What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
12,942 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
I could not agree more strongly. Let me be entirely unambiguous from the outset: His Majesty’s Opposition firmly reject the premise of the petition and any suggestion that Israel—or any British organisations expressing solidarity with it—represent a malign or covert influence on British politics and democracy.
The hon. Gentleman gets to the heart of the issue, as he so often does. Protest stops being peaceful protest when it involves using weapons to harm and intimidate those who hold a different view. To suggest that open and transparent advocacy by British citizens and established communal organisations constitutes an improper or malign conspiracy is not only factually incorrect but treads into deeply troubling territory. As I have said, the petition is not supported by credible evidence. Instead, it invites vague suspicion of covert—
I have given way a number of times; I need to make a little progress. The petition invites vague suspicion of covert, improper activity by unnamed organisations and we must call it out for what it is. The use of terms such as “the Israel lobby” to describe British Jewish communal bodies combines unfounded claims of disproportionate backroom influence with the ancient insidious trope that Jewish citizens are inherently disloyal or untrustworthy.
Of course. One of the reasons why those donations have been highlighted and publicised as thoroughly as they have is that they are recorded and published. I myself have not taken any donations to which that applies, but there is nothing inherently wrong with them. The Leader of the Opposition has repeatedly warned that we are witnessing a deeply concerning normalisation of rhetoric towards British Jews that would once have been unthinkable. Far too often, individuals use their political views on Israel as a convenient cover to display blatant antisemitism. We cannot allow a moral and political vacuum to be filled by a hatred of Jews. We must be vigilant that parliamentary procedures, including the e-petition system, are not inadvertently weaponised to legitimise those harmful tropes. Our political system is built on open, transparent advocacy. Members of this House regularly engage with a wide variety of groups to understand complex international issues, and we recognise and value the long-standing, transparent activities of groups such as Conservative Friends of Israel and Labour Friends of Israel, which work openly to foster strong bilateral ties, trade and security co-operation between the United Kingdom and a democratic ally. At the same time, our parliamentary democracy benefits from a diverse range of perspectives. Organisations such as the Conservative Middle East Council and other advocacy groups play an invaluable role in ensuring that Members of Parliament receive a comprehensive understanding of the region. They work diligently to ensure that parliamentarians receive detailed information and insights from a range of viewpoints, including pro-Palestinian and pro-Arab perspectives. That is how healthy, transparent democracy should operate: through open debate, visible briefings and competing arguments presented clearly in the light of day. There is no secrecy here, no hidden hand and certainly no malign infiltration. While this petition asks us to chase shadows and investigate legitimate domestic advocacy, it distracts from the very real, pressing and deeply dangerous threats of foreign interference that our security services warn us about every single day. The greatest threat to British politics and democracy comes not from democratic allies or British community groups, but from hostile foreign state actors, most notably China and Russia. That is why they were at the heart of the Rycroft review. Our intelligence agencies have been explicit. In October 2025, MI5 issued urgent guidance to Parliament warning that Russian hackers had actively stolen data from Members of Parliament, leaked sensitive UK-US trade documents ahead of the 2019 general election, and even impersonated foreign embassies to contact Ministers directly. We have seen the tangible consequences of that subversion in our legal system, such as the sentencing in November 2025 of Nathan Gill, the former leader of Reform UK Wales, to more than 10 years in prison after he was found guilty of accepting bribes from a pro-Russian Ukrainian politician to peddle Kremlin narratives. Equally alarming is the sustained, calculated campaign of espionage and democratic infiltration orchestrated by Beijing. MI5 security alerts have warned of covert attempts to recruit individuals with access to sensitive information within the Palace of Westminster. We have seen a string of high-profile cases, including espionage involving the UK Border Force and Hong Kong trade officials, and deeply concerning allegations involving political advisers and researchers. China is actively seeking to pass information on parliamentarians and undermine our sovereign affairs. It continues to spy on our colleagues and to target Hong Kong activists, many of whom remain British citizens and who have sought refuge on our shores, and actively works to weaken our democratic resilience. The Opposition believe that we must go much further to protect the integrity of British politics and our wider democratic framework, which is why the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), has called for China to be formally placed on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. That would require strict monitoring of any political activity taking place in the UK at the instruction of the Chinese state. The Government must publicly accept that China is already acting in a matter opposed and hostile to the core interests of the United Kingdom.
We have seen that Iran, seeing itself as not only a regional but an increasingly global power, is becoming increasingly willing to make physical attacks and also take sub-threshold action against our democracy. In conclusion, we do not support a public inquiry into the imaginary threat of pro-Israel lobbying. To grant one would be to validate a petition that lacks credible evidence and fuels antisemitic conspiracies. Instead, the Cabinet Office and Government must focus their finite resources on the genuine systemic dangers that face our democracy. Let us strengthen our defences against the hostile state apparatus in Beijing and Moscow, protect our parliamentarians from actual espionage, and maintain a political culture where open, transparent discussion from all sides of the middle east debate can thrive without fear of malicious vilification.
St Andrew’s primary school in Shifnal in my constituency is about to see a multimillion rebuild—or a new build in phases. Most of that money, but not all, will come from the Department for Education. Will the Secretary of State commit to ensuring that the funding is delivered, so that the school continues to offer the extra 25 places, as well as the 26-place nursery, that are part of the scheme? We have had false starts before, but this needs to be delivered—we need commitment from the Government.
Can I say to the Deputy Prime Minister that he is looking even more prime ministerial than he did on Wednesday? I wonder what has changed since then. This is the end of an era, because the love-in between the Deputy Prime Minister and myself could be coming to an end, as he may not be at the Dispatch Box much longer—I hope that is not the case. Is it not clear that Paris is not a place for British Prime Ministers? When Margaret Thatcher went to Paris for a security conference in 1990, she was gone as Prime Minister within four days. The right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) has gone as Prime Minister within five days of visiting Paris for a security conference. In the communiqué from the G7, there is a reference to Ukraine and energy. When will the UK end its temporary licences for the import of Russian diesel and jet fuel through third countries? It is scheduled to end in 2027. Could the Deputy Prime Minister bring that date forward?
Members of a mini-Parliament from Town Farm primary school in Stanwell, in my constituency, visited me here this morning and asked me some very good questions. I was, for instance, asked for my view of the new right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), but we will leave that one where it is. The school’s head, Mr Bhatti, has just been given the OBE in the King’s birthday honours. These things do not come up with the rations. Will the Secretary of State please put on record her thanks to Mr Bhatti and all the team at Town Farm primary school for the outstanding job that they do?
This is a joke, right, Madam Deputy Speaker? We have got the Deputy Prime Minister here giving a statement on a G7 summit that he was not at. I am embarrassed to point that out in front of the Public Gallery and the world. Can the Deputy Prime Minister name a single Prime Minister who has gone to a G7, a G8 or a G20 and not come back personally to make a statement to this House?
The resignation of the Prime Minister this morning was a damning indictment of the record of this Government over the last two years. Part of the Prime Minister’s legacy will be teacher morale at an all-time low. New data from the National Education Union today shows that 72% of teachers believe that the Government have performed badly on education. Why does the Secretary of State think the country and so many teachers have lost faith in this Government?
Well, that is a load of rubbish. The Secretary of State says that she is proud of the action that the Government are taking on pay. May I suggest that one of the reasons teachers are angry is that they still do not know their pay? When the Conservatives had to delay the teacher pay awards to this point in the year, the Education Secretary described it as a “complete dereliction of duty”. Why does she think it is one rule for the Labour party and one rule for everyone else?
Anti-Israel hatred creates a scourge of antisemitism against our Jewish community. They suffer for doing nothing other than being British Jews who happen to live in this country, and are caught in the middle of the conflict for no other reason than their ethnic and religious background. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is simply unfair and racist?
I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 752646 relating to pro-Israel influence on UK politics and democracy. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) for his point of order. As he will discover during the course of my contribution, I have a great degree of sympathy with his remarks. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. While I will take interventions later in my speech, I would be grateful if I could develop some of my key points before doing so. The petition was created by Andy Kalil and signed by over 118,000 people. I begin by making it explicit that I do not support the petition; indeed, I believe that it raises profound concerns, not because it seeks scrutiny of politics or lobbying but because of the way in which it frames those concerns and the sinister narratives upon which it draws. The debate raises important questions not simply about foreign influence or political advocacy but about the boundaries between legitimate political criticism and conspiracy theories that have historically fuelled antisemitism. Let me also say at the outset that I recognise that many of the people who signed the petition, including the 194 in my constituency, may have done so in good faith. Many will have believed that they were supporting transparency in public life or expressing concern about the events in the middle east. I do not question their motives; however, Parliament has a responsibility not only to consider what is being said but to understand the historical and political context in which it is being said. We have a duty to recognise when language and ideas echo prejudices that have caused immense harm throughout history. The petition calls for a public inquiry into what it describes as “pro-Israel influence on politics and democracy”. That wording matters. The petition does not call for a review of lobbying regulations generally. It does not seek greater transparency about foreign influence from all states; indeed, it cynically overlooks the fact that there are campaigns and lobbies operating in the UK in support of almost all countries in the world. It does not ask for a broad examination of how political advocacy works in the United Kingdom. Instead, it singles out one country and, more importantly, invokes a long-standing allegation that people who support that country exercise hidden or improper influence over our democratic institutions. That false accusation has a very long and very troubling history. For centuries, at the heart of antisemitism has been the claim that Jews exercise secret control over Governments, political systems, financial institutions, the media or public life. Those ideas have appeared in countless forms throughout history. They have been repackaged and modernised for different generations, but the core allegation remains remarkably consistent: that Jews acting collectively and covertly manipulate political events from behind the scenes. The most notorious example was the fraudulent document known as “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, which purported to reveal a Jewish conspiracy to dominate the world. Although repeatedly exposed as a forgery, its pernicious influence was immense. It fuelled antisemitic movements across Europe and beyond, and helped to create an environment in which discrimination, persecution and violence flourished. Today, such ideas are often expressed through different language, but the ill intent of its practitioners and its harmful consequences for Jews and wider society are all too familiar. Rather than speaking explicitly about Jews, some speak about Zionists, the lobby, hidden influence networks or pro-Israel control. The packaging has changed, but it is no less insidious in its implication. Like many of my colleagues, I have been accosted while walking outside Parliament by so-called peace activists handing out mock banknotes with “Bank of Zionism” written on them—an insinuation of Jewish control of our politics and economy. It is unmistakably racist, but that is exactly the sort of harmful activity and rhetoric that has become commonplace—the sort of message that today’s petition stems from. That is why concerns have been raised by so many across the political spectrum about the framing of the petition. This is not an attempt to prevent criticism of Israel or shield any Government from scrutiny. The Government of Israel, like every Government in the world, can and should be subject to criticism. Their policies can be challenged. Their decisions can be debated. Their actions can be scrutinised robustly and vigorously. Indeed, that is entirely consistent with democratic debate. It should be noted that extensive parliamentary time has been spent debating Israel. In the year following Hamas’s horrific terror rampage of 7 October 2023, MPs made an astonishing 4,369 contributions in the Chamber relating to Israel. Consider for a second that that is more than double the number of mentions of the national health service, at 1,895. In the same period, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was mentioned 1,449 times, while the appalling suffering unleashed by the war in Sudan warranted only a paltry 225 mentions. The same disproportionate focus on Israel within this place continues to this day. Presented with those facts, it is undeniable that anyone who claims the existence of a lobby seeking to silence dissent is nothing less than delusional. A reasonable case can be made that the very opposite is true: Israel has been uniquely singled out. Holding Israel to standards that are not applied to any other country is an unmistakable breach of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism, as the former UK special envoy for post-Holocaust issues, Lord Pickles, has warned. The IHRA definition also as potentially antisemitic identifies allegations concerning Jewish control of Governments, institutions and public life, as well as accusations of dual loyalty directed towards Jewish citizens. The grossly disproportionate focus on Israel, and the hardline language that that has all too often entailed, means, I regret to say, that this mother of all Parliaments has played a dangerous role in the explosion of antisemitism in this country. It is a painful truth, but Lord Austin was right to say so last week in the other place. As part of my preparation for the debate, I spoke to academics from the Royal United Services Institute who have considered the extent of foreign influence in the United Kingdom. The clearest and most substantiated concerns identified by successive Governments, parliamentary Committees and security services relate to hostile state activities from countries such as Russia and China. That makes it all the more striking that the petition singles out Israel, and frames its concern in language that echoes long-standing conspiracy theories about hidden influence. There is a clear difference between criticising a Government and advancing allegations that supporters of that Government exercise covert influence over democratic institutions. The concern is about not simply what the petition says but what it implies. When political outcomes are routinely attributed to hidden influence rather than democratic choice, trust in democratic institutions is eroded. Conspiracy theories weaken our democracy, encourage suspicion and promote division. That is true regardless of who the alleged conspirators are, but when those allegations reinforce one of the oldest prejudices in human history, the consequences are particularly serious. We should also remember that conspiracy theories do not exist in a vacuum. History teaches us that conspiracy theories portraying Jews as powerful, manipulative and disloyal have often preceded discrimination, exclusion and violence. That is not a theoretical concern. At a time when antisemitism is rising across many parts of society, we must be especially careful not to lend legitimacy to narratives that reinforce such ideas. The context matters. The Jewish community in Britain has experienced a sustained increase in antisemitic incidents in recent years. Many British Jews report feeling less secure than they have for decades, and synagogues, schools and community institutions continue to require significant security measures.
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Against a backdrop of the Jewish community asking for extra protections, it is entirely understandable that a petition built around allegations of hidden pro-Israel influence has generated such deep anxiety. Many British Jews hear in that language echoes of accusations that have been directed at their community for generations. We should listen carefully to those concerns. That does not mean that public life should be beyond scrutiny—quite the opposite. Transparency is essential, foreign influence should be taken seriously, lobbying should be transparent, political donations should be properly regulated and Parliament should remain vigilant against inappropriate influence from any source, but those principles must be applied consistently. If concerns about lobbying exist, they should be addressed through the established mechanisms that already exist. The challenge for all Members today is to ensure that the debate does not inadvertently amplify the very narratives that have caused such concern. We must expose those narratives, not to amplify but to challenge conspiracy theories. Parliament is at its strongest when it combines robust democratic debate with moral clarity. As legislators, we have a responsibility to understand that hatred evolves and adopts new language to advance old prejudices. We must now respond appropriately. If there is one positive outcome of today’s debate, I hope it will be that there is a greater public understanding of how antisemitism can manifest in modern political discourse, particularly through conspiracy theories concerning power, influence and loyalty. We should use this opportunity not to legitimise those narratives but to expose them. This should not be a partisan issue. Members from every party should be able to agree that legitimate political disagreement must never rely upon, excuse or reinforce antisemitic narratives. We should be collectively clear that allegations of covert Jewish or pro-Israel control of politics are not legitimate political criticism; they are rooted in a tradition of antisemitic conspiracy theory that has caused immense harm throughout history. Parliament should reject those narratives. The Prime Minister and the Government have rightly committed to a whole-of-society approach to tackling antisemitism. This debate is therefore about more than a petition; it is an early test of their resolve to confront antisemitism wherever it appears. I hope the Minister will use his contribution to make it clear that conspiracy theories concerning Jewish or pro-Israel control of politics have no place in democratic discourse. I hope that Members from all parties will stand together in defence of democratic debate, free from prejudice and conspiracy. Allegations of hidden pro-Israel or Zionist control of British democracy draw upon a tradition of conspiracy thinking that has poisoned public life for generations. Parliament should reject those ideas, and send a clear message that antisemitic narratives, whether old or newly repackaged, will find no home in this Parliament of the United Kingdom.
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. As I said at the start, my job was to introduce the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, but it is not a petition that I have any sympathy with—I fundamentally disagree with it. When I was allocated this debate to introduce, I worried that I would be the only voice calling the petition out for what it is, but I am reassured that across the House and across parties—with a few notable exceptions, I have to say—there has been a unity of voice. Parliament has demonstrated that we see this petition for what it is: we are not comfortable with it, and we do not like it. It is astonishing that a minority of hon. Members said things that, frankly, amounted to the expression of antisemitic views. I found that deeply uncomfortable, and we, as legislators, must call it out. That is the only way we will stamp out antisemitism. I congratulate the Minister, the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), on their strong words.
Any further petition would have to attract more than 100,000 signatures, but the Petitions Committee has discretion, even when it reaches that number, on whether to grant another debate. When reflecting on how this debate has gone, and more widely on how the Jewish community in particular has reacted to the petition, I would certainly argue that it should not come back for another debate, even if it reached that threshold. We have had an opportunity to air our views, and we have collectively called it out for what it is. I am grateful to you, Mrs Harris, for chairing the debate, and to all hon. Members who have taken part. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered e-petition 752646 relating to pro-Israel influence on UK politics and democracy.
15. What assessment her Department has made of the potential impact of planned changes to the PE and sport premium for primary schools on school budgets.
I thank the Minister for that answer, but I visited Woodlands primary school and Matthew Kitley 10 days ago. He has been there for 17 years and works extremely hard to make very limited resources work for the pupils, 60% of whom receive the pupil premium. He tells me that £17,000 has been taken off the budget that he has set for this coming year, a really difficult settlement, and that is all taken from the PE budget. So can the Minister explain what is happening for this immediate financial year, where there is a shortfall for numerous schools across the country, including many in my Salisbury constituency?
A parent cannot consent to their child engaging in sexual activity and soon they will not be able to consent to their child having a social media account, so why does the Secretary of State think that a parent should consent to drugs being administered to their child to supress their puberty and alter their sexual development?
3. What steps her Department is taking to support apprenticeships for young people.
There is no correlation between what the Minister says and what is happening on the ground. In Broadland and Fakenham, in the last year the number of apprenticeships has dropped by 20%. It has not gone up; it has gone from 150, down to 120. If the Minister thinks that more apprenticeships are a good idea, why does he not sign up for 100,000 new ones, and support the Conservative new deal for young people?
Despite all the safeguards and precautions that the Secretary of State has listed, we must be clear about what this trial actually does: it proposes to give puberty blockers to children as young as 11 that may well make them sterile for life, all to treat something that the Secretary of State also says is likely to get better by itself. I accept that this trial may well create clinical evidence, but at what price? How can this damage to children ever be justified?
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) rightly highlights the scourge of antisemitism on our campuses. Against that backdrop, is it not extraordinary that the Government have chosen to deny students access to the Office for Students free speech complaint scheme while extending it to everybody but students, which I raised with the ministerial team on 20 April? The Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education—the body to which students are directed instead—is nothing but a legal dead-end for students who are subject to discrimination because of their beliefs. What message does it send to Jewish students facing intimidation and harassment that their complaints are treated differently from those of academics and visiting speakers? Will the Government introduce meaningful sanctions, including funding consequences, for universities that repeatedly fail to protect them?
The Deputy Prime Minister mentioned in his statement an £18 billion investment from Japan. What he did not mention was that earlier this year, the Government turned down a £17.5 billion investment from oil and gas companies when they decided not to end the energy profits levy. He also mentioned Russian sanctions, but did not mention that they have not sanctioned Russian-derived oil products nor Russian liquefied natural gas. Can he not see that this Government’s policies on the North sea oil and gas sector are bad for national security and that whoever is leading the Government next must end the ban on new licences, end the EPL and get Jackdaw and Rosebank permitted?
The Deputy Prime Minister was right to say that Iran must never be allowed to get a nuclear weapon, but history teaches us that the Iranian regime ignored the deal that was in place—the joint comprehensive plan of action. Can he be clear with the House about what the Government are doing to make any future deal meaningful and prevent the Iranian regime from acquiring the level of enriched uranium that would make a nuclear weapon?
I recently met Alex Miles, managing director of Yorkshire Learning Providers, and heard a worrying tale that differs greatly from what the Minister has told the House today. I heard that established apprenticeship standards are being defunded and that new product foundation apprenticeships that no employer in Yorkshire has asked for are being rolled out. Yorkshire Learning Providers has no partisan points to make; it just wants to ensure that young people can get into work with an apprenticeship standard that works for them and for employers. Does the Minister accept that the Government are not getting this right and that he needs to look at this again?
Thank you very much, Mr Mundell. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I will seek to speak relatively briefly. The hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) set out the case behind this petition eloquently, reasonably and with passion. Every year in the UK, 48 babies are born with SMA, with 60% of those having the most severe form: SMA type 1. I was moved to speak in this debate not only as a former Health Minister, but particularly after hearing from my constituent Charlotte. She told me about her son Harvey, who sadly passed away at just shy of seven months old. She very movingly set out her experience to me, and has kindly allowed me to share it with the Chamber today. I pay tribute to Charlotte and her family for their courage and willingness to share something so personal not just with me as their Member of Parliament, but with hon. Members and more widely. I hope hon. Members will bear with me; I want to quote Charlotte fully, because what she relates is extremely important: “On 15th March 2017 I gave birth to my first child. A beautiful blonde haired, blue eyed boy—Harvey. He was perfect. He was also unbeknown to us born with SMA Type 1. As first time parents, having navigated the difficult journey of IVF, we were like rabbits in the headlights and had no idea anything was wrong—but in hindsight the signs were there quite early on. It was only through the concern of a Health Visitor when Harvey was 10 weeks old did the journey to his diagnosis begin. She had sadly come across another baby with SMA 1 earlier in her 30-year career and recognised the signs. What Harvey went through to be diagnosed via multiple tests and what we went through as his parents was traumatic. Three weeks later we were then told by a room full of medical professionals that he had SMA Type 1 and at the very best he would live to two years old. I will never forget that meeting, or the box of tissues that were slipped through the door just in case we needed one. I will never forget the walk out of Leicester Royal Infirmary that day, the day our ‘happy bubble’ burst & our lives changed forever. Nor will I ever forget the subsequent times when we had to go back to LRI when Harvey had stopped breathing and I resuscitated him, or to be trained in how to feed him via a nasal feeding tube. In 2017, treatments were still at trial stage. We as Harvey’s parents decided not to treat Harvey with drugs that hadn’t been approved by NICE, nor did we want to put him through anymore trauma. An unimaginable decision to make, but we decided to focus on him and his needs as they changed whilst making memories together. Harvey died on 14th October 2017, he was a day shy of being 7 months old.” Charlotte told me that she and others in her situation were told that change was coming—that there would be an advancement in treatment, and that gene therapy and better diagnosis were on the way. As the hon. Member for Sunderland Central set out, those treatments do exist. There are three effective treatments for SMA in the UK, but as with so many health conditions, and as I saw during my tenure as a Health Minister, all too often, speed of diagnosis is everything. The disease needs to be caught early, hence the benefits of newborn screening. I pay tribute to the former Health Secretary for bringing forward the ISE to October of this year, and I am grateful to him for that, but as the hon. Member for Sunderland Central set out, only 72% of babies in England will be included, so a large proportion—160,000—will not be screened. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who has now left, highlighted the divergence in access across different parts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as did the hon. Member for Sunderland Central. Until and unless the National Screening Committee makes recommendations on routine screening, many of those babies will miss out. I have seen how systems within the NHS work, often for good reasons—safety and rigour—but sadly that suggests that routine screening will not happen until 2030 or 2031. That is an awfully long time to wait and an awful lot of newborns who will be left unscreened and therefore potentially vulnerable to SMA. In conclusion, and in paying tribute to Charlotte and her family, I have a question for the Minister, whom I know and have stood opposite on many occasions, both in government and now in opposition. I know that she cares, takes her brief extremely seriously and is a very diligent and caring Minister. My question to her, in Charlotte and Harvey’s name, is very simple: what steps can the Government take to speed up the process to add SMA to the NHS newborn heel-prick test for all newborns in this country?
I place on record that, as a veteran myself, it was a huge privilege to serve on the Select Committee that considered this important legislation. I will concentrate my remarks on new clauses 4, 9 and 11. At first glance, they may appear to concern different matters, yet, in reality, they are united by the common principle that Parliament should ensure that those who serve this country are treated fairly, and that the law recognises the unique obligations we place on them. We quite rightly celebrate the professionalism of our armed forces. We ask them to defend our interests overseas, deter our adversaries, and, when necessary, place themselves between danger and the rest of us. It is right that the first duty of any Government is the defence of our realm. It therefore follows that the first duty of Parliament towards those who discharge that responsibility is to ensure that they are treated with fairness, dignity and respect. That means understanding that military service is not simply another profession, but a vocation that places demands on individuals and their families that most of our fellow citizens will never be asked to bear. I begin with new clause 4. I have long believed that when an individual commits to service in the armed forces, the nation enters a contract with them that carries practical consequences. We ask our service personnel to accept postings away from home, to move their families at short notice, to spend long periods separated from loved ones, and, in some cases, to place themselves in danger on our behalf. When we speak of supporting the armed forces, we cannot confine our attention solely to those in uniform; we must also consider the spouses and children who support them. New clause 4, tabled by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), addresses a concern that many Members across this House have heard repeatedly from serving personnel and veterans alike: that the financial burden imposed on families seeking indefinite leave to remain after years of loyal service to this country is too much. There is a straightforward question before us. If an individual has given years of service to our nation, why should their family then face significant financial barriers simply to secure their future here? They have worn our uniform, accepted unlimited liability in defence of our national interests, and contributed directly to our security. In those circumstances it cannot be right, having honoured their commitment to our country, that we appear reluctant to honour our commitment to them. The armed forces covenant, as my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) mentioned, rests on the principle that those who serve should suffer no disadvantage as a result of that service. It is difficult to reconcile that principle with a situation in which a family that has supported a service member throughout years of deployments and postings, is then confronted with substantial costs in order to remain together in the country for which that service was given. New clause 4 is not a radical proposition; it is a relatively modest measure that simply recognises commitment and rewards service. Crucially, it sends a clear signal that Parliament values not only those who wear the uniform but the families who stand behind them. Over the past two decades, there has been a considerable concern about the extent to which human rights litigation has affected military operations overseas. Parliament has recognised those concerns in previous legislation relating to overseas operations. That issue is not a novel one, but part of a continuing debate about how best to reconcile operational effectiveness, accountability and fairness. The argument for new clauses 9 and 11 is, at its heart, a simple one. A soldier deployed on operations is not situated in the same circumstances as a civilian living in peacetime; the realities of combat are fundamentally different. Those of us who have had the privilege to spend time with serving personnel quickly come to appreciate that military operations are conducted in conditions of danger, ambiguity and enormous pressure. Decisions are often made in moments, not months. Commanders and soldiers do not enjoy the luxury of hindsight that is available to lawyers examining events years later from the cold comfort of a courtroom.
I declare an interest as an NHS consultant paediatrician and a member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. What does this trial do? Put simply, it takes physically healthy children with normal pubertal development and subjects them to powerful drugs that may weaken their bones, affect their ability to think, damage sexual function and make them unable to have children of their own. Serious stuff—and for what? To treat a diagnosis of gender incongruence that will probably resolve without treatment. Let us look at this carefully. Gender incongruence is a subjective condition; it is how someone says they feel. There are no lab markers and no scans. That, of course, is not necessarily unusual. In fact, it is common in mental health conditions. Gender incongruence is often self-resolving; it gets better on its own. Again, this is not unusual in paediatrics. It is really common for children to be admitted to hospital for supported care for things like gastroenteritis and respiratory viruses. Puberty blockers are powerful drugs. This is a powerful treatment with significant long-term consequences. Again, this is not new to paediatrics. Some chemotherapy, for example, has substantial short and long-term consequences. But what is unusual and, I think, toxic is the combination of all three. Medicine is about balancing risk. Where else would we give powerful drugs with potentially serious long-term consequences for a subjective condition that is likely to get better on its own? I understand that this trial has been approved, but time and again we have seen and heard how fear and hostility can distort priorities. We have seen tragedy occur when fears of accusations of racism limited mental health treatment. We have seen profound suffering when fear of accusations of Islamophobia limited inquiries into the grooming gangs. The healthcare of children distressed about their gender is another topic where there have been attempts to shut down debate with threats and accusations of transphobia. Such attempts were reported in relation to the Tavistock. When considering treatments for life, with lifelong implications, we have a duty to be careful and sensible, so I ask the Secretary of State: why are this Government funding a trial that will cause harm to physically healthy children? These children may be 11 years old, at Tanner stage 2. Some of them are primary school children with only minimal signs of puberty. This is far too young. The MHRA warned in February that the youngest patients are at greatest risk; they may end up on puberty blockers for a much longer period, and face a higher risk to fertility, because sperm and eggs have not yet fully developed at Tanner stage 2. I am reminded of this point in the judgment in Bell v. Tavistock: “There is no age appropriate way to explain to many of these children what losing their fertility or full sexual function may mean to them in later years.” Yet as the Secretary of State confirmed, the children must consent or assent to being in the trial. Why did the Government not heed the MHRA’s recommendation of a minimum age of 14 years? This Labour Government think that 14 is too young to watch social media. Why do they think 11 is old enough for this trial? What is the goal of the treatment? In the trial, the outcome is a short to medium-term effect on quality of life and body satisfaction. Does the Secretary of State believe this is proportionate to the risks of these medications? Is there any evidence suggesting that puberty blockers are safer than they were thought to be in 2024, when the Government banned them, following the expert advice from the Commission on Human Medicines? Some have suggested that the drugs help adults to pass as the opposite sex. Is the long-term damage really worth it for the cosmetic benefit of a few? And it is just a few, because we know that the vast majority will be better without any treatment. The Secretary of State said that “when it comes to eligibility, we are talking about a very small subset of a very small group.” Even if we were to accept the premise that a very small number might benefit from treatment, how could the clinicians identify which those children might be? A study of clinical outcomes from kids treated at the Tavistock is due to be completed next year. That could help, so why is the Secretary of State not waiting until that report is completed before conducting an experiment on an unnecessarily broad group of children? Has evidence come to light since the Cass review that helps clinicians confidently work out which 11-year-olds will become adults with gender dysphoria and which will not? The Secretary of State has said that the criteria will stop short-term harm, and that should mean that long-term harm will not occur or go unnoticed, but history is littered with examples of things that do not cause short-term harm but do cause long-term damage. He also suggested that the trial will resolve the dispute, but sadly, I do not think that will be the case, because, first, a single trial rarely resolves a dispute; and, secondly, the comparison group, who are not getting the puberty blockers, are not randomised and are an intrinsically different population. This is bound to be highlighted once the result is published. In medicine, we have a founding principle: primum non nocere—first, do no harm. I ask the Health Secretary to please cancel this trial before vulnerable children suffer unnecessary, irreversible harm on his watch.
I briefly declare an interest: the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) and I co-chair the all-party parliamentary group on British Jews. I applaud my hon. Friend for the robust way in which he is introducing the debate. Does he agree that, given global events, our Jewish constituents are justified in feeling uneasy, and that we must absolutely ensure that we do not import those conflicts on to the streets of our country?
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Barker. On this hot afternoon, the Committee will be pleased to hear that, having debated a lot of the detail underlying the Minister’s proposals in Committee for the Renters’ Rights Act, the Opposition will not be seeking to trot out lengthy speeches or a long list of questions—although I hear that one or two Back Benchers may have come with 90 minutes of material prepared. In Committee, we debated at great length the proportionality of the measures that are now fleshed out in more detail in this set of proposals, not least because, while there are some egregious examples of poor landlords, the private rented sector still enjoys the highest resident or tenant satisfaction of any form of housing tenure. It remains the view of the Opposition that some of the measures set out in the 2025 Act go well beyond what is proportionate to the experience of the vast majority of private tenants. This is a sector that is absolutely critical to providing housing, especially for younger people who are looking for more flexible housing options as they develop their working lives. The Minister has set out a little bit of his thinking. I think it would be helpful if he could touch briefly, in summing up, on how the Government propose to ensure that that level of proportionality will be maintained when this scheme translates from a set of legislative proposals into reality. In particular, could he address how we will ensure that the costs to landlords—and indeed the costs that would thereby be passed on to tenants—remain within reasonable limits? How do the Government propose to ensure that the cost of any financial awards arising from these measures is met? Will that be a cost taken out of, in effect, the collective fees paid by landlords, or by tenants through their rent, or through some other arrangement? It would be helpful if the Minister could touch on the points made about the reliance on local authorities using powers that they have gained under the Renters’ Rights Act to carry out enforcement where breaches are identified. One point that we raised in Committee was that local authorities already struggle to carry out enforcement on issues such as trading standards and environmental offences, partly because of resourcing and partly because of the burden of proof. We were not satisfied at that stage that the proposal for levying significant fines would result in a significant additional level of resource to carry out that work. We drew attention to the experience in Wales, where a slightly different version of the same system operates and where those concerns remain live issues for local authorities charged with this responsibility. In summary, while we all agree with the principle of making effective and practical redress available to people who are tenants in the private rented sector, we do not want to see an overly complex and costly bureaucracy that does not make it straightforward for people to seek the redress that they need and deserve.
I start in the same way that the Minister did, by thanking all the Clerks and parliamentary staff who made the Bill come together. They have kept things on track, and it has been impressive to watch. Given the strength of the political headwinds we are navigating at present, and with little sign of them abating in the months ahead, I want to take a step back from the heat of the moment and reflect on what has been achieved through the passage of this Bill. I hope that those on the Government Benches will recognise that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition have approached this legislation as a critical friend, scrutinising its provisions carefully, seeking improvements where they are needed and holding the Government to account where challenge was warranted. It is in that same constructive spirit that I make my brief remarks this evening, but before I do, I must pay tribute to the former Armed Forces Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who is no longer in his place. He declared from the outset of the Bill that no one would drone on more about drones, and he was true to his word. As a fellow former regular Royal Marine, I can say with some fondness that his bootneck persistence had a material impact on how this House discusses the changing character of warfare. His resignation speech made clear that we have rather more in common than perhaps either side would care to admit. He may no longer sit at the Ministry of Defence table, but I have a sneaking suspicion that he will return in the not-too-distant future, and I look forward to working with him for the good of our country when he does. The Bill contains a number of welcome reforms. The extension of the armed forces covenant duty into Whitehall strengthens the principle that supports our service personnel, veterans and their families. That should be felt across the whole of government, building on the previous Conservative Government’s achievements in enshrining the covenant into law. I commend Ministers for carrying on that work. The reforms to the service justice system give victims greater confidence in the process. There are positive steps on accommodation and welfare, though as many hon. and right hon. Members have mentioned today, we will need to see the defence investment plan before we can properly understand how those pledges will be funded. These are set to be meaningful improvements, if they are in the defence investment plan and funded in the way we discussed in Committee, and they deserve recognition. I hope that Ministers will continue to consider what more can be done for veterans. We ask a great deal of those who have served, and our responsibility to them does not end when they leave uniform. It is precisely that responsibility which leads me— tangentially, Madam Deputy Speaker—to raise the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. Many of those who served on Operation Banner are in my constituency, home of the Commando Training Centre Royal Marines. They remain in limbo as the Government seek to repeal the protections granted by the previous Governments, and the process itself is becoming the punishment. On that, the former Armed Forces Minister and I are in complete agreement, and I know that many other hon. and right hon. Members across this House are in agreement, too. He said plainly that this legislation is “unfit for purpose”, and I hope his colleagues on the Government Benches will reflect carefully on those words and have the courage to challenge and ensure that this legislation is either amended significantly or thrown out. I wish to reiterate the clear message from the Leader of the Opposition that with the international order deteriorating at pace, we do not have time for cheap politics. The defence of our nation and the security of our countrymen and women are at stake, and we must make the difficult decisions necessary to give our armed forces what they need to keep us safe. The Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that we would lend our 117 votes to pass welfare reforms, so that the savings could be redirected to the defence budget. That offer stands; anything less would be a catastrophic dereliction of duty. The Prime Minister has rejected that offer—
Order. I do not intend to apply a time limit to contributions. Members will note that the clocks in Westminster Hall are not functioning. If someone speaks for longer than might be reasonable, I will call them to order. I call Ed Argar, who I am sure will not do that.
Order. The hon. Gentleman’s question is far too long. I call the Secretary of State.
Looking out to 2028-29, there is a £2 billion gap between what the Government say they will be spending on SEND and what the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that SEND spending will be in that period. That will risk children across Worcestershire being forced to fit into a box that does not fit their needs. What steps will the Government take to address that?
Last week at Prime Minister’s questions, I raised the serious topic of the impact of steel tariffs on companies and jobs across the country. The Deputy Prime Minister gave me a rather evasive answer—I suspect because he did not expect to be addressing the House of Commons today. He did say that the Prime Minister would be raising the issue at the G7, so can he update the House on what was discussed with regard to steel tariffs? Will he take the opportunity once again to try to answer the question as to what steps the Government are taking to avoid this economic disaster, which will occur in less than two weeks?
14. What steps her Department is taking to help tackle antisemitism on university campuses.
The fact is that antisemitism and anti-Jewish hatred is rife in campuses across our country. The Secretary of State is right that it is up to vice-chancellors and principals to ensure that Jewish students feel safe on campus, but the sad reality is that a recent survey shows that only 3% of Jewish students feel safe to report antisemitism. Will the Secretary of State take prompt action to ensure that vice-chancellors do their job so that those committing antisemitic attacks are expelled from universities, and indeed if they are foreign students, they should also be deported?
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and I thank Ministers for briefing me over the weekend on this tragic event. I also thank all the emergency services, railway staff and volunteers in Bedfordshire who worked so tirelessly and professionally in response to the collision in my constituency. I send my condolences to the family of Shaun Burton, the train driver who tragically lost his life, and wish those who were injured a full and speedy recovery. Some of my constituents still need to travel, particularly to London. What guarantees can the Secretary of State give my constituents who rely on Flitwick and Harlington stations—which, as she knows, are closed at the moment—that the contingency timetables and rail replacement capacity will be sufficient in the days ahead? Has any consideration been given to the possibility that trains on the east coast main line could make additional stops at Arlesey in Bedfordshire to increase capacity during this recovery period?