partytracker.uk — a sourced record of what Britain's political parties say and do, party by party, with every entry linked to a primary source

Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,832 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·David Reed

   Nepal: UK Government Support

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) on securing this important and timely debate. The devastating floods that struck Nepal on 26 August have brought unimaginable suffering to communities across the country. More than 1,400 people lost their lives, thousands remain missing and entire communities have been swept away. Homes, roads, bridges and vital infrastructure have been destroyed, leaving families displaced and livelihoods devastated. On behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, I extend my deepest condolences to the people of Nepal, to those who have lost loved ones and to everyone still waiting for news of missing family members. I also extend our condolences to the people impacted by the further flash floods in the past few days. Our thoughts are particularly with the families of the British nationals who remain unaccounted for after the August floods. I visited Nepal last year on a development visit, and I saw just how deep and enduring the ties between Britain and Nepal are. I visited communities that had been devastated by horrible events in years gone by, and seeing their fear really brought home the effect that such events have. As British nationals who do not see such events, trying to get our minds around that is difficult, but we must try. Our relationship with Nepal has been forged through generations of friendship, about which a number of Members have talked powerfully, and through shared service and the extraordinary contributions of the Gurkhas. I served in the military with a number of Gurkhas, and I saw how kind, honest and hardy they are. We have heard a number of brilliant and very pressing contributions. The hon. Member for Reading Central really brought the issue home. It is difficult to comprehend the numbers, but 84,000 people have been affected, 32,000 of whom are children. He spoke powerfully about our deep friendship with Nepal. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said that in periods of devastation, we often see humanity at its best. He talked about his community and the various faith groups that are raising money to address the tragedy. I commend his constituents. The right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) and the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), who, as former International Development Ministers, both have deep expertise in this field, brought home the point about the effects of anthropogenic climate change. We are seeing those effects; although they might not be globally equitable at the moment, countries like Nepal are experiencing them. We have to work here in the UK to ensure that, on the international stage, we push big emitters to bring down global carbon emissions and reduce the effects in places such as Nepal. The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) talked about acts of heroism, large and small, both in Nepal and back here at home. The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) raised an interesting point, which is something I saw on my trip to Nepal last year. With Nepal being wedged between India and China, which both have significant development output into Nepal, it is important that we work with those two countries to ensure that we are not duplicating efforts or working towards different goals. At these moments, our bonds of friendship matter enormously. I acknowledge the work undertaken by the British embassy in Kathmandu. Our consular teams, humanitarian organisations and emergency responders have worked tirelessly in exceptionally difficult circumstances. The Government were right to provide every possible support to British nationals and their families while working closely with the Nepalese authorities and search and rescue teams. We welcome the deployment of the UK’s rapid deployment team and the announcement of £5 million in emergency humanitarian assistance. However, the situation has now entered a particularly difficult and distressing new phase. Following the Nepalese Government’s decision to end formal search and rescue operations, thousands of families have been left without answers about the fate of their loved ones. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister would address several questions. First, reports indicate that 33 British citizens still remain missing. Will the Minister confirm the latest verified figure, and explain what further consular and diplomatic steps are being taken to establish their whereabouts? What representations have been made to the Nepalese authorities following the decision to end formal search operations? What arrangements are in place to ensure that any human remains discovered during reconstruction are properly identified and families informed? Secondly, many face the painful uncertainty of not knowing what happened to their loved ones, which is compounded by the complex legal and administrative processes surrounding missing persons and death certificates. What practical assistance is the FCDO providing to help British families navigate those processes? Will dedicated consular support and family liaison arrangements remain in place for as long as they are needed? Thirdly, will the Minister update the House on the delivery of the £5 million emergency assistance package? How much has been disbursed, and what assessment has been made of its effectiveness? How are the Government ensuring that assistance reaches isolated communities, particularly those in the affected valleys, where damaged infrastructure continues to hinder access? When we were in Nepal, we met the Gurkha Welfare Trust and saw the work that it does, going out into remote areas and ensuring that Gurkhas who have served the UK military receive their pensions. That is paramount, and the FCDO and the MOD must ensure that that work is still happening. We would also welcome clarification on whether British humanitarian specialists remain deployed, and what further assistance is being provided to Nepal as it moves towards recovery and reconstruction. As ever, it is right that Britain responds to such devastating and exceptional circumstances, the scale of which is almost unimaginable to us here in the UK. Our country has a proud tradition of standing alongside international and close friends, and we have made the case for that repeatedly today. In a time of crisis, we should continue to take that responsibility very seriously. Equally, it is right that His Majesty’s official Opposition ask these questions of the Government—not to diminish the importance of the support being provided, but to ensure that there is clarity about the Government’s priorities, transparency about how British assistance is being delivered and accountability for the outcomes it achieves. In a crisis of this magnitude, it is essential that assistance is properly targeted, that it reaches those in greatest need and that there is a clear understanding of how requirements are changing as the immediate emergency gives way to recovery. Can the Minister therefore set out how the FCDO is assessing the effectiveness of the UK’s response and what criteria will inform decisions about any further assistance, particularly in the light of the renewed flooding? Ultimately, our response must be judged not simply by the money committed but by the difference it makes to those affected. I will conclude by reaffirming the Opposition’s solidarity with the people of Nepal. Britain has a proud and long-standing close friendship with Nepal. We must continue to stand alongside its people through this tragedy and the aftermath. I hope the Minister can provide the reassurance that British families and the wider Nepalese community so desperately need.

   Hansard source
2. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·David Mundell

   Nuclear Energy: Scotland

   It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I commend the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) for securing this debate, and I very much welcome the Minister to her place. The Magnox reactor at Chapelcross, near Annan, provided highly skilled employment for five decades, supported families, sustained communities and helped to power the country. Like many people living locally, I am deeply frustrated that the possibility of a new nuclear plant on that site has been all but ruled out by dogmatic SNP policy—dogma that runs counter to the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the International Energy Agency, the EU’s Joint Research Centre and the OECD, among others. Mr Stuart, you will recall that when we first entered Parliament in 2005, nuclear was perceived as a declining industry, but as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on nuclear energy, I have seen at first hand the renaissance that the industry is going through. Sadly, that is happening only in England and Wales, where billions of pounds are being invested, new technologies are being developed, supply chains are growing and thousands of skilled jobs are being created. Scotland, once at the forefront of nuclear generation, is being left behind. That is the only conclusion that any reasonable person can reach when they look at the facts. The hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire set out the numbers, but I think they are worth repeating. Since 2014, England has added more than 47,000 civil nuclear jobs; Scotland has added just 661. Scotland has missed out on almost 5,000 jobs, while many highly skilled Scots have little choice but to travel south to work on projects that could just as easily be taking place at home. Many people from the Annan area, for example, travel daily to west Cumbria when they would much rather be working closer to home. While Scotland misses out on jobs, investment and opportunities, what do communities such as mine hear from the Scottish Government? The answer always seems to be more of the same: more pylons, more wind turbines, more solar panels, more substations, more battery storage and more expensive energy, none of which brings substantive employment to the communities actually impacted. When it comes to the skilled jobs, apprenticeships and long-term investment that nuclear can bring, though, the answer from the SNP is an unequivocal no. Dumfries and Galloway council, like East Lothian council and others, has called on the Scottish Government to take a fresh look at nuclear, because they recognise the opportunities that nuclear could bring to their communities. The irony is that Scotland has some of the best potential nuclear sites anywhere in the United Kingdom. A recent technical assessment by Great British Energy—Nuclear concluded that sites including Torness, Hunterston and Dounreay all have high potential for future nuclear development, if the Scottish Government were willing to reconsider their position. Chapelcross would be ideal for a small modular reactor, and I very much continue to campaign for that to happen in my constituency. What is the alternative? A grid that is becoming increasingly expensive and volatile—Scotland now spends £1.5 billion a year balancing the electricity system, five times what it spent before Hunterston B was retired. The communities I represent know that the country needs reliable power. They also want good, stable jobs. They understand and have seen for more than five decades that that all comes with a nuclear power station.

   Hansard source
3. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·David Mundell

   Nuclear Energy: Scotland

   How will the Minister persuade the SNP to change its position? If it does not do so, there will not be any nuclear in Scotland, because there will be no investment. Even if there were a Labour Administration in Scotland, people would know that it could change, and we only got nuclear investment in the UK when people understood that both Labour and the Conservatives backed it.

   Hansard source
4. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dame Harriett Baldwin

   Engagements

   Q8. The Leader of the Opposition has made her position on doing deals with other parties crystal-clear. Will the Prime Minister make it equally clear, following the Green party’s descent into the most abhorrent antisemitism, that he will rule out co-operating with it?

   Hansard source
5. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Chris Philp

   MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

   From France.

   Hansard source
6. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Chris Philp

   MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

   No case more powerfully illustrates the gravity of this matter than that of Rhiannon Whyte. I met Rhiannon’s mum Siobhan a few weeks ago and heard her story. Rhiannon was 27 years old. She worked in an asylum hotel, and one night after leaving work, she was followed by a Sudanese illegal immigrant who entered the country by small boat in late July 2024. This man murdered Rhiannon by stabbing her 23 times. He left her for dead on a station platform, and was later filmed laughing about it. This terrible crime is by no means isolated. Many other illegal small boat migrants living in asylum accommodation have committed terrible offences against women and girls. A 31-year-old woman on a Brighton beach was gang-raped by two Iranians and an Egyptian who entered the country by small boat. A 12-year-old girl was abducted and raped by an Afghan illegal immigrant. A woman was abducted and raped by an Egyptian asylum seeker—again, an illegal immigrant—in Hyde Park, barely a mile from where we now stand. It turns out that that man also had criminal convictions for Islamist terrorism in Egypt. An Ethiopian illegal immigrant sexually assaulted a young teenage girl in Epping. Two Iranian nationals—again, illegal immigrants who entered the country by small boat—have now been charged with preparing terror attacks against Manchester’s Jewish community.

   Hansard source
7. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Chris Philp

   MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

   Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker. The fact that they have been charged is a matter of public record; I will not say anything beyond that. In another case, an illegal small boat migrant who entered the country is fighting extradition back to Germany, where he is wanted for rape. He is also linked to ISIS. In case after case—

   Hansard source
8. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Chris Philp

   MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

   I am repeating what has been publicly reported today, but I will of course take account of your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker. In case after case, we have seen women and girls attacked by illegal small boat migrants. The data, I am afraid, is very clear: two of the three most predominant nationalities are Afghan and Eritrean. The data that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) referred to—data produced using freedom of information requests to the Ministry of Justice—shows that Afghan males are 22 times more likely than average to commit sex assaults, and for Eritrean men, the number is similar. That, of course, is why just a few weeks ago, the Government felt it necessary to produce a leaflet asking these illegal migrants to kindly not rape women and girls. The Government themselves know it is a problem, which is why they produced those leaflets. It is why mothers and grandmothers in Piddington are so concerned about the safety of their daughters and granddaughters. It is why parents in Crowborough are so concerned as well, because these threats are real, these crimes have happened, and these convictions have taken place. The data is clear. What my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings says is true: these men come from cultures that are alien to ours, where women are not respected. This is an immigration crisis, a border security crisis, a public safety crisis, and a crisis for women and girls. The Government are allowing 92% of small boat migrants to stay; only 8% have been deported. Yes, there are slightly fewer asylum hotels, but only because the Government are moving the illegal immigrants into flats instead—they are up by 12% since the election. To save places such as Piddington, Crowborough, Linton-on-Ouse and Wethersfield and towns and villages up and down the country, the solution is not, as the Prime Minister said, to distribute illegal immigrants equitably across the country. It is instead to deport people who enter our country illegally, and to do so within a week of their arrival. If we did so, we would need no accommodation anywhere, whether in flats, hotels or military sites, because we would not be accommodating illegal immigrants at all. It would also deter the crossings. If the people who are leaving France—which, by the way, is a safe country; nobody needs to flee war in France—knew that they would be rapidly deported, either to their country of origin or to a safe third country such as Rwanda, the crossings would soon stop. When Australia did something similar in September 2013, its illegal maritime crossings, which had been running at levels similar to ours, stopped within about three months. It is a solution, if only the Government would grasp it. To do that, though, it is necessary to leave the ECHR. What started in 1950 as a very well-intentioned piece of human rights legislation has subsequently been stretched and distorted beyond all recognition. Clauses that were originally intended to prevent the horrors of the second world war are now expansively interpreted to mean that rapists cannot be sent back to their country of origin because of their supposed family rights. Under article 3, which is unqualified and cannot be amended in domestic legislation, a Zimbabwean rapist was not sent back to Zimbabwe because he might face hostility there. An Iraqi drug dealer was not sent back to Iraq because he had apparently become too westernised. What started off as a sensible set of protections has been stretched beyond recognition—beyond anything common sense would recognise—and it is preventing successive Governments, the last Government as much as this one, from deporting people who cannot be here. That is why there are 21,000 serious foreign criminals still in this country. It is why the Home Office knows of 412,000 people with no right to be here who cannot be deported. Leaving the ECHR is a necessary, but not sufficient, step. We need to do it in order to control our borders, but on its own, it is not enough. We would also have to amend domestic legislation—for example, to ban asylum claims by illegal immigrants, abolish the immigration tribunal and immigration legal aid, restrict judicial review of immigration matters to all but the narrowest grounds, and end modern slavery claims being used as a basis to oppose deportation. All of these measures would need to be taken as well as leaving the ECHR, but without leaving the ECHR none of those measures is possible.

   Hansard source
9. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Chris Philp

   MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

   I am just going to just finish. I know that Ministers are trying hard with their Bill, but they are essentially tinkering at the edges. That was tried by the last Government and to be honest it did not work, because these legal structures prevent robust action to defend our borders. Before concluding, I will just say that were we to leave the ECHR, which I fervently believe we must do to save places like Piddington, to protect our women and girls and to protect our borders, we would not be returning to the dark ages. Rights existed in this country long before the 1998 Human Rights Act and long before the 1950 convention was entered into. Common-law jurisdictions such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada have perfectly respectable human rights records without needing to rely on the ECHR. Indeed, this Parliament can legislate to protect human rights in whatever manner it sees fit. What is true is that we cannot protect our borders and we cannot deport illegal immigrants and foreign criminals while we are inside the ECHR. If we are serious about border protection and protecting Piddington, Crowborough and other similar places up and down this country, we need to take that necessary step. We must leave the ECHR, reform our domestic laws and restore border control to this country.

   Hansard source
10. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Chris Philp

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    Will the Minister give way?

    Hansard source
11. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Caroline Nokes

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    I call the Minister.

    Hansard source
12. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Caroline Nokes

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    I will now announce the results of today’s deferred Divisions. On the draft ACAS Code of Practice on Time Off for Trade Union Duties and Activities, the Ayes were 328, the Noes were 114, so the Ayes have it. On the draft Code of Practice on the Right of Trade Unions to Access Workplaces, the Ayes were 326, the Noes were 115, so the Ayes have it. On the draft Trade Unions (Right to Access Workplaces) Regulations 2026, the Ayes were 326, the Noes were 115, so the Ayes have it. On the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (Calculation of CBAM Rate and Determination of Carbon Price Relief) Regulations 2026, the Ayes were 319, the Noes were 115, so the Ayes have it. [The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.]

    Hansard source
13. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Caroline Nokes

    Inheritance Tax

    I remind all Members planning to speak in this debate that it is a courtesy of the House that they return for the wind-ups. I inform the House that the Speaker has not selected the amendment.

    Hansard source
14. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Caroline Nokes

    Inheritance Tax

    Can I—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member is going to make a point of order, he might at least listen to the response. As he ought to know, as an experienced parliamentarian, that is not a matter for the Chair. He has, however, made his point.

    Hansard source
15. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Caroline Nokes

    Inheritance Tax

    As the right hon. Member will know, that is not a matter for the Chair, but I thank him for putting it on the record.

    Hansard source
16. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Caroline Nokes

    Inheritance Tax

    I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

    Hansard source
17. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Caroline Nokes

    Inheritance Tax

    With an immediate six-minute time limit, I call Patrick Spencer.

    Hansard source
18. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Bob Blackman

    Whistleblowing

    Far too often, whistleblowers are protected when they initially blow the whistle on fraud, economic crime and the like, but are eased out of organisations unfairly later. What further protection can the Solicitor General offer people who do the right thing and blow the whistle on crime?

    Hansard source
19. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Blake Stephenson

    Inheritance Tax

    Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you will agree with me that there are few instincts more human than wanting to leave something behind for your children: a home you have paid for, for over 30 years, perhaps; a farm your grandfather worked before you; or maybe a business you built from nothing. I know that Members on the Conservative Benches know all about all three. On this side of the House, we believe that hard work should be rewarded. On the Labour side of the House, as we have heard over the past few years and today, they simply cannot resist their natural instincts to penalise aspirational homeowners, farmers and business owners. Let us remember that inheritance tax was once something that only the very wealthiest had to think about. But not anymore. The nil-rate band has been £325,000 since 2009, and this Government have frozen it all the way up to 2031. Over the same period, we know that house prices have soared right across the country. The result is that receipts have hit a record £8.2 billion and the Office for Budget Responsibility expects them to reach almost £14 billion by the end of the decade. Analysis by Tax Policy Associates suggests that by next year around one in five pensioner households will face a bill if they die. That was not in contemplation when inheritance tax was first envisaged. From April next year, because the party opposite cannot get enough of hoovering up people’s wealth, unspent pensions will also be dragged into the liability. That is not a tax on the super-rich; it is a tax on hard-working constituents right across the country, including those in three-bedroom semi-detached houses where they have raised their children and, as we have heard today, including families in Carlisle Avenue in St Albans, no less.

    Hansard source
20. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Blake Stephenson

    Inheritance Tax

    I am impressed by the hon. Lady’s research between the intervention earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) and her making that point now. I might add that constituents on that street may have been duped by some Lib Dem bar graphs. Mid Bedfordshire is a rural constituency with many farming families, as is the case right across the country. They were told in October 2024 that the Government were coming for the land that they have worked for generations. Thanks to their hard work, campaigning and pressure from the Opposition, the Government retreated last December and raised the threshold to £2.5 million. Those farming families are grateful for that, but it does not go far enough. Despite debate after debate in this House, the Government still do not seem to understand that a farmer earning a small yield from land worth millions on paper only, cannot cover the inheritance tax liability unless they sell the land. If the Government would prefer farmers to sell their land rather than farming it, they should just say so. If not, they should acknowledge that the incentives their family farm tax creates are simply wrong. Under their plans, a 20% charge still applies on land that often yields only 1% or 2% a year, but that is vital for them to help feed the nation. The rules have changed twice in 14 months. A farm or business succession cannot be planned over a generation when the tax rules change every Budget. The same is true of a family business. The engineering firm, the builder’s merchant, the garden centre—up and down the country, great family businesses cannot plan their succession when they do not have certainty in the rules.

    Hansard source
21. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Blake Stephenson

    Inheritance Tax

    My hon. Friend makes a superb point. The Conservative Benches find it beyond all comprehension as to why the Government would target small family businesses and farms in the way that they have. I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. When an owner of a small business or a farm dies unexpectedly, the family should be focused on keeping the business going and the staff in work, not on raising a tax bill by selling off pieces of the business until there is nothing left. The Government cannot talk about growth and then take apart small businesses because an owner has died. That is completely the wrong approach. What will we do in Government? A Conservative Government will abolish inheritance tax on the family home; that is the right thing to do. We will replace today’s complicated allowances with a single £500,000 allowance per person—£1 million per couple. We will restore agricultural and business property relief in full, so that no family farm or firm is broken up to fund Labour’s welfare spending. The Prime Minister says we cannot have national security without social security—an absolutely shocking statement. But we cannot have either without economic security; without an economy where people create jobs, expand businesses, buy homes and feel the benefits of doing so. Our reforms would ensure that welfare works for British citizens, that people with lower-level mental health conditions get treatment rather than being written off with a cheque, that more assessments are done face to face, and that the obligation to look for work means something. Getting people into work is good for them, good for their families and good for the taxpayer. In two weeks’ time the Chancellor will deliver his first Budget. I know that Conservative Members are really looking forward to that day. The Chancellor has a choice: he can keep taxing work, savings and inheritance—taxing everything people own that is not nailed down and more besides, perhaps; let us see—to pay for a welfare bill that is truly out of control, or he can change course, get a grip on spending and help to power the engines of growth that will make us all richer. I know which choice families in Mid Bedfordshire would make.

    Hansard source
22. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Aphra Brandreth

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    I thank the Minister for giving way and for setting out her arguments. I am just wondering whether she will actually come on to Piddington and the impact on the residents there—we have people in the Gallery today. This issue is about the impact on women and girls there. I would be interested to know how many Ministers have actually been to Piddington and spoken to the residents themselves directly.

    Hansard source
23. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Aphra Brandreth

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    The first duty of any Government is to keep their citizens safe, and nowhere is that duty more important than across our communities and in the protection of women and girls, who have a right to feel safe, and a right to expect the Government to do everything in their power to protect them. Today’s debate is an opportunity to send a clear message that we will not accept policies that put our communities at risk, and that we are prepared to take the difficult decisions necessary to restore control of our borders. The grooming gang scandal is a national disgrace. Girls, some as young as 11, were raped, abused and trafficked by organised gangs, and when they cried out for help, too often they were ignored, disbelieved or dismissed. Those in positions of authority, whose first responsibility was to protect them, failed them appallingly. We must never allow that to happen again. That means putting victims first, listening to their experiences, and having the courage to confront uncomfortable truths, however difficult they may be. In July, I raised the case of Shabir Ahmed, the Rochdale grooming gang ringleader, directly with the then Foreign Secretary. She agreed that every possible lever should be explored to secure his deportation, yet three months later, he remains in the UK. When the law protects the man who raped a child rather than the child he raped, something is profoundly wrong, and this House must have the power, and the determination, to put that right. Our rights in this country long predate the ECHR. Under our Conservative borders plan, we will leave it, with illegal arrivals removed within a week, every foreign criminal deported, and an end to the cycle of last-minute claims that let dangerous men run down the clock. What is this Government’s answer? It is to house over 1,200 single men at MOD Bicester, next to Piddington, which is a village of just 350 people, with limited local infrastructure and services. The way these plans have been imposed on a small rural community has left many others fearing that they could be next. In villages such as Audlem in my constituency of Chester South and Eddisbury, residents have raised serious concerns about the future of the old grammar school site. When I asked Ministers whether any site in Audlem had been approved for asylum accommodation, the Government failed to give me a straight answer, and when I asked about the suitability of rural locations, I was told that the Home Office does not even record asylum accommodation according to whether it is in a rural area. Many of the concerns raised in Piddington are equally relevant to Audlem. Small rural villages simply do not have the infrastructure to accommodate what would realistically be an influx of young men. My constituents deserve clarity. They deserve straight answers about the future of that site, and above all they deserve an immigration system that tackles illegal arrivals in the first place. That means a credible deterrent, and that is delivered by leaving the ECHR. That is why I wholeheartedly support the motion, because whether it is Piddington, Audlem, or communities across the country, people deserve to feel safe in their homes and communities. Above all, we owe it to every woman and girl in this country to do everything in our power to protect them.

    Hansard source
24. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Andrew Griffith

    Inheritance Tax

    I beg to move, That this House calls on the Government to cut public spending in order to abolish Inheritance Tax on family homes, farms and businesses. There is a divide the size of Manchester’s Etihad arena in British politics today: between those who want to tax family farms, and those who do not; between those who want to tax family businesses, and those who do not; and now, between those who want to tax family homes, and those who do not. Not content with the highest tax burden in peacetime history, in their first Budget the Government chose to impose inheritance tax on farmers and family businesses. The Conservatives would scrap the family farm tax and the family business tax, and we would abolish inheritance tax on the family home. That is because we believe that people who work hard and save hard should keep the rewards, rather than seeing them sold and snaffled up to pay a taxman who refuses to make hard choices and to cut welfare. We will hear later from the shadow Secretary of State for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins); she has been a stalwart defender of Britain’s farmers, who this Government have attacked. I will speak briefly to the family businesses that this Government are also attacking. Many of them are small businesses: people who get up every day and take on the responsibility of hiring—often hiring young people—of making payroll and of creating growth in this country.

    Hansard source
25. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Andrew Griffith

    Inheritance Tax

    My right hon. and learned Friend is exactly right. The original reason for the exemption in death duties that previous Labour Governments respected was that generational aspect—the fact that a business or farm does not necessarily produce the cash flow necessary to hand over an enormous part of that value when, tragically, death takes place. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle will pick up on that point later. I will move on to businesses, which, as Members across the House will know, are far more numerous than the farms who we know are impacted. Inheritance tax affects businesses in every one of our constituencies, on every one of our high streets and in every one of our trading estates. Often they are businesses that have been in the same family for multiple generations. This is causing extreme jeopardy, to the point that people are having to take action right now to protect those family interests. Edmund Burke, a man much beloved on the Opposition Benches, said that society is a partnership “between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are yet to be born.” There could be no better manifestation of that than Britain’s family businesses, which are rooted in their local community and provide jobs down the generations. Yet this Government are hellbent on breaking them up and forcing them to sell the pieces to pay an inheritance tax bill that they should never have to face. We Conservatives are on the side of family businesses.

    Hansard source
26. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Andrew Griffith

    Inheritance Tax

    My right hon. Friend is quite right. I urge every Member of this House to spend time with family businesses in their constituency; there are excellent organisations such as Family Business UK that would be delighted to make the introduction. My right hon. Friend is also absolutely right about the relative dearth on the Government Benches of business and private sector experience and of an understanding of how the economy works. However, that is capable of remediation, if only Government Ministers and Members were to seek to educate themselves on the benefits to their constituencies and constituents of family businesses. We Conservatives will not let a spiteful, prejudiced Labour party destroy those family businesses, which is why we will—

    Hansard source
27. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Andrew Griffith

    Inheritance Tax

    I would be delighted to give way and for the hon. Member to talk about the family business contribution in his own constituency, and why he will therefore be supporting the Opposition motion this afternoon.

    Hansard source
28. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Andrew Griffith

    Inheritance Tax

    There have been exemptions for family business far beyond that. This goes across multiple generations—the origins date back to the 1960s, and every Labour Government under every Labour Prime Minister have understood the contribution of family businesses, including to those in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. We could, of course, talk about many of the other headwinds that business face, but I would then be deviating from the subject of debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that many colleagues want to speak this afternoon, so I will not talk about the higher energy costs, or the costs of hiring, or the red tape that this Government have imposed or the national insurance jobs tax, among many other things. We will not talk about any of those things, Madam Deputy Speaker! Inheritance tax more generally was once a tax paid by the privileged few—the super-rich, a tiny sliver of a minority of taxpayers and estates. Today, however—these are independent numbers that the Government will understand—inheritance tax is a tax on ordinary middle-class families in every corner of our country. I invite the Minister to challenge these numbers when he eventually responds. By 2030, one in six families will face an inheritance tax bill. At the start of previous decades, that was one family in 20. The scope of this tax has dragged so many more people into its terrible net, and it is only getting worse. One in five homes last year was sold at a price above the threshold where an inheritance tax liability would arise.

    Hansard source
29. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Andrew Griffith

    Inheritance Tax

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. Very few of us will not be aware of the challenges of the care sector from meeting constituents at our surgeries. It is why I regret the fact that one of the first actions of this Government on coming into office was to reject the consensus around the Dilnot review, which would have moved that conversation forward. We on this side of the House will continue to engage with ideas that the Prime Minister puts forward, but none of that takes away from the iniquity of inheritance tax, which is a double tax, often as a result of earned income, and sometimes even a triple tax as a result of businesses. As I said, the scope and breadth of inheritance tax is dragging more people into its net all the time. There is a fundamental difference between the Government and Opposition on this issue, and I am very keen to hear what our colleagues in the Liberal Democrat party have to say on the matter. The Conservatives believe that our homes are special. They are not just another asset to be taxed by a Government who refuse to cut out-of-control welfare. They are where we feel safe with our families, where our young take their first steps, and where we spend religious festivals and precious family moments. That is why so many of the policies we have announced recently focus precisely on those family homes. We would make it cheaper to buy a first home for young people by removing gold-plated regulation, saving £50,000 from the price of an average new-build home, because we are the party that believes in home ownership. We would make it cheaper to buy by abolishing stamp duty on people’s primary residences and would make homes cheaper to live in by scrapping Labour’s tax on family homes—the so-called mansion tax that, in truth, applies in many parts of the country to flats and ordinary suburban homes. It applies in Birmingham, in Bristol, in Nottingham, in Edinburgh and, yes, in Manchester too. We are the party that prioritises home ownership, and now we are committed to making it free for people to pass on their family home to direct descendants. The Government should follow our plan: no tax to buy a home, no tax to live in a home, and no tax to pass on a home to family. If the Chancellor is looking for ideas for his Budget in two weeks’ time, he can have that one for free. If the Minister takes that back, maybe he will become the Chancellor. But we all know what Labour will choose: more welfare. Labour is not the party of home ownership. That is a Conservative value, not Labour’s. We are the party of home ownership; they are the party of welfare, and we know how many people are on out-of-work benefits in Britain today. Even the leader of the Liberal Democrats—this week at least—can see that taxing family homes is wrong. Just two years ago he told the BBC, when they still wanted to hear from him, that “lots of people’s homes in many areas of the country are quite valuable, and they end up being clobbered by inheritance tax…I think that’s unfair”. We shall see whether his colleagues—current colleagues—agree with him and which Lobby they end up in today. We will see whether they are useful helpers of the Government or willing to stand up for their constituents who are being over-taxed by this Government. We would take the majority of families out of inheritance tax, abolish the truly awful family farm tax and abolish the anti-growth family business tax—and, when we can afford it within our fiscal rules, we would abolish inheritance tax entirely, because we do believe that it is an immoral tax.

    Hansard source
30. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Andrew Griffith

    Inheritance Tax

    My right hon. Friend is right. I do not think that any fair-minded person in the United Kingdom today would say, “The problem is that we have too many successful companies. Too many companies are setting up, being founded and listing on our stock exchanges; our economy is growing somehow too fast; we have not got enough young people to fill the jobs available; and the economy does not have enough debt.” Therefore, were there a measure that would allow productive capital to flow down the generations to allow enterprises across communities in all our countries to help our economy grow, we might think the Government would clutch on to it like a sinking man clings to a life raft. Perhaps we will get that damascene conversion from the Minister today—perhaps we will hear it in two weeks’ time—but I rather fear not. That is why so many other countries in our situation—those many economies that are growing faster than ours—do not impose multi-generational taxes on businesses. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister why it is that he and his Government single out family businesses—not those owned by private equity, those owned by international domiciled corporations, or even listed companies—for this iniquitous measure. I would love to hear that, as we all would on the Conservative Benches.

    Hansard source
31. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Andrew Griffith

    Inheritance Tax

    I will happily give away—I am enjoying the contributions.

    Hansard source
32. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Andrew Griffith

    Inheritance Tax

    As I have said many times in the House, I think the G7 is the wrong comparator peer group. We are not the fastest growing member of the G7. If the hon. Member took the time to read more than the headlines handed out by the Labour Whips, he would know that yesterday the International Monetary Fund downgraded the growth forecast for our wonderful country and enterprise for 2027. That is what Labour is doing to our economy: it has reduced the rate of growth. While the G7 largely consists of relatively sclerotic economies that suffer from the same levels of indebtedness and lack of growth as the United Kingdom, in the meantime the G20 is coming up on the outside track. Those are the more prosperous countries, and they are building airports, building infrastructure and forming capital. Their companies are taking on the world and their young people have more job opportunities. Not that the Labour Government have any interest in calibrating, counting and identifying those who are leaving, but that is why the flow of wealth creators and ambitious young people is not to our wonderful country, with its history and heritage, but from our country to those economies that are successfully growing faster than ours. One of the reasons for that—to conclude—is that those countries are more understanding of family businesses, more understanding of family farms, and more sympathetic and on the side of those who work hard to create wealth and a better life for themselves, for their family and for the next generation.

    Hansard source
33. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Alicia Kearns

    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?

    Hansard source
34. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Alicia Kearns

    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
35. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Alicia Kearns

    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
36. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Alicia Kearns

    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
37. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Yasmin Qureshi

    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
38. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Warinder Juss

    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
39. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Warinder Juss

    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
40. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Uma Kumaran

    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