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
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,942 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
Since the recent fire on Union Street in my constituency, there has been a lot of focus on illicit vape shops, and there have been calls for further legislation. We will see what the investigation says, and then action may need to be taken. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is about not just legislation but enforcement and having the resources available? I would welcome extra resources to ensure enforcement can take place.
I start by commending the Government for the speed with which they have brought forward this legislation. I understand the charges made by the Opposition about the amount of time available to debate the Bill, but the House will recall that when the Prime Minister spoke to Jewish communities following certain attacks this year, he promised not only that the IRGC would be proscribed, but that this legislation would be brought forward and accelerated. That was just prior to the April recess, the local elections and the King’s Speech, so there has not been too much parliamentary time between then and now, and he has fulfilled at least one of his promises by bringing forward the legislation.
I appreciate what the hon. Lady says, and I am glad to hear that she has been meeting those organisations. The Prime Minister made two promises, and this Bill fulfils one of them. Proscribing the IRGC is the other, and I will come to that in a moment. This Bill captures the sophistication of the entities that it seeks to target: those groups operating under alternative names and front organisations. It targets them to ensure that they are unable to exploit any potential loopholes. Creating the new power of designation—which is almost equivalent to proscription but not quite the same, as we have heard in this debate—is absolutely welcome. The Bill also makes supporting designated bodies for a prohibited purpose—including arranging meetings, professing support for them or materially assisting their activities in the UK—a serious criminal offence. I am grateful to the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and the previous Security Minister for enduring my endless questions about this issue, both in this House and in private. I am very appreciative that the Bill does what I have been asking for it to do, and what many other Members of this House have been asking for it to do. I am also very pleased that offences will carry substantial penalties, including sentences of up to 14 years, which is absolutely the right move. I appreciate what the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) said about this being primary legislation, and he is right to say that today’s discussion has to be about the content of the Bill, not the bodies that we seek to proscribe through it. I absolutely take his point, and he set out a very eloquent argument about what he sees as the problems with the legislation. However, given the impact of the IRGC on this country and on the communities I speak to, I want to take this opportunity to set out not only why this legislation should pass through its Commons stages today, but why it should be used to proscribe the IRGC as soon as possible, as I will not have many further opportunities to do so. There is no clearer threat to the UK and the British Jewish community than that posed by the IRGC. We know that the IRGC directs terror abroad, and we know it funds Hezbollah, the Houthis and Hamas. We know that it brutally crushes dissent at home in Iran and murdered more than 30,000 people in the January protests, and it continues to repress its people as well as cut off internet access, which makes us unable to update the figures and to know what is truly going on in some parts of the country. We know that the IRGC is a clear and present danger to Britain’s national security. It plans terror attacks here, it tries to radicalise people here, and it promotes extremism here. I pay tribute to our security services for all the work they have done to protect us against the IRGC and others. As we know, MI5 confirmed last October that it had identified more than 20 potentially lethal plots, backed by Iran, in the previous year alone. On that point, I want to focus my remarks on the threat that the IRGC poses to the Jewish community in this country. As the Chief Rabbi said in April, our fellow citizens are facing a sustained campaign of violence and intimidation. We know that Jews have been stabbed on the streets of Golders Green. We know that Finchley Reform synagogue, Kenton United synagogue, and Jewish organisations and charities have all been targeted. We know that ambulances belonging to Hatzola, an organisation that serves the entire community, were burned. Police investigations are ongoing, and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on all the specific circumstances of each case, but we know that paid proxies are operating here. We also know that the US Department of Justice has identified paid proxies operating in our country that are directly linked to the IRGC, and the threat is not contained to Britain, with a number of attacks across Europe in recent months. The threat is not disputable. Senior intelligence figures such as the former head of MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove, have stated clearly that the IRGC poses a threat to the British Jewish community, and that threat is of long standing. Over the past decade, we have seen growing evidence of Iranian efforts to radicalise young people here. Senior IRGC commanders have addressed student audiences and urged them to “raise the flag of the Islamic Revolution, Islam and martyrdom”, and calling on them to join an “apocalyptic war”.
I am certain that we will get on to the point the right hon. Member has raised in Committee, which is coming up soon. I do think those items are worth discussing, and that such scrutiny will be possible during the next stage. I would also take this opportunity to commend him, because he warned that Iran was recruiting criminal gangs to spy on the Jewish community. I think that was three years ago, and the threat has only got worse since. The reason why I am making this speech is that I want to underline the need to proscribe, or rather to designate, the IRGC as soon as this Bill receives Royal Assent.
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend’s excellent point. I do not want to repeat myself too much, but the Prime Minister made this promise to the communities involved, and this is the perfect time to accelerate and get the Bill through Parliament before we get to the summer recess, so that we are not dealing with it in September, October or November. To deter, counter and thwart Iran’s malign activities, we must take this firm action now, in line with my hon. Friend’s intervention, and this Bill will enable us to do so. As was said in the opening speeches, the Government have rightly ramped up sanctions against Tehran, targeting both the IRGC’s architects of repression at home and the pro-regime oligarchs overseas who enjoy the very freedoms that they deny to the Iranian people at home. However, sanctions alone cannot and have not curtailed the IRGC’s nefarious activities in the UK. Crucially, while sanctions primarily target an organisation’s or an individual’s financial activities, only designation as described in this Bill will allow us to criminalise those who are members, supporters or agents of a terrorist organisation.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his powerful intervention. To be crystal clear, although we are talking about designation today and that gets into issues that are not covered by the Bill, I have serious concerns about the position the IRGC will be in following any potential peace deal. Peace is always welcome, of course it is—when people stop killing each other that should always be welcome—but the IRGC is the world’s No. 1 sponsor of terrorism. It being in a position of power? I can never be comfortable with that. Sanctions alone cannot have the impact we want. The Bill allows us to designate those individuals who are operating in the UK. It also allows us to designate their supporters and anyone who chooses to support this terrorist organisation. And let us be in no doubt: the IRGC instigates and stokes terror, it funds terror, it directs terror. The IRGC is a terrorist organisation. It is the terror arm of the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. Only this legislation will allow us to protect the British people from its nefarious activities on our shores. I commend the Government for bringing it forward. I commend the Prime Minister for keeping his promise. I ask him to keep the second one and proscribe and designate the IRGC.
The hon. Gentleman will know that I have called for the proscription of the IRGC numerous times in this House, and that it is something I absolutely want, but does he not accept that we have to pass this legislation, set the framework up and allow the Home Secretary to make an evidence-based decision before proscription is brought into effect? Should he not withdraw this new clause, and allow due process to take its course?
Does the hon. Lady not accept that Jonathan Hall, whom Members on all sides of the House respect, backs the Bill as a narrow and focused measure to designate state threats?
It is a pleasure to intervene on the hon. Gentleman for a change. I have been raising similar issues with Middlesbrough council about Middlesbrough town centre. I am assured that the council is bringing forward a plan soon. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there needs to be closer collaboration between local government and central Government to address these issues?
I pay tribute to the previous Security Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), for his tireless work to get us to this position, debating a much-needed Bill to tackle the state threats we face. As our new Defence Secretary, he will continue to hear from me—perhaps even more than before—on the need to match the urgency with which we are dealing with hostile states in today’s legislation, with the largest possible uplift in defence spending. I welcome the new Security Minister to her place. She is a long-standing friend and ally of mine from our time together on the Labour party’s national executive committee, as indeed is the Home Secretary, who is no longer in her place but who gave an excellent speech to introduce the Bill. I welcome the Security Minister to her position and look forward to her bringing her wealth of experience to the debate. I have been campaigning for the Government to take more action against the Iranian regime and its proxies and their activities in the UK for many years. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; before being elected to this House, I campaigned on this issue in my then employment as director of the organisation We Believe in Israel. I wrote to the Home Office last year, calling on it to follow Australia’s lead in designating organisations such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as state sponsors of terrorism. The Bill clearly is not intended to specify particular states, although three states and particular organisations have been mentioned, but it gives the Government the powers to facilitate such a move. The Bill itself and any proscription measures—[Interruption.] Sorry—we are not supposed to call them proscription measures. The Bill itself and any measures that it takes to deal with such organisations have my wholehearted support. I was elected on a Labour manifesto that recognised the key duty of Government to keep their people and the country safe. That foundational pillar ought to motivate every Member of the House to support the proposed legislation we are debating. This Bill is a necessary response to the growing and evolving threat posed by hostile states to our freedom, our democracy and our way of life. According to the director general of MI5, MI5 tracked more than 20 potentially lethal Iranian-backed plots in 2024. The IRGC is Tehran’s prime weapon in exerting influence here in the UK and in many other countries. That influence has targeted the British Jewish community to devastating effect. We have seen proxy groups carrying out a horrific spate of arson attacks designed to terrorise our Jewish communities and normalise antisemitic hate. These are not just attacks on British Jews; they are attacks on the values that we all hold dear as a nation. Jewish community leaders, including the Chief Rabbi, have demanded robust action to take on the threat that Iran’s proxy campaign of terror poses to British Jews. Today, our Labour Government are heeding those demands and continuing to stand with Britain’s Jewish community. This Bill empowers Ministers to disrupt and deter the activities of state and state-linked entities, as well as those working with them, that target and terrorise British civilians. Such a power was recommended by the independent reviewer of state threats legislation, Jonathan Hall KC, as the best way for the Government to achieve their manifesto commitment of dealing with terrorism and adopting legislation to deal with state-based security threats. As Jonathan Hall KC has made clear, traditional proscription is not the appropriate way to deal with state-linked entities due to the constraints of international law, which prevents the British state from banning the existence of a foreign state entity. As someone who has previously called for IRGC proscription to be considered, I am confident that this measure goes just as far as proscription to prevent hostile foreign actors from advancing their malign interests here in the UK. It gives Ministers flexible powers to target these organisations without legal constraints that hold us back from taking the right action under existing frameworks. The Bill does not designate any organisations as state threats to national security. Instead, it will give the power to Ministers to make any decisions based on the intelligence to which they have access. I am aware that the Government do not comment on individual proscription decisions, but I would like to take this opportunity to call on the Government—hopefully for the final time—to use a designation against the IRGC to keep British Jews and Iranian refugees and dissidents resident in the UK safe, and to clamp down on the brutal and oppressive machinery of the Iranian regime. The legislation before us is not just bad news for Iran; other hostile countries will be set back by the Government’s robust action. The Secretary of State mentioned actions by Russia and China. It was less than a decade ago that Russian operatives carried out a Novichok attack here on British soil. More recently, just two years ago, the Wagner Group, which was already proscribed as a terrorist organisation, co-ordinated an arson attack on a warehouse providing critical aid to our gallant allies in Ukraine. Just this week, it was revealed that appalling arson attacks on the Prime Minister’s home were linked to Russian actors. Whatever other disagreements we may have, I know the House will stand united on this matter, with the Prime Minister and against what a former MI6 chief has described as attempts by Vladimir Putin to intimidate British people on British soil. Across the world, regimes with values diametrically opposed to our tolerant, democratic society clearly want to make the United Kingdom and its citizens suffer for our values and the role that we play in supporting countries such as Ukraine. Wherever that threat arises, the Government have a duty to defend against it, and today they are stepping up to the plate and doing just that. This legislation is a welcome step forward in equipping the Government to handle the dangerous threats faced in Britain in 2026. By supporting this Bill, we are supporting the safety of British citizens, particularly British Jews, and opposing a tyrannical regime that is hellbent on disrupting our way of life. It gives us the tools to confront those who seek to terrorise, divide and harm our society, and I urge colleagues across the House to support it.
I beg to move, That this House has considered parity of esteem between physical and mental health. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. In my constituency surgeries I see the devastating consequences of our failure to treat mental illness with the urgency it requires. In my role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on suicide and self-harm prevention, I hear from young people about their experiences and the impact of waiting for treatment from mental health services. Bad mental health is routinely cited as a reason for economic stagnation, low school attendance rates and an increase in benefit claimants. Long waits for mental health support are directly linked to worsening symptoms and, tragically, to spikes in self-harm and suicide attempts.
The hon. Member might be reading my mind, because I will come on to that issue. I am sorry to hear of the death of his constituent—it is tragic.
I do agree, and I will expand more on that theme. Parity of esteem means tackling mental health with exactly the same respect, funding and clinical focus as physical conditions.
I agree with my hon. Friend on the importance of the mental health investment standard as one of the measures for securing good mental health support and for making mental health equal with physical health. As I was saying, parity of esteem means tackling mental health with the same respect, funding and clinical focus as physical conditions. We are here today to debate that principle, which has been discussed in this place for over a decade, yet it remains unfulfilled. We have made great strides in mental health: the Mental Health Act 2025, investment in mental health support teams for schools, which were rolled out this week, and additional mental health workers. Now it is time to deliver on our manifesto commitment to “give mental health the same attention and focus as physical health.” We need to look at the current waiting lists for mental health support, but before I look at the figures, I remind Members that every patient waiting to access mental health support is in urgent need of support, just as those on physical health waiting lists are. Sadly, and all too often, people see their condition worsen as they wait, which can lead to extreme consequences. Furthermore, physical illnesses frequently cause profound psychological distress, yet our services treat the physical and the mental in isolation. From my experiences of working with people who have rare conditions, I know the impact that that can have. The most recent figures show that almost 1.87 million adults and over 576,000 children and young people currently hold open referrals for mental health services. If these were patients waiting for hip replacements or cardiac care, that would dominate the national discourse. NHS England has developed waiting list targets for mental health patients after referral—the longest being four weeks after referral for access to community-based services for non-urgent mental health care—but those developed standards have never been adopted. Research shows that 12 times more patients with mental health conditions are waiting longer than 18 months for treatment, compared to those with physical conditions. The Government have rightly instructed the NHS to drive down waiting times for elective physical health care, but so far mental health services have been excluded from that ambition. The situation for our children and young people is particularly concerning. Barnardo’s says that one in five children now has a probable mental health disorder, which is double the rate in 2017. Demand has increased hugely, yet around 28% of referred children are still waiting for help, with nearly 40,000 facing unthinkable waits of over two years for treatment. We see the human cost of those delays in the lives of people like Amy, a young woman diagnosed with complex post-traumatic stress disorder. She has spent over a decade isolated at home, yet she has seen a psychiatrist only once in those 10 years. We also see it in the harrowing accounts collected by Rethink Mental Illness. One patient told Rethink that their psychosis was full-on and that an attempted suicide was the only thing that got them help. That is an unacceptable threshold for care. I have heard of more experiences from the suicide prevention charity Body and Soul, with which I have worked. One young person it supported spent almost a year on an NHS waiting list for cognitive behavioural therapy. Just as they neared the top of the list, their health deteriorated into a severe crisis, and they attended A&E, battling suicidal thoughts. Instead of receiving urgent intervention, they were informed that their crisis made them “too severe” for the therapy they had waited so long to access. They were removed from the waiting list entirely and, with nowhere else to turn, they attempted to end their own life. As Body and Soul rightly highlights, no patient with a life-threatening physical condition would be told they are too ill to qualify for treatment, unlike in this case. Mental health charity Mind is calling for the development of open-access mental health support pathways, ensuring that people can seek help early and directly, without facing unnecessary referral barriers or rigid clinical thresholds. When we fail to provide accessible care, the results can be fatal. People living with severe mental illness face a premature mortality gap of 15 to 20 years, compared to the rest of the population. Closing that gap by treating mental health with the same urgency as physical health must be the baseline of our approach. Rethink Mental Illness recently found that 83% of people said their mental health deteriorated while waiting for support, and nearly a third of those whose health worsened attempted suicide. Families are making impossible choices, with some parents reporting that they are skipping meals to pay for private therapy for their children because they cannot get the help they need. This crisis in mental health impacts on our Government’s core mission to kick-start economic growth. We are seeing a rise in economic inactivity driven by long-term sickness, and poor mental health is a primary factor. The Mental Health Foundation estimates that the economic and social costs of mental health problems reach £118 billion a year. Those figures have not arisen overnight; the previous Conservative Government have much to answer for in this crisis. We need to make sure that we maintain the emphasis on mental health. Last year, the Department of Health and Social Care reported that the proportion of NHS funding spent on mental health is expected to decline over the next two years. We need to look at that again.
My hon. Friend is quite right to point to those figures and to say that we need much more input into tackling that difference in funding. As I said, the proportion of NHS funding spent on mental health is expected to decline, and we need to look again at that. That is exactly why the mental health investment standard was introduced, and why we need the planned 10-year mental health strategy, when it is published, to set out the actions we need to take to ensure that mental health has parity of esteem with physical health. It is vital that the MHIS continues to protect mental health spending until a suitable long-term funding measure is firmly in place to ensure that funding matches need. Three weeks ago, the interim Milburn review highlighted the unique combination of pressures faced by young people entering adulthood today, including a mental health system that cannot respond to the current level and severity of demand, a pandemic that affected their social development and an ongoing loneliness crisis.
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, which is why I am so pleased that we set up mental health teams in schools. We need to look at preventive measures so that we do not keep getting into this position. When people are left to languish on waiting lists, their ability to participate in the workforce collapses. We must stop waiting for people to hit rock bottom before we step in: we have to deploy preventive measures. It is simply not good enough that one in three young people must wait more than 18 months for treatment after referral. I welcome the changes the Government have implemented, the extra investment for mental health support in schools, and the expansion of that support to 100% of schools by 2030, but I have some specific asks of the Minister, supported by mental health charities. First, will she ensure that reducing waiting times for non-urgent community mental health care is included as a specific priority in NHS planning guidance? That would send a clear message to local systems that this must be tackled alongside elective physical care. Secondly, Mind, the mental health charity, says that reducing mental health care waiting times must be treated as a core test of parity of esteem; Rethink makes the same point. Will the Minister commit to fully rolling out the access and waiting time standards consulted on by NHS England in 2021 to ensure that emergency mental health care is provided within one hour, urgent care within four hours and community care within four weeks? Thirdly, to help us to meet our shared ambitions for parity of esteem, will the Minister outline how we will work together to reverse the projected decline over the next two years in the proportion of NHS funding spent on mental health? Will the Government also commit to protecting the mental health investment standard until a long-term alternative funding plan is firmly in place? Finally, the Government have outlined an ambitious shift toward neighbourhood health services. How will the Department ensure that community mental health is a central component of this roll-out, so that patients can access multidisciplinary support before they reach crisis point? We have a historic opportunity to build a national health service that treats the mind and the body with equal respect. I look forward to the Minister’s response on how we will finally deliver true parity of esteem between physical and mental health services.
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) on securing this timely debate, and I thank him for the way in which he made the case on behalf of his constituents. I also acknowledge his efforts to support the expansion of forest land in the Marston Vale. There is significant opportunity in the Marston Vale, but it is held back by pressing transport challenges. Many communities rely on cars because public transport options do not yet provide the connectivity that people need. The Marston Vale line has historically suffered from low frequency and reliability issues, while congestion on key routes such as the A421 continues to impact daily journeys. I know that bus services can be limited or fragmented and active travel routes are not yet sufficient for many residents. Those deficiencies affect access to work, education, healthcare and wider opportunities. They undermine growth in an area that sits at the heart of the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor, which is a priority for the Government. How we respond to the transport requirements of the Marston Vale is central to the success of the corridor as a whole, and to allow the constituents of Mid Bedfordshire to take full advantage of its growth potential. East West Rail is fundamental to our response to the Marston Vale’s transport needs. The project was designed to tackle many of the issues that the hon. Member raised while driving national growth. The Government’s support for East West Rail represents a major investment in public transport in his constituency, as he acknowledged. It will mean going up from one passenger service per hour to five services per hour in the Marston Vale, delivering net zero passenger services using battery electric hybrid trains and significantly cutting journey times. By upgrading and electrifying the Marston Vale line, introducing more frequent and reliable services, and delivering modern, accessible stations at Ridgmont, Lidlington and Stewartby, East West Rail will transform the experience of rail travel for local communities. It will make rail a more attractive, dependable and sustainable option, reducing reliance on the car and helping to ease pressure on already congested roads. Crucially, it will also better connect the Marston Vale to the wider region, opening up access to jobs, education, amenities and services across the Oxford to Cambridge growth corridor. However, I recognise that this transformation brings concerns, particularly around the impact of works and level crossings, including at Millbrook. The move to a faster, more frequent railway requires changes to ensure safety and reliability, including the closure of certain crossings. I also understand the impact that will have on local communities. That is why East West Rail has committed to providing alternative routes where closures are proposed, and why feedback from its most recent consultation will be carefully taken into account ahead of the application for a development consent order next year. The company will consider how best to manage traffic and housing impacts, taking on board local views set out in the response to the public consultation, and set out again today by the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire. As the hon. Member rightly argued, the transport requirements of the Marston Vale cannot be considered in isolation from the significant growth opportunities now emerging across the corridor. Those include opportunities for new homes along the East West Rail route, potential new towns in Milton Keynes and Tempsford, and the new Universal resort at Stewartby. The £5 billion investment by Comcast NBCUniversal is a landmark development that is expected to generate nearly £50 billion in economic benefit for the UK and create tens of thousands of jobs. It will also place new and substantial demands on the transport network, with millions of visitors each year and a large workforce drawn predominantly from the surrounding area. Our response has been to ensure that transport infrastructure both supports this development and, importantly, delivers wider benefits for local communities. As has already been said, the Government have committed £1.3 billion to support the project and its surrounding local and regional infrastructure, including investment in transport improvements. These include the development of Wixams station in collaboration with Network Rail and targeted upgrades to the highway network, including along the A421 corridor. Wixams station, which is on the Midland main line, is anticipated to open before the Universal park opens its doors to visitors.
I will ensure that my colleague, the roads Minister, writes to the hon. Gentleman with further information on those plans. Importantly, we are also working to ensure that the resort is fully integrated into the wider transport system, particularly through East West Rail and its new station at Stewartby. This will allow visitors and employees to access the site by rail from across the region and beyond, reducing pressure on roads and promoting more sustainable travel patterns. We are clear that a development of this scale, alongside other development opportunities and potential new towns at Tempsford and Milton Keynes, must act as a catalyst for a high-quality, integrated transport network for the Marston Vale that benefits residents as well as visitors. Although strategic investment is essential, meeting the transport requirements of the Marston Vale also depends on improving everyday local journeys, and I recognise the concerns that the hon. Member raised on behalf of local residents. That is why the Department is working closely with Bedford borough council, neighbouring authorities and England’s Economic Heartland to develop a transport opportunity plan for the area. This work is focused on delivering a more coherent and connected local network, enhancing local bus services, improving walking and cycling routes, and ensuring better links between communities, stations and key destinations. We recognise that the current provision is not sufficient, particularly for those without access to a car, and this work will bring together local authorities, transport operators and other partners to address the gaps in a co-ordinated way. I am sure the hon. Member welcomes that an integration taskforce has also been established, bringing national expertise to bear on this challenge. Its role is to ensure that all modes—rail, road, bus and active travel—are planned and delivered as part of a single integrated vision that is aligned with the Department’s “Better Connected” strategy. The hon. Member referred to the importance of M1 junction 13, and that importance is why it is part of a pipeline scheme set out in the third roads investment strategy. I have already committed to ensuring that the roads Minister writes in response to his concerns relating to resilience and the A421. The Government have committed to supporting England’s Economic Heartland as the subnational transport body to promote integrated transport, helping to ensure that as many communities as possible can benefit from these transformational connections. In closing, I again thank the hon. Member for securing this debate and for the constructive approach that he has taken to addressing this issue.
The hon. Member makes a really good point about the importance of making sure that stakeholders are involved in these conversations, and I will certainly take his proposal away and talk to colleagues in the Department. The transport requirements of the Marston Vale are clear: better connectivity, greater reliability and a system that supports sustainable growth. Through East West Rail, targeted investment linked to the Universal development and a renewed focus on local transport integration, this Government are committed to meeting those needs. My departmental colleagues and I will be happy to continue engaging with the hon. Member, his constituents and nearby colleagues as we take these important investments forward. Question put and agreed to.
I am grateful for this urgent question. Today, I am publishing the Committee’s correspondence with Ministers after the roundtable we held with steel producers, expressing a very high degree of alarm that these measures were not in the right place and thousands of jobs are now at risk. There is a loophole for the import of fabricated steel. Canada and the United States have both moved to close that loophole; there is a question about why we have not taken the same steps. Twelve months is too late. There are no exemptions for steel products that we do not make, as we have heard, and there is no clarity on the use of procurement to drive domestic production. It also appears that a number of the quotas have been set in the wrong place, so will the Minister look again at the advice the Select Committee provided and come back to the House urgently—within the next week—with some adjustments to help safeguard a brilliant industry with a brilliant future ahead of it?
In my constituency, Xtreme Stainless builds exhaust systems and would always want to buy British steel. The company believes it is better made, and wants to back British jobs and manufacturing, but the owner is watching firms get around the tariffs by sending finished products to the UK, which undermines British manufacturers. Could the Minister please tell me what the Government are doing to close the gap so that the tariffs protect the whole supply chain, not just the first step of it?
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, particularly around growth in cities and towns, which I am particularly interested in. Over the last 10 years, we have seen growth of around 10% in our cities whereas growth has been around 5% in our towns. Does she agree that if we do not invest in our towns, particularly where they are outside of city regions, we will miss a crucial opportunity to uplift everyone?
It was interesting to hear the Minister name a number of towns in relation to manufacturing roles. In our towns, we have on average 9% employment in manufacturing, whereas in cities, that figure is 4%. Does the Minister agree that in towns, if we really push our manufacturing sector, we can massively increase the number of good, unionised jobs available to people in those areas?
As everybody in this House knows full well, protecting our national security is always the first duty of any Government, and we have heard a consensus on that today. The reality today is that the threat from hostile foreign powers and the proxies on which they rely has grown significantly in both scale and complexity. We cannot make the mistake of thinking that the threat is theoretical; it is real, it is evolving, and it is happening right here in our very own country. We have heard many examples of that today. A lot of the focus has rightly been on the IRGC. Time and again, where we have said, “That organisation should be proscribed,” we have heard, “Can’t touch the IRGC, I’m afraid.” We have struggled with that. I am very pleased that our Government are today holding on to the Prime Minister’s promise that we will make good our defence of our country from organisations such as the IRGC. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) eloquently set out, the IRGC is at the moment—it could change in future—the prime example of a state-backed organisation. It was initially set up to defend the Islamic Republic of Iran, but what kind of defence is that? Iran is hardly a friendly power to us—it has an extreme ideology, and it seeks not just to defend its own country but to export that ideology across the world, including to our own shores, as it has done time and again. This legislation seeks to end that. We have had debates in which it has been argued, “Well, is it the equivalent of proscription, and what does the test of knowledge mean?” Those questions are right, and I am sure that the Minister will respond, either in this debate on Second Reading or later in today’s proceedings. What I want to get across is how real the threat is. Everybody here in the Chamber gets it—I hope we do—but my big worry is that our fellow citizens in the wider United Kingdom have not necessarily got it yet. It begins with someone thinking, “I read something online that doesn’t seem right”, and then they are taken down a pathway, and behind that pathway are hostile threats—the IRGC and others. As legislators, we have to make use of the legislative tools to try to catch up with that, but I think we also have another job: we are not just legislators but representatives and communicators. I really hope that this Bill passes, but whatever happens, we have an obligation to say to our fellow citizens, “Be vigilant. Be resilient.” Organisations, whether the IRGC or others, will not present themselves for what they really are. They will hide behind the proxies we have heard about today and do all they can to take the people of this country and use them, either knowingly or as dupes, for their nefarious ends—and we do not always know what those nefarious ends are. Whatever the country may be—Iran in this case—those ends are not consistent with our values. We have heard about differences of views or opinion, but in this case they are not of moral equivalence. I totally agree with that point. We in this country rightly struggle to make sure that other voices are heard, but at the same time we ensure that everyone is protected. That is certainly not the case in countries like Iran, Russia or China. Let us pass this Bill today, but let us not stop there.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He makes a powerful point on AI. I was about to set out that we are already engaged in new legislative tools in this regard, including the Representation of the People Bill and the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill, which passed through this place yesterday. But we cannot just say “Right, job done; We’ve given the Government as much flexibility as we can, so let them now get on with it.” It will hit the wall, and we do not know as of today just how powerful AI in its widest forms can be. I have thought a bit about AI and about how in many ways in this place we are always catching up. Occasionally, we make laws that push society forward—we have made some great social reforms through legislation—which is great. However, too often we are reacting to a problem that has grown out of control. Our procedures in this place will not necessarily work in the future with things like AI. That is not a debate for today. However, I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point strongly in mind. Although I support the Bill, I make the point that it is part of a much broader governmental, parliamentary and—I hope—whole-society approach. When we think about the tools that the Government need, from what I have seen the Bill will give the Government of the day broad-ranging powers, but I hope and pray that this Government, or any future Government, know full well that they will have to move far quicker than before to do what is needed. We as legislators in this place must be willing to support that Government in doing the job in hand. I support the Bill and hope that, as a result, it will make our country safer for all our communities.
I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Nuclear Safeguards (EU Exit and Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2026. The regulations were laid before the House on 23 April. I will set out the purpose of nuclear safeguards and explain the proposed amendments to the Nuclear Safeguards (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. The amendments are about improving how the UK safeguard regime works, making it clearer, more practical to operate and more effective, as well as making our expectations and requirements of nuclear operators clear. They are also about aligning more closely with our international allies, including the United States, on this critical industry. Nuclear safeguards are vital for non-proliferation. They help to show the International Atomic Energy Agency and the international community that civil nuclear material is being used as intended, and not being diverted into military or weapons programmes. The International Atomic Energy Agency’s international safeguards system has a strong track record of preventing nuclear proliferation. Safeguards are a vital part of the global nuclear energy system, alongside safety and security, and have helped to build confidence in international nuclear trade and co-operation. For almost 50 years, the UK has been committed to meeting our international obligations and supporting international nuclear safeguards. Having a robust domestic safeguards regime matters not just for the UK, but for the whole international community. It sends a clear message to the world that the UK takes its responsibilities as a nuclear state seriously. It shows that we are acting in line with the implementation of the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Nuclear safeguards are vital for a successful civil nuclear industry. Our domestic safeguards regime, which has been in place since the UK left the European Atomic Energy Community—Euratom—in 2020, has an important role in both operations and trade, helping to deliver growth, jobs and clean energy. Following Brexit, the 2019 regulations set out the legal framework and obligations for us to continue to meet our commitments. They were designed to be equivalent in effectiveness to the previous regime. The regulations set out requirements for operators of nuclear facilities and spell out the role of the Office for Nuclear Regulation as the regulator. The Nuclear Safeguards (Fees) Regulations 2021 enable the ONR to recover safeguard costs from nuclear operators. Since the regime was introduced five years ago, the UK has been steadfast in meeting its international safeguards obligations. The amendments will strengthen the UK’s ability to uphold its commitments and support the wider international safeguards system, as well as contributing to the nuclear industry’s ability to participate in nuclear trade. The proposed amendments are drawn from a review carried out by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero in 2023. We sought views on the amendments through a public consultation in 2025, and feedback from the industry and the ONR helped to shape our proposals. We wanted to balance operator responsibilities while allowing regulators enough time to do their work. We aim to minimise unnecessary impacts on the UK’s nuclear sector while ensuring that the UK can still meet its commitments. I will briefly cover the three broad categories of amendments. Amendments in the first category remove provisions that are no longer fit for purpose for the UK. Some of these were transitional measures to manage the move from the previous Euratom system to the new ONR regime. In other cases, the provisions no longer apply in the UK’s nuclear safeguards context. These changes simplify the regulations and make them clearer. The second and largest set of changes is about improving operability and clarifying requirements. The main change involves using IAEA design information questionnaires rather than Euratom’s basic technical characteristics format for reporting design information. The transition was agreed during the UK’s departure from Euratom. This change will align the UK internationally and support our civil nuclear partnerships, including with the United States. Another important change involves making a stronger and more direct link between particular safeguards provisions and the UK’s international obligations. We are enabling the ONR to amend or remove these provisions when needed, which will ensure that the system stays up to date and works in practice. We are changing some timelines for submitting information to the ONR, with some being shortened to allow the ONR enough time to carry out checks and engage with operators before information is submitted to the IAEA. However, the changes are being limited, so that operators still have sufficient time to prepare the necessary information. We are also updating certain definitions to align them more closely with the language used by the IAEA. The final set of changes is important in making sure the regulations are fit for purpose. These rules mean certain actions can be treated as criminal offences as a final point of escalation where needed. The 2021 fees regulations will also be updated due to the NSR19 changes so that the ONR can recover costs where applicable. However, we expect these new costs to be rare and minimal. The amendments will strengthen nuclear safeguards regulation. The changes will enable us to deliver the civil nuclear safeguards regime in the UK more efficiently and effectively. The proposed amendments will help us to continue to meet international obligations as part of the wider responsible nuclear community and help support our nuclear industry in its trade and operational activities, which are vital to our country’s economic growth and energy security. I look forward to hearing what hon. Members have to say on the detail.
I thank hon. Members for their valuable contributions. As many of us have come from the Jo Cox event, I would like to start with what is “more in common”. I think that we are agreed on the global gold standard towards nuclear, both on safeguarding and the opportunity for our international competitiveness, and that is a shared vision. The other shared vision is on nuclear in Scotland; that is a vision that the Government entirely share and will try and deliver.
I have two excellent colleagues who serve in Scotland and who do a lot of work on that, but I will endeavour to take it back and make sure we do everything we can to try and influence those decisions. As I set out in my opening remarks, these amendments to the nuclear safeguards regulations will strengthen the UK’s ability to continue to meet our international obligations. At the same time, they will support the operations and trade that are central to the nuclear sector’s contribution in the UK’s growth and clean energy space. In terms of the specific questions raised, I hope that the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire noticed that we gave credit to the previous Government for launching the 2023 review and have built on the changes that they instigated. We have extended further timelines of proposals since and have been in consultation with the industry in terms of transitions. We are also in further consultation with the operators, but they have given us clear feedback. We want to make sure that this is practical, but we have been talking for quite a long time and we feel that we are in a good position to move forward. There is a number of qualified staff to be determined by the operators to meet their obligations, and while we have given an indication, it is up to them to deliver that. I hope that I have provided the necessary assurances for the Committee to approve the regulations, but I am very happy to continue the conversation at another point. I commend the draft regulations to the House. Question put and agreed to.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) on introducing the debate. There are a lot of ideas and much intent to tackle this problem, because high streets are so evocative. They are a visual symbol of economic challenges and act as an ever-present reminder of what has been lost. That is one reason why people feel so strongly about the brazen illegality we see on high streets the length and breadth of the country. It is no longer a question of isolated bad actors but of a regulatory system that has been repeatedly outpaced by evolving criminal business models. My constituents are angry that where once there was an active high street with household names, there now stand illegal vape shops, mini-marts and a suspicious number of barbers. They know that something is not right, particularly when legitimate businesses have already vacated the area due to reduced footfall. But the law is fighting back. I have joined local enforcement activity in Ellesmere Port, where all the agencies came together and carried out co-ordinated raids, resulting in the seizure of illicit tobacco and vape products, with shops shut down under court orders. That was most welcome, but what was seized was sadly just the tip of the iceberg, and we see a repeated cycle of enforcement and re-emergence with connected parties. It is the recurring nature of these rackets that shakes people’s confidence in the system, especially when they are so brazen, so I absolutely welcome the Government’s intent to tackle the problem. There is much to commend in the blitz on dodgy shops programme, which contains measures that finally go beyond rhetoric. The creation of the high street organised crime unit has long been called for, and the commitment to double the time for which a shop can be closed after breaching the law will also help, but as a number of people have said, we can go further. A Business and Trade Committee inquiry found that “enforcement agencies do not have the necessary powers to permanently close” rogue businesses. The director of National Trading Standards said, “you seize, go back, seize and go back”. It is clear that the tools we have are not fit for purpose. Councils should have the power to close premises permanently without having to go to court, and landlords should not get off the hook if their property is used for illegal purposes. Landlords need help to make wise choices, and they could be encouraged to flag any suspicious or illegal behaviour. Those landlords who are indifferent about who is renting their property should have nowhere to hide if illegal activity is happening on their premises. If landlords are indifferent, they should face criminal sanctions, too. We also need a tougher approach on the collection of fines. Too often, they go uncollected. According to the Home Office, £18 million of fines were issued against illegal car washes in 2025, but the Department could not say how many had actually been paid. After a freedom of information request, we know that the figure is around 5%. We need a proper deterrent; these fines must mean something, and there should be tough enforcement action against individuals. I know that a number of Members wish to speak, so I will end my remarks, but I want finally to say that I welcome the action taken so far. There is no shortage of ideas about how we can go further. It is good to see that the problem is finally receiving the attention it deserves. Regenerating our high streets is critical to national renewal, but to regenerate them, we first of all have to reclaim them. Illicit activity on our high streets is an evocative issue that frustrates law-abiding people and erodes confidence in the state’s ability to tackle crime, so I absolutely welcome the blitz on dodgy shops and the action to back up the rhetoric, but we need to go further by addressing the problems at source, to prevent illegal shops from opening in the first place and then leaving no hiding place for those who are found to have broken the law.
I call the shadow Minister.
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 15, page 2, line 42, at end insert— “33C Mandatory review following designation (1) Where regulations are made under section 33A designating a body, the Secretary of State must, within 30 days of the regulations being made, conduct a review of whether further action should be taken in relation to— (a) the designated body; (b) any person who owns or controls the designated body; (c) any person owned or controlled by the designated body; (d) any officer, employee, agent, member or representative of the designated body; (e) any person acting for or on behalf of the designated body; (f) any person who materially assists the designated body; and (g) any person who provides funds, economic resources, professional services, goods, technology or other material support to the designated body. (2) The review under subsection (1) must consider whether it is appropriate to take, recommend or request action including— (a) designation under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018; (b) asset-freezing measures; (c) travel bans or other immigration restrictions; (d) director disqualification; (e) public procurement exclusion; (f) civil recovery, restraint, freezing or forfeiture action; (g) referral to Companies House, the National Crime Agency, the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation, the Financial Conduct Authority, the Solicitors Regulation Authority, the Bar Standards Board, HM Revenue and Customs, the Charity Commission, the Electoral Commission or any other relevant authority; (h) enhanced beneficial ownership checks; (i) enhanced reporting requirements; and (j) any other action necessary to protect the safety or interests of the United Kingdom. (3) In conducting a review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult— (a) the Treasury; (b) the Secretary of State responsible for foreign, Commonwealth and development affairs; (c) the National Crime Agency; and (d) any other Minister of the Crown or public authority as the Secretary of State considers appropriate. (4) Within 30 days of a body being designated under section 33A, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a statement confirming— (a) that the review required by this section has been conducted; (b) what categories of action listed in subsection (2) have been considered; (c) whether any such action has been taken, recommended or requested; and (d) where no such action has been taken, recommended or requested, the reasons for that decision. (5) A statement under subsection (4) may omit information where the Secretary of State considers that publication of that information would be contrary to the interests of national security, international relations, the prevention or detection of serious crime, or the protection of ongoing legal proceedings. (6) The Secretary of State must keep under review whether further action under subsection (2) is required in relation to a designated body and persons connected to it.” This amendment would require the Secretary of State, within 30 days of designating a body, to review whether further action should be taken against the body and persons connected to it, and to lay a statement of the outcome before Parliament. Clause stand part. Amendment 3, in clause 2, page 3, line 8, leave out from “body” until end of line 9. This amendment and Amendments 4 to 6 would remove the additional defence of supporting a designated body for a non-prohibited purpose. Amendment 4, page 3, line 16, leave out from “body” until end of line 17. See the explanatory statement for Amendment 3. Amendment 5, page 3, line 21, leave out from “body” until end of line 22. See the explanatory statement for Amendment 3. Amendment 6, page 3, leave out lines 23 to 25. See the explanatory statement for Amendment 3. Amendment 1, page 4, line 23, at end insert— “(3A) The conduct specified in subsection (3) includes establishing, administering or maintaining a company, trust, partnership or similar arrangement which conceals, or is intended to conceal, the beneficial ownership of assets connected with a designated body.” Amendment 8, page 4, line 27, after “United Kingdom” insert “or are conducted outside, but were planned from within, the United Kingdom”. Amendment 7, page 5, line 15, leave out “14” and insert “25”. This amendment would increase the maximum sentence for assisting a designated body from 14 years to 25 years imprisonment. Amendment 11, page 6, leave out lines 21 to 23. This amendment would remove the defence of reasonable excuse for retaining a material benefit provided by or on behalf of a designated body. Amendment 12, page 6, line 38, leave out “(7) or”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 11. Amendment 9, page 7, line 8, at end insert— “17D Uniform and publication of images in relation to a designated body (1) A person in a public place commits an offence if he— (a) wears an item of clothing, or (b) wears, carries or displays an article in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that the person is a supporter of a designated body. (2) A person commits an offence if the person publishes an image of— (a) an item of clothing, or (b) any other article, in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that the person is a supporter of a designated body. (3) In subsection (2) the reference to an image is a reference to a still or moving image (produced by any means). (4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale (or both). (5) A constable may seize an item of clothing or any other article if the constable— (a) reasonably suspects that it is evidence in relation to an offence under subsection (1), and (b) is satisfied that it is necessary to seize it in order to prevent the evidence being concealed, lost, altered or destroyed. (6) In connection with exercising the power in subsection (5), a constable may require a person to remove the item of clothing or other article if the person is wearing it. (7) But the powers conferred by subsections (5) and (6) may not be exercised so as to seize, or require a person to remove, an item of clothing being worn next to the skin or immediately over a garment being worn as underwear.” This amendment would create an offence of wearing or displaying in public, or publishing an image of, an article in a way that arouses reasonable suspicion that a person is a supporter of a designated body. Amendment 10, page 7, line 8, at end insert— “17D Preparation of acts relating to a designated body (1) A person commits an offence if, with the intention of— (a) committing an offence under section 17A, 17B or 17C, or (b) assisting another to commit such an offence, the person engages in any conduct in preparation for giving effect to the intention. (2) It is irrelevant for the purposes of subsection (1) whether the intention and preparations relate to one or more particular offences, offences of a particular description, or such offences generally. (3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years or a fine (or both).” This amendment would create an offence of engaging in conduct in preparation for committing, or assisting another to commit, an offence relating to a designated body. Amendment 13, page 7, line 8, at end insert— “17D Self-directing acts in support of a designated body (1) A person commits an offence if the person engages in conduct of any kind which is— (a) inspired by the ideology, actions, and self-promotion of a designated body, and (b) prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom. (2) A person commits an offence if the person— (a) engages in UK-related activities that are likely to assist the stated, or assumed, aims of a designated body, and (b) knows, or having regard to other matters known to them ought to reasonably to know, that their activities are likely to assist the stated, or assumed, aims of a designated body. (3) UK-related activities” means— (a) activities taking place in the United Kingdom; (b) activities taking place outside the United Kingdom which are prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom. (4) Subsections (1) and (2) apply to conduct outside the United Kingdom, but apply to conduct taking place wholly outside the United Kingdom only if the person engaging in the conduct— (ab) is a UK person, or (b) acts for or on behalf of, or holds office under, the Crown, or is in Crown employment (whether or not they engage in the conduct in that capacity). (5) In proceedings for an offence under this section it is a defence to show that the person engaged in the conduct in question— (a) in compliance with a legal obligation under the law of the United Kingdom which is not a legal obligation under private law, (b) in the case of a person having functions of a public nature under the law of the United Kingdom, for the purposes of those functions, (c) as a lawyer carrying on a legal activity, or (d) in accordance with, or in relation to Uk-related activities carried out in accordance with, an agreement or arrangement to which— (i) the United Kingdom was a party, or (ii) any person acting for, or on behalf of, or holding office under, the Crown was (in that capacity) a party. (6) A person is taken to have shown a matter mentioned in subsection (5) if— (a) sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it, and (b) the contrary is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. (7) A person who commits an office under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years or a fine (or both). (8) The following terms have the same meaning as in section 3— “Crown employment” ; “financial benefit” ; The “law of the United Kingdom”; “lawyer” ; “legal activity” ; “UK person” .” This amendment creates a new offence of undertaking conduct harmful or prejudicial to UK interests that is inspired by a designated body, rather than actively commissioned on behalf of a designated body. Amendment 14, page 7, line 8, at end insert— “17D Dissemination of publications relating to a designated body (1) A person commits an offence if the person engages in conduct falling within subsection (2) and, at the time of doing so— (a) intends an effect of the conduct to be a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement to support, or to provide assistance to, a designated body, or (b) is reckless as to whether the conduct has that effect. (2) A person engages in conduct falling within this subsection if the person— (a) distributes or circulates a publication relating to a designated body; (b) gives, sells or lends such a publication; (c) offers such a publication for sale or loan; (d) provides a service to others that enables them to obtain, read, listen to or look at such a publication, or to acquire it by means of a gift, sale or loan; (e) transmits the contents of such a publication electronically; or (f) has such a publication in the person's possession with a view to its becoming the subject of conduct falling within any of paragraphs (a) to (e). (3) For the purposes of this section a publication relates to a designated body if matter contained in it is likely to be understood by a reasonable person as a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement to support, or to provide assistance to, a designated body. (4) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to show that— (a) the matter by reference to which the publication was treated as relating to a designated body neither expressed the person's views nor had the person's endorsement, and (b) it was clear, in all the circumstances of the conduct, that the matter did not express the person's views and did not have the person's endorsement. (5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years or a fine (or both).” This amendment would create an offence of disseminating, or possessing with a view to disseminating, a publication that encourages support for or assistance to a designated body. Clause 2 stand part. Amendment 2, in clause 3, page 7, line 27, at end insert— “(5) Regulations under subsection (3) may not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing them has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.” This amendment ensures that any regulation under section 33C made by the Secretary of State to remove a designation is subject to the draft affirmative procedure. Clauses 3 to 8 stand part. New clause 3—Designation of the IRGC— “(1) The Secretary of State must take reasonable steps to lay before Parliament regulations under the provisions of this Act to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a body involved in foreign power threat activity. (2) Before laying such regulations, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the IRGC fulfils the conditions set out in Section 1 of this Act. (3) The regulations specified in subsection (1) should be laid before Parliament within a month of this Act coming into force.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to take reasonable steps to bring forward regulations designating the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) within a month of this Act coming into force. New clause 4—Assessment of the adequacy of the powers contained in the Act— “(1) Within twelve months of passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must commission the Independent Reviewer of State Threats Legislation or another such person performing a similar function to produce a report on the adequacy of the powers contained in this Act. (2) The report specified in subsection (1) must consider the effectiveness of the Act’s powers in tackling the threat posed by state-backed and state-linked actors to the security of the United Kingdom. (3) The report specified in subsection (1) must include any proposals for legislative changes to the provisions of the Act as are considered necessary by the Independent Reviewer. (4) As soon as receiving the report, and no later than three months after receiving it, the Secretary of State must lay the report before both Houses of Parliament. (5) Within three months of laying the report before Parliament, the Secretary of State must publish a response to the report and to any recommendations made by the Independent Reviewer.” This new clause would require the Independent Reviewer of State Threats Legislation to assess the adequacy of the powers introduced by this Act twelve months after its passing. New clause 5—Seizure of Passports etc from Person Suspected of Assisting a Designated Body— “(1) This section applies in the case of a person at a port in Great Britain, Northern Ireland, or in the border area, if a constable has reasonable grounds to suspect that the person— (a) is there with the intention of leaving Great Britain or Northern Ireland for the purpose of assisting a designated body outside the United Kingdom; or (b) has arrived in Great Britain or Northern Ireland with the intention of leaving it soon for that purpose. (2) The constable may— (a) exercise any of the powers in sub-paragraph (4) in the case of the person, or (b) direct a qualified officer to do so. (3) A qualified officer must (if able to do so) comply with any direction given by a constable under sub-paragraph (2)(b). (4) The powers are— (a) to require the person to hand over all travel documents in the person’s possession to the constable or (as the case may be) the qualified officer; (b) to search for travel documents relating to the person and to take possession of any that the constable or officer finds; (c) to inspect any travel document relating to the person; and (d) to retain any travel document relating to the person that is lawfully in the possession of the constable or officer. (5) The power in sub-paragraph (4)(b) is a power to search— (a) the person; (b) anything that the person has with him or her; and (c) any vehicle in which the officer believes the person to have been travelling or to be about to travel. (6) A constable or qualified officer— (a) may stop a person or vehicle for the purpose of exercising a power in sub-paragraph (4)(a) or (b); (b) may if necessary use reasonable force for the purpose of exercising a power in sub-paragraph (4)(a) or (b); and (c) may authorise a person to carry out on the constable's or officer's behalf a search under sub-paragraph (4)(b). (7) A constable or qualified officer exercising a power in sub-paragraph (4)(a) or (b) must tell the person that— (a) the person is suspected of intending to leave Great Britain or (as the case may be) the United Kingdom for the purpose of assisting a designated body, and (b) the constable or officer is therefore entitled under this Schedule to exercise the power. (8) Where a travel document relating to the person is in the possession of an immigration officer or customs official (whether a qualified officer or not), the constable may direct the officer or official— (a) to pass the document to a constable as soon as practicable, and (b) in the meantime to retain it, the officer or official must comply with any such direction.” This new clause would replicate existing powers to seize travel documents from individuals suspected of terrorism, applying those powers in relation to individuals suspected of assisting a designated body New clause 6—Police powers to apply for serious crime prevention orders in designation cases— “(1) The Serious Crime Act 2007 is amended as follows. (2) In Section 8, after subsection (2)(a) insert— “(ab) it is an application for an order under section 1 that is related to an offence committed under section 2 of the National Security (State Threats) Act 2026.”” This new clause allows police to apply for serious crime prevention orders in relation to offences committed under this Act. New clause 7—Sanctions— “(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations under the provisions of Section 1 of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 to subject any— (a) body designated under the National Security (State Threats) Act 2026, or (b) a person who commits an offence under section (2) of that Act to any available sanction within that Act.” This new clause would ensure that any body designated under this Act, or any person who commits an offence under this Act, may be subject to the sanctions regime set out in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. The schedule.
Q6. A film called the “People’s Emergency Briefing” is being shown in communities up and down the country. I recently attended a screening in Wirksworth, and there is another one next week in Bakewell. The film educates us and reminds us of the climate emergency that we all face. Yet, inexplicably, the Conservatives have basically given up on the climate, and Reform continues to act like modern-day flat-earthers, refusing to accept science and to accept the bleeding obvious. Will the Deputy Prime Minister please assure me that this Labour Government will continue to do everything they can to combat man-made climate change?
My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling) got there first in mentioning the disgraceful cuts by Reform-led Warwickshire county council. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) agree that it is also rather disgraceful that no Reform UK Members of Parliament are here for this debate? They often talk about the importance of our high streets, so where are they?
I declare an interest that I chair, and have done for about five years, a group called Solidarity with the Iranian Workers’ Movement Committee. We formed officially about five years ago and have been working for about 10 or 15 years. It is a group of Iranian refugees and trade unionists in this country, and we have tried to provide solidarity and campaign on human rights issues, focused on trade unionists in Iran. We started informally around the Tehran bus workers’ dispute, if people can remember that taking place, because a lot of the trade unionists we worked with were subsequently arrested and detained, and some were executed. That brought us together in solidarity. On new clause 3, we have been raising time and again the proscription of the IRGC and have expressed our disappointment at the lack of action by the Government. I understand why the legislation is brought forward, and I hope that it will be brought through effectively and with the impact that we want, particularly on that organisation. Members will remember that we worked with the National Union of Journalists. In this country, the IRGC targeted journalists in particular, and a broadcasting station in Chiswick had to depart and operate from New York for a period. Although I support the intentions of the legislation, may I also express my reservations about it? I have been in this place long enough to have experience of legislation that has come through not with undue haste, but with haste, and it is in that legislation that we usually make mistakes because we have not taken into account others’ views about the impacts. What worried me was that the explanatory notes—the Secretary of State asked us to look at them in some detail—made clear: “Given the pace at which this legislation was developed, outside groups have not been engaged on the specifics in the Bill.” A range of organisations are now expressing concern, such as the Red Cross, and that worries me. That is why rushing a Bill through in one day is precipitous. I am worried that as a result of that, we will legislate poorly. When I say “poorly”, I am referring to incursions on people’s rights; I do not mean the right to in any way defend the organisations or states that many hon. Members referred to on Second Reading, but people’s right to express solidarity with some organisations or even countries in struggle, which we have had in the past. To cite an example, I am a member of the Cuba Solidarity Campaign. Trump is now targeting Cuba and has designated it as a terrorist state. Under the Government’s proposals, for an organisation to be designated there are two factors, which were set out on Second Reading. First, a body has to have been “involved in foreign power threat activity”, as set out in proposed new section 33A of the National Security Act 2023 and in the Bill’s explanatory notes. One of those activities is foreign interference in elections. Secondly, the Secretary of State may designate a body if they believe that “is necessary to protect the safety or interests of the United Kingdom.” In the coming months, even until the next general election if necessary, I will be working in solidarity, through the Cuba Solidarity Campaign, with the current Cuban Government. I will be working to influence that election to ensure that a Government are elected that prevent the hostile attack by the US on Cuba, so that will be seen as foreign interference in an election.
Well, QED. There we have it. Under the Bill, as members of the Cuba Solidarity Campaign, I and many other hon. Members will be committing an offence—
I am grateful for the Minister’s consideration of my mental health, et cetera. The designation covers “foreign interference in elections” and we will be campaigning to maintain solidarity with Cuba itself. On the second designation— “is necessary to protect the safety or interests of the United Kingdom”— in our current trade negotiations with the United States, we are taking decisions about the “interests” of the UK as interpreted by the US. So I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that when we introduce such legislation, we must discern what could be the worst that could happen and how could it go wrong? We are opening up an opportunity for things to go wrong. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would not designate the Cuba Solidarity Campaign, but in a certain situation, certain Administrations would. By not including sufficient protections in the legislation we are, unwittingly, opening the door to its being used to designate organisations, and therefore individuals, as breaking the law, with significant penalties imposed. That is why the rush to legislation is my concern. If we are not engaging with outside bodies that could be in the specifics of the legislation, as the explanatory notes say, that is where we will make mistakes. What consultations or discussions have been had with some of the organisations campaigning on the international implications of what is happening, particularly regarding the role of the US. What discussions have taken place? There could be ramifications well beyond what we all agree on today with regard to the designation of the IRGC and others that, at this moment, could be specifically designated as advancers of terrorism.
There is a consideration that needs to be properly debated and given the time to be debated. My specific point is that if the US moves against Cuba and imposes and demands a wider trade ban, for example, the argument could be made that we are undermining our own interests if we do not co-operate with the US. That argument has been used in the trade negotiations so far. Under this legislation, we could have an organisation designated specifically around trying to break that blockade. That is my worry. That leads me on to a minor point about designation. At the moment, designation is made through the affirmative procedure, which brings a statutory instrument before the House that we can vote for or against; we cannot amend it. What we saw under the proscription process, particularly with Palestine Action, was that the statutory instrument came before us with a bloc of 20 organisations. We had to vote for it or against it; we could not distinguish in voting between any of those organisations. I ask the Government to consider that when we deal with this matter, it should be dealt with through the super-affirmative procedure, rather than the affirmative procedure. In the super-affirmative procedure, there is a process of consultation in which individual organisations can be dealt with, rather than dealing with organisations en bloc. In that way, we could take a more considered decision about the individual roles and aspects of organisations that the Government are designating. I hope the Government will consider that process better, because it would reassure us more that this legislation will be effective and will not have the sweeping consequences that bloc proscription has brought so far. We have seen maybe 3,000 people going through our courts simply for holding up a poster with regard to Palestine Action.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) for securing this very important debate. This weekend, Nuneaton celebrated the 800th anniversary of its royal market charter, first awarded by King Henry III. It was an absolutely fantastic day, with live local music and our teenage, independent and normal Saturday markets all coming together to celebrate our rich history and culture and the talent of my town. I was immensely proud to be part of that, and I was delighted to see such an increase in footfall for our traders. But my town, like so many others, has been battered by years of austerity and under-investment. Transformation plans were delayed again and again, while £1.25 million was cut from our trading standards between 2011 and 2015, creating a culture of looking the other way while dodgy shop after dodgy shop moved in. In the past two years, our Labour council has begun to turn things around. Our long-promised transformation plans are finally coming to fruition with the opening of Saints, the demolition approvals for and landscaping of long-empty sites, and now new investment in Grayson Place, welcoming the UK’s first championship padel courts and the brilliant North Warwickshire and South Leicestershire college to our town. Our council and its officers have worked tirelessly to diversify our town, bringing in homes, services, hospitality and leisure. An empty Debenhams has become luxury apartments, and an old nightclub has become Saints—thriving community assets. Footfall is rising again, up more than 24,000 in the final quarter, with 2 million visits to my town centre this year. Businesses are returning and confidence is growing. We are on track to restore our once-vibrant town centre. However, that progress is at risk if we cannot turn the tide on crime and dodgy shops, which threaten the very survival of historical towns such as mine. Dodgy shops undercut honest tax-paying traders by selling counterfeit and illegal goods. Worse still, they undermine public confidence in our country’s ability to enforce the law. People see illegal vape shops, drugs and counterfeit products being openly sold, and suspected money laundering and organised crime, and ask how that is allowed to happen. For far too long, that question has gone unanswered. I welcome the Government’s new funding for trading standards, and the National Crime Agency’s new powers to strengthen enforcement between the Home Office, HMRC, trading standards and the police, but that funding and those powers must reach into towns such as mine. We cannot simply force problems out of larger cities and into smaller towns without providing the resources to tackle them. We need to prevent them from arising in the first place. While out door-knocking recently, I was told by residents about cars driving at all hours of the day, including 4 am visits, with whole streets being disturbed. I raised that with our local teams, and raids took place this week. Illegal goods were seized, and we now await closure orders. However, that is all too often not the outcome. As we have heard, the endless whack-a-mole situation prevents people from closing such places down permanently. If our towns are to make progress and we are to protect what we have, we must be able to close them down permanently and never allow them to open again.
Considering the strength of feeling and the level of criminality that we have heard about, does my hon. Friend not find it shocking that, on top of long-term cuts of £100,000 in its medium-term forecasts, Warwickshire county council has just frozen £55,000 that was allocated to tackling rogue traders?
I welcome your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) for securing the debate. The Home Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, is currently investigating organised crime on our high streets—that is welcome. Across Worksop, Retford and Harworth, there has been a surge in vape shops, barber shops and mini-marts. They are clustered close together and often have barely any customers. Local people are asking a very simple question: how do such businesses survive?