Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for not giving you prior notice, Mr Speaker, but during Health questions this morning the Minister said that for the first time ever there will be a children’s cancer strategy as part of the cancer strategy. However, the Government scrapped the children’s cancer strategy that we had put in place, so should the Minister not come and correct the record for having misled the House—
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) on securing this debate. I should say at the outset that the Conservatives support the motion. The truth is that the people who helped Jeffrey Epstein by supplying him with contacts and information were the people who enabled him to become powerful. Those people effectively enabled him to build his net of influence, his net of abuse. That network of power, in turn, enabled him to abuse more and more people, so it is quite right that this House is enabled to scrutinise what went on and how it went on. I listened to the Minister’s remarks. I appreciate the way that he has approached this debate and the way that the Government will constructively co-operate with the terms of the Humble Address. However, this is the second occasion in only a few weeks when the Government have had to be brought here by Opposition parties under the terms of a Humble Address to disclose information that they quite obviously could have disclosed without the need for such an Address in the first place. I acknowledge the humility with which the Minister has approached the debate, but the Government as a whole could have been much more proactive on this issue right from the start. I also appreciate the humble way in which the Minister came to the House and reminded us that he had been right all along.
Very humble. The leader of the Liberal Democrats referred to this as the first global political scandal. Indeed, it is a global political scandal whose tendrils have reached into the operation of many Governments across the west and the east. The fact that our allies in Poland have launched an intelligence investigation into Epstein’s links with Russia and that in the published Epstein papers it is clear that Jeffrey Epstein was supplying people at the very top end of Putin’s regime with sensitive information about the American leadership show that this is an international scandal and one in which our Government and our security services must play their part in uncovering things. However, I know that the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton is a lover of history, so I must gently take issue with his claim that this is the first global political scandal. I think of the Dreyfus affair, the XYZ affair and the Panama scandals—there have been many—but this is, to take his substantive point, a global political scandal. I associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that we can only be, as a general point, supportive of the royal family’s role in promoting our country. The people who have witnessed the best of the royal family using their awesome soft power to support what we do best can only be in awe of the vast commitment they make to public service and the life of the country. Indeed, if it is the case, as reported in the press, that very senior members of the royal family expressed concerns about the appointment of Mr Mountbatten-Windsor in 2001, one can feel only enormous sympathy with them over what has subsequently come to light. The revelations surrounding the relationship between Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Jeffrey Epstein, like those surrounding the relationship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein, and the arrest of both men on suspicion of misconduct in public office make it right that questions are asked and information is brought before the House. If one looks back to 2001, it is possible to identify the hand of Epstein in Mr Mountbatten-Windsor’s appointment. It is reported that Peter Mandelson first met Epstein in the summer of 2001; Mountbatten-Windsor had, I believe, first met Epstein in 1999. Shortly after Mandelson’s first meeting in October 2001, Mandelson was appointed as trade envoy.
The Minister shakes his head, so I will go through the chronology again for him—there is no harm in doing so.
Well, Hansard will show it—it may be that the numbers were jumbled up in the Minister’s head. In the summer of 2001, Mandelson met Epstein for the first time; in October 2001, Mountbatten-Windsor was appointed as trade envoy. It is possible that Mandelson influenced that. As I said, Mountbatten-Windsor had met Epstein for the first time in 1999, so he was already an associate of Epstein. I am glad to have sorted that out—I can go through it again, but I am sure the Minister will be able to read about it tomorrow.
Very much so. As I say, it would have been better if the Government had been proactive on this and had not had to be brought to the House by Opposition parties in order to release the information. I am very glad, though, that the Liberal Democrats have learned from the Conservatives’ Humble Address a few weeks ago. It is always good that once the Conservatives have designed a bandwagon, got it up and running and shown that it can move at high speed, the Liberal Democrats scramble up and get on board—better late than never. If we go through the sequencing very carefully, we can see that it is possible that there was influence from Epstein, who, we must acknowledge, had not been arrested or convicted in 2001, although there were already rumours and reports about him, and who was, in any case, a highly influential foreign businessman. If it was under his influence that Mr Mountbatten-Windsor was appointed as trade envoy, it would be useful to see what the Prime Minister knew when that appointment was made.
Yes. I am afraid I do not know what year that—
Ah, 2000. Well, I agree with the hon. Lady—that is an interesting point. If one looks at the precise wording of the Liberal Democrats’ Humble Address, however, I am not sure that something like that falls within its context. She may wish to table an amendment to her own party’s motion in order to get at that. Transparency is essential in all this. That is why the Conservatives very much hope that the Government will give us transparency quickly. I turn to the point made by the Father of the House: there is a danger that the Government will use the police process as a means of not disclosing certain information. I say that not because of what the Minister has said today so much as what the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister said yesterday, when, in the context of the Conservatives’ Humble Address, he said: “I can confirm that those documents will be made available, subject, I am afraid, to the exclusion of one particular item, in which No. 10 asked Peter Mandelson a number of questions. The Met police have asked that to be held back, subject to their investigations…That item will therefore have to be published at a later date, but the documents that are not subject to the Met police investigation will be published very shortly.”—[Official Report, 23 February 2026; Vol. 781, c. 44.] As the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) said, I think it would assist the House if the Government could explain why the Met police has asked that that item is held back. It would also be helpful if the Government could confirm that there is no bar to them handing that document over to the Intelligence and Security Committee—a point on which Mr Speaker has been very clear. On 4 February, Mr Speaker said: “the Metropolitan police have no jurisdiction over what this House may wish to do. It will be a matter of whether or not the Government provide the information. I want to let Members know that the police cannot dictate to this House.”—[Official Report, 4 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 375.] There is a means that was specifically debated during the original Humble Address that enabled Members of this House—that is, the ISC—to be given this information regardless of the police investigation.
Very much so. I know that certain hon. Members across the House will be aware of just how bad it will look if the Government do not provide information as swiftly as possible. I will give an example of where that is not happening. When we debated the original Humble Address—nearly two weeks ago now—I raised the fact that the Prime Minister had an unrecorded meeting with Palantir in Washington in February last year. He was accompanied on that visit, which did not appear in his register of meetings, by Peter Mandelson. Palantir was a client of the company in which Peter Mandelson held a commanding share. Later that year, Palantir subsequently received by direct award a very substantial contract from Government worth about £240 million. When I raised this in the House, there was concern on both sides—it was a cross-party issue. I asked the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office to confirm that the Cabinet Secretary, whoever that turned out to be, would investigate what looks like a clear case of conflict of interest, and he agreed to write to me. I still have not received any reply, despite the fact that I brought it up again at the Dispatch Box at the start of this week and was assured that I would receive a response. I just do not think this is good enough. It is very important that the Opposition can hold the Government to account in a meaningful way. To the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), I think it is extremely important that the Government should be seen to be willingly providing information, rather than having to be pushed every step of the way to do the right thing. I will make one additional point on this score. While we do very much support the Humble Address being debated today, I ask the Government to be clear that nothing in it—nothing at all—will slow down the process of delivering on the original Humble Address. While there is historic and contemporary interest in what happened in 2001, what this Government did in choosing to appoint Peter Mandelson, despite the information they had at their disposal, is of paramount importance. They must come clean, and come clean quickly. As Buckingham Palace said the other day, no one is above the law.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the Minister for setting out the draft order. The Caribbean faces profound and overlapping challenges, and we recognise that the Caribbean Development Bank contributes to supporting resilience, stability and development across the region. Nevertheless, given the pressures on the aid budget, it is right that Parliament seeks clarity on priorities, governance and outcomes. The special development fund is the bank’s primary concessional window, and the 11th replenishment comes at a moment of acute vulnerability for many Caribbean states. Hurricanes and extreme weather events are increasing in frequency and severity, placing extraordinary strain on infrastructure, public finances and social systems. Disaster preparedness, climate resilience and rapid recovery must therefore be central to how these funds are deployed. My first question to the Minister is about priorities. What strategic objectives has the UK pressed for in this replenishment, and did the bank agree to them? How will funding balance long-term development with urgent disaster response, particularly for the small island developing states repeatedly hit by hurricanes? Secondly, what influence does the UK retain as a contributor? Can the Minister set out how the UK uses its voice within the Caribbean Development Bank to shape investment decisions, policy standards and value for money? How closely is that aligned with wider UK development and foreign policy objectives in the Caribbean? Briefly, I will turn to measurement and accountability. What criteria will be used to assess whether this replenishment is delivering results? How will those outcomes be tracked and what reporting will be provided to Parliament? Will the Government commit to regular updates on the impact? There is also a growing geopolitical context that cannot be ignored. China has increased its footprint across the Caribbean through finance and infrastructure, so how is the development bank ensuring that its lending offers a transparent, compelling and high standards alternative? What role is the UK playing in reinforcing those safeguards? On preparedness and recovery, can the Minister update the Committee briefly on how the bank is working with the private sector, including the world-class insurance industry in the City of London, to improve risk insurance, catastrophe financing and faster recovery after hurricanes? His Majesty’s official Opposition recognise the importance of the Caribbean Development Bank, and we will not oppose the statutory instrument this evening, but, of course, scrutiny matters. Clear priorities, measurable outcomes and transparent reporting will be essential if the funding is to deliver real resilience for Caribbean nations and value for money for the UK taxpayer. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
I have another request from Walsall borough residents. Earlier today, the Secretary of State said that local people know best. I have sent him an invitation to a peaceful protest in Aldridge on Saturday; residents from right across the constituency are coming together to protect their precious green belt. Will he come and meet with them?
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I want to put on record that I enjoy shooting. I have also been shot—so I am one who has seen both sides of this equation. I thank the more than 738 South Shropshire residents who had signed this petition as of last week. As the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) mentioned, a large proportion of firearm licences are held in remote regions and mainly up in Scotland. However, South Shropshire is among the top two or three areas within the country in terms of licence holders, so this issue is important to my constituents. It has an impact not only on people who use shooting as a pastime, but on farmers and people who use guns for pest control, such as gamekeepers. Shooting also brings a lot of money into rural communities and the rural economy, particularly in the winter months when a lot of the tourist areas—of which South Shropshire is obviously the best—are impacted; it helps to bring extra trade in. One of the numbers I picked up when researching this topic is that on 31 March 2025 there were around 170,000 section 1 firearm licences. The hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough), who did very well in introducing this debate, mentioned that there are more than half a million section 2 shotgun licence holders. I will come on to that later, because it will cause a significant issue if section 1 and 2 firearms licences are merged. Many differences have been mentioned, but they are based not just on the recognition of lethality, but on the user profile—how holders are going to use them and in which circumstances they will be used—which starts to get very complex between the different section 1 and 2 licences. A person must prove a “good reason” for each section 1 firearm they wish to possess, whereas with a section 2 licence, the holder only needs a “good reason” for having a shotgun. There are also different restrictions on the buying, selling and storing of ammunition, which start to become very complex, given what a shotgun will do compared with other firearms. I understand the reasons for introducing the changes, but let us look at the two tragic incidents in 2021 and 2024; my thoughts go out to everybody that was killed at that tragic time. First, Jake Davidson murdered five people with a legally held shotgun, even though local police had warned about his unsuitability to carry a shotgun. The merging of section 1 and section 2 would not have made any difference in that tragic incident. In 2024, Nicholas Prosper committed a criminal offence by forging a section 2 certificate to acquire a shotgun and used it to murder three family members. Merging section 1 and 2 would have not made an impact on either of those tragic incidents, horrible as they are. Let us look at the impacts these proposals will have on my residents and many others across the country. This is a very reasoned debate, and all sides are putting forward measured responses. We all want to see appropriate measures in place to protect citizens, and we currently have some of the most robust measures in place to deal with licensing. If someone holds a shotgun licence, it is quite easy, over five years, to casually shoot a few clay pigeons, do a few game shoots and occasionally work with a farmer to deal with pest control. It becomes very hard if they then have to go through the same restrictions as under section 1, where specific land is needed to cull deer or things like that. There is a limit to how many people a farmer can allow on their land to do that, and that starts to restrict the ability to do these things. BASC—I must also declare that I am a member—has done extensive research suggesting that upward of £1 billion of the £3 billion in gross value added contributed by shooting is at risk of being lost overnight, as well as 20,000 jobs. There is also a huge amount of conservation that goes unnoticed, but according to the 2024 “Value of Shooting” report the about £500 million per annum that goes into conservation would be lost. A reduction in shooting would lead to fewer cover crops and less predator control—the list goes on. There would be a huge impact on conservation. Let us turn to our farmers and the great work they do. We have heard from different speakers about the impact this proposal would have on them. I grew up working on a farm, although I did not live on one, and pest control was part of farmers’ everyday life—hon. Members have mentioned crows and things like that. If someone has to get a section 1 firearms licence, pest control on that farm is not going to happen. There will be a huge impact. The administrative burden on farmers, with everything else they have to go through, will have a massive impact. I have spoken to many of my local farmers, and it feels like this is another attack on their rural way of life.
My right hon. Friend makes a really valid point, which will often be overlooked when people are looking at the difference between section 1 and section 2. People will bulk order shotgun cartridges; they will be able to pick them up when they need them for a shoot, legally, with a licence—they cannot buy them without that licence. As I raised at the beginning of the debate, there are about 170,000 section 1 licences and 500,000 section 2 shotgun licences. The administrative burden for the police would be off the scale, and it is hard to see how they could even deal with this. That moves me nicely on to my next point, about the impact on the police. As we have heard, the National Crime Agency has stated: “Legally-held firearms are rarely used” in criminal activity. On top of that, as I mentioned at the beginning, how on earth will police authorities deal with 500,000 additional licences if they are merged into section 1? That is a significant burden, particularly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) just mentioned, in terms of ammunition. That issue is often overlooked, but people buy pallet loads because they are organising or planning shoots; it is quite a regular thing for people who shoot week in, week out. That will create a significant burden that I do not believe any police force will be able to deal with under the constraints they currently face. I speak regularly with my police authority, West Mercia police, and they do a great job in this area, but the current system already places pressures on them. This has been a reasoned debate, and it is only fair that I mention what some of my constituents have said. Anthony, who regularly shoots, said: “This is yet another culture war inspired attack” on rural communities.” Tom, who is also from my constituency, said: “the latest proposals seem more designed to punish” than to legislate. That is the impact; that is how this proposal is landing out there. I know that that is not the intention, and that the Government are listening, and we are trying to have the most reasoned debate on this issue. The Countryside Alliance has suggested an alternative solution. The hon. Member for South Norfolk mentioned that people are aware that the legislation on licensing might need to change, and the Countryside Alliance has suggested the good idea of having a single, centralised firearms licensing body—like the Disclosure and Barring Service or the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency—which would allow the police to perform their normal roles, rather than becoming a licensing body, which they are not set up to be. A centralised digital system could work with local police authorities, and I am sure the Countryside Alliance has much more information if the Minister requires it. To conclude, a merger of sections 1 and 2, although it has been set out with good intentions, will have far-reaching consequences that have probably not been thought through in great detail. It will result in a loss to the rural economy, with far fewer people having licences and the police facing an unsustainable administrative burden.
The hon. Member is making an excellent speech, in coming here today to try to find those answers. On the police force side, West Mercia currently takes about 12 months to renew a licence. Licences are for five years. My constituents say that they start to apply at the three-year to three-and-a-half-year point. If, for some reason, someone leaves renewal until six months before it is due, they will have six months without a licence that they might need for their job. There are already huge pressures on the police; does the hon. Member realise how big a concern that is?
I hope that the last three hours have been an informed debate that will help the Minister shape a way forward. Without a doubt, if the two licences merge, additional resources for the police will be needed, at huge cost. Will the Minister seriously look at putting that money into stopping illegal weapons on the streets, rather than merging these two licences?
T3. Many park home residents in South Shropshire are concerned about the 10% sales commission and think it is unfair. I know that the Government have committed to a consultation, but will they speed that up and just scrap the unfair commission?
Can the Minister confirm that the new head of propriety and ethics was appointed without a fully open, competitive recruitment process, and that the outgoing head of propriety and ethics was promoted to permanent secretary also without a fully open recruitment process? If so, he will know that both those appointments were in breach of rules put in place by the last Government—by myself as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—unless an individual Minister signed off a waiver from the process. Can he say which Minister signed off such an exemption, and why patronage is preferred to open recruitment for such sensitive roles?
Could the Minister clarify whether or not the Cabinet Secretary’s review into Lord Mandelson will be advised by the Cabinet Office propriety and ethics team? I ask for two reasons. First, I think I am right in saying that it was the PET that undertook the original so-called due diligence on Lord Mandelson. Secondly, in the light of the question asked by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) a few moments ago about the involvement of the PET in an earlier unsavoury matter, I am not sure that the House will have much confidence in that team.
For parents of children with special educational needs in Hertsmere and across the country, one of the greatest frustrations they feel is understanding what is going on in relation to their children. What reassurance can the Secretary of State give parents that councils will be required to keep them up to date about what is happening with their children and what provision they will have prior to the final outcome, whether it is an ECHP or a specialist school?
T7. Small businesses across North Yorkshire are under massive pressure from national insurance, the workers’ rights Bill, rates, energy costs—the list goes on. Now that the consultation on the tourist tax has closed, will the Minister put that tax on pause in the interests of job creation for young people? The stats today are truly appalling.
I welcome the section on training in the SEND consultation, but much of it is not statutory. Will the Secretary of State confirm her thinking on that? Will she also confirm that autism and profiles of it such as pathological demand avoidance will be at the centre of that training?
Is it not likely that, with the awards ceremony last night, the Government would have won the BAFTA for “One Scandal After Another” had they entered? The facts in this matter are not in dispute: the organisation Labour Together did not declare massive donations and was fined as a result; and in response, its head, now a Labour Minister, sought to gain dirt on the journalists who had truthfully reported the matter. Why does this need to be investigated? The facts are clear and the position is indefensible. I regard the three Ministers present as decent people and as gentlemen. Are they not sick of being put forward to defend the indefensible?
In response to an earlier question about the role of the Intelligence and Security Committee in relation to the Cabinet Office, the Minister rightly said that the ISC is concerned about its independence. As its former chairman, I can vouch for the fact that it was particularly concerned about the dominant role that the Cabinet Office had in its affairs. In his annual report covering 2023 to 2025, which was published on 15 December last year, my successor as chairman states: “The Committee in the last Parliament became very seriously concerned that the vital scrutiny that the ISC provides was being undermined by continued interference by the Cabinet Office in the Committee’s Office… The root of the problem lies in the control exerted over the Committee’s staff and resourcing by the Cabinet Office.” This is an opportunity to let the ISC have what it has asked for and wanted for years, which is independence from the Cabinet Office. Will the Minister please take that message back?
May I invite the Secretary of State to expand a bit on her vision of what happens at the end of a SEND child’s education? She mentioned the idea of independence—and, presumably, socialisation—to advance in society. In what way will her Department try to shape the course to enable children born with a disadvantage to function productively in the real world at the end of the process?
I realise now that it was simply fresh legal advice that led to this change of policy, rather than anything to do with the court case brought by the Secretary of State’s least favourite political party. Does he agree that the Government, in handling local government reform, should give at least an appearance of being impartial? Despite the Government’s consistent advice that the existing district and borough council areas should be seen as the building blocks for the new unitary authorities, Labour-controlled Southampton city council is still insisting on trying to dismember the New Forest East constituency by going for boundary changes that would strip off the Waterside, near Southampton, from the New Forest, to which it has always looked. Will the Secretary of State assure me that when he and his colleagues take decisions on this and similar issues, the fact that it is a Labour-led council asking for the guidelines not to be followed will not weigh on them in an appropriate way?
The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister may be aware that at the end of this week the UK takes on the chair of the global Media Freedom Coalition—a partnership of 51 countries pledged to protect journalists and the freedom of the press. How could the UK have any credibility in that role, given the revelations of the behaviour of a member of this Government, which are more akin to that of the worst authoritarian states?
An estimated 48,000 new entrants to the construction sector are needed every year to meet the Government’s target of 1.5 million new homes. Apprenticeship starts come to about half that figure, and apprenticeship completions come to less than a quarter. Does the Secretary of State now accept that his target will not be met, that there is a growing crisis in construction skills under Labour, and that the Government have no credible plan to deliver the workforce needed to build those homes?
As my hon. Friends have highlighted, under a Labour mayor and a Labour Government, house building in London has collapsed to less than 60% of the target. In October, the Secretary of State said: “My job should be on the line if I fail to meet my target”. As the 1.5 million homes will not be built, will he keep his promise and resign, or will he wait to be fired by whoever replaces the Prime Minister after the May elections?
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. The Secretary of State has caused chaos, confusion and a significant cost to the taxpayer by cancelling local elections, only to reinstate them weeks later and then seek to avoid responsibility for the fallout. This is not an isolated incident: it is yet another Government U-turn. The unavoidable conclusion is that this Labour Government are running scared of voters. The original decision to cancel elections was taken by the Secretary of State. He repeatedly defended that position at the Dispatch Box. He said in The Times that these elections were “pointless”, yet when his decision fell apart, he recused himself from the process and left a junior Minister to pick up the pieces. My first question is simple: why was the retaking of this decision delegated? Was the Secretary of State so compromised by his own actions that he could not lawfully retake the decision himself? Will the Secretary of State now place in the House of Commons Library the full correspondence that he would have disclosed had this gone to court? And if not, why not? What new factors were considered that led to a completely different conclusion ultimately being drawn? There are also questions of motive. Is it really a coincidence that the elections first marked for cancellation were overwhelmingly in Labour-run areas? I have been in contact with council leaders who describe being placed under intense pressure, repeatedly asked to restate capacity concerns, warned through multiple channels not to criticise the Secretary of State’s decision, and being left with the clear impression that future devolution, future reorganisation and future funding decisions depended on their compliance—a shocking state of affairs under his leadership. I believe that he acted inappropriately. If the Secretary of State is so confident that decisions were taken without political self-interest and without undue pressure being exerted behind the scenes, he should place all correspondence between his Department and local authorities in the public domain. If he does so, I will be more than happy to withdraw my accusation of inappropriate behaviour. Does the Secretary of State now accept that there are strict limits on the power to delegate or delay elections outside exceptional circumstances, such as war or public emergency? If so, will he ask his colleagues to accept the amendment tabled by Conservatives in the other place to limit the Secretary of State’s power to cancel elections using secondary legislation, given that Labour MPs voted down the same safeguards on Report in the Commons? The Secretary of State must tell the House what this shambolic episode has cost the taxpayer in legal fees, wasted preparation and the emergency expenditure now required to organise these elections at short notice. There is also a question about election pilots. What is their current status and why have the Government still not published the prospectus or provided it for parliamentary scrutiny? Specifically, how many councils that originally said that they had the capacity to bid to take part in these pilots later told his Department that they lacked the capacity to hold local elections? How many of the councils with restored elections are now expected to proceed with the pilots? Ultimately, where does this leave the Government’s flagship reorganisation process? Elections are the foundation stone of democracy. They are not a convenience to be switched on and off at the whim of the Secretary of State, which is why the Conservatives opposed these cancellations. The Secretary of State’s judgment has once again been shown to be fundamentally flawed. If he cannot or refuses to answer these questions, and to be open and honest about his behaviour, he should resign.
I welcome the right hon. Lady’s ambition, but where in all this will she retain the power to do something about councils that simply fail completely? An Ofsted report of my local council referred to it as disjointed and having weak co-ordination and limited accountability. It also talks of services falling short, parents being ignored and EHCPs never being granted when they should be. This is the reality for many of the parents that I meet. They are petrified. Will the Secretary of State explain what can be done about local councils’ failure? She speaks about EHCPs, but I have talked to parents recently and they are very worried. They struggled to try to get an EHCP, and now they are worried that somehow they will lose it. Could she reassure those parents that that will not happen?
Madam Chair, it is a great honour to speak to this packed Chamber on my amendments, and it was good of you to call me so soon—there are so many people ready to speak. I rise to speak in support of amendments 1 and 2 that appear in my name and those of my colleagues and friends, and it is my intention to press them when the time comes. Why is this necessary? In this particular area, I refer to the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) as my hon. Friend, because she has been stalwart in campaigning against slave labour and forced labour. I bow to her because of her stalwart support. As she said of the amendments, it is vital to safeguard UK export finance and ensure it is legally protected from any exposure to forced labour and human trafficking. We have been through this issue again and again, and I just hope the Minister, who has been a stalwart supporter of this drive, can give me a very clear sign when he responds to the debate that the Government want to adopt the amendments, which are critical to cleaning up what has essentially become a supply chain too often full of the products of slave labour. I am in favour of the Bill, not against it. In principle, I think it is right basically to raise the limit to £20 billion and the aggregate limit to £160 billion to account for inflation. However, it is also absolutely right to ensure that this increased financial firepower is not used inadvertently to fund modern slavery. Together, the amendments would ensure that, if the Secretary of State has reason to believe that modern slavery is present in a recipient’s supply chain, the permitted financial assistance for that export drops to zero—in other words, no finance. For those who may not have followed what has been going on, we had to amend the original Health and Care Bill to stop slavery being used in relation to the NHS. Last year, as the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston said, we had to amend the Great British Energy Bill. The Government decided to vote down that amendment, but the Bill was amended in the Lords. Many Labour Members suddenly realised that they were going to be asked to vote in favour of slave labour in the supply chains of Great British Energy, and they said no. The Government then decided not to oppose the amendment, which was absolutely the right thing to do in the end. However, I wish we had not had to go through all of that. Surely there is a moral purpose in all this, which is that if we have any suspicion that a product or a supply chain has elements of forced labour—we know China does it endlessly, and Russia and other countries use it—we should not allow that. When we compare ourselves with the United States, the reality is that its Governments, no matter who is in power, have a very simple rule: it is the responsibility of companies importing to check their supply chains, and the excuse that they did not know or could not find out is simply not good enough, so they are prosecuted if there is slave labour in the supply chain. The amendments are all about trying to shut down another possible loophole, in this case on finance. We believe that UK Export Finance is currently exposed to forced labour. For instance, in 2022-23, it supported businesses involving a subsidiary of AVIC—Aviation Industry Corporation of China—a company sanctioned by the US as a People’s Liberation Army entity. This is something that nobody, if they really ask themselves, on either side of the House wants, and I am sure that the Government do not want it, so the question is: how do we shut this down? I want to quote a couple of really quite senior people in the Government who have spoken about this in the past. The Prime Minister has said: “We’re not going to raise human rights standards if we ignore it in trade.” He said: “It shouldn’t be up to the consumer…to research every product and work out every ethical aspect of it.” I say yes, because of course it is impossible to do so as an individual. When I had a row with Amazon and other companies, I said, “Why don’t you make it easy to find out what the route in your supply chain is? People don’t know where something was made until they actually have the product land on their desk. Why can’t they see that on their computers and be able to identify that?” However, those companies do not want to do that, because they think people may not buy the products. In May 2025, when he was the Trade Secretary, the right hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) said: “We are very clear on our position regarding the abhorrent practice of modern slavery. It is a terrible crime which we are determined to eradicate. I assure you that this Government takes this issue seriously and is continuing to assess and monitor the policy tools available to ensure we can best tackle forced labour in supply chains.” The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband), has also said that “our clean power mission should not come at the expense of human rights…This involves confronting human rights abuses, including modern slavery, in energy supply chains”. That is absolutely right, although I do not understand why it took so much for us to get those on his side of the fence to agree, finally, to take such abuses out of the supply chains for Great British Energy, given his stated views.
What!
I understand what the Minister is saying very clearly, but a couple of the examples I gave where things had slipped through the net show that the system is not perfect. Does he think that the Government are likely therefore to deliver, as that said they would, on taking the Modern Slavery Act and beefing it up to such an extent that companies importing and exporting have a responsibility to check their supply chains, and if they do not it would be a criminal offence?
On that point, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is vital that we consult fully the farming community? Shotguns are not just a sporting accessory; to farmers, they are an essential aspect of their life in order to control vermin, so will he ensure that the debate carries on? The last Government wisely decided not to proceed with this proposal. We have had separate legislation for shotguns and other firearms since 1920. That is really important for farmers, so the current Government should be very wary about proceeding with the proposal.
Antisemitism is horrible, but will the Minister agree that there is nothing antisemitic in supporting the rights of the suffering Palestinian people and there is nothing antisemitic in opposing the actions of the present right-wing Israeli Government in making a two-state solution impossible? There is nothing antisemitic in that, because probably the majority of Jewish people throughout the world agree with me—and, actually, the actions of the Israeli Government in forcing Palestinians off their ground is fuelling antisemitism.
Does my hon. Friend agree with the concerns raised by the Highbridge, Huntspill and Burnham District Wildfowling Club in my constituency that aligning these licences will put an undue burden on shotgun owners and suppliers, and put increased pressure on our rural communities?
Order. I ask Members who wish to speak to remain standing for a moment. They probably know that it is helpful to tell the Clerks before the debate that they wish to speak, because then they will be on the list and will be called before anybody else. This is a long debate; it can go on until 7.30 pm. If Members leave the Chamber, they are expected to be back for the winding-up speeches, and those speeches may come before Members expect. Some Members have approached me and offered apologies for prior commitments, which I have accepted, but I expect everybody else to follow the protocols.
To paraphrase Churchill, the cornerstone of a free society is a free press. Whatever the investigation may be looking into, I am afraid that the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office has admitted that he set the investigation going because he did not like the report that had been issued about donations. That should not need an independent inquiry; the Prime Minister should sack this Minister now. The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister is here in effect to represent the Prime Minister, so I ask: will the Prime Minister U-turn before or after Prime Minister’s questions this week?
The hon. Member is making some important points, but did he note that the Law Commission, in its 2015 report on firearms, did not recommend moving section 2 licences into the section 1 system? He references the points made to do with previous incidents, but the Law Commission was very clear in its 2015 recommendations to the Government of the time.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for introducing this important debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. More than 121,000 people have signed the petition, and I believe it has been signed more quickly than any petition the Committee has received for a long period of time. I think we will all agree that this has been a very worthy debate. I have engaged my constituents in Keighley and Ilkley on this important issue: most recently, BASC kindly invited me to speak at an event at Ilkley rugby club. Many farmers, land managers, pest controllers and those participating in game shoots and clay pigeon shoots turned up to express their concern about the Government’s aspiration to merge section 1 and section 2 licences under the Firearms Act 1968. It is widely recognised that firearms licensing is effective at protecting public safety, and there is no evidence that moving section 2 to section 1 will improve that protection. I think it is right to look at the data, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) rightly went into. Of course, any death is horrendous, but we know from Home Office data that homicides committed with legally held firearms have averaged about 3.8 deaths per year for the past decade—or, to put that in context, around one for every 15 million of the UK population. Meanwhile, an average of 280 people die each year from knives, and 32 people died in 2023 alone from handling fireworks. I raise those points because it is important to understand that, despite the coroner’s report into the deaths in Plymouth and the level of reasoning he came out with, he did not conclude by recommending the merging of sections 2 and 1. Therefore, I ask the Minister why this consultation is even being brought before the public and why the Government want to pursue this narrative, despite the data held by the Home Office and despite this proposal not being a recommendation of the coroner. I raise the point about fireworks because, as a member of the Petitions Committee, I know that we have had two petition debates about them in this Chamber in the last 12 months alone, which were attended by many Members of Parliament. It has been an ongoing request that Governments of the day bring out tougher regulations on fireworks, yet nothing has been forthcoming from this Government. However, here we are in another petition debate, on a consultation that has not been requested by the wider community or by those who hold firearms, and that consultation is forthcoming. We all know that, despite the regular tightening of controls on firearms since the 1968 Act, there has been no correlation between the rate of deaths from firearms and increased controls. I therefore advocate, as the coroner did in the Plymouth deaths, that we focus on all the other aspirations that have been rightly expressed, around tightening the existing control mechanisms, rather than on merging sections 2 and 1. I also note, as I indicated in an intervention earlier, that the Law Commission’s 2015 report on firearms law did not recommend moving section 2 into section 1. Therefore, I again ask the Minister why this consultation is coming forward. It is important to look at the inefficiency we are experiencing across the country in the way that firearms licensing departments are working. There are 43 licensing authorities, and the vast majority are operating inefficiently. A quarter are taking more than a year to process grant applications, and some are taking well over three years. Many of those who want to renew their applications or make them in the first place are suffering delay. Processing applications under section 1 for rifles involves more checks and more costs, so this proposal will inevitably place a greater burden on those 43 authorities. Why, therefore, are we going forward with it despite it not being requested? I also want to look at the impact on the wider shooting community. Shooting alone is worth £3.3 billion to the UK economy. It generates £9.3 billion in wider economic activity and supports 67,000 jobs. Those jobs are not limited to licence holders: there is also the farming community; those carrying out pest control; gun shops; shooting grounds, instructors and coaches; ammunition, firearms and accessory manufacturers; country clothing; pubs, hotels and the hospitality sector; farms and estates; game dealers and processors; vets; feed merchants; agricultural services; and event staff. All of those will be negatively impacted if the Government pursue their agenda. Therefore, I urge them not to pursue this narrative. In my view, this issue is actually about politics. Under this Government, firearms licensing costs have increased by 138%. We have seen the Government ignore the scientific information put to them about how our moorland is controlled, and ban the controlled burning of heather. We have seen them attack other country pursuits, and we have seen the family farm tax and other negative impacts on our wider farming community. I therefore think the Government are actually pursuing our rural economy in a negative way. To conclude, I ask the Government why we are in this scenario. I have mentioned the data and the fact that we have had request after request to bring out tougher regulation on fireworks, yet we see nothing from the Government. Meanwhile, we are in a scenario where the courts, the Law Commission and coroners have specifically not put forward this recommendation, yet we are debating it in the House and a consultation is forthcoming. I would like to understand from the Minister why we are even having this conversation about the consultation.