5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 26 Feb 2026·Parliament·David Reed

   Gibraltar Treaty

   As a former Royal Marine, Gibraltar has a special place in my heart—we have “Gibraltar” emblazoned above our globe and laurel crest for the valiant efforts of former bootnecks in 1704. Having transferred seamlessly through Gibraltar on previous operations, I know how important it is to be able to transfer kit and equipment. The agreement seems to indicate that Gibraltar will be subject to Spanish export controls relating to defence equipment and dual-use technologies. Prior to agreeing the text, did the Minister consult the armed forces leadership in Gibraltar to ensure that service personnel can still carry on their duties, with kit not subject to Spanish export controls?

   Hansard source
2. 26 Feb 2026·Parliament·David Reed

   Maccabi Tel Aviv Fan Ban

   I thank my right hon. Friend for the work she and her Committee have done on this report. To my knowledge, this is the first time artificial intelligence has hallucinated and given a response that has been used by a public body to make a decision. To my right hon. Friend’s understanding, has West Midlands police learned from this mistake and removed this type of sloppy analysis from its decision-making process?

   Hansard source
3. 26 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dame Karen Bradley

   Maccabi Tel Aviv Fan Ban

   I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this statement. The banning of away fans at football matches is highly unusual in this country. The imposition of such a ban on fans from another country is almost unprecedented. The fact that the ban was on fans of an Israeli club playing at a venue situated among sizeable Muslim communities added a level of political sensitivity. That is why the Committee took the unusual step of writing to the then chief constable of West Midlands police to seek an explanation. We were surprised by what this simple request eventually exposed. Our report covers conclusions about three organisations: West Midlands police, which is responsible for providing advice to the safety advisory group of Birmingham city council; the SAG itself, both in Birmingham and more generally; and the Home Office, including its liaison across Government. I will take them in turn. Our inquiry uncovered serious failings in the way that West Midlands police gathered and presented information and intelligence in advising on this fixture. While the fixture was rightly identified in advance as high risk, and the initial assumption was for away fans to attend, consultation was limited. The police relied to a disproportionate extent on a single conversation between a chief inspector from West Midlands police and the Dutch police about the behaviour of Maccabi fans at a match against Ajax in Amsterdam in November 2024. The Dutch police strongly disputed the WMP version of events, which included claims that 500 to 600 Maccabi fans were involved in disorder that targeted local communities, that they had links to the Israel Defence Forces, and that they threw local fans in the river. We cannot be sure what was said in that conversation because, unbelievably, the meeting notes were destroyed by West Midlands police. We now know, however, that some of the information relating to the conduct of the Maccabi fans was generated by artificial intelligence—Microsoft Copilot, to be precise. The use of AI by West Midlands police was under consideration at the time, but was not authorised at that stage. What we found extraordinary, though, is that the information used to support such a significant decision—whether from AI or elsewhere—was not cross-checked with other sources. Not only did WMP fail to do due diligence on the information that it presented to the SAG, which was responsible for taking the decision to ban away fans, but it failed to prepare properly to give accurate information before the Committee. The then chief constable told us explicitly that AI was not used by West Midlands police, and that the reference to a match against West Ham— a completely fictitious game that was cited as one of the reasons for banning the away fans—had resulted from a Google search. He had subsequently to apologise that that was not the case. Precisely how West Midlands police managed to generate inaccurate information using AI to inform the intelligence picture related to this match is the subject of an ongoing inquiry by the Independent Office for Police Conduct, so I am sure we will hear more on that in due course. Although we accept that the former chief constable did not deliberately misinform the Committee, he should have ensured that he came armed with the facts rather than with complacent platitudes followed by humble apologies. However, it is not the issues relating to competence that are the most damaging to the reputation of WMP; it is those around balance—balance in the information presented to the SAG, which consistently emphasised the unique risk from the Maccabi fans and downplayed the risk emanating from local communities in Birmingham. Intelligence around elements in these communities threatening to “arm themselves” against Maccabi fans was not relayed to the SAG. There was also imbalance in community engagement. WMP acknowledged that it failed to engage with the Jewish community early enough, in contrast with a full programme of engagement with other communities. It apologised for that and for managing to mislead the Committee on the extent of engagement, and acknowledged the damage done to relations with the Jewish community in the west midlands. We welcome the commitment of the new acting chief constable this week to continue WMP’s efforts to rebuild trust with the Jewish community and, more broadly, to address each of our recommendations. I cannot stress strongly enough how vital it is that the Jewish community in Birmingham and the west midlands are able to feel trust in their police. At the moment, they simply do not. As I have indicated, responsibility for the decision to exclude the Maccabi fans ultimately rested with Birmingham city council, through the provision of a safety certificate for the event. The role of the SAG was to provide specialist safety advice regarding the event. In reaching its conclusions on advice relating to public order, SAG is heavily reliant on the advice of the police. We reviewed the content of all three SAG meetings that provided advice on the fixture. Having done so, we were not surprised that the chair of the SAG wrote to WMP seeking further clarity on the rationale for the ban on away fans. There were clearly some who were uncomfortable with that decision—not just Aston Villa, who said they were happy to host away fans, and the leader of Birmingham city council, who expressed to us both his discontent with the decision and his respect for the operational independence of the police and the integrity of their advice. In respect of the role of the SAG in this decision, we concluded that it failed to apply sufficient challenge to the clear recommendation of WMP regarding the banning of away fans, and that it lacked the capability to balance the interests of local communities and those of the police against broader national and international considerations, given the unusual sensitivities surrounding this particular fixture. We welcome the review of guidance to SAGs being undertaken by the Cabinet Office, and we recommended in our report that that should consider whether an escalation process is required to handle such rare but highly consequential circumstances. As part of its review of the governance of SAGs, the police should review the presence of elected politicians on what are essentially safety-oriented committees. As I have said, it is unusual for there to be a political context to SAG decisions, but that was the case here. Although we did not see evidence of political pressure regarding the decision to ban away fans—we simply do not know what conversations went on behind the scenes —we did note that the Muslim councillors on the SAG, who had publicly stated views on whether the match should take place at all, had “a disproportionate opportunity” to influence the decision of the SAG. We concluded that elected politicians should not sit on SAGs. Finally, we scrutinised the role of the Home Office in the decision-making process, and that of the Government. Strictly speaking, there should not have been a role for the Government in a decision taken at local authority level on the operational advice of the police, but No. 10 recognised at an early stage the political significance of the match and asked the Home Office to be kept informed of developments. There was also a Department for Culture, Media and Sport interest, as that Department has lead responsibility for the safety of sports grounds. This was a test of the ability of the Government as a whole to identify whether they should have a role in the decision and, if so, to share information internally to enable any intervention to be made in a timely and effective manner. I am afraid to say that that test was failed. The Government were informed on 6 October—a month before the match—that a ban on away fans was the likely outcome of the SAG process. It was the “working assumption”. If the Government did not find this outcome politically palatable, you might think, Madam Deputy Speaker, that they would take prompt action to avert it—for example, by providing the necessary additional resources to enable the fixture to be policed safely and go ahead. No such attempt was made. The Home Secretary and Ministers were not told definitively that there would be a ban on away fans, but we know that she was briefed that it was a possible option. Home Office officials were aware that a ban was the likely outcome. We still do not know precisely when Ministers in the Home Office, DCMS and No. 10 were informed of this. It was only on 16 October, when the decision was announced, that the Government intervened—in the form of a post on X by the Prime Minister, saying that it was the wrong decision. Only at this point did officials begin exploring options with the police to enable away fans to attend. The Home Secretary argued that respect for the operational independence of the police did not allow earlier intervention, but this principle was inconsistently applied. If the Government could intervene publicly after the decision, could they not have intervened privately before the decision? We concluded that they could have done so in a way that respected the operational independence of the police and reduced rather than inflamed tensions. In the event, Maccabi Tel Aviv did not take up their allocation of tickets and the issue went away, but not without considerable damage being done to the reputation of WMP, to trust in the police by the Jewish and other communities in Birmingham, and to the integrity of decision making around the policing of football and sporting events. We welcome the review of this decision-making process announced by the Government and have urged them to look again at a previous review of the policing of football by Baroness Casey. We look forward to examining the results.

   Hansard source
4. 26 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dame Karen Bradley

   Maccabi Tel Aviv Fan Ban

   I thank the shadow Secretary of State for his question, and I agree with what he said. I will give the Minister for Policing and Crime, who was new in her post, credit for coming in front of the Committee and giving us a full account of what happened, but having been a Minister in the Home Office, I cannot believe that somebody did not spot the possibility of this problem and that alarm bells were not ringing. An earlier intervention—privately and behind the scenes, not impacting on operational independence—could have averted this whole problem. It could have been done without anybody knowing that there was a working assumption to ban the away fans, and the match could have gone ahead in the normal way.

   Hansard source
5. 26 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dame Karen Bradley

   Maccabi Tel Aviv Fan Ban

   I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. He makes an incredibly important point, which was really the basis of many of the questions that the Committee put when we took evidence in person. The suspicion was there that the decision had been taken not because of worries about violence from the Maccabi fans, but because of their religion. It has to be said that two weeks later, another match went ahead at Aston Villa with away fans—against the Swiss team Young Boys—and there was significant violence, but nobody suggested that those away fans should not attend. We were very concerned. We could not find actual evidence of antisemitism, but the very fact that we had elected politicians who were campaigning not just for a ban on away fans, but for the whole match to be cancelled, sitting on the safety advisory group, which provided the advice to Birmingham city council on the safety certificate, has to be cause of great concern. I know that it has given great concern to the Jewish community across Birmingham who are in contact with me. I urge all safety advisory groups to make sure that there cannot be any inference of political interference—that nobody can think that there is political interference. The groups have to be fully transparent, and everyone has to appreciate and understand why decisions are taken.

   Hansard source
6. 26 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dame Karen Bradley

   Maccabi Tel Aviv Fan Ban

   That would be a question for West Midlands police, but my hon. Friend is right. There obviously is a role for artificial intelligence in many areas of public life, including policing, but when any of us searches for something and artificial intelligence provides information, we should not neglect to double-check the information, click on the links it provides or make sure that we talk to the right people about it. The West Ham match that was cited as part of the reason for banning away fans and for tensions being identified never happened. Why did someone not pick up the phone to the Metropolitan police and ask what its experience had been at this fictitious match? They would pretty quickly have discovered that the match never took place and that it was not a genuine fixture. I do hope that West Midlands police and all police forces have learned lessons from this. I must say, I have spoken to other forces that have been incredibly helpful, including the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, who came in front of the Committee. They have been clear that they would not allow this to happen. I do hope that West Midlands police has learned its lesson.

   Hansard source
7. 26 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dame Karen Bradley

   Maccabi Tel Aviv Fan Ban

   My hon. Friend is right that sport has a role to play in bringing us together. We have just seen at the winter Olympics the joy that the athletes feel and the sense of pride in the country at the success of Team GB. It is one of those areas where there should not be political tensions or issues. It should be viewed joyfully, and fans should be allowed to enjoy their teams playing. That is something that we do so well in this country, and that is why this incident is such a stain on us. Throughout the years we have managed to facilitate away fans attending games and enjoying those fixtures in a safe way. Football is not what it was in the past; it is a family game now. I go to football matches with my son all the time. I enjoy the atmosphere and I enjoy the fact that it is somewhere families can be. It is a great shame that that did not happen. The hon. Member asks specifically about senior members of the police. The then chief constable has now retired, but once the conduct inquiry has completed, further action might be taken.

   Hansard source
8. 26 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dame Caroline Dinenage

   Youth Activities: Urban Communities

   We all know that actions speak louder than words. So far we have seen a reduction in the urban cricket domes that were committed to by the last Government, the scrapping of our National Citizen Service without anything to replace it and now, supposedly, an argument over who will be funding school sport. Social mobility depends on participation. Research by Sky found that girls who play after-school sport in the UK are 50% more likely to get professional roles as adults. What are the Government doing to address this, and can the Minister give us grassroots examples in our urban communities of where things are improving rather than getting worse?

   Hansard source
9. 26 Feb 2026·Parliament·Charlie Dewhirst

   Grassroots Sport

   Swimming is not just a sport, but a very important life skill, particularly for those of us who represent coastal communities. Unfortunately, over 1,600 swimming pools across the country are now more than 40 years old. The previous Government committed £80 million to renovating those swimming pools. What are the plans of the Secretary of State or Minister to continue the legacy of the previous Government and improve our swimming facilities?

   Hansard source
10. 26 Feb 2026·Parliament·Charlie Dewhirst

    Client Board: Progress

    1. What recent progress the Client Board has made in its work.

    Hansard source
11. 26 Feb 2026·Parliament·Charlie Dewhirst

    Client Board: Progress

    The London 2012 Olympics took seven years to organise and cost £7 billion. The World Trade Centre rebuild in New York took seven years and cost $3.9 billion. The restoration of Notre Dame cathedral in Paris took less than five years and cost less than €1 billion, yet here we are, with the cheapest option available to us to spend £16 billion and move out for 24 years. I am sorry, but that really does stink. We need to look again at the entire proposals for the restoration and renewal of this place. Restoration is fine, and we should all operate in a safe workplace, but I ask the hon. Member to go back to the board and look again at this entire proposal.

    Hansard source
12. 26 Feb 2026·Parliament·Charlie Dewhirst

    Business of the House

    I am sure you are aware, Mr Speaker, that the armed forces parliamentary scheme provides Members of this House and the other place with the unique opportunity to get a better insight into the military so that we are better informed in debates and decision making. Yesterday, Wing Commander Greg Smith finally retired from the RAF after not only 10 years of running the armed forces parliamentary scheme for that service but a very distinguished active service with the RAF fast jets in the cold war, the middle east and the Balkans, before taking on multinational operational roles with NATO. He then took on the most challenging role of all, which is, of course, herding Members of Parliament to bases in the UK and abroad. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking Wing Commander Smith for his extraordinarily distinguished service and wishing him all the very best in his retirement?

    Hansard source
13. 26 Feb 2026·Parliament·Charlie Dewhirst

    Gibraltar Treaty

    Madam Deputy Speaker, I can only apologise for being a naughty boy. Hon. Members will remember that in 2001 the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, entered into negotiations with Spain over a joint sovereignty agreement with Gibraltar, which resulted in a referendum in which 98.5% of Gibraltarians rejected that deal. Although the Government of Gibraltar welcome today’s treaty, which I am sure is well intentioned, the Minister will no doubt understand that there may be some concern with that history and the involvement of Spain in the operation and governance of Gibraltar. Can he therefore reassure the House, the United Kingdom and the Gibraltarian people that any future changes to the current treaty and any further alignment with the EU will be done only with the agreement of the people of Gibraltar?

    Hansard source
14. 26 Feb 2026·Parliament·Bob Blackman

    Business of the House

    I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for the next two weeks. May I make a plea to him—and to you, Mr Speaker—about the estimates day debates? We had seven excellent bids, from which we had to choose three, and time will be compressed in those debates. I hope that a very high bar for urgent questions will be implemented and that the Government will not put on statements on that particular day—

    Hansard source
15. 26 Feb 2026·Parliament·Bob Blackman

    Business of the House

    I don’t think I have submitted a request for a UQ for a very long time, Mr Speaker.

    Hansard source
16. 26 Feb 2026·Parliament·Bob Blackman

    Business of the House

    I might do next week. The business in Westminster Hall on Tuesday will be a debate on strengthening community cohesion, which might be quite appropriate after today’s by-election. On Thursday 5 March, there will be a debate on the importance of local museums, followed by one on World Book Day. On Tuesday 10 March, there will be a debate on the import and sale of fur and fur-related products. On Thursday 12 March, the Liaison Committee has a debate on Northern Ireland, followed by a debate on Government support for carnivals. On Tuesday 17 March, there will be a debate on productivity and economic growth in the east midlands. Unfair service charges implemented by companies across the UK are frequently raised at business questions, but I think I have one that tops the lot. In my constituency, we have a development called Stanmore Place, which has a mixture of housing association-managed property and 798 private leased properties. It is managed by St Edward Homes, with a managing agent called Rendall & Rittner. Due to its incompetence, R&R has failed to deliver the costs of heating for the shared services for the past 10 years. It has now decided to re-invoice individuals, who have paid their bills, saying—generously—that it will not invoice them from 2015 to 2021, but that it will invoice them from 2021 to 2026. Ofgem is apparently changing the rules so that this will not be allowed in future; companies will be able to go back only 12 months, which is reasonable. However, Ofgem is not making the change until 2027, meaning that in this particular case, and across the UK, we have a wild west show in back billing. I know that the Government are looking at leasehold reform and service charges in particular. Could the Leader of the House therefore encourage Ministers to ensure that this practice is outlawed immediately?

    Hansard source
17. 25 Feb 2026·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    Diego Garcia and British Indian Ocean Territory

    Labour’s Chagos surrender is a shameful, unnecessary and reckless deal that will leave Britain weaker, poorer and less secure. This is not a legal necessity but a political choice made by a floundering Prime Minister, and it is British taxpayers who will be left to pay the price. No other Government would pay £35 billion to hand over their own sovereign territory and make their country less secure in the process. At a time when families are being squeezed, Ministers are asking them to subsidise another country’s budget, potentially funding tax cuts in Mauritius while taxes rise here at home. That is indefensible. Can the Minister therefore confirm that no payments will be made under the treaty of the so-called strategic partnership unless and until ratification is fully complete? This is also a national security crisis. Diego Garcia is one of the most strategically vital military bases in the world, yet Ministers are pressing ahead before resolving the binding 1966 UK-US treaty, before addressing concerns raised by President Trump, and without guaranteeing that the lease can never collapse or be legally challenged. On the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, will the Minister confirm that article 298 provides an opt-out from compulsory dispute settlement for military activities, meaning that this is a political choice, not an unavoidable legal trap? Will the Government suspend the Bill until the legal position with the US is settled and any amendments have been scrutinised under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act process? Will the Minister confirm whether the Pelindaba treaty would apply if Mauritius were to take sovereignty, and if so, what iron-clad safeguards protect our nuclear deterrent? Finally, what of the British Chagossians, some of whom are now on the islands? Can the Minister guarantee that there will be no forced removal and that their rights will be protected in full? British sovereignty is not for sale, and this House should not be bounced into surrendering it.

    Hansard source
18. 25 Feb 2026·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    Ukraine

    This is a critical time for Ukraine. As we mark the fourth anniversary of the war, the UK must continue to proudly stand shoulder to shoulder with our Ukrainian friends. Four years on from Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, we all think of the innocent lives caught up in this terrible conflict—the innocent civilians, the families of brave servicemen and women, the Ukrainian children forcibly deported to Russia, all those who have suffered life-changing injuries and those who have lost their homes. At the start of this conflict, the then Conservative Government led by Boris Johnson, with cross-party support in this House, rallied the world behind Ukraine. We supplied weapons, provided humanitarian aid, championed their cause and opened our homes to those fleeing Putin’s brutality. We must never forget that this war was started by Vladimir Putin, supported by an axis of authoritarian states seeking to extinguish democracy on our continent. Russia’s increasing reliance on Iranian drones and weaponry underlines that this conflict is no longer confined to one border; it is part of a wider alignment of regimes determined to undermine the rules-based international order. We must remain united in defending shared values and the principle that aggressors should never succeed. It is crucial that there is a clear united front in support of Ukraine. Recent Russian attacks including those on Kyiv, which last year also damaged a British Council building, underline why the UK and our allies must urgently deliver the military support that Ukraine needs. Putin still aims to subjugate Ukraine; the Euro-Atlantic alliance must ensure that he fears the consequences. Russia’s response to recent ceasefire proposals shows why the west must remain resolute. Britain and our allies must continue maximum pressure on the Kremlin while supporting Ukraine on the battlefield. As always, it is ultimately for Ukraine as a proud and sovereign nation to decide its own future. Any settlement must secure justice and lasting peace for its people. Territorial concessions would reward aggression. Putin has shown repeatedly that he is not serious about peace, and Britain must lead the way on sanctions and international pressure. I am fortunate to have had the privilege of visiting Ukraine twice, first in 2021 during my time as a Foreign Minister and again in 2023 with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, and I look forward to returning again soon. I am conscious that not just Front-Bench colleagues but many colleagues from across this House and the other place have travelled to Ukraine, and it is such a strong and clear symbol of our unwavering support. For me personally, each visit has left a deep and lasting impression. I remember standing alongside Ukrainian leaders at the launch of the Crimea platform in 2021, reaffirming the UK’s unwavering commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. However, when I returned to Ukraine in 2023, it was a different country—a country living with the daily realities of war. I met parliamentarians, civil society leaders and local officials, many of whom had lost loved ones, yet their resolve was, and still is, undiminished. That spirt—defiant, democratic and determined—must guide our response in this House. One of the gravest crimes committed during this war is the abduction and forcible deportation of Ukrainian children, which I know hon. Members from across the House take incredibly seriously. Thousands of children have been taken from their families and communities, transferred to Russia, or Russian-occupied territory, stripped of their identity, subjected to so-called re-education and, in many cases, illegally adopted. This is not an unintended consequence of war; it is a deliberate policy designed to erase Ukraine’s future. The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants in response to these crimes, but words and warrants alone are not enough. In summing up, will the Minister set out what concrete steps the Government are taking, with allies and international partners, to secure the return of those children, and to ensure that those responsible are pursued without delay or hesitation?

    Hansard source
19. 25 Feb 2026·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    Ukraine

    If I am honest, I did not appreciate that the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) had just received that award and that recognition, but it is absolutely fitting. It demonstrates to the people who badmouth hon. Members and say that we do nothing that there are many good people in this place. She deserves that honour. I know many other hon. Members are very committed to Ukraine; a number of them are in Ukraine or on their way back. Some of them may even be heading to this Chamber—only time will tell. It is unusual for a shadow Minister to take an intervention from the Secretary of State, but I am pleased that he brought this important matter to our attention. Starting under the last Conservative Government, the UK’s support has been world-leading. It has given £3 billion per year in military aid since 2024, £12 billion in total, including humanitarian assistance, and advanced weapons, from Storm Shadow missiles to Challenger 2 tanks. Operation Interflex has trained over 50,000 Ukrainian recruits on British soil. We hosted the 2023 Ukraine recovery conference, raising over $60 billion towards reconstruction. The 100-year partnership, negotiations on which commenced under the Conservative Government, demonstrates our shared commitment to enduring co-operation on trade, security, education, science and culture. We know that sanctions work. We also know that Russia’s economy is under severe strain. That pressure must continue, including targeted pressure on refineries in China, Turkey and India that are buying Russian oil. Mobilising frozen Russian sovereign assets to support Ukraine’s war effort is crucial. The £2.26 billion UK loan from immobilised Russian assets is welcome, but more must be done, and needs to be done immediately. What further progress has been made on unlocking additional Russian assets, and why has more decisive action not yet been taken? The UK should lead on innovative, legal solutions with our allies and the City of London, to make more resources available to Ukraine right now. Like us, the United States has been deeply invested in this conflict. American security is tied to Ukraine’s survival, and US military support has been indispensable. How are the Government ensuring close co-ordination with the US and other NATO allies on military aid, sanctions, and strategic support?

    Hansard source
20. 25 Feb 2026·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    Ukraine

    My right hon. Friend speaks with not just eloquence, but so much experience. We should all listen to colleagues who bring that expertise and knowledge to this place. I absolutely agree; it would be madness to do that. That point further demonstrates the importance of working really closely with our allies as we continue to support Ukraine in its endeavours and its fight. We must confront the growing threat posed by Russia’s so-called shadow fleet, which the Secretary of State mentioned. These vessels are not only a sanctions loophole, but a direct security threat to our shores and those of our allies. Reports of ship-to-ship transfers, insurance evasion and deceptive practices are deeply concerning. If Russia can bypass the oil price cap through this illicit network, the effectiveness of our sanctions regime will be undermined. I hope that later today, the Minister can outline what further action the Government are taking, alongside partners in the G7 and NATO, to crack down on the shadow fleet, tighten enforcement in UK waters and financial markets, and ensure that British insurers, ports and service providers are not inadvertently enabling sanctions evasion. As we mark the fourth anniversary of this brutal invasion, our task is clear. We must provide Ukraine with the tools to defend itself, maintain crippling pressure on Putin and ensure that peace is built on justice, not concessions. Ukraine’s fight is our fight. If we stand firm, we strengthen our own security; if we hesitate, we embolden aggressors everywhere. I am in no doubt that this House will speak with clarity this afternoon. However, the test for the Government is whether their actions will match the scale of the words, and I really hope that the Minister will give us that assurance. Britain’s support is not symbolic; it is concrete—it is military aid, humanitarian help, sanctions enforcement and diplomatic leadership. We must continue to lead with purpose. Ukraine’s struggle is our struggle, and we will stand with it until victory is secured on Ukraine’s terms.

    Hansard source
21. 25 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Roger Gale

    Engagements

    Mr Speaker, you will recall that, some months ago, I asked the Prime Minister why, as the Director of Public Prosecutions, he did not bring charges against Mohammed Fayed for rape and assault, and the Prime Minister replied that this did not cross his desk. I understand that the Met police delivered two dossiers to the Crown Prosecution Service, so if the Prime Minister did not see them, who did, and could he tell the House when he expects the Metropolitan police to bring charges against those who aided and abetted Fayed?

    Hansard source
22. 25 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Roger Gale

    Ukraine

    May I first join the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), in thanking the Secretary of State for Defence for the power of his words, and for the manner in which he has spoken for the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and not just for the Government? I do not think there is a Member of the House who would quarrel with anything he said, and the message that has to go out from this place is that we stand united with Ukraine. There is a danger. In 2014 the Russians annexed Crimea. At the time, Russia was a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and it was compelled to withdraw. In 2018 the Parliamentary Assembly, of which the Father of the House and I were both members at the time, voted almost overwhelmingly to re-admit the Russian Federation. The Baltic states, Georgia, Moldova and the United Kingdom fought that through the night—literally—in an unprecedented display of parliamentary unity, but we lost. We were beaten hands down. The following day, the Russian delegation was back in the Hemicycle in Strasbourg. I do not think it is stretching it too far to say that the message that we sent out was profoundly wrong and almost certainly influenced Putin’s belief that he could probably invade Ukraine with impunity. It has been said over and over again, and absolutely rightly, that Ukraine is fighting for our democracy. If Putin were allowed to win, it would not stop there. Next would be Georgia, Moldova and then possibly the Baltic states. If that were to happen, NATO would be involved and we would probably have world war three, so the stakes are rather high. It behoves all of us to stand as firmly as we can, and to send out the message that “for as long as it takes” means for as long as it takes. I want to follow on from the remarks made by the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Bellshill (Frank McNally), and to concentrate a bit of time on the diaspora—the expat Ukrainians living throughout Europe, and particularly in the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State said in his opening remarks that thousands of Ukrainians are yearning for the opportunity to return home. I am sure that is true, and he also went on to say that he hopes that there will be peace this year. Again, I do not suppose that anybody in the House or across the United Kingdom does not want the bloodshed to stop. Ukraine has already sacrificed the largest part of a generation of its finest young men and women in armed conflict, as well as all the civilians who have suffered. Again, that includes the thousands of children, who have been referred to many times in this House, who have been abducted and are now being indoctrinated somewhere within the neo-Soviet Union. They have to be repatriated. The Father of the House made the point, absolutely rightly, that peace cannot mean peace at any price if we are to honour the dead and those who have sacrificed so much in Ukraine in fighting for their democracy and their country, as well as for ours. Although the Secretary of State was right to say that there are thousands of Ukrainians yearning for the opportunity to return home, when that will actually be possible is a moot point. If there is a peace—and, please God, there will be soon—and on a sound basis, there will still be a phenomenal amount of reconstruction, in the centre and the east of Ukraine in particular, to be carried out before anybody has homes to return to. Depending on the nature of the deal, there will be people who either will not be able to return home because it is still occupied, or whose homes will have been so destroyed that physically there will be nowhere for them to go.

    Hansard source
23. 25 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Roger Gale

    Ukraine

    The hon. Lady is absolutely right to pay tribute to the farmers and to highlight the phenomenal difficulty of clearing mines. The HALO Trust has experience of that around the world, and it will take years, not months. For all those reasons, I say to the Minister—I was going to say my hon. Friend—that this is a sensitive issue, but there are scores of Ukrainians living in the United Kingdom who regard the UK as home, because they have to: they have no choice. My wife and I have five young people whom we now regard as grandchildren, two in one family and three in another, ranging from teenaged down to the cot. Last weekend, a young lady—young in my terms—came to my surgery. She has a 16-year-old daughter who wants to go to college. Like so many other young Ukrainians of that age, she is now between a rock and a hard place, because she does not know how long she will be allowed to remain in the United Kingdom. There are also professional people who cannot work here and would like to return home, but who need to be enabled to establish a proper professional life in the United Kingdom. I will give the Minister one example: Dr Olena Hubska, now a personal friend of ours, who is the mother of two of those children. She is a fully qualified dentist and has 16 years in practice as a hospital doctor, but the General Dental Council will not allow her to practise here, despite the fact that the country is crying out for dentists. I am told there are some 200 others like her with such qualifications. That is nonsense. Every school holiday, Olena returns to Kharkiv, where her mother is living in a bombed-out flat, so that she can treat children and frontline soldiers who otherwise cannot get dental care, but she is not allowed to practise here. I do not want to put the Minister on the spot today, but I say to him that we must sort out the longer-term future for these people, who are not even classed as refugees—they are stateless and have no actual status in this country. We have generously, initially, made them welcome, but we have now reached the point where we have to take some decisions for the longer term. I would like the Minister to go back to his colleagues in the Department and the Secretary of State to take this to Cabinet, to say that we really have to recognise that, however sensitive the immigration issue is—as I of course understand—there is a group of people living in this country, contributing to our way of life now, culturally, as has been said earlier, who have to be regularised. They must have a pathway to settlement so that the young people can go to school and on to college, and can qualify and build lives here. President Zelensky wants his people to return home, and we want them to be able to return home, but for the moment and for the foreseeable future that is not possible. So please, Minister, take that message away and see what can be done, working with the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary, to now regularise the position in the interests not just of them, but of the United Kingdom as well.

    Hansard source
24. 25 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Oliver Dowden

    Diego Garcia and British Indian Ocean Territory

    I genuinely have respect for the Minister, as he knows, but I am very confused as to the Government’s position. He will know from his time in the Foreign Office that one of the principal issues to which he refers is the fact that the previous US Administration was not comfortable with the disputed status of this territory under international law, but it is now clear that the current President of the United States has no such concerns or qualms. Given those circumstances, why are we continuing to burn capital with the current Administration, rather than saying, “Let’s put this whole thing on hold and look for a solution that might work better for both the United States Government and the interests of the United Kingdom”?

    Hansard source
25. 25 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Diego Garcia and British Indian Ocean Territory

    Will the Government pause any steps in this matter until the judicial review proceedings that are being brought on behalf of the Chagossian people have been resolved one way or another in the High Court?

    Hansard source
26. 25 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Grenfell Tower Annual Report

    It is very surprising to those of us who are not experts on this matter to hear the Secretary of State say that the police are undertaking such a vast and complex investigation, because the circumstances of this uniquely terrible tragedy do not seem terribly complicated at all. Why is the police inquiry taking so long? Will he at least assure the House, and the country at large, that there is a dedicated unit within the police that is determined to bring this matter before the courts?

    Hansard source
27. 25 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Post Office Green Paper

    Following an exemplary local campaign and petition, it is a relief to record that the Post Office has just reversed its decision not to reopen the post office in Lyndhurst, often referred to as the capital of the New Forest. Can the Minister explain whether there is any overall Government plan to co-ordinate the disappearance of banks with the emergence of banking hubs and the expectation that post offices will take on some banking responsibilities? Would it be a possible source of income for post offices if they could charge the banks in exchange for undertaking to take in cheques on accounts held with those banks? At the moment, I believe it is very hit and miss which banks allow people to pay their checks into a post office, and which do not.

    Hansard source
28. 25 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Ukraine

    The hon. Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) mentioning Storm Shadow reminds me of the fact that, particularly in the early days of the conflict, there was resistance, often from the other side of the Atlantic, to supplying Ukraine with some of the longer-range missile systems that are necessary to inflict pain on Russia in its centre. Now that President Trump’s contribution has been reduced to supplying weapons that the Europeans have to pay for before they can go to Ukraine, do we have greater freedom to supply longer-range, more effective weapons to Ukraine, or are we still somewhat beholden to the wishes of people on the other side of the Atlantic?

    Hansard source
29. 25 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

    Diego Garcia and British Indian Ocean Territory

    Whatever Members across this House might say, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) has done a service to us in raising this matter today, because this is a dodgy deal founded on a bogus basis, as I shall explain. When this was introduced to the House, we were told that the Government were doing so on the basis that they would be sanctioned internationally, and, in particular, they described the most proximate and potentially serious as the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. In the answer to a subsequent written question, I discovered that, far from that, the stance on article 298 remains unchanged from prior declarations of 2003 and 2020. That means we can opt out. There was no obligation and no necessity. I use these words cautiously because I know and like the Minister and I know and like the Secretary of State for Defence, but it seems to me that this House was inadvertently misled in the original statement, as is proven by subsequent answers to written questions. Will the Minister clarify that urgently, because it is a very serious parliamentary matter and a matter of national significance?

    Hansard source
30. 25 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

    Diego Garcia and British Indian Ocean Territory

    As always, this argument depends not on gimmicks but on a detailed examination of the law. On 22 May, the Government made it clear in an answer that they were bound by the international law of the sea. However, in answer to a written question on 12 February, they said that article 298 of UNCLOS—an opt-out—still applies, so the law remains the same as in 2003 and 2020. This specific question was asked by the Opposition spokesperson, and we now want an answer. This is desperately important, because this opt-out is vital for the Falklands and for Gibraltar.

    Hansard source
31. 25 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

    Diego Garcia and British Indian Ocean Territory

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You or your advisers will be aware of a letter that I and my colleagues have sent to Mr Speaker about this issue, particularly pertaining to the apparent discrepancy between answers given in the House on 22 May and those to a written question on 12 February. The Minister said that he was not able to answer that, although in my long experience of this place Ministers have been bound by collective responsibility and therefore answer for the whole Government. The Minister said that he wants an answer to be given on that point. I give notice that I will give the Government time for consideration and then on Monday morning I will apply for an urgent question specifically on the discrepancies in the information given to the House.

    Hansard source
32. 25 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

    Ukraine

    I do not know whether President Putin follows these debates, but I would like him to know that the Secretary of State speaks for our entire nation. We are completely united on this. Will the Secretary of State make it clear that we are equally robust on not having any ceasefire on the basis that currently unoccupied territory is ceded? That would be an absolute disaster and would simply encouraged Putin to go further. It is very important that our adversaries know that the House is completely united on this.

    Hansard source
33. 25 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Bernard Jenkin

    Ukraine

    As my right hon. Friend knows, I was with him in Kyiv on that occasion, and managed to exchange a few words with President Zelensky to point out that the British delegation was there. He made it very clear that he was very pleased to see us there, and that we were very welcome. It was an honour to give him our support.

    Hansard source
34. 25 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Bernard Jenkin

    Ukraine

    It was also clear in our meetings that the Ukrainians are very pleased with the interception of two or three shadow fleet tankers. I wonder why we cannot be far more proactive about uninsured or unseaworthy boats that should not be at sea and that have illegal crews. There are many legal pretexts on which we could intervene with these ships in international waters to add to the cost and risk of Russia’s oil and gas exports, thereby reducing its foreign exchange earnings.

    Hansard source
35. 25 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Bernard Jenkin

    Ukraine

    I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way; had I got here a little earlier, I would have tried to make my own speech. We brought back three home truths from Ukraine. First, we were asked so often, “Why do all these rich western European countries only give us enough to continue fighting but not enough to win?” Unless we change that, we are just offering a recipe for a continuing war. Secondly, Members should have no doubt that the Ukrainian Government are resolved to carry on fighting in the absence of an acceptable peace settlement. If that means planning for the next two or three years, that is what they are talking about. They are not talking about collapsing at all, and that will never happen—I make that forecast. Finally, Ukrainians are grateful for the coalition of the willing initiative, but they are very disappointed that the United Kingdom and France were the only two countries to sign the memorandum at the end of that meeting. Nothing has really happened since. They are also very concerned about the lack of war readiness among NATO forces. Given how utterly transformed Ukrainian forces are in terms of their capability to fight the Russians, what are we doing to transform our armed forces so that, with limited manpower, like the Ukrainians, we can hold back a Russian advance and ultimately protect NATO?

    Hansard source
36. 25 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

    Grenfell Tower Annual Report

    I welcome the funding that the Secretary of State has announced to support the memorial commission. We have a shortage of skilled builders, plumbers, electricians and other construction workers in this country. Is he confident that we have a sufficiently trained workforce to carry out all the remedial works in the timescale that he has outlined? If not, what additional steps can the Government take to ensure that the works are completed on time?

    Hansard source
37. 25 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

    Post Office Green Paper

    I thank the Minister for his statement, and welcome his commitment to maintaining a minimum network size of 11,500 branches and all six geographical access criteria. Currently, 79% of the network is a full service branch, so why have the Government set the new 50% requirement, which is so much lower than that? Is that to allow the Post Office to downsize by stealth?

    Hansard source
38. 25 Feb 2026·Parliament·Robbie Moore

    Engagements

    In 2014, a man in my constituency was ambushed, violently beaten with a pickaxe handle and left lying in the street with serious injuries. At the time of the conviction, the judge called it a “brutal attack”. Many constituents have contacted me to express their concern that the perpetrator of this attack is still a sitting Labour councillor in Keighley and was recently pictured celebrating an election with convicted crack cocaine and heroin dealers. Prime Minister, on behalf of all victims of serious crime, will you, as the leader of the Labour party, ensure that Councillor Mohsin Hussain is not permitted to stand in the local elections this May?

    Hansard source
39. 25 Feb 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Paul

    Diego Garcia and British Indian Ocean Territory

    I thank the Minister for his response, but I would suggest that in future the appropriate Minister, who can actually respond to our questions, is sent to the House. Here is another straightforward question for him: have the Government declined to give the US permission to use Diego Garcia and other UK bases, including Fairford, to launch strikes on Iran?

    Hansard source
40. 25 Feb 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Grenfell Tower Annual Report

    I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement and join him in welcoming survivors from Grenfell who are with us today. The events that took place on 14 June 2017 were an avoidable national tragedy that should not have robbed 72 people of their lives, and they must never be repeated. It is right that in consultation with the survivors, the bereaved and those directly impacted, a fitting and lasting memorial is put in place to remember the 72 lives lost that day and the wider Grenfell community. We welcome the new legislation that the Secretary of State has announced this afternoon. It is right that we remember the victims, and I thank the Secretary of State for giving us the opportunity to do that while he updates the House. The victims must be at the heart of how we remember Grenfell, and the Government must work with them in as sensitive a manner as humanly possible. We will support and scrutinise how the Government proceed with the memorial to ensure that the victims are at the heart of what he has decided. We believe that this matter should be cross-party, as it goes beyond party politics and it is simply the right thing to do. The inquiry’s findings—decades of systematic failure, dishonesty and negligence—are a damning indictment of successive Governments, regulators and industry. The Government’s response last year was to accept all 58 recommendations, which is a step forward, and we welcome the commitment to action. I am glad to hear today that action on a few of those recommendations has already taken place. The creation of a single construction regulator, the appointment of a chief construction adviser and the consolidation of fire safety functions under one Department are long-overdue reforms. While we welcome the formation of a single construction regulator, can the Secretary of State confidently state that he believes it will be more effective and help to safely build the homes that we need? Can he confirm that we will not be left with the potential delays that we have seen under the Building Safety Regulator? When we were in government, we took decisive action to initiate this public inquiry immediately after the tragedy to learn the lessons and prevent it from ever happening again. We strengthened the regulatory regime and implemented the inquiry’s recommendations following the report from the first phase. It was welcome that this Government also accepted the recommendations. Will the Secretary of State publish a detailed plan on how all the recommendations are being implemented and their status? He gave us the update that 91% of high-rise residential and public buildings have had cladding removed. Will he update us with a road map for when the rest will be completed? All building owners must step up, do the right thing and fix their buildings without delay, or face the consequences of their inaction. Those who intentionally cut corners on building safety must be held to account. The Metropolitan police and the Crown Prosecution Service should continue to pursue criminal charges against the small number of developers and contractors who knowingly and fraudulently cut corners on building safety for greed and financial gain. The Secretary of State has promised to complete all the remaining recommendations during this Parliament. Will he lay out key dates for when key parts of that will be achieved? Will he update us on what stage he is at with the Grenfell site itself and future plans for it? How is he working with the victims’ families to support them? Those who profited from cutting corners or were criminally negligent must face consequences—not just fines, but criminal charges where the evidence allows. We will support and scrutinise the support for victims and their families that the Government are putting forward to ensure that we get this right. I know that the Secretary of State and the Building Safety Minister, the hon. Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), want to get this right. Grenfell must be a watershed with a legacy of safety, transparency and respect for every resident. Let me make clear the commitment of the Conservatives to work with the Secretary of State and the Government on a cross-party basis to meet that promise.

    Hansard source