Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
The Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which time no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of her statement, Members will be able to ask her questions on the statement—and they must be questions, not speeches. Front Benchers may take part in the questions.
I call Luke Murphy, who will speak for up to 15 minutes.
Order. I am going to impose an immediate six-minute time limit, because there is a second debate to follow.
Order. The hon. Lady will know that she was on a time limit. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
I call the shadow Minister.
Order. It has been over 18 months and Members are still using “you” as if it were confetti. Please, can we all be a bit better?
Order. Before we move on to the next speaker, I remind Members to use extreme caution when avowing the motives of other Members. I think the hon. Lady probably just about stayed on the correct side of the line.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
T2. In Harrow we have suffered two industrial-scale dumping incidents on land that is earmarked for much-needed housing development. It has cost thousands of pounds to clear up. The council has issued more than a thousand fines for people dumping their rubbish on the streets. I welcome the decision by the Secretary of State to introduce further measures. Will she outline what those measures are and when they will be introduced, so that we can end this scourge of fly-tipping?
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the Chamber business for next week. Could he give us early notice of whether we will get time after Easter, so that the Committee can allocate time accordingly? In addition, next Thursday there will be a statement from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on its report on coastal erosion. In Westminster Hall, next Tuesday there will be a debate on sudden unexplained death in childhood, and on Thursday 26 March there will be a debate on outcomes for patients with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome and craniocervical instability, followed by a debate on the potential merits of mandatory body armour for prison officers. On Tuesday 14 April, when we come back, there will be a debate on hidden credit liabilities and the role of the Financial Conduct Authority. On Thursday 16 April, there will be a debate on the housing needs of young people, followed by a debate on the NHS federated data platform. I hope that the Leader of the House will bring forward the necessary changes to Standing Orders that he promised before we prorogue for the state opening of Parliament. In my position as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for British Hindus, I have been in contact with Peterborough city council about the plight of the Bharat Hindu Samaj temple. This is the only Hindu temple in Peterborough. There are 11 mosques in the area, and I wish them Eid Mubarak as we approach the end of Ramadan. The council decided to sell the temple after the trustees of the temple agreed to match any other bid that came forward. They eventually offered £1.4 million. The councillors, however, chose another bid of £1.2 million. This was kept secret. Now the trustees have taken the case to court and, indeed, have got to a position whereby the judge has stayed the sale of the site. Could we have a statement from the Secretary of State next week on what action he will take to ensure that we preserve the opportunity for Hindus in Peterborough and across the country to celebrate their religion in proper fashion in peace and harmony?
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I just want to make sure that the record is corrected. Before I mentioned Peterborough temple, I sent an email out of courtesy to the office of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) this morning to inform him that I was intending to raise it. I was also extremely cautious to talk only about things that are in the public domain, because there is an ongoing court case and I did not want to refer to any further details.
I welcome the continued commitment to combating terrible diseases such as HIV, malaria and tuberculosis, but the Foreign Secretary has not mentioned polio. After many years of investment, we have almost got to the point of eradicating the disease. If that programme ceases, the risk is that polio will come back in a big way. In areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan the disease still seems to be rampant, and they are involved in a conflict, as she will know. Will she confirm that funding for the programme will continue, so that we can eradicate polio once and for all?
T7. Red diesel prices have shot up by 60%, a third of the world’s fertiliser goes through the strait of Hormuz, and energy prices are skyrocketing. All that is creating challenges for farmers, and will ultimately affect the prices we pay for food in the shops. What is the Minister doing to work across Departments to reduce pressure on farmers, and to reassure them that, for once, the Government understand the challenges they face and their importance for UK food security?
I just want to say that the hon. Gentleman is wrong.
I thank the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee for its work. The Committee is always incredibly thoughtful and diligent in the prosecution of its duties, and the report has been very interesting. I will try to resist the opportunity to re-litigate the whole troubles Bill and the argument around the legacy Act in the next 10 minutes, rather than focus on the report. However, it is important that hon. Members remember how the legacy Act came to be, and how the previous Labour Government treated the whole issue of the peace process. The idea of immunity was good enough for the Labour Government in 1998—indeed, it was fundamental to the legislation that fell within the peace process. I think of the two-year limit on sentences that my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) referred to, but also of the legislation regarding bodies that had been buried, and about the destruction of weapons where forensic evidence was destroyed. Those were all forms of immunity, and it is why—this is the point raised by the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann)—an appeal to the Supreme Court could easily have been successful. Very experienced legal advice shows that that would have been the case, so it was wrong of the Government to drop it. The Government have decided that they are opposed to immunity, but they were not opposed to immunity in 1998. They were not opposed to immunity in 2005, when Peter Hain brought forward a Bill that would have given immunity only to former terrorists. Only under enormous pressure from the House, which decided that it would have to introduce immunity for soldiers as well, was that measure dropped under pressure from Sinn Féin. The Labour party has a very selective memory on those issues.
It applied to only one side, and over time that one-sidedness became apparent to lots of people, including veterans. That is why it was important. In 2005, there was no democratic mandate for what the Labour Government tried to do to give immunity to terrorists. What we are trying to do, and what we tried to do in our legacy Act, is rebalance the argument, and in so doing bring about the sort of process that my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East spoke so powerfully about. The adversarial system will not bring about proper truth and reconciliation, and it will not encourage people to come forward with new information. Instead, it will reopen old wounds and allow for the continuation of the troubles by other means. For that very important reason of principle, we cannot support the legislation. To return to the report issued by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, I will quickly pick up on four areas. On the consideration of the ICRIR, I pay tribute to Sir Declan Morgan, who has been an excellent head. Every time that I have heard people question the ICRIR’s independence, I have felt the need to come to Sir Declan’s defence. Anyone who has met him and seen his work will know that he is thoroughly independent, and woe betide any politician who tried to lean on him. The argument that the ICRIR has struggled to build the trust and authority needed to operate effectively is already outdated. As of 30 November 2025, 231 requesting individuals had approached the commission, 245 cases were recorded, and 110 investigations had been opened into a total of 188 deaths and five cases of serious harm. Those numbers were growing every month. Indeed, the more time that the ICRIR was given, the more public trust it gained and the more its work was flourishing. Now, just as it is getting going, it is going to be cut off at the knees. I was pleased that the report mentioned the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal finding in 2024, which said, “we find that these arrangements do not of themselves offend the principle of independence given the fact that ICRIR is ultimately made up and staffed by independent investigators and decision makers including the commissioners.” I would much rather that the ICRIR was being given time. It is clear that there are no explicit or particular protections for veterans in the Government’s legislation, and I was pleased that the Committee said that the Government were overselling that claim—indeed they are. No armed forces bodies believe that these protections are sufficient. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) said, many veterans’ groups are concerned that the Government are moving away from the policies established by the Conservative party in power. On the subject of Ireland, there were very powerful contributions from the hon. Members for South Antrim and for Strangford (Jim Shannon). We all want this element of the Government’s arrangements to work, but we must remain sceptical, not least because of the Republic’s long-standing failure to produce the goods in this area. As the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee outlined on page 85 of its report, equivalent legislation structures are not expected. The hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) used a wonderful phrase, stating that there is a lack of “practical outworkings” in this area, and indeed there is. With all due respect to the Secretary of State, it was a dreadful missed opportunity that the framework did not include a commitment from the Republic to start its own Omagh inquiry. That was the most wicked attack of the whole troubles, and it is shameful that there are only investigations into what the British state could have done to prevent it, rather than investigations into the people who committed that dreadful atrocity. I was pleased that the Committee referred to costs, as did several other hon. Members. The PSNI estimates that it will need an extra £1 billion over the next 10 years to cope with the new caseload. The legacy commission is seriously underfunded for the additional caseload that it will acquire as it transitions from being the ICRIR. Without that money, there will be a huge backlog in the caseload of the legacy commission, and there will also be a reduction in frontline policing in Northern Ireland. That is unacceptable. We strongly disagree with what the Government are doing, but if they are going to do it, they must make the money available to ensure that public services and institutions in Northern Ireland function properly. Finally, I ask the Secretary of State one quick question: when will we see the Bill again?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) on securing this important debate on Government support for freedom of religion or belief in China. I thank all Members who have taken the time to participate in this debate, not least my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers), the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). And I say this with all sincerity: no debate in Westminster Hall, particularly on freedom of religion or belief, would be complete without a contribution from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Members on both sides of the House have demonstrated their determination to continue to raise this important matter in this place. Freedom of religion or belief is one of the most fundamental human rights. It is the right to hold beliefs, practise them openly and live according to one’s conscience without fear of persecution. That principle lies at the very heart of the international human rights framework, and the United Kingdom has historically championed it across the world. Yet in China today, we see deeply troubling evidence that that freedom is being systematically eroded. Nowhere is that more evident than in Xinjiang, where credible reports have documented the widespread repression of the Uyghur Muslims and other minority communities, as we have heard. There is extensive evidence of mass detention, forced labour, the destruction of religious sites and the suppression of religious practices. Mosques have reportedly been demolished or repurposed, and individuals have faced punishment simply for expressing their faith. These are not isolated incidents; they form part of a wider pattern of state control over religion. Similar concerns arise in Tibet, where, as we have heard, Tibetan Buddhists continue to face restrictions on their religious life and cultural identity. Monasteries are closely monitored, religious leaders face intense scrutiny, and the ability of communities to practise their faith freely is severely constrained. For many Tibetans, religion is inseparable from culture and identity, so these restrictions go far beyond matters of worship. There are also growing concerns about religious freedom in Hong Kong. For many years, Hong Kong stood as a place where religious communities could operate with relative freedom. However, following the imposition of the Hong Kong national security law, civil society has come under increasing pressure, and the space for freedom, including religious freedom, has narrowed significantly. The case of Jimmy Lai, the publisher and democracy campaigner, remains a stark example of that wider erosion of liberty. For years, Mr Lai has been imprisoned for his peaceful advocacy of democratic values. His case has become emblematic of the shrinking freedoms in Hong Kong and has rightly drawn strong concern from Members right across this House, some of whom are here today. Freedom of religion or belief does not exist in isolation. It flourishes only where other fundamental freedoms—speech, assembly and the rule of law—are protected. That is why this debate is so important. It is not simply about one right among many, but about the wider ecosystem of freedoms that allows a society to flourish. Historically, the United Kingdom has played a leading role in defending those freedoms. Our diplomats have worked through international institutions; our Ministers have raised concerns directly with their counterparts; and Parliament has consistently spoken with moral clarity when human rights are under threat. However, in recent months there has been discussion about a potential “reset” in the United Kingdom’s relationship with China. Engagement between nations is of course necessary—I understand that. China is a major global power and dialogue is essential on issues ranging from trade to climate change, but we should engage with China from a position of strength. That means being clear-eyed about where we have leverage and using it responsibly in defence of our values. In that context, issues such as the decision on the proposed new Chinese embassy in London take on a wider significance. Approving such a development without securing meaningful progress on issues such as human rights risks giving up important leverage prematurely. Engagement must therefore be principled, co-ordinated and rooted in a firm commitment to the freedoms we seek to uphold, but engagement must never come at the expense of our values. I hope that the Minister will address a number of important questions when he responds. First, as part of any diplomatic engagement with Beijing, have the Government raised the issue of freedom of religion or belief directly with the Chinese authorities, and if so, what response did they receive? Secondly, will the Government continue to work with partners at the United Nations to highlight human rights concerns in China? Previous Governments played an important role in co-ordinating joint statements on abuses in Xinjiang and elsewhere. Do Ministers intend to continue building those coalitions internationally? Thirdly, can the Minister update the House on what steps the Government are taking to protect individuals in the United Kingdom from transnational repression? In recent years, there have been increasing concerns about intimidation, surveillance and pressure being directed at diaspora communities here in the UK. Individuals who speak out about religious freedom or human rights abroad must be able to do so without fear of harassment or coercion on British soil. Finally, I would welcome clarity on how human rights considerations are being weighed in the Government’s broader relationship with China. There has been considerable public debate about the proposed redevelopment of the Chinese embassy, on the Royal Mint Court site, into what would become the largest Chinese embassy complex in Europe. Many have raised concerns about the symbolic and practical implications of that project, given the wider human rights context. Planning decisions must of course follow the proper legal process, but the Government must recognise the strength of feeling that exists when questions of national security, human rights and foreign policy intersect in this way, and they must surely understand why so many people oppose the development of a new Chinese embassy in London. The United Kingdom has long prided itself on being a country that stands up for liberty and the rule of law. Those principles have shaped our history, our institutions and our place in the world. When people are persecuted for their faith, whether they are Muslims in Xinjiang, Buddhists in Tibet, Christians facing restrictions in China, or religious communities under pressure in Hong Kong, we simply cannot look the other way. The credibility of our foreign policy depends on our willingness to speak clearly and consistently about such issues. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that freedom of religion or belief remains a central pillar of the UK’s foreign policy, and that in our engagement with China, we will continue to stand firmly on the side of those whose fundamental freedoms are under threat.
Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 18 March.
May I associate myself with the comments and condolences of the Prime Minister in relation to those affected by the meningitis outbreak? New data today shows that nearly 60% of hospices are considering cutting frontline services. In the west midlands, St Giles hospice has already reduced beds and staff due to financial pressures. With services being cut, can the Prime Minister explain why hospices are being told to wait until autumn for the new framework, and will he commit today to proper long-term, sustainable funding to secure this vital lifeline for the future?
My hon. Friend is making an important point about rural areas, but those of us who do not represent rural constituencies—mine is neither semi-rural nor urban—face exactly the same issues as the rural areas. The increase in fuel prices is impacting on everybody in their daily lives and most people are now thinking, “Enough is enough”. Does he agree?
My hon. Friend eloquently sets out that this impacts just about everybody in their daily lives, up and down the country and across communities. Does that not highlight why we took great efforts to freeze fuel duty when we were in government? I would even go so far as to say that those on the Conservative Benches are the friends of the motorist, in contrast with those on the Labour Benches who simply see the motorist as a cash cow.
I am probably one of the very few people in this House who benefited from not going to university—I did Open University later, so luckily I did not have a student loan, and I am probably a little on the old side as well. However, there is something fundamentally unfair about the Government’s policy. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the young people who he talks about so passionately are being penalised by his party? He has talked about track records, so can he explain why youth unemployment is going up under this Labour Government?
I also commend my hon. Friend for raising this hugely important topic, and she is right to highlight the importance of local voices. Local voices know best where the flood risks are. They are most at risk and have real skin in the game, but they often feel that bodies such as Natural England and some parts of the Environment Agency are not responding. There are also the internal drainage boards, particularly in the east of England—in Norfolk, Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to see more from the current Government about how they are going to work proactively with the drainage boards, particularly on some of the capital funding requirements that they face?
The Minister invited hon. Members to present pain points, so perhaps I can share one from my time in her Department. Natural England’s gold-plating of some of its statutory objectives often seemed at odds with the ministerial steers that were given. Does she feel she has sufficient control over the direction of Natural England in delivering the sort of actions that I am sure she discussed at the taskforce?
I hope this is a helpful suggestion to the Secretary of State. There have been some objections to a social media ban for young people based on the fact that it would create a cliff edge, whereby they have no involvement with it and then total involvement with it. Does she agree with me that one way to minimise that danger is to encourage children to use the internet, which is not interactive, as that will gradually acclimatise them for the day when they are able to use interactive services more safely?
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have clearly explained that you are not responsible for the quality, or lack of it, in a Minister’s answers—or even a Prime Minister’s answers—but can you explain for the benefit of the House and the viewing public what Prime Minister’s questions is supposed to be about: namely, that the Opposition and other right hon. and hon. Members get to ask the Prime Minister a question about a subject of their choice, and that it is not an opportunity for him to then berate them for not asking a question about a completely different subject that he wishes had been asked?
I like the Minister very much, not least because he represents the Welsh seat of my birth and upbringing, and because I have such respect for him, I am going to try to make the point to him that I have so far made with zero success to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, among others. It is all well and good to talk about the greatest increase in spending on defence since the end of the cold war if we are comparing the post cold war period with what is—shall we say?—a quiet defence period, but we are not. What we need to spend now is not to be compared with what it was like after the end of the cold war, but what it was like during the cold war, and during the cold war we regularly spent between 4.5% and 5% of GDP on defence. If he recognises that there is some merit in that argument, could he try to persuade his colleagues to stop making that false comparison?
indicated assent.
Order. I will call Tom Morrison to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. As is the convention in these 30-minute debates, there will unfortunately not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that we must conclude by 4.42 pm, when the next debate will begin.
Order. I see that lots of Members are bobbing. Given that I am going to call the wind-ups at 5.22 pm, Opposition spokesmen will have five minutes each and the Minister will have 10 minutes. You will appreciate that time is limited, so let us try to get everyone in. I suggest speeches of about three minutes.
Order. Members are getting two minutes each. Let us try to get everyone in.
That was excellent timekeeping.
I am discouraging interventions generally, but that was delightful. Carry on.
Excellent. Thank you, everyone, for being so disciplined with your speeches.
Minister, will you leave a couple of moments for Jo Platt to sum up?
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), and notwithstanding your ruling, Mr Speaker, “Erskine May” makes it clear that Ministers come to the House to answer questions, does it not? While the Standing Orders might need refining, do they not already make it clear that that is the purpose of the sessions that we have daily and, in the case of the Prime Minister, weekly?
Q2. In January last year, I raised with the Prime Minister the issue of inadequate and inaccessible compensation for those injured by covid vaccinations. The Prime Minister undertook to look into it, along with the Health Secretary, but I am afraid that more than a year later no significant progress has been made. I know that the Prime Minister and the Government recognise the risk that this issue poses to public confidence in mass vaccination—all the more important given the Prime Minister’s opening remarks in this session—and, indeed, the pain it has caused to those who have been injured or lost loved ones for doing only what their Government asked them to do. Will the Prime Minister please re-engage with this issue and ensure that his Government make swift progress in resolving it?
The agreement the Catholic Church signed allowed the Government to approve the bishops and the structure. One of the criticisms that many have made, myself included, is that in getting that agreement the Catholic Church in a way turned its back on all the other Christians in China. It got something—not something great—but to do that, it did not then represent them. As the senior Christian Church in the world, it does bear some responsibility to see Christianity prosper, not go the other way. Does my right hon. Friend agree?
I owe you an apology, Ms Jardine, for arriving late to the debate. I am grateful for your chairmanship, and grateful to be allowed in, having been delayed. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) for securing the debate, and for being stalwart in all these issues about freedoms and rights of worship. I bow before her greater authority in this matter. Much of what I wish to say has already been said. Therefore, in the short time available, I will try to cover the issues that are at stake. We have talked consistently about the problems in China. There are of course many other countries in the world where Christians and Muslims are persecuted, but it is in China that the collective persecution becomes an absolute, state-inspired problem. The nature of what has been discussed already is quite remarkable. Look, for example, at the programme of Sinicisation of religion by law, and by deliberately abusive behaviour. Crosses must be removed from churches and domes, and the minarets of mosques must be demolished to make them look more like Chinese buildings. Pastors and imams are told to focus on religious teachings that reflect socialist values in line with those of China. Newly annotated versions of core religious texts, including the Bible, the Quran and others, have been issued back to places of worship, and what is left of the churches are regularly ordered to replace images of Jesus with pictures of Xi Jinping. Blatantly, boldly and in full view, China does not want to have any kind of worship beyond the worship of the communist, and in particular of Xi Jinping. In March this year, China approved a new law that codifies ethnic assimilation, in contravention of China’s own constitution and of international law. It mandates that all children must be taught Putonghua before kindergarten and—interestingly—that they will therefore avoid all aspects of other religions as a matter of doctrine. That brings me to two elements that I want to focus on. First, as has been said well by hon. Members in this debate, the Uyghurs are suffering a genocide. There is no question about it. The Chinese authorities find them a deeply troublesome group. They are not Han Chinese, and that is what most Chinese policy is about. At the core of the dislike of the Uyghurs lies their Muslim belief. What astounds me so often is that we know about this. We have campaigned on it. I was sanctioned because of the campaign on the Uyghurs. It is interesting how easily people have been allowed to forget the issue and not raise it. I would love all the mosques in the United Kingdom to raise the plight of the Uyghurs, because it is the right thing to do. I would love Christian churches to constantly talk of the plight of the Uyghurs. The Uyghurs have, in many respects, become forgotten. The persecution of the Uyghurs is appalling. Many hon. Members have talked about the nature of the re-education camps. When did we last hear about the concept of re-education camps? In Nazi Germany. It is astonishing. The women are persecuted and raped, and are now no longer having babies. The population of the Uyghurs has now collapsed because they are being forcibly sterilised, and the men are going off to forced labour—it is so obvious; millions have gone. By the way, to those who like the free market, I should underline the point that forced labour completely undermines the free market. How can anyone compete with a country that uses forced labour on a grand scale to make products and drive out competitors? There is, in every respect, an absence of tolerance to Christianity, Islam and Buddhism—we too often forget about the persecution of Tibetan Buddhists, nearly a quarter of a million of whom are in forced labour camps, rather like the Uyghurs. What is happening to the Uyghurs is a terrible travesty, but I also want to speak about Christianity and Christian churches. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who I have a huge amount of time for, raised the issue of the role of the Catholic Church. I have to say to him that, since I set up the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, we have tried to extract from the hierarchy in the Catholic Church—I say this, by the way, as a Catholic—the text of what it agreed with the Chinese Government, and we have never been able to. It has never been published. We have never been able to refer to it. All we are asking for is that it be laid out in the open, so that we can see, first of all, whether the Chinese stick to their arrangements and, secondly, whether there was any provision for other Christians in China.