Mark Sewards MP: speeches

I could not agree more. That is exactly the sort of behaviour that we have to call out, and it is exactly the sort of behaviour that the Green party is going to have to confront at some point if the party does not want to become infested with the kinds of people we had to deal with in the Labour party between 2015 and 2020. It is important to recognise that the threats facing Jewish people do not exist in neat and separate categories. As we know, online abuse is spilling into the real world. Extremist rhetoric can create an atmosphere in which intimidation becomes normalised, and hostile states will seek to exploit those divisions. The Government’s Protecting What Matters strategy, which was announced back in March, contains important commitments on tackling antisemitism and extremism much more broadly, and obviously I welcome that direction of travel. We now have a new Government and new Ministers in place; it is a test of delivery. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide greater clarity on the timetable for implementing the Protecting What Matters strategy, as there are lots of measures within it, and say how success will be measured. Finally, let me return to the issue I mentioned at the beginning of my speech: antisemitism on university campuses. That is where I first started to become interested in the issue of Israel and Palestine, and the Jewish community in this country.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) on securing this important debate. I do not speak today as a member of the Jewish community, or as somebody who can fully understand the experience that many British Jews live with every day, but I have seen a small snapshot of it, from my time at the University of Leeds and throughout my continuing engagement with the Jewish community ever since. At university, I saw some of the challenges faced by Jewish students on campus. More recently, I spoke at the Leeds Leads Against Antisemitism demonstration, where I heard directly from members of the community about the challenges that they are now enduring. It has been a particular issue in recent years, but it is a long-standing problem, as many Members know. I will return to the experience of Jewish students later, because what is happening on our campuses tells us something important about the wider problems we face. The Jewish community in Britain is facing a profound crisis of safety and security. It cannot be said often enough that the first duty of any Government should always be the safety and security of their citizens—we hear it often enough in the Chamber, but it needs to be said again—and that means that the responsibility for protecting the Jewish community cannot rest with the community itself. Nor should Jewish organisations be expected to shoulder the burden alone. The CST is amazing and should of course be well funded, but it cannot fall on the CST to look out for the community every single time. It is the responsibility of us all, and of the Government.

I could not agree more. I will come on to universities in the final part of my speech. The experience of students at the University of Leeds reflects what the hon. Lady said. Security is incredibly important, but our ambition cannot simply be to protect the Jewish people from immediate physical danger. It must also mean being able to live openly and confidently in British society, with a sense of belonging, while being Jewish. That challenge is made even more serious by the actions of hostile states. I welcome the Government’s action on designating the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps under the newly reformed National Security Act 2023. Designation must be backed up by vigilance and effective enforcement. Ministers have acknowledged in previous statements that Jewish people, alongside dissidents and journalists, are among those most targeted by the Iranian state and the IRGC in particular. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out what further steps are being taken to ensure that hostile states and their proxies cannot intimidate or target British Jewish communal institutions or other organisations in Britain. This is not just some distant foreign policy concern; as we know, we have to live with it every day. Iran has demonstrated its willingness to project threats well beyond its own borders. It also views Jewish communities through the prism of the conflict with Israel, which inevitably creates further concerns for Jewish people here in Britain. Before I come to my point about universities, we have to confront the antisemitism that presents itself as anti-Zionism. Criticism of the Israeli Government is, of course, not inherently antisemitic—of course it is not—but denying Jewish people alone the right to national self-determination, or treating British Jews as responsible for the actions of Israel, is obviously antisemitic. It is anti-Zionist antisemitism and it needs to be called out.

Does the Minister accept that the Prime Minister said in July that the sector needed to be regulated and that this continues to be a priority for his Government?

Will the Minister confirm that the reforms to judicial review of infrastructure will apply to the West Yorkshire mass transit project? Does she consider that project to be nationally significant infrastructure?

I know that many of my colleagues are keen to get in, so I will try to keep it under five minutes. I will speak specifically about amendments 31 and 34. When the Government brought forward this legislation, I was so pleased that they referenced enhanced “know your donor” checks, because before accepting donations from anyone all political parties should know who those donors are and where the money is coming from. We know that malign state actors are seeking to influence our politics. They often try through wealthy individuals who have the means to try to distort things here in the UK, so I was pleased with the Government’s announcement on donor checks. However, I did not think that the original Bill as drafted was strong enough, and with the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) I drafted some amendments that I think will greatly strengthen those checks. For example, amendment 31 states that parties must consider things like the location or jurisdiction of the donor, any links the donor has to politically exposed people, and the source of the wealth being donated from. I was equally delighted a few months ago when the Government, in a statement from the Dispatch Box in response to the Rycroft review, said that location would be incorporated within the “know your donor” checks. However, it is now the second day back, I have had two Select Committees and some work on funeral regulation, and I have looked through the amendment paper and have not, other than in my amendment, been able to find reference to location in any of the Government’s amendments. I would appreciate the Minister’s comments on that and on whether the Government are still committed to ensuring that location is something that political parties have to check before accepting a donation. I would also like to ask the Minister about two other areas. Why did the Government not consider that it was necessary to include politically exposed people or the source of the wealth being donated from? I ask that because recommendation 5 of the Rycroft review said that “know your donor” rules should “more closely mirror the customer due diligence provisions in the anti-money laundering regulations.” If a young couple from Leeds South West and Morley seeks to take out a mortgage, they have to answer these questions. It is reasonable and fair that a political party accepting millions of pounds in donations should also have to answer them. If the Government have fully accepted the Rycroft review yet not incorporated those two recommendations, I suggest there might be a contradiction, which I would like the Minister to acknowledge. It is worth saying that the things in amendment 31 are not radical; they are not new. The Electoral Commission said as far back as 2018 that such changes could prevent foreign money from being used to influence UK politics. The Committee on Standards in Public Life said in 2021 that such measures would be useful and that, again, the money laundering regulations are the model that we should follow. I would be interested in the Minister’s comments on why those additional two things were not incorporated in the Bill.

The Prime Minister’s commitment to regulate the funeral industry was extremely welcome. It was especially welcomed by those families who have been victims of rogue funeral operators, and I commend him for it. They are now asking when regulation will be brought into effect. Is this still a priority for the Prime Minister, and if so, when will the funeral industry finally be regulated?

I have 60 minutes to make 60 points—no, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will speak very briefly, as I feel I have already taken enough of the House’s time on this issue. I commend the Government for bringing forward the National Security (State Threats) Act 2026 and for designating the IRGC almost as soon as it received Royal Assent. I gently say to the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers)—who said many things that I agreed with—that while he talks about the length of time it has taken, it was a delivered by a Labour Government, despite all the time that the Conservatives had in office. But that is the only party political point I seek to make in this debate—

The right hon. Gentleman tempts me, but I am not going to take the offer. The IRGC is a direct threat to the safety of the British-Jewish community. We have known that for a long time, and unfortunately the evidence has stacked up as the years have rolled on. We have seen Hatzola ambulances, which served the whole community, not just the Jewish community, set ablaze; we have seen synagogues and community centres firebombed; and we have seen Jewish people stabbed on the streets of Golders Green. It is past time that we designate the IRGC as the threat to this country that it is. I am reminded—especially today of all days, after the Prime Minister’s final Question Time—that it was the Prime Minister who went to the Jewish community in April and made two promises: first, that the legislation would be brought forward in the King’s Speech and prioritised; and secondly, that he would use it to designate the IRGC. I am so pleased that today, after his final Prime Minister’s Question Time, he has fulfilled both promises. I am eternally grateful for the work that the Prime Minister did to transform my party. I think back to 2019 and the worst defeat that we had suffered since 1935 and remember feeling that my party may never come back. But the Prime Minister turned it around, made us face the public, rid us of the poison of antisemitism and delivered the second-biggest majority of my party’s history. As I make the short journey over to the parliamentary Labour party office to nominate my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), in the spirit of unifying behind out next leader, to succeed the Prime Minister—assuming this debate is done by 6 pm— I place on record my thanks to the person who delivered this historic Labour majority, and who is directly responsible for my job and the jobs of many of my colleagues. After all, serving as a Member of Parliament is the greatest privilege in the world, and I will always be grateful to the Prime Minister for that.

The hon. Member is making a good speech on the risks associated with extreme heat. I had the good fortune of being a maths teacher in a brand-new school building in 2023 in Leeds. Just before the building opened, the builders showed us around the place, and I asked how the building would be kept cool. They said it is a passive cooling system. I said I was not sure it would hold up in heatwave conditions. They said, “We’ve got this revolutionary new technology, Mr Sewards—you can open the window.” As anybody who has taught or been taught in classrooms during a heatwave knows, opening a window does absolutely nothing for the learning of students. Does the hon. Member agree that it is time for the DFE to consider changing its guidance on new school buildings so that air conditioning is preferred?

I had the pleasure of watching England versus DR Congo with some of the good folks at the Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting. Thankfully, the England men’s team have not taken the title of the campaign too literally, and are still on the hunt to bring at least one trophy home this summer. There should be only one trophy, though, because this party has pledged to end the import of trophies acquired through hunting. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement from the relevant Minister to update us on progress in this area, so that we can finally end this barbaric practice?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship once again, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for securing this timely debate, and for his comprehensive report on his visit to Gibraltar. His experiences there closely match my own. On that note, I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. In June last year, I had the pleasure of going to Gibraltar at the invitation of the Government of Gibraltar. While I was there, Guy Dumas, an employee of the Government of Gibraltar, showed us around, and he and I got on so well that I ended up recruiting him as my parliamentary assistant. He has provided enormous assistance with my speech for the debate, for which I am very grateful. He is flying back to Gibraltar in just over a week’s time to marry the love of his life, Holly, and I am sure we all wish them well in their marriage. There has been one cloud—the levanter cloud, as it is known in Gibraltar—hanging over the Rock since 2016. As has already been mentioned, Gibraltar did not vote for Brexit; 96% of Gibraltarians voted to remain in the EU, but they have had to deal with the consequences. And rightly so, because they are part of the British family. After a decade of uncertainty since the referendum, a positive future is finally beginning to shine through those clouds. Much of the focus in the lead-up to the agreement was on the key issue of sovereignty, which is completely understandable. Gibraltarians are proudly British. They have reaffirmed that in two referendums, in which 99% voted to remain part of the United Kingdom. Thankfully, as has already been stated, article 2 of the draft agreement says that the agreement is “without prejudice to” the legal positions of the UK and Spain regarding sovereignty over Gibraltar. The House of Commons Library notes that the agreement includes that term and that the Government of Gibraltar have obtained legal opinions confirming that the agreement makes no concessions over the issue of sovereignty. From an entirely legal perspective, an important box has been ticked. I will focus my remarks on a different principle: Gibraltar’s right to self-determination and the democratic will of its people and its elected Government. My visit to Gibraltar last year began with an unexpected detour. As anyone who has visited will know, the mile-long runway, combined with the strong winds across it, means that planes often cannot land and have to take a detour to Málaga. That was my experience, too. That meant I had to enter Gibraltar via the land border, which is a routine experience for everybody living on the Rock and the surrounding area. Thankfully, I did not experience a particularly long queue to cross from Spain into Gibraltar, but I know that is not always the case. There are over 15,000 cross-frontier workers in Gibraltar, and that border is the only land entry point into Gibraltar. Delays of minutes can quickly become hours, and those hours are taken away from time with family or time at work. With this agreement, the routine passport checks that have caused those queues will come to an end. The agreement is intended to ensure that the free circulation of people and goods continues, and it removes those physical barriers at the border. As a Labour MP, I welcome any agreement that improves the lives of working people. During my visit, I met Gibraltarian Government Ministers, the chamber of commerce and the Federation of Small Businesses. I spoke with businesses, just as the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham described, and with many others. At that point, the agreement had not been announced—it was announced a few days later—but they all spoke about the implications of any potential agreement. They also spoke about Gibraltar’s turbulent history, with Spain being a factor. Their feelings were definitely mixed. There was a mix of hope and anxiety, and there was an acceptance of the reality facing them. There was anxiety among the business community about the effects that new tax arrangements might have on their businesses. The controlled border, while frustrating in the way I described, provided a sense of security, and some worried that removing those routine checks could affect crime on what is a very peaceful peninsula. They also acknowledged that the alternative to the agreement is a hard border. Some of the people I spoke to had lived through the closed frontier years of 1969 to 1985. They did not have to imagine what a no-deal outcome would look like, because they had already lived through it, and they were cautioning me and the people I was with against it. What struck me was that there is both a passion for their home and a practical approach to the reality they face. I remember speaking to one of our drivers during the visit. We discussed the agreement, and although he had concerns—the ones I have set out—he was very practical. He told me that he crosses into Spain every single weekend and that if the agreement would make that easier and save him hours of queuing, then he was all for it. Gibraltarians are a thoughtful and politically minded people. I know that because I am pleased to be a member—a secret member—of the “Speak Freely” Facebook group. I hope they do not kick me out after that declaration, especially as I am not a resident of Gibraltar, but it has been wonderful to follow the political discussions. I have no doubt that some of that political awareness comes as a result of years of vigilance with a neighbour that claims sovereignty over their Rock. The visit left me in no doubt that while Westminster scrutiny is absolutely valid and welcome, and while we have to ratify treaties here, it should not override the wishes of the people of Gibraltar. The UK, the EU, Spain and Gibraltar announced the political agreement days after my visit, and the draft agreement was published this February. Gibraltar’s Parliament subsequently passed a motion supporting ratification. Every single one of its 17 Members voted in favour of ratification—that is the kind of consensus we can only dream of in this place. There can be no doubt that the agreement has democratic legitimacy from the Government of Gibraltar. I recognise the desire of Members, who no doubt have the interests of the Gibraltarian people in mind, to scrutinise the agreement to the fullest. The UK has a constitutional duty towards Gibraltar, even though Gibraltar is almost entirely self-governing, but if the agreement commands the support of Gibraltar’s elected Government and every single Member of its Parliament, we must give considerable weight to that democratic judgment. Our Parliament can and should scrutinise, but it should not substitute its own judgment for the democratic will of Gibraltar, particularly when the agreement protects sovereignty and military autonomy. I want to say a word on military autonomy. Gibraltar continues to play a key strategic military role. Defence is one of the United Kingdom’s reserved constitutional responsibilities, so I fully understand why Parliament must carefully scrutinise that aspect of any agreement, but here, too, a very important box has been ticked. The UK military base is not affected by the agreement, and those are not my words; they are the words of the outgoing commander of the British forces in Gibraltar, Commodore Tom Guy, who said that the agreement is positive from a military perspective because it protects the key principle of “military autonomy”, and our armed forces will “continue to operate to, through and from Gibraltar unhindered”. Under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, treaties must be laid before Parliament before ratification, but the political principle, I hope, is clear: the power to decide Gibraltar’s future should rest with the people of Gibraltar. Our Government and Parliament should respect their wishes. I have only two questions for the Minister, who I know is very highly regarded on the Rock. Can he confirm to the House and to the Gibraltarian people that there will be a legally binding mechanism to ensure that no UK Government will be able to withdraw from the agreement without Gibraltar’s consent? In a similar vein, can he confirm that no future UK Government will be able to block Gibraltar from withdrawing from the agreement if it is the democratically expressed will of the Gibraltarian people? That would be the strongest way to ensure that Gibraltar continues to control its own future. Next week, the levanter cloud over the Rock may finally begin to lift. Gibraltar may feel different, but British sovereignty has been protected, and military autonomy is completely unchanged. Now it should be the Gibraltarians who determine their future in accordance with the principle of self-determination.

The Minister talks about the price reductions for the three countries. By my maths, that is a 70% reduction in the price of sending SMS texts, which is incredibly welcome, although I am not sure who sends those any more. Is he working on similar agreements with other countries not covered by the changes that we are making today?

Can I place on record my thanks to the pensions recovery taskforce that the Minister deployed? They have been working with my team in my constituency to resolve at least one of my constituents’ cases, so I am grateful for that. I am now being contacted by civil servants who are due to retire but are really worried that they will be swept up in this too. What reassurances can he give them?

I very much welcome the Minister’s statement today and the incorporation of the Rycroft review recommendations. I also welcome the changes to the “know your donor” rules, particularly in respect of location; political parties must be forced to include location in their considerations before accepting a donation. I was going to submit that as an amendment to the Representation of the People Bill, so job done on that. Does the Minister agree that political parties should also be forced to consider politically exposed people and the source of the wealth being donated before accepting donations?

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. [ Interruption. ] The Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton and Clyde Valley (Imogen Walker), is making a strange gesture at me, suggesting that perhaps I do not have 60 minutes in which to contribute. I can reassure her and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I intend to speak only very briefly. When I contributed on Second Reading, during the consideration of amendments and on Third Reading, I was convinced by the Government’s argument that the Bill as drafted already contained an exemption that NGOs and humanitarian organisations could take advantage of. I therefore came to the House today keen to listen to the Minister explain the reasoning behind the Government accepting these amendments. I also wanted to hear the reasoning from my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), who has contributed throughout the passage of the Bill and had thoughts on why that exemption was not enough. Having listened to the reasoning, I am convinced of the need to accept the amendments—they absolutely make sense—but I have some thoughts and follow-up questions for the Minister, which I will go through now. Lords amendments 1 and 2 are about creating exemptions for humanitarian support, NGOs and the like. They directly affect the part of the Bill that is concerned with assisting designated threats. Assisting a designated state threat should bring with it grave consequences, but at the same time we should not do anything that risks legitimate NGOs stopping their engagement, their involvement and their important work in some of the most difficult regions in the world. It is clear that there needs to be space for them to operate—but, but, but. We know that nefarious state actors will seek to exploit any loophole or advantage to inflict harm on this country. Does the Minister think that amendments 1 and 2 are slightly too loose, or is she confident that designated state threats could not take advantage of the amendments to continue to carry out their actions through other bodies? I have fewer concerns about Lords amendments 3 to 6. It is right that there should be an exemption for humanitarian bodies to share information with designated state threats when that information relates to, say, the clearance of a minefield. That makes sense and, of course, that exemption should exist. One of the reasons I am so keen to accept the amendments and see the Bill receive Royal Assent is that it is absolutely essential that we designate the IRGC as the threat that it is to this country. I am under no illusions about Government policy—no announcement will be made at the Dispatch Box today, and rightly so—but I want to take this opportunity to spell out that the IRGC is a threat to the British Jewish community in the UK. If we do not take action to proscribe it now—or, in this case, designate it now—we are risking the safety of our fellow citizens. Let us accept these amendments, pass this Bill and protect our communities.

rose—

Hear, hear!

Q3. Two of my constituents, Cody and Liam Townend, and another mum from Leeds, Zoe Ward, all lost babies in different tragic circumstances, but they all went to the same funeral director, who did not treat their babies’ bodies with the dignity, care or respect that they deserved. I will not repeat the shocking details here—the BBC, for its part, published what it could last year—but more shocking still is the fact that the police found nothing actionable in either case, because there is no regulation of the funeral industry. The individual in question is still operating in Leeds today. Given that the Department of Health and Social Care is due to make a decision about changing the law in this area, possibly before the Prime Minister leaves office, will he speak to Ministers and officials in that Department to ensure that when they consider the question of whether to regulate the funeral industry, their answer is yes?

Can the Minister give us a more specific timeline than “very soon”?

I beg to move, That this House has considered antisemitism on university campuses. I want to begin by paying tribute to the Union of Jewish Students for its stellar work to represent Jewish students and fight antisemitism. I also thank Jewish communal bodies for all their work on this issue and more widely. This debate is deeply personal for me. I am not Jewish, but my experience at university alongside Jewish students helped to shape the person and the politician I am today. When I was a student at the University of Leeds in 2008, I decided to stand with the Jewish society. Even then, despite not having a deep or ingrained knowledge of the issues surrounding Israel, Palestine or modern antisemitism, I could see that my fellow students were subject to racism and discrimination just because they were Jewish. As a member of the Labour party, a party for which equality is a core value, that shocked and appalled me. As chair of the university Labour club, I stood by Jewish students. As a sabbatical officer on the student union executive, I stood by Jewish students. Now, 20 years later, having had the honour and privilege of being elected by the good people of Leeds South West and Morley as their Member of Parliament, I stand with Jewish students again, as I always will. We must be clear at the outset about the scale of the problem and its source. We must also be clear that those who deny that there is a problem are part of it. As the Community Security Trust has detailed forensically, antisemitism soared on our campuses following the 7 October attacks, rising by 413% between 2022-23 and the following academic year. October 2023 saw over a year’s worth of antisemitic incidents in just one month. A poll commissioned by the UJS and published this year found that a quarter of all students—25%—do not care very much, or at all, if Jewish students are forced to hide their identity on campus. Even more shockingly, 20% of students say that they would be reluctant to, or would never, live with a Jewish student. Antisemitism has, in the words of the UJS, become “normalised on campus”. We will never be able to grasp or tackle this crisis until we recognise that it is driven primarily by antisemitic anti-Zionism, the ugly form in which centuries of Jew-hate finds its most virulent expression today. The CST says that over 70% of the antisemitic incidents that it recorded in higher education last year were overtly related to Israel and the middle east, while also demonstrating anti-Jewish hate or motivation. I must be crystal clear: this is not about the legitimate criticism of the policies of the Israeli Government—goodness knows, I have been a critic. That criticism is expressly protected in the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism. Nor is this about the legitimate protests that people carry out in support of the Palestinian people.

It has been an excellent debate, and I value everybody’s contributions today. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), who talked about his experience compared with that of Jewish people, how wildly different it was and how insane it is that we tolerate that in this day and age. I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) for talking about the experiences of Warwick students, both good and bad. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) gave an excellent history lesson and spoke about the fact that this has happened before—and before Israel even existed. Antisemitism flares up on campuses regardless of the circumstances, and we must deal with that. I could not find a fault in the first half of the speech made by hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed). He invited me to work with him to deal with this problem, and I gladly accept. I would gently say—I did not intervene at the time, because I wanted other Members to get in—that there is clearly a problem on campuses, and we have to intervene now, if 20% of all students say that they do not want to live with Jewish students. I would also say, on the issue of universities clamping down on free speech too much, that there is clearly still a problem if Jewish students have to live in fear on campuses today. It is worth having a discussion about that after the debate. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke brilliantly about experiences of Jewish students from across the country. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) was excellent in her summation; I have to say that she, the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) and the Minister almost spoke with one voice, giving a new, positive meaning to the word “uniparty”. I will end by saying a huge thank you to UJS, which has provided a lot of the statistics and evidence that we have used in our speeches today. I commend its members for their work, and I know that it will continue. I want them, and everybody outside this place, to know that they will always have a friend in us. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered antisemitism on university campuses.

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. The purpose of the debate is to talk about antisemitism on campus, what drives it and how we can solve it. I want to be clear that a lot of what drives antisemitism on campus today relates to the denial of the equally legitimate right of the Jewish people to self-determine—there is no question but that that is one of the causes. It is about abusing some of the most precious aspects of our democracy. The right to free expression and the right to protest are being twisted to intimidate, harass and abuse Jewish students, in pursuit of a cause that we often see animated by racism, hatred and violence. That is why half of all students have heard chants or slogans that glorify Hamas, Hezbollah or other antisemitic terror organisations. It is why similar numbers of students have witnessed the 7 October attacks, the bloodiest day in Jewish history since the Holocaust, being justified. This is what globalising the intifada means in the real world. It is the student trying to take her biology exam while chants calling for the destruction of Israel and praising terrorists who massacred Jews on 7 October were screamed through a megaphone outside. It is the student who had to listen to their lecturer saying that hostage taking was “the only way for Palestinians to negotiate.” It is the students who have witnessed so-called pro-Palestine societies holding bake sales on Holocaust Memorial Day and the anniversary of the 7 October attacks.

The hon. Member is absolutely right. Later in my speech, I will come on to what I think the Government should be doing, but as the hon. Member mentions colleges, I will say that the Government should adopt David Bell’s recommendations once he has completed his review into antisemitism in schools and colleges. We have to stamp this out wherever we find it. The effort to stigmatise, isolate and harass Jewish students has even, on occasion, been accompanied by physical violence. Last year, I was pleased to return to Leeds JSoc to hear the first-hand testimony of Jewish students. They told me of being taunted by shouts of “Free Palestine” when they were going to Shabbat dinner at Hillel House, an event that had nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They told me what it feels like to have a lecturer boast of how proud he was of seeing his son arrested for supporting a proscribed terrorist organisation. In some instances, they also told me personally that they were hiding their identity from their flatmates because of the fear of how they might react.

Having stood on the same site, I know just how powerful it is. Those people must be remembered for all time. I will come on later to recommendations for the Government; I realise that time is getting on, and I want to make some progress, but I will address the hon. Member’s point later. Abuse and intimidation on our campuses is not just directed at Jewish students. Rabbi Deutsch, the university’s Jewish chaplain, was hounded, bullied and, with his family, forced into hiding after death threats—that was at Leeds University again. Beyond Leeds, Jewish academics and staff on campuses have been subject to appalling antisemitism. Israeli professor Michael Ben-Gad was targeted by activists last year. He was threatened with beheading, and mass protesters stormed his teaching and his classes. Professor David Hirsh, a world-renowned expert on antisemitism, was forced to quit the University and College Union, of which he himself had been a founding member, because he found it intolerable to stay. Quite rightly, we would never accept such behaviour being directed at any other group of students or staff from any other minority background. In Britain in 2026, Jewish students and staff should not and must not be denied the safety, dignity and respect that we expect all students and staff to be afforded. Although it has obviously worsened considerably over the past three years, antisemitism on our campuses is not a new problem. Fifty years ago, anti-Israel activists on British campuses responded to the passage of the UN’s now infamous “Zionism is racism” resolution by attempting to ban Jewish student groups who supported the idea of a Jewish state, in effect banning huge numbers of Jewish students from campus. Half a century on, technology has exacerbated the challenge. The Antisemitism Policy Trust has rightly warned: “Campus antisemitism is the direct physical consequence of the online ecosystem. Social media platforms, AI chatbots, search engines and computer games have allowed extreme, conspiratorial antisemitism to shift from the dark fringes of the web into the mainstream student experience.” Two aspects are particularly noteworthy. The first is the manner in which well-networked extreme student groups operate anonymously, allowing them—sometimes in co-ordination with hostile state actors, it has to be said—to launch harassment campaigns against Jewish staff and students, with little or no risk of ever facing exposure or discipline. Secondly, no 18-year-old arrives at university without exposure to social media and what the APT terms “algorithmic grooming”. This speaks to a wider point. Campuses are not hermetically sealed bubbles. We know that through the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—the nefarious IRGC—Tehran and its media mouthpieces are seeking to radicalise young people here, spread antisemitism and amplify anti-Israel activism and narratives. In recent years, IRGC commanders have addressed UK-based student groups in online seminars, urging them to become “holy warriors” in an “apocalyptic war” against the Jews. Universities, one of them suggested, “have become the battlefront”, and they are calling them to arms. We must not allow our seats of higher education and learning, which at their best should promote, cultivate and guard the Enlightenment values of reason, tolerance and freedom of expression, to become incubators of extremism, fundamentalism and hatred. Too many universities have been too slow, too timid and too ineffectual in tackling antisemitism. In some instances, they have failed Jewish students and staff, the wider student body and the very purpose and principles underpinning academia and university life. That brings me on to my actions and what I ask of the Minister today. In the face of this challenge, I commend the action that the Government have already taken, especially the Prime Minister’s announcement that universities will be required to publish information on the scale of the problem on their campuses, as well as the specific steps that they will take to clamp down on it. I believe—to go back to what the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) said—that the Government should also consider the establishment of a statutory framework for the investigation and disciplinary handling of hate crime incidents in higher education and universities. The Charity Commission, the Office for Students and other regulatory bodies should all be empowered to ensure proper conduct and strengthen student union accountability, implementing sanctions where unions fail to address antisemitism. Higher education should be designated as a priority area for the extremely welcome Government agenda, “Protecting What Matters”, which was announced in March this year; it contains a lot of good material, but not necessarily the timelines in which to deliver it. I note that in the past UJS has provided a vital early warning system about emerging extremist threats. For instance, in the cases of the neo-Nazi National Action group and the Islamist Hizb ut-Tahrir, the Government have followed with proscription, recognising that a threat on campuses soon becomes a wider threat to the safety of everyone. I would very much appreciate it if the Minister could clarify a few points. What is the timetable for implementing the measures set out in the “Protecting What Matters” strategy? Will he ensure that higher education is a priority area? Will the Government consider UJS’s proposal for formalised taskforces to better co-ordinate action by the police, universities and Government to combat criminality and extremist activity on our campuses? That includes the provision of clear public order guidance for universities and the police, to strengthen the enforcement of both new and existing powers. Finally, will the Government consider the proposals developed by the Antisemitism Policy Trust to tackle the threat posed by social media? That includes developing a dedicated strategy to address the role of algorithms, gaming platforms, encrypted online networks and generative AI systems in facilitating the spread of antisemitic conspiracy theories, extremist narratives and online-to-offline radicalisation. I want to acknowledge the work of Jewish societies, student unions and university administrators. Some of them are doing tremendous work right now to deal with this problem. I will give three quick examples. King’s College London adopted UJS’s antisemitism awareness training, working with it to adapt that important resource for many of its staff. Keele University’s campus security team responded to the appalling attacks on the Jewish community in north London by inviting Jewish students to speak about their concerns and what they can do to address them. In communications with all students, City St George’s student union in London encouraged them not to engage with City Action for Palestine, which has repeatedly shared content supportive of terrorism and proscribed organisations. I will end today with where it all began for me. This year, I had the privilege of attending one of Leeds University JSoc’s Friday night dinners, one of the first I had attended in 18 years. The invitation described it as a small gathering, but I was delighted to find that it was a rather less intimate event than that. There were over 150 students there, and there had been 300 the week before; I think the lower attendance in the week I came was not because of me, but because it was half-term. It was a pleasure to be there and to speak to as many students as possible. Around the tables, some students were discussing their studies. Many spent the evening gossiping and making new friends—everything that student life should be about for everyone. Our Jewish fellow citizens are not asking very much from us: simply the right for their children and grandchildren to expect and enjoy the same experiences at university, with all its new opportunities, discoveries and challenges, that so many of us cherished and enjoyed.

My hon. Friend is making such a powerful speech that I did not want to interrupt, but I spoke to volunteers at the East Ardsley RSPCA in my constituency the other week. They told me that they have to endure abuse from people who accuse them of not taking care of animals, because people have reported cruelty to them, but the volunteers do not necessarily have the powers to act. If the RSPCA and other organisations had access to a database, that would solve that problem. Will my hon. Friend also take the opportunity to commend the RSPCA in my constituency for all of its outstanding work?

As a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I have seen at first hand the courage and dedication that our service personnel show each and every day, and, as this is Armed Forces Week, I want to commend them for it. One of my constituents is a newly attested Army reservist. He is proud to serve our country but his experience shows some of the barriers faced in training. It took nearly a year to train, but, crucially, he had to spend nearly £1,000 on travel, equipment and medical appointments. Unfortunately, that barrier resulted in many other dedicated applicants dropping out. On his behalf, will the Leader of the House grant a debate on the need to support the recruitment and training of our Army reservists?

indicated assent .

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement today. It is a difficult and painful, but that is as nothing compared with what those families have been through. On the shocking details he shared with us about babies’ bodies being mistreated in mortuaries, I am sorry to say that that story will be directly relevant to two constituents I am representing. I would appreciate a meeting with him, however brief, to discuss their cases ahead of his Department’s publication of its decisions on the final recommendations from the phase 2 report of the Fuller inquiry. He will also know that Leeds families at the start of their maternity journey—Donna Ockenden is conducting an inquiry into Leeds maternity services—will welcome, as do I, his commitment to ensuring that the duty of candour will apply in that inquiry. Can he confirm for them and for me that all the lessons that Donna Ockenden and he have learned from this inquiry will be applied to the Leeds inquiry, so that those families get the answers they deserve?

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, especially as she is my friend on the armed forces parliamentary scheme. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I am sorry I was not here at the beginning of the debate; I was at a really important statement on Nottingham maternity services in the main Chamber. Does the hon. Lady not agree that, even if some commission came forward and said that STV was absolutely the way to go and that we should adopt it in future, this country should adopt it only if the electorate validates that through a general election where a majority of the parties making that promise win a majority in Parliament, or through a referendum?

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Many of my residents are sick of persistent fly-tipping blighting our community. This Government have passed laws that allow us to prosecute fly-tippers, but residents are also frustrated by the cost of cleaning up this mess. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is imperative not only to clean up our communities but to make the fly-tippers pay for it?

T7. Last week, the Chancellor announced the biggest insourcing of Government caterers, cleaners and security officers that we have seen in a very long time, when the current contract ends. Does she agree that that move will finally recognise workers who have been undervalued and under-appreciated for far too long?

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Mundell. My hon. Friend is talking about lifesaving treatments. One of my constituents has a niece who was born with SMA type 1 and previously would have been at risk of dying. My constituent was told that her niece was unlikely to live past the age of two, but because of the advances in treatment that my hon. Friend has just spoken about, she has just celebrated her ninth birthday. However, she did have to be fed through a stomach pump. Does my hon. Friend agree that for £3.1 million we can get full coverage across England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and ensure that all babies are tested, so that those with SMA can be treated as early as possible?

Many parents rely heavily on SENDIASS—special educational needs and disabilities information, advice and support services. We know that these services are free, impartial and vital for parents. Given that we expect demand on these services to increase, how will the Minister ensure that local authorities have the necessary financial and practical resources to maintain the independence and quality of SENDIASS?

Local businesses are the backbone of our high streets, and on that basis I congratulate Souvlaki Corner on its hugely successful opening in Morley this week, following its rip-roaring success in Wortley; should you find yourself in our part of the world, Mr Speaker, you and the Leader of the House are welcome to join me there any time. Given that this Government are backing our high streets with £10 million for high street rental auctions to get empty shops filled, can we have a debate on this and the other things we can do to help genuine local businesses?

I am certain that we will get on to the point the right hon. Member has raised in Committee, which is coming up soon. I do think those items are worth discussing, and that such scrutiny will be possible during the next stage. I would also take this opportunity to commend him, because he warned that Iran was recruiting criminal gangs to spy on the Jewish community. I think that was three years ago, and the threat has only got worse since. The reason why I am making this speech is that I want to underline the need to proscribe, or rather to designate, the IRGC as soon as this Bill receives Royal Assent.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his powerful intervention. To be crystal clear, although we are talking about designation today and that gets into issues that are not covered by the Bill, I have serious concerns about the position the IRGC will be in following any potential peace deal. Peace is always welcome, of course it is—when people stop killing each other that should always be welcome—but the IRGC is the world’s No. 1 sponsor of terrorism. It being in a position of power? I can never be comfortable with that. Sanctions alone cannot have the impact we want. The Bill allows us to designate those individuals who are operating in the UK. It also allows us to designate their supporters and anyone who chooses to support this terrorist organisation. And let us be in no doubt: the IRGC instigates and stokes terror, it funds terror, it directs terror. The IRGC is a terrorist organisation. It is the terror arm of the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. Only this legislation will allow us to protect the British people from its nefarious activities on our shores. I commend the Government for bringing it forward. I commend the Prime Minister for keeping his promise. I ask him to keep the second one and proscribe and designate the IRGC.

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend’s excellent point. I do not want to repeat myself too much, but the Prime Minister made this promise to the communities involved, and this is the perfect time to accelerate and get the Bill through Parliament before we get to the summer recess, so that we are not dealing with it in September, October or November. To deter, counter and thwart Iran’s malign activities, we must take this firm action now, in line with my hon. Friend’s intervention, and this Bill will enable us to do so. As was said in the opening speeches, the Government have rightly ramped up sanctions against Tehran, targeting both the IRGC’s architects of repression at home and the pro-regime oligarchs overseas who enjoy the very freedoms that they deny to the Iranian people at home. However, sanctions alone cannot and have not curtailed the IRGC’s nefarious activities in the UK. Crucially, while sanctions primarily target an organisation’s or an individual’s financial activities, only designation as described in this Bill will allow us to criminalise those who are members, supporters or agents of a terrorist organisation.

I appreciate what the hon. Lady says, and I am glad to hear that she has been meeting those organisations. The Prime Minister made two promises, and this Bill fulfils one of them. Proscribing the IRGC is the other, and I will come to that in a moment. This Bill captures the sophistication of the entities that it seeks to target: those groups operating under alternative names and front organisations. It targets them to ensure that they are unable to exploit any potential loopholes. Creating the new power of designation—which is almost equivalent to proscription but not quite the same, as we have heard in this debate—is absolutely welcome. The Bill also makes supporting designated bodies for a prohibited purpose—including arranging meetings, professing support for them or materially assisting their activities in the UK—a serious criminal offence. I am grateful to the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and the previous Security Minister for enduring my endless questions about this issue, both in this House and in private. I am very appreciative that the Bill does what I have been asking for it to do, and what many other Members of this House have been asking for it to do. I am also very pleased that offences will carry substantial penalties, including sentences of up to 14 years, which is absolutely the right move. I appreciate what the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) said about this being primary legislation, and he is right to say that today’s discussion has to be about the content of the Bill, not the bodies that we seek to proscribe through it. I absolutely take his point, and he set out a very eloquent argument about what he sees as the problems with the legislation. However, given the impact of the IRGC on this country and on the communities I speak to, I want to take this opportunity to set out not only why this legislation should pass through its Commons stages today, but why it should be used to proscribe the IRGC as soon as possible, as I will not have many further opportunities to do so. There is no clearer threat to the UK and the British Jewish community than that posed by the IRGC. We know that the IRGC directs terror abroad, and we know it funds Hezbollah, the Houthis and Hamas. We know that it brutally crushes dissent at home in Iran and murdered more than 30,000 people in the January protests, and it continues to repress its people as well as cut off internet access, which makes us unable to update the figures and to know what is truly going on in some parts of the country. We know that the IRGC is a clear and present danger to Britain’s national security. It plans terror attacks here, it tries to radicalise people here, and it promotes extremism here. I pay tribute to our security services for all the work they have done to protect us against the IRGC and others. As we know, MI5 confirmed last October that it had identified more than 20 potentially lethal plots, backed by Iran, in the previous year alone. On that point, I want to focus my remarks on the threat that the IRGC poses to the Jewish community in this country. As the Chief Rabbi said in April, our fellow citizens are facing a sustained campaign of violence and intimidation. We know that Jews have been stabbed on the streets of Golders Green. We know that Finchley Reform synagogue, Kenton United synagogue, and Jewish organisations and charities have all been targeted. We know that ambulances belonging to Hatzola, an organisation that serves the entire community, were burned. Police investigations are ongoing, and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on all the specific circumstances of each case, but we know that paid proxies are operating here. We also know that the US Department of Justice has identified paid proxies operating in our country that are directly linked to the IRGC, and the threat is not contained to Britain, with a number of attacks across Europe in recent months. The threat is not disputable. Senior intelligence figures such as the former head of MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove, have stated clearly that the IRGC poses a threat to the British Jewish community, and that threat is of long standing. Over the past decade, we have seen growing evidence of Iranian efforts to radicalise young people here. Senior IRGC commanders have addressed student audiences and urged them to “raise the flag of the Islamic Revolution, Islam and martyrdom”, and calling on them to join an “apocalyptic war”.

I start by commending the Government for the speed with which they have brought forward this legislation. I understand the charges made by the Opposition about the amount of time available to debate the Bill, but the House will recall that when the Prime Minister spoke to Jewish communities following certain attacks this year, he promised not only that the IRGC would be proscribed, but that this legislation would be brought forward and accelerated. That was just prior to the April recess, the local elections and the King’s Speech, so there has not been too much parliamentary time between then and now, and he has fulfilled at least one of his promises by bringing forward the legislation.

Does the hon. Lady not accept that Jonathan Hall, whom Members on all sides of the House respect, backs the Bill as a narrow and focused measure to designate state threats?

The hon. Gentleman will know that I have called for the proscription of the IRGC numerous times in this House, and that it is something I absolutely want, but does he not accept that we have to pass this legislation, set the framework up and allow the Home Secretary to make an evidence-based decision before proscription is brought into effect? Should he not withdraw this new clause, and allow due process to take its course?

The Education Committee heard evidence from Snapchat, which pushed back on the hard evidence and the facts—and on any idea that the platform caused harm to young people at all. It was perhaps no surprise that the e-safety commissioner in Australia opened an investigation into Snapchat for non-compliance with the Australian ban. Against that backdrop, can the Secretary of State confirm that, should the social media companies try to subvert the new rules that we introduce, they will be held accountable, and that parents will not be held accountable for enforcing them?

I genuinely welcome the Secretary of State to his place, and I commend the Royal Marines, the National Crime Agency, the personnel from the RAF and all the others for conducting their work this weekend. Clearly, this is not the last we will see of the Russian shadow fleet. There are reports that two more ships are sailing our way; they are sanctioned by the US, the EU and Canada, but not by the UK. I am aware that the Secretary of State cannot comment on future sanctions, but will he tell us that he will work extremely closely with our allies on sanctions alignment to close any loopholes that Putin might seek to take advantage of?

Let me start by saying that I love dentists, and I will tell the House why. Twenty years ago, almost to the day, I completed my last GCSE history exam and decided to go and celebrate with my friends in Drighlington, in my constituency. We chose to cycle down New Lane, which is between Gildersome and Drighlington. New Lane is on a steep hill and, as I discovered, it has speed bumps. My friends and I decided to race down the hill and, in my desperation to win, I went faster than any of them. I do not remember my face meeting the concrete, but I do remember the sensation that one feels when going down on a rollercoaster. That is the good news. The bad news is that my face was badly damaged and my teeth were completely destroyed. I am eternally grateful to the NHS doctors and nurses who put my face back together, but unfortunately it required years of treatment from dentists to fix my teeth, and the treatment is still ongoing today. I am very grateful to have been served by NHS dentists over the past 20 years, and they have done extremely well in dealing with composite bonding. If any Member of this House has experienced composite bonding, they will know that it can have a transformative effect, but they will also know that it can break really easily. I grind my teeth at night, which means that in some cases I have had weekly appointments at NHS dentists, just to maintain their appearance. Unfortunately, some of my teeth could not be saved and I had to settle for some veneers, but I still go back for my composite bonding appointments. Despite that story, I still count myself as one of the lucky ones, because if that accident were to happen to me today, I imagine that my experience would be very different. My constituents contact me all the time to tell me about the lack of access to NHS dentistry. In some cases, I have constituents who are told by NHS dentists that they will be seen within six to 12 months, but if they call back and ask for a private appointment, they can be seen that day. The only difference, of course, is that it will cost six times the amount to be seen.

I absolutely agree we should consider that. It must be done within the fiscal rules and we must find the money in a responsible way, but given we have heard some sources cite £1.5 billion to fix dentistry, I think that is a very reasonable figure to consider finding. I do think there is a solution, which is fundamental reform of the NHS dental contract. It must start considering prevention much more seriously, incentivise dentists to treat complex problems, not just simple ones, and focus on the workforce demands. Those three things are difficult, but we are here to grasp the nettle. This Labour Government and most Labour MPs, just like me, were elected to do the difficult things in office. I know that this is difficult, we need to find extra resources and there are no easy choices when it comes to fixing any of our public services, including dentistry, but we have this time in office, and we should use it.

Growing numbers of my constituents have been contacting me about e-bikes and e-scooters. They know the law, and they know it is not being enforced on pavements, in parks or in public spaces. There is clearly a need for a debate on this matter. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate not just on the state of the law on e-bikes and e-scooters, but on whether the police have the resources they need to enforce it?

This Government have delivered the funding necessary to build mass transit in West Yorkshire, and I am very proud of that. However, the delay in the delivery timetable has left many of my constituents extremely frustrated that the Leeds and Bradford tram will not be delivered until the late 2030s. We have been stung too many times on mass transit projects in my part of the world. Will the Secretary of State confirm that she will do everything within her power to accelerate the delivery of mass transit in West Yorkshire? After all, both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have said that it is time for trams.

The hon. Gentleman has been a powerful advocate for religious freedom right across the world, and his speech underlines that even further. Like him, I looked at the Open Doors world watch list, which said that Sudan is now the fourth worst place in the world to be a Christian. That is not just because of the war; it is because churches are being burned down and Christians are being forcibly converted, in addition to mosques being attacked and the ongoing humanitarian catastrophe taking place right across that country. I absolutely welcome the £146 million that the UK Government have released in humanitarian aid, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that the only way we are going to get a lasting solution to this crisis is if the UK uses every lever at its disposal—including its role as the official penholder on Sudan at the UN Security Council—to broker a ceasefire?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate and making an excellent speech. Clearly, the UK faces malign threats from Russia, from China and especially from Iran, as recent examples have shown. I commend the Government for bringing forward the tackling state threats Bill—reportedly next Wednesday, but we will see the business statement tomorrow—that will allow us to deal with the threats, but the public do not necessarily know just how severe they are. Does he agree that, as well as dealing with the threats, we need to educate the public on just how threatening these state actors are and why we need to deal with them now?

Although the debate is about road safety in the west midlands, many of the lessons that the hon. Lady talks about will apply nationwide, including in Leeds South West and Morley. Does she share my frustration that some councils rely on mean average speed data to determine whether to make adjustments on certain roads? As a maths teacher, I really appreciate the mean, but it hides the outliers. If we have 100 outliers out of 10,000 cars, that still makes for a dangerous road. Does she agree that councils should change their approach?

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard). I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) on his speech; I will touch on some of the same themes. I am only really going to refer to the tackling state threats Bill today. This new legislation honours Labour’s manifesto commitment to follow the Jonathan Hall review and to introduce new powers that allow us to proscribe state threats, specifically the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Many of us from across the House have been advocating for this for a long time—and I, for one, am grateful to the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary and the Security Minister for enduring my questions on the subject, both in this place and in private. The Bill could not be more timely. We know that the IRGC directs Tehran’s terror networks abroad and brutally crushes dissent at home. It oversaw the sickening repression following January’s protest movement in Iran, which saw 30,000 people murdered. That repression continues to this day, while the conflict goes on, with torture, sham trials and executions all being used to try to beat the Iranian people into submission, and we are only getting a small amount of information out of Iran because of the internet blackouts. We know that the IRGC is responsible for funding and arming terrorist proxies, including Hamas, Hezbollah and others across the region who seek to hurt our allies and destroy the world’s only Jewish state. The new head of the IRGC is an internationally wanted terrorist, implicated in the 1994 attack against the Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina Jewish community centre in Buenos Aires that killed 85 people; he was also the Interior Minister in 2022, when Iran cracked down brutally on the Woman, Life, Freedom protest. Of course, all of what I am saying is about Iran—a foreign country—and today’s debate is about defence readiness in this country, but unfortunately the IRGC seeks to wreak havoc on our shores. In November, the director general of MI5 linked the IRGC to no fewer than 20 potentially lethal threats here in the UK in the last year alone. The threat has only grown. The Chief Rabbi has said THAT British Jews and Iranian dissidents here are facing a “sustained campaign of violence and intimidation”. We have all seen this. We saw that the ambulances belonging to Hatzola, a Jewish charity serving the whole community, were targeted. We saw the Finchley Reform and Kenton United synagogues attacked. We saw Jewish charities, the Israeli embassy and the Iranian media all targeted. Most horrifying of all, we saw two Jews stabbed on the streets of London simply because they were Jewish. All this, the police and security experts suspect—there are ongoing investigations—is the work of paid proxies and criminal gangs on behalf of Iranian-backed terror groups, directed by the IRGC. Since coming to office, this Government have continued to ramp up sanctions against the regime and individuals. Travel bans, asset freezes and disqualifications from directorships are all very welcome and very useful in the fight against this activity, but these sanctions cannot and have not curtailed the IRGC’s nefarious actions in the UK. That is why we need the proscription-like tool now being legislated for by the Government, and why we need it now. We do not know the full detail of what is being proposed, which is why I am here to say that the Government must ensure that IRGC members cannot be active in any respect in the UK, and that includes attending or speaking at meetings. The new power must make it a criminal offence for anyone in the UK to associate with the IRGC, profess support for it, share any materials from it or attend any meetings with IRGC representatives. It must require all IRGC online material, be it propaganda or otherwise, to be removed from the internet. I call on the Prime Minister to keep his promise from just a few weeks ago, stating that this legislation will be prioritised and accelerated through this parliamentary Session. We need to see it as soon as possible. I also urge the Government to build further on this legislation, and to take further action to protect our national security and the Jewish community. First, the Iranian embassy has been using social media to incite violence on our shores. Both the ambassador and the supreme leader’s representative in the UK should be expelled. Secondly, the regime is using soft influence networks across the UK to advance its objectives, under the cover of cultural, academic, charitable and media activity. These must be identified and dismantled. Thirdly, the Government’s “Protecting What Matters” strategy, the announcement of which was extremely welcome, needs to be implemented in full and quickly. The Iranian regime is one of the world’s worst abusers of human rights. It menaces our allies in the region with its support for terrorist proxies. It threatens the safety and security of the British people, including our Jewish community here at home. I commend the Government on the seriousness with which they treat this danger, as underlined by this new legislation. We now have to get on, pass these new laws and proscribe the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. It is time to proscribe the IRGC.

I rise as a former teacher and someone who loves my current job more than that one—although I did love teaching. Does my hon. Friend agree with the Education Committee that FE colleges that are currently not exempt from claiming back VAT are at a disadvantage compared with sixth-form colleges attached to schools that can claim it back, and that there is an argument that FE colleges should also get that advantage?

One of my constituents was diagnosed with breast cancer and subsequently received universal credit and incapacity benefit, but the DWP then stopped these payments due to some confusion over a critical illness cover policy. The facts around it were incorrect. Despite her best efforts and despite my team’s recent best efforts, we have been unable to get a hearing from a DWP caseworker for a mandatory reconsideration claim. That was over six months ago. In the meantime, she has now discovered that her cancer is terminal. Please can we have a debate in Government time on DWP delays and their impact on the critically ill?

Tonight, a “Panorama” documentary will air featuring members of the Jewish community talking about the existential fear that they feel in this country and about wanting to leave. I urge all hon. Members to watch it when they can. We know that an IRGC-linked group has claimed responsibility for some of the recent firebombing attacks. I appreciate that the Minister does not want to comment on active police investigations, but whatever the facts of those cases, we can all agree—I am sure he does too—that the Iranian regime poses a threat to the British-Jewish community. Can he set out exactly when the Jonathan Hall recommendations will be implemented? Will he commit to implementing them in full?

My constituents have been let down by poor bus services in Leeds South West and Morley for too long, so I am delighted that all buses in Leeds will be brought back under public control next year. Will the Leader of the House join me in encouraging my residents to complete my better buses survey, so that we can make sure that the Weaver Network actually works for us, and will he grant a debate in Government time on the importance of publicly controlled bus networks?

The Secretary of State’s announcement of a cap on donations from overseas electors and a moratorium on cryptocurrency donations from today is extremely welcome. What criminal penalties will be incurred for breaking these rules? After all, we need an effective deterrent to dissuade those who might seek to circumvent them.

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech on the contribution that community centres make to our communities. Will he join me in commending Farnley Community Centre, which is putting on an Easter parade and giving out not only chocolate eggs to local residents, but applications for the neighbourhood board to spend our Pride in Place money? Is that not a great example of how innovative residents can be through community centres?

I commend my hon. Friend on his incredibly powerful argument. I also commend Monica and other women here today. Women in my constituency have told me that the pain they experienced was described as “normal and expected” by health professionals. I welcome the Department of Health and Social Care’s commitment to renew the women’s health strategy to tackle inequalities in care. Does my hon. Friend agree that any such strategy should include a commitment to provide the right resources, training and funding? Although there is no cure, women deserve the best possible care.

T9. Small firms are being hounded by unregulated third-party energy brokers. I welcome the Department’s commitment to appoint Ofgem as the statutory regulator for third-party intermediaries. When will the Minister introduce that legislation, and how will the Department work with Ofgem to end cold calling and misrepresentation in the non-domestic market?

Residents in Ardsley, Robin Hood, Lofthouse, parts of Tingley and Morley are complaining that they have been waiting up to three weeks for their postal service. It is obviously not the posties’ fault—it is a question of leadership and management. Following the Minister’s meeting with Ofcom, will he meet me to see the evidence for himself? What can he say to reassure my constituents now?

I welcome the Secretary of State’s decision to ban this weekend’s al-Quds march. Al-Quds was founded by the ayatollah 40 years ago. It has repeatedly featured support for the Iranian regime and terrorist groups, and often promotes dangerous antisemitism too. Given the growing threat to Jewish communities across the UK, will the Home Secretary now move to proscribe the IRGC, consider sanctions on regime-linked assets, and outline what further steps have been taken to protect the Jewish community?

I recently visited the Nexus innovation hub at the University of Leeds, which does the things that my hon. Friend was just describing, with innovative spin-outs and companies genuinely innovating in really challenging areas. However, they struggle to access Government procurement because they do not have things like Cyber Essentials, but they do have the equivalent accreditation from international organisations. Does he agree that the Government should do more to recognise these accreditations, so that we do not stifle innovation?

The hon. Member is making a very powerful speech about the power of rugby in our communities. As a proud northerner, I am here to speak about league. The Rugby League Foundation and the Leeds Rhinos Foundation both do excellent work with local community clubs. Every £1 that they invest in community clubs generates a £7 return. However, the facilities in such clubs are decaying and in some cases they limit opportunities. Does he agree that the Government should consider targeted facilities support to ensure that community clubs are successful on and off the pitch?

The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech on an incredibly difficult topic. On behalf of my constituents, Cody and Liam Townend and Zoe Ward, who had horrific things happen to their babies’ bodies as a result of the lack of regulation, I spoke to both main professional bodies, which cover 80% of the sector, and lots of businesses, including the biggest player in the sector. They are united in thinking that regulation is the answer to restoring public trust in the funeral sector. Does she agree?

Can the Minister tell me whether any meeting has taken place between those Departments, or whether one is going to take place, and if so, when?

I thank the Minister for his update on this difficult case. In his statement, he confirmed that the Government are working on a “proscription-style tool to disrupt proxy organisations undermining our security.” When will this tool be ready and does it include the recommendations set out by Jonathan Hall?

Not content with suppressing its own people, the Iranian regime now lashes out at civilians and our allies across the region. The new head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is an internationally wanted terrorist, implicated in the 1994 attack on the Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina in Buenos Aires and responsible for the repression of the “Woman, Life, Freedom” protests in 2022 in Iran. I urge the Foreign Secretary to urge the Home Secretary to implement the Jonathan Hall framework, so that we can proscribe the IRGC as soon as possible. Will she implement sanctions on those responsible for the bloody crackdowns in Iran, including Ali Larijani, secretary of the Supreme National Security Council?

10. What steps her Department is taking to help ensure accountability for human rights violations against protesters in Iran.

I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for environmental health inspections of funeral premises. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. At the outset, I will say that we must keep firmly in mind the needs of grieving families: people who, in their most vulnerable moments, deserve dignity, clarity and the reassurance that they can trust that their loved ones’ remains are being cared for.

I could not agree more. Any regulatory regime introduced nationally needs to take into account how different faiths and cultures bury their dead. In order for environmental health officers to conduct their work properly, they would need the backing of the Local Government Association, but it recently indicated in comments to the BBC that it would prefer the Ministry of Justice to take on the responsibility for a national scheme rather than leaving it at a local level. It would appear that the LGA has no desire to take on the responsibility for inspections on a permanent basis. Does the Minister agree with the LGA’s position? There are other options available. Both the NAFD and SAIF require their members to undergo inspections, but they have no enforcement powers and there is no requirement for members to register with them as trade bodies—although about 80% of the sector’s players do. These bodies can expel a member, but they cannot stop them operating, and that is the gap that, in time, statutory regulation must fill. There is a strong argument for backing those trade bodies in relation to inspections. They have the respect of the industry, and with Government support and the possibility of placing their inspection regime on a statutory footing, they could play a central role within any future regulatory system. The Government may consider advising consumers to use only funeral directors who are members of the NAFD and SAIF to add an extra layer of protection. Although this falls under a different Department—the Department of Health and Social Care—it would be remiss of me not to mention the Human Tissue Authority. Expanding its role so that it becomes the sector’s regulator is another option. The HTA has considerable experience and expertise, and expanding its remit may be more time efficient than establishing an entirely new independent regulator from scratch. Where does this leave us today? In the medium to long term, the inspection of funeral premises undoubtedly needs to come through a statutory regulatory regime and a national standard. That is what the Fuller inquiry recommended, what the majority of the public would back and—importantly for me—what my constituents want. In the short term, the Government must move at pace and come to a decision that can reassure the public and maintain confidence in the funeral sector. That may mean utilising local authorities or the existing capacity of trade bodies to bridge the gap before regulation in the ways that I have described. I do not have all the answers, but any conversation must include the families and victims of these horrific crimes. I use the word “crimes” even though my constituents found nothing actionable when they contacted the police, because what happened to them was abhorrent. They have borne the greatest burdens, and any proposal must work for them. I want to acknowledge the tireless work of Members from across the House, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), who has worked relentlessly on behalf of her constituents to ensure that the voices of the bereaved remain at the centre of every discussion of this topic. Action must be taken as soon as is reasonably possible, both to reassure the public and to recognise the good work of those who operate in the profession and the funeral industry. As everyone in the House knows, introducing primary legislation can take a long time. If we cannot act quickly, we need to consider every non-legislative solution outside of full statutory regulation. What assessment has the Minister’s Department made of the need for environmental health inspections at funeral premises? What conversations, if any, have taken place between her Department and the Ministry of Justice, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Business and Trade on statutory regulation of the funeral sector? Will MHCLG, through local authorities, be supporting environmental health inspections at any point, now or in the future, and will the Minister commit to wider engagement with the funeral sector ahead of proposed implementation of any kind of inspection? Families deserve dignity, transparency and peace of mind; the sector deserves Government support in reassuring those families; and Cody, Zoe and Liam, and all the affected families, deserve the peace of mind that what happened to them will never happen to anyone ever again.

I concur; the Minister is very welcome to come to our APPG.

The hon. Gentleman is right to point out the example of Scotland, which I encourage the Minister to consider. I think the Government should consider everything the hon. Gentleman set out, which I will come on to. This debate is about a fundamental issue that many of us find difficult to talk about—death. The treatment and dignity of our dead is not typically a subject for dinnertime conversation; those who have experienced bereavement, which is most of us, know how complicated and emotionally overwhelming it can be. At such a vulnerable time, one of the few sources of comfort should be the reassurance that a trusted funeral director is caring for a loved one with dignity, professionalism and respect. The vast majority of funeral directors live up to and often exceed such expectations. People’s trust has been betrayed by a very small number of rogue operators. Each stunning revelation about a rogue operator —in some cases, they have even desecrated remains—has a compounding effect on the public’s consciousness. People used to believe that the funeral sector was regulated, but they now know that it is not regulated, and they worry about the consequences of that for their families. There are a variety of options open to the Government to solve this problem. Empowering local authorities to carry out environmental health inspections, which I will get to, is one of them; introducing a national standard is another; and empowering trade bodies should also be considered. Ultimately, however, we have to establish an independent statutory regulatory regime. I want to be clear that inaction is not an option that we should consider. I firmly believe that statutory regulation should be introduced for this sector. However, that will take time and primary legislation to achieve, so we need to consider our options for such regulation and what can happen in the interim. Environmental health inspections could act as a stopgap before full regulation, or become the statutory regime itself, or both. However, there are differing opinions. I have spoken to representatives of the funeral service industry, including from the two largest trade bodies: the National Association of Funeral Directors, or the NAFD; and the National Society of Allied and Independent Funeral Directors, or SAIF. I have also had discussions with Co-op Funeralcare, having visited its premises in Leeds. I am also very pleased to serve as the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on funerals, coroners and bereavement, which brings together many organisations from across the sector, as the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) said in his intervention. Every person and every operator who I have spoken to about this situation is appalled by the cases they have seen. They know how vital public confidence is to the funeral profession. They want the reassurance that a statutory regime will come into place, although views on what it should look like definitely differ. Environmental health inspections could help to build back trust, but only if there is a unified national standard that funeral premises must adhere to. But that is precisely what we do not have right now: there is no statutory inspection regime in relation to the services provided by funeral directors. My constituent Cody put it best when she said that it is harder to set up a burger van than it is to set up a funeral home. Shockingly, she is right about that. There are no routine checks or minimum standards of funeral homes outside those established by the trade bodies. The Government are still considering the Fuller inquiry’s recommendations on funeral sector regulation and inspections. I am very grateful for the engagement that I have had on this issue, particularly with the Ministry of Justice, including with the Minister for Victims, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones). She met me and some of my constituents towards the end of last year, and she was phenomenal in that meeting. However, I will take this opportunity to ask the Minister who is here today: what assessment has her Department made of the Fuller inquiry’s recommendation to establish a statutory regulatory regime for funeral directors in England? I appreciate that that is really a question for the Department of Health and Social Care, but given that it also affects her Department, I hope she has a view on it. That question matters because of the steps that the Government have taken in the past. In May 2024, the Ministry of Justice and the then Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities wrote to all councils in England to strongly encourage them to inspect funeral premises. The letter said that this was to reassure the public that the sector as a whole is safe. That was a welcome step at the time, both for the public and the sector, but those visits were never intended as technical deep-dive inspections. Instead, they were conducted to check whether everything was generally in order. The NAFD supported those visits, and it encouraged its members to co-operate and demonstrate the high standards required of them. It advised the environmental health officers on good practice and hosted webinars to help members to prepare for their visits. However, most of those EHOs had limited experience of visiting funeral premises. It is also unclear the extent to which local authorities communicated their findings back to the Ministry of Justice and to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Has the Minister’s Department collated the information that was collected through those 2024 inspections? If it has, will it use that information to inform any position that it might take in relation to funeral sector regulation? In my view, it is concerning that those inspections failed to identify the problems that came to light when my constituents needed help. Leeds city council participated in those inspections, but to my knowledge it did not inspect Florrie’s Army or identify it as a provider of concern at the time. That also highlights a wider issue. There is scope for environmental health inspections to be carried out by local authorities and EHOs, but that approach would probably be best employed as a short-term or interim option. It must not act as a shield against wider regulation of the funeral industry. Environmental health officers may not have the relevant sector-specific experience, but they have the skills in overlapping elements, such as infection prevention, premises hygiene and safety. The benefit of utilising EHOs is that a move to expand their remit would not necessarily require primary legislation in the short term. It would be the quickest route to ensuring some sort of Government-backed regular inspections regime, but the issue of national standards would still be outstanding.

I absolutely agree. There have been too many cases in recent memory of people not being cared for with the dignity that they deserved. This topic first came to my attention when my constituents Cody and Liam Townend contacted me, along with another mum, Zoe Ward. They lost babies in different circumstances and went to the same funeral director, an organisation called Florrie’s Army. To their horror, their babies’ bodies were taken to the private home of the person in charge of Florrie’s Army, and they were not treated with the care and respect that they deserved. I will not repeat the shocking details here, but the BBC report can be found online. Cody and Zoe asked what I could do to help, because although it was reported to the police, they found nothing actionable.

The Iranian regime kills its own people, funds terrorist proxies in Hamas and Hezbollah, backs Putin’s aggressive war in Ukraine, and now puts British civilians and our armed forces in the firing line. By some accounts, it is already a failed state. I absolutely back the Prime Minister’s decision to allow UK military bases to be used by the US for defensive strikes, given the attacks on our bases in the Gulf and Cyprus, but does he agree, given the threat that Iran poses on our streets here, that the absolute minimum we should do is proscribe the IRGC, along with any other organisations that threaten British civilians?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. Fundamentally, I think it is right that graduates contribute to their education. I did so via a plan 1 loan and a subsequent postgraduate loan, too. For all its faults, that system ensured that universities could accommodate record numbers of people like me, who were the first in their family to go to university. But we are now at a point where people who pay an additional 9% of their income above a certain threshold question why the amount seems to only ever increase. The introduction of plan 2 loans and the trebling of tuition fees to £9,000 created a system where those who had to rely on it were essentially paying a graduate tax in all but name, while those who could afford to pay the tuition fees up front were able to avoid that burden altogether. At the time that the loans were introduced, I argued that a graduate tax would be a much more progressive way of funding university: it would resolve that inherent unfairness of a graduate tax for some but not for all. However, the transition to such a system now would be costly and difficult, and would do nothing for those graduates who now have record amounts of debt. That is why the time is right to have the conversation about debt, interest, repayment thresholds and loan terms. Although tinkering with those things is definitely easier than wholesale replacement, they all come with costs, which have to be part of any conversation. I ask the Minister to seriously consider that now is the time for a genuine, thorough discussion in Government about the need to support graduates in such a position.

The Minister is giving a comprehensive answer to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Tom Collins). My constituent Natalie had seven nephews and nieces brought to her door and was told by the police and social services that it would be really good if she could take them in. She was then told that she was not entitled to any support whatsoever because it was a family arrangement, but she had not made the arrangement herself. She is a hero for taking those children in. I accept that multiple campaigns state what kinship carers should be entitled to, but would the Minister agree that in this circumstance with these unambiguous details that she absolutely should get the support that she is entitled to?

As a teacher and now an MP, I know how broken our current SEND system is. Many parents are deeply scarred by their fights with it, and will understandably treat any reforms with scepticism, no matter our intention. I absolutely welcome the introduction of individual support plans alongside EHCPs to ensure that students get the support they deserve. What assurances can the Secretary of State give parents that we will genuinely enforce the legal right to an education with these new plans?

On Tuesday, I joined civic leaders in Leeds, and Leeds United football club, in celebrating the £650 million expansion of Elland Road stadium. It will bring enormous benefits to my part of Leeds, including jobs and opportunities. It will also ensure that those of us who have been on the season ticket waiting list for years can finally buy a ticket. Much more importantly, parallel to that project is the West Yorkshire mass transit project, which has the potential to amplify and extend those benefits to all the people of Leeds. Will the Leader of the House grant an urgent debate in Government time on ensuring that the Leeds, Bradford and West Yorkshire tram, including stations in my constituency and others, is delivered ahead of schedule and on budget, so that all the people of Leeds can benefit from this investment?

Parallel to the terrible injustice inflicted on Jimmy Lai, my constituent Chloe Cheung still has to live with a £100,000 bounty on her head. I spoke with her this weekend, and her resolve has never been stronger, despite knowing that anyone in the UK can claim that bounty. In the spirit of keeping the conversation going, can I ask the Minister to use everything in her power to convince the CCP to lift that bounty from Chloe and, indeed, all the other UK residents who have bounties placed on them under Hong Kong’s national security law? The only crime these people have committed is telling the truth about the repressive regime in Hong Kong.

I completely understand where my hon. Friend is coming from. The people I was speaking about just before he intervened will find themselves trapped, and effectively shut out from university education altogether, even though they are already integrated into this country. I urge the Government to consider the full impact of the implementation of the proposed changes for people who are already here, working and contributing more than they ever take out, who came in good faith, and who have followed every rule we have set for them.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. Controlling our borders is a basic function of the state. The Government inherited open borders and are now undertaking the serious work required to fix them, so I welcome the Minister’s efforts. However, I think there are some tweaks we could make. I have spoken on this issue several times, in particular in respect of Hong Kong BNO visa holders, and I am grateful that the Government have committed to keeping the five-year route for that group. Today, though, I am going to focus on how the proposed changes will affect families, especially those I have been speaking with in the Morley Indian community. Around 30% of the families I have spoken with are due to receive their ILR within the next six months, so they are understandably very anxious about what the changes will mean for them. The vast majority are high earners or work in key sectors. Many of the people I have spoken to earn well over £50,000, do not claim benefits, and contribute significantly to our economy and our public services through their taxes. Because at least one member of those families is earning a high salary, their spouse or partner has been able to move into part-time work, often so that they can help raise and care for the children. They are very worried that, as a result, they will not meet the new criteria at the same time as their partners. They came to this country under one set of rules, which allowed dependants to move to the UK with them, and now they are very concerned at the prospect of being unable to qualify together and being broken up entirely. Have the Government considered putting in place strong transitional arrangements that do not punish families who are already here and contributing far more to the UK than they take out? Alternatively, would the Government consider allowing a family to qualify for ILR together where the family—not an individual—meets the salary threshold? Many of the Morley Indian families I have spoken with came over here knowing that they would pay international university fees while they were waiting for ILR. They accepted that those were the rules. However, under the proposed changes, they might wait a lot longer —and, worse still, if they went back to India, they would find that they are no longer considered home students for fees purposes there. They would find themselves trapped in a situation where they cannot pay the fees here and they cannot pay the fees back at home.

I proudly declare that I will be visiting the Falkland Islands as a guest of their Government next month. What can the UK Government do to alleviate EU tariffs of between 6% and 18% on their fishing exports, so that the Falklands Government have more money to spend on health, education and their treasured environment?

Even if we accept that the national security concerns about this new embassy have been mitigated, as evidenced by the letters from the security agencies today, and even if we accept that consolidating the seven properties that China owns into one gives us a security advantage, that is still cold comfort to the Hongkongers whom I represent in Leeds South West and Morley. They still have to live with transnational repression. In the case of Chloe Cheung, she still has to live with a £100,000 bounty on her head. Of course, they now have to live in fear that this new embassy might become their prison. What assurances can the Minister give Hongkongers in my constituency and, indeed, the UK that they will be protected from the ever-lengthening arm of the Chinese Communist party?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I love watching fireworks, whether it is at East Ardsley cricket club, Morley rugby club for bonfire night or at the Gildersome and Drighlington Christmas lights switch-on events. They are spectacular, certainly when part of an organised display. My son Arthur, who is a year old now, absolutely loved the ones in Gildersome last year and I am certain he would have said thank you to the parish council if he were able. In the past, I have also tuned in to watch the fireworks in London on new year’s eve on TV, but these days I typically watch them all go off in unison across Leeds from Wortley. I want to be clear that I approach this debate as somebody who enjoys fireworks as much as anybody else, but for a long time now it has become clear that something is not right. My constituents have been contacting me in great numbers to state that both the volume and frequency of firework use have increased. Consequently, fireworks are having a much more negative impact on constituents’ lives than they used to. Their freedom to live their lives in peace is being restricted at certain times of the year, and it is not just when the big events are on; it is actually the weeks and months of fireworks before and after those events that are driving people to contact me. Fireworks are set off every day for a whole week straight, and from the same location. There are loud explosions every night, lasting for days on end. People with PTSD, those with special educational needs, and those with pets or other animals constantly have to mitigate the impact of fireworks on their lives. The freedom to buy and use fireworks needs to be balanced against the freedom to live our lives in peace. Fireworks affect people in different ways. One of my constituents, Gareth, has been diagnosed with autism. He told me that fireworks give him sleepless nights and put him in a state of high alert, especially when he cannot plan for when they are going to be set off. We have also heard repeatedly from Members across the Chamber about another group affected by fireworks. The charity Combat Stress says that 74% of the veterans it surveyed want restrictions on when fireworks can be set off. I have spoken to a veteran in my constituency who served our country with great distinction. I will share their words with the House now: “November arrives, and I have to adapt my routine to make sure I’ve always got headphones in my pocket...Otherwise I’ll be taken straight back to being on tour, experiencing feelings and emotions that I’d rather never encounter again. Fireworks trigger the memories, the sounds, the gunfire...scenes replay over and over with every firework. The smell comes back, the noise, the image, the grief....Whilst I understand the joy fireworks bring some and the heritage and history of our country that we should hold on to, I fail to see why they need to be so loud. I am greatly in favour of planned firework displays, so I know what time they’re going to go off and I can plan ahead... and be ready with my headphones. I would urge a reduction in the maximum noise allowed and the sale only to be for organised displays.” Ahead of this debate, I received so many comments from constituents, but I wanted to share those words as they get to the heart of the argument that has been made today. At this point, I have some questions for the Minister. First, do the Government have any plans to reduce the noise that fireworks make? In addition, do the Government plan to go any further and restrict the sale of fireworks, so that only people using them as part of organised professional displays can get their hands on them? My constituents have also asked me to talk about the enforcement of existing laws. What can the Government do to ensure that no fireworks are set off between 11 pm and 7 am, which is currently the law for every night of the year except key holidays? What will the Government do to crack down on those who sell fireworks illegally, which we know is happening? Even if the current legislation was enforced, the persistent issues with the frequency and volume of fireworks would endure. My asks today are very straightforward. At a minimum, we must turn down the volume on fireworks sold to the public and enforce existing laws. Beyond that, the Government should seriously consider the merits of going further and restricting the sale of fireworks to those involved in professional displays. We should all do our bit to support our veterans and other vulnerable constituents. We should continue to enjoy the wonderful firework displays at key times of the year; I know that I certainly will. However, we should readjust the scales to get the balance right between different freedoms: the freedom to enjoy fireworks must be carefully balanced against the freedom to live our lives in peace.

I genuinely welcome the content of the Home Secretary’s statement and her answers to other Members. It is clear that the west midlands chief constable’s position is no longer tenable, but I accept the Home Secretary’s explanation of why she cannot remove him today and I am pleased that she will reintroduce that power in the near future. It is a national scandal that Maccabi Tel Aviv fans were not able to attend a football match in the UK’s second city for what we now know were totally fabricated reasons. What does the Home Secretary say to them, and how can she reassure Israeli fans of any sport that this will not happen to them again and that the law will be applied equally without fear or favour?

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire, I absolutely welcome the news that phase 1 of the Northern Powerhouse Rail project prioritises Yorkshire. It will generate growth and opportunities for people in my region, and it is a development for which members of the APPG, on both sides of the House, have long campaigned. With my city of Leeds in mind, may I ask when my residents will benefit from the phase 1 investment? May I also ask whether the Secretary of State agrees that we should accelerate the delivery of the West Yorkshire tram project, so that my constituents can benefit from both better railways and a mass transit system?

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Very briefly, a young woman from my constituency described the scenario that the hon. Gentleman talks about. She is insured and wears hi-vis clothes, but now faces regular intimidation and abuse, so she has to go out with a camera. Despite that, she still faces those problems. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government’s flagship road safety campaign is exactly the right way to go, but that we need to do more in this area to keep riders safe?

My constituent, Chloe Cheung, has to live with the fact that she has a £100,000 bounty placed on her head under the national security law in Hong Kong. She walks around every day knowing that anyone here could claim that bounty by taking her to the Chinese embassy and handing her over to the authorities. Now she is worried that she might find herself locked away in one of the secret rooms shown in the new embassy plans. What exactly are the Government going to do to ensure that Chloe is protected and kept safe, and that that never happens to her or anyone else with a £100,000 bounty on their head, if the new embassy is approved?

The people of Iran are courageously fighting for their freedom against an oppressive regime, and we all stand with them. The brutal response from Tehran highlights the need to take action against the IRGC. I know it has been addressed multiple times during this session, but when do the Government plan to bring forward the legislative framework proposed by Jonathan Hall that will give proscription-like powers to the Government to deal with the IRGC and its malign influence in the UK?

I commend the Minister on this strategy; I know how much tireless work she has put into it. I represent residents on Stonebridge Lane in Farnley, Dixon Lane in Wortley, Green Lane in Lofthouse and Westerton Road in Tingley. They all tell me that the speeds on their roads are far too high, but they are repeatedly told by the highways department that the mean average speed is too low to do anything about it, despite the fact that the mean average speed is often slightly higher than the speed limits on those roads. As a former maths teacher, I know the value of data, but I also know the limitations of the mean. What will the road safety strategy do to alleviate my residents’ genuine concerns?

I recently met the Morley Indian community, who raised concerns with me about the proposed changes to the indefinite leave to remain rules. Many of these people are highly skilled and highly qualified, work in key sectors and claim no benefits, but they are seriously worried that their families will not qualify for ILR under the new rules, despite they themselves meeting the new higher eligibility requirements. I want to recognise that this community have enriched life in Leeds South West and Morley, and make a significant contribution to the UK. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on the urgent need to clarify the new ILR rules for those that work hard and make a significant contribution to our country?

I welcome this evening’s statement. I say, primarily to those outside this Chamber, that any deployment of British forces in Ukraine is not going to be a tripwire to a wider conflict. If we do not deploy those forces, put that deterrent in place and back Ukraine—if we allow Putin to take Ukraine either now or at some point in the future—there will be devastating consequences for British interests and global stability. With British interests in mind, although I fully appreciate the answer the Defence Secretary gave on troop numbers—I understand his reasoning for not wanting to share those—can he reassure the House that this country has the soldiers, the resources and the equipment to ensure that we can provide an effective deterrent in Ukraine without compromising and undermining the other commitments we have made to allies around the world?

Merry Christmas to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to all the House staff, everybody here and everybody who is not. When asked to become a kinship carer for seven children, in addition to already having two of her own, my constituent and her partner stepped up because those seven children were being neglected. She was then told by social services, who had asked her to take the children on, that she was not entitled to kinship carer allowance, a decision it then changed months later but which left the family in dire financial straits. They are still waiting for back payments even now. They have used all their savings and now they are reliant on food banks. I am working on this case, but in the meantime will the Leader of the House grant an urgent debate on the need to ensure that those who step up to be kinship carers get the support they deserve?

I welcome the strategy that the Minister has set out, and commend her and everyone around her for their tireless, often lifelong, work that has got us to this point. When I speak with the charitable sector and with third-sector organisations, such as Leeds Women’s Aid in my constituency, which has worked in this space for years, they keep telling me that the funding period for grants is often far too short, and grants come up for review far too frequently. They tell me that when the cost of applying for those grants and the time that staff spend applying are factored in, long-term strategic decision making in their organisations becomes really difficult. Can the Minister assure them that the strategy will address this common challenge?

T5. Following a string of shocking cases in which funeral directors did not treat the bodies of the deceased with the care and respect that they deserved, will the Minister update the House on the cross-departmental work being done to regulate the funeral industry?

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) did earlier. May I pursue the question asked earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell)? Defibrillators can be incredibly useful when they are rolled out to communities, for all the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack). It is hard to find an area in my constituency without a defibrillator that has been fundraised for and installed by volunteers, but I must admit that I do not know how to use one. Following this debate, I will go away and make sure that I do know how to use one, but how can we roll out defibrillator training nationally to ensure that as many people as possible know how to use them in an emergency?

Taking into account the Minister’s previous answers about the source of weapons, and given that civilians are being deliberately targeted, with murder, rape and starvation being used as weapons of war, what steps can the UK Government realistically take to disrupt the flow of weapons, drones and military support to the violent actors who are committing such hideous crimes?

Given that the Chinese Communist party has clearly broken its promise in the joint declaration to protect freedom and the rule of law in Hong Kong, and that this judgment was handed down by a politically appointed judge in a sham or show trial, does the Foreign Secretary agree that those Members of the House of Lords who still serve on the Court of Final Appeal in Hong Kong should step down from that role, so as not to lend their credibility to a system that has clearly abandoned the rule of law?

I will be brief. I proudly refer members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a proud member of several trade unions, and have indeed received money from trade unions to remove the Conservatives from power. Speaking of removing the Conservatives from power, on 4 September I proudly voted, along with the vast majority of people in this House, to remove hereditary peers from the other place. I did so because I do not believe that individuals should be able to shape our laws purely because of the families they were born into. Whatever the arguments put forward on the Bill’s amendments, we are here today because hereditary peers stopped the progress of the Bill through the other place. The simple fact is that if we were to remove the hereditary peers who voted—

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The votes in the other place serve only to strengthen my resolve that we must get the Bill through Parliament and strengthen the rights of workers.

We will always pay attention to the arguments made in the other place, but I place more credence on the arguments made by life peers—people who have been appointed because of their expertise and not because of the family they were born into. However, I appreciate that that point has been well made, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will move on. Along with the fact that the Government have already compromised in good faith on the Bill with trade unions and businesses, and that those businesses and their representative organisations have welcomed what we have put in the Bill and called on us to pass it today, we were elected on a promise to get this Bill passed into law. Fire and rehire must be banned. Exploitative zero-hours contracts must be ruled out. Day one rights for parental and bereavement leave must be rolled out, and sick pay must be improved. Whichever way the House votes on these amendments today, I implore the hereditary peers in the other place to do the right thing, get out of the way, let this Bill pass and make work pay.

After a string of burglaries across Morley, Gildersome and Drighlington, in which the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals shop has been targeted more than any other, I am so pleased to report that four people are serving time in prison for these crimes. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to Inspector Mark Lund and his excellent police team for working so closely with me on this issue and a number of others, and will he grant a debate in Government time on the ever-growing need to get the police the resources they need to do their job properly?

I thank the Minister for the strategy and I agree with its stated aims. I especially welcome the ending of the unlawful use of B&Bs for families. We have already heard the case powerfully made by my hon. Friends the Members for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) and for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) as to why that is so important. In Morley, my team and I are supporting a particularly complex case of an individual who is homeless. Although the details are complex, the outcome is simple: they are sleeping in shop doors across Morley. Would the Minister consider meeting me to discuss this case to ensure that the strategy will cover them so that we can get them off the streets and into a home?

My hon. Friend tempts me to say something I am not allowed to in this place, so I will say that they absolutely would prefer me—of course they would. AI Mark could also be exploited to say things that just were not true. So I lifted the guardrails to reduce the risk before I released him to the public, but this made him significantly less useful. He only responded to key phrases and he stuck to the content that I had fed him, but that made it so much harder to distinguish him from a normal chatbot. Usefulness and safety will clearly be a balancing act as this technology develops. We know AI can be dangerous—we have heard the arguments today—but we have also seen its potential. I have seen its potential. If we want systems that are both safe and useful, businesses need the space to experiment, and I ask the Minister in his summing-up to confirm the Government’s current approach to this. Now, I am not arguing for a free-for-all; to be clear, we need proportionate regulation and effective oversight. That much is obvious. I will just say that AI Mark did not actually save me any time. I read the thousands of transcripts that came through—I read them all myself; I did not delegate that to anyone else, and it created far more work for me. I could have refined this model to operate well within the guardrails I had set for him, but I was not willing to ask my team to put aside time to refine it when we had real casework to deal with immediately. That is why I took the decision this month to shut AI Mark down. There is space for a business to take up the baton and take this forward, because the technology is incredible and the potential is real, but that is all it is for now—potential. I will just finish with this: one person from Ukraine, or at least a Ukrainian IP address, tried to get AI Mark to declare support for repressive regimes. Because of the guardrails that we put in place, he did hold firm in his love for democracy, just as I am sure that everyone else here would.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) for securing this timely debate. In August, I created the first AI prototype of a British MP. It was made by my constituent, Jeremy Smith, who ran an AI start-up in my constituency. I will go to almost any lengths to support a local business in Leeds South West and Morley. This was an online MP that anyone could talk to at any time. Jeremy said my constituents would benefit from two versions of me, including one that never sleeps—although, with children aged four and one, I am not sure that is a useful distinction. Questions were converted into text and an answer generated quickly, and then it was turned into my voice for the users. The replica was impressive, although I did sound a bit too posh and angry when I did not know the answer. AI Mark not only had my voice—we also fed it my policy stances and typical casework answers. I saw it as a clever voicemail system designed to handle common casework queries when my office was closed; it was never going to be a replacement for me or for my excellent casework team. However, how does it relate to safety? We have all seen AI models that break, say outrageous things or hallucinate. We created what I called the “guardrails”, and these were the limits on what AI Mark could say. That created a problem: when the guardrails were lower, AI Mark was very interesting to talk to. He would create Tinder dating profiles on demand; he did write incorrect haikus about the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage); and he did give the population of Vietnam—and try to predict the weather there, too.

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and a powerful argument. I have been dealing with an advanced manufacturer of metal and steel wires in my constituency that has been put off by the very thing he describes. That company stands ready to support the Government’s mission on clean and green energy—it wants to supply its steel wires to wind farms—but things like this deter it from getting involved in the first place. Does he agree that that needs to change?

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson), who is no longer in his place, my inbox is full to the brim with emails about fireworks. When they are enjoyed as part of professional displays on national holidays, they can be magnificent, but my constituents are concerned that they are being deployed well outside of normal hours and holiday times. On behalf of my constituents—those with post-traumatic stress disorder or autism, veterans and families with pets, who have all contacted me—may I press the Leader of the House for an urgent debate on the need to update firework regulations for the modern era?

I am delighted to hear the Home Secretary announce that we will keep our promise to British national overseas visa holders from Hong Kong. That is something that I have worked with my constituents to lobby the Government on over the past few months, and I am delighted that the Government have listened. As well as transnational repression, Hongkongers bring other issues to me. Many of them in Leeds South West and Morley are highly skilled and have excellent qualifications, but employers in this country do not necessarily recognise those qualifications, which makes it much harder for them to get their first job. Will the Home Secretary work with other Departments to help employers in this country recognise the amazing contribution that Hongkongers can make to the UK economy?

My hon. Friend is making an excellent argument for more support for children and families in this position. A family in my constituency wrote to me about their granddaughter who has Huntington’s disease. She is 10, and she desperately needs an education, health and care plan so that she can get to the right special educational needs and disabilities school next year. However, the family found that there are not enough educational psychologists to give referrals, and time is running out. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to prioritise support for people in that position to get them the education and support they deserve as quickly as possible?

The hon. Member is making an incredibly powerful speech. One of my constituents, an NHS nurse, suffers with ME. He cannot play with his children, walk his dog or undertake basic activities. When he went to the NHS, he got a referral, but was told that it would be nine months before he got an appointment, which forced him to consider private options. An NHS nurse is having to use private healthcare to get results—this situation is untenable, is it not?

I could not agree more. That goes back to my earlier point: the fix in this area could be as simple as there being more transparency. When a consumer purchases a game, it should be crystal clear that the publisher could deactivate it at any point. However, I want to go further—we need to retain something and ensure that publishers make the game playable for consumers long after they have pulled support from it. Going back to “The Crew”, the game did not need to be shut down. Ubisoft could have patched in offline play or allowed private servers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) said earlier. Going forward, the ask from many consumers is simple: if the industry plans to kill a game, it should ensure that consumers have a reasonable option to continue using their products for a single-player experience or on private servers. I promised one of my Leeds South West and Morley constituents that I would raise the fact that they, like other gamers, have waited years for certain games, including the remake of “Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic”, which I am told is one of the greatest games of all time. Saber Interactive plans to release the final version of that game at some point in the future, but let us imagine how devastated those gamers would be if Saber released it only to pull it a year later. We are not talking about a small, powerless industry; we are talking about publishers that generated a combined total of $455 billion in revenue last year accounting for all types of gaming. By most industry measures, the global video games sector is now larger than the film and music industries combined. Analysts at Forbes say that gaming is now the dominant entertainment industry, so the costs of ensuring long-term playability are negligible when compared with the budgets of these major publishers. We are talking about tens of thousands of pounds—or sometimes nothing at all—set against budgets in the tens and hundreds of millions, and revenue in the billions. To be clear: this is not just about video games. Our greatest fan across the Atlantic, Elon Musk, has already shown us with Tesla that features in cars can be remotely disabled even after the original buyer has paid for them. The technology already exists to remotely modify products in a way that the consumer may not have been reliably informed about at purchase. What is stopping the progression of those modifications to render purchases totally and utterly unusable? Do we really want to wait until our phones, fridges and cars are affected before we act in this small way, in what is a relatively small area? My ask today is simple: I urge the Government to revisit this issue and meaningfully engage with the asks of the petition. It is not too late to change the law or issue guidance in some way on what should happen with games that go offline. If we fail to act, the future consequences for consumers, especially in the age of digital ownership, could be significant. This is about putting people first—a proud tradition of the Labour party, of which I am a proud member—and ensuring that consumer rights are protected not just today, but in the future. It is very clear that when consumers buy something, it should be theirs to keep, not just until the seller decides otherwise.

When the boundary review took place a few years ago, I was very disappointed that Rockstar Leeds was not drawn into my constituency, so I am very jealous of that. However, I do have constituents who work there and I agree entirely with my hon. Friend’s point—it is as though he has read on a few pages in my speech. People absolutely can have private servers that take care of the issue. It does not require the developer to keep things running or to put their own resources endlessly into a game to keep it alive. Consumers can do that themselves. As I was saying, the publisher should have a duty to ensure that a game purchased and owned by a consumer remains playable in some way. That is not about burdening publishers or Government overreach. It is about ensuring that publishers do not have the right deliberately to disable products that people have already paid for. I suspect that if we were talking about mobile phones or any of the other things I listed earlier, this debate would resonate even more strongly, but the principle is the same. If we do not act now, the use of this model and the erosion of ownership rights may spread to other areas. History is littered with examples of Governments acting too late and finding out that what could have been fixed early, with minimal effort, has grown into a much larger problem. The warning signs are there in this industry and to act now would be far less painful than to wait until the practice has become entrenched. As we know, consumers are noticing. Campaigns have started. We are here today because nearly 200,000 people in the UK signed a petition demanding action on this specific issue. The Stop Killing Games campaign, a consumer movement started by YouTuber Ross Scott, has shone a light on this issue, not just here in the UK but across Europe and beyond. The European citizens’ initiative on the issue received more than 1.4 million signatures. This is not a niche concern among a few people; a growing movement of consumers feel that their rights are being undermined. My office has corresponded with Ross, and I am very grateful for the information he gave me ahead of the debate. He really is a champion of these issues. I have also done my own research, and would like to go through some examples, the first of which is “The Crew”. The game was released in 2014 and on average cost consumers between 40 and 60 quid. It sold about 12 million copies, but in 2024 it was shut down, with no way for people to play it. To its credit, Ubisoft offered refunds to recent purchasers, but certainly not to the original ones. Although largely an online game, it had a single-player component that was unplayable when the servers went down. Another example, which Ross gave me, is “LawBreakers” —a game that I imagine would have been popular with certain Members of the previous Parliament. It survived for a year before it was shut down in 2018. In the case of “Babylon’s Fall”, there were no refunds, despite the game being unplayable less than a year after launch. It may not have been the best game, but the principle still stands. It was made, sold and then pulled, with no refunds. Just this summer, it was announced that “Anthem” will no longer be playable from January next year—only a few months away. As of December 2023, it had sold 5 million copies and made more than $100 million in digital revenue. An additional $3.5 million had been spent on in-game purchases. All that money is now gone. Meanwhile, other games, such as “Guild Wars”, have been running for more than 20 years and are still going strong. The point is clear, even though the industry is not. There is no standard, no transparency, and no certainty for consumers. In response to the petition, the Government have said that they have “no plans to amend…consumer law”. Although I respect the Government’s position, I cannot help but observe that what is happening in this space could be perceived as a breach of consumer protection under unfair trading regulations. Those regulations prohibit traders from hiding information that consumers need in order to make an informed choice, yet when consumers buy a game today, they are almost never told how long it will remain functional. Consumers are sold a one-time purchase, but the publisher reserves the right to terminate it at any time for any reason.

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) on opening the debate so aptly. When I was elected last July, I did not imagine that one of my contributions in Westminster Hall would be on the subject of video games. It was not on my bingo card—or, more aptly, it was not in my inventory—but here we are. I am glad we are here, because although video games may not often feature in parliamentary debate, the issues raised affect far more than the gaming industry, juggernaut though it is. They go to the heart of consumer law, ownership rights and the path we are on in a digital age. It is worth noting that I speak as the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on consumer protection, so my arguments will primarily focus on that dimension. It is also worth saying that video games in their own right have been part of the public discourse many times since their widespread adoption as an entertainment medium. Like everyone, I have heard the common questions about their merits, their impact on young people and whether they cause brain rot or inspire violence. Although I would argue that they do not do those things—certainly not the last two—this debate is not about whether video games are good or bad. It is about something much more fundamental. It is about whether, when someone buys something, they should have the right to keep it. I will be clear about my ask here. I am not demanding that publishers keep servers running forever. Campaigners are not asking for indefinite technical support. We are not asking companies to keep pouring resources into a game that they have finished with. What we are asking is fairly simple: that publishers should not be able to deliberately disable every copy of a game that consumers have already purchased, leaving them with nothing. I will talk first about the end of support, and what that means in this context. Normally, end of support means that if something goes wrong, the customer is on their own. That is fair enough—it is perfectly reasonable depending on the context. An iPhone that someone bought 14 years ago no longer receives updates from Apple, but can still be unlocked and take calls. An old toaster can still toast bread, even if it does not have smart sensors and a touchscreen. A decades-old printer no longer receives updates from the company that made it, but it still prints documents. What we are seeing with games is different. It is as if someone bought that printer, and then one day the manufacturer sent out a signal that deliberately stopped it from working at all, claiming it had reached the end of support. That is not support ending; it is obsolescence, which has an entirely different meaning.

Three days ago, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights stated that “Member States with influence must act urgently to prevent large-scale atrocities” by the RSF and allied fighters. But atrocities have happened: 460 people have died in a maternity hospital. What has the UK done since that statement was made, in conjunction with the Quad and the African Union, to try to help those people trapped in El Fasher? While I know that the Minister cannot comment on future additional sanctions, will he at least consider additional sanctions or travel bans for RSF leaders and their regional backers?

I am very grateful to the Minister for his update. I am pleased to report that one of my constituents, the one whom I have been most in contact with the Minister about, has finally been fully compensated, which is a huge relief to him and his family. I spoke with him this morning, and he is watching now. Although he welcomes the improved service from IBCA, and I find it reassuring that the intention is to begin paying the first claims on behalf of estates of deceased infected people by the end of this year, my constituent asks if there is anything we can do to prioritise those close to the end of their life, so that they can get the justice they deserve in life, bearing in mind the valid inheritance tax concerns raised by Members from across the House.

It’s partly the bobbing, too. I persevered, and I did so because Morley running club has raised £20,000 for good causes over the past four years. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to Morley running club, to the firefighters who were raising money for their charity—firefighters in full kit were outpacing me—and perhaps grant a debate on the need to support these running clubs to run more charitable races, but perhaps ones that are less punishing on the knees?

My knees nearly gave way when I ran the Morley 10 km last month, which is possibly the hilliest race in the UK.

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech on an incredibly difficult topic. Next month, I am bringing two mums from Leeds down to meet the Victims Minister. They tragically lost their babies in different circumstances, but both went to the same funeral director, who did horrific things with their babies’ bodies. The police found nothing actionable because there is no regulation of the funeral industry. That needs to change. The hon. Gentleman talks about the public’s reaction, so does he agree that the more cases that come to light, the more the public realise what is possible in the funeral sector right now and the louder their calls for regulation will grow? I urge the Minister to recognise the urgent need to address this issue.

My hon. Friend will recall that we in the Education Committee held an evidence session in July about school attendance. One of the witnesses stated that fines are “simultaneously too harsh and too soft”; too harsh, because they damage the relationship between parents and schools, but too soft to move the dial substantially on school attendance. Although, as a former teacher, I agree with the main thrust of my hon. Friend’s argument, does she have any further reflection on the need to look at the fines system again, to replace it or to come up with something more effective?

Working families form the backbone of this country. They go to work, increase our prosperity and raise the next generation at the same time. It is a hard job. It always will be, and it should be, but it should not be this hard. Statutory maternity pay in the UK is one of the lowest in Europe—less than half the minimum wage after six weeks. Maternity Action has reported that half of new mums cut their leave short, with 97% saying that money was a reason for their choice: no choice at all. Dads are not exactly doing better. They get two weeks at the same maximum of £187 a week. One dad in Leeds South West and Morley, a median worker, told me that he would lose £103 a day on statutory paternity pay. If a median worker is forced to make that choice, can we even call it paternity leave, especially since it does not encourage dads to take time with their children and support their partners? When my first child, Oscar, was born, he timed it perfectly. I was a teacher at the time and he arrived two weeks before half term, so I got three weeks with him, but even that was not enough. As we all know, babies do not stick to schedules and they certainly do not wait for Government reviews. The Government’s review of parental leave is welcome, but 18 months is a very long time. The Government can already consider Maternity Action’s report, which asks for maternity and paternity pay to be increased in line with the living wage. They could also speak to The Dad Shift, which proposed increasing the length of paternity leave. They could speak with our trade union friends too, but whoever they speak to, it is clear to me and to everyone here that families need proper paternity and maternity pay, and they need it now.

I warmly welcome the £20 million for Old Farnley, but now is the time for action. Hundreds of people have already completed my survey. I have more than 100 volunteers for the neighbourhood board alone—it will not be that big—and we have plenty of ideas that we want to spend the money on. Given that we are ready and impatient to deliver, will the Minister empower my residents to crack on and spend this money and deliver the change that we know they deserve?

The politicians, civilians and soldiers I spoke to last month in Kyiv were unambiguous when asked what was the best thing the UK could do to help them win the war. The hundreds of billions of dollars of frozen Russian assets that they currently cannot deploy could help them bolster their military and swing the war decisively in their favour. On their behalf, will the Foreign Secretary use every power available to her to unlock those assets and put them in the service of the people of Ukraine?

I pay tribute to the Leeds Jewish Representative Council and the Jewish Leadership Council for organising moving tributes in memory of the victims of the Manchester attack. I also thank CST for its tireless work to keep the community safe. I am sorry to say that a few weeks ago a speaker on the streets of Leeds during one of the protests called for all synagogues and all Jewish schools to be held to account for the crime of, as they say, harbouring Zionists. This was the thinnest of veils draped over an excuse to legitimise targeting the Jewish community. Does the Home Secretary agree that there is absolutely no place for such calls on the streets of Leeds or anywhere in the UK? Will she do everything in her power to enable the police to ensure that it does not happen again to keep the Jewish community safe?