Alicia Kearns MP: speeches

Speeches

• 4 Dec 2024 · Farming and Inheritance Tax · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point about just how little farmers earn, and yet they are consistently being described by Labour Members as asset-rich. Should farmers not fall into their definition of working people, and therefore Labour should be on their side rather than what they are doing to them?

• 29 Nov 2024 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  To discuss matters of life and death is to recognise the gravity of one’s role as a Member of Parliament. The Bill before us seeks to shorten the suffering of the terminally ill—those with just six months to live—and no one else. For too many, death is not a singular moment but an excruciating journey of terror and agony as your body turns on you. Arguments that we must wait for palliative care to improve in our country are a logical fallacy. The Bill does not prevent us from improving our palliative care system, contrary to what has been said today in the Chamber. In evidence to the Health and Social Care Committee, Hospice UK said that: “it would be totally inappropriate for us to suggest or even imply that hospice and palliative care services can somehow address…pain in all circumstances.” Imagine you have cancer that day by day is breaking every individual vertebra in your body, one by one, and there is nothing that can take away the pain—that is how my mother lost her life. Her last words were, “I cannot go on like this,” and, thankfully for her, there were only a few more days of pain; however, for others, there will be months more. Before they get to that six-month period, people will have suffered years of excruciating agony that palliative care cannot resolve. Yes, we must improve palliative care, and I will fight for that. Arguments that this legislation would be the beginning of a slippery slope are not reflected by the majority of legislators, such as Australia and across multiple states in the USA, where such policies have not been expanded. Again, the Health and Social Care Committee has told us that where terminal illness was the basis—not suffering—as for this Bill, the law has not changed. As a Conservative, freedom, choice and personal responsibility shape my decision making—until those freedoms cause harm to others. I do not see the role of legislation as imposing moral convictions. It is our job to protect choice. I say to those whose religious beliefs drive their arguments today that I will always defend their right to practise their faith and protect their own life choices. However, supporting the choice of others does not diminish the principle of compassion; it recognises respect for individual autonomy. To deny choice to others—especially those with only six months to live, where their personal choice does others no harm—is wrong. To those concerned about the state mandating powers to decide who can and cannot live, I say that judges already exercise this power. They end lives in far more complicated cases, such as those of children on life support. On arguments around procedure, we all have to be honest with ourselves: this Bill has been read far more vociferously than most Bills that go through this House. Most Bills over the past 20 years have come to Parliament with far fewer than 14 days to consider them: for the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, we had six days to consider 59 pages; for the Illegal Migration Bill, we had six days to consider far more. We have had sight of this Bill for longer than many others. The idea that a private Member’s Bill is not appropriate is also wrong. Social reform comes through private Members’ Bills: the abolition of the death penalty, the legalisation of abortion and the decriminalisation of homosexuality—all things I hope this House would unite on. This is the start of the process of debate, and it would be a tragedy if the Bill were defeated today. Members should trust me when I say that I learned early in my career that when we hear promises that things will come later, that is a promise that no action will come at all. The High Court made it clear to my constituent Phil Newby, who has motor neurone disease, that we must make this decision. To those considering abstaining because this is so difficult—and I recognise that it is difficult—I say that we must not shy away from it. I ask colleagues to vote for the Bill in order to allow a long legislative process to proceed and, together, to commit to shortening the suffering of those who are terminally ill in our society, because they deserve that choice.

• 29 Nov 2024 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Colleagues are right to raise questions around coercion. I hosted a phone-in on LBC where people rang in and said, “I feel like I have to end my life because I recognise how difficult it is for my family to see me suffering.” The limit in the Bill, however, is that someone must have only six months to live according to two doctors and a judge, which I genuinely believe massively reduces the risk of coercion. Are we really saying that people are so desperate to bump off their families that if they were told that they had six months to live, they would escalate the process and do it sooner?

• 27 Nov 2024 · Respect Orders and Antisocial Behaviour · Hansard source

  More

  Answer the questions, Diana.

• 27 Nov 2024 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), both for securing this debate and for her courage in consistently speaking out on her experiences. It is an incredibly brave thing to do, and I hope that she is receiving the support she deserves but which she feels has not been forthcoming in the past, because she warrants it. It is vital that women feel able to share our stories, because too often society still attempts to afflict shame on us, as though there is some fault, some responsibility, on the survivor. There is not. Male violence against women and girls is an act of cowardice, and every woman in this room—indeed, in this country—has a memory that makes us shudder; a moment in time in which we felt unsafe or under threat. Those memories stay with us and shape us, and we cannot shake them. It is therefore our duty in this place to do everything we can to prevent future generations from experiencing the same feeling that we all describe differently, although we all know exactly what it is. It is our duty to give our voices to all survivors, particularly to women like Gisèle Pelicot, who has stood in strength and demanded that the videos of men raping her were shown in open court. As she said, it is not us who should feel shame, but them, the perpetrators. Male violence is found in our homes, schools, universities, outside clubs, in the streets—there is almost no space where it is absent. I should make it clear that I use the term “male violence” because VAWG excludes the role of the perpetrator. It shifts the focus from the individual who should feel ashamed and guilty and on to women and girls. Male victims also overwhelmingly experience violence at the hands of other men. Much of this violence comes from a sense of entitlement; a man’s belief that they have an entitlement to a woman’s body or to control her. But they have no entitlement. I thank all colleagues here today for sharing their experiences and those of their constituents. I mention, in particular, the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan), because he is right that there is a crisis of masculinity. We have to work harder on this, but it comes from parenting and the decisions that individuals make in their home. The hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) also touched on that. There were comments about the media and the way they talk about women, whether that is when they are missing and it is suggested that that is due to their menopause, or whether they are facing an attack. It is wrong. I also welcome the comments made by the hon. Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) about women who are deaf. Fighting for girls and women in our communities is one of an MP’s most important acts, and it breaks my heart every time I meet a victim or survivor. But every time, my team and I—especially Lisa—fight to get those women to safety and to help them navigate the system and secure prosecutions. We can do that as MPs. Individuals are now in prison because MPs have referred cases to the police for people who did not have the guts to do that before, because they did not feel listened to. We must work together in the House on this issue, and the previous Government took it extremely seriously. I pay tribute, in particular, to Baroness May for her work as both Home Secretary and Prime Minister, to my friend, Laura Farris, the former Member for Newbury, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant). Over the last 14 years, we have brought in offences to better protect women and bring perpetrators to justice—in relation to stalking, ending the rough sex defence, the vile sharing of intimate images or revenge porn, the non-consensual taking of images of a women breastfeeding, and upskirting—while raising the maximum penalties for harassment. We also supported survivors to give evidence behind closed doors, and to be cross-examined without having to wait for trial. I am grateful for the part that I was able to play in 2012, as a civil servant at the Ministry of Justice, in bringing in the first victims service and more support for people, particularly those coming from slavery, and introducing the first domestic abuse service for gay men. We also developed and rolled out Operation Soteria across all police forces in 2023. That project led to the development of the first national operating model for the investigation of rape and serious sexual offences. On that matter, has the Minister assessed the performance of the roll-out, and will she continue to develop the operation? We also passed the world-leading Domestic Abuse Act 2021. That created a legal definition of domestic abuse, encompassing financial, verbal and emotional abuse, as well as physical and sexual, but it also recognised that abuse is a pattern over time. Importantly, it recognised that children are explicitly victims if they witness abuse. We relaunched the flexible fund in January, with a further £2 million investment to help remove barriers to domestic abuse survivors leaving their abusers. I would be grateful if the Minister can confirm whether the funding for that important programme will continue. I have highlighted that we took important actions, and although they were necessary, more still needs to be done. There continues to be an epidemic of male violence in our country and across the world. It is no surprise when the rape of women, but never of men, is normalised on our TV screens as a storyline. Even in this place, some people diminish their acts and demonstrate a lack of responsibility for the actions of their past, which serves to retraumatise the survivors. Globally, women’s bodily rights are under attack. Gender apartheid is under way in Afghanistan and femicide is taking place in Iran. Knowing the Minister, I am absolutely certain that she will do everything she can to better protect survivors and to crack down on male perpetrators. If anything, this is her life’s work, and I am pleased that she now has the opportunity to lead on the area that she cares about so passionately. The Government’s proposal to cut the rate of violence against women and girls in a decade is a significant target that could transform the lives of so many. Last week, the Home Secretary stated that the policy was ambitious and that no other country had set it before. However, as I understand it, the Government are still determining how to measure progress, so I would be grateful if the Minister could set out precisely what metrics will be used to measure the rate of violence against women and girls. I also welcome the Government’s focus on spiking that was announced over the weekend. We fully support the commitment to create a separate criminal office, which we had hoped to bring forward in the Criminal Justice Bill. I stress to any victims out there that spiking is already a criminal offence. The reason for creating a new spiking offence is so that we can better understand the picture of spiking nationally and get more prosecutions. At the moment, the police are recording it as an offence against a person, or as sexual violence or assault, which means we cannot make the necessary interventions. I would be grateful if the Minister could share her thoughts on a few other issues. The first one, which others have touched on, is the prevalence of violent porn and its impact on young boys and men. The increasing normalisation of violence during sex for young people worries me greatly. The viewing figures of porn are concerningly high, with children being exposed to content without searching for it, even porn depicting rape. Although the Online Safety Act 2023 goes some way towards better protecting children, access obviously continues into adulthood and continues to shape the attitudes and behaviours of young men, so what actions is the Minister considering taking across Government to tackle that content? I finish by thanking all the organisations across our country, and particularly in Rutland, Stamford and the South Kesteven and Harborough villages, for all they do to protect women and girls from violence. I also want to thank my father, and all the fathers out there, who are the ultimate feminists, and who raised me and women across this country to believe that violence has no role in relationships or in the home. Shame lies with the perpetrator alone, and we must never accept the status quo while women and girls continue to suffer.

• 27 Nov 2024 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) may welcome the information that the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee will hold specific hearings on violence against women and girls in Northern Ireland in the next few months. I am sure we will share with them in the next few months the outcomes of those hearings.

• 19 Nov 2024 · Jailing of Hong Kong Pro-democracy Activists · Hansard source

  More

  Today I brought together 118 parliamentarians from 24 countries and the EU to call for the Chinese Communist party to immediately release Jimmy Lai. It is extraordinary for the Prime Minister to meet Xi Jinping in the same week that Jimmy’s sham trial resumes, yet the Prime Minister used just 13 words in support of Jimmy’s cause in his meeting with Xi—and no, he did not call for Jimmy’s release; he just mentioned his poor health. What we learned was that the Government have called in plans for a new Chinese Communist party mega-embassy as a favour to Xi, and at his request. Why?

• 19 Nov 2024 · Ukraine: 1,000 Days · Hansard source

  More

  It has been a thousand days of Ukraine fighting for Europe’s future, but more than 3,900 days that Ukraine has been under attack and under invasion—3,900 days of bravery, terror and loss. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) for all she did to create the Homes for Ukraine programme when many thought it was impossible. Consistently, though, Ukraine has been underestimated and Russia overestimated—militarily, economically and beyond. We all know here that personalities matter, and as the Foreign Secretary said, we know that Trump likes winners. The US Government’s new leader needs to see success and victory for Ukraine as a personal victory for him. What is the Foreign Secretary doing to make sure that Trump sees it in those terms and no other?

• 18 Nov 2024 · Indefinite Leave to Remain: Healthcare Workers · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. It is always a privilege to debate issues brought to us directly through petitions. I join the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) in thanking the Petitions Committee for all the work it does, particularly the Clerks. They are currently fortunate to have Rahul Sindwani within their team, who was my Speaker’s intern for a year. He is very much missed, but I am delighted that he has gone on to find another role within Parliament. In today’s debate, it has been good to hear about the wide range of work that health and social care workers do on a daily basis. They are integral to our communities, supporting our loved ones during times of crisis, and our beloved older ones. I am deeply grateful for the work they do. The issue brought to us today highlights the broad and interconnected nature of immigration, a policy area with influences far beyond the remit of the Home Office. Few areas feel its effects more acutely than our health workforce, and that workforce is a vitally important matter. The previous Government understood the importance of developing a strategy for the NHS workforce that extended beyond parliamentary cycles, taking into account its long-term impact. Our proposals aimed to reduce reliance on international recruitment agency staff. Our report stated that in 15 years’ time, we expect just 9% to 10.5% of our workforce to be recruited from overseas, compared with nearly a quarter now. That shift towards a home-grown health workforce is contingent on implementing education and training expansions as set out in our plans. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that that target remains and what steps the Government are taking to achieve it. In Government, the Conservatives created the health and social care visa to facilitate the entry of top global health professionals into the NHS, aligning with the needs of both the institution and the country. Within its first three years, over 61,000 people had taken it up. I would like to clarify that health and social care workers are exempt from the immigration health surcharge, so that would not be a new proposal from other parties— it is the current existing policy. We should discuss the basis for achieving indefinite leave to remain and why it matters. The standard requirement of five years is designed to allow applicants to build ties and demonstrate an ongoing commitment to the UK. In sponsored work routes, settlement relies on applicants having worked in their sponsored role for five years. Other requirements include demonstrating an adequate level of English. That is essential so that individuals can properly integrate into our communities. Integration is a crucial element of settlement. Delving into the definition of integration is complex, and I would not want to test the patience of the room on that matter. However, the data available is clear that migrants’ English language skills and labour market outcomes improve over time, giving them more opportunities to shape their own futures. That also benefits society as a whole. While there are some limited circumstances in which individuals can apply for accelerated settlement, most routes leading to permanent residency require an individual to have done those five years. To me, and I am sure to many others, that represents an appropriate timeframe for people to build ties to the UK and their local communities. I am not convinced by the arguments that having two years instead of five somehow reduces the risk of abuse, and indeed slave labour, within the system. We must ensure that work standards are appropriate, and there are many routes for victims of slave labour to receive protections, such as the national referral mechanism, but it is quite fair that if someone cannot find another role within the UK, their visa would no longer be valid. We did a lot of work when we were in Government to crack down on fraudulent social care companies, which are using this visa route to bring vast numbers of people to this country without social care jobs for them to go to. We have to recognise that, while the majority of people who apply to come and work in this country using the health and care worker visa are coming here for the right reasons, many companies have abused that route. That is why we have had to put in additional restrictions around that. It is important to note that the rate of settlement in this country is managed thoughtfully, ensuring that those who successfully integrate have the opportunity to remain here indefinitely. Contrary to what was said in the opening speech, individuals can undertake additional paid work on a health and social care worker visa, as long as they continue in their sponsored role. They can also engage in unpaid voluntary work. That, again, helps them to identify alternative routes to employment, should they be unhappy with their sponsor. As many Members will be aware, grants of settlement have generally increased since 2016, although they remain below the level seen in the early 2010s. While there was a slight decrease in 2023, it was still the second highest year for grants since 2013, with 119,000 granted. Could the Minister kindly set out whether the Government have considered the level of settlement grants they anticipate in the coming years, and how they plan to ensure that those remain sustainable? All of us here appreciate the work of healthcare professionals, but, in our view, five years is a reasonable timeline to achieve indefinite leave to remain. It ensures that those who come to make permanent homes here have the time to lay down roots, to fully integrate with their neighbours and local community, and to demonstrate commitment to our country. As with all areas of visa policy, it is vital that we find a balance between ensuring robust protections against misuse, ensuring trust in its fairness from UK residents and citizens, and the rights and prospects of those coming here to make new lives and contribute. The current timeframe for indefinite leave to remain is the correct one, and should not be shortened. Is that also the Government’s view? Are there plans to either review or change the eligibility criteria for indefinite leave to remain? Ultimately, we welcome the ongoing discussion around this issue; indefinite leave to remain is a serious status, and the five-year timeframe reflects the seriousness of that and the opportunities that being in this country offer to those with indefinite leave to remain.

• 18 Nov 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Between 1978 and 1990, in what was an illegal act, 5,700 women were dismissed and discharged from the armed forces on family grounds—for falling pregnant while in service. This is not a question of compensation; they want their berets and cap badges returned to them. Will the Minister please work with me to right an injustice done to all those women who just wanted to keep serving their country, and now want that service recognised?

• 13 Nov 2024 · Family and Work Visas · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard, particularly in my first response to a debate in my new position. I know that the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) has been campaigning on this issue for some time. Although we may not agree on it, I applaud her for securing this debate. Today we have heard much from hon. Members about the impact of eligibility criteria. Although we will not always agree, some points were well made. Ultimately, I believe that there is broad agreement across the House, and definitely across the country, that we need a system that prioritises skills and talent. People are happy to see migration that helps our economy grow and supports our NHS, while encouraging investment in and protecting our resident workforce. That is why we now have the highest number of nurses ever, and we were able to increase the number of GP appointments from 2019 to 2023 by 50 million. We want a system that rewards those who come to the UK and contribute, while ensuring that those who already live here are not negatively impacted. What is paramount is that people feel the system is fair. We must be comfortable with migration policies on visa eligibility that provide robust controls to limit migration and prioritise the economic welfare of the UK. To achieve that, we previously took a number of steps to strengthen the rules. The success of those measures has already been demonstrated: we have seen decreases in applications, with 15,200 applications recorded between April and September 2024 following our changes, which was a reduction of 83% compared with the six months before. Applications for dependants are also down considerably. In 2023, we got to the point where there were six dependants for every one worker seeking to come to the UK. This dramatic drop underscores the need to adapt our eligibility criteria to provide robust rules and prevent misuse of the system. The significant numbers that we saw in the past were excessive, and we had to take action to get them down. The new Government have maintained our changes to the system, and clearly we agree that the policy is working—or, perhaps, the Minister will announce that she is changing the strategy today. However, I ask her for her assessment of the reduced numbers. Will the implications of the reduction be taken into account when evaluating other visa categories? Although it is still in the early stages of analysing the data, the Migration Advisory Committee has noted that initial indications suggest that changes to the student route will also impact on total numbers. The Government have commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee to review the financial requirements in the family member immigration rules and said that no further changes will be made until the advisory review is complete. Although I have full confidence in the ability of the committee to deliver a thorough review, the Government must review the urgency with which they are acting; delays are not in the best interests of the system. Past measures have shown that decisive action can deliver a significant impact on overall levels of migration. We must ensure that we maintain a fair system and reduce migration where it is too high. I therefore ask the Minister if there is a clear timetable for the review. Will she assure the House that the Government will act swiftly to implement all and any recommendations from the committee? Although I do not want to pre-empt the remarks of the Minister, I expect that she may allude to the levels of legal migration during the tenure of the previous Government. We have been clear that we agree those numbers were too high, which is why we implemented the significant change to visa rules, and we will work co-operatively across the House with the Government on further measures in this Parliament. The changes that we made should be seen not as an end point, but as part of a longer process to reduce migration to ensure that the public have confidence that our immigration system is being managed effectively. If the process continues to reduce numbers and create a fairer, more effective system, it will have our support. Will the Minister outline if the Government are planning any further changes to our legal migration framework in the next year in either data collection or visa eligibility? As I said at the start of the debate, legal migration bringing in skills to key sectors is not an issue. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) and I would be the first to back calls for more agricultural workers to deliver the right work that we need. When I was in central Asia, I saw for myself the geopolitical benefits of bringing in people for seasonal work. In central Asia, they normally have a return rate of about 99%. They want to come, do the work and return home, and our farmers and agricultural industries want to receive their support. However, migration must be managed in a way that protects the interests of the UK and our residents, and that includes reducing the total number of migrants, which we accept has been too high in recent years. The reforms made by the Conservatives in the last Parliament have borne fruit and been maintained by Labour. I hope that the Minister will build on them and ensure that our system is as robust and fair as possible.

• 12 Nov 2024 · Social Security Advisory Committee: Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  On 19 September, the Minister’s Department told me in response to a written question that 48,351 people in my constituency had been eligible for winter fuel payments. While we are proud to offer forever homes to so many pensioners, that is a preposterous figure, relating to a heartless and unnecessary decision that will cost more in the long term. How do I or any of my residents have confidence in what the Government are doing, since they believe that more than half my constituency is made up pensioners, and cannot even get the basic numbers right?

• 12 Nov 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The wind industry has rightly agreed a standard compensation package for rural communities with big wind plants. The solar industry, however, is, unsurprisingly, busy whitewashing Uyghur slave labour in its supply chains rather than doing that. If it will not act, will the Government step forward and recognise that they must support rural communities by creating a standardised compensation programme?

• 4 Nov 2024 · Budget: Implications for Farming Communities · Hansard source

  More

  At the Rutland ploughing contest this weekend, it was clear that farmers feel devastated. They feel that the Government do not understand them, because farmers do not have liquid wealth; they rely on land as their asset to produce food. They turn a small profit but have a very constrained cash flow. Indeed, they have the lowest return on assets of any business sector—an average return of less than 1%. “Losing a farm is not like losing any other business. It can’t come back.” Those are the Prime Minister’s words. As the Minister’s constituency is a near neighbour of mine, will he come and repeat them to my farmers in Rutland and Stamford, and have that discussion with them?

• 4 Nov 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Helen Blythe from Stamford has campaigned courageously for improvements to allergy safety since her son Benedict died following a severe allergic reaction at school in 2021. Will the Minister commit to meet me to discuss introducing a mandatory requirement for all schools to have a specific allergy and anaphylaxis plan, and for every school to have adrenaline auto-injectors?

• 31 Oct 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  My heart goes out to the family of the British national killed in the flooding in Spain in the last few days. The National Farmers Union described yesterday’s Budget as “disastrous”, the Country Land and Business Association described it as “a betrayal” and farmers across Rutland and Stamford are in distress, as my inbox shows. Whether on agricultural property relief or charging full road tax on double cab pick-up trucks, which was hidden in the Budget, the NFU says that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs does not care. Will the Leader of the House advise me on when the next chance to raise this breach of previous promises will be, or will she secure a meeting with the Minister for my local farmers?

• 31 Oct 2024 · Income tax (charge) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank him for giving way—oh.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Income tax (charge) · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman states that a full breakdown was provided by the Treasury yesterday, but that is just not true. In fact, the chair of the OBR said on “Sky News” last night: “Nothing in our review was a legitimisation of that £22 billion” claim. That was him making it very clear that the OBR does not support and has not endorsed the claim in the Treasury report. Will the right hon. Gentleman now confirm, with a simple yes or no, that the OBR does not legitimise that claim?

• 31 Oct 2024 · Income tax (charge) · Hansard source

  More

  Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

• 28 Oct 2024 · China: Human Rights and Sanctions · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing this urgent question, and I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting it. It is disappointing, but not surprising, that the Foreign Secretary did not see fit to update the House following his visit to China. I want to press him on what the visit achieved because, comparing the read-outs, I would be forgiven for thinking that two very separate visits took place. The Opposition understand the importance of engagement, but not at any cost. All interactions with the Chinese Communist party must be clear-eyed and part of a meaningful strategy, as per the high-level China strategy that the Foreign Secretary inherited from our Government. Yet, as he said, this visit occurred before this Government had concluded their so-called China audit. Would it not have been better to wait until he knew what interests he is seeking to defend and further? On the Conservative Benches, it looks as if the Foreign Secretary rushed into engagement without a plan. Concerningly, in a fundamental breach of the constitutional principle that Parliament is sovereign, he was willing to pressure parliamentarians into cancelling the visit of former President Tsai of Taiwan the week before his trip. Unlike in an autocratic state, the Government do not tell Members of Parliament who they can or cannot meet. Indeed, the Conservative Government told the CCP on multiple occasions that, no, it could not shut me and other Members up, despite its requests. We are told that the Foreign Secretary raised British citizen Jimmy Lai’s sham detention. Jimmy is 76 and is being held in solitary confinement, yet the Foreign Secretary still has not met Jimmy’s son, despite his coming to the UK on multiple occasions and asking for a meeting. Will the Foreign Secretary now meet Sebastien to update him on his father’s prospects? And will he share with us the outcomes of his visit? Will Jimmy Lai now be released? Will the Chinese Communist party now step back from its human rights abuses in Hong Kong, Xinjiang and Tibet? Will sanctions on MPs now be lifted? Will the Chinese Communist party now refrain from actions to support Russia’s war machine and the intimidation of Taiwan? Will the transnational oppression of Hongkongers and Uyghurs now end? Which of those objectives did the Foreign Secretary achieve thanks to his visit? It is easy to say that the visit was a reset in relations but, as we all know, in every relationship there are givers and takers. Has the Foreign Secretary not simply proved that he gave and they took?

• 24 Oct 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Among local farmers, reports abound that the Government intend to cut the farming budget by more than £100 million. That is compounded by the reality that the full farming recovery and internal drainage board funds have not been distributed, despite the fact that farmers have faced appallingly wet weather over the past few months. Will the Leader of the House consider committing one day of the Budget debate to food security and supporting our farmers?

• 24 Oct 2024 · Special Educational Needs and Disabilities · Hansard source

  More

  Are the Government surging support to local authorities to help them process and complete EHCPs within the statutory timeframes? My communities are seeing a significant increase in applications because of the decision to impose VAT on independent schools. I have three SEND schools— [ Interruption. ] Government Members may shout, but that is the reality my councils face. I am asking for urgent support for those councils that have to deal with these increased numbers.

• 23 Oct 2024 · Draft European Forest Institute (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time in this parliamentary term, Mr Twigg. I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks. The agreement between the UK and the European Forest Institute was, of course, signed by the previous Conservative Government in March of this year, by Lord Benyon. The Minister will therefore be relieved to hear that we will support the draft order before the Committee today, although I am aware that he and I are finding ourselves in agreement a little bit too much, so we shall see how I feel this afternoon when discussing the Iran sanctions regime. We are pleased to see key elements underpinning the agreement with the EFI now put on to the UK statute book. Ultimately, it allows the EFI to establish an office here in the UK, and for us to deepen our collaboration with the institute on forestry-related issues. I am grateful to the Minister for his praise of the programme the previous Government ran, which helped to avoid 413,000 hectares of ecosystem loss around the world. At the COP26 summit that we hosted, more than 140 world leaders committed to halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation by 2030. Our Environment Act 2021 is helping to drive products derived from illegal deforestation from our supply chains. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide further detail on how the Labour Government will address the underlying and often deeply entrenched drivers of deforestation around the world, support new forestry and tackle illegal deforestation. Through the draft order, what plans does the Minister have to use the foundation built by the last Government to work with the EFI on forestry-related issues? We all know that deforestation is environmentally damaging. Not only does it destroy habitats, including the habitats of some of our most treasured and endangered species, but it also hurts biodiversity, depletes our carbon sinks and scars once-beautiful landscapes. Less well known, but just as significantly, it upends the livelihoods of some of the poorest people in the world. Combating that must be central to any UK strategies aimed at addressing deforestation and the resulting impact on migration. I hope the Government will show ambition in this area, not only reaping the benefits of the UK-EFI agreement, but also building on the strong legacy by the Conservative Government. If they do, they will find a partner in us.

• 23 Oct 2024 · Sanctions: Iran · Hansard source

  More

  I would be interested in hearing what difference the hon. Gentleman thinks proscription of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps would make. On Alaa Abd El-Fattah, the problem is that the Egyptians do not recognise dual nationality, so a right to consular access would make no fundamental difference. Having led an inquiry on this, I would be grateful if he explained why he thinks a right to consular access would make a fundamental difference in any such hostage case.

• 23 Oct 2024 · Sanctions: Iran · Hansard source

  More

  The Conservative party supports the regulations, which extend the Iran sanctions regime to drones and drone technology as well as financial services, funds and brokering services relating to items of strategic concern. However, these sanctions seek to address issues emblematic of a far larger threat. The Government should be in no doubt that Iran’s malign influence is one of the biggest challenges to both global and British security. For decades, Iran has deliberately undermined the rules-based international order, destabilising its neighbourhood and funding terrorism globally, all while brutally repressing its own people and committing a femicide. For years, the Iranian regime has created asymmetric threats, co-opted existing movements and provided weapons, money and training to its proxies and ideological partners. Be they Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen or Shi’a militias and the popular mobilisation forces across Iraq and Syria, they are terrorist organisations that have no interest in their local people and instead pursue the aims of the ayatollah; hostage captors and committers of the worst atrocity against the Jewish people since the Holocaust; and actors disrupting maritime traffic in the Red sea, a sea link that is vital for the delivery of food and fertiliser to countries facing serious hunger crises in east Africa and south Asia. As the Minister set out, Iran is now embedding itself in conflict on our own continent, transferring hundreds of attack drones and, as we now know, ballistic missiles to Russia to prop up its barbaric, illegal and unprovoked renewed invasion of Ukraine. They are fuelling a war machine that seeks to dismantle a sovereign democratic state in Europe and enabling the murder of Ukrainians every single day. The Government must now allow Ukraine’s use of long-range weaponry on strategic targets. Escalation warrants a response or further deterrence will be undermined. The invasion of Ukraine is an attack on us all. Iran is that hand in glove for Russia, the perpetrator. Here at home, there have been numerous Iranian plots to assassinate British or UK-based individuals whom the regime considers its enemies. The UK has had to respond to more than 15 such plots since 2022. We have seen Iranian cut-outs investigated for spreading IRGC propaganda and for glorifying sanctioned individuals and terrorists. We have seen IRGC generals providing radicalising lectures here in our capital city. Even on our streets, we have seen people glorifying organisations such as the Houthis and others who are not acting in defence of Gaza and who are not progressive movements; they are terrorists. Iran has also arbitrarily detained and imprisoned British citizens, including Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, whose shocking ordeal proves beyond doubt Iran’s disdain for human rights and human dignity. As the Conservative Government demonstrated, we can take a muscular approach. We introduced the extensive sanctions regime to disrupt Iran’s hostile behaviour, targeting its decision makers along with those who did its bidding. We imposed measures to help choke off the funding flows from Iran to Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, as well as sanctions on Iran’s drone programme; indeed, 400 sanctions were in place on Iran by the time we left office, and in 2023 alone we made 154 new designations. Alongside the US and with support from allies, we carried out strikes against the Houthis in Yemen to degrade their capabilities, aiding and supporting allies across the world. British military personnel and equipment helped to defend Israel from an Iranian attack in April, and we told the regime in Tehran in no uncertain terms that it must rein in its proxies. When the Government propose measures such as the regulations before the House to counter Iran’s appalling behaviour, we will support them, but we are also very clear that the Government need to maintain the pressure and look at the bigger picture in equal measure to respond to the ever-growing threat. That point takes me on to the strategy that we are pursuing. We must stop compartmentalising our response and approach to Iran. We need to work out how we will measure success in reducing the threat of Iran to our people and our interests. The Government must do this work. Iran does not currently pursue active and direct confrontation with us, but its threshold for chaos is too high. We must work out how we will reduce that threat. Iran will continue to do as it sees fit—its priority is the survival of the regime, and it has strategic patience—but we need to shape a strategy not in response to Iran, but in the pursuit of our ambitions, protecting our people and our interests. Unfortunately, we cannot rely on the USA to lead. We need a new Euro-Atlantic focus, but the UK must decide what our priorities are. We must also be prepared for fractures within the regime. We must recognise that although Iran rarely changes its behaviour, it has a cycle of boom and bust and we must be prepared for what may fall out. I urge the Minister to take the opportunity to restructure; I recognise that he is the Minister for sanctions rather than for north Africa, but I know that he will take these words back to the Department. It is time for us to rethink our strategy on Iran and move from being reactive to being proactive. We need long-term thinking on how we restore state control over areas abused by Iranian-backed non-state actors. That includes the implementation of UN resolution 1701 and the removal of Hezbollah military positions from southern Lebanon, with the Lebanese military being able to reassert sovereign control. We also need a strategic approach to the Houthis that prioritises the restoration of proper governance in Yemen, including payment to public servants and protections against Houthi embezzlement of public funds. Domestically, we must bolster our resilience and protect our society from corrosive Iranian influence and transnational repression, which is extensive. The National Security Act 2023 should be implemented in full as quickly as possible, including the register of foreign lobbyists, which shamefully the Government have delayed. I urge them to put it in place as soon as possible. There is no reason for it not to proceed at speed. Internationally, we must work with our partners to contain the looming threat of a nuclear Iran. The joint comprehensive plan of action needs revisiting. There is no perfect deal, but the current situation is untenable. The JCPOA is on life support. We need a new Euro-Atlantic approach. Antony Blinken’s comment that Iran’s nuclear break-out time is now one to two weeks should concern us all. It is a nuclear threshold state. We have the agency to disrupt Iran’s malign plans and to lead the international community in doing so if we have the courage to act and are prepared to develop a harder edge. The time to act must be now. I will be grateful if the Minister answers the following questions. When will the Government proscribe the IRGC? That was a promise that Labour made in opposition, and promises matter. Will he work with allies to ensure that sanctions are international and ensure their effectiveness in curbing Iranian drone development exports? Individual sanctions programmes do not work; they must be done on a multilateral basis. Will the Minister work to ensure that the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation is pursuing penalties against those who breach sanctions? We have not seen any being pursued when there have been breaches of sanctions around Russia. We must see that happening on both Iran and Russia. Does he agree that in addition to using sanctions, we must buttress Ukraine’s military capability requirements so that it can take down Iranian drones in the skies and match the weapon range of Russia’s armed forces? That means the use of Storm Shadow missiles. Finally, with proxies such as Hezbollah being degraded, will the Minister commit to working towards freeing captured societies from Iranian influence and helping states such as Lebanon to reassert their independence and state effectiveness? Will he assert in clear terms that the Government condemn all Iranian proxies and will assist good-faith actors in resisting their proliferation, political entrenchment and military expansion and pursue a new UK coherent strategy to protect our people, our country and our interests from an increasingly belligerent Iran? The Government’s message to Iran at all times must be that its threshold for chaos is too high. They must step back, because the current approach is not working, but that starts with us recognising that we can be in the driving seat and stop reacting to Iran.