Andrew Mitchell MP: speeches

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your wonderful words about Jo Cox and for the brilliant debate we had last Thursday as the main business of the House. Following acknowledgment by the Development Minister, the noble Baroness Chapman, that Labour’s horrific development and aid cuts undermine the response to the Ebola crisis, and that funding is only 5% of the help provided for the last Ebola emergency a decade ago, will the Government make it clear that these pandemics cross borders and are a serious danger to all of us unless they are contained? Is that not the essence of the case for international development?

With the leave of the House, let me say that this has been an interesting, important and at times very moving debate commemorating the life, causes and work of our great friend—and hon. Friend—Jo Cox, as we think about how we take forward her work and her inspiration. There have been many great speeches, with some very consistent warnings, themes and concerns, as well as important agendas that all of us should be pursuing. I will start, if I may, with the speech by the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater). She reminded us that, as well as a politician and a figure in public life, her sister was a mother of a brilliant family—she was a daughter, sister and a mother. We remember today how much that family has suffered, and how much they have contributed to our country as her legacy. It was so good to hear the hon. Lady’s news about Jo’s children, Cuillin and Lejla. The hon. Lady made a superb speech, which really placed this debate in the position in which it needed to be. The hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) underlined the importance of the work tackling loneliness. My constituency neighbour the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips) brought Brummie good sense to the debate. We always enjoy her contributions in the royal town of Sutton Coldfield. She set out the importance of friendship and family, and above all the importance of political courage. The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) spoke eloquently about Jo’s leadership on the huge value of building united communities. The right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) made an uplifting speech. I have no doubt it will be carefully parsed with particular interest by his Whips Office. He spoke up for “more in common”, emphasising that it does not mean we all have to agree, but that it is important we know how to disagree in the appropriate manner. He made the point, far better than me, that although the media focus on our divisions in this place, there is an awful lot of harmony, agreement and close working together, which does indeed get things done. The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) emphasised the importance of confronting reckless and inflammatory language, and those who enable it to be spread. That most important point recurred a number of times during the debate. The hon. Member for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) called for more people like Jo, and she made a lovely speech. The hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) emphasised the importance of simple courtesy and much more, both in the House and in politics outside it. The hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) made an important speech about the need to focus on online safety and on tackling loneliness. I thank her and others for their very nice comments about our friend and colleague Sir David Amess. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali), who has made such a contribution to cross-party work on international development, made a most important point that the sheer personal cost of coming into politics and Parliament today, particularly for women, has risen hugely. As parliamentarians, to protect future generations and ensure their interest, commitment and ambition, we, too, need to focus on that in our time. The hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) entertained the House with her drinking stories. [ Laughter. ] We are all relieved to see that she managed to get home in the taxi kindly arranged by the right hon. Member for Ilford North.

It is a pleasure to speak opposite the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Alison McGovern), with whom I have worked extensively over many years on international development, thereby demonstrating one of Jo’s core beliefs: more in common. The hon. Lady spoke so movingly about Jo and encapsulated perfectly the essence of who she was and what a politician should be: decent, principled, clear and determined. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), who secured this debate, in her place. She exhibits all of Jo’s brilliant qualities in fighting for the causes to which she is devoted, such as assisted dying, on which I am proud to work alongside her. The whole House recognises that on this very divisive issue, she showed incredible decency and probity in the way in which she pursued it. I cannot quite believe that we are commemorating a whole decade since Jo’s life was brutally cut short. Ten years on, it is just as painful to comprehend. Jo was both my colleague and my friend. We were different in our politics and backgrounds, but on the issues that we were both passionate about, we moved in lockstep. Like the Minister, I remember exactly where I was when the horrific event took place. Our paths first crossed when Jo and I marched together against injustice in Darfur through the centre of London. Subsequently, I met her in Sudan, in Darfur, in 2006 on two separate visits, one of which included the then Leader of the Opposition, David Cameron. Jo was a huge presence all those years ago, and I remember her also for her trademark scarves. I marvelled at the way she discharged her role at Oxfam in Sudan, supporting women and children and helping to secure water for the thousands of refugees living in camps. I still wear the green wristband she gave me then, as a reminder of the desperate plight of people caught up in what President Bush rightly described as a genocide. And yet today, 20 years later, Sudan is still in crisis, with ethnic cleansing practised with impunity. Whereas 20 years ago the international community, through the United Nations and the African Union, put military forces on the ground to stop it, sadly today unbridled barbarism continues in plain sight, and the international community is doing nothing to stop it. I am sure the whole House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for leading a debate on this issue in Westminster Hall later today. Shortly after her election in 2015, Jo asked me whether we could team up to run a new all-party group called friends of Syria. Without hesitation, I agreed. Syria was ablaze. She knew that I took a great interest in the Syrian refugee crisis from the Back Benches, watching with despair as the situation got worse and worse, as the Minister described so well. Jo was determined to use her experience and expertise to champion the dispossessed, and felt we might be well paired to campaign together. As she said in her maiden speech back in 2015, “we are far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us.” —[ Official Report , 3 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 675.] We would do well to reflect on her words and especially her character—fearless determination, unintimidated by tribal political pressures, putting the greater good above personal ambition and placing policy above party. Jo and I worked closely together for a year until she was murdered. I loved every minute of it. We had a rather useful good cop, bad cop routine. Unusually for me, I found myself as the good cop. Needless to say, Jo relished the bad cop role, especially when confronting the villains of the piece, and believe me when I say that she took no prisoners. On one occasion, we were taking tea with the Russian ambassador to remonstrate about the appalling crimes committed in Aleppo in Syria. The ambassador had recently complained to the Foreign Office that in the House, I had compared Russia’s bombing of Aleppo to the Nazi bombing of Guernica during the Spanish civil war. During the meeting, Jo did most of the hard-ball talking, and at the end of it she had triumphantly reduced a seasoned diplomat to incoherence, laying bare his inability to defend the indefensible. I very much doubt he will ever forget that meeting. Today, we need more people like Jo. The climate 10 years after her murder is even more febrile and more divided. We have all seen the shocking examples of that recently, and we must not forget that in the end, Jo was a tragic victim of those divisions. Her murder sent shockwaves through us all, yet lessons have not been learned, and a few years later, the wonderful Sir David Amess paid the same price. We must also not forget the MPs who were murdered before: Airey Neave in 1979; Robert Bradford in 1981; Anthony Berry in 1984; and my beloved friend and colleague Ian Gow, on Monday 30 July 1990, as he left his home at the Dog House in Hankham near Eastbourne to serve his constituents. All were murdered by terrorists while serving their constituents. Today we are witnessing more and more the consequences of polarisation, wrought by fear and cynical exploitation. Divisions are growing and principled politicians are declining, yet this debate underlines that in these dark days there is more that unites us, and so much of the work we do in this place is not characterised by division. Jo would have been appalled by Boris Johnson’s decision first to vaporise the Department for International Development, and secondly to slash the development budget. I suspect she would have been even more incandescent to learn that a Labour Government had gone even further, and I have no doubt in my mind that were she alive today, she would have fought tooth and nail to stop it from happening. Unfortunately, very few people have put their heads above the parapet, for reasons that we all understand—fear of missing out on promotions, of facing demotions, or of generally rocking the boat. Politics is a fragile business.

Yes, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. International development is the other side of the defence coin. The two work together, and the role of soft power is enormously important in preventing conflict and war. I see that the Leader of the House is with us today, and I hope very much that he will restore the old custom that once a year there should be a debate on international development in the House, in Government time. When I next have a chance to speak during business questions, I shall perhaps ask him whether he will consider that. The passage of time will never erase Jo’s memory and legacy, and her profound impact on those who had the pleasure of knowing, loving and working with her. I am looking forward to hearing contributions from many hon. Members, as we all take comfort in the memory of a truly wonderful human being.

The House will have heard the right hon. Gentleman’s comments. The hon. Member for Brent East spoke about her work doing battle on the radio show of the excellent Iain Dale, the highly respected broadcaster, against the evil side of social media. We should all thank her for that. The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), in a most important contribution, spoke about the excellent work on projects she had done with the Jo Cox Foundation. She told us of the appalling abuse she has faced which, on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, I condemn in the strongest possible terms today from the Dispatch Box. Across the House, we salute her bravery. The hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) talked about the Jo Cox Foundation, the Jo Cox Women in Leadership programme, the agenda for change and the need for all of us to stand against targeted abuse, threats and hatred. She reminded the House of the horrific level of threats faced by candidates in the 2024 general election, giving the House the independent figures that have been collated. Collectively, we must ensure that that is never allowed to happen again. The hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) talked compellingly about the work of the Jo Cox Foundation, its impact in her constituency, and the importance of continuing to build on that locally. The hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) revealed the diversity of political views, at least at one time, in the Arthur family—something the Mitchell family would recognise. He said that there had not been much push-back in this place on the international development cuts. I invite him to join me and others across the House in campaigning to change that, in the certain knowledge that Jo Cox would have thoroughly approved of our taking up that cause with very great vigour. She would have been delighted that we had done so. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) entertained the House with stories of her and Jo’s pregnancies, their work together as mums, and her efforts to make the House more friendly to mums and children. I must tell the House that back in 1988 it was me and the then Member for Chelmsford, Simon Burns, who finally persuaded the House authorities to allow two high chairs to be placed in the cafeteria downstairs—what was then called the Strangers cafeteria —so that we could bring our children in for tea once a week on a Tuesday. Finally, the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) talked about the force of Jo’s legacy because of the example she set and the way in which she conducted herself. The hon. Lady made the interesting point that we are both more connected and more disconnected than ever before. She talked of the hurt so often caused by keyboard warriors who behave in a way that they never would if they were held to account. It is my pleasure to add my voice, on behalf of the Opposition, to the important points and to the spirit of unity and community that have characterised this excellent debate.

Hear, hear!

Thank you very much, Sir Roger, for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell)—I agree with every word of his speech—and to congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), who introduced this debate, on what he had to say. There is a feeling of all-party agreement on this issue, which is perhaps not surprising, because we will soon be celebrating the 10th anniversary of the decision made by Parliament that, unless open registers of beneficial ownership are accepted and implemented by the overseas territories, the British Government will enforce them, as is their right. It has taken nearly 10 years; I think that it was 2018 when I and others led a rebellion against our own Government to get this in, and the Government conceded. It was the right thing to do, and it is all taking far too long. The reason we have not made progress is partly a mixture of inertia, crowded agendas and vested interests, but the Government need to confront it at this summit with all possible vigour. The Minister was kind enough to call me to explain why the summit had been delayed. I completely accept his argument, but we must use the delay period to make sure that it is all the more effective. The hon. Member for Bolton West mentioned the figure of nearly £800 billion, which shows that in Britain, when it comes to dirty money, we have a real dog in the fight. Remember what this money is: money from cyber-crime, the drugs trade and the sex trade, and money stolen from Africa and Africans. We say to the overseas territories and Crown dependencies, which are in exactly the same boat, that if they want to have the British flag, our laws and our sovereign, they must also accept our values. The list of offenders so kindly produced by the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax’s beneficial ownership tracker is very clear: Montserrat, St Helena and in particular Gibraltar are to be congratulated on what they have done; the Cayman Islands have made some progress but are certainly not there yet; Bermuda, Anguilla and the Turks and Caicos Islands are marked as “poor”; and there at the bottom—“critically poor”—is the chief, but not the only offender, the British Virgin Islands. These issues must be dealt with. On Guernsey and Jersey, and to a lesser extent on the Isle of Man, we need specific, time-bound commitments by the time of the British G20 summit so that we can hold our heads up. The scale of dirty money going through London, the overseas territories and the Crown dependencies is absolutely appalling, and we need to clean up our act. Finally, I endorse the asks from the APPG: the ending of anonymous ownership of UK property, which has already been raised and is extremely important; the recovery and return of stolen assets, particularly those from Africa, which I have mentioned to the House many times in the past; and the bearing down on professional enablers. We need to ensure that such bureaucratic change as we might then introduce does not harm honest practitioners. There is work to be done on that, but in principle we should do everything we can to stop professional enablers from behaving badly in this area.

rose—

Thank you very much for calling me, Sir Edward. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson), in part of whose constituency I fought an election more than 40 years ago, on his excellent speech. He has focused us all on the fact that we are discussing not the issue itself, but the way in which Parliament has handled it. I have enormous respect for those who are against the assisted dying Bill. I was against all that when I came into the House of Commons, but I have changed my mind over the years for many reasons. I am particularly grateful to the Leader of the House for giving up his time to respond to this debate, underlining that it is for Parliament to sort out how we handle this issue. We have a considerable problem: if we get the Bill through the Commons again without invoking the Parliament Act, those few Lords will filibuster it all over again. What the highly respected BBC journalist Mark D’Arcy said, which the hon. Member for Sunderland Central quoted, is absolutely right. A large number of our constituents want the Bill to go through, but we must remember the background. Judges, lawyers and the Crown Prosecution Service have made decisions that encroach on the area. The Lords had made the decision before, in relation to Lord Falconer’s Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults Bill. Everyone said, “No, this is for the elected House of Commons to decide.” It is for us—the elected Members—to decide and give our judgment, and that is what the Commons did during that memorable Second Reading debate—one of the best debates I have seen in nearly 40 years in the House. Now, for whatever reason, Parliament has not delivered what the public expect it to deliver, and that has had a belittling effect on Parliament. Individually, Members of Parliament may not be the subjects of great respect, but Parliament itself is. If Parliament can find time for technical transport, fisheries and regulatory measures, it can surely find Government time for a major question of life, death and personal choice—that is my submission this afternoon. Respect for Parliament will erode, and our many constituents will be deeply dismayed, unless we deliver the Bill. That is the wish of Parliament. The Abortion Act 1967 was a private Member’s Bill, but the Government recognised it as a major issue of conscience and public policy, and ensured that sufficient parliamentary time was available. Without that, the Bill would not have got through. We should remember that, as I think has been alluded to, other landmark reforms of the ’60s, including the abolition of the death penalty and the decriminalisation of homosexuality, relied on Government support for additional parliamentary time despite being private Members’ Bills. I say to the Leader of the House that assisted dying falls in the best traditions of those decisions. I hope that he and his colleagues will feel able to make the same sort of decisions that our forebears did back in the ’60s. Unless we have Government time, this will not work. It will gravely damage the reputation of Parliament, which will not have opined either way on this vital issue of conscience for reasons of procedure. Our constituents will feel that we are not coming to a conclusion either way, and we will have let them down. The answer is Government time.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me a chance to contribute to this King’s Speech debate at such an early point. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), and I want to express strong support for what he said about the determination of the Government and of the whole of Parliament to crack down on antisemitism. I hope that he will have carried everyone in this House in the words he used. It is also a great pleasure to congratulate the hon. Members for Bradford West (Naz Shah) and for Harlow (Chris Vince) on their brilliant speeches, which entertained and amused the House. The hon. Member for Harrow West said that it was an honour to be in the same party as both of them, but I think all of us can say that it is an honour to be in the same Parliament as both of them, and they certainly did very well. I have to admit that it is now 34 years since, in 1992, I had the privilege of seconding the Queen’s Speech from the Government Benches. On that occasion, I referred to myself as an “oily young man on the make” —[ Official Report , 6 May 1992; Vol. 207, c. 56.] Those were the days! There are three points I wish to contribute briefly to the debate, all of which came off the doorsteps in the royal town of Sutton Coldfield during the recent elections, when I was listening carefully to my constituents—elections, incidentally, which were extremely successful for the Conservatives in the royal town of Sutton Coldfield, where we hold now all 10 seats on Birmingham city council, having got rid of the last vestiges of the Labour party in the royal town. That clean sweep in the royal town of Sutton Coldfield was not echoed across the city of Birmingham, where six significant parties are now represented on the council, making governance even more difficult than it was before. I urge those on the Treasury Bench, in particular the Secretaries of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and for Housing, Communities and Local Government, to be on red alert about what happens now in the city of Birmingham. They are, I think, going to need to give the commissioners far greater powers. Vulnerable people, old and young, depend on Birmingham city council turning a page and becoming a more effective giver of good local governance. The words of the Conservative leader of the Conservative group on Birmingham city council, Robert Alden, are important. He said that the group would try to “work with people across the political spectrum” to deliver these priorities. Birmingham has languished under a profoundly inadequate Labour administration, which even the Labour party nationally did not think was doing a proper job. It will now require a herculean effort of restraint and good will to deliver the governance that the people of Birmingham are entitled to receive. That will involve devolving more power locally. Governance is always best when it is closest to the people it seeks to serve, and certainly the royal town of Sutton Coldfield’s town council, under its outstanding leader Simon Ward, is ready for more devolution, which we think will make life better for local people. My second point is about defence, because although the words are in the King’s Speech, an awful lot more needs to be done. Ukraine and President Trump have ushered in a new era on defence—and, incidentally, thank goodness the last Conservative Government were so fast to realise, arm and train the Ukrainians ahead of and during the early days of the illegal invasion by Russia. The Prime Minister complains—he may or may not have some justice in doing so—that the armed forces have been hollowed out over many years by both parties. However, it is on his watch that these acute problems have come to pass. George Robertson, who was respected on both sides of the House over many years, has made clear that we must now rearm and increase our spending on defence, and I very much hope that the Government will provide far more urgency than they are providing at the moment to that cause. President Trump was not the first person to complain about Europe failing to pull its weight financially in NATO, but he is the first American President to take action. Britain needs to step up. We need to lead European NATO with France and Germany, but also with Poland and in co-operation with Ukraine, whose technology has redefined modern warfare. Australia and Canada are significantly increasing their spending, and I very much hope that the Government will now entertain far greater urgency in addressing these matters. I am pleased that Gordon Brown is now at the heart of this Labour Government. I hope he will explain the importance of soft power being the other side of the defence coin. Many hon. Ladies and Gentlemen on the Labour Benches are experts on defence, and they know that the Government made a terrible mistake in cutting further the amount that we spend on development. Development is a very important arrow in the defence quiver, and I very much hope that Gordon Brown will be able to explain to the Government why this is so important, and why they have made such a mistake. My third and final point is about welfare, which is now consuming every penny that we raise in income tax. We simply cannot go on like that. The Government always appear to be caught in the headlights whenever welfare is discussed. The last time they sought to tackle the issue, they were unable to carry their Back Benchers and they failed to do so. I submit that they failed because they tackled it in the wrong way. There are three rules of welfare reform, as I learned many years ago as a junior welfare Minister between 1995 and 1997 in John Major’s Government. That may have been 30 years ago, but the rules of welfare reform have not changed. It was the most complex of the various ministerial jobs that it was my privilege to undertake, and this is what I learned. First, we cannot take benefit money off poor people. It is not right to do so anyway, and as constituency Members of Parliament we know that it cannot be done. None of us came into politics to make poor people poorer. Taking money off the poorest people is not something that anyone who is planning to reform welfare should entertain. Secondly, the only way to save on welfare is to freeze benefits, although not disability benefits—something that I believe no Conservative Government have ever done. Freezing benefits can make a significant difference to the size of the budget.

I am worried that the hon. Gentleman, who is my friend, was not listening to what I said. I said that the first rule of benefit reform is not to take cash off very poor people, and I explained that it cannot be done. That is what Labour found when it outlined its policies for welfare reform and then had to back off. The third rule is to narrow the gateways into a benefit. We have seen—particularly with the personal independence payment, but in other ways as well—that narrowing the gateways is an important aspect of any reform. I very much hope that the Government will return to the issue with a well-thought-through plan and will manage to carry people with them. Finally, the hon. Member for Harlow said in seconding the motion that this is a King’s Speech for young people. I hope that it is; I fear that it is not. We need to recognise that we are presiding over a period of growing intergenerational inequality, and this House must address it. I hope that the hon. Member’s point will inform the decisions that the Government make now.

I thank the Minister and the shadow Minister for their speeches, which I think have very fully answered the comments that I tried to make in opening the debate. I also thank colleagues across the House for their contribution to this important subject. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that she will chair the national road safety board. I very much hope that she will use that opportunity to help drive the more comprehensive approach to this matter that I set out in my opening remarks. In particular, I hope that she will ensure that it does not suffer from departmental turf exchanges. There is a real win to be achieved here by helping to drive this through the whole of Whitehall and produce a genuinely comprehensive strategy. I also hope that she will use RoSPA, which she spoke about warmly. I strongly concur with her remarks: it is a great organisation that can give the necessary perspective that we require, quite apart from being an example of the good sense and wisdom of the royal town of Sutton Coldfield, where it is based. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the potential merits of a national accident prevention strategy.

The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point, and he adds that particular tragedy to the tragedies that I have already mentioned. Of course he is right that, with modern technology racing ahead in so many ways, our data should be better and more effective at informing the decisions that are made. He made that point with great eloquence. What is currently lacking is a clear, coherent and sustained national strategy to bring these efforts together. At present, responsibility for accident prevention is fragmented across multiple Departments: Health, Transport, Housing, Education and others. The result is a system in which responsibility is dispersed, co-ordination is inconsistent and prevention too often falls through institutional gaps. That is why I believe there is now a compelling case for a national accident prevention strategy. Such a strategy would have benefits across the whole of Government: safer roads for the Department for Transport, reduced pressure on the national health service for the Department of Health and Social Care, less spending on benefits for people unable to work because of accidents for the Department for Work and Pensions and higher productivity for the Treasury. A national accident prevention strategy must therefore be led by the Cabinet Office, which has the oversight necessary to set cross-Government priorities and to co-ordinate and align the activities of different Departments to achieve them. Becky Hickman and RoSPA should be asked to produce a report for the Government on what such a strategy might look like. It should, in my view, be based on a few clear principles: first, ministerial leadership at the centre of Government, ensuring accountability and direction; secondly, a clear focus on prevention, rather than simply reacting after harm has occurred—the very point that the hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) was making just a moment ago.

I beg to move, That this House has considered the potential merits of a national accident prevention strategy. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. Today, I want to draw the House’s attention to what can only be described as a silent and spiralling crisis in our country: the devastating human cost of preventable accidents. This is not a new issue, but it is getting worse and, crucially, it is still not given the level of sustained national attention that its scale demands. Too often, people think of accidents as tragic misfortune, but they are often ordinary moments: a fall at home, a collision on the road, an accident at work, a lapse in safety in a familiar environment. Every Member here will recognise the pattern: we hear it in our advice surgeries, we receive the letters and we take the calls. We meet parents who have lost children, spouses who have lost partners and children who have lost a parent in circumstances that are sudden, awful and preventable. Towards the end of last year, following two road fatalities in the royal town of Sutton Coldfield in our community over the course of a week and the drowning of a teenager in Sutton park, I had the valuable experience of meeting a long-standing resident of Royal Sutton Coldfield, Becky Hickman, who is the chief executive officer of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and has championed accident prevention at the national level for over 20 years. Indeed, she is in the Public Gallery today. One of those horrific accidents took place on Friday 22 August last year, when, tragically, 21-year-old Natasha Thorp was struck by a car on Brassington Avenue in my constituency and died shortly afterwards. I have had the privilege of getting to know her family a little and of joining Natasha’s father and other members of her family at the recent installation of a memorial bench in Sutton Park overlooking Blackroot pool. It is hard to describe the life-changing trauma they have suffered, but they are not alone. RoSPA and I welcome the Department for Transport’s new road safety strategy, but it is a small part of a much bigger issue and strategy. Road traffic accidents are sadly not isolated events, and accidental deaths and injuries do not only happen on the roads. Tragedies can occur at home, at work and when out in open spaces.

As the hon. Member will see as I develop my speech, I very much agree with him. In Birmingham, we have the seventh highest number of accidental deaths in England. Each year, more than 550 families in our city lose a loved one due to a preventable accident. That is more than one death every day. Across the west midlands, more than 2,000 people annually die due to accidents, the equivalent of wiping out a small village year after year. Nationally, there has been an 8% rise in accidental death rates and a 3% increase in hospital admissions in just one year. Over the past decade, accidental death rates have risen by more than 40%. That is not a blip, a statistical anomaly or a short-term fluctuation; it is a serious problem that has been brushed under the carpet for too long. There is a wider national cost to this issue. Accidents place a significant and growing burden on the national health service. Every preventable injury that results in an emergency admission adds pressure to already stretched A&E departments, ambulance services and hospital wards. We are talking about millions of bed days every year linked to accident-related admissions. Accidents now are believed to cost us at least £6 billion annually in NHS medical care. The impact on NHS staff is also profound. Doctors, nurses, paramedics and support staff are dealing daily with injuries and emergencies that in many cases could have been prevented. That is not only a clinical challenge, but a human one, placing additional strain on a workforce who are already under great pressure. The burden extends across the economy. When people are injured, they are often unable to work—sometimes temporarily, sometimes permanently. Families lose income; employers lose skilled workers; productivity falls. The country loses millions of working days each year due to accident-related absence. The combined cost to UK business is now estimated at about £6 billion every year. Taken together, this represents a hidden but substantial cost to the country—to our health service, economy and public finances. The truth is that we can do better. Indeed, we have done better before. We know what works: safer homes, stronger product standards, effective public awareness campaigns, improved design of public spaces, better data collection, and co-ordinated action across Government and local agencies.

I think I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says, except that I would not wish to make an exceptional case for the countryside. This issue affects all part of our country. As he will know, the royal town of Sutton Coldfield is an ancient town and is therefore not part of the countryside as such, although within the royal town of Sutton Coldfield we have the biggest municipal park in Europe, so we at least doff our caps to the issue of rurality. I was listing the number of clear principles that I thought should inform a report of the type I have described. I had mentioned two; the third is indeed the better use of data, so that we understand where risks are emerging, where interventions are needed and whether policies are working. I suspect I will carry the two hon. Gentlemen who have intervened on me on that point: the hon. Members for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme and for West Dorset (Edward Morello). The fourth principle is a serious focus on those most at risk of accidental harm. The fifth and final principle is a sustained approach to public education and awareness, so that safety is embedded across the life course from childhood through to older age. I want to return briefly to the human reality behind all this: a child walking to school, a friend cooking a meal at home, a parent swimming in the sea on holiday—ordinary stories with tragic endings. As Members of Parliament, we all know of searingly heartbreaking, awful occurrences such as poor Natasha’s death. We have the evidence and the tools, and we have the example of other countries such as Australia and Finland, where co-ordinated Government accident prevention strategies are already in place. What is missing in the UK is the sustained national leadership to bring those together. We should not accept a situation in which tens of thousands of lives are lost each year to preventable accidents. We should not accept a system that is fragmented when lives depend on co-ordination. We should not accept avoidable suffering when the knowledge, tools and capacity to prevent it already exist. Ultimately, it is not just about policy, but about whether we are prepared to act on what we already know: that far too many lives are being lost unnecessarily, and that that does not have to be the case. Those are all non-party political points. There is no party politics in this. I appeal to the good sense and experience of all Members of this House in the hope that together we can support the Government to drive that agenda forward with vigour.

Following the Minister’s answer to Question 1 on illicit finances, we still do not have publicly accessible registers of beneficial ownership in the overseas territories, nearly 10 years after this House passed the necessary legislation and made it clear that they must be set up. When will the Government put their foot down, say that there has been enough delay and obfuscation, and fully open up these registers to proper scrutiny now?

Further to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden), is it not pretty poor form that the Prime Minister shovels the blame for this particularly on to Olly Robbins, a fine and experienced civil servant, who was appointed two days after the Prime Minister’s Mandelson announcement? Surely, the buck stops at the top.

I think the Prime Minister should acknowledge—I am sure that he does—that over the past 30 years our armed forces have been hollowed out by Governments of all parties as they have sought to take a peace dividend, but I am afraid that the chickens have come home to roost on his watch. Will he therefore now commit to a huge and immediate uplift in defence spending—not just by vaporising British soft power expenditure; we are talking of moving towards a 5% increase—so that the Government can play a full part in European defence and deliver on their first duty to their own citizens?

The Prime Minister’s reaction at the end of last week appeared to many to be both anaemic and disappointing, and at variance with the other Five Eyes nations. Will he read the analysis of the shadow Attorney General, my noble and learned Friend Lord Wolfson KC, which shows not only that British active engagement and support is within international law, but that those who seek to use international law to constrain us in these circumstances have the effect of leaving tyrants and murderers in place to continue perpetrating their vile deeds with impunity?

Now is the time not to lambast the Chinese Government for the wider issues between us, but to focus 100% on securing clemency for Jimmy Lai. Surely the granting of clemency and a one-way ticket back to the UK and to his family would be a win for everyone, including the Chinese.

In spite of the somewhat thin economic gruel with which the Prime Minister has returned, he was absolutely right to visit China. If I may return to the issue of human rights, particularly Jimmy Lai, did the Prime Minister say, as the whole House would have wished, that this British citizen—nearly 80 years old, held in solitary confinement and denied the chance to practice his religion—should surely receive clemency and be returned to the United Kingdom? Or did the Prime Minister merely deliver a written note?

The Minister, who is normally a reasonable fellow, always makes the point that the last Conservative Government started the negotiations. Does he now understand that, first, we were unable to conclude them and that, secondly, we would never have agreed or concluded the very one-sided deal that he and his colleagues have so naively and mistakenly agreed?

It must be right to look at this White Paper with an open mind, and I commend the Home Secretary’s willingness to listen. I will make two points for her to consider. First, in Royal Sutton Coldfield we are most concerned that neighbourhood policing—community policing—should be accountable, dependable, reliable and accessible. We know that all policing is, above all, local. Secondly, will she bear in mind that strong leadership is the key to policing? We need to find ways of bringing in fresh blood at senior levels. Will she make it easier for that to happen? In particular, there should be a way of encouraging senior officers in the armed forces to look at transferring to senior positions within the police.

Following the excellent point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), does the Minister realise that the President of the United States, following his perspicacious comments last night, has had a chance to examine the deal in full? Does he therefore understand why the last Conservative Government, of which I was a part—indeed, doing the job the Minister is doing now—would never ever have got this deal?

As the Minister will know, part of the official development assistance budget goes to investment in businesses creating employment in the poorest parts of the world, such as British International Investment, which is now undoubtedly the best development finance institution in the world. Will the Minister continue to ensure that BII receives injections of capital so that it can go on doing that brilliant work and earning a decent return for the British taxpayer?

I thank the Home Secretary—who, like me, is a local west midlands Member of Parliament—for her well-judged statement, but is not one of the villains of this piece the police and crime commissioner himself? When we, in government, set up the PCCs in 2010, the aim was that they should represent our constituents to the police. Sadly, the reality has been the reverse, and nowhere more so than in the west midlands, which is why I strongly support the Government’s decision to abolish the PCCs. Can we please ensure that this is not yet another policy announcement upon which the Government will U-turn?

I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement to the House. She is surely right that there are things that we can do to help the desperately brave people on the streets who want their country back. Should we not make it clear that the UK and all Europeans will impose every possible further sanction and restriction on this neanderthal pariah regime? Should we not help to break the communications blackout through Starlink, satellite and other technology, and ensure that details of the regime-led barbarity on the streets is widely known? Finally, as her colleague, the hon. Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden), said a moment ago, we should stop ignoring Reza Pahlavi. His is a name that is being chanted on the street. He is not seeking a restoration of the Peacock throne; he wants to help to usher in a new era. Will she and her colleagues at least meet with him?

Have there not already been numerous investigations and inquiries, and while old wounds are being reopened, is it not the case that little new evidence is emerging? The Minister, who is my parliamentary neighbour, is a most distinguished soldier. Surely he must be concerned that the circumstantial evidence about the impact on the health and wellbeing of veterans is clearly impacting morale, retention and recruitment elsewhere.

Of course quite a lot depends on what now happens, but Mr Maduro stole the elections in Venezuela in plain sight, is a narco-terrorist and has destroyed the lives of tens of thousands of American citizens and of those more widely and made huge amounts of money out of it. Is not the world a better place with him before the courts in New York, and in this case do not the ends justify the means?

I absolve the Minister entirely from responsibility for this statement, as he is not the Africa Minister, but is the so-called new approach for Africa not rather like the old strategy—which was so well set out in the White Paper published by the former Prime Minister in November 2023, with its emphasis on investment—but with much less development investment and much less influence? Will the Minister confirm that bilateral programmes are being cut to ribbons across Africa? Does he realise that in major African institutions there is genuine amazement and astonishment that a Labour Government, for the first time ever in the Labour party’s history, have slashed development aid? Does he appreciate that as Britain and America are withdrawing from Africa, it is Russia and China that are taking our place?

The whole House will welcome the Foreign Secretary’s words on the terrorist attack on Bondi Beach. Without seeking to interfere directly in matters before the court in Hong Kong, we note that Jimmy Lai is 78, he is held in solitary confinement, his health is in sharp decline, he is unable to practise his religious beliefs and he is a British citizen. Surely this case cries out, at the least, for clemency. In view Jimmy Lai’s British citizenship, will the Foreign Secretary directly engage afresh with her opposite number, Foreign Minister Wang Yi, and the Chinese state to mount the very strong case for clemency for Jimmy Lai?

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) on securing an urgent question on this important matter. Does the Minister agree that it is not only the Jewish community who have been seriously let down by this sequence of events, but all of us in the royal town of Sutton Coldfield and across Birmingham? Does she accept that it is not right to blame the SAG, which will always go—on the whole—with the police evidence that is put before that committee? That might well be an argument for looking again at the structure of how these decisions are taken. Does she also agree that this looks like a maladroit political decision rather than a policy decision, and does she understand that many local people are very disappointed in the role of the police and crime commissioner, who is supposed to stand up for local communities and has not done so in this case?

I thank the Foreign Secretary for her answer, and for seeing the volunteers from the emergency rooms last week. We are advised that during his visit to the White House, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman asked President Trump to help stop the slaughter in Sudan and come up with a plan of action, and President Trump agreed to do so. As Sudan is a UK lead at the United Nations, will the Foreign Secretary ensure that this issue is on the agenda the next time the President and our Prime Minister have one of their telephone calls?

The Prime Minister’s role in marshalling European co-operation is essential and very welcome, but would it not be obscene and unconscionable for any country—indeed, one of the permanent five at the United Nations—to invade its neighbour and murder its citizens, and to get away with it and profit from it, let alone to rejoin the G7? Have we not seen this film before? Do we not know how it ends?

If I may, I will focus on the international rather than domestic aspects. I welcome the Secretary of State’s ecumenical approach in respect of the work of the former Government. I have been going to COPs since Copenhagen in 2009, with the last one being COP28 in the UAE, and I do wonder whether, at least in their current form, they are worth continuing. They are hugely expensive jamborees; hydrocarbon interests are distorting the original aim of COP; the wealthy countries are increasingly in the dock, but have decreasing money available. On the wider aspect, it is the poorest people in the world who suffer first and hardest from climate change. There is no doubt that the appalling humanitarian crisis in Darfur is exacerbated by climate change, yet we are doing very little about that.

The Minister knows the Birmingham and Sutton Coldfield area well, so she will understand why so many of us locally are deeply troubled by this unpleasant episode. The initial decision to ban the Israeli fans was clearly wrong, and that is compounded by the information that has now come to light. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) on securing this urgent question. Birmingham is a welcoming and tolerant city, and community relations in Britain’s second city are truly excellent. That is not because of the politicians, but because of the work that faith communities have done over many years.

I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement, but she will know that, in plain sight of the international community, a slaughter of immense proportions is taking place in El Fasher. There have been clear and present warnings and evidence that this is ethnic cleansing, far worse than anything that took place in Srebrenica, and as the Foreign Secretary made clear in her statement, it is spreading outwards. This is a specific UK responsibility at the United Nations. Does she agree that it is essential that she and the Prime Minister hit the phones, speak to those at the African Union and in senior UN countries, and use our position to lobby President Trump to act? On solemn occasions each year, we piously intone—including in this place—“never again”. Does she agree that it is happening again, in plain sight before our eyes, and there is no effective plan to end it?

Thank you for calling me, Ms Lewell, and many congratulations to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) on securing the debate. As many Members have already said, a huge number of families have acquaintance with Parkinson’s. My old dad, who served in this House until 1997, lived with Parkinson’s and I am hugely honoured to be the patron of the Royal Sutton Coldfield and North Birmingham Parkinson’s Group, which does so much good and hard work in the royal town and elsewhere. I pay special credit to Movers and Shakers, which is led by people living with Parkinson’s. Some of them are in the Public Gallery today. Movers and Shakers was started by Rory Cellan-Jones and Sir Nicholas Mostyn. The “Movers and Shakers” podcast has made a huge difference to so many people, and I am extremely grateful to Sir Nicholas for agreeing to come to Royal Sutton Coldfield next April. There are just two key points that I want to emphasise today. The first is that we need more specialists and better access to specialists. We do not have enough neurologists in this country. People are supposed to have to wait for only 18 weeks to see a neurologist, but there is clear evidence of people waiting for between one and two years to see one, and of course most of those people will not have any medication in that period. There are 720 neurologists in the UK. There are 4,400 neurologists in Poland, which has half the UK’s population. The second point is that we need more support for research. Inevitably, that is about funding. We need to harness the private and public sector together to maximise that funding. These two points seem to me to be two of the five key points that we are discussing in this debate.

Does the Minister have any understanding at all of the impact of this incontinent briefing and leaking—the contradictory rumours about pensions, inheritance tax and housing—which is enraging so many of my constituents in the royal town of Sutton Coldfield? Does he not agree that normally an omnishambles happens once the Budget speech has been delivered, not while it is still being crafted?

May I tell the right hon. Gentleman that even the west midlands victims’ advocate, Natalie Queiroz, is herself living in fear due to the Government’s new release guidelines on open prisons? In 2016 she was stabbed in my constituency 24 times by her ex-partner. She was eight months pregnant. Her attacker was jailed for 18 years but is now moving to an open prison four years earlier than expected. Natalie is terrified of coming face to face with him. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why those convicted of domestic abuse who cannot apply for early parole under the SDS40—standard determinate sentences—process are not also excluded from the Government’s dangerous policy of moving offenders to open prisons?

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, and underlining the importance of this matter by allowing further discussion on Sudan in the House. The Minister is doing a very good job, but the whole House needs top-level, prime ministerial involvement in this matter, just as Sir Tony Blair and my noble Friend Lord Cameron were involved when they were Prime Minister. We are witnessing wholesale slaughter. Today is not about money and humanitarian aid, but about impunity. These murderous thugs are bragging online about their part in the ethnic cleansing that is taking place. We need to keep very strong records, so that we can hold to account as many of these people as we can, and we need more action at the UN, where Britain holds the pen. We need to demand access for an African Union-UN delegation to El Fasher, so that they can meet the leaders of the RSF, and we need to prepare international sanctions to be visited on all its leaders.

As vice-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group, I want to express my appreciation to the chairman, the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell), for the brilliant way he has led the debate. He underlined that there must be an all-party approach, which he expressed with great eloquence and factual back-up. He made the point that we all have a constituency interest in this issue. We certainly recognise that in the royal town of Sutton Coldfield. I also thank his predecessor as chair, the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell), who I note the Government have now neutered by putting on the payroll. As a former Government Chief Whip, I know exactly how these things work, and it is a recognition of his great abilities that he has now been put on the non-ministerial payroll. I want to emphasise why this issue matters. We are talking about dirty money—money stolen from Africa and from Africans, money from the sex trade and money from the drug trade. Although Africa is my principal concern, because I believe that development is being held up by the enormous amount of money that is stolen from that continent, the hon. Member for Bolton West also made an extremely important point about tax. After all, in a few days’ time, the Chancellor will be looking for as much tax revenue as she can get. If she follows the hon. Gentleman’s advice, there is no doubt that billions would flow into the Exchequer, for the reasons that he set out. For many years, we believed that closed registers were doing what was required. Closed registers enabled law enforcement authorities to dip into the details and, in the case of terrorism, get a response within 24 hours, but the publication of the Paradise and Panama papers showed definitively why we must have open registers of beneficial ownership. Without open registers, we cannot join the dots of who is doing what to whom. That is a very important point. The scales fell from our eyes when the Paradise and Panama papers were published—all praise to the BBC and The Guardian for doing so—as they showed precisely why open registers are absolutely essential. That is at the heart of this debate. Let us be in no doubt, either, that we are talking about the Crown dependencies as well. They may come after the overseas territories in the Government’s enforcement action but, like the overseas territories, they are on the frontline of this issue. As the hon. Gentleman said, we are not talking about all the overseas territories. Many of them have implemented, or are implementing, registers in good faith; it is just a pity that some of them have not. It is also worth saying that the UK has big questions to answer. From what the National Crime Agency said some years ago, we know that up to 40% of money laundering goes through London, the overseas territories and the Crown dependencies. That is one of the reasons why David Cameron made tackling corruption an important aspect of the G8 in 2016. Britain can be proud of leading that attack on dirty money. We should remember not only Britain’s leadership, but the fact that we have a dog in this fight. I also want to emphasise how we got here. The hon. Member for Bolton West rightly said that the Government gave way because otherwise they would have been defeated—an embarrassing moment for me, as a former Government Chief Whip, to have led that rebellion with Baroness Hodge. With the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act we made it absolutely clear that, if the overseas territories did not accept the will of Parliament, it would be imposed through the ancient and arcane process of an Order in Council. Baroness Hodge and I took a legal opinion from some of the best lawyers in the country, including one of the most brilliant former Directors of Public Prosecutions, Lord Ken Macdonald. The opinion made it absolutely clear that the Westminster Parliament had the right, indeed the duty, to impose an Order in Council if the will of Parliament was not accepted in the overseas territories. It so happens that the Foreign Office, with the skill and dexterity for which it is famous, interpreted that measure as meaning not that an Order in Council would be imposed after a year, but that it would be drafted after a year for imposition after another year—thus giving the overseas territories an extra year. That was condemned in the House of Commons by two former International Development Secretaries—myself and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn)—and by two distinguished former Chairmen of the Public Accounts Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) and Baroness Hodge. It has still not been done. That is where we are now. I echo the questions that the hon. Member for Bolton West asked the Minister. It is very important that we get a definitive approach from the Government to implementing that measure. The Minister is a good bloke. He and I have been discussing development matters for nearly 20 years, so I know exactly what his view is. I hope very much that he will stiffen up the relevant Foreign Office officials, who like to ensure good and harmonious relations, and who do not like a row. He must remind them that officials advise and Ministers decide. Ministers are the servants of Parliament, and Parliament decided as long as seven years ago why these matters must be brought to a head. I have recently seen senior representatives from Bermuda and the Cayman Islands who, in my judgment, were truculent and disrespectful of the will of the Westminster Parliament. As the hon. Member for Bolton West rightly said, the BVI is one of the key countries that needs to accept that, if these overseas territories and Crown dependencies want to use the British flag and to have our monarch and our laws, they must also accept our values. Although the hon. Member has admirably summed up the first of them, I will end my remarks by quoting three points in this excellent brief from the APPG, which I hope will be widely distributed. Backed by Transparency International, Tax Justice Network and others, the report deals with the impact of financial secrecy in the overseas territories on UK communities. The hon. Member spoke about Transparency International UK’s revelation that at least £5.9 billion-worth of suspicious funds have been used to purchase UK properties—an astonishing figure. Secondly, the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation found that, since February 2022, over a quarter of all suspected sanctions breaches were made intermediary jurisdictions including the BVI and Guernsey. Finally, Transparency International UK’s research has linked to our overseas territories £250 billion-worth of funds diverted by rigged procurement, bribery and embezzlement in 79 countries, of which the British Virgin Islands accounted for 92%. What is more, Tax Justice Network’s report, “The State of Tax Justice 2024”, shows that countries are losing nearly £375 billion to multinational corporations and wealthy individuals using tax havens to underpay tax, with over £1 trillion in profits being shifted into tax havens. Those are significant figures; they show why Parliament was absolutely right to vote for and implement the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. They show why today we need to hear the Minister say that his patience is running out, and that he will issue the Order in Council if the overseas territories do not accept the will of the British Parliament.

Although the hon. Gentleman may have been in a cartoon, Baroness Hodge and I were the subject of a demonstration in one of the overseas territories, with placards saying, “Let’s hang Mitchell and Hodge”.

On the point made by the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) about an Order in Council, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that his understanding is the same as mine, namely that an Order in Council is not a discretionary matter for the Government, and that it is there in the legislation that he just referred to? Parliament insists that if these territories do not comply and provide open registers, an Order in Council should be issued.

Of course, the Minister is right about transparency—sunlight is the best disinfectant—but may I just pin him down on one point? He is heavy on collaboration and trying to get agreement, and he is right about that, but let us be absolutely clear that the constitutional relationship with the overseas territories and Crown dependencies is that Britain and Parliament are responsible for security issues and foreign affairs. These are security issues, and they relate directly to foreign matters. If the overseas territories do not agree to accept the will of Parliament, the Minister must make it clear to them that the Westminster Government will act via an Order in Council. That is not a voluntary thing; it is our duty. That is the nature of the constitutional arrangement, and the very clear legal opinion that Baroness Hodge and I secured underlines the point.

The news overnight from El Fasher in Darfur is truly dreadful, with evidence of summary executions and undoubted ethnic cleansing. Given the pivotal role that Britain plays, as set out by the former Minister for Development, the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), will the Foreign Secretary urgently review everything that we are doing, in order to prevent El Fasher from becoming another Srebrenica?

I commend the Secretary of State for the tone and the clarity of her response to the urgent question. I echo what she said about the police making the decision in good faith, but it is, as she has said, the wrong decision. Can I also echo what she has said about this not being the sort of country to make such a decision? It is not the sort of city Birmingham is either. There are outstandingly good community relations there, largely because of the excellent work done by the faith communities across the city.

My right hon. Friend is doing a very good job of forensically demolishing the Government’s case, such as it is. May I just correct what the Minister has said from the Dispatch Box? There is a very great difference between carrying on and discussing negotiations, and doing a deal. As I was the Deputy Foreign Secretary under both my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly) and my noble Friend Lord Cameron, I can tell the House that the then Government would never, ever have done this deal. Secondly, I do hope my right hon. Friend will probe the Minister further on where this extraordinary amount of money is coming from. Is it the defence budget or is it the development budget? Since the Labour party—a Labour Government—has slashed development spending from—

May I congratulate the hon. Lady on her new role, and, perhaps, strike a more slightly consensual note? In Sutton Coldfield we welcome this initiative. It is good that it builds on the towns fund set up by the last Government, and we in the royal town are very pleased to be part of it. I can tell the hon. Lady that we are undertaking extensive community consultation, led by Royal Sutton Coldfield Town Council and its leader, Simon Ward, and that our local board, under the chairmanship of Doug Wright MBE, is forging ahead and already making considerable progress. May I invite her—as I invited her predecessor—to pay a state visit to the royal town of Sutton Coldfield, where she can see how we will use this money to the best possible advantage?

Was not yesterday an historic and much-longed-for day for which this Government and the last one worked tirelessly since the dreadful events of 7 October? Does the Prime Minister agree that, just as real progress at Oslo was made on the back of the intifada, so now we must use the exceptional connections and deep historical knowledge that Britain has throughout the region to help secure a definitive resolution for the middle east to problems that have disfigured the world and poisoned the well of international progress and opinion for so many generations?