Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,578 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Wendy Morton

   Falkland Islands: Sovereignty

   Let me say at the outset that we on the Conservative Benches are clear that the Falkland Islands are British, and they will remain British for as long as the Falkland Islanders wish them to be. British soldiers fought and died to defend our sovereignty and the freedom of the Falkland Islanders. That sacrifice will never be forgotten, and we will always stand by the people of the Falklands and their overwhelming desire to remain British. Before the summer recess, the Leader of the Opposition and I met Cheryl Roberts MLA and other representatives of the Falkland Islands Government. We were clear in reaffirming our unwavering support for the islanders and their right to self-determination. Our continued connection with the Falklands is of vital importance, as a matter not just of history but of sovereignty, security and principle. The Government must therefore ensure that they are standing up unequivocally for the Falkland Islands and their choice to stay British. Therefore, what conversations have the Foreign Secretary and Ministers had with the United States Administration to ensure that our position and, above all, the democratic wishes of the Falkland Islanders are clearly understood? What direct representations has the Foreign Secretary made to the Argentinian Government following President Milei’s latest remarks? Is Argentina raising the future of the Falklands through diplomatic channels with His Majesty’s Government, or is it simply ramping up its language publicly? Argentina has threatened sanctions against companies involved in the lawful development of the Falkland Islands oil resources. What representations has the Foreign Secretary made in response, and what steps are the Government taking to protect those legitimate commercial interests and the Falkland Islanders’ rights to develop their own natural resources? There can be no negotiation over sovereignty unless and until the Falkland Islanders themselves wish it. The United Kingdom must stand with the Falkland Islands and the right of the islanders to self-determination.

   Hansard source
2. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Tom Tugendhat

   Israel and Palestine

   I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. As we meet today, let me start with what we agree on. We agree that illegal settlements are wrong. We all agree that groups of settlers have been guilty of outrageous abuses of ordinary Palestinians and crimes against innocent civilians. We agree that some Israeli Ministers have indulged in hateful propaganda and incitement. We agree that the current path is leading Israelis and Palestinians <span id="885" class="column-number" data-column-number="885"></span>towards a darker, more dangerous future. We agree that Hamas’s terrorist atrocity of 7 October left many Jews in Israel and around the world afraid and vulnerable. We agree that the suffering in Gaza is horrific. But we also agree that those who praise Hamas and other terror groups or see them as legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people are wrong, that payments to those who are killed while attacking Israeli civilians are wrong, and that those who call for the destruction of the world’s only Jewish state and the murder of its citizens with cries of, “From the river to the sea,” are wrong. Ignoring the victims on all sides and putting at risk the viability of the two-state solution is wrong. This is not about Israel alone, and it certainly is not about reducing the complexity of the region to a single sentence. Sadly, the Government are in the process of doing just that. When they recognised the state of Palestine, only recently, they did so against the laws we ourselves have defended since 1933, in contravention of the Montevideo convention and of the principles we have set out. When they sanctioned Israeli Ministers, they failed to make the case to many others, including the European Union, and today they are enacting a policy that the Foreign Office knows will not work. The Government also know that this policy will harm innocents. Just 13 weeks ago, two Ministers of this Government—the right hon. Members for Lincoln (Mr Falconer) and for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant)—wrote to the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), rejecting this very policy as the economies of Palestine and Israel are too interconnected—innocent Palestinians and Israelis will suffer. Still this Government are pressing on in haste, despite warnings from the Labour Benches from the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley) and from the Government’s own reviewer of terrorism legislation that turning Israel into a pariah risks sectarian division in our own country and a further rise in antisemitic violence on our streets. As the Foreign Secretary knows, others are waiting. The Israeli election is in just seven weeks, and many have correctly argued that this action will help the extreme candidates’ campaigns, not those who are making the moderate argument for a united Israel. In the week before Rosh Hashanah and the high holy days, the Government are acting without prudence, introducing sanctions that are both light and serious. They are light because they will not actually target settlers—as the Minister for Intergovernmental Relations has said—but will be stretched to include all Israeli and Palestinian businesses, leaving many without opportunity, including those who make the pharmaceuticals that keep many British patients alive. They are serious because they risk what the Foreign Secretary has himself condemned: encouraging sectarianism and antisemitism at home, and discouraging co-operation abroad. As such, I have six questions for the Foreign Secretary. First, on the coherence of the policy, can he confirm that the advice from his Department on the practicality of sanctions has changed so dramatically that these sanctions will in reality be targeted, not area as previously stated? Secondly, what conversations has he had with wider partners and allies to co-ordinate a full international action that might actually work, and why will he not <span id="886" class="column-number" data-column-number="886"></span>wait for the result? Thirdly, what assessment has he made of the impact on domestic security and community cohesion in the United Kingdom, barely a year since the first antisemitic murder in our country in generations? Fourthly, what assessment has he made of the impact on our security partnerships with both Israel and the United States, which have kept Iranian regime-backed murderers off our streets for the past few years? Fifthly, what instructions has he given to the enforcement bodies to ensure that Parkinson’s, myeloma and multiple sclerosis patients will still get the drugs that keep them alive? Finally, will he let us know now what instructions he has given to the Foreign Office for the accreditation of diplomats to the Palestinian embassy should Hamas win the elections in November and send their own envoys here under diplomatic immunity? We have seen growing antisemitism in the United Kingdom, and we have seen increasing violence against Jewish targets. The Conservative party will always reject the hate-filled sectarianism that we have seen on our streets. We can—and where appropriate, should—criticise the Israeli Government, and still defend the right of the Jewish people to a home. I place on record my and my party’s deep sadness at the violence we have seen in recent months and years, our commitment to the right of Palestinians and Israelis to live in dignity and peace, and our recognition of those who have been victims over generations. None of us here rejects the Government’s stated aim that we must do everything we can to end the cycle of violence, and we welcome the sanctions against Al-Qard Al-Hassan and the condemnation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. However, I am sorry to say that this Government are wrong. As the Foreign Office has previously stated, this policy will damage the interests of innocent Palestinians, Israelis who condemn settlements, and the British people. What we reject is not the intent, but the performative politics and acting without wide support that leaves our envoys weaker and their voices irrelevant. We know, from our own history, that we do not make peace from just one side, and nor do we make it alone.

   Hansard source
3. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Stuart Andrew

   Health Bill

   My hon. Friend is making an important point about HSSIB. We have heard time and again that frontline staff value the safety that HSSIB provides to them and the confidence they have in reporting. Given that we in this Chamber have heard some harrowing stories about maternity services around the country, does she not think it is important that we listen to the staff, and not just one individual with a different point of view?

   Hansard source
4. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Stuart Andrew

   Health Bill

   Does my hon. Friend agree that Donna Ockenden’s report into what happened in Nottingham, particularly the harrowing stories of the mortuary issues there, adds to the case that she is making?

   Hansard source
5. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Sir Oliver Dowden

   Falkland Islands: Sovereignty

   The problem is that the Argentinians can smell weakness because of our approach to the Iranians’ attacks on two British bases earlier this year. Will the Minister therefore be clear that, in the light of Iranian threats to our bases this time round, we will not just seek to intercept the missiles attacking them, but attack targets in Iran if they attack our bases? That sort of signal of intent is required in relation to our overseas territories.

   Hansard source
6. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Sir Oliver Dowden

   Israel and Palestine

   Many of my Jewish constituents have very grave concerns about the conduct of the current Israeli Government. However, Israel is the Jewish homeland, and I think many of them are concerned about the content of the statement, the highly political tone of the briefing around it and its timing before Israelis themselves can decide in an election—a democratic election. In all of that, the message they are getting is that the current Government no longer regard Israel as a friend, and that heaps pressure on an already beleaguered Jewish population. What does the Foreign Secretary say to my constituents, many of whom are simply giving up on this country?

   Hansard source
7. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Sir Mel Stride

   Topical Questions

   May I welcome the Chancellor to his position and thank him for his kind remarks earlier? May I also wish him every success, because I am afraid that under this Government we need some? He will know that if we are to fix the economy, we have to fix the welfare bill. Will he give a commitment today that at the Budget next month, he will come to the House with a comprehensive plan for how he will arrest the burgeoning welfare bill? He and I know that failure to do so will lead to millions of hard-working people and hundreds of thousands of businesses up and down the country facing unnecessary and unacceptable tax increases.

   Hansard source
8. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

   Falkland Islands: Sovereignty

   Do the Government accept that in order to deter any possibility of military action against the Falklands, it is important not to send the wrong signals? In 1982 there was the withdrawal of HMS Endurance specifically, but there were also huge anti-nuclear campaigns that sent the wrong message to aggressors around the world. Can the Government confirm that, this time, they will not send the wrong signals—over Diego Garcia, for example—or any suggestion that we do not have the naval and air assets to deter and, if necessary, to defend?

   Hansard source
9. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

   Israel and Palestine

   Does the Foreign Secretary agree that this action is unlikely to affect the policy of the Netanyahu Government? As I hardly need to remind him, Israel is a parliamentary democracy. Has he reason to believe that this action might affect the policy of the Israeli Opposition, and did he have any contact with the Israeli Opposition parties before coming to that conclusion?

   Hansard source
10. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Online Safety

    I also welcome the statement. I would be grateful if the Secretary of State shared with the House a little bit about how the highly efficient age assurance system actually works. In particular, I confess to the fact that over 60 years ago my parents, recognising that my sister and I were rather precocious readers, lent us their tickets to the senior library, rather than the junior library where we were confined. What would there be to prevent a parent choosing to allow a child to use their phone under their identity, and would there be a penalty for doing so?

    Hansard source
11. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Sir John Whittingdale

    Media Green Paper

    I beg to move, That this House has considered the Media Green Paper. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I am grateful for this opportunity to debate the media Green Paper, a hugely consequential document that has profound implications for all our broadcasters, news publishers and technology companies. I welcome a lot that is contained within it. Nevertheless, it contains some extremely controversial proposals, and I regret that Parliament has not really had an opportunity to debate them since its publication. The consultation period has now come to an end, so I hope that the Minister will still take account of my contribution and those of other Members when considering the way forward. It is also regrettable that we have only an hour. I will try to keep my speech brief, because quite a few Members have made the effort to attend. I will focus on two issues that are perhaps the most controversial in the Green Paper. On the first—the suggestion that in 2034 we should move towards wholly internet protocol TV and discontinue digital terrestrial transition—I am generally supportive of the Government. There are clear benefits to doing so. It will represent a considerable cost saving to the broadcasters, as outlined in the Green Paper. Secondly, it will free up spectrum, for which there could be any number of alternative uses, and that will undoubtedly provide additional value to consumers. The third reason I welcome it is that it opens up an option on the other big issue, which is the subject of a different Green Paper and is perhaps the elephant in the room: the future of the BBC. The biggest argument against moving towards an element of subscription, at least, in the BBC is that that cannot be done while the BBC is subject to digital terrestrial transmission.

    Hansard source
12. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Sir John Whittingdale

    Media Green Paper

    My right hon. Friend asks a perfectly valid question, and I want to acknowledge that there are concerns. We had a debate in Westminster Hall not that long ago, and a number of my colleagues—particularly from Scotland—turned up to express concern about the fact that the quality of reception via broadband in their constituencies is very poor and that the consequence of switching off DTT might be to prevent them from receiving television at all. That is clearly unacceptable. The proposal can go ahead only if we reach the position to which the Labour and Conservative Governments have aspired: universal access to high-speed broadband of sufficient quality to allow IPTV to be received.

    Hansard source
13. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Sir John Whittingdale

    Media Green Paper

    I strongly agree, and that is the point that I was coming to next. A lot of the towers in the transmission network, which broadcasts digital terrestrial transmission, are owned by Arqiva, and they also carry the transmitters for commercial radio. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that if we turn off the television transmission, all the costs get loaded on to the remaining broadcasters—that is, the commercial radio stations. I therefore hope that the Minister will at least address that too, because the estimate that I saw is that it will potentially result in an increase in costs of more than 50% a year for commercial radio stations.

    Hansard source
14. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Sir John Whittingdale

    Media Green Paper

    The hon. Member is completely right that this issue must be addressed before we proceed. There is also the question of cost, raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke). There are people who probably do have access to broadband, if they choose to pay for it, but they cannot afford to do so. They, too, would be severely affected if they were suddenly unable to receive television by that means. I support the ambition to reach a point in 2034 when we will be able to switch off DTT, but serious questions need to be addressed before we reach that point. I will turn to the other major issue of twofold concern, because the Government are advancing two parallel policies on the question of prominence. I was the Minister responsible for the passage of the Media Act 2024, during the previous Parliament. It is a great delight to see some familiar faces with whom I have worked with in the past on the officials’ Bench. The Media Act was all about ensuring that our public service broadcasters were still highly visible in a world where people are getting smart, connected TVs. It simply maintained the prominence requirements, which was important, as all the broadcasters agreed. It is now suggested that the same prominence should be extended to video-sharing platforms. I recognise and agree with the Government’s concern about the prominence of disinformation. I sit on the Foreign Affairs Committee, which did a big inquiry into disinformation. The best counter to disinformation is accurate, sourced, objective journalistic content, of the kind that public service broadcasters provide. Nevertheless, YouTube, the main video-sharing platform under discussion, was never intended <span id="323WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="323WH"></span>as the vehicle for the big broadcasters. It is all about user-generated content. There is real concern that if the main broadcasters are pushed into greater prominence, some people will get less prominence. Those are the creators, start-ups and user-generated content. That undermines one of the original purposes of YouTube.

    Hansard source
15. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Sir John Whittingdale

    Media Green Paper

    As one of the originators of the local democracy reporting service, of course I agree with my hon. Friend. It is incredibly important to have a thriving local media sector, and the BBC plays an important role in maintaining that. Anything that promotes BBC content would, I hope, equally promote local content, which has not had the same degree of attention that it deserves.

    Hansard source
16. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Sir John Whittingdale

    Media Green Paper

    That is perhaps even more relevant to the second prong of the Government’s proposals, which is about social media. I will come to that point, but before I finish talking about local media, I want to mention that another of the Government’s flagship policies is devolution. If we are to have more power given to local authorities, mayors and unitary authorities, people need to know what they are doing, and the absence of local media is a real problem in that respect. It will become ever more important to promote local media. Lastly, I want to come to the second prong, which is about the prominence or promotion of trusted news providers on social media. I have to say that this policy gives me some considerable concern. There are lots of problems around definition. First, what is news? Secondly, what does “prominence” mean for a social media platform on which people access a personalised feed based on their previous content choices? There are practical difficulties with that. I know the Government have already put in place the concept of recognised news publishers under the Online Safety Act 2023, but that had a very different purpose. The problem I have is with the idea that a Government agency of some kind will be saying, “This is a trusted <span id="324WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="324WH"></span>news provider, and therefore this is not,” and deciding, or at least seeking to influence, where those providers appear in people’s feeds. I take the point from the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) that young people are turning more and more to social media, but I do not think that this policy is the answer, because it looks to me like a very dangerous extension of Government interference in the freedom of the press and the right to free speech. I would like the Minister’s assurance that there is no linkage intended to any form of regulation. The idea that perhaps news providers might be given prominence if they accept a regulatory structure that the Government want would be equally dangerous. In some ways, I think that this problem is better addressed by the measures that we have already put in place. We have the digital markets competition regime, which is only just coming into effect. The Competition and Markets Authority could be doing much more to require the platforms to make public the algorithms they use to promote content. Before we go down that road, which carries real jeopardy, I hope that we will look instead to use some other measures that have already been put in place to ensure that reputable news providers get the position that they deserve in search terms and search, and also the rewards attached to them.

    Hansard source
17. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Sir John Whittingdale

    Media Green Paper

    I thank all hon. Members who have participated in the debate. The number of Members present indicates that this is a subject that deserved more than an hour; I welcome the Minister’s recognition of that point and his suggestion that there may be further opportunities to come. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to put on the record some points about which I have concerns. I look forward to the Government’s coming forward with further proposals once the consultation has been considered. <em>Question put and agreed to.</em> <em>Resolved,</em> That this House has considered the Media Green Paper.

    Hansard source
18. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Sir John Whittingdale

    Falkland Islands: Sovereignty

    The UK’s success in liberating the Falklands in 1982 was achieved when we had considerably greater naval resources, but it also could not have been achieved without the support of the Reagan Administration. Does the Minister not agree that that shows why it is extremely important to maintain close relations with the United States and not do anything to put those in jeopardy?

    Hansard source
19. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Wright

    Online Safety

    I welcome the intent that the Secretary of State has set out this afternoon, and the urgency with which she will require the relevant companies to act. I think she knows that I sympathise with the Government in respect of the complexity of this legislative area and the challenge that they face, but she may also know that my ongoing concern has been the compatibility of the individual measures that the Government may take with the ongoing responsibilities of these companies under the Online Safety Act. Would she be prepared to meet me to discuss that in a little more detail?

    Hansard source
20. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Hunt

    Public Sector Productivity

    <Question HRSContentId="{93C1521A-407A-4E84-8BC7-37B0CA64DAD4}">7. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{A4916A98-6258-4585-A000-5A7D4A1F75E4}">What steps he is taking to improve public sector productivity. </QuestionText></Question>

    Hansard source
21. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Hunt

    Public Sector Productivity

    May I welcome the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to her new role? If she has any questions, may I recommend an excellent book by a former Chancellor, which has a number of tips? <em>[</em><em>Laughter.</em><em>]</em> The public sector is 20% of our national output, so it offers a major opportunity for the Government to improve our national productivity. Was it wise to give the ASLEF train drivers on the Avanti West Coast route an above-inflation pay rise without any apparent productivity quid pro quo? With the public finances so tight, should the rule not be that above-inflation increases must have productivity gains sitting alongside them?

    Hansard source
22. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Sir Iain Duncan Smith

    World Suicide Prevention Day

    The hon. Lady is reading out a list of very good charities; I congratulate her on securing this debate. May I draw her attention to Ripple and Alice Hendy, to whom we at the Centre for Social Justice gave an award? Her “brown shield” technical device means that every time someone searches for a harmful site, something pops up to tell them where they can go for help and support. That has had a huge effect and needs to be rolled out further into schools and so on. I know that the hon. Lady knows that charity.

    Hansard source
23. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Sir Iain Duncan Smith

    Conflict in Sudan

    It is a pleasure, Dr Allin-Khan, to serve with you in the Chair for this vital debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Naushabah Khan) on securing it. It is a sad fact of life in Parliament that we have not debated this issue enough, including on the Floor of the House of Commons, because the death toll in Sudan dwarfs anything else that is going on around the world at the moment, despite the amount of time that we spend discussing issues other than this one. I absolutely agree with the figures that the hon. Lady cited about the terrible death toll in Sudan, which is something in the order of 400,000, yet I suspect that even that is an underestimate. If it is, perhaps between 1 million and 1.5 million people in Sudan have been killed or wounded just in the direct conflict. Then, of course, there are all the people who have been displaced; she also gave those figures and I absolutely agree with them, too. Today, I will focus on following the money, because it seems to me that if we were to stop the money, we would stop the war. In particular, I will focus on the role of the UAE in all of this, which I think is an abomination. Frankly, the UAE’s Administration is a disgraceful one anyway, and I will go on to say why.<span id="301WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="301WH"></span> It is now absolutely clear, from the work of the prominent human rights organisations and many media outlets that have conducted investigations into RSF fighters, that those fighters are using weapons supplied by the UAE. If not manufactured in the UAE, the weapons are certainly re-exported to them on a regular basis and in vast numbers, along with ammunition. Furthermore, Colombian mercenaries have arrived in Sudan, who were no doubt recruited from an organisation that is very close to the leadership of the UAE. In September 2025, the Government of Sudan estimated that the number of Colombian mercenaries in Sudan was getting on for 500, but other estimates suggest that the real number is between 1,500 and 2,000, and growing. We believe that that is the direct result of what has been happening in the UAE. The Global Security Services Group is the organisation contracted to hire those people, and it is also involved in the supply of weapons. The GSSG is owned by an Emirati businessman, Mohamed Hamdan Alzaabi, who has business interests in security firms jointly with Ahmed Mohamed Al Hameeri, the secretary-general of the UAE’s Presidential Court. The links to what is going on in Sudan have been very clearly established. GSSG continues to be closely tied to the Government of the UAE. Its website states that it is the preferred security provider for the UAE’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Presidential Affairs, and there is evidence that two military bases in Abu Dhabi were used as training facilities for mercenaries—the list goes on. My question to the UK Government is this: why in heaven’s name are we not sanctioning key operatives in the UAE now? I am the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Magnitsky sanctions and reparation, and I say that it is high time that we imposed sanctions on those key UAE operatives. We can also look at the links back to Sheikh Mansour, who has well-documented ties with the leader of the RSF, Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, and has even been described as Hamdan Dagalo’s closest ally in the UAE. In March 2023, Premier League clubs, apparently unanimously, that they would not allow individuals involved in human rights abuses to own clubs, yet Mansour is still in charge of Manchester City. The question is, why, and why are the Government so determined not to pursue these individuals? I suspect that the reason involves a lot of money in investments and the ownership of football teams, but that should not stop the Government from pursuing these people, because the UAE would be very suspect in that. Even if that were not enough, the UAE is involved in the most appalling abuse. British citizen Ryan Cornelius has spent 18 years incarcerated, even though the UN has claimed that that is completely wrong and unjudicial and that he should be released. The Abu Dhabi bank has continued to pursue him, and he has not seen his family for close on 19 years now. He is a British citizen, but how often have representatives of successive Governments, when they have visited the UAE, named him or said anything about him? The answer is “Very rarely.” All they do is tokenistically raise the issue and move on, as they pursue more money. We know that Mohammed Ibrahim al-Shaibani, who is the chair of the Dubai Islamic bank and head of the Dubai Ruler’s Court, is responsible for Ryan’s detention for 18 years and is very close to the leadership of UAE. <span id="302WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="302WH"></span>It is time that we cracked down on this organisation and showed it to be the pariah that it is. It is behind all that is going on in Sudan and the abuses of British citizens who should be released. Unless the Government are prepared to step up, sanction key individuals, and prevent them from owning football teams, investing in the United Kingdom and enjoying their shopping trips here, we will not be the nation that we should be.

    Hansard source
24. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Sir Iain Duncan Smith

    Falkland Islands: Sovereignty

    When the Government deal with our allies and friends the Americans, they might remind them about the disputed islands that they are in charge of—Wake Island, Navassa Island, Bajo, Swains Island, Guantanamo Bay—all of which have been supported by the United Kingdom. Should we think about not supporting them? Of course not, but we might just mention them. When we retook the Falklands, the British Government had at their hands 52 frigates and destroyers and well over 100,000 soldiers and naval personnel. Does the Minister not think that the best message we could send would be to get our defences back up?

    Hansard source
25. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

    Israel and Palestine

    Those of us who love the Jewish people and faith know that the reason why they have overcome all the empires that have tried to destroy them is that they are primarily people of the book and not the sword, but what is happening in the west bank is violent and egregious. It is worse than stopping the two-state solution; it is ethnic cleansing. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Israeli Government could quite easily differentiate between general trade and trade to these illegal settlements? Does he agree that there is no reason, when our country fully supports the right of Israel to defend itself, why this should affect our intelligence relationship? As the longest serving member of the Conservative Friends of Israel, I am proud to say that I absolutely and fully support what he is doing today, because it is about standing up for freedom, for morality and for justice for all people in this world.

    Hansard source
26. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Sir Desmond Swayne

    Israel and Palestine

    I join that long list of UK Ministers who have raised, at the very highest level in Israel, the most egregious practices in the west bank, designed specifically to prevent a two-state solution, only for Israeli policy to double down. Accordingly, I congratulate the Secretary of State.

    Hansard source
27. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Sir Christopher Chope

    Safety of the Jewish Community

    Order. I am afraid we now have to move on to the wind-ups.

    Hansard source
28. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Sir Christopher Chope

    Safety of the Jewish Community

    I did not impose a time limit, but there is always half an hour at the end for the wind-ups. You have been a Member of this House now for over two years. You must realise that in an hour-and-a-half debate, there is an hour for the speeches and half an hour for the wind-ups.

    Hansard source
29. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Sir Christopher Chope

    Safety of the Jewish Community

    You are shaking your head; I am sorry you have not been able to learn on the job, but I am not going to accept criticism for calling the Front Benchers at half-past to enable them all to participate in this debate and, hopefully, give a chance for the person who initiated it to have a few words at the end. I am almost lost for words, because the hon. Gentleman should have realised when we got to half-past that that was the end of the time for Back Benchers and when the Front Benchers start speaking. But anyway, perhaps—

    Hansard source
30. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Sir Christopher Chope

    Safety of the Jewish Community

    No, I am not going to accept a further point of order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will learn from what has happened this morning.

    Hansard source
31. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Sir Bernard Jenkin

    Artificial Superintelligence

    I am as keen as anybody to get on with discussing the Health Bill, but this topic is too serious an opportunity to miss, given that the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) has raised such important issues. I really commend his speech and his initiative. Everybody should read it.<span id="939" class="column-number" data-column-number="939"></span> All I want to say is that a kind of unilateral disarmament on AI is not going to solve the international problem. China, Russia, North Korea, Iran: these are not respecters of international treaties or international laws, even if they were to sign such treaties or laws, and we do not want to disable our own industry. The jury is out on whether AI is an extinction-threatening phenomenon, but I really do commend the hon. Member for raising the topic. I hope he will forgive me for opposing the Bill because I want the debate to continue. <em>Question put (Standing Order No. 23) and agreed to.</em> <em>Ordered,</em> That Alex Sobel, Jess Asato, John McDonnell, Afzal Khan, Dr Allison Gardner, Bambos Charalambous, Sir Desmond Swayne, Charlie Maynard, Manuela Perteghella, Ben Lake, Yasmin Qureshi and Wera Hobhouse present the Bill. Alex Sobel accordingly presented the Bill. <em>Bill read the first time; to be read a </em><em>S</em><em>econd time</em><em> on </em><em>Friday 13 November</em><em>, </em><em>and to be printed (Bill 142).</em>

    Hansard source
32. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Sir Bernard Jenkin

    Health Bill

    Will the Minister give way?

    Hansard source
33. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Sir Bernard Jenkin

    Health Bill

    On the question of how the CQC leadership becomes conflicted, will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that, in an Adjournment debate I held in July, the then Patient Safety Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), made it clear that the person responsible for deciding what safe space information might be released would be the chief executive of the CQC? If the chief executive of the CQC is to see all that information, how would he or she not be able to use it, or be tempted to use it, when he or she inspects hospitals for the purposes of the CQC? Would the safe space not then be hopelessly conflicted, and therefore lose public confidence?

    Hansard source
34. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Sir Bernard Jenkin

    Health Bill

    I would very much have liked to have discussed the medical devices questions arising from the Bill. The Minister made an incredibly short speech about that important matter. It is quite clear that these provisions are part of the covert dynamic alignment with the EU and the covert rejoin agenda being pursued by the Government. It raises all sorts of constitutional questions, but those are not for today. I will concentrate on HSSIB. I rise to support amendments 1 to 4, which would remove the abolition of HSSIB from the Bill. The Government have singularly failed to make the case for removing this crucial safety investigation function. It did not exist until recently, and now they want to scrub it out. I suspect that is because too many people in the health system do not like being held to account by an independent investigative body.

    Hansard source
35. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Sir Bernard Jenkin

    Health Bill

    The Minister shakes her head, but she is yet to give a good reason as to why this measure is in the Bill. When we had an Adjournment debate in July with the then Minister for patient safety, the hon. Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), she could not answer the question of who would conduct independent safety investigations in the NHS after the abolition of HSSIB. She said that safety investigations would be conducted by the Care Quality Commission, but she could not actually claim that they would be independent; as my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) demonstrated, they would not be. If, as it seems, it is intended that safety investigations should be carried out by the CQC unaffected by the transfer, why make the transfer at all? How much is this transfer going to cost? I asked the Minister, in a letter I sent her after the debate in July, to give us the information on how much the transfer of all this would cost. Nothing has arrived. I never had a reply to the letter. Of course, the Government have changed the Minister and the new Minister for patient safety, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), is not in the House today. I <span id="985" class="column-number" data-column-number="985"></span>rather suspect that she is more sympathetic to this argument than the Minister sitting on the Front Bench today. In our earlier exchanges we discovered and once again exposed how the safe space will be brutally compromised by the fact that it will be housed in a regulator with, inevitably, other ulterior motives. The chief executive of the CQC is wantonly conflicted in terms of looking after the safe space, so he cannot be the one left in charge of that function. The real point here is that we are missing the opportunity to save so much money. Governments keep having public inquiries. The EPUT—Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust—public inquiry, affecting my constituency, cost in its first year £5 million, and in its second year it is costing another £5 million. The whole budget for HSSIB was only £6.3 million a year, yet it does scores of investigations, not just one inquiry. The Ockenden inquiry cost £14 million. If we could save just a fraction of the cost of medical negligence, which is £3.6 billion a year, HSSIB would pay for itself.

    Hansard source
36. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Sir Bernard Jenkin

    Health Bill

    Will the Minister give way?

    Hansard source
37. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

    Online Safety

    Children are facing unacceptable levels of sexual harm online, and they need protection. When the Government do the right thing, I will say so, although it has taken them rather a long time to get to the right place. Many children use older phones handed down by family members. How will the Secretary of State ensure that children using devices with older operating systems are fully protected?

    Hansard source
38. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Sir Alec Shelbrooke

    Media Green Paper

    I just want to pick up something, because I have not studied the proposal to turn off the digital Freeview signal in enough detail. Every house would need an internet supply, so would that supply be provided free or would people have to subscribe to get it in?

    Hansard source
39. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Sir Alec Shelbrooke

    Media Green Paper

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. Universal accessibility is vital in this debate. I agree with much of what has been said so far, but I am concerned about the switch-off of free-to-air as it stands. In the year I was elected, 2010, there were strong proposals to switch off the FM and AM signals. We are now 16 years down the line, and long-wave has just been switched off; the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) about losing the ability to do a long-wave broadcast are important to bear in mind. We keep talking about the technology moving along and about being able to access broadcasts on cables and the internet, but that will never be true for people who live on canal boats, for example. With digital television, these days someone can just stick up a Squarial, point it in roughly the right direction and get their television channels—my wife and I have taken holidays in a canal boat and in a camper van, and we have been able to do that. A camper van is slightly different, because it is probably used more for leisure purposes, but there are people who live on canal boats. How are they going to get an internet connection? Technology may move on, but it worries me that we say, “In order to solve this problem and that problem, you are going to have to buy or rent something, or in some way or another enter into a contract to receive something that you currently get free.” The BBC is one of the most valuable institutions this country has, because it is able to be a public service broadcaster. It loses its way at times, when chasing ratings and saying that it has to be in competition, on some things that only a public service broadcaster can deliver. If we say that people will have to pay something or other to be able to get television, surely that completely destroys a licence fee. People will be not only taxed to watch television, but charged again to actually be able to use the thing that they are paying a tax on. The BBC has to maintain a free-to-air service, however that is delivered. I am not sure that that technology is there yet but, once it is, it will be vital that people are not charged for it. The way forward is having tried and tested technology. A lot of us went out and bought DAB radios when they came out. Most of those DAB radios are now in the bin, because DAB+ was brought out and Classic FM stopped broadcasting on DAB; my previous car did not have DAB+, so I had to go back to FM to listen. I am sure we all have certain digital radio sets that now do not pick up many channels at all. The industry changing what a person can receive on, after they have already invested in new equipment, is also something that must be looked at. My constituency has a lot of people who live on canal boats; I am sure many other constituencies do too. We must give careful consideration to those areas: where there is not a solid land point of contact permanently, how are we going to make sure that people receive the <span id="329WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="329WH"></span>things that they currently get and pay a licence fee for? The licence fee is not a television licence fee; it is a licence fee, because it covers the radio broadcast as well. If it slowly gets to the point where people say, “I am already paying for this, so I am not going to pay for that,” it will remove a whole host of radio, and I think that radio is the most important thing that the BBC does. I very rarely watch television news now, because it is just a second-by-second diatribe as the broadcasters try to fill in a gap all day long, whereas anyone who listens to radio news will actually get the news in half an hour. There is probably more news in the 6 o’clock news on Radio 4 than in two hours on one of the other broadcasters. There are some very sensible programmes; it is a great pity that “The World Tonight” is coming to an end, although replacing it with “Newshour” from the World Service could be very useful. However, there could be some unforeseen circumstances if we are asking people to pay twice. Given the reputation of the television licence, they may stop paying it. Fundamentally, I want to make sure that we do not take away the ability even to receive television, and that we keep considering whether people may be land-based and whether they can get that connection.

    Hansard source
40. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Sir Alec Shelbrooke

    Media Green Paper

    On that note, does my hon. Friend also make that link to the licence fee? The reason we have a licence fee, rather than paying through general taxation, is so that the BBC does not fear decisions that Ministers may make. The Government say they want to renew the licence fee, but at the same time are putting in place something that would take away the very reason for a licence fee instead of taxation.

    Hansard source