5,779 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
Order. [Interruption.] Order! That said, I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has given the Foreign Secretary notice of his intended point of order, but I think that that is a matter that he will have to raise with the Foreign Secretary himself. The hon. Gentleman will understand that the Chair cannot answer for Ministers, but he has made his point.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. May I first express my sympathy to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) and his family? I take it that the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) notified the hon. Member that he intended to raise the matter in the Chamber today.
Thank you. As the hon. Member will know, pairing is not a matter for the Chair; it is an arrangement between hon. Members individually and their Whips—and of course I could not possibly comment any further on that. However, the circumstances under which a Member is eligible for a proxy vote do not at present include family bereavement. If it wished to do so, the House could change that, but I am not able to do so on my own account. I understand, however, that the Procedure Committee has been conducting a review of these arrangements, which might include matters such as pairing.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. It will not surprise him to know that I did not attend the Labour party conference in 2022. The King’s Speech announced that the Government would deliver their manifesto commitment to implement a Hillsborough law by introducing legislation to introduce a duty of candour for public servants. It is, as the hon. Gentleman will understand, up to the Government to decide how they go about preparing legislation, and that includes whom they consult and when. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will play a major part in the scrutiny of the legislation when it is presented to Parliament.
I should say, I do not know anything that the hon. Gentleman does not know.
Order. I think the Minister has been here long enough to understand that, actually, matters have to be directed through the Chair; he is entirely correct.
I am sure the hon. Lady will have the opportunity to intervene later on.
15. What steps she is taking to encourage people who are out of work to accept jobs that they are offered.
R and J Yorkshire’s Finest butchers in Kirkby Malzeard have had multiple job applications via jobcentres from people who they think never had an intention of going to interview or taking a job. May I urge the Minister to look at how incentives and penalties are matched up, to ensure that people actually turn up to interview and take a job?
Do Ministers agree with the Trussell Trust’s recent estimate that the weekly cost of basic essentials is £120 for a single person and £205 for a couple?
As usual, I agree with much of what the Foreign Secretary has to say, but I have to ask him this: how many times must a terrorist-funding, fanatical regime threaten to wipe another country from the face of the earth before a Government advised by Lord Hermer of Chagos acknowledge that military action to delay and degrade its nuclear weapons programme is both ethically and legally justifiable?
I must say that I am very surprised that the Home Secretary chose to put out a written statement, rather than making an oral statement, when we could have put to her some of these points about what exactly qualifies a group to be proscribed as a terrorist organisation. I entirely agree with the sentiment in the House that Palestine Action sabotaged these planes, caused criminal damage and could be liable to a charge of criminal conspiracy, and that the people who did the damage should be pursued for remuneration to the point of bankruptcy. However, it would do the country and the Government no favours if they were to lose in court a challenge to the process of proscription, because whereas the secret sabotage of planes would certainly have been an act of terrorism leading to proscription, the fact is that this was a performative act that these people announced they had done. My advice to the Government is to make sure, when these people are prosecuted, that it is not solely on the grounds of committing terrorist acts, rather than committing treasonous acts of sabotage.
The Foreign Affairs Committee met the Iranian ambassador twice last week, and he claimed that Iran’s nuclear programme was legal and purely civil, and he said that they want to negotiate. Can the Foreign Secretary say, on the basis of the numerous meetings with the Iranian Foreign Minister that he has reported, whether he gained any impression of Iran’s willingness either to dismantle its nuclear programme or to negotiate?
Will the Foreign Secretary now concede that the international community’s unwillingness to take robust action through things like the snapback mechanism and the JCPOA is part of the reason that Israel felt the need to take the initial strikes and America to do likewise? I agree that diplomatic means will ultimately be the only long-term resolution, but that means not just asking nicely for Iran to put its nuclear weapons away, but enforcing that and ensuring it does so through such mechanisms. Will the Foreign Secretary ensure that if we are not going to be involved in military action—I understand why we might not want to do that—we will ensure that robust action is taken, and that it is underpinned by measures that will force Iran to do the right thing, rather than just hoping that it will do the right thing?
Will the Foreign Secretary make it clear to the House that if the United States needs to take further action to degrade and destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities and requests to use Diego Garcia, Cyprus or any other British military facility, we will make sure that that is made available?
At the lobby last week by the food banks, a number of people expressed the wish to have greater facilities to educate their clients with respect to shopping and preparing meals more effectively. They make a fair point, don’t they?
It appears that the House agrees with the Government’s objective that Iran should never have nuclear weapons, but the Government are prepared to will the ends but not the means. This begs the question: who is really running the Government? Why did Lord Hermer’s opinion on the legality of UK involvement in military action become public last week? Was it leaked? Was it briefed? Does this not demonstrate that the Government are paralysed and divided on this question instead of leading from the front?
14. What assessment she has made of the potential implications for her policies of recent trends in the level of unemployment.
Unemployment is now 115,000 higher than when Labour took office. The Chancellor’s new jobs tax and the Employment Rights Bill make hiring a new person more expensive. The family farms and family business taxes are reducing investment. Can the Minister therefore explain how he will reduce unemployment while the Chancellor is pursuing policies that increase it?
Given that a female officer commands Blandford Camp, I totally echo the comments made by the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Jones). There will be a lot of concern among personnel in the camp and those who live in the communities around it that they are now targets for either home-grown domestic terror or those who may be described as “sleepers” in our country from countries and regimes that do not wish us well. Could I invite the Minister to find a way to confidentially ensure that Members of Parliament across the House who have military bases in their constituencies, as I do in North Dorset, are advised as to whether those installations pass the test of security or whether work needs to be done, and if it does, to what timeframe it will happen and what work is involved? There will be a lot of anxiety in those communities, and MPs across the House can play an important part in allaying those concerns in their communities.
I welcome the announcement of Plymouth’s defence cluster and the national centre for marine autonomy. I am proud that much of this work is being done in my constituency at Turnchapel Wharf and soon at Langage in the Plymouth and South Devon freeport, and that it includes Smart Sound, all of which were supported by the last Conservative Government. Indeed, this did not really need a special name as it was already happening. The Chancellor’s spending review speech initially included mention of £4 billion for autonomous systems split between three locations including Plymouth yet, when checked against delivery, this element was missing. Please can the Minister clarify what funding is available for these autonomous systems’ development in the strategy, in addition to the money announced for the submarine and continuous at sea deterrence programme at His Majesty’s naval base Devonport?
Two weeks ago, the IAEA produced a report that was damning of the Iranian regime. Iran was not co-operating, and was breaching its obligations. It had more than 400 kg of uranium enriched to 60%, far beyond any level needed for a civilian nuclear programme, and enough material to create at least nine nuclear devices, while its nuclear facilities were buried deep underground to hide its programme—and all this from a despotic authoritarian regime that represses and tortures its own people, is committed to the annihilation of Israel, the world’s only Jewish state, is responsible for so much of the suffering in the region through its sponsorship of terrorist proxies, is supporting Putin in his illegal war against Ukraine, and is involved in plots and activities to undermine our national security here at home on a daily basis. It is for these reasons, and for many more, that the Iranian regime must never be allowed to have nuclear weapons. That is why we stand with those who are working to stop them—the House will know that, as His Majesty's Opposition, we will always put the defence and security of our country first—and why we will work constructively with the Government to secure the protection of the British people and our national interests. We will support the Government when they are doing the right thing, but we will also question, challenge and press Ministers to go further when we think that more needs to be done to safeguard our interests, and it is in that spirit of constructive scrutiny in the national interest that I put these questions and points to the Foreign Secretary. First, British nationals and dual nationals continue to be stranded in Israel and the middle east owing to airspace closures. I have written to the Foreign Secretary about this matter, and note the progress being made with today’s flight. I thank the Foreign Office for the work that it has been doing with many families with whom I have also been in touch, who have been able to get on to that flight today. Can the Foreign Secretary tell us how many British nationals may need to be repatriated? What resources are being deployed to support those efforts? Is there enough capacity to match the number of people who need to leave, and why does it seem that the US and other European countries were ahead of us in their operational planning to bring back their citizens? The Foreign Secretary has mentioned the US embassy’s advice, and he has given advice to British nationals in Qatar today. Will there be any further notifications for other British nationals in Gulf Co-operation Council states? Secondly, on Iran’s nuclear programme, the Foreign Secretary could not say on radio this morning how effective the weekend’s strikes were. I understand that it will take time to get information, but if more strikes to further degrade Iran’s nuclear capacities are planned, will the Government consider supporting them? The Government have not taken a clear position on the actions that the US and Israel have taken, but we have seen reports of the apparent legal advice from the Attorney General cautioning against UK involvement. While I appreciate that the Foreign Secretary cannot comment on any legal advice, do the Government have a position on the lawfulness of the strikes, and does he welcome the ends as well as the means? Does he share my cynicism about Iran’s attempt to cloak itself in the UN charter—the same UN charter that it has undermined for decades through its brutality? Can the Foreign Secretary confirm whether the US will be permitted to take action from Diego Garcia should future strikes on Iran or actions to defend Israel be needed, or do the Government think that there are legal barriers to the US doing so? Thirdly, with heightened tensions in the region, can the Foreign Secretary give an update on what further steps are being taken to safeguard British military assets in the region and our partners from any unwise military action taken by the Iranian regime? Given the reports over the weekend of a suspected Iranian spy plot targeting our base in Cyprus, are we now stepping up efforts to protect bases? Fourthly, what steps are being taken across Government and with our police, counter-terrorism and security services to reassess the domestic threat level? The Foreign Secretary cannot go into operational details, so can he give an assurance that robust action and disruptions to any potential Iran-backed plots are under way? He rightly mentioned the issue of Gaza and the fact that we absolutely must work together to ensure that humanitarian aid gets to people who are desperately in need of it. Can the Foreign Secretary update us on what steps he has taken to engage with Israel to get more aid into Gaza, and does he agree that Iran must be weakened to end its ability to sponsor Hamas and other terrorists in the region?
I am pleased to respond to this brief debate on geo-engineering and the environment, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) on starting the debate. I agree that solar radiation management would be a reckless experiment that risks all our futures. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) used the opportunity to speak about climate change. Although she and I probably disagree profoundly about the wisdom of the net zero target and the plan to decarbonise the whole grid by 2030, I am sure she opposes, as I do, the giant solar and battery farms that the Government want to impose on both our constituencies and most of the east of England. My party’s position on SRM is clear. We oppose any attempts to seed the sky, and every effort must be made to be respectful of nature and our planet. Chasing such hare-brained scientific schemes to interfere with the climate and the atmosphere will not give us answers to any live public policy dilemmas. The Met Office has confirmed that we do not have enough evidence to understand how effective geo-engineering like SRM might be, and we do not know what unintended consequences might occur for human and environmental health. Ministers have said there are no plans to fund experimentation with solar radiation modification, but public concern was prompted by the Advanced Research and Innovation Agency offering £56.8 million of public money to examine climate cooling theory. It is important to say that the research does not, as far as I am aware, include any practical attempts to manipulate the climate, but was a study in relation to the theory of these methods. Having been very clear about the Conservative position, I invite the Minister to provide a clear statement that the Government will not support SRM. Given the concern expressed by the public through the petition and the members of the public attending today, I am sure she will want to give everybody an unambiguous reassurance that that is indeed the case and that the Government will not come forward with such methods.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I will not detain the Committee for long, because this is a technical piece of legislation simply updating regulations to reflect new qualifications and, in a sense, maintaining the principle that we established during our time in government of devolving the adult skills budget, but I want to make one point and press the Minister on one issue. The point I want to make is that although the Government were critical of us for cuts to the adult skills budget when we were in office, they have now themselves cut the adult skills budget by 6% in recent months. I mention that not to make a political point—although that is something that Labour Members criticised us for doing when they were in opposition, but they have now done themselves in government—but, in part, to frame a question. I asked this question of the Minister for children, families and wellbeing, the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby), in April, when we debated regulations on the devolution of adult skills spending to Cornwall and North Yorkshire. I asked her to write to me, and she agreed that she would write on this particular point, but I am afraid no letter was ever forthcoming. I wondered whether I could have another go with DFE colleagues. A lot of people in combined authorities say to me, “It’s all very well saying that you’ve devolved adult skills spending, but in practice, when the money arrives”—and it is now 6% less—“the great majority of it is taken up by spending on statutory entitlements that we don’t have any control over.” They are not complaining about the statutory entitlements; they are merely making the point that devolution in this area is not necessarily what it sounds like when Ministers announce it. That is a fair point, which applied equally to us when we were in government as it does to the current Government. I press the Minister again to agree to write to me, to tell me: what proportion of spending of the adult skills budget in combined authorities is not taken up by statutory entitlement? What is the real devolution here? What is really left over once the authorities have spent all this money on things that we compel them to spend it on? I encourage the Minister to get that answered, not just for my benefit but for hers, so that she can understand what is really being devolved or not, and whether we can do something to give the combined authorities a greater margin for flexibility. The Government say that they are in favour of devolution—that is in line with their industrial strategy, which they are saying more about today—so that members of the combined authorities are able to fit local skills spending to their local needs. However, that is only freedom if there is some genuinely free money in the system, and it is not clear that there is that much. I therefore encourage the Minister to agree to write to me. I apologise to the Minister and officials if the letter was sent, but got lost in the post somewhere. It is an interesting question. I hope the Minister will agree to write on that point and look into the question.
I suggest that, in future, shorter questions might prevent mistakes such as “you”.
Please be seated. The Secretary of State is very diligent, but could he let his officials know that if the opening statement is to go beyond 10 minutes, they should inform the Speaker’s Office? As the statement went a little bit longer, I will allow the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats to have an extra one minute each. I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Hopefully the rail line that takes me into my constituency will be the first on the list.
Questions are far too long and the Secretary of State is far too generous with his responses. Let’s try to nip that in the bud.
With my apologies for not calling him earlier, I now call Jim Shannon.
There are 300 more people on out-of-work benefits in Basildon and Billericay than there were 12 months ago. Local businesses tell me that that is because business rates have gone up under the Labour Government, national insurance tax has gone up under the Labour Government and taxes on investment for the long term have gone up under the Labour Government. Does the Minister agree, or has she got another explanation for the fact that 300 more of my constituents are unemployed than there were 12 months ago?
Organised gangs operate in many spheres—sex, drugs and, as reported in the media, our welfare system. This totally undermines public confidence in the system. Will the Minister make representations to the Home Secretary to ensure that foreign nationals who are found to have abused our welfare system are removed from the country?
I thank the many hon. Members in the Chamber for their swift and heartfelt contributions; everybody contributed brilliantly. I also wish everyone a very happy Pride Month, including my constituents in East Grinstead, Uckfield and the villages. The ethos of the Conservatives is exactly about meaningful change and putting the individual at the centre of policymaking. It is the Conservative party that is about freedom to be who you are. We are here to campaign for you and to support you, for a better future for you and everyone. As we have heard this evening, it is about respect, love and care for all that matters. I have quoted before—this has stuck with me—the words of my friend and former colleague Elliot Colburn. In a previous debate, he said: “LGBT+ people have always existed; we did not just pop out of the ground in the 1960s and 1970s and start marching through the streets of London and other cities.”—[Official Report, 7 March 2024; Vol. 746, c. 393WH.] His and Jed’s wedding is back in my diary. They have much to do to top what was a great engagement night. The changes that we have heard about across the globe, including in Thailand and India, are absolutely welcome. It is just as vital that we have righted the wrongs done to our service personnel. On Saturday, I will be in East Grinstead for an Armed Forces Day event with constituents and thinking of those who have told and shared with me their terrible, abhorrent experiences in the forces, like some of those bravely retold this evening. I agree with the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) about the fantastic contribution made by Fighting with Pride. We have heard about families coming in all shapes and sizes and how important that is. In 2022, the Conservative Government rightly and vitally removed the barriers to IVF for lesbian couples, as highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer). He also talked about the importance of family life for all couples. It is vital to recognise that parents and families come in different shapes and forms, including single parents. I have always loved to highlight that single parents can do this job. The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne) talked about the importance of local Pride campaigns. That point was echoed across the Chamber—I could not keep up—about campaigns in York, Basildon and Southend, and a winter Pride event where it sounds like there would be far too many clothes! I very much enjoyed the geography lesson on where to go. It was also important to reflect on politicians, what we do and how we have made a difference. The Minister of State reminded us that there is always more to do and that we should take nothing for granted.
I think that hon. Members heard from the Conservative Front Bench a young man from Anglesey—my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew)—speaking very much about what the challenges were for him living in an isolated, rural area, just as we heard from the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi). It is right that we should put safety, dignity and the freedom to live your life at the heart of everything we do. My right hon. Friend was right that we are all leaders in our own ways. That is why I am so proud that we Conservatives set the ambitious and absolutely right goal of ending all new HIV cases by 2030. My right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry put that challenge to the Front-Bench team for this Parliament. Perhaps if the Minister’s party had not been quite so successful at the election, we would have even more of my gay and lesbian colleagues left on my Benches to keep championing that cause.
I think the same goes for all parties. Obviously, MPs’ diaries have different challenges and commitments. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry made it—he was stuck on a train for most of this evening. He mentioned that we do not want Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland to fall behind when it comes to striving for no new cases of HIV by 2030 in all parts of the United Kingdom. I am delighted to be deejaying at the LGBT Tories event at the Conservative party conference. As we have heard, the conferences can come alive, apparently. The Deputy Speaker earlier pointed out he had not recently been to a Labour one. Maybe he will come to my DJ night. I will be following the guest turn from my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), and hoping that some of my colleagues, such as Chris Clarkson, formerly of this parish, will be there. I also want to pay tribute to Luke Robert Black, who got his MBE in December 2024 for his work with LGBT Conservatives. As we heard tonight, it is 50 years since both Labour and the Conservatives started those really important groups.
I am always happy to praise the hon. Gentleman. The last time we had a chat he called me a very rude woman, so I have some making up to do—I hope that is exactly what he is pleased about. Of course, it is really important to have trailblazers, and as we have heard, being an ally is absolutely vital. I was going to mention the hon. Member for Burnley (Oliver Ryan) showcasing just how much that matters. I must also mention my former colleague, Maria Caulfield, now CBE. Her passion and commitment to better HIV treatment and her focus on tackling the stigma around HIV and mental health were really important. I also want to mention the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett), who spoke up about being openly bisexual and proud of it. That will help others who watch this debate in relation to being out and being who they are. I too have daughters who are not as diverse as I was hoping for, but we live in hope. It is me that is the challenge, not them. This debate shows exactly why we need Pride Month and why we need to make it count. We need the humour and humanity. Pride Month emphasises reflection on all the contributions, both historically and now, that LGBT+ individuals and communities make towards creating a better world, and we as politicians in this House can continue to be part of this story and help all LGBT people to thrive, not just in their sexuality but in every part of their life—their community, their career and whatever they want life to look like. I thank all Members for their contributions and hope that we can work together actively and positively across the Chamber to continue to make positive changes for LGBT people. Of course, as we reflect on Pride and its theme of activism and social change, we must continue to challenge stigma, including views in my own party, and prejudice. We need to be clear that all political parties are here for you no matter who you are, where you live and who you love, and that you should never feel unsafe or worried about who you are. We will always work together to strive for dignity, inclusion and compassion. After all, love is love.
Mr Deputy Speaker, you will remember that Willie Whitelaw famously offered his resignation after an intruder made his way into Buckingham Palace. Has the Minister considered his own position?
Belated though it is, the announcement about energy costs is obviously vital to the steel sector. The Secretary of State is well aware of the situation in Scunthorpe. Will he give an assurance that, for the foreseeable future, production of virgin steel will continue in Scunthorpe? Will he work with North Lincolnshire council, which has plans for redeveloping the redundant parts of the site, particularly in respect of an AI growth zone?
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement in which he says that he has been crystal clear with the regime in Tehran. I hope he has been a lot clearer with them than he has been with the House today, but I will give it one more go, because I genuinely do not understand why he cannot answer this question. Does His Majesty’s Government support or oppose the US military action against Iran at the weekend?
Away from the headlines, as the Foreign Secretary said, hundreds of Gazans have been losing their lives. Let us be clear about what is happening. As tens of thousands of people walk miles daily to beg for food from American mercenaries, they are being shot at random in the street. I think we in this House have moved beyond asking the Foreign Secretary actually to lift a finger and beyond mouthing the words do anything about this, but I have a wider question. Does he envisage the UK playing any part in some sort of consequence in the future for these outright murders?
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. This is the sixth industrial strategy announced from that Dispatch Box since “New Industry, New Jobs” by Gordon Brown in 2009. While they have all been filled with a box of chocolates selected by the Secretary of State, with his or her preference often underpinned by a huge subsidy, not a single one of them has made any significant difference to the UK’s growth rate, and that is because they all miss a particular piece of the jigsaw. I urge the Secretary of State to recognise that the Government can build as many roads and bridges as they want, train as many young people as they like, pump as much money into the British Business Bank as they want, but unless they can find individuals to take a risk with their own capital, they will not get any investment. Unless these individuals can see a return on that capital, they will not invest. I urge him, as we move towards a Budget in November, to work with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to increase entrepreneurs’ relief, cut capital gains tax, and reduce the taxation on dividends so investors can see a return on their risk.