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

1. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

   Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

   Not on that point. We may wish to reflect on how we might change our approach to Bills like this one in the future, given the significant dissatisfaction that has been expressed with the manner in which it has been considered, even though it has been done in the ordinary way. But we are where we are. As on Second Reading, this debate has been a balancing exercise. The promoter of the Bill and others have appropriately reminded us all of the very difficult and tragic experiences faced by the terminally ill and their families, but I respectfully say to the hon. Member for Spen Valley that we should be cautious in saying that opponents of the Bill are happy with the status quo, and I know that she would not have meant to suggest that.

   Hansard source
2. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

   Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

   My hon. Friend has added his concerns to those of others about the manner in which the debate has been conducted, but I reiterate that this has been done in the ordinary manner in terms of the Speaker’s discretion and the Standing Orders of the House. Opponents of the Bill are concerned that it will lead to a different set of unacceptable circumstances for different people; it is not that they are happy with how things are at the moment. All MPs have talked about people they care deeply about and how to help them. Whether they referred to disabled people, young people or the terminally ill, MPs have been speaking out in support of or against amendments, out of concern and compassion. I may be tempting fate in saying that we might find consensus on advertising restrictions, but outside of that, Members have undoubtedly expressed a variety of strong views on others’ amendments. It may be that Members vote consistently in line with whether they were originally for or against assisted dying, but other Members who are supportive of the Bill in principle are voting for restrictive amendments because they think that they are necessary. That is because this is a complex moral, legal and societal matter. I understand that Members are considering their votes with a degree of uncertainty. There should be no shame at all in Members’ admitting that they will be daunted by the sheer number of potential changes to the Bill, not to mention the decisions from the Speaker on those we are going to vote on or the challenge of deciding how to vote on each of them, either today or on a future day.

   Hansard source
3. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

   Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

   No, I need to make progress. They will be daunted not least because, although we have international examples, we are considering a novel practice in this country in our particular circumstances. Members who are generally supportive or opposed in principle may choose to abstain on a number of amendments on which they feel that they are unable to give a definitive view and are content to vote on the final outcome on Third Reading. That would be understandable. I know that Members have considered how they will vote very carefully, and that they will continue to do so, by taking into account their views and experiences, as well as those of their constituents, other Members whom they respect, and experts and campaigning organisations. We will all be directly accountable to our constituents at the next election for all our votes throughout this Parliament. That brings me to the remarks that I said I would like to finish with on the responsibilities of the public and campaigners towards MPs as they consider our votes. As we are first and foremost public servants, the focus is quite rightly usually almost entirely on the responsibility of MPs to the public, but as with all meaningful relationships, this is, and should always be, a two-way street. I accept the very strong feelings and deeply personal experiences that are brought to bear for those people contacting their MPs, and nothing I say should be taken as diminishing the rights of campaigners to make their cases strongly and consistently, but I and others have experienced lobbying by campaigners whose passion for securing the outcome they want has led them to question the integrity, sincerity or understanding of those MPs seeking a different outcome to them. Some high-profile campaigners have made unhelpful remarks. Although I am not religious, I was concerned to see the clumsy criticism of those whose objections to the Bill are thought to be centred in their religious beliefs, as was mentioned by the hon. Members for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) and for Lowestoft (Jess Asato).

   Hansard source
4. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

   Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

   I need to make progress. I say that not least because I suspect that a very large number of supporters of the Bill might draw on their Christian or other religious compassion to explain why they want to see it pass. There was widespread reporting of how powerful the Second Reading debate was in showcasing the best of Parliament, with thoughtful debate and a consideration of nuanced and varied viewpoints. If Parliament demonstrates itself at its best, that creates a call for the public to do the same.

   Hansard source
5. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

   Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

   I have expressed my views on that matter. I understand why Members are concerned, but it has been in order, and at your discretion, Mr Speaker. MPs who disagree with campaigners’ views for or against assisted dying are not uncaring or lacking in compassion. They have not failed to understand the arguments; they have just inevitably disagreed with at least some of their constituents. I urge campaigners to use their passion and commitment to the cause to fuel their campaigning, as is their right, but to pause and reach understanding before criticising an MP simply because they have reached a different view on a very challenging matter. In a democracy, the public are as important as politicians in determining the quality of our discourse. I hope that my remarks remind people of that, and encourage them to aspire to be the best example of the behaviour that they want to see from their elected representatives, just as we have seen again in the Chamber today.

   Hansard source
6. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

   Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

   Will the hon. Lady give way?

   Hansard source
7. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

   Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

   Will the hon. Lady give way?

   Hansard source
8. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

   Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

   Will the hon. Lady give way?

   Hansard source
9. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

   Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

   Persistence pays off. When considering the Bill, I had presumed that the doctor concerned would be a senior clinician—a senior doctor—but page 63 of the impact assessment refers to pre-registration doctors, who have just completed medical school and are on a provisional registration. Will the hon. Lady confirm that it is her intention that the provisions in the Bill may be carried out by the most junior doctors, as well as by more senior consultants and general practitioners?

   Hansard source
10. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

    Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    Will my hon. Friend give way?

    Hansard source
11. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

    Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    rose—

    Hansard source
12. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

    Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    I rise to support the hon. Lady’s new clause 1. As a doctor, I am very aware of the trust that the public place in doctors and the seriousness with which they take what we say. If a doctor gives somebody information about assisted dying, it is quite reasonable for that person to think that the doctor is suggesting that they should take part in that process, or is hinting that their death will be dreadful and trying to be kind. If doctors are allowed to say, “This is a good process,” more people will take it up than would otherwise have wanted to.

    Hansard source
13. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

    Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    I rise to speak to amendments 18, 30, 31, 17 and 32, which stand in my name. I will start with amendment 18. Many moral arguments on the need for the Bill have been proposed both inside and outside this place. Some of those arguments have addressed the desire for greater control at the end of life, but the vast majority have focused on the prevention of irreversible suffering. The principle of bodily autonomy—which I strongly support in the context of full decision-making capacity, with certain important caveats—is used to justify the rights that the Bill will grant. However, let us put aside the debate surrounding the Bill and focus on the text of the clauses, which is the task that we face on Report. The provisions are silent on suffering, silent on control and silent on all but a terminal illness with a prognosis of fewer than six months. If the principle is that we must prevent irreversible suffering, all those suffering irreversibly should be able to seek physician-assisted suicide. If the principle is that we should give people control—another level of expression of bodily autonomy—all adults who truly and freely consent with full decision-making capacity should be able to seek physician-assisted suicide. If those principles are circumscribed to an arbitrary definition of “terminal illness”, the inexorable conclusion must be that those patients’ suffering or autonomy are more important than those of others, or that their lives have less value. We have seen that position subtly imported into this debate. When requesting an assisted death is not framed as suicide because some perceive it as understandable, the underlying argument is, “If you’re terminally ill, of course you want to die—that’s understandable.” We must ensure that we do not, by accident or otherwise, enshrine in our statute book value judgments on the worth of the lives of the terminally ill or on the protections that they should enjoy like everyone else. I tabled amendment 18 to expand the scope of the Bill as much as I can to reduce the discrimination inherent within it. The maximum I could do was to remove the six-month restriction, but I wish the amendment could go further. I know that some Members will wince at this provision, but I ask them to ask themselves what the principles and values in the Bill are, how they are being applied and whether they are being applied equally. I believe that the Bill as drafted is incoherent and discriminatory. My amendment would introduce some moral clarity to the Bill. If we do not do so, the courts will. I turn to amendments 30 and 31. If we are to rely on the principle of autonomy to authorise physician-assisted suicide for terminal illness, the expressed choice must be true and free. Autonomy needs help, though. A true and free choice needs to be informed; a true and free choice cannot be made under coercion; a true and free choice requires decision-making capacity. I believe that, if we are to rely on the principle of autonomy for the most grave of decisions, there needs to actually be a choice. In the absence of relevant and available palliative care options, where is the choice? How can we rely on autonomy in the absence of choice? The prospect of people choosing physician-assisted suicide not because it meets their needs, but because their needs are unmet owing to a failure in the provision of palliative care, is a moral outrage. My amendments 30 and 31 would ensure that that does not happen.

    Hansard source
14. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

    Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    I am sorry but I really cannot, given the time restrictions. Amendment 17 pertains to the test of decision-making capacity. In English and Welsh law, we use the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to define capacity, and I believe it is right that the functional test of capacity is used in this Bill. We have common law tests of capacity in some circumstances, which arose before we had the Mental Capacity Act. However, the decision to end one’s own life was not permitted in the early case law leading up to that Act. There is no jurisprudence background or guidance. These capacity tests have not been done before. This test needs a bit more of a framework of support. Amendment 17 lays out the minimum information that needs to be understood as part of the functional test of capacity. Critically, that would include information about the current treatment options, about doing nothing and about proceeding under this legislation. It would make clear that physician-assisted suicide is not a medical treatment, but a personal choice about life and death. Without amendment 17, this Bill will fundamentally undermine the doctor-patient relationship. Doctors do not prescribe death, and this Bill must make that clear. I turn finally to my amendment 32. There has been some discussion about the inadequacies of the decision-making capacity test as gatekeeper. In effect, there may be circumstances in which, despite having capacity, the person is otherwise recognised as vulnerable. That is how our courts operate. The impact of depression or personality disorder on decision-making capacity can be subtle and elusive. I know, as I used to be a consultant liaison psychiatrist and did research in the area of decision-making capacity. This is tricky stuff to do, especially in the context of a request for an intervention, rather than a refusal. We should have trained psychiatrists at an early stage assessing capacity. They are expert at picking up these subtle cues and all the other stuff that is going on. A request for physician-assisted suicide should not be taken in isolation, and that needs to be understood and supported. We need someone who knows how to use the Mental Health Act, because if a doctor is doing the assessment, and they have a patient in front of them with a mental disorder, expressing a desire to end their life, they need to make sure that that patient gets the right and appropriate treatment. That may well be using the Mental Health Act. We need to make sure that this happens; I hope it would happen as part of the process as usual, but there is no safeguard in the Bill to make sure that it does. Psychiatrists turning up on the panel at the end is not good enough; they need to be there from the start. Finally, there are broader issues about the interaction with protections to save life, article 2, and a doctor’s duties. I will cover those in the debate on the second grouping, along with the incredible importance of the Bill’s interaction with the suicide prevention strategy.

    Hansard source
15. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

    Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    Will the Minister give way?

    Hansard source
16. 16 May 2025·Parliament·David Mundell

    Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    Will the hon. Lady give way?

    Hansard source
17. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Damian Hinds

    Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    For reasons of timeliness, I will speak only to amendment 101, which relates to adults with Down syndrome or a learning disability, although the amendment is directly relevant to new clause 1, as the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) spoke about. Amendment 101 would disallow medical practitioners from initiating a conversation about assisted dying with a person who has Down syndrome or a learning disability. I speak primarily from my experience, along with others, on the all-party parliamentary group on Down syndrome and what we have heard from members of that community: people with Down syndrome and their families, and professionals specialising in the condition. Many strong and deeply heartfelt arguments have been put by colleagues, and indeed to all of us by constituents in favour of the Bill, including by families in the most difficult circumstances to imagine—actually, they are sometimes unimaginable circumstances. Nobody could question the conclusions they have come to individually as a result of their circumstances. Equally deeply held and heartfelt points are made to us by people from the other perspective, also informed by their sometimes unimaginable own or family circumstances. Of the arguments put against the Bill, I am particularly drawn to those around coercion. However, it is important to remember that coercion is not entirely a black-and-white matter. At the sharpest end, there are cases where an individual will directly bring pressure to bear on another for their own ends, but there are many gradations below that, and pressure can be felt differently by different people. It may be felt especially by people who worry they are a burden on their family, on caregivers, on the national health service, or indeed more broadly on society. Once assisted dying is an available option, over and above the question of pressure from others, I worry about the effect of pressure from oneself. The Bill stipulates in clause 36 that the Secretary of State will issue a code of practice to ensure that the practitioner establishes that there is a “clear and settled intention” for the person to end their own life, including assessing that that person has “capacity to make such a decision”. That will have material challenges of its own. However, with regard to amendment 101, I am talking about the initiation, suggesting or raising of the matter specifically with an individual who has a learning disability or Down syndrome.

    Hansard source
18. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Damian Hinds

    Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    My right hon. Friend is right, of course. When we in this House are told that there will be secondary legislation, guidance or a code of practice, we can only ever take that on trust, and this subject is of such moment that what is on the face of the Bill is that much more important. Given the scale of the decisions that people could make as a result of this legislation, it is right that an additional layer of caution should be applied by legislators. Obviously, it is important not to generalise—every single person is an individual—but it is the case that people with Down syndrome often exhibit distinct social characteristics, including great sociability, empathy, and a strong desire to please others and seek positive social feedback, while also being particularly sensitive to criticism or perceived failure, which can compound issues around communication and comprehension. We do not need to define what can result as coercion to worry about what might happen in that context. Amendment 101 and new clause 1 are about initiating a conversation and ensuring that there are additional safeguards, and I urge the House to apply caution that is commensurate with the gravity of the path that could be embarked upon.

    Hansard source
19. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    May I gently suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he might be bringing his remarks to a close? There are many other Members who wish to contribute this afternoon.

    Hansard source
20. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    I thank the hon. Member for his point of order, but he will know that that is not a matter for the Chair. I remind the House that although there is no formal time limit, many Members wish to contribute in this very important debate and it would be helpful if Members could keep their remarks to within the eight minutes that was suggested.

    Hansard source
21. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    Order. May I respectfully remind hon. Members that on Report we debate the amendments to the Bill, not the process of how law is made?

    Hansard source
22. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    Order. Members will be aware that there are still many who wish to contribute to the debate. May I ask that contributions are kept to five minutes?

    Hansard source
23. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    Order. On that point, I remind Members that we are very short of time.

    Hansard source
24. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    It would be unprecedented to put a formal time limit on speeches. Please can Members listen to the stricture that we are very short on time? I call Lizzi Collinge.

    Hansard source
25. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    Order. Interventions also need to be brief.

    Hansard source
26. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    Order. I urge the few remaining Members who will get in to keep their remarks brief, please.

    Hansard source
27. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. She would not wish me to anticipate any decision on a closure motion at the current time, I hope. She makes a valid point that many Members who wish to speak this afternoon will be disappointed, but she will also know that there will be further debate on the second group of amendments.

    Hansard source
28. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    I reassure the hon. Lady that I have heard her point. I repeat that I will not make a pre-decision on any closure motion that has not yet been moved.

    Hansard source
29. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    Order. May I just clarify whether the hon. Gentleman was giving way?

    Hansard source
30. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    Gavi and the Global Fund

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. Let me start by congratulating the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) on securing this debate. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), who is a powerful advocate for global health—I think we can all see why he prefers to be on this side of the dais today rather than where you are, Ms Jardine. Global health is everybody’s health. This year we have significant replenishments for two organisations: Gavi and the Global Fund, which work on the frontline to secure our population against diseases, which do not respect borders. Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, is a unique alliance of Governments, private sector foundations, civil society organisations and vaccine manufacturers. As we have heard, Gavi has vaccinated more than 1 billion children in 78 low-income countries and saved more than 18.8 million lives. In 2025, Gavi is seeking its eighth replenishment for its five-year strategic period, from 2026 to 2030. It is an impressive organisation; since becoming a shadow Minister in November, I have been pleased to continue to meet Gavi regularly and participate in roundtables as it approaches this crucial milestone. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria invests in sustainable health systems to eradicate those three diseases. It has saved an estimated 65 million lives. The Global Fund’s eighth replenishment is also happening this year, and it will cover the funding period from 2026 to 2028. Global health is a good example of a positive impact that we can have through aid. If we look, for example, at neglected tropical diseases, we see that our science, technology and research sectors produced both of the world’s first malaria vaccines to be recommended by the World Health Organisation: Mosquirix and R21. During my time as Minister with responsibility for global health, I was fortunate enough to see the UK expertise in infectious diseases at first hand during a visit to the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, back in 2020. At the time, it was a Conservative Government who announced £15.5 million to support the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine in its research on preventing the spread of infectious diseases, such as tuberculosis, and in strengthening health systems in fragile countries. The UK is often cited as a leader in global health. In answers to several of my written questions on the topic—the Minister knows this well—Ministers start by saying: “The UK is one of the largest donors to Gavi”. They then give the reply that many right hon. and hon. Members will be accustomed to—that we need to wait until the spending review, and that all global health investments are being looked at in the round.

    Hansard source
31. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    Gavi and the Global Fund

    The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that Gavi has the ability to pull in many different donors, but perhaps the specific questions following the ODA cut should be directed to the Minister. Gavi is a good example of how partnership can deliver for the benefit of the most vulnerable. Conservative Governments made significant interventions that contributed to the UK’s reputation as a global health leader. In 2015, we pledged £1.44 billion to Gavi over five years, and in 2020, when we hosted the global vaccine summit, we committed a further £1.65 billion. During the last two Global Fund replenishments, we pledged £1 billion in 2022 and £1.46 billion in 2020. Those pledges to Gavi and the Global Fund were just one part of our leadership and efforts to strengthen global health, and an incredibly important one at that. I note from responses to my written questions that Ministers are often quite keen to highlight our record on global health, but I would like to take this opportunity to ask some questions about the Government’s record to date. Following the reduction in ODA to 0.3% of GNI, I ask the Minister: what does global health now look like from the strategic level of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office? It would be helpful to know where the priorities are and whether the Government plan to continue the emphasis on multilateral NGOs such as Gavi and the Global Fund, or whether other models are to be considered. Although the approach to global health may be changing under this Labour Government, the replenishment periods for Gavi and the Global Fund are rapidly approaching—in fact, Gavi’s is literally weeks away. I would therefore welcome some clarity from the Minister on the discussions he has had with representatives of both funds and other donor nations. I want to press him a little about the absence of any UK pledges to date. I have previously had no luck getting an answer on that through my written questions, so I will have another go today. Has he considered the impact of the UK’s apparent delay in pledging on our international reputation and our standing as a leader in global health?

    Hansard source
32. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    Gavi and the Global Fund

    The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I recall that during the last replenishment, there were many conversations going on to encourage other countries and partners to step up to the plate. The UK’s leadership had a real impact at that time. In a similar vein, what is the potential impact on other countries’ pledges? Is the Minister thinking about making a reduced commitment or no pledge at all? Rather than ongoing uncertainty, it would help other donors and NGOs to know what the UK is doing, so that they can plan. The Minister will be aware that there is a range of financial instruments available to him. One is the international finance facility for immunisation, through which £590 million of our £1.65 billion pledge in 2020 was distributed. IFFIm accelerates the delivery of vaccines by making the money from long-term Government donor pledges available immediately, allowing Gavi to vaccinate more individuals, faster. I would be grateful if the Minister updated us on any discussions he has had with Gavi and with IFFIm about its potential use to front-load any UK commitments.

    Hansard source
33. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    Gavi and the Global Fund

    That is a really interesting point, because IFFIm has proved what can be achieved by working with other instruments. I hope that the Government will examine the options. The Minister may be able to share that information; it is not for me to say what the Government should do, but perhaps the Minister can do so in his response to the debate. The global landscape of development is changing; we can see that across the rest of the world. For example, the US, which for so long has been an important anchor donor to a number of global health initiatives, has made dramatic reductions to USAID, so it would be helpful to know what discussions the Minister has had with his US counterparts and with other donor countries about co-ordinating our efforts, so we can maximise value for money in global health spend. I will conclude as I started, by saying that global health is everybody’s health. I pay enormous tribute to the Global Fund and Gavi, which harness the power of donations from taxpayers in countries like the UK to end preventable deaths from treatable diseases in some of the most vulnerable parts of the world. Global health may sometimes seem like an abstract concept, but we only have to look back at recent history to see that infectious diseases do not respect borders and that global solutions are needed to keep us all safe.

    Hansard source
34. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    Rail Services: North Wales

    The midlands rail hub was backed by the previous Government. It will unlock and drive economic growth across the west midlands and beyond, including into Wales, and improve the performance of existing rail services. When will the Secretary of State make an announcement in her review of that project, or is this just another example of the Treasury reversing or holding up investment in our region?

    Hansard source
35. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    Business of the House

    Like the Leader of the House, I am delighted that we will be having a debate on battery energy storage systems, but that is not my question for today. It will come as no surprise that I want to press her again on Aldridge train station. At Transport questions, I asked the Secretary of State a question, and she said that she would come back to me with an update and speak to Mayor Parker. Money has been taken away from the project, and I am struggling to get a response from the Mayor of the West Midlands to correspondence from months ago. Could the Leader of the House perhaps assist in that or offer us a debate in Government time on the importance of rail connectivity not just to my constituency but around the west midlands, particularly given that we await the review on the west midlands rail hub?

    Hansard source
36. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    Sanctions Implementation and Enforcement

    This is the third time in a week that the Minister and I have met across the Dispatch Box to debate sanctions. Once again, I thank him for advance sight of his statement. Sanctions are imperative in supporting the rules-based international system and punishing those who breach those rules. The last Conservative Government placed sanctions on Assad and his cruel regime, and helped to lead a co-ordinated approach with our allies on Syria. Britain put in place sanctions on Iran, and worked with the US to reaffirm our shared commitment to opposing those who threatened peace, security and stability in the middle east. In 2021, the UK put in place sanctions, including asset freezes, on Chinese Government officials for gross human rights abuses. Britain led international efforts to sanction Putin and those behind his war machine in response to Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. We put plans in place to set up the office of trade sanctions implementation, which, as the Minister said, was formally established in October. It was set up to bolster our trade sanctions capability, crack down on companies that breach trade sanctions, and co-ordinate across Government to ensure that sanctions are implemented effectively. At the time, the Minister announced a cross-Government review. We have not yet seen the report, but I wish to press the Minister on a few points. First, what changes are being made to the sanctions implementation and enforcement framework? What role does OTSI play in any changes? The Minister refers to robust action to increase sanctions evasion deterrence, but what specific measures are being considered? He also mentions a new enforcement strategy; when can we expect that to be published? I would welcome clarity on how the new joint sanctions intelligence function fits into our existing intelligence framework. How does he envisage that working with what we are doing with the US and our other Five Eyes partners? As I am sure the Minister appreciates, thanks to our leaving the European Union, we now have our own sanctions framework. The flexibility to set our own framework and lead the charge with allies and partners cannot be squandered. Does the Minister expect the EU security pact to touch on the independence of our sanctions regime? We should look to build on the strong measures that we have placed on countries and entities. What progress is being made in identifying further sanctions to impose on those already targeted? Will the Minister give us an assessment of the number of groups and militia operating in Syria? How will he ensure that the relaxation in sanctions benefits the people of Syria? How often will he review the impact of the relaxation of sanctions? Will he commit to putting sanctions on entities and people in Syria if the standards that we expect in relation to protecting rights are not met? Will the Government consider introducing a new bespoke sanctions regime and set of regulations for Syria? The critical mass of the current UK sanctions on Iran were introduced under the last Conservative Government. Sanctions form one part of the approach to tackling Iran, but what is the Minister’s broader strategy on Iran? When we were in government, we imposed the largest and most severe set of sanctions that Russia had ever seen. The economic pressure that we have collectively imposed with the international community has crippled the Russian economy and deprived Putin of $400 billion that could have funded his illegal war. We cannot afford to let up on exerting that pressure on Putin’s war machine. Part of that includes tackling Russian assets. What consideration has the Minister given to deploying assets from the sale of Chelsea football club to support Ukraine? Will he confirm a timeframe for deploying that money? I would welcome clarity on what information is coming forward to the Minister about potential sanctions breaches and loopholes that are being exploited. Does the review sufficiently plug the gaps that have been identified? Will he update us on what action he is taking against any third party countries that are supporting the countries and entities we have already sanctioned? Finally, how does the Minister plan to deepen our international co-ordination? What discussions have the Government had with the United States? Did the Government have advance knowledge of yesterday’s announcement? Will it have a bearing on UK policy on sanctions on Syria? Sanctions are a crucial tool in our diplomatic arsenal. We must ensure that they operate as effectively as possible to ensure that international norms are adhered to.

    Hansard source
37. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Steve Barclay

    Recalled Offenders: Sentencing Limits

    This announcement is a further illustration of why this House should legislate to remove all impediments to the deportation of foreign national offenders. In his reply to the shadow Justice Secretary, the Minister said that victims who are affected by this policy should be kept informed about release, yet he refused to say whether the Department has conducted an impact assessment. What new information is he today willing to commit to publishing each month, so that victims are indeed kept informed?

    Hansard source
38. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Steve Barclay

    Business of the House

    I join the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House in their tributes to Sir Roy Stone, further to those in the House on Tuesday. He was the most exceptional civil servant and his loss is deeply felt by many. Can we have a debate in Government time on any legislative and wider changes needed to deliver value for money in the restoration and renewal programme, particularly given Government statements on wider pressures on the public finances and the fact that so many Members of the House were newly elected last July and therefore have not had an opportunity to give their views and shape the programme?

    Hansard source
39. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Steve Barclay

    Sanctions Implementation and Enforcement

    The right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) and I do not agree on many issues, but she is absolutely right to focus on enforcement. Before coming to this place, I was head of sanctions and anti-money laundering at a financial institution, so with respect, I found it a bit naive for the Minister to say in his statement that avoiding sanctions does not pay; these are often very profitable accounts. He also referenced the issue of compliance in his statement, but institutions often say that they are complying by filing suspicious activity reports, safe in the knowledge that insufficient action will be taken. I appreciate that the stock answer is, “We do not comment on individual enforcement cases”, but could the Minister tell us the average cost of a successful prosecution for a sanctions breach, and how many there have been since the Government came to office?

    Hansard source
40. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Steve Barclay

    Solar Farms

    To understand this Government’s approach to solar farms, one should start by re-reading the Labour manifesto —page 59 of the Labour manifesto to be more precise. I know that it was only a year ago, but in its solemn promise to the British people, it said: “Labour recognises that food security is national security. That is why we will champion British farming”. That may now seem a long time ago, because a succession of announcements from this Government have made it clear that there is no commitment to farming or to food security. Indeed, that applies to many of their other commitments—smash the gangs, council tax bills will not go up, or energy bills will come down. On food security and its importance to national security it is clear that it was a fake promise. Indeed, there is an irony here, because we still have the ongoing covid inquiry. I was Chief Secretary to the Treasury at the time of covid, and it was clear to me that at a time of national crisis, value for money changes; there is competing demand across nations for scarce resources. I assure Members that, at such a crisis point, food security becomes an issue of national security, which is why the carelessness of the current Government on their manifesto commitment matters so much.

    Hansard source