Hansard source
Youth Suicide Prevention and Mental Health Support
On Saturday, I attended a service of hope and remembrance for World Mental Health Day at St Peter’s collegiate church in my constituency. It brought together a range of organisations dealing with suicide—bereavement, debt advice, drug and alcohol support, mental health services and wider community assistance, all working together to prevent suicide. Does my hon. Friend agree that that kind of joined up, community-based approach is vital for early intervention and preventing deaths through suicide?
- Hansard source
Prisoner Early Release Scheme
The prisoner early release scheme is clearly simply a result of the failings of the previous Conservative Government, but as the Minister has already acknowledged, we do not want those prisoners to end up back in prison a short time after being released. What is being done to stop those prisoners reoffending, particularly in terms of their employment and resettlement?
- Hansard source
Falkland Islands
Madam Deputy Speaker, I apologise for the delayed submission. We respect the processes of this House, and I will ensure that that does not happen again. With permission, I will update the House on Argentina’s escalating campaign against individuals and companies in the United Kingdom and around the world that are involved in the lawful economic development of the Falkland Islands. Let me state from the outset that the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands are British. The United Kingdom has no doubt about its sovereignty over them and their surrounding maritime areas. As the Prime Minister told the House yesterday, in conversations at the UN General Assembly, he and President Trump discussed the islanders’ clear and declared will to remain British. The Prime Minister reiterated that message to the UN General Assembly. Let me repeat what he made clear to this House yesterday: “we will also always do whatever it takes to uphold”—[Official Report, 12 October 2026; Vol. 791, c. 24.] the will of the Falkland Islanders. The Foreign Secretary and I have reiterated this Government’s commitment to the Falkland Islanders’ right to determine their own political and economic future and livelihoods. I made that point very clear in my public statement, which was published online on 30 September, and in my subsequent meetings with members of the Legislative Assembly. I welcome Jack Ford, Chair of the Falkland Islands Legislative Assembly, to the Gallery today; I know that the whole House will want to show him and the Falkland Islanders our full support. In recent weeks, we have heard inflammatory remarks from President Milei at the UN General Assembly and increasingly aggressive public statements from the Argentine Foreign Minister. The Argentine Government have threatened sanctions and warned that they will pursue criminal measures against businesses and individuals connected directly and indirectly to the Sea Lion project. The Sea Lion field lies on the Falkland Islands continental shelf. The project is lawful and regulated by the democratically elected Falkland Islands Government. Argentina has no jurisdiction over it. Let me be absolutely clear: this Government will not stand by while Argentina uses economic coercion against the people of the Falkland Islands. We will do whatever it takes to support them. What is particularly disappointing about this is President Milei’s brazen attempt to use the people of the Falkland Islands as some sort of political prop ahead of Argentina’s elections next year. We will not allow the Falkland Islanders to be used as a tool of Argentine domestic politics. The Government of the United Kingdom are responding in four ways. First, we have confronted Argentina directly. On 17 September, the Minister for Latin America, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Chris Elmore), made clear our position to the Argentine ambassador and rejected the attempted application of Argentine law to the Falkland Islands. He also reaffirmed the islanders’ right to develop their natural resources. Our message is unequivocal: the measures announced by President Milei on 3 September, threatening companies and individuals for lawful commercial decisions, are economic coercion. They will not change the United Kingdom’s position or weaken our commitment to the rights and wishes of the Falkland Islanders, nor will they halt lawful economic activity. We will respond firmly and promptly to Argentine threats to apply measures beyond Argentina’s jurisdiction, which are intended to frighten businesses. Such conduct damages legal certainty and confidence in Argentina as a reliable economic partner. Secondly, the Government are engaging with affected businesses to understand their concerns and make clear the Government’s position. The Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade, working closely with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, is having regular discussions with the Sea Lion operator and its supporting supply chain. Our message is straightforward: legitimate commercial activity in the Falkland Islands remains lawful, and the British Government stand behind those engaged in it. We are also speaking to wider UK business interests to explain the Government’s position and understand the potential consequences of Argentina’s actions. Thirdly, I can confirm that the Business Secretary will, subject to the necessary parliamentary protocols, deploy the powers available to him under the protection of trading interests legislation against any Argentine measures that seek to influence or regulate lawful activity beyond Argentine jurisdiction. These steps will provide additional protection for UK businesses against attempts to compel them to comply with measures that Argentina is trying to enforce outside its jurisdiction. They will also demonstrate that the Government are prepared to use the available tools to defend lawful British commercial activity. We will continue to talk to businesses as the situation develops to understand how best to support their operations. Let me emphasise that this action responds to Argentina’s attempted extraterritorial application of its domestic measures. Fourthly, we are mobilising international partners. Our diplomatic network, acting on the instruction of the Foreign Secretary, is engaging to set out what Argentina’s conduct means for international businesses, secure supply chains and predictable global commerce. We are engaging G7 and G20 partners and Governments across Europe, the Americas and beyond. We urge countries that value open markets, legal certainty and stable trading relationships to stand against the intimidation of companies undertaking lawful business. Finally, I say to this House, and the Government of Argentina, that the United Kingdom will prepare additional measures if this situation persists. They will be legal, proportionate and, let me assure the House, robust. The United Kingdom never sought this confrontation with the Argentinian Government, and less so with the Argentinian people. We do not want to see wider implications for our two countries. Let us not forget the reconciliation and progress we have seen since the events of 1982. Next year, we will mark 45 years since British forces liberated the Falkland Islands. For some of those veterans who fought in that conflict, this may be one of the last major anniversaries they see. To mark the occasion, celebrate the liberation and remember all those who paid the ultimate price for the freedom of the Falkland Islands—they should never be forgotten—today I can announce that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, in partnership with the Ministry of Defence, will support commemorations on the islands and here in the United Kingdom. There should be no doubt that the Government will defend the Falkland Islanders from bullying and threats, and defend their right to self-determination. Every part of this response is being developed in close co-ordination with the democratically elected Falkland Islands Government. The islanders’ interests and wishes remain at its heart. The principle at stake is simple: the Falkland Islanders have the right to determine their own future. In the 2013 referendum, 99.8% of those voting, on a turnout of 92%, chose for the Falkland Islands to remain a British overseas territory. Their wishes could not have been clearer. The United Kingdom will remain open to dialogue and practical co-operation with Argentina, where that benefits both countries and our peoples. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) would do well to listen to my statement. Progress must rest on international law and respect for the rights and wishes of the Falkland Islanders. Firmness in defending those principles is entirely consistent with keeping the door open to diplomacy and dialogue. On 28 September, the Government of Argentina formally notified the United Kingdom that they were commencing arbitration proceedings under annex VII of the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, or UNCLOS. Argentina demanded that the United Kingdom prevent hydrocarbon activity in the North Falkland basin in relation to the Sea Lion project. Argentina threatened to seek provisional measures from the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. I can confirm that the UK Government’s intention is to engage with this process; that is consistent with our long-standing position in respect of international courts and tribunals. On Sunday 11 October, the British embassy in Buenos Aires delivered our formal response to Argentina’s notification. That response sets out clearly the United Kingdom’s position. The House will understand that while legal proceedings are contemplated or under way, I will not provide a running commentary, but I assure Members that we will defend the interests of the Falkland Islanders and the United Kingdom robustly. At the same time, I want to be clear about what Argentina’s action does not do. Its notification does not constitute a judgment by an international court or tribunal. It does not invalidate licences issued by the Falkland Islands Government. It does not alter the islands’ regulatory authority, and it does not require lawful activity on hydrocarbons development to cease. His Majesty’s Government stand shoulder to shoulder with the Falkland Islanders. We are in no doubt about their sovereignty. We will defend their security, their livelihoods and their right to determine their own future, while remaining ready to resolve differences with Argentina through diplomacy, dialogue and international law. The United Kingdom’s resolve is absolute. I commend this statement to the House.
- Hansard source
Falkland Islands
I thank the right hon. Lady for the important points she has raised. I will take some of them in turn. Let me be clear, as the Prime Minister was in the House yesterday, that this Government will defend the Falkland Islanders’ right to self-determination relentlessly. The Falkland Islands are a British overseas territory, and will remain so for as long as the islanders wish. We have made it clear to Argentina that attempts to obstruct lawful economic activity in the Falkland Islands are not an act of responsible international engagement. They damage legal certainty and raise serious questions about Argentina’s reliability as an economic partner. The right hon. Member asked questions about PTI and CPTPP. We do not speculate on possible future sanctions or designations, but we will continue to consider all appropriate measures, in accordance with our legal framework and wider policy objectives. The UK does not comment publicly on CPTPP accession discussions. Our focus now is on the merit of an application, to maintain the strongest agreement, though Argentina’s behaviour does raise very serious questions about its reliability as a partner for the United Kingdom. On the question of UNCLOS, the House will understand that while legal proceedings are contemplated or under way, I will not provide a running commentary. On defence readiness, the Ministry of Defence is confident that our military presence is at the appropriate level to defend the islands, and that posture is kept under constant review. Indeed, I have had conversations with the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, who is present today. Since 1982, the United Kingdom has maintained a continuous military presence on and around the Falkland Islands. HMS Medway is currently patrolling the south Atlantic. The current tranche 1 Typhoons will be replaced with more modern tranche 2 aircraft in 2027, alongside significant investment to ensure that the Typhoon remains at the cutting edge of capability. Those conversations are ongoing. In relation to climate and natural resources, the shadow Minister will understand the core tenet of self-determination and the need to ensure that the Falkland Islanders themselves and their Government can make decisions to do with their natural resources. Finally, on the question of what we are doing to give businesses assurance, the Government continue to support businesses affected by Argentina’s actions. We are engaging closely with companies involved in the Sea Lion project and its supporting supply chain. My message to those companies is straightforward: their activity is lawful, and the British Government stand unequivocally behind them. As I set out in my statement, the Business Secretary is prepared, subject to the necessary parliamentary processes, to deploy powers under the protection of trading interests legislation against any Argentine measures that seek to influence or regulate lawful activity taking place outside Argentine jurisdiction. The process is straightforward and would provide additional protection to UK businesses facing pressure as a result of Argentina’s actions. This House has long had a consensus that we stand together with the people of the Falkland Islands, who, as we all know, are feeling quite scared about these measures. They are feeling very uncertain about their future. It is our job as a Parliament to stand together—[Interruption.] I have met and spoken with a number of Falkland Islanders; they are very worried, and they are scared. It is our job to offer them reassurance, stand together and show them that the United Kingdom stands full sail behind them.
- Hansard source
Falkland Islands
I thank my hon. Friend for that question; I know she has spoken passionately about these matters. Let me be very clear: the United Kingdom Government will continue to do all that is necessary to protect the Falkland Islanders and the Government of the Falkland Islands. As I said, next year is the 45th anniversary of the conflict. We in the FCDO are very much looking forward to working with the Ministry of Defence on the commemoration and celebratory events around Falkland 45.
- Hansard source
Falkland Islands
The hon. Member knows a lot about this matter; indeed, I believe he is a professor who specialises in some of these areas, so I thank him for the brief history lesson that he has treated us to today. The answer to his question on UNCLOS is yes. On CPTPP, we expect good practices from all our international partners. I have made very clear our expectations of the Government of Argentina, and how they are behaving at the moment is not in line with what we would expect. On the third point, we are expecting all partners to get around the table. Diplomacy and dialogue remain a very important part of moving this forward. We have been very clear that we will engage with this process in full. On diplomacy, dialogue and matters of international law, the United Kingdom will play its full part.
- Hansard source
Falkland Islands
I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for that question. The answer is an unequivocal yes.
- Hansard source
Falkland Islands
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important question. You could see the Defence Minister explaining to me that he will have some conversations with you about that. We do not comment on operational matters, but we are moving our capabilities and assets in the area.
- Hansard source
Falkland Islands
My hon. Friend has spent many years engaged in these matters. On conversations with partners in LATAM, my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for LATAM is in regular discussion with friends and allies in the region. They are important partners on this matter, particularly in providing support for the Falkland Islands. On the matter of sovereignty, the United Kingdom Government are in no doubt about the sovereignty of the Falkland Islanders and we will follow their wish at every turn.
- Hansard source
Falkland Islands
I remind the hon. Gentleman that this is a very different situation. The UK oil and gas licensing policy does not apply in the Falkland Islands. I have made it very clear that the Falkland Islanders’ right to develop their natural resources is in line with their self-determination. When deciding whether to grant consent for new hydrocarbon licences in the Falkland Islands, the Secretary of State acts in accordance with the applicable Falkland Islands legislation. We do not comment on individual licences. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is attempting to bring domestic politics into a matter on which this House has long had consensus—the sovereignty and self-determination rights of the Falkland Islanders.
- Hansard source
Falkland Islands
I thank the hon. Member for his important question. As the Prime Minister told the House yesterday and the UN General Assembly in New York, the Falkland Islands were a matter of discussion with President Trump, and the clear and declared will of the Falkland Islanders to remain British was part of that conversation. The United States is our closest ally. We talk to it about a range of issues. This remains one of the issues that we talk about. Our officials remain in constant communication on matters to do with the international law and courts. We are in constant discussion on this matter and I can write to him further if he would like a fuller answer.
- Hansard source
Falkland Islands
The right hon. Gentleman asks a pertinent question, but he will know that the UK Government do not comment on UNSG processes from the Dispatch Box.
- Hansard source
Falkland Islands
I assure the hon. Member that matters of sovereignty are not in jeopardy. I have been very clear in my statement today that the United Kingdom stands resolute behind the Falkland Islanders. Conversations with businesses are ongoing and letters of comfort have been issued to businesses where we deem it necessary that they receive those letters.
- Hansard source
Falkland Islands
I thank the right hon. Member for his eloquent question. We will continue to consider all options. Indeed, I have been clear in my statement that the behaviour of the Argentine Government is not what we would expect. I hope that they will reflect on that.
- Hansard source
Falkland Islands
The House will understand that while legal proceedings are contemplated or under way, I will not provide a running commentary. The UK’s established position is that provisional measures ordered under the applicable international legal framework are binding on the parties, and that the UK complies with its international obligations. On the matters raised in relation to Chagos, the situation is in no way comparable.
- Hansard source
Falkland Islands
I will be very clear to the right hon. Gentleman that we will do everything and anything it takes to protect the Falkland Islands. We have strong support for the nuclear deterrent. On the issue of the Chagos islands, I remind Members across the House that these situations are in no way comparable and bringing domestic politics into these matters does not help us. We have a united approach on how we deal with matters of the Falkland Islands, and we should go forward in that spirit.
- Hansard source
Falkland Islands
I reiterate the answer I gave a few minutes ago: the issues to do with drilling in the Falkland Islands are a matter for the Government of the Falkland Islands, and they are in no way comparable to domestic licences.
- Hansard source
Household Energy Bills Support
2. What steps she is taking to support households by helping reduce energy bills.
- Hansard source
Household Energy Bills Support
In Snodland, in my constituency, Octopus Energy is working with social housing tenants to reduce energy bills and cut costs this winter. What more can the Government do, working with the private sector, to promote renewable technologies to reduce bills this winter?
- Hansard source
Prisoner Early Release Scheme
Of course, the legacy that we inherited was the failure of the last Government, who did not build enough prison places and left it until the last minute to sanction new places. I appreciate the Minister’s clarity in respect of the new prison places and the Government’s investment in 14,000 future places, but may I ask him about the recruitment of prison officers? Will we have enough personnel to support that expansion so that we do not have to resort to early release in the future?
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over Extension)
As Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, I have met many people whose lives have been shaped by the troubles and who, decades later, continue to search for the truth about what happened to their loved ones. As the Secretary of State has mentioned, today I hosted in Parliament victims’ families from WAVE. They also had the opportunity to meet the Prime Minister, which I was really pleased about. I pay tribute to Jennifer, who was 12 when the IRA took over her family’s home and her father, Patsy, was abducted and killed; to Pat Molloy, whose son John was 18 when he was killed on his way home; to Mo Norton, whose brother Terence was serving when he was killed in the M62 bus bomb in 1974; and, finally, to Laura Burns, whose dad Robert was killed in their home. It is always emotional listening to any victim, so I would personally like to thank victims for speaking to us; they are in the Gallery. As we debate this Bill and consider the next steps in this process, we must keep those people at the forefront of our mind. At the end of last year, my Committee completed a year-long inquiry on the legacy of the past. It was a serious and comprehensive piece of work, engaging extensively with all communities, and revealing strong cross-party consensus on a number of key issues and areas where the Bill can be improved. Our hope is that the detailed evidence and recommendations in our report will help shape debate in this House and beyond. I encourage all Members to review our report as we consider this Bill. My Committee heard powerful testimony from victims, survivors and families who continue to live with the consequences of the past. Many are still struggling to obtain answers, accountability and a measure of closure. We cannot build a more reconciled future without addressing the past, and for that reason, we must ensure that the Bill is carried over, and that Parliament has the time to give these issues the careful consideration that they deserve. It is clear that there is still much that we need to do to improve this Bill, so that victims and survivors remain at its heart, and so that it addresses the concerns raised during our inquiry. Time and again, witnesses pointed to the importance of resources. Whatever structures Parliament creates, they will succeed only if they are properly funded. Without adequate resources, expectations will be raised that cannot be met. We also heard concerns about whether victims’ and survivors’ voices would be fully reflected in the new arrangements. This process should never be framed as a choice between different groups; the focus must remain on those who continue to carry the burden of loss and trauma. More broadly, questions remain about how the new system will work in practice: who can access investigations, how will information be disclosed, and can we build confidence in the process? These issues go to the heart of public trust. In conclusion, while views differ on many aspects of legacy, one message came through clearly: people want a process that is properly resourced, commands public confidence and places victims and their families at its centre. The challenge for the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Office is to deliver that. We owe it to those still carrying the legacy of the past to get this right.
- Hansard source
Climate Change Resilience
4. What recent progress she has made on improving the UK’s resilience to the impacts of climate change.
- Hansard source
Climate Change Resilience
Over the summer, my constituents in East Worthing and Shoreham, like many across the country, endured unrelenting and scorching heat. For many years we have focused on cold homes in winter, and now we need to turn our attention to hot homes in the summer. It was good to hear, in an earlier answer, some of what the Government have been doing, but what steps is the Department taking to help people to adapt homes and public buildings to our increasingly hot summers?
- Hansard source
Prisoner Early Release Scheme
Local residents and I are deeply concerned about the possible return of a convicted child sex offender to Townsend following his planned release. On Saturday I held a community meeting which was joined by the police and crime commissioner as well as representatives of Dorset police. It is clear that people fear that this man will be not just a cause for concern in his own right, but a magnet for violent and antisocial behaviour to himself and the wider community. Will the Minister arrange for a meeting with the Probation Minister and me, along with local residents? The last thing we want is to see Townsend go through this sort of ordeal.
- Hansard source
Youth Suicide Prevention and Mental Health Support
The Children’s Commissioner has reported that more than 1 million children have active referrals to mental health services, so does my hon. Friend agree that help and support need to be provided not only to young people but to parents, voluntary organisations and charities, who do good work in this area, to prevent suicide?
- Hansard source
Youth Suicide Prevention and Mental Health Support
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. I put on record my heartfelt thoughts and wishes for all those affected by suicide. Because of the constraints of time, I will focus on the number of children presenting at A&E in a mental health crisis and experiencing a complexity of mental health issues. and ask the Minister two questions. First, what action are the Government taking to reduce the number of children reaching crisis point and presenting at A&E, including by improving access to community-based support and CAMHS? Secondly, will the Government consider a children’s health investment standard to ensure that children’s mental health receives a fair share of NHS funding, and ensure that every school can access appropriately trained mental health professionals?
- Hansard source
Iran: Threats to British Interests
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for his urgent question, and I welcome him to his new role. He has always been a good colleague and friend, and I thank him for his service to this country, not only as a former Minister but in his past career. The Government take the threats posed by Iran to British interests extremely seriously. We have acted robustly in response to them, and we will continue to do so. Iran’s hostile activity, both directly and through its proxies and networks, continues to pose a significant threat to the United Kingdom, to our partners and allies, and to the rules-based international system. We know the threats posed by Iran, whether that is directly or through partners such as the Houthis, militias in Iraq, Lebanese Hezbollah and many other groups that the right hon. Gentleman is more than aware of. We will act, because protecting the British public and defending our national security is the Government’s first duty. Yesterday the Government sanctioned two Iranian IRGC—Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—officers for their role in state threats activity. In relation to Iran, we have sanctioned nearly 240 individuals and entities whose actions threaten our people and security. We will continue to keep all those tools under review, and will not hesitate to take further action where appropriate. Yesterday I summoned the Iranian ambassador to the Foreign Office in response to Iran’s activity, and informed him candidly and forcibly that this Government condemn, in the strongest possible terms, the Islamic Republic of Iran’s continued attempts to undermine the safety and security of the United Kingdom and our allies. Yesterday the Foreign Secretary signed a statement with 35 other Foreign Ministers across the Five Eyes and Europe, making it clear that we will not tolerate state threats activity on our soil and that we are committed to facing those threats together, and earlier this year we strengthened our legislative toolkit through the national security framework. These measures provide enhanced powers to investigate, expose and counter hostile activity that threatens our security, and the right hon. Gentleman will know that we immediately designated the IRGC and the Islamic Movement of Companions of the Right under that framework. We will continue to work closely with the police, intelligence agencies and international partners to identify, disrupt and deter hostile activity directed against the United Kingdom and our allies. As recent events have demonstrated, the threat from Iran is not theoretical. The Prime Minister made it clear yesterday that the incident at RAF Fairford was highly likely to have been co-ordinated in Iran and was almost certainly directed by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, although investigations remain ongoing. More recently, in September, law enforcement agencies disrupted an alleged plot targeting Jewish communities in Manchester that involved individuals suspected of links to actors in Iran. We will continue to take the action necessary to protect the public, safeguard our democratic institutions, defend communities at risk and ensure that those responsible for threatening British interests are held to account.
- Hansard source
Iran: Threats to British Interests
The Foreign Secretary followed the standard practice of previous Foreign Secretaries of both parties, and of those of many countries, in meeting with the Iranian Foreign Minister. In fact, Foreign Ministers including William Hague, Philip Hammond, Boris Johnson, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), Liz Truss, David Cameron and others all engaged with Iran. It is important to understand what the Foreign Secretary raised with Foreign Minister Araghchi. He met with him to strongly raise the UK Government’s objections to Iran’s behaviours, to protect our interests. He told the Foreign Minister that Iran should choose de-escalation and diplomacy, instead of prolonging war and conflict. He underlined the importance of restoring freedom of navigation, and of the reopening of the strait of Hormuz. He reiterated the UK’s unwavering resolve to combat threats from Iranian-backed groups on UK soil, including attacks on the British Jewish community. He made it clear that we will not tolerate intimidation, threats or hostile activity on UK soil, and set out the measures that we would take in response. He also raised a matter that I know will be of great interest to the House: the ongoing detention of Craig and Lindsay Foreman. He repeated our call for their immediate release, and stressed that their welfare remains a priority for the Government. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that Iran’s threats to the UK are public. Indeed, the evidence that the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and others have set out is public, so we are fully aware of the threat that Iran poses to the UK, our interests, and our allies and partners. I am not going to comment on intelligence matters at the Dispatch Box—he knows why I will not do that. I strongly encourage him to avail himself of opportunities for Privy Council briefings, which we would be very happy to arrange. I know that the Leader of the Opposition and others have taken up those opportunities, and he is very welcome to come in and have a briefing on these matters. The right hon. Gentleman rightly raised issues relating to Iran’s threats—not just directly to the UK and our interests, but more broadly, including to partners in the Gulf. What Iran has done in relation to Kuwait, Bahrain and other partners is utterly unacceptable. I met with all our Gulf partners in New York over recent days to reiterate our support for them, and we are engaged in heavy diplomatic and other efforts to find a resolution. Just this morning I spoke to my Saudi counterpart and the Foreign Minister of Yemen about the appalling Houthi attacks in recent days, not only on the people of Yemen but on the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, including the attacks at the airport in Riyadh and other threats. The right hon. Gentleman can be absolutely assured that, whether it is direct threats from Iran or indirect threats through its proxies, partners and others, we take these matters incredibly seriously. A substantial amount of our diplomatic and other effort is involved in countering them, and I welcome his engagement and co-operation in the national interest on these issues.
- Hansard source
Iran: Threats to British Interests
My right hon. Friend raises very important issues. It is a fact that Iran poses threats across a range of domains, and she rightly raises the issue of misinformation and disinformation. I know that her Committee has been doing very important work on that, and the Government have taken that on board. We have announced a new centre for information defence, which the Prime Minister referred to yesterday, but she is absolutely right to say that we need to be open-eyed about the threats that are posed. We certainly attempt to keep the public informed about the nature of those threats, not just in this country but abroad, and we will continue to implement a range of measures to deter and disrupt them.
- Hansard source
Iran: Threats to British Interests
The hon. Member raises the reason why all this matters, which is that the threats are not just to our security, but to our economy; they affect the prices that British people, and indeed people around the world, pay for energy—and for consumer goods on the shelves, because this disruption to energy has a wider implication, in that fertiliser and other things that come out of the Gulf also have an impact on prices. I am delighted that he visited Oman. I was in Oman just a few weeks ago. It is a key partner and friend, and its long-standing historical relationship with the UK is crucial to us. We and His Majesty the King look forward to welcoming His Majesty the Sultan of Oman to the UK soon. It is a crucial partnership for us. The hon. Member is absolutely right to talk about maritime security and the work we do in that domain. I am glad that he saw that work during his visit. Just last week, I visited our Joint Maritime Security Centre at Portsmouth, in which incredible work is done jointly by the Royal Navy, Border Force, UK Maritime Trade Operations and a range of civilian and other agencies. It is crucial that we understand the threats to shipping, and that we are able to provide information to mariners and avoid threats and risk. We continue to work internationally with partners on this issue, just as at the UN General Assembly in New York, the Foreign Secretary, working with Bahrain and others, brought together nearly 80 countries to stand up for the principles of international navigation. It is crucial that we recognise that this is not just about what happens in the strait of Hormuz or the Red sea; this is a threat to the very principles of freedom of navigation and global trade. We need to stand up and defend those principles.
- Hansard source
Iran: Threats to British Interests
My hon. Friend knows that I do not comment on future designations, but he can be assured that we take the threat posed by the Houthis, both in the region and more broadly, incredibly seriously. As I have said, I spoke with the Foreign Minister of Yemen this morning. I am also utterly appalled to hear that the Houthis are using child soldiers, and are carrying out forced re-education of citizens in areas that they have taken. Attacks are currently taking place around Taiz, where there is a humanitarian crisis, and hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced. This is not just about the appalling kinetic attacks we have seen on Saudi Arabia and in Yemen, but the humanitarian suffering caused by the Houthis’ actions. We stand with the recognised Government of Yemen, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and others. My hon. Friend rightly points to the work that we have done on the IRGC, the IMCR and individuals, and that relates to the sanctions we issued just yesterday.
- Hansard source
Iran: Threats to British Interests
I am absolutely assured that we will respond to defend our bases, our allies and our partners—and, indeed, UK interests in this country—with absolute resolution and vigour.
- Hansard source
Iran: Threats to British Interests
I completely share my hon. Friend’s objective of eliminating Iranian influence and that destabilising factor in all those contexts. She rightly mentioned a number of them, and I have already mentioned what we are doing in Yemen. We have also announced an additional £10 million for the United Nations humanitarian appeal to respond to that terrible situation. She also points to Lebanon; we are working closely with the Government of Lebanon to respond in a range of ways to the crisis there.
- Hansard source
Iran: Threats to British Interests
As the right hon. Member will understand, I will not comment on the ongoing investigations into the events at RAF Fairford, or on police operational decisions, which are very much for them. However, on his broader point about threats and challenges, he will know that MI5 identified at least 15 credible Iranian-backed plots to kill or kidnap people in the UK in 2022 and 2023 alone. This is obviously activity over a sustained period of time. We have made it clear to the Iranian regime at the highest levels that this must end immediately.
- Hansard source
Iran: Threats to British Interests
My hon. Friend will know that I do not comment on future designations, but I can assure her that we will continue to keep open all possibilities for deterring and disrupting Iranian state threat activity on our soil, or indeed elsewhere. We keep those measures under regular review; I think the action we have taken in recent weeks is testament to that.