Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
Order. The hon. Gentleman will keep within the scope of this Bill, and not seek to rehash urgent questions held earlier.
5,750 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban
I am sure that the Secretary of State will find the irony in the fact that last weekend—as I am sure they will next weekend—premier league footballers took the knee to demonstrate the need to drive out racism from football. What has happened here is antisemitism at its heart. If the issue is the safety of the fans outside the ground, it is the case in many away matches that away supporters are escorted by the police on coaches to the entrance and then collected from the exit to go back to the airport. There is no reason why that cannot be done now. Will the Secretary of State go back to the police and say, “Let’s make people safe”? I support Tottenham Hotspur, and we have a massive Jewish population among our fans. If this means that we are not safe to go to Aston Villa because of attitudes outside the ground, that is a demonstration that in the UK Jewish people are not safe on our streets.
- Hansard source
Alleged Spying Case: Home Office Involvement
The Minister has been asked why further steps were not taken to provide the evidence requested in this case, knowing that the case was on the verge of collapse. He may feel that he has provided clarity, but I am afraid that he absolutely has not. Will he ask the Attorney General to come to this House and make a statement about what the CPS wanted and why that was not provided by the Government?
- Hansard source
Post-16 Education and Skills Strategy
The Secretary of State says that she wants to see empowered NHS staff with the right skills to deliver a transformed service, with which I absolutely agree. Level 7 apprenticeships, such as those provided by Cranfield University in Mid Bedfordshire, are so important to delivering that, but the Department for Education has cut funding to level 7 apprenticeships, meaning that the Department of Health and Social Care will be funding ongoing provision. Does the Secretary of State think it is responsible for her to balance the books of her Department on the back of the NHS?
- Hansard source
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
Since this House first learned of the disastrous terms of the Chagos surrender deal, there has been significant focus on the spiralling cost and on the defence and security implications—we have heard many such arguments today. The Government’s weakness has compromised our national security. They are surrendering British territory to an ally of China and paying £35 billion—or perhaps as much as £50 billion—for the privilege. Their failure to defend the British national interest is shameful. Equally shameful is the Government’s failure to consider the impact that the deal will have on environmental protections for marine areas. Members from across the House have reflected on that today, but it is a shame that so few Labour Members came to stand up for our environmental protections in the Indian Ocean Territories. I will address the importance of new clauses 3 and 4, two sensible amendments tabled by the shadow Foreign Secretary to strengthen oversight of the marine protected area. The region of the Indian ocean that hosts the unique and remarkable Chagos Islands is of critical importance to wildlife. The archipelago is a biodiversity hotspot. The 640,000 sq km marine protected area, which has been monitored by the UK for the past 15 years, has kept the surrounding waters in near-pristine condition. The coral reefs in the untouched marine protected area are some of the healthiest in the world. They are a sanctuary for marine life, including endangered species such as hawksbill turtles, green turtles and reef sharks, and they are located along hugely significant migratory routes for species of tuna, whales and seabirds. The remarkable resilience of the reefs to coral bleaching events also makes them highly significant for scientific research to better understand resilience to changing climates.
- Hansard source
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
There is a difference between talking with other countries and doing a deal. I know that those on the Opposition Front Bench who formed part of the previous Government were not going to do this deal. They may have been talking, but as we have heard, there was going to be no agreement. I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and reflecting that I was not part of the previous Government, but he knows full well that this agreement would not have been made under these terms if the Conservatives were in government now. The marine protected area is one of the largest untouched marine ecosystems, and it is globally significant. As such, instead of heedlessly driving this hopeless surrender deal through Parliament, the Government should have been ensuring that protections for wildlife and the marine environment were watertight. When answering questions before the Foreign Affairs Committee in June, the Minister would not give any clear assurances or guarantees on the future of the marine protected area. Within his obfuscation about separate agreements with Mauritius, which hope we can “share objectives and values”, he admitted that we can only “take it on trust that there will be a Marine Protected Area” after sovereignty has been surrendered. We absolutely do not need to take that on trust. The Government have failed to secure any meaningful safeguards or guarantees, and are instead hoping—merely hoping—that a memorandum of understanding will somehow protect that pristine ecosystem. How on earth can we have any confidence in that at all? A simple change of Government in Mauritius, or even just a change of heart, would render the UK powerless to stop Chinese trawlers turning up and devastating the marine environment. Given the evidence of China plundering the high seas, for example in the south Atlantic, just outside the Falkland Islands zone of economic interest, it absolutely will do the same in that territory.
- Hansard source
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
I absolutely agree, and I note that the right hon. Gentleman and I are the only Members in the Chamber from the Environmental Audit Committee, which I think is a damning indictment on those Members in this House who are here to protect our environment and hold the Government to account on environmental protections. Will the Minister now explain what will happen to the MPA in future, and say whether the Government will commit resources to support the protection of the MPA? If so, where will those resources come from? With the fisheries Minister of Mauritius talking of issuing fishing and trawler licences, it is more important than ever that we have lasting confidence in marine protections before British territory is surrendered to Mauritius. When the Minister sums up the debate, will he say whether he shares my concerns over new fishing and trawler licences? New clause 3 would require that any written instrument on the establishment and management of the marine protected area be subject to the approval of this House to ensure that it is fit for purpose. Will the Minister say what progress has been made with developing the “separate…instrument”, referenced in article 5.2 of the treaty? Will it be in place before Mauritius assumes sovereignty? Any agreement on the Chagos MPA must be scrutinised like a treaty and presented to Parliament. New clause 4 would require the Secretary of State regularly to report on the status of the marine protected area. Reports from Committees in the Lords have raised concerns about Mauritius’s track record on environmental protections. Does the Minister agree with those concerns, and therefore agree that the ecological status of this extraordinary environment must remain on the British Government’s agenda, and will he reflect on that in his summing up of the debate? Will he now accept that, as well as costing British taxpayers £35 billion, betraying British Chagossians and undermining our security, without better protections secured in the treaty, the Government’s Chagos surrender deal will harm the marine environment? All of this at a time when the Government argued that the state of public finances required tough choices—choices that punished pensioners, family farmers, and taxed education for the very first time. The annual cost of the surrender of the Chagos islands could pay for 3,068 new teachers, 3,253 new nurses or 1,975 police officers. In the first year, the money paid to Mauritius could deliver a new GP surgery in 30 communities —communities such as Wixams and Wootton in my constituency of Mid Bedfordshire, which are still waiting for improved access to local healthcare. This was all a choice—a choice to prioritise ideological surrender over our communities, over our security, and over marine protections. It is shameful, and I encourage hon. Members across the House to support new clauses 3 and 4.
- Hansard source
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government are treating China like it is our friend, rather than the threat that it is?
- Hansard source
Alleged Spying Case: Home Office Involvement
I have now asked the Government why China is not included in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme three times. On 9 June, I was told “that particular report is coming forward in due course.”—[Official Report, 9 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 613.] On 15 September, I was told “no doubt we will have more to say about it in due course.”—[Official Report, 15 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 1194.] And on 13 October, I was told “any decisions about the enhanced tier will be brought forward in the normal way.”—[Official Report, 13 October 2025; Vol. 773, c. 85.] The Government are now panicked about the Chinese embassy decision, they are desperately trying to deflect from attention on the Chagos deal that the National Security Adviser negotiated on, and they appear to be decriminalising spying for China. What is the Government’s rationale for not including China within the enhanced tier? Given the threat, when will it be added?
- Hansard source
Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban
The message that this decision sends is that the police will bow to religious pressure, and it legitimises antisemitism. The Secretary of State made reference to the game between Ajax and Maccabi Tel Aviv. The vast majority of fans arrested that evening were Ajax fans. Ajax are playing Chelsea at Stamford Bridge on Wednesday evening, but no one has talked about banning its fans from attending that game. Article 27.04 of the Europa league regulations states that “to ensure that a rescheduled match can be completed, if necessary without spectators, the home club must have access to a back-up stadium”. Given that it is now likely that this fixture will attract bad faith actors to Birmingham who are not fans of either team and who are looking to cause trouble, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of playing the match behind closed doors at a neutral venue, or a venue where the police are prepared to provide security?
- Hansard source
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
For no apparent reason, and in a crowded field, the Government have chosen the Chagos islands as one of the many hills they wish to die on. The surrender of the sovereignty of the Chagos islands has been a puzzling mis-step for months, with today’s votes the culmination of it. There was a clumsy rush to try to force the deal through, first before the elections in Mauritius and then before the US elections, and there now appears to be an attempt to salvage some dignity, having seemingly surrendered “meekly to a Mauritian shakedown”, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) has put it, while trying to upsell the deal to a US Government that publicly backs it, given that it will not cost them a penny, but privately must have concerns over the impact of allowing Chinese encroachment in the region. With recent developments shifting the focus of US foreign policy to the Indo-Pacific, the Chagos islands deal surely takes on greater significance. The base is now more important to US policy, not less. Last December, the previous Armed Forces Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), who is in his place, announced that the deal “secures the future of the UK-US base on Diego Garcia”, and said that “when everyone looks at the detail of the deal, they will back it”.—[Official Report, 2 December 2024; Vol. 758, c. 28.] Indeed, the Minister for the Overseas Territories, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) confirmed to me that “There has been no change to the substance of the deal”.—[Official Report, 5 February 2025; Vol. 761, c. 764.] That is strange, because the new Prime Minister of Mauritius, Navin Ramgoolam, described the deal struck with the previous Mauritian Government as a “sell-out”, stating that the deal should be indexed to inflation, take exchange rates into account and fully recognise Mauritius’s ownership of the islands, which could affect the UK’s unilateral right to renew the lease. That was in mid-January. Less than a fortnight later, the Minister confirmed to me in a written answer that the UK would not have the unilateral ability to extend the agreement at the end of the lease. What changes were made to the original deal during discussions with the Government of Mauritius, and why have the Government gone on record as saying that the deal has not changed, in direct contradiction with the statements of the Prime Minister of Mauritius? Surely the Minister for the Overseas Territories is not suggesting that Prime Minister Ramgoolam is mistaken. In January, when I asked the Prime Minister whether he had ever discussed the Chagos islands with Philippe Sands KC, his answer was a brusque, “No.” Brevity is key when trying not to give too much away. Philippe Sands has represented Mauritius at the International Court of Justice in multiple disputes over the Chagos islands. In 2022, Mr Sands published “The Last Colony: A Tale of Exile, Justice and Britain’s Colonial Legacy” about Chagos. It is worth highlighting that Philippe Sands and the Prime Minister have apparently been very good friends for several years; they even interviewed one another at the Hay festival. Earlier this year, The Telegraph reported that the national security justification for surrendering the Chagos islands used by the Prime Minister came from Philippe Sands, who wrote about it in the 2023 book, “The International Legal Order in the 21st Century”. With Mr Sands apparently no longer representing Mauritius following the change in regime, it does make one wonder if that was the reason why there was such a rush to conclude the deal before the election, after which Mr Sands’ services were no longer required—did the Government lose their in? I would be interested to know how the Government think the International Telecommunication Union would block our use of the electromagnetic spectrum. How would it block communications equipment on Diego Garcia without encroaching on our territory? What active blocking of electromagnetic frequencies is a UN agency capable of doing anyway? What steps would the ITU have taken to block the US military’s use of the electromagnetic spectrum had we not progressed this deal? The national security argument simply does not stack up. New clause 6 would require the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on the impact of UNCLOS on the operation of the treaty. The Government have previously stated that it is ITLOS that would pose the greatest threat to the operation of Diego Garcia. It was cited specifically by the Defence Secretary for the first—and only—time on 22 May, when he said: “There are a range of international legal challenges and rulings against us. The most proximate, and the most potentially serious, is the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.”—[Official Report, 22 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 1291.] In July, the Minister for the Overseas Territories referred to ITLOS for the first time since he was a shadow Minister for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, when, in December 2022, he had stated that the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea “did not have competence on territorial disputes”, going on to say: “It is a fact that China has made increasing encroachments into the territorial waters of its neighbours and vast claims in the South China sea while ignoring judgments against itself. That has been matched by a growing assertiveness, and even belligerence, towards some of our allies and partners in the region”.—[Official Report, 7 December 2022; Vol. 724, c. 162WH.] He asked for assurances then. Now, nearly three years later, with a belligerent China flexing its naval muscle in the region and adopting a robust posture towards us over the delay to the decision on its London embassy and the obvious ongoing spy debacle, what assurances can the Government give the Committee that this opportunity will not be exploited by the Chinese Communist party? As recently as August, the Mauritian Government referred to “The strategic role of Mauritius as an investment gateway to Africa and a trusted partner for Chinese enterprises seeking to expand their footprint therein”. Mauritius is committed to working closely with China—far closer, it would appear, than it is to working with us. Why are the Government prepared to embolden Chinese ambition in the Pacific? Why are they prepared to embolden Chinese spying in Parliament? Why are they prepared to allow the Chinese to build an embassy in London without absolute clarity on its structural plans? With all that in mind, why will the Government not include China in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme? The shadow of Jonathan Powell looms large over this deal, as it has over every aspect of the Government’s dealings with the Chinese Communist party. Across the globe, we are seeing changes in the rules-based order. We must navigate this better. My fear, which is shared by all on the Conservative Benches, is that this capitulation shows no understanding of the changes we are facing. We need to ensure that this great nation stands up for safety, freedom and security across an increasingly dangerous world, and this opaque and furtive deal puts that at unacceptable risk.
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
Following the tragic murder of her daughter Brianna, Esther Ghey has dedicated herself to making our schools safer. I have just come from an event that she is hosting in Parliament, at which she is calling for a statutory ban on smartphones in classrooms. Will the Minister for Children and Families, the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), make time to attend today’s event and make it clear whether he supports a statutory phone-free education for all children?
- Hansard source
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
The treaty that the Bill will implement is shocking for so many reasons: the security implications, the staggering costs, and the voices that it has ignored—the voices of British Chagossians. Their views and concerns are many and varied. I had the privilege of meeting members of the community when they came to Parliament, while the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), met British Chagossians only once, and that was on the very day that the treaty was signed—far too late for their voices to have any influence. They are rightly frustrated that they have been excluded from negotiations and denied meaningful engagement. It is painfully clear that their voices were not considered; if they had been, the treaty might have placed their rights at its very centre. Instead, article 6 gives Mauritius the freedom to resettle Chagossians, but not the duty to do so. After half a century of waiting for it, their right of return is left entirely at the discretion of a foreign Government. Under article 11, despite the billions of pounds that the Bill will transfer to Mauritius, only a fraction—in the form of a trust fund—is intended for Chagossians. Even then, it will be administered solely by Mauritius, with no guarantee that British Chagossians will have any say in how it is spent. The treaty says that the UK and Mauritius want to “recognise the wrongs of the past”, but how can we recognise a wrong if we refuse to listen to those who suffered it? New clause 7, tabled by the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), is vital because it would require the Government to listen to and consult the Chagossian community here in the UK, and to report back on how their rights are being upheld. That would give British Chagossians the voice that they have been denied again and again. Another vital issue is the risk that the Bill poses to one of the most precious marine environments on earth. The waters around the Chagos Islands form one of the world’s largest and most pristine marine protected areas. As we have heard, it is a haven of biodiversity, untouched by industrial fishing since 2010. Yet the treaty places that fragile ecosystem in jeopardy. Mauritius has promised to establish a new marine protected area, but it lacks the capacity to enforce it. It has no navy, and its coastguard of nine vessels is already stretched by patrolling waters thousands of miles away. By contrast, the UK has spent over £1.2 million since 2022 on monitoring and protecting those seas, developing world-leading expertise in remote enforcement through ships, sensors and satellite imagery. Illegal fishing is already rife across the Indian ocean. China’s distant-water fleet is the largest in the world and the worst global offender for illegal fishing, according to the illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing index. What confidence can we have that Mauritius—a close ally of China—will be able or willing to resist such pressure and protect these fragile waters?
- Hansard source
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
My hon. Friend makes an important point. It has no navy and only nine coastguard vessels; it is not able to protect those waters. Even if illegal fishing were controlled, the Mauritian Fisheries Minister has already spoken of wanting to issue fishing licences around the Chagos Islands. The agreement provides no guarantees; the extent of future protections will be decided only after the Bill has passed. New clauses 3 and 4 are essential to ensure parliamentary oversight of any future agreement and regular reporting on coral health, fish stocks and biodiversity. As it stands, the Bill would hand billions of pounds of UK taxpayers’ money to Mauritius, with no guarantees of protection of the marine environment, no provisions to safeguard the rights of British Chagossians, and no mechanism for Britain to monitor whether the safeguards around the strategic military base on Diego Garcia are effective. The Conservative amendments offer a chance for the Government to be transparent, publish the legal advice on which they surrendered the Chagos Islands, and give the House a vote on the payment of £35 billion to Mauritius. The treaty is damaging in so many ways, but let us not make the damage worse by waving it through unchecked.
- Hansard source
Ada Lovelace Day
The Ada Lovelace event held earlier this week in Parliament was an excellent way of highlighting for many of us the importance of women in manufacturing and STEM, but Ada Lovelace was clearly a visionary. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need to keep that visionary sense at the heart of all we do when encouraging the next generation of women into STEM? That means encouraging the further education sector to work with businesses and apprenticeship providers, such as In-Comm from Aldridge, whose representatives were at the event.
- Hansard source
Business of the House
Nineteen thousand: that is the number of homes that this Labour Government want to impose on the Walsall borough. In Aldridge-Brownhills, not only are we fighting to protect our precious green spaces and our green belt, but we now find ourselves threatened by this term, and new regulation, “grey belt”. May we have a debate in Government time on the urgent need to protect our precious green spaces, our communities, our countryside and our food security?
- Hansard source
Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements
Stop playing politics! This is about national security, you petty little man!
- Hansard source
Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements
May I start by saying briefly quite how this feels, Mr Speaker? My home has been broken into, my files have been ransacked, somebody was put into my office by a hostile state, and the two parties are playing politics with it. This is the national security of the United Kingdom. The people of Tonbridge elected me; they may have chosen wrong, but they did. The people of other parts of the United Kingdom chose everybody else in this House—it is up to them to choose who represents them. Yet here we have two individuals seeking to extract information from us, and the Government’s response is not as mine was: do everything you can to make sure the prosecution works. No, no, it was “process, process”. Well, who the hell’s side are you on? This is not about bureaucracy; this is about leadership. We are not sent here to be civil servants. We are sent here to lead the country and to make decisions. I feel nothing but fondness for the Minister in his place, and I am very sorry that he has been sent out on what is not quite his first outing, but pretty close—[Interruption.] Oh, it is his first outing! He has been sent out on his first outing to defend the indefensible. He now has the position in which he effectively has to say that he is not a politician, but a bureaucrat, that there is nothing he can do, and that frankly he should not even be here in the first place, because that seems to be the Prime Minister’s line. Former Attorneys General have got up and prosecuted on the state’s behalf. This Attorney General and this Prime Minister have said, “Not on my watch—not worth the effort.”
- Hansard source
Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I will not; I am going to raise a different argument, if I may. Given that the Government’s position is that the bureaucrats run the Government and are in charge of everything, may we dissolve this House and save the taxpayer the money, because clearly this is not a democracy any more?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
This is the first time I have seen the Leader of the House at the Dispatch Box in his new role, and I welcome him. He mentioned religious freedom. That freedom must not be allowed to conceal the malevolence of Sharia courts, which operate in places across our constituencies—there are around 85. Indeed, we are described as the western capital of Sharia law. Although they have no legitimate lawful authority, those courts are reinforcing all kinds of horrors, including discrimination against women and non-believers, polygamy and other such things. It is time that there is a debate on this issue in the House, for we need to shine a light on that malevolence. There can be only one law in this country: the law that applies to each of us and all of us.
- Hansard source
Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements
It is now clear that the Crown Prosecution Service asked the Government more than once, over more than a year, for some additional evidence on what the CPS considered to be the crucial question of whether China constituted a national security threat during the relevant period. It seems to me, having read those statements, that at least two important questions arise. The first is the one just asked by the hon. Member for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg). Given that it was clear at the point when the deputy National Security Adviser made his second and third statements that the question he was being asked to comment on was whether that bar of being a national security threat was met or not, what is the possible relevance of the inclusion of information about China as an economic opportunity? Surely the Minister and the Government can see that that only weakens the substance of the question that that witness was being asked to answer. It would be useful to understand whether the DNSA came to that view on his own or had it suggested to him that that would be a useful thing to include. The second question is this. The Government have been clear—the Minister has been today, and the Prime Minister was yesterday—about how disappointed they are at the outcome of the trial and how much they wanted the prosecution to proceed. Given the length of time and the number of requests received by the CPS, surely it would be logical to assume that the Government would be straining every sinew to find extra evidence to meet the CPS’s requirement. Whether they thought the CPS was right to ask for it or not, it was clear that, with that extra evidence, the CPS would have proceeded with the case as the Government say they wanted. What evidence can the Government provide to us that every sinew was strained and that they did everything they could to find that evidence? If that evidence is in fact available and others could find it, will the Government not have some explaining to do?
- Hansard source
Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements
The first question was about why the deputy National Security Adviser included reference to economic opportunity in his statement when he knew that that was not the question he was being asked, nor the relevant question.
- Hansard source
Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements
Obviously, this is too important for party politics; it is a matter of national security against an existential threat from China. The Prime Minister was clear yesterday when he said that no Minister would ever apply pressure to the CPS, and I completely believe him. But we would like to have clarity that Ministers had no discussions with civil servants and then subsequently civil servants with the CPS. We want to be absolutely clear that there was no ministerial involvement at all.
- Hansard source
Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements
Given that the deputy National Security Adviser is a civil servant and therefore accountable, who was holding him to account for the job that he was doing? May I just emphasise that I am sure he was doing his level and honourable best in the circumstances in which he found himself, but it is really beyond belief that—as became apparent from the third inquiry, where the Director of Public Prosecutions was asking for a clear statement that China was a national security threat—nobody was capable of telling him, “Well, actually, you’d better say that”? The idea that he was somehow beyond any influence from anybody is laughable. One can only conclude that this conspiracy of omission was something that the Government wanted because they did not want this trial to go ahead.
- Hansard source
Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements
The CPS decision not to prosecute leaves our nation less secure. What assurance can the Minister give the House that the Government did everything in their power to ensure that the CPS had the necessary evidence to prosecute?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
In Woolavington village in my constituency, three separate planning applications, totalling over 400 homes, have been submitted, with the prospect of a fourth, even larger proposal to follow. The cumulative impact of those developments on local services will not be fully assessed, because each application is treated separately. To make matters worse, Somerset council’s temporary emergency planning measures have led to the cancellation of many planning committees, leaving local councillors cut out of decision-making processes. May I therefore ask the Leader of the House for a debate on how cumulative housing impacts are assessed and how we ensure that local democratic oversight is not undermined?
- Hansard source
Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill
This has been a wide-ranging and important debate on a vital Bill. There have been many valuable and informed contributions, not least from the hon. Members for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes), for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn), for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby) and for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne). The hon. Member for Exeter (Steve Race) is rightly proud of the great academic institutions in his constituency, highlighting the important role that UK research plays in the world. It was a pleasure to see the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) making one of the first Back-Bench contributions. She reinforced the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) made about the destruction of the marine environment. I know that she speaks from a position not just of expertise but of passion, and she has shown that over so many years, with a commitment to our oceans and with the work that she has led on. May I say to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings), that she shows why it is so important that we have people in this House with such wide-ranging experience, who have had lives outside this place? She has brought expertise to the debate and I am sure that many of us envy her in what she has been able to do, the intellect that she has applied to the argument and the fact that we can all listen carefully to what she has said. The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) said something important when she talked about marine deforestation and some of the mainstream media shows that had footage that she had heard had been too shocking to show. That represents a real problem in this debate. Are we wrapping this up in cotton wool for some people, to not show exactly what we are trying to deal with? She made the important point that we should not hide from what is going on in the world.
- Hansard source
Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that important intervention. The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) raised the importance of mainstream media. We are grateful for her apology to my hon. Friend the Member for Romford for misinterpreting his drive about the importance of the Chagos islands. It is disappointing that the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), who is no longer in his place, felt that not enough of my colleagues were in attendance, but those of us who were here have stayed here—Mr Speaker has commented on many an occasion that I can often be more than enough. The hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) pointed out how little we know about the oceans. That is an important point. It has often been said that space exploration gets lots of coverage and we talk about it very much—indeed, we are talking about manning the moon again, and maybe using it as a launch pad to go to Mars—yet so much of our own planet is completely unknown and unexplored. That brings me to the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner), who has a genuine interest and expertise. He gave a wide ranging and important speech and made an important point about the ocean being one of the biggest solutions to climate change. He is indeed right that the European economic zones are a legacy from the days when we owned half the world. One of the great achievements of the last Conservative Government is the work we did on the blue belt and on ensuring that we protected important marine environments. I do not know whether he will expand on this in later debates, but I noticed that he did not appear to be fully supportive of giving up on the fisheries from the EU with the EU reset. I wonder whether he may have things to add to that debate at another time, but perhaps now is not the time and place. However, he does make an important point that we can only do what we have to do as a country if we have the ability to do it in those waters. The way that the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane) approached the subject of the Conservative party’s record in this area was a real pity. I am proud of some of the work we did on the blue belt, including working on this Bill, and as we have seen during the debate, there is wide support for it across the House. The right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) pointed out her genuine delight in the fact that this House has so many experts to speak on such an important issue. She echoed the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Romford on what will happen with the Chagos Bill. I do not want to go into great detail on that, because we are going to be here a long time on Monday evening debating that Bill, but I think she was driving at the fact that the assurances in the Chagos Bill do not go far enough in protecting the blue belt. I welcome her clarification that my party has raised the issue of the blue belt. She comes with expertise and deserves to be listened to when she is raising these important points. The Minister opened the debate by talking about the urgency and importance of this moment. That is true. When my hon. Friend the Member for Romford spoke, he made some very serious points, not least about how we can ensure that the responsibilities that the United Kingdom has always taken towards marine fisheries do not get overridden if we cannot control our work entirely. He made the point that, in the scheme of things, we must ensure that we do not hand over the ability to other countries to stop us doing that work. The reality is that—again, I will touch briefly on this because it is not part of the debate—the UN Security Council, set up for a reason, finds it hard to react to what is happening in Ukraine because Russia can override anything with its veto. We must ensure that we have the ability, as a Government and a country, to employ the laws and protections that we need to put in place. We will raise these areas in Committee, even if that is through probing amendments, because we want to ensure that the Bill can do exactly what it intends to do. The reality of the Bill also comes into some of these situations that we see on the horizon. We know about the opening up of the Arctic, the melting of the sea ice and the opening of the north-east passage, which for many months—certainly weeks—of the year is fully navigable; the ice has gone away by that much. At the same time, we know that President Putin and the Russians have said that there are hydrocarbon resources in that ocean that they want to mine. That would be devastating for the fragile ecosystems that exist in that unique area of the world, which is almost completely untouched. I had the pleasure back in May of being part of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly visit to Svalbard. The University Centre in Svalbard has dozens of countries, universities, academic institutions and hundreds of nationalities studying that region, climate change and the effect it has on the Arctic, and the effects on ecosystems. It is absolutely vital, as we see the geopolitical tensions forming in areas where they have not been before, that we have those strong protections in place.
- Hansard source
Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill
I was about to finish, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
- Hansard source
Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill
I will not be drawn quite into that trap about releasing Joint Intelligence reports. However, the hon. Gentleman makes an important point, because there is no doubt that we are talking about sovereign security if we do not get this right, and that applies to all countries around the world. If we allow climate change and not the protection of valuable ecosystems, as has been described by many hon. and right hon. Members across the House, it is all of us who will suffer. We have our concerns about some areas of the Bill. We will be tabling some amendments in Committee and probing those areas, but on the whole we hope that we can support the Bill, and it is important to carry on the work that our Government started.
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Fifth sitting)
I apologise for interrupting the Minister. I understand what she is saying, but we have seen a contradiction from the Government on Second Reading as well as in Committee. Is the meaning that they want to go a full devolution power and have mayors in power to make decisions for their local people? I think it is accepted that, across different geographical areas, there will be different local partners, so why are the Government being so prescriptive and removing the role of the mayor to govern their own corresponding responsibilities?
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Fifth sitting)
I do not want the hon. Lady to look so disheartened, because I am about to agree with her. She looked horrified that I was intervening on her. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that we share a concern about town and parish councils being consulted. However, does she not think that the new clause is slightly over-egging the pudding? If a mayor was worth their weight in gold, or accountable to their constituents, it would be in their own interest—in the interest of them staying in their job—to meet those people anyway. I wonder whether she thinks that the new clause may be too prescriptive. Regarding the plan to have meetings once every 12 months, that would be perfectly achievable by meeting all the town and parish councils on the same day. To answer the hon. Member for Banbury, there would be 364 days when mayors would be able to meet other people.
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Fifth sitting)
I rise to speak to new clause 19 in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. I wholly respect the reasons why she tabled it. However, I intend to speak against it, because of the burdens that it would place on the mayor, as well as some of the additional costs that it would introduce, as the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole intimated. I should declare at the very beginning that I am a firm believer in democracy. Just as my party does when it puts itself forward to run this country and I stand for election, everyone who wishes to be a mayor will put before their electorate a manifesto, and if those manifestos are worth the paper they are written on, they will state very clearly what that mayoral candidate intends to do during their term. Occasionally, the Labour party adds things that were not in its manifesto, or possibly drops things that were in it, but a prospective mayor’s manifesto should be very clear about what they want to do for their residents. Therefore, residents who engage with the electoral process—granted, turnout needs to be higher—will know very clearly what the winner was promising, whether they disagree with them or not. I am accountable to my constituents. A mayor will be accountable to their constituents. What is the point of establishing another body that chooses to meet when it wants and, as the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion said, might not even need to meet the mayor?
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Fifth sitting)
I will—that is called an election. That is my point. I understand that the hon. Lady comes at this from a genuine position—I hope she accepts that I do, too—but the accountability and trust element is a general election, or an election for the role of mayor, at which they will be held accountable for whether they have committed to and, more importantly, delivered what they said they would do. That is the key process, and key accountability structure, of the Bill. Although new clause 19 is very well drafted, it would place a huge cost burden on the new authority, or the mayor, to establish a citizens assembly, not to mention the administrative burden of selecting 40 people from the area “by sortition or lottery”. Although I do not believe in prescriptive legislation, I think that the new clause would be open to interpretation in many different ways and would add huge costs to the operation of the authority or the mayor, at a time when it is generally accepted that the public finances are not in the way they should be. The mayor must not be overburdened in delivering their key priorities and strategic aims by the additional expenditure that would be required.
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Fifth sitting)
The suggestion fills me with horror—I am open in saying that it fills me with utter dread. The electoral process is the point. The hackles on my neck stand up when the words “citizens assembly” are mentioned because we have the electoral processes. Already, every day, people out there in our communities form groups and challenge the mayor. Every day in this job, we are lobbied by groups with well-intentioned policy aims.
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Fifth sitting)
I think that most campaigning groups are filled with people who are utterly enthralled and want to achieve the outcomes of that group. It is a bit of a generalisation to say that there is not a proper cross-section of the community in those groups, because those people are motivated by an interest and an issue that affects them and their lives every day. The cost and the administrative burden really concern me. The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion outlined that new clause 19 would not necessarily force the mayor to engage with the citizens assembly—I believe she said that it “suggests” they should do so—but the new clause clearly states: “The mayor must…take into account any recommendation made by the assembly either at a convened meeting, or in regular consultation; and…publish a response to any such recommendation within two months beginning on the day on which the mayor first receives the recommendation.” That is a very different proposition.
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Fifth sitting)
Subsection (6) of the new clause’s proposed new sections clearly states the words I quoted, which include: “The mayor must…take into account”. Therefore, what the hon. Lady has said about what the new clause would establish is not necessarily correct. I believe that it would overburden the mayor in his day-to-day role. I hope that those who read the Hansard report tomorrow will see clearly that I am very much not in favour of citizens assemblies. If a citizens assembly wants to get in touch with me, I will make that very clear. I am not against scrutiny or accountability and I am certainly not against constituents getting in touch with me to suggest how they can make their area better—that is why I am in politics. We all do that every day. Every mayor, including the Mayor of London and hopefully the Mayor of Hampshire and the Solent, when that role is established, is a politician who is accountable to their electorate. The new clause would overburden the role of the mayor at a time when finances are already tight. I oppose it, and I hope that my party spokesman will too.
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Fifth sitting)
Correct me if I am wrong—it may be very rare, but sometimes I am—but earlier, the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire asked the Minister for assurance regarding the ability of a mayor to engage with businesses to further economic regeneration across the country. Why has the Minister decided to legislate for mayors to consult with trade unions, but not—to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner—with private business, which represents vastly more economic output and employers than the trade unions do? Why is she doing that?
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Fifth sitting)
I want to make some brief remarks agreeing with my hon. Friend. I have negotiated with trade unions and I have a huge amount of respect for them. When I was cabinet member for children’s services and learning at Southampton city council, a hugely unionised organisation, I was responsible for negotiating some of the pay contracts for our really important staff. I had a very productive relationship with my trade union representatives and held them in great respect, as my hon. Friend did his when he was deputy leader at a local authority. We are not anti-trade union, but we do not believe that there should be political favouritism for organised labour, where private business is essentially left out. Why does the Minister believe that organised labour, who, I must say, have intrinsic links with the Labour party movement, should have that prestigious and privileged seat at the table with the elected mayor? The Minister has resisted legislating for a mayor to have a duty to ensure that private business is included around that table; she is leaving that to the direction and the whim of the mayor elected at the time. Why can she not take that same attitude towards organised labour and the union movement? Finally, I would say that this is very closely bordering on abuse of the political system. We on this side of the House firmly believe that. [Interruption.] Government Members can chunter as much as they want, but I ask them again: when they go around their constituencies and speak to private businesses that have been drastically affected by the decisions of this Government, will they say to those businesses, “It is absolutely fine that, when you get a mayor, you will not be legislatively consulted, but the unionised, organised labour workforce will be guaranteed a prestigious seat at that table”? That is a clear blurring of the lines on what a mayor should be doing. That is why we in the Opposition are opposed to that legislative proposition. As I have said clearly, Conservatives—including any Conservative Government and my hon. Friends and I here today—are not anti-trade union, but the measure gives legislative access on a dangerous scale, and that is why we will be opposing it. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady is welcome to intervene if she wants to.
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Fifth sitting)
The Minister is absolutely correct when she says that a mayor should, if they are worth their salt, discuss and collaborate with business. I entirely agree with her on that, but she has not ensured that that is enshrined in legislation. What she has enshrined in legislation is that organised labour and the trade unions should be around that table. If she really believed in equal access for everybody who contributes to economic output in our regions, she would include private business on the face of the Bill. As I say, this is a dangerous precedent to set; it is favouritism. It is privileged access to the mayor for organised labour, and I think that is a bad thing. If the Minister wanted to give organised labour parity with private business, which delivers economic growth across this country, she would have our support, but she certainly does not have our support for the privileged position that she is putting our trade union movement in.