Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,779 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

   Access to NHS Dentistry

   I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has destroyed the consensual way in which I was trying to introduce my remarks. If I may, I will explain that I think there has been a conspiracy of silence all these years on NHS dentistry. What Government have to get to grips with is whether they intend that dentistry should continue to be a universal part of our NHS and whether it will be exempted from the universality that has characterised the provision of healthcare services in this country since 1948. The Government could decide that dentistry is a bit like ophthalmic optics, which in the 1940s was deliberately excluded from NHS provision. I am not recommending that, but I am recommending to the Minister that we are at least honest with the public. At the moment, we have this pretence around NHS dentistry that says, “Of course you have the right to have your teeth fixed at no cost to you at all up front.” In reality, in most parts of the country, mine included, that is a complete fiction. When the Government come to their new arrangements, which I welcome very much, can we first have some honesty? Can we have some money behind them? Can we have some idea about what part of current NHS provision the Government intend to deprioritise, if that is their intention, to ensure that we have truly universal provision of NHS dentistry going forward?

   Hansard source
2. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

   Diego Garcia Military Base

   The Secretary of State has cited UNCLOS—under pressure from my right hon. Friends the Members for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly) and for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis)—as the reason for this expensive cave-in. I am familiar with UNCLOS, and although I am a layman and so is the Secretary of State, could he explain in lay terms which parts of UNCLOS are responsible for what has happened, because it is not clear to me and it will not be clear to my constituents and to his, who will be paying the bill for this?

   Hansard source
3. 22 May 2025·Parliament·David Simmonds

   Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

   It is once again a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. We broadly support the aim of this new clause. I know my colleague the noble Lord Goldsmith proposed a similar amendment in the House of Lords, which Baroness Taylor and the Secretary of State at DEFRA have indicated they are supportive of. However, there are some flaws in the new clause. It is clear that rather than just habitats for swifts, there are creatures—insects in particular—that would also benefit from similar arrangements within the building industry. Creatures such as starlings, which are something of an iconic British bird and also nest in buildings, would require an alternative design provision. I am not inclined to seek a vote, but it would be helpful to hear from the Minister that there will be consideration given to ensuring that new buildings—both homes and, where possible, commercial buildings—incorporate features designed to support the nesting of birds and other creatures that may use those habitats in a way that is sympathetic to the use of the building.

   Hansard source
4. 22 May 2025·Parliament·David Simmonds

   Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

   I briefly draw the Committee’s attention to the Planning Advisory Service. As a result of a long-standing arrangement with the Local Government Association, through a funding set-up whereby local authorities and Government provide resources, both peer-support services and these activities are already provided in partnership with local authorities. For that reason, I would be reluctant to seek a legislative method of delivering something that is already, in practice, working well on a voluntary basis. There will always be a debate about whether local authorities feel that their resources are sufficient, but in supporting them to undertake the capacity assessment and build their capacity by working with their peers, that arrangement has been in place and working well for several decades.

   Hansard source
5. 22 May 2025·Parliament·David Simmonds

   Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

   On a point of order, Ms Jardine. I should declare that I am an unpaid parliamentary vice-president of the Local Government Association, which I referred to in my contribution.

   Hansard source
6. 22 May 2025·Parliament·David Simmonds

   Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

   I will be brief: the issues in new clause 111, which it is my privilege to speak to, have already been extensively debated. We have just heard about protections in respect of playing fields; new clause 111 is about protections in respect of villages. Those are relevant to places such as Harefield in my constituency—pretty much the last village in London—and to the concerns highlighted by many Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), about some recent decisions on infilling, which puts the separation of villages from nearby towns at some degree of risk. We are keen to preserve it. We will press the new clause to a vote in due course.

   Hansard source
7. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Danny Kruger

   EU-UK Summit

   And dependants.

   Hansard source
8. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Danny Kruger

   EU-UK Summit

   I pay tribute to the Members who secured the debate: the hon. Members for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) and for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice). It is a case of singing the greatest hits of the past—singing the old songs—in a beautiful duet, presaging some appalling coalition. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Lady; I recognise her expertise and her interest in this topic. Speaking of greatest hits, she invoked Elsa in “Frozen”, and I recognise the self-identification. Of all people, her soul is spiralling in frozen fractals, but she has a warm heart underneath. Of course we do know that, at the end of that film, Elsa returned to the castle. That is the ultimate purpose of some Members speaking in this debate; they want to return to the embrace of the EU. I honour that, and I accept that some people were not happy with the result of the referendum. I would not have been happy if it had gone the other way, and I would not have given up campaigning to leave. Nevertheless, I wish there was more honesty from the Government Benches in recognising that what is being debated here is the first step to rejoining. That is the underlying purpose, because all the arguments that have been made against the previous deal were really arguments against Brexit, and all the arguments that are being made in support of this arrangement are arguments for rejoining. As it was eloquently put by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth), the case for co-operation in Europe is really a case for rejoining.

   Hansard source
9. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Danny Kruger

   EU-UK Summit

   My hon. Friend is right. I will cite a very good article in The Spectator last week by Oliver Lewis, who was the deputy negotiator for the Brexit deal and the trade agreement. He wrote rather wearily about recognising the terms that had been agreed by the Government, because they were the terms that the previous Government continually resisted in negotiations. His point, which echoes that of my hon. Friend, was that the way the EU works is to force agreement on headline principles, which, over time, are translated into concrete policy. Where a thin end of the wedge can be driven in, as it can be with this agreement, more and more follows. That is what we should anticipate. It is worth pointing out how thin the terms of the agreement are and how much detail remains to be worked out. We have conceded a set of principles that will allow ever closer alignment and submission to the regime that we painfully left some years ago. We see coming submission to the European Court of Justice, an agreement on rule-taking, a return to the single market in agribusiness, as my hon. Friend mentioned, and paying money into the EU budget. Those were the explicit things that all parties in this House committed to ending when we agreed the outcome of the referendum. In 2019, both main parties agreed to abide by them, and in 2024, they agreed to abide by them and explicitly ruled out submission to the European Court of Justice, paying money and returning to the single market, all of which has now been agreed in principle by the Government. It is only a set of principles, but they are bad principles; they represent the betrayal of Brexit and of our manifestos. I will not go through the specifics, because other Members have done so very well, but I will quickly point out how thin these agreements are. On e-gates, there will be some benefit for the Dordogne-visiting community that some of us have in our constituencies, but it is not a great achievement. Indeed, it is not even an achievement for this summer, so although I hope the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) is enjoying his holiday in France, I do not think he will have benefited from the deal. He will probably have gone through an e-gate anyway, however, because there are already many e-gates that British citizens can use when going to and fro. That arrangement will still need to be negotiated, with each member state operating its own independent policy. We have discussed food, and I will not go on about that other than to say that we have agreed to take the EU’s laws but we do not have any detail yet. Because we export so little, any benefit from a reciprocal arrangement will greatly benefit the EU at the expense of our exporters.

   Hansard source
10. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Danny Kruger

    EU-UK Summit

    I absolutely agree. I am afraid that the argument against EU membership, which was the trade imbalance, remains and has only grown with time. I will not talk about our unhappy fish; we hear enough about those poor creatures. On defence, there has been no detail in the plan other than an expectation of that new procurement arrangement and that we will be financially contributing to that. There is also no detail on the carbon trading arrangement other than a clear expectation of higher taxes and rule-taking through the emissions scheme. On free movement, we are still unclear. The statement talks about terms to be mutually agreed. What those terms might be—how many people will be coming, what commitments of support there are for them on housing, public services and benefits, and what happens if they refuse to leave—all remains unclear. I am very worried about the direction of travel. The good news, to conclude, is that none of that is real. Those are all headline principles. Although the expectation is that the EU, having forced our famously legalistic Prime Minister to sign up to a set of agreements, will then induce him to believe that they are binding commitments and that he will have to honour them in practice, I implore him not to. I also implore the Minister to consider that we do not have to fulfil those terrible terms. Lastly, on the economy, although people talk about the decline of trade since Brexit, trade was declining substantially long before. The EU is a declining corner of the world’s economy and the direction of travel has not changed much. The fundamental point is that Brexit has economically been largely a non-event. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) said, the underlying realities have remained largely untouched by it. Obviously, our economy was badly hit by covid, the Ukraine war and subsequently by the very bad Budget, and I admit, by some economic mistakes made by the last Government—let us be honest—but fundamentally the problems have not been related to Brexit. To invoke some heroes of the last Parliament—particularly John Redwood, the great economic prophet of recent times—John Redwood shrugs at Brexit but Bill Cash rejoices because, fundamentally, it was not an economic decision that the British people made: it was about the restoration of sovereignty. It restored the possibility of good government to our country. I am afraid we did not get good government immediately after Brexit, and we certainly do not have it now. Many mistakes have been made and continue to be made, particularly by this new Government, but we now have the opportunity to govern ourselves in a way that will bring about the prosperity of the British people. To quickly acknowledge the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), we still have not fixed the ongoing saga of Northern Ireland, and I deeply regret that the arrangements there persist in that most unsatisfactory way. The new agreement is clearly a declaration of intent to move back within the orbit of the EU and ultimately to rejoin. I end by echoing the call from many hon. Members on both sides, and I honour the hon. Member for Walthamstow for her support. It is very important that we restore the European Scrutiny Committee and I hope that the Minister will agree.

    Hansard source
11. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Danny Kruger

    EU-UK Summit

    Does the hon. Lady share my regret that the Minister did not recommit the Government to introducing the Scrutiny Committee? Does she agree that we should continue to work to that end?

    Hansard source
12. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    UK-EU Summit: Policy Priorities

    I thank the right hon. Gentleman and his Committee for their extensive piece of work and for the report he has presented today. He mentions the wide range of different asks that the UK Government had and that he recommended that they pursue. Does he agree that it is disappointing that out of the areas that the UK wanted to achieve agreement on, movement for touring artists and participation in EU defence spending are left unagreed, while the UK Government seem to have agreed on and traded one of our most valuable areas in the negotiation: access to our fishing grounds?

    Hansard source
13. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Dame Caroline Dinenage

    UK-India Cultural Co-operation Agreement

    Whether it is Bollywood, Hollywood or Borehamwood, I am sure the Minister will agree that our British cultural and creative industries are our global economic superpower. While the Secretary of State is AWOL today, rumours abound that the whole Department for Culture, Media and Sport is for the chop. The Minister must see that this sends a terrible message to those sectors about how little their Government value the power of those industries. Will he take this opportunity to put that rumour to bed, and if he cannot, will he take this chance to put on record that it is a horrible idea?

    Hansard source
14. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Dame Caroline Dinenage

    Independent Sentencing Review

    I welcome what the Secretary of State has said about female offenders, but I would like to know a little bit more. Hope Street in Hampshire, which offers residential alternatives to custody for women, has seen remarkable results, and of course it prevents those women from being separated from their children, which would otherwise drive the intergenerational cycle of offending behaviour, trauma and cost to society. Do these proposals include any plans to set up more such facilities across the rest of the country?

    Hansard source
15. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Dame Caroline Dinenage

    Business of the House

    The Leader of the House may be aware that cheerleading is one of the fastest-growing sports in the UK, and that it achieves the remarkable feat of keeping young girls engaged in sport at an age when so many disengage from school sports. She might not know, however, that two of the best cheerleading teams in the country are in Gosport. In fact, both Storm Athletics and Jessie Leigh Dance and Cheer Academy came back from the world summit in Florida early this month with gold medals and first-place trophies. I would love to see many more young people get involved in the sport, which has now been recognised as such by Sport England, but funding to support more disadvantaged youngsters to get involved cannot be applied for yet. Will the Leader of the House lead the cheer for cheerleading as a debate here in Parliament? [Interruption.]

    Hansard source
16. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Dame Caroline Dinenage

    Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

    On that point, will the Secretary of State give way?

    Hansard source
17. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Dame Caroline Dinenage

    Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

    I appreciate the tone in which the Secretary of State has started his speech. Ministers keep repeating a mantra about “the uncertainty” of what our copyright law says about AI training. However, there is no uncertainty: commercial generative AI training on UK copyright work is illegal in the UK, but what rightsholders need is what this amendment says: “clear, relevant, accurate and accessible information” about “the use of their copyright works used, and the means by which those works were accessed”. A legislative vehicle in the future, however welcome, will be simply too late to protect the livelihoods of so many of the UK’s 2.5 million creative workers, who fear that this uncertainty line is just an excuse to undermine copyright law. Is the Government really committed to proactively enforcing our copyright law? If they do not do so through this Bill now, how will they do it and when?

    Hansard source
18. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Charlie Dewhirst

    Independent Sentencing Review

    I wholeheartedly support my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) in his call for the immediate deportation of foreign criminals. What is the Lord Chancellor doing to ensure that the courts are not holding up those deportations, and that once deported, those criminals are never allowed back on these shores?

    Hansard source
19. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

    I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that the Lords amendment 49D engages Commons financial privilege. If Lords amendment 49D is agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal. Before Clause 138 Requirement to make provision in relation to transparency of copyrighted works used in relation to AI models 2.2 pm

    Hansard source
20. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

    I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order, which was not in fact a point of order. He will be aware that the programme motion has already been agreed to by the House.

    Hansard source
21. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

    I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

    Hansard source
22. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

    Order. I think it would be helpful if I clarified that that is a matter for the Chair and not for the Government.

    Hansard source
23. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    UK-EU Summit: Policy Priorities

    We now come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Business and Trade Committee. The Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which time no interventions can be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement; these should be brief questions, not speeches. I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee Chair and not the relevant Minister. Front Benchers may take part in questioning.

    Hansard source
24. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Mental Health Bill: Legislative Scrutiny

    The hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions will be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement. These should be brief questions, not speeches. I emphasise that questions must be directed to the Select Committee member and not the relevant Minister, and Front Benchers may take part in questioning.

    Hansard source
25. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Mental Health Bill: Legislative Scrutiny

    I call the shadow Minister.

    Hansard source
26. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Local Government Boundary Commission for England

    3. If he will make an assessment of the adequacy of the resources available to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England to deliver electoral arrangements under the “English Devolution” White Paper.

    Hansard source
27. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Local Government Boundary Commission for England

    I declare an interest: I am a Central Bedfordshire councillor. It is important that the boundary commission delivers electoral arrangements that provide strong local representation throughout English devolution. Will the hon. Member assure the House that resources available to the commission with be sufficient to ensure that representation is not sacrificed on the basis of arbitrary timelines for devolution?

    Hansard source
28. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Independent Sentencing Review

    Under these proposals, foreign criminals will be deported after serving 30% of their sentence, which I appreciate is an improvement. The public want them to be deported right away—does the Lord Chancellor?

    Hansard source
29. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

    School Teachers’ Review Body: Recommendations

    Schools in my constituency tell me they are struggling. Serious pressure is being put on their staffing budgets by the national insurance contributions increase, and that is exacerbated by the appallingly slow approval rate of special educational needs inclusion funding and education, health and care plans by the now Lib Dem-run Cambridgeshire county council. What is the Minister doing to address that extra strain on staffing costs and to ensure that schools are properly resourced for the right level of staff in order to allow teachers to give all children the best education, rather than forcing efficiency savings on them that will make the job even harder, and possibly even ultimately put children at risk?

    Hansard source
30. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

    Diego Garcia Military Base

    I hope the Defence Secretary is fully across the detail here. Annex 1, paragraph 3, sub-paragraph c states: “Mauritius and the United Kingdom shall jointly decide upon the management and use of the electromagnetic spectrum” in the Chagos Archipelago beyond Diego Garcia. Given that Diego Garcia shall be represented by Mauritius at the International Telecommunication Union—as per Letter No.1 on 22 May 2025—how will control and management of the electromagnetic spectrum be reflected as per annex 1, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph b, clause iv? And given the threat posed by Chinese influence in the Indo-Pacific and the level of Chinese development finance investment in Mauritius, what assessment have the Government made of future lack of co-operation from Mauritius on access to said electromagnetic spectrum?

    Hansard source
31. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Andrew Rosindell

    Business of the House

    Following the outcome of the UK-EU summit earlier this week, will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on the state of British democracy? On 23 June 2016, 70% of my constituents in Romford voted to leave the European Union—as did the rest of the United Kingdom—yet this so-called EU reset is in fact a surrender of our hard-won Brexit freedoms, with rule taking from Brussels once again, the European Court of Justice back in charge, British fish handed over until 2038, and billions in payments back to the European Union. Will she please let the British people’s views be paramount, not the short-term views of the Government?

    Hansard source
32. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Alison Griffiths

    Access to NHS Dentistry

    It is an honour to speak in this debate and to raise the plight of my constituents, some of whom are struggling in silence, pain and frustration, simply trying to access basic NHS dental care. I thank the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) for securing the debate, and I share her views on pretty much everything she has said, but in particular the wider impact of poor dentistry on A&E, the NHS more widely and cardiac health. I have many constituents’ testimony to refer to today. Let me begin with the real story of a person who has worked tirelessly her entire life. Now, due to long covid, she is housebound and dependent. When she missed a single NHS dental appointment due to illness, she was removed from the list. She has since been unable to find another NHS dentist. When an infection struck, she waited a week for emergency care at St Richard’s hospital, and she is not alone. In 2023, only 24.7% of adults in the south-east were seen by an NHS dentist in the previous two years—the second-lowest rate in England. In some areas, fewer than one in five adults have been able to access NHS dentistry. The Government have announced recent steps, with 26,546 additional urgent care dental appointments for Sussex—a rise from 245 to 455 a week. We have a £20,000 golden hello relocation incentive to attract dentists to underserved areas. Some 17 of those posts have been approved for Sussex. I welcome those steps, but they are not enough. The Dental Defence Union and the Public Accounts Committee have made it clear, as have other colleagues, that the NHS contract is broken. It disincentivises dentists from treating those patients with the greatest needs. In 2022, 91% of dentists surveyed felt worn out, and 84% reported burnout. They are walking away from NHS dentistry not out of disinterest, but because the system is unsustainable. How many of the urgent contracts are now available, and when will real contract reform take place?

    Hansard source
33. 21 May 2025·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    Ukraine: Forcibly Deported Children

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) on securing this debate. She has spoken with passion and sincerity in this place, not just today but on a number of occasions. I join her in welcoming the delegation from Ukraine, who will surely, after listening to this debate, be totally convinced of the cross-party support for their country and its people. The passionate and emotional contributions today have made that very clear. Many Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), have reflected on their personal visits to the country and its people. Few crimes are as harrowing or telling as the theft of a child, but that is what we are debating today: the forced abduction, deportation and ideological reprogramming of Ukrainian children by the Russian state. We need to call it out for what it is. It is not a relocation or an evacuation, which the Kremlin may dress it up as, but a systemic, state-sponsored assault on identity, sovereignty and humanity itself. Since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022, more than 19,500 Ukrainian children are known to have been forcibly removed from their home and transferred across Russian-occupied territory into Russia itself. Independent estimates suggest that the true figure could be more than double that. As we have heard today, with each child taken, we see families torn apart, culture erased and the future of a nation under threat. Behind every number or statistic is a child, a family, friends and loved ones. I want to make three points. First, Russia’s actions are not just indefensible, but calculated, deliberate and disgraceful. Secondly, during our time in government, the Conservatives led the way not just with weapons and sanctions but with unwavering moral clarity and practical action in support of Ukraine. Thirdly, I urge the Government to be clear-eyed and bold. They should build on what we started and not flinch in the face of Putin’s cruelty. I have had the privilege of visiting Ukraine twice: once as a Foreign Minister in 2021, and again in 2023 as a Back Bencher with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. On my first visit, I stood alongside Ukrainian leaders at the launch of the Crimea Platform, which was a powerful signal of international solidarity. Even then, Russia’s creeping aggression in Donbas and Crimea cast a long shadow, but the spirit of the Ukrainian people shone through. When I returned two years later, though, Ukraine was in the grip of war as a result of Putin’s illegal invasion. Towns were scarred by missile strikes, civilians were forced underground and families were scattered across borders, but what struck me most was the resilience of the people I met: parliamentarians who had lost colleagues, mothers who had sent their sons to the frontline, children who were being educated in bunkers at school, and civil society leaders who were rebuilding community life amid chaos. They were resisting not just an illegal military invasion, but an assault on their identity, their history and, as we have heard clearly today, their children. That is why the forced deportation of Ukrainian children is such a grotesque element of this war—it is wrong. These are not isolated incidents; they are part of a strategy to wipe out the next generation of Ukrainians by forcibly assimilating them into Russia—renaming them, placing them with Russian families and indoctrinating them in so-called re-education camps. That is not just child abduction; it is cultural erasure. That is why the International Criminal Court has, rightly, issued arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and his commissioner for children’s rights, Maria Lvova-Belova. Let me turn to what we as Conservatives did in government in response. When Russia invaded Ukraine, the UK did not hesitate. We were among the first to send advanced weapons to Ukraine, including anti-tank missiles, long-range precision arms and air defence systems. We trained tens of thousands of Ukrainian troops under Operation Interflex, co-ordinated international aid and introduced the largest, most severe package of sanctions in UK history, targeting around 2,000 Russian individuals and entities. We also sanctioned Maria Lvova-Belova over the forced transfer and adoption of Ukrainian children. Under our watch, we did not stand with Ukraine just in principle; we stood with it in practice. We understood, and we understand, that helping Ukraine to defend itself was about not just charity—it was about national security, and we treated it as such. We also understood, however, that Russia’s war crimes required a broader response. That is why we supported the gathering of evidence for war crimes prosecutions, championed media freedom and democratic resilience in Ukraine, and supported Ukrainian civil society, which is the lifeblood of any free nation. I was proud, in and out of government, to advocate for Ukraine, from sanctioning oligarchs and calling out disinformation to welcoming Ukrainian families into British homes through the Homes for Ukraine scheme, including some in my own constituency. What are the Government doing to build on that legacy? I am sure the Minister will set that out. The moral imperative could not be clearer. Returning these children must be a top diplomatic priority, not just for Ukraine, but for the entire international community. If we do not act now, we normalise the weaponisation of children in conflict and we send the message that the forced erasure of national identity can go unpunished. What are the Government doing to press international bodies, including the UN and the OSCE, to intensify efforts to track and return these children? What support is the UK providing to Ukrainian and international NGOs that are engaged in tracing, documenting and litigating these cases? What diplomatic pressure is the Government applying to countries that are complicit in circumventing sanctions or turning a blind eye to Russia’s war crimes, including Belarus, which has been directly implicated? I welcome the commitment to £3 billion in annual military aid to Ukraine, but how much funding is earmarked for protecting civilians, documenting atrocities and countering the ideological indoctrination of abducted children? Ukraine does not need just tanks; it needs truth and justice. I end with this: in every Ukrainian family torn apart by abduction, there is a mother waiting, a father grieving and a sibling left behind. Each stolen child is not just a tragedy, but a test of whether the democratic world will match words with action. We on this side of the House say that we must. We led the way in government, and we will continue to hold the line in opposition. We owe it to Ukraine and the families, and we owe it to every principle that this place is meant to defend.

    Hansard source
34. 21 May 2025·Parliament·Steve Barclay

    Immigration

    I thank my right hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. Does he agree that this concern about the high levels of immigration is also an issue of democracy and the sense of people not being heard? I noted the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) expressing support for deportations of foreign-born criminals, but unless the Government use levers—restrictions on visas for those countries not taking people back—we will again see too many foreign-born criminals in our prisons instead of being deported back to their native country.

    Hansard source
35. 21 May 2025·Parliament·Steve Barclay

    UK Health Security Agency: Porton Down

    As one of the ex-Ministers who is still here, perhaps I can contribute in a spirit of helpfulness to the current Minister. My right hon. Friend and I have discussed this issue many times. I was so concerned by this proposal as Secretary of State for Health and Social Care that I visited Porton Down and gave a very clear steer—not least when I found, to my huge surprise, that the nursery was being closed, which I thought was the wrong decision. He, like me, was Chief Secretary to the Treasury. As Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I gave a very clear steer that I was concerned that this move did not represent value for money, that times had changed and that the proposal was in error. I wonder whether the case study that is being presented to officials and the information that comes to Ministers properly reflects known concerns raised by Ministers, which appear to have been routinely ignored.

    Hansard source
36. 21 May 2025·Parliament·Steve Barclay

    UK Health Security Agency: Porton Down

    Having had the opportunity to be involved in spending reviews, I would be interested to know the current provision for this scheme in the budget over the next three years, because alongside assessing the benefits, there will be the simple question of what is affordable. The NAO has set out an estimate of over £3 billion for the overall cost, but what has the Department provisioned for the spending review period?

    Hansard source
37. 21 May 2025·Parliament·Sir Roger Gale

    Ukraine: Forcibly Deported Children

    I do not for one moment doubt the Minister’s sincerity or his determination to bring this to a satisfactory conclusion, but we all know that one of the keys to that is President Trump. Very little has been said, even in this debate, about the pressure that can and should be brought to bear on Trump and Putin together. The Minister does not have a magic wand, but will he make sure as far as he can that this issue does not come off the agenda and that it forms part of any settlement?

    Hansard source
38. 21 May 2025·Parliament·Sir Roger Gale

    Business and the Economy

    We ought to ram this point home so that the Minister understands. Before he stands up, he has plenty of time to think this through and provide us with a sensible answer, rather than something that is off the cuff, so here is a note of warning. This morning, I attended an event run by one of the national clearing banks, which is putting a huge amount of effort into trying to create, and helping its customers to create, opportunities for young people. The bank has come up with a raft of good ideas, but every single one of them—this point was made very clearly—will hit the roadblock of the Government’s employment legislation. Where is the sense in that? If my hon. Friend does not have the answer, the Minister no doubt will have.

    Hansard source
39. 21 May 2025·Parliament·Sir Oliver Dowden

    Business and the Economy

    Does my hon. Friend agree that another factor that will undermine job creation and employment under this Government is their approach to international wealth coming into this country? When other countries, such as the US, are granting golden visas, we are closing the door with these ideologically-driven non-dom reforms, which will not even raise any money. If the Government want to increase job opportunities, they should take the chance at the next Budget to reverse that foolhardy policy.

    Hansard source
40. 21 May 2025·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

    Immigration

    There has been too much immigration to this country for far too long. I have great regard for the Minister for Border Security and Asylum, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), as she knows, but regard allows for sharp disagreements, and if she did not know that we disagree, she will after this speech. That level of immigration has damaged our economy, our shared sense of belonging on which social cohesion depends and our public services, by increasing population to an unsustainable level. Let me first turn to the economy. The effect of mass migration on the economy has been to displace investment in domestic skills and in recruitment and retention of labour. It has displaced investment in the modernisation of our economy and it has therefore damaged productivity by inhibiting it. It has essentially created an economy that is low-skilled and dependent on the provision of relatively cheap labour, and is therefore unfit to compete in a high-tech, high-skilled world. That is what mass migration has done to our economy. For evidence, one has only to look at the House of Lords Committee on Economic Affairs report, which says: “we have found no evidence for the argument, made by the Government, business and many others, that net immigration—immigration minus emigration—generates significant economic benefits for the existing UK population.” The reason for that is that 70% of migrants are in low and medium-skilled roles. They are not the brightest and the best; they are not the people who we need to fill the vacancies that cannot be filled otherwise. Essentially, vacancies are being filled rather than providing opportunities for the vast majority of those Britons who cannot get a place in the labour market. Mass migration has certainly damaged social cohesion by undermining our shared sense of belonging. We simply cannot import that number of people—many of whom do not speak English as their first language—without significant investment in integration; yet even if we were integrating at pace, the sheer volume would make it impossible to hold many communities together. We have seen social fracture, with a risk of complete fragmentation, in many communities. Hon. Members from across the House will have visited schools where the headteacher has said proudly, “Of course, the children here speak 15 different languages,” as though that were a cause for celebration. Without a common language, there can be no currency for learning about one another and there can be no means by which we can share what makes us British. We have to promote the English language and we should abolish any attempt by any authority to translate things into foreign languages: let us make that a rallying cry from today. Finally, the population of this country is growing at an unsustainable rate. We have heard already that successive Governments, beginning with the Blair Government, then the coalition Government, Tory Governments and now this Government, I am sorry to say, have failed to recognise that if we increase net population by 700,000 to 900,000 people a year, a number that equates to the combined populations of the five cities of Cambridge, Norwich, Hull, Lincoln—

    Hansard source