5,750 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 23 Oct 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

   Alleged Spying Case: Role of Attorney General’s Office

   The Solicitor General has repeatedly said that prosecutors and not politicians should decide whether to prosecute. Of course that is the case, but that is a straw man argument. The issue here is not political interference in the decision to prosecute, but political interference in the evidence that was given to the CPS, affecting its ability to prosecute. We have been told that the Attorney General was informed. Why was he informed, if not to allow him to take action to perfect the evidence? Why did he not?

   Hansard source
2. 23 Oct 2025·Parliament·James Wild

   Alleged Spying Case: Role of Attorney General’s Office

   The Director of Public Prosecutions has said that the case was dropped because efforts over many months to get evidence that China represented a threat to national security were not forthcoming from this Government. When was the Attorney General informed that the case was at risk and what did he do?

   Hansard source
3. 23 Oct 2025·Parliament·James Wild

   Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund

   When the fishing and coastal growth fund was announced, the Government said that they had also secured a new sanitary and phytosanitary agreement to slash red tape for UK seafood exporters and businesses. Can the Minister tell the fishing fleet in King’s Lynn, Brancaster and around the Norfolk coast when that deal will actually be implemented?

   Hansard source
4. 23 Oct 2025·Parliament·Harriet Cross

   Alleged Spying Case: Role of Attorney General’s Office

   When was the Attorney General informed that the case was going to collapse?

   Hansard source
5. 23 Oct 2025·Parliament·Harriet Cross

   Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund

   This fund was set up to act as a sweetener to our fishing communities after they were completely sold out in the Government’s EU-Brexit reset. In that negotiation, 12 years of access to our seas were given away. Scotland lands three-quarters of the tonnage of fish in the UK and 60% of the value of UK fishing comes into Scotland. However, of this £360 million fund, Scottish fishermen will get only £28 million—7.7% of the fund. Does it really make sense to the Minister that Scotland gets 8% of the fund, when Scottish fishermen bring in so much of the value of fishing? If it does not make sense, what is she going to do about it?

   Hansard source
6. 23 Oct 2025·Parliament·Greg Smith

   Business of the House

   In 2023, my private Member’s Bill received Royal Assent, becoming the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023. In order to bring it into force, some statutory instruments had to be introduced. Police forces up and down the land, as well as police and crime commissioners, hailed it as a major step forward in preventing agricultural equipment theft and, indeed, power tool theft, as was envisaged in the original debate on the Bill. Yet last week, I had a letter from the Policing Minister telling me that the contents of the Act would be hollowed out, with the requirement for immobilisers on quad bikes removed and only forensic marking required for GPS units. That is a bad let-down for rural communities up and down the land, so can we have at minimum a statement, or better still a debate in Government time, to explore what this Government’s real approach is to rural crime? Without the full provisions of the Act, it is a free ride for the criminals.

   Hansard source
7. 23 Oct 2025·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

   Building Safety Regulator

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond, and to take part in this debate on the building safety regulator. I thank the hon. Members for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) and for Northampton South (Mike Reader) for securing this debate and for their opening speeches, both of which I thought were extremely reasonable and set the tone for what has been a largely reasonable debate in which there is much common ground. It is a primary duty of any Government to ensure that everyone has a safe and high-quality home to live in. Progress has been made in recent years to ensure the nation’s housing stock, with the share of non-decent and unsafe homes witnessing a decline in the last decade. Official statistics from the National Centre for Social Research, funded by the Government, show that under the last Government the prevalence of non-decent homes fell from 17% in 2019 to 15% in 2023, with falls across every tenure. The focus of this debate is the building safety regulator and its performance since being established by the last Government. Through the Building Safety Act, the BSR was created with the intention of regulating higher-risk buildings, raising the safety standards of all buildings, and helping professionals working in the sector. It was established in good faith, with sensible aims that any Government would agree were needed at the time; and, pertinently, as I think every speaker has referred to this afternoon, it was done in the light of the tragic loss of 72 lives in the appalling Grenfell Tower fire. As a former chairman of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, I was taken to Grenfell Tower by the London Fire Brigade a week after the fire. I went to the top of the building and saw at first hand the devastation that had been wreaked there and the consequences of years of inadequate building safety control, so I believe the motivations behind the creation of the BSR were entirely understandable. However, there is simply no point in denying that the BSR is not working today as it was originally intended. The truth is that it is proving to be a major additional contributor to a malaise that Britain has been suffering from pretty much since the turn of the millennium. Put simply, we struggle to build. Britain is now constrained within a self-imposed straitjacket of over-zealous red tape, which prevents much-needed development while at the same time causing absurd outcomes such as £100 million bat sanctuaries. The context of this debate is worth noting. As we know, the Government have ambitious targets for housing delivery, having insisted that they will build 1.5 million new homes by the end of this Parliament; but with at least 25% of this Parliament now behind us, they are miles behind schedule, and barely a third of what should have been built by now is actually completed. The new Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), has publicly said that his job should be on the line over whether or not he meets the target. Unfortunately for him, nobody believes that this Government will meet their housing target in just one Parliament: not the Office for Budget Responsibility, not Savills, not the Home Builders Federation, not Professor Paul Cheshire of the London School of Economics and not the National Federation of Builders—the list goes on and on. In London the situation is particularly dire, not least because of some of the policies in the Mayor of London’s London plan. A further problem coming down the line is the possibility of the Government’s making changes to the landfill tax. At present, potentially toxic landfill is taxed at £126.15 per tonne, whereas harmless inert waste such as soil or concrete is taxed at £4.05 per tonne, and nothing at all if it is used to fill up former quarries. However, there are strong rumours circulating that the Government are thinking of abolishing the quarry exemption and switching all landfill up to the higher rate. Building industry experts have estimated that that rise, which is in excess of 3,000%, will add up to £28,000 to the construction cost per home. That is especially an issue in London, where the high proportion of apartment buildings generates much more landfill than elsewhere. The impact of such a change on the construction industry is obvious. As inflation sits stubbornly at nearly 4%, twice the target level, alongside anaemic growth and increased costs to the industry, including materials and fuel, additional costs to the building trade are stacking up. It is in that context that we need to consider the performance of the building safety regulator. The BSR is not only moving too slowly to fulfil its purpose, but wielding the axe to too many of the applications crossing its desk. As the hon. Member for Northampton South said, the Building Safety Regulator rejects about 70% of applications to begin construction, compared with roughly 10% to 15% of applications that get rejected in the wider British planning system. Something is very clearly wrong here. When 150 high- rise residential construction projects are delayed across the UK because of the BSR, when schemes are delayed 38 weeks longer than the target time for approval, and when 60% of affected schemes are in London, the city with the highest need and the greatest demand, it is clear that we must work together to realise a better future for the BSR and to unchain the industry from some of the restraints it currently wears. The Building Safety Regulator is all too often a handbrake on development, rather than an accelerator of safe and effective development. I welcome the Minister to her place in her first Westminster Hall debate, and I know she will be eager to tell us about the Government’s attempts to reform the BSR and solve this issue in June earlier this year. On the face of it, increasing the BSR’s headcount could be a positive move, but only if the staff brought in have the requisite technical expertise in building and fire safety and are thus able to accelerate the planning process. By simply increasing the BSR’s capacity, the Government have not yet been able, as was promised in an MHCLG press release, “to enhance the review of newbuild applications, unblock delays and boost sector confidence”, because it has not solved the core issue: the number of application rejections. As the British Property Federation has argued, improved dialogue with applicants and more guidance on the BSR application process would go a long way to speeding things up by vastly increasing the likelihood that applications are right first time, rather than their having to be revised after being rejected. In the age of artificial intelligence, mandating machine-readable submissions and building an electronic file management system that ingests structured data would be immeasurably useful, enabling the use of commercially available AI to triage completeness, flag inconsistencies and vastly speed up the process for both the applicants and the regulator. As was said earlier—I believe by the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell), but I stand to be corrected—introducing greater transparency around the BSR’s performance is certainly welcome. The new fast-track process seems like a good idea, although it remains to be seen whether it is effective, but clearly more needs to be done. Reforming the operation of the BSR should not be about making developments less safe. Changes must instead tackle the fundamental problem: being process-focused to the point that we fail to deliver. That is particularly true in places such as London, where it has now become difficult to build anything at all. The existing urban environment lends itself to denser developments, which are inevitably viewed as higher risk under the BSR and therefore face very lengthy delays and huge additional construction costs. Consequently, there is a danger that we risk urban sprawl into the countryside and the destruction of the green belt, with homes being forced into communities with an inability to meet the infrastructure demands of all new residents. It is important that all sides work constructively, across Government and Opposition, to deliver remediation, building safety and the best outcomes for local communities. This debate has encouraged me that we can work across the House to tackle burdensome regulation in the housing and planning industry, including where the Building Safety Regulator is playing its well-intentioned, but undeniably imperfect role. That requires real and serious focus from the Government, who will have to act far faster than they have done to date. I will listen with interest to what the Minister says.

   Hansard source
8. 23 Oct 2025·Parliament·Dr Neil Hudson

   Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund

   This fund is a weak apology from a Labour Government who, this year, have sold out the UK fishing industry. It is a mere sticking plaster—a rushed one, at best—that ignores the proportion of fish caught in different parts of these isles, involves the devolved Administrations poorly, and ignores evidence-based delivery and logic. This fund is Labour trying to buy off the UK fishing fleet, due to its disastrous 12-year deal with the EU; the deal is three times longer than the deal Labour sought. It prevents Britain from setting annual fishing quotas, as other independent coastal states do. Fishing organisations have called the deal a “horror show” for fishermen. Will the money be front-loaded and spent where it will have the greatest benefit for industry and coastal communities? What input will fishing organisations and representatives have in ensuring that the fund is spent in the right place? Fishing is not just about the fish caught; it is also about the people and marine wildlife involved. Can the Government explain how the fund will support fishers’ mental health and efforts to protect marine wildlife, such as by ending bycatch? There is not enough detail for the industry to plan. How will the fund be delivered, how is it being targeted to support the fishing industry, and how are the Labour Government supporting the next generation of fishermen and women with the fund? This fund is an example of the Labour Government trying to buy off the industry with a sticking plaster, rather than ensuring that the best deal for the British fishing industry is the one that they negotiate with the EU.

   Hansard source
9. 23 Oct 2025·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

   NHS Workforce Levels: Impact on Cancer Patients

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mrs Hobhouse. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) on securing this debate. Across the United Kingdom, an estimated 3.5 million people are living with cancer. We all know a friend, family member or co-worker who has battled the disease, and, sadly, we also all know of somebody whose life was cut short by it. Our country faces an ageing population, which will mean more cancer cases in the years to come; the longer we live, the greater the risk. Troublingly, cancer rates are also rising among those in their 20s, 30s and 40s, so getting cancer care right today will mean the difference between lives saved and lives lost tomorrow. We know that the NHS cannot deliver timely, effective cancer care without the workforce trained to provide it. We owe it to patients fighting cancer today—and the 50% of us who will face cancer tomorrow—to fix the situation. NHS staff are carrying out more cancer checks than ever before: more than 3 million a year in 2024, compared with less than half that a decade ago. In the last five years, we have also benefited from an increase in the number of clinical and medical oncologists in the NHS as well as of clinical radiology staff. Sadly, however, demand for services is fast outpacing the supply of staff, putting teams under immense pressure. Last year, more than 74,000 people in England were not treated on time for cancer, increasing their risk from the disease. Formal training for medical staff begins at university. The previous Government increased the number of places at medical school, and increased the number of medical schools by building five new ones. This Government have said that they will increase the number of medical school places. Could the Minister confirm the places that they will fund for next September, bearing in mind that the application date has now passed? The next step, postgraduate training, faces challenges too. The previous Government, as I said, increased medical school places. They also removed the resident labour market test because of the shortage of doctors. The Secretary of State appeared to understand back in Easter the effect that that was going to start to have, as the newly trained doctors came through their postgraduate training. Over the last two years, the number of international medical graduates applying for training posts has also increased dramatically. The application ratio for postgraduate training posts has gone up substantially and there is a risk that some junior doctors will not get a job. There is also a risk that international medical graduates who get more of the places will return to their country of origin after they have completed training, so we will have unemployed British trainees and doctors who return after training, leaving us with a shortage of consultants in a few years’ time. That issue has been highlighted by the British Medical Association, of which I am a member. Sadly, it has announced that doctors will go on strike from 14 to 19 November this year, partly as a result of pay and partly as a result of job shortages. The Secretary of State was vociferous in his criticisms of the previous Government when doctors went on strike. What will he and the Minister do to get the doctors back to work? Cancer treatment requires surgery, oncology, haematology, radiology, pathology and geneticists—every specialty across the NHS, including, sadly, paediatrics and sometimes even neonatologists. There are also challenges across the nursing sector. We saw nurses this year coming out of nursing college with qualifications, but without the posts to go to. There is also a need for other allied health professionals—pharmacists, radiologists, laboratory staff, mammographers and research assistants. Will the workforce plan reflect this? When will it be published? Will it make projections about the population with cancer and will the Government publish those, too? The Government committed to more MRIs and CT scanners. How many new ones have they got in place? How well are they progressing with their targets? We have heard about the importance of research today. Scientists are a key part of our cancer workforce. We heard yesterday in the Chamber about the challenges that the life sciences sector is facing. The £1 billion investment from Merck for King’s Cross has been shelved. The more than £200 million investment from AstraZeneca in Speke, near Liverpool, has also been shelved, and other investments are paused or mothballed. The industry is talking about poor Government engagement, employment regulations, increased employment taxes such as national insurance, and how they are increasing the voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing and access payment rate. What are the Government going to do to ensure that we have research in this country? Research is a real success. We have the best scientists in the world. We have cutting-edge treatment, trial drugs and novel approaches. Those are all more accessible earlier if they are done in the UK. They also provide good jobs for the British workforce. What work is the Minister doing with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology team? What representation is she making to the Treasury to ensure that supporting research is part of the Government’s actions as well as messaging? Will the supporting research be part of the cancer plan? What support is the Minister giving to rare cancers, particularly those that are particularly lethal such as pancreatic cancer? What about brain tumours, where survival has shown little or no improvement? What focus will the cancer plan have on those? I sat on the Rare Cancers Bill Committee. The rare diseases framework points out that one in 17 of us will get a rare disease during our lifetime. The current framework initiated by the last Government runs out in around three months’ time. Do the Government plan to replace it? If so, what with and when? Sadly, as I said earlier, children and teenagers—young people—also get cancer, and they have particular needs as they go through puberty and young adulthood. The workforce therefore has to have particular strengths because of the work involved. I commend the work of the Teenage Cancer Trust and the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) is doing. Can the Minister confirm that young people’s and children’s cancer will form an important part of the cancer plan? Computer scientists will also be key to the cancer workforce. We have heard about the importance of AI. Computers can already identify skin cancer from benign lesions in many cases. The Health and Social Care Select Committee, which I was part of in the last Parliament, visited Stanford in California. We saw how AI was being used to look at mammograms and how, rather than using two doctors, they used one doctor and an AI computer. That was better than either two computers or two clinicians. What is the Minister doing to ensure that, from early education in schools, we are teaching the right skills to develop the right workforce for the AI of the future? We are getting better at treating cancer, so thankfully there is life after cancer, but post-cancer care is important too. Some people live with things such as lymphoedema, amputations and stomas as a result of their cancer treatment. What focus does the Minister expect there to be in the workforce plan and cancer plan on those issues? Palliative care is important for those who cannot be treated successfully and whose cancer cannot be cured, but hospices are in crisis across the country. The Government have given extra money for capital, and some for children, which is of course welcome, but hospices across the country are facing huge costs, particularly from the national insurance measures in the last Budget, and neither fund will cover that for adult hospices. Right across the country, we hear about adult hospices that are closing beds. What will the Minister do about that in her plan? How does she expect us to decide on the assisted suicide Bill when palliative care is facing such difficulty? What about the mental health workforce? It is important that people are supported through their cancer journey. We had the 10-year health plan, with which came the promise of a workforce plan and a national cancer plan, but across the country the British people are waiting. They watch the Labour Government crafting glossy catalogues of intent but failing to deliver for our NHS. The time for planning and prevarication is over. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

   Hansard source
10. 23 Oct 2025·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

    Business of the House

    Applications for battery storage sites are springing up all over the country, including in my constituency, and my constituents are certainly very concerned about them. This month the UK Health Security Agency wrote to my local district council raising concerns about one such application, discussing fire risks, toxic gases, the potential for particulate matter causing cancers, and damage that could occur to the aquifer, water supplies and the environment, among many other concerns. May we have a debate in Government time to discuss the risk of these sites, as I do not think they have been considered in sufficient detail?

    Hansard source
11. 23 Oct 2025·Parliament·Charlie Dewhirst

    Topical Questions

    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has just come to the Dispatch Box and said that we have done a new trade deal with the European Union, which I think is news to both the Prime Minister and Brussels. The only thing this Government have done so far in terms of EU relations is to sell out our fishing industry for the next 12 years. With that in mind, will the Minister actually stand up for British interests in future negotiations with Brussels?

    Hansard source
12. 23 Oct 2025·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Topical Questions

    T6. In the absence of a plan, the Government appear to be centralising power and bureaucracy in the form of new quangos. More than 25 have been created since this Government came into office. What is the Minister doing to drive ministerial accountability and, crucially, to ensure that there are sunset clauses so that when quangos have met their objectives, they are wound up and come to an end?

    Hansard source
13. 23 Oct 2025·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Alleged Spying Case: Role of Attorney General’s Office

    The Solicitor General has expressed several times her and, presumably, the Government’s disappointment at the fact that this did not go to trial. That disappointment would suggest that she and the Government wish for an alternative outcome. The simple point that I and my constituents cannot get our heads around—they have contacted me about this because they are outraged and concerned—is that if the Government wish for an alternative outcome, why did they not exhaust every single possibility to bolster the case of the CPS? Regardless of interference, and there is no question of political interference, why did they not exhaust every single opportunity to put the CPS in the strongest possible position to ensure a successful prosecution?

    Hansard source
14. 23 Oct 2025·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Business of the House

    With the Government planning to bulldoze all over the green belt—other parties do not fare much better; the Liberal Democrats, in their manifesto, said they wanted to build even more houses—and given that the Conservatives have pledged to protect the green belt, will the Leader of the House explain to my constituents why the Bromsgrove and the villages housing target has increased by a staggering 85% while Birmingham’s has reduced by over 30%? If he cannot, will he grant a debate on this important topic?

    Hansard source
15. 23 Oct 2025·Parliament·Bob Blackman

    Business of the House

    I add my tribute to the late Oliver Colvile. I first came across him in the final selection in Brent North, where he was up against Sajid Javid and Grant Shapps. He had to wait until 2010 to finally be elected. In the famous cricket match in India when the Lords and Commons took on an Indian select eleven, I remember two moments. One was when he bowled—completely bowled—an Indian state-sponsored cricketer. However, the more important one was when he bent down to pick up the ball when fielding on the boundary in front of the camera, and his trousers split to reveal his Union Jack underpants. I thank the Leader of the House for the convivial meeting we had on Monday about trying to ensure that time for Backbench Business debates in the Chamber can be maximised. I gently ask that we get a notification if we are to get any time in the Chamber on 4 or 5 November or in the week after, which will facilitate debate. I come to the business in Westminster Hall. On Tuesday 28 October, there will be a debate on obesity and fatty liver disease. On Thursday 30 October, there will be a statement from the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee on its report on land value capture, which is of great importance across the country, followed by debates on histological testing of excised moles and on the Education Committee’s report on children’s social care. On Tuesday 4 November, there will be a debate on the impact of UK official development assistance cuts on international development. On Tuesday 11 November, there will be a debate on support for dyslexic pupils at school. On Thursday 13 November, the first debate will be on modern-day slavery in Pakistan, and we will be offering another debate later. There are rules governing the use of fireworks. On Diwali, Chinese new year and new year’s eve, people are entitled to have displays up until 1 am, and on Guy Fawkes day till midnight. At all other times, it is 11 pm. I am not sure what other colleagues think, but the reality is that there are very unsociable people who release fireworks in the early hours of the morning, starting in September and seemingly going on until the end of January. Not only do they do that, but we have very expensive and very loud fireworks that frighten animals and disturb children’s sleep. People who need their sleep before they go to work are also severely inconvenienced. May we have a statement from a Minister on what action will be taken to prevent that from happening and to ensure that enforcement action is taken not only on hours, but to restrict the very powerful fireworks that cause such distress?

    Hansard source
16. 23 Oct 2025·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

    Alleged Spying Case: Role of Attorney General’s Office

    The Attorney General has a duty to superintend prosecution agencies. The Government have previously defined superintendence as, inter alia, “a right for the Attorney General to be consulted and informed about difficult, sensitive and high-profile cases”, of which this is clearly one. Given that the Attorney General is responsible by statute for the superintendence of the Crown Prosecution Service and overall super- intendency of the DPP, and additionally has the requirement for consent to prosecute certain categories of criminal offences such as those relating to official secrets, what action did the Attorney General take once he had been informed of the potential collapse of the China spying trial?

    Hansard source
17. 23 Oct 2025·Parliament·Alison Griffiths

    Alleged Spying Case: Role of Attorney General’s Office

    The Sunday Times reported that, following a key meeting on 1 September, the Attorney General’s Office was asked to speak to the CPS. Did anyone from the Attorney General’s Office speak directly or indirectly to the CPS after that meeting?

    Hansard source
18. 23 Oct 2025·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Strengthening National Resilience

    I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the new Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to his post. I know that he is one of the most able performers in the Government, and he is now in one of the most important and under- appreciated roles in Government. For the good of the country, I wish him well. He is also the first Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister. We Conservatives congratulate him on how well Downing Street has been run since he took over—we have enjoyed it greatly. Phase 2 is proving to be a real belter. On the alleged spying on Members of this House, Downing Street has revealed that the Prime Minister became aware on 13 September that the case was about to collapse. When was the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister first told that the trial was unlikely to proceed, and who told him?

    Hansard source
19. 23 Oct 2025·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Strengthening National Resilience

    Okay, I will repeat the question for the Security Minister, because either he did not hear it or he chose not to answer it. My question was very specific. We know that the Prime Minister was told on 13 September that the trial was unlikely to proceed—Downing Street has told us that. My question is: when was the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster told, and who told him? He oversees the Cabinet Office’s National Security Secretariat, and he chairs the National Security Council. When was he told?

    Hansard source
20. 23 Oct 2025·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Topical Questions

    I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for giving us a degree more clarity. Perhaps he will give us a degree more clarity again. Was he told that the alleged case of spying against Members of Parliament was due to collapse before the information became public and, if so, who told him?

    Hansard source
21. 23 Oct 2025·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Topical Questions

    I believe the right hon. Gentleman, but I find that answer extraordinary, and I think he should find it extraordinary, too. As we have already said, the right hon. Gentleman chairs the National Security Council. He oversees the Cabinet Office’s national security secretariat. The Prime Minister knew, the Home Secretary knew, the Cabinet Secretary knew, the chief of MI5 knew, the Attorney General’s Office knew, but the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister did not. Has he asked why he was not told, and what answer was he given?

    Hansard source
22. 22 Oct 2025·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    Korean War: 75th Commemoration

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I welcome the Minister to his new position. This is the first time we have—I will not say sparred, because it is not the sort of debate for that—worked together since we served as Whips a number of years ago. Let me begin by congratulating my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing this important marking the 75th anniversary of the outbreak of the Korean war. He brings, as ever, such knowledge and sincerity to the House, and at times—in the right way and at the right time—a little humour, as he did at the very start of the debate. Not only that, but he enables us to demonstrate that the role of this place often goes way beyond debating legislation. It can rightly provide an opportunity for us to come together as a House and a space to commemorate and reflect. Sitting here, I was reminded of the day when, as a Foreign Minister, I had the honour of being invited to lay a wreath at the Korean war memorial on Victoria Embankment in 2020 to mark the 67th anniversary of the Korean war armistice agreement. I thank my right hon. Friend for providing the space for us today, because it provides a moment for reflection and gratitude. The Korean war, as we have heard, is often called the forgotten war, but it must never be forgotten. It was a defining struggle of the early cold war—one that tested the unity of the free world and reaffirmed the principles of collective security that remain vital today. On 25 June 1950, North Korean forces crossed the 38th parallel, triggering three years of brutal conflict. More than 2.5 million people lost their lives, but Britain answered the call of the United Nations, sending more than 81,000 service personnel—the second largest contribution after that of the United States. As we have heard, 1,129 British servicemen made the ultimate sacrifice. Over 1,000 were taken prisoner, and around 300 remain missing. We remember them and their families, who bore the quiet burden of that service. Among those who fought were young men from my own region—the west midlands, including the Black Country—many of whom served with proud regiments such as the Duke of Wellington’s Regiment and the Black Watch, both of which saw fierce action in Korea. Across the Commonwealth, too, the bonds of sacrifice run deep. More than 26,000 Canadians, 18,000 Australians, 4,700 New Zealanders and thousands more from India, South Africa and elsewhere stood beside us. Their shared service is part of the living fabric of the Commonwealth family and the global defence of democracy. Commemoration is not just about looking back. It is also about understanding why the legacy of the Korean war still matters today. The Republic of Korea—South Korea—has emerged from the devastation of war as a vibrant democracy, a major economy and a valued strategic partner of the UK. Our modern partnership rests on the same values our forebears fought for: freedom, prosperity and the rule of law. That partnership was reaffirmed under the last Government, in November 2023, through the Downing Street accord, a global strategic partnership between our two nations. Under that accord, we are working together on defence, cyber-security, clean energy, semiconductors and resilient supply chains. We established a new ministerial dialogue to align foreign and defence policy, and expanded co-operation on naval training, defence exports and regional stability. This partnership matters to both nations: it strengthens our ability to deter aggression, uphold freedom of navigation, and shape the future of technology and trade on fair and open terms. We cannot commemorate this anniversary without acknowledging the continuing threats in the region. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea—North Korea—remains a source of instability and danger, not only to its neighbours but to global security. Its relentless pursuit of nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities, its disregard for UN Security Council resolutions, and its growing ties to other authoritarian regimes, including Russia and China, all demand our vigilance and resolve. The regime’s leader continues to endanger his own people and the peace of the region. Therefore, we must remain firm in condemning these provocations, united in enforcing sanctions and clear that such behaviour will not be rewarded with legitimacy. The Korean war taught us that alliances matter and that when free nations stand together, they can resist aggression and preserve peace. Those lessons are as vital today as they were in 1950, but this anniversary is also an opportunity to celebrate the enduring success of our friendship with the Republic of Korea and to reaffirm the United Kingdom’s commitment to upholding peace and security in the Indo-Pacific and around the world. In that spirit, may I ask the Minister three brief questions? First, what further steps are the Government taking to support the work of the Joint Casualty and Compassionate Centre in investigating historical cases of missing British personnel from the Korean war? Secondly, how is the UK implementing the Downing Street accord, particularly in strengthening our defence, security and cyber partnerships with the Republic of Korea? Thirdly, what assessment have the Government made of the evolving security threat posed by North Korea, and how is the UK working with allies to respond effectively, including through a review of the effectiveness of existing UN sanctions, to ensure that they are having the maximum possible impact on Kim Jong Un’s regime? In Busan, the British memorial bears this inscription: “Our nation honors her sons and daughters who answered the call to defend a country they never knew and a people they never met”. Those words speak of duty, courage and the enduring belief that freedom anywhere is worth defending everywhere. Seventy-five years on, we remember them with gratitude and renewed purpose.

    Hansard source
23. 22 Oct 2025·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    Engagements

    Q2. My constituents have so many questions they would like to ask the Prime Minister, but I will settle for one today: can the Prime Minister define when grey belt is really grey?

    Hansard source
24. 22 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir James Cleverly

    Renters’ Rights Bill

    We are considering the Lords amendments in lieu to the Renters’ Rights Bill, and I begin by recognising the work that has taken place in both Houses to improve this legislation, and by thanking their lordships for the constructive way in which they have approached this endeavour. On the amendments themselves, the issue of shared ownership leaseholders was rightly championed in the Lords by my noble Friend Lord Young of Cookham, and I pay tribute to him for his persistence. He made a fair and compelling case for shared owners who, through no fault of their own, may be unable to sell their share and should not be penalised for re-letting in those circumstances. The Government’s acceptance of that principle, although through a modified amendment, is a sensible and pragmatic improvement, which we will therefore support. On the decent homes standard and the service family accommodation estate, the Government have placed a duty on the Secretary of State to report on the conditions of service family accommodation and provide independent oversight. Our armed forces and their families deserve and need decent, well-maintained homes, and we believe that greater transparency will strengthen service families’ confidence in the system. We support this improvement, and we hope that the Government will look at our policy to create an armed forces housing association that would oversee these changes and address the declining recruitment and retention rates that, sadly, we have seen under this Government. While we support these improvements, I fear the Bill in its current form will in some areas be counterproductive, and drive landlords from the market as well as putting up rents for tenants. Labour’s own impact assessment for this Bill supports that concern, stating that “landlords can pass through some, but not all, of their cost increases to their tenants in the form of higher rent” due to new costs. Under the Bill, all tenancies will continue until either the tenant gives notice or the landlord obtains a court order for possession on specific grounds. The Government have committed to ending section 21 evictions, but they must also ensure matching court reform so that the system works for both tenants and responsible landlords. We need clarity about when and how these changes will be implemented, because uncertainty helps no one. Local councils must have the means to enforce the new rules effectively, and the Government should set out a clear and workable plan to that end. The Lords amendments represent a sensible set of adjustments that I would say make this Bill slightly more workable, but sufficient challenges remain in how it will operate in practice. We recognise the value of the scrutiny that has taken place in both Houses, and the constructive way that many of the concerns have been addressed, but the uncertainty in this sector is seeing landlords leave the market at an alarming rate.

    Hansard source
25. 22 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir James Cleverly

    Renters’ Rights Bill

    I can only assume that the hon. Member has been asleep through the last couple of paragraphs I have read out, in which I specifically spoke about the rights of tenants in the military estate, for example, so I reject his characterisation of our position. The simple fact is that tenants’ rights are all well and good, but if accommodation for those tenants does not exist, they are no better off. We have seen an estimated 18% of new homes for sale that were previously in the private rental market estate, and in London that figure is 29%. A reduction in the private rented sector market harms, not helps, people seeking to rent in the private sector. Labour Members will say, “Well, we are going to deliver 1.5 million new houses,” but no one—I doubt even their own Front Benchers—actually believes they have any chance of delivering that figure. The Office for Budget Responsibility certainly does not believe that they have any credible chance of doing it, so the housing and rental situation is likely to get worse. I confirm that the official Opposition will support the Lords amendments, for the reasons that I have set out. We urge the Government to implement them professionally and swiftly, and to focus on delivering a fair and effective system for tenants, for the landlords that provide accommodation for those tenants, and for the wider housing market. However, there are still a number of flaws in the Bill—it does not do enough to protect renters or ensure a stable rental market, as it will reduce supply and, perversely, push up rents—which is why, having committed to not opposing the amendments, we will hold the Government to account on the Bill’s consequences.

    Hansard source
26. 22 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Iain Duncan Smith

    Korean War: 75th Commemoration

    I beg to move, That this House has considered the 75th commemoration of the Korean War. May I say what a pleasure it is to have you invigilating our proceedings, Mr Twigg? This debate is about North Korea, but it is also specifically about the 75th commemoration of the Korean war, in which we took part. I have just discovered that this morning North Korea fired multiple short-range ballistic missiles into the East sea, just a week before President Trump’s visit to South Korea for the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation summit. I think North Korea may well also have done so because it had heard about this debate. [Laughter.] I pride myself on that, rather than APEC, being almost certainly one of the greater reasons why it did so. It is a great privilege to open this debate on the 75th anniversary of the Korean war. The world today is yet again at a crossroads between democracy and the axis of totalitarianism and authoritarianism, as we have not been since the fall of the Berlin wall. Over 81,000 British servicemen fought in the Korean war, providing the second largest military contribution to the United Nations Command after the United States, which is something that people rarely talk about. Over 1,100 of them never came home, which is more than the total British losses in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Falklands combined. Among their most heroic stands was the battle of the Imjin river in 1951. There, 652 men of the 1st Battalion the Gloucestershire Regiment faced three Chinese divisions, numbering at least 42,000 men, in one of the most courageous defences in British military history. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) will no doubt share in detail, those brave Gloucestershire men held the UN line for three days against the overwhelming Chinese spring offensive. When the battle ended, of the 652 men who fought there for those three days, 67 walked away. The rest were killed or captured, and the name Gloster Hill was etched forever into history, although too often schools do not remind everybody of the sacrifice that they made for those who now live free. Today, only a few veterans of the Korean war remain with us here in the United Kingdom. One of them, Mr Scott, shared a story later recounted by his son in Stockport: “Of all the campaigns I fought in, Korea was the one that affected me the most. One night, I was called out on a reconnaissance mission I didn’t want to do. But when I returned to my platoon, they had all been wiped out.” His son, Mr Steven Scott, reflected: “My father was deeply affected by the Korean War. He had served in the Army during the Second World War and was called up from the reserves for the Korean War.” Their sacrifice, courage and service secured freedom for one half of the Korean peninsula, a freedom that the democratic world still cherishes today. The other half remains in darkness, suffering under the most brutal regime on earth; it is hard to imagine the brutality of that leadership. We must ensure that their sacrifice is honoured and remembered by generations to come. Many young people around the world today enjoy K-pop, K-dramas and the vibrant culture of modern South Korea, yet without the sacrifice of those who secured its freedom, none of that would be possible. In stark contrast, totalitarian Pyongyang denies its people access to the internet, mobile phones, YouTube or social media, and those who are caught watching anything from the south or from the outside world face imprisonment or even execution.

    Hansard source
27. 22 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Iain Duncan Smith

    Korean War: 75th Commemoration

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is a shocking concept. A state like that is run for the purposes of the leader, their military chiefs and nobody else. I will come back to some of those figures. It is worth reminding ourselves that poor Lord Alton, the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on North Korea, is languishing in hospital with a broken back as a result of an accident. I am sure that otherwise he would be watching this debate. We send him our best wishes. Since the uneasy armistice in 1953, the Korean peninsula has stood as one of the world’s most volatile and divided regions. It is a grey zone between two vastly different states. In June 2019, the world watched as President Trump shook hands with Kim Jong Un and took 20 steps into North Korea, becoming the first sitting US President to set foot in the hermit kingdom. Just a single line of concrete blocks in a heavily militarised zone separates two nations and millions of lives—a division between freedom and tyranny. That must serve as a warning, especially in light of the war in Ukraine, that we must all do what we can to ensure that history does not see another divided Korea. In the south, a democratic and prosperous nation has arisen, which is now the world’s 13th largest economy it is one of our most important allies and friends, with which we fought shoulder to shoulder during the Korean war. Our partnership was further underlined in November 2023 when His Majesty King Charles III welcomed President Yoon and the First Lady of the Republic of Korea for a state visit to the United Kingdom, celebrating 140 years of diplomatic relations. During that visit, both nations reaffirmed their collaboration in diplomacy, trade, vehicles, military co-operation and artificial intelligence. We must continue to strengthen those economic and strategic partnerships with South Korea, Japan, India, the United States and other democratic allies to ensure that our prosperity and freedoms, which we too often take for granted, are not undermined by the rising threat from the authoritarian states that I have listed: China, Russia, North Korea and Iran, to name but the key ones. What of the north? While half of the Korean peninsula enjoys freedom, the other half remains under totalitarian rule. It continues brutally to repress its own people. In his recent book “The Dictators”, Iain Dale observes that the Kim family’s dictatorship ranks among the 10 most brutal and evil in history, alongside those of Mao, Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot. That reality is consistently reflected in global human rights and religious persecution indexes. Organisations such as Open Doors UK, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, Aid to the Church in Need and others continue their vital advocacy, reminding the world each year that North Korea remains the most dangerous place in the world to be a Christian. It is a nation in which human rights are trampled daily and persecution remains unmatched, topping the world watch-list year after year. Just 12 days ago, North Korea marked the 80th anniversary of its ruling Workers’ party, inviting delegations from China, Russia, Vietnam and other authoritarian states to join the celebrations. For decades, the North Korean people have endured unimaginable suffering from ongoing nuclear development and security threats, starvation, brutal repression and systematic abuses, including enslavement, torture, imprisonment, forced abortions, enforced disappearances and persecution on political and religious grounds. North Korea’s human rights record stands among the worst in the world. To make matters even more harrowing, for three decades China has forcibly repatriated North Korean escapees. Many—especially pregnant women, who are highly vulnerable and are often trafficked after crossing the border—are sent back into North Korea, where they face imprisonment, torture, forced abortions if their child is of Chinese descent, or even execution. One escapee, Ms Kim Kyu-ri, now lives safely in London and testified at the all-party parliamentary group on North Korea. I was present, as the co-chair with Lord Alton, who I know is watching this debate. Tragically, Ms Kim’s sister was among the 600 repatriated in 2023, and her fate remains unknown. Such acts surely represent only a fraction of the brutality and loss that exist because of the existence of North Korea. All these issues were thoroughly investigated by the 2014 UN commission of inquiry into all the awful acts North Korea has done. The commission was led by the Australian judge Michael Kirby, who said: “The gravity, scale, duration and nature of the unspeakable atrocities committed in the country reveal a totalitarian state that does not have any parallel in the contemporary world.” Its recommendations included the imposition of further sanctions on the regime’s illicit activities, on its nuclear programmes and on the forced production of goods by North Korean political prisoners, including textiles, wigs and fake eyelashes, which are often deceptively labelled as having been made in China. A report produced by the Citizens’ Alliance for North Korean Human Rights, “Made in China: How Global Supply Chain Fuels Slavery in North Korean Prison Camps”, gives evidence of these shocking practices. I want to return to the anniversary point. British soldiers, sailors and airmen were sent to Korea to fight for a people far distant. At the end of it, their bravery and determination secured, at least, freedom for half of that peninsula. Without their sacrifice, we would not be using the word “North” in front of the word “Korea”. We would be talking about the abuses of a deeply fractured communist regime that is destroying life for those who would love to have the freedoms that we have. Their sacrifice, and their deaths, must always be remembered. There is a tendency to forget that in the aftermath of the second world war we were involved in yet another major conflict. We have the right to be proud of our soldiers, sailors and airmen. Their sacrifice secured freedom for a second time, following the second world war.

    Hansard source
28. 22 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Iain Duncan Smith

    Korean War: 75th Commemoration

    Yes, and my right hon. Friend’s comments will be recorded and available for all to see.

    Hansard source
29. 22 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Iain Duncan Smith

    Korean War: 75th Commemoration

    I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s comments. He is right to ask that question. We should apply ourselves to everything that is needed to ensure the freedom of South Korea, its Government and its people. We did it once; we should be prepared to do it again. It is worth noting that Korea now sits next to one of the growing threats, on a scale of power and potency that we have not seen since the cold war; that is, of course, China. Its ambitions in the area are to dominate all these spheres from Taiwan to Korea. I have been campaigning on the subject, as have many other Members in this Chamber. Some of us are sanctioned; others not yet. We have been sanctioned because we believe that unless the west stands up now to the growth of the totalitarian states—Russia, North Korea, Iran and China—we will face the loss of the freedoms that we profoundly believe necessary for democracy to flourish and for people’s rights and liberties to be upheld. This is not just a debate about Korea, north or south; it is a debate about our ability, capability and determination to recognise threats and never give in to them, wherever they lie. If there is one thing that the British Government and the British people should be proud of, it is our unrivalled sense of freedom, democracy and the rule of law, which we have always stood up to uphold. My worry today is that we might look at China and Korea and say, “These are far and distant countries now, and therefore we have to look after only ourselves.” That would be a sad and shabby day for this country. I appreciate the comments by the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), but our commitment to freedom is a global commitment. At this year’s UN General Assembly, the DPRK regime spoke of “human dignity and prosperity” and claimed that it was committed to international peace and security, yet the same regime continues to conduct intercontinental ballistic missile tests—it has launched eight short and medium-range ballistic missiles this year alone—while carrying out large-scale cyber-attacks, including the recent theft of $1.5 billion in cryptocurrency. It engages in transnational repression of human rights activists and illicit arms smuggling, and it continues to pour vast resources into weapons of mass destruction. Only a few weeks ago, we saw the leaders of the axis of authoritarian states gathered in Beijing, arm in arm with President Xi, claiming that they would be the new world order. If people did not freeze at that sight, understanding that it is a genuine challenge, then on the 75th anniversary of the Korean war we should remind ourselves of the sacrifice of the brave British, American and other United Nations troops who stood up in the face of tyranny and managed to secure freedom—if not all of it, at least enough to give hope to those who live outside it. We are not only commemorating the 75th anniversary; we will have to relive it and remind ourselves that there is nothing more expensive than freedom. It is not free.

    Hansard source
30. 22 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Iain Duncan Smith

    Korean War: 75th Commemoration

    This has been a remarkable debate, Mr Twigg. We have demonstrated the best of politics in Westminster, as we can when we choose to. We have come together to commemorate and celebrate the actions of our forebears and the results in the present. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part, because they all brought something unique and special. Some spoke for those honoured in their constituencies who never came home. Others, such as myself, honour the memory of the sacrifice that our forebears made, its purposes and reasons. We recognise and commemorate today the fact that 75 years ago British troops fought for Korean freedom, in a country and for a people far, far away, about which many if not all those troops knew next to nothing. Ordinary men—some who had fought in world war two, others who were young and inexperienced—fought for a concept of freedom, esoteric in some senses perhaps. As Gladstone once said, during the dispute over Moldavia and Wallachia in the late 19th century, there is no greater bulwark against tyranny than the breasts of free men and women. He was right, for that concept has made South Korea prosperous and democratic, giving its people the right to live in freedom—a right that their families and colleagues in the north do not have. It is surely for us to recognise and pick up that torch of freedom, and stand today with those around the world who yearn for freedom, not least those in North Korea. I finish with this thought. While we watch the despotism of North Korea carry on unabated, what do we say to those British troops and others of the United Nations force—the Glosters and the other brave men who died? What do we say to those who did not come home? Was it all in vain? The answer is no. For them and their spirit, all I will say is “Southward, look, the land is free.” Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the 75th commemoration of the Korean War.

    Hansard source
31. 22 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

    Korean War: 75th Commemoration

    I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this debate. It is worse than he says in North Korea. If someone is caught committing any of these minor crimes, such as listening to a memory stick from the west, it is not only they who are imprisoned; it is their entire family. That is almost invariably a slow death sentence, because they will then be worked terrifically hard without adequate food.

    Hansard source
32. 22 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

    Korean War: 75th Commemoration

    It is a privilege to speak in this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing this important debate to mark the 75th anniversary of the Korean war, and on his excellent opening speech. It is a great privilege to represent my consistency of North Cotswolds. It is an area that I have had the honour of representing, in some guise, since 1992, and it includes the largest geographical chunk of Gloucestershire, where undoubtedly members of the Gloucestershire Regiment’s families still live. As we commemorate this important anniversary, let me start as others have by paying tribute to the courage and sacrifice of the Gloucestershire Regiment during the battle of the Imjin river in April 1951. Like my right hon. Friend, I acknowledge that, of course, not only the Gloucestershire Regiment but all our other airmen, naval men and soldiers were part of that operation. In the face of a powerful force of 42,000 Chinese soldiers, the 1st battalion—the Glorious Glosters—held their position alone for three days. In the end there were 662 casualties. Fifty-six were killed, and 522 were taken prisoner—and many of them had already endured German and Japanese prisoner of war camps in world war two, as has been said. It was because of my connection with the Glosters that I chaired the APPG on North Korea for many years. I was very pleased that it was taken over from me by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green. On behalf of all the families, and the relatives who live elsewhere, I would like to pay tribute to the Glosters. According to General James Van Fleet, commander of the United Nations forces in Korea, the Glosters’ stand at Imjin was “the most outstanding example of unit bravery in modern warfare.” Their heroic defence plugged a large gap in the allied line and, ultimately, as my right hon. Friend said, it prevented the North Korean forces from capturing Seoul—where I have visited on several occasions—and helped to pave the way for the establishment of a free, prosperous South Korea. The courage and sacrifice of the Glosters secured freedom for one half of the Korean peninsula—even as the other half continues to suffer badly today under the repressive yoke of one of the most brutal regimes with the worst human rights record in the world. For their actions during the battle, the Glosters were awarded the US Presidential Unit Citation, a rare honour for non-American armed forces. Two of the men from the regiment were also posthumously rewarded the Victoria Cross, the British empire’s highest military decoration for valour. They included Lieutenant Philip Curtis for leading a counter-attack on the Chinese position at Castle Hill, buying time for his comrades. There were also two awards of the Distinguished Service Order, six Military Crosses, two Distinguished Conduct Medals and 10 Military Medals. The actions of the Glosters at Imjin remains one of the British Army’s finest hours.

    Hansard source
33. 22 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

    Korean War: 75th Commemoration

    My right hon. Friend is entirely right: freedom is not free, and nor is it enduring. We cannot assume that we will always be free; we have to continuously fight for and believe in it. That is why we want to support Ukraine and other countries that are being unjustly penalised in an illegal war, to make sure that they can remain free, just as we in this country have freedoms that we often take for granted. We must never take those freedoms for granted. I come now to a slightly sad bit in my speech. The bodies of many of the Glorious Glosters who were killed in North Korea still remain there. As many of my colleagues will be aware, I have previously been involved in efforts to try to return their remains to Britain. While noting the current geopolitical climate, I would like to ask whether the Minister will work with me to ensure that the remaining Glosters are brought home, so that their families can finally give them a dignified burial. There is precedent for this: the last time there was a little bit of rapprochement, around the time of President Trump’s meetings with the President of North Korea, some of the American bodies were brought home. If there is an opportunity in the next rapprochement, and if the Minister supports me in pushing for this, I could arrange for the bodies to be categorised and returned to the families in a dignified way, so that they can lay them to rest. As we mark the 75th anniversary of the Korean war, let us turn our attention to the situation in the peninsula today. Anyone who looks at a satellite photo will see that half, the south, is lit up with bright lights—the lights of a free, prosperous, democratic society. The other half, the north, remains in darkness—a darkness of cruelty, repression and poverty. As has been mentioned, those who are brave enough to try to escape from North Korea very often end up in China. China uses facial and other recognition technology to make sure those people are returned, certainly to torture and most likely to their death. We are very honoured—I have his permission to mention this—to have Timothy Cho in the Gallery today. He is one of those who tried to escape from North Korea. He failed on the first occasion, and he has huge scars all over his body from the torture that he went through when he was recaptured. But he was even braver, and wanted to escape for a second time, when mercifully he succeeded. We are very proud to have him here in Britain. In 2013, the United Nations established a commission of inquiry, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green said, to investigate the human rights situation in North Korea. A distinguished Australian judge, Justice Michael Kirby, was appointed to chair it. Together with the experienced Serbian human rights campaigner Sonja Biserko and the UN special rapporteur for human rights in North Korea at the time, the former Indonesian Attorney General Marzuki Darusman, he conducted a comprehensive set of hearings, gathering witness testimony and first-hand evidence. As has been quoted today, their conclusion was: “The gravity, scale and nature of these violations” —this is the important bit— “reveal a State that does not have any parallel in the contemporary world.” Having been chairman of the North Korea group, I can tell the House that some of the stories that I have heard are just unbelievable. It is a harrowing catalogue of crimes against humanity, including extermination, murder, enslavement, torture, imprisonment, rape and forced abortions, among the other atrocities that people there have to endure, as well as severe religious persecution, enforced disappearance and starvation. The inquiry recommended that this should lead to a referral to the International Criminal Court. More than a decade later, I ask the Minister: what is the status of the UN commission of inquiry? What plans do the Government have to revisit the human rights and humanitarian crisis in North Korea at the UN Human Rights Council and the UN Security Council? Seventy-five years on from the war on the Korean peninsula, North Korea, together with China, is a major facilitator of President Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine, providing Russia with weapons, munitions and men. While we remember that 75 years ago our brave soldiers were on the Korean peninsula defending freedom, North Korean troops today are on the continent of Europe, on our doorstep, reminding us that independence and liberty cannot be taken for granted. What steps are the Government taking to hold North Korea to account for this act of aggression? We live in an increasingly turbulent and uncertain world. That should remind us how imperative it is for democracies to stand together to defend freedom against tyranny and totalitarianism. Nowhere is there a clearer example that shows why that is needed than on the Korean peninsula. Imagine what Korea would be like today if the Glosters had not taken such a heroic stance. All of us in this House should pay tribute to their courage and selfless actions.

    Hansard source
34. 22 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

    Korean War: 75th Commemoration

    I am grateful for the Minister’s words, but what I was really trying to ask in my speech was whether the British Government would work with the Americans. It is only through the Americans that we will get the political buy-in from the North Koreans to allow these things to take place.

    Hansard source
35. 22 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

    Engagements

    Q6. Weston Hospicecare provides an invaluable service for constituents with a terminal illness. The hospice now faces an increased national insurance bill of £139,000 a year as a result of the Chancellor’s jobs tax. The Prime Minister will know that the money he has announced for capital expenditure cannot be used for day-to-day running expenses and that the money he has announced for children’s hospices will not benefit Weston Hospicecare, so what help can he offer the hospice as it struggles under the tax burden imposed by his Government?

    Hansard source
36. 22 Oct 2025·Parliament·Simon Hoare

    Engagements

    Q8. As last week’s urgent question highlighted, Jhoots—the pharmacy non-provider—is effectively de facto bankrupt and possibly even insolvent too. Last week we discussed at great length the impact that is having on patients securing their prescriptions. It is now becoming increasingly evident that while His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is being told by Jhoots that staff are being paid, they are not. Lana-Olivia Gulston and Blake Horwood in my constituency have not been paid since 18 July. They are resorting to the kindness of friends and the support of food banks to make ends meet. The Minister for Care—the hon. Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock)—is doing fantastic work to try to drive forward modernisation of the regulations, but this situation is now impacting the work of the Department for Business and Trade, HMRC and the Department for Work and Pensions. Could I urge the Prime Minister to convene those three Departments alongside the Department of Health and Social Care to secure a better, fair deal for patients and for those who are currently trapped in employment—not being released by being made redundant and not being paid?

    Hansard source
37. 22 Oct 2025·Parliament·Robbie Moore

    Draft Control of Mercury (Enforcement) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. The official Opposition recognise the need to keep our environment free from pollutants. We recognise that the use of mercury, and its impact on the environment, has increased in the industrialised age. It is right that we take steps to reduce mercury use where possible, and that we work with international partners to do so. However, it is crucial that we do so as a Parliament representing the whole of the United Kingdom. Last year, the EU took further steps to continue the phase-out of mercury by significantly restricting the export, import and use of mercury for dental purposes. At the time, that created great concern in Northern Ireland, where dentistry practices said that they simply were not ready for mercury-free dentistry and the extra costs that the phase-out would create for the sector. The Government secured a derogation on dental amalgam for Northern Ireland that would end on 31 December 2034, or before that if dental amalgam was similarly phased out across Great Britain. Do the Government believe that that decade-long window gives the Northern Ireland dentistry sector sufficient time to adapt to the regulations that will be baked in by this legislation? At a time when dentists in Northern Ireland are warning that they are already making a loss on routine procedures, what do the Government estimate the transition will cost? Do they have an understanding of the timeframe for the phase-out of mercury in dentistry practices UK-wide, and do they anticipate that the deadline will be before the EU derogation ends in Northern Ireland? Although the derogation is welcome, do the Government recognise that there is an issue with the position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom, given the remaining influence of EU rules and regulations? What reassurances can the Minister give, in an age of dynamic alignment, that Northern Ireland will remain firmly under the authority of Stormont and Westminster, and not Brussels? I note that an impact assessment has not been produced for the draft regulations, because, in the Government’s words, they consider that they will have no or very little impact on the business sector. However, given the concerns of the dentistry sector that I have raised, will the Minister outline why no impact assessment has been produced?

    Hansard source
38. 22 Oct 2025·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

    Engagements

    Q9. Last week, I invited the Prime Minister to match the Conservative pledge to scrap business rates for our high streets. However, he declined. Instead, he pointed me towards the small business strategy. Since then, businesses have been in touch to tell me that the strategy will make little or no difference to their future. With 14,000 high street businesses expected to close this year alone, and with retail businesses in my constituency facing a doubling of their business rates, when will the Labour Government deliver on their commitment to reduce business rates, given that they are unprepared to accept our policy of scrapping them altogether?

    Hansard source
39. 22 Oct 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Heathrow: National Airports Review

    I ask colleagues to keep their questions short, so I can get everybody in.

    Hansard source
40. 22 Oct 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Renters’ Rights Bill

    With this it will be convenient to consider the Government motion to agree with the Lords in their amendments 39B and 39C.

    Hansard source