Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,750 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
There is a growing body of evidence about the dangers caused by headlight glare. I know the Department is doing its own research on this. Could the Minister give an indication of when new regulations might be brought forward to reduce the risks?
Yesterday I attended a drop-in session in aid of those who suffer from Huntington’s disease. As is often the case when we attend these events, they signed me up as a champion. My first role as champion is to highlight the new guidelines issued by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for those suffering from this disease. Could the Leader of the House ask the Health Secretary to make a statement to explain how quickly those guidelines can be implemented, to help those suffering from this awful disease?
Very good!
Cross-channel rail was already mentioned this morning. Specifically, trains from Ashford to Paris were a massive boost for my constituents in the Weald of Kent and are much missed. It is fantastic news that Virgin would like to run trains again from Ashford and also from Ebbsfleet, but I know that there are some open questions about how the stations will be updated. It would be great to hear about any conversations that the right hon. Lady might have had with Virgin regarding what might need to happen next to move this forward.
Following the decision to cancel the A303 improvements at Stonehenge, the focus in Wiltshire is on what else can be done, particularly around Salisbury, to remove some of the enormous congestion that exists that clearly impacts on economic growth. I was grateful for the engagement with National Highways last night on the Wyndham bridge plans, but can the Secretary of State set out what she sees as an alternative investment in Salisbury and south Wiltshire, following the A303 decision?
9. What steps she is taking to help improve the integration of public transport in the Isle of Wight East constituency.
Does the Minister accept—and, indeed, do the Government accept—that public transport will never be truly integrated for the Isle of Wight while it continues to rely on unregulated, unlicensed ferry services that are owned by private equity groups making bumper profits? He would not accept that for any other community in the UK; why should the Isle of Wight be left in a different situation?
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
May I start by recording my thanks to the Leader of the House for agreeing to the request to have the Ukraine debate on 4 December? I think we all feel warmly about that decision. Politics at the present moment may not be enormously pretty, but it has been a week of triumph in the sporting world. We have had the joyous mayhem of Scotland reaching their first world cup for 28 years, but let us not forget the extraordinary thumping that the England rugby team dealt out to the All Blacks at the weekend or the perfect world cup qualification record of our English footballers. In that spirit, I hope many Members—if perhaps not all—will join me in sending our best wishes to the England cricket team as they prepare for the opening test in Perth tomorrow. This has been another week in which the headlines have not been kind to the Government and their allies. They have reported that the Prime Minister has spent a sixth of his time in office abroad. That is two and a half months to date spent outside the UK since the last election. Half of all UK jobs lost since the Government came to power are among the under-25s. That is 80,000 more young people out of work since July 2024. Agency staff brought into work during Birmingham’s eight-month-long bin strike by members of Unite have now themselves decided to go on strike. The former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), is reported to be planning a leadership bid, following last week’s speculation about the Health Secretary and last month’s unfortunate foray by the Mayor of Manchester. Since Labour took office, the energy price cap has not fallen but risen by £187 to £1,755. I often wonder if the Government have forgotten that there is a world outside London and our biggest cities. In that spirit, I hope I may raise a couple of important issues on which I would be grateful for the assistance of the Leader of the House. The first is local. Last weekend, the village of Ewyas Harold in my constituency was devastated by flooding as a result of Storm Claudia. The village was inundated after record levels of rainfall flooded the Dulas brook, with water levels rising to the highest ever recorded by the monitoring station. The emergency services were called out to help vulnerable residents and houses, and local pubs and other businesses were severely damaged. Many local people have been involved in clearing up the mess—in particular the brilliant young farmers club—but it will take months for the village to fully get back on its feet. The House was given time to discuss the severe flooding in nearby Monmouthshire in Wales yesterday, so may I ask the Leader of the House if he will encourage both the Environment Agency and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to take the swiftest and most comprehensive action to protect Ewyas Harold and other flood-hit areas across England in order to prevent this from happening again? The second issue is a national one. The listed places of worship grant scheme helps thousands of churches, synagogues, mosques, temples and other places of worship to reclaim or get grants to cover the VAT paid on repair and maintenance work. It is a small but very useful and cost-effective institution that has quietly worked away over more than two decades to preserve the historic fabric of our nation. Unfortunately, since the last election the size of the scheme has been cut in half and a new cap has been imposed on the level of individual grants. It is a feature of these repairs that if they are not made, the damage often leads to enormous further costs. The Government seem determined to maintain or increase public spending in other areas, so given that and the relatively very small sums involved, could the Leader of the House pick this matter up with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and see whether this scheme can be quickly restored to its previous glory?
This summer, the Department for Transport wrote to the rail regulator that the Government firmly believe that “the arrival of competition will benefit users of rail services by expanding the number of stations served (including new markets), encouraging greater differentiation in service provision and promoting competitive prices.” That was for international rail. Why do the Government believe that competition is good when travelling abroad but should be replaced with nationalisation here in Britain?
I am very interested to hear that mention of open access, because there is a risk with nationalisation that the organisation focuses on its own union-led interests, rather than the interests of passengers. That leads to bureaucratic inefficiency, delay and increased costs, and we may be seeing that already. South Western Rail was nationalised in May; since then, cancellations have been up by 50%, and delays have been up by 29%. c2c was nationalised in July; in September, it cancelled its online advance discount, making journeys more expensive, not less. Now, at TransPennine Express—the Secretary of State’s poster child for nationalisation—workers have voted for strike action. Is the Minister concerned that this Government do not have the backbone needed to face down demands from their union paymasters and put passengers first?
In January, the Defence Secretary came to this House to make a statement when the Yantar passed through British waters, but he did not see fit to do so when that ship directed lasers at our pilots, which I think reflects poorly on him. Has the Russian ambassador been summoned over this highly dangerous action, and if not, why not?
This terrorist was moved to a separation centre over concerns that he would use his extremist Islamist ideology to radicalise others, and yet the ruling says that this move was a breach of his right to a private life under the European convention. Should national security and prison officers’ safety not come first, and will she rule out paying any money to this terrorist?
I am pleased that this debate has made its way to the Floor of the House, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) on securing it. My late uncle Malcolm served as a police officer in Norfolk for many years, so I understand a little about the level of dedication and personal sacrifice required to serve in the police force, and I am pleased that this campaign enjoys widespread support. I join others in paying tribute to Tom Curry for leading the campaign, getting thousands of people to sign the petition and securing lots of support in the House. Like other Members, I have been given first-hand accounts by constituents of horrific incidents that ultimately ended their careers. One of my constituents, Robert Gifford, who is watching proceedings today, has been very active in persuading me of the importance of this issue. He spent over 20 years in the British Transport police before his career was brutally cut short. As he explained to me, while serving in the counter-terrorism unit, he was witness to multiple bomb explosions in 1993. He was called out to the bomb threat at Bishopsgate. I will not go into all the details of what he told me, but the bomb, which was planted in a stolen truck, exploded and killed one person and injured 44. Later that year, he was called to Reading station, where an improvised explosive device had been discovered. When that bomb exploded, he was only 150 yards away. Then, in 1999, he was early to the scene of the Ladbroke Grove train crash—a tragedy of 31 fatalities and hundreds of injuries. Mr Gifford’s experience in service ultimately led to him having to leave it because of what he had seen. I think it fair to say that he is a very fine example of all those who serve on our behalf. Another constituent who has contacted me served with Greater Manchester police and Norfolk police for 13 years, before his career was also tragically cut short. He was beaten and physically dumped into a trailer by three thugs when responding to a complaint of antisocial behaviour in my constituency. He has lived the rest of his life in fear, with constant anxiety attacks, and is unable to go out other than to a few safe spaces. Those are the people we are talking about in this debate. I have referred to police officers, but as the hon. Member for Cheadle said, we are also talking about prison officers, paramedics and others who put themselves in danger on our behalf. The debate has highlighted that, although each case carries its own story of suffering, thousands of people are affected. The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) referred to the 15,000 police officers forced to retire, but thousands in the other emergency services would also be affected. It is right that the House acknowledges risks faced daily by our incredible emergency responders, who, like Mr Gifford, suffer career-ending injuries while protecting the public. In September, the Minister for Policing said that the Home Office continues to consider proposals for new awards to members of the emergency service. Having spent three years working for a Defence Secretary, I understand that there can be inertia in the system when creating new awards to recognise people’s service, but I encourage the Minister to push back against that. I am proud to support this campaign and call on the Government to establish a dedicated injury in service award to formally recognise and honour the sacrifice of emergency service workers injured in the line of duty on our behalf.
I referred to my time in the Ministry of Defence, and during that time we created the Op Shader medal for British service personnel who were involved in operations against Daesh in Iraq and Syria. The original proposal was that that medal should only go to the pilots in the planes conducting the strikes, but the Secretary of State and the Ministers in the Department ensured the case was made for it to go to the ground crews who got those planes in the air, so Ministers can make a difference. We have the system that the Minister has described, but Ministers are there to drive this through.
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the use of lasers by the Russian spy ship Yantar.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I echo what you said: it is unacceptable that we are getting the Minister’s update on a major national security incident 24 hours after the Secretary of State gave his press conference. Have Ministers learned nothing from the total shambles of the strategic defence review, when defence companies got a copy many hours before parliamentarians? I turn to the incident, which appears to represent a serious escalation by Russian forces in close proximity to our homeland. Given the priority of protecting our service personnel—I welcome the news that the P-8 pilots were unharmed—will the Minister outline what mitigations are being taken against the evolving laser threat involved? This incident surely underlines that Russia remains a serious threat. That being so, we could not help but notice that yesterday the Defence Secretary got the podium out for the media just as the Defence Committee was publishing a damning report about Labour’s total lack of progress on boosting our defence readiness. The report said that when it comes to readiness the Government are moving “at a glacial pace”. On the subject of pace, the SDR promised a defence readiness Bill that would include measures to deal with the grey zone threat, but Ministers recently told me that it has not even been timetabled. In what year will the defence readiness Bill become law? Capability questions will be key when it comes to undersea cables, but every one of Labour’s defence policy papers has been late. The Government promised to publish the defence investment plan “in the autumn”. With a week of that season remaining, will they keep that promise? As the Minister knows better than anyone, when it comes to the hybrid threat, our special forces are more important than ever. Is he not concerned that General Sir Michael Rose, who led the relief of the Iranian embassy siege that made the SAS world-famous, has condemned the Government for “hounding SAS veterans”, warning that that will harm recruitment and morale? The Yantar incident shows the seriousness of the threat that we face, but what are the Government actually doing in response? The answer: Labour is cutting £2.6 billion from defence spending this year, surrendering sovereignty of the Chagos islands and, following its shameful vote this week, putting the British Army back in the dock.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate the day after World Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease day. He gave an excellent speech, although I think he was being characteristically modest when he mentioned his dancing ability—I am sure he is much better than he claims. As we have heard, COPD is a group of conditions that too often goes unnoticed until it is dangerously advanced. More than 1.7 million people across the UK have a COPD diagnosis. However, NICE estimates that around 600,000 more are living with the condition undiagnosed, and indeed this afternoon we heard figures that are even higher than that. I am fortunate to have a relatively low rate of COPD in my constituency, at about 1.46%, but that figure masks the variation within my constituency. Those differences are reflected across the country: rates are significantly higher in the north of England, and in the 10% most deprived areas the prevalence is nearly double. People living in the poorest areas are five times more likely to die from COPD than those in the wealthiest. Research from Asthma and Lung UK shows that the poorest 10% of households are more than two and a half times more likely to have COPD than someone from the most affluent 10%. As the hon. Member for Strangford rightly highlighted, this is, in every sense, a disease that tracks inequality. Where someone lives should never decide how long they live, yet for COPD far too often it does. Before the pandemic, around 70% of people diagnosed with COPD said they faced barriers to accessing that diagnosis, and 14% were initially misdiagnosed—often told that they had a chest infection or a lingering cough. Some were simply sent away after raising concerns with their GP. However, the pandemic made a serious problem worse: Government figures demonstrate that already inadequate diagnosis rates plummeted, and they show little sign of recovering. As the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned, spirometry—the gold-standard diagnostic test—which has not returned to pre-pandemic levels, continues to be a problem. The consequences of that pause are stark. There was a 51% reduction in diagnoses in 2020 compared with the year before, meaning that around 46,000 people missed out on a diagnosis in that year alone, and around 92,000 over the course of the pandemic. As the hon. Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) said, late diagnosis means more advanced disease and higher mortality, more frequent exacerbations and quicker deterioration in quality of life. Those flare-ups can cause permanent lung damage and require long hospital stays. COPD is now the second largest cause of emergency hospital admissions, rising three times faster than general admissions. The pressure on the NHS is enormous: an estimated £3.9 billion a year, including £1.4 billion for exacerbations alone. Lost productivity costs £1.7 billion, and reduced quality of life accounts for a further £2.2 billion. When diagnosis fails, costs rise, outcomes worsen and patients suffer the price of delay. As the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) has rightly pointed out, late diagnosis is not the only driver of pressure. Asthma and Lung UK, formerly the British Lung Foundation, found that patients who received the five fundamentals of COPD care experienced fewer flare-ups and were better equipped to manage their symptoms, yet more than three quarters of respondents said that they were missing at least one part of that basic care. Those with the most recent diagnoses were the least likely to receive the full package, so the situation is getting worse, not better. Asthma and Lung UK notes that many people must effectively learn to navigate the NHS themselves to access the care that they need. That is not acceptable. These are people who are already struggling, and they should not have to fight the system as well as the disease. Around 420,000 people in the UK may have had their working lives cut short by COPD. More than half of respondents to the Asthma and Lung UK survey said that their mental health had worsened since diagnosis, so we can and must do better. The NHS long-term plan includes commitments on respiratory disease, including for early detection and improved access to pulmonary rehabilitation. I would be grateful if the Minister updated the House on progress towards those commitments. This November, waiting lists continue to rise. We need a credible strategy to ensure that the NHS can manage the winter safely while maintaining high-quality care. We need a realistic plan to address the continuing backlog in elective and non-emergency care, and a targeted approach to address persistent gaps in respiratory services. The national respiratory audit programme—formerly the national asthma and COPD audit programme—was launched in 2018 and is led by the Royal College of Physicians. It has been invaluable in identifying gaps and variations in care. As part of the programme, NHS England developed a best practice tariff for COPD, which is met when 60% of COPD patients admitted for an exacerbation receive specialist input after 24 hours and when all COPD patients receive a discharge bundle. I have mentioned it before in the House, but one of my proudest career moments was working for the Getting It Right First Time programme. In 2021, our respiratory medicine report, published by Dr Martin Allen during the pandemic—it was, therefore, focused on the immediate problems—raised a number of issues. For example, pulmonary rehabilitation remains one of the most effective treatments available for COPD. Of those who complete the programme, 90% report better quality of life or improved exercise capacity. The long-term plan proposes expanding access by 2028. If achieved, that could prevent half a million exacerbations and avoid 80,000 admissions. As 2028 is not that far away, will the Minister update on progress towards those targets? The NHS RightCare pathway provides a comprehensive framework for improving diagnosis, management and treatment. It highlights the importance of timely pulmonary rehabilitation and early intervention, so I welcome the Government’s rolling it out. Finally, tackling smoking remains fundamental. Between 2022 and 2023, there were around 400,000 hospital admissions attributable to smoking, and 16% of all respiratory admissions were smoking-related. Between 75% and 85% of COPD deaths remain linked to smoking, yet only around half of COPD inpatient services report having a dedicated tobacco dependency adviser. What are the Government going to do to improve that situation? I call on the Minister to take urgent action, first by implementing a national strategy to raise awareness, strengthen early diagnosis and reduce risk factors such as smoking and air pollution; secondly, by ensuring that all COPD patients have timely access to treatment, pulmonary rehabilitation, and integrated health and social care support for patients and carers; and, thirdly, by committing to increasing research investment, and to introducing innovative treatments and transparent data-driven accountability to improve outcomes and reduce avoidable hospitalisations. We cannot keep treating COPD as a winter crisis when it is, in truth, a year-round emergency. The time to act is now. The evidence is clear. Too many people remain undiagnosed, too many are diagnosed too late, too many do not receive the basic standard of care to which they are entitled and too many end up in hospital when their deterioration could have been prevented. We have the data. We have the clinical consensus. We have the pathways. We do not lack knowledge; we lack resolve. People living with COPD deserve timely, high-quality care and the support that they need to live fuller, healthier lives. It is within our gift to deliver that; let us not fail them.
Snuck out on a Government website, we learn that narrower roads are coming to make driving more miserable. Is it not the case that such a move will cause even more friction between motorists and cyclists, and slow our roads down so much that it costs the economy billions?
Mr Speaker, it is on their own website. But I will turn to another Government blunder: taxpayer-funded schemes to bribe the public into buying something that they do not want, which, we now learn, will financially hammer people for doing what the Government told them to do in the first place. Is it not time to let people choose what they want to drive, before electric becomes the new diesel?
I am not sure it helps the Home Secretary’s cause for me to say that I have a great deal of respect for her and that I thought her interventions this week were very important, particularly those pointed towards members of her party on the left who will make the cause they choose to champion more difficult if the system as a whole is not brought under control. The people who support asylum and refugee processes and want them to be there in future need the system to be brought under control. My sincere question relates to what I would describe as tinkering around the edges of the human rights laws. The Home Secretary must know that whatever she does to clarify the fringes of the rulings the ECHR has made over the years, they have created a case law that forces our judges to rule in favour of spurious claims. She cannot change that; those rulings are those rulings. Unless we are willing at the very least to have a derogation from some elements of the Court’s decisions, how does she think we can override those well-established rulings which give enormous amounts of rights to people when they are making their asylum claims?
As always, I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. She has had a busy week. I wonder whether this burst of hyperactivity has anything to do with her leadership bid. As her shadow, I will say this: I am rooting for her in her tussle with the Health Secretary as to who gets to replace the Prime Minister, although I fear my endorsement may not be entirely helpful to her! Immigration under successive Governments has been far too high. That has included illegal immigration across the channel, which has surged since the general election, with 10,000 illegal immigrants crossing just in the 75 days that the Home Secretary has been in post. Last year—the first year of a Labour Government—there were a record number of new asylum claims. The number of illegal immigrants accommodated in hotels has gone up under this Labour Government, even though they promised they would reduce numbers. Besides illegal immigration, on which this Government are so clearly failing, legal migration has been far too high, too, absorbing the equivalent of half the new housing supply in recent years. Allowing mass low-skilled migration is bad for the economy, not least when we have 9.5 million working-age people out of work. Mass low- skilled migration without integration has placed all kinds of pressures on society, not least because there are a million people here who do not speak English properly or at all and 10,000 foreign citizens in prison. Where I suspect we and the Government agree is that very limited, high-skilled migration is a good thing, but the days of mass, low-skilled migration must come to an end. There is much in this statement that I support, not least because so much of it is so familiar. The idea of a 10-year route to indefinite leave to remain is something that we proposed in amendments to the Government’s Bill around nine months ago. Inexplicably, the Labour party voted against those measures, and now they have adopted them. We also proposed removing benefits from foreign citizens, including those on ILR who do not have British citizenship, and this consultation document now looks at doing the same thing. I am delighted to see that the Home Secretary, upon arrival at 2 Marsham Street, got out her laptop and started copying and pasting Conservative policies. I have one or two detailed and specific questions, which I ask in a spirit of constructiveness, given that the Home Secretary has adopted so many Conservative policies. Importantly, she said that these policies on ILR qualification would apply to those people here already. She is absolutely right to say that, and I support it. She mentions transitional arrangements. I just urge her to be cautious about those, lest they create loopholes. Can she give the House an estimate as to when these new measures will be implemented? I think the previous rules around legal migration took effect in January 2021, so the people who arrived under them will become eligible under present ILR rules from January 2026—just a few weeks’ time. When will these changes be implemented? I hope it is as soon as possible. The Home Secretary also says that to qualify for ILR at 10 years, people will need to have made national insurance contributions. I have tried to get through the consultation document in the past half hour, and I think I am right in saying that the qualifying threshold is to have earned £12,570 for a period of three years. She can correct me if I have got that wrong, but that strikes me as a very low level of earnings—some £12,500 for three years would not represent a net economic contribution to this country—and I urge her seriously to consider setting the threshold a great deal higher. The Home Secretary also mentions the possibility of volunteering meaning that people get ILR at five years, rather than 10. We know how people game the system when it comes to immigration, such as by pretending to convert to Christianity to get asylum. I urge her to draft those rules carefully and to be extremely cautious, lest she creates some loopholes. Will the Home Secretary consider adopting one last Conservative policy, since she appears so enthusiastic about them, by introducing a binding cap on legal migration? It could be voted for by Parliament each year so that this House can democratically decide the level of inward migration. She has adopted so many of our other policies, and I strongly urge her to adopt that last one too.
13. What discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on the adequacy of support for motorists.
Does the Secretary of State agree that the introduction of a pay-per-mile charge for motorists in next week’s Budget would disproportionately impact rural constituencies such as mine, because people are more reliant on cars to get about, and represent yet another slap in the face from this Government for the countryside and for motorists?
In the light of this recent escalation, what specific and immediate steps is the Minister taking to ensure that UK armed forces are equipped both to protect critical underwater infrastructure and to respond rapidly and effectively to direct threats from Russia and others?
I will now announce the result of yesterday’s deferred Division on the draft Radio Equipment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2025. The Ayes were 376 and the Noes were 16, so the Ayes have it. [The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
I thank the Minister for his responses. I will allow a few minutes for the Front Benches to swap over, during which time it might be helpful to remind Members that in an urgent question, the questioner gets two minutes, the Minister gets three minutes to respond, and the Liberal Democrat spokesman gets one minute. Any Member posing a question that is approaching one minute in length might think about reducing the length of their question.
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
I call the Father of the House.
I thank the Minister for her short, sharp answers—perhaps a masterclass for what is to follow. Business questions will run for an hour and no more.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.
As I suspect he has an important question on Scottish football, I call Richard Baker.
I call the shadow Home Secretary.
The key issue is that making a decision about whether someone goes into a secluded area away from other prisoners is a judgment call. What assessment has the Minister made of the implications of the judgment on what will happen to terrorists who should be separated from other prisoners?
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for 4 December in the Chamber. I understand that the House may be suspended for a period on that day because of a state visit, so will he give consideration to protected time for those two very heavily subscribed debates? Will he also indicate whether we will get time in the Chamber on 11 December? Our backlog of debates is such that if we had every Thursday between now and the Easter recess, we could fill every single one. I note that the House rose very early yesterday. If the Government are having a problem with business, we can always put on debates to allow colleagues from the Back Benches to debate what they wish to debate in Government time. If we are given Thursday 18 December, it will be the traditional pre-recess Adjournment debate for Christmas. Our forthcoming business in Westminster Hall is as follows. On Tuesday 25 November, there will be a debate on the potential impact of immigration reforms on humanitarian visa routes. On Thursday 27 November, because of the Budget debate in the main Chamber, there will be a Select Committee statement from the Business and Trade Committee, followed by debates on the impact of extended producer responsibility for packaging and on protecting children from domestic abuse. On 2 December, there will be a debate on the adequacy of funding to support homeless people, and on 4 December, there will be a debate on a comprehensive acquired brain injury action plan, followed by a debate on seafarers’ welfare. Today is the 80th anniversary of the start of the Nuremberg trials. Earlier this week we had a very good briefing at the all-party parliamentary group for the Holocaust memorial and education centre from Adam Wagner, a renowned human rights lawyer. Twenty-four Nazis were put on trial, and the trial lasted 11 months. At the end of it, 22 of them were sentenced to either very long prison sentences or death; amazingly enough, two were acquitted. It would be very helpful if we could have a statement from the Education Secretary on incorporating the business of the Nuremberg trials into the national curriculum, because this was the first time that human rights law started to come to the fore, particularly on war crimes and crimes against humanity. Could the Leader of the House arrange for that to happen?
Everyone in this House should be concerned by the increase in Russian sub-threshold activity, and this certainly is not the first time we have found ourselves in this House discussing the Yantar specifically. The use of lasers against an operational P-8 very much pushes the boundaries of what we could consider to be sub-threshold activity. I want to ask the Minister a question that is very much within his bailiwick. I do not expect him to be able to comment on whether we have deployed any elements of the Fleet Contingency Troop to HMS Somerset, which is tracking the Yantar, but under what circumstances and geographically whereabouts within our waters would the Yantar need to be in order for us to apply some maritime interdiction via the Fleet Contingency Troop?