Statutory Paternity Pay
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I am pleased to be able to confirm to him that self-employed parents are explicitly covered in the terms of reference of the current review.
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,832 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Welfare Budget
In March, the Office for Budget Responsibility published its official forecast, predicting that at the end of the current Parliament, in 2029-30, UK welfare spending will be about £390 billion. The OBR will update that forecast in the Budget, which will take place on Wednesday fortnight.
- Hansard source
Welfare Budget
The hon. Member will be relieved to know that spending on working-age adults’ and children’s welfare is forecast to be 4.9% of GDP at the end of the current Parliament, as it is now. Overall welfare spending is forecast to rise by less than half as much in this Parliament as in the last, by just over 0.3 percentage points by 2030-31 compared with 0.7 percentage points in the last Parliament. This Government are putting right the problems that they inherited.
- Hansard source
Welfare Budget
I do agree with my hon. Friend, and, as she has said, we inherited a system that wrote people off. We are pleased with the early results emerging from our Connect to Work programme, which is providing exactly that kind of tailored support for disabled people and others faced with complex barriers to work. We recently published the second set of quarterly outcome statistics, and the news is very encouraging.
- Hansard source
Welfare Budget
The hon. Gentleman will have seen Professor Peter Fonagy’s recent report about the incidence of ADHD, autism and other conditions. He will also know that I am co-chairing a review of PIP which is looking into how we can ensure that the system meets the very real needs of many disabled people, and that the benefit is on a sustainable financial footing for the future. The report of my review will be published before the end of the year.
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
We are getting a grip. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that we are recruiting 500 extra staff to process access to work applications. Those staff are being recruited and trained at the moment and as a result of that, we will eliminate the access to work backlog that we inherited from the previous Government by September next year.
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
I am happy to check that point with the team doing the work, and will drop the hon. Lady a line to confirm.
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
We owe an enormous debt to carers right across the country who carry the kind of burden that the hon. Lady describes. We are doing some important work at the moment on carer’s allowance, which is the benefit that provides support in these circumstances, and have consulted on some ideas for change. We particularly want to make it easier for people to combine work and caring. That may well help in the situation the hon. Lady describes.
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
Yes, there is. We are looking at some of the developments in social media and at the kinds of coaching, including where people are being charged for advice that they could obtain for free and without difficulty. We are looking at all of that at the moment.
- Hansard source
National Security
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on national security. Since the House last sat, we have received a reminder of the threats ranged against this country. That has included the danger posed not only by extremists and terrorists, but by foreign powers seeking to undermine our nation’s security. Those threats have targeted people, businesses and critical infrastructure, but above all else, they are attacks on our values and way of life. The first duty of Government is the security of the nation, so I will update the House on our response to those threats, and how we are acting to keep our country and citizens safe. I start with the threat posed by terrorists and extremists, and I know one case will be on the minds of many in this House today. It is now three months since the murder of Ann Widdecombe at her home in Devon. We continue to mourn her loss. On 2 October, the suspect was charged with a terrorism offence, including preparing an act of terror against the leader of Reform UK, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). I know that this news will have been deeply distressing for the hon. Member, so I say to him and his family that they have my profoundest sympathies at what must be an awful time. As I have said before, an attack on any one of us is an attack on us all. I know other Members, as well as people outside of this House, have recently been contacted by the police in connection with that case. To all those affected, I offer the same sympathies and solidarity as I do to the hon. Member for Clacton. At times like these, we must stand together as one House. For those who serve, politics is a calling. Robust debate and criticism are part of this job; threats, abuse and violence are not. Today, as on so many other days, we remember Ann Widdecombe, Sir David Amess and Jo Cox—three beloved colleagues, and three champions of our democracy. We owe it to them, and to everyone who believes in a fair and open country, to ensure that those who serve, at all levels, receive the protection they deserve. We must first ensure that every opportunity was taken in this particular case to stop the attacker. The Independent Office for Police Conduct is investigating the response to an attempted break-in at the hon. Member for Clacton’s home last year. I have asked it to conduct that investigation both thoroughly and swiftly, and we expect it to conclude early next year. I would caution everyone not to pre-empt that investigation. Regardless of the outcome, it is clear that there is insufficient protection for those who serve. I can therefore announce that I will expand, with immediate effect, police support to political figures who are not currently Members of Parliament. This will include former Members of Parliament, peers and party spokespeople, giving them access to a named police officer, as well as help with wider security measures. However, we must go further. Today, I also announce an independent, root-and-branch review of the protective security provided by the state to those in public life. The review will be led by Sir Stephen Lovegrove, the former National Security Adviser. It will examine protective security from every angle, including physical threats, online risks, and the dangers posed within our more polarised society. It will hear directly from Ministers, Members of Parliament and other high-profile people in public life, and it will report within six months. It will complement Sir Robert Buckland’s ongoing review into the killing of Sir David Amess. It is rightly an independent review, but my commitment is that its findings must and will lead to tangible change, and that the state’s resources will be rebalanced to protect those people and places that need it most. The terrorist threat is not only ranged at those who serve in public life. In recent days, we marked the first anniversary of the terror attack at the Heaton Park synagogue. On that awful day in October last year, as our Jewish community celebrated Yom Kippur, two brave men, Melvin Cravitz and Adrian Daulby, lost their lives and three others were seriously injured. What happened that day must be fully understood so, as requested by the coroner, I can today announce a public inquiry into the deaths of Mr Cravitz and Mr Daulby. This will ensure that all evidence can be heard, including any sensitive national security material that could not otherwise be fully heard in the coroner’s court. Tragically, Heaton Park is just one of a series of attacks on our Jewish community that, in the year since, have included: the stabbing of two Jewish men in Golders Green, north London, with a trial now set for March 2027; a failed attack on the Israeli embassy, for which the attacker was jailed last week for 20 years; a spate of arson attacks across north London; and last month, just hours before Yom Kippur began, a foiled but potentially lethal plot on the Jewish community in Manchester. In that case, two men, both Iranian nationals, have now been charged with terrorism offences. I pay tribute to the police and the security services for what was a long-running investigation conducted with their customary professionalism and skill. Faced with the threat posed to our Jewish community, we have increased funding to the police by an additional £250 million to boost police presence in key Jewish areas and to tackle antisemitism on our streets, but I know we cannot simply build higher walls around our Jewish community and expect them to live in fear. We must root out the evil of antisemitism wherever it lurks in society, and this Government are committed to that effort and are tackling antisemitism wherever it is found, be it online, in our schools and universities, in our public services or on our streets. The threat posed to our Jewish community shows us how the lines are increasingly blurring between extremism and state threats. We know that the Iranian state is targeting our Jewish community. Earlier this year, the Islamic Movement of Companions of the Right claimed responsibility for the arson attacks in north London. We know that members of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps were behind that group and most certainly directed its other attacks across Europe. This speaks to a wider trend. States like Iran are using proxies to conduct hostile activity here in Britain. They pay criminals or exploit naive volunteers to attack our country and its citizens while maintaining an air of plausible deniability. It is a brazen threat, but it is one that we are alert to and will not tolerate. That is why, this summer, we fast-tracked the National Security (State Threats) Act 2026 through Parliament, which created stronger powers and tougher punishments to deal with state-backed threats to domestic security. Under these new powers, we have designated both the IMCR and the IRGC. That brings us to the recent events at RAF Fairford. As the Prime Minister has said, our assessment is that it is highly likely to have been co-ordinated by a known individual based in Iran, and almost certainly directed by Iran’s IRGC. The Foreign Secretary has today summoned the Iranian ambassador, and he will condemn Iran’s continued attempts to undermine our safety. We are also sanctioning two individuals involved in conducting espionage and attacks in Europe and the US on behalf of the Government of Iran, and we will not hesitate to take further action to restrict Iran’s capacity to threaten international security. The threat is not contained to Iran, of course. As the invasion of Ukraine enters its fifth winter, the Kremlin continues to lash out at European countries. Together with the EU, we attributed to Russia an attack on Poland’s energy grid last December that could have caused half a million citizens to lose electricity. Similarly, we are acting against the threat on our shores. Last month, a British man was charged under the National Security Act 2023 over alleged contact with Russia’s military intelligence agency, and in recent days a Royal Navy sailor, accused of spying on behalf of Russia, has been charged under the same Act. We remain vigilant to the threats posed by China, too. MI5 recently warned universities and academics to cut ties with the China General Technology Research Institute, which had been funding research in the UK with the “primary purpose” of improving China’s espionage operations. Those who continue to work with this group will face criminal charges for aiding a foreign state, and lengthy prison sentences as a result. The threats we face today are complex and often interconnected. They target communities and citizens, the critical infrastructure that we depend on, and the institutions and individuals that make up our democracy. Our response to this growing threat is rightly multifaceted. We are tackling extremism in our communities and in the online world. In “Protecting What Matters”, our social cohesion plan, we set out a range of measures to tackle this threat, including banning those who seek to come to this country to spread hatred, and committing to publishing an annual “State of Extremism” report, which will identify the threats we face and, crucially, equip frontline professionals to counter them. We are also adapting to the changing nature of the violent threats we face. Following the horrors of Southport, we have taken action to curb the threat posed by individuals fixated on violence. This has included strengthening the handling of repeat Prevent referrals, and making it clear that referrals can be made to Prevent without a clearly identifiable ideology. The Online Safety Act 2023 has also ensured that thousands of services now have stronger age checks and safety measures. In addressing the threat posed by states, make no mistake: our police and security services are on permanent watch. Since 2023, more than 23 people have been charged under the National Security Act, leading to five convictions and sentences totalling more than 48 years’ imprisonment so far, including 18 years for two men convicted of spying for China. We have imposed more than 4,000 sanctions linked to Russia and Iran, and we have placed both on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, which means that anyone conducting activity on their behalf must register it or face the prospect of prison. But more is required, and as I have noted already, the National Security (State Threats) Act has given us powerful new tools to tackle state threats. We are also building a specialist mission in Counter Terrorism Policing to disrupt state threats, and we are tightening security around military bases. Of course, resilience is about more than our physical defences. We are also establishing a national centre for information defence to tackle disinformation from states. Our Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill will protect everyday services by strengthening national defences against cyber-attacks. We will go further with our upcoming national security Bill and give intelligence agencies and the police stronger powers to bear down on cyber-criminals. Mr Speaker, let me say this to the public: if you are ever worried about someone you know, tell a teacher, a doctor or someone else you trust. Institutions like Prevent exist to stop people following a dark path from which there may be no return. If ever you see something suspicious, report it immediately to the police or a relevant authority. To businesses, in an increasingly online world, consider the cyber-threats that you face and strengthen your defences. Finally, to those responsible for some part of our critical infrastructure, we will work with you. The National Protective Security Authority and the National Cyber Security Centre stand ready to help. We can defeat those who mean us harm, but we are strongest when we act together. In a more dangerous world, we are faced by threats from without and within that target our democracy and our way of life. In response, we are adapting and strengthening our defences. As ever, I commend the work of the police and our security services who labour in silence to keep us safe, and I am sure the whole House joins me in offering thanks to them for that vital, lifesaving work. This Government are taking action in support of that effort, but as I have set out in this statement, I know there is more that we must do to protect this country, to protect our citizens and to protect our democracy. I hope the whole House can join together in that vital work, which is so much greater than any of our differences, because I know that those of us who choose to serve all share a belief: we will never be defeated by those who mean us harm. Mr Speaker, with my thanks to you for allowing it to run a little longer than would usually be the case, I commend this statement to the House.
- Hansard source
National Security
I thank the shadow Home Secretary for his comments and questions, though much of what he has asked, as I believe he knows full well, relates to ongoing investigations. As such, there are limits to what I can share with the House today. I also observe that there are limits to what is appropriate to be said publicly while investigations are ongoing. That is not just a restriction that we impose on ourselves for the sake of it; it is an important part of ensuring the integrity of our criminal justice system and the independence of police investigations. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will therefore understand, even if his questions do not suggest so, that in relation to RAF Fairford and the decision to bail suspects, that was entirely an operational decision for the police, who are solely responsible for that investigation. I have full confidence in the police as they carry out that investigation. Because it is ongoing, more facts will be established, and I am sure that the police will take appropriate action when they come to light. Those suspects are bailed under strict conditions, and no one—certainly no one in our legal jurisdiction—should be commenting on the rightness or wrongness of that, because it is in our jurisdiction and we have a responsibility to ensure that the investigation has full integrity. If there are criminal proceedings to follow, those proceedings must not be prejudiced by commentary beforehand. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman understands why I will not go further than what I have said in my statement on that point. I think that a more responsible approach from all Members of this House on this matter is required. I would not comment on intelligence briefings, and nor have other Home Secretaries. I will not compromise an ongoing investigation. As more facts are established, they will be public when it is appropriate for them to be made so. The right hon. Gentleman made a point about action taken by the previous Government after the Salisbury attack and laid out his suggested actions against the Iranians at this stage. I set out the actions that the Foreign Secretary is already taking, but we will not take anything off the table as the investigation matures, more facts are established, and more detail is known on exactly what happened. The Government will always keep under review all the methods we have at our disposal for responding to any hostile state carrying out activity in our country. On RAF Molesworth, again, I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman knows this, but the police have said that their investigation is at a very early stage. At the moment, there is nothing to suggest that this incident is connected to the events at RAF Fairford. The police are continuing to investigate. It would not be appropriate to provide a wider running commentary on that investigation while it is still in its early stages. The shadow Home Secretary moved on to the circumstances relating to the murder of Ann Widdecombe and the recent charging decisions against Joshua Kerry on terror charges. Again, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on conversations between me and counter-terror policing, but I do not believe that information has been withheld from anybody at any point in an inappropriate manner. This is a thorough investigation whereby the police have been checking devices and other material at the property of that individual to establish a fuller picture. As that fuller picture has emerged, they have been sharing information; they have sought to do so appropriately, in my view. I know that people have been contacted by the police. That is a matter for the police to pursue. I think the implication of the shadow Home Secretary’s questions was that potentially there was a withholding of information or that it had taken too long for it to be shared with individuals—both Members of Parliament and former Members of Parliament. I do not believe that anything has happened in this investigation that is inappropriate; that is how I will respond. The shadow Home Secretary went on to ask questions relating to attacks on our Jewish community. In relation to the Home Secretary’s powers for excluding individuals from entering our country—we have had these exchanges on a number of occasions across the Dispatch Box—I will always use my powers appropriately by looking at both threat and risk as well as the wider impact on communities. I have used those powers in some instances where that threshold has been met. I have not used them in every single one—it would not be appropriate to do so—but let me tell him that I take a robust approach to the exercise of my powers and will always use them in an appropriate way to limit the threat to our communities here at home. I think that I have covered everything that the shadow Home Secretary said. I will ensure that I respond to his letter as soon as I finish the statement.
- Hansard source
National Security
Mr Speaker, before I answer my hon. Friend’s question, may I say that, on sharing of information, you will know that that is a matter for counter-terror policing? They are in charge of the investigation and they have got to ensure that all their actions can survive future contact with a court of law. Nobody wants to do anything that might be prejudicial in any way. I hear the case made by you, Mr Speaker, and by other Members of the House. Let me assure you that I will pick up those conversations with counter-terror policing and wider criminal justice system partners to ensure that we have stress-tested the robustness of our arrangements in such cases. I will come back to you directly, Mr Speaker, as well as updating the House in the future.
- Hansard source
National Security
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will also ensure that I update the Lord Speaker. My hon. Friend will know that the Government have announced substantial new additional funding for the protection of our Jewish community: about £250 million of additional money committed over a three-year period to ensure an enhanced policing posture in key Jewish community sites. That is an important step forward and a recognition of the ongoing nature of the threat that our community faces. My hon. Friend is right on the issue of putting up ever higher walls: we have got to ensure that the security system is robust and can respond effectively. Let me say again to him that, as we can see from the sheer number of cases now appearing before the courts, the police and our security services are working around the clock to bring people to justice and to foil plots—they have done so on many occasions and will continue to do so—but we must have a wider national conversation about the cultural changes we have seen. We need a wider societal response against antisemitism, because we cannot simply put security guards everywhere. We need our citizens to be able to live together in harmony and respect, for the betterment of everyone.
- Hansard source
National Security
I thank the hon. Member for his comments and questions. On the issues relating to the murder of Ann Widdecombe, he made a point about our responsibility to lower the temperature. I observe that it is possible to have very robust debate and a thorough contest of ideas without having to cross a line and call into question our collective security. I urge all Members as ever to reflect on their own behaviour to ensure that we are modelling the right behaviour, which we expect our citizens to see. We lead the national discourse and we should seek to do it in an appropriate way without losing all of the political contestation that is a hallmark of a thriving democracy. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments on remaining vigilant on antisemitism as a collective, whole of society response. All political parties have a responsibility to ensure that they are active partners in the fight against antisemitism, which is a pernicious form of hatred. We know that it has increased substantially in recent years, and we all have a responsibility there. The hon. Gentleman will know that the issue of military bases is primarily one for the Ministry of Defence, but of course it works closely with the police and with us at the Home Office. Let me assure him that I am in good discussions with the Defence Secretary to ensure that all appropriate measures are being taken at our military bases, that we are aware of all the risks and that there are good security measures. It is my belief that there are, but of course we are never going to be complacent on that matter and will always review and ensure that our response is appropriate. I would be happy to discuss that with the hon. Gentleman as well, if needed. If he writes to me again, I can make sure that he gets an updated response that reflects the current and recent events.
- Hansard source
National Security
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The policies of another political party are a matter primarily for that political party, and I would expect it to have to explain the impact of its motion on the safety and security of Jews. I believe that there are questions for the Green party leadership to look at and to answer. On the issue of Green councils, every council, regardless of which political party is running it, has to follow the law, and the law will not allow any prejudicial treatment of any of our citizens based on their protected characteristics, whether that is their race or their religion. That applies with as much fervour to the Jewish community as it does to any other community in this country, and I would expect all councils to ensure that they comply with the law. Nobody has the right to freelance on equality policy. It is set by the Government. There is a clear legal framework and every council has to follow it.
- Hansard source
National Security
I absolutely agree with the final remarks of the Chair of the Select Committee. None of us wants to be mourning another of our colleagues, either current or former, and that is why I believe that change is needed. The right hon. Lady will know that the responsibilities for the protective security system as it stands today are shared across multiple Departments, including the Parliamentary Security Department, individual local police forces, the Home Office and RAVEC—the Royal and VIP Executive Committee. It is a fragmented system and I am acknowledging today that, while everybody works hard within that system to provide a good security response for individuals in public life, it needs to be looked at again because of the range of threats that we now see, and the complexity of the changing environment. When the system was first set up, nobody had in mind that we would have high-profile political leaders who were not in Parliament. That was not how our political culture used to work, but things have changed and the system has not been able to keep up in the way that it needs to do so. That is why I have announced the expansion of Operation Ford to cover more people, so that at least they have some contact with police, can access advice and, where necessary, can have an assessment of their risk with other security measures attached to it. However, the system needs an overhaul, and that is why the review is an important step forward. I will be finalising official terms of reference with Stephen Lovegrove, the independent reviewer, and I will obviously ensure that the House is updated. As I say, I want this done within six months because I recognise the urgency of the situation.
- Hansard source
National Security
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is a sacred ability of all our citizens who have a faith to practise their faith freely in their places of worship—a freedom that I have availed myself of on many occasions—but I understand people’s fear whenever they hear of an attack, whether on a synagogue, a mosque, a gurdwara or any other place of worship. My hon. Friend might be aware that the Government have already allocated record funding of over £70 million for the protective security schemes for faith communities. That includes all faith communities. Of that money, £40 million is for the protective security for mosques scheme. I have already updated Members on the money made available to the Jewish community, given the particular range of threats to our Jewish community, but there is funding for which other faith groups can apply, for assistance with security measures. At the Home Office, we are obviously downstream of many of these issues. We are involved when things are about to go wrong or have gone wrong, and what we can offer in terms of policy are things like security measures. My hon. Friend is right to say that we need a wider societal conversation on how we change our culture, so that we can stop the descent into a more polarised society that we have seen in recent years, and do more to build a cohesive society that is confident and whose citizens can live freely alongside one another.
- Hansard source
National Security
No one had or has diplomatic immunity—I can put that on the record immediately. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the Jonathan Hall recommendations that followed the horrific attacks in Southport. We always seek to work with partners in the criminal justice system to make sure that information is shared as quickly as possible in order to prevent disinformation from spreading and to prevent people from succeeding in sowing fear in our communities. The hon. Gentleman will also understand, I hope, that the investigation is live, and how an investigation starts is not always how it ultimately ends. There are many developments along the way. If we think that the police should always have an open mind about an investigation, and if we want to protect the integrity of future court proceedings, it is important that we proceed with care. Let me assure him that I will always ensure that we put accurate information into the public domain as soon as we are able to do so, in a way that does not compromise an investigation. This investigation is still at an early stage.
- Hansard source
National Security
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the behaviour of some of these groups, and particularly of masked individuals, is causing fear across communities. It is designed to do that. We expect the police to use all the powers at their disposal, including, where appropriate, powers to require the removal of face coverings. I assure her that as groups develop their approach to protest-like activity, I will always keep these matters under review. It is important that we respect the right to protest and to political dissent, and that we take an active approach to allowing people to show their political dissent, which is a key hallmark of our democracy, but it is important that it does not happen in a way that has a chilling effect on the freedoms of others. I am committed to ensuring that this Government get that balance right. I am happy to discuss with my hon. Friend the experiences in her constituency and region to ensure that our response is appropriate.
- Hansard source
National Security
Of course, I recognise the deep anxiety that will have been felt by the residents of Whelford; it must have been a terrifying experience for them. The hon. Lady will understand that the police have to act quickly to safeguard life and have to take every risk seriously, and I am sure that that is what they sought to do in this case, but there is no getting away from the fact that, although they were doing their jobs, this would still have been unsettling for residents. I am happy to ensure that residents’ concerns are listened to. I will arrange a meeting for her with the Security Minister, in the first instance, to go through those concerns, and will ensure that I am also kept updated.
- Hansard source
National Security
I understand the concern raised by my hon. Friend. He will know that this is a matter of policy for colleagues in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and the Secretary of State has made it clear that she believes there is further work to do on ensuring online safety for everyone. More generally, age verification has had a good impact in relation to the viewing of pornographic material. When it comes to material that is in the more contested space of cultural issues, we would still have the issue of where we draw the line between content that, although it might be horrible, is lawful; content that is lawful but harmful; and content that slips into illegality. Those questions remain, regardless of whether we have age verification.
- Hansard source
National Security
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments on supporting the work of counter-terror police. So much of that work is not public, but it is crucial to the safety and security of our nation; it is right that we place on record our thanks to them. He makes a good point about silos. That is one of the reasons why I am setting up the national police service, which will bring together the National Crime Agency and Counter Terrorism Policing into one service. I am doing so because I recognise that placing those two agencies together puts us in the best possible place to face these growing and complex threats, which are changing all the time. I believe that the National Crime Agency and Counter Terrorism Policing work very effectively together. They have built up good arrangements over the years to ensure that when allegedly criminal activity strays across the boundaries into what their organisations look at, they work closely together. I meet all of them, alongside other partners, weekly, as does the Security Minister. We work very hard to ensure that there are not silos. The reason for setting up the new state threats mission is that the nature of state threats has changed so significantly. We see this, and other Five Eyes partner countries see the same trend. It is important to be at the cutting edge of understanding how our enemies want to do us harm, so that we can meet that challenge. I commit to the right hon. Gentleman that I will not allow any silos to exist. The national police service will have a key role in ensuring that that never happens.
- Hansard source
National Security
I thank my hon. Friend, who raises a similar point to that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham). The self-appointed groups are showing a new form of protest-type activity, which is not quite the same as traditional protest. Whether they come from the far right or the far left, no one is allowed to break the law of our land, harass people, threaten or intimidate. Wherever a crime has taken place, I expect the police to respond robustly and to ensure that communities and individuals are not living in fear. I reassure him that I am discussing the emerging picture of this type of activity with all appropriate partners. I am happy to discuss with him the experience in his area, and to work with hon. Members to ensure that the legitimate expression of the freedom to protest, freedom of conscience, freedom of political speech and so on does not chill the freedoms, or indeed the safety, of anyone else.
- Hansard source
National Security
Let me give that assurance immediately to the hon. Lady. The Government already recognise that there is a different picture for devolved Administrations. Op Ford is extended to all devolved Administrations, and the review will take into account the many different ways in which democracy is expressed in our country, whether in metro mayoralties or devolved Administrations, including by current and former Members of those Administrations and local councillors, of whom there are many thousands across the country. I can give her that reassurance. The review will be a full, end-to-end look at the whole picture of protective security for those in public life.
- Hansard source
National Security
I am sorry to hear of the experiences of people in my hon. Friend’s local community. I restate that we expect the police to use the full range of their powers. People have the right to show their political dissent in this country—that is an important freedom that everybody has—but nobody has the right to break the law, threaten or harass individuals, or otherwise engage in criminal acts. I encourage his local council leaders to work with their local police, but I will also meet all colleagues who have raised similar concerns to talk through the current policy environment, and to ensure, as I said in response to previous questions, that we get the balance right, and maintain the freedoms that make our country great without chilling the freedoms of others in our society.
- Hansard source
National Security
I thank the hon. Member and, if he is amenable, I would be happy to ensure that he can meet the Security Minister. I will also personally pick up those issues with the Defence Secretary. The hon. Member is right to note that many different organisations are involved in the security of bases across the country and in his constituency. I will follow up to ensure that everything is happening as it should in his constituency, and to ensure better sharing of information, where that is appropriate.
- Hansard source
National Security
Let me simply say to the hon. Member that we work very closely with all our allies. These are threats that are shared and are felt by many of our allies and colleagues in other countries. We will always ensure that we take both collective action to deal with the threats we all face, but also ensure that we are always protecting the British national interest. I will not give a running commentary on wider discussions, but let me say that this Government will always take every appropriate measure to keep our people safe.
- Hansard source
National Security
I do not believe, as I said in answer to previous questions, that anything inappropriate has happened in relation to the list. I am not going to give a running commentary on intelligence discussions, but nothing inappropriate has happened, in my view. I will ensure that I am able to share more information with the House, as I referenced in my earlier answer to Mr Speaker, and the concerns that have been raised about who has knowledge of those names, but the investigation is led by the police—I do not get a running commentary or an update, and it would be inappropriate for that to happen. The police are operationally independent, they must go where the evidence takes them, and no politician should ever have a directive hand in such proceedings.
- Hansard source
National Security
I am happy to pick up any specific concerns that the hon. Lady has, or with councillors whom she has been discussing the problems of Operation Ford with, to ensure that those are dealt with. I would observe that when Operation Bridger first started—I say this as a Member of Parliament rather than as the Home Secretary—it maybe was not as effective. Each time it has done anything, Members have been able to shape how it works based on their own lived experience. That engagement between Members, the parliamentary authorities and the police themselves has been crucial in improving Operation Bridger. It has been an iterative process. The nature of these threats is very complex—it varies from place to place, from person to person—so it is right that it adapts as circumstances change and that it is responsive. I expect Operation Ford to respond in the same way to the threats faced by other elected officials. I say to the hon. Lady that I will ensure that is the case and that there is good learning across all the Operation Ford network to ensure that there is a consistent standard. It is not unusual for MPs still to say that Operation Bridger can be inconsistent, so it is a work in progress, but I do believe that the wider review gives us the best opportunity to have a single system with a clear approach, based on threat and risk management, which is crucial for everyone.
- Hansard source
National Security
Let me absolutely assure the hon. Gentleman that infrastructure in Northern Ireland is just as important as infrastructure in any other part of the United Kingdom, and, whether the work we do is through the new national centre or our current arrangements, there will be no discrepancy in the way the Government approach the safety and security of the people of Northern Ireland, or indeed critical national infrastructure in Northern Ireland, compared with any other part of the United Kingdom.
- Hansard source
National Security
I agree that it is a really important way in which this country and our democracy function. I do not think of it as a right so much, but it is part of our political culture. It has always been the case that people can freely turn up to this, the nation’s House, themselves and that they can meet their local Member of Parliament and also their councillors. It is also normal in our country for MPs to offer advice surgeries and to go out door-knocking. Those are important parts of our political culture that I do not wish to see change. But we must also be mindful of the new risks posed to elected officials. As a Member noted earlier, we do not want people to be put off from entering public life, so it is important that our arrangements adapt in a way that protects our political culture.
- Hansard source
National Security
The Government take very seriously the need to be prepared for all the threats we face across a whole range of public policy concerns, whether national security matters or those related to the environment, and other issues as well. I am sure that I and colleagues across government will always look at all proposals designed to help us be more resilient as a nation, and I know the Prime Minister will have more to say on this in due course.
- Hansard source
National Security
I appreciate that the circumstances of Ann Widdecombe’s murder and also the additional information that has come to light are very distressing, and I have offered sympathy and support from this Dispatch Box before, and I do so again. But I do not think that the distressing nature of these events justifies the charge that the right hon. Member makes, and I do reject that charge. He, as a former Minister, knows how these things work. The Independent Office for Police Conduct is investigating. It is independent of Government and of the police. It will go where the facts take it on the additional incident that is being investigated in relation to the property of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), and it is important that it is able to get on with the job. It is also important that we do not pre-empt the findings of that IOPC investigation. It is working swiftly and will have answers for us quickly, and I know those answers will be debated in this Chamber, but it is important that we do not make findings of fact before the facts are known.
- Hansard source
National Security
I repeat what I said to all members of the public in my statement: if they see anything suspicious, they should contact the police, as residents did in relation to the incident at RAF Fairford. The hon. Gentleman will know that, as the Defence Secretary has said, there is more to the investigation and how the incident unfolded than is known or said publicly at the moment. That is because the investigation has to be able to continue in the normal way—so there is more to those circumstances. But let me commend the resident in question and all others for doing their civic duty in spotting something suspicious and making sure they call the police. I would urge everybody else, if the same ever happens again, to do the same.
- Hansard source
National Security
I assure the hon. Member, as I assured the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) earlier, that the Government approach in relation to our people and our places in Northern Ireland is no different from our approach anywhere else in the United Kingdom. Let me also say that the Government value our defence and security and intelligence relationships with all of our allies and partners, and those relationships are important and strong, and they continue. That is also the case in relation to Israel, and we will continue working with our allies and partners to make sure that we are collectively doing everything we can to keep our people safe.
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
I established the “Get Hyndburn Working” group, and together we are looking at how we can bring our youth hub into a town centre location and also bring health, training and education services all under one roof. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how the Government can support us to make that a reality?
- Hansard source
Draft Human Rights Act 1998 (Remedial) Order 2026
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. The draft remedial order implements the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of SW v. the United Kingdom. The order amends section 9(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998 to make damages available in relation to judicial acts done in good faith where the judicial act breaches the requirements of procedural fairness under article 8 of the European convention on human rights. The Government consider that amending section 9(3) in this way is the appropriate approach that ensures we meet our international obligations while respecting the principle of judicial immunity. The background to SW v. the United Kingdom is as follows: the particulars in the case are that the applicant was a social worker who acted as a professional witness in childcare proceedings in the family court. The family court judge made adverse findings in his judgment as to the professional conduct of SW without giving the applicant adequate opportunity to respond and directed that the judgment be sent to the local authority to which the applicant was then assigned. The applicant’s assignment within the local authority was subsequently terminated. In November 2016 the Court of Appeal found that the applicant’s article 8 rights had been infringed and set aside the findings. However, the applicant was unable to obtain damages due to section 9(3) of the Human Rights Act, which prevents the payment of damages for judicial acts done in good faith except in very limited circumstances. In 2021 the European Court of Human Rights subsequently found that there had been a breach of article 13 of the convention, which is the right to an effective remedy when read together with article 8. This is because the applicant did not have access to an effective remedy at the national level capable of addressing the substance of her article 8 complaint and by which she could obtain appropriate relief. The European Court of Human Rights awarded a sum in damages which has now been paid. We are obliged, as a matter of international law, to implement this judgment, which in this case requires legislative change to ensure that similar violations will not arise again in future. The Human Rights Act contains powers in section 10 and schedule 2 to make amendments to legislation via a remedial order to address findings of the European Court of Human Rights. On 17 July 2025, the Government laid a proposal for a draft remedial order to make the necessary amendment to the Human Rights Act. The Government consider that this represents an appropriate measure to implement the findings of a breach of article 13 on the facts of this case. In November 2025, the Joint Committee on Human Rights reported on the draft remedial order. We are grateful for the Committee’s scrutiny and for accepting that this is a valid use of the power to make a remedial order and address the specific breach of article 13 that the Court identified in SW. The Joint Committee was of the view that the proposed amendment was too narrowly drafted to prevent future breaches of article 13 where judicial acts infringe on convention rights. It recommended amending the order either by introducing principled exceptions to section 9(3) or considering removing the provision entirely alongside a number of other recommendations to amend the drafting. While we recognise the Joint Committee’s recommendation to go further, having examined these concerns carefully the Government decided to continue with the current approach for the order and implemented small drafting changes in response. The implementation of this judgment should not be delayed any further as it has already been five years since the judgment became final. We have taken care to ensure that the draft remedial order appropriately addresses the incompatibility identified by the Court in SW while respecting the principle of judicial immunity. While the remedial order has not been amended as recommended by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, we have committed to undertake a review of the operation of section 9(3) separately to the implementation of this judgment in consultation with the judiciary, the Joint Committee on Human Rights and other relevant parties. I want to express my gratitude to the Joint Committee for its scrutiny of the proposal and its careful consideration of the more recent draft order. We welcome the Joint Committee’s recommendation that both Houses approve the order. Hon. Members will have heard me mention the need to protect the principle of judicial immunity, and I just want to say a few words about that. Judicial immunity is a long-established common-law principle. An independent and impartial judiciary is one of the cornerstones of a democracy, and judicial immunity is an important safeguard of that independence. It protects judges from personal liability arising from acts carried out in the exercise of their judicial functions. Officials have had continued engagement with the judiciary during the drafting of this remedial order to ensure that they were fully sighted on our plans. Given that the Human Rights Act applies to the whole of the United Kingdom, this order will apply UK-wide. Officials have been in contact with the devolved Governments during the process of drafting the order. The draft order will ensure that damages may be awarded under the Human Rights Act in respect of a judicial act done in good faith where the judicial act is incompatible with article 8 on the grounds that it was done in such a procedurally defective way as to amount to a breach of the requirement to procedural fairness under that article.
- Hansard source
Draft Human Rights Act 1998 (Remedial) Order 2026
How regrettable that the Opposition could not waste an opportunity to engage in the point scoring rather than problem solving that is their ordre du jour. How sad, too, that their memories are so short—David Maxwell Fyfe, the distinguished Conservative jurist, was one of the architects of the European convention, which was such an important part of the post-war settlement and is now a vital pillar of documents such as the Good Friday agreement, which is so important to peace within these isles. It is so sad to see the Opposition seek to ally this country with the likes of Belarus, which is not a democracy in which I would care to live.
- Hansard source
Draft Human Rights Act 1998 (Remedial) Order 2026
The ECHR contains some pretty basic principles: the right to privacy and the right to fair proceedings and a fair hearing. The Human Rights Act, one of the achievements of the previous Labour Government, brought rights home so that British people could enforce those universal inalienable rights in our domestic courts. How far the Conservative party has drifted. Here we are, seeking to make a forensic but much-needed remedial order, yet instead we hear bombast about ripping up the ECHR, together with the Good Friday agreement, to end up much like Belarus, one of the few countries outside the ECHR. Anyway, here we are. Those are the political dividing lines and I commend the order to the Committee. Question put and agreed to.
- Hansard source
Statutory Paternity Pay
3. What assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of the rate of statutory paternity pay on household financial resilience.