5,779 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
The Secretary of State may well be aware of the greater awareness among young people of nicotine pouches. That seems to be a gap in the Tobacco and Vapes Bill currently going through Parliament. Will he commit to look at this issue to ensure that it is covered and that we bar this alongside other forms of tobacco and nicotine?
The Secretary of State will know that my local ICB in Bedfordshire, Luton and Milton Keynes is set to merge with Hertfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. The new ICB will cover a population of about 3 million people. Given the difficulties we have had securing a GP surgery in Wixams, will the Secretary of State set out how supersizing that quango will help rural mid-Beds to get the local healthcare it needs?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I rise to support amendments 54 and 55, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, but I will first briefly speak to clause 24, which is an important and long-overdue step towards modernising the Mental Health Act 1983, crucially strengthening the rights, dignity and autonomy of individuals subject to it. The reform of the existing nearest relative provisions, replacing them with a new system that allows for the appointment of a nominated person, is an important part of ensuring that individuals get the right support, and modernises an outdated system. The current model is based on a rigid and outdated hierarchy in which the role of the “nearest relative” is determined by law, not by the wishes of the patient. This one-size-fits-all approach fails to account for the complexities and nuances of individual relationships. It can result in someone unsuitable, or even actively harmful, being placed in a central role in a person’s care and treatment journey. Indeed, the limitations of the system have been acknowledged by practitioners, patients and policymakers alike. It is too often disempowering, and the patient can lose agency at a time when they need to be empowered to feel in control of the situation as much as possible. As the shadow Minister says, clause 24 is the cornerstone of the reforms. It is an important change to the current legislation to reaffirm the commitment to patient-centred care, to dignity and to the principle that those receiving treatment under the Mental Health Act should have a voice in decisions about their support network. The aim of the clause—to put the patient first—is important. It acknowledges that the person best placed to advocate for the patient may not be their closest relative. In some cases, family dynamics are fraught. In others, the designated relative may hold views about treatment that conflict with the patient’s wishes or medical advice. We have seen real-world examples in which the imposition of the “nearest relative” role has led to tension, distress and, ultimately, a breakdown in trust. That is not the kind of environment in which recovery is fostered. Amendments 54 and 55 would address the specific issue of nominated persons and those with parental responsibility for children under the age of 16. It is important that we consider situations in which a young person may be in a vulnerable position and their decision on who their nominated person should be may not be in their best interests. We have a particular duty to ensure that children are safeguarded. Clause 24 as it stands will allow under-16s to choose someone who is not the parent to have significant power, including the ability to discharge the child from hospital. We must listen to and actively try to support any young person who needs that kind of intervention—it is not that their views should not be considered. However, there is a very real risk that a vulnerable child or teenager might be coerced by or under the control of an older partner, for example, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth pointed out. Perhaps they might choose an older friend. We need to consider that a decision made by the nominated person, such as an older friend, may have implications for those with parental responsibility. For example, that older friend may decide to discharge a child from hospital and into the care of the parents, who would not provide advocacy or be part of that decision making. The Minister said that safeguards will be put in place, but can he expand on that? There are some real concerns here. Let us consider a situation in which there has been a decision by a court to determine which parent has responsibility for the child. If complex family issues have already been considered by the family court, it is right that the decision be followed. I respectfully ask the Minister to reconsider this point. We must respect the fact that parents of those under 16 are best placed to advocate for, support and act for their children. This is about capacity, consent and, ultimately, safeguarding.
My hon. Friend makes an important point. If parents are not acting in the best interests of their children, there is a wider safeguarding issue that needs to be considered. One would question why such parents had been left in a situation in which they have responsibility for their children and are potentially harming them. That leads me nicely to another point, which is that introducing the additional wording would bring mental health in line with physical health. For someone under the age of 16, it is their parents who have the responsibility to act in the best interests of their physical health; it seems to me that one would expect the same for mental health. I therefore urge the Committee to support amendments 54 and 55. Let me return briefly to the overarching aims of clause 24. I underscore the point that the wider principle at stake—patient autonomy—is one that I support. The ability to make informed choices about one’s care should be a central component of our care system. In mental health, where individuals can feel particularly vulnerable, that becomes even more essential. Granting patients the power to nominate someone who will advocate for them, advise them and represent their wishes is a powerful act of empowerment. Moreover, this change enhances safeguards for patients. It ensures that the person acting on their behalf is someone they have chosen and trust. It reduces the potential for conflict and opens the door to a more collaborative and compassionate model of care. If the Committee agrees to the amendments, which would provide the necessary safeguards for children, who I believe should be considered separately to adults, my overall view is that clause 24 represents a pragmatic, compassionate and patient-focused update to the Mental Health Act. It aligns with our modern understanding of mental healthcare and puts trust, respect and dignity at the heart of our legislative framework.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I rise to make some brief comments on amendment 49. I am sympathetic to aims of the hon. Member for Winchester in tabling the amendment. A patient who is being discharged from hospital may indeed require specific, targeted support. The overall success of their treatment and continued recovery can be greatly enhanced where the right structures are in place to support them in the community. The amendment rightly draws attention to social and financial stressors that may affect an individual at the point of discharge and in the weeks and months that follow. We all recognise that there is a pressing need for a more joined-up approach between in-patient services and community provision. Without that, we risk patients falling through the cracks and suffering unnecessary and distressing re-admissions. Better discharge planning must be at the heart of our efforts. I have some concerns, however. Although I acknowledge the good intentions behind the amendment, it risks expanding the remit of independent mental health advocates beyond what might be appropriate. There is a delicate balance, but an important distinction, between advocacy and care co-ordination. Independent mental health advocates play a vital role, and it is essential that their independence and clarity of purpose be preserved. If we are not careful, we risk blurring that boundary. In doing so, we may undermine the very effectiveness of the independent mental health advocate in fulfilling their primary function. The role of an IMHA is to support patients in understanding and exercising their rights under the Mental Health Act. They may already be involved in supporting an individual to prepare for discharge, including by contributing to plans for ongoing care and support. The amendment would significantly increase the breadth of that role and might shift the focus away from the core purpose of advocacy.
My hon. Friend makes an important point. This is not a simple or straightforward addition; it would require potentially substantial training. We would not want somebody in a role that they were not adequately prepared for. With any amendment, we would need to ensure that training, and the time and expense of it, had been factored in. Even with the best intentions, the success of any extended support role, such as that envisaged in the amendment, will ultimately rely on the availability and integration of local services. Where appropriate services are in place and are working well together, advocates can play a valuable role in signposting and supporting access. Rather than placing additional responsibilities on the IMHA, our focus should be on working with community providers to ensure that the necessary support, particularly for social and financial needs, is consistently available and is effectively joined up across the system. Having said that, I recognise and welcome the emphasis placed by the hon. Member for Winchester on the role of carers and family members. Too often, they are overlooked in discharge planning, yet their involvement can make a critical difference to a patient’s successful transition from hospital to home. When carers feel informed, supported and prepared, it gives patients the reassurance and stability that they need to continue their recovery with confidence. The primary responsibility of the independent mental health advocate, however, must remain their responsibility to the patient. I am concerned that the drafting of the amendment could create ambiguity about who the IMHA is principally there to support. Financial stress is undoubtedly a real and urgent concern. Mental ill health can severely affect an individual’s capacity to work, to manage their finances or even to engage with systems of support. Equally, financial instability can exacerbate mental health difficulties. Those are serious challenges that must be addressed, but I would question whether the IMHA is the right professional to take on that role directly. Instead, we should ensure that they are well placed to refer individuals to appropriate services without assuming responsibility for co-ordinating that support themselves.
That is an important point. These are quite substantial changes, and we do not know the full impact that they would have on the system. We have talked about issues such as whether there is sufficient training for advocates and a joined-up approach with what is happening in the community. A pilot would provide the opportunity to see where it is working and where there might be things that need to be changed or considered. It would certainly be a sensible approach. We all want to ensure that we are supporting individuals to be discharged in a safe way that minimises the likelihood of their being readmitted, but we need to do so without overcomplicating the roles and the system that are currently in place. I commend the hon. Member for Winchester for bringing these important issues to the attention of the Committee. His amendment raises legitimate and timely concerns around the support offered to individuals leaving hospital, as well as the wider context in which recovery takes place. I hope that I have been able to offer some reflections that will assist hon. Members in considering the matter further.
I rise to speak to the implications of clause 34 for clinical decision making, patient safety and the operation of the Mental Health Act more broadly. The clause introduces a new requirement for the responsible clinician to consult another professional, from a different professional discipline, who is involved in the patient’s care before they make a decision to discharge a patient from detention or from a community treatment order under section 23 of the Mental Health Act 1983. If the patient is on a community treatment order, the clinician must consult the relevant community clinician. At its heart, the clause seeks to ensure that decisions about discharge are not taken in isolation. It reflects a wider shift in mental health care towards collaborative, multidisciplinary approaches. We should welcome that in principle. These are often complex decisions that involve vulnerable individuals, and a single viewpoint may not always capture the full clinical picture. By requiring consultation with someone from another discipline, be that a nurse, an occupational therapist or a psychologist, we can help to ensure that decisions are more thoroughly considered and less likely to overlook risks. The clause provides an important safeguard against premature or inappropriate discharge, particularly in cases where a patient may continue to pose a risk to themselves or others. It builds in a degree of professional scrutiny that supports safer and more consistent practice and, in doing so, should improve confidence among patients, families and practitioners. I would be grateful if the Minister provided further clarity on a few practical points about how the clause will operate. First, it requires consultation but does not appear to specify whether the consulted clinician must agree with the responsible clinician’s decision in order for discharge to proceed. In cases where there is disagreement between clinicians of different professional backgrounds, what is the expected course of action? Is the responsible clinician ultimately free to proceed, or will there be an escalation mechanism? It would be helpful to understand how differing professional opinions are to be balanced and how potential deadlock is to be managed. Secondly, although I welcome the intention to improve the rigour of decision making, will the Minister reassure the Committee that the additional consultation requirement will not introduce unnecessary delays into the discharge process? It is, of course, essential to get these decisions right, but it is also important that we do not create new barriers to discharge when a patient is clinically ready to move on. Delays in discharge can have a negative impact on patient outcomes, as well as increasing pressure on services. Although the consultation must be meaningful, it should also be proportionate, timely and clearly understood by all involved. Will the Minister comment on how the requirement will be implemented in practice? For example, will guidance be issued to support clinicians in understanding their duties under the clause and to ensure consistency across services? Overall, the clause represents a thoughtful and measured reform. It strengthens patient safety, promotes professional collaboration and introduces a safeguard that is both reasonable and necessary. Notwithstanding the clarifications I have raised, I hope that it will help to ensure that discharge decisions are made with greater confidence and care without becoming unduly bureaucratic.
On the discipline of the second clinician consulted, is there any guidance as to who might be appropriate? I mean not just the list of potential professions but whether there is guidance on who would be appropriate in different situations. We welcome the multidisciplinary approach, but I would like some clarification. Given your earlier response, saying that they need to agree, it is not really clear how this would add to the process. It would help if there were clarity on the professions.
I rise to speak to clause 41, which brings into sharper focus two pillars of a fair and rights-based mental health system: the provision of clear information to patients and the strengthening of independent mental health advocacy. It rightly recognises that, when a person is detained under the Mental Health Act 1983, often during a period of acute crisis and difficulty in their life, they need to feel that their clinical needs are being met, but in a way that respects them as individuals, with the same entitlements to dignity and agency as any other member of our society. The clause provides for informal patients to be eligible for an independent mental health advocate. I welcome the extension to enable more individuals to access this vital advocacy. It empowers patients to know that independent advocacy is available, but we must ensure that there are sufficient resources so that those who choose this help are given sufficient support when they are in a potentially vulnerable position. As someone representing a constituency that is in England but borders Wales, I also welcome that these changes bring care into line so that advocacy help is offered to informal patients, regardless of which side of the border they are accessing treatment. The clause places a renewed duty on services to ensure that information is given to patients clearly, promptly and in a form that they can understand. It introduces an obligation for advocacy providers to determine, through an interview, whether a qualifying patient wishes to use the service. This support is important; no person should be expected to navigate the complexities of mental health legislation, or their rights under it, without proper guidance. However, where there is a duty “on hospital managers and others to notify providers of advocacy services about qualifying patients”, can the Minister clarify who is meant by “others”? Will there be a list of people and roles who are given this responsibility? The role of an independent mental health advocate is vital. These individuals can be a lifeline. They can help people to understand their rights and any medical treatment, and crucially, can support an individual to have their say about any treatment. Clause 41 rightly reinforces the importance of independent mental health advocates, and it is important that we match that ambition with the legal and practical steps to support them. It is entirely right that we welcome the recognition of the role of independent mental health advocates, who serve a vital function in ensuring that patients’ voices are heard and their views represented, especially when navigating what can be an incredibly complex legal and clinical environment. Their independence is fundamental to not only their effectiveness but the confidence that patients and families can place in the system, which brings me back to my point. It is therefore important that we support independent mental health advocates with the resources that they need to do their job effectively. If we are to rely further on advocates, we need to ensure that they are in a position to deal with that, so that we do not create statutory entitlements that are difficult to act upon. Actions, as well as words, are needed. At present, many areas already struggle with advocacy coverage. If we now place additional expectations on the service, and I believe that we will through this provision, we must ensure that there are sufficient numbers of trained, experienced independent mental health advocates across the country to meet rising demand. Can the Minister reassure the Committee that the necessary people with the skills and training are available to fulfil this expanded role? We must also consider the patients’ experience, as has been the focus of so many of the remarks made in the Committee today. Again, I emphasise the vulnerability of patients at times of crisis. If we are to tell patients that support in the form of an advocate is there for them, we need to ensure that it is accessible and easy to reach and understand. Clause 41 moves us in the right direction, but implementation is everything. It must be backed by local accountability, adequate funding and clear operational guidance. This includes ensuring that all patients, regardless of background, language or capacity, are given support that is appropriate and effective. It is vital to consider the wider implications of this clause. The reinforcement of the independent mental health advocate’s involvement should be mirrored by greater investment in advocacy services, stronger integration with care planning and more regular engagement with patients themselves on how these services work in practice. In our earlier discussions, my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon suggested that we use trials, which could also be considered here to ensure that, as changes are brought in, they are matched by appropriate service levels. I am largely supportive of clause 41, which I think moves us in the right direction towards a transparent mental health system that is there for patients, ensuring that they have a voice and are not an afterthought. As long as it is deliverable in practice, and does not give false hope to patients, the clause strengthens the Bill.
Does the Minister have any more detail on that? Is there a timeframe for recruiting these advocates and putting the training in place? That would help reassure the Committee that there is provision to ensure that the timing will fit with the introduction of the changes in the Bill.
I rise to make a few brief remarks about clauses 42 to 44, which would amend the 1983 Act to place statutory duties on hospital managers to supply complaints information to both the patient and the nominated person in respect of detailed patients, patients subject to a CTO and conditionally discharged patients. These are important clauses. The people concerned are potentially vulnerable individuals. They need to know that they have a voice in this process and feel empowered to speak out and complain, should they wish. There is a duty on hospital managers to ensure that detained patients understand how to make complaints. However, I ask the Minister how that duty will be checked and evaluated. We all agree that the ability to speak out to make a complaint is important, but we need to ensure that proper safeguards and parameters are in place on how that will happen. I also welcome the provision requiring that the information must be provided as soon as is practicable. That is important to give patients confidence. The timing requirements will potentially make a huge difference. The journey of a patient may change rapidly over the course of their treatment, so not leaving it too long will potentially make a substantial difference to their ability to recover swiftly, and ensure that they have been able to speak out if they are concerned not just about their detainment but about the way that their treatment is being carried out, and the potential implications of that. Like many of the measures that we have discussed, these clauses might have administrative implications. We need to ensure that we have fully considered and are able to put in place the necessary support for hospital managers to deal with complaints appropriately. It is important that if someone comes forward with a complaint, it can be dealt with swiftly. As mentioned on some other matters, we need to ensure consistency for patients, so that they understand the information that they are being provided and that, whatever region they might live in or hospital they might be at, consistent information is provided. I would like the Minister’s reassurance on that point. Overall, however, the clause improves patients’ awareness of their rights and how they can seek redress. I think we all agree that that is extremely important. It will promote accountability in mental health services by encouraging feedback and complaints. I would like reassurance of some oversight to ensure feedback on any complaints that come forward so that we identify where consistent issues come up, to provide better services not just to the individual but to future individuals. Overall, the clauses support better outcomes by addressing potential grievances and ensuring that they are addressed early and constructively, so I am supportive of them.
6. What recent steps he has taken to support the health of the elderly.
I thank the Minister for his reply, but as the Secretary of State knows only too well, my borough of Havering contains one of the highest numbers of elderly people in the entire London region, yet Queen’s hospital in Romford remains chronically underfunded, overstretched and struggling to meet the growing healthcare needs of an ageing community. Will the Minister commit today to the serious investment that Queen’s hospital so desperately requires to ensure better health outcomes for older people across Romford?
Much has been made in the House this afternoon of the fact that the former Director of Public Prosecutions, now the Prime Minister, instigated a prosecution against grooming gangs. That being so, he was clearly better placed than most of us to understand the need for the national inquiry that he initially so rigidly resisted, but I would like to associate myself with the apology offered by the right hon. Lady to the House on behalf of all of us and all the authorities that have failed young people so dismally. Those young people now want to know that they can have confidence and trust in the national inquiry, and in who leads it. Can she tell the House who that is likely to be, and what terms of reference they will have?
I have been contacted by a significant number of constituents who are currently stranded in Israel, unable to leave because of the lack of flights to the United Kingdom. This includes a constituent with significant medical needs. I urge the Foreign Secretary to further strengthen the Foreign Office’s offer. I do welcome the advice it is now providing on routes back to the UK, although I note that it has taken some time for that to happen. What contingency plans are the Foreign Office and wider Government undertaking for repatriation should the situation deteriorate further and that be required, and are they registering details of UK nationals in Israel to that end?
One of the best ways to support autistic children in schools is for teachers to go through mandatory training and to understand better the challenges that faced by neurodiverse people. How is the neurodivergent taskforce progressing, and will the Government bring in mandatory training for new teachers?
Bradford and Keighley taxis operate in Skipton and south Craven—there have been some horrific cases in that area. Will the Home Secretary confirm that the inquiry will not be restricted to Bradford and the bigger conurbations? In the UK, we have a crisis in our inquiry system: they all take too long. The covid inquiry is still ongoing, which is an absolute scandal. Can she accelerate the timings? Will she give serious consideration to this public inquiry being held in the north of England?
I hope something else we can all agree on is our admiration for the former Labour MP Ann Cryer, who exposed what was going on back in 2003, which was only five years into a 13-year-long Labour Government, and was disgracefully smeared as a racist for doing so. Let us belatedly make an apology to her and thank her for her courage.
Until the people of Iran rise up and overthrow the dreadful mullahs’ regime, it is obviously true what the Foreign Secretary says when he says that no military action can put an end to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, because even if its capacity was entirely destroyed, Iran could start rebuilding it. Having said that, though, it is true that it is possible to contain those ambitions by knocking back Iran’s capacity repeatedly, until such time as it no longer wishes to acquire nuclear weapons. I advise the Foreign Secretary to think carefully about the question of diplomacy alone containing those ambitions, because one day we might wake up and find that a successful nuclear test has been carried out by Iran.
T3. Although the Department is providing some extra funds to meet the additional costs of NICs in schools, those with a high number of SEND pupils such as All Saints’ primary in Maldon will still receive less than 50% of the increase. Will the Secretary of State look again at that aspect, which is another disincentive for mainstream schools taking SEND pupils?
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that just as Russia is run by an authoritarian regime that wants to destroy its democratic neighbour Ukraine and has carried out attacks on British soil, so Iran is run by an authoritarian regime that is out to destroy its democratic neighbour and has also carried out attacks on British soil? Is it not the case, therefore, that for the same reasons we stand with Ukraine, we need to stand with Israel now?
The Foreign Secretary knows that many of us have been prepared to speak up again and again on behalf of suffering Palestinians and be a critical friend of Israel, but will he agree that on this occasion we must stand shoulder to shoulder with our Israeli ally? The fact is, Iran is a death cult, and death cults like the Nazis or Iran cannot be appeased simply through diplomacy. Iran is cocking a snook at us—it is inches away from a nuclear bomb. I am sure he is going to make this absolutely clear, but will the Foreign Secretary therefore stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel and our American ally in proclaiming the right of Israel to exist at all?
T2. May I invite the Secretary of State to come and visit the outstanding Market Field special school in my constituency, which was rebuilt and dramatically expanded under the Conservatives? I have been listening to what she has been saying about expanding special needs provision. Will she give an assurance that the number and capacity of special schools will continue to be expanded and that we will not return to the failed policy of the previous Labour Government?
Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the State of Israel has a declared policy on its nuclear weapons of no first use and that there is no evidence that it has ever misused or threatened to misuse its nuclear weapons in any irresponsible way whatsoever? Does he agree, moreover, that in international law there is the right of pre-emptive military action, and it is hard to imagine how that would not apply in this case, given Iran’s determination to destroy the State of Israel?
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement today. Although we clearly have differences with the Netanyahu regime, Israel is a close ally and friend of the United Kingdom. Iran is a terrorist-supporting state—Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, Assad—that is destabilising the region, rejecting the IAEA and international proposals to prevent nuclear proliferation and limit uranium enrichment, and sponsoring terrorist actions on the streets of Britain. Does the Foreign Secretary not feel that Israel is now doing the world’s dirty work on behalf of us all?
I welcome a lot of what the Home Secretary has said today; she keeps referring to institutional failures. In Bradford in 2020, a little girl, Star Hobson, was murdered by her mother’s partner. Evidence came to light from neighbours and social services that the case was dismissed because it involved a lesbian couple and people feared being accused of being homophobic. I have also had issues in my constituency since the last election where social workers have been worried about the other labels that they may get; they have a tick box and leave the child at the bottom. I ask the Home Secretary to consider that institutional failure where people are afraid to offend one group or another, and they often lose sight of the fact that the child is the most important part of the care service.
The reality is that there is a long history of diplomacy being used as a cover to reach the ultimate aims of what countries want to do—for example Russia signing the intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty while constantly building hundreds of nuclear weapons, making that treaty worthless. I want to put it on the record that Israel has my absolute full support in the action that it is taking; it is doing the world’s dirty work. Are the Foreign Secretary and his right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary in the middle of working out how we ensure that the strait of Hormuz stays open for vital international trade?
3. If she will take steps to stop the use of smartphones in schools.
Schools with a smartphone ban were rated higher by Ofsted, and their students achieved better GCSE results. All the evidence shows the benefit of banning smartphones in schools, but the Government are simply issuing non-statutory guidance and passing the buck. Does the Minister not understand the evidence? Does he need more evidence, or does he not trust the Government to be able to implement a ban on smartphones in schools?
T8. Another private school, Queen Margaret’s school for girls in York, has announced its closure, months after the Carrdus school in my constituency announced its closure. Over 11,000 children have left the private sector in this first year, which is more than three times what the Government expected. Does the Minister believe that the impact assessment of the introduction of VAT on private schools is correct? Will she look again at the flawed case for it?
I do not believe that I heard an answer to a number of the questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition, so I will ask the Home Secretary again. When did Baroness Casey submit her findings, and did the Government request any changes?
The fact that victims and survivors of this horrific crime literally had to become campaigners themselves to reach this outcome should make everyone in the House stop and think. When I last met the Safeguarding Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), along with the leading child abuse lawyer David Greenwood, we pointed out the fundamental flaw in her Government’s grooming gangs strategy: namely, the completely ridiculous decision to give council leaders in areas such as Keighley and Bradford the option to simply say no to an inquiry. Now that we have an inquiry equipped with statutory powers, may I ask the Home Secretary what message she has for local leaders in my region who think that they can still get away with saying no, and what message she has for victims such as Fiona Goddard, who is also from my area and who will no doubt be worrying, like me, that there will still be no focus on Keighley and the wider Bradford district?
Adoptive parents right across my constituency are rightly concerned about the impact of Labour’s recent cuts to the adoption and special guardianship support fund. Following last week’s spending review, what hope can be offered to families in my constituency and up and down the country who need the additional support that has been taken away under those cuts?
These are deeply dangerous times, and as the Foreign Secretary has said, last week’s IAEA report makes it abundantly clear that Iran’s nuclear programme has grown. Its stockpile of uranium has passed 400 kg and is enriched to 60% purity, which has been widely noted as a level unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons, and as being beyond the amount needed for any civilian use. The IAEA director general has said that Iran’s actions and its failure to co-operate have led to a significant reduction in the agency’s ability to verify whether its nuclear programme is entirely peaceful. We share those concerns, and the reasons why Iran must never obtain nuclear weapons are clear. The Iranian regime is a prolific state sponsor of terrorism, with a stated intention of annihilating the world’s only Jewish state. Given the concerns, and the clear threat that Iran poses, not only to Israel, but to wider regional stability, Israel has the right to act in self-defence to degrade Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. As well as posing a threat to Israel, Iran poses a direct threat to the United Kingdom and our interests. The Minister for the Middle East stated in a written parliamentary answer in April that “Iran’s nuclear programme has never been more advanced and threatens international peace and security.” Earlier this month, the strategic defence review stated that Iran’s “escalating nuclear programme presents a risk to international security and the global non-proliferation architecture.” With that in mind, can the Foreign Secretary tell us what discussions he has had with the IAEA, and give us his assessment of how close Iran was to having nuclear weapon capabilities that could strike Israel and our interests in the region? Given the report from the IAEA earlier this week, what direct bilateral discussions did Government Ministers have with their Israeli counterparts on this matter prior to the action that was undertaken last week? The Foreign Secretary has spoken about the conversations he has had since the strikes commenced on Friday, but what discussions took place in the days preceding that? Can he update us on the discussions with our partners in the region before the strikes on Friday, and since then? For example, what discussions has he had with our friends in Bahrain in the light of the comprehensive security integration and prosperity agreement, and with Jordan in the light of the previous airspace violations by Iran? Are those discussions purely diplomatic, or do they cover defence and military planning? Last week, on 10 June, the Minister for the Middle East said during his statement that the Government were in contact with the Israeli Government that day. As that was after the IAEA report was published on 9 June, can the Foreign Secretary say whether the nuclear threat from Iran and the IAEA assessment were discussed, or were they discussing other matters? We also know from recent statements by the Minister for the Middle East that relations between this Government and Israel have become strained since last July. What message does the Foreign Secretary have for all those who are concerned that constructive dialogue and diplomacy with Israel is not taking place? On British nationals in Israel and the wider region, what efforts are under way to expeditiously help those who want to return to the UK? Although the Foreign Secretary cannot give operational details to the House, can he confirm whether contingency plans for the evacuation of British personnel and assets from Iran have been updated recently? At the G7, will the Prime Minister have substantive bilateral discussions with President Trump on this matter? Iran’s strikes on Israel are indiscriminately targeting civilians, and the whole House should condemn Iran for doing this. The UK has previously supported Israel, defending it from missile and drone attacks. Has the UK offered military intelligence and other forms of assistance to our Israeli allies to counter the attacks from Iran? The German Chancellor has offered that, and is providing assistance to Israel. Has the UK made such an offer, too? It is right that UK military capabilities increased in the region over the weekend. Can the Foreign Secretary tell the House whether he is prepared to tackle any retaliation from Iran and its proxies, including the Houthis? Although Iran’s nuclear capabilities have been degraded, we know that it is in regular contact with China and Russia on nuclear issues, and has been for some time. Has the Foreign Secretary assessed whether Russia and China may have been involved in supporting Iran’s nuclear programme to get it to where it is today? Is he concerned that they will support Iran, with materials and expertise, so that it can rebuild its capability following Israel’s actions, and is he looking at applying new sanctions to constrain Iran’s ability to rebuild, advance and accelerate its nuclear ambitions? I turn to the direct threats that Iran poses to the UK. The Foreign Secretary has rightly mentioned the plots foiled, the recent arrests, and putting Iran on the enhanced tier of FIRS. Can he give an assurance about the work taking place across Government—including with the Home Office, the police, counter-terrorism operations and the intelligence services—to tackle any retaliation that Iran, the IRGC and those acting on its behalf might direct towards us? Has the threat risk level been reassessed, and is extra support being provided to secure synagogues, schools and other parts of the Jewish community in the UK? Finally, we all want to see peace and stability in the region, where Iran is responsible for so much of the bloodshed that is now taking place, so can the Foreign Secretary update the House on the ongoing steps being taken to secure the return of the hostages from Hamas captivity, on the work to get more aid into Gaza, and on the efforts to bring about a sustainable ceasefire?
The tragic deaths of 242 men, women and children on Air India flight 171 from Ahmedabad to Gatwick on Thursday, and the reports of at least 29 fatalities on the ground, are beyond distressing and upsetting. It is still difficult to comprehend the scale of the tragedy. Our thoughts and prayers continue to be with everyone affected, particularly the families and relatives of lost ones. All our thoughts are with those who are in hospital having suffered injuries, and with Vishwash Kumar Ramesh, whose survival of the crash is an absolute miracle, though he sadly lost his brother. Many of those who died—52—were British, and many families in the UK will have lost loved ones who were Indian nationals, too. Over the past few days, we have started to hear about the lives of those who died, and the grief that their families are going through. There was the loss of Akeel Nanabawa, his wife Hannaa Vorajee and their four-year-old daughter Sara; of Javed and Mariam Syed, and their two children, from London; of Hardik Avaiya and Vibhooti Patel, a couple from Leicester who had gone to India to celebrate their engagement; of Fiongal and Jamie Greenlaw-Meek; and of the former Chief Minister of Gujarat, Vijay Rupani. Their passing, and that of everyone who died, will be greatly felt. Our condolences go to all of them. The pain that they are all experiencing is clearly unimaginable. Following the tragedy, we have seen communities come together in mandirs, gurdwaras and other places of worship to pray and seek comfort in these difficult times. This evening, a vigil is being organised by the Indian high commissioner, at which the community will come together to reflect, mourn and pray. I thank the high commissioner’s team for their help and kindness in their consular support. I pay tribute to all those offering assistance to communities across the country who have been affected. The support shown at trooping the colour on Saturday will have been greatly appreciated. I put on the record our thanks to the emergency services in India for their response. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has set up a reception centre at the Ummed hotel in Ahmedabad, but concerns have been raised this afternoon that there is not enough of a British presence on the ground at the hospital and elsewhere where families will identify their loved ones. The Minister may have seen the statement issued earlier by three families referring to an “inadequate and painfully slow government reaction”. They also said that there was “no UK leadership...no medical team, no crisis professionals stationed at the hospital”. They are asking the Government to “immediately step up its presence and response on the ground in Ahmedabad.” The Minister has said that this is incredibly delicate and difficult, and we all understand that, but what is his response to that statement? Will changes be made to provide the assistance that is needed, because we understand that the circumstances that the local hospital and mortuary are operating in are deeply harrowing and difficult? Will he guarantee that consular support will be in place for as long as is necessary? The pain that families are going through is unimaginable, and identifying and returning the bodies of their loved ones to enable funerals to take place will take some time. Forensics are being used to help identify bodies, and families have been providing samples to help with that awful process. Will the Minister give an update on any support that the UK is providing to help with that process, and with the forensic work that must take place? Does he know at this stage how many of the bodies have been identified? Can he give assurances that work is taking place across Government, with local authorities and schools in affected communities in the UK, to ensure that counselling and trauma support services are available, especially for children who have lost close family members? The affected families deserve to know what happened to the plane. Thoughts are turning to the investigations. It is early days yet, but can the Minister give details of conversations that have taken place with counterparts in India, as well as with Boeing, on the investigation? We welcome the involvement of four officials from our Air Accidents Investigation Branch. Will the Minister give assurances that they will have the support and resources that they need to assist the Indian authorities? On the cause of the crash, will the Minister give an assurance that the UK Government will work with India to get answers and provide updates to the families? Last Thursday was a dark, sad and traumatic day for India, the UK and all those affected, wherever they are in the world. I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say that we stand with them in seeking answers; in working to give them the support that they need; and in mourning the sad deaths of their loved ones.
The official document published online by the Government says that the national inquiry will only “co-ordinate a series of targeted local investigations.” How many local investigations will the inquiry co-ordinate? Will it cover the whole of England and Wales—yes or no?
The Foreign Secretary has said, and just repeated, that no military threat can prevent the Iranians from acquiring nuclear weapons, but surely that is not correct. Given the danger to us all from Iran, which the Foreign Secretary acknowledged in his statement, and its continued attempts to increase its ability to enrich uranium, will he very clearly agree with me that Israel was right to strike the nuclear sites?
The last Conservative Government added 27,000 extra teachers. Although we would never know it from the Minister’s answer, there are 400 fewer teachers in our schools than last year. Labour promised 6,500 more teachers, but it is ignoring the loss of 2,900 primary school teachers, because apparently they do not count. The loss of teachers is not a coincidence. The Confederation of School Trusts and the Association of School and College Leaders have shown that schools have been left up to 35% short in compensation for the national insurance rise. Will Ministers finally admit that they broke their promise to fully compensate schools for that tax rise?
Asked whether the Government were planning to restrict EHCPs so that they apply only to children in special schools, the Government’s strategic adviser on SEND, Christine Lenehan, recently said: “I think, to be honest, that’s the conversation we’re in the middle of.” Is she correct to say that Ministers are considering that, or not?