Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,779 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
The hon. Lady makes the point powerfully. I do not know, but she does. This legislation leaves people from minority backgrounds, second or third-generation immigrants, and those like my children who are of two parents of different nationalities, with a lingering sense of doubt about how secure they are in this nation.
I understand the hon. Member’s point, but I am afraid that I am not interested in comparisons with the United States. I would hold us to a higher bar. We are a more ancient country that should have, as he rightly pointed out, a better developed sense of how we build a cohesive society. I would challenge whether the United States can be held up as a paragon of virtue on societal cohesion or whether actually it is a divided country, with part of that division coming from a sense that there are first, second and maybe even third-class citizens there. At the moment, it is going through a period of challenge as to what it means to be a United States citizen. We have seen litigation under—it has slipped from my mind. It starts, “We the people”. [Hon. Members: “The constitution.”] That is the word—forgive me; a senior moment. The United States is seeing legal challenge under its constitution on precisely those grounds of what it means to be a citizen. I do not want to detain the House for much longer, but we need to think carefully about the impact that this regime has beyond the people whom it targets. We may say of cases like Shamima Begum that what she did was completely appalling and she deserves to be punished. Obviously, the decision was taken to revoke her citizenship. I am not sure whether that was the right thing to do. I do think she needs to be punished. In many ways, I would rather she had been brought to this country, and punished and jailed here. She is nobody else’s problem but ours. As I say, by promoting this regime I think we undermine the value of what it means to be a British citizen because, once acquired, citizenship should be a right. Civis Romanus sum. It should mean something. It is not the keys to the executive lavatory, to be removed when you lose the privilege and rights of your position; it is something that you acquire that is fundamentally in you once you are in the club, and we should be wary of the wider impact if we decide to remove it. I have one final suggestion for the Minister. I realise that I am in a minority, and the House is not going to comply; he is going to get his legislation. However, I ask him to think carefully about the value of the judiciary in this process. Would it be possible to amend the process such that, when an appeal is won by an individual and the Government wish to continue to deprive that person of citizenship, the permission of the judge should be sought for that, pending a further appeal? The Government will have to seek permission to appeal in all circumstances; I ask the Minister to consider whether they should have to seek also permission to maintain the condition of a deprivation of citizenship, as part of that permission to appeal.
I can imagine that situation, but I have been an enthusiastic supporter of lots of powers to protect the public from people from whom the Minister cannot remove citizenship. For example, terrorism prevention and investigation measures, or TPIMs—previously control orders—were specifically designed to put restrictions on individuals who presented a danger to the country but from whom the Government could not remove citizenship. If those measures are good enough for those people, why are they not good enough for the people on whom the Minister is conferring second-class citizenship? He must see that this legislation applies only to certain of our citizens, and that they are not the only ones who present a danger to this country.
As instructed by you, Mrs Harris, I will restrict my comments only to the impacts of grouse shooting on Thirsk and Malton, due to my role on the Front Bench. I am very keen to speak in this debate, as I have lived in the area my whole life, and grouse shooting is hugely important there. I also declare an interest in that I have been grouse shooting once, although not very successfully. My biggest concern right now for Thirsk and Malton is that it is a tinderbox, as its geography and landscape pose a risk of wildfire. Clearly, that is largely because of the exceptionally dry weather that we have had over recent weeks and months. I am also concerned that the policies pursued by Natural England are exacerbating the problem. I am keen to speak because, having read the petition and its claims, I think the 400 people in my constituency who signed it have been misled. The petition describes driven grouse shooting as “bad for people, the environment and wildlife”, and bad for the economy—I want to talk about that in the context of Thirsk and Malton. The petition states that “grouse shooting is economically insignificant when contrasted with other…uses”, but it does not set out what those other uses are. The only ones I could find to replace the industry of grouse shooting were perhaps wind farms, forestation or sheep farming. My dad was a sheep farmer, and there is plenty of sheep farming in Thirsk and Malton. It is not particularly prosperous and I cannot imagine that the revenue attached to it would make up for the revenue loss if grouse shooting ended. With wind farms and forestation, a completely different cohort of people would potentially get employment from those uses, but it would be nothing like the extent to which my constituency benefits from grouse shooting today. Hundreds of people in my constituency are directly employed in the grouse shooting industry and the jobs and businesses connected to it. Others have mentioned the same. I will mention one or two of my highest profile hostelries: the Star at Harome, somewhere very close to my heart; the Black Swan at Helmsley; the Talbot at Malton; the Owl at Hawnby; and the Feversham Arms at Church Houses. Those beautiful hostelries in a beautiful landscape very much contribute to the attractions of tourism in Thirsk and Malton. Many people in this House and people I meet all around the country have visited. There are also the connected shops, such as Carters in Helmsley, and the caterers, the beaters—which my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), mentioned —the loaders and the picker-uppers. Not only do all these people get an income from grouse shooting, but the industry builds a community in our location and in communities around it. That is hugely important, and a mixture of people are present in the sector. I have beautiful moorland, including in Hawnby, Bransdale, Farndale, Snilesworth and Bilsdale—I am very proud of those areas and have visited a number of times. So I do not believe that grouse shooting is bad for those people in my constituency—far from it. I also do not believe that it is “bad…for the environment”. What would be bad for the environment is a serious wildfire. We saw a very serious wildfire at Saddleworth in 2018. It was unmanaged locations that led to that wildfire, which affected 5 million people who were breathing in things like lead and cadmium that were released in it. Dozens of people passed away early because of that wildfire and its effect on air quality. The peat in those locations has been irreparably damaged. Let me read a comment from a parliamentary briefing last year on wildfires. It explained that “older heather burns with greater intensity”, and that to prevent wildfires “vegetation management must be conducted continuously”. That is why Saddleworth ran out of control, and that is why there was a serious fire on the edge of my constituency at Fylingdales in 2003. That was the only area of moorland that was not being managed, and a fire happened in that location. Peat is so important in carbon sequestration, but much of the carbon was released because of the wildfires. We saw on our TV screens recently the horrific wildfires in Los Angeles that destroyed properties and businesses and, of course, caused deaths. That was a result of negligence by the local authorities. I believe the policies being pursued by Natural England are a deliberate attempt to close down things like grouse shooting in my constituency and those of others. There are potential risks for the Peak district. A report stated that there was “the frightening potential of fire... reaching extremes both in the rate of spread and flame lengths far beyond the capacity of control” of the fire and rescue service. The report continued: “Little can be done to control the topography of the area or the increasingly fire-supportive weather, but fuel loading can be addressed.” But that is not being addressed and it will get worse—that is my point. I think that this is an ideological position being taken by our regulator. In terms of the benefits to wildlife, again, the petition states that grouse shooting is “bad…for wildlife”. Not at all: after grouse shooting ended in the Berwyn special protected area, the population of curlews dropped by 79% and the population of golden plovers dropped by 90%, but the population of corvids, such as crows and the like—which can, of course, be very destructive to wildlife—increased by 600%. I am very concerned about the position that Natural England has taken. It is very important that the Government make sure that Natural England does the right thing, because there are many other measures that Natural England are considering that would further undermine grouse shooting in Thirsk and Malton. For example, Natural England is consulting on changing the definition of deep peat. Currently, if deep peat is 40 cm or more, burning cannot be used to control the fuel load. Natural England is considering a consultation on reducing that figure to 30 cm. That would mean that the vast majority of the fuel load on the North York moors would not be able to be controlled by burning. Natural England’s solution is mowing, of course. Could mowing be a potential solution? The Scottish Parliament hearing on this issue with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service warned that mowing excess vegetation can “leave a dry layer that actually encourages the spread of fire”. However, winter burning “is by far the most effective because it removes a fuel in its entirety”. But Natural England has banned winter burning, which is causing the increased fuel load. We can add that to other issues, such as the withdrawal of general licenses for vermin control and the withdrawal of general licenses for the release of game birds in special protection areas, in terms of that burning. There is also a consultation now on raising the bar for getting a shotgun licence. That would mean that many people would not be able to get a shotgun licence, which would reduce the number of people participating in grouse shooting in areas such as Thirsk and Malton. If we add all these different things up, there is a clear picture: in my view, it is a back-door attempt to end grouse shooting across the country, not least in Thirsk and Malton.
I congratulate the hon. Lady on being a hen harrier parliamentary champion; I am the puffin parliamentary champion, so we have something in common. She talks about somebody other than landowners managing biodiversity rather in these landscapes. Who would that be, who would pay for it and how much would it cost?
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Is he also concerned, as I am, about the proposed change in the definition of deep peat? Currently, it is defined as peat deeper than 40 cm, but there is a proposal to reduce that figure to 30 cm, which would mean that much of our moorlands cannot be managed through burning, leading to a much greater fire risk.
I question how the Minister defines sound advice, because the advice that I have seen, from people who manage the moorland, is that if Natural England gets its way and changes the definition of deep peat from 40 cm to 30 cm there will be half—
In Thirsk and Malton—
I apologise, Mrs Harris, but this is about my constituency. In half of my constituency, the moorland will not be able to be managed. The fuel load will increase, wildfires will occur, and it will make my constituency completely unviable for grouse shooting. Is the Minister not concerned that Natural England has a hidden agenda that will affect constituencies such as mine?
I thank the Minister for his work and approach, today and every day. It is a pleasure to work across from him, against our enemies and in defence of our great country and its people. Sometimes, fulfilling our duty to keep our country safe means taking action that we might otherwise wish to avoid, but it is completely right that depriving people of their citizenship under certain circumstances is a tool available to the Home Secretary. Those who hate our country and what it stands for, and work against our interests, should not be able to hide behind a British passport. Membership of a nation does not just imply rights; it also confers responsibilities. When British citizens engage in terrorism, support for terrorism or serious organised crime, they clearly disregard those responsibilities. It is clearly true that we cannot deprive such people of citizenship in all cases, particularly given that a worrying number of extremists are now homegrown, but where we can, we should. If we accept that the deprivation of citizenship is an important tool in keeping our country safe, we should also accept that this power should be exercised pragmatically, with the safety of the British people coming first. Allowing potentially dangerous individuals to retain their citizenship while appeals are ongoing is absurd. This is not a power exercised lightly by any Government, and the idea that dangerous people might escape accountability by exploiting procedure is frightening. The current system also opens up the worrying possibility of dual citizens renouncing their non-UK citizenship during the appeal process, making it subsequently impossible to remove their British citizenship without rendering them stateless, so, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) said earlier, we support the Bill, which will ensure that deprivation of citizenship orders will continue to have effect until the entire appeal process is complete. The hon. Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons) rightly placed the Bill in its wider context, both historically and politically, and I agree with him on the desperate need to restore our broken border and make British citizenship extremely precious. He spoke of the citizenship ceremony. My grandmother swore allegiance to the King when she became a citizen, and talked of it often. I know that it was one of the proudest moments of her life. The hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) said that she considers citizenship a right rather than a privilege. On that, I am afraid that she and I disagree. As my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) rightly said immediately afterwards, citizenship is to be prized, not abused. My right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) was right to point out that there is a balance to be struck. Deprivation has a cost to those who are deprived. I say that the cost in the scenarios in which the Home Secretary may exercise deprivation powers is more than worth paying to protect this country and her people. Similarly, and more specifically to the Bill, the cost of maintaining a deprivation until the conclusion of the process is also a price well worth paying. I say that as a British citizen who, unlike my right hon. Friend, is entitled to several other citizenships. Finally, the Bill is not just a good example of decisive action taken in the interest of national security; it is also a good example of Parliament’s role in our political system. In this country, the main job of the judiciary is to interpret and apply Parliament’s will. Unlike in other countries, judges are not the highest safeguards of our constitution. In Britain, that task is given to, and must remain with, the British people themselves. When the judiciary makes a decision that runs contrary to the will of Parliament, either as it was or as it is today, Parliament is perfectly entitled to overturn that decision; in fact, it must do so if our political system is to work as it should. In, say, the United States, the Supreme Court’s job involves working out the intention of long-dead statesmen. That is not the case here in the United Kingdom, where Parliament is a living, breathing institution, embodying the sovereignty of the British people. It can clarify its will or issue new guidance. That kind of institutional dialogue is healthy; indeed, it is the lifeblood of our politics. We therefore welcome not only the specific measures before us today but the approach taken by the Government on this matter. We have seen Ministers and Government Members behave as if the law is an entity unto itself—an authority above all others, entirely separate from the political process. That could not be further from the truth. We must never forget that the supreme authority in this country is Parliament, and that the job of Parliament is to legislate in the interests of the British people. When the legal process produces a result that is not in the interests of the British people, not only is this House well within its rights to overturn it; it must do so.
I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 700036 relating to driven grouse shooting. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. As a member of the Petitions Committee, I have been asked to open this debate, and it is my duty to present the petition reasonably and fairly. After doing so, I will share other views on the issue of driven grouse shooting, particularly those from the rural communities where grouse shooting occurs. I begin by thanking the various organisations and individuals I met ahead of the debate, including petitioner Chris Packham, Wild Justice, the British Association for Conservation and Shooting, the Countryside Alliance, the League Against Cruel Sports and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds—I see many of them in the Public Gallery. I should also mention the many people who spoke to me about shooting and this debate during my recent visit to the Royal Highland Show. I also thank the amazing team at the Petitions Committee for setting up many of my meetings and discussions. I know this issue generates strong opinions on both sides of the debate. The petition states that, “driven grouse shooting is bad for people, the environment and wildlife…grouse shooting is economically insignificant when contrasted with other real and potential uses of the UK’s extensive uplands.” The petition seeks to ban driven grouse shooting. I note that it is the third petition by the creators, who are concerned about wildlife persecution, environmental impact and ethical issues. I question their position and will probe the validity of many of their conclusions, but I thank them for bringing the issue forward for debate. The petition received 104,000 signatures, which reflects the strength of feeling that some people have on this issue. However, I must present alternative views and a fuller picture of the reality of grouse shooting. Although the petition is welcome, its proponents unfortunately do not seem to have a real grasp of the activity or a clear understanding of the benefits it brings to communities up and down Scotland, and indeed the whole United Kingdom. I do not doubt the petitioners’ sincere and good intentions, but I note that, regrettably, there is often a great deal of misinformation surrounding grouse shooting. Having spoken to many organisations that hold different views, and having canvassed a wide range of opinions, I am pleased to have the opportunity to set the record straight by sharing the realities of grouse shooting. I do so as the Member of Parliament for the Scottish Borders. Mine is one of the country’s more rural and remote constituencies, and grouse shooting occurs there and provides great benefit to our economy, environment and communities, as it does in many other areas the length and breadth of the United Kingdom. Let us consider the economic realities of grouse shooting. The British Association for Shooting and Conservation has conducted research showing that grouse shooting contributes £23 million in gross value added to the Scottish economy. The wider shooting sector is worth £3.3 billion to the UK economy every year. The economic benefits of grouse shooting are crystal clear. All that funding contributes to local economies, particularly in rural and remote areas where jobs are already scarcer. Activists in favour of a ban claim that the industry has small economic value. They should tell that to those managing the land who have a job because of the industry. They should tell that to those running the hotels and bed and breakfasts that are sustained by it. They should tell that to those who run the small shops and stores that get by because of it. They should tell that to those working in the tourism industry that grouse shooting supports. They should tell that to the extended network of restaurants and bars that survive because of it. And they should tell that to the United Kingdom Treasury, which receives the tax revenues generated by the workers who pay income tax and by the businesses that pay myriad taxes because of the industry. The economic reality of grouse shooting is clear: it provides jobs, supports small business and sustains the rural economy. Let us look at the facts: grouse moors in England and Scotland alone support around 3,000 full-time equivalent jobs. That figure focuses on people directly employed in the industry, not the vast numbers of jobs that rely on it in some other way. In my discussions with various groups, including the League Against Cruel Sports, it is accepted that a ban would mean job losses, but how would those jobs be replaced? Activists seeking a ban must answer that question, and not with fantasy and fanciful wishes of jobs that will likely never come to fruition. They must outline clearly what happens to those workers. How many would lose their jobs if a ban went ahead? What happens to those small businesses, and how many would shut up shop? What happens to rural economies? How many people would be forced to leave rural areas in search of a better livelihood if a ban occurred, and what would that mean for rural areas already suffering from depopulation? I put some of those questions directly to the activists in several meetings with them prior to this debate. The responses were, to put it mildly, not encouraging. Vague and hazy ideas that there should be a more sustainable economic model, without any proposals for what should be done, have no merit. Some activists, although not all, have a brazen disregard for these jobs and businesses, and for the economic damage a ban would cause. Some even brazenly state that the money should be spent on other rural activities, as if the state could or should direct exactly how to use private land, or how citizens should spend their own money. Those are not serious suggestions, and we should not treat them as such. As the Countryside Alliance and the British Association for Shooting and Conservation have made clear, grouse shooting underpins rural economies, jobs and land management—without it, investment and employment would decline sharply. I know that a small number of people argue that the economic benefits should be ignored because of grouse shooting’s supposed cost to the environment. I value jobs, businesses, livelihoods, economic growth and tax revenue too highly to agree with that argument. But for a moment, I will play along and set aside those important considerations. Even doing so, ignoring all of the industry’s economic benefits, the position of activists in favour of a ban is fundamentally flawed. It is the contention of activists that grouse shooting somehow harms the environment, the countryside and biodiversity. They are fundamentally and conclusively wrong. This sector does not harm the environment; it protects it. It does not damage the countryside; it maintains it. It does not risk biodiversity; it enhances it. Studies have shown that grouse shooting scores highly not just on the economics but on environmental sustainability grounds too. Before I return to the positives for wildlife and biodiversity, let us look at the benefits for the land itself —for maintaining the countryside’s beauty. The Country Land and Business Association has shown that grouse moor owners in England spend £52.5 million every year on moorland management. Grouse moors account for up to 1.8 million hectares of the uplands. All of that land is preserved only by the hard work of land managers, and they do so for the benefit of not only themselves but the country—for the benefit of our environment and countryside. BASC cites research that shows that grouse moors have restored 27,000 hectares of bare peat in the last 20 years. Those moors store between 11% and 35% of England’s total peatland carbon, but emit only between 1% and 5% of total peatland carbon emissions. The evidence shows that grouse shooting lowers carbon emissions and helps to tackle climate change. As I heard in many discussions, grouse shooting happens on UK uplands, which are home to 75% of the world’s remaining heather moorland. Heather is an emblem of Scotland and Britain. It is a great symbol of our country’s natural beauty. These heather moorlands have been described as Britain’s rainforest. They are a natural feature that we should cherish and celebrate, but they are not maintained by some stroke of luck. They are protected only by the efforts of land managers and the practice of grouse shooting. Organisations told me that grouse mainly eat the young shoots, seeds and flowers of heather, so moors must be managed properly or they could be eroded. The Country Land and Business Association says that the managing of moors for grouse maintains heather-dominated habitat better than other uses of the land. As it rightly pointed out, if gamekeepers were not present to preserve the land, it would have to be protected at significant cost to taxpayers. As I have mentioned, grouse shooting is important not only for the maintenance of the land itself, but for the wildlife that inhabits it. It is estimated that two thirds of shooting activity controls pests and predators to protect wildlife, and around half manages woodlands, covers crops and puts out feed for songbirds over the winter months. The CLA has also demonstrated that in areas where grouse moor management has ceased, such as Dartmoor, populations of ground-nesting birds have reduced. A study of upland breeding birds in parts of England and Scotland found that densities of golden plover and lapwing were up to five times greater on managed grouse moors compared with unmanaged moorland. Curlew doubled in number on managed moorland, with redshank also found to be more abundant. Hen harrier numbers increased seven years in a row, hitting a record high in 2023. The BASC also says that predator control of foxes, corvids and mustelids protects many threatened nesting species, such as curlew and lapwing. These birds are five times more common on managed grouse moors than elsewhere in the uplands. Where predator control is stopped, their numbers crash. Our countryside would not only be less beautiful without grouse shooting; it would be much quieter and less biodiverse. We would lose the idyllic sounds that captivate so many birdwatchers and bring enjoyment to everyone who spends time in the British countryside. Despite claims to the contrary, grouse shooting protects a wide range of biodiversity and wildlife, in part because the industry is regulated effectively and because crimes are prosecuted. I know that some groups, including the RSPB, would like to see tougher punishments for offenders. That is worth exploring for people who break the law, but that does not apply to the overwhelming majority of gamekeepers and land managers. Shooting organisations have a zero-tolerance policy on unlawful acts, and anyone convicted will face a large fine or potentially jail time. The issue is devolved, meaning it is the responsibility of the Scottish Government in Scotland. They have introduced a licensing system for the shooting of red grouse, which has its flaws but works adequately in other respects. I conclude by reiterating what the consequences would be if the grouse shooting industry were banned: jobs and businesses at risk, rural economies ruined, lower tax revenue for public services, increased land management costs for taxpayers, more wildlife at risk and less biodiversity, the environment harmed and the countryside damaged. That is why, despite what a small number of activists would like to do, I oppose a ban on this crucial sector.
Mrs Harris, you will be relieved to hear that I will not take the remaining hour to conclude the debate. I thank the petitioners; I thank the Petitions Committee for facilitating the debate; and I thank the 104,000 people who signed the petition. I suspect those people will be a little surprised by the lack of balance in this debate. I will come on to that shortly, but I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who contributed: my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak); my hon. Friends the Members for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) and for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith); the hon. Members for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth), for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake), for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon); the Lib Dem spokesman, the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke); the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore); and the Minister. I thank them all for their remarks. I think we all agree that any illegal behaviour should be dealt with very severely, including any killing of birds that is against the law. Part of the challenge is about police resourcing. Whether it is in my constituency, which is very rural and remote, or in other parts of the United Kingdom, ensuring that the police have sufficient resources to take action against those who act illegally is a real challenge, and that is a point of agreement on both sides of this debate. I was struck by the personal experiences of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, who spoke powerfully in favour of grouse shooting, and I pay tribute to him for sharing that with us. The reality is that those of us who represent rural constituencies—as many of us do— understand the importance of grouse shooting to our communities. Whether it is for jobs, wildlife, the environment, biodiversity, shops and businesses or the sustainability of our rural communities, grouse shooting plays a key part. With the greatest respect to the hon. Member for Sheffield Hallam, her constituency presents a unique challenge in its proximity to the moors. The reality is that, for those of us living and working in those communities, it is an essential part of our life and of maintaining our environment and biodiversity. I am therefore pleased to hear that the Labour Government have no plans to ban grouse shooting, which is a policy that I wholeheartedly endorse. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered e-petition 700036 relating to driven grouse shooting.
Infantry regiments cite difficulty in recruiting in their traditional communities and recruitment grounds. Further to the exchange between the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), may I ask what more can be done to encourage, specifically, young British men to join the Army?
I think that the vast majority of people in this country believe in a welfare system that is compassionate to the vulnerable, and particularly to the disabled, but they can no longer understand why so many people here—in contrast to other similar countries—are in this situation where they are not working.
Yes, we were in power for 14 years, and during covid, when I was a Minister, we made decisions such as stopping face-to-face assessments because we could not do them. We all recognise that the recovery from that covid time has not gone as well as it should, but if the Secretary of State cannot deliver a shift in the numbers, the economy will be in a death spiral. She needs to recognise that these changes need to be reset radically to meet the country’s expectations.
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement—I agree with practically everything she has said. When I heard these reports, I thought of the Mayor of Wilton, Councillor Alexandra Boyd, who is Jewish, and about what it would have felt like for her to have watched that with her family. We in this place all understand the fine editorial judgments that BBC staff have to make, but this is of a completely different order. When people are losing faith in the great institutions of this country, I urge the Secretary of State in her follow-up conversations to ensure that the BBC identifies accountability to individuals. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) set out clearly the guidance that exists. Somebody did not follow that guidance, and I think the country expects people to be held individually to account for why they failed to do their job properly.
7. What steps he is taking to maintain the capability of the Red Arrows.
The TSR-2 aircraft was a world beater. Unfortunately, the only thing that it could not beat in a dog fight was a Labour Government, who knew the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Will the Minister assure me that we have learned the lessons of TSR-2, and that we will look at the replacement for the Hawk in the light of pressing a British-designed and manufactured aircraft that can sell Britain abroad?
A blind man on a horse could see that there were going to be difficulties broadcasting a band called Kneecap, named after a terrorist punishment, who had called for the death of people in this House. We should take a moment to reflect that Airey Neave and Ian Gow were both killed by republican murderers. Given the events of the weekend and previous incidents, is there not a pattern emerging? Will the Secretary of State at least test the idea that the BBC has a fundamental problem with Israel?
The Minister says that making the transition by 2030 will be the best way to stabilise and reduce prices, but even if we go full steam ahead with SMRs, or large nuclear replacement of the ageing nuclear capacity at the moment, none of that will be onstream by 2030. What does she suggest will be the baseload provider for periods where it is dark and the wind is not blowing?
Not for 20 years—not yet.
Health and sickness benefit spending is set to hit £100 billion by the end of the Parliament, so why is the Secretary of State not bringing forward proper reforms rather than these rushed cuts imposed by the Chancellor that save only £2 billion, and that duck the difficult decisions to deal with the scale of the challenge that we face?
I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s comments on those terrible attacks. It should be a source of pride that some of the best drone and counter-drone tech that we have supplied to Ukraine has been made by British SMEs. The problem is that Labour’s procurement freeze means that almost none of it has been bought in parallel for our own armed forces. In this week of Labour U-turns, will the Secretary of State consider another one: namely, scrapping the Government’s crazy £30 billion Chagos deal and instead spending the money on rapidly supplying drones for the British Army, so that it can train for war as it is being fought today in Ukraine?
Does the Secretary of State support the action taken by the United States to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities?
It is extraordinary that a British Secretary of State for Defence is unable to give his explicit support to the military action of our closest ally, the United States. Is the real reason why Labour cannot back US military action against Iran not the same as the reason why it will not U-turn on Chagos or on Northern Ireland veterans—that when it comes to choosing between legal theory and the national interest, this Prime Minister is a lawyer, not a leader?
Had those chants called for the deaths of people of any other nationality or ethnicity, there is no question in my mind that the live feed would have been pulled straightaway. I welcome the Secretary of State’s robust statement, but does she agree that this problem is systemic, and that there has been a decades-long, deep-rooted bias against Israel at the corporation, which seems unwilling to deal with it, or incapable of doing so?
I thank the right hon. Lady for advance sight of her statement. This is a Government in chaos: open rebellion from their own Back Benchers, unfunded U-turns costing billions, and welfare plans that are not worth the paper they are written on. Their latest idea is a two-tier welfare system to trap people in a lifetime on benefits and deny them the dignity of work, while leaving the taxpayer to pick up the ever-growing bill. It is a long-held Conservative belief that those who can work, should work. Work provides security and purpose. That is why we launched universal credit, simplifying complex benefits and ensuring that work always paid. And it works. In the decade up to the pandemic, we got the number of people on benefits and the benefits bill itself down. Some 800 jobs were created for every day that we were in office, giving millions of people the dignity and security that work brings. But then, during the pandemic, we saw something new. The health and disability bit of our benefits system started to break. The bill is forecast to hit £100 billion by 2030. One in every four pounds of income tax will be spent on health and disability benefits—more than the entire defence budget. That is not fair for the taxpayer, not fair for people who are written off, and certainly not sustainable for the country. Despite Labour having 14 years in opposition and now a year in government, they still do not have a plan to bring down the welfare bill or get people into work. What we have before us now is a rushed and chaotic compromise that is not reform in any sense of the word. It is woefully unambitious about savings, conspicuously lacking in compassion and achieves no meaningful change of a system we all know is broken. Thanks to the Government’s latest climbdown, we are left with a plan that will save just £2.5 billion of a £100 billion bill by introducing a two-tier system. Two people diagnosed with Parkinson’s a week apart will now receive different levels of support—all to clear up an internal Labour argument. The Government’s own impact assessment shows that these plans will not get a single person into work. The idea that work is the guiding motivation for these changes is laughable. There are things that the Government could do. They could reform the fit note system, which sees 94% of people who apply told that they are too sick to do any work at all. They could say today that they would make all sickness benefit assessments face to face. They could get a grip of the rising claims for common mental health problems, such as anxiety and depression. Claims for those and neurodevelopmental conditions such as ADHD are the main reason for the steep rise in the number of people on sickness benefits, making up more than half of all new claims. The Centre for Social Justice has found that the Government could save up to £9 billion by reforming those benefits. However, nothing that we have seen from Labour over the past couple of weeks suggests that it has the courage and conviction to grip that problem. In the meantime, our welfare bill will only continue to rise. We agree on the need for reform and have set out the conditions under which we would support the Government: first, the welfare budget must come down; secondly, we need to get people back into work; thirdly, there must be no new tax rises to pay for increases in welfare spending. But with the welfare bill ever growing, unemployment rising and jobs disappearing, the Bill fails on all accounts. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether the changes she is announcing today will be paid for through borrowing or taxation? Where are these good jobs she claims to be creating, when vacancies are going down and unemployment is going up? Has she read the impact assessment for the Government’s Employment Rights Bill, which makes it clear that it will be harder for people to find work as a result? Why did it take the Government a year to publish the terms of reference for their PIP assessment review, and when can we expect changes if it does not report back until autumn 2026? Could I try one more time to ask what the difference is between the Secretary of State’s right to try guarantee and our chance to work guarantee? Finally, is this it? Are there any more savings? Are the Government not going to get any more people into work? Is this the extent of their ambition for reforming the welfare system during their time in office? In five years’ time, will this be the Secretary of State’s legacy?
The Government stood in to secure British Steel, citing national security and protecting jobs; now they are standing in to support Prax Lindsey, citing the need to protect energy security and workers. As the Minister knows, tens of thousands of jobs and many, many companies in north-east Scotland are nearing a cliff edge because of the Government’s policies. To prevent the need for another eleventh-hour standing in by the Government, will he now support the North sea by ending the energy profits levy and allowing new licences there?
Keeping our country safe is, and must be, the first duty of any Government. That comes with decisions and choices that Governments must take to keep their citizens, our country and our way of life safe. That is why we Conservative Members support the Bill. It is much needed to close a recently created loophole that must be addressed, as Members from across the House should agree. The issue tackled by the Bill arises from the Supreme Court’s decision in N3 v. Secretary of State for the Home Department 2025. The Court held that if a person successfully appeals against a deprivation order, or if the order is withdrawn, they are considered never to have lost their British citizenship. That means that even where the Secretary of State intends to challenge such a decision through further appeals, the person’s citizenship is automatically restored in the interim. In practice, that could allow individuals to return to the UK or renounce another citizenship or nationality before the Home Office has exhausted the appeals process. The Supreme Court judgment created two vulnerabilities: an unlocked door through which dangerous individuals could return; and an escape route, allowing terrorists to regain citizenship, fly back to Britain and then renounce other nationalities to become untouchable. The Government’s own assessment identifies specific risks: immediate re-entry attempts; terrorists becoming stateless to block future action; and foreign states interfering in our security measures. The Supreme Court’s interpretation has created a situation that is unprecedented among our allies. The United States, Canada, Australia, France and the Netherlands all maintain revocation of citizenship throughout appeals. Until the February ruling, Britain’s framework operated effectively. Now, because of the judgment, we face a unique vulnerability that no other comparable democracy tolerates. Removing citizenship is quite rightly considered to be a serious step—one that is not taken lightly or without thorough consideration. The seriousness of such decisions is reflected in the fact that it is the Secretary of State who personally decides whether, based on public good and safety, an individual should be deprived of their British citizenship. The Conservative party absolutely agrees with the importance of having the power of deprivation of citizenship in order to preserve national security. It is a power that has been used sparingly but necessarily, with previous Home Secretaries rightly depriving more than 200 individuals of their citizenship for being non-conducive to the public good. These individuals risk undermining not only our security, but our society at large. British citizenship is a privilege, not an unconditional right. Those who choose to shatter their bonds of loyalty through terrorism or heinous organised crime forfeit their right to carry a British passport. That is why successive Conservative Governments never shirked from using those powers against terrorists plotting to kill our citizens, or against members of the Rochdale grooming gangs for their sickening abuse of vulnerable children. That is why we are happy to support the Government in their attempts to close this loophole today.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. Like the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I draw the House’s attention to the fact that I, like many hundreds of my constituents, am a member of both the Countryside Alliance and the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, and I have been for many years, pre-dating my election in 2019. Likewise, I draw attention to my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, largely from the previous Parliament. It is a huge pleasure to speak in this debate. Mid Buckinghamshire does not have grouse moors, but shooting is important to us locally. From conversations with many of my constituents who shoot, I know that they travel to shoot grouse in Scotland, North Yorkshire and other moors around the country. Equipment—ammunition, cartridges and so on—will be purchased in our superb gun shops, such as the Oxford Gun Company, which, despite its name, is actually in the village of Oakley in Buckinghamshire, and that directly supports our local economy, too. I want to place on the record my firm support for grouse shooting in principle, not only as a traditional sporting pursuit, but as an activity that delivers measurable environmental, social and economic value to our countryside. I will address the heart of the matter: the moorlands themselves. Over 75% of the world’s heather moorland is found in Britain. As the hon. Member for Strangford said, this unique landscape is our equivalent of a rainforest: fragile, irreplaceable and internationally important. These are not wild, untouched places; they are shaped and safeguarded by generations of active management, much of which is centred around grouse shooting. Opponents of grouse shooting often speak of the uplands as if they are best left alone, but the science and the lived experience of those who work this land tell a different story. Controlled heather burning, rotational grazing and predator control are not just practices for the benefit of grouse but the very tools with which we maintain habitat for countless other species. Ground-nesting birds such as curlew, lapwing and golden plover, all of which are red listed for conservation concern, are between three and five times more abundant on managed grouse moors than on unmanaged land. Moreover, grouse moor management is vital in the fight against wildfires. Controlled cool burns remove the tinder-dry heather that fuels devastating wildfires, which in recent years have destroyed vast swathes of peatland and released hundreds of thousands of tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere. The Government’s own figures show a sharp rise in wildfire incidents in 2025, with 48 reported by spring alone. Managed moors act as fire breaks. Unmanaged ones become kindling. Some have raised concerns about moor burning and peatland drainage, but again the evidence shows that modern grouse moor managers are leading the charge in peat restoration. In the last decade, they have blocked nearly 3,000km of outdated agricultural drains and restored over 27,000 hectares of bare peat. Those actions actively sequester carbon, improve water quality and reduce downstream flood risk. Let us not forget the human element. Grouse shooting underpins fragile rural economies. Across England and Scotland, it supports around 3,000 full-time equivalent jobs and injects over £52 million into moorland management annually. Hospitality businesses, equipment suppliers, game dealers and transport firms all benefit, often in communities where few other industries operate outside the tourist season. Socially, the benefits are also clear. Thousands of people participate in grouse shooting each year. It brings communities together, sustains rural traditions and keeps local schools, pubs and shops viable in areas that might otherwise face depopulation and decline. What of the hen harrier, the emblem of those who seek to see grouse shooting banned? In 2023, a record number of hen harrier chicks fledged, the majority on managed grouse moors. That is not an accident, but the product of targeted conservation partnerships, predator control and habitat stewardship. BASC and others are funding brood management, habitat creation and even southern reintroduction efforts. Gamekeepers are not the enemy of the hen harrier; they are its strongest ally in the uplands. Let me be clear: wildlife crime, including raptor persecution, is abhorrent and must be stamped out. We enjoy the red kites above Buckinghamshire, and I have yet to meet anyone who would even think of trying to harm one of those beautiful birds. Anyone who seeks to do so should be brought to justice.
The evidence is very clear that populations are up. I think all those who oppose grouse shooting, and who wish to see this petition as the gold standard, really should look at the evidence of the overall numbers in this country, which are up. To return to the point about raptor persecution, this crime is not systemic; it is the work of a lawbreaking minority, and shooting organisations have rightly adopted a zero-tolerance approach. Anyone convicted should face the full force of the law.
There are different pictures in different parts of the country when it comes to prosecution. I am very lucky in Buckinghamshire to have Thames Valley police, which takes this incredibly seriously—particularly its rural crime taskforce, which does a lot of good work in this area. However, I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point that the picture across the country is mixed, as in any walk of life, and that some forces need to do much better. To ban grouse shooting would be to impoverish our uplands environmentally, economically and socially. This debate is not simply about sport, but about the stewardship of some of the most iconic landscapes in Britain. Grouse shooting is not the problem. It is a key part of the solution. As this debate has shown this afternoon, with voices not just from the official Opposition, but from the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats and the DUP quite clearly setting out the case for grouse shooting on all of those fronts, I think it is pretty clear where we stand.
11. What estimate he has made of the cost to his Department of the UK-Mauritius agreement concerning the Chagos archipelago, including Diego Garcia.
I do not know that I agree with the Minister that this is a good deal, although I am curious about the £30 billion. Does it count towards the new NATO target of 3.5%, or the additional 1.5% on top of that? As we have to inform the Mauritian Government before we do anything particularly useful from that base, should that cost actually be counted in the defence numbers at all?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. The draft order will amend the criteria for determining whether an offender recalled to custody should be eligible for automatic release after a fixed term. It has been framed as a pragmatic response to prison overcrowding, but in truth, it is a short-sighted and potentially dangerous change that prioritises expediency over safety and reactivity over long-term strategy. Let me be absolutely clear that this is not a procedural tweak but a significant recalibration of how we manage and record offenders. The draft order would mandate fixed-term recall—automatic release after 28 days—for the majority of offenders serving under four years, so long as they are not managed under MAPPA level 2 or 3, they have not been charged with a new offence or they are not linked to terrorism or national security. We cannot possibly support that step. There are 67,000 registered sex offenders in the UK, and 95% of them are managed at MAPPA level 1. More than 63,000 registered sex offenders would now automatically be released from prison outside of very limited circumstances. Such a sweeping change to recall policy, which would affect a large and potentially serious cohort of offenders, raises concerns about public protection and undermines the careful balance that recall decisions are meant to strike. In 2023-24, 45% of recalled offenders were deemed too unsafe for release by the Parole Board, yet under these new rules, many of them could now re-enter society without proper assessment; it is absolutely imperative that the Minister explains how many of those offenders would have been let out if these rules were in play at that time. The chief inspector of probation, Martin Jones, has warned that the policy risks creating a bounce-back effect whereby prolific offenders are released for up to 28 days, then recalled again repeatedly without the root cause of their behaviour being addressed. These are not edge cases. The policy will apply to criminals serving sentences of up to four years, including those convicted of serious sexual and violent offences who, under the current arrangements, might have remained in custody pending robust risk assessment. Victim safety, public protection and community confidence demand far more than blanket rules, and the draft order exposes us to unacceptable risk. It makes a fundamental change that will create capacity at the expense of victims and public safety. Let us dwell for a moment on the human consequences: by mandating automatic release after 28 days, the draft order strips away an important layer of risk management. We know that many offenders breach licence conditions not just on a mere technicality but with behaviours that signal a resurgence of their threat. That threat is particularly clear in cases involving domestic abuse. Domestic abuse charities and campaigners have raised deep concerns about fixed-term recalls being applied in this way, and last month Victims’ Commissioner Baroness Newlove stated: “Victims will understandably feel unnerved and bewildered by today’s announcement. The cumulative effect has been to corrode confidence in the justice system and undermine victims’ sense of security.” Ellie Butt, head of policy and public affairs at Refuge, warned: “Refuge has consistently raised concerns about the serious safety risks posed to survivors of domestic abuse as a result of prison early release schemes…if a perpetrator were to breach” licence conditions “and be recalled to prison, they could be free to offend again in less than a month.” The Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Dame Nicole Jacobs, stated: “I cannot stress the lack of consideration for victims’ safety and how many lives are being put in danger because of this proposed change…Re-releasing them back into the community after 28 days is simply unacceptable.” The Government will tell us they have no choice. Short-term thinking is jeopardising public safety. A couple of weeks ago, reports emerged that the Government have decided not to proceed with constructing new cells in an existing prison. Specifically, the Ministry of Justice has rejected long-standing plans to build a 240-place house block at HM Prison Gartree. They claim to be doing all they can to prevent early prisoner release, but how does that decision align with their attempts to increase capacity? The Government will claim that there are not alternative solutions, but there are, such as tackling the remand population. As of March 2025, the number of people held on remand in England and Wales stood at 17,582, which is a full 20% of the total prison population, and still several thousand above the historical average. Those are people who are not yet convicted of any crime, and many may not ever be. Still, however, the Government failed to act on the Lady Chief Justice’s offer of additional court sitting days. Even now, sitting days remain available, but they have decided not to fund them. Every month they delay means more courtrooms left empty, more victims and defendants left waiting, and more pressure piled on to the system. What about probation? The impact assessment for the draft order concedes that it would “increase the workload” on the Probation Service. That is an under-statement. In reality, the order would transfer pressure from the prison estate to the community, demanding that probation officers, already overstretched, manage a sudden influx of higher risk, less thoroughly assessed offenders. There has been a decrease in the absolute number of probation officers in the year up to March 2025, at a time when the Government are pledging to expand probationary services. The impact assessment says that will “increase demand for probation services as offenders will spend more time on average on licence being supervised” in the community. When do the Government expect to increase the total number of probation officers in a sustained way? How much of the additional funding in the spending review was allocated to this policy? There are further impacts on the police, as the impact assessment makes clear. Chief Constable Gavin Stephens responded to the spending review on behalf of the police chiefs, commenting, “it is clear that this is an incredibly challenging outcome for policing. In real terms, today’s increase in funding will cover little more than annual inflationary pay increases”. Police forces are already shouldering a substantial share of risk. As I said, approximately 95% of registered sexual offenders in England and Wales are on MAPPA level 1, and are usually managed locally by the police and Probation Service. We are adding an additional task to their workload. The statutory instrument fails on multiple fronts. It ignores victims, it burdens probation and it makes the public less safe. It does not address the underlying causes, and instead we have a blunt tool, wielded in haste, in the hope that no one notices the deeper difficulties it conceals. For those reasons, we will oppose the order today.
I have one question for the Minister about the most important impact of the policy, and about the people who the Parole Board would otherwise say cannot be released in order to go home. What proportion of them will potentially be affected by this policy and will be let out?
It seems entirely reasonable that a Government should want to control the amount that they spend on welfare, and entirely reasonable to want to focus that on the most in need. However, I do not understand why they brought out such rushed changes, which have done nothing but cause anxiety and distress, and left them in a worst position in which they have now U-turned and are neither making savings nor reforming welfare. Will the Secretary of State please explain the rationale for the four-point limit that she brought in?
The Secretary of State has spoken about responsibility at the BBC, and of those who said those dreadful words. What responsibility do those who were organising the festival have both legally and morally to be held responsible and accountable, and to ensure that this does not happen again?
I want to reflect for a moment on the title of the Bill. It could easily have been called something a bit more prosaic, such as the Revocation of Citizenship Bill or the Withdrawal of Citizenship Bill, but the notion of deprivation is far more evocative. When we talk about deprivation, it is often in the sense of going without something that is fundamental to our existence, such as food, shelter, water or liberty—the very things that we rely on for life itself. I believe that “deprivation” in this context is flawed terminology, as it seems to equate citizenship with an essential right. I apologise if I am damaging his future career by saying so, but I very much agree with the hon. Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons). Citizenship is not a right; it is a privilege. To those who receive that privilege, through our immigration system or otherwise, we must be clear that it comes with duties and responsibilities. We welcome those who come to the United Kingdom lawfully, ready to participate in the freedoms that we offer and equally ready to take on the obligations that go hand in hand with them. But when an individual who has had the privilege of citizenship bestowed on them uses it to threaten our national security, that privilege should rightly be revoked until the Secretary of State has exhausted all avenues of appeal in regard to his or her decision. Citizenship of our country is to be prized, not abused—and not reduced to some sort of transactional process or tick-box citizenship test. The “Life in the UK” test is well worth a look, for those who have not seen the poverty of knowledge and scrutiny that it requires. We should not be defending the importance of citizenship only at the point at which a person has it removed. Everyone, whether they are a citizen through birth or through our immigration system, should receive an education in how precious the covenant between country and individual is to promote understanding and appreciation of our value system and the fundamental principles that underpin it: tolerance and respect, the right to equality before the law, the duty of loyalty to the United Kingdom—or, as an absolute minimum, a deep and abiding respect and commitment to the conventions and values that make up the British way of life—and, of course, the right to freedom of enterprise and aspiration. It is important not only to create wealth and opportunity, but to look at how our talents can be harnessed by making a contribution within our families and communities, whether that is through performing care obligations for young children and moulding them as the citizens of the future, caring for elderly or dependent family members, or leading local charities or community or faith groups. Those values, and the rights and duties through which they are lived out, form part of our social contract—the ties that bind us as communities, societies and nations. They have supported our past flourishing and, if re-embraced, will also secure our renewal. Those who reject these values and seek to undermine and destroy them should not be citizens of our country. Although I agree with the measure contained in the Bill, my challenge to the Government is to ensure that respect for our national values and the rights and duties that underpin them is also at the heart of their forthcoming reform of our immigration system.
With basing becoming longer-term and more predictable, and with most young people wanting to buy rather than rent their home, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of the success of Forces Help to Buy? What plans does he have to extend it?