Conservative and Unionist Party: a sourced timeline of public activity, with filters by source type and a sidebar of tracked totals

Conservative and Unionist Party

Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,750 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

  1. ParliamentJerome Mayhew

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

    I am sorry that the hon. Member was not in his place throughout the course of the debate, as he would have heard that a franchise is not a normal contract. Under an enhanced partnership or a standard operating contract, that is exactly so: a contract is let and the commercial risk lies with the provider. The challenge with franchising is that the commercial risk is transferred 100% to the taxpayer, because the local transport authority is no longer letting a commercial contract; it is buying in services for a price, with the commercial risk lying with the taxpayer. That is the crucial difference. I am glad that the hon. Member put his finger on that, because I am as worried as he is about it. Finally, I will mention the comments of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry). We do not agree on many issues, but I do agree with her on this. She said that a lot of good amendments were tabled by Opposition parties—certainly three parties; there were sadly none from Reform, which would not know a transport policy if one got up and slapped it in the face. The hon. Lady came up with some good ideas, and even the Liberal Democrats came up with something or other. As for the Conservatives, we came up with good idea after good idea, yet until now they have all been rejected by the Government. I look forward to the Minister’s response and to his concession on all those good ideas.

    Hansard source

  2. ParliamentJerome Mayhew

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

    I hope that the Minister is not misleading the House inadvertently. Although he is right that it was delivered on time and on budget—it was about £156 million—it is argued that the subsequent year of operation had a deficit of about £236 million. Even though it may have been delivered on time and on budget, it has been in a terrible deficit ever since and is on strike now.

    Hansard source

  3. ParliamentJames Cartlidge

    Russian Drones: Violation of Polish Airspace

    (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the violation of Poland’s airspace by Russian drones.

    Hansard source

  4. ParliamentJames Cartlidge

    Russian Drones: Violation of Polish Airspace

    Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. May I begin by expressing our total solidarity with the people of Poland? The Opposition stand shoulder to shoulder with the Government in support of our strong NATO ally. Poland is a great nation, and a great friend of Britain. Our thoughts are with its people, and we fully support all efforts to rally our NATO allies and ensure that Poland’s invocation of article 4 is responded to as swiftly as possible. This is an unprecedented violation of Polish and NATO airspace that must be met with total condemnation and a robust response. So must the latest bombings of Ukraine, as Russia continues to target civilians and conduct an unprovoked war of aggression, without any regard for human life. What, if any, judgment have the Government been able to form of the precise motivation for this drone incursion? If this was designed to test NATO’s resolve, will Putin not have already seen how strong the resolve is to stand united against this aggression? We understand that Dutch F-35s were directly involved in supporting the Polish military response, and that fighters from other NATO nations may have been scrambled. Is it not sobering that the F-35s from the Netherlands followed us in rotating air support for Poland, so if this incursion had occurred just weeks ago, RAF Typhoons could have been directly involved? On the specifics of our joint NATO response, can the Minister say more about what invoking article 4 means in practical terms for the UK and our allies, and what the next steps are? Importantly, what discussions have the UK Government had with our US counterparts on these developments? Above all, given that this incident involved the use of lethal Russian drones against a fellow NATO member, what further steps are the Government now considering in order to constrain Russia’s ability to threaten our closest allies, and to provide further support to Poland? Finally, in the light of the Norway deal, the Minister will be aware that one of the largest ever defence export deals concluded under the previous Government was the sale of ground-based air defence to Poland. In the week of DSEI, does that not show why such industrial collaboration with our allies is important, not just economically, but when it comes to defending our close allies? There are those who may question the nature of the Russian threat or the need to significantly increase defence spending, but these events should leave nobody in any doubt that the threat extends beyond Ukraine, and that we must therefore continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine, Poland and all our NATO allies.

    Hansard source

  5. ParliamentGregory Stafford

    Points of Order

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on a matter that I believe constitutes a breach of the ministerial duty to respond to Members’ correspondence in a timely manner. On 28 November last year, I wrote to the now former Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology to raise concerns about the absence of legislation requiring service providers to give residents notice before installing large cables on their properties. I have since followed up with the Department on 22 January, 20 March, 28 April, 13 June and 24 July. I have now been waiting for nine months without receiving a substantive reply. I understand that the new Secretary of State is new in her job and I congratulate her for that, but this considerably hinders my ability to represent my constituents and I seek your guidance on how we can get a response.

    Hansard source

  6. ParliamentDr Luke Evans

    Engagements

    Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 10 September.

    Hansard source

  7. ParliamentDr Luke Evans

    Engagements

    One year on from the election, the country has seen a Transport Secretary resign over fraud, an anti-corruption Minister investigated for corruption, a homelessness Minister making tenants homeless, and a Housing Secretary not paying tax on her second house. We also have a Prime Minister who accepted more freebies than any other MP in the previous Parliament. Is this what the Prime Minister meant by “integrity” when he came to government?

    Hansard source

  8. ParliamentDr Ben Spencer

    Online Safety Act 2023: Effectiveness

    I welcome the Secretary of State and the new ministerial team to their places, and thank the former team, who I have very much enjoyed sparring with over the past few months. In light of the report of the Department’s plans to review the implementation of the Online Safety Act, can the Secretary of State confirm the scope of that review, including whether it will address the apparent confusion in the media between the powers of the Online Safety Act and the Public Order Act 1986? Will the review look at age verification to ensure that people’s data is safe and secure, and that the pass schemes they use are trusted? Will it tackle the use of VPNs, particularly by children, to get around age verification?

    Hansard source

  9. ParliamentDr Andrew Murrison

    Qatar: Israeli Strike

    Several of our partners in the region—in north Africa and the middle east—have expended a great deal of political capital in trying to achieve a rapprochement with Israel in recent years. The Minister will be aware, for example, of Morocco and its work and leadership in achieving the Abraham accords. What does he think this attack has done to them, and what confidence can they have that Israel is now truly embarked on a quest for peace in the region?

    Hansard source

  10. ParliamentDr Andrew Murrison

    Russian Drones: Violation of Polish Airspace

    President Zelensky has been consistent in his argument that the invasion of his country is just the beginning and that we are all in the crosshairs. He made that argument forcefully—and famously—in the Oval Office. Does the Minister not agree that what has happened with this violation of Polish and NATO airspace completely vindicates President Zelensky?

    Hansard source

  11. ParliamentDavid Simmonds

    Urgent Care Centres: Hillingdon

    This Adjournment debate is on the future of the minor injuries unit at Mount Vernon hospital. I am particularly grateful to the Minister, who, despite representing a Bristol constituency, has a great deal of knowledge of my area having grown up in it, and to the Secretary of State for a number of conversations that have recognised that the loss of such a unit runs contrary to the 10-year plan set out to the House. It would have a much broader impact, beyond the Hillingdon hospitals NHS foundation trust, which is the overarching NHS body for both the Mount Vernon hospital and the Hillingdon hospital site to the south. That is reflected in the fact that more than 20,000 people have signed my petition expressing concern about the loss of the service and calling for an opportunity to think again. I place on record my thanks to the Members of Parliament in a number of neighbouring constituencies who have supported me with that petition and supported their local residents. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who is present, has maintained the long tradition of Hillingdon MPs working together on issues that affect their constituencies. My neighbours in Harrow East, Hertsmere, South West Hertfordshire, South Buckinghamshire and Harrow West have all expressed a similar view. They understand the impact that the closure will have on their constituencies.

    Hansard source

  12. ParliamentDavid Simmonds

    Urgent Care Centres: Hillingdon

    I am grateful to the hon. Member. What he described is similar to the concerns outlined by my hon. Friends the Members for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) and for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) and others across the wider area, as well as by many people who have been in touch with me directly. We know that minor injuries units in general, and the one at Mount Vernon in particular, are valued by people for whom A&E is not always the best place to seek treatment. Many local schools have been in touch to say that if there is an injury during the school day, minor injuries units are the ideal place for a child to get the treatment that they need. For older residents, particularly if they are not in the best of health and perhaps not up to the journey to an A&E department—many of which are under significant pressure—a minor injuries unit is the place to be. I know the Secretary of State and Ministers have responded very positively to the pleas of a number of Members across the House who have asked for the prospect of a minor injuries unit opening to serve their constituencies as part of the 10-year plan, so to see one lost that is already providing a good service seems to me a great shame. The Minister will know that the Hillingdon hospitals NHS foundation trust has been financially challenged for many years; indeed, during my days as a non-executive director of the Hillingdon primary care trust, in the days of the last Labour Government, the overspend was significant. It is a challenge that has persisted to this day under Governments of all parties, despite numerous initiatives to try to resolve it. That is reflected in the poor state of the main hospital building, which is pending a rebuild. I should declare for the record that my wife is a doctor in that building. I know the Minister and the Government have accepted the programme of works set in place previously, which was granted planning permission by the local authority and announced under the last Government, to provide a new district general hospital at Hillingdon. I am sure the Minister will know, because of her local knowledge, that we need to recognise that Hillingdon serves Heathrow airport as well as the normal district hospital population. The airport has a very large population of transitory people coming through it, many of whom are taken ill and add to the pressure on A&E. In addition, we have the largest number of asylum seekers per capita of any local authority in the country and a significant number of people in immigration detention, pending deportation. This is not just a hospital serving the normal day-to-day needs of the population area; it has particular and unique pressures, and a minor injuries unit is a means of beginning to take off some of that pressure for the benefit of local residents.

    Hansard source

  13. ParliamentDavid Simmonds

    Urgent Care Centres: Hillingdon

    I am grateful that my constituency neighbour is here. Had he the same degree of history in Hillingdon as myself and the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, I am sure he would recall that the hotels were set up and opened as part of a dispersal programme started under the Labour Government in the mid-2000s and led by Andy Burnham, who is now the Mayor of Greater Manchester. I know that has placed ongoing pressure on the local area, but the number of people put into that initial accommodation who are now stuck locally is very large. I am sure the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) shares my concern that, under the recent announcements about local authority funding, Hillingdon remains broadly the same as it always has been, but I welcome his commitment to carry on the work started under the previous Government for the rebuild of Hillingdon hospital. I know the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington will be very aware that the work undertaken on sewerage and electronics for that new build over the last few years has presented a significant challenge to residents in accessing the hospital—I am sure his constituents complain about it as much as mine have done. Indeed, the challenges that will come during the rebuilding process of the hospital on what is currently its car park are a further argument for why a minor injuries unit is important in this period. It creates a bit of additional capacity to help with potentially challenging times at A&E and the difficult logistical challenge of accessing a hospital whose car park is already constrained and will be the building site for a new hospital. All those are additional reasons why a minor injuries unit remains important. It is noteworthy in this context that the move away from an open access unit to appointment-only, which took place following covid, has significantly reduced the footfall at the Mount Vernon unit and has driven up the cost per visit compared with the previous position. This is part of a pattern that we have also seen in the Harrow part of my constituency at the Pinn medical centre, where the loss of a walk-in facility has led to more patients attending the local A&E, to longer waits and, ultimately, to increased cost to the NHS, because A&E attendances are more expensive than nurse-led walk-in services such as that which is available at Mount Vernon. The Minister knows all this personally. She knows how much value the local community—not just in Hillingdon, not just in Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, but across north-west London and into neighbouring Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire—places on that service and how often Members of Parliament representing places like Watford and the Harrow constituencies have been in touch to share their concerns about the delays and challenges faced by patients attending A&Es in Watford, Hillingdon or Northwick Park, which are the main destinations for alternative treatment.

    Hansard source

  14. ParliamentDavid Simmonds

    Urgent Care Centres: Hillingdon

    I am grateful to my hon. Friend, another constituency neighbour, for the support that he has lent to this campaign on behalf of his constituents. In a busy capital city, where there are all kinds of challenges arising not just from the airport but from our transport links, the pressure on some of those A&Es is higher than the NHS funding formula has traditionally recognised, and services such as minor injuries units have come into being over the years to make sure that that provision is there. I know that my constituency neighbours’ constituents attend Mount Vernon not just to go to the minor injuries unit; it is also home to a cancer centre, a hospice, a private hospital, a general practitioners—a whole variety of NHS and private healthcare services—as well as to research and scanning, and nurses’ accommodation. All those things are incredibly important to the local community. My asks of the Minister are straightforward. She understands as well as we all do that the NHS is always under financial pressure regardless of which party is in government, and she understands personally how much this unit at Mount Vernon hospital matters to local people across an area that is much wider than that served solely by the Hillingdon hospitals NHS foundation trust. She also understands that the vision of the 10-year plan puts great emphasis on out-of-hospital care. The commitment to the Northwood and Pinner cottage hospital started under the previous Government and now under construction at the site in my constituency is an example of the willingness of both this Government and the previous one to invest in those types of service. It therefore seems perverse to be closing down one such service that is already successfully in operation and that is both valued and has the potential to further reduce the cost and service pressures on our local NHS. I ask the Minister simply to intervene with the trust and to ask her officials to engage with it about the wider impact that the closure will have beyond the Hillingdon hospitals trust alone. From the trust’s perspective, moving those staff and that budget on to the main hospital site will improve the look of its bottom line, but in the long term it will increase the costs to the NHS for those patients and reduce the quality of the service that they receive. Will she therefore consider encouraging the trust to move back to an open access model, as used to operate at the site, which would further reduce the number of A&E visits, which are costly to the NHS and stressful and time-consuming for patients? Will she confirm to the House that she notes the concerns that have been expressed so profoundly and across party by MPs from Hertsmere, Beaconsfield, South West Hertfordshire, East Harrow, and Hayes and Harlington, some of whom have taken the time even during a tube strike to be present for this debate to demonstrate the importance that they place on it? Some have said that the more than 20,000 local people who signed the petition were expressing faux outrage. Those 20,000 people value the service. Many of them, including myself, have used it over the years. We know the benefit that it brings. We know that it is in accordance with this Government’s vision and strategy for the NHS. We know that, used properly, it can reduce costs to the NHS and improve the quality of service, not just for my constituents but for all our constituents. Will the Minister please intervene, ask the trust to think again and find a way to secure this valued service for the future, for local residents?

    Hansard source

  15. ParliamentDavid Simmonds

    Urgent Care Centres: Hillingdon

    I agree with every word that the Minister has said about how we get good decisions in the interests of local people, but does she share my concern that there has been no public consultation about this decision at all? There has been very limited engagement even with local residents’ associations about the process and, for the staff involved, there has been some—shall we say—degree of ambiguity about what decisions have been made at each stage of the process. Does she agree that it would be wise at this stage, as a very minimum, to pause, to think again and to undertake that public consultation, so that the NHS managers tasked with making the decisions fully understand the impact on the local community?

    Hansard source

  16. ParliamentDavid Simmonds

    Urgent Care Centres: Hillingdon

    Will the Minister give way?

    Hansard source

  17. ParliamentClaire Coutinho

    Equality Act 2010: Impact on British Society

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) on securing this debate. This issue is having a fundamental impact on our society but is not discussed enough. I associate myself with his remarks about Don’t Divide Us and its excellent report, which I urge everybody to read. We are not a country that divides ourselves into tribe, clan or creed. We do not believe that one sex is more intelligent or more modest than the other. We do not persecute people for their religion or sexuality. At our heart, we are a country built on Christian and enlightenment values and common law. The desire for reason and the belief that we should want for our neighbour what we want for ourselves and that we should be equal before the law have steered us towards being a more meritocratic society than almost any other in the world. I believe in making sure that opportunity can reach people no matter their background, class or circumstances, and I do think that we have some way to go in that regard. However, deep in our national psyche, we believe in judging someone by their character and not by their characteristics. There is a proud legacy of laws passed by Parliament that shows this tendency of ours to protect the few from discrimination or harassment by the many. As many Members have said, the Equality Act 2010 brought together many existing laws on discrimination, including rights for pregnant women and disabled people. Those were certainly important pieces of legislation, but they serve as a reminder that just as human rights were not created by the Human Rights Act in 1998, equality was not created by the Equality Act in 2010. The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), talked about being evidence-based; the Coalition for Racial Equality and Rights conducted a review of the public sector equality duty in Scotland and found that “there was virtually no robust evidence of positive change in the lives of people with protected characteristics”. We should not fall into the trap of treating this piece of legislation as flawless or beyond scrutiny just because it speaks to values that we hold dear. The Equality Act did not just bring together discrimination and harassment laws, but went much further. It imposed a legal duty on public bodies and private institutions to promote equality based on nine specific characteristics. In turn, as my hon. Friend the Member for Romford pointed out, that has created an industry that wants to force a statistically perfect division on the basis of sex and race in all parts of society, even though that is impossible to achieve. It encourages us to presume that every disparity is a result of prejudice and to turn even minor workplace differences into legal grievances. Worst of all, unelected officials in our institutions have worked behind closed doors with radical activists, who prescribe social engineering to get equal outcomes, even when it takes a hammer to the British people’s sense of fairness and is against the law. In seeking to progress equality, these aspects of the Act have changed our culture and taken us backwards. We do not believe that people should be held back from progression because of their protected characteristics, but in the RAF, white male recruits were deliberately blocked from training and given fewer opportunities because of their race and sex. We do not believe that women should be paid less than men for the same work, but in the Department for Education, they are using the Equality Act to justify paying men a thousand pounds more than women for the same jobs in childcare. We do not believe in employing people just because of their race, but senior officers at West Yorkshire police rigged the recruitment process to hire an ethnic minority candidate, who had failed their interview, just to meet a diversity target. Thanks to the Labour Government, a young person’s opportunity to take their first steps serving this country in the civil service is based not on how hard they work but on what job their parents did when their child was 14 years old. If you are the child of a nurse, cabbie or shopkeeper, I am sorry, but you are just not working class enough—the door is shut to you. In internships up and down the country, including at MI6, young white people have been told they cannot even apply. Here is the problem: the Equality Act has created a hierarchy of diversity. Women are told that their rights are not as important as trans rights. If a white boy grew up in care, had parents were alcoholics or had recovered from a life-changing disease, tough luck—he is not as deserving as an ethnic minority. Who is to say whose adversity has been more of a challenge? How can we fit the whole of human experience into these tidy little boxes? When rights clash, as they do, who gets to choose which group is deemed more worthy? When it came to gender ideology, it was bureaucrats behind closed doors, often working hand in glove with extreme activist groups. When women lost their jobs or were forced to share changing rooms with men, it was HR departments citing the Equality Act who held the pitchforks. Across the NHS, police forces, local councils and Government Departments, it was unelected officials who were using the Equality Act as a weapon to undermine meritocracy. In the cases of Birmingham and Next, it was unaccountable, independent experts who decided that manual shift work was equal to retail and office work. In the case of Next, when employees were given the chance, they refused to move to warehouses. The work was deemed of equal value, even when it was clearly not thought to be so by the workers themselves. That is simply absurd. One ruling bankrupted a council, and the other will push up costs for consumers, all because of decisions made by people who are unaccountable. More such cases are on the way. This hierarchy of diversity does not reflect the values upon which this country was built: fairness and merit, judging individuals by their actions and their character, not by their immutable characteristics. We cannot assign innocence or guilt, merit or privilege, by characteristic, placing some groups on a pedestal while others are pushed aside. The public see a society where protection is selective, and where the playing field tilts towards those who can claim special status. We heard today calls from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) to have yet more special statuses, but surely, the answer is this: the law that protects me from discrimination should protect my hon. Friend the Member for Romford and his constituents from discrimination, when we are all equal before the law. It is about to get worse, because the Government are set on introducing an Islamophobia definition, which they have tried to do behind closed doors. That will have a chilling effect on the ability of our public services to grasp difficult and sensitive issues, such as grooming gangs, gender inequality or Islamist extremism. They are doing this under the pretence of combating hatred and violence, which are already against the law. Instead of doing the hard graft of breaking down barriers and creating opportunity, Ministers want to hand yet more powers to consultants and HR officials in a undefined race and equality Bill to further shape the world according to who they deem worthy. It is easier, after all, to talk about quotas at diversity conferences than it is to fix entrenched problems in education, geography, family structures and culture. Because it is easier to judge physical characteristics, it risks creating a system that overlooks each individual’s personal circumstances and what they may have overcome. Giving pen pushers more authority to dictate who is privileged does not create more opportunity or make Britain more fair or prosperous, so we should ask: what message does this send to our children? Do we want them to believe that their future is determined by tick boxes on a form? Do we want them to grow up thinking that fairness means that some doors are closed to them because of their race or sex, or do we want them to live in a country where the law guarantees equal treatment and opportunity for all? It is time to put an end to the social experiment and return to first principles: equal treatment under the law, equal opportunity in life and the belief that the people of this country can rise as far as their talent and determination can take them. That is what genuine equality looks like, and that is what the British people believe in.

    Hansard source

  18. ParliamentClaire Coutinho

    Equality Act 2010: Impact on British Society

    I believe that the hon. Gentleman is talking about discrimination. The point of being equal under the law is that the same protections from discrimination can protect his constituents, the hon. Member for Romford and me. The whole point of our common-law system is that we must all face the same law, whether that is for penalty or in the case of discrimination and harassment. He refers to many of the examples of discrimination and harassment that are in the Equality Act, but they were not created by that Act; they were created decades and decades earlier.

    Hansard source

  19. ParliamentClaire Coutinho

    Equality Act 2010: Impact on British Society

    I thank the Minister for her speech. Labour Members always try to equate protections against discrimination and harassment with the entirety of the Equality Act but, as many have said, protections against discrimination and harassment existed before the Act. They also exist in many other pieces of legislation, such as the Public Order Act 1986 and the Malicious Communications Act 1988. What answer does the Minister have to my questions about the public sector equality duty, which talks about advancing equality by taking specific action to address disproportionate participation? That is where we have seen some internships excluding young white people, for example.

    Hansard source

  20. ParliamentCaroline Nokes

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

    I thank the Teller for that point of order and for correcting the record. I hereby direct the Clerks to correct the numbers and confirm that the Ayes were 69 and the Noes were 300. Third Reading

    Hansard source

  21. ParliamentCaroline Nokes

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

    I call the shadow Secretary of State.

    Hansard source

  22. ParliamentCaroline Nokes

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

    I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

    Hansard source

  23. ParliamentCaroline Nokes

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

    The hon. Gentleman has repeatedly used the words “you” and “yours” throughout this afternoon’s proceedings. Please can he do better?

    Hansard source

  24. ParliamentBob Blackman

    Online Safety Act 2023: Effectiveness

    I welcome the new Secretary of State to her position. Will she look at the downloading of virtual private networks, which allow people to get content from all over the world? Many VPNs are based overseas. Once they are downloaded, parents have no control whatsoever if their children are then accessing immoral and illegal content.

    Hansard source

  25. ParliamentBob Blackman

    Qatar: Israeli Strike

    I was surprised and disappointed that there was no word from the Secretary of State in relation to the terrorist attack in Jerusalem on Monday, where terrorists opened fire on a bus, killing rabbis and women. The reality is that Hamas’s leadership not only condoned the attack, but praised it. Does the Minister agree that it is essential that we get to the point of having a ceasefire that allows for the release of all the hostages without conditions, and for Hamas to surrender their weapons and agree to demilitarise Gaza?

    Hansard source

  26. ParliamentBen Obese-Jecty

    Russian Drones: Violation of Polish Airspace

    I recently visited the Royal Air Force in Poland during its recent deployment in NATO’s enhanced air policing mission during Op Chessman, where I saw at first hand RAF Typhoons scrambled to intercept a Russian signals intelligence Coot-A—Poland feels the threat from Russia much more keenly than I think we appreciate in this House. In the drones debate last week, I raised with the Minister that we have a paucity of counter-UAS capability. While we obviously do not face the risk that Poland does or have plans such as the East Shield, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that our own territory, critical infrastructure and military bases—both here and overseas—possess an organic capability that can be brought to bear?

    Hansard source

  27. ParliamentAndrew Rosindell

    Equality Act 2010: Impact on British Society

    I beg to move, That this House has considered the impact of the Equality Act 2010 on British society. As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I welcome the opportunity to bring to the Floor of the House the issue of the impact on British society of the Equality Act 2010, a topic that I believe is increasingly being raised not only by my constituents in Romford, but more widely across the United Kingdom by people whose lives are affected on a daily basis because of this legislation. It has also been the subject of detailed research in the recent report from the think-tank Don’t Divide Us, which was co-authored by Dr Alka Sehgal Cuthbert and Dr Anna Loutfi, and which I commend to Members of all parties and to the wider public. For centuries, our common-law tradition has been at the vanguard in the defence of what we consider our liberties as Britons. Ushered in 900 years ago and emboldened by Magna Carta in 1215, common law enshrined the once revolutionary principle that all individuals are equal before the law, judged not as members of groups, but as subjects of the Crown, with inherent rights. From that tradition came trial by jury, which has its origins in Anglo-Saxon England, habeas corpus and the presumption of innocence. Were those gifts from Brussels or Strasbourg? Of course not. They are the hard-won fruits of our own history and the innovative quality of our forebears and the generations that have come before us. When the Equality Act was passed in 2010, we were told by the now Baroness Harman that it would end discrimination, give everyone a fair chance in life and bring transparency. Those are fine words indeed, yet they give the impression that Parliament can, through sheer willpower, eliminate some of the more damaging and derisive aspects of human nature. Fifteen years on, the reality is, I am sad to say, very different. The Act has not united our country; it has divided it. It has not reduced discrimination; it has fuelled grievance. It has not strengthened our traditions of fairness; it has undermined them. In fact, it has fanned the very flames that it sought to extinguish. In the first instance, the Act is woefully drafted. Let us take as an example the alleged definition of race. Section 9 defines that as including, but not limited to, “colour; nationality; ethnic or national origins.” That is imprecise and confusing and has generated a grey area in law. Simply put, it is a poor expression of parliamentary intention, whatever that was at the time. We are also seeing absurd contradictions. Section 13(5) bans racial segregation, yet guidance under the Equality Act allows organisations to create separate spaces based on combinations of protected characteristics. In practice, that could mean the state sanctioning racial segregation in Britain in 2025, all in the name of equality. The Act and the imported ideology that underpins it have created a culture of division and victimhood. It is the legislative foundation of what today is called DEI—diversity, equity and inclusion—and the ever-expanding industry of woke training sessions and quotas.

    Hansard source

  28. ParliamentAndrew Rosindell

    Equality Act 2010: Impact on British Society

    The hon. and learned Member is absolutely right that in this country, sadly, we have divided our own nation by treating Northern Ireland differently from the rest of the kingdom. That was a huge error by, I am afraid to say, the last Conservative Government, which agreed to the Northern Ireland protocol and then the Windsor framework. I am against both, and I look forward to a future Government repealing them so that we have one United Kingdom, where all people in these islands are treated equally and the same. As set out clearly by Don’t Divide Us, the truth is that the Equality Act should really be called the inequality Act. Instead of treating every citizen as an individual equal before the law, the Equality Act elevates certain so-called protected characteristics and encourages people to see themselves not as fellow Britons, but as members of competing groups. Far from promoting individual merit, the Equality Act is simply state-sponsored identity politics. What has been the result? Our English legal system has sadly been Americanised through the introduction of a corrosive culture of litigation in the workplace. Since 2017, race discrimination claims in employment tribunals have tripled, with more than 200,000 cases. Yet only 5% have been upheld, which tells us something very important: either Britain is riddled with invisible discrimination that even our judges cannot detect, which, given the richness of our legal traditions, I simply do not accept, or the law is unfit for purpose. In practice, it has turned the workplace into a battleground of claims and counterclaims. Despite the small number of successful claims, the statistics demonstrate the damage caused in places of work. Victim culture has not only been allowed to dominate the workplace, but been actively encouraged by the legislation. To take one example, in the case of Williams v. Nottingham, the judge noted: “the claimant thinks the existence of a ‘racial disparity’ is in…itself proof of racism”. However, the damage goes much deeper. The Equality Act is not simply a tidying-up of previous anti-discrimination laws; as hinted earlier, it represents a wholesale shift away from our common-law tradition where everyone is equal before the law towards a continental EU-style system based on substantive equality, group rights and bureaucratic enforcement. It was inspired by EU directives, in direct contradiction of our legal heritage. It hands enormous power to quangos, activist lawyers and DEI consultants, while eroding the space for free thought, free speech and personal judgment. Some right hon. and hon. Members suggest that repealing the Equality Act would mean enabling inequality, but that is simply wrong. Just as repealing the Human Rights Act 1998 would not abolish human rights, repealing the Equality Act would not abolish equality. Human rights and equality existed long before these Blairite statutes. In fact, equality as we would define it today finds its roots here in these islands of the United Kingdom. The underlying ideology of diversity is not neutral, as many on the left of politics suggest. It treats diversity as an unqualified good and, by implication, majority identity—whether English, Scots, Christian or British—as a problem to be managed. That is why so many of our constituents feel that these laws are not written for them and certainly not in their interests. The majority who simply want to live by the law, pay their taxes and contribute to society feel increasingly alienated by a system that tells them they have privilege that must be checked, while others are encouraged to claim special treatment. That does not sound like equality to me. The Equality Act has given rise to a sprawling industry, made up of an army of bureaucrats, consultants, trainers and lawyers, all feeding off the taxpayer. Repealing it, as I am advocating today, would mean considerable savings, as vast sums of public money are poured into funding this circus. Repealing the legislation would both restore common sense to our institutions and deliver real value for money to the taxpayer. Estimates suggest substantial savings, with annual reductions in compliance costs running into tens or probably thousands of millions—it is very hard to quantify, but it is a huge sum of money when we consider all the public institutions that spend money on promoting the DEI agenda, money that should be going to our frontline public services instead. The NHS Confederation has indicated that DEI roles alone are costing the taxpayer nearly £40 million, and I am sure that is an underestimate of what is really being spent. That is just one sector; goodness only knows what the total bill is across the public sector, in local government, the police and educational institutions—and let us not forget the BBC. It is time to put the taxpayer first and end this costly charade. The private sector and the corporate world have also been sucked into this dangerous ideology, spending vast sums of money in ticking every woke box while engaging in constant virtue signalling. None of this is cost-free to the public either: ultimately, it all must be paid for out of the pockets of their customers. Some will say, “But you had 14 years in government—why didn’t you repeal it?” to which I say that I, the Member of Parliament for Romford, have opposed the Equality Act from the very beginning. I never believed it would deliver what was promised, and I have consistently warned of the dangers of this ideological agenda. Sadly, too many in my party doubled down on it; some even wanted to extend it. I know that the shadow Minister here today, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), is not of that view, but sadly, over the last 14 years, many in my party sucked it all up, carried on with it and wanted to extend it. That was a grave mistake, and Britain is suffering as a result. The Labour Government talk of introducing a new race equality Act—another bright idea from the same failed mindset. The Equality Act has caused so much harm; adding another layer of identity politics into the law will make matters even worse, and I urge the Government to rethink that idea. Likewise, we increasingly hear calls to adopt a legal definition of Islamophobia. What kind of society do we want to live in? One where these proposed definitions conflate criticism of an ideology or a religion with hatred of people? Criticising Islam as a religion is not the same as hating people of the Muslim faith. Indeed, freedom of thought and freedom of speech require the ability to critique religious ideas, no matter what the religion may be. To criminalise such critique would be wholly inconsistent with the liberal, democratic principles that have evolved in this country over centuries. It is more important than ever that we as Members of Parliament, in the mother of all Parliaments, do not cower from taking decisions that, at face value, may seem unpopular. Trust me: the residents of my constituency of Romford, and in every corner of the United Kingdom, would wholeheartedly endorse the reversal of these laws, as the problems we face lie at the heart of the legislation itself. In my opinion, we should repeal the Equality Act root and branch, we should repeal the Human Rights Act, and the United Kingdom should withdraw from the European convention on human rights. Indeed, we should dismantle the Blairite constitutional reforms that have corroded our democracy and wedged our politics between a long-standing tradition of parliamentary sovereignty on the one hand, where power rests in this place—the Crown in Parliament—and an attempt at an American-style separation of powers on the other hand that has led to the outsourcing of Parliament’s ability to govern to so-called experts. Those systems are mutually exclusive, and we must pick one. As a Conservative and Unionist, I see the intrinsic value of defending the constitutional traditions that have embedded themselves in these islands for 1,000 years and that have been exported successfully around the world, to the Commonwealth nations in particular. We must return to the great principle that has served this country well for centuries: equality before the law for all citizens, regardless of race, religion, gender or background. That is the British way. That is our common law tradition. That is the true way to guarantee equality. The Equality Act is not bringing our people together; rather, it is driving them apart. It is fuelling an imported woke culture, an unmeritocratic DEI bureaucracy and a corrosive culture of grievance. We must therefore challenge the equality law house of cards constructed over previous decades and topple it to the ground—or face the prospect of an ever more divided society. We should be proud to identify ourselves as British first and foremost and be truly glad to live in a society where all are treated equally under the ancient laws and customs that have made these cherished islands the great nation that it is and must continue to be.

    Hansard source

  29. ParliamentAndrew Rosindell

    Equality Act 2010: Impact on British Society

    Thank you, Dr Allin-Khan, for chairing today’s debate, which has been extremely valuable. We have heard excellent contributions. There have been different opinions, but we have debated this issue in a respectful way. There are issues to be addressed, and all Members who spoke today have made extremely valid points, coming from different angles. I particularly thank the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) for his remarks. I took on board the point he made about caste discrimination, which is rarely spoken about. I thank him for drawing that to our attention. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who always makes incredibly valid points in all the debates in which he speaks. He made the point that we may have differences—we all do, as we are all individuals; none of us are the same—but we have to live side by side, and legislation should empower the British people to live side by side in a free society, not pit them against one another and accentuate division by emphasising differences between us. We should be united as British people, rather than looking at how we can be more divided and act like we are victims. Too many in our society today are doing that because the Equality Act has created that culture. My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) made extremely powerful comments, and I agree with everything she said, particularly about the public sector—especially local government—and how diversity culture has taken over, wasting so much money, causing so many divisions and ignoring issues. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) made the point about focusing on what matters to real people in the real world, rather than looking inwards. Let us focus on providing good, efficient public services rather than draining resources with the diversity agenda. I thank the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister). They also made extremely valid points, particularly about the division of Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom, which I have always opposed. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey got absolutely to the point of where this has all gone wrong. All of us want to see people treated fairly and decently in a society in which freedom is cherished, but it does not all have to be legislated for. Often things evolve; society changes in a natural way. If we try to legislate for everything, that is just a gift to the lawyers, judges and consultants, and all the people who will monetise legislation that gives them the opportunity to. I have always respected the Minister, and she spoke brilliantly today. She made points that I did not agree with, but many that I did agree with. I think we have all been subjected to hateful language—as Members of Parliament, we get that probably more than most people—and hatred is wrong in any context. We should always treat people with respect, kindness and generosity, but at the same time prevent those with bad intentions from causing more divisions, so our legislation needs to be minimal rather than opening up more opportunities for division in society. Ultimately, I believe in freedom—freedom with responsibility. I do not believe that diversity is always the right answer. It can cause division, and I think equality can sometimes be the opposite of freedom, so let us get back to basics. Let us be proud of our British heritage, which has always been based on fairness and equality under the law of these islands. I thank all Members for participating in this important debate and I say to those who have not had the chance: please get a copy of the Don’t Divide Us report, because it explains a lot of things that we as Members of Parliament should be addressing today. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the impact of the Equality Act 2010 on British society.

    Hansard source

  30. ParliamentAndrew Rosindell

    Engagements

    Q11. My local borough commander in Romford tells me how much valuable police time is being wasted investigating trivial social media posts and non-crime hate incidents. Should the police not be patrolling our streets rather than moderating the internet? Will the Prime Minister commit to urgently updating the Public Order Act 1986 to reflect the realities of the digital age, so that our police are focused on tackling real crime and upholding freedom of speech, rather than suppressing it?

    Hansard source

  31. ParliamentAlison Griffiths

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

    The hon. Lady and I share a huge concern for ensuring access to all types of transport, including buses, for the disabled of every kind. Does she agree that the strike in London, which is crippling transport services, is causing greater harm to the disabled community here than in any other part of the country?

    Hansard source

  32. ParliamentAlan Mak

    Technology Companies: Accountability

    I welcome the Minister to his place. When it comes to holding tech companies accountable for using copyrighted material on their platforms without consent, the Government’s Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 let down our creative industries. The Department’s new working groups on AI and copyright include just one British tech firm, alongside a host of foreign tech competitors. Will his Government now give our tech sector and creative industries the proper voice they deserve?

    Hansard source

  33. ParliamentWendy Morton

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    Today’s Second Reading is not only important, but historically significant—sadly, for all the wrong reasons. We are debating a Bill that will leave Britain less secure, undermine our strategic interests and leave British taxpayers out of pocket. The decision by this Labour Government to surrender sovereignty over the Chagos islands to Mauritius and to pay billions of pounds for the privilege, with no checks or balances, is nothing short of a national humiliation. It is a deal that weakens Britain at home and abroad, and one that the official Opposition will oppose every step of the way.

    Hansard source

  34. ParliamentWendy Morton

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    I remind the hon. Member of two things. First, talking and signing are two very different things. Secondly, some of us on the Conservative Benches remember that no deal is better than a bad deal.

    Hansard source

  35. ParliamentWendy Morton

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    My hon. Friend makes a very valid point. If Labour Members had spent a little more time actually listening to some of the contributions from Conservative Members, they would perhaps understand things a little more. I will come back to that point shortly. Before I turn to the substance, I wish to pay tribute to colleagues on the Conservative Benches who have spoken powerfully about the sheer folly of this deal. They have rightly highlighted its staggering costs, the accounting methods used, the reckless security implications, the lack of transparency and the way in which it sadly sidelines the Chagossian community. There have been a number of contributions, but I very briefly pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), the former Attorney General. He has not just demonstrated his extensive legal knowledge and expertise in this area, but questioned the legal uncertainty that Ministers are relying on. He has taken the time to explain and to remind this place of the issues relating to article 298 of UNCLOS, which is very relevant to today’s debate. He highlighted some key unanswered questions. Quite frankly, I urge every Member of this House to have a read of Hansard before they go into the voting Lobby this evening. Similarly, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) highlighted and reinforced the important point about article 298 of UNCLOS. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) reminded Labour Members of the red lines put in place by Lord Cameron, who stopped negotiations—it quite clearly seems that they needed to be reminded that talking and signing are two very different things. My right hon. Friends the Members for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) and for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) talked about strategic issues and the costs of the deal. There were valuable contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas), for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) and for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans). One thing that is very obvious is that we need clarity. To give just one example, the Government claim that we may have problems with spectrum if we do not agree a deal, but other parts of the Government have indicated that the International Telecommunication Union has no power to veto the use of military spectrum. [Interruption.] Government Members do not want to intervene now. These are not passing political points; they are hard truths about the dangers that this deal poses to Britain’s security and standing. Before I move on, though, I wish to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) for his wise and brave words today, and for standing firm as a constituency MP and standing up for members of his community. Turning to the Liberal Democrats, I have to say that I struggle a little to understand their position. They say that they oppose the Bill, but they did not vote against the treaty in the House of Lords—in fact, they chose to prop up Labour, rather than defend Britain and the rights of the British Chagossians.

    Hansard source

  36. ParliamentWendy Morton

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    Of course I will.

    Hansard source

  37. ParliamentWendy Morton

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    I am grateful for that intervention—let us wait and see whether the Minister does confirm that date. However, the fact of the matter remains that the Liberal Democrats did not vote against the treaty. Turning to costs and taxpayers, the financial costs of the deal alone should be a cause of shame for this Government. Thanks to Conservative FOI requests, we now know that the true bill for this surrender is not £3.4 billion, as Ministers have claimed, but closer to £35 billion—a sum that is 10 times higher than originally admitted, and one that will fall squarely on the shoulders of British taxpayers. Let us be clear what those billions will fund. They will not fund better schools or hospitals here at home, or defence capabilities to protect our citizens; they will fund tax cuts in Mauritius. At the very moment when this Labour Government are hiking taxes on family farms, education and businesses, they are content to bankroll over 4% of another nation’s budget. To Conservative Members, that is indefensible. However, the risks to Britain’s security are even greater. Diego Garcia is our most strategic and important base in the Indian ocean, critical to our partnership with the United States and vital to our ability to project influence in the Indo-Pacific, yet this Bill leaves huge questions unanswered. What guarantees are there that the UK can extend the lease over Diego Garcia unilaterally when the Mauritian Prime Minister has said otherwise? What safeguards will prevent hostile powers such as China, Russia or Iran from seeking a foothold in the archipelago once Britain steps back? We know that Beijing already describes Mauritius as a partner with “strategic advantages”, while Port Louis boasts of advancing co-operation with Moscow. Does the Minister really believe that this makes Britain more secure? We also cannot ignore the issue of nuclear deterrence. Mauritius is a signatory to the Pelindaba treaty, which prohibits the stationing and storage of nuclear weapons, yet Ministers have failed to explain what that will mean in practice once sovereignty is transferred. Will it constrain our closest ally, the United States? Will it put limits on what we can do on Diego Garcia in future? These are not trivial questions, because they go to the heart of our security posture in the Indo-Pacific, yet we still have no clear answers. Even Lord West, a former Labour Security Minister, has warned that ceding the Chagos islands is “irresponsible” and dangerous, yet this Government press on regardless, blind to the risks and deaf to the warnings. Let us not forget the Chagossians themselves. For years, Labour politicians claimed a fundamental moral responsibility towards this community, but in government they have abandoned them, offering only token consultation and denying them a real say in decisions that affect their homeland. Once again they are being sidelined. This is about the Chagossians and their future, and that of future generations. We are told that millions will be channelled into a so-called trust for the Chagossian people, but under this deal Britain will have no meaningful role in determining how those funds are used. Decisions will sit entirely with Mauritius, with no mechanism for proper oversight by Parliament and no guarantee that the Chagossians themselves will see the benefit. There is no accountability to them, no accountability to us, and no accountability for how British money is spent. There are many questions about the fund, not least what guarantees and safeguards exist to ensure that it reaches all the Chagossians, given that so many of their communities are spread around the world. Time and again, Ministers have refused to come clean with Parliament about the terms of this deal. We have had contradictory accounts from the Mauritians and from Whitehall, confusion about the sums involved and secrecy so deep that even officials were asked to leave the room during negotiations. If Ministers cannot be open with Parliament, they have no business asking Parliament to support this Bill. Before I conclude, I will touch briefly on the other overseas territories. Let me be clear: we are debating and discussing the Chagos islands, and at no stage have those on this Front Bench ever conflated surrendering the sovereignty of the Chagos islands with that of the other overseas territories. It is clear that when Labour negotiates, Britain loses. That is the story of this deal. This is not a settlement forced on us by law. The Government have chosen to hide behind advisory opinions, rather than to stand firm, defend our sovereignty and protect our national interests. It is simply the behaviour of this unpatriotic Labour Government. We on the Opposition Benches could not be clearer: Britain should not surrender the Chagos islands and we will fight this Bill every step of the way. I will conclude, but I had hoped that the new Foreign Secretary would be here today. Where is she? She has chosen to be elsewhere, rather than answer to the Chagossian people. I will end with a plea to the Minister, for whom I have the highest personal respect. We have often been in opposite positions across the Dispatch Box, but I ask him please to step back, pause and reflect. Britain does not need to surrender the Chagos islands. Do the right thing by our country, by our taxpayers and by the Chagossian people. Stand firm and keep the Chagos islands British.

    Hansard source

  38. ParliamentTom Tugendhat

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    The Minister will be aware that the payment from the 1960s, referred to by the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), was also supposed to be spent on Chagossian welfare, but many Chagossian groups have raised the fact that that money did not go on Chagossian welfare. It went on many other things for the Mauritian Government, but not on Chagossians. What confidence does he have that this agreement is any more valid than the last one?

    Hansard source

  39. ParliamentTom Tugendhat

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    I wonder whether my right hon. Friend can help me in giving a prediction. Two families have swapped leadership of Mauritius over the last 60 years. Does he see any reason to doubt that the same two families will swap leadership over the next 60?

    Hansard source

  40. ParliamentTom Tugendhat

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    So many Labour Members seem to have forgotten that the reshuffle was a couple of days ago. They will have to wait another few months, possibly years, for their obsequiousness to be rewarded. May I suggest that we are in a somewhat through-the-looking-glass world? Over the last few hours, we have heard very clear questions from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), who is no longer in his place. He explained that we are hearing a circular argument about legal intervention to which there is absolutely no response. All we hear from Government Members is ChatGPT-generated press releases—“I rise to speak”, “I rise to speak”, “I rise to speak”. ChatGPT knows you are there. That is an Americanism that we do not use. Still, they should keep using it, because it makes it clear that this place has become absurd. This building and this Chamber are a complete waste of time when our electors and fellow citizens hear that we have listened to the arguments of Mauritius, China, India and the United States, but are not willing to listen to the arguments of Britain. We are not willing to stand up for the interests of the British people, or to look at the strategic interests of UK defence. Instead, all we hear consistently is that the Americans are for the deal. Of course they are for it; this is a territorial deal, and they have no interest in the territory. All they are interested in is the lease of the base. They are leasing the base off us at the moment, and they will be leasing the base off Mauritius via us into the future, so there is no change for them. Of course, India is in favour of the deal. By the way, I respect the position of the Indian Government greatly, but do you know what? I am not an Indian MP. I have a different perspective, because my job—and, I thought, the job of Labour Members, but clearly I was wrong—is to stand up for the British people. Instead, all I hear is that Labour Members are standing up for the interests of different foreign powers. That is absolutely fine. They worship international treaties and stand up for so-called international law, but they conveniently forget—[Interruption.] Members should hear the end of the sentence. They forget that international law is conflictual, challenged and regularly, if not almost always, in direct confrontation with itself, because it highlights different interests. At different points, Governments champion different aspects of international law in order to seek different outcomes. That is how it has grown up. It is the job of sovereign Governments to stand up for our interests. I thought that was the job of our Government, but it clearly is not the job of this Government. Instead, this Government do something quite different; the moment that they are challenged, they run away. Brave Sir Keir bravely turned his tail and fled.

    Hansard source